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
By the bottleneck effect we survived in the past I can only assume you are referring to the eruption of the Toba super volcano 70 000 years ago in what is now Indonesia which caused a nuclear winter. However estimates say that the human population was reduced to only around 15 000 individuals and not a mere 2. I can understand what you mean when you say genetic inbreeding is often exaggerated as some human populations have lived for long periods of time with it, but we are talking about 2 people not a small group of 50 or 20 or even 10. For example the whooping crane population came back from 14 and is now at about 400. But 2 individuals has a very very low chance of successfully surviving in the long run.
Not completely because humans can self-regulate population growth using their intelligence whereas bacteria cannot (as far as I know, I could be wrong). There are many different theories about this and I will talk about them and see how they pertain to you theory.
Malthusian Theory
Proposed by Malthus which is that human population grows exponentially while food production grows linearly and the math doesn't quite add up so there will be massive death under current trends. However dear old Malthus proposed this right before the industrial revolution and he has been proven wrong by the agricultural revolution which massively increased food production with use of fertilizers created through the Haber process and the mechanization of farm equipment allowed increased production. However his general sentiments still ring true as we reach a population near 7 billion and 2.5 people are born every minute, and almost all population growth is occurring in the developing world where resources are already exhausted.
Carrying Capacity
D.J. Bogue first proposed this with the idea that we are living with a phantom carrying capacity, in terms of non renewable resources that were stockpiled before human civilization and will not be replaced anywhere near our rate of their consumption. There have been predictions that as these run out there will be massive conflict, death, and environmental destruction over dwindling resources, however there are optimists who say that humans will adapt and switch to new resources before we reach that point just as the industrial and agricultural revolutions allowed us to support a much larger population then we ever thought possible, although it may have only delayed inevitable disaster.
Is your theory true?
I say no, because I think humans have the capacity for self regulation. In developed countries, birth rates are already below replacement fertility (2.1 women per children) and the populations would shrink if not for the influx of immigrants. With industrialization, urbanization and the invention of modern medicine people are living longer and not needing so many children to account for those that would not live to bear children. The invention of vaccines and modern medicine dropped the death rate dramatically while the birth rate remained high for a generation or two causing population explosion. However once people had the paradigm shift that they did not need as many children the fertility rate dropped and population stabilizes. Google image the demographic transition model and you can see how population naturally stabilizes over time as the populations adjust to death rates.
The problem
Almost all population growth will be occurring in the developing world world over the next century. There will be conflict over resources such as food an energy if their country cannot support the population and does not have the economic means to import resources as the developed nations do. For instance the UK has over six times the population what its land can support (for current population and resource consumption), but its economy allows it to import food and resources to support it and so it is not overpopulated. Overpopulation occurs when there are too many people to be supported, and the unfortunate fact, as is now being seen in countries like India, Pakistan and most of Sub Saharan Africa, is that there will be more deaths resulting from overpopulation induced poverty. There will not be an entire human population collapse, only a population drop in the developing world after it continues to increase. Hopefully this was helpful.... if anyone managed to read all of it.
Mutations aren't only positive and natural selection favors the positive mutations while eliminating negative ones as they are a detriment to the organism. It really comes down to chance and what the results are of the genetic drift resulting from sexual reproduction. I see your point and I understand how it is valid in almost all organisms as diversity is necessary for adaptation and evolution but humans are unique as our intelligence allows us to adapt to our environment faster than evolution would allow (ex: how humans of the same species live on every continent on the planet without major genetic differences).
Secondly, some atheists dislike being called names by Christians, but then the same people call Christians 'idiots' 'ignorant' etc. Contradicting.
It's not that we don't like being called names, I can take an insult, I don't as long as it's accurate. I only call people names that fit the actions they take and the words they say.
They say Christians have started wars and killed millions. What about the Soviet Union, China, North Korea etc? Don't they count?
