It's common sense for me to not find better of self, through simply joining a religion i simply am better. It's as though you say those who are without religion are bad people. I understand the christian faith, but if you paid attention to the question; "would i join," i state no. Reasoning that an establishment has no way to better human being. You're emotionally involved with your side far too much, to make rational notice of a differing statement. It's not that hard to allow people to be good without joining a bandwagon.
Not at all, i don't believe in something being an absolute truth for many reasons. Most importantly i know firsthand it's invalid. Another big reason being that i find it odd that anything you can simply say, "hey, i'm now bla bla bla." holds low credibility in terms of it being true. Anything you can simply join, is something that is easily not questioned in depth.
They didn't become anything, we created, sustained, and evolved their reason of duty. We created them with the need to protect ourselves from ourselves. It worked at first, so we sustained the need for them. But the flaw in that method of produce security arises when you realize the nature of the concept. How do we think it's possible to deligate people to be eligible for protecting us from us. When we the public don't protect those who enforce. So they eventually evolved from protecting us, to protecting themselves from hostile people. So no, 1 they have been like this. 2. we made them become as so. 3. they have no choice in which they are protecting.
I agree in a conceptualized aspect. In my opinion time itself allows existence to remain eternal. Without the flow of time nothing would exist, due to the fact we age etc. Space is an area in which an object is held. Space itself surrounds everything, including time. Without space, time wouldn't maintain itself.
I'm starting online courses for this upcoming fall for associates. I agree college is needed. I plan on going to corperate. I'm saying that it seems like this was more quick, short and long term. I'm going to start out 11 an hour as well.
If a good is to exist, he must know. If it wasn't so, you and I would technically be gods. If you think about it, the perception of god is almighty. The only difference between us and a god is flawlessness. If he is an unknowing being, we would technically be gods.
So from my understanding you're younger? You stated how wisdom comes with age. That's an unwise perspective. You misconceived the cause of wisdom. Time doesn't create wisdom, experiences within the time do. Its also unwise to perceive intelligence as something that can be gauged. The mental apptitude of someone is incomprehensible. Yet you seem to have comprehensively gauge at least 2billion people. Assuming is unwise, and according to your outlook, you are young. Your reasoning is irrational.
What if that information was a form of manipulation? Reading something doesn't make it true. I'll put it in analogy of what google plausibly is.
lets say I create a program ran through a Bluetooth headset. On this headset I allow people to ask questions, and my information is automated response to voice recognition. Lets say you ask me whether or not god is real. Then I present the automated responses. If my intent is to dissuade the populace I would lie and let them here what pleases them. Which is the same concept of google. People find the Mayan calendar to be bullshit, yet we listen to the all knowing google. People ask for the future weather, climate and more. I think Mayans tried predicting and answering questions through and omnipotent power too. We treat google as a god, our tribute to this god is money for the internet, making us unaware, and them more powerful.
I read most of the perceptions that were posted. You guys have a different outlook to determine your conclusion. There is something called the deep web, which is the full access to surf the web. We are only granted to 3% access. Meaning, the information and knowledgeable answers we gain are from people. What I'm getting at is that the information provided could plausibly be a manipulated lie to control introspective perception. I think true brilliance comes from free thinking, without the interruption of 3rd person opinion. Most view google as an all knowing omnipotent guru. Its not about whether we are becoming lazy, or quick witted. The question is; "who is making the web operational, and is there a way to find out absolute truth of society?" so yes I believe google manipulates and deludes one's perception.
You're right, when you base it off the premise that my statement only has one interpretation. I don't observe the obligation of a purpose. The question is seeking meaning within life. life has no meaning, unless you find individual purpose. Which we all eventually find out our own purpose. life holds value only when we have purpose. The question can't be answered in an individual perspective. Due to the fact we all find perceive a different version of value, what life could mean. Something we all have is purpose and we all live. Basically saying, "A meaningful life is a life that holds purpose." Any other hypothesis is in and individual perspective, meaning people answer this question thinking their meaning is life's meaning.
It can't be justified but it can have more of an advantage. No matter the reasoning the outcome remains. War can not be justified but it can be rationalized. Such as the huge amount to die, resorts some issues on economical supply on a demand. Also America fueled both sides of the war with oil, helping with debt. Saying something is justifiable indicates there is a right and wrong. I do not believe in right and wrong, it's only a perception. We are all equal mortals sharing land, no one can determine absolute right and wrong. So no war cannot be justified but it can be rationalized.
I'm not dictating them, I'm questioning them. When did I give an order? Do you not understand a debate? You also just changed what makes you support a war. First it was , "assets" and "liberty." Now you say life preservation. How can genocide conserve life..so your solution to an issue is destroy the cause?
