CreateDebate


SecuritronX's Waterfall RSS

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

Perhaps, rather than banning the offending media outright, parents could be encouraged to play a more proactive role in raising their children?

Why should mature consumers be deprived a legitimate source of entertainment simply because some parents aren't responsible enough to pay attention to the kinds of games their children are playing?

Games are already rated for the level of violence or other such content they contain, and games rated for mature audiences should not be sold to minors, period. It should be left up to the discretion of the parents whether or not such a game is appropriate for their children.

Probably not much different than it is now. People would likely still discriminate and persecute others based on cultural, religious, ideological, socioeconomic, educational, political and/or technological differences.

They just wouldn't be able to use skin color as a means to associate others with a particular culture.

It's difficult to genuinely pursue the question of God's existence with diligence and intellectual honesty if you are convinced you'll face harsh and severe penalties (in both this life, and the next) for coming to the conclusion that God does not exist.

3 points

Both, I guess. But at the bare minimum, you just have to not be convinced that any gods exist to be considered an atheist.

If you aren't convinced any gods exist, then you can't really say you believe any gods exist. Therefore, you do not believe any gods exist.

Likewise, if you are convinced that no gods exist, you also do not believe any gods exist.

"1. Then how did an endless explosion happen what ever the hell was there"

In other words, what caused the Big Bang? A Nobel Prize and about $1 million U.S.D. awaits anyone who can provide sufficient evidence in support of whatever answer they've come up with.

There's plenty of evidence that it happened, just very little concerning how it happened. It could be the doing of some benevolent deity, it could be the result of a lab experiment by some extra-dimensional aliens, or the result of some unknown natural phenomena.

"2. And it killed al those dinosaurs, hmmm, does sound right"

To be fair, it's entirely possible other factors could have contributed to the downfall of the dinosaurs. It's just rather conspicuous that the Chicxulub crater (which is around 110 miles in diameter, and about 12 miles deep), happens to have an age that coincides so closely to the age of the K-Pg boundary.

So we know a large asteroid hit around the same time as the dinosaurs disappear in the fossil record; and we know that an impact of that magnitude would have significant global climate effects due to the amount of dust particles kicked into the atmosphere (which could remain and block a percentage of sunlight for up to a decade). Kind of like if a giant super-volcano, like Yellowstone, erupted... only much bigger.

It seems probable these conditions would be inhospitable to many forms of life, particularly large animals with low adaptability and tolerance thresholds for environmental upheavals.

2 points

"1.still no answer"

Only because the question is nonsensical. You ask how an explosion happened in the middle of nothingness. There never was nothingness, therefore no explosion ever happened in the middle of nothingness, therefore, no explanation can be given for how this non-occurring event you have imagined occurred.

"2.really bad answer"

I'm... sorry? I don't know what to tell you then. A meteor with an average diameter of 6 miles compared with the earth's average diameter of 7,900 miles just isn't large enough to entirely destroy the earth. It would take a planet-sized object close to or larger than the size of Mars to obliterate the earth.

"3.I got lice just a couple months ago"

Imagine how bad an infestation might be if your entire body were covered in fur.

"4.Because genetic didn't play any damn role in it"

Fair enough; but the analogy still works. A small group can split off from the main group without dragging the main group along with it. You might as well ask why there is any diversity to life at all. If evolution worked in the way you seem to be implying, everything should evolve in the same way, towards the same goal, and there should only be one type of life form on Earth.

Obviously this is not the case, therefore we must conclude this is not how evolution works.

"5.explain"

Perhaps I misunderstood your question here.

3 points

"If the world started from the Big Bang, how did an explosion that continues for ever even start in the middle of nothingness?"

No such thing as "Nothingness."

"If a metor killed all the dinosaurs how come it didn't destroy the world or at least take us out of our perfect orbit?"

It wasn't big enough.

"How come we lost all our monkey hair in a time when we really needed it for warmth, do genetics just hate us?"

Lice, fleas, ticks, and other parasites.

"How come all the monkeys didn't evolve...."

How come all the British people didn't become Americans?

"...hell why are we still the same?"

We're not.

SecuritronX(106) Clarified
4 points

Equivocation is the misleading use of a word or phrase that can have multiple meanings. Very often it involves using the same word or phrase multiple times in an argument with different meanings each time, but treating each usage as if they were the same.

