First of all this is a very open question considering there is a LOT of music out there.
I listen to some music of today that doesn't get aired on the radio or tv or anything and I just think how popular it might be if the same thing came out in the 60's.
Here's the thing.. There is a lot more music now then there was. There will never be another Beatles because we live in a world where everyone is listening to different things. If a band started right now and they were as good as the Beatles do you think they'd get big? Or be on the radio? Or win awards?
The reason so many people argue for Na on the other side is that they compare say the Beatles or led zepplin to say.. the Jonas Brothers or taylor swift. That's not a proper comparison. There are a lot of rock bands who make a lot of music that is very good. That kind of sound doesn't get a lot of media attention. Simple as that. People don't look for good music and don't know it's there.
A genre of music can only be dead to people who rely on the norm of society.
I know. Christ wasn't born in December. But that doesn't mean Christmas isn't about Christ. Whatever it used to be was changed. The birth of Christ was celebrated before that happened.
I don't see what point you're trying to make as if that makes celebrating Christ less valid.
Ohh ok I see where you're coming from I do. It was like the celebration of the winter tree or something like that?? I don't know but Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ.
It's like when a company gets bought by another company. It's like the catholic church absorbed that holiday and some parts of it like the tree but it's core meaning is this Christ.
Christmas for you isn't Christmas then.
Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. You can go through the motions of commercialism.(I'm assuming that's what you're talking about) Which I think is just a perk, don't get me wrong I love lights and trees.
Depends on your definition of Christmas. Just because you put up lights and buy a tree doesn't mean you're celebrating Christmas.
Remember Christmas is a religious holiday, a Christian holiday. That's a fact. Weather you're liberal, atheist, whatever you can't touch that. (:
So if you're an atheist you can join in some of the festivities associated with Christmas. But you're in no means celebrating (let alone "getting into the spirit" of) Christmas.
Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to exclude anyone. Every bodies welcome to whatever part of Christmas they wan't. All are welcome to celebrate Christmas but not everyone does.
"Are you suggesting that I am trying to shut out these conspiracy theories if I am against it and beyond it?"
It depends on why you're against and beyond it. If you refuse to talk about it or look at any evidence (or don't care about the severe lack of investigation) then I would say yes. But I'm not making assumptions.
Here's a little bit of evidence.
"How would anyone know that an conspiracy exists?" We're talking about conspiracy THEORIES. So they technically don't know if that's what you're getting at.
"Are you suggesting I am trying to snuff out the conspiracy due to I maybe withholding a secret? That is the only logical explanation."
You lost me there.
"How can there be an conspiracy when people are creating them out of thin air? NOT POSSIBLE. They are creating their own reality."
Creating "conspiracy theories" you mean? I realize we're taking the word theory lightly. I just don't know what else to call it.
If it makes you feel any better I don't generally agree with most "conspiracy theorists".
All I am saying is that we should all look at evidence weather it be for or against these ideas.
"What should have been argued was that the secret would spread like wild fire, not the conspiracy because if there are no secrets, then a conspiracy is irrelevant,"
Ok ..and If there are no secrets, then a secret is irrelevant..
But either way my point is that the conspiracy(or whatever you want to call it) is safe because there's always conspiracy theories and people always scoff at them. The majority wont listen.
"the conspiracy would spread like wild fire"
No matter what side you're on you have to admit this is kind of ironic. It wouldn't spread like wildfire because of the whole "there's no way" argument that people like yourself support by default. Because of what you are doing right now it wouldn't spread.
You're pouring water on a fire and saying that if it was a real fire it would spread.
Like I said there's always going to be a "conspiracy theory" about every major event in history so if one were to ever happen it would just go un noticed would it not?? Sure there'd be a few websites and documentaries but it doesn't matter.
I'm not one who is saying anything for certain. But there's lots of things that are weird and that don't add up. Why does this have to be black and white. People are either saying the government did it or no way the government did it. Why can't we just take a step back and look at this stuff??
First of all it seems that nobody has the open mind and humility to just flat out say "I don't know!"
I don't know what happened but I do know that a commercial airplane didn't make that tiny hole in the pentagon with no plane wreckage. And I do NOT know how building seven came down.. or why it came down. I don't know why people don't talk about how a fireman found a dead body in a closet in the WTC, I don't know why nobody cares about scientific proof that there was a substance only found in bomb material found in the wreckage.
What I do know is that a conspiracy wouldn't be hard to pull off because whenever people hear the word "conspiracy" a logical part of their brain seems to shutdown because it's simply unthinkable. It's been psychologically proven that logic doesn't happen much when people here things they don't want to hear, such as hearing things about the political candidates they support.
