Saru Inc

Some could argue (I can, but won't because I'm not debating the existence of God on this forum anymore) that there is evidence of God, and you CAN see him through his works.

Why don't you need to prove it? You are saying that the sun, which everyone can see, doesn't exist. I'd need some proof. I could explain\reason by saying: Sun makes light, lamps make light. Maybe thats just a big lamp? And if it provides heat, why is it cold in the winter? Ok, that won't get you very far. You need proof.

No. You need evidence for existence not for non-existence. Why the hell would you need evidence for something not to exist. Having no evidence that something exist is evidence that it does not exist. It doesn't always work that way. If you're arguing for non existence of a pre existing concept, then yes you would need evidence. Are you saying I don't need to put evidence showing the sun doesn't exist? A bit more physical than spiritual sure, but an assertion of opinion nonetheless.

wat

I agree with your latest post, Nick. :o

Possibly. Or perhaps he does?

I don't know why God does those things, but he does have this thing where say if I do something [bleep]ed up, then my children have to suffer. I really don't get why he does that. That my be related to why babies are born with no legs, but I think its more closely related to war and disease. and yw Aliath :]

Umm no offence to both sides, but y'all are overreacting. The kid should get scolded. Thats it, haha. And if you think its rude, then you really need to loosed up, to be honest.

Ehhh I am not so sure on this one, I do not remember that the founding fathers rebelled because of big government, I thought it was the whole "no taxation without representation" thing. I doubt all of them want small government to be honest, I know TJ is the guy for "the best government is the government which govern the least", but then we also have Alexander Hamilton who favor government control. I think its more of a: They disliked tax w\o reppin, but that was only a problem because the gov't was so big. I'm not too sure either :P I do know they did not like big gov't, or entangling alliances with other countries.

Maybe, I've not really looked into what our law says, however I think they found a loophole. Also, 7 other states also made it illegal. Source? By which I mean a credible source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution The underlined part is what I was referring to. Also wikipedia is not a credible source. Source for...? And yes, States do have ruling over federal, when federal steps outside the bounds of the Constitution, in which the gov't did.

I loved that episode.

Maybe, I've not really looked into what our law says, however I think they found a loophole. Also, 7 other states also made it illegal.

^^! LOL! Don't get your white sorry, Caucasian panties in a bunch LOL. I shoulda been there, hehe. It just sounds so random, the kid was prolly goofing around. Who says race has anything to do with it (what I mean is, who says he was racist? Maybe he was in line to get something and lots of black ppl were in the line. Maybe he was being sarcastic. who knows.)

Actually, there's proof that Earth existed for billions and billions of years, while Judiasm/Christianity claim it existed for about... 7K years or so? No, if the earth has been around for "billions" of years I believe the religion of Christianity has been around for billions of years as well. I believe the religion off Judaism\Christianity started as soon as the world was created, thus creating my viewpoint on marriage cannot predate Judaism\Christianity. Because same-sex people don't have mothers/fathers/grandparents! That's brilliant logic! I never would have guessed! Now, applying that logic, single parents should have their children taken away from them because they're unfit, yes? You should. That's the point of a debate, to present facts. Maybe they should. I didn't invent the logic, so cut that sarcastic [cabbage] outta off the post, thanks! Anyways, you've yet to prove me wrong. STILL. You are simply trying to degrade my arguments, make me seem like an idiot, that way, you don't have to prove me wrong. wat No, nobody can negate your personal experience. But we CAN point out that your personal experience -- assuming you are being honest -- doesn't necessarily imply anything general. If the only Christian person I know is a priest who turns out to be a pedophile, that doesn't mean that all Christians are pedophiles. You can believe any silly fairy tales you want, but you don't get to make up facts. Marriage predates the bible. Period. Full stop. You can believe otherwise, just like you can believe the earth is flat (like your bible says) but that doesn't make it so. The onus of proof is on the person making a positive assertion. If you want to claim the necessity of a masculine and feminine influence on child development, it is up to YOU to provide evidence to support it, not up to others to try to disprove it. Otherwise, I could post saying the core of the moon is made of green cheese and make you try to prove otherwise. 1) valid point. 2) Point out where in the Bible it says that? 2a) wow. ok. I guess that shows your true colors. Silly little fairy tales? Talk about being close minded, s0n. 3) No its not, you keep on saying that in all these arguments where it simply doesn't apply. And of course you're going to make a far out there analogy, I'd liek you to make a more realistic analogy, thank you. [spoiler=Proof]One in six young children from single-parent families spend fewer than two hours a week with a father, grandfather or male role model, a poll has found. Researchers asked 1,009 parents how many hours a week their children aged six and under spent in the company of men. The figure was one in 15 for parents who were married or living together, but higher among the 53 single mothers questioned for the poll carried out for the government-funded Children's Workforce Development Council (CWDC). Despite the fact that two-thirds of the single mothers wanted men to work at their child's nursery, almost as many — 62% — said no men did. The latest figures from the Department for Children, Schools and Families show that 2% of nursery workers are male. Just over a third of the single mothers said their children spent under six hours a week with a male role model. This was the case for 8% of parents who were married or living together. Just under a quarter of the single mothers said their children spent more than 20 hours a week in the company of men. This was the case for 57% of parents who were married or living together. Almost two-thirds of the single mothers considered it important for their children to have regular contact with male role models. A third believed boys related better to men than to women. The CWDC, which tries to ensure nursery workers have adequate training, wants more men to work in nursery schools. Thom Crabbe, its national development manager for early years, said: "It is important that during the crucial first five years of a child's life they have quality contact with both male and female role models. Working with under-fives is definitely a job for the boys." Fiona Weir, chief executive of Gingerbread, a charity for single parents, said most single-parent families wanted both parents to be involved in their children's lives, where this was a safe option. She said: "Having both male and female role models in educational settings is important for all children, not just those of single parents. Further efforts to encourage men to take up these roles would be welcome." http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jan/19/children-earlyyearseducation Read down toward the bottom of that ^^ And apparently it is a current argument whether or not children do need both genders. It makes sense to me. And good grief peeps, I want gay marriage. I just think that if you want a Christian Gay Marriage the Christian church has the right to not marry you. Off-topic: I think the reason so many here hate the Bible, is they think it has all these things in it which simply aren't there. Its a wrongful stereotype and stigma of the Bible, and is overall ironic. Maybe if more people read the Bible seriously, not sarcastically they might not act so... full of it.