A popular example of equivocation is the saying "Evolution is just a theory." This argument equivocates the word "theory," which can have different meanings in different contexts, in an attempt to reduce the Theory of Evolution's credibility to that of a layman's hypothesis so that it may be discarded more easily.

"Theory" in a scientific context:

A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

"Theory" in a layman's context:

A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion, hypothesis, postulate.

Equivocating the word "Faith" is also very common in religious discourse.

5 points

"If I was headed where atheists are headed ... I'd be depressed too"

Only if you believed it to be true. If you had no reason to believe a visit to Hell was likely to be on a future itinerary, I doubt it would trouble you much.

A depressed atheist is probably more troubled by ostracization than by the ramifications a mythological realm may or may not hold.

5 points

Just curious, but do you have any relevant research/data to back up your claims? Just because you feel that teen violence has been increasing doesn't mean that it actually is. I just did a quick Google search and arrived at the U.S Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention website. Here you see a graph charting the juvenile violent crime arrest index from 1980 to 2011.

Call of Duty is a game you specifically listed as causing an increase in violence amongst teens. The first title of the franchise was released in 2003. The franchise really started to hit its peak popularity in 2009 with Modern Warfare 2, and in 2010 with Black Ops 1. Interestingly, the juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate reached a historic low-point in 2011, and has been trending downward, not upward, since the mid 1990's.

Until you can provide some convincing data and research showing that A: teen violence is on the rise, and B: that video games are a direct cause, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your position at this time.

I would argue that overall violence is actually decreasing over time, it is only the media coverage that is increasing, so you hear about it all the time.

Supporting Evidence: Juvenile Arrest Rate Trends (www.ojjdp.gov)
4 points

I think it has to be computers and, to be honest, I don't think there's really much room for debate. Maybe that's a bit of a strong statement, and I suppose I could be wrong, but I just can't think of any benefit specific to books that cannot also be applied to modern computers, and no disadvantage specific to modern computers that cannot also be applied to books.

Eye strain? Shouldn't be an issue on a properly calibrated and positioned monitor. Sure, if you spend like 8 non-stop hours at a time staring at small text, you will certainly experience eye strain. But, the same is true with a book printed in small print, read for hours at a time in less than optimal lighting conditions. Use a well calibrated monitor and take occasional breaks and you'll have no issues here. Most modern browsers even allow you to zoom in when reading documents with smaller print. I could make it so I could read the arguments on this page from across the room if I wanted to.

Ability to stay focused? I think this depends largly on the user. I know that, for myself, I find books to be a much more intimate and enjoyable experience when it comes to something like a novel for sure. My imagination tends to get more deeply involved when reading a good novel on paper than it ever does when listening to an audio book, or just reading the text on a screen. But this is just for entertainment purposes. I find I have no such issues when I'm in "learning mode."

Let me give a specific example of why I feel the modern computer is the superior learning medium.

First, let me make it clear that I am no mechanic, and I'm most certainly not a "car guy." I'm not mechanically incompetent by any means, but I don't have much experience in the field at all. Anyway, I was recently approaching the mileage on my vehicle in which a Timing Belt change was recommended. This procedure on this particular vehicle can be very involved, takes quite a bit of time, even for a professional, and can easily cost upwards of $800 USD to have done.

I could have purchased a Haynes or Chilton repair manual and maybe worked up enough confidence to attempt the procedure myself. But I'm not sure information from a single source would have been sufficient to overcome my apprehension. Enter: the internet.

With my computer, I was able to access many, many sources of information concerning the procedure. From the factory repair manual, to various car forums where I could hear from and speak directly to others knowledgeable in the procedure, to actual step-by-step videos detailing the process. And it's not just the vast amount of information I was able to access that's so significant; but rather, it was the sheer ease and convenience with which it was available and accessible.

Armed with this much detailed information from a multitude of sources, I was confident enough to make the attempt myself. I borrowed a few tools, and spent a whole Saturday, and was able to successfully change not only the timing belt, but also the tensioner, the water pump, and all of the engine mounts. Saved nearly a thousand bucks, and felt a sense of accomplishment and pride as well as being personally enriched by the process.

That's just a recent personal example. I've heard of others who have done far greater things utilizing the modern accessibility of information the internet provides.

2 points

I guess it depends on how you go about measuring "peacefulness." To me, the first thing you have to do is take the purest, most fundamental and literal interpretation of whatever worldview you're measuring. Most religions can be peaceful if you water them down enough.

