CreateDebate


PassionFruit's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of PassionFruit's arguments, looking across every debate.

Yeah, self defense from a 140 pounds skinny black boy with a bottle of Arizona and skittles. Zimmerman had a gun and a 200 pound ass to squish him like a bug.

Ha. Self defense. Seriously?

How can crediting invisible entities with these metaphysical questions any kind of explanation?

It is an attempt to answering those metaphysical questions. You have to start somewhere...

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Natural philosophy is the study of nature and the physical universe. Origins date back to Aristotle's branching.

Indeed but once again the need to understand, as fundamental as man's vital needs, generated first, as has seen Auguste Comte (if you are interested in the links between science and religion you should read Auguste Comte...it is very interesting) theological explanations (or fictional), which are the most natural, then, under the influence of reason metaphysical (or abstract) explanations. Gods or to take your words invisible entities and then Nature or natural philosophy were the first attempted explanations.

Imagination always precedes reason because imagination is what comes to us naturally, easily. Reason demands more thought.

Behind every scientific conception there was an idea (product of our imagination). The idea was rectified by our reason (metaphysics) but remains an idea. Science verifies and tests the validity of the idea.

The fact suggest the idea (imagination); The idea directs experimentation (reason); Experimentation judges the idea (reason).

Astrology for example, is the origin of astronomy and research on the magical properties of numbers and figures which itself was the origins of mathematics.

The need to understand generates before anything theological explanations because they are the most natural and primitive explanations.

Science is not. Science comes from the progressive and reasonable rectifications of our first idea

So, religion (or any result of our imagination) is the first attempt to answer those questions.

For years the United States was the country for which one can be rich and own whatever he wants. One who has that economic freedom will tend not to commit crime.

But this economic freedom requires a system of classes. So, for one to be rich, there must be poor. So, even with economic freedom there will be crime. It is definitely not going to reduce crime.

More police isn't either. Police is kind of like really bad insecticide. If you have insect invasion, spaying them with insecticide is temporarily useful. But it will not prevent the insects from coming back.

This is so true. I have to note that the holocost was because of an ideology, I don't think it was entirely because of religion.

Religion is a belief, a product of our imagination. Imagination is part of the human mind and that is what is dangerous. Imagination is the cause of irrational fears. Irrational fears are the cause of many of the wars of the past and today.

Religion or any sort "belief" is inevitable because it is part of us. So, discussing whether it is harmful or beneficial will not bring us far because religion is nothing but a product. It is not a root.

There are certain degrees of dictatorships. Dictatorships can go from Hitler's dictatorship to a much much softer kind...A kind that does not hurt the population but keeps it happy, safe and naive. That keeps it unaware and distracted. A government that gives the population those little pleasures and superficial necessities to spare it the pains of life but most of all the troubles of thinking.

A government that confines our free will in a smaller space. It does not break our freedom of choice but softens it, in order to bend and direct it. It does not tyrannize. It hinders, compresses, extinguishes and finally reduces each and one of us to nothing more than a flock of timid and spending animals, of which it is the shepherd.

How dare you insult the poor class?

I am not insulting the poor class at all. I saying how things truly are.

Here you are, preaching that, oh, "they're too stupid to get out of that situation", or, "they don't know any better."

you might want to really read my argument before misquoting me.

They can do whatever they'd like to do.

They chose to live this life?

Think about all of the wonderful people who've came out of these horrific situations (crack moms and dads, projects, drugs, etc.).

These people are rare. Those people are not wonderful. They are incredible. I respect them a lot more than I respect the successful upper class people.

If they can do it, why can't the other people? Because at the end of the day, one chooses to pull the trigger of a weapon, one chooses to impregnate a girl or get pregnant with kids they know they can't support, time and time again.

My goodness... You think it is easy.

Yes, they chose to pull the trigger. Yes, they chose to rob a store. Yes, they chose to sell drugs. These people before they can concentrate on school have to survive.

Yes, those hundreds of young girls chose to have sex without protection. Oh but right, they knew better, right? Indeed, they definitely attended school regularly, especially sex Ed.

