CreateDebate


The Public Waterfall RSS

Every argument gets a chance to be on top!
The Public Waterfall shows you all arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Abortions should not be abolished, because them being abolished wouldn't prevent them from happening. Whether abortions are legal or not woman will still have them. At least if abortions are legal women won't try to do it themselves or go to a fake doctor or something, which can turn out fatal.

1 point

When do you kids become adults? I think kids become adults when they are 16 because they get their first responsibility getting a driver's license and driving a car. Driving a car is probably one of the most used activity in the world. Let's put this is a more detailed way in this next few paragraphs.

When kids turn 16 they can get their driving licenses. When they get their driver's license they can go to their jobs and get to their job and then starting to provide for them. they feel like they are adults because they don't have to ask their parents to take them somewhere. They can go wherever because their They feel as if they are free and can explore the world without their parents. When the feel independent they feel like they are adults because they are independent. Let's move on to the next reason why kids become adults when they are 16.

They also get a chance to get a job and make their own money. Once they get a job and use their own money they earn they are caring for themselves without their parents buying it for them. If they feel as if they can care for themselves without their parents they are adults because they don't need their parents buying stuff for them because they can buy it on their own. This is another responsibility they get because they have to show up for work on time and have to remember what time they have to get there. Let's conclude all the things we have discussed.

Kids become adults when the they are 16. They get to drive a car and explore the world without their parents. They can get a job and make money and buy their own things with their money and not their parents. That is why kids become adults at 16.

1 point

I am definitely opposed to the idea of siblings marrying each other etc, but what happens if an couple meet each other, go out, have sex etc then get married. Now after they have gone way over the boundaries of what they shouldn't do, dig back into their past and learn they have the same father but different mothers, because back in the father's hey-day he liked to sleep around and refused to be tied down to any one girl?

What happens here, two people who are completely innocent in the beginning, have now created a life with each other, may even had kids? The complexities of the situation are way beyond anything any one can work out. For the sake of simplicity they should get a divorce and then kill off the child/children?

The added problem to this (seemingly) fictitious scenario is, it HAS happened here in Australia. I have my values and beliefs and also the added bonus of not being caught in a situation like this, yes I agree it is incestuous at a fundamental level. Here is hoping they fall out of love and break up, and life runs its course of events.

I can't condone this, but I can't condemn it either, because I refuse and cannot play judge, jury and executioner. Given this scenario, the lesson learned for me, is I understand why it is important to not sleep around.

Food for thought.

1 point

Yes. It’s all right there in the records. ............................

OOOOk-lahoma, where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain,

And the wavin' wheat can sure smell sweet, When the wind comes right behind the rain.

OOOOk-lahoma, Ev'ry night my honey lamb and I, Sit alone and talk and watch a hawk makin' lazy circles in the sky.

We know we belong to the land (yo-ho)

And the land we belong to is grand!

And when we say

Yeeow! Aye-yip-aye-yo-ee-ay!

We're only sayin'

You're doin' fine, Oklahoma!

Oklahoma O.K.!

1 point

If he even makes it through the first term without getting impeached, I'd honestly be very surprised. Two terms? Yeah, that isn't going to happen.

1 point

Hmmmm....

What do you think?

People would be found mysteriously dead after a heart attack

-1 points

Other abortion debates created by Sitar:

• Should abortion be abolished?

• Abortion for rape victims.

• Not one proabort has any shame.

• Does Plan B cause abortion?

• Prolife or prochoice?

• Is the fetus a human being?

• Should prolifers be allowed to show dead baby pictures?

• The government should force proabortion women to have their tubes removed.

• When does pregnancy begin?

• This is what proaborts support.

• It is hypocritical for proaborts to oppose the death penalty.

• Liberals support rape culture when they allow a 1rst degree rapist to live, but not a baby

• Usecontraception or don't have sex. Abortion is MURDER!

• I am antiabortion, not prolife.

• Should abortion be safe, legal, and rare?

• When does pregnancy begin?

• Is prochoice proabortion?

• Life begins when the baby has brainwaves.

• A zygote is not a baby with rights.Abortion for medical reasons is justifiable homicide.

• Should abortion be allowed for the health of the mother?

• My position on abortion.

• Contraception doesn't cause abortion. DUH!

