Psalm 137:9

[Cyberman]

Did you atheists forget you support abortion?

A gob of goo is not a "child", dickhead.

It does tend to be a creationist, though.

[vorlon13]

[vorlon13]

[Amarok]

But But don't take it literally ......

[Whateverist]

I'm a Christian but I don't believe morality changes. Clearly, it is wrong and always will be to kill a child.

I'm sure you did not mean to commit heresy there.  It's ALWAYS right with the Lord God Almighty to slay an Amalekite child.


Always.

Did you atheists forget you support abortion?

But not when your 'God' does it for 'His" own reasons; I certainly don't support a god's right to choose.  Some of us support a woman's right to choose however.  Doesn't mean we're pro-abortion either.  It is a morally messy matter best left in the hands of the woman whose very body supports a potential new-born's developing life.  Anyone who smite's another for his own reasons is an abomination, so the character identified as God in the bible is an abomination. Sadly some women who decide they must terminate a pregnancy feel pretty abominable about it too. (Just because it is their choice doesn't mean it will be easy.)

[Huggy Bear]

Did you atheists forget you support abortion?

A gob of goo is not a "child", dickhead.

A fetus is not a "gob of goo" buddy, and is in every sense of the word, a child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

Definition of child
1 a :  an unborn or recently born person

---

I'm sure you did not mean to commit heresy there.  It's ALWAYS right with the Lord God Almighty to slay an Amalekite child.


Always.

Did you atheists forget you support abortion?

But not when your 'God' does it for 'His" own reasons; I certainly don't support a god's right to choose.  Some of us support a woman's right to choose however.  Doesn't mean we're pro-abortion either.  It is a morally messy matter best left in the hands of the woman whose very body supports a potential new-born's developing life.  Anyone who smite's another for his own reasons is an abomination, so the character identified as God in the bible is an abomination.  Sadly some women who decide they must terminate a pregnancy feel pretty abominable about it too.  (Just because it is their choice doesn't mean it will be easy.)

So you support women making godlike decisions over an actual god making those decisions?

Makes sense...

[Fake Messiah]

A gob of goo is not a "child", dickhead.

A fetus is not a "gob of goo" buddy, and is in every sense of the word, a child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

For Christians (like Catholics) contraception is also abortion.

[Astreja]

A fetus is not a "gob of goo" buddy, and is in every sense of the word, a child.

Then the alleged "child" can bloody well birth itself on demand at any point in the pregnancy and adopt itself out to someone who actually wants it.

Or you could fund the development of an artificial womb and incubate it yourself.

So you support women making godlike decisions over an actual god making those decisions?

Yes.  Even if the god described in the Bible actually did exist, it has a rather poor track record regarding decision-making.

[Harry Nevis]

There are planets that have a layer of liquid water in their atmosphere.

There's no credible evidence that suggests that this planet had such a layer.

Of course, there's no credible evidence for your god, but baby steps.

There is no credible evidence for abiogenesis either, but that doesn't stop you from believing it's plausible now does it?

There is more evidence of its plausibility than your god.

---

You're really good at false equivalencies and straw manning. And demonstrating your blind ignorance of science. BTW, those aren't compliments. Just in case you were confused.

There is no false equivalence you muppet, the point is nothing I've said is implausible, If you want to maintain that there isn't evidence of something because you haven't observed it, then that should apply across the board right?

That statement says all we need to know about your science education.

---

"Liquid water is just condensed gas."

Huggy, everything that can exist in a liquid state below its boiling point and above its melting point is just condensed gas.  It's technically correct, but like with all of your perceived gotchas, utterly meaningless.  For starters, please remember that you're talking about a layer of liquid water in the atmosphere, not water vapor.  Also remember that your example is so unlike earth as to be a meaningless comparison.  Think about why liquid water couldn't be an atmospheric layer here (because I'm sure you're going to miss the mark, here's a couple of hints: rain, and the melting points of nitrogen and oxygen).

Regarding water on earth, scientists believe it was deposited via comets, asteroids, and meteors, however there are some studies now suggesting that at least some of it formed inside the mantle due to the proper chemicals being under intense heat and pressure (https://www.newscientist.com/article/211...he-mantle/).  Once again, science is a process, not a religion, so sometimes answers change.

Regarding abiogenesis, you're right, there's no example of it happening.  However, there's no example of your god actually creating life either, and it's far more rational to believe that the origin of life is some as-yet undiscovered natural process than the deliberate workings of a needy god.

So, to conclude, no, it's not plausible that earth had an atmospheric layer of liquid water.

*emphasis mine*
Show me where I stated that the water was in liquid form? I thought I made it perfectly clear that the water could of been in any form other than liquid, I don't know... I wasn't there.

Water can take forms other than liquid...

Not to mention that the Bible states that a mist watered the ground.

Which makes your conclusion pretty much irrelevant.

No, it makes your bible irrelevant.

---

Water vapor is still water, while it may not be as effective as a liquid, I'm sure a large enough volume of it would be.

Also I'd like to note that I asked for an example of where I specified 'liquid water' and you provide an example with no such specification... makes sense if you're stupid.

Ha!  Well, as long as you're SURE.....

---

I'm a Christian but I don't believe morality changes. Clearly, it is wrong and always will be to kill a child.

It hasn't always been wrong in christianity.

---

Did you atheists forget you support abortion?

Why would we forget an opinion on such a topic?  Do ALL atheists support abortion?  Or is this more lying for jesus?

---

I'm sure you did not mean to commit heresy there.  It's ALWAYS right with the Lord God Almighty to slay an Amalekite child.


Always.

---

It would be nice to have a rational discussion rather than just bandy about sarcasm. I read a hideously sarcastic remark about the death of Christopher Hitchens (penned by someone claiming to be a Christian)  which got me so annoyed I signed up to this forum in the hope of meeting some rational, decent people.

A rational discussion of the bible can't exist when at least one of the people discussing is a believer.

---

A gob of goo is not a "child", dickhead.

A fetus is not a "gob of goo" buddy, and is in every sense of the word, a child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

Definition of child
1 a :  an unborn or recently born person

---

Guess what? That's not every definition of a fetus.  You lie like a rug.

---

So you support women making godlike decisions over an actual god making those decisions?

Makes sense...

With no god, there are no god-like decisions.

[Chad32]

Did you atheists forget you support abortion?

Did you forget a zygote is not a child?