wheres the proof that there isnt
The burden of proof is on the believer. Can you disprove that I have a dragon in my bedroom? If I made such an absurd claim would you blindly accept it as true without using some sort of logic or reasoning?
I believe in one god
If I was to say with a straight face that I believe in fairies, everyone would think I was insane. I would have no real friends, wouldn't get a proper job, would never be taken seriously. For some reason though, it is socially acceptable for you to believe in your invisible friend.
Isn't it convenient that you believe in the exact same god that you were brought up to believe in? The exact same one your family believe in? The exact same one you were taught about in school? The one they spoke about at your church? What are the odds!!? Out of the thousands of gods who have been revered around the world by thousands of cultures over thousands of years...it just so happens that the god of your time, and your community is true! Turns out (with no additional knowledge or anything else to go by) that Zeus wasn't true, neither was Vishnu or Tenrikyo or Allah or Agdistis or Ah Puch or Ahura Mazda or Alberich or Amaterasu or An or Anansi or Anat or Andvari or Anshar or Anu or Aphrodite or Apollo or Apsu or Ares or Artemis or Asclepius or Athena or Athirat or Athtart or Atlas. What a stroke of luck for you!?
(I can go through B-Z for you if you wish)
Ace Ventura Pet Detective is a more believable story than the bible. Just because you were weak minded enough to be indoctrinated doesn't mean that the things you believe are true. You are not strong minded, you are the exact opposite, but you are stubborn...these delusions are so deeply ingrained that you will never accept you are being irrational. Even if it was 100% true...why would you want to revere your god? He is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Your God is the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
I never said anyone should be exterminated
You started a debate entitled 'Is there any justification for antisemitism?' In which you argued Jews deserve their persecution. You claimed the Jews were "milking the holocaust", describing the holocaust as a "wildly exaggerated" and "tired, old story". You then also added "DOWN WITH JUUIIIIIICCCEE".
In another debate you stated that "Another holocaust is right around the corner". All this is not to mention repeatedly linking to Neo-Nazi websites with a white supremacist message as 'evidence'.
I never said Blacks should be shipped back to Africa.
You started this topic! You're the only one still arguing that the blacks are dumb criminals who are severely detrimental to life in America.
In the debate "Blacks are animals" You argue in support of the statement by saying "Niggers do not want to sing Kumbaya with you, dickhead, they want to kill you"
What are you implying should be done? I think we all know what you're getting at.
You asked my IQ earlier, it is 160, what is yours?
1 - I'm almost 100% certain it isn't.
2 - It's really pathetic to state your IQ in some kind of attempt to garner some approbation online.
3 - I don't even know my IQ. I don't feel inadequate enough to get involved in the self-absorbed, vain attempts at self aggrandisement.
4 - Even if I did know my exact IQ, and let's say it would be higher than yours (which it would be). I still wouldn't tell what it is, because comparing IQ's online is the saddest form of dick-measuring I've ever heard of.
While we're on the topic though, you said that IQ, wealth and power go hand in hand...please tell us about your amazing life! With an IQ of 160, you must have a great job and wealth that most of us can only dream of!
Wow. You'll be embarrassed when you sober up and read that drivel.
Look up the wikipedia page on 'Intelligence Quotient'. You talk about it so much I think you could do with knowing a bit about it. It takes certain things into account. One of them being 'age'.
You link to a website that gives vague references from the 1980's. Stuff like, "The Department of Justice - Victimization in the US 1987"...No page number, no direct quote, no way of validating the information presented. If whatever your Nazi website is saying is true (which it may well be), I'm sure you could find something to validate it online that doesn't happen to be a White Power indoctrination site.
dumbass
dumb son of a bitch
shit-for-brains bastard
STUPID ASSHOLE!
educated idiots
FUCKING JEW
spineless fools
liberal schmuck professors
All good points...
Is this your attempt at a rebuttal?
I can just see you sitting alone smashing that out on the keyboard in your grand mansion (as you're so intelligent you must be super rich, but not as rich as those pesky evil Jews! - who by the way must be really intelligent if, as you say, they control everything and have the majority of the worlds cash?!)
