I believe in free speech. You apparently believe in censorship....this is the internet. People can say what they want. Just because they don't agree with you does not mean you have to be offended.
Your kind of thinking leads to fascism, sorry. Get over it sister
I find this debate to be misleading. The person who created this debate is attempting to equate two things that are not equal. A more accurate debate topic would be something like The Big Bang vs. Creationism. Allow me to explain:
Creationism states that a supreme agent created not only the earth, but the universe as well.
Evolution, in it's most common usage, is referring to change in inherited traits among a population on earth. Evolution does not apply to the universe itself.
Therefore, as the pope himself agreed, it is well within the realm of possibility that both creationism and evolution are true. Creationism, for me, is more plausible than any other explanation up to this point. As for evolution, I have no issues with what it says.
Not now. Any fair anaylisis of the current public education system should send red flags everywhere. Some of these kids are better off going to one to these trade schools.
School simply is not for everyone, yet everyone is forced to go to school. Some students have stregnths in other areas and there should be a way to weed those students out and put them in a position to be viable in the job market
A high school diploma means little to nothing without real world experience and training. High school should be the focus for people who plan on advancing into college. Everyone else should be shipped off to a trade school of some sort.
My best case scenario doesn’t involve things that happen to me after I’m dead. I’m only concerned with what occurs while I’m alive. So, I don’t see how this is true.
Your best case scenario is that you are correct. If you are correct, there is nothingness after death. We simply cease to exist.
That is also what will happen if I'm wrong. Get it?
And if you’re being honest in suggesting that you’re a religious pluralist, which I don’t think you are, then the wager is purposeless, meaningless and ineffective. Not only are you abusing the Wager, but you’re using it as some contrived “gotcha’” tactic for some selfish and asinine purpose.
How exactly am I abusing Pascal's wager. It does not have to apply only to Christianity. I am not only a pluralist, but I subscribe to the theory. I do believe that there can be many different paths to the truth, not just one.
Your just angry because you can't trap me in arguments that you used to destroy your family with. If I'm right I get eternal happiness and you go to hell. If you are right then we are both still in the same boat.
No point to your atheism, its a lose-lose scenario. And you claiming not to be concerned about what happens after you die is BS
Not if you subscribe to the philosophy of religious pluralism like I do. It doesn't have to be a specific God. There are many paths to the truth, different religions pretty much represent the culture of that region.
So like I said, if I'm wrong, its still equivalent to your BEST case scenario
Pascals wager
If you are an atheist, there really is no point. You lose either way. If your right, there is nothingness after death. Life has no meaning in the grand scheme of things; you only live for yourself and when thats over thats it. If you are wrong, however, you go to hell. Its a lose-lose
Believing in God will at least give you some better odds. If your right, you go to heaven and all is swell.
If your wrong, well thats still equal to the atheist's BEST case scenario.
Without God, anything is truly permitted. There is no moral barometer without a transcendent being of higher authority. Whose to say if murder is wrong?
The most common counter-argument I hear is simply that society dictates what is moral or not moral.
This is faulty reasoning because they are forgetting that this country was based off of Judea-Christian principles. Most nations are. A good 85% of the planet is religious one way or another and looks to a higher moral authority for the answer to what is right and what is wrong.
We've seen how societies fare without religion. We've seen what happens when one attempts to create a God-less, purely materialistic society. Look no further than Pol-Pot and Mao Zedong.
We've seen the mountain of skulls that resulted. Its not even worth trying again
I've never met a funny woman in my entire life.
Sarah Silverman is NOT funny
Kathy Griffen is NOT funny
Margaret Cho is NOT funny
Come to think of it, all of the class clowns and funny people in my school were always guys
Women simply don't need to be funny. They sit back and let men entertain them. Their job is to sit there and look pretty, while collecting free dinners and movie tickets from the funny guys who wanted to impress them with the humor
This isn't even debatable....look at all the skyscrapers, look at the magnificent architecture in our world today. It took incredible strength and determination, along with smarts to build those.
