[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by Three Gun Fish

When a Mommy and a Daddy love each other very much . . . .

Haha, sure ...

The question is, if the chicken from this egg managed to procreate then it was not the first chicken.

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Philosophighter

Good job, Jerome!! Evil is that which is contrary to "OUR" moral code...So we need people to have a moral code..No people = no moral code. So a moral code is not universal, its not even across similiar species, genus', etc. So no people = no moral code = no good/evil. Yay!!!!

If there was one person on the planet, would he have a morality? Would he have a set of rules to live by, and could we call them morals? Or do we need two people in a context to share rules and agreements (dont steal from me, dont rape my daughter, etc.) to have morality?

Morals don't only apply to how we treat others. We can feel our conscience when we are alone, for instance if you know you're eating too much but continue to do it. Or if you put something important off through laziness we feel guilty.

[Philosophighter]

Also, it is kind of humerous how theists use the term atheist.

You, the theist, have a belief. I dont. You create a term that designates my position that I do not believe what you believe. But still, i possess no character, trait, or quality, that would make me anything in this context. YOU have a belief which sets you apart from the status quo of non belief or just not knowing your idea. Just because you are, does not mean I am not. If you set up your own principle of P, Not P, than that is you doing some labeling.

Atheist is just a term used mainly by christians and people wanting to establish themselves oppositionally to theism. But the point is...Even if Webster ans Oxford sat down and defined what Atheist means, it still doesnt apply universally to people who dont believe in your god. Once you believed in a theology, you termed yourself a theist. After that term was invented, an antagonistic or negating term was created to imply an opposite or lacking belief. Theist and Atheist are just converses of each other and linguistically inseperable.

But I am no atheist. You are the theist. The dichotomy of terms comes from the theological assertion of something. Not anyones negation.

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Toda Hiro-matsu

Atheist is such a harsh word. I prefer the term, "people who use their brains". It's so condescending for you idiot theists to say things like this. Especially considering something like less than 1% of all prison inmates are atheists. Suck on that, you mental infant.

Atheists deny their moral code or conscience, that is why they are atheists and cannot recognize their creator. That is why their views of reality are skewed.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Oh, and variation is not necessarily indicative of mutation.

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Atheists deny their moral code or conscience, that is why they are atheists and cannot recognize their creator.

Who told you to say that?

The People demand to know.

[Philosophighter]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Morals don't only apply to how we treat others. We can feel our conscience when we are alone, for instance if you know you're eating too much but continue to do it. Or if you put something important off through laziness we feel guilty.

Conscience and morals are not the same thing. Plus, the "will" to stop eating or being lazy does not imply morals either.

[Philosophighter]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Atheists deny their moral code or conscience, that is why they are atheists and cannot recognize their creator. That is why their views of reality are skewed.

False. Like your cohort Ajax, you both presuppose points in your statements rather than start from a clean slate and a pursuit of truth.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Atheists deny their moral code or conscience, that is why they are atheists and cannot recognize their creator.

Sorry, that's not correct. Atheists deny a god. And magic. And an eternal party in the clouds after we "survive death". But that's cool if you believe that.






















douchebag

[hole in the sky]

Originally Posted by Toda Hiro-matsu

All wrong, I'm sorry. Detrimental mutations are the majority, not the other way around. And birth defects are hardly ever mutations. So far you're not living up to your claim to beating anyone here in a debate.

i never claimed detrimental mutations were the minority, i suggest you re-read my post. what i said was detrimental mutations so drastic as to affect breeding was rare.

also, mutation can simply mean a change in a species, not necessarily for better or worse. so yes, a birth defect can be considered a mutation.

next time use your brain to combat me instead of getting all worked up to try and 'get me' with little one liners. you'll make less mistakes that way.