Historically, if you were physically capable of working, then you SHOULD have been working and you would have been evading taxes if you were to suicide. If, on the other hand, you were incapable of working due to mental or physical illness, infirmity, or incapacity; no none really cared if you were to suicide. Although, historically, you were more likely to go out due to disease anyway.
Whilst that might be an amusing anecdote, there's a strong sense of false equivalence in relating two disparate phenomena.
This might be of interest to you:
Yes; but not because the question is problematic. I think it's a fun question to debate; only there are some people on both sides of the debate that lack the ability to debate the question in a reasonable manner while avoiding fallacies. Once we get a more mature membership, I hope to see these debates being reintroduced.
Lets be absolutely clear, we're not a pacifist religion. But the theology of the religion of Islam is far from the violent religion that many neoconservative media outlets would like people to believe.
People I have killed since being a Muslim = 0
Living in a Muslim country as I do, the number of people I have seen killed via sharia law or for reasons pertaining to religion = 0
According to schools of fiqh which were written around 300 years after the death of Mohammed, the punishment for apostasy is death. However, Mohammed himself was inconsistent in applying this punishment and, according to hadith evidence, only applied in when the apostate also engaged in acts of treason. They were otherwise permitted to leave the religion freely.
Consequently, many contemporary Islamic scholars do not support the classic fiqh position on apostasy. Furthermore, this punishment has seldom being implemented in modern times.
Muhammad forced his followers to leave their families
FALSE
He warned those who did not follow him, leaving behind their families, will be cursed by Allah
FALSE
In Yathrib he banished and killed the Jews who did not believe in him
FALSE - They tried to kill him.
I wont bother wasting my time debunking the rest of your diatribe. Needless to say, freedomfaith.org is hardly a repudable site. I see critical thinking isn't something you're particularly familiar with.
Not at all unexpected, I suppose.
said by bronze age myth follower
Said by someone who obviously didn't know that the Levantian Bronze Age had already concluded by 1200 BC.
It's called H.I.S.T.O.R.Y
He's not the sharpest tool in the shed by any means; but I would think the "Stupidest atheist" award belongs to Sam Harris. Dawkins just likes to talk outside his field of expertise and mash up his epistemologies such that he can make some rather spectacular public blunders. But that both men should never be allowed near a Twitter account is obvious.
It's their life and it doesn't impact me. Thus live and let live. If it's a sin against God (which I believe it is), that's something God can deal with. But I don't have the power, and nor should I, to dictate what other people can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.
Besides, I'm an kinky as all hell myself.
Yes, I suppose they are. There are always exceptions, of course. But in general, laws seem to support basic social etiquette and behaviours which are inherently conducive to social harmony. Don't kill and don't steal, etc. Sometimes we have to develop laws which might seem to go outside of this (e.g. laws against file sharing); but this really boils down to definitions, if file sharing theft? Yes. While you haven't removed the physical item and the lawful owner still has it and might not even know its been copied, you're using their item/file without paying them; therefore theft.
No other species other than humans seems to attempt to create ethical guides. So I'm not sure how we could impose our ethics on another species. It would be up to that species to determine what ethical standards it should hold itself to. We're just the meat in the sandwich, literally. We don't have to like it or take it lying down; but we can't dictate ethics to other species.
I think a lot of Europeans hate America for pushing its foreign policies onto them and dictating how European governments will conduct their affairs.
Otherwise, speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, we'd really appreciate it if you could stop invading so many countries. Thanks.
Correct. While we believe in and love Jesus, we don't worship Jesus because to us he's a prophet of God, not God incarnate. We're actually much more similar to Judaism than Christianity in terms of monotheistic beliefs and legal aspects.
OK, so out of curiosity, how does one proceed to "prove" that a virtual particle emanates comes from nothing? Is this "nothing" a physical nothing or a philosophical nothing?
matter cannot be created nor destroyed therefore wizard did it
Yes, I can appreciate the frustration. It's a non-sequential leap of logic to presume that because we don't know the cause -> God. But you have to admit, the same leaps of logical also happen in reverse. In effect, there is/isn't a God isn't falsifiable; it boils down (you're gonna hate this) - a vibe (which is just a funky way of saying "faith"; but everyone hates the "f" word).
You are, as far as I know, correct. The Casimir Effect does disprove "god" at all. This is a problem with many young atheists. They read a website or a pop science book and they think they know all the answers. Then they mash up the science. Trust me when I say this, most real scientists loath these kinds of atheists because they trivialize the science that they claim to advocate for.