• Have you ever noticed that alleged prolifers care more about the fetus than born humans?

• Is forced birth violence against women?

• Should abortion be legal for any reason?

• Can I be personally opposed to, but prochoice about abortion?

• What do you think about the concept that life begins when the fetus has brainwaves?

• Abortion is murder unless there is a valid medical reason.

• Is abortion child abuse?

• Unborn women also have the right to choose.

• Do all females have the right to choose what to with their bodies?

• Dear prochoicers, what would it take for you to be prolife?

• Real feminists support the unborn woman's right to choose.

• Can liberals be prolife?

• Are you prolife or prochoice?

• I am a prolife liberal.

• Sitara's ethics series: Mental illness and abortion.

• Is abortion murder unless there is a valid medical reason?

• Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?

• Is abortion ever justified?

• Should abortion be safe, legal, annd rare?

• Is abortion a black or white issue?

• Abortion: Do you have to pick a side?

• I am neither prochoice nor prolife.

• Am I prolife or prochoice?

• If abortion was a number.

• When does life begin?

• Should it be legal to kill a 20 week fetus?

• When does the human fetus have brainwaves?

• What do you think about the opinion that life begins when the fetus has brainwaves?

• Are you prolife or prochoice?

• Can someone oppose abortion without using religion?

• Do I have to agree with abortion to be prochoice?

• Have both sides of the abortion debate gone wrong?

• Can I be prolife and prochoice?

• When will "prolifers" admit that they are really just forced birthers?

• When does life begin?

• What do you think of the belief that life begins with the first brainwaves?

• Do I have to believe that a zygote is a baby to be prolife?

• When does the human fetus have brain waves?

• Everyone who is prochoice has already been born.

• Are you prolife or prochoice?

• Abortion is the worst form of age discrimination.

• Does the proabortion activists respect the unborn child's right to choose?

• Is the organism in this picture a person with rights?

• Do you have to be prochoice to support Planned Parenthood?

• Does epigenetics prove that life begins at birth?

• Can libertarians be prolife.

• Saying that libertarians can't be prolife is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

• Can libertarians be prolife

• Can liberals be prolife?

• Is prochoice proabortion?

• Does hormonal contraception cause abortion?

• Can liberals be prolife?

• When does life begin?

1 point

New Zealand............................................................................................

1 point

WA State.............................................................................................................................

1 point

31 states allow the rapist to sue for custody denying the right to choose adoption. What are you doing to help?

1 point

Also, there are other ways, such as debates, peaceful protests, street protests and campaigns that can provoke change.

cruzaders(109) Clarified
1 point

Really? Nice ! What did you do ?

Amarel(2390) Clarified
1 point

If it is the case that the universe is uncaused, this does not suggest that no explanation is needed, only that a cause is not part of that explanation.

This differs from the god causality paradox in that it extends the regress no further back than what is known.

To propose that god created the universe is functionally equivalent to proposing that god was created by a different god who was created...so on and so forth back 7 times. The 7th god back has always existed. The is functionally the same because it extends the regress further than what is reasonable by going beyond what there is evidence for.

1 point

Hi, can you give any examples of which foods should be banned and which shouldn't? For example: chips or candy?

Atrag(5226) Clarified
1 point

A man can't have a child without a woman is the point - biologically.

2 points

According to the guardian, one in six young people in the u.k eat fast foods twice a day. This is because it is convenient and cheap. There are people balancing multiple jobs or working ridiculously long hours to get more money for essential things, these people have no time to even think about cooking! Fast food is a type of junk food, so even though it is not healthy, it can be a vital, easy hot meal.

• Democrats support no restriction abortions!

• ...but her emails!

• Hogwash!

• Jesus love you...you're going to burn in hell!

• You fools!

• You spew lies and deception as always!

• Anti-Christian bigots!

• Republicans can do no wrong!

• Democrats can do no right!

• I masturbate to Donald Trump!

-FromWithin

--------------------------

• I'm the ultimate troll!

• Check out how I trolled so-in-so!

• Aren't I cool for having no life.

• I live in my mom's basement.

-Brontoraptor and Prodigee

1 point

It would be unreasonable for a sim to assume a non-binary world. Furthermore, the creator of the Sims has a creator. It is unreasonable to assume an uncaused god ends the infinite regress problem better than an uncaused universe. There’s direct evidence of the universe.

