How is my logic a fallacy? I don't want a celebrity president/primeminister. I think it's a stupid idea.

Wanted a celebrity President? The left has proposed this for years and is still doing it.

... You realise Trump is a celebrity president, right? You're criticising the left for "proposing" something the right actually did.

Besides, as a member of the "left", I think celebrity presidents are a terrible idea - and I've seen a lot more left wingers speak out against having people such as Oprah run for president than I've seen people saying it's a good idea.

Trash culture? Yeah, that'd be the left.

Some examples, please?

George Orwell's 1984 looks more like liberalism.

Don't pretend that you bothered to read 1984.

As a side note, what specifically about the UK made you leave?

Mike Judge's comedy Idiocracy depicted a future America ruled by trash culture and a blowhard celebrity president.

Huh... sounds more like America.

I'd like you to learn the difference between race and religion, you hyper-ignorant bag of twats.

who hurt you

Wow... sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Yes and no (though, I'd like you to actually provide some statistics to show how the vast majority of sexual predators are conservatives).

Whilst politics has very little relation to this, sexual predators tend to be in positions of power (such as businessmen, priests, politicians, etc). I'd argue that a good portion of businessmen and priests are conservatives, which could explain a claim that more conservatives are predators.

However, we're starting to unravel a lot of Hollywood sex scandals, and that's quite a liberal/neo-liberal world.

stupid fucking bastard: JEWISH IS NOT A RACE.

I adore the irony of you calling someone stupid, then following that by claiming you can't be Jewish if you're not religious.

It's an ethnoreligious group. You don't need to be Jewish ethnically to be Jewish religiously, and you don't need to be Jewish religiously to be Jewish ethnically.

Is that clear enough for you?

Am I? Posing would imply that I've outright stated that I am Nicolas Cage, which I have not done.

That's as stupid a comment as me stating that you're posing as an angel.

Sucky movies such as Life of Brian, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man, Trainspotting, The Full Monty, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The Wicker Man, 2001: A Space Oddity, A Clockwork Orange, Dracula, Gandhi, The Lady Vanishes, This is England, the James Bond series, the Harry Potter series, Rebecca, Moon, Shallow Grave, Borat, A Fish Called Wanda, The Italian Job, The English Patient...?

Yeah, maybe, probably. Does it really matter?

..........................................................

You really do live in your own little fantasy world, don't you?

Not a conservative myself, but I think this is an excellent answer.

Now that there's finally equality in marriage, I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more LGBT conservatives since it won't be associated with being the political ideology which goes against the gays.

I don't like it when I see fellow left-wingers attacking gay conservatives for "abandoning" their community. If they're not supporting a conservative politician or cause which actively goes against homosexuality (like someone such as Milo Yiannopoulos, who outright states he believes homosexuality is a choice), then I don't see the issue with a gay person being conservative.

Correct - because the people who have made them victims in the past are conservatives.

I think you need to learn how to read, "genius". Nowhere did I state "conservatives are destroying all communities", I said that conservatives have attempted to destroy MY community (the LGBT community) for years.

Do pay a bit more attention before you run your mouth next time, it'll prevent you from embarrassing yourself again.

Drugs do go back for thousands of years,but not in the west where they are only 2-3 centuries old; and their use was frowned upond for the same reasons they are today.

True, I've acknowledged that.

but its use is so widespread that it would be impossible to ban it

No it wouldn't. The government could make a law tomorrow that they're making alcohol illegal, and will be phasing out its use over a set period of time. It'd result in underground, illegal trading of booze... which is what we have now with drugs, which would be much less safer than alcohol being legal.

Just because we are making no progress doesnt mean we should give upp. In fact it gives a very bad image of the government: "Well since we cant stop people of doing something illegal lets just make it legal" Imagine it applied to other matters...

That's a very narrow minded view of government policy. It's not about giving up, it's about acknowledging that you've made a mistake and working to fix that. It reflects even worse on the government that they've given up trying to making things better, and have just accepted the war on drugs as normal when it has made very little progress.

A difference between alcohol and majijuana is that you cant be perpetually drunk (hangovers) and it will be really annoying for people around you so you refrain. While you can be perpetually stoned and it wont really affect those around you, chances are most people are nicer when they are stoned!

So... your argument is that because alcohol annoys people it should be legal, but marijuana shouldn't because it doesn't annoy people?

-drugs and alcohol are VERY bad for your health if taken together, wich will happen if drugs are legalized

People do this already. The point of decriminalisation/legalisation/etc is to make drugs safer and bring more awareness to them. There's no government campaigns which advise on how to use drugs safely because they - incorrectly - believe that it encourages drug use. Mixing alcohol and drugs can be discouraged by careful government campaigns, and the people who do it despite that are likely to be the people who would be doing it anyway.

-The stats of my country show that the people which are most likely to take drugs are between the ages of 16 to 22, ie students, wich impairs the brain and has negative effects on the long term ( research in english: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana) ) )

Again, alcohol has the same effects. The amount of people I know (admittedly including me) who have missed lectures/exams/lessons because of a hangover is shocking.

The point is, all of these substances are bad for your health and for a young person's development, but in moderation they're perfectly safe.

