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.
Violence should never be seen as an option. Period. It really doesn't matter how pissed off Trump makes people; resorting to violence is not the answer.
Why would my position be in the fire of Hell? It's literally a thought in my head
Your arguments are lifeless, they all end in death
As far as I can tell you're the only one talking about death here
What do you want, a pat on the back for making a fine argument?
I'll bet you felt really clever as you wrote that
You have the privilege of being outside of Hell now.
I also have the privilege of being outside of the Hunger Games, although I've got better chances ending up there than Hell
Your dying should tell you that it's only a privilege
Well it's a good thing I don't plan on doing that for awhile
but you think dying proves you have the right to exist outside of Hell
Yup, that's exactly what I'm thinking about, good job
How did you become obtuse?
Wow I'm legitimately surprised you know what obtuse means. Cudos.
You say there is no Hell, so if there is no Hell, why do I need proof of that?
You don't, unless you want to say that there is a Hell.
I say Hell is real
And that is why you need proof to support that claim
I know it and no longer need proof
Well you got to that conclusion without proof, so yeah you still do
You need proof before you will believe it.......and the only way you are going to find proof, the way you are going, is to find yourself in the fire of Hell.
Well that dilemma is pretty convenient for your position wouldn't you think?
You could believe it before you get there and ask God to save you from it based on the fact that He paid for your sins with His own blood
Or I could use my brain and see why that is pointless, and frankly fucking dumb
you could receive Jesus Christ as our Savior and have proof that you will not have to burn in Hell.
Say, for a minute, that I did. I would have no more proof afterwards then I would now, hence this argument doesn't follow
You need proof, don't you?
Yes
you will get proof, and if you don't get saved from Hell and you find yourself unable to get out, you will remember I tried to tell you
Oh I see so you're a philanthropist now. Do you honestly not realize this logic can be used in support of any and every religion there is?
you will remember the stupid things you said in defiance of God, and you won't get out of Hell.
Well I won't go into Hell either, so I guess that is true
Your an idiot if you won't stop being an idiot saying there can be no proof of Hell.
*You're. I'm not saying there can't be proof - just that there isn't any, so prove me wrong and find some if you're so confident here
There will be proof.
Well when it gets here I will change my position
I don't need proof
Yes, you do
I know I do not have the right to live outside of Hell as a sinner
Good for you?
all sinners deserve eternal separation from God in damnation of Hell fire.
Why should God punish sinners if he himself made them sinners? Or is God not all powerful/all knowing?
There will be proof. You are the one who needs it, not me
Apply that logic to literally any other part of life and you will see how flawed it actually is
You will get it, idiot
You see without actually addressing any of my arguments it makes it hard for you to effectively insult me
your foul mouth will be kept out of the ears of the living if you force God to prove it to you the hard way.
I don't think you realize that threats of Hell aren't actually that scary to atheists - its like telling us that we're about to be eaten by zombies so we need to prepare. It isn't frightening, just makes you kinda pity the person screaming about it.
Yeah I figured your response would be about as intelligent as everything else you say
Jesus it's like talking to a fucking three year old that's in denial about bedtime
I see no proof that you are right
That is because THERE IS NO FUCKING PROOF TO BEGIN WITH. Look, I don't know if you are smart enough to understand this so I will spell it out as easily as I can:
1: There is no proof for either side
2: Without any proof, we cannot make any assumptions
3: With no assumptions, no positive position can be logically made
4: The only logical position to be held is that there isn't enough known to have any certainty
5: Therefore, any positive claims must be held at equal level with themselves (ie: the claim of a god is no more legitimate than that of Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster)
Sorry, you have taught me not to look at your foul mouth, whatever it's saying....but I'm sure you are doing all you can to avoid answering this question.
1st: You know what a hypocrite is, right?
2nd: That isn't even a question - there isn't a logical coherency to it, I don't even know what it is you think you're asking.
so when are you going to see for yourself to really have proof of your belief in having the right to live outside of Hell?
Again, what in the flying fuck do you actually mean when you say this? You copy and paste this pointless spiel in front of every one of your "arguments" and for some reason think it's some well thought out point.
so when are you going to see for yourself to really have proof of your belief in having the right to live outside of Hell?
Seriously when was the last time you actually read what you wrote before you posted it?
When will you find proof that you are right?
I don't need proof to disprove something that in and of itself has no proof in support of it. There is not a single shred of evidence in support of the existence of any god, much less the Abrahamic God. Hence, until such proof is brought forward, scrutinized, and shown to be true, then the only possible logical conclusion is that no gods exist.
Can you describe "the true God"? If you can't, then you don't know what you are talking about, right?
No, I do not need to. This argument is complete bullshit, I do not need to describe fiction to call it fiction.
I don't think you will accept anything as proof of "the true God"
See that's where you're wrong - show me one piece of empirical proof in support of God and I will convert, immediately.
why don't you just wait and see if you acknowledge "the true God" when you get there?
