user1991

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here. You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry." Sounds like a religious reason to me. I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What the non-religious who supported them? No, you're wrong. It IS causation, therefore it isn't post hoc ergo propter hoc.. If you're going to imply that what I'm saying is fallacious at least check up on what you're saying beforehand. Christianity played a big part in anti-miscegenation, simply due to the fact that MOST Christians were for them at the time. Why were they for them? Religious reasons! The people who weren't Christians (like 1%? I don't know. Probably an extremely low percentage) were probably just racists. The Bible was used as justification however by the RELIGIOUS MASSES - therefore Christianity played a part.

Sperm = Human life? Oh, do tell. I have to hear this. Don't give me that crap that we were once "inhuman". Putting the words "human" and "life" together doesn't change the meaning. Yes, it does. Otherwise people, such as yourself, will try to equate things such as sperm or plants or chickens to a fetus. Every time you stop a rape from happening you kill a potential child.

So are Christians in the future going to look back at you and other Christians who try to hold back social equality as weird too? Yes, quote me.

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here. You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry." Sounds like a religious reason to me. I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant.

If the Church had had their way, black people wouldn't even be able to marry white people. That's not the popular Christian opinion now.. but what do you think would have happened if the zeitgeist hadn't been moved along? And that was like what.. 40 years ago? I don't really know what you are talking about. I've never heard anything like that. Why would the Church care about interracial marriages? There are several passages that can be interpreted as against interracial marriage. And indeed many Christians did interpret them this way. In fact, a judge ruled against Loving (vs. Virginia.) saying that "God placed the races on different continents, therefore showing that they shouldn't marry" and forced one of the people in that relationship (can't remember which) to leave the state for something ridiculous like 30 years.

So are sperm. Is it a sin to have a wet dream? No, silly atheist, sperm are only HALF-SOULS.

You know very well that the Christians/Church of that time were for those laws.

You automatically fail for mentioning Zeitgeist. Of course, the whole "If the Church had their way" thing isn't/wasn't exactly true, either. Are you being serious? I'm not talking about that conspiracy movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist

Like what? The only thing you're going to even get close to is embryonic stem cell research, and would be done on moral grounds rather than religious grounds. Moral grounds for the reason that you think embryos have souls? In some states creationism would be taught in schools, instead of evolution. Condoms would be banned/research into contraception probably stopped. If we go back 50 years there'd still be the anti-miscegenation laws..

If the Church had had their way, black people wouldn't even be able to marry white people. That's not the popular Christian opinion now.. but what do you think would have happened if the zeitgeist hadn't been moved along? And that was like what.. 40 years ago?

It's not that I want to get married/or that I'm gay, but I think gay people/Christians/whatever who want to marry should be allowed. The Church continuously gets a free pass and people don't look at it the same way they look at other things. If I opened up a store and said that no black people could come in because my store operated on the teachings of Jeremiah, an ancient guy who said "black people are subhuman" - there would be outcry. But when the Church says "No, we refuse to marry these people who are genetically different to us (gay people, cause that's what it is, and you know it), because God says homosexuality is an abomination" they get away with it. You showed me exactly how it is with your whole "in a civil union you can do the same as if you were married". Separate but equal? Can you give me an answer please? How is saying "black people can't marry" any different to saying "gay people can't marry"? @ Sly.. no seriously. If the Church could pass laws they would almost definitely do something to hinder the progress of science.

It is by implication in the first amendment, namely the establishment clause and free exercise clause which together give you 'seperation of church and state'. Saruman totally wins this argument. :thumbsup: I'm not sure how many times I have to tell people that the idea of separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. If Church and State weren't separate, you realise we'd still be in the middle ages?

Separate but equal?

You aren't a racist.. but Discriminating against gay people is no different than discriminating against black people. Both are genetic. So you wanting to not teach your kids about gay marriage is pretty much the same as people 60 years ago not wanting to teach their kids about black/white people marrying..

AND WHEN I HAVE KIDZ IMA TEACH EM THAT ONLY WHITE PEOPLE CAN MARRY AND THAT BLACK PEOPLE ARE SLAVES CAUSE WE ARE MADE BY GOD AND GOD SAID "You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you." IN THE BIBLE AND THEREFORE WHITE POWER! CHECKMATE BLACK PEOPLE! [/intense, over the top, point making sarcasm]

You're not alone bro. Fight the power.

Not to attack you personally, but why do some people treat marijuana as some miraculous cure or medicine? Or is it just a "fight the power, man" type of argument? I see what you're saying, but what he says has a core of truth. Marijuana has been shown to be effective for hundreds of different ailments. It IS used as medicine by thousands of people, hence "medical marijuana." I asked my GP about weed and even they said that they thought it could be used on people who weren't responsive to other medications (which isn't that uncommon to be honest). It isn't a miracle cure, but medicine, yes.

Gotta love the Netherlands.. I still have faith in humanity.

I think by the end of his time in office it will be: Medical marijuana legal everywhere in the US Some states voting to decriminalize A large, significant movement for legalisation. I would hope for full legalisation but I don't think it will happen within the next 10 years. I think it will, just it takes a lot of time to change the zeitgeist.. EDIT: Is my avatar visible? On my screen I can't see it.