The fact that it is legalized or not doesnt change anything for the countries that produce it, in fact it probably makes it worse. The drug lords work hand in hand with the authorities because they share the revenue; sometimes the drug lords are so powerfull that the government couldnt do anything even if they wanted to.

This speculation makes no sense, as I've already pointed out. Drug lords are no longer criminals if the drugs they're selling are legal (I should also point out that drug lords gain their profit largely through cocaine, not marijuana or other non-class A drugs).

Let's take a look at Columbia, and other South American countries. A lot of farmers make their living from harvesting drugs to sell to the drug lords. For them, the decriminalisation of drugs is devastating: it means they're underpaid and can't fight against that, are in danger of having themselves and their families kidnapped and murdered, and on top of that are constantly harassed by the authorities who shut them

down and arrest them without looking at the wider picture.

There is no black market for drugs if they're legal. That means the crimes associated with drugs and gangs are eliminated.

As you said more people will be using drugs but the health of drugs users will go upp, dunno though if the "overall" health of the nation will go upp but thats not really the point

It will slightly improve the health of the nation, especially amongst younger people who are much more likely to consume illegal drugs. It means they're less likely to be spiked or poisoned. Keep in mind that a lot of people do drugs just for experimentation, not regularly; they deserve to be protected, even if you believe their curiosity is stupid.

if you legalize it why not permit things like cocaine or heroin

I believe heroin, especially, should be decriminalised, but the sale of it should be illegal. Drugs such as cocaine and heroin are much more dangerous than the likes of marijuana/MDMA/ketamine/etc.

However, I think marijuana, shrooms and MDMA are the only two which should be properly legalised and regulated. With the others, they should be legal to consume, but illegal to sell.

its my body I can do anything I want with it

I agree. That's the main reason I believe it should be legalised.

think of people a few generation from now who think that smoking pot is as normal as having candy

No offence, but I think that's a pretty ridiculous notion. Do we see alcohol and tobacco as normal as eating candy? No, of course not. We don't feed it to our kids, and the thought that the next generation will be treating it like it's a sweet just because it was legalised a few decades before is ludicrous. The same age restrictions would apply.

Answer honestly what good, what qualities will it bring out of people? Seems a very dangerous bargain with not much to win and everything to loose

Economically? It opens up new enterprise and jobs, but that's more the secondary reason why I support this.

Socially, it has two benefits: first of all, crime will decrease, since drug dealers for some of the most common drugs will become obsolete.

Secondly - I've saved this for last, since it's the main point as to why I support legalisation of consumption - it's because it's our body, and the government shouldn't be deciding for us what we do with it. The government is there to protect us, but that doesn't mean it's responsible for moderating what we put inside us (whether that be drugs, or the genitals of the same sex, hehe...).

(PS: how do you write in bold?)

Double asterisk :)

If you hate god, then you are in a way acknowledging that he exists... though, of course, you can dislike fictional characters...

"Millions", huh? Damn, if only we had something that could prevent the conception of babies before, during and after sex, huh?

In moderation it won't

Nor will marijuana. There's no conclusive studies - or even any reports - that marijuana will kill and addict you in moderation. You're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof rests on those who make unsupported criticisms of the drug.

In fact, most medical experts agree that marijuana can't kill you on its own. Keep in mind that there are zero reported marijuana-induced deaths.

What relevance does that have to my comment or to this debate?

How come you haven't banned yourself then yet?

.....................................

nearly anything else that gets you high will kill and addict you.

Wormwood and alcohol are exceptions.

Alcohol can't kill and addict you?

What do you consider MY people?

Americans, though of course most were not responsible for Trump.

I don't believe you would (Constitutionally), have to ASK to not swear on a Bible, you should be able to demand to swear on The Constitution, instead.

You don't have to swear on the Bible as I said, but it's the default option and I believe you need to specify beforehand that you don't want to use the Bible.

So, you think John Adams remark was "baseless" and "ludicrous"? I agree with much of what you stated, but, John Adams, "ludicrous"?? HE was there at the time, HE knows what the conversation was, HE knew the feelings of those who were involved, I think he was anything BUT ludicrous.

Contextually, no, of course not, that's what Adams wanted the country to be and obviously he couldn't have foreseen whether or not it would be successful.

However, I believe that using that quote in our context is silly considering we have experienced what we have. I don't think it's wrong to have a dominant religion in your country, but I do think there needs to be more emphasis on the separation of religion and politics.

Completely depends on who the Democrats put forward as a candidate. If they provide someone half-decent then Trump's done for; most of America dislike him enough as it is.

However, I personally can't think of anyone who might be a good nominee, so I'm afraid you Americans may be looking at another 4 years.

No, the president has no authority over the press, however he can silence the news in more legal and subtle ways - in fact, he's already doing it with this whole "FAKE NEWS" narrative. He's convinced his supporters that any news which criticises him and his agenda is "fake" and "liberal bias", and that anything which supports him is the complete truth.

Have you noticed how the alt-right constantly call CNN, the BBC, etc "fake" whilst you never hear a word from them on even worse publications which routinely fabricate stories such as Breitbart?

