yvpil057's profile page

Profile picture

yvpil057 (user #1,897) Gold MedalSilver TrophySuper StarDiamond

Joined on December 14th, 2011 (3,032 days ago)

Last login was over 3 months ago

Votes: 1,842

Questions: 0

Comments: 1,045

Profile views: 27

Yvpil057 has submitted the following questions:

  • This user hasn't submitted any questions.
  • Yvpil057 has posted the following comments:

    If God was always there, then why did he not "create everything" before?  
    So then why did you vote for the big bang? +2
    So then why did you vote for the big bang? +2
    Oh, okay, so you want to hunt down hundreds of people and torture them, but THEY'RE the heartless evil idiots. Your lack of awareness that you are a hypocrit is only surpassed by your lack of intelligence. +1
    I believe that God exists, but I also believe that this universe was created by the Big Bang, or at least something like it, since I highly doubt that modern physicist actually have an accurate grasp on the matter given our excessively primitive knowledge in this field. It may take thousands of years before we discover the truth and find evidence to make it a theory. For all we know, the Big Bang is only 5% correct as researchers know today. +1
    No, seriously, your kind is not worthy of being called believers in God. As a very intelligent and tolerant person said 18 pages back from this comment: "Wow! Some of the comments from Christians on here! Guys! Stop calling the Athiests dumb. Christ came to save them too. It's not their fault they're blinded and haven't seen the ... truth. That's Biblical! 2 Corinthians 4:4 - "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God." We're not supposed to judge outside the church. Sure, it's frustrating trying to tell someone who's blind what light is, but you're not supposed to yell at them and insult them, we're supposed to be showing them God's love." +1
    lol... you don't deserve to believe in god.  
    Guys, visit pages 5-20 and you will see some very interesting, heated discussions between me (yvpil057) who acknowledges the Big Bang and another person (Random1234) who believes that God did it. +1
    It wasn't an explosion.  
    The new outlook on the website is bad imo. +1
    Oh, so the tribal people who are isolated from the world, such as the African Bushmen, who have absolutely no access to a Bible or someone to tell them of God are doomed to go to hell? And God would allow them to exist in such a place with no way to learn of him? Great logic. +2
    Infinity does not exist. +2
    lol... some religious person you are... ever heard of "forgiving your enemy?" +2
    God is a theory.  
    Where does it say in the guests comment that he believes in what the Bible says?  
    No I'm pretty sure it's been going on only for a few hundred years, as Charles Darwin's evidence of evolution only became widely knowin in the 1800s.  
    And yet according to the Bible, God created mass out of nothing. +1
    extremely light :P 1/1000 of a miligram per year for example. +465
    Unfortunately those people do not know the theory as well as the think :(  
    But a theory is just a scientific term for a widely-accepted hypothesis. Just as the "Law of Gravity" is actually called the "Theory of Gravity."  
    No. We are all wrong. That includes you as well.  
    We clearly observe the results of the Big Bang every day. The expantion of our universe as measured through the positioning and changing of position of the stars and the nearby galaxies.  
    Mass can be both created and destroyed. Scientists have evidence for this now.  
    How many times to I have to reply to you? The hyper-condensed Big Bang matter ALWAYS EXISTED. IT DID NOT EXPLODE OUT OF NOWHERE! Do you get it yet?  
    You're ignorant of the Big Bang theory. It does not say that something popped out of nowhere and there was no explosion. +1
    Also, you're an idiot for thinking that the Big Bang was an explosion. It was expanding matter, not an explosion. The name is slightly misleading but that's to weed out those like you who know nothing of the theory. +2
    Actually, we are. Or so I believe, as well as the many others who believe in Brahman. +1
    Now allow me to make a few points against Random1234. First off, you said that matter cannot be created. This is false. Matter indeed can be created and scientists are currently researching this aspect of matter. Theorists are putting forth that Matter is essencially energy. There is a direct relationship between matter and energy. Energy can be converted directly into matter and matter directly into energy. Secondly, you mentioned that matter cannot be destroyed. This is also false, as researchers are gaining more insight into dark matter and anti-matter. According to them, when anti-matter collides with matter, the two substances are destroyed forever. They are eliminated. Obliterated. Erased from existence. There is alot of modern research going on, and its difficult to keep up with it since its being discovered and researched so swiftly in this modern age. +2
    I think I've finally decided what I shall believe. God IS the Big Bang. The Big Bang is God. Allow me to make my points. 1. From here on, when I say Big Bang, I'm referring to the initial super-condensed mass, and not the event. 2. The Big Bang always existed. Just like God is assumed to always have existed. 3. The Big Bang created light first, then the sun/stars were formed later. Just like the biblical texts. 4. If the Big Bang IS God, then it is true that God is omnipresent. Everything is God. We are all God, but divided, hence we do not have immortality/other things said about God. 5. If The Big Bang is God, then Indeed, God is all powerful. Since The Big Bang is all matter currently in existence within our universe, then all of the possible power that can exist is within those boundaries, hence all power is within God. All power is within all of the matter of the universe. 6. If God is the Big Bang, then indeed God is all-wise. All of the knowledge and information that exist is part of the physical world, hence it is God, hence the Big Bang is all-knowing. God is eternal, The Big Bang is eternal. All matter which currently exists shall exist for eons to come. 7. If what I say is correct, then there is purpose behind us praying to God. We are not praying to God, but instead are praying to ourselves, since we are God. By doing this, we fill ourselves with hope, confidence, and the will to go on in life. It is not God that helps us, but us that help ourselves. Whew that was a long text. +1
    Please allow me to elaborate on my previous replies/posts. First off, the Big Bang doesn't state that "something exploded out of nothing." Instead, the Big Bang theory states that all matter was hypercondensed and then began rapidly expanding. It was never "popping up out of nothing" as you say. Secondly, just as you say that God could have always existed, why not this hypercondensed mass? It too could have always existed. Yes in fact it could have always existed. I'll answer your last question with another question. WHy did it not explode any time before? Why at the moment it did? Well... Why did God decide to create everything when he did? Why not before? Why at the moment he did? So there is your response. Hey, for all we know, that hypercondensed mass could have been sentient. It could very well have been God. I'm getting a heavy influx of brainstorming now and will type up my thoughts in an above comment.  
