- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Is God omniscient or not? If he isnt then hes hardly a God. If he is then free will is a myth and the entire concept of a god that sits back and lets things happen is entirely incoherent. An omniscient God necessitates that he knows and therefore consequentially pre-plans everything. Even these acts of terror.
Secondly, If i am holding a loaded gun and i stand 10 feet away and watch a violent mugging occur, and i do nothing to stop it, then it would be fair to say im somewhat to blame for that crime successfully taking place. But God, someone who can bend and shape reality itself at will sits by and lets a man kill some 60 people and shoot 500 more (many of which im sure are honest christians) and does nothing and hes NOT at fault?
Why? Something something free will and sin. So yeah. Uh no thats not an excuse
And how do you know this shooter wasnt an atheist? Thusfar theres no proof of a motive yet and all information seems to indicate he wasnt religious at all.
Hes right. All youre doing is taking God, which usually means a supreme BEING with its own intelligence, and redefining it to mean "reality". And then you go well reality is real (duh) and god = reality so therefore god = real.
Its just a bullshit semantics game where you define god into existence without proving a single goddamn thing empirically. If God is ONLY reality itself then cool, god exists then. But its not a god worth worshipping. Its not a god that does anything or changes anything about the way i should live my life. So why should i give a fuck? You defining god in this way removes any meaning or implications from what God's existence should have.
So which is it? is God a BEING or is God just reality itself? If its the former then i say you have yet to prove that. If its the latter then i direct you to my above statement on the matter. and if its both then i also say prove how thats even a coherent concept.
I never disputed that. And its entirely irrelevant to my point about muslim US citizens and their constitutional rights.
Why do you think im defending Islam? FUCK islam. its garbage.
But theres a clear difference between peaceful, reformed, liberalized muslims in the US as citizens with constitutional voting rights, and freaking terrorists in afghanistan.
youre an idiot
"The FBI said that "no connection" between Paddock and radical Islamist extremism had been found.
"As this event unfolds we have determined to this point no connection with an international terrorist group," Aaron Rouse, the special agent in charge of the Las Vegas office of the FBI, said in an announcement, AFP news agency reported.
His family also said there was no indication that there was a religious motive behind the attack.
"We have no idea how this happened," brother Eric Paddock, 55, of Orlando, Florida, told the Las Vegas Review Journal. "It’s like an asteroid just fell on top of our family."
He continued: "There is no reason we can imagine why Stephen would do something like this. All we can do is send our condolences to the people who died. Just no reason, no warning." There is no other evidence to suggest that Paddock had converted to Islam or was a Muslim prior to the attack."
US muslims are actually overwhelmingly more pro-lgbt than the average american.
Liberals are osessed with the word "should". Our money "should" pay for "free healthcare" (which means it isn't free, and now you have a rationed system that doesn't work and takes months to see a doctor.)
No shit. nobody, literally nobody said its free. Nobody makes that argument. Every proponent of single payer healthcare will tell you straight up "yeah no shit of course its paid for by taxes".
So there goes your unnecessary strawman of an argument. As for the latter part, nobody in countries with single payer systems wait months to get emergency care. And things like regular physician checkups you make appointments for anyway, so theres literally no difference between the us and there. Nobody in Canada and France waits months for emergency care. They dont wait weeks, they dont wait days. Emergency care is treated on spot. In fact, people with life threatening conditions are actually treated more quickly than in the US. Because these countries ration care according to need, unlike here where we ration care according to income level. Every healthcare system rations care. All of them. The differences lie in HOW you ration that care. And how you allocate your resources.
Higher Education "should" be free. As Social Security goes bankrupt.
1st off, it isnt "free higher education" its "tuition free PUBLIC college tuition free". Which, same as single payer/medicare for all is paid for by taxes.
2nd point, social security is FAR from bankrupt. It remains solvent well into the 2030s. Then if you raise the income cap even a few percent it remains solvent as far as the eye can see.
Maybe these professors will work for free, andthe doctors...
Why in the hell would they? You honestly think doctors in the UK, Canada, and France dont get paid? Youre serious? How completely detached from the world are you?
The 1% should pay for everything and anything. (Nevermind that the 1% couldn't dent our national debt or even fix social security and that we'd watch all the jobs go bye bye because the 1% can't afford them.)
Nobody said that. Nobody fucking said that again youre strawmanning.
The top 1% should pay their FAIR SHARE. Right now it is estimated that about 2 trillion dollars of US currency sits offshore in untaxable accounts. Tell me, who do you think owns those accounts? Is it middle class americans? No. Its the wealthy elite. So tell me, what happens when you or I dodge paying our taxes? We go to prison. But they get to have offshore bank accounts and pay no taxes even though theyre the most able to do so.
Nobody said we should drain their income to zero. Its absolutely fine to be rich. But it is not okay to skirt taxes entirely.
The debt is irrelevant to anything i was talking about.
Social security is completely solvent as i told you. And it would only take an incredibly small percent tax on them to keep it solvent forever. So....yes actually if we did drain the top 1% it would keep social security solvent forever. Even though nobody ever argued that youre still wrong.
Bush lowered taxes and unemployment skyrocketed. There is zero correlation between lowering the taxes for the rich and increased employment. It has never happened.
Life "should" consist of rainbow highways, the Emerald City, a utopia of cultures, equality that whites, men and conservatives can't enjoy, a load of free crap as the debt goes in the tank, 48 genders, and a one world government that loves us.
Life should consist of a life in a country where a government spends the taxpayer's dollars wisely and allocates resources most efficiently. We do not do that. Plain and simple.
A world where we don't need guns because criminals shake your hand and come carrying water pistols...
I never brought up guns and never advocated for a gun ban. The vast majority of liberals are not in favor of gun bans.
The gun legislation i would be in favor of is universal background checks of no less than a week before buying any gun. And an OPTIONAL gun buyback program. Where, kinda like cash for clunkers, the government will offer to buy guns people dont want. That way we can cut down on the number of ownerless or unwanted guns in circulation AND help some people out at the same time.
Nobody is proposing that these measures will stop every single shooting from happening. But it is a FACT that they WILL stop some of them. Dylan Roof for example. He bought a gun legally. And the background check documents didnt come through before the 3 day wait period was up. So they sold him a gun anyways even though he wouldve failed the background check. And then he shot up a church full of people.
So my proposed legislation above would have stopped that crime. And it would stop many more like it. Getting rid of unwanted guns also reduces the possibility someone finds it and either uses it for crime, kills someone or themselves by accident, or commits suicide. Which reduces gun deaths overall.
Will it cause the some 30,000 death toll from guns (crime, accidents, and suicides combined) to drop to 0? No. Of course not. But will they cause it to drop to 23,000? Maybe even 21,000? Yes. They absolutely could.
And all it would be is a mandatory 1 week background check, and a totally 100% optional buyback program.
So its a minor inconvenience for any responsible gun owner, who will still ultimately be able to get their gun no problem, which pays for the lives of potentially thousands of people.
If you cant agree with that then youre completely delusional.