Normally I'd agree with you, but trust me, outlaw isn't worth the time and effort.

Probably because the Tories are in power.

...............................................................

What are you talking about? Who isn't inspired by speeches filled with incessant waving, "a-OK" hand signals, stuttering, repetition of basic points without any depth, and gloating about how great the speaker is?

I, for one, say our God Emperor Trump is, like, the bestest speech talker of all time. It's true, he's great. No one else speeches like him. China, y'know China, they say China's taking all of our speech talkers, and that's bigly bad.

Never thought I'd agree with bronto (though I think we agree for different reasons), but to say that America and its government has no basis on the Christian religion is ludicrous.

America attempts to push this narrative of being a "secular country, with a complete separation of Church and State", yet you literally have "IN GOD WE TRUST" plastered all over your currency, and still ask people to swear on the Bible in court? (I realise there's no obligation to, but the fact that you have to ask the court to not swear on the Bible, rather than having to ask to swear on the Bible is implication enough.)

That said, I don't think America will fall if Christian values are suddenly abolished, because as you've stated, they've largely merged with American values, Western values and just plain common sense.

I don't even think your people follow Christian values that closely anyway, considering the buffoon that's been elected president. Baffles me how someone can claim to be a selfless follower of Jesus, love your neighbour and the Golden Rule yet also want to kick out all the foreigners and elect gropers as head of state.

I don't think America is going to "fall", but it's definitely going to receive a slap in the face eventually, as all countries do. America hasn't been around long enough to develop fully; it still has centuries of growth to go before realising it's not the centre of the universe.

I absolutely guarantee you that people will look at the US with shame.

"Will" look at the US with shame? We already do!

Those are also Buddhist values. Does that mean the US falls if Buddhist values fall, too?

Things such as honesty, kindness, and not murdering people are not strictly Christian values, they're values which Christianity adopted when it was written that existed long before any Abrahamic religion.

So, you are correct by saying society falls if Christian values fall, but it's silly to equate those values solely with Christianity (which I'm not saying you specifically are doing, just making a broad point) and is as baseless an argument/claim as saying "the US falls if Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim/Jewish/LaVeyan Satanist values fall".

Jews (/dʒuːz/;[12] Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‬ ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[13] and a nation[14][15][16] originating from the Israelites,[17][18][19] or Hebrews,[20][21] of the Ancient Near East. Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated,[22] as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish people while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.

"Ethnoreligious group"

An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background. Ethnoreligious communities define their ethnic identity neither by ancestral heritage nor simply by religious affiliation but often through a combination of both.

To say that excon isn't a Jew because he's not religious is like saying an African American isn't black because he doesn't follow African culture.

Semites are a broad range of ethnicities. Jews, whether they follow Jewish culture or not, are Jews because it's an ethnicity and a religion. It's not just one or the other.

It's the same reason why you can be vice versa: you can follow Judaism, but you're not actually an ethnic Jew.

Completely agree. Trump himself isn't encouraging people to be Nazis, as he clearly isn't one, but he needs to do more to discourage it.

It feels like he's so scared about losing voters that he's just turning the blind eye to it all.

Funny how the facts show that fewer people are getting married today. They are choosing to live together which is terrible for our children's security. The family unit is falling apart.

That's true, yeah. So what?

Perhaps because conservatives have attempted to destroy our community for decades?

you need to be saved.

Yeah, from you, you maniac.

..........................

I am a sinner who has done wrong, does wrong, and deserves to die and burn in Hell.

Well, at least you're finally admitting it! That's the first step to recovery, no?

Themes and morals such as stoning gays and telling women to shut up in church? Yes, I agree, very current and hip!

Uhh... why are you ranting on about democrats all of a sudden? Seems rather unrelated to the debate.

Also, why are you attributing those views to me when I've stated numerous times to you that I'm not a democrat? Then again, from the way you speak, I sincerely doubt you ever read more than just skimming through people's arguments.

Congratulations, I've never seen anyone speak so much whilst simultaneously not making any sensical points.

Are you a preacher in the Deep South by any chance?

Got to applaud you for this by the way, you've managed to compile all the deluded bigots nicely into one thread. Kudos.

So just because most people don't follow religion means that heaven's not real?

That's not what I said.

And the Bible is not outdated. Some parts of it are, but most are still very relevant today.

Some parts of it are outdated, some parts of it aren't. Many of the beliefs in it, however, we have moved past as a society.

Hence why I refer to it as outdated. Outdated doesn't mean irrelevant.

We somehow managed to screw up most of Africa and India despite them both being prosperous places... I'd say we've definitely done a bit too much harm than was needed in this world.

Thank God the focus is off us and onto America now. They've accomplished more destabilisation in the Middle East in a century than the papalcy managed in 9 crusades!

Deus Vult!

I've seen far-right atheists use an argument about how being gay is a disease (and we shouldn't allow gay marriage) because it goes against "evolution" since it doesn't produce offspring.

It's an absolutely ludicrous argument which is merely them attempting to justify their irrational dislike of gays, but there you go.