All of the great scientific discoveries, the cures, vaccines, the moon landing, etc.
There's not any woman who had any hand in any of that
Name 5 successful nation-leading women of today. It can't be done. Checkmate
From the cradle to the grave, women are catered to and pampered. Women benefit from holidays such as Valentines Day, which exists only to please women. Any woman who denies this is a liar.
In any given relationship, women have the automatic control. They have the advantage right from the moment the man approaches her.
Young boys are taught the art of chivalry. No one can explain why chivalry still exists when women are more than capable of holding their own doors open and paying for themselves. Men are taught that they exist to please and serve women their whole lives
Women get away with the most. Even women would have to agree with me here. They do some of the cruelest, coldest things to others and get off Scott free just because they are cute females. Case in point, the woman that drowned her five children and got off on the basis of insanity. What would happen if a man did that? He'd be awaiting his injection at this very moment.
Women are able to LIE about rape and get away with it. About half of all rape accusations are false, yet there is little to no penalty for this. No one seems to care that to EVEN BE ACCUSED of rape can RUIN someone's life and label them a bad person forever
Women just have it easier. Men have the most pressure to succeed. We have to be the breadwinners. If we make less than our woman, we a failures.
If we don't have a woman at all, we are losers. We aren't "independent men with pride who don't need a woman". No, we are just losers
Its just not the same. Moreover, it is a huge insult to blacks to compare their struggle with gays.
Firstly, the differences can't even be disputed. Take what happened to Matthew Shepard and multiply it a thousand times, then you will have what happened to blacks in this country. Being pistol whipped is one thing. Having your testicles cut off accompanied by a lynching is another. And this was widespread, not one instance. And then there's that whole "slavery" thing.
Second, lets remember that when your born black, that's it. Your skin color is black and you will therefore be labeled an African American for the rest of your natural life, whether you like it or not, whether you hate the stereotypes that come along with it (which you had nothing to do with) or not.
On the other hand, it is still highly debated whether or not homosexuality is natural. There is no consensus that says there is a definite gay gene that will guarantee one's homosexuality. At BEST, there is a mix of environmental issues (i.e, single feminist mother that subliminally teachers her son to be feminine, molestation, etc) and genetics.
So there's one MAJOR difference right there that cannot be ignored. When your born with a skin color, that's that. You being gay is not as concrete as you being born black. It never has or will be.
You simply cannot equate a behavior with a race. Its logically invalid.
In case you didn't notice, subway sandwhiches can have alot of calories too. Everything has calories. Just because subway markets Jared and calls their foood healthy doesn't mean anything
A footlong sub can have plenty more calories than most burgers at mcdonalds. If you think your doing yourself a favor by eating nothing but subway, your mistaken
Ill stick with the mcdonalds chicken select strips, screw the gut busting subs
That's so true. It doesn't matter how good your argument may be, it gets voted down if it even hints that you aren't an atheist.
"Meaning is an intrinsic part of nature, it accompanies the consequences of actions. The river that flows over the edge of a cliff and carves a water pool is very meaningful because fish are able to settle there now. The tree that produces more fruit is meaningful to the birds who will raise more nourished offspring from it."
You've essentially refuted your first argument that one's life is meaningless....here you say that meaning is an intrinsic part of nature. We as humans are part of nature and therefore, according to you, meaning is intrinsic within us, in everything we do to appease our biological needs and tendencies. Your argument appears to be turning against itself as you slowly move in a verbal 360 degree motion
"Exactly, that's why I said it's irrational that you don't kill yourself. It's easy to obliterate all meaning and purpose in life, just by comparing your actions to the scope of the universe."