No, Atheism has not killed anyone, Islam has not killed anyone, Christianity has not killed anyone. Religions don't kill people, people kill people. However in the case of something like the crusades people used religion as a justification (or excuse, whatever word you want to use) for their actions. The regimes of the soviet union, china, etc killed a lot of people and were secular. But just because murder happened in a secular regime does not mean they were killed for religion, or lack there of. Like how in the soviet Union people were killed for not contributing enough to the system or for something they did. Atheism is only the disbelief in a deity, that's it, that is all it is. Atheism does not promote violence, nor does it condemn it, it has nothing to say on the matter on anything other than lacking a belief in god. Atheism does not start, encourage or call for wars. Beliefs do not kill people, people do, but atheism cannot be used to justify those types of actions because it does not address those issues. It's like saying that I do not believe in unicorns and then the regime I rule kills thousands of people who do believe in dragons and those who don't, you cannot blame their death on my disbelief in dragons because my disbelief does not call for their death.
Clearly you don't know what sanity is, how is using direct quotes from God an extreme? They aren't taken out of context, I'm sorry but if your God tells you to kill witches and gays, or to rape the virgin daughters of their slain enemies then he is a psychopath.
Eriwgan did not say that God exists, simply that he is a fictional character who happens to exemplify the attributes of a psychopath. God's psychopathic nature is shown through his actions.
1 - Genesis 6:7 - God floods the earth
2 - Genesis 19:24 - Destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah
3 - Exodus 12:29 - Killed every innocent Egyptian firstborn
4 - Deuteronomy 3:22, Judges 20:18 - 21, 2Samuel 22:35, 1Chronicles 5:18-22 - God commands and assists in wars
5 - Leviticus 20:13 - Commands death to gays
6 - Exodus 22:18 - Commands death to witches
7 - Leviticus 25:44-46 - condones slavery
8 - Numbers 31: 1-54 - condones rape and pedophilia
9 - Genesis 3:16 - condones sexism
It's strange that you hate atheism so much when you never even took the time to look up the definition. Your ignorance isn't based on your observation, it's based on your out-spoken positions on subjects of whose basic principles you do not even understand.
The appendix, let's get rid of that ticking time bomb. I say don't breathe through the same opening you eat through, that can easily lead to failures. Bigger brains, can't go wrong with more brains. And why not give us a longer telomere so we live longer and our body doesn't start breaking down at as young of an age.
I'm honestly getting tired of trying to reason with you, you seem to be quite hypocritical in your statements and willfully ignorant. I'll just show you a video what contains the sentiment and reasoning I am trying to convey http://www.youtube.com/
Christian religion is based on values, morals, and ethics
Sure and thats all well and good but it also involves telling young children that is a god and he is responsible for the creation of everything. There is a difference between raising you children with morality, and making them adopt your world view. A child is not going to question you if you tell him there is a God anymore than he will question you when you tell him about Santa. So you will be raising that child and teaching him that a God exists and deciding his beliefs for him, I do not agree with that. You do not have to raise a child as a Christian to raise him with morality and a sense of right and wrong.
They are the most influential before adolescents, which is the time you should be teaching them what I listed above.
I understand it is important to raise children as good and compassionate people but you can do so in a secular manner without deciding your child's belief for them before they can make up their mind.
. Baptizing is not something that's forced in to doing. People do it b/c they want to.
Really? Those newborns knew what they were doing? Those newborns not yet capable of speech knew they were entering themselves into a religion? Yeah that's plausible, I believe babies choose for themselves.
It's funny how people who speak negatively of the Bible and/or religion know nothing TRUE about it nor realize their faults are far worse.
1 - Genesis 6:7 - God floods the earth
2 - Genesis 19:24 - Destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah
3 - Exodus 12:29 - Killed every innocent Egyptian firstborn
4 - Deuteronomy 3:22, Judges 20:18 - 21, 2Samuel 22:35, 1Chronicles 5:18-22 - God commands and assists in wars
5 - Leviticus 20:13 - Commands death to gays
6 - Exodus 22:18 - Commands death to witches
7 - Leviticus 25:44-46 - condones slavery
8 - Numbers 31: 1-54 - condones rape and pedophilia
9 - Genesis 3:16 - condones sexism
I think God has a lot more blood on his hands than I do, I know quite a lot about the bible actually and I think that my faults of jealousy, hatred and swearing etc are nothing compared to the rap sheet God has got going.