Next, ask yourself what you mean by "peaceful." I suppose it usually means that a group of people can "get along" without resorting to aggressive and violent behavior, and typically, most if not all members are at least content with their situation.

This is where things get interesting. As you can probably imagine, just about any group of like-minded individuals can get along with each other just fine. As long as everyone in the group shares pretty much the same beliefs and morals, the people of the group are likely to be content and peaceful amongst the group. That's the important part. They'll appear peaceful amongst themselves and with like-minded groups.

The real measure of peacefulness, in my opinion, is not how a group responds to people who already share the same values and beliefs. It's how the group responds to others who do NOT share the same values and beliefs. This is why I believe Islam, and many, many other religions and worldviews are NOT peaceful at their core, in their most pure forms.

If your worldview advises you in any way whatsoever to treat others of differing values/beliefs with contempt, aggressiveness, or violence, then it cannot be said to be "peaceful," in my opinion.

Just imagine the most extreme, fundamentalist group of Muslims, and the most extreme, fundamentalist group of Jainists. Which do you think is most likely to be aggressive and violent towards others?

3 points

"You can't know anything about a subject unless, at the very least, information about the subject exists."

Agreed. Not only must at least some information about the subject exist, but you must also be, in some way, aware of said information. To me, this is technically a "true lack of belief" or "true non belief." It is impossible to have any beliefs whatsoever about any subject to whose existence you are utterly oblivious.

That said, it's not a very useful form of non belief to cite when it comes to examining truth claims, and whether or not one should believe X. For example, many atheists will say things like "everyone is born an atheist," or "all babies are atheists." While this is true, such is also the case for a rock, a tree, a bird, a house, the sun, or any number of things which are oblivious to the concept of theism. It is not the same kind of non belief the aforementioned atheists are espousing, as they are aware of and have information concerning theism.

I think what is typically meant when one claims a lack of belief in X, is something along the lines of "Based on the information I currently have, I am not convinced that X is true." This is not to be equated to believing X is false, which is definitely a belief.

Matt Dillahunty often uses an analogy which I think illustrates this fairly well. It's sort of a thought experiment where you imagine, say, a gumball machine full of gumballs, of which you're pondering whether the number of gumballs is even or odd. Someone also observing the gumballs tells you they believe the number to be even. When asked for their reasoning, they tell you they "just have faith" it's even, or that a voice in their head told them it was so, or that it "just makes sense" to them or gives them some sort of comfort to believe the number is even.

Would such testimony be enough to convince you there was indeed an even number of gumballs? Suppose you were not convinced by this. When asked if you too believe the number is even, wouldn't you have to say "No, I do not believe the number to be even"? But does this admission mean that you necessarily believe the number must be odd?

Clearly the answer is no, it does not. Maybe the number is even; maybe the number is odd; But the current claim being addressed is that the number is even, and if you are not convinced it is so, then you must admit you do not believe (or have a lack a belief that) the number is even.

This is what a number of atheists actually mean when they say they "lack a belief" in God. They simply are not convinced the number is even.

2 points

I'm not so sure I would consider any statement which begins with the phrase "I believe" to be a negative belief. "I believe that I don't have cancer" sounds like a positive statement to me. Change the wording to "I don't believe I have cancer" and the meaning changes just a bit. Lacking a belief in something, or not being convinced of something is not the same as having a belief or being convinced of its opposite.

Consider the following thought experiment:

Suppose there is a large container full of M&M;'s.

Suppose there is some debate over whether or not there is an even or odd number of M&M;'s in the container.

Suppose a total stranger tells you they believe there is an even number of M&M;'s in the container.

If you are not convinced by this stranger that there is an even number of M&M;'s, does this necessarily mean you are convinced the number is odd? Is it not possible to reject both claims until one side presents enough evidence to convince you?

"Atheism is a religion. Their religion is humanism..."

This is like saying "Theism is a religion. Their religion is Islam..."

Theism and Atheism are just categories we use to describe different religious and philosophical systems.

One can be an atheist and live by a completely different philosophical system than Humanism; from Buddhism, to Taoism, Jainism, LaVeyan Satanism, to even Scientology. Just as one can be a theist and live by a completely different philosophical system from Islam.