"Liberty." You mean that there was bloodshed of countless lives to sign a document? There is no liberty for the dead, yet you agree with it in order to feel self-freedom? You can put what ever reason behind the act, but the act remains the same. That's like saying you support murder for the right reasons.
I do have a right, especially on a debating website. Nor do I troll. Also every war was based on the intent of obtaining an "asset," and an "religious," notion. You also contradicted yourself by pointing out hitler which wasn't even a war. Where is the liberty and having people you never knew existed die. Liberty isn't tangible, war is just a front for the stabilization of a countries populous. To answer your question, no it wasn't wrong nor was it right stopping hitler. It was the humane way, yes. You should also leave emotion out of an argument, you lose sight of the point.
Well they are both already known beliefs. I don't know what answer you seek. There's individuality and how that molds a perspective and then, beliefs that mold perspective. Meaning your conclusion may be right for some atheists but not all. You can't just categorize like that. Especially when it's a group of people based on individuality within the though process.
Every known war is through the intentions of assets and religion... The world hasn't become anything, it's been this way.
You say you support war, but there isn't even one reason that you know of. You only are agreeing to not disagree. Don't support unknowingly...
It does seem to be true. It's just I can see the government and whomever restricting the supply. Sure the public masses would probably end, but we can be replaced by a much more confined society. This is the perfect opportunity for the government to make a society who wouldn't know any better.
I believe in evolution, and on a side note hitlers intentions. Not the way he went about his intentions but the rational behind them. Nice try on putting your disbelief with a negative figure head. (FYI) the crusades had more casualties then the holocaust. Your persuasion is contradicted.
It's a con in my opinion. It's a fear tactic that has way too many disadvantages. Shooting radiation particles into the stratosphere for a display of fear..? That shortens the life expectancy of the human race as a whole. We could have simply manipulated them. We could have engineered fake atom bombs, and give them to them as an act of peace. If they try to use them (knowing the intent,) then blow them up. It's a win, win, possibly fool them into trust, or see if they are truly volatile.
You were right to quote that, but your following conclusion isn't concrete due to it. True, no compromise would end the conflict. Yes victory is a definitely an achievement to those who take initiative. That doesn't mean there was only one solution, it also doesn't indicate whether or not a greater victory was about. "When the predator corners the prey, sometimes the prey bites back." America's logic was to avoid that bite and bomb them in the corner. Why not get them into the corner, and maintain them within it.
Well sure you avoided blood shed, but just that one demonstration is enough to change the world. You would risk permanently damaging the stratosphere? Sure this move gained control through fear, but fear wont stop the world from entering an unnatural ice age.
Oh, good! But on a side note, keep up the new generation of education. Your students are lucky, this in my opinion is the best was to truly learn and grasp an idea. I'm impressed that you took a step beyond the text book. Keep up the good work!
Oh i'm sorry, i'm just use to you trolling my posts. Well honestly i agree with you but i think that's one of the many ways it could end. First to happen, my idea. I think my idea will be the first step, than the final to be many a thing such as an epidemic.
That's coming from the account, named: "hitler..?" The irony lol, in all honesty i didn't think it was all that depressing just a hypothetical thought. It's kind of hard to debate, "happy" topics. Not everyone will feel all one emotion on a topic.
......? Isn't that just them giving people free food with a side of guide lines to better health..? That's like asking if tobacco companies should pay billions to help with cancer and dental care. Why should they suffer the consequences for supplying a consensual demand.
Most people who commit sexual acts typically tend to have a psychopathic mentality. I'm pretty sure 70% have it, those who commit this desire. Sense they don't have emotional cognition. It is very likely that those who were mentally stable before they delved in did become influenced. On the other hand the majority of those who have a likelihood to do such a thing (psychopaths.) would now have the means to feed that desire with porn. For your question, technically it does cause a higher likelihood. The big picture that should be looked at, which does more harm; not having for those who have the desire, or to have it to feed and tame most offenders cravings.
Anything is contemplatively possible. But it soon becomes implausible once putting those thoughts into act. There is always a possible way. Although that changes once you realize even if it was possible, the action that it requires could be impossible. Yes, i think time travel is possible. I just don't think it's possible for us to use, find, and or create what ever the method is.
Without imagination there is no knowledge. When human civilization began, so did knowledge along side it. I don't see how they could have procured knowledge then without imagining something than testing it. Imagination is the foundation, without it our knowledge would collapse.
Your statement is flawed, it's based on the premise on thinking it was in fact japan who attacked the harbor. (which is a completely irrelevant debate to the atomic bomb.) The atomic bomb is one of the worlds biggest mistake ever. It's just like when guns were introduced, those who had the mass quantity of artillery held more, "power." Well this new falsified "power," is the power that ends as a whole. I'd much rather appear weak, than to risk the outcome of, "M.A.D." I Agree with you though that it was the end of the beginning. The only thing now though, is that we will inevitably procure something more deadly and reincarnate the next ended beginning. The end in the world. It's a ripple affect, the pebble is power. The first ripple being Spears, bows, arrows, etc. Then to swords, then to guns, and so on. We need to slow our power hungry roll, before we reach that last ripple. (Leave them alone.)
