I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic...
If someone believes that there are "vampire like beings" in actuality, then there, in my opinion, is something wrong.
I would have to go with quarks or tachyons, because of the implications of their existence, (or, for tachyons, the implications if they were proved to exist) as well as the nature of the particles; both pose interesting intellectual questions. Besides that, they are just really interesting.
Correction: Catholics believe they have a right to exist outside of hell; atheists don't believe in hell
The Stormlight Archive
Mistborn
The Wheel Of Time
Now: The Physics of Time
Speaker for the Dead
Astrophysics for people in a hurry
Depends, but this is generally true. Scientist have animated things from shaking chemicals..... remember your 9th grade biology class?
Try this book: The Physics of Time by Richard A. Muller, it supports your theory and is really good. Also, you have a point.
Sadly, he might, if he doesn't get impeached in his first term.
If Christian values fall, the United States won't fall. For one, not everyone is Christian. Also, many of the values held by Christians are values held by everyone - or at least they should be. So yeah, America wouldn't fall, not by a long shot.
Technically, they do, if we want to ensure facts are facts, but if they are, it presents a chicken and the egg situation; the person checking the fact checkers needs to be checked, and so on and so forth
I think both are great, overall, but I have to say I am more fond of LOTR, though both have a great plot line, well-written characters, and just a great story overall.
Agreed.
All most people do on this site is scream at each other and call each other names.
I wish I could have an intelligent debate once in my life...
Atheism isn't a religion......
It is the lack of a religion......
I am confused as to the name of this side of the debate, but I would happily accept children if they are mature. Given the amount of adults that act lie children on this site, I would welcome the possibility of mature adolescents.
Oh, definitely. Even if I don't celebrate the holiday fully, I have come to realize that the over-commercialization of the holiday has caused it to lose much of its true meaning.
I'm personally fond of tea, though water (yeah, I know it's weird -_-) is a close second, as well as coffee.
If he even makes it through the first term without getting impeached, I'd honestly be very surprised. Two terms? Yeah, that isn't going to happen.
Hmmmm....
What do you think?
People would be found mysteriously dead after a heart attack
I know = p Just wanted to make sure everyone else knew that, too
It is unhuman, not just unchristian, just wanted to point that out. I don't think it should be abolished COMPLETLY, but should definitely be severely restricted.
You use so many periods.................. =p
...Not to repeat what has already been said, but printing "In God We Trust" on money is forcing Christian beliefs on other people.... so your argument is invalid. No one has the right to force anything on poeple, which is why future currency should be religiously neutral.
That would indeed be fair. It would practically balance out, for those atheists in the country. =p
There would actually be nothing to pay for, at least no more expenses than there are nw, if we were to remove "In God We Trust" from future money. As for God being a part of America's history, he is a part of history for some people; older money with "In God We Trust" on it would still be circulating, so god wouldn't be erased from our history at all, in fact. I also support removing "under God" from the pledge, for a few different reasons; America isn't a Christian nation, per se, so it should be removed. It wasn't there originally, anyway...
Asimov is great, as well as Card. I am also personally fond of John Varley.
By forcibly removing someone's tubes, you are murdering any future children they might have. See how that works?
This is fine by choice, like the author of this debate had done, but it is completley and totally wrong for the government to force women who are for abortion to have their tubes removed. While we're at it, let's sterelize their husbands! Pro-life people would better benefit from this, but it is wrong in any case and should never be done to anyone. The government shouldn't have that kind of power, anyway.
God never gives anyone more than they can handle.
... what about people, children who die from cancer.... do they deserve that, can they handle that? Agreed that everyone else should step up and help these people, considering how uch food goes to waste, but my above point still stands.
I am personally an atheist, but I don't honestly know about this. Also, more advanced in what? Religion definitely has its social benefits, and some good teachings, but science might be more advanced without Christianity. It really depends on your viewpoint and what we would be more advanced in.
Adding on to that, there is the age old philisophical debate 'If God is all powerful, then he cannot be all good." God as seen in modern religion is all powerful, and what you said just proves that if he exists, depending on your point of view, he cannot be all good. No one is 100% goo or 100% evil, though some may seem like it.
Christianity and religion definitely have benefits, but I speak from experience when I say that one is perfectly capable of having a close, loving family when they are, using your derogatory term "Godless." Children shouldn't be forced to go to Church, but they should be educated on all sides of the equation before making up their mind. Religion is just not for some people, and it should be up to a teen whether or not they wish to go to church. Church does have good values for families to benefit from. (most of which, I should add, should just be basic human values)
WEll, it could go either way. Hiding your true identity is not necessarily devious; some people would like to use an alias so as to avoid attracting attention to their true identity, or they would like their opinions to be credited as much as the next person's. For example, if people on the internet knew my real age, I would be instantly discredited; that is my purpose in using an alias, though I do agree that they are usually unnecessary, especially on debate sites.