I've been on this website for about two weeks and so far you've said that Jews should be exterminated because they are clever, rich and powerful...while you say Blacks should be thrown out of America because they are too dumb and poor.
Do you see how you've contradicted yourself...accept that you have an agenda and you're not thinking straight. You don't seem that stupid to me. You use the odd big word now and then. We would all think a lot more of you if you came clean now and started over.
Because he is the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Uuurgh...it is painful trying to talk sense into you.
No. Of course not. I think people with low IQ's make up the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder.
Well why didn't you say so earlier when you implied it was a result of crime?! It's funny how every justification and answer you have is in some way a slight at an ethnic minority. Is that just a coincidence?
Research has been proven this
Research..has...been..proven...this.
...What is your IQ?
Do you not understand that IQ is related to education? Do you not understand that standard of education is linked to wealth? Do you not understand that crime is linked to poverty? Can you not comprehend that many of these things are interlinked and obviously a society that is still racist will make life hard for ethnic minorities to get out of that circle. Given enough generations the barrier will break down but there is still a culture whereby poor people cannot get a good education, which means they cannot get a good job, which means they are on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder, meaning their children are more likely to receive a poor education and they are more likely to commit crime. Is that too much for you or would you just prefer to think that "them dumb niggers are always robbin' an rapin"?
I listed some rape statistics below. I invited everyone to rip them apart yesterday. No one has challenged them yet.
The website you linked to is a 'White Nationalist Racial Library'...it offers an abundance of positive articles and references to Hitler and Nazism. With titles like "Enduring allure of Hitlerism" and "Demonizing Nationalism", I can see why it's your favourite.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your website might have an agenda..?
Go and find a reliable source.
How do you know that the lower societal status is not due to crime?
Ridiculous question.
Are you suggesting that everyone of low societal status has committed a crime that has hindered their progression within society? Even if there was no crime in America there would still be people of low societal status.
The white people of the Appalachian mountains are about as low on the socio-economic scale as you can get in the U.S. and they have nowhere near the crime rate.
You're obviously clutching at straws here, it is pretty anecdotal to pull up a rural group with low socio-economic standing and claim that that supports your claim that 'black people will commit more crime than anyone else regardless of other factors like poverty/education/employment.' Crime in Appalachia is increasing faster than anywhere else in the US and the clearly defined correlation between poverty and crime that has been proven in urban areas may not be relevant in rural areas (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/
The fact that poor white people in Scotland commit far more crime than poor black people in London completely disproves your theory...move on and create your next debate with a racist, antisemitic or bigoted agenda.
Your theory doesn't explain the black-on-white rape epidemic either.
For starters it's not really a theory, it's pretty much accepted fact that poverty and the effects of low social status increase crime within society.
Secondly I never said it did. If I drilled down into every point you made I'd be here all day, and frankly I think you're a lost cause. I don't know much about the demographics of sexual assault, but I would love to see you provide some evidence. Has it crossed your mind that maybe black males aren't specifically targeting white women but it has more to do with the opportunistic fact that 80% of potential victims are white.
In fact, it sounds like a bullshit excuse.
The fact that crime is higher within low socio-economic groups is not a "bullshit excuse". I'm not black and I don't really consider myself entirely politically correct so why would I be concocting these wild irrational 'excuses'. I just try to think analytically about things and to not let any agenda I may have cloud my judgement on topics...something you seem to struggle with.
Most people do know that black people commit more crime per head of population, but that's not exactly what you asked. Crime is obviously linked to socio-economic status and if you just 'removed' every african american from the US, other ethnic groups would fill their low socio-economic standing and crime would very quickly rise within those groups.
Using the UK as an example, the further north you go the smaller the black community is. In Scotland there are much fewer black people but far higher crime and violence rates than anywhere else in the developed world. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Crime is a result of low societal status, not of increased eumelanin in skin.
This isn't up for debate. It's a considered fact by the scientific community..............................
Wrong.
