Callipygous

then nothing is random chance. a coin flip can be predicted by physics. i really try to keep the insults at a minimum, but your just being stupid here. just because something happened the way it did because of physics doesnt mean it wasnt random. yet another point i addressed in my post above, but im guessing your out of material, so ill go through it again. NO I AM NOT. whether or not life springs up on ANY planet is determined by a whole lot of very unlikely factors that are all pure random chance. (note that when i say random chance here, im ignoring the fact that with enough processors you could simulate the big bang and predict where every single particle of every element would end up.)

i still say the point of the analogy was only to address the exposure to violence, not to compare the situations of war and the death penalty. the soldiers werent horrified by seeing executed prisoners, they were horrified by seeing starving, tortured prisoners who were then burned alive. its a pretty big difference.

i dont believe for one second that there is a creator, this is just an argument over whether or not 50/50 is an exceptable probability for the existence of god.

*stares at ecoli with no expression*

i thought i hinted at that strongly enough, but... its because they werent hugged as children. they feel inferior, unloved... all that good stuff. in an effort to boost their self esteem they take out their lifes frustrations on strangers. gives them a sense of power.

Motion sensing automatic machine guns.

dont worry, yours, plus a thousand other curses have already been placed upon these poor, unhugged little blighters.

um... change the dial?

chemistry and physics... ok. so you would argue that the earth forming with all the right elements, at the right distance from the sun and the right atmosphere, and water and all that other crap that has to be exactly right for life on earth to be remotely possible was based on something other than chance? a dice roll is about as random as it gets, but technically thats predictable by physics too. lets try to keep this just a little bit reasonable.

well... the people who normally make such decisions are generally known as judges. anyway... im not talking about a personal preference. no one said there couldnt be laws to determine which cases. for example, one thing i heard in a comedy routine(no idea if its true or not) was about texas adding a law where if 3 or more people saw you commit the crime you move to the front of the line at death row.

it seems like a pretty valid analogy, as the concept your dealing with is becoming numb to violence... people in war experience far more violence in a very short time than most people in their whole lives. his statement of them still being affected by the concentration camps seems pretty relevant. i believe his point was, or at least what i took from it, is that a persons sensitivity to death doesnt come from lack of exposure to it, so much as who they are as a person. (ok... im a little tired... ill try to read the next post down next time : P)

i would first like to say that the word "murder" needs to stop being used for describing the death penalty. murder means to kill illegally. the death penalty is not illegal. as much as you would like to push your opinion by attaching emotion to it, and making it seem like some horribly monsterous punishment is being inforced upon this person, it is not murder. now for my personal opinions. i think this guy should no longer be a part of society in any way. he needs to be removed, and he deserves to be removed. as for the death penalty, im very much for it as a concept, but the current form of death penalty doesnt cut it. the fact that it costs more to kill someone than to keep them alive is the problem. part of that problem is when this guy was confronted he said oh yeah, ive got the body of a 10 year old girl that i smothered and hacked up sitting in a tupperware dish waiting to be cooked for dinner. then, instead of taking him to court and saying, this is what he said, and we found the body as he described, and then putting a 4cent bullet in his head, they are going to have him sit on death row for 30 years giving him appeals to make absolutely sure he really did kill and cut up the child in his closet, like he said he did. i understand that there is always a chance that the verdict is wrong, and therefore the death penalty is risky, but when the guy TELLS YOU he has a dead girl that he killed and tried to dismember sitting in a tub, and then you find the tub, and what do you know, it has a dead girl in it..... i think its a pretty reasonable assumption that he actually did it. most cases arent as clear cut as that, and im sure we put down plenty of people who didnt actually do it, but compared to the number of dangerous criminals that have been permanently removed as a threat to society i think were still coming out ahead. i understand that the families of the accused probably feel differently, but society is not responsible for taking care of individuals, it is responsible for the overall health of the society. so... aside from the fact that currently it costs more to kill the guy, i think its just fine. the way it is right now, i think they should be locked in the deepest hole we can find and just drop food down to them, because then they are no longer a threat, and its the smallest possible burden on society. but what i think NEEDS to happen, is the system needs to change so its not so damn expensive to get rid of a bad person.

fixed it for you.

the only way pink invisible fairies fit the bill is if they are *ahem*CREATORS. evolution requires random chance to create the first cell, doesnt it?

the circumstances of any particular situation are the only thing you can use to determine probability. your using completely seperate logic, but please, feel free to continue saying its the same without any explaination. what options explain the creation of earth and man kind besides a creator or random chance/evolution?

ive noticed this too. ive also noticed my self doing it. no idea why.

in one of my later posts i said i didnt want direct quotes because i didnt feel like singling people out, or having an argument. i dont feel bad about quoting you for some reason. so... the quote above is an excellent example of an opinion that is not stated as one. its also a horribly judgemental generalization. i would also argue that it is inaccurate, as they are quite clearly adept at talking fast, and at entertaining people, since they have a very large audience. (edited for hypocrisy)

this situation is different in that there ARE factors swaying the probability. that is, we know that most girls will not have sex with someone just because they asked. we have more information than in the other question.

in this particular case we do know... for example. my friend started into his geology class at college this year. his teacher is obsessed with disproving god through geology. one of his explainations involved a rock that COULDNT have been made, around the rocks it was buried with, in 7 days. that man is an idiot. its GOD. very simple explaination... god made that rock the way it is to test your faith... please, tell me one kind of actual evidence that couldnt be completely tossed aside by that logic. and on the flip side... show me one thing in the universe that absolutely COULD NOT happen by random chance, ei. without the pressence of a designer. i didnt say we DONT have evidence for or against god, i said you CANT have evidence for or against that kind of concept. it counters anything we could find by virtue of the fact that it is beyond our understanding.

World of warcraft is offline! i cant figure out what to do with my few hours between work and sleep.

how is it a false dichotomy? what option is there besides a god existing and a god not existing?

we as humans have nothing to go by but what we witness. fake all the empirical evidence and theres nothing we can do : P