Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh, so now it's a "wide-ranging" legal precedent. Not what you stated. Don't try and play semantics with me. I did not state nor imply that a "wide-ranging" legal precedent was set. Only that legal precedent was set. It only takes that law being appealed to a Federal court and you will have your so-called, "wide-ranging" precedent, one way or the other.
I didn't respond to it because it is irrelevant to this conversation, and nothing more than a sidetrack, IMO.
PsuedoGhost said:Explain to me then why all of these laws (laws that allow someone to be convicted of murder for a fetus) require the baby to be beyond a certain time in the pregnanacy?
jillian said:Actually those laws never should have been passed either. Anyone could have seen that the anti-choicers would then point to them as precedent.
KarlMarx said:Back to the original topic....
I once worked with a fellow who was a pilot in the military. He told me that he's listened to the black box recordings of crashed aircraft and that in those recordings, even the most staunch atheists invoked the name of God when it was obvious that they were going to die.
He may have been pulling my leg, but I don't think so. At any rate, it's my belief that there is no such thing as a dead atheist. Also, if God didn't exist, then it would be necessary for Man to invent one. Some things are just too big and too difficult to deal with alone (like the death of someone near or your own death).
jillian said:That wasn't quite your original premise. Your original premise started with "Liberals godless?", presuming that the two go together. Your current question is an interesting one, though.
I've heard athiests use the word, but I'm not sure how much belief is behind it or if its just an automatic response or exclamation. My guess is you'd have similar results if you recorded people having sex, as well.
I think people, in general, use the concept as a means to explain the unexplainable. Interestingly enough, though, societies seem to be fairly consistent in the attributes which they assign to a deity.
dilloduck said:Automatic response to great fear or great pleasure? I wonder why?
MissileMan said:So is Oh Shit!...is there a correlation?
ErikViking said:I have a few honest and open questions about USA, politics and religion.
Background:
I live in a country where christianity was introduced about 1000 years ago. I pray in churches twice as old as USA itself. My country (Sweden) has a flag carrying a yellow cross on a blue background and up to a few years ago everyone had to activley deny christianity to get "unrolled" from the church. Also Sweden has been a socialist country for like a hundered years or so. In Sweden there is no law against forming a religous party and thus to have a religous government. But there is NO debate over christian values v.s. political right/left whatsoever and the christian party gets like 4% of the votes every year. A minority of the christians that is, since like 98% of the population is christian.
Okay, the questions:
Don't you think religion is used ONLY as a tactic by politicians?
Do you really think liberals or conservatives are different in the eyes of God?
If you where able to vote for a Christian party, - would you?
ErikViking said:Don't you think religion is used ONLY as a tactic by politicians?
ErikViking said:Do you really think liberals or conservatives are different in the eyes of God?
ErikViking said:If you where able to vote for a Christian party, - would you?
dilloduck said:Automatic response to great fear or great pleasure? I wonder why?
Bullypulpit said:Common cultural icons...memes...whatever you want to call it. Just because they come to the surface during periods of emotional intensity do not, in any way, imply belief.
dilloduck said:Don't you find it odd that an athiest would choose to look to a "cultural icon" such as God when they are so convinced that one does not exist. I would say they failed in thier conviction that there is no God.
MissileMan said:How is it any different than exclaiming Oh Shit!, or any other of the many explitives, when faced with a similar situation?
dilloduck said:Because atheists believe in shit !
MissileMan said:At least shit is real!
Are you saying that Christians don't believe in shit? How about shucks, darn, f**k, and the 3rd leg of the Bastardial Trinity, Son of a Bitch?
CharlestonChad said:To GunnyL and anyone else who disapproves of ESC research:
Are you a pacifist? If not, then do you view the droppings of the atom bomb on Japan as a way to actually save lives that would have normally been lost in standard warfare?
You are attempting to compare an necessary evil with an unneccesary one.
If you support the above, then you must also support ESC research because that is a way to potentially save lives that would be lost. Potentially living persons (as defined biologically) will be terminated, but they will feel no pain and they have not developed enough to have thoughts. People that do feel pain and have real lives will be saved from pre-mature death.
PsuedoGhost said:Explain to me then why all of these laws (laws that allow someone to be convicted of murder for a fetus) require the baby to be beyond a certain time in the pregnanacy? Hmm?
They don't.
No, its very relevant to this discussion.
No it isn't.
BTW, why is it impossible for you to quote correctly?
GunnyL said:That embryonic stem cell research will ever lead to anything more than a mess on the laboratory floor is nothing but speculation. Creating human life to destroy it is WRONG, no matter WHAT justification you attempt to apply to it.
dilloduck said:Believers know that shit and God are real. You wont hear them screaming for the tooth fairy to come save them in time of danger. But so-called ATHEISTS will call out to God.