While I respect the fact that football/soccer bores 'you', it cannot be that the game is so boring the entire nation has decided to do other things. The rest of the world has adopted it as their primary sport so it must have a pretty significant appeal to manage that when NFL, NBA and MLB have failed to make any waves outwith the states. To refer to 'boring 0-0 draws' is extremely anecdotal, as it happens, some 0-0 draws are thrilling to watch. Personally I find the stop-start-stop of NFL and MLB unbearable and think that NBA lacks the flair to even remotely interest me.
South America always brings great footballers to the fore, but the home of football is still, and always will be Europe. The biggest competitions and the pinnacle of footballing competition...the UEFA Champions League. When players have established themselves in South America, they come to Europe. The entire Brazil and Argentina teams play within Europe. You have to go back to 2002 for a non 'all-European' world cup final. Don't get me wrong, South America produces great footballers, it's just that Europe produces more.
Messi is considered to be by far the best player in the world. Ronaldo is an excellent player but overshadowed by Messi. Rooney is not even comparable to them. Beckham was a good player but never even close to best in the world and certainly not now. Zidane was outstanding, potentially the best player of all time.
In my opinion, if Messi can continue this form and keep dominating and winning things throughout his career..avoiding injury etc, he could become the best player of all time. Commentators talk about him like that already and he's only 23 so still has around 10 years playing at the highest level! Landon Donovan is struggling to be good enough to play in a decent league...never mind be best player on earth!
Hahaha, what did I make up? Are you saying that education, environment and culture do not affect peoples IQ scores? Think about it, if you cannot accept that then there is genuinely something wrong with you (more than we already know). It's difficult to argue against facts that disprove your position so it's often easier just to assert them as 'made-up' and ignore their existence.
It's also interesting to see you trawling the topics of race and ethnicity, always somehow taking the controversial positions (blacks are dumb, jews deserve what they get, the holocaust is exaggerated)...you're blatantly nothing more than a racist bigot. I'd be interested to know where you stand on topics like 'Hitler' or 'homosexuality'...for and against in that order.. am I right?
What a shock to find 'Enlightened1' spouting his crap on this topic. Intelligence has more to do with nurture than nature. Yes, people in the sub saharan region score lower than average on an IQ test, but they usually have not had any form of formal education. Yes, far eastern people have a higher than average IQ, but education is of huge cultural significance within those countries...studies have shown that under similar socio-economic conditions and levels of education, there is no significant difference in average IQ scoring between people of different ethnicities.
I actually agree with you. I also agree that truth is not necessary for personal justification. I think the subtopic we've got onto is a bit pedantic. The question is whether the original poster meant justification as in 'personal justification' or justification as in 'a community or societies justification'.
Interestingly...if you look up the definition for 'justify', it says "to validate a statement with evidence"...and bearing in mind that 'antisemitism' essentially means 'prejudice', if you look up the term 'prejudice' it says " to make a judgement about someone or something without having adequate knowledge to do so".
So, if you are antisemitic, you do not hold adequate knowledge about your subject and cannot provide evidence to justify your hostility toward jews.
Hence, you cannot 'justify' your 'antisemitism'...????
Did you even read my post? It doesn't seem like it. You ARE antisemitic, please don't try and backtrack. I'm not placing any group on a pedestal, I said that nobody is beyond reproach and I asked you what it is you think they have done to justify hostility and prejudice against them? If you think that there is justification for antisemitism - go for it...enlighten us! Don't just say..."well some of them are rich and their religion tells them they're better than us"...what did they do to deserve the holocaust (however watered-down a form of it you accept)?
I am neither stupid, dishonest or a jackass...you seem to tick all three boxes however.
but the question isn't about personal justification. They are analogous. You conveniently word your description of my analogy - I didn't ponder it for hours upon hours obviously, but it's not far off the mark. if my 'position' is that I'm the best footballer ever, I could have a justification for it (however unsubstatial)...maybe I've only played half a season, never played in a losing team and scored in every game. So long as I justified 'why' I feel I'm the best, and convinced myself thereof...then by your thinking I would have 'justified it to myself'.