Some adults should be treated like children, and some children should be treated like adults. I speak for myself when I say I now some high (and middle!) school students that are more mature than many people at the head of this country and others. Taking my own age into account, I would say that it really depends on whether they deserve to or not, but generalizations shouldn't be made based on age; not all middle/high school students should be treated like children.
YES! America is the land of freedom; veterans fought for our freedom. We should have the right to kneel for them! To stand or kneel for whatever we wish.
I find it highly comic how people call atheism superstision when religion is just blind faith and hope. That is not a bad thing, but both atheisma nd religion, religion most of all, are intellectually indefensible because we just don't know enough to come to a solid consensus. Ignorance? You don't have proof that God exists; quite the contrary. As I have said before, we really don't have enough information to make an educated decision.
I may not agree with conservatives on many points, but they should be tolerated. This is like going against someone because they are very weak and unathletic; they shpuldn't get teased or punished for it
While your argument has merit, the word God is arguable depending on your views of the matter. For atheists, it is most certainly defensible because of their view on what God means. The definition of God is created by humans, created by believers, so to say that God doesn't exist is to deny the definition of the word as expressed by a believer. The Merriam-Webster definition for universe is, in my opinion wrong, because, using this example, does a tree still make a sound if it falls in the forest and there's no one around? This is the same situation for the definition of the universe; if we haven't seen this part of the universe quite yet, is it still considered part of the universe? Philosophy aside, arguing against the dictionary definition of God is essentially arguing against the believer who created the definition. The definition is not necessarily correct; it is a matter of opinion.
That statement is entirely inaccurate for many reasons. The dictionary was created by humans and is, therefore changeable by the same hand (humans) A better way to state your argument, as it is entirely possible to argue against the dictionary definition, would be to state that it is illogical to argue with the dictionary, even if this argument is false. What I'm trying to say is it is entirely possible to disagree with a dictionary definition, espceially considering which dictionary is used.
I agree, no one should, but what he did wasn't behind the parents' backs, he just didn't ask them first. He wasn't deliberately keeping it from them.
The cult of evolution? Evolution has more scientifical support than the Bible; the Bible just has a wider group of followers. There is nothing wrong with Christianity, nor is there with evolution. I personally am an atheist, but both beliefs are valid. Christianity is based on faith, whereas evolution is based on science. Also, you just insulted someone because of their beliefs, so that makes you a hypocrite. Sorry =(
I am not saying that kids should have access to porn; having access to porn and telling a kid that you are gay are VERY different things. They shouldn't have access to porn, but they should make up their own minds, as I well know. In my experience, it really depends on the child, whether they are mature enough to handle it.. My argument is that people should be able to tekk kids that they are gay without hatred coming from all sides, not that kids should be having sex and watching porn every day of their lives.
Both; the events that led to Trump being elected are obviously a reflection of the problems in US politics.
Just to clarify, atheism isn't where one believes that they are their own god, it is when (for me at least) someone believes in the lack of an overarching deity
It really depends on the age of the cild. Every kid has the right to make up their own mind and, as a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind an extreme Muslim talking to my kid about their beliefs because the kid has the right to know all viewpoints and make up his own mind. Crossing the line, for me, would be if someone tried to force their beliefs on my child, which, as should be obvious, the creator of this debate did not. Also, so what if kids assume the worst? Sex is natural; kids glorify it in their ignorance but, to them, love is love.
Entirely agreed. You say leftists spew nonsense yet this comes out of your mouth
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools, as well as the theory of creationism (that God created everyone) I fpeople want to learn about that they can just go to church. If people are forced to learn about this at school when they don't want to, they are wasting valuble time on myths and religion.
It's not about who I think created me; the work is what. We have more proof of evolution and the Big Bang, but, as Somebody says, we simply don't know.