I'm not exactly comparing meaning and purpose in life to the entire universe; I fully understand that as a human on this planet, I am but a small infinitesimal spec
of dust compared to the billions of other galaxies that exist outside of our solar system. What I meant was that according to what you believe about life's lack of meaning, there can be no objective moral truths, no reason to leave anything behind in this world after one passes on except for a maggot infested corpse. There really is no point; any sort of interaction with other human beings is essentially meaningless because life is meaningless and any other view of this is simply an illusion.
"Which is why people don't search very hard for objective significance."
Perhaps they don't search for it because they've already found it; the vast majority of the world's population belongs to one religion or another. This certainly is objective significance. Actually, for most, it is everything. The driving force of their lives, the purpose, the meaning.
"However, we are able to still find rich meaning and purpose in life, in spite of our small imprint upon the world."
Again, your either arguing yourself into a circle or you aren't aware that you are seriously backpedaling from your original point.
"To answer your question, no one programmed you. More exactly, programming is a metaphor for the genetic sequences that you have inherited which form a basis for instincts that nature selected for you because of survivability."
We'll have to just disagree on this. Evolution certainly explains how we as humans came about, but I don't think it explains the fine-tuning of nature, partly what you just described
"Because you're programmed to care, because you're programmed to find meaning in something and if you were some day able to change your current objective away from pleasing a universe that cares nothing for you, you would find some person, or some cause to devote yourself to in order to fill the void of purpose."
Me being "programmed" to care would suggest that there was a programmer. Who or what programmed me? Randomness? And if I was programmed to find meaning in something, isn't that contrary to your idea that life has no purpose? Why would I be programmed to find meaning if there was no objective purpose? Without a purpose, there is no meaning. Everything just is. "Meaning" is useless.
"but at the same time you just can't kill yourself, and you just can't stop loving your family and friends, despite the obvious irrationality of it all;"
Why would it be irrational to kill myself? Without a purpose to life, all of the loving, caring, and useless meaning is futile in the grand scheme of things. Anyone who understands this should end their life, as their life can have no objective significance, not to themselves, not to the universe which is oblivious to them, and not to any other being whose life is just as void of purpose as their own
"Instead of living life off of the tenets of appeasing the universe we should live off the tenets of appeasing our fellow man and increasing the quality of life for everybody"
And why exactly should I, a human with absolutely no objective purpose, help my fellow man? Why should I continue attending college? If there is no purpose for my life, if the universe is oblivious to my existence, then what is stopping me from slitting my wrists right now and ending it all-together?
You've essentially said that any suffering child should have no help outside of pointless charity. With no purpose, who cares? The woman being raped in the alley? Who cares? Walk right by it. (But you don't walk right by. You stop and help. You have an unknown, unexplainable urge to help someone in need who is of absolutely no use to you. Without life having a purpose there is no reason to help, yet you still want to. Ever wonder what that is?)
"Does this mean that someone believing in Baha'i, Confucianism, or Hinduism cannot be a loyal American? Must an individual be Christian in order to be a loyal American? I thought that the separation between church and state meant that an individual's religious thoughts were ignored."
This came from your mind. At no point did I say that someone had to be a Christian in order to be an American. I said to hate it is to hate America because it is such an important, symbiotic part of America. Christianity is part of America's identity, regardless of the separation between church and state.
"You appear to have several misconceptions on what atheism is. It has nothing to do with hating or despising. It is simply choosing to not believe something, which does not change the loyalty that they have to America."
I know exactly what atheism is. And I'm not saying that every atheist hates Christianity but for the ones who do it would seem that they have hatred for their own country's very foundation.
This is based on the atheists that I've met personally. Never met one that wasn't an arrogant sob who did everything in their power to paint anyone or anything with a religious (especially Christianity)affiliation as a mindless chimp.
"A mammalian cell, if processed to revert it back to totipotency, will grow into a zygote, and then a full human. This is like asexual reproduction. Your line of reasoning is flawed.
Now you just defined the concept of human life to include an unthinking mass of tissue cells. That cheapens what it means to be human."