-----SORRY IF I WASN'T SUPPOSE TO INPUT ON A CLASS DEBATE, i was interested-------
I surprisingly agree with your statement. I have always thought of religion as a great emotion schism within humanity. Although i didn't take into consideration the fact that the government itself is religiously affected. I had the pieces of the puzzle but you really did help connect the jigsaw for me.
The definition of brave states someone who is ready to take on anything... It's not the act of killing yourself that stops the people who oppose the action. It's the fear of the unacknowledged outcome. People are simply no suicidal because they fear death itself. The person who kills themselves do not fear what is to come, which in my opinion is brave as hell. I don't have the balls to give myself an unpredictable outcome.
There is roughly a seven billion plus populace. Of that population, 88% of the human race is in the belief of a god and or higher power. Meaning that remainder, 6.2 billion people have principles based on a incomprehensible power. Most people who believe in a religious god will decide on how to act on situations through the religious ideological principles they own. So knowing that 88% of people make decision on morally right or wrong actions through a religious point of view. It indicates that their, "god" stops them from doing so. Meaning less bad things to happen from that point of view, so in a technical sense god saves more, even if the god they believe doesn't exist. While you also must think what saving means, in this question it indicates the continuation of a life. The government itself has made it to where it is ethical by law to lethally inject anyone who commits two felonies (capital crime). That in a sense indicates the ending of a life, not saving ones life. Most will think that taking that one life will continue the lives of many others, but the question itself is whether or not the government or god is saving more lives. As i said earlier 88% of the people save and decide the lives of others in a religious aspect. That leaves the 22% who are the ones who are probably the ones saving less lives. The government itself is preventing the 22% committing more acts. If you think about it, the high quantity of religious believers will slightly become effected by the the 22, even if each individual of the 22 commits more than one act. So, in my opinion god saves more, existent or non existent. God rarely influences someone to kill, on the other hand the government is persuaded by mere things such as money. Meaning, they will do what ever it takes to get the income, violence, destructive greed, indulging pleasures (drugs,) distractions, etc. How can something so easily influenced by that save more than, the ideological perceived god.
Well seeing how no one is a virgin beyond age 12 now... he would first be confused to why he was born to a child. Secondly he would probably have a sudden panic attack of how much bull shit has changed. He'd probably smack people saying, "really?! money?! wtf is this bullshit, oh and i see you instantly send messages, i come back to this? Consumerism slaves and pointless communication systems?! What the hell guys... no wonder dad lost hope in you guys!"
I find it somewhat odd that some of the terrorist that "terrorized," on 9/11 still live. One of the plane high jackers live till this day. Also have an interview with him saying, " i don't know why they say i commit such acts, i live till this day."
I understand that point, but isn't all of that irrelevant? in your mind it wasn't, but to me it was random. Sure it's your reaction to my action of posting it, and starting from our very first conversation. But the pebble that created that ripple affect of conversations, is irrelevant.
It does, you say the existence is rational. Due to the fact you can read it on paper, that same ridiculous concept from Ezekiel is in the bible. The relevance is pointing out the fact that the bible speaks of, "Space craft with angelic creatures lifting animals into the sky."Kind of hard to believe...
Ezekiel1:15Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. 16The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel. 17When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went. 18As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four. 19And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up. 20Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. 21When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 22And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. 23And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies. 24And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings. 25And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
honestly Dantes' inferno's depiction makes more sense, either way it's bs.
I asked Satan if he would take my soul in order to allow me power to rule over the lands. Nothing has yet to happen. Knowing everything has a balance, and that Satan doesn't exist... god shouldn't either. If Satan truly existed and was depicted like he is through religious bull shit, my soul would be gone. It isn't, or at least i don't think it is. (No sarcasm.)
In my opinion i think they give the closes assumption to how well people recollect and organize information. "True," implies that it is absolutely an accurate reflection. I truly don't think human aptitude can be fully gauged through a man made test.
Yeah it would, his scenario still indicates a clone army. Each individual would be a clone of a human. United as a clone army... Also your statement of a simple flue taking an army down made no sense. DNA replication implies the pass on of bodily functions. If a flue could take down an army of clones, than it can take down an army of humans. I also don't see the psychological part coming into the affect of a clones decision. Yet again psychologically speaking, they would have the same pass on from there creator. If they cloned a veteran, i don't think the psychological paralysis would have an impact what so ever. The reason a clone army wouldn't work too well, is they lack human aptitude. A clones' potential to thrive stays the same, which in a situation above there own capabilities would cause havoc.
