ok, this sounds absurd to me
"To me, my God is the one true God", what does that mean? do you believe in that god? do you hold the opinion that he is real?
well if you are talking about the Christian god than that directly contradicts the Islamic god, for example, so you cant believe in both... being "willing to accept other peoples faith in their God" isn't the same as believing in that god yourself and is not what the argument above proposed
and no, "acknowledgement that those Gods could exist." is also not the same as believeing in them
ok, this is SO idiotic...
thats just a basic law of logic, in mathematics (and science in general) you have to PROVE something to be true, you cant just say "look at the trees, dont they seem created" or give a theoretical model...
if i tell you unicorns exist will you just believe me? or will you ask for evidence to back up that assertion? will you just believe anything without proof? how do you check what's true and what isn't?
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
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 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?
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. 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
yea im ok with that... as long as we also teach them spagettism, and every other theory anybody has ever come up with... what actual evidence is there for creationism?? because if there isnt any good evidence than teaching them creationism would be the same as teaching them anything someone makes up on the spot
WHAT IDEOLOGY
you still havent answered my question, if its ok to teach the theory of gravity without teaching the flat earth theory why isnt it ok to teach the theory of evolution
i can tell you why it is... because the evidence is pointing towards evolution, and evidence is more important than faith when it comes to educating the next generation
i dont think you quite understood the argument, heres my take:
lets take a human being for example, lets call them john... now you and me might see the human being known as john... but that being and everything that it does depends on the interaction of single cells in its body and neurons in its brain... and those things depend and are essentially just made of even smaller chemical and physical reactions...
however i would also say the argument isnt completely correct since there must be a smallest thing... and it does objectivly exist
i think there should be a ban on certain VERY unhealthy foods, they are addictive and can ruin a person's life... some are more addictive than drugs and defenetly more dangerous
well, you dont understand how evolution works: "In order for one species to evolve into another, the intermediary generations would involve two species mating."
thats just not true, we call some life form a part of a species just because it is different enough from any other "specie", all thats required for the transition from species to species is that over a long time there would occur many small changes that eventually make the distent ancestor look different enough from the new creature for us to call that new creature a new species... there was never a point in which a monkey gave birth to the first human or anything like that -_-
so much missleading nonsense, let me unpack that for you...
a "species" is just a life form different enough from other life forms that we give it its own name, nothing more... so your first argument makes no sense
also evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory... its basically fact... same thing as the "theory" of gravity
evolution is a theory.......... and so is gravity
so if you are advocating to teach alternetive theories to evolution like creationism why not also teach the FLAT EARTH theory
thats because the scientific definition of a theory is very different than your presumed definition... its just the best explanation we have based on the evidence... and frankly evolution takes that title by a mile!
you are right in that evolution is a theory.......... and so is gravity
so if you are advocating to teach alternetive theories to evolution like creationism why not also teach the FLAT EARTH theory
thats because the scientific definition of a theory is very different than your presumed definition... its just the best explanation we have based on the evidence... and frankly evolution takes that title by a mile!
1.
"We have all sinned and deserve hell", i STRONGLY disagree... do you really think that just because we have all commited something bad in our life we deserve eternal suffering? and than do you also think that its fair that only those who believe a specific religion out of thousends that claim simialar things will get saved???
2.
jesus christ, WE HAVE JUST DEBATED THAT: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
3.
" unless of course it has to do with murder, etc.", i would classify the issue of non religous marriage in the same category... it doesnt hurt you in any way and it does hurt others otherwise, as benjamin franklin said: "emocracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."... frankly he is rolling in his grave right now.
idk if any of what you said is true, it probably is, one way or another you are not one to speak
who said i disagree on only one issue, you assume me to be very stereotipical and simple minded, like i said... im a centrist, there isnt any political party i aline with very well.
jesus, thats a long response... im just gonna cover it briefly, by the way you still didnt respond to my challenge:
1.
if god, YOUR god, really does exist and if you are right with your assumption that since i reject the bible and its teachings god will send me to hell... than i agree... however even than... even if that really was the case... would you stand for a god that sends people to hell simply for disbelieving in him?