You keep making counter-arguments based on examples outside of what I am referring to. I am not talking about any zygote. We could argue in circles all year with various banter to this degree.
I am referring to the specific zygote that results from the fertilization event after intercourse, between two human beings.
I'm not talking about an animal or genetically engineered cells or whatever crazy outlandish example that you keep pulling out of your arse.
"Consequences of a truth do not make the truth any less correct. Humans are defined by their ability to think, reason, and learn; they are defined by a culture spanning tens of thousands of years. Homo sapiens sapiens is defined by genetic relationship. Do not conflate humanity (culture) with H. sapiens sapiens (biology)."
Correction: fully grown humans are defined by that. Those humans had to go through a growing stage before they gained all of the abilities that you mentioned. During that growth, they are not fully grown but are still human life.
"You should be concerned with it. When living in a secular society, law is designed to help keep morals out of other peoples' affairs."
I am not concerned with it because the premise of my argument is indifferent with relation to the law. I am strictly dealing with morality. It use to be legal to own people. Thank goodness people didn't take the position that you are taking.
"Self-awareness isn't a purely philosophical matter. Try looking into neurobiology. But if you can't be bothered, use this simple checklist:
#Does it have memory?
#Does it respond to stimuli?
#Does it have a central nervous system?
If you answered yes to all three, then it's probably self aware."
You still have failed to disprove what I said. We may have an idea, but as I stated before, technically, we do not know at what point a fetus becomes self aware. The exact moment of self-awareness is extremely important if you want to prove your argument, but you simply cannot do so. You wrote a check that your mind couldn't cash.
"You're resorting to an argument from nature fallacy. It doesn't matter whether or not the life comes artificially or through a naturally existing system, in both cases cells have the potential for life."
Sure it matters. One method is natural and another method is unnatural. I don't advocate human cloning either, even though that could result in more human life.
"It has no brains. It isn't a child yet, because it isn't born. Stop using language that is categorically wrong in order to try and tie together a poor argument."
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
(checkmate)
"I could argue that my religion treats as matter of faith that sperm has souls in all the cells, and that spilling sperm wastefully is murdering all those souls. I could them take up a moral platform with my church and crusade across the country trying to get masturbation banned along with pornography, and sex education."
I never said anything about the zygote having a soul. My position is that it is human life, therefore to end that life at any point should be considered murder.
I'm not concerned with you bizarre hypothetical that completely ignores that basis of which we have been debating on. At no point did I say sperm or a woman's eggs were human life. The conjoining of the 2 in a fertilization event which results in a zygote is human life. (Naturally through intercourse)
"You are the one here that is making a claim that is just assumed to be true, with no room for negotiation. You insist upon having beliefs instead of knowledge, and that is why I ridicule you."
And I ridicule you and everyone who thinks like you do. You inject new, fabricated, unrealistic hypotheticals into the debate and expect it to make sense. You can try to justify abortion all you want by bringing animals and artificial matters into the discussion but it is painfully obvious that you are searching frantically for an excuse to allow the taking of innocent human life.
How can atheists truly be loyal Americans if they despise everything that America stands for and was founded on? They spend half their time trying to get "under God" and all references to Christianity taken away from all government buildings.
Theres a separation between church and state. However, this country still is heavily ingrained in Christianity and was founded by Christians who designed our constitution with Christian principles.
To hate Judaism and Christianity is to hate America. It's what America is. Its what most Americans are. Its what the founding fathers based their vision off of
I say that at 13 anything should go. It will then be up to the parents to protect their own children. I don't believe in a nanny state where the government has to do the parenting work for everyone. People need more personal responsibility.
Besides, it was only 7 years ago when I was this age. I remember vividly knowing right from wrong, how to conduct myself, and the potential consequences of sex. There's no reason why other kids can't be educated the same way I was: by parents who took the time to explain it.
"Murder is an act which is committed upon persons. A fetus is not a person. Have you ever accidentally cut off a sliver of your skin? You've just killed more cells in that act than the typical abortion."