Any notions would be baseless.

If the universe is everything that is, then god is not excluded.

• Democrats support no restriction abortions!

• ...but her emails!

• Hogwash!

• Jesus love you...you're going to burn in hell!

• You fools!

• You spew lies and deception as always!

• Anti-Christian bigots!

• Republicans can do no wrong!

• Democrats can do no right!

• I masturbate to Donald Trump!

-FromWithin

--------------------------

• I'm the ultimate troll!

• Check out how I trolled so-in-so!

• Aren't I cool for having no life.

• I live in my mom's basement.

-Brontoraptor and Prodigee

xMathFanx(686) Clarified
1 point

@Atrag

Interesting, I have not given this much thought. Have you considered utilizing "Big Sister" type programs as a viable option to have female (mother figure type) roles in their life as well as male? (Note: I am just brainstorming here)

1 point

Bavaria, Germany.

1 point

@FactMachine

When it comes to highly advanced subjects like quantum field theory how does a system like this even work? It seems that either:

A) No human actually understands string theory or quantum theory on any direct level and that these are merely our mathematical interpretations of a reality we can't comprehend or...

B) The above is still mostly true but with the addition of one simple dynamic, there is a human understanding of these things to an extent on more than just an abstract representative level and that the true understanding is closely regulated and only taught to an intellectual elite while the average university student is merely taught enough to land a job at CERN to serve the "elite" or write a few books for the masses without truly understanding the mechanics at work."

I think both A and B are partially correct. That is, the number of people who truly understand Quantum Field theory on a deeper level (or similarly advanced topic) is extremely small while there are many more people who are able to do the computations involved. In fact, if you are familiar with the Physicist Sean Carroll of CalTech, he often discusses this.

As for B, I utilize MITOpenCourse frequently and can tell you that there is nothing fundamentally different about the way they are being instructed compared to my Uni. (a moderate level school). That is, although their tests are undoubtedly more difficult (on average) than the ones I am given, they are not saying anything in the lecture environment that would be enough to "bridge a gap" for people who don't understand the framework for which the course is taking place (which is many/most) and others who do understand the framework would still have to seek outside "self-study" and/or approach the Professor during Office Hours in order to get a more complete/true understanding of what is being taught (more than just the computations). That is, the school is teaching you to be able to do the computations (or other technical aspects) while only requiring a vague understanding of the topic on an abstract, visual level. Therefore, although individual students may have a strong hold on the abstract, visual concepts, this is rarely necessarily tested on compared to how heavily/rigorously technical/computational aspects are tested. Naturally, as a consequence of this, most students focus essentially all of their time on how do problem "X" because that is what is going to be on the exam rather than a verbal exam/conversation with the Professor in which it would definitely come out whether or not the student understands what is going on, what they are talking about or not (Note: this shifts in Graduate School where you are expected to have in depth conversations with the Professor/Advisor in order to justify your understanding/results).

1 point

Of course they should because it's so traumatic for them that it would be unfair to have to go through birth. If they are young or in poverty, they might not be able to care properly for a baby.

Then so be it. I never said there can't be a creator

You should look into simulation theory, which states that if civilizations create simulations, and the simulations create simulations, then it is much more highly likely you are in one than not.

1 point

A program needs a programmer

This too is an assumption. It makes sense that the programs we create to mimic reality, mimic reality themselves. Furthermore, superstring is not yet testable, making it more philosophy than science. Nonetheless, superstring was derived mathematically in pursuit of the fundamental order of the universe. Who should be surprised that mathematical order was discovered? The Pythagoreans were mystics too.

He moved to Iran and came running back with his tail between his legs.

I could believe that. It's why I don't want a country ruled by the Sharia or infested with Shia thinking.

I looked through them all, and you are correct, but I did find some other interesting and delicious and juicy little nuggets. You game?

1)You stole Christmas.

2)Your nickname is "Wineglass".

3)You have kids and a wife.

4)Your favorite little rascal is "Spanky".

5)You lean left on social matters and right on fiscal matters.

6)You once played a dead cow carcus in a Spaghetti Western.

7)Your real name is Pandawamchittychittybangbang

8)You wear really short 1980s style shorts around the house.

9)Sometimes your pets get on your computer and begin debating me.