Hey guess what? Federal surpemacy. Eat that. uhhh not rly. states rights. eat that. (and swallow! ) o.O In all seriousness, I hate this bill. Some of the hate is unfounded, ex: there's no reason for it except for the fact that the majority of Americans do not want this, Congress (in my view) should basically vote for the people. Congress obvsly voted for themselves, good grief that pisses me off.

Perhaps more should have gone towards education so that illiterate people like you can type multiple sentences with proper grammar. Only in my wildest dreams. you win the douche of the hour award. Not to spam: @ Um_Bong and Stevepole: I've heard far more horror stories from people with NHS, then with privatized. Just saying... It may have its benefits, but I believe the cons (in my opinion) far outweigh the pros. If I won it by being an intellectual, then I will accept it gladly. I would much rather be an intelligent douche than an illiterate fool. Back on topic, I fear that this will only hinder America. Studies and polls have shown that approximately 60-70% of doctors surveyed will leave the United States for other countries if the bill is passed. Have fun getting into the hospital while there are an increased number of people there with children who have a stomach ache, and lucky you, who might have a serious problem like a broken bone, just get to sit and wait your turn. You might say that in that case your condition would warrant immediate treatment, and in privatized health care it would. However, under universal health care, you become just another number. People who are intelligent, don't need to make low remarks about one's grammar, because they can defeat their points "intelligently." You sir failed to do that. Though I do agree on your view of healthcare.

Perhaps more should have gone towards education so that illiterate people like you can type multiple sentences with proper grammar. Only in my wildest dreams. you win the douche of the hour award. Not to spam: @ Um_Bong and Stevepole: I've heard far more horror stories from people with NHS, then with privatized. Just saying... It may have its benefits, but I believe the cons (in my opinion) far outweigh the pros.

It doesn't apply to me :) My state (Virginia) made it illegal for the Federal gov't to force this onto anyone in here. PRO.

thnx :o

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs. Yep, however you can debate whether the data we find in the world, support the statements of various religious texts. The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs. Yep, but I only believe in something if it can be proven, or else I would be believing in any story anyone told me. On the side note, I just read Exodus:21 and laughed at the notion that none of my christian friends have Hebrew slaves yet. They must not be very good Christians.

But they won't let it go, and they're being pretty aggressive with it. Challenging me, basically. I'm not looking for hostile exchanges in a debate. I'm not being hostile, and I'm not trolling. But you were acting like a know-it-all, and I see debating as a form of learning, so naturally I, don't know everything. ( not even close) So you know what? I don't "research" all of my debate points, and if a comment I make seems 'far' out there, perhaps it is. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm ok with that there's a lot out there I don't know, and this is my way of finidng out. Anyways, if these are the arguments you referenced as being wrong: "1)Ok, to answer your first part, it is very much true, however I never said it was bad. From my personal experience, I'd have to say the ratio of promiscuous to non promiscuous gay people is without a doubt 2 to 1 at the very least, I've noticed a large difference, as have my friends from other areas. Besides, I said I was guessing. 2)Marriage IS a religious thing, because the it came from the Bible. Thats why I say, that as much as I disagree with it, pastors\the church\the state should be allowed to say its only between a man\woman. Because its based on Religious rules, and so its bound to be a bit unfair. 3) Studies show children need a feminine, and masculine influences in their life to grow up healthy and well-adjusted. Now as its possible to have maybe a really good friend who comes over often, or a grandma\grandpa, having a same sex couple simply will not do. And have you noticed its hard for single people to adopt as well? Same reason, they need a masculine AND feminine influence. " Then please, in all seriousness, prove me wrong. 1) You can't prove me wrong, becuase this is from my personal experience, not yours. 2) You can't prove me wrong, because based on my belief system (Christianity) I believe that the religion of Judaism\Chrisitanity has been around since the Earth was formed. 3) Good luck proving me wrong, while I cannot find a link of it online, there was a chapter in my Psychology book regarding sexuality and the brain in general, and this study was not only very ummm... important I guess you could say, but well known. So, please, prove me wrong. ot: There are ants all over my room wtf >.>

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to... Because I'd be wasting a few minutes of my life explaining to someone that marriage didn't come from the Bible, and that nowadays people marry for certain legal benefits such as... Now, there are couples than do not have that privilege because they're denied those rights. Ok, so if gov and religion should be separate then the government should only give civil unions unbiasedly with all the legal benefits and then churches can grant marriage, that way churches retain their right to marry and the gays get their benefits. No, because not all marriages are religious. Some homosexual couples want to marry not only for the benefits, but because they love their partner. But I do get your point. It's just that not all marriages are Christian. Still haven't proved me wrong. And ALG answered that post quite nicely, I'm fine with Christians dictating Christian marriages. The problem lies in that most people go to pastors to get married, even atheists.

Ohhh ok, I didn't realize they released them so late in the day. o.O

Has there been a twtter hint for this week?

Way to patronize, man. And not rly, since it's merely my opinion, which is subjective and thus, cannot be proved wrong. But yes, prove me wrong. S0n.