2.
you mention the hole abortion issue but weve already gone over it in another debate so im not gonna go over it here
3.
"when a couple activist Judges overrule entire States and force their political correct beliefs on us all, that is when we will fight back every step of the way.", this is sooooooo ironic... dont you see? if you are the majority and if you are using the argument of "its correct because the majority said so" than YOU ARE THE POLITICALLY CORRECT ONES
well, you seem to have partially misunderstood me
"You would never support an abortion law that prohibited abortions after the first couple months.", i would, and i never said i was a democrat... i considare myself more of a centrist.
perhaps i made myself unclear but i asure you i wouldnt support an abortion in the late stage of the pregnancy.
on that note, would you support an abortion on the early months?
fromwithin, thanks for answering my questions but i found your answers to be rather unhelpful and unconvincing, i hope you understand this isnt an attack against you but it is an attack against certain ideas you hold
1.
"People go to Hell for not accepting Christ as Lord, and not accepting his sacrifice for their sins.", first of all, you make it extremly unclear what "accept" means in this case, if it means to believe than frankly im going to hell
"The particular sin of a person does not create a bigger chance of going to Hell.", so... it doesnt really matter much that murder is a sin? it "does not create a bigger chance of going to Hell."?
"So therefore Gays who reject Christ (as with any person) will end up in Hell, not because of any one sin.", what does reject mean here??? you are making yourself extremely unclear at every step of the way... if you mean that every sin has a certain negative value that means that being gay DOES increase your chance of going to hell
2. "Who forces a Gay man to have sex with another man?", no one, but why does this perfect god make them love a man if he doesnt want them to have sex with him? god seems to be pretty unfair.
"Desires and attractions for things in life, does not necessarily make those things ok.", it doesnt... but you have yet to demonstrate why it isnt ok, because your god says so?
3. "As a Christian, I would be going against my faith and against God", thats what your entire argument is based on and thats the exact problem i was trying to demonstrate, i frankly dont care if you are a christian, a muslim, or an atheist... but your right to believe in something does not overpower another person's right to marry whoever they want!
i think that whats happening here is that you dont quite understand what "life" means in this case, a virus is a "life", a single cell is a "life", a "life" is not good enough! trying to dismiss the ethical problem here in such a simple way is a cheap bailout frankly speaking.
plus have you considered the situation the pregnant woman is in? its not like abortion is taken lightly... its done for a reason
also, i dont hold scientists as sacred, i hold them as experts... "sacredness" is a stupid word
the definition they use for when life begins is the very first CELL of a certain kind and they themselves admit this definition is not useful from an ethical standpoint.
i quote YOUR source of choice:
"indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development?"
unless you think a single cell should have rights... this study doesnt address the question at hand
dna IS important, but what do you mean when you say evolution hasnt explained it yet... dna is a very important part of the evolutionary theory right now, it is because certain genes survive and reproduce while others die off that evolution even occures
1. "unborn babies", they are NOT babies because they arent human yet, if you think they are than do you think sperm should have rights too? how far can this go?
2. "our bodies are designed for a man and woman.", yes they are, that doesnt change the fact that every biologist will tell you being gay is NOT a choice
3. "Thanks for teaching me there are many many many genders that we never knew about.", yea, this is ridiculous... only extremists propose that
4. "I know you have my best interest at heart, so I will blindly follow your ideology, I mean cult.", yea, dismiss the other side as a literal cult... what a great message that will surely improve the situation -_-
"Progressives came along and decided they know what's best for you. They are the enlightened ones who know better how you should think about others. They know best how to resdistribute your money. Aren't you thankful we have people who care so much for your well being?"
that literelly describes every major political party... just replace progressives with liberals or republicans or socialists, etc, etc... my point is this kind of indirect fear based blaming game isnt gonna solve anything and its all you are doing -_-
1. "unborn babies", they are NOT babies because they arent human yet, if you think they are than do you think sperm should have rights too? how far can this go?