Because Hell does not exist, so there really isn't any point in waiting for it
God is who you believe can be replaced by your "Flying Spaghetti Monster"
I don't believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists - the point of the argument is to show why your arguments aren't mutually exclusive to your god.
That would be you in your imagination thinking you can make yourself equal with God
I didn't make up the argument - nor do I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
He is the One you hate
We've gone over this before - I do not hate God, I do not believe that any god exists - in the same way that I do not hate the Joker, or Voldemort, or any other fictional villain.
All of the gods you say are speculative are equal to your Flying Spaghetti Monster
I completely agree - hence why the argument works.
No, you are only accountable for your decisions - anything that happens prior to is not your responsibility.
Why would you provide humans curiosity and the ability to question if you are going to punish them for doing so?
Do you honestly believe that we have brains at conception? At the moment in sex when the egg is fertilized? Do you not see how ridiculous of a claim that is?
How do you know that a baby doesn't have a brain at birth?
Seriously what the fuck do you think abortion is? Of course babies have brains at birth CONCEPTION AND BIRTH ARE DIFFERENT.
Where do cognitive functions come from?
The brain, they are determined by electronic pulses that go off in response to things. That is what we use to determine cognitive function.
Do you have any evidence that suggests that a fetus is not alive at conception?
Well, firstly even a lack of evidence wouldn't prove that abortion is inherently wrong.
Secondly, there is evidence to support many points of distinction, conception being by far the lowest on the list.
Thirdly, simple logic dictates that if you think it is bad to kill a fetus at the point of conception then it is bad to kill any living thing ever. This is because at this early stage there has been no progression whatsoever with the baby - it has absolutely no cognitive ability or organ development or any bodily functions.
Yes, but regulate it a lot. Enough to prevent STDs and the constant abuse that goes on so often.
Agreed - individual rights are being stamped over in the name of security and it is getting worrying.
Pro choice - the government shouldn't have any say in such a delicate matter. The choice to have an abortion is an extremely difficult one and to just have a sweeping position saying that it cannot be done is not the correct way to approach.
I take this position purely because I despise the idea that anything could not ever be understood - although I don't have a way to explain how our consciousness could be.
Good question - we don't know (yet). You could get into speculative theories but there is little to no evidence to support any of them.
They're both shitty, dishonest, and corrupt candidates. But if those are the only options Hillary is the slightly lesser of two evils.
Nope, the only arguments in "support" of a god are utterly speculative, and not one points to a specific one. Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.
Benefits in the United States are determined by a specific formula, tax(number of children + bills) + income2 / rent.
I'll fact-check that later, but okay. That still isn't a reason to outlaw abortions.
How?
If you have a baby then regardless of whether you can keep it or not you are going to have an emotional connection to it. Putting a kid up for adoption is extremely hard.
Women who have babies get benefits.
Such as? I mean if the woman wants a baby then okay there isn't a problem with that, but a lot of the time it simply isn't a viable option to maintain a stable life.
Also, why not send those babies to homes where they can be looked after?
Because it causes a lot of distress to everyone involved.
Really? What part of your point did I concede? Because as far as I can tell you're blatantly ignoring the point I made against it, make it not only a complete lie but hypocritical of you to call me out for conceding it.
As stated prior to, a lot of time the economic/financial status of a person can be a deciding factor. Sometimes people just aren't ready to have kids yet. Sometimes it can be life threatening to have a baby. Etc.
And again, I did not need to prove it scientifically. If I was making a claim on something hard and testable, then I would need to provide scientific evidence. I was not, I was making a claim on the way that we should determine things - so the only possible evidence for it is reason and logic
This is the reason you are dealt with so easily in debates. Did the Zika virus reduce your brain ?
I don't think you know what the Zika virus is.
Can you prove that claim scientifically ? If you cannot, then the claim is false. And you just refuted yourself
Can I prove the claim scientifically? No, I cannot. I don't need to though. That is because I am making no claims on anything other than argumentation and logic - nothing on reality or anything else that can be scientifically proven. My evidence is reasoning and analytics, and unless you can provide a counter argument with a good warrant there really isn't a refutation.
For such an immense question as to how we all came to be, there has to be testable proof. An assumption does NOT make the cut. The proof has to be studied, and questioned, and tested until we are as sure as we can be (as we do with every other theory).
Until that happens, no assumptions can be reasonably made on the matter.
It's unlikely that every single element of our history has been rewritten
This is not a refutation - just a speculative assumption
The fact that you acknowledge the difference in men and women in court props that you know that there are still strong differences between the ways men and women are treated in our society.
While it does show differences - it shows differences in favor of women. Men are ridiculously discriminated against in court.
And again, if you believe that men had a huge advantage for a large part of history, why is it so easy for you to believe that all of it has swapped?