I came to the conclusion years ago that these drug laws are not here for our safety as the politicians would like us to believe. Reasons why marijuana should be legal: 1. The "potency argument" is an argument for keeping weed illegal, which says that because strains are more potent today, it poses a more significant health risk. Not only is this [cabbage], but it is deliberately designed to create fear and force public opinion against legalisation. With alcohol, in a regulated market you know how strong the drink you are buying is and therefore adjust how much you take accordingly. When they force us to buy weed off the street, we have no idea how strong it is. So we smoke the same amount every time and we cannot regulate how high we get. If it is legalised, this doesn't happen. 2. The media often reports that weed is being laced with harder drugs and should therefore be illegal. First of all, weed is RARELY laced with harder drugs as most of the time those harder drugs are more expensive than the weed. Sometimes it happens, granted. In a regulated market though, it doesn't. 3. Drug dealers push harder drugs onto buyers therefore making them more likely to try them and get addicted to stuff that will ACTUALLY mess them up. 4. Legalising weed would free up prison space greatly which would save [cabbage]loads of money. As well as this money that went towards prosecuting weed users can actually go towards more beneficial things. Also, police can spend their time on more important issues instead. 5. Punishing people for using weed is just ridiculous and it RUINS LIVES. Sure, people know the penalties before they take it, but that's still stupid because if a law came in that said everyone who j-walked would get their brains blown out by a firing squad, and that happened, you wouldn't say "oh, well they knew the rules." Just because the laws are there does not mean they're right. People can lose jobs etc, and due to the fact that weed is stigmatised in society as being "bad" (which is caused by it being illegal) it makes it harder for people to get on with their lives etc simply because they smoked a little bud. 6. Legalising and taxing weed would obviously raise a lot of cash. I haven't even covered the fact that you should be allowed to do whatever you want to your own body as long as it does not impose on the freedoms of others (yes this means I support legalisation of every drug, but this is irrelevant here). Realistically, weed isn't half as dangerous as the government pretends - I'm not saying that there aren't any dangers to it, of course there are, but there are dangers to every drug (alcohol anyone?). Making weed illegal causes more problems than it aims to solve, takes up too much money, and punishes people who are otherwise, most of the time, law abiding citizens.

HOLY SNAP I want that room. Dude.. imagine droppin acid in that room...

And that is what we are doing by debating. Logical fallacies are used to ensure that we do so in a reasonable and logical manner. Eh, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I find it illogical to bind your life to the logic of dead men who, in turn, wanted us to explore and find our own logic. Not just decide, "Well, I've looked at theirs, and it's pretty good." K, we get your point about the proof. I don't think anyone is denying that. And on logical fallacies - why do you say things like "illogical to bind your life to the logic of dead men.." If someone points out a logical fallacy it is just to save them time, so that they do not have to go through an entire argument and show someone why it is wrong. The idea is that there are several tactics/traits employed in arguments continuously and therefore to make it easier, we prove why it is wrong, GIVE IT A NAME, and then refer to that fallacy when someone tries it again. Do you really expect people to constantly explain these things over and over? If I say "I think drugs should be legalised" and John McCain says "You want children to take crack!" do I really need to constantly explain again and again why that is a ridiculous conclusion? Or instead, can I not just give said fallacy a name and then tell someone "oh, you're using that same strawman coupled with appealing to emotion on the "children" part to make it easier for you to throw down my argument." and be on with my day. And this burden of proof argument is just ridiculous. Saying that God does not exist is different to saying that God does exist because we assume things to not exist until we have evidence that they do. and in actuality the phrase "does not exist" actually means "does not exist beyond any reasonable doubt" as it is obvious that you cannot disprove something's existence 100% conclusively. In my opinion there is absolutely no evidence of God existing therefore I say God does not exist. There is no evidence for a small African beetle with divine intelligence living on a planet named Shibbity in the Constellation Lyra but saying that it is hypocritical to say that it does not exist is just stupid. Sure, God could exist. The African beetle could exist. But to me, it is in the same realm as a talking pickle, santa claus, unicorns etc, so for the sake of our [bleep]ing sanity we just say that it doesn't! Why must you drag everything into the realm of semantics?! I have looked at the situation and the only evidence Christians provide is 1. The Bible (and I've read a lot about whether the Bible can be trusted, and although Sly Wizard will disagree, I think the answer is, for metaphysical claims, absolutely NO. 2. Prayer, or a feeling - various experiments have shown that prayer does nothing and the feeling is psychosomatic + influences in group psychology. 3. Stupid creationist evidence like "Look how easily a banana fits into a man's hand. It must have been designed!." 4. "Look around you at the world, don't you think it is cleary designed?" No, the world appears exactly as if a God does not exist. Sure, believe what you want, you're entitled to it, but don't force it into the system of law and don't oppress people otherwise we'll start fighting back and that's exactly what is going to happen now that the Christian majority in the USA has decided that it is going to start (not really start, they've been doing this for centuries) denying freedoms to certain people with genetic differences.

Yeah... No. So Jesus did literally walk on water then, in your view? Yessum. Do you really think the Bible is good enough evidence to make such claims about existence/the Universe? Jesus existed (almost certainly), but saying that he is the Son of God is a different matter. In my opinion, the Bible isn't enough evidence for that.

you are true of your name, let me tell you that.. jesus was never considered a god :ugeek: , and still, what are you trying to tell is with the rest of your blabbity? You don't realise that my entire post is sarcasm? ofcourse i realised that :wall: but what are you trying to tell us by posting that blabbity? If you can't see what I'm saying, then there really isn't any reason for me to explain.

you are true of your name, let me tell you that.. jesus was never considered a god :ugeek: , and still, what are you trying to tell is with the rest of your blabbity? You don't realise that my entire post is sarcasm?