1 point

Lol.......................................................................................................

1 point

First off let me say, I choose no not because of a sanctimonious perspective but because I believe in the abilities of the human spirit to overcome atrocities, traumas of any kind and more. This is a really difficult position to stand for or against, I totally comprehend and understand why the person would do such a thing, because the baby is conceived out of the most horrible circumstances and everyday would be difficult for the mother who stares at a reminder of her violation instead of through loving eyes and heart.

But then there is the opposing view (and this may well come off as arrogant) we all suffer tremendous trials and tribulations and we don't get the choice of the easy way out, 99% of us who suffer sexual crimes have to go through it and endure it too, we would like the idea of being able to kill off the people who violated us sexually, unfortunately this is not how society works and so we have to live with the knowledge the people who have violated us are allowed to endure according to the graces afforded them through civil laws and liberties.

So aborting the baby could be a form of revenge against the assailant, and a physical expression of hatred towards another, these acts and more are definitely within the abilities of the person who does so, but the problem isn't being address for the better it is being exacerbated.

The person who was violated should seek counselling and healing of the soul so she can deal with the trauma and receive power to overcome the event and the effects it has on her. Be transformed from one person who was stripped of her rights, dignity and honour into one who maintained who dignity, honour, values and righteousness as well as increasing her graces, glories, mercies, compassions and more, then being a role model and shining light for other people who have suffered similar atrocities.

I get it, she wants to get rid of the baby because of pains she is feeling and wants out of the pain, but through counselling and healing she and many others can be taught to embrace the horror and through embracing learn to forgive truly, and then be caused to forget their pains. Having the baby would cause her to become one of the most powerful voices and woman on the planet. Pain precedes glory, the only thing is normal people cannot say what pain they have to suffer and endure then overcome in order to attain the glory reserved for them.

I remember a story about a woman who in one night was blocked by four hundred men, she took all those men and when they all finished she pulled up her pants, walked out of there with her head held high. If you're ignorant of what "blocked" means, it's a gang term for being screwed by all the men in a gang. This happened back in NZ.

1 point

@FactMachine.

You may or may not be surprised to hear this but I actually dropped out of high school at 16 and got a GED because I was sick of the sterile environment and the watered down material which often has an agenda behind it.

This actually doesn't surprise me for the reasons that Noam Chomsky often discusses. Namely, the education system is a system designed to indoctrinate the young. It is purposed to train people to be obedient, conformist, stay passive, don't think too much, don't raise any questions that wouldn't be "polite" to bring up. Furthermore, intelligent people tend to have a "problem" with challenging authority (particularly when the authority structure is not justified). Chomsky discusses that the system nearly/possibly intentionally has a lot of stupidity in it as a way to filter for obedience. For example, the assignments are incredibly stupid/meaningless and the only people who are willing to do it in order to pass the class and get to the next one are de facto more obedient than the ones who refuse to follow the commands because it is too stupid to take seriously/care about. Here is a link to Chomsky discussing this exact topic (and it generally aligns with my view): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFf60T2ZoI

Also, if you didn't already know, there are quite a few highly respected modern Intellectuals/Professors elite that either A. Dropped out of High School B. Finished High School but were not at all into their given subject at the time (high school) and pursued their education later on down the road after working for some years (in a "blue collar profession").

Here is a short sample list of the ones I am aware of and like the most:

(a) Lee Smolin- Theoretical Physicist; dropped out of High School, later on went to a small local college did well, was able to get into a decent sized Masters program at University of Cincinnatti where he did well again (high GPA), transferred to Harvard where he completed his PhD, did a Post-Doc at Princeton and has been an elite Physicist ever since

(b) Jana Levin- Physicist; dropped out of High School. Later got her PhD from MIT. Here is a video of both Smolin and Levin briefly raising the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sMBCTpsvH0 (skip to 14 minutes)

(c) Leonard Susskind- Theoretical Physicist. Went to High School but was not interested in Physics at the time. Started working as a plumber at age 16, continued this job for a number of years. Later, enrolled in the local school for college as an engineer student, finished with a B.S. in Physics. He did very well in his Undergrad, was able to get into Cornell for his PhD and has been an elite Physicist ever since. (If you searched enough, you can find videos of him talking about this personal journey)

Now, I wrote all this because I think it is important to understand that one is not confined to the "traditional path" for education and there is nothing holding a person who didn't do well in High School (or didn't finish High School) back from achieving any level of education/profession if they are willing to "claw their way up".