Yes, there are some lucky people who escape this vicious circle. How far is the child of a woman with no money going to go? That child chose to help his mother and siblings by bring some money so that he can just eat. By doing that, his time and energy is towards his job not school. If he is lucky and gets a job that brings a fair amount, he could maybe give his younger siblings an opportunity to have an eduction.

You obviously don’t realize that in these situations these people have to choose between education and survival. Indeed, school risks their chances of survival. I believe it is preposterous that these kids who have done nothing wrong have to chose between education and survival and education is the real key to survival! Education is the gateway to freedom.

Tell that to the millions of people that have made the conscious choice to work hard and succeed, despite immense hardships.

Most of these people have in common: a decent education or sufficiently supportive parents or guardian (financially) or both. The successful people had help. They had a sufficient amount of MONEY. Something that the lower class people do not have.

It's time to stop treating the poor like babies who can't think for themselves and that need elitist, condescending people like yourself

How am I elitist? I am saying the lower class men have a lower advantage than the middle class and upper class people have. It is like a race. The upper class and lower class start at the same start. But the upper class men have an unfair head start. So, the lower class men have to run incredibly fast in order to catch up with the upper class. It isn’t because the lower class is stupid or even lazy. The person born in the upper class has more opportunities than the kid born in the lower class. That is a fact. You know what the upper class kid has? Money. Money gives these kids a head start.

theirs no such thing as unjustly or unfairly rich

1/ Inheritance.

2/ A kid is born in Compton or Brooklyn. He had no choice. He lives in a shack with his sick mother. Therefore, at 10 he is forced to take illegal jobs in order to feed his family. Supposing that he was never caught stealing money or food at some 7 Eleven, he reached 17 with an passable record. He has gone to a shit public school his society refuses to pay for. He drops out because he found a job as a dealer. The jobs gets him money. Allows him to feed his family but not to pay proper care for his mother. A few years later she dies. One of his siblings die in a drug battle, he caught himself into. He needs more help and gets his sisters to start working. One gets pregnant at 17 , the other runs away. That baby is going to be born in a world with no hope to ever succeed because he is going to have to help his mother and uncle and if we are lucky father. He is going to have to eventually forget school.

Now, are you going to say that all of these series of events happen because they are LAZY? Do you think they chose to live a life like this? The only thing they did wrong was to be born on the wrong side of the track. No one can just work hard and succeed. To succeed you need the basic necessities: that is food, a home, education and a good health.

you work hard you become rich

I am pretty sure most of the lower class men in the United States work just as hard or maybe even harder than any middle class or higher class men. They remain poor.

Most of the kids in the upper class were given a private school and an ivy league. They did not have to anything. All they had to do was "sit on their ass all day" and study.

Exactly. As an atheist you essentially have to BELIEVE in science.

How did you conclude this from my explanation?

If you don't have faith in a God or in science, you are agnostic, not an atheist.

Ok, this is when statistics and facts are useful in an debate. We have reached the point where we disagree on a definition.

1/ Oxford Dictionary: atheism

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/

noun

[mass noun]

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

2/ Oxford dictionary: disbelief

disbelief

Pronunciation: /dɪsbɪˈliːf/

noun

[mass noun]

->inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

example: Laura shook her head in disbelief

->lack of faith:

example: I’ll burn in hell for disbelief

3/ agnostic

Pronunciation: /agˈnɒstɪk/

noun

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

If you don't have faith in a God or in science, you are agnostic, not an atheist.

I am going to repeat again: atheism is the absence of belief in God. I am not going to go through my explanations again. I already tried to twice.

The way you are seeing agnosticism is that it is the guy in between atheism and theism. Now that is wrong. One cannot even compare atheism and theism with agnosticism. They do not even touch the same subject. Agnosticism is not about the belief in God ( atheism is a disbelief) but about the knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowing the existence of God. Many atheist are agnostics. Hey, even some theists are agnostics

Atheism, by definition, is doubt because atheism is not a faith. Agnosticism is another subject.

it is based on the belief that the universe is an explainable place without God

I think you are putting scientists and atheists together. Although atheists tend to be scientists, scientists can be theist. By the way, I don't understand how the belief in God excludes all scientific claims. But I am diverging. Scientist are study the phenomenons of life. Atheist disagree with the argument of "the existence of God". Atheists doubt. I couldn't stress more on that word. Doubt cannot exist in faith.