4 points

The visible universe very likely had a beginning, sure. But the visible universe is not necessarily the entirety of all existence. It is very possible there are other planes of existence whose inherent forces could have caused the universe we are familiar with to begin existing.

It seems to me this is a position theists concede to when saying things like "God is outside of time and space." It sounds like God exists in some higher dimension, unseeable, and undetectable to us, from which he created the known universe.

If both sides accept the existence of higher dimensions or alternate planes of existence, and both sides agree that something about these extra dimensions caused the beginning of the known universe, then I guess the question comes down to whether or not this extra-dimensional cause was a conscious, intentional agent, or unconscious, natural phenomena.

I tend to lean towards it being unconscious, unplanned, natural phenomena. The observable universe just does not make much since if it were created only for us to carry out our short mortal lives on this tiny rock in space, being tested to see if we're worthy of some sort of grand afterlife reward.

The Hubble Deep Field image covers an area about one 24-millionth of the sky, and shows nearly 3000 galaxies. There are galaxies so far away that we'll likely never even know they exist. None of them need to exist in order for us to live out our lives here on Earth. If the universe was created for us, and only us, then the Hubble Deep Field image should be a black void. No reason for those hundreds of billions of galaxies to exist. There are plenty of stars in the Milky Way to light up our night sky and give us wonder and awe.

Also, the assumption of intelligent agency when explaining natural phenomenon doesn't seem to have a very good track record. Doesn't mean it's not possible in this case, just that I think I'd need some pretty hardcore evidence to convince me.

2 points

Probably The Matrix Revolutions. Such a disappointment considering how innovative and thought-provoking the first movie was.

I guess I'd say morality should be based on the promotion of the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of sentient beings, or something to that effect.

2 points

I've heard it said that science answers "how" questions while religion answers "why" questions. I think, throughout history, religion has always tried to answer both. The motions of the heavenly bodies, the causes of sickness, of earthquakes, of lightning, rain and the seasons have all had religious explanations at one time or another. It is only after a few hundred years of scientific advancement that we can confidently conclude that most religions "how" answers were completely wrong, having been replaced with testable and consistently accurate naturalistic explanations.

The problem is that devout religious followers tend not to embrace having their long held beliefs challenged by contradictory evidence (just ask Galileo). A belief predicated on the perfect words of the creator of the universe probably shouldn't contain any errors or contradictions of any kind, or else the whole belief might be called into question.

This is where the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection comes in; the ramifications of which come into direct conflict with a literal interpretation of many religious creation stories. If you can't take your religion's creation story seriously, and must instead interpret it as allegory or metaphor or mythos or whatever, then how can you be sure that other portions of your religious doctrine aren't also allegory or myth? By what methodology do you determine which of your beliefs are based on fact and which are based on fiction?

The fundamentalist realizes that if they give an inch, they'll lose a mile. They cannot afford to accept any error or contradiction in their holy doctrine even if it means turning a blind eye to evidence and reality to keep their beliefs intact.

2 points

If God's nature is truly one of complete goodness, devoid of any evil or wickedness, then God cannot commit an evil or wicked act.

If God can commit an evil or wicked act, then God is not omnibenevolent and not wholly good.

If God cannot commit an evil or wicked act, then God is not omnipotent, since an omnipotent being can commit any act it so desires, wicked or good.

The two concepts contradict each other.

There are likely more things to see, learn, and experience in the "real world" than one could possibly encounter in their lifetime. More information and knowledge available than any single person could ever consume.

Schools offer a convenient way to disseminate small packages of information and experiences on a wide scale.

Sure; and by several different methods. Most simply, God could elect to remove all consciousness and intelligence from the whole of existence, other than Himself.

An evil action cannot exist without an evil intention behind it. Intent requires consciousness. If God is omnibenevolent, with a consciousness entirely devoid of evil thoughts and intentions, then only good could exist in this scenario.

3 points

If driving around in circles can be a sport, I suppose golf can be too lol.

While golf probably isn't going to keep your heart rate up, or provide any sort of efficient cardie-aerobic workout, it definitely requires a refined physical skill involving hand to eye coordination and superior muscle memory.

Bowling is another example of a sport which relies on physical precision rather than physical exertion. Practicing free-throws or 3-point jump shots in basketball is another. Curling, a rather popular sport in Canada is another example.

Hell, shooting guns is even an Olympic sport.


1 of 4 Pages: Next >>

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