If a liberal doesn't like a talk show host, they burn him on the social media stake.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, they demand he get's sued.
If a liberal doesn't like what science says, they condescend to make it seem as if it doesn't matter.
If a conservative doesn't like what science says, they point to the Bible.
If a liberal thinks what someone else says is "offensive" they demand that they're censored.
If a conservative thinks what someone else says goes against tradition they belittle them as children.
Both parties suck - so stop acting as if either is inherently better.
What kind of moral guidance does the Atheist have?
Well it depends on the atheist, you decide for yourself. Why does someone need moral guidance? I think it says a lot about a person when they tell me that they need a fictional book to tell them not to kill people.
you will simply do whatever you think is right
Yup, because I am a fully functioning human being that can make his own decisions. Crazy, I know.
That Bible/Koran/Talmud etc... contains a lot of wisdom on how to live a good life
Oh you know, cause it's so moral to stone gay people to death. Or to murder people who don't follow your ideology. Or to drown everyone on Earth. Or to enslave those that don't belong to your race. Or to treat women as their husband's property. The list goes on for the "moral" things those religions in particular encourage.
I didn't follow your link
Because you're such an open minded person who is willing to see other viewpoints
It comes from tolerance
Which is a good thing
Non-religious people tolerate fags and pedos and other freaks because they are confused about the difference between good and evil
Okay so first of all, there is no good reason to be against homosexuality, period. You're welcome to try and argue against it but I'll only listen to points not ground in some fictional story. Secondly, why the fuck do you think we tolerate pedophiles? The Christian church is the one with all the priests feeling up their altar boys.
Why do you have this insistence that the non-religious are immoral? There is literally not a shred of evidence in support of it and in fact there is plenty to show the reverse. People don't need some invisible sky dictator to tell them what's right or wrong, if you need something like that to tell you that its bad to kill, steal, rape, etc. Then you have something seriously wrong.
Okay kidding aside I don't think you realize how disgusting you being proud of that is. You have emotionally manipulated your children into subscribing to a belief system which is patently false. "If atheists are allowed to lead the youth" then we wouldn't have any fairy tales being taught as fact, they would be stories and nothing else. Additionally, children that are raised nonreligious tend to have more empathy for other people according to a study detailed here.
Don't claim to know how to universe started - it is not only plain wrong but it is harmful in that it stops us from looking to try and find the truth.
Oh well I guess we should expect that about all the Greek writers who lived all around the same time, or the Romans, or the Norse, or the Chinese, or the Japanese, or for literally any one of the people who founded any of our 4 MILLION FUCKING RELIGIONS would have done the same thing.
(unsurprisingly) you clearly have no idea what evolution is. It is gradual, there was no "uncle monkey", additionally we never evolved FROM monkeys. We are simply closely related to them because we share a common ancestor. Of course this isn't a concept you would understand, but I figured maybe you have some shred of intelligence left.
Oh yup, you're so cool - beating atheists every day, fuck yeah! So why are atheists automatically immoral?
Jeez this is hilarious. You realize this is the equivalent of saying that people who don't like Star Wars are scared of Darth Vader? As horrible as the Bible is no one is scared of the fictional characters in it.
Well I am an atheist, and a Boy Scout. Most of my troop is aware of it (I'm not in the closet), and as far as I can tell they don't give a shit. It is true that Boy Scouts has some religious aspects but I love the program as a whole and it isn't nearly as exclusively regressive as many frame it as.
Oh joy. Another insane person. You do realize that you're a walking cliche, right?
Freedom of speech should be held paramount - it is a prerequisite to all other rights. Now, if someone says something which intentionally gets someone hurt then they should be punished for the crime they caused - but there should be no punishment for speech, it doesn't matter what was said.
While we have historical evidence in support of other figures mentioned in ideologies (Mohammad, Buddha, etc.) there is nothing there in support of Jesus, which is actually kind of surprising. One would assume that there was at least a person alive at the time who could have represented Jesus of the Bible, however as far as we know there wasn't. This is because there aren't any documents - and the Romans sure as hell loved to document things.
If Jesus had been real we would have had a birth certificate, travel papers, letters written about him, warrants for his arrest, etc. but we don't. It is highly unlikely that someone as (in)famous in Rome as described in the Bible as Jesus would have existed without some sort of documentation mentioning him.
Suicide is selfish - it is NEVER a solution, period. Life can suck, a lot, but its a horribly permanent solution to a problem that will go away with time. You would be doing harm to you, your family, your friends, and anyone and everyone who cares about you. Never commit suicide.
Separation of church and state only means that laws don't take your religion into account, period. They don't go out of their way to restrict beliefs and practices, but they also don't tiptoe around them. You pass laws because they have an intrinsic value, but when you start exempting people from them based on their religion then you have crossed a line.
Atheism isn't really a worldview - it's just the acknowledgment that we don't have enough evidence to say that any gods exist. It is more logical than theism because it doesn't require any unproven assumptions.
My argument is that the political systems themselves aren't inherently better than eachother.
While it is true that people can advocate for themselves better in a democracy, it is not inherently true that any other individuals will have their rights oppressed. A dictatorship can do things quicker, and more efficiently than a democracy - this allows hypothetically for a better government. However as I said, everything is situational.
