CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
At least semi-intelligent and generally jerks. It's that pseudo intellect of theirs that gets in the way of them coming of as truly intelligent.
Here is a typical atheist argument: God does not exist and if you didn't have your head in your ass, you'd see this. Yup, intelligent and compassionate as well.
So how is this different than atheists calling somebody stupid for believing in God? Atheists continue to call themselves superior beings and yet claim they don't exist; How smart is that?
I'm sure that there are many religious people that have responded in the same manner. Have you ever seen a religious person that claims to be intelligent? See the difference?
Yeah they are jerks especially if you debate with them they will start swearing when they argue with you and its like why are you swearing? Are you mad or something is wrong?
Did archaeologists find people, places, and things related to Harry Potter? No they have found nothing and there is no proof. Everybody knows that Harry Potter is a fiction book.
That was Satan in the snake and demonic things can take over humans if they are so consumed by some of the evil stuff and the demon can attack you when you least expect it.
That was Satan in the snake and demonic things can take over humans if they are so consumed by some of the evil stuff and the demon can attack you when you least expect it.
this is how my replies looks like when I'm on LSD :D
I am not on LSD or on any other drugs. And putting a smile at the end doesn't help make your argument better it just tells me you are being sarcastic and not serious.
That was Satan in the snake and demonic things can take over humans if they are so consumed by some of the evil stuff and the demon can attack you when you least expect it.
I wouldn't say usually smart: more easily impressionable; smart is usually defined based in the IQ scale which is very liberally based and very atheistic based already. Atheists, though, are usually jerks. Why is this? It is because they are resentful and angry at religion, especially Christianity. New Atheists are notorious about this: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have all written books that are very non-intellectually sound. They are rage and tantrum filled books that have little to no logical expression: they are usually very rhetorical and persuasive books. Atheists and on-the-edge religious people in modern times find these books and take on the attitudes towards matters just the same.
Neither do you, you just talk about the work of scientists who happen to be Atheists whilst ignoring the work of religious scientist and dropping random insults and casual racism to try and prove your higher intelligence.
Please explain what a Goat Dweller is I have never heard of any part of mankind that lives within a goat, apart from the Antichrist who will allegedly be born of a goat but even then the Antichrist will only be a Goat Dweller for the gestation period.
Goat dweller is a transnational error. I was looking for a term in English that would represent "a farmer who specialize in goats and who also migrates" only thing that I found was "goat dweller".
"Goat dweller is a transnational error. I was looking for a term in English that would represent "a farmer who specialize in goats and who also migrates" only thing that I found was "goat dweller"."
You mean a phrase like Goat Farmer not exactly a stretch
Under "goat farmer" most of people imagine a set of buildings with farmers and animals, static thing. In most of languages I know are terms that covers exactly what I meant.
I've used "goat dweller" in multiple occasions before and I've never been corrected, so I've assumed that it's correct... until you've showed up..
How would you call people that follow "philosophy" of a goat dweller who heard voices in his head telling him to cut his dick off and kill his son?
Or
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
I'm sorry but without a massive brain damage I simply can't...
How would you call people that follow "philosophy" of a goat dweller who heard voices in his head telling him to cut his dick off and kill his son?
How can you follow a philosophy or field that claims to be impartial in its studies when majority of the people present in that field already have biased philosophies?
OR
A field that attempts to state that man lost all his fur in the Tropical regions because it was too hot, but lost all their fur in the winter regions because they made hides? Wouldn't those in the winter regions begin to grow a considerable amount o hair on there bodies to compensate, instead of starting to kill for fur? Better yet, why is it that a small faction of these ancestors evolved to become humans, considering that both man and primate live in relatively same environments? What environmental factor constituted the change in that small faction but not in the rest?
I'm sorry but without a massive brain damage and Narcissistic Personality Disorder I just can't.
no, you just lack any educational backgroud other than mythology. People in hot areas, have darker and tougher skin that does much better in hot sun also they are in general larger than people from colder area because there don't have to deal so much with energy loss that's why black people have large lips and limbs.
People in cold area do not need fur because they have clothes without brain capacity to create clothes there would be no people in cold area. Everybody would be still living in africa where original clothes has more less just decorative purpose.
you are just iliterate moron, which is why you follow bronze age mythology...
Yes, I do have an educational background besides mythology. Alright, clothes are not as effective as fur, that is all I am saying. So they should still have a substantial amount of skin on there body. You also never answered my question, what warranted a small faction to evolve to become human while the vast majority stayed behind, considering that man and primate live relatively in the same environment?
