Yes, that's an agreeable description. I think you intended for it to rebut something I'd said, though, didn't you?
It is simple; you are utterly incorrect, I have explained why, and you are being petulant.
By child, you actually mean foetus - and a foetus is no more a human being than a fingernail is.
The benefits of researching with them are gargantuan, as they are seemingly limitless in what they can develop into, and the deterrents are non-existent. Stem cells have no need of pity, kindness or empathy, so there is no moral issue whatsoever.
You are fundamentally incorrect.
My main reason for affiliating with the 'pro-choice' view is that it's not my choice to make whether a woman has an abortion or not. I do not get to decide what happens in a woman's body - only she does. This means that I am most certainly not 'pro-abortion'. I want it universally legalised, so that people have a choice.
If it were legal and not a single abortion were ever carried out again, I wouldn't care, I just won't stand by and allow tyranny. That's very different from advocating that people have abortions.
Typically, yes. If every priest or rabbi began each sentence with "according to the bible" or "I believe", then it wouldn't be, but children believe the adults around them, and all too often people forget to mention that it may not be the case.
Well, that's just conjecture which you believe, and which I find dubious.
Its already deteriorating right now, in our generation.
That is the premise on which this debate was started.
If you use contraction, isn't it a form of laziness, when you can easily say "it is"? Also with the I'm. Which you can say I am.
It isn't laziness, there is a point to using contractions. Used properly, they don't distort the meaning of a sentence, either - they are still correct.
As far as I'm concerned, I know that being creative means being able to generate new ideas out of old ones. Isn't it creative when people use new ways of expressing their thoughts which they base from the old texts that we use?
No. These people aren't magnificent, blossoming fonts of creativity, they are people who are too lazy to use punctuation. Call 'text language' an art form if you like, but to me it's just a nugget of condensed literary sloth.
A similar stance would be to try and treat a man with an infected lung by painting him bright orange. He dies from lack of proper medical attention, but hey, perhaps we created a new form of art! The English language has a correct form and structure, and deviation from that is rarely, if ever, good.
Yeah, I have made several mistakes in my reply, but you still understood what I just said even after all the mistakes. People are subject to change, just accept that there are some things you can't stop.. like deterioration.
I understood it, but you didn't make as many mistakes as most people do. I'm talking specifically about the masses who wouldn't have finished any of the sentences with a full-stop.
I refuse to sit back and watch such deterioration. It certainly will not be seen to develop in me.
The thing is, grammar will steadily deteriorate over time and the level of 'bad' in a few years might be equivalent to something today deemed 'terrible'. It's on a slippery slope.
Being illiterate does not make you creative. The beauty of the English language is not improved by using the same tired and worn-out phrases you always use, spelled incorrectly.
Even in your reply, you have made several mistakes, and this is what I'm talking about when I refer to deterioration.
The problem is that things like Dark Matter must exist, whereas God is unnecessary and ridiculous.
There would be no war over "differing beliefs" like in Christianity, as the belief would be common. I'm not saying that there would be no war - perhaps politics would become the motivator - but certainly, there would be no religious war. None at all. Atheists don't differ in 'belief'.
Verily, he betrayed his knowledge of such a tactic when he mentioned it.
Hitman is much more of a household name, so you'll appeal to a much bigger fan-base with it.
I'd go with Hitman myself.
No, I am not susceptible of such ghastly fallacies as those you ask of me.
So rather than saying what happens in the past stays in the past, you're saying "What happened in the past never happened at all."
My point was that these blemishes, while in times passed, are in sharp contrast with the unblemished path of atheism. Partly because, atheists are not an organisation and therefore cannot postulate a common agenda. The rogues are rogues, but atheism as a creed remains virgin, while the Church has always committed evil, and is in doing so, filthy.
And, is the harbouring and protection of paedophiles not 'evil', in as many meanings as we may ascribe to the word? That exists today.
Atheism is not a form or religion, it never was. A dictionary would clarify this point to you, Sir. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or deity. Not a belief that they are fictional, not a belief in any number of scientific theories, merely, that an Atheist does not believe in a God.
You try to dismiss the past as being irrelevant, at least to some degree, and to that I would object. If a killer is reading peacefully in his cell, did he therefore not butcher a man? Nay, the Church is no longer the force of war it once was, but it is yet the force of evil it always has been.
A reduced sum should perhaps be paid, but men must be responsible for their children. If they risk becoming a father, they must face the consequences.
A man can propose what he likes if everyone's lawyers are present, and the other person will gladly hear the suggestion.
However, mean have no right to tell a woman whether she must or can't carry a baby to term, because he does or doesn't want it. It's her body - her rules.
Wecome, Sacerdotus.
I can't prove God's existence, or disprove it. Having said that, it's perfectly acceptable to assume something is incorrect if it violates the laws of Physics, until it is proven so. Furthermore, it is the duty of those who proclaim it to be accurate to prove it. The onus is on them.