    Nice. Gave me a good chuckle.  
    You must have had very little faith to begin with :P  
    The Big Bang was always there.  
    Spell check...  
    Well... if you believe that God created everything, then you believe that it all popped out of nowhere. He just made it appear out of nothingness.  
    Same with God aparently.  
    God's existence cannot be proved or disproved. Also, some researchers are now attempting to show that Jesus never even existed. Idk if thats true or not, but I know there's scientific evidence behind it.  
    Evolution IS mutations. Literally, every mutation is evolution occurring. We have in fact seen one organism evolving into another. We genetically engineered flies to be born with additional eyes and legs. That is sufficent to be considered a new species. They were capable of reproducing. This was evolution through artificial selection. You may not believe in natural-selection based evolution, but evolution itself is a fact.  
    Can we see the core of the Earth? No. Can we create a machine which will allow us to? Yes. Cannot say the same about God.  
    Let me point out to you that the Big Bang theory does NOT say that something was created out of nothing. Wherever you learned that, it was false.  
    And conservatives/authoritarians are trying to push their biased lies so they can control them instead, but are not succeeding.  
    No, we did not come from modern day monkeys. Yes, we share a common ancestor as thebananaking said. Yes, they have evolved and are evolving even now.  
    Then I guess you've never heard of creationism. +1
    Yes, yes you are.  
    evolution is as much as pseudoscience as christianity is a cult. +1
    I'll reply to anyone who says that we evolved from monkeys: We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from an ape-like hominid which resembles monkey-like hominids. Monkeys evolved from the same ancestor.  
    No, we did not. That is a popular misconsception. We did not evolve from modern day monkeys. Rather, they evolved from a common ancestor of ours which we also evolved from. It wasn't a monkey. It was an ape-like hominid.  
    Not ment to be taken literally.  
    There are also many anti-atheists who denounce atheists as inhuman monsters who will burn in hell.  
    Thank you for taking the time to make an actually well-made comment rather than just saying "you're wrong."  
    Regardless of what Hitler was, you cannot use him effectively in this argument. I don't know if you know this or not, but Hitler was against smoking because he was intelligent enough to know of its negative effects. Does that mean "Hitler was against smoking, so those who oppose smoking are bad" is a good argument to make? No.  
    Guess what? Hitler was very intelligent, and there's no denying that. If he was an atheist, that information doesn't in any way harm atheists.  
    This is also implying that Hitler was justified in his actions because he was merely God's pawn doing God's work.  
    Do you believe it is right for God to condemn the descendants of Pontius Pilot, who had absolutely no control over his actions? By my opinion, no reasonable or merciful god would keep such a curse.  
    One reason, is the same reason politics talk down on certain issues that they actually believe in. Public support and political image.  
    Blind to superstition and myths, perhaps. +2
    You've just proved your lack of intelligence. +2
    I think it was some very intelligent people instead.  
    Tell that to the religious schools. +1
    By "God was thought to be the creation" he ment "God was thought to have been the reason behind the creation."  
    Don't be rude, you're only making us look bad.  
    We have evidence of both. Evidence does not constitute proof. Evidence does not validate something, it merely supports that thing's likelihood.  
    htt p://ww w.big-ba ng-theory.com/ a quick google search led me here. You can always look for more yourself.  
    He can't prove it and you can't disprove it. Proof is impossible to achieve on both parties. +1
    Actually, I can vouche for him that he chose neither. If you choose an option, it registers it on the website. If you let a week or so pass and choose a different option, it switches your vote. Most people click a picture instead of the "skip" feature to see comments. Proof: Scroll below and you'll see my vote for puppies  
    No, I'm pretty sure he made an intelligent comment on his opinion on the matter. You on the other hand, did not post an intelligent response. Hence, you are the dumbass. +4
    I would like to point out that condoms, depending on the brand and the intelligence of the user, are only 75-95% effective. Many people don't know how to properly use a condom (there's more to it than just putting it on) which results in broken condoms, etc. +2
    9-11 because it was more recent. If the Holocaust never happened, one of the Jews may have married one of my parents and I would not have been born.  
    Godwin's law. Your argument is made invalid. +5
    haha i know that feel :( +1
    This. +4
    For some reason your diction does not allude to that of a 10 year old. +2
    But... but... "levaticus is just metaphors and stuff!" haha... levaticus is an abomination and most Christians should have abandoned it by now.  
    Delete yvpil057 wrote just now:Posting... But... but... "levaticus is just metaphors and stuff!" haha... levaticus is an abomination and most Christians should have abandoned it by now.  
    Beliefs in general are silly. +1
    I'd hate to break it to you, but "scientifically proven" is a paradox. There is no such thing as proving something in the field of science. You can support something, but you cannot prove it. +7
    Indeed that is a metaphor +1
    But I'll go ahead and answer. First off, what you wrote is "you believe" instead of "you believe in" meaning you would have to add in an effect clause to your cause clause. If you believe something.... something may or may not happen. You did not include that. Now assuming you ment "I believe in blowing you up, etc." that would make slightly more sense. The answer is you can. Yes. You can believe that. You can't act on it without consequences, but you can believe it. Just like people can believe in sexism or racism, but cannot act on it or they get punished.  
    What the hell did you even try to accomplish by this worthless example.... +1
    So... you demand that people do what you say, but you refuse to do what other people tell you? If you're not willing to look something up, dont think anyone will listen to you telling them to read something.  
    how did it what?  
    Can you please just get it through your head that the Big Bang is NOT "something coming from nothing." The Big Bang theory is everything existing in a hypercondensed form, until it expanded outward during the Big Bang event, and is continuing to expand today. All of the matter in the universe existed prior to the Big Bang in that hyper-condensed form. +1
    You trying to ninja my image :(  
    Obviously clicking one choice over another dictates an individual's intelligence.  
    Where's your disproof? +2
    That gave me a good laugh.  
    The same can be said of people assuming that "No God" automatically means Atheist. There are religions without a god, such as Buddhism.  
    Ignore the troll please. You're only feeding him.  