That is interesting and the way we came to this conclusion was by comparing our chromosone 2 to chromosone 12 and 13. In the coded information of our DNA, there are many things that we find exclusively in humans to assist with cognitive thinking, something that chance alone is incapable of doing. I must say that if this were chance, there would be other species capable of challenging us with cognitive thinking skills. Let us not forget 4% in DNA can make a huge difference.
There were also few thousands of generations and some of our DNA are viral. We are still changing. Our brain grows, we are taller. If you look on some fossils of earlier human they look more like monkeys than human.
I fail to see how so many small changes can ocur within these thousands of years, from a mathematical standpoint I mean. To be frank, many animals have almost the same cognitive skills they did thousands of years ago, we however looked like monkeys thousands of years ago and have more flattened faces now? Why am I not seeing this "forced evolution" (I say forced because it seems as if nature is pushing us to evolve much faster than other naimals, when it is unrequired because humans on a whole are put under minimal stress, which means a slowed movement in evolution in us, while animals, have to fight for food, however there evolution is much slower than ours) in animals who need it more than us? Why hasn't chance given them better cognitive thinking skills if that is what made us capable of exploring the winter regions?
And why have so many viruses fused with our DNA so readily? Does that not seem strange to you?
Most of animals that have ever lived extincted already. Simply because they did not adapted to a major change. Ice ages are very efficient filter.
There were more than one line lineage of Modern Human like creatures.
For example Neanderthals did not made trough last Ice Age simply because of their eyes. They were bigger than ours , they could see in dark in general were stronger and faster than our predecessors. However better vision system, requires more brain capacity, so their cognitive capacity was lower. So when the Ice age came their superior hunting capacities were useless in place where is nothing to hunt, they died of hunger and cold.
We were the weaker one but smarter so we build shelters, better clothes and when needed we moved to a different place...
This is pretty much how it works. Also animals change when needed, just look at Chiwawa dog thousand years ago it was bad ass wolf. Chimps does not have to. They have enough Bananas, weather is relatively stable, there is nothing to adapt to.
I forgot about this. To me humans and all there ancestors should have been extinct by now. Considering the size and prowess alone of other animals, the wolf, ancestors of the cheetah etc etc. Evolution favours size and speed, not intelligence. It even favours grotesque transformations and exaggerative appendages, but rarely ever intelligence. Why did we survive, while everyone else died out? I am not the only one with these questions, I can leave an article for you here.
Look at the words like may and might. Also this article does not say it was there eyes, but because of us being able to better compete for resources. But another question arises for me: the articles said modern humans migrated to England, why would they do that in the first place? Would the entire continent suffer a drought, forcing the Africans to move? Why did they just up and migrate? And the Neanderthals were not out of element, so their large eyes could not of been a hindrance. Instead the homo sapiens small eyes would have been a deterrent to them because they could not see in the dark, and at that time it must have been very dark. Also, I fail to understand how intelligence factors can beat brute strength, power and speed. Even team work would not be able to easily defeat these Neanderthals, they were more adapted to the environment than us after all. These things puzzle me and are great holes in the evolution theory in my opinion.
There are no actual holes in evolution, There's only lack of knowledge on your side, you may self study a lot if you wish to. There are things like MIT Scholar, that has intro to biology and other schools have same stuff, YouTube is full of recorded lectures on biology, zoology and evolution... try that, after we may talk.
our "weapon" is our intelligence, ability to solve issues, operating in groups...that's why we do not need speed or strenght.
There are holes, and you need not worry because I plan to get a Phd in Biology. You never answered the question though, why did homo sapiens choose to move to a more hostile environment like Europe, my research has obviously gone bunk.
I would say they are usually jerks, but only because people in general, in my observation, tend to usually be jerks.
I also dispute that atheists have a larger proportion of intelligent individuals and a smaller proportion of unintelligent individuals than any other demographic.
seeing all the debates, atheists as well as theists both behave like jerks many times. constantly trying to impose atheism or theism is very annoying. everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want to. i think both of the parties should lighten up sometimes.
fairytales aren't always bad. and it's just a belief. most people like to thank someone or something instead of themselves for whatever they achieve. or sometimes,theists believe that God will help, in case of calamities or other disasters. they like to cling onto someone or something (God) for a little ray of hope.
atheists sometimes go a little far while trying to explain why God does not exist.