2. "our bodies are designed for a man and woman.", yes they are, that doesnt change the fact that every biologist will tell you being gay is NOT a choice
3. "Thanks for teaching me there are many many many genders that we never knew about.", yea, this is ridiculous... only extremists propose that
4. "I know you have my best interest at heart, so I will blindly follow your ideology, I mean cult.", yea, dismiss the other side as a literal cult... what a great message that will surely improve the situation -_-
of course it should be, all the evidence is pointing towards one place.
i would say it should be taught as fact until proven to have atleast a decent chance of being wrong... we call gravity the "theory" of gravity too, thats because we need to always remamber that we could be wrong, but since as for right now (and the past 100 years) the evidence has overwhelmingly pointed to evolution we should teach it the same way we teach the theory of gravity
heya, fromwithin
i have 3 questions for you:
1. since you already said you believe being gay is a sin do you think that by default gays have a bigger chance of going to hell?
2. do you think being gay is a choice?
3. do you think gays should have the right to marry?
wow! you just completely stomped me, what a magnificently awesome debunking of my argument -_-
"He understands that the battle boils down to activists trying to rewrite our Christin faith to exclude passages saying Homosexuality is a sin."
no problem, believe its a sin... but dont prevent homosexuals from marrying, oh you dont want to? well than it becomes a question of who's side is science on... and most scientists believe that being gay is frankly not even a choice...
my point is if you want to believe we should kill every baby on the planet for example... you have a right to that opinion but not to anything beyond that.
"You don't necessarily have those choices because your court is not the one the ball is in. Who you work for is a matter of who will offer you a job"
i partially agree with your point in that while you are usually gonna have multiple options your amount of choice and your pay is still gonna highly depend on your choice of profession, however thats a problem with capitalism in general, i would be glad to hear your solution
https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org
i really dont think i need to add much more
1.
TO work is for most people a necessity, but since you get to choose what employer to work for and whether to agree to a certain employer's conditions as well as the choice to make YOUR OWN business your claim does not stand very well.
2.
there are communities that dont or barely use outside currency(dollars or any other kind of money), so there are other options.
i wouldnt say so... doesnt it fit perfectly? most SJWs call themselves SJWs now days... so even they seem to think its pretty accurate, if it isnt... why?
about the slavery thing... you get paid, you dont belong to anyone, you decide what you work at, you decide how much work you do, you can stop doing work at any time, you have a limited amount of supplies and you cant be forced to make more... so how did you get to slavery? what aspects of slavery are at play here?
oh, and specifically about the wedding cake thing, the baker worked for the church, the church gets paid by the government, you see where im going?
so... in that case why arent you voting for the tolerant side? i completely agree with your point but you really dont seem to be disagreeing with anything...
if you do disagree with one of the four "demands" on the top of the page please clarify which one, otherwise you dont make any sense.
im very surprised this got 2 points even tho you literally didnt present any argument and made one very big accusation... do you think that we shouldnt have the freedom to believe what we want? i would hope not.
my point is, you didnt actually dispute his point... instead you used manipulative wording to utterly ignore it.
first of all i just want to acknowledge how you switched from one argument to a completely different one
1. refugees flee to christian nations (even tho not only or even mostly to PREDOMINANTLY christian nations) because alot of the developed world is christian... at its core the old testament is just about as bad as the quaran, 4 words: correlation doesnt equal causation... by the way, america isnt RAN by any religion.
your hole argument is fighting against a ridiculous strawmen, nobody is suggesting that you shouldnt be able to tell someone to leave if they are making out, that (as you mentioned) doesnt even specifically relate to gay people...
what is being asked is whether gay and straight costumers should be treated equally, should businesses have tolerance for both of them, for example... should a business have the ability to deny a costumer service just because he is gay?!
