Some more examples of my writing style:

"I despise these right-wing fundamentalists who claim that life beings at conception. Such thinking is idiotic when the term "life" is being loosely used here and not at all in the appropriate context. Life would designate all that: adapts, grows, regerates, and reproduces, thus, by this definition human fetuses wouldn't be considered life. But, beyond these superficial qualities whicih only seek to define the biological properties of life, we find that these Creationist views are nonsensical and mal-adapted to what one "unconsciously" considers HUMAN life. Human life, as far as I'm concenred, is defined by sentience, the ability to have a sense of self, the ability to produce conscious thought. Up until the age of 2 or so, the human mind lacks the sense of self, although most obviously has the ability to reason, which implies conscious thought. Now, a fetus, especially five day old fetuses, on the otherhand has neither the ability to reason nor sentience. Since when could a mass of blob think?

This "blob" does not emote, does not think, does not feel, and primitively adapts, which is akin to those used by amoebas. We are not oppresing their "will to live" as they do not have one, they do not even possess a brain in the early stage of embryonic development.

You will now see how I, indirectly, answered the question: does the end justify the mean? What we have are cells with ENORMOUS potential, for braincell transplants, spinal chord repair, lung repair, heart repair, and so on. This vast and expansive prospect, I believe, most CERTAINLY justifies the means."

"Let's say God made things differently...

...like, he made us and created us in such a state that it would be friviolous to worry about sinning, since we know nothing "of sin", just merely experiencing and being aware of only bliss and euphoria.

Let's say God KILLED Lucifer, or had something else done that would rid him of his and his followers access to our world. Would that not seem more sensical then just "throwing him in hell", thus ridding God of this pesky fallen angel and his litte cherubs with horns forever?


What's the sense of just throwing us into hell, whatever that may be? What is the sense? Since we did not choose to believe in him we are impure, but even though God has the ability to pure us, since he's omnipotent, he doesn't do so?

What's the sense of creating the universe as we know it? Did God just decide one day that he'd much rather enjoy watching us in pain and suffering, seeing if we would make the "right choice" and believe in him? "

"
"It seems christians and athiests alike seem to enjoy pulling shit out of their ass in an attempt to assemble a rebuttle that later on becomes nothing but a fallacy who's only effect has been making a fool at the person who thought of, or borrowed from someone else, such reasoning. What we forget is that we're dealing with something beyond the physical realm, thus Science cannot deal with it directly, and an attempt to synthesize the two schools of thought, scientific empiralisms and religious faith, is doomed to failure . While one can safely state the rules of this world with only a certain degree of innacuarcy, as all thoughts assembled by a perceptual being are infinitely flawed, one cannot apply the rules to an aspect of reality where the rules do not apply. But, this is where the Christians attempt to use this as a scapegoat, simply implying that "faith" is a sufficient means to believe in something, and is justifiable logically. The ironic thing in that statement there is they believe in the illogical and attempt to reconcile these inconsistencies with LOGIC. A Christian can go on forever with this scapegoat, never attempting to acknowledge the logic presented by those opposed to such views, and rightfully so; they can claim the illogical all they want, for we are infinitely illogical, and this is the heart of the matter. This is the issue that people fail to recognize, that we are in no way fit to logically justify our perceptions, when they are merely our perceptions; the accuarcy of such perceptions is equivelent to the state that the tools we use to percieve such perceptions are in.

Conceptualization is a subjective process: one has to gather the information one desires to acquire, reflect upon the gathered information, and come to a conclusion, although this conclusion is ALWAYS brought to an end prematurely, thus we attempt to justify our points of view that are not founded on reality. Even this statement, an attempt to logically explain that which we percieve is infinitely flawed and thus cannot be justified, is infinitely flaed, thus creating a paradox of sorts, a particularly NASTY one. One can never come to a truly objective truth through the means that we have, although this statement and the entire thesis of this post is based on such means, and is thus infinitely flawed. So, the only thing one can be sure of is that one cannot be sure of anything, and even that you cannot have complete certainty. Now, I see no reason not to argue out of sport, but I figured I may as well point this out, as there truly is NO sense to it but to satisfy our desires TO make sense of it."

Perhaps me posting several of my arguements is the hidden agenda "to love" manifesting itself?