To briefly share my story (if you are at all interested), growing up I had never been exposed to Science/Humanities or intellectualism generally. My parents are typical idiots/ignorant fools who very much live in Mammal Snow Globe World and don't know anything about the world for which has been discovered thus far (they are very Right Wing Republicans btw, particularly my father). Therefore, I was being indoctrinated into Mammal World from my parents, teachers, my friends parents, and essentially every adult I knew growing up (along with my peers/friends). The best thing at the time my teenage brain could come up with to engage productively in was Athletics.

As a teenager, I put a lot of effort into physical training (as I subconsciously/consciously observed/understood the power this gives one in Mammal World). This was actually my first window into discovering how unbelievably, mind-bogglingly stupid the general population is (who watch sports "religiously" and worship said "elite athletes"). I started training when I was 16 1/2 years old (after Basketball season--which I dropped because I couldn't stand the authority structure of the Coach over the players) and by the time I was 17 and some months old (roughly a year of training--now a Junior in High School) I was built like the Terminator and could jump high enough to do strong Dunks consistently. Others clearly noticed this and a bunch of people started wanting to train with me. I kept training and progressing (at a similar pace, although after a certain point less than two years in I had to stop training for muscular size because it would have become excessive), by the time I was 20 getting close to 21 (then jumping/running way higher/faster and much stronger with no end in sight and settled on a range of physical build that was way above so called "elite" athletes; if you met me IRL, this is likely the first thing that would strike you about me) I began to realize that the Sports World was bullsh't, there wasn't a chance in hell that these people who were claiming to be training very seriously for 5, 10, 20+ years could possibly be doing so, as it only takes 1-2 years to get into advanced condition (by societies' standards). Also, this means that all of the 100s of millions or more Sports fans (most/many of which are full grown adults) are delusional, dumb as sh't, and clearly never worked for what they believe is important or else they would understand through personal experience that it does not take all that much work to achieve that level of physical conditioning. Thus, they are unable to reason through even the most trivial, basic intellectual problems.

I then turned 21, frontal lobe brain development kicked in, and found Science/Humanities/Intellectualism. I shifted my focus toward this (intellectualism) and stopped physical training for a couple years (which I have since picked back up and it gives one a lot of social power in Mammal World, which is actually helpful because people are much more likely to listen to me and be interested when I discuss intellectualism/science/ect. with them as opposed to a stereotypical "math guy" who does not get much respect in Mammal World). At the time (first turned 21), since I didn't care at all about school/education, I had about a 2.5 gpa at the local Community College. I took a semester or so off and did a lot of reading/researching with my initial window in being Popular Science books, library books, credible documentaries of various topics, watching lectures/talks from people like Dawkins, ect., and decided that it was important enough to go back to school to pursue to the best of my ability. I took about 1-1.5 years worth of classes at the Community College where I got mostly straight A's and some B's, turned my GPA around and got into a Penn State/U Texas/Ohio State level school for technical subject and am now (in my mid-twenties) about to graduate in good standing to go to a similar level school for Grad School or I may possibly go back to my school or a one standard deviation or so lower level school in order to continue/complete my Physics b.s. (note: I will be getting a Math b.s. and History b.a. soon, I got half-way into a Physics degree and had to put it on hold because doing Math & Physics simultaneously time proved to be too much work for me to handle) by trying to get higher marks in order to go to a higher level (better) Grad School program.

I'm actually well known/respect/stand out at my school by my Professors and peers due to the combination of a genuine interest/engagement with the intellectual topics along with my unusual athleticism that is a relic of my past (teenage years) and a higher level of "social intelligence/not being socially awkward" that many intellectual types seem to be lacking in. That is, due to the general populations idiocy, people who study Neuroscience, Engineering, Literature, ect. ect. may have been socially outcasted and/or bullied growing up/for the entirety of their lifetime because knowledge of Chemistry doesn't get one far in Mammal World although it is infinitely more useful than Football, while I never had these problems since I excelled at athletics, ect. I generally agree with much of the intellectual criticism of sports, however if you look at other Mammals in nature, "play fighting" is a crucial aspect in healthy social development which I think many intellectual types suffer from a lack of this key social development tool which builds the general "social awkwardness". So, even though I was/am pissed about lost time growing up when I should have been getting properly educated, it has had some benefits also.