The Casimir Effect does not in itself disprove the existence of an eternal being. Who ever told you that didn't understand the whole argument which is supposed to be a refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which states that everything has a cause, and, since we supposedly can’t have an infinite regress of causes stretching into the past, a god must be the first cause; therefore an uncaused cause.
Where the Casimir effect comes into the argument is that some atheists suggest that not everything necessarily has or needs a cause. Quantum mechanics shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what are known as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.
Here's the problem though...despite our best efforts we're really only scratching the surface of knowledge when it comes to Quantum physic. Those who would argue that the Casimir Effect refutes the Cosmological Argument don't understand science and the limits of our current body of knowledge. Because we can't find a cause, they assume that there is none. Of course, from a strict scientific POV, we shouldn't assume "God done it" right away either. But it's a special kind of "magical thinking" on the part of some atheists if they're assuming that no cause exists (i.e. "Poof! It's magic!"). Of course virtual particles do come from somewhere. We just don't know where or by what mechanism.
Good, yes; but necessary? No.
Exams are an effective summative assessment system; but cumulative assessment is also a reasonable means of student grading. Where I can, I try to avoid giving students exams because I believe that assignments represent a more objective assessment method. However, exams are an easier form of assessment for faculty.
This really depends on how the TV signal is being broadcast. If you're talking about free-to-air TV, then yes, there should be advertisements because that is how the TV station makes its money. If, however, you're talking about cable or subscription TV services, then no, there should not be advertisements because you (i.e the consumer) have already paid for a service.
Yes, I'm aware of that. There's really no way that I know of to stop him from creating new accounts. The only options I can think of is to either just ban every new account he logs in with, no questions asked (which is time consuming).
Or, to have a shadow banning option whereby he's banned; but doesn't know it. He can still post and comment; but none of those posts/comments actually appear on the site. Reddit and a few other sites use this shadow banning system with this kind of persistent trolls. Of course, they invariably figure it out that their stuff isn't visible. That's when they create the new accounts.
Another option, which would suck from a users perspective, is to limit how many different IP addresses someone can log in from. But that be can problematic because if you make the user experience too troublesome, users start to balk.
So, yeah, crappy situation he's putting you in. Sorry man. Have some man hugs though from me :)
With your last couple of accounts, you seem to have made a little bit of an effort try to be less trollish and less abusive. But as it turns out, you were still abusing certain people in what would be termed "cyber stalking"; which is pretty disturbing. And sadly you're still a very abusive person when you don't get your way; as evidence by your last message to me. Given that you have absolutely no respect for anyone, despite being given respect, I can't see why you be so silly as to start demanding respect from people.
Many athiest and non-theists think that religious people are insane.
This would be a truly terrible reason to consider "religion" a psychiatric condition. During the height of Soviet psychiatry, anyone who opposed the Communist Party was considered to be mentally ill and confined to a psychiatric gulag.
Anyone who thinks that religious people are literally insane doesn't understand the science of psychiatry.
For me, Neutral Good .
There are worse things than death and being stuck in prison and denied all the civil liberties associated with a free life is one of them. So I think if you really wanted to punish someone and make them suffer, then thrown them in jail. American is supposed to be a humane and moral society. There's nothing humane or moral about executing people UNLESS there are reasonable ground to conclude that someone cannot be safely contained in a prison.
Can we not have so many of these blaming posts, accusing other users of things? I know Prodigee is a turd, he's just abused me too. But seriously, these post are the exact kind of attention-seeking that he's after. Stop stroking his ego with these kind of posts.
I'm nominating Saurbaby because I just have a mental image of her being hot.
LizziexLaura, because I have the urge to corrupt something that's good (funny how so many people want to see Lizzie in the calendar naked).
And Abby, 'cos she's cute.
PTSD, OCD, and bipolar; yes. Bipolar and autism? That's an unusual combination. Is that self-diagnosed or has one psychiatrist said that you have both disorders simultaneously? Technically, those two disorders can potentially cancel one another out to some extent.
I'd be more inclined to suspect Borderline Personality which would include features of all those disorders (esp. PTSD).
Firstly, stop assuming that you're a bad person. Your not a bad person. You just do somethings sometimes that are counter-productive.
Learn to ignore people. You'll NEVER be able to get along with absolutely everyone and you don't have to. But you set yourself up as a target for bullying because you react so strongly. I know some people give you a hard time on this site; but you have to ask yourself why that is. The same person (you know who) used to try to bait me too. He stopped because I declined to entertain him by complaining about him, banning him, and antagonizing him further.
