He was devoted to God because he did not have access to the knowledge or facts that would have caused him to doubt his faith because they did not exist yet. Notice that the number of atheists seems to increase along with collective human knowledge.
rance did it through a bloodbath and the excecution of random innocents,
Are you actually coming out against the French revolution? Coming out against the starving peasants who killed their oppressive rulers who were born into their positions and did nothing to deserve the support of the people?
Stephen Hawkings has the highest IQ ever measured in a human and is an atheist. And I am not saying there are no smart Christians, because I would have to be retarded to say that, but the thing is that in modern day most of the smartest minds (highest IQ people) are atheist who belong to institutions like CERN, the American Academy of Science, etc. The thing is that most of the really smart Christian minds like Issac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, etc who were absolutely brilliant lived in a time before most of the theories and facts existed that would have caused them to doubt their faith. Even someone like Einstein who is arguably one of the smartest men ever and was religious, but was still rather ignorant because he rejected the emerging and proven field of quantum physics because he said "God does not throw dice." This is an example of where a previously held belief is inhibiting the growth of knowledge because it clashes with belief. That is why most of the smartest minds today are atheist, because there are all of these proven theories, facts and fields of scientific discovery and advancement which are in stark opposition to faith.
I see what point you are trying to make. I am a 17 year old Canadian, I am quite knowledgeable on politics and world issues, I have clearly established views and ideology. I am an intelligent free thinking human being who would like to have a say in the future of his country but my voice is worth nothing compared to my grandfather who can vote as he pleases although he has alzheimers, dementia and can't remember his own name. What kind of a system is this? However the problem with weighing the votes of different people with different characteristics is that it is in favor or a political position on the spectrum depending on how value is determined. After all, value is not intrinsically found in nature, it is something we impose on it to say for example that we value an educated person's opinion more than stupid person's one. It's simple; if you have a country of idiots, you will get politicians who are idiots. But by saying to some people, your vote doesn't matter as much because you don't have traits that are characteristic of my agenda is murder to democracy. Now obviously there is a problem with the current system, that my vote is meaningless until I reach that magic age of 18 where I apparently gain some profound wisdom which enables me to vote, and until I gain that wisdom I am just too retarded to handle a say in my country's future. I don't know what a proper change or solution is but weighing votes is rather un-democratic.
Find one politician who would vote for that to implement it. What makes you think they would subject themselves to a lie detector if they can't even accept video footage of their own contradictions and lies. Getting a politician to implement that is like asking a human to breathe methane, you can't survive the changes.
It doesn't matter that the Chinese outnumber the Americans nearly 4.34 to 1, because the US has a large number of very powerful allies but they also spend much more on military then China does. The US spends 46.5% of the world military spending while China accounts for 6.6%. Not only current spending but the US has the economic capability to spend more than China ever could. The US has a GDP of 14.2 trillion dollars while China's sits at 4.99 trillion. If there ever was a war, the US could spend much more money on it, also the US contains most of the worlds weapons manufacturers and by far the most advanced military technology on the planet. Numbers don't really matter when it comes to modern warfare, the numbers game may have worked up until the end of WW2 as the soviet union almost single handedly won WW2 with while sustaining massive casualties, but now technology and money wins wars hands down if they are committed. All china has going for them is numbers, but the money, technology and powerful allies of the US would almost certainly defeat china.
I'm not going to sift through someone else's argument to find the parts that pertain to the question. i am genuine about the debate but I will not respond to the hundreds of tangents contained in that forgery, I am willing to debate points that he has to make. If you are going to use someone else's argument because it is still valid that's fine but at least give credit, what he did is lying and stealing and i am pretty sure there are commandments you are supposed to be following forbidding those things. Considering he referred to himself in an earlier debate as following jesus 100% he isn't exactly living up to his claim.
How about you make your own argument instead of stealing it from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/
A long time ago giant corporations like banks, oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, agribusiness companies, weapons manufacturers, etc learned one of the best investments they could ever make was to buy a politician. Now there are some independents left who haven't been bought out yet but the thing is the system is designed to preserve those with money to back them up. you need at least 300 000$ just to run for senate, or congress etc, and most people who have the ideology or motivation to make positive changes in the country are average people who can't afford to do that. It really saddens me that that is the political situation you have in America where Democrats say they stick up for those without money and stand for progress but lie to get in all the while being bought and paid for since the beginning, while republicans tell you right from the get go they are pro-rich and pro-corporate america. Money really does corrupt and when you have a 14.6 trillion dollar GDP there is a lot at stake and buying politicians here and there pays off quite nicely.