Hi Antrim, Brit here. I understand the concern of "health tourism" and it's a common talking point amongst the right wingers here, however it's simply not a valid point as to why the NHS is under great stress.

Health tourism adds up to less than 0.3% of all NHS spending. That's approximately £370 million, which is a barely noticeable figure.

The NHS' issue is underfunding from a government which doesn't know how to run, nor does it want, universal healthcare. I think you'll find that blaming foreigners (who actually make up around 18% of the NHS workforce) does no favours and just ignores the main issue.

If that were true, then around 69% of the world's population is going to Hell... or, alternatively, about 76% of the world's population... or 80%... or 89%... or 75%... or maybe 100%!

My point is, it's a silly concept because it relies on this idea that for someone to be good, they must believe in God. What sort of loving, fair and just "true" God would send billions of people to be tortured for all of eternity simply because they don't submit to His infinite ego?

If a heaven does exist, and if the "true God" does exist, then good people will be rewarded regardless of what outdated, dogmatic text they believe in.

It depends. What would be the consequences? Would we literally be resurrecting their rotten corpse, or would it be more like restoring them as a copy of themselves when they died?

I think that if we were able to regenerate someone who suffered an unfair death (senseless murder, for example) with no effects such as still having decaying skin/brain damage/etc, then we should at least attempt it. Perhaps people could put in their wills that they're OK with being brought back to life if they die under certain conditions.

However, death by old age I believe should be left alone. We're not meant to live forever, and dying has a purpose: we're already becoming overpopulated. Removing death from that opens up a brand new can of words.

Give a coherent argument as to what would stop a reasonably savvy person from becoming a Plumber and earning a solid income, on average $50,000

It requires a lot of time training. Plumbing isn't just hitting the pipes with a wrench and being done with it. It's a lot harder than plumbers are given credit for, and you need to go through years of qualifications and apprenticeships which simply won't allow you to earn the money you need in the meantime.

It's extremely hard work with late nights and weekends. Sure, you could say "well, that's the price you pay for success", but is it worth being a workaholic and neglecting your family and friends (which are often an important support network for those in poverty) just so you can have an unforgiving, dull life? I'll always put family and friends before work, and that's just how many people are. You can't change the psychology of an entire group of people, even if you disagree with those values.

You say "reasonably savvy", but again, that's ignoring the issues which mean that a lot of people in poverty aren't savvy. It's about psychology, again. Sure, a reasonably savvy person could push themselves to do it, and many do.

Of course it's possible for someone to become a plumber, but you can't ignore that certain careers just aren't for everyone. There's a reason plumbing isn't a popular profession, after all.

Spot on! For anyone curious, here's a few quotes from Trump addressing the government shutdown.

“Problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top, and the President’s the leader, and he’s got to get everybody in a room, and he’s got to lead. And he doesn’t do that, he doesn’t like doing that, that’s not his strength. And that’s why you have this horrible situation going on in Washington. It’s a very, very bad thing and it’s very embarrassing worldwide.” - Donald Trump, September 2013

"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - Donald Trump, November 2013

"Well, very simply, you have to get everybody in a room. You have to be a leader. The president has to lead. He’s got to get [the Speaker of the House] and everybody else in a room, and they have to make a deal. You have to be nice, and be angry, and be wild, and cajole, and do all sorts of things. But you have to get a deal." Donald Trump, October 2013

That's a really interesting argument that I've not heard before. I suppose a case could be made that criminalising marijuana is unconstitutional! :D

Its really hard to refrain people from drinking alcohol because it was accepted in society for thousands or years, while the wide use of drugs is quite recent = with proper education and policies we can

Actually, the use of opium and marijuana can both be traced back thousands of years. They were both used by the Chinese, the Indians, and traces have even been found in the Mamluke period.

Whilst the West did not discover drugs until later, I don't think it's really a valid argument. As a modern society, we're meant to progress and learn/discover new things. Why does alcohol being around for a long time make its use any more fair than other substances?

Tobacco's a recent find in the West, and its wide use is also new. It's hypocritical not to acknowledge that.

with proper education and policies we can win the war on drugs

The war on drugs has essentially been waged since the 19th century. We've made absolutely no progress since then, and even the campaign in the 80's arguably just made drug use even more common. Any publicity is good publicity, after all.

About the benefits: again why allow weed when there already is alcohol, isnt it too much of a "good" thing?

I don't see why it's a negative thing for us to be allowed to enjoy a natural substance.

Why should we just settle for alcohol? Why is it bad to have another "good thing" we can enjoy?

another problem I see is that the countries producing majijuana are poor, yes their economy would thrive for a bit, but as we could see it in columbia most of money goes to local drug lords and the workers get addicted to it

This would only benefit those countries. It would mean that drug lords become irrelevant; they wouldn't have to avoid the authorities and kill, lie and cheat to outsmart them.

Think about this: a drug dealer needs to keep a low profile to stay away from the police in order to avoid being arrested. A lot of drug-related deaths are due to disputes between dealers and clients. If there's regulations and protection from the law, it means dealers won't be under pressure to hide from the police, and it means clients won't be in danger of being harmed.