    And I'd like to thank you for taking the time to look at the video I posted, as most people usually don't bother to :)  
    I'm not atheist.  
    Actually I'm deist. But thank you for showing that there are many religious people who are idiots.  
    Yes, as Random1234 points out, your information here is written in the wrong order. The universe is that which holds all of the millions of galaxies. The Milky Way galaxy has millions of stars, not universes. If you believe in millions of universes, that is a multiverse, not a galaxy.  
    "All I wanted was to say honestly to people: 'Have a look at yourselves and see how bad and dreary your lives are!' The important thing is that people should realize that, for when they do, they will most certainly create another and better life for themselves. I will not live to see it, but I know that it will be quite different, quite unlike our present life. And so long as this different life does not exist, I shall go on saying to people again and again: 'Please, understand that your life is bad and dreary!'"  
    2nd controvercy: Women armed with guns... the only way this would logically solve the problem is that the women would have to threaten and (when threats don't work) shoot/kill the rapist. Now, using your argument that women can simply fake the rape, you're basically giving such women more power in murdering the men they hate. Sure, they can do that now too, but with more accessibility to guns, the rate of such happenings would increase. "Solving" one problem has created numerous others.  
    Controvercy: With less restrictions on guns, it becomes easier for gang members, domestic terrorists, and those with criminal intentions to get them. The more people with guns, the higher the crime rates because given a population, a certain % of that population will have criminal intent.  
    2nd controvercy: Women armed with guns... the only way this would logically solve the problem is that the women would have to shoot and kill the rapist.  
    Big Bang theory doesn't say that something was created out of nothing.  
    Yes, yes, it's much more difficult to explain how we have life than to just claim "God did it." When people couldn't understand or explain the phenomenon of rain, thunder, lightning, etc. they said "God did it." +1
    oh and you'll have to get rid of the spaces in the url if you're willing to take a look at it +1
    I believe in evolution. Actually, that's an understatement. I know in my mind that without a doubt evolution occurred. Whether it was created/invented by God or not can be debated though. Essencially, life was created from simple elements and energy. The elements formed complex molecules. Those molecules then began to coagulate based on need. For example, hydrophobic molecules clustered together in order to avoid as much contact with H2O as possible, forming phospholipid layers in the process. If you have a minute, watch this video. I'll spare you the boring task of having to read some 1000 words. htt p://w ww.youtube.co m/w atch?v=xokbvgdKZww 13:45 - the important part (all of it is interesting imo) +2
    I suppose it depends on you. Whether or not you choose to believe in creationism or evolution dictates the answer. Since neither you nor I will likely go deeply into studying either side of the aspect, our belief will suffice as to how this impacts our life. Now I'll get to the point with the below comment. +1
    We are by no means perfect...  
    A law is simply a widely accepted theory. Meaning, all laws are theories. We haven't explored enough of the universe to confirm that gravity always works according to the current laws.  
    It wasn't for peace. Think back to the crusades. It was for personal benefit. +1
    Look up the God Helmet. +1
    "Nothing created everything" is a false statement which is not what the Big Bang is. Whoever told you that simply did not know the actual theory. +2
    If only it were that simple...  
    Somehow I managed to switch my vote. I dislike this.  
    cheaply made doesn't necessarily mean ineffectual :) +1
    Let me ask you a simple question: Why should Christianity be the 'correct' religion? What about all of the others? You might see in a few years, that there is a lot you do not yet know. Your opinion may very well change to that of those who voted for the B.Bang theory. +5
    A well put answer. +2
    But flame wars are so fun! You get to point out the stupidity and ignorance in the comments of those who blatantly attack the other side without any consideration of how vulgar and rude they are :D +6
    I didn't say that evolution is the only option. There's also the option of creation followed by evolution. However, there's no option that doesn't have at least some of the aspects of evolution in it.  
    You're missing the sarcastic aspect of my comment. +2
    Gravity is a fact because we can test it for validity at any point in time and get the result immediately. Whereas if we want to test God's existence (by prayer, or other such methods), we would not get an immediate result. Also, many such results could be coincidence, whereas gravity cannot be a coincidence on the planet Earth. I must point out though that Gravity is a scientific theory. We have not fully explored all of the regions of the universe in which such laws may function differently or not exist at all.  
    I wouldn't convert to anything... I would remain agnostic/Deist.  
    What you have described is evolution. Basic genetic mutations over thousands or millions of generations result in the changing of one species into another. +2
    I'm scared of assassination attempts.  
    Perhaps one day, if it should ever happen that CPS gains the power to enforce protective laws in every household, I would change my mind on this part of the argument.  
    Hitler was also against smoking... does that make it a good argument for smokers to use against non-smoking laws?  
    Paul is old as hell... I'm surprised people don't make heart attack jokes, etc. about him like they did about McCain... but I still like him more than Romney just based on a few specific policies +2
    "had it your way" implies I'm the man in the relationship :P  
    Borel's "law" isn't a law at all. It's a complete and utter joke in the scientific world. It should more clearly be labeled as "Borel's hypothesis" because in no way was this tested to be right, ever. Frankly, I can come up with a test right now that disproves it. According to him, if the odds of something happening are 1*10^50 to 1, it will never happen. Wrong. With a random number generater on a computer with 1*10^50 1 numbers, the probability of any single number coming out is lower than that ratio. Yet, a number will still appear with the random number generator, and that number disproves the so-called "law."  
    Borel's "law" isn't a law at all. It's a complete and utter joke in the scientific world. It should more clearly be labeled as "Borel's hypothesis" because in no way was this tested to be right, ever. Frankly, I can come up with a test right now that disproves it. According to him, if the odds of something happening are 1*10^50 to 1, it will never happen. Wrong. With a random number generater on a computer with 1*10^50 1 numbers, the probability of any single number coming out is higher than that ratio. Yet, a number will still appear with the random number generator, and that number disproves the so-called "law."  
    Evolution did happen lol... we see it in everyday life.  
    There are no "odds" for evolution. It happened, and it's happening right now. Your argument is like trying to tell someone who won the same lottery 10x in a row that the person's winnings are a fairy tail because the odds are next to zero of that happening.  