And this is a complete straw-man. As I acknowledged there are disparities in favor of men - my argument is that they are far outweighed by those enjoyed by
Women are constantly objectified and sexualized in the media in ways that men are not.
There isn't anything wrong with sexualization - objectification is nothing more than attraction, which is fine.
there are still far fewer women in power than men.
Which is because women tend not to go for political positions - its a proven difference in the way that our brains work. Additionally - women make up roughly 50.4% of the country. Women hold over half of the vote, so it is utterly ridiculous to claim that the disparities in political positions is because of discrimination seeing as we live in a representative democracy.
Let's look at a few recent studies. This study submitted two identical job applications to several hundred locations
And, AS I ACKNOWLEDGED - this is a disparity in favor of men. My argument is not at all that these don't exist. My argument is that they are outweighed by the disparities in favor of women, such as court bias. Court bias is infinitely more detrimental here.
And while the 'wage gap' statistic is often misused, it is true that women tend to have lower paying jobs than men, even when they are doing the same work.
Not while doing the same work - but yes they tend to have lower paying jobs. This is because women tend to apply for jobs with lower paying salaries.
Harvard has engineered a test called the "Implicit Association Test." If you have time, I suggest you check it out
I did, and got "Your data suggest little or no association between Male and Female with Science and Liberal Arts." Although the test was fairly clearly designed to create association within it (ie confirmation bias). It established the perimeters and subjected you to them - then changed them and "expected" the same results.
Women are objectified in a way men aren't.
And we have biological reasons as to why. It isn't something that came about purely out of discrimination - its embedded into our DNA. Now, is that a reason to stick with it? No, not at all, however to simply place blame is counter productive and an extremely dishonest way to go about it.
While plenty of men get eating disorders, women are significantly more likely to suffer from an ED, something most commonly brought on by societal pressure
And men make up 97% of all combat fatalities, 80% of all suicides, and 77% of all homicide victims.
Woman are catcalled on the street. A lot. That doesn't happen to guys. And yes, that's a somewhat small thing, but very significant.
It can either be somewhat small, or very significant. Additionally, "a lot" is an exaggeration.
Women get raped a whole heck of a lot more than men.
38% against 62%, so yes this is true. However it is a much smaller disparity than most make it out to be (your lack of a statistic only goes further to show this.)
There are far fewer women than men in many academic areas such as: computer science, engineering, various realms of STEM, music composition, accounting and finance, comedy, cooking, law enforcement, emergency services, politics, construction, and many others.
Largely because of biological differences (see here: http://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/
To be clear, I am very aware that men face many disadvantages in our society that women do not. However, that does not invalidate the very real, very present, and very important problems that women face that we simply cannot ignore.
Nor am I saying we do so.
Evidence is hard, testable proof. Something that can be scientifically proven. This is because it the most objective form of evidence - personal faith is by no way objective or any form of legitimate evidence.
Either way, it's a valid reason. Additionally, you didn't dispute why people should be allowed to get abortions
Yes, sometimes it is more inhumane to force a person to have a child than to abort the child because of bad economic status.
The crime here is slavery, and being held accountable means ensuring we work on eradicating the effects of it.
See there's the sticking point - there is no person (white or black, because black slave traders far outnumbered the white ones) alive (save for human traffickers) that need to be held accountable for slavery. You cannot place the blame of the atrocity of slavery on people that never even took a part in it, to do so is ridiculous and counter intuitive.
and, I would hope, far more common
Speaking as someone who has personal experience with how this argument is usually made - unfortunately it isn't.
people simply acknowledge that history has ensured a racial disparity, and that white people receive the benefits for this.
I can agree here. Economic advantages caused through historical racial disparity certainly do exist.
I always thought of it like a judge saying "White people are charged with being given an unfair advantage over black people. How do you plea?" and us choosing to plea guilty, because it's true, we absolutely do have an unfair advantage.
I don't like how that insinuates the idea that it is some sort of crime and white people should be held accountable. But I get the overall point.
I'm a socialist - there's wayy too much income inequality between classes right now.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can use the "logic" you have provided here you can justify any claim whatsoever as being utterly true if it cannot be disproved.
Additionally, burden of proof lies with the AFFIRMATIVE claim. Atheism holds no affirmative claims - it is nothing more than the disbelief in a god or gods. Religion, on the other hand, claims (affirmatively) that a god exists and that his/her word is known and absolute.
Until any religion can be proved, none will have to be disproved.
Here, have a Well Paying Job, a Good Health Upbringing, Access to Higher Education, Complete Healthcare, and like $50,000
There are actually laws in place that provide those things to minorities (fairly or not). So the point doesn't really hold up.
Would you feel guilty? You were given this shit, through no actions on your part, while this other person was left with nothing.
You really overestimate white privilege in our society.
That's why some people feel white guilt. They're acknowledging that, for totally arbitrary reasons, they're reaping the benefits of history while others must suffer its consequences.