FactMachine, I went into length about this because based on what I have seen of you on this forum, even though I have a limited profile of your abilities, (and I don't know what your current situation is), I can tell you there is no reason you should have to have financial problems in life or hold yourself back intellectually because you are quite capable of getting an Engineering degree say (and if you get an Engineering degree from a decent school, then you are financially set for life and in a position to explore other topics if you'd like later on at any level for which you would be willing/interested to work for). Honestly, I don't know if you have already studied some subjects independently, but there is a big jump from Pop. Sci. books to technical training that one should be aware of before enrolling in a program. Luckily, in our modern time, there are so many resources online that teach every given subject as to render effective "self-study/self-learning" more possible now than ever before. I would encourage you to consider whether this is something you would want for yourself or not (as I am not coming from a background that was necessarily very different than yours educationally).

Hi nom. Couldn't win as the original, so went to the puppet eh?

Of course, we both know that you don't "work with computers, seeing that you've already professed to be a journalist.

And just think. You could have had an interesting debate on God, but retreated out of fear. Too bad.

1 point

I knew a guy once who converted to Islam, long story, he was a white guy from Alabama. He moved to Iran and came running back with his tail between his legs.

1 point

@FactMachine.

You may or may not be surprised to hear this but I actually dropped out of high school at 16 and got a GED because I was sick of the sterile environment and the watered down material which often has an agenda behind it.

This actually doesn't surprise me for the reasons that Noam Chomsky often discusses. Namely, the education system is a system designed to indoctrinate the young. It is purposed to train people to be obedient, conformist, stay passive, don't think too much, don't raise any questions that wouldn't be "polite" to bring up. Furthermore, intelligent people tend to have a "problem" with challenging authority (particularly when the authority structure is not justified). Chomsky discusses that the system nearly/possibly intentionally has a lot of stupidity in it as a way to filter for obedience. For example, the assignments are incredibly stupid/meaningless and the only people who are willing to do it in order to pass the class and get to the next one are de facto more obedient than the ones who refuse to follow the commands because it is too stupid to take seriously/care about. Here is a link to Chomsky discussing this exact topic (and it generally aligns with my view): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFf60T2ZoI

Also, if you didn't already know, there are quite a few highly respected modern Intellectuals/Professors elite that either A. Dropped out of High School B. Finished High School but were not at all into their given subject at the time (high school) and pursued their education later on down the road after working for some years (in a "blue collar profession").

Here is a short sample list of the ones I am aware of and like the most:

(a) Lee Smolin- Theoretical Physicist; dropped out of High School, later on went to a small local college did well, was able to get into a decent sized Masters program at University of Cincinnatti where he did well again (high GPA), transferred to Harvard where he completed his PhD, did a Post-Doc at Princeton and has been an elite Physicist ever since

(b) Jana Levin- Physicist; dropped out of High School. Later got her PhD from MIT. Here is a video of both Smolin and Levin briefly raising the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sMBCTpsvH0 (skip to 14 minutes)

(c) Leonard Susskind- Theoretical Physicist. Went to High School but was not interested in Physics at the time. Started working as a plumber at age 16, continued this job for a number of years. Later, enrolled in the local school for college as an engineer student, finished with a B.S. in Physics. He did very well in his Undergrad, was able to get into Cornell for his PhD and has been an elite Physicist ever since. (If you searched enough, you can find videos of him talking about this personal journey)

Now, I wrote all this because I think it is important to understand that one is not confined to the "traditional path" for education and there is nothing holding a person who didn't do well in High School (or didn't finish High School) back from achieving any level of education/profession if they are willing to "claw their way up".

To briefly share my story (if you are at all interested), growing up I had never been exposed to Science/Humanities or intellectualism generally. My parents are typical idiots/ignorant fools who very much live in Mammal Snow Globe World and don't know anything about the world for which has been discovered thus far (they are very Right Wing Republicans btw, particularly my father). Therefore, I was being indoctrinated into Mammal World from my parents, teachers, my friends parents, and essentially every adult I knew growing up (along with my peers/friends). The best thing at the time my teenage brain could come up with to engage productively in was Athletics.