But there are gaping holes in atheists explanation of how we came to be. In general theism is a way to explain why the universe is the way it is (or why we exist), which atheism also does, they just say it was a chance occurrence rather than by design.

OK. So are you saying that just like theism cannot prove the existence of God, atheism cannot prove the nonexistence of God. But your statement implies that atheists claim that "God does not exist" and try to prove it. But they do not. They simply cannot to accept the claim that "God exists" because of the lack of proof. Not accepting a claim doesn't mean that you accept the opposite.

If I were to give you an idea with weak arguments, you would disagree with my arguments. When you disagree with my arguments you cannot reasonably accept my idea yet. But that doesn't you accept the opposite idea. You just disagree with my idea because it lacks evidence.

Do you know Alexis de Tocqueville? If not, you should read a translation of his novel Democratie en Amerique. He explains how democracy in the US is a soft form of tyranny. What is incredible about the novel is that it was able to accurately describe how the US government is today even though the US government at the time of Tocqueville was being built.

My point about the advancement of the technological age is that people always have to "believe" in something.

Why do people have to believe?

Even atheism is a belief that the universe works according to a set of laws.

There are several problems with this statement. If atheism were a belief, it would most definitely not be the belief that the universe works according to a set of laws. It would be the belief that gods do not exist. BUT that too is wrong. If theism is a belief, then atheism is not.

Side note: they technically are both beliefs. But even then, they are not the same type of belief. Theism is based on faith whereas atheism is based on rationality. In my argument, I am going to continue with idea that belief and faith are the same thing. But for the future, they are not.

Theists believe, have faith in a god. Any evidence against the existence of gods will not stop them from having faith. Theism is a belief.

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of a god.

Careful analysis and the best evidence have led atheists to realize that the "existence of God" statement is not supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore, they concluded that until there is enough evidence, they will not accept the existence of God. This implies that they would accept the existence of god if valid evidence proving it were presented to them. Atheism is doubt. Theism is not doubt.

Now, I think that the advancement of science (not so much technology) will only add more evidence. More evidence will make atheists more doubtful of the existence of a god. But it will not make more atheists.

More atheists mean that there are less theists. More evidence against the idea that god exists will not affect the number of theists. Therefore it cannot affect he number of atheists. Hence, the advancement of science cannot ( based on what atheism and theism is) be related to the amount of atheists.

The advancement of science is really connected to amount of money. Countries are more scientifically advanced because they have more money to spend on research. Just like the amount of atheists , the advance of science is a consequence not a cause.

I admit in olden times people really only had Theism to believe in.

This statement is incorrect first because it implies that atheism is a belief. Am I right? But even if atheism were a belief it would be incorrect because the doubt in the existence of gods dates from the times of the ancient greece.

We have business A, B and C. They all sell the same product. The products are of the same quality. A found a trick. That trick allowed him to sell his product cheaper. The mass will buy the product of business A. It will grow and destroy the other businesses. Normal. It is fair that one with the better idea wins. Survival of the fittest.

Government includes legislative, executive and judiciary. So, none of those branches are involved in the marketplace. So, no regulation at all. Right? Nothing will stop business A from growing. Nothing will save the other businesses from perishing. Nothing will also stop other businesses from taking business A’s spot or tie. This system allows an evolution of the market.

Whatever trick is allowed and encouraged. Ruse will survive. Not force. Business A sells shoes. Let us say that the reason his shoes are cheaper is that he makes them in China. He also hires a few desperate Americans. The Chinese and few Americans are happy because they have a job. The buyers are happy because they get what they want while saving money.

Business D figured out business A’s trick and starts doing the same thing. So, no regulation allows competition and therefore the development of more efficient ways. Eventually it will reach the point where production cannot be more efficient ( or it just did not find it yet).

With no regulations, businesses can scam the mass. A few commercials there, a couple smiles here, business E won because he found a way to lure the mass toward him. Meaning, it was able to direct the buyer’s desires with arguments. There still is no problem because the mass ishappy.

However, there still is this one guy in the mass who sees though the scam and buys from another business. SO, The mass has to be blind enough to be scammed. It must also remain blind. BUT MOST OF ALL THE MASS MUST STAY HAPPY… and kept in perpetual childhood.