On an interpersonal level, sure. The average white family is more wealthy than the average black (and the average indian is even wealthier, and the average asian is even wealthier still.) But that still is no reason to feel guilty over it.
White Guilt is simply recognizing that those of European descent have done some objectively f---ed up stuff to the world
Actually it isn't, it is "White guilt is the individual or collective guilt felt by some white people for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by whites both historically and currently." (my source is Wikipedia, I know shitty source but I'm using it more for the definition than the source itself)
That doesn't mean I should ignore the horrible history of both Germany and the United States by any means.
I agree, but you also shouldn't feel guilty for it.
Being a responsible adult is admitting to flaws (in this case not individual flaws to which I am personally responsible) and recognizing their importance alongside your pride.
Yes but whose flaws? It's inherently ridiculous to say that a person should be guilty of something for which they had no part it, and its completely counter-intuitive to race equality. The whole point to being against racism is rejecting any inherently bad thing based on a person's race, you cannot claim to be against racism if you think that all white people should be guilty simply because they are white.
I'd say its more just a flawed basis in general. I mean yes, racism was huge historically, but the idea that people TODAY should feel guilty is ridiculous on the whole of it. Not to mention it's counter-intuitive, as it does nothing more than entrench people more into the past by saying that you should pay retribution for the transgressions of your ancestors.
As written in Isaiah "ïf someone attacks you, it will not be my doing"
Sounds like a good fallback in case people start pointing out disparities.
The text clearly shows that God is not running a command and control universe.
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
Jeremiah 29:11
And before you point out the "for welfare and not evil" part, take note on the kind of "welfare" that the Christian God is accustomed to giving.
Rather there are Basic laws in place to allow the universe to continue, without the need of God
In reality, yes I would completely agree.
man would be little more than a robot that only does as God dictates, and that is not the reality offered by scripture.
While I would agree that it is not reality, although it is the fictional universe described in the Bible.
Men have many very large and significant advantages in our society
Such as?
They had for a long period of history. The fact that I can say that in the past tense is a good thing.
In court women have extreme advantages legally, and even when they do commit crimes the backlash is severely less than that of men for the same crime.
Socially speaking women are advantaged in virtually every aspect.
Now, is this to say that there aren't disparities in favor of men? No, not at all, however those enjoyed by women in our society today extend further than. Either way, both are bad.
We don't know yet - but that doesn't mean we should make any assumptions.
Eugenics has been disproved multiple times - just because there are people with more or less genetic strengths doesn't mean those with less should be culled. Either way those with more strengths are going to reproduce - so it doesn't make sense to just kill off the rest.
Cite your sources, and judging by your claims you know a hell of a lot less than I do when it comes to stem cell research. While you are right in saying that stem-cells coming from sources other than human embryos are a viable option, we should still study all forms of it to get the best science out of it.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/
That's true, although far less. filllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
It's wrong to stereotype a Muslim - but it is not wrong to speak the truth about Islam. Islam is an extremely violent religion, it advocates for killing in almost every sirrah of the Quran. Most Muslims don't follow the fundamentals of their religion, same goes for Christians (if you actually followed the Bible as a Christian you would have killed a very large portion of the population.) In conclusion: don't judge people by their religion as it is only one negative portion of who they are.
No reason to, giving thanks to an invisible sky-dictator doesn't make your food taste better.
No, women have significant advantages over men. Legally for example. Socially too in most aspects.
You are trying to prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer, therefore the burden of proof is yours.
Again, no, you are trying to prove that executing a murderer is good, you have burden of proof.
Why does it have to be me as opposed to you who should answer that question.
Because you have the burden of proof, you are pushing a claim that we should change something (that we should execute all murderers), I am arguing that that something is bad.
How can you prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer unless you can prove that a murderer does actually have any value?
I don't have to - the assumption here is that all people have value. A murderer is a person, therefore the beginning assumption is that they have value. It is your job to prove that they don't, not mine that they do.
Just because something isn't right doesn't mean that it is wrong.
What is the point of doing it if it isn't right?
Murderers can be intelligent, but that doesn't mean that they are able to use their intelligence to the benefit of society.
Nor does it mean that they cannot, your absolutist logic doesn't work here.
Nor does it mean that they would apply their intelligence properly.
Nor does it mean that they wouldn't.
Murderers are incapable of any true philanthropy and are devoid of any good will.
Again, absolutist. Yes, murder is wrong, incredibly so. But that doesn't mean that there is no chance of a murderer doing something good, ever. That's a ridiculous claim.
Murderers have no economic benefits.
Except if they have a job, have ever sold anything, have ever made a job for another, etc.
You have just answered my question, so you certainly are able to pinpoint what makes a human of any value.
