Only fanatic priests say that kind of shit, nowhere in the Bible such thing is mentioned

"The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy."
(Psalm 145:20)

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."
(John 3:36)

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
(John 3:16)

"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
(Acts 4:12)

exactly why usa has been vague on who its attacking, no designated target means no designated conclusion to war

its implying that religion needs to be present in order for "good" people to do bad things

in other words, good (bad) people doing bad things only exist in religion

by simply being not a part of a religion doesnt automatically mean that people will start doing good things

the quote is atheist faggotry, not reasonable wisdom

It's not implying that religion is the only way for good people to do bad things. It just gives people a justifiable reason to do said things.

If you honestly can't interpret that simple quote for what it means, without regarding it as "atheist faggotry" then there is no argument here.

I just don't believe in any God but I'm not really anti theistic I don't care what people believe as long as they aren't a dick about it

it scares me to i just hope this kids brothers and sisters end up better people after watching this unfold

and what the fuck 5 years of parole .... no jail time nothing

The .gif is a runoff of the "joke" argument (I say joke, even though many creationists use it seriously) that atheists believe the universe/life formed out of nothing but randomness. Which we have proven false time and time again, yet they still bring the damn point up.

Oh, alright, I know what you mean. People like that amaze me. Don't understand how human beings can think that way and feel logical. Thanks;)

proven false?
I was under the impression that we have no firm proof on how life came to be one way or the other.

Well, for life we do know, it's evolution. That we know as scientific fact.

However, whether the process of biological evolution or universal evolution (essentially the same steps as biological except in the case of the fundamental laws and working of the universe. Summed up as basically "What works, works".), creationists don't seem to understand how the process works and chalk it up to being "random" which is the exact opposite of how it works.

uhm... i'm no creationist just so you know.

bu from the scientific view you're not quite right.
evolution doesnt explain where life comes from... it explains how lifeforms change on a large scale of time. lifeforms wich already have reproduction and an ecosystem.
there has not been a single experiment validating any theory of how life started existing. how the very first membrane developed is one of the greatest miracles for every biologist...

and then about the universal laws: there's quite a few physical constants in the universe. the slightest change in their size would mean the complete annihilation of the universe (gravity for example. if it was bigger the mass could have never spread out and the whole universe would be one giant ball or black hole. if it was lower mass wouldnt build planets or stars). Why they have exactly the value they have is not known, it is accepted, tested and is beeing worked with. But no real scientist would dare to say "i know why it is the way it is!" they only say that they know that it is.

not meaning to argue for religion.
i'm just a science fan and i like to point out these falsely used arguments about how science explains these things already. there's a whole bunch of wordl-specialist scientists that believe in some kind of religion because of what they find out with theyr experiments too.

Well to be fair, I read his comment as pertaining to evolution as the formation of life. I know evolution isn't the answer for how life came to be but either way I digress you are correct. Except that experiments for abiogenesis have been incredibly promising and and are showing how specific formations of archaic life and the development to more complex life occurred.

Second, yes there are many laws that are required for this current form of universe to exist. However, if those variables were adjusted slightly or greatly, the universe (or whichever outcome develops) would form to equalize with those new laws. They have this value because basically, they just do. It doesn't mean anything outside of this is why certain things are able to occur.

there is a big difference between something evolving or getting better and something starting to exist.

a once created lifeform that already has all the important aspects covered (intake,outtake, energy use, reproduction, senses, and so on) is not that hard to reproduce and change. but the very first form to have all of the aspects covered is something completely differen.
and about the second:
a universe could exist with different values thats true. but matter, atoms, electrons, planets, and so on couldnt. and thats quite an important difference. the universe as "the wholeness of existence and room" would still exist, but there would be no matter or existence in it.

"there is a big difference between something evolving or getting better and something starting to exist. "
"a once created lifeform that already has all the important aspects covered (intake,outtake, energy use, reproduction, senses, and so on) is not that hard to reproduce and change. but the very first form to have all of the aspects covered is something completely differen. "

Yes I know this. I said you were right when I didn't explain that in my original comment, I understand this concept fairly well, again though, thank you.

"a universe could exist with different values thats true. but matter, atoms, electrons, planets, and so on couldnt. and thats quite an important difference. the universe as "the wholeness of existence and room" would still exist, but there would be no matter or existence in it."

Well first we cannot make that assumption. Not only does the matter we currently have have a fairly decent wiggle room, we also don't know how the adaptation would result if the universe began with completely different variables (Minus the ones that would have caused the singularity from the big bang to stay relatively stable).

Either way though, it does not matter. Our universe in it's current state is beautiful and allows for very magnificent things to form such as life, but on a grand scale it is nothing special since it simply adapted to the forces acting upon it and it will do so again if those forces ever change. Excluding some rather extreme variables.

Sorry! Seems i got the first part wrong... but thats exactly the kind of thing religious people often talk about when saying "randomness" because its hard (and unscientific) to explain the forming of the first membrane and after that the first lifeform as "it just happened". there needs to be an explanation.
and about the second part, might be that i misunderstood again so let me ask:
(Minus the ones that would have caused the singularity from the big bang to stay relatively stable).
Do you mean the ones that made the big bang possible or those that made the universe (singularity) stay stable?

but on a grand scale it is nothing special since it simply adapted to the forces acting upon it and it will do so again if those forces ever change
The universe doesnt adapt, it is formed by these forces. its like temperature of evaporation. water doesnt adapt that if its 200°C it changes to stay fluid, it has to evaporate as a fact. (under normal pressure) and the analogue things happen to matter or anything if the forces work on them. so if you change the gravitational force, or the electromagnetic force a bit planets/matter couldnt stay stable. (maybe i got this argument wrong... its jut the way i understood it)

Ah that makes more sense, thanks.