As a teenager, I put a lot of effort into physical training (as I subconsciously/consciously observed/understood the power this gives one in Mammal World). This was actually my first window into discovering how unbelievably, mind-bogglingly stupid the general population is (who watch sports "religiously" and worship said "elite athletes"). I started training when I was 16 1/2 years old (after Basketball season--which I dropped because I couldn't stand the authority structure of the Coach over the players) and by the time I was 17 and some months old (roughly a year of training--now a Junior in High School) I was built like the Terminator and could jump high enough to do strong Dunks consistently. Others clearly noticed this and a bunch of people started wanting to train with me. I kept training and progressing (at a similar pace, although after a certain point less than two years in I had to stop training for muscular size because it would have become excessive), by the time I was 20 getting close to 21 (then jumping/running way higher/faster and much stronger with no end in sight and settled on a range of physical build that was way above so called "elite" athletes; if you met me IRL, this is likely the first thing that would strike you about me) I began to realize that the Sports World was bullsh't, there wasn't a chance in hell that these people who were claiming to be training very seriously for 5, 10, 20+ years could possibly be doing so, as it only takes 1-2 years to get into advanced condition (by societies' standards). Also, this means that all of the 100s of millions or more Sports fans (most/many of which are full grown adults) are delusional, dumb as sh't, and clearly never worked for what they believe is important or else they would understand through personal experience that it does not take all that much work to achieve that level of physical conditioning. Thus, they are unable to reason through even the most trivial, basic intellectual problems.

I then turned 21, frontal lobe brain development kicked in, and found Science/Humanities/Intellectualism. I shifted my focus toward this (intellectualism) and stopped physical training for a couple years (which I have since picked back up and it gives one a lot of social power in Mammal World, which is actually helpful because people are much more likely to listen to me and be interested when I discuss intellectualism/science/ect. with them as opposed to a stereotypical "math guy" who does not get much respect in Mammal World). At the time (first turned 21), since I didn't care at all about school/education, I had about a 2.5 gpa at the local Community College. I took a semester or so off and did a lot of reading/researching with my initial window in being Popular Science books, library books, credible documentaries of various topics, watching lectures/talks from people like Dawkins, ect., and decided that it was important enough to go back to school to pursue to the best of my ability. I took about 1-1.5 years worth of classes at the Community College where I got mostly straight A's and some B's, turned my GPA around and got into a Penn State/U Texas/Ohio State level school for technical subject and am now (in my mid-twenties) about to graduate in good standing to go to a similar level school for Grad School or I may possibly go back to my school or a one standard deviation or so lower level school in order to continue/complete my Physics b.s. (note: I will be getting a Math b.s. and History b.a. soon, I got half-way into a Physics degree and had to put it on hold because doing Math & Physics simultaneously time proved to be too much work for me to handle) by trying to get higher marks in order to go to a higher level (better) Grad School program.

I'm actually well known/respect/stand out at my school by my Professors and peers due to the combination of a genuine interest/engagement with the intellectual topics along with my unusual athleticism that is a relic of my past (teenage years) and a higher level of "social intelligence/not being socially awkward" that many intellectual types seem to be lacking in. That is, due to the general populations idiocy, people who study Neuroscience, Engineering, Literature, ect. ect. may have been socially outcasted and/or bullied growing up/for the entirety of their lifetime because knowledge of Chemistry doesn't get one far in Mammal World although it is infinitely more useful than Football, while I never had these problems since I excelled at athletics, ect. I generally agree with much of the intellectual criticism of sports, however if you look at other Mammals in nature, "play fighting" is a crucial aspect in healthy social development which I think many intellectual types suffer from a lack of this key social development tool which builds the general "social awkwardness". So, even though I was/am pissed about lost time growing up when I should have been getting properly educated, it has had some benefits also.

FactMachine, I went into length about this because based on what I have seen of you on this forum, even though I have a limited profile of your abilities, (and I don't know what your current situation is), I can tell you there is no reason you should have to have financial problems in life or hold yourself back intellectually because you are quite capable of getting an Engineering degree say (and if you get an Engineering degree from a decent school, then you are financially set for life and in a position to explore other topics if you'd like later on at any level for which you would be willing/interested to work for). Honestly, I don't know if you have already studied some subjects independently, but there is a big jump from Pop. Sci. books to technical training that one should be aware of before enrolling in a program. Luckily, in our modern time, there are so many resources online that teach every given subject as to render effective "self-study/self-learning" more possible now than ever before. I would encourage you to consider whether this is something you would want for yourself or not (as I am not coming from a background that was necessarily very different than yours educationally).