I gave you three examples, there are countless more - you cannot just pinpoint it on one thing and I am damn sure that you haven't looked at every case and every aspect. In other words, your sweeping assumptions are utter bullshit.
so don't tell me I don't listen.
Considering how many of my arguments you ignored previously, I maintain the assertion.
What defines a person mentally is that they have the abilities of imagination, emotion, empathy and reason.
And you have evidence to back up the claim that every person that has ever killed a person illegally has none of any of those qualities?
Evil is defined by sadism, egotism, coldness and a desire to pervert what is real and true. Evil is also the desire to be repulsive and to cause repulsiveness for the sake of causing what is repulsive.
Committing a violent crime is in almost if not every case not out of "the desire to be repulsive." It is usually for personal gain, and doesn't immediately entail any of those qualities.
We are debating why you oppose the death penalty, instead of supporting it. Of course you are supposed to prove that executing murderers is wrong.
Again, no. You have burden of proof. The affirmative claim here is that there is good reason to kill criminals, we are not here debating about my personal position on the matter but the matter itself.
I believe that executing those that murder is the right thing to do, therefore it isn't "murder"
Ah I see so if I believe that killing a person is the right thing to do it isn't murder. That's the distinction you're making?
Of course I didn't "answer" your statements. Instead I had asked you what you actually thought.
If you don't answer the statement then the (utterly accurate) assumption is that you either agree with them or cannot answer them. Seeing as you still haven't it only furthers my point.
Prisons should be used to rehabilitate those who can change for the better of society, not to house those that only murder others.
So you're saying that any criminal that isn't a murderer can be rehabilitated but not a murderer? If I were to brutally rape 20 people and you shot a person over a disagreement - you're telling me that I am perfectly fine to "rehabilitate" but we must immediately execute you?
The whole point of a prison isn't to waste money on murderers who can't change. That's counter intuitive.
No, the point of a prison is punishment for those that do wrong. Additionally - provide a logical explanation as to a: why every murderer is inherently a bad person regardless of any other trait they have and b: why they cannot ever change
Murderers are also in high security prisons. Within those prisons murderers always live a life of luxury. They are nothing like those hell houses that petty criminals tend to go to.
Cite your sources for that - a high security prison is not "a life of luxury." It has high security - by definition that is the only assumption you can make.
You're claim is that the death penalty is wrong. Just because something isn't right doesn't make it wrong. Based on that argument it would be wrong for me to rub my head. Just because rubbing my head isn't right doesn't make it wrong.
My argument that killing in general is wrong - it isn't exclusive to capital punishment but that is an extension of it. It is established that the downside of capital punishment is a person dying - so until you can prove that there is a legitimate good thing that comes out of that then this is an argument you have lost.
Morality is subjective, so executing a murderer isn't necessarily wrong because morality can be subjective.
Executing anyone is wrong, if you would argue otherwise why the fuck are you defending your position?
Yes, it can be proven that it is beneficial to society.
Then prove that it is and that it outweighs the downsides.
Of course psychopaths have no value as people.
Based on what warrant? You are speaking as if they're a different species.
Psychopaths are inherent monsters. All psychopaths are egotistic and predatory.
Again, provide evidence supporting the claim that every person that has ever had psychopathy is a monster and should be killed.
But some monsters like CEO's are also capable of benefitting society.
Oh I see you're one of those conspiracy theorists fighting the system.
Murderers are the monsters that can't.
Provide a fucking warrant for your claims, seriously. Give me a logical, step by step explanation as to why a person can, regardless of any and every other factor, NEVER be beneficial to society based on the fact that they killed a person illegally.
When it comes to murderers, there is not a very big difference between the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath".
There is, and I have explained it to you. But again, you have been ignoring it, you haven't looked it up, you haven't thought it through. You are sticking to your emotions, and failing to use logic.
Whenever we use any of those terms, I obviously intend to describe anybody who feels no emotions.
In which case you are "obviously" only talking about sociopaths. Not every murderer, apparently.
Being a soldier benefits society, so even if a psychopath is a soldier, doesn't mean we should execute them.
So again we have a contradiction. You have been arguing that every psychopath, regardless of any other factors, is a monster with no value and should be executed. Now you have made an exception to psychopaths that are part of the military.
Having that has no value is a waste of money.
A life is more important than money.
We are trying to debate why murderers from your perspective have no value.
Actually that is your position, that they have no value, regardless. My position is that they should not be executed, which does not mention value.
Killing someone without good cause or motive is classified as murder.
So it isn't murder then if I stand to gain money? It isn't murder if I consider that person mean enough to be killed? It isn't murder if I want something they own? It isn't murder if they stole from me? It isn't murder if I stand to gain power? It isn't murder if they are offensive? I could go on, but you get the point.
The motives for murder are merely to gain control and to cause pain and shame to the victims.
Except that usually murder is done for money, or in revenge of something. (the latter being what you are here advocating for)
The motives for murder are very egotistical in nature.