Don't assume the worst other people. This text-based communication is tricky because you can't see the facial gestures that go with the communication. Therefore, you can't always tell how serious or joking the other person is. I've seen you becoming angry at my comments to you in the past when they were intended only to be helpful or friendly joking around (e.g. when I suggested that you were getting on in years).
By all mean, ban people when they're being verbally abusive. Calling you a bitch or a cunt isn't something that you should tolerate. But banning people for simply having an opinion which isn't the same as your opinion probably isn't the best idea. And calling them cunts and bitches is pretty disrespectful too. You're not going to get any respect from people when you offer no respect.
And the reporting thing, don't abuse it. I think you've probably been making Andy's job a lot harder by reporting things unnecessarily. Again, by all means, report abusive comments. But consider for a moment what actually constitutes an abusive comment.
Other suggestions:
- Add a CONCEDE button to concede a debate. It might encourage some resolution to debates rather than just letting them fizzle out over time.
- Add a LOGICAL FALLACY button that can be used to highlight fallacies in arguments and with an explanation of the various types of fallacies.
- Add a QUOTE option or some system for quoting other people in replies.
I think forks, rakes, shovels, seeds....basic agricultural equipment. Little known fact, Nintendo is an extremely old company and well before the invention of computers, Nintendo made and sold agricultural equipment. You can keep that in your book of useless trivia.
What's the reason for putting the animal down? It it punishment? The animal doesn't know any better and it simply abiding by its natural instincts. Is it for safety concerns? That's a poor excuse for putting the animal down. When wild animals attack in these "controlled" situations, it's more often than not the human whose done something stupid to put themselves at risk.
Actually, yes. I agree with you. I should and intend to post similar comments about how silly all these "I hate X user" posts, including those which are "I hate Prodigee".
That said, it's to your benefit to ask yourself why are there so many posts which deride you.
It should be paid by the government in order to provide a stimulus to population growth which is necessary for sustainable income taxes across successive generations. When paid by the employer, a level of risk is introduced which can result in discrimination against female workers, as has happened in the past.
You said "when". When was the last time that the economy failed and the kids couldn't turn on their iphones AND it got so desperate that survival skills might be come in handy?
Answer - NEVER.
Maybe we should run mandatory classes on how to respond "when" the zombie apocalypse happens?
No. Given the strong links between autism and atheism, there's empirical evidence to support the argument that atheists are more single minded. Theism demands the mental capacity for abstraction; a faculty which appears to be absolutely absent in both autism and atheism.
Assuming that the US is a democracy (which I rather like to think that it is) then "yes", Obama (POTUS) does reserve the right to ban assault weapons. The POTUS is charged with the responsibility of heading the legislative process, that's why.
No; but I don't think one can be completely impartial either if they're in this position. The advantage of having a "friend in the middle" is that they can act as a voice of reason. If your enemy wont listen to you, they might at least listen to your mutual friend who can act to keep the peace.
One successful terrorist attack after 12 year and you're already jumping to the conclusion that we've lost the war on terror? Given how many lives have been saved, I think we're doing an outstanding job of reducing terrorism. The only problem is that while we've stopped 99% of Islamic terrorists, the majority of successful terrorists attacks on US soil since 9/11 have been carried out by secular, Christian, and Jewish extremists groups; and we've done absolutely nothing to target these groups.
You know, one of the main reasons why Prodigee gets so many points so quickly on CreateDebate is because of all the attention that you lavish him with. If you could just make the effort to ignore his childish attacks against you, he might become insignificant. As it stands, he's the most significant person on CD because of all this negative attention.
You know the saying, "there's no such thing as bad publicity".
I'm not sure; but there were heavily armed Kraft mercenaries stationed at the finish line with bomb detection dogs. That was odd. And yet these bomb detection dogs failed to find anything? And why were there Kraft guys so heavily armed in the first place?
There probably is such a thing as a 'just' war, war for the defense of a weaker state or the victim of an unjust war might be considered 'just'.
America's involvement in WWII against the Axis powers was probably just for the defense of the Jews (although I don't think that was the actual reason for their involvement).
Can you outline the six criteria for a 'just' war? It wasn't in the debate proposition.
Amendments to the US constitution and to the intergovernmental and supranational agreements that define basic rights in other liberal democratic states prohibit the use of torture by state agents.
And yet:
http://