If you allow a drug lord's trade to become legal, essentially what you're providing is further deterrent. Crime lords aren't afraid to commit more crime because they're already in deep; but if you make their actions legal, they'll no longer have any reason to commit further crime.

About making it safer for people, sure it will; but the way I see it is that drugs being dangerous healthwise acts only as another deterrent, you break the law= you face the consequences

I think that's a rather unfair way of looking at things. If you're irresponsible with substances, your punishment is the effect it'll have on your health. Chucking people in jail isn't going to help people get better.

More people might end up using drugs if some are legalised, but that won't cause a health crisis, and in fact the destigmatisation could follow what happened in Portugal when they decriminalised drugs: an increase in health amongst drug users. Heroin addicts in particular became less embarrassed and scared to see professionals, meaning they could get the help they need.

Weed isn't really dangerous anyway, and so the only thing legalisation will do is ensure people are using high quality substance.

marijuana studies are fake

Which studies are you speaking of? All of them? So every study which has been conducted which results in positive data about marijuana is part of a global conspiracy to legalise it?

Don't you think that if that were the case, it would already be legal? I don't think someone with that much money and power would have any trouble getting something legalised.

Marijuana is perfectly safe. I, and the majority of my friends, smoke it, and in moderation it's completely fine. But that's the same for alcohol; drink it casually and in moderation and you'll be fine. Abuse it, and you'll damage your health. It's a double standard to allow one thing but not another when they're that comparable.

The war on drugs has been a total disaster, and has made absolutely no progress. I'd argue that drugs are even more common now despite it (well, here in the UK that's definitely true, not so sure about the US).

Whether you believe the studies or not, we can't deny that drug laws need urgent reforms, and legalisation and regulation of marijuana should be where it starts.

People will be tempted to escape their daily problems through drugs rather solving them; the same could be argued about alcohol, but at least with alcohol there is a physical consequence (hangover) so people try not to abuse

Like you said, people already do that in massive amounts with alcohol.

I don't know if you've ever tried drugs/researched the after effects, but there certainly is a physical consequence comparable to a hangover with many of them (known as a "come down").

Though, it's true with marijuana that there's not really a come down from it. That said, there's not really any negative long-term effects either if you're smoking it casually. If you smoke it every day, then yes, obviously you're going to mess up your body, but that's the same for alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are legal.

The solution isn't to just ban it completely (and unfairly incarcerate those who are using it), the solution is education. People are aware of the risks of alcohol because it's made vocal. If weed is legalised, the government can run the same campaigns they use for alcohol and inform the population on the risks of regular use.

I wonder what kind of benefit will drugs bring to people

The same benefit alcohol brings to people: fun and relaxation. Not to mention, it's great for the economy.

Legalisation and regulation will mean more small business, and it'll also mean the drug itself is safer for people because what goes into it can be monitored and cleaned.

That's correct. It's not really something I've learnt from being on this site, though.

It's genetics, what people are born with. I can't believe we're still having this debate.

The whole "vaccine" scandal was created as a hoax. It's been taken too far.

There's records of people fitting the symptoms of autism from centuries ago. Did we have vaccines back then?

If Christians love all people, why do I consistently receive homophobic abuse from far-right Christians on this site?

The issue is that you treat us as if we're an abomination, not as if we're normal people who have committed sins.

Everyone, including you, have committed sins and continue to commit sins, yet still you treat the LGBT community as subhuman.

This was never about wedding cakes, it's about the principle of if you can start denying services to someone based on their demographics, where does it end? Is it OK to deny basic services to a black man and a white woman because you don't like interracial relationships?

I don't know either.

Finally you agree. Stop acting as if your argument is undeniable proof that God exists.

I don't need to make an argument for The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, it is its own argument.

So you have no argument? Terrific. :)

You are the one who is arrogant if you think your science falsely so called could ever undermine The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, God Almighty.

My science? What science? I've stated multiple times that I think it's unwise to make absolute statements about God's existence. Maybe he does exist, maybe he doesn't. There's no argument which proves or disproves him.

The ontological argument is an argument from logic, but I see atheism as more logical because, overall, there's more logical atheistic arguments.

There is no question of God. The God I speak of is not some "theory".

Your argument for his existence certainly is.

Without God, the universe would not exist at all. There could be no universe. The universe would not be a reality.

Yes there could. There's literally tons of scientific theories which talk about this.

And that's all this is, too. A theory. You can't be so arrogant as to claim your theory as absolute fact.

The creator of the universe.

..................................................................................................................................................

Why won't you accept this definition?

Because I don't agree with that definition. It's really that simple.

That is what words are. IF you make language arbitrary, that means the spirit of truth is not in you, because you are not interested in communication. The only thing you are doing is sowing chaos, discord, and variance.

We use representations to communicate. They are not there to prove the existence of things.

I'm flattered you think I'm such a demonic character. What sort of chaos am I sowing? Is it the whole gay sex thing? Forgive me father.

Hail Eris or something, right?

Cthulhu, actually, but close.

We're going around in circles now.

I think you do yourself a disservice by calling my "delusional" simply because I do not agree with the view point that God's definition proves his existence. I do not doubt God's existence, I just do not support it either. I neither believe nor disbelieve.