Not all murders, very few in fact.
Lack of empathy means that someone likes every single other quality known to man.
I'm assuming this was a typo and you meant "lacks" but correct me if I'm wrong. Empathy is just the ability to see from another's perspective (something that you seem very lacking in). It doesn't entail any other quality.
Keeping people isn't meant to reduce money, keeping people in prisons is to house people without having to kill them. It is about locking people up. As I had said before, keeping murderers in prisons still wastes money and more expensive than killing them or just letting them to die.
The fact that money here is even a question really says a lot about the kind of person you are. You're right that not killing people is more expensive than killing them, but the fact that you cannot see why we almost always choose the former in today's society begs the question of why you are acting so much higher than a person that kills illegally.
We can't get arrested for rising hatred for murders.
And I am not saying that you should be, hatred for the act of murder is completely justified.
Hate crimes are considered hate crimes if you raise hatred for black people and gays, you can't commit a hate crime against murderers, legally.
I haven't said anything about hate crimes, and I don't really know why you think I have. Additionally, this is an utter lie. If you were to go into a prison right now and kill someone who was locked up who was a murderer, you would be charged legally with murder.
I just shows a good backbone.
Oh fuck yeah lets make ourselves look manly and kill people because we're tough and have good backbones!
If a person has absolutely NO value, then there is no point in allowinf them to live.
I don't think you know what utilitarian means
I have already offered evidence for my claim that I believe murderers lack value and should be killed.
You have provided claims, but no evidence
Not all psychopaths should be killed.
Okay literally quoting you from this post: "Psychopaths are inherent monsters.
All psychopaths are egotistic and predatory.
But some monsters like CEO's are also capable of benefitting society.
Murderers are the monsters that can't."
Just those that commit murder.
What about people that commit murder that aren't psychopaths?
There is nothing wrong with that, is there?
Of course there is something wrong with that - to hold any sort of absolutist viewpoint that says "they should die" is wrong because it doesn't take into account any possible context!
No one should care for a murderer being executed. They cause more harm than good. And the family and friends of a murder are better of without them, too.
Go find someone whose child is on death row - and say that to them.
I'll ask you this question, why would it damage the justice system?
Because a justice system that is against killing cannot turn around and use killing as punishment - it is counter intuitive.
You made that claim, now I want to know why you believe it.
And I did - I don't make claims I haven't thought through and stick to them
There is nothing wrong with being a Jew.
I would agree that you shouldn't go out and kill Jews - whether or not there's something wrong with it is a different argument entirely and isn't exclusive to Judaism.
We are talking about murderers here and why they have no value.
We're actually talking about whether they should be executed or not.
As long as we aren't murderers, we all have something to offer to society
Being a murderer doesn't inherently mean you can offer nothing to society - and you have yet to offer evidence to support that claim.
How am I wasting money on the internet.
Using the internet uses money
Childish.
And undisputed
Even more childish.
Considering that you are arguing in favor of eugenics, through execution, it's a valid point.
To finish the sentence: "God isn't dead, he never was alive to begin with"
Kidding aside, (although it is true) you misunderstand the concept. The term "God is dead" was coined by Friedrich Nietzsche, who used it to describe how it is time for humanity to re-evaluate it's morals and shed away religion. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.
The value of a person is a broad question?
Yes
Well, can you provide explanations for this broad question?
Burden of proof lies with you, you provide a value, I will dispute it as needed.
The value of a person can differ from person to person? Well, what are the different things that can make a person of value?
Intellect, philanthropy, economic benefits, etc.
Personally everybody has value to some extent? What sort of value?
Again, you can't pinpoint it.
No, you have explained nothing.
Yes I have, you just don't listen
And just because someone is biologically a person doesn't mean they are mentally.
Then tell me what exactly is the mental state of a person?
Someone who is evil is only human in flesh and blood, their minds are sick and twisted and inhuman.
No such thing as an evil person, only evil things. Additionally, define evil.
Yes, that is what the whole point of the debate is about.
No, the whole point of this debate is to decide whether or not there is good reason to kill criminals.
Except I wouldn't call it "murder.
That's because you see killing as okay
I just had, it is you who hasn't.
No, you answered my points with the same questions. That isn't answering
Psychopaths of course have no value as people and are expensive
Based on what? You've spent the whole debate asking for me to tell you what makes a person valuable - even though you've obviously got more reason to considering you are using it to make arguments. Also, tell me what you think a prison is used for.
Why should we let manipulative murderers waste the systems money?
Because that is the whole reason that that portion of the system was made.
Why should we allow arrogant serial killers to mess with the system and live a life of luxury like a king?
Life of luxury? You're kidding right? They're going to prison, please tell me how the fuck a prison is a "life of luxury like a king."
That would be you making an affirmative claim, actually.
My claim is that the death penalty is wrong. You are saying that it is right and should be implemented, you are making an affirmative claim. Ie, you have burden of proof.