    I agree with this message.  
    I just have to say this: No such thing as proof. +2
    Thanks :) I'd love to rest in peace +2
    Dear ignorant, religiously conceited, religiously intolerant bigot: We are tired of your overgeneralized, small-minded view of those who don't practice your religion. Please, keep acting the way you do, because compared to your vulgarity, nearly all atheists are better people than you. So, in your own words, "shut your face." - sincerely, the Atheists. +1
    Winning multiple lotteries has greater odds than god existing  
    You sir, have a colorful vocabulary.  
    Actually, your parents created you. +1
    Believing in something doesn't make it fact. Even if a lot of people believe in it. +2
    He doesn't believe in hell, hence he won't go to hell. +1
    The idea of going to hell for not believing in God is preposterous. What about all the people who lived before religion was created? What about those isolated African bush-men who don't have any contact with society and don't have gods? Preposterous. +1
    Anyone who thinks that other's beliefs are retarded is retarded to say the least.  
    Anyone who thinks that other's beliefs are retarded is retarded to say the least.  
    Wrong. There is a direct relationship between solid matter and energy. Energy can be converted into solid matter, and solid matter can be converted into energy. +1
    It's better to say "Without religion we would be twice as technologically advanced." +1
    No, what he's talking about is the dark ages, where religious crazies condemned science and burned books/destroyed information, etc. +1
    No, they're not free. However, they're not nearly as expencive as a C-section, especially if the insurance of the individual doesn't cover C-sections.  
    The difference is that starving people in the ghetto have already experienced life. +1
    During development, a human embryo looks more like a fish or lizzard than it does a human being. When it's considered to become "a human being" is subject to opinion and interpretation. Some believe it's only when the baby is born. Others, when it loses its tail and starts looking human. Some think it's when the zygote forms. I believe in the middle.  
    I don't think hitler has any part in this subject. +1
    Depending on the situation, yes you do. It's all about circumstances. +1
    But think of how many cases there are, where CPS fails to find such a case. They're definately not perfect.  
    Fixed. You can be pro choice and be against the excessive use of abortion as an alternative to birth control.  
    Pro Choice means you're in favor of giving women a choice on the matter. Pro life means you take that choice away regardless of circumstance.  
    Actually, it would only begin developing human features at the 7-8th week.  
    1% is enough to justify abortions. I'm saying that abortion should not be made illegal 100%. I'm saying it should be limited and regulated, but still available for certain situations that would directly harm the mother or force the pregnancy on her.  
    You're not considering all of the possibilities (though I might not be either) - First off, I'm not saying that giving birth will kill you. If you scroll thorough my comments, not once did I say "Will kill." l2fedFire said "could" die. Your first reponse to this was "well they should have thought about that before sex." To which I replied that you're forcing the person to die. Death is extremely rare, yes, but it is not completely nonexistent. Some people can't afford a safe c-section procedure even if they have insurance. You also overestimate the intelligence of many individuals on birth control. Some don't even know what a condom does, or how to use it.  
    normally, it doesn't. However, there are rare situations, and currently, C-sections aren't free. If they were, my opinion would be quite different on this matter.  
    The morning after pill preventing the birth of the baby by never allowing the sperm and egg to meet, that is.  
    Sorry for not making it entirely clear what I ment, but I didn't confuse the morning after pill with the Abortion Pill RU486. The Aspiration Procedure and the Abortion Pill were both things I neglected to add into that post. My vague comparison was in that both methods prevent the birth of a baby.  
    A woman who becomes pregnant due to an act of either rape or incest is the victim of a horribly violent and morally reprehensible crime. Although pregnancy as a result of either rape or incest is extremely rare, there is no getting around the fact that pregnancy does occur in some instances.  
    @Random12345 - However, you can get a surgical abortion as early as the 5th week. However, you don't have to have any kinds of surgery to have an abortion. A "morning after pill" is pretty much the same as an abortion, but without the surgery. Also, Early Abortion is abortion performed during the earliest stages of pregnancy, between 5 and 10 weeks from the first day of a woman’s last period. This is the ideal time to seek an abortion because of the extremely small quantity of pregnancy tissue that exists. Most women do not realize that if they are this early in their pregnancy, they do not need a surgical abortion (the method most often offered at traditional abortion clinics). So, to prevent the 'kicking and hearing,' you could limit abortion to the first 5-8 weeks instead of making it entirely illegal.  
    Please... that's like watching a PETA ad on vegetarianism/veganism. People can easily make equally convincing propaganda the other way too.  
    @random12345 As I mentioned in my first reply, you can have an abortion when the zygote doesn't even have a single heart cell. When it doesn't have arms or legs to kick or ears to listen. A zygote is officially considered a fetus at the 8th month of development, when it begins to develop body parts, but you can have an abortion even before that.  
    The comments are getting too condensed so the below is my reply.  
    Then I assume you would be in favor of getting rid of the religion of "Christain Scientists" who don't believe in using modern medicine, to the extent where they would rather have their children die than to give them medicine. Am I right in assuming this? If so, [though in my honest opinion I believe this religion should not exist just like Westboro] then the U.S. wouldn't truly have freedom of religion, now would it? So if we're willing to accept such religions that effectively kill their post-birth children, why can't we be willing to let people have abortions?  
    She/He's not saying that his or her belief does matter, he/she's saying that only the woman in question (who is considering an abortion) has the belief that matters. To a certain extent, I agree. The point being, you shouldn't impose your beliefs on others. For example, if you believe gay marriage is a sin, don't get married to a homosexual. You don't have to go yelling at gays that they are a crime against God. If you believe abortion is murder, don't have one. But if someone is going to have one for whatever reason, don't go yelling at them that it's a crime against life. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to talk them out of it, I'm saying you should not force them to have no choices.  
    He wouldn't be consciously alive.  