By the way, the issue you are having with me right now is practically the major overarching theme of The New Testament.

Redemption and salvation? I think you'll have to elaborate a bit more on that.

I think it's derogatory to try and undermine and disqualify a presidential candidate by saying he's from Kenya simply because of the colour of his skin.

Where do you get your definitions from? The one I follow is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.".

But, nevertheless, proves my point - language is subjective. Definitions vary, and meanings vary. We cannot use it to evidence God's existence.

Everything else I say stands.

You're not even going to attempt to give a rebuttal then? Fair enough. :)

Even if they had, questioning a person's citizenship is not derogatory

I'm sorry, what? Not derogatory? The whole birther movement was formed around the fact that Obama wasn't a white man. It was made to undermine him and use his race against him.

There is no such thing as a universally accepted definition.

Point proven. Language is subjective.

Your whole argument is that language is arbitrary.

No, my argument is that language is subjective. There is logic to language, but we cannot use language to define something into existence.

I am talking about something beyond language, but you can't believe language long enough to even see that.

You're right, if a God does exist, He's beyond language, hence why calling Him "the supreme and ultimate reality" is ultimately meaningless. The universe defines our language, our language doesn't define it.

We use words such as "supreme" and "ultimate" to highlight something that's beyond our grasp. That doesn't mean that something which is beyond our grasp has to exist.

The difference is, if you say there are is no God, you are clearly not talking about my God.

So, in your perspective, there is a God. You have a personal God, which may or may not actually exist for other people.

Also, your questions are superstitious. You have superstitious ideas about God. If you believe me, your questions would be revealed as being superstitious.

I don't think you know what "superstitious" means.

All you have to do is accept that God with a capital "G" is defined as "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality", otherwise, you are not talking about the same thing as me.

I'm talking about god, God, gods, Gods. Overall. Altogether.

Again, that is YOUR definition of God. That is not the universally accepted definition of God.

Just because you believe it to be so doesn't mean that it is.

God being THE TRUTH is the defining characteristic of God.

Yes... to you.

To an atheist, the defining characteristic of God is the opposite of the truth.

To an agnostic, the defining characteristic of God is that we don't know.

Your argument has no substance. It's just "my opinion of what God is is right. Everyone else is wrong".

because if you were to agree with me on what it is we are talking about... There would no longer be a debate.

Yes, congratulations, that is the purpose of a debate.

Truly, the existence of God is not up for debate.

I think that's up for debate.

Yet, the scriptures do speak about why it is that anyone would dispute what it is one means when they use the word of God properly....

The scriptures? Which scripture do you believe in? Do you believe that to be the absolute word of God? How can you link your God, who you claim undeniably exists, to religious scripture?

Perhaps God does exist - or maybe many Gods - but I don't think you can use the argument for God's existence as an argument for religion's truth.

The GOP did not fixate on making non stop personal attacks against Obama.

They literally ran a campaign saying that he wasn't an American citizen.

If you don't believe that God exists, we aren't talking about the same thing. If you want to be arbitrary about what it is that is being discussed because you have an aversion to the word "God", I can't be blamed for that.

I don't believe that God exists, but I also don't believe that God doesn't exist. I think both concepts are possible.

God clearly exists, because we are talking about the essence of existence. If you say that God doesn't exist, you are not actually talking about God, because the defining characteristic of God is existence. You might as well be talking about stones when I am trying to have a conversation with you about trees.

Who says that God's defining characteristic is existence? To me, God's defining characteristic would be omnipotence. To others, it might be omnibenevolence... to others, God's defining characteristic is non-existence.

You cannot use human-made words as a means of defining God into existence. I could say that the defining characteristic of God is that He's a transgender rabbit. That doesn't mean He is.

The issue with the ontological argument, as much as I love it, is that it relies on using human logic to deduce God's existence. Yes, in theory, if God is all-powerful then he could make himself exist. But that ignores the fact that the universe doesn't always abide by human ideas - much of it is beyond our understanding.

Your concept of God is that he exists because he must exist - because you say so, because human language proves it through definitions of "ultimate" and "supreme" and "existence".

Those are human-made words. There is no absolute logic which links the fabric of the universe and our reality to our language. An alien society in another galaxy might have the definition of God as something which doesn't exist in the real world. Their "anti-ontological" argument would be just as legitimate - and logical - as yours.

Have you actually read or watched any of GOT?

................................................................

This is tricky. Personally? I far prefer Game of Thrones, as I find the political intrigue and more historical, gritty focus much more appealing.

However, I don't deny that LOTR is the greatest fantasy series of all time. It revolutionised the genre, and brought brand new concepts to the table which has inspired fantasy media ever since.

I'd much rather sit down and read/watch GOT than LOTR, but that's a personal preference.

calling someone a racist or nazi is a judgmental intolerant thing to do.

What if they are a racist or nazi?

My point was that both things are bad, but the Left never sees their hypocrisy.

It's not really hypocrisy. It's the difference between being outright racist about someone, and overreacting towards someone's political opinions.

You can't seriously think that calling a black man the most racist, derogatory term you can call them is equivilant to calling someone a racist.