You can't prove that executing a murderer is harmful.
Executing anyone is harmful, for morality's sake if nothing else. Additionally, you can't prove that it is beneficial (which is the first thing that needs to be proven)
My position is that psychopaths have no value as people?
Yes, that is what you have been arguing
Anything wrong with that?
It's a legitimate mental disorder and you are going in with the assumption that every one is an inherent monster regardless of their actions.
Psychopaths are roughly the same thing as sociopaths.
No, there are very big differences which you have yet to dispute.
All people who end up committing murder are psychopathic, regardless.
Really? So every soldier that has ever killed someone is a psychopath, regardless? What exactly is your definition of psychopathy? Because it seems to be extremely flawed.
I actually did
Okay, they are expensive and have no value. Both positions poorly defended and not backed up by any reasoning.
Because they are worthless, because they have no empathy and because they are egotistic and parasitic.
Nothing inherently egotistical with murder, it is bad but doesn't mean you are egotistic. As to the parasitic comment, that would be why we put them in prison. And lack of empathy doesn't inherently take away your worth as a person.
They are a waste of money.
How much money? Keeping people in prisons is not expensive, and that is what prisons are meant to be used for.
Killing them is like killing flees.
Because dehumanizing people hasn't caused anything bad, ever. coughholocaustslaverycrusadeshumantraff
There is no proof to suggest that the death penalty is wrong
Well sure, if you're a utilitarian.
The death penalty is either wrong or right.
Well it definitely is the first one. I do agree that it is only one or the other.
You can't prove it is harmful and wrong unless you provide evidence.
Okay so going by your arguments: people who murder are inherently psychopaths - all psychopaths must be killed - because killing cannot be proven to be wrong. You really don't see the problem here?
Does the death penalty cause any harm? No.
Except of course to the person who is executed, their family, their friends, and the justice system as a whole.
So it's not unnecessary and wrong.
You realize that you are using the same arguments the Nazis did to justify the holocaust?
If psychopaths waste money then kill them. Simple
Okay then I guess that we should go ahead and kill you (for wasting money using the internet), me, every other person on the internet, every person who is buying or has bought something they didn't need, and every person taking part in a government peacekeeping effort. For starters, we can work out a more comprehensive list later.
This debate has gone up to your head and out through the nose.
At least my arguments are going through my head first.
Cocky.
Better cocky than a eugenic executioner.
Actually it does, because (as stated in the Bible) of God's plan. Everything is planned out by God. Every action that a person takes, every good thing, every bad thing, every atrocity that has happened or ever will, is planned out by God. Thus, whether or not a person believes they have free will, since God plans it all out there is only one path to take. So they do not have free will.
The point of this argument is to point out one (of many, many, many) fundamental contradiction(s) found in the Bible.
Sorry there was a server error and it sent that twice. fillllllllllllllller
If it's not a debate, why are you arguing about it?
You seem to think argument and debate are interchangeable. You argue - you rant and whine and go in with the assumption that your views are the only one. That is how you formatted your free will post.
I debate - I formulate arguments based on my opponents points and dispute them with logic. I provide evidence or at least decent analytics, and know when I have been proven wrong.
If it's not a debate, why are you arguing about it?
You seem to think argument and debate are interchangeable. You argue - you rant and whine and go in with the assumption that your views are the only one. That is how you formatted your free will post.
I debate - I formulate arguments based on my opponents points and dispute them with logic. I provide evidence or at least decent analytics, and know when I have been proven wrong.
You didn't actually dispute the point, you just went on your usual rant.
It is, as is supported by the scripture God knows all. He is omniscient. This means that he knows everything that is going on, everything that has ever happened, and everything that will happen. He plans it all out. This means that, going by Christian scripture, while a person might feel as if they have free will they do not because God has already decided what they are going to do, or at a minimum knows what they are going to do, and how everything will turn out no matter what happens. You cannot have free will if there is one path that is pre-decided.
True, legally speaking at a minimum. Arguably socially as well, hell you could make a good argument that they are past men at this point. Because equality.
You cannot claim to have a god that creates free will and yet has a plan for everything, its a contradiction.
It is not a debate, it is nothing more than another one of your rants.
You have failed to answer the question. What gives a person any value?
Actually I have, you just either didn't like or didn't read my answer: "Murder is wrong if nothing more for morality's sake, and believe me I know that is a weak argument but it applies here. There needs to be lines for which the law should never cross, and whether or not to kill someone when there is no need to is one of them. As to what constitutes a person, that's a biology question, I am a person because biologically I have the characteristics and genetic makeup of one. For the value of a person, well that is a very broad question, and it can differ from person to person. Personally I believe that everyone has value to some extent. However your argument is that we should kill socio/psychopaths simply because of the fact that they exist. You have provided no benefit to killing them other than they're expensive, you're literally sitting there trying to price people and using that as justification for murder."