Happiness is achieved when our desires are satisfied meaning when our pains of life are taken away from us.

What keeps the mass happy? Those pleasures and superficial necessities they sell us to spare us the pains of living but most all the troubles of thinking. BUT the mass is happy. So, there still is no problem. Who wants to do all the thinking when someone can do it for them? The businesses can’t hurt the mass because the mass is protected by the government. The businesses are not forcing anyone. You are safe. You get what you think you want.

The mass is not free.

The businesses confine our free will in a smaller space. They do not break our freedom of choice but softens it, in order to bend and direct it. They do not tyrannize. They hinder, compress, extinguish and finally reduce each and one of us to nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which they are the shepherd.

No government in the marketplace will put the mass under a “soft dictatorship”.

Backing your arguments with actual facts is useless?

Indeed. I explained why.

if you looked at the statistics and the correlation actually supported your thesis I would argue it has less to do with poverty and more to do with scientific advancements in the same period of time.

Let us suppose that I did look at the statistics, they did support my thesis, and you argued that the result have more to do with the scientific advancements in the same period. Why do you believe that?

Wouldn't you be offended if I called you weak minded? (which I did)

No, of all things I was not offended, I was amused. Why should it? I do not believe I am weak-minded.

EDIT : I am terribly sorry. I just understood how it could be offensive. I correct my statement "Theism comes with the desperate. Desperate people tend to be weak-minded." By weak-minded I mean easily manipulable.

When you make base generalizations saying correlating theism and stupidity a lot of people will take offense.

I am sure people will be offended but it is not my intention. If they are offended, they are offended. The least they can do is defend their case. Why do you disagree with me?

Weak-minded has nothing to do with stupidity. Stupidity is worse. Theist are not stupid. Some are but there are stupid people in every category.

I pointed out in my previous argument that people become weak-minded due to their miserable situations. Their situation makes them hopeless and desperate. Desperate people are weak-minded. A desperate population is always easily manipulated. A whole population can be manipulated into believing that the Jewish are the cause of their misery or the western populations are the cause of their problems... anything. Why? Because these accusations make the miserable people believe they have the power to change their lives. I am saying that religion gives that power. They are not stupid. They are just trying to survive.

Rich people are a minority in the world population. The majority is poor. I understand why poor people are theists. They have to. To survive. This leads to my believing that a decline in theists would be mostly due to the decline in severe poverty.

What I do not understand is how the educated, rich people believe in God?

All you have told me is that you are offended, that my statement is a generalization (why? we shall never know) and something about scientific advancement which an interesting idea but useless statement and brings us nowhere. At least, I bothered to explain my "generalization". The least you can do is explain yours.

Your argument makes you seem weak minded. You didn't check the statistics?

No, I did not check the statistics because then this debate is useless. The answer would be obvious and undebatable.

I would argue that it has less to do with the decline of extreme poverty and more with the rise of the information age.

That is an interesting argument. I'm not sure if a disagree though so if you would elaborate

a worthless comment that does nothing but attempt to insult

The only person here that is insulting is you.

Before I go on, let me please inform you, that I am not a man, I am a woman.

Poverty puts people in a desperate situation. For survival, people are willing to do anything. Religion is a tool for mental survival. It allows them to keep moving on in hopes that God will makes things better for them eventually. Imagine, being a 17 year old kid in the slums whose father is dead and mother sick. You have three jobs and are barely able to feed your siblings. You can't make things change. You can't make others change. So, at this point what is the point of living?

One day, you run into this preacher. He tells you that every part and event in life is part of God's plan. If you worship him and believe in him he will reward you in the future. The reward may not be in this lifetime, but I will be in the next... and so on. In these miserable conditions, God offers a possibility of change, a different, better life. God gives hope... blind hope... dangerous hope. But that does not matter, it is still hope.

Now, if a person like me or anyone who does not live utter misery, hope can be found without God. So, religion is pointless for me.

Now I am not saying that the amount of theists completely depends on poverty because religion brings more than just hope. It masks the absurdities of life and death for example.

I didn't check the statistics but the amount of atheists should augment with the decline of extreme poverty. Theism comes with the weak minded and desperate.