It's the boy who cried wolf. The word conspiracy has this sort of culture surrounding it. Only crazy people believe in them right? So what if a conspiracy really did happen?? It would just be another "conspiracy."
A= conspiracy, therefore A= crazy talk
This is the norm that has been established.
Let's say it is some kind of conspiracy, whoever did it knew that there would be a couple of documentaries made and a few websites devoted to "uncovering the truth." They know. They don't care because there's always a documentary, there's always a website. They know that most people wont wanna talk about it.
I go to BYU-Idaho a mormon school. (yes I'm mormon). Evolution is tought at my school because were open minded enough to know that the idea of evolution doesn't denote the existence of a God.
Even if I didn't think it was true it doesn't matter. I'm a psychology major. Just because I learn about Frued doesn't mean I want to have sex with my mother.. You get what I'm saying?
You're assuming that Christians who believe we're in the last days think that everything's going to be wiped clean.
I believe that progression and learning and all that stuff you mentioned we will use in the eternities and that only the evil things will be "wiped clean".
So tell me how scientific is it to assume the beliefs of others?? No really, tell me. You clearly just wanted to prove a point. It's so easy to paint an ugly picture of what somebody else believes so that you can just tare it down.
No. Unless they're talking about pacific individuals within the government.
Conservatives usually criticize the size of the government and sometimes get carried away with it in which they would be guilty of hast generalization.
Take note that it's the same fallacy to say that all conservatives say our gov is bad. Just like one individual saying everyone in the u.s. gov is bad. I don't know which conservatives you were talking about but it sounded pretty general.
But regardless of the context it's still subjective because "bad" is hard to define.
I tried to put this video in the description but it was being lame!
http://
I was kinda thinking about this one
Hey look a real debate.
I think that culture is important. I think that we should preserve culture as if it is an endangered species. (Cause it is)
It seems as though here in the U.S. people think that we should be a melting pot of different cultures. We're definitely a melting pot of people(not to be confused) don't get me wrong. But people used to adapt to new cultures when they moved to other countries. Now it seems they don't and traditional american culture is dissolving.
Well hold on now, just because Disney owns it doesn't means it's gonna be all Disney ish. Doesn't Disney own Marvel?
So if they screw it up it wont necessarily be Disney's fault. I know the thought is kind of un comfortable. Something like star wars being owned my Disney..
With that said people see what they want to see. I'm sure some people have already made up their minds about how it's gonna be crap even though they don't know anything about what the movies are going to be like.
Let's talk about the potential this presents. There's a lot of cool stuff that could still be done with the starwars world. I remember watching some sort of starwars video game trailer a few months back with a sith army attacking the jedi temple and it was one of the coolest things I have ever seen. And I was thinking it would be cool if a starwars movie was more like that.
When we compare 4-6 with 1-3 many of us hate 1-3 because it doesn't have what the original movies had but you have to admit there are some things about 1-3 that are amazing. Like the light saber battles.
And so if you're one of those people who thinks 1-3 already ruined starwars then what do you have to lose?
Starwars has never really been known for it's acting.. maybe this could be a chance for there to more substance in a starwars movie. There's lots of great things that could come from this.
"It's way less safe to apply makeup while driving, or texting, or playing with radios."
Yes I agree. What's your point?
"I'm saying victimless crimes should not be enforced with high fines."
Are you now saying that you don't have a problem with the enforcement of seat belts as long as it's not a "high" fine? Sounds like you're changing your story.
So then how should it be enforced?
A hanging is the best most quickest way to do it. But it seems barbaric to society, so nobody wants to do it. Lethal injection if I'm not mistaken can actually be painful.
If you're talking about making people suffer because they committed exceptionally heinous crimes.. nah. I think we're past that.
Impressive! By lying you win either way. If it's red you're correct, and so you win. If it's not then like you said, you have no problem lying. So any way you spin it you're in control, or at least you appear to be because in reality you don't really know.
Not bad Hellno, not bad. (:
Attention everyone. The pen is blue. Oh and I have no idea what color the ink is because it's a picture I got from google images... But it's probably blue.
I'm glad I made you'all think though.
And yes it was partially a reference to the movie liar liar.
Don't you love when trick questions don't have a trick? (; Sort of like miss-spelling a word that's speled just like it sounds. hehe (;
"I'm not going in a circle. Nor have I steered the debate in a different direction. You're easy to argue with because your positions don't hold up so well when subjected to further scrutiny."
Basically what you're saying is "nu-uh". There's no reason to your defense. You're merely disagreeing with me. That wouldn't hold up in the scientific community would it?
"For example, if I was alive 2000 years ago and wrote a book about nyan cat as real, that wouldn't make nyan cat real." "
Of course wouldn't. What makes you think I would disagree with that?