You as a person may stay in your lane, but many religious people do not. They force their beliefs on other people and tell people that they will go to hell if they don't believe in God. In my personal experience, this has happened multiple times. Everywhere you see signs of the influence of religion; business owners refusing to provide healthcare for women, refusing to hire people because of their beliefs or sexual inclination. I have the right to state these things, because I know them to be true. I don't think religion is a bad thing; indeed, the opposite. What I have a problem with is people who think to force their beliefs on other people. I personally am an atheist because there is no evidence that God exists (come on, the Bible doesn't count as solid evidence)
Men have, indeed made more discoveries/inventions than women, but this is only because they were given a change. Women weren't even given the right to vote until less than a century ago; do you really expect, in that time period, women to have invented and discovered as much as men? If they had, women would have been far superior. A fool like you can't even begin to comprehend, obviously, a woman, and I, as a woman, can't begin to comprehend a man. Both sides are equal, though not in everything. I believe this argument relates to a famous quote - If you judge a fish by its ability to fly, it will spend its whole life believing it is stupid. As with your argument brain size is only one means of measuring intelligence, well what are the other ways? Many of these ways prove that women are just as intellighent and capable as men; they just haven't been given the opportunity. When they were given the opportinity, they seized it and ran. Women are in no way superior to men, as men are in no way superior to women. They are equal; though they have many differences, there is no overarching fact that proves one is lesser than the other.
If we aren't fit, it is our choice to be unfit. In my opinion, no one is unfit; many people have commited crimes because of their religion (ISIS) and we as atheists simply choose not to believe. If we are unfit, then we are unfit of our own right, not by anyone else's standards
Well the Bible was written by humans and was, in my opinion, anyway, created by humans, and as such, is a figment of our imagination. We have no proof that God exists, or that he doesn't exist; on the contrary, we have proof of evolution, The Big Bang; we may not have a large amount of proof, but we have more proff than you ever will about God existing. In my opinion, most people use religion as a crutch to blame their failures and downs in life on. But let me ask you this; if everything is God's will, why would he give a four-year-old cancer? This child definitely doesn't deserve it, and in no way needs to pay for his or her sins. I think religion is a great thing; it can be very useful to a great many people, but the paths we have taken religion down are unjust and, in some cases, an atrocity. I don't believe God exists, but I don't hate anyone that does.
A fetus may be alive, but so is a baby chicken. You know what we do with male baby chickens? We grind them up and put them in chicken nuggets. You don't care that every day, thousands of innocent animals die. Why are human lives so different to you? Whether or not you agree with making abortion illegal, a woman should reserve the right to decide what to do with her own body.
Abortion should not be illegal for one reason; women have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Whatever your beliefs, you have to agree with that. The people who support abortion shouldn't have their choices taken away because of the other half of the population; if abortion was legal, the anti-abortion side of the population could simply choose not to have an abortion. Also, there are too many homeless, loveless children in this world. Unwanted pregnancies could result in abortions, which can actually be a mercy for the child, though the child isn't really a human at this point. People who want abortions usually end up giving their unwanted child to child services, or an orphanage, and the child suffers because of this. Personally, I would rather die than be forever unwanted, going from house to house with people who just want the money. Mainly, a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body, and no man, government, or person with different beliefs should be able to take that away. Lastly, when an abortion is performed, the growing child isn't fully formed and, as such, shouldn't be considered a "human," per say. Even if you don't agree with this, you have to at least agree that you have the right to do whatever you want with your own body, and no one should be able to take that away.
The fact that women have smaller brains, if it is even a fact, doesn't mean that women are less intelligent than men. We can do anything we set our minds to, and have been eye candy, prized only for looks and pleasure rather than brains, for far too long. There is no evidence that men are superior, just that they are more controlling and driven by sexual urges.
Women are equal to men for many reasons, the topmost being that there is no mental difference between a man's and a woman's ability to choose, accomplish things, and their dedication. The Bible may state that man is the head of the household, but is there any evidence to support this? Women can, in fact, be calmer is stressful situations and can keep their heads, whereas men have a tendency to think with what's between their legs rather than what's inside of their heads. There is no evidence that either side is superior, which is why I support that women are equal to men. There is no difference between the two genders, except for the obvious physical differences, and testosterone levels, among other chemicals.
By the democratic views, the government is supposed to be one with the people, but the government doesn't always agree with the people. I agree that religion should definitely not have control of anything with a scientific aspect, but genetic engineering is something that the people, ultimately, have the right to control. They have the right to decide that they are for it or against it, and should have ultimate control of it. The government will always be corrupt, but with a bigger population, there will be more of an argument and, as such, will be thought through more. The people have the right to choose; among these choices is what is to be done with genetic engineering. Though the government is supposed to be allied with the people, the government isn't always for the people. History demonstrates that people will always rise up against what is wrong, or (eventually, anyway) do what is right. Do we want a small group of scheming politicians to be in control of something with this importance, or, instead, a larger and more diverse group of people, who have the right to choose and are more likely to make the right choice, whatever that may be.
