Callipygous

please, enlighten us....

making churches tax exempt would be the opposite. that would be the govt, in effect, supporting that religion. govt needs to not recognize religion in any of its dealings. so its not that they are charging the church property taxes, they are merely charging people property taxes for a building they own. how would you go about deciding what is tax exempt and what isnt? if i put a shrine in my house do i no longer have to pay taxes? the govt. needs to just ignore that factor completely.

try again: my point would be that you cant disprove that either. actually, i take that back. the two situations arent comparable at all, there are plenty of ways you could get evidence of that spaceship. like, for example, testing your knowledge, or lack thereof, of penguins. or by throwing eggs at the sky.

gah... double post : P

because part of what christians have managed to work into their religion is saving the heathens. its gods work to convert the poor ignorant sinners to the path of the light. basically, they see only their point of view and from their point of view, there isnt any reason why such a good, christian thing as prayer should be kept out of school. they dont mind the fact that some people disagree because those people are in need of saving, because even if their rights get a little intruded upon it will be worth it, and they will be forgiving, if it causes them to see the light. (note that the above post is not meant to be about all christians, only those who want prayer in schools.)

i understood it just fine, but i dont think you can define absolutely everything exactly right to make the govt rely entirely on laws without discriminating against anyone. so what that leaves you with is that you just have to have a little bit of faith in the intelligence and honesty of those you put in charge. you have to trust the supreme court to break the letter of the law when it goes against the intent of the law. you also have to trust them to be able to make basic distinctions and realise that standard human morals dont need to be remove from laws the same way religious beliefs do. trying to draw the line so all "beliefs" constitute religion just stops you from getting anywhere.

i disagree. i dont think its being used to marginalise those with beliefs, i think its being used to protect those of us who happen to not have those beliefs. taking every thing about god out of our pledge of alliegence and our money isnt harming christians, its making it so athiests can be free to practice their religion without having someone elses pushed on them. if, by its exact definition, basic moral values is a religion, then how can we set up the system so that murder is illegal, but still keep other things that are strictly religious out of the govt.? what could the law be based on so it would preclude one but not the other?

cause your too shy to have met/gotten to know very many girls.

technically everything you know about the world is a belief, and that set of beliefs might fit the exact definition of a religion. does the meaning intended by religion describe normal human morals? absolutely not. but for the sake of this debate its not going to matter because hes going to keep pressing the fact that it does match the definition. part of my religion involves believing that i am in fact breathing right now

sure... if you can get some solder on there without connecting it to the other terminal you could connect a wire that way. keep in mind solder isnt the strongest stuff, but i doubt your led is going to need to carry a load, so it should be fine.

if you knew the exact magnitude and direction of all of the forces involved, as well as the exact shape of all the objects involved, you could predict what side it would stop on. how is that not predictable? i dont believe in god for my own reasons that you really dont know about. thats not what this discussion is about, and i havent said anything about why i have the beliefs i do. dont guess about peoples beliefs. no, we have not. i dont even know what information we have and what we dont and i can still tell you that, no, you have absolutely zero evidence that shows that the universe was not created by some kind of god. thanks to the very definition of "creator" any evidence you could possibly have could have been planted as a test of your faith.

then there is absolutely nothing in the entire universe that is random. you people need to take a half a step back from your science for a second before you take apart the english language. everything in the universe does what it does based on the laws of physics, and therefore if you had enough information you could predict absolutely everything. and yet, what do you know, we still have the word "random" in our vocabularies. you ever stop and wonder why that might be? a dice roll is 100% predictable, and yet we still call it random because for all practical purposes it is. in the same way, a planet forming in exactly the right way and exactly the right place is also random. the reason i say hes being stupid is because 1. hes arguing something that only matters for the sake of telling me im wrong for using the word "random" and 2. it doesnt even effect the original argument. the point is, there are two possibilities that explain the creation of the universe, a creator or what ever the hell you want me to call the situation without a creator, be it random chance or pure predictable gauranteed science. trying to disarm my argument based on the fact that it isnt actually random if you get down to the absolute most basic level and try and calculate where everything went in the big bang is stupid. it doesnt matter what you want to call it. Two options.

no no no.... dont you see? the point is that herme is right and all of us with that dumb "Experience" crap dont know what were talking about... were just jackasses who dont respect women enough to NOT give them a chance unless they are the goddess of our dreams. can anyone guess whether im irked yet? whether it dies or not i think im gonna try to drop out of this thread. i think it might just be hopeless.

ok. so set up a law to make it so extreme cases get moved along faster, and give the judge veto power so he can give it the right to appeals in all those lovely freak cases you see in the movies.

only if you turn it into some big dramatic thing about trying to find your life partner instead of just having a fun evening out. so.... dont tell her that. tell her that youve always had a crush on her. or better yet, go find some other girls so shes not the only one you have ever wanted to be with. thats called obsession, with your level of experience.

and in the mean time, feel free to have a fling or two with some really smokin babes : )

we dont have any evidence that it happened either way. all we can see is that it COULD have happened either way : P

i still think its a good thing not everyone has your point of view or we would all be walking around miserable and lonely and depressed about how horrible and cold the world is because we havent found the perfect person yet, and therefor spend our nights with our computers, a bottle of lotion, and a box of kleenexcompletely without love or companionship. but hey, however you want to look at... im living my life, so feel free to do as you wish

in just a minute, im busy pulling my foot out of my mouth. .... ... ... .. there we go. i had only read his other post, about the concentration camps. i wasnt aware there was another one. this is a long thread!