    Not necessarily. You can have an abortion when the zygote doesn't even have a single heart cell, let alone a beating heart. +1
    At the cost of destroying her own body? +1
    2 things. 1) It is not a baby. It is a zygote. Killing a zygote is the same as killing an egg cell or a sperm cell, since it has no nerve cells to feel pain and no brain cells to understand that it is alive. Hence, it is not yet sentient, making it no different than a skin cell. This is my opinion though, so I'm not saying yours is wrong. However, 2) You're wrong. "They should have thought... before sex." The first thing you're saying with this is that those who didn't think, now have to die. So it's better to let someone who is well aware of life die because of a mistake in life? No. Also, what about those who DID think about it? Condoms are only about 75-80% effective. You can still get pregnant even if you use birth control. What about religion? A catholic man could lie to his girlfriend or wife about using a condom. Rare, but much more common than rape. +1
    No it doesn't.  
    You don't always have the choice of having sex or not. Rape is one example, but it is not the only one. You could be mentally impaired and not understand what you are doing, etc.  
    Not necessarily. You could believe that God created the Big Bang. Then, you could vote for the Big Bang, since it would have been what created the world in your opinion.  
    Cmon man... you're making people who voted for the B.Bang look bad....  
    Though I guess that can't be said for insects, but then again, those aren't dogs.  
    Sure they are. You're taking an innocent life regardless of what kind it is. +2
    Humans are also just animals. Therefore, we either do not have souls or dogs also have souls. Retard. +2
    Yes, a human is better than a puppy. However, who are you to say dogs do not have souls? Who are you to decide what others believe? Humans don't have souls either, is what I believe. So there. +1
    Well... seeing as how I wouldn't be alive to know what happened, I wouldn't be able to like or not like it. +3
    Random chance is very well a possibility. +5
    Japanese Bigot! +3
    I'd have to agree. From what I know of it, the B.B. is not by any means a fact. We have much to learn before we can make such a claim. +1
    The Bible was written by man, not God. Man tells us that God created the earth. On a side note, I've considered my beliefs and I've reconsidered them many a times. I have no doubt in my mind that I will reconsider them again some time in the future. However, I remain adamant in my belief that the Bible is nothing more than a tool of propaganda invented by humans in order to control and appease the masses. +1
    Reading the Bible would be the same as reading about the Big Bang in a science book. +2
    How can you see it after drinking? +2
    Well... if you believe in God creating the Big Bang, you could still vote for the Big Bang and believe in God at the same time.  
    I somewhat agree with this.  
    I have a controvercial view on this. Both war and world hunger are necessary for population control. However, I voted World Hunger because people who go to war often choose to go (unless they are drafted.forced). If you're willing to die for your country, I think thats way better than dying of hunger unwillingly.  
    But we can't stop war if we have world hunger either :(  
    yay 3000th vote!  
    Gravity is a theory. +1
    You have no source for a counterclaim... hence you are equally invalidated. +3
    The multiverse. +2
    There's also more evidence of unicorns existing than God existing. +2
    His comment applies to the "you better vote for god you people" implying that god will punish you if you don't vote for him. Nope, no reason to vote for him out of fear. +2
    I like you. You're one of the few intelligent people on this website. +1
    I want to add one final thing: I don't support "abortions." I support the right to make the decition whether or not to abort. +7
    If you consider the sperm and the egg cell meeting, a potential "baby," then you may as well consider every sperm and egg cell a baby too. Each and every egg cell (and most non-deformed sperm cells) can become a potential baby. So, every month a woman isn't pregnant, she is killing 1 or more potential babies. Is that murder? No, it's not. Just because the egg cell has a potential to become a baby doesn't make it one. Same with a zygote/fetus. It's only potentially a baby. It can die from natural causes in the womb, just like an egg cell. +2
    No. It's not a stupid thing to say. It means that men should have no voice in the matter since they can't get pregnant.  
    Until it is born, it has no rights. "Birth-given rights"  
    A clump of cells meaning it cannot think, cannot interact with its invironment actively, has no brain activity, cannot feel pain, and has no distinct human features yet.  
    Smart mothers don't have abortions unless they're completely sure that it's what they need. +1
    It's not a baby. +1
    not at all murder... +1
    What trents was saying, or at least the way I interpreted it, was that "There are already plenty of children available for adoption. By giving this child up for adoption, if a family adopts this child, this child took the place of another potential child that could have been adopted."  
    murder - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. How is the death penalty, a lawful act that is only implemented in extreme cases and needs a lot of conditions to be met before it can be carried out, murder?  
    No, they kill fetuses. A fetus is not a baby. +1
    Ahh... having to know that your child is being raised somewhere else, knowing that they probably know little to nothing about you and probably don't like you for giving them away...  
    Then why do you? +1
    here was mine - //www.rrrather.com/view/4770  
    How long ago did you submit yours? I also submitted quite a few on this topic  
    Adoption does not solve rape pregnancies. +1
    lol..... you can't just say adoption and think you've solved rape. Have you considered financial aspects? What if it's a little 13 year old girl that got raped and became pregnant? You want her to die giving birth? +1
    It's not a baby. +1
    Agreed. +2
    Abortions happen naturally all the time, whenever a sperm and egg cell meet but are not compatible to the extent that the baby will be deformed mentally or physically. When this happens, the cygote sometimes undergoes a natural abortion... Apoptosis I believe its called. I'll look it up later. Anyway, how is this any different from aborting the baby through a surgical procedure because you already know from tests that it will be born very heavily disabled? +2
    Here's my input on the matter: Abortion should be legal. However, it should not be used as a form of birth control to replace condoms or pills. I believe a woman should be allowed 1 abortion per lifetime, not counting abortions of rape-induced pregnancies.  
    So you're saying "ignorance is bliss"  
    What's the difference between biologically natural abortions and artificial abortions? +1
    Abortion is not murder. If it is, then nearly all women who will have sex during their lifetime will have a natural abortion. +2
    It's not a "human being." It's a clump of cells. There is no brain activity. Also, if you abort the zygote when it has started to grow arms/lets, it has a tail and more closely resembles an amphibian than a human.  
    So... you want the woman to go through the pain of birth, after having to go through the pain of rape.... gj...  
    Frankly, the "human being" is just a clump of cells. Abortions happen naturally, too. So, if abortions are murder, then a large part of the female population are murderers. Do those cells count as a living being? They're alive, but they aren't concious, or self-aware, so they are not a being.  