By the same thinking, I can justify to myself that I am the greatest footballer that ever lived...but I'm not. Just because you attempt to justify something and delude yourself into believing your assertion, doesn't mean it's accepted or even acknowledged by society at large.
You are an idiot. Nobody is beyond reproach, and criticism of Jewish people or Judaism can not be 'labelled' antisemitism. 'Antisemitism' is the prejudice, discrimination and hostility toward Jews; just as 'racism' is prejudice, discrimination and hostility toward people of different race. Every religious group are supremacists, their beliefs are all mutually exclusive. How can you say that they are the 'most successful ethnic group on the planet'...define 'success', what kind of supporting evidence do you have for a ridiculous statement like that. How many Jewish presidents have there been? At least 23 out of the 43 US presidents have been of Scottish descent, is that a relevant barometer of power and success?
'Milking the exaggerated and tired old story of the holocaust' - you are a tool, a huge generalisation about a mass genocide that happened less than 70 years ago. People who are still alive lost their entire families in the holocaust. 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe were killed in the holocaust...it's easy for you to be flippant about it but imagine it was people from your ethnic group and your area that were persecuted.
Just because a specific ethnic group has exemplified a high level of financial success does that instantly mean that they aren't persecuted in any way? Does that somehow justify your antisemitism? Does it make it okay to gather them all up, starve them and then gas them all to death? Set aside your idiotic prejudices for a minute and think about it.
Despite so fervently arguing that Jews should be persecuted...you fail to state exactly what they have done to upset you? Yes they are religious and all religions think they are right...I don't hear you making comment on Catholics or Scientologists...Jews have a higher percentage of billionaires but I don't hear you saying we should lynch Bill Gates or Warren Buffet...?
Sorry if this looks long, but lots of it is pasted from 'iamdavidh's post, so bear with it!
"But there is no guarantee that because an advantage is present, that that advantage will be passed on"
- All species have genetic variations (mutations). Beneficial mutations would very slowly become more prevalent within a species. Yes, things will happen that will kill off individuals with that mutation, but as it is in other individuals (who have a tiny evolutionary and therefore reproductive advantage) the mutation will continue to gain prevalence. Evolution is not random, it will always give rise to those within a species who are best suited to their environment at that time. Natural selection is an ongoing rigorous testing process that, over time, weeds out what is less likely to survive.
"it just means they survived, nothing more."
- and what about the millions of generations of offspring after them?! you are compartmentalising the longest and most complex process on earth into the survival of one tadpole! Of course one tadpole can survive by chance, but to say that all his ancestors will continue to thrive (by random luck) and his genetic lineage will continue for millions of years with NO advantage over it's neighbours and competitors is utterly absurd!
"most only consider what already exists, and naturally do not consider all of the potential genetic properties which may have existed but never had a chance to continue"
- That's because they weren't fit for purpose and fell victim to evolution. Any genetic properties 'which may have existed' (and been beneficial to survival and reproduction) had the potential to occur in (some form) in more than one individual...even if some of them died initially for whatever reason, the recessive genetic elements of the species would continue to produce the 'mutation' until a lineage formed that had the feature as part of it's dominant genetic make-up...and then the 'simpler' process of natural selection would begin. even if somehow a massive family of those tadpoles with thumbs was to be killed in a freak accident, wiping them out, the mutations would occur again at some stage within the rest of the tadpole species and the process would kick off again.
"Three arms would be an advantage. Why aren't there people with three functional arms? Well, maybe the gene was never there, or maybe some thing with that potential died off before the advantage could be."
- Haha, I can't see three arms being an advantage personally, but people have a tendency to think that evolution is somehow 'finished', like it's just been working towards 2010 and now it's going to put it's feet up. Humanity continues to evolve and if three arms would be beneficial, then maybe in billions and billions of years, some ancestor of ours will have them, along with numerous other features that make them more suitable for their environment. To say that maybe someone did have three arms and possessed an evolutionary advantage, but died off before reproducing and the 'third arm' was lost forever hints to me that your understanding of genetics and evolution isn't as fine tuned as you think.