Were your ancestors not immigrants at some point? Wtf is a natural born citizen? By your definition only native Americans can run for office because their parents didn't immigrate to that country recently (15 000 years ago approx, but the first humans here nonetheless). I don't like Obama as a president but stop being a close minded xenophobe because your parents or their parents or their parents etc were immigrants at some point too.
Final shuttle launch is a monument to the advances of science and human understanding of the physical world. The royal wedding is the union of two self important people. I honestly do not understand why anybody (who is not related to or knows the couple) could conceivably give a shit about that wedding. It's the union of two people who will never give a shit about you, to continue an archaic system of monarchy. There are so much more important things going on in the world; there are natural disasters all over the world, Japan has been wrecked by an earthquake, the middle east is a powder keg waiting to explode as they have a massive % of their male youth unemployed and desperate for physical and religious survival, millions of children starve to death daily, and incredible scientific break throughs are discovered every day, and somebody could possibly care about some wedding? It honestly perplexes the hell out of me, how someone can give a shit about the royal wedding. I'm from Canada and I am not fond of the British royalty. They are not my leaders, I do not care about them, and it costs us millions whenever one of them comes here. I would much rather watch a the shuttle launch, an amazing symbol of the astounding intellectual progress we have made over thousands of years, than watch two people I do not give a shit about wed to continue an archaic and outdated system of royalty.
Because humans are social creatures which rely on the success of the group to survive, lying is typically an act that hurts the good of the group and is thus seen as wrong because it would hurt the group and by proxy it would hurt you. However I say that lying isnt wrong if it benefits you, for instance monkeys have been observed to lie. Let me explain; monkeys are social creatures and have certain calls to signal danger so they can retreat to the trees while gathering food if there is a threat to them, now the dominant monkeys will often take and consume the food that weaker and more submissive monkeys found, however some of the weaker monkeys will use the danger call when they find food so they other monkeys flee while the weaker monkey eats the food it found. So you see lying is only considered wrong or "immoral" when it is perceived as detrimental to your individual success. We perceive it as wrong because it hurts the good of the group which in turn hurts your success.
Not my favorite song but it has amazing lyrics, that why I like it, You should take a few minutes and listen to it, it's definitely worth it. He isn't my favorite artist because I don't really have favorite artists, I just have music that I like and music I don't like, I have songs from all genres and all people, it doesn't really matter where or who it comes from, what's in the song is what matters to me.
I'm not a fan of the compromiser in chief you guys elected, he is weak, hypocritical and can barely be considered liberal. As much as I am not a fan of Obama he will most likely be the lesser of two evils between him and some fundy republican nut job. I would still rather have another Obama than another Bush.
I looked it up and according to this study ( http://www.businessinsider.com/
Most dangerous is probably a Chinese coal miner, however that is very very far from well payed. Well payed are the corporate CEO's of multinational corporations, when the CEO of exxon mobil (an oil and gas company) retired he got a 400 million dollar reitrement package (and these are the people politicians want to lower taxes for).
Apparently God was quite the jackass because he gave us an appendix, wisdom teeth, and allows millions of children to be born with fatal disabilities. And I wear glasses don't I, that means I am changing the body and the terrible vision God gave me. Also a lot of people are circumcised, mostly religious people, so why is that okay? (I for one think its a terrible idea to chop off part of your dick, just sayin)' It's her body, who gives a shit what she wants to do with it, I for one support her in her choice if she wants to.
mean when you try to talk about how faithful and the goodness in his name that it will lead to violence.
Matthew 10:34, Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Now I don't know about you, but that quotes speaks for itself
To me it's better for me to share my faith with anyone so they will know the Truth
if they consider what you have to say as truth they are already on your side,
I don't care what people think about me because I am a 100% follower of Jesus Christ
Really? Well do you live in poverty voluntarily and give all your worldly possessions to the poor and commit your life to helping the lowest of the low in society, do you believe that demonic possession causes disease and perform exorcisms? I find that prospect to be highly dubious and you can say you are a 99% follower of Jesus, but don't pull the 100% bs on me. Now sure Jesus said a lot of stuff that is great to live your life by, but you do not follow every word he said and there are some things you should question before accepting them, get some autonomy in your life, letting a book make all your decisions for you (100% as you claim) is a dangerous prospect in a modern world.