Although, it might cause a lot of unskeptical people to blindly believe it simply because they can "feel" nyan cat's presence ;)"
Unskeptical? It seems as though you think that everyone who believes is "blindly" believing. Why is this? Tell me. How did you form this hypothesis?
"Why does them being "prophets" inspired by god make a difference?"
One is saying this is from God. And one is not. Weather or not you believe they were prophets is beside the point. I'm not nor have I ever said that you have to believe in the Bible. I know you would love for me to say that, but no. Shut up.
"Do you think I'm some person who just discovered atheism today?"
Yes.
"I have not said "i know god does not exist", nor do I claim to know that god does not exist."
You have said a lot of things my friend. Including when you stated that generations have been brainwashed, as if it was a factual statement. Do you know how non scientific that is? (:
You claimed that God is impossible. You did. This is a complete and direct contradiction. You can not say that God's powers are impossible right after saying that you don't know.
That is stupid.
"Would you test a newly built bridge with your family as the test subjects, on faith that the bridge would work?"
No. You're doing that thing where you think that just because somebody has faith they totally disregard science. We have science and faith. I know that to separate God and science would really help your argument but not all religious people do that.
"You're pretty easy to argue with."
Then you wouldn't need to go in a circle would you? You tried to make a point and I challenged it so you steered the debate in a different direction.
"And no, please enlighten me."
Ok. You're really typical and predictable.
"If they're all equally valid, then why did you pick the Christian god? May as well have been a roll of the dice."
Uh no. You conveniently left out the word "scientifically" valid. I didn't use the scientific method alone to choose my religious beliefs. If you want to have a separate discussion about why I believe what I do then we can but see your steering the debate away from your wrongness. Remember the whole comparing God to recent fantasy fiction thing? Remember that?? Clever how we're now talking about why I believe in god instead of how your point wasn't valid. I predicted that you would do this.
"If it makes you feel happier to tell yourself that you got me, I won't spoil your fantasy."
What makes me feel great is telling you that I got you. And I did and it did. (;
"If it makes you feel happier to tell yourself that you got me, I won't spoil your fantasy. Modern fictional fantasy characters are comparable to God. They are essentially the same thing. One was just written with different intentions, and a much more gullible and uneducated population with an antiquated 2000 year old morality system.
Comic book superheroes were written as intentionally not real. The bible was written to be intentionally real. This is the only difference that I can think of. Whether a book is intended to be treated as real or imaginary has no bearing on what the truth actually is"
So you're an expert on truth? You can say that based on the idea of the man maid scientific method they are comparable. But you can't speak for all truth.
Another reason they're not comparable is that The Bible was written by prophets who claimed to be directly inspired of God. You can say that their intentions are different but that would be un scientific. ftw o.0
You wanna have the same discussion twice and go in circles!? Come at me bro!
"For example, if we write a book about superman and declare that superman is real, that will not make superman real. Similarly, if we write a book about god called The Bible, and say God is real, that will not make God real. It's just words on paper."
NO. This is so dumb. Because we KNOW, even scientifically, that this character was created by men to be in a comic book! We know who the creator was it wasn't long ago we all know superman is man made. We don't know that about God no matter what you believe. We cannot say so for the bible! You saying that you know God doesn't exist is just as scientific as me saying I know God exists. Yeah I know it's shocking you wouldn't think.
"You seem very delusional about my intentions. You are free to hide for cover behind your blind faith."
Direct contradiction. You just proved me right because I said you would go after faith and you did.
"Science is the most reliable method to the truth."
If you wan't truth that can be physically proved then yes. But like I said(I'm having to repeat myself a lot!) we have different ways of finding truth.
"No, from an open minded objective point of view, all religions are likely to be false. From a closed minded point of view, christianity is correct/true."
Expound on that. What you're saying is that people that agree with your beliefs are open minded and vice verse. This could be a coincidence but it's probably just you wanting to think of yourself as open minded.
From an open minded point of view one would take a step back and say I don't know whats true let me find out. Now when you get into how we find out then we run into some disagreement.
"God himself along with all the gods I just listed previously are all equally valid."
I never said otherwise. You haven't been disagreeing with me. You're arguing against an imaginary person that's easier to argue with. I talked about people like you in my original post and yet here you are. Do you know how typical and predictable you are?
"That is to say, not valid"
mmm not scientifically valid yes. What's your point? That's what I said.
"You got me? I don't think you understood what I wrote then, because I refuted what you said quite well."
Yeah, I got you. You were comparing God to modern fictional fantasy characters as though they're comparable and I informed you that they are not. No need to simplify.
"You claim we do not know that God is man made. By that reasoning, we also do not know that Zeus, Thor, Odin, the many Hindu Gods, or the Sun and Moon gods, are real or not."