They would be outraged if Repubicans had treated Obama like the Democrats are treating Trump.

... but the Republicans did treat Obama the same way. I'm not saying it's right, but don't pretend that Obama didn't receive the exact same treatment during his presidency.

I'm sure Nicolas would be honoured by your admiration, but unfortunately I'm not him.

We can dream, though.

We can dream.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, would you mind clarifying?

Apologies, I didn't see your longer post as I was admittedly skimming through the OP!

it is not exceptionally challenging to enter the Middle Class (or above) at some point in their life measured on the scale of decades (e.g. maybe you live in poverty or below the Middle Class line in your youth & through your 30s, but get out in their 40's--there is no reason why a person should be doomed to lifelong poverty regardless of their background

Whilst I agree that it's definitely possible for people to go up and down the ladder, what I disagree with is the claim that it isn't difficult.

As you've acknowledged, those born into poverty (perhaps with broken families, or no family at all) will find it extremely challenging to succeed. Educational success isn't only determined by how hard you work, it's also about the resources at your disposal.

Those who are poorer cannot afford tutors, books, computers/internet, healthier food for brain growth, etc. Not to mention, with the American healthcare system, should a child have issues with their health their parents are going to be reluctant to spend what little money they currently have.

However, by the time they are approaching 40 years old, one would think they had made some significant progress on this front.

In theory, perhaps, but remember that education ends about 20 years before that. If a child fails with their education, it's going to be much harder for them to be seen as employable by companies with high paying jobs. College (university here in the UK) is becoming a much more important requirement for employers, and if you can't get into it for whatever reason then your adult years will be a lot tougher.

The only criteria for Stafford Loans is to be an American citizen. I already described what these loans are capable of producing if used wisely. What is holding a person back from using this resource and/or others as a means out of their present situation?

I don't know about Stafford Loans, but here in the UK we also have a student loan system. You're right - loans do help enormously with the cost of university. However, what people often don't realise is the hidden costs of college/university.

I'm currently in my first year, and I'm from a middle class family who are reasonably well off, but even me and many of my friends struggle with money on a weekly basis. My loan goes on rent for my accommodation, which doesn't even cover the full cost - my parents have to pick up the rest of the bill.

Added on to that, it's extremely hard to find a job in my local area considering I have classes most of the week.

Now, consider the case for a family which doesn't have the sort of money mine does. Not only do you eventually have to pay back your loan, which is a scary concept even for me, they'll have to pay for general living costs for their child.

When fees were raised in the UK, university attendance amongst the working class dropped. The costs are just too great for families living on the poverty line.

Now, nobody claims that climbing the Mountain is easy, and may very well/likely in fact be more difficult for a person starting at/toward the bottom--rather, I am stating that it is perfectly possible for a person to take advantage of societies current resources and climb their way up.

Possible? Perhaps. But it's a lot harder when the climber above you is kicking dirt into your face to keep you down.

What the Left is doing is paramount to if the Republicans screamed NIGGER everytime Obama did anything. Can you imagine if the Repubicans treated Obama with that type of childish judgmental hate?

Interesting point, though I do think there's a rather large difference between calling someone racist and being blatantly racist yourself.

I think people tend to ignore that it's impossible in the way our society is for everyone to be a member of the same class.

There's a lower quantity of jobs with higher pay brackets than there are for poor-paying jobs. This, obviously, means that it's more difficult to reach those high-end jobs.

And even if it were possible for everyone in America to become a successful businessman, who will be responsible for those other jobs that don't pay well? Who will be the cleaners, the waiters, the binmen, etc? Someone needs to do those jobs that we take for granted. The issue isn't that people don't work hard, it's that jobs aren't paying well enough despite private businesses being perfectly capable of doing so.

By saying "hey it's not difficult to be wealthy", you're ignoring all the socioeconomic issues which lead to inherited poverty. It's honestly astounding how ignorant some people can be.

It's a very risky concept, which borders too much on dystopian control of people's personal lives.

What would the screening process be? If you earn under a certain amount, you can't have kids? In that case, wouldn't it mean we're attempting to cull the working class?

And what would happen to the children if a couple had a baby without getting a license? Would they be put up for adoption? Both America and the UK already have ridiculously high rates of children who have been left orphans.

It's something I wouldn't be surprised to read about in a Margaret Atwood novel.

Whilst the ontological argument is one of my favourite perspectives for the existence of God, I don't believe it's an absolute, objective proof that God does exist.

You cannot attempt to simply define God into existence and leave it at that. It's not evidence, it's a theory.

The main reason for this shocking situation is that the U.K., has been swamped with 10s of millions of foreign nationals who avail themselves to the nation's free national health service, otherwise known as HEALTH TOURISM.

Incorrect. "Health tourism" makes up 0.3% of NHS spending.

Theresa May's conservative government simply won't throw £billions into the bottomless pit of the National Health Service as they liken such a measure to throwing raisins to an elephant.

They won't increase spending because they want the NHS to collapse. It's more profitable for them that way.

If and when a true left wing government is elected in Britain we'll see the National Health Service improving through unaffordable irresponsible borrowing and a reduction in the nations self defense budget.