Amazing. This whole debate is amazing, incredible. So, this is an attempt for government to control our choices? Banning Large Sugar filled drinks is hurting big businesses. Meaning big businesses profited from our getting fat or diabetes. But one would say, they are simply giving us what we want. Is it?

Large Sugar filled drinks is way to maintain the population satisfied for longer period of time. It is among the other pleasures and superficial necessities they sell us to spare us the trouble of thinking and the pains of living. They make free will less useful and less frequent. They confine our free will in a smaller space rather. They do not break our freedom of choice but softens it, in order to bend and direct it. They do not tyrannize. They hinder, compress, extinguish and finally reduce each and one of us to nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which they are the shepherd.

So, is banning sugar filled drinks really an attack on our freedom of choice? Think about it.

I mean this ban is useless. It will only make us angry like kids when their candies are taken away from them. They try to keep us in perpetual childhood.

But hey, one thing we all wanted was an unlimited economic liberty. So, banning this goes against our economic liberty.

It depends on what type of government.

A government led by big companies for example hates smart people. Smart people will not buy their products. So, they usually try to keep them on their side in exchange of large amounts of money.

But in a government led by the people, it is good to have an intellectual population.

I do not believe in God because I have no reason to. i live in the top country in the world. I have endless opportunities. I don't have to work yet. I can spend most of my time studying, having fun, living life happy. I will not gain anything in believing in God...

The fact that so many people in this rich country believe in God is worrisome. They have no valid reason to believe so much in God (to the point that it mingles with politics) in this country unless they are brainwashed to...

Maybe the majority is brainwashed... It would make sense because to get people buy gum that washes your teeth, the people have to be maintained weak minded... BUT that is another subject.

Argument for someone who should believe:

I'm 14 and live in the slums of [insert country]. My father died when I was young and my mother is sick. I work three jobs and barely am able to feed my two brothers. Some may ask why I believe in God. He put me in these miserable conditions, right? But it is all I have to look for. I can't make things change. I can't make others change. I can't just believe that things can never change. God will change them. I have to believe that he will.

In WW2, our ass was doing just fine. We had the mighty Resistance ;)

The guillotine rarely decapitated on the first try. However, its original goal was to make death quick. But it was also used for a public executions, a "performance"...

The electric chair is most often used for torture. But when used for execution, the person is tortured until he dies.

Therefore, I say the guillotine and the electric chair are equally inhumane.

Ohh, we do not hate them. We simply believe we are better than them ;-)

Just to make things clear. When I say “super obese”, it is not the medical condition.

The obesity of this debate is due to malnutrition. What if the child were to be underfed? Should that child be taken away from his parents? The child is a risk of starvation. By the way, that child is most of the times taken away from his parents. Obesity offers a life threatening risk as well.

This child thinks "I'm being taken away from my parents because I'm fat" - That's a pretty harsh thing to put a child through

Taking a child away from his parents is always a tough for the child. No matter what the reason. Even if the child were to be beat up by his parents, separating the child from his parents is still quite difficult. Child loves his parents no matter what.

Would this honestly help? No, it would make them depressed, possibly causing them to eat even more to make themselves feel better, or just screwing up their childhood.

What is the difference between separating an underfed child from his parents and separating an overfed child? Both are traumatizing. It is true that separating a child from his parent is not the the best solution to giving the kid the best childhood. But, the super obese child is at great risk of a heart disease. So, the child is not having a healthy childhood. Also, is living with his parents as a super obese child a good childhood? The kid is teased, bullied at school. He can’t play sports because his weight busts his knees. He can only sit.

Also, the parents would think "We're awful at taking care of children" screwing up their lifes, and putting them through something horrible.

Well, yes. The parents should think that they are not good caretakers because they are not. They are putting at risk the life of their child. It does not mean that the parents to not love their child. They are simply careless.

It's not like the child has done something wrong, they have just eaten too much.

In most cases when a child is separated from his parents, it is not his fault.

It's like you're saying to the parents "You're not taking enough responsibility for 'that', so we're confiscating it", making the child look like a toy!

I do not completely understand your analogy… I do not think the parents’ feelings matter at this point.


1 of 7 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]