CreateDebate


Lionard1122's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Lionard1122's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

SHOW.QUOTES.FROM.THE.BIBLE

also since most of the bible is based on the jewish religion does this mean that theres a 50/50 chance on which one of them is true?

1 point

if anything, its more of a proof of "the matrix" so to speak, the idea that we are living inside a virtual reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0KHiiTtt4w

1 point

first of all if the bible really says this things i would like you to give exact quotes

1. "personal, non-reproducible experience", nope... it is at about the same popularity level for awhile now

"Then the end will come", the internet is the end...? of what?! the meme free world?

2.

"Atheism takes hold in mass.",most of americqa is still christian... in the rest of the world its even worse

3.

"The beast system emerges.", i doubt islam fits this description very well... and even if it does they had simailar religions back than and even beforehand

1 point

this "personal, non-reproducible experience" is usually not something objective like hearing god speak to you or something, rather its usually a feeling or an unlikely event, and the small percentage that it is otherwise for probably are crazy since people from many different faiths claim to have this "personal, non-reproducible experience"s

lionard1122(69) Clarified
1 point

i would completely agree, but so is science... its just not for everybody

1 point

than they need science, but i could say:

ok but what if a programmer wants to change career to a songwriter

and than you would have to answer "than they need music"

is that a proof that we should teach music as a manditory subject?

1 point

"being able to garden as a hobby", i have a sister who doesnt know anything about science and she has a homemade garden... a successful one too

"Almost all music artists need technology nowadays.", yea... you are using a computer right now but that doesnt make you an engineer

like i said... im a big fan of science but that doesnt mean everybody is like me

1 point

i know, but sadly... not everybody is a critical thinker frankly speaking

also, i wouldnt say its quite the best

1 point

i utterly completely agree!

im learning for a programmin degree and what ive noticed is that the programming languages and the specific skills required are constantly changing but what remains the same is the core logic... you need to know how to adapt and think quickly efficently and independently

1 point

are you telling me a poet or a songwriter needs to know the periodic table? because i would strongly disagree

1 point

i would support maths till a certain point, and same thing for english... but most people wont use what they learned in the science class in there life, im a big fan of science but i still think it shouldnt be manditory

1 point

i would give children much more choice on what to learn and make much less mandatory subjects... make the system more personal

how much of what you learned in school actually turned out to be useful in life... probably not a lot

like albert einstein said: "Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid"

school
1 point

i would argue against that, we shouldnt just follow whichever ideology makes us feel better... we should find the truth, true happiness doesnt come from self deception by means of irrational beliefs... it comes from something real, something honest

1 point

NO, you misunderstood my point, even if it DOES make you feel better it still compromises your logical thinking

1 point

jesus christ, stop getting offended over everything ;)

seriously tho i found what you were talking about, i didnt try to offend you, its just how i talk, im not gonna apologize for that

and you call me pc -_-

2 points

so you are not arguing from a place of finding out the truth, you are arguing from a place of "it makes people feel better", and it does... however it also makes them act irationally, it makes them weaker in the simplest way to put it... take fromwithin for example: he uses his belief in god to justify his belief that homosexuals shouldnt be able to marry

frankly, i think its time for the human race to outgrow such childish ideas

2 points

you know... i find it rather strange that fromwithin which constantly calls everyone politically correct doesnt want to say something in his defense

3 points

the only reason im responding to you is this: "and you don't even know how the first living cell mystically and magically popped to life", lets clear up this logical fallacy

yes, we dont know how did the first living organism come to exist... we already know of a couple of options which could have occured but we will probably never know the exact reason and event... but that doesnt mean we cant prove all living creatures are connected in a family tree and trace it all back to one living organism, yes we dont know everything... but religion doesnt know anything, it just assumes everything instead

more specifically this logical fallacy is called "god of the gaps" or as i like to call it "we dont know, therefore god": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godofthe_gaps

1 point

1 and 2 both make sense in combination with 3 (which was my main point) and your explanation for 3 doesnt make much sense:

what "very conscious decision"? groups split off and combine all the time in the animal kingdom... or else there would only be one group of each species, frankly thats something only we humans manage to do, and no it wouldnt have to be such a huge group, why would it?

1 point

even if i really was pc (and im pretty sure im not) it wouldnt make my arguments any worse or better

1 point

first of all i just want to give you credit for being reasonable and actually challenging my thought process... but you still didnt convince me

i can think of 3 good reasons:

1. the offspring of members of the 2 different groups might have not been stable and able to survive since a combination of some of the genes of both groups usually isnt gonna give a good result

2. the 2 groups developed a genetic attraction for members of there own groups

3. 2 groups simply split off from eachother even tho at the time they were from the same species and because of that the 2 groups evolved in different directions... its not like all the members of a species are gonna be in one group

1 point

1. i really dont get the problem here... but for example changes in: size, body structure, means of reproduction, gene types, etc, etc

2. are you saying its impossible that 2 different species be well suited for the same environment? if so i can give you many examples which say otherwise

1 point

ok, either you are a moron or you just dont care: "he took the Lord's name in vain twice", how do you want me to debate you while avoiding literelly the main topic of the debate?!

if i had to gauss i would say you were looking for an excuse to ban me

also... thats a major difference between us... i respect you enough to criticize your stupid beliefs while you view it as disrespect... I RESPECT YOU, NOT YOUR IDEAS

btw that challenge is still up ;)

2 points

yep, this hole place turned into chaos... i commented on the wrong side too


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

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