School *exists because it provides education. Education is the difference between a caveman and a modern human. If nobody went to school, the world would crumble. I see it happening already.
Its teachings are of interest only to its followers, but if we are to judge a religion (and, we are), we need to see just what it makes people do. The Holy Text may sound lovely, but turn people into psychopaths, or vice-versa.
It is not fact, it is quite clearly false, and I'd like to request some supporting evidence if you wish for it to remain.
Juxtaposed to your conjecture, whether abortion is equivalent to killing a person or not is a fact-based debate. Under the definition of a human being, abortion is not killing one.
Obviously there would be the same restrictions as are on alcohol. No driving, operating heavy machinery or working while high.
As an occasional recreational user, I can confirm that it makes me highly productive, and very creative. Granted, given a laborious task I would struggle, but when creativity is key, such as writing a novel or composing music, Marijuana is a brilliant light in the gloom.
Well, agnosticism is really sitting on the fence. If you don't know anything about either side of the fence, that would make you an atheist, wouldn't it? I get your point, though.
Well, in the eyes of reality, you were born an atheist just like everyone else. You weren't undecided, you were atheist.
What do you mean by "the movement"?
No, you were not undecided, you were atheistic.
You display a basic misunderstanding of the term "atheist". It does not mean that you are sure, merely that you do not follow any set religion.
You were born atheist, as was every human being since theism has existed.
To be fair, atheists are a fairly new group
Though it is no major crime, I feel obliged to inform you that this is incorrect - every child is born atheist, and has been since there have been humans. In fact, atheism has been around since the moment theism bloomed into the picture.
What you meant to say was - "Atheists have only recently been able to profess their lack of faith without being murdered for it."
Again, religion did not and has not caused wars.
This is a point to which you cling mostly dearly, but it is of no worth - religion can only exist in human minds, which are fallible, so saying that the problems are caused in human minds is obvious, but, where else can religion exist?
Religion has caused wars. Furthermore, Sharia law does in fact permit the killing of various infidel groups, and thus religion in itself causes war. The rest of the time, yes, the humans themselves err in the name of religion, but can it not be said that without religion, these wars would never have happened?
I care not for why, but for what shall we do to end this problem. A solution can be found in the banishment of religion - and for this, I am.
I've seen Gimp being used, apparently that's the best alternative. The name is amusingly suspect, but I assure you it's an entirely legitimate program for image editing... nothing else.
I don't think there is a difference. That's the same thing as giving a mental hospital full of psychopaths an assault rifle, and then saying;
"It's not the guns that are the problem."
I'd say that taking the guns away would solve the problem, and this analogy translates across to religion. If it weren't here, there wouldn't be any more religious war (obviously).
"Religion has not caused wars!"
It's odd that you'd tell me to get my fundamentals correct, after saying that yourself.
What about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and the Crusades? The Holocaust? These are but a few I could name off of the top of my head. Every single one of those was a war, or a one-sided conflict on purely religious reasons, or, would not have occurred without religion.
People have caused wars!
It's hard to see a war starting without any people involved.
Indifference has caused wars!
I am not sure how that's possible. War is a struggle, brought about by differences. How many wars were started because, on a particular issue, a political leader said; "On that subject, my country isn't terribly bothered. TO ARMS, MEN!"
Religion has caused war in the past, most of it, in fact.
Atheists have yet to start a war with atheists because of atheism -> if Atheism could become a majority, religious wars wouldn't exist.
If a friend invited me to their wedding, I'd attend unless I couldn't. I see no reason for there to be a distinction between the sexuality of those being married - they would be my friends, that's the only relevant factor.
Nope. Therefore, I am a fish, definitely a fish, and no other explanation is valid. < Theist logic.
Atheism cannot be disproven. It's a lack of belief, not a statement of different belief. Get your definitions right.
Giving someone condoms does not mean that they must use them.
What it means is - they get free condoms.
Disestablishmentarianism is a belief we both hold.
Please specify, which right exactly would be infringed upon?
Fear not, for the soothing light of counsel has come. In your predicament, this is what you should do;
1) Learn to read and spell correctly.
2) Stop trolling this site, where people want intelligent debates.
3) Find something more productive to do with your time.
4) If all of the above fail, castrate yourself (to prevent pollution of the gene pool) and play with traffic.
Profuse apologies, I didn't realise that I had argued against it, my mistake. I'm absolutely pro-legalisation.
ChuckHades answered this side of the argument perfectly. Up-vote and Kudos to you, Sir.
Society is the wall that holds back social Darwinism, I'm currently writing a novel with that as a theme. I wish.
Ah, Quantum Entanglement. It is proven, and it is a favourite concept of mine.
It is not an underlying force or 'energy', but rather a law that guarantees symmetry. This no sane person could refute, and I don't.
However, the idea that human beings' thoughts affect each other is ludicrous. It's not impossible, but I find it extremely improbable, to such an extent that I dismiss it.