    Walruses have one of the largest penis sizes in the world. your holes would get permanently destroyed. +3
    Also, because just as there is no proof of B.B. and evolution, there is no proof of God either.  
    Scientific definition of Theory is almost identical to fact.  
    Evolution is the result of a prolonged chain of mutations. An organism gets a mutation. If that mutation improves it's ability to survive, the offspring with the mutation will eventually outnumber or even overwhelm those without it. Evolution has occurred.  
    I believe it because I am a Deist.  
    Umm... Budhists don't believe in a God, but they're generally not considered atheists.  
    Rude. +2
    You're dumb... look up what pastafarianism is. +3
    Btw, for those who don't know, pastafarianism is a legitimate parrody religion. It's not just some random thing that people make up every now and then. Both the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn are key parts of it.  
    Planets that can support life have already been discovered. It is almost gauronteed that life has formed on them. The question is, to what extent has life evolved and whether or not it will ever be sentient.  
    Actually, microbe life has already been found in fossils on Mars via the Rover vehicle. Sure, they're not alive, but it confirms that life was once present on at least one other planet. There can be no doubt that this is true for other galaxies/solar systems. +1
    If you get your head out of your ass, it says that the Bible isn't the only religious text in the world. Also, not everyone believes in God. Dumbasss. +3
    Racism is an invalid argument because all humans are racist.  
    Well, the last time I checked, there are 3 branches of government, not just one.  
    Honestly I doubt you know half of what Obama knows about running a country properly.  
    I don't believe the President has the power to make that decision alone.  
    No, he can get away with anything because he's a good politician and a good talker. One of the most important aspects of a politician as far as getting a position of power is to be able to convice others that certain actions will be taken. Such "campaign promises" that end up being lies can be seen in every presidency since campaigning began. Obama's not the only liar. All of them lied about one thing or another. I prefer Ron Paul over Obama for a number of reasons, but I highly doubt that Ron Paul has not lied a single time in his campaign.  
    I think the point New Hampshire guest was trying to make was that Obama is not THE WORST president in this country. Others in the past have been far worse. Lyndon B Johnson in my opinion was worse.  
    To be fair, a lot of people do the exact same for Ron Paul. +2
    Who is to say that 1. is symbolic and 2. isn't? The Bible was written back when the concept of millions of years probably didn't exist, let alone billions. I could very easily say that this part of the Bible is symbolic of the mentioned "God days." As for reviewing the definition of "day," I did. According to Free Online Dictionary, the word day has 8 definitions. 2 of which apply to what I wrote - "A period of time in history." and days being "Period of life or activity." Hence, my use of "God Days" is correct. Investigate all of the variations yourself before you tell people to review it. For the sake of being a hypocrit, I suggest you review the definition of relativity. I suggest the 2 (Philosophy) from the source I mentioned earlier.  
    I've got passion in my pants and I'm not afraid to show it... show it... I'm sexy and I know it. +4
    ask her if you can watch LOL... I have no problem having a gay son though.. +2
    lol if thats what you think then why are you here? +1
    This all came to me as soon as read @Guest from North Carolina's post. Just popped int my mind and I felt like writing it.  
    WHAT IF! @in response to Guest fom North Carolina (3 posts below me) - What if the supercondenced matter that exploded and came to be known as the Big Bang... WAS GOD! Da da daaaaa.... No seriously though, this should be considered. Why should God be a person? The idea that we are modeled after his image is repulsive and if someone wants to challenge me on this, i'll reply to their comment. Anyway, lets say that the supercondenced mass itself was God. Now, it can be said that the supercondenced mass always existed. It exists currenly too and always will exist (because it's just spread out now. If you condense all the matter in the universe, you would get that "god" mass again. Stay with me now, it says in various religious texts that God created the universe and humans, etc. Well... if the Big Bang mass of matter was God, then this is true. "God" aka the Big Bang, would have created everything in existence and eventually through evolution and natural selection and whatnot, humans would have entered the picture. So through an indirect means, God created humans. What about the whole "6 days and rested on the 7th" thing? Well... who says these are human days? "day" is relative. A day on earth is not the same length as a day on Neptune or Mars. For all we know, a "God" day could be billions of years in our prespective. In my opinion, we have to distinguish between the religious text that alludes to possible realities and the religious text that is complete mumbo jumbo created to control the masses or simply through the inclusion of biased humans in the picture. This is why I don't believe in Adam and Eve. I believe its mumbo jumbo created by primitive humans in an effort to appease the masses as well as control them (because, if God created humans, he must be strong, can punish me, and I better pay the religious leaders my time and money to avoid eternal suffering!). If you are still reading this, I hope my little rant entertained you.  
    You can believe in life after death and not believe in God. See reincarnation.  
    Well... actually I've had times where I wished I had been an abortion. +1
    For better or for worse. +6
    lol read up on my posts from about a week ago.  
    Show a little tolerance, people. +1
    How is this website false and "sladerous?" I think you're overreacting or perhaps are butthurt that your side isn't winning. Umad? +1
    No. Nobody here is wrong, except for those who blindly deny the possibility of the other viewpoint. This goes for both God believers, Big Bang believers, and those who believe in both alike. +1
    Hmm... no. You are an absolute retard for being so rude. Hence, your argument (which makes me sad because I believe in the Big Bang) is made invalid.  
    I'm glad at least some people are showing a decent amount of tolerance for the other viewpoint.  
    Going to church has nothing to do with believing in the big bang.  
    God, you intolerant people! Accept other peoples' right to believe what they want! +1
    lol you sound like me... +1
    As random1234 has pointed out, a simple statement such as Portugal Guest's can easily be restated on the other end. Please elaborate :D +2
    Sorry, but it's not yet a fact. Humans are far too young and primitive to understand such sophisticated concepts.  
    Since when is Jew an insult? I hope you're not a Neo Nazi... also, (you're*) if you're going to insult someone, do it properly. +2
    @guest from newcastle - Science is not 100% provable. If you knew anything about the scientific definition of proof, you would know that it is unattainable. That is the beauty of theories - they can never be proven and thus are maleable and changable over time.  
    Neither is provable, only supported. The very definition of proof is a paradox.  
