I hate this device with every fiber of my being.

It's an ostentatious, gaudy and useless bauble built for privileged, elite parasites. It holds no value in any society. The unbelievable waste of technology and resources that has been diverted to the creation and acquisition of such an embarrassing canker brings shame on us all.

Anyone who purchases one of these monstrosities should have it strapped around their neck as they're paraded in front of the community that they embezzled their wealth from.

In a just society, these would be worn on the wrists of the underserved homeless people who dragged these oligarchs off the top of their pyramids and bludgeoned them in the gutter.

Getting back to the subject at hand, the evidence appears to show that the police officer was in the right, while the decedent prompted his own demise.

meanwhile, the anarchists and other malcontents will continue to extoll the virtues of thugs like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and kiss the asses of parasites like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

It's rare, but should be noted there is a brain parasite that affects spatial reasoning and can cause dreams with impaired sense of space, like driving from the backseat or swerving all over the road. In later stages dreams about body parts coming off, teeth in particular has been documented: more can be found here

It's a mashup of Parasite Dolls and other stuff...
Fair game if you ask me...
Jeezus, Ridley Scott is going to make a sequel and FUCKING KILL THIS SHIT DEAD (Like he did wth Prometheus). He'll probably add some bible shit in there since he seems to be a religious nut now.

So these ants are being taken over and controlled by parasites. The same thing is being done to this country by illegal immigrants (parasites) and our immigration system.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

@VoodooV
i dont understand you sometimes man.

how has ching hi-jacked this thread..in particular?
i will concede that he has in the past but how does that translate to this thread?
because it appears to me ching just poked his nose into you berating @bobknight33 as a bigot and a racist.

is bob a racist?
i dont know if i would call his comments here racist.maybe insensitive,even callous in regards to americas past history of slavery.

now i would see this as an opportunity to converse and communicate.
maybe learn from each other.
or at the very least UNDERSTAND why bob feels/thinks the way he does.

but you dont do that.
you ridicule and belittle him.

and then when ching chimes in pointing out that we are ALL slaves.
you cry foul and that bob is just a racist and ching is a troll.
musing dreamily of an internet community that could be rid of such parasites.
basically your own little fiefdom where everybody thinks like you.you know,the RIGHT way of thinking.

or are you not aware of the hypocrisy at work here?

i could go on but i fear you will inject intention into my commentary and perceive me as some sort of enemy.
which i am not.

i am not attacking you brother.
i am just trying to point out that our community is diverse,and bob has just as much a right to speak as you do.
as does ching.
but to cry foul after consecutively bashing bob and bemoan your suffering for having to endure those you disagree and how they besmirch your community...is..well...weak.

i disagree with bob often.
ok,almost always.
but i have to give that boy props for engaging on a secular left site when he is obviously a christian rightwinger.

that takes balls.
so kudos to you @bobknight33

love your commentary voodoo
hate your high horse.

The 1% are the real parasites.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… These are people who pay no income tax...My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

47% of the population are parasites not worth 'worrying about.'

Yeah, heart of gold there.

I heard about someone who actually got a parasitic worm in there. Kept seeing it squirm around...

ok. grossed myself out again thinking about it.

Red queen effect: Parasitic humans feed off of the cow, steals the natural flowing water and installs human-centric water holes. In competition with the human parasite the cow is forced to learn to use the water pump. And thus the arms race between cow and human.

Who will win?

My money is that humans destroy themselves and cow survives, finally free of it's parasitic relationship with the upright mammals. They then go on to evolve into upright cow people. Only to encounter the humans again.

They then join with the radioactive green humans (nuclear fallout survivors) and zombie humans (the ones that didn't survive the fallout but were taken over by parasites of their own) to kill the humans, many of whom are dwarves and really small midgets.

Some hippies that bonded with trees are found to have survived, each with their own vision of what it is to be a tree hugger. Some of them join the humans (with their now dominant midget genes) and some of them join the green humans and cow people.

Along the way we discover that in China pandas have evolved into panda people and all along there were werewolves and shit. Including dimensions made entirely of fire with slimes that thrive off of radiation, only to become what is perceived as fire elementals and H.P. Lovecraft's things were real too. Oh and the entire pantheon of all people from all of time.

Society rebuilds itself but war never changes.

You may want to improve your wiping technique, pal. Less worry about parasites that way.

gay priest fag nigger bitch cunt cracker first world problem 99 percenter repoublican males that cry transgendered piss slave Muslim pagent winner alien parasite in your stomach to consume humanity for the ultimate genocide

DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO LIVE

I blame Tarrantino. Bad tipper, asshole youth corrupter.

Sarah Silverman takes blame too. I blame her for being so hot and not my wife. I'll make a virtual reality model after her with a penis.

Both were heading straight at each other.
Both were coming from straight ahead of each other.
Skater could have looked forward.
Kid could have looked forward.
Either one could have avoided the other.
Neither one bothered to watch for obstacles ahead.
Everything the mom said about the skater, also applies to her son.
The skater ended up a bumbass.
You can excuse dumbass behavior on part of a kid, because he's a kid - but he's still a dumbass too.
Both ended up as equal dumbasses.
And that's fine. Life happens.

Here's a diagram of their paths :

(skater)---------> X <----------(kid)

In the future, the skater will be a little more mindful of his path.
In the future, the kid will be a little more mindful of his path.
Looks like everything worked out fine.

Parents can't be expected to be attached to a kid like a parasite. The mom doesn't have to be on the kid like stink on an a-hole.
That said, typical carnal reaction.

-scheherazade

Jimmims, there are generally four types of knowledge that exist in the world. Specialized, whereas only a few people highly interested in the subject would know. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove claims he/she makes. (E.g. What are each and every vitamin and mineral found in a GNC multivitamin?)

Then there is uncommon knowledge. Again the burden is with the claimant. (E.g. What are the names of twenty-five out of fifty-one Presidents, not including the last five Presidents. When did America go to the Gold standard—year and month.)

Then there is accessible knowledge. Not everyone knows, but many do and all can with a little research. The burden lies fifty-fifty, sometimes with the claimant, sometimes not, just depends on the situation. (E.g. Rain water is not pure water and contains parasites. Fermentation is a process that produces energy, not just alcohol.)

Then there is knowledge everyone should know—common knowledge. (E.g., Humans need calcium.)

Between the last two is where Stand Your Ground falls. The burden of this knowledge should fall on the reader to know. In no way should a claimant be responsible for providing it. Stand your ground is common knowledge or accessible at the least. It is in the newspapers, on the internet, court records, etc. When someone states, "He is going away for a long time," then it is on them to prove this claim, since SYG has commonly been known to acquit these types of cases. I find it strange, especially in light of this, that you do not ask other people to prove their claims.

I think the acquittal of Zimmerman proves that this was common knowledge in the first place. But wait, here is a link to the acquittal, in case you did not see the not guilty verdict, since I must prove even common knowledge. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/protests-george-zimmerman-verdict-gallery-1.1398497)

Second, and last, I was snarky with no one personally—I even stated that I was being broad with my comments and did not apply them to the poster. And yet you were snarky directly with me, personally. That is why I thought you were mad. In all reality you made it seem like I was ignorant. That is why I asked you to calm down.