Fred Hoyle, the atheist scientist saw this as proof of God. He coined the term "Big Bang".

You've never set foot out of America, buddy

I'm a retired soldier. Been to waymore than you have, including the Middle East. When you talk about Islamic culture, you have no idea as to what you are talking about. You'd get your throat slit or shot the first day.

1 point

At least the big bang has cosmic back round radiation and the red shifting of distant galaxies indicating that the universe is expanding going for it.

1 point

Then so be it. I never said there can't be a creator, just that a creator doesn't explain how existence itself was initiated and the existence of a creator is just as paradoxical as the existence of something out of nothing if you try to use it to explain the origin of existence. But if you only consider it in terms of a closed construct within an external reality and not as a question of existence in and of itself, then it has nothing to do with my original point.

1 point

It is definitely something I would consider if I end up in a homosexual relationship or just single, assuming I was financially stable. To me though its in the childs best interest that they have a primary residence rather than having to move constantly between two homes. I imagine then that my kid in this situation would probably stay with their biological mum most of the time.

1 point

Are you an agnostic? I'm so agnostic that I'm too agnostic to even call myself agnostic.

Disney owns Star Wars, no God would allow that.

1 point

FromWithin is mentally disturbed, I feel sorry for him/her, but, I can see where s/he'd need some "relief of tensions". That's okay, it might keep him/her less dangerous.

1 point

When they grow up and act LIKE adults. Some never do, some are more adult at 16 than others are at 40, 50, 60 ....80.

1 point

There actually is evidence that aliens exist, because we are made of some of the most common forms of matter in the known universe and there are trillions of planets like ours with very similar conditions so why would we be the ONLY life bearing system?To NOT believe in aliens is LUDACRIS and that's just aliens that are similar to us, nevermind all the other possibilities.

The fermi paradox is irrelevant, as we can't rely on our primitive methods to accurately search for aliens across the galaxy at long distances and the accuracy of it's theoretical framework is debatable to begin with. The Fermi Paradox is also about advanced civilizations, not life in general. Nothing about the fermi paradox says that life shouldn't exist, it basically states that advanced civilizations tend to destroy themselves before they become type one civilizations.

the universe is a physical thing

I’m assuming it is your view that god is not

At least not in the sense that we define "physical".

I compare it to a "Sim" thinking that everything must consist of binary computer code, when the creator of the Sims doesn't consist of binary computer code, necessarily.

AlofRI(1843) Clarified
1 point

Been there, or, should say I've been through there. Worked in Reims, LaRochette and Rougerie,

Furthermore, it is the causal nature of the program that compels one to seek an initial cause, which means the rules of the program cause you to assume something does not abide by the rules of the program

A program needs a programmer.

https://youtu.be/bp4NkItgf0E

To assume a program can magically leap into dna, the fabric of space, the human brain, and manifest a medium constructed of all of those and more, that could then manifest a reality such as ours, would in and of itself take a certain amount of imagination and faith.

1 point

Blindly accept? Remember what I said about science and religion? Religion is inherently based in blind acceptance by definition because it is based around a system of BELIEF.

I am not falling for the IP trick. What's wrong with you? Are you some kind of psycho-stalker serial rapist?

None of that shit you listed is that surprising either way if you think about it, a bunch of countries still exist, some suck more than they used to, blah blah blah it's only natural that the gospel would spread through the ever advancing means of communication and global connectivity with the efforts of missionaries and colonialism but eventually give way to a more scientific worldview as we learn more about the universe. It's only natural that crazy religions like Islam exist and that they correlate to the older ones they are based on. It's only natural that the same species that is crazy enough to invent their own reality then believe it is crazy enough to think penises belong in butt holes.

where as science carefully examines the evidence at hand before reaching a conclusion and then still leaves that conclusion open for revision if necessary

And if it concludes that we were created by someone from outside of our universe/reality?


1.5 of 18 Pages: << Prev Next >>

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