People do a lot worse in front of their kids that they pick up on. Is this also brainwashing?
No because they are not telling their kids to adopt that lifestyle or action. If parents abused animals in front of their kid, then forced their children to do the same, that would be brainwashing because they are forcing their child to adopt their views and way of life.
If everybody in the world was "brainwashed" into Christianity, we wouldn't be in such an awful world to being with.
Yeah, no... we would be back in the dark ages where people stoned women in the streets for being harlots, condemned scientists and mathematicians as witches and warlocks and burned them alive, where we would live to the lengthy age of 20 - 40 and died of an easily curable or preventable disease or cause. Yeah, those were the days. Religion has gone down over the years, and if you look at history where almost no one was atheist or agnostic, terrible terrible things still happened on a far worse scale than they happen today. Religion does not stop people from being violent or evil, if anything it excuses it as religion has been used as an excuse for some of the most terrible atrocities such as the crusades, the inquisition or the holocaust. I'd say the world would be better if we didn't have a religion to blame or to use as an excuse and people would be responsible for their own actions on an entirely secular level.
I stopped because I realize they were being fulfilled at about the same rate whether I prayed to God, Zeus, an imaginary friend or the sun. If I wanted something done I learned it is much more effective to actually go out and do something something about.
Singapore already has a fertility rate of 1.09 children per women, which means their population is already far below a replacement fertility of 2.1 to maintain current numbers. Singapore has a child malnutrition of 3.3% as of 2009, which means they are not overpopulated as their government can sustain their population. An overpopulated country is one that cannot sustain population, if a population cannot be supported a lack of food and malnutrition is an indicator of that, but Singapore's economy allows it to import resources. Their imports give them a phantom carrying capacity and allows their population to be sustained. To solve the space crunch you have to build up, Singapore has the economic capability to do so.
I'll feed a few wolves and some murder/ ghost stories down the line. There lay the bones of ol' man Nautilus, stories say he was a gun totin' whip crackin' Obama lover, But he went out back one day into the forbidden woods and never came back. They say if you spin around three times at midnight and shout "Shoulda been McCain!" you can hear his whip cracking and you better run, cause you know he's comin for you and your taxes.
My mistake, I am so used to debating theists on here being Christian I forget that all Christians believe in God but not all people who believe in God are Christian. Wouldn't believing in God prompt you towards being a tad more compassionate or understanding? Just sayin', if you think someone is watching you, you tend to behave..... unless you are an attention whore
Evolution hasn't been proven, no one has given me factual evidence that backs up the claims that are made. Of course it contradicts my beliefs; lies (evolution) and truth (Christianity) don't sit together.
Evolution has been proven, it is accepted by the scientific community where these debates are, and have been, settled by professional academics, not online debtors, you just won't accept the proof.
its funny you say that because all the Christians I know (and that is thousands) think evolution is absolutely ridiculous - and some are far more intelligent and wise than yourself and I.
Sure, bu can you explain why the vast majority of the greatest minds on earth right now are atheist, and almost all believe in evolution, big bang, etc. Can you explain why 99% of The American Academy of sciences, containing many noble prize winners, infinitely smarter than you, me and your friends combined, are atheist. These are literally the smartest people on the planet, committed to research and expanding the knowledge of mankind, and they don't believe in God, what a coincidence.
Faith holds relationships firm.
not always, I have known people who have been drawn into the world of drug abuse and died as a result. I could have faith that they would get better, but just because you have faith in something does not mean it will happen.
If someone feels they cannot beat a disease/cancer or something and this causes their inner fighting to lack, a loved one who has faith in them will tell them "you can do this, I have faith in you, you can beat this" and this may save their life; I have seen it on more than four occasions.
4 occasions that faith "worked" (yeah no other factors could have influenced that, good controlled experiment) as opposed to how many times it didn't work. There are hundreds of cases of parents withholding medical treatment for their child and praying for them and that child died, you know why? because prayer doesn't work. That is demonstrated by the thousands of dead children left in the hands of faith. You know what works better? Medical technology. I have a feeling you have had your fair share of vaccines in your life and seen a doctor a few times. If you have an infection they will prescribe antibiotics that will fight that strain of bacteria, they won't tell you to pray because there is no evidence to suggest prayer works. Since the invention of modern medicine life expectancies have largely doubled, now I would say the people in the dark ages were quite pious, prayer does not save lives, vaccines, medicine and scientific advances save lives.