    On a side note, I must point out that there is no such thing as proof. You cannot ask for it, and you cannot say you have it. I really enjoy stressing this point. This also goes to those who say there is "proof" of the Big Bang and evolution. There isn't.  
    My example is that we see evolution in bacteria on a daily basis. For example, advancements in TB's resistance to drugs. You might say: "That's just bacteria. You don't see evolution in humans, animals, or any multicellular organism for that matter." False. Evolution may be seen in humans. Remember the Bubonic Plague? Classic case of rapid evolution. Those who were resistent to the disease were less likely to get infected by the disease-carrying flea and thus survived to reproduce. Now, may European and Asian populations are naturally resistant to the disease.  
    I currently possess a networth of less than $50,000. $25,000 is not going to enable people in desperate need to live a better life. Now, if somehow it would enable every person on the planet to live a life at or above the poverty line, sure. But in this case, no. Life's a game of luck. You either get the opportunities to enrich it or you don't.  
    Indeed this is true.  
    It can be good gosip too :)  
    You can believe in god and the big bang at the same time :P  
    I believe that the dependence on a God for an afterlife is form of coping with the fear of the unknown state of existence, or rather nonexistence, that is death. What happens when I die? Do I just cease to exist? Does that mean "bad" people cease to exist in the same way as "good" people? Does it not matter if you were rich or poor? If you struggled or had everything handed to you? Hmm.... this scares me deeply so I think I'll believe in something that would have infinite wisdom, knowledge, and fairness. God. This way, those who get away on crimes on Earth and aren't properly punished, get punished after death. It's infalliable! Oh, but God might punish me too, so I should worship him and follow his laws to ensure my place in the afterlife as one of the "good" people. - All from fear. That's my opinion at the very least.  
    The baby wouldn't go to hell (assuming it exists) because the Bible provides insight on this, that God spares those who are incapable of telling the difference between good and evil, along with those who are mentally not developed enough to accept God. What about all of the abortions, miscarriages, etc... why would God send those innocent lives who have not even transgressed against him yet... to hell? It would make no sense.  
    Well... we also don't know that souls exist. We only make the assersion that they do. So too does the Bible make the assersion that children are innocent and "incapable of discerning good from evil." Thus, they would not be able to reject Jesus Christ (for Christianity) or any other religious figure of any other religion. If you're saying that God would have judged the baby based on how it "would have lived," then you're getting into the philosophical ideas of predestination and fatalism (We are destined to perform every action we take, because God has predetermined it and already knows we will make these actions). This takes away Free Will, hence making it impossible for people to make the decision to be "good or evil." Such an issue is very complicated and deserves it's own question on Rrrather.  
    hah I answered them from top up, so this was actually only the 2nd time I asked.  
    I disagree.  
    I don't hold a specific affiliation with the democrats or the republicans. For example, I believe in the right to Abortions, unlike the Republican Party. However, I also support the death penalty, which roughly 80% of Republicans also support. My views are mixed. But this is getting off topic. +1
    But humans have the capacity to kill animals painlessly.  
    I must say....... if you have a perfect face and not a perfect body........... or a perfect body and not a perfect face, it will not look good. It is all about proportions. However, this only applies to when people would actually see your body. Hence, I chose the face.  
    Someone's conceited. +3
    Hello admin. You bring about an interesting point which has seen much debating. I'll give my input on this matter: What is a year in the bible? It doesn't explicitly state that a year is 365 days and that a day is 24 hours. It could very well be that instead of being "human years," the 6000 years mentioned in the Bible are "God years" which may be much longer than a human-made year according to a calendar.  
    Who said anything about listening?  
    Oh, you were referring to "in one ear, out the other?" That has a double meaning - the 'hearing and forgetting' meaning and the 'attaining information and discarding it' definition. :P  
    But you can still be religious and believe in the big bang... You can be a Buddhist or another religion that doesn't believe in the existence of God. This way you would be both religious and a believer of the Big Bang.  
    That's doesn't prove anything. These are just assersions. +1
    It cannot be proven one way or the other.  
    It cannot be proven one way or the other. +1
    Actually, you made a good point. The only thing I could respond to this with is "you're just making yourself look as bad as she did." But that's not necessarily true because you intentionally did it to show how flawed her comment is. So I'll give you that - I didn't take her comment into account as much as I should have. However, I must on a side-note point out that perhaps she is talking about some of those who commented about their religious beliefs. Though that doesn't take any of the rudeness away from her comment... +1
    Actually, you made a good point. The only thing I could respond to this with is "you're just making yourself look as bad ash she did." But that's not necessarily true because you intentionally did it to show how flawed her comment is. So I'll give you that - I didn't take her comment into account as much as I should have. However, I must on a side-note point out that perhaps she is talking about some of those who commented about their religious beliefs. Though that doesn't take any of the rudeness away from her comment...  
    As I pointed out in my comment, yes I am racist. And so are you, and every other human being on this planet. Scientific research has provided emperical evidence that the human brain is wired to be racist to varying degrees. See my post on the question "woudl you rather end sexism or racism" +1
    And so are you. +1
    Now it shows you voted for puppies xD looks like you're getting shot twice! +4
    Actually you can press "skip." +1
    Once again, I'll repeat myself. Evolutionists, atheists, and those who believe in the Big Bang are NOT THE SAME THING! Not all evolutionists believe in the Big Bang and not all Big Bang believers accept evolution. If you're going to respond to an insulting comment with an equally insulting comment, at least do it properly.  
    who said anything about listening?  
    Another tidbit: What if the baby isn't white? Yes, this is a racist remark, but some people would be more okay with killing a baby that isn't of a certain race. You can call this comment racist if you want, but every human being is to a certain extent racist. When it comes to racism, there is no such thing as innocence - only degrees of guilt.  