"The idea that the most advantageous option is somehow magically gauranteed success is short-sighted"
- Magically...No. Being 'Fit for survival' is an undeniable and insurmountable 'numerical' advantage that with generation after generation after generation becomes stronger and stronger. It is not luck, nor chance, or random or magic...it is inevitable...eventually the beneficial genes will dominate.
"As far as "survival of the fittest" one would have to say that the giant asteroid that killed the dinasaurs, which is the only reason primates were able to come out of their caves and trees, that the asteroid was somehow a guaranteed factor of survival of the fittest."
You're talking about the unpredictability of the environment and assuming that means evolution is random and unpredictable. When an asteroid hit earth, very few things were 'fit for survival'..it would be a very difficult environment to be in. Evolution will tailor species to be right for their environment at that time...it isn't working toward some pre-defined target. After said asteroid, when the environment eventually became more accommodating, species evolved according to 'that' environment. There will be occasions when the environment will be unpredictable and random but how evolution reacts to that will not be.
"it was not, it was random"
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/
see the fourth question down.
"On a smaller scale. Who is fitter, a sloth or a bull?
Put each in a room with no food, the sloth will live longer because it has a slower metabolism therefore it is the fittest right?
Put each in a pen with nothing but long grass for miles around. The bull will survive and the sloth will die. I guess the bull is fittest."
- I'm sorry, but it's difficult to see what kind of point you could be making from this. Again, evolution will develop a species according to it's environment, so yes a bull would be fitter in a field, but a bull wouldn't necessarily compete for survival with a sloth and they cannot mate so using a sloth and bull in an evolutionary analogy doesn't make sense. Evolution would more likely refer to a herd of cows in a field, some of whom are slightly taller and can eat low apples off trees. They are more likely to survive the winter as they can access food the short cows cannot. The tall cows tiny numerical advantage over lots of generations will slowly become more and more significant until all cows have a dominant 'tallness' gene. The circumstances and environment dictate survival. Randomness and luck don't.
"Circumstance and chance has far more impact on survival than fitness"
- This doesn't make sense. The 'fitness' you refer to, is in relation to the circumstances and environment. If you mean chance as in randomness of the environment...fair enough, but evolution doesn't operate on a 'luck' or 'chance' basis as I hope I've explained. What could 'fitness' possibly mean if it doesn't refer to the species suiting it's circumstances? We're not talking about lung capacity or how fast an animal can run a mile!..we're talking about suitability for it's habitat...(or 'fitness' for it's 'circumstance' - to refer to your above sentence).
"we should understand that leaving to circumstance and chance our overall survival, and the survival of individuals within our species, is not an advantage, it is animal instinct sure, but we have big brains so we don't have to depend on something so random as survival of the fittest. Nor should we"
- We don't leave the survival of humanity and our circumstances to chance. The depletion of the ozone layer is a threat and we (as a species) have taken steps to rectify and tailor our environment (circumstance) so that it provides a suitable means of survival. Nonetheless, that has very little to do with evolution. Evolution isn't something we, as you say- 'depend on' day to day...it's a biological and genetic inevitability.
If you still think 'survival of the fittest' is 'random'...then you do not understand it at all.
Are religious people open minded and humble?!
Declaring yourselves as the 'god's chosen ones' and prancing around blindly believing the absurd fairytales you were indoctrinated with as a child...?
This is truly the most contradictory and stupid question I've ever read.
If this is the standard of debate on this website I think I'll spend my time doing something else.
David you don't understand the intricacies of Evolution. Yes, people and things will die before they invent something...but that has nothing to do with 'survival of the fittest', genetic lineage or evolution of a species. Evolution is absolutely not random.
Evolution refers to the tiny tiny advantage that a small element or feature of a species or group of animals may have over others in its environment, the numerical and reproductive advantage that provides increases it's propensity for survival and thus the increased liklihood of future generations of that species having said element or feature.
I don't want to get into massive amounts of detail but one particular individual's death or survival will not significantly impact the entire evolutionary path of a species.
What about the inevitable situation when someone is executed for a crime it is later proven that they didn't commit?
Have you never heard of Blackstones formulation - "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