I think the reason that talking about so called "religions" lead to violence is because the person teaching them is basically judging the person instead of explaining it to them through love, it's sort of like you are forcing the person to give praise to their god.
Religions lead to violence because their fundamental beliefs are in disagreement with another person's and that person is willing to resort to conflict. If the fundamentals are of peace, there will be no violence. Take the religion of Jainism for example, A Jain fundamentalist will never resort to violence or cause wars because they are too concerned with watching their step as to not harm a bug, they won't drink wine or eat cheese because bacteria are killed when it is made, that's how extremely peaceful they are and committed to protecting life. They have a profound concern for peace and their actions of those who follow that religion exemplify that. The reason there is conflict from Christianity, Islam, etc is because the fundamentals are not truly of peace. Now either people are twisting the religion to support their own agenda, or the fundamentalists aren't always peaceful because peace is not the fundamental.
That is why I talk peaceful to people who are willing to be willing to listen.
That's all fine and good, peace is something great to value, I am a very peaceful person in my actions and I try my best to never harm others, but I don't need Jesus to tell me to do that, i don't need a heavenly reward to coerce me to act peaceful, and I don't need threat of hell to prevent my violence. The thing is you do not need a religion to have or value peace, it's great if they do and I can have respect it for that. But I am a peaceful person because of the goodness peace brings to my life and that of others, not because someone told me to 2000 years ago.
No, Mythbusters covered a myth about whether someone with little experience could land a plane, let alone fly it and they could. With help from either ground control air traffickers or the on board navigation and auto pilot systems, those systems alone are sufficient to allow a completely untrained person to pilot and land a plane just enough to ensure survival of the passengers. Anyone with flight training and assistance could fly a 747.
Punishment does not work, I think the American Prison system is a testament to that. America has the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in the world. Rehabilitation actually fixes people and of course there will still be punishment for the crime but that includes fixes what caused it. Prison rarely makes someone a better person, but it just destroys them economically, and reputationally in the working world. Punishment only deters a crime, it does nothing to address the reason crimes are being committed, and as long as there is a reason, someone will always commit it.
Not really, WW2 was mainly caused by the Treaty of Versailles which ended WW1. It was both the previous actions of the allied forces and the reaction of the Germans to the treaty which caused WW2. The blame cannot be laid solely on the Third Reich.
When you mentioned Sims it reminded me so much of this http://www.youtube.com/
Is it just me, or did 0:33 happen to your sims a lot as well? :D
Obviously its not right that you should have to succumb to the will of others and do things that are caused by their beliefs, but a democracy isn't fair. No society agrees entirely on any point but the minority does not regulate the majority. In a democracy, even the slightest majority gets to force their way of life on the rest of the group because there are more of those who want it than those who don't there will be greater cohesion and unity amongst the group and thus a greater chance of success. For example the abortion issue you brought up, there are more people in society who are pro choice than pro life so the pro choicers get to regulate it. the main thing is that democracy isn't fair, inherently by its very definition it will not be fair to the minority. The majority gets to have its way to ensure the greatest chance of success amongst a society. The will of the majority will hurt the minority when there is disagreement but that is democracy and it is the best model I know that ensures the stability and survival of a society.
Because the government is meant to represent a parent figure that holds the collective position on what is right or wrong. A government will enforce and uphold the values, morals, beliefs etc of the majority of its population (in a democracy) and it can dictate things you cannot do because those are things that go against the society you belong to. Say for example killing people because of sexual orientation, now the government has rules in place to prevent that because most people see it as wrong, the government represents the people. However you could still kill someone because they are gay, but you would be going against your government and by proxy your society, by going against your society you alienate and exclude yourself so there are rules enacted to keep you in place within society because that society is necessary for your survival and you contribute to the societies survival. However there are times (Hitler's rule for example) when it was okay to kill gays so the government would not prevent that. The main thing is that rules are in place to hold a society together, and the rules are representative of the majority and humans being gregarious creatures need the group to survive. Rules are meant to preserve the group and to ensure its continuance, that is why it regulates is members based on majority beliefs.