Neither atheists nor theists are jerks, usually. (Aside from the occasional psycho-asshole extremist) But both sides are perceived that way by the other. People get too caught up in their beliefs that they'll refute any effort against them. No one likes getting told their wrong, especially about their personal beliefs. What everyone must realize is that no one can win a religious debate because both sides of the argument feel to strongly about it to be open minded. I do it myself. And I don't blame anyone that does it. I was raised in a strict catholic church but now i am atheist. I use logical explanations when i debate the existence of god. And i try to refute my opponent's respectfully. But what happens is that people get too caught up in their emotions so they don't think that the other person might actually have a good point. Then the debate turns into a yelling fest and friends become enemies. It's no one's fault. It just needs to be accounted for before calling someone a jerk.
No, most atheists are not smart at all. Sturgeons law also applies to people, meaning that 90% of atheists are every bit as stupid as 90% of theists. Theists are stupid in one way (namely using bad science, ignorant of sophisticated philosophical defenses of theism, lack of self-criticism, self-righteousness etc), and atheists are stupid, for the most part, in the same way.
After watching and reading hundreds of atheist/theists exchanges on the internet - it has become clear that the average atheist's points consists entirely of condescension, lofty moralizing, over-generalization and ''clever'' quips about their opponents intelligence - in other words atheists think that poorly assembled sarcasm and ad hominem attacks amount to a valid argument. Not to mention they think that googling bible contradictions will make them an instant biblical scholar.
When some ignorant, judgemental theist converts to atheism - nothing has really happened to him. The only difference is that instead of being an ignorant, judgemental theist, the person is now an ignorant, judgemental atheist.
I do feel that many atheists have a superiority complex - they think that being an atheist will automatically make them smarter than a theist in every facet of intelligence. They have completely deluded themselves into thinking that they are some intellectual authorities - and that is what makes them come off as jerkish. They think they are the enlightened and any sheep of a theist is pretty much beneath them.
That's not to say that theists are any way smarter - most theists too have based their entire view on unjustified premises and flawed argumentation.
People with higher qualification that requires the knowledge of Mathematics, Physics, Complex systems Chemistry or simply capable of Critical thinking beyond the undergrad level tends to be Atheists.
The most religious people tends to be exactly on the other side of a food chain...
so yes, there is a link between being smart and not following random local mythology.
Maybe, but when its one of the most important scientists of the 20th century and whose theories some Atheists like to base their argument that religion is stupid and so are its followers, it proves that Atheists are not the know it all super brains some think they are.
I'm sure that if you look in German archives enough long you will dig out Nazi SS officer who was a nice person and liked Jews. Exceptions are everywhere.
It's relevant. It means just because of anomalies we don't have to change whole trend. You know well that there is a link between IQ, edu level and, atheism.
Well, yes and no. I have had civil conversations online with atheists, despite arguing our beliefs at one point. There have also been people I trolled like hell, and they trolled me, and somehow we're friends now. I don't get that either, but hey whatever.
I think it's probably best to define where the Atheists are. If on the internet, then most people are usually jerks. If offline... I dunno.
Not all Atheists are smart and not all of them are jerks it just seems that the most vociferous Atheists are jerks a lot of the time, but the same can be said of Theists
Results of IQ tests show that Atheists rank higher than Theists. However, another test showed that Atheists also rank higher in biblical knowledge than Christians. So "usually smart" seems valid based on these tests and based on what ive seen across the internet and so on.
But jerks? I dont think so. Sure there are jerks in every religious view. The theists who yell at you for deserving to go to hell are jerks. However likewise the atheists who call people stupid for believing in god are jerks. Ive come to find that there are more "hellfire damning" and condescending christians than there are atheists. I think that just because atheists know more about science and things like that that they automatically come off as being a jerk when in reality theyre just smart. Or when christians make an argument and atheists dispute it they call us jerks. I think it all has to do with perception. The average atheist isnt a jerk. And the average atheist can observe a disrespectfull atheist and even if they agree they still say "that guy is a jerk".
Nobody went up to Einstein and called him a jerk for knowing more about quantum physics than they did. So how come when Atheists give scientific arguments theyre suddenly jerks about it?
They feel like they have accepted a truth that other people may not know about. That there's no God, when a majority of earth believe in a deity. Now like anyone, they might want to tell and convince other people of this fact, just like how religious people are passionate in converting others into their religion. Except, many atheists are quite new and on the younger side, and they are not as emphatic with people and may come off as jerks. It's hip and cool to not believe in god now, it's almost like a rebellious things.
