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.
It is interesting to note that being around other life forms also maintains the chemical reactions we call life. For example, if you put someone in solitary confinement, the sustainability of his chemical reactions decreases and he dies. ;)
I'm saying that people need other people to maintain their sanity and that an insane person is damaged (i.e., the chemical reactions are not optimal at best and unsustainable at worst.) I am also saying that if this is truly the case, then there must be at least one more component to life because why would a sustainable chemical reaction become unstable if there aren't other sustainable chemical reactions around?
Ha, you are so fucking dumb. The only thing that you could even remotely claim you inspire is my anger and you are too dumb to even take credit for it.
Saying true and then drawing an irrelevant analogy (something so ridiculous that it would be a good strawman of your side for the opposition to use) prove nothing. You do not deserve an argument point for this spam.
I don't care about points. Never have. I also don't care whether people vote my responses down, or whom is allies or enemies, or feel silenced when I am banned. Strip away the gimmickry of this site. We're all just people talking.
But to the theist, life is not just a body sustaining its span chemically.
Theists donot believe in the big bang~evolution bag of dust bullshit.
Theists believe the actual or main life is the soul or spirit. And when it leaves the body, the body(chemical) becomes waste. It is sustained by the soul.
You can have the healthiest(in all aspects) body any man could possibly posses, but when your soul leaves, it wouldn't matter, you are waste; the body cannot sustain itself.
I haven't met with atheists who think that there is no radiation outside of the visible spectrum, or waves outside the audible spectrum, or smells outside the olfactory capacities of humans, or things so small that can't be seen, at least, yet.
But then again, I have little idea about atheist chimps, like you might.
"I haven't met with atheists who think that there is no radiation outside of the visible spectrum, or waves outside the audible spectrum, or smells outside the olfactory capacities of humans"
Perfect description of what religious people call spirits. They are not spirits at all. They are natural beings. And the only spirit is God.
And i haven't met any atheist here or anywhere who doesn't thinks so.
"You'll need to be smarter than that to care, so it isn't really surprising."
Okay. And so?
"We can detect the things really well.
But if it is entirely undetectable, then it won't be convincing."
There is no supernatural being governed by the law nature that is undetectable.
Plus my proof is not detecting. It is actual conversation and requests of however you will be satified with the proof with the creature itself not a human being.
I'm an atheist (well, more properly I'm an agnostic I suppose) and I don't believe what I can see. It's stupid to believe anything at all, because we can't know any of it whether it's spiritual, scientific... doesn't matter.
What makes you think this is a condition we can advance ourselves out of? That we don't know anything now is not a consequence of our discoveries or technology (or etc.), but of the practical limitations on the human capacity for knowledge. We can't overcome an innate shortcoming.
I agree if you say we are limited. Infact, we are trapped in our limits and it is only by our brains, our world keeps advancing yet a very slow rate.
One generation cannot make all the discoveries not yet known because we are trapped in our limits.
One generation lays a foundation with their mind, another comes to understand their ancestor's plan and build a little more unto it, then it goes on and on.
At the beginning of science, a television didn't come about spontaneously, it started with someone making a light bulb.
We are growing and advancing at a very slow rate.
But as long as our place of habitation continues to survive, we will make discoveries about the unknown that our limited selves call impossible. We build on what we have.
Just because the present builds upon the past, that does not automatically make it an advancement (or, by another name, progress). It just means there is change that is responsive to the change that preceded it.
There is also nothing to suggest that any of our more fundamental dispositions (i.e. tendency towards fallacious reasoning, inconsistent application of moral beliefs, discriminating instinct, etc.) are going to change. Nothing in our environment has altered to create sufficient pressure to select those attributes out of the general genetic pool of the species.
Before you find(80%) you must be looking for, but if you say to yourself such a thing cannot possibly exist, then you won't even acknowledge the little signs and clues.
The chinese have accepted (it) and believe in the possibility of such things you call superstitious and impossible existing and therefore are advanced in that knowledge than the other parts of the world(scientifically).
One of the best of materials used to capture such beings is mercury.
A building blended with mercury can be penetrated in by an odd creature but the same method cannot be used to go out of the building, the creature would have to use the door like a human would.
They are therefore also bound by the laws of nature and are discoverable.
But i tell you, the world minus Asia, and Africa will take the U.S.A, Europe and Russia 500+ years to make this discovery.
No, this ignores emergent properties. A reductionist point of view may observe life as a large chain of chemical reactions, but looking at the bigger picture provides something much more, such as conciousness.