This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I see the zygote as human life. Not a cell that is part of a mammal. The zygote, if allowed to continue growing naturally, will become a human being. Therefore, to terminate this human life is murder.
"However, you are self aware of this journey. A fetus isn't even aware that it is alive. It is a mass of cells with minimal brain tissue if any exists at all."
This is rather dangerous thinking. Whether a the fetus is self-aware or not does not prove or disprove it's humanity. I take it you are gun-ho on euthanasia, possibly even as radical as Peter Singer on these issues.
"Life for us legally begins at birth. Practically speaking it begins when we are first self-aware, which is well beyond the mere fetus stage."
What you fail to realize is that I am not concerned with the legality of this concept of life. this is a profound moral issue.
You keep harping the point that life begins at the stage of self-awareness. This is very comical because technically we don't know when that is yet, and we may never know. So to base your argument for the beginning of life on an assumption makes for a very weak point.
"Taking your argument to extremes, every skin cell is a potential life, ready for propagation through activation of totipotentcy and cloning, or enucleation of a host zygote, insertion of your purified DNA and implantation into a host uterus. Every time you shed dander you are a mass murderer, congratulations."
The zygote that results from intercourse naturally will form into a fetus. Dander will not naturally form into a fetus, unless one goes through means of the things that you've just described; man-made, unnatural means. That's the difference.
"It's a womans' rights issue because to be a part of a free society means having ownership and jurisprudence over your own body."
Sure, up until the point where there is another human life inside that body. There are now two humans rather than one. What about the right of the human inside the woman? You seem to ignore that human's rights.
"you are overstepping your boundaries and effectively hijacking her reproductive organs for your own moral agenda."
And the woman who has an abortion essentially agrees to assist a doctor in murdering her child by sucking it's brains out. This, of course, is for her own selfish, arrogant, and unethical agenda.
"Maybe you would have empathy for women on this topic if political activists were campaigning to take control of your ejaculations, arguing that a single sperm is a life"
When you find a human being that came from a single sperm alone, let me know. Otherwise, what you just typed is ridiculous. No one would possibly even argue that under any circumstances (except you of course).
First, (this is for you over-emotional, knee-jerk type people) I am neither defending or opposing the issue of pedophilia. I wish to have an objective discussion about it.
We shouldn't put anyone to death except those who have murdered others, who are a clear danger to the livelihood of society.
Whenever pedophilia is brought up in debate, it seems to go immediately in the direction of emotional rants. Eventually all I see are comments such as "they all should be killed" or "what horrible monsters who could even argue against me?"
We still don't know if pedophilia is natural or not yet. With that being said, to be honest, it probably is indeed just as natural as any other alternative form of sexuality such as homosexuality.
Here are all plausible reason that pedophilia may be natural and therefore would not justify the murder of these individuals:
1. Pedophilia has existed well before or time, in ancient civilizations
2. Pedophilia can be observed in nature (i.e lions. This is a common argument that homosexuals use)
3. Pedophiles, if given the chance, would all probably passionately declare that their sexuality is just as natural as anyone others
4. Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder currently while at the same time, science would actually lean more towards it being natural and similar to homosexuality. This means that it is too taboo in this society and cannot truly have a fair, objective analysis
Abortion truly is one of the great travesties of modern times. Millions of murders have been committed by misguided women who have been convinced that ending the life of their innocent child is alright.
Life is an ever-progressing journey. It has a beginning and an end. We as humans are constantly changing. I, at the age of 20, am not the same person I was 2 years ago. When I am 40 I will not be the same person. We are constantly growing from the moment of conception until the moment we breathe our last breath.
To cut life off at any moment in this contingency that we call "life" is murder. We know that human life technically begins at conception. That's all that needs to be said.
What I cannot stand are those who hide behind woman's rights. This is ridiculous. A little while ago, I created my very own you-tube video on this very issue. It furthers my argument