I already agreed with you on this!! You're clearly grasping at straws.
"So, how do you "know" to believe in your christian God and not any of the other Gods I listed above?"
Good question. (and yeah lets move on to something else right? When all else fails) I have faith and personal spiritual evidence. You will now probably forget everything else and attack this right?? Remember what I said about atheists and theists finding truth in different ways?
"So the most rational position?"
Rational based on science only? Sure. Where going in circles because you're losing.
"It's extremely likely that all religions are false"
This is funny. Of course not. Most religions will be false because they can't all be right. So from a closed minded view all religion is dumb. (don't get me wrong many of them are)
So we seem to have gone in a circle. Now you're bringing up other things.
1. They don't. Yeah you've got a lot of people saying it's fact but the real scientists aren't saying that.
2. Sometimes you can't really call something fact even though it's almost definitely true. In the scientific world theory is often the most solid something can be.
yeah ftw I was mocking you wtf (:
"Based on your reasoning, how do we know that Thor, Zeus, the Hindu gods, or the Sun and Moon gods are not a man made idea?"
We don't. What of it?
"They then become just as valid as your Christian God."
What do you mean by valid? I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you. If you're talking about science then yes the validity is the same. 0: You have to understand that these examples are different because there are things that we KNOW are man maid ideas such as harry potter unicorns etc. So it's different.
We've completely shifted what we were talking about. I got you with the unicorn harry potter thing so you move on to zeus and company. Not sure what your motive is here because I never ever ever said that God could be proven scientifically.
"Of course it's fair. Who else wrote the bible? It was man. How do we know that a group of men didn't just make shit up .."
Nobody is denying that men wrote the bible. And again yet AGAIN I never said I had physical proof of God, so quit asking for it. That's exactly what I originally said. You know, one of the points in my argument that you had nothing to say about.
Anyways, my point is that it's not fair because we know man created the idea of a unicorn, harry potter etc. but we don't KNOW that God is a man maid idea. End of story. ftw.
I see faith as more of an action thing. Like if you're rock climbing and you trust that the equipment will work even though you haven't studied exactly how it works and you didn't see exactly how the equipment was made. You weren't there in the factory making sure it met safety requirements but that's what the tagg on your rope says.. You could call it assumption.. I know you'all hate the word but you're excercising faith in that belt buckle.
So in my opinion it's not really faith unless you're rock climbing. If the equipment you just bought is sitting in your'e garuage you might believe that it could help you rock climb safely but you don't have true faith until you climb.
Atheists go rock climbing. Do they not?
This is what I'm talking about. We don't really disagree that much. Did you read anything I wrote? I never claimed that there was a bunch of scientific evidence supporting the theory of God.
But scientific validity of theory is different than likeliness. I could say it's unlikely that this world around us just kind of happened. But I'm not going to do that because it's cheap and won't really do much.. And it's not fare to compair God to unicorns and fairies because it's clear that those are ideas created by humans and that can be proved.
I finally just watched the replay. It was clearly an interception! End of story it was a bad call. Almost everyone seems to agree.
The fact that everybody has been waiting for these refs to screw up is beside the point. Sometimes people really do see what they want to see and it's not always because they want to see it. It's was an interception. And I don't even care for the butt packers.
"Will Atheists always triumphed over Theists in God's existence debates here."
They won't triumph in making a grammatically correct debate description. (; Yeah I know I'm pulling that card. I couldn't resist.
It depends on your definition of triumph. Most of these "debates" have a majority population of atheists. So per capita you'll see more well structured debates by atheists. So you could give yourselves a pat on the back if you want. But I think having the same perpetual debate over and over again will suffice.
My opinion which has been ignored is that atheists and theists have different ways of finding truth therefore arguing the existence of God won't work if we haven't first discussed the question of how to find truth.
It's frustrating when atheists assume and act as if all Theists have the position of "we can prove it". You see if the atheist assumes this it gives them a good debate position. It's like cheating.
"Prove to me that there is a God!" -"when did I say that I could prove it?" Just because I realize I can't prove it to you doesn't mean that I don't or can't believe in God.
How scientific is it to make assumptions about somebodies beliefs? This isn't a rhetorical question.
I get that you can't prove God doesn't exist just like I can't prove invisible purple bats aren't flying outside my window. I get that.
Another unscientific assumption atheists make is assuming that God and Science must be separate. (I realize that many Christians do this too and it's embarrassing) On what grounds can you separate the two? Explain to me the process by which you came to this conclusion. Perhaps you made a groundbreaking discovery of the proof of no God. Share with us. (:
I know it stings.. An Atheists making unscientific assumptions when science is their thing? Ouch.