Because God is not real............Any more then fairys are real.
Your argument explains nothing and can't be used to justify your position as opposed to any other one because there is nothing to back it up. It is a blank statement and if you are going to espouse the reality of your specific god you are going to need a lot better of an argument than that, otherwise I don't know why you believe in your god as opposed to any other noun that can be substituted into your statements.
I am not religious but I do believe that religious materials should be respected due to the large amounts of followers each religion has.
Consensus has nothing to do with reality and just because a lot of people believe something does not mean I should allow them to dictate what I can and cannot do with my freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
It causes too much of an uproar among believers. That being said, burning the Qur'an or any religious text should be illegal.
No, you should not give up your rights simply out of threat of violence for expressing your rejection of the ideology a book represents. If you are willing to give up your freedoms that easily, then you might as well give up the rest without a fight. America was a country founded by a bunch of bad ass rebels who said give me liberty and give me death, and people now will back down from burning a book representing ideas they disagree with simply out of threat of negative repercussions from such actions, then I think the founding fathers fought for nothing if you give up that easily.
People who burn religious materials do it because they want attention.
No, not all of them do, I support it because it is a protest of what is written in a book, it is an expression of freedom of speech saying that you disagree with this book. A book is merely a symbol of what it's words represents, since when did disagreeing become so taboo?
Like that redneck priest. I guarantee that guy is a racist. Not just against islam, but blacks, hispanics, asians, and other religions as well.
Obviously Terry Jones and his flock were a bunch of redneck idiots and they burned the Qur'an simply because they hated Islam, and they are burning the book for the wrong reasons. Please do not think that because that is the only instance that the news covered, everyone who does it, does it for the same reasons as him, there is nuance in the world, but the media doesn't usually cover it.
Not everyone has the same beliefs. Respect people and their beliefs and do your own thing.
The thing is that in the middle east, in Islamic countries under Sharia law people do not have the freedom of speech we take for granted, people cannot say what they want or do what they want and their life is dominated by an archaic book. For me, burning that book is my way of protesting the values, practices and beliefs embraced by that culture and embodied in that book. I am not an attention whore, I am not doing it out of disrespect, just a protester of things i do not agree with.
Charlie Sheen, not for any legitimate reasons like talent or acting skills, i just think he is hilarious to follow nowadays. The reason I watch Charlie Sheen is the same reason I watch Sarah Palin interviews, because you know both are just train wrecks waiting to happen.
I gotta admit, I am surprised you made a debate where both choices didn't support your view. Sure there are cowards on CD, but not everyone who down votes is a coward, if there is already a refutation with similar content to what you would say, there is no reason to make the same point twice, although they still strongly disagree with you so they down vote. Or it could be that the argument they are down voting is less of an argument and more of a comment or a statement of support for one side or the other and has little content or arguments to dispute in the first place. However there obviously are people who still down vote unnecessarily, but there are too many possible motives or reasons to call everyone who down votes without a refutation a coward.
Burning people and not books; that's the attitude they have in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other places with fundamentalist Muslim communities. They see it as okay to burn a person but inconceivable to burn a book. I don't care if my protest angers them, but they will not remove my right to protest simply by threat of violence, because if you give up that easily, your freedom is already dead. Burn books to disagree with an idea, burning someone for what they believed in is something I thought we escaped from after the dark ages.
No no no no no, you burn books, not people,. Burning a book is a protest, it is a demonstration of freedom of speech to say that I disagree with this book. To say that I disagree with the morals, values and customs that the ink on the pages of that book embodies. It's a lot better to burn a book you disagree with, than to burn a person you disagree with. Because freedom of speech is a right that everyone should have and should not result in persecution in the form of burning another human being. You can believe what you want to believe and say what you want to say, and burning a book is simply a way of expressing that.
Our intelligence has helped us rise above natural selection, everybody has a decent shot at reproducing nowadays, whether or not they are genetically fit enough to do so. In a way modern medicine is a curse because it allows people to survive and reproduce who would normally have been killed of at a young age by genetically inherited conditions or their own stupidity if natural selection could do its work. But not all hope is lost, we still have the Darwin Awards :D