It is YOU who has lost the entire argument.
You haven't answered my points past repeating your already disputed assertions. That isn't how you debate, so no.
You have no provided any evidence for your assertion other than claim that you somehow have the general population on your side.
Nor did I make the assertion that I did. An assertion that has been made though (by you) is that the death penalty is good. This is an affirmative claim, meaning that without any evidence or reasoning to back it up then it isn't a valid position. You have provided no evidence to back it up and your only positions are that people in prisons are expensive and we should kill every psychopath and sociopath because you believe they can have no value as people.
WHAT GIVES A HUMAN BEING VALUE IN YOUR BOOK. PROVE TO ME THAT MURDERERS HAVE ANY VALUE. IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE LOST THE DEBATE.
I already answered your questions, and you have done nothing more than spout bullshit rhetoric. Your only position is that you seem to think I need to prove that people have value for us not to kill them. This is plainly false, and is shitty logic. So here, "let me spell it out for you":
1: You are making an affirmative claim here, the burden of proof is on you.
2: Your position this entire debate has been "sociopaths and psychopaths don't have value as people"
3: This position is based on the faulty presumption that they are the same thing
4: Additionally, you have provided no reason whatsoever as to WHY we need to kill these people
5: Reiterating burden of proof, it is YOUR job to prove that there is a reason to kill these people, it is NOT my job to prove that they don't need to be until that is sufficiently done.
6: Use your fucking brain, please it is embarrassing to you
Okay, sure. Yeah I would agree that it isn't necessary to kill animals in the wild, at least not today. Although it is much more humane to kill them in the wild than keeping them in factory farms. Either way people need food. Granted, people eat way too much meat today which is why vegetarians generally have better health, but if we all just stopped eating meat altogether it would lead to a lot of health issues.
Every good thing is a gift from God, every good thing is evidence that God is there and He is good.
Really, so is that to say that God did not in fact create everything? Just the good things?
You want to have a reality where you can honestly say there is no evidence of God
Actually I would much rather a reality with a god (assuming it was a god that didn't just kill everything he/she disagreed with, like the Christian God). It sucks that there isn't a god, (or at least no evidence for one) and I would much rather there was.
You are asking to be in Hell, and then like an idiot saying "I don't believe in Hell"
It really doesn't make sense for me to be afraid of something that doesn't have any proof. Please show me your empirical evidence in support to the existence of Hell.
It doesn't matter if you believe God is good, and it doesn't matter if you believe Hell is not real,
Well seeing as the only thing you can think of in support of God is your belief, I would say that (at least using your own logic) belief does matter. A lot.
so as an atheist, why can't you say you don't believe God is real, spelling His name correctly?
This argument doesn't even make sense. I can spell Voldemort's name correctly and he doesn't exist, so what's the distinction?
Why do you always have to change Him into "a god"?
Because he is "a god," by definition the Christian God (only in capitals because that is a name, unless you'd rather me say "Yahweh") is a god (not in capitals, as it describes a group of things).
A god is not God. A god is an idol.
Seeing how much you seem to idolize God this isn't much of an argument.
When you say "I have no god belief", you are by default admitting that you believe God is there because He is the only One you want to deny exists and you know it.
No, not at all. I have a disbelief in any and all gods. It isn't specific to the Christian God because Christianity is in no way special or unique. Christianity is just as much bullshit as every other religion out there, it isn't specific to Christianity it's just a fact.
Atheism is nothing but a bold faced lie
Well seeing as atheism (not in capitals as it atheism is not an ideology - just a disbelief) has no positive claims inherent in it whatsoever, grammatically speaking it literally cannot be a lie.
And from here you have your usual religious spiel, not much for me to refute as there isn't an argument there.
It largely depends on the animal, and this debate is very vague so I'm going to put my argument here because I do believe there are cases when hunting is alright.
To explain my position, I think that a: hunting in excess is wrong (ie place restrictions on the amount of hunting legally done) and b: only certain animals with healthy populations should be hunted legally.
On the other hand, if we are talking about an invasive species of some sort, I most definitely think that it should be hunted (a lot). This is because invasive species are largely detrimental to the environment. Additionally, if the hunter has a license and generally uses common sense (only killing maybe 1-2 deer) then I think while it is not necessarily morally right, it should be allowed.
Your argument is based entirely off of anecdotal evidence. Dogs have coevolved along with humans for thousands of years, and at this point the species which we have adapted are dependent on humans for survival. If people just let their dogs go free very few of them would survive. It would be inhumane and cruel.
I will say that it depends on the animal, but many of them need to be in there. Lots of zoos take in endangered animals and keep them in captivity because they have a much better chance of survival, its a proven way to keep these species alive. Granted, the main reason they are endangered in the first place is because we are killing them off by shitting on the environment, but that is all the more reason to take efforts to keep them alive.