    If I'm with a girl that I love, ski lift. Cuddle for warmth ftw. If alone, elevator. Screw the cold. +1
    If you're poor, and your "true love" is poor, it would have been better to get the $10,000,000. If you're already loaded with money, you don't need more so obviously true love would be the better choice. +2
    You took the words right out of my mouth :P  
    People who hardcore hate on Justin Beiber are just jealous of his talent because they didn't get to be millionaires before the age of 21. Frankly, if you don't like him, don't listen to him. You don't have to be douchebags. I chose jackson because I actually like some of his songs. Not because I'm a sheep that will be more than happy to jump onto the we-hate-Justin-Beiber bandwagon. +2
    he kills people because of his awful voice? Someone's jealous... if he has such an awful voice, why is he world-famous for his music while you're a nobody? Is it because your voice is worse than his? By your logic, yes. In other words, your voice kills people.  
    Let me put this little tidbit of information in: What will the baby grow up to be? "A baby has more potential than a dog." This does not necessarily mean good potential. Sure, the baby could grow up to be an Albert Einstein or a Michael Anjelo, or a George Washington. However, that baby has an equal chance of growing up to be an Adolf Hitler, a Joseph Stalin, or a member of Al Quaeda. +1
    Random1234, I don't even understand what you're trying to argue with this. The question has nothing to do with eating of animals. You don't kill cows, chickens, and turkeys with your bare hands. Hence you are not the result of their death. So no, you don't kill someone because he ate meat. But what does this answer to your question accomplish in regard to the the baby-or-dogs matter? Nothing.  
    So by killing the baby, not only do you save the 100 puppies, you would also save the many animals that the baby would have eaten. +1
    Pet dogs account for 31 deaths per year in the U.S. Do you know how many pet dogs die from abusive owners per year? Well into the thousands.  
    have you ever seen how many living organisms die per year because of human attacks?  
    Which is exactly why I'd rather kill a baby. Even though I don't believe that souls exist, even if they did, the baby would be the obvious choice.  
    Neither do humans.  
    My sick what?  
    Also, if you believe in Heaven and Souls, then it's better to kill someone with a soul than someone without a soul. The reason? I'm not sure exactly how it was worded, but something in Christianity believes that children of a very young age who are killed, go to heaven. If dogs don't have a soul, they only have their life on Earth. By killing the child, you gaurontee it eternal happiness in heaven. By killing the dogs, you deprive them of the one chance to live, since they wouldn't have an afterlife.  
    Why do you believe humans have a soul while animals don't?  
    Are you Random1234?  
    Wait a second.... are you Random1234?  
    Also, the human population is well over 6 billion. I'd estimate it at 7 Billion actually. The dog population is far less than this. So compare the two. You're killing the larger choice within a smaller population than a smaller choice within a larger population.  
    The difference is that instead of killing one life, you kill 100.  
    If you want an overpriced computer with a bunch of apps, Mac. If you want a computer for gaming, good economic value, and access to Flash, PC. +7
    Notice by the way, how not a single country with more than 1 vote has a majority for Bush. Says a lot about the world of rrrather users.  
    I noticed that a lot of you have said that "both are horrible." Well you know what? If you were put into the position of the President, chances are, everyone would hate you because you would be 10x worse.  
    Nope, bush doesn't rule. He already served his 2 terms :P  
    Fox is completely biased.  
    This is clearly wrong. Your last sentence proved to me the degree of your lack of political and governmental intelligence. And let me tell you sir, that degree is over nine thousand.  
    Bush had 8 years to get sh*t done. You're not even giving Obama 4.  
    4 trillion dollars over 8 years? lol...  
    Actually, every politician since political campaigns began, has lied. Some more than others, but Bush does not have a clear sleight.  
    My father makes around $120,000 a year and he pays roughly $25,000 in income tax. +1
    Actually, if he was making 150,000k salary, he would likely have paid 30,000,000 in taxes. +1
    You must understand that the age level of this website varies from adults to as low as 6 year olds. *I know, because my little brother-in-law often visits Rrrather.*  
    Bush didn't? Sure he did. Yet, the recession didn't disappear.  
    And... bush didn  
    Nope. He hasn't actually created a measureable factor of improvement or destruction. We will find out after his presidency is over.  
    Old as hell. Very likely to die during his term.  
    Ron Paul reminds me of McCain.  
    1. all you conservatives do is blame obama, someone who has not even had 4 years to accomplish his goals, for Bush's terrible record, which was made over a course of 8 years and thus is still affecting society today. Unfortunately, instead of understanding how the flow of presidency works, and that the previous president directly affects the first few years of the next president, you simply choose to blame Obama. 2. He didn't kill OBL, the troops did. I dont see how anyone could argue this, seeing as how no matter which president it was, OBL would have been killed eventually. 3. Just shut up, you're giving intelligent conservatives a bad name.  
    That's because Bush's foreign policy is looked down upon by most other countires. +1
    Obama has not been the president for 8 years. Name a few good things Bush did. Then tell me what year of his service he did those good things.  
    However, even though I said neither, I voted for R.B. instead of J.B. because R.B. as stated in the below comment, does not have nearly as much musical talent.  
    Neither. I don't like country music, but I don't go attacking people who made it with hate and statements like "I want to get rid of them." I don't like Beiber's music, I don't like how Rebecca Black uses an autotune, thus no musical talent. They still deserve to exist though... basic human right.  
    I'm upset that you can even compare these two. Harry Potter is a legend which will remain a strong presence for decades to come. Like Star Wars. Twilight on the other hand, will fade away. +3
    I love nightmares.  
    I'm surprised that so many voted for option A. In Russia, there is a common belief that you do not truly enter the world until you have opened your eyes, not left the womb. It's considered acceptable, for example, to drown kittens if their eyes have not yet opened. This type of post-birth abortion is considered morally acceptable because the kittens have never experienced the world, so they wouldn't be deprived of something they didn't yet have.  
    In other words, you would never have truly lived. +1
    You can believe in God and not believe that God created the world.  
    If you are going to argue this, at least properly describe the people who lived 2000 years ago which you mentioned. If this were to be true, the people who "tricked" others with religion would have been rich, powerful, and few in number. Your statement suggests that religion was used to control the masses.  
    I for one, am rather surprised that someone from Texas chose the Big Bang. +5
    Why thank you :) +1
    Exactly...? Re-read what I wrote. +1
    I just want to say - PETA is full of hypocritical, radical idiots. +6
    faaa +5
    694 more comments hidden.

    Yvpil057 has created the following lists:

  • This user doesn't have any lists.