We are told that a man in prayer who is doubting will not have his prayer answered, but a man who places His faith and trust in God will have His prayer answered if it be His will.
Wow what a convenient way to excuse prayer from scrutiny. If you pray for something and it didn't work it's because you didn't have faith or you didn't trust God. Medicine is not the bible's area of expertise, and prayer has no place in it. Medical treatment is infinitely more likely to work than prayer because medicine has research and testing to back it up and prove why and how it works. We understand the human body, we understand chemistry and biology. If you are infected with a bacteria causing a disease medicine can diminish the effects of the bacteria and kill it using the knowledge we amassed through research. Prayer will not do that, there is a reason you can be charged in court if you let your child die and opt to pray for him.
the terrorist argument
what the hell are you talking about? People don't use God as an excuse for their own agenda, these are religious extremists who follow the direct word of god in their holy book and it happens from all religions. Now you say people use God as an excuse for murder, well here is a quote from Numbers 31: 17-18 attesting to quite the opposite "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." You are wrong, this is God commanding Moses to murder all the civilian boys and rape the virgin daughters of their slain enemies.... yeah God endorses war, rape, murder, and lots of terrible things you don't seem to attribute to him.
Men who are willing to die for their faith are similar to men who are willing to die for their country in many ways
These are not the same because #1, I do not support wars such as those in Afghanistan or Iraq. #2 These are not the same because extremists follow the commands of their God to kill others in the name of that God while fighting for your country is a choice (except inscription which I don't agree with if I don't support the war).
I am speaking on a level of men that are murdered for their faith)
I agree that that is a terrible thing but it happens from all sides. Muslims killing Christians, Hindu's killing Sihks, Christians killing Jews, and switch those orders around if you like but the thing is that people have killed those who don't aggree with them in the name of their God, and their sacrifice does not somehow legitimize and validate their
beliefs.
No offence intended here but you are not in the position to make such a claim as God does indeed "prize" faith, we humans do not have the ability to "prize" faith like God will.
Okay I see your point that I am not in a position to judge but I can still voice my argument. Okay well faith in God has nothing to do with the rest of your characteristics, things Jesus would have wanted people to follow like love your neighbor and be compassionate. I know many people who have faith in God but are complete assholes. Meanwhile I, if you knew me, am a very nice person, I volunteer, I help others all the time as much as I can and I do much more for the poor and downtrodden than most Christians I know. Now why would a God send some crotchety asshole who never helped someone in their life to heaven for having faith, while sending me to hell for living my life as a compassionate human being who happens to require evidence as a prerequisite for belief. What kind of a loving God would do that? Belief seems like an odd trait to prize to me.
Explaining faith to an atheist is truly like explaining the process of digestion to a dog.
Okay well if you think I do not understand the concept of faith then please explain it to me and correct me as opposed to disputing me on things for which I have no understanding according to you.
I don't believe lies like yourself and this is definitely not a bad thing nor does it result in me "taking science for granted".
Okay well things like antibiotics have to be re-made to bacteria that have evolved to become resistant to the drugs that were used to treat them. Now you don't happen to believe in evolution so if you get a Staphylococcus infection from a strain which has evolved through natural selection to become resistant to methicillin then you can just refuse the new treatment because you don't believe the "lies" behind the science to treat it.
The devil works in evil ways, and nothing pleases him more than to see men pointing the finger at God for this, that and the next thing. You are a victim of his crimes. Back to the devil, what a convenient scapegoat which you do not have to justify in any way
Maybe not the best way, but it's a very effective way, about 85% of the world can testify to that. There are basically two ways of controlling people, either through fear or reward. Fear can cause people to do some pretty crazy things, but so can reward. Religion makes use of both of those powerful forces, but religion isn't the only way to use them, it's just very effective because something like fear is never rational, and rationality is not a prerequisite for religion.
