You beat me to it! : D

I will edit in my replies later today.

I'll cut in here.

"Can you even conceive of what it might be like here if all of the good were gone?"

Yes. I have actually given the concept of good and evil a great deal of thought and intensive study, and my conclusions are quite different from what you might expect. The concept does not exist in ANY objective state, so one could easily say that "the good IS all gone"--NOW. It was NEVER here. There is only what you PERCEIVE as "good" or "evil", nothing more.

I don't really have time to explain the fine details of why I think this right now, but I wrote an essay on it a while back that will give some insight into my work on the issue: http://www.antichristian-phenomenon.com/anath/deb...

I have developed a number of the points further since this was written, so please inquire about anything that confuses you or seems unusual. And please, try to step into the shoes of someone who does NOT view the world as black and white, good and evil, god and satan. You clearly misunderstood what Jorrizza meant with his reference to Lucifer (but that is his battle, not mine), which indicates that it would be in your best interest to take a step away from your dogma while engaging us. Otherwise, the attempt is futile.

This is true also, word inserts all kinds of crazy autoformatting nonsense, and it carries over when pasting.

"If a group of terrorists moved into your country and began a rebellion, would you allow them to dominate and bring suffering to all of those people who were happy living in that country, or would you try to remove them and let them go live somewhere else with their own like-minded people?"

EXACTLY, this is a completely false dichotomy and very, very misleading. There are a lot more options other than fight-or-flight. Just because you put down the rebellion does not mean you have to deport them and there is absolutely no reason that a country can not be populated with people who think and believe differently, so sending them off to live with "their own kind" is an erroneous conclusion.

Additionally, there is no reason to set up the other side of the dichotomy with the success of the foreign terrorists' rebellion. First of all, when foreigners enter a country with the intent of forcefully taking it over, that is called an INVASION, not a REBELLION. Rebellions are strictly domestic, implying a problem with the EXISTING, INTERNAL status quo. If a rebellion were to succeed in the country, "all those people who were happy living there" would have to be, in actuality, NOT happy living there and willing to join.

Perhaps it gives you a text limit when you are not replying using an IntenseDebate account? The best thing for you to do would be to sign up for Intense Debate.

With Intense Debate you can also get email subscriptions to replies, vote on responses, get an icon, and use IntenseDebate on any ID enabled site, including this one. It's well worth the 30 seconds it takes to sign up. : )

It is possible that there is a text limit but I have not noticed one.

WOW that "entertainer" was annoying. It was kind of annoying that the whole debate ended up centering around Manson instead of the issue at hand, and ended up being a shouting match where Lakita just yelled about how righteous she was and how horrible everything not Christian was and that condoms have holes in them. Seriously? There has been significant evidence to prove that intact, properly fitted, and properly USED condoms ARE highly effective in preventing HIV. The percent error does not have to do with "little holes that are too small for sperm to go through but large enough for HIV" but primarily improper use, breakage, etc.

And seriously, its great that you were abstinent for almost 40 years, but not everyone is YOU. You want to talk about Love for everyone or whatever, then how about start with some basic respect for other people's life choices?

And WHY was the whole show about Manson and Lakita, the other people said like two things!

Stumbled across a relevant article today: http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303512/Piracy...

Its over a year old but echoes the points made here.

Mmm cherrypicking. I like how he only quoted half my point and made a definitional retreat as a response. Slippery, slippery.

I also enjoy how he feels it is necessary to make himself sound scientific by throwing around terms.

Exactly, I don't get the point. The Theory of Evolution="Darwinism"=Nazis=Eugenics=evuls "argument" to invalidate evolution is the SAME as saying crusades and the effects of various religions invalidates the religion, or at the very least make it less savory/moral, and we all know how much the religious HATE that... or its the similar to saying that because we can use theories in physics and the theory of gravity to drop bombs those ideas and laws are somehow guilty by association.

Proves nothing, waste of time, invalid argument. Fortunately it didn't come up again.

If you do not misunderstand the word "theory", then why did you use it incorrectly, and in a demeaning way?

Now I expect a discussion of genetics, like I said, so come on, tell me how genetics doesn't work. Disprove evolution through genetics. There's quite a bit of math in genetics so that should be easy for you!

And I certainly did not claim to know everything, and neither does the scientific community. Newton has a great quote out there about being a boy on the seashore of knowledge turning over pretty shells. We still have barely even wet our toes yet. BUT falling back on "Cant' explain! Hole in knowledge! goddidit!11!!" Is a dishonest and cheating. Maybe God did do it, but if he did, we'll find out about it. So far there has been no indication of the supernatural, so there's no reason to believe the goddidit hypothesis.