Why do we need to spend £45.4 billion on something which doesn't affect the lives of the average Briton? All we need is to lower that budget down to £40 billion and give the surplus funding to the NHS, and it'll be adequately funded. No borrowing required.

When the conservative government was returned to power they introduced so called austerity ( or in other words- living within one's means) and were immediately accused of cold blooded heartlessness by the very left wingers who had brought Britain to it's knees in the first place.

The issue is that they began austerity without implementing a plan for those who would be adversely affected by the cuts.

That certainly explains how their current leader managed to win the presidency.

The Conservative government despises the NHS and wants it to be privately owned. It's utterly underfunded, and needs billions more to function properly.

The deterioration of the National Health Service isn't because of socialism - it's because of a lack of socialism.

I think that's one of the most nonsensical arguments for the existence of God I've ever read.

I've learnt that far/alt-right fundamentalist Christians are complete nut jobs.

Actually, no, I knew that already.

I'll assume we're talking about the most common depiction of knights and samurai.

Knights, overall, were far better equipped than samurai. A katana would not be effective against full plate armour, and a knight's longsword would cleave through a samurai's armour easily.

But who was more skilled? That one's up for debate. I do think, however, that if you were to strip them both of armour, then it's likely the samurai would win. A longsword is much heftier and slower to swing than a katana, which can be unsheathed and used to attack in one arm movement.

There are definitely some quite aggressive people on this forum...

The ones I refer to were written within a hundred years of Jesus' passing. A century is not a long time in history - remember that we have detailed accounts of things which occurred hundreds of years ago.

But, just to clarify, I believe his existence and deeds have been vastly exaggerated throughout time. If we're ignoring the Christian writings, which have certainly been altered to put him in a more "holy" light, there is still historical evidence of his existence as a man.

As a son of God, though? Considering I believe all religion to be largely false, I think you can guess at what my opinion on that would be.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying, "Muslims and Christians cannot be liberals", I'm saying that those views are not compatible with the modern liberal mindset.

Of course plenty of Muslims and Christians are liberals, because many of them abandon those hateful, rigid teachings.

I'd appreciate it if you were less hostile :)

I should have been more specific with that.

There's historical documents which directly and indirectly mention Jesus, which is what historians use to evidence his existence.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote an account in AD93 mentioning "Jesus, the so-called Christ".

We also have documents from Roman politicians which mention the execution of a man named Jesus, which took place during the reign of Emperor Tiberius and the administration of Pontius Pilate who was in charge of Judea. This can be cross-examined with the gospels and it matches the time frame.

I think you either didn't read the source, or you don't understand it.

There is no proof that Aisha was of any age. Like nom's quote pointed out, she could have been between the ages of 9 and 19 due to the inaccuracy of the Hadith.

But let's imagine she was underage. We're not defending the fact that he would have had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old, we're simply pointing out the fact that medieval culture across the entire known world did not have a solid concept of childhood. Children would be considered able to work at extremely young ages, and considered legitimate to marry too.

This is the case across not just the Islamic world, but Europe too.

I think it's reprehensible by modern interpretation, however you have to remember that in the medieval era, this was the norm.

Now, I'm not a "Muslim apologist", but I do think that if we're going to judge a religion (which has a lot of issues we can judge it on), we should focus on the present and compare that with our modern values. It's silly for us to look at the past and say "hey! that's illegal!" when it was completely accepted in that society.

It's a ridiculous notion which I absolutely despise. I have nothing against Oprah, but she has no political experience and I've seen nothing from her apart from some emotional speeches that would suggest she'd be capable of running a country.

I dislike Trump, but at least he somewhat had experience with economics and business.

America's already the laughing stock of the world. Keep electing TV personalities as your president and we'll probably end up with a reality TV show called Made in Washington.

Fundamentalist Islamic views are to the right of Hitler. As you've pointed out, they hold views such as anti-homosexuality which aren't compatible with liberal ideas.

I don't agree with it, however the right-wing libertarian view tends to be that with unrestricted free market capitalism, there will be no need for government welfare. Employers will provide it themselves.

I've not actually seen any libertarian advocate for the second half of your comment, however I'll take a guess at why they might be against instilling values into the young. Libertarians are, fundamentally, about liberty, and they believe there shouldn't be universal norms and values taught to the youth.

It's all nonsense in my personal opinion; right-wing libertarians like to be smug and believe themselves to be "realists", however they live in just as much of an ideological fantasy world as their nemesis', the authoritarian communists.

Trusting corporations to the huge extent that right-wing libertarians do is just baffling to me. Of course, private investment must be encouraged and given breathing room, however if they're left to do whatever they want with no consequence we'll end up in some sort of dystopian society where the rich live in gated communities and the poor are left to fend for themselves on the streets, forced every year to compete in a brutal 24-person fight to the death with nothing but primitive bows, axes and knives as wea-

What's so morally wrong about learning how to use your body's pleasure to its maximum potential? If it were immoral to have anal sex why would God make it so darn good?

I wonder: is FromWithin so against background checks for guns because he knows that he, himself, is too mentally unstable to be eligible?