That's some great sourcing, "the web sites" yes I can also find web sites that tell me that reptilian shape shifters from Venus control the world governments, your argument is useless without something to back it up. I have the historical analysis of the history of christmas, not only have you failed to refute that but you have also failed to provide evidence as to why the birth of Jesus was December 25th. Early Christians didn't even celebrate birthdays, that was a Pagan tradition but all of the Pagan converts wanted to keep the holiday because holidays are fun so they renamed it Christmas.
it all started on december 25th wich everybody knows
Yes, and at one point, everybody "knew" that the sun revolved around earth, and they knew earth was flat. Reality is not based upon consensus, it's based upon reality. It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true, belief has no bearing upon reality. You have yet to prove why December 25th is Jesus' birthday, I have demonstrated that is used to be a Pagan holiday just given a new name so that people could keep celebrating.
People are stubborn and egotistical, I really hope there is a way to change people's minds and reason with them using logic and facts, but my debates with Thewayitis have told me otherwise, that people are and will continue to be, just willfully ignorant
Well these are the facts of history, just because you don't like what I am saying has no bearing on the legitimacy of it. If you know your facts as to why Jesus' birthday is December 25th and that is the holiday you are celebrating than please share them. No disrespect, but I do care about knowledge and learning and if you have information that I am unaware of then please enlighten me.
I can tell if the debate is created by Thewayitis before i even open it. I don't know why I keep arguing with you because clearly you cannot be effected by logic, facts or reasoning. Atheists are schizophrenics? I think not, the smartest minds in the world are atheists, meanwhile the most ignorant and bigoted minds in the world happen to belong to the religious, what a coincidence.
"A mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes..." Have you read their postings?
Have you read yours? Yeah the belief that an unfalsifiable bearded man in a nightgown created this ball of crap we call earth with the intentions of love and mercy...... yeah.
"It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking.." There are not any Christian's out to get you, it is all in your head.
Yeah because that's what atheists believe, that christians are out to get them. So when you pray, you are talking with an infallible deity who may or may not answer your prays to coincide with the actual future. If you believe your imaginary friend actually talks to you and loves you, that's definately not schizophrenia.
" Is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction." For social get to gathers they come to CD. The inability to work is clear, as much time as they spend here. One cannot be at work and here to. We just found those on unemployment.
Because all atheists are unemployed, you know all those scientists, biologists, physicists, paleontologists, chemists, they don't have jobs. And apparently you are on here, you are Christian, therefore all christians are unemployed, you see how you have lost the ability to reason.
Actually I do know much about the history of christmas and Christianity in general, that's how I know the facts above and that it's a stolen holiday, you are the one who knows nothing more than the date people have told you. Just because it is called holiday doesn't mean its Jesus' birthday. First off, that date is not given by the bible. Second, if I were to steal your car and paint "Nautilus' Car" on the side of it, what that pass as proof that it was indeed my car? Of course not, so when they Christians steal (incorporate actually) the holiday of the Pagans, and they called it Christmas to fit with their dogma, that is not proof for the date of Jesus' birthday.
I just find it really bothers me that people reject scientific advancement and discoveries but exploit and gain from everything it has done for them. I don't like it when people bite and insult the hand that feeds them. Considering everything science has done to improve the lives of people since the dark ages, they don't appreciate any of it, or why they have it.
I don't read all of their arguments. But that's not the point. I never claimed that that is the description of atheism that everyone holds to, only that the actual claim of atheism is not a positive assertion of fact (such as there is no God) but merely the denial of rejections of claims that there is one. Apparently ignorance is your strong point, you have demonstrated that time and time again.
Or not having read every argument ever posted by an atheist, but you know, your hypothesis is definitely the more plausible. I never said I knew the wording of the belief of others, I just said I don't know that, apparently you are the one who can't read.
I'm willing to substitute fiction for fact. I'm willing to substitute the rantings and ravings of those who thought disease was caused by demonic possession with the collective knowledge that mankind has amassed and proven since we escaped the clutches of the dark ages you think we should retreat to.
I'm not, but I'm willing to accept the words, evidence and proofs of those who dedicate their lives to pursuing it. Reality includes proven facts and theories about the world around you, whether or not you accept scientific truth's has no bearing on whether or not they are true.