Lets take feminism for example.....Feminists scream WE CAN DO ANYTHING A MAN CAN DO! I believe that statement is rebelling against the natural order of males and females? Why do you think we have so many separate female and male sports? It's because girls are not as good as the guys in most physical sports. Yet feminists deny the obvious when it comes to so many things in life.
While it is true that generally men are stronger, that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. If a woman is as capable as a man then regardless she should have the same opportunity. Or at least have the ability to make that opportunity herself.
Feminists fear any notion that they are better designed for the nurturing of our children while the father is better designed to support the family.
Evolution doesn't "design" anything. It is based on survival of the fittest, and doesn't care about societal norms.
Feminists have severe insecurity issues case you missed it. They look at the natural roles of females and males in a family structure and say, we want to take the male role in life.
You realize that you are the exact misogynistic straw-man most feminists look for? Again, evolution doesn't assign any gender based roles.
On average, women do not posses the physical strength of a man.
This is true, testosterone helps with muscle growth - that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions though.
Man can not breast feed Babies. There is a natural order to life as we see in the animal kingdom.
Actually no, there is an apparent order which people themselves attributed to nature. To reiterate - evolution is not a "belief system," it is simply an explanation for the diversity of life. It does not care about how things appear to be, whatever works best survives. Additionally, that doesn't mean that we inherently have to carry out evolution - I mean going by your logic here Hitler had a justifiable motive.
But feminists rebel against their own beliefs of evolution when they deny the natural order of the male and female.
There is no natural order - just how things happened to evolve.
The Left bought right into this nonsense because of political correctness and their fixation to lift up anything at odds with our Christian heritage.
What the hell does political correctness have to do with evolution? No one supports the theory of evolution just to "lift up anything at odds with out Christian heritage." They do so because it is supported by facts and evidence - intelligent design has jack shit when it comes to proof. Additionally - we do not have a "Christian heritage," the US was made a secular country.
Before you start twisting my words as usual, I in no way would ever want to prevent women from having the freedom to pursue whatever job or life they would choose.
So why did you make this debate? The premise of it is skewed at best.
We had no laws forcing women to be homemkers 50 years ago. We simply as an inteligent people understood the natural roles of men and women and most did what was best for their family's well being.
Okay I'm sure that the no laws thing is bullshit, but I'm not going to bother with the research. Oh I see now, so the flawed premise of your debate here is that people who support the theory of evolution aren't misogynistic, and that supposedly contradicts evolution. So you decide to claim the moral high-ground here by saying that you ARE a misogynist, but don't support evolution.
Another example is the Left's fixation with Homosexuaity. It is completely at odds with evolution and the propagation of our species.
Yes because we need MORE people now, that's how to solve overpopulation.
Oh they will try and say there are gay animals running all over the forrests and they would be liars.
Well you can find examples of it here here and [here] (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/
They bring up supposed Gay geese when in fact the paring of two male geese never involves sex. Gee, maybe the female Geese died and there were only other male geese to pair up with? Nah, they must be Gay Geese!
Well we do in fact see gay sex in animals so yeah
When's the last time you saw any gay pets who refused to have sex with the opposite sex?Dogs will come on to anything that moves so spare me. To be gay means you have no attraction for the opposite sex. We do not see this in our pets and one should be asking why? If homosexuality is natural why do we not see it in our pets?
Read the articles
There are many other examples of the Left totally ignoring and rebelling against the natural order of their own belief system of evolution.
Evolution is not a belief system
Hey, maybe this is why our families are so broken?
Well idk about your family but mine's okay
Not only do Progessives ignore our Christian heritage and the moral values that once kept our families together, they also ignore the obvious roles of men and women through evolution? They are truly lost!
Pull your head out of your ass, seriously
I'm saying no purely because this seems to be asking if in every situation it is. Sometimes a dictator is a much better ruler, they can get things done efficiently and quickly, and if they aren't corrupt then it can be a very well run country.
On the other hand, if you are judging based on political freedom then democracy would be best. Although again, everything is situational, neither is inherently better.
No, church and state should be held completely separate. That means no laws forbidding, or supporting, any religious belief. That being said, the laws can (and sometimes should) ban certain religious practices, but never for the reason of just to limit that religion. There needs to be a practical reason for it.
The Guantanamo Bay prison camp should be closed, period. Its expensive as hell, and that's completely ignoring all the blatant human rights abuses. Especially considering people that have already been found not guilty are still there, the place is a stain on American history.
It doesn't matter who you are - you're required to pay taxes. You don't have a right to choose not to fund programs you don't like.
I would not agree that Muslims are inherently terrorists - but Islam does 100% support what they do. Granted, that isn't something exclusive to Islam. If the majority of people followed their religion (whatever that may be) to the point, then we would have a plethora of terrorist attacks.
That said, the Quran pretty explicitly encourages maiming, or even killing people that don't follow Islam.
I think that this is more attacking the ridiculous notion of white guilt, and specifically the hypocrisy of it. That said I do agree with you - people really suck sometimes.
How about everyone recognizes that no one is responsible for history? No one needs to pay reparations for what happened in the slave trade, white or black (save for human traffickers, and even then only the slavery they themselves participate in). Because everyone that participated in it IS DEAD.
The only legitimate reason to ban someone is if they are being legitimately abusive - essentially they aren't there to debate, more just scream. However even then it should be a tough call. If you aren't sure whether you should ban them or if it's just personal bias, don't ban them.
