CreateDebate


ReventonRage's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of ReventonRage's arguments, looking across every debate.
ReventonRage(626) Clarified
1 point

Haha. I think so too. I was always writing to answer the motion. That was why I was confused as to why you seemed to have a similar point of view as mine.

Any scarce resource, which is traded, is an economic good. Unless educators want to start working for free, and all the other resources that go to educating people start appearing out of thin air, it will be an economic good.

Again, I have to apologise for my gross statement, which did not reflect what I was meaning to say. I do not think that education should only be treated as an economic good, which is all you have portrayed your position to be.

This is a good argument.

I stand by my statement that the parent wants the child to succeed, and that the state wants the state to succeed.

Thank you for the compliment. I am assuming that you would tend to agree with the argument.

I also agree with your statement that the parent wants the child to succeed. However, I think that this is not enough reason to say that a child should not be allowed the choice to learn about creationism in school.

The child choosing, as opposed to the parent, choosing, or the child as opposed to anyone else?

parent: to the extent that the educational choices mirror both the future material interests (the child can succeed in the world) and the child's moral education (which the state is not, and should not be responsible for).

anyone, other than the child: The same reason that we do not allow minors to enter into contracts, or (most of the time) charge them with adult crimes. They are not (legally) mature enough to be held responsible for their own decisions.

But look, with regards to choice of subjects/topics being taught in schools, this would be greatly irrelevant. The child may not have the legal right of consent in cases that relate to contracts, but with regards to choosing what they study in school, I would think that they very much have a legal right to do so. For example, should one ban children or anyone under the legal age of consent from choosing to study Chemistry over Biology? This is where I think you'll go down a very slippery slope.

If they were culpable, yes.

Of course they are! Children can still be legally charged for committing crimes. But how do you think the question of culpability has any bearing on whether they should be allowed to make a choice as to whether they want to learn about creationism?

Whoever is responsible (may be held legally liable) for the child's actions; whoever is the child's legal guardian (including himself, if emancipated) is the best choice. They have the most interest in the success of the child.

Again, I do not see that such a person would necessarily make the best choice for the child. This is simply a false appeal to authority.

Yes, I am.

What subjects do you imagine would be taught, if you were to allow suggestions and a vote among the students of a typical grammar school? A typical High school? :)

Well, are you saying that we should entirely disregard the child's choices? As I have said, to make informed choices, one must have choices in the first place. And I think that students should at least have the choice to study creationism as a topic, which is what this entire debate is about.

I would not limit myself to suggesting a specific list. But, I would think that theology (which the topic of creationism should be taught under, in my opinion) should be on that list.

aside: Kudos on your writing. The writing style and the structure of arguments are excellent.

Haha. Thanks for the compliment. I still find my writings very convoluted at times, which is why I have had to rephrase my arguments when I am debating with you and I sincerely apologise for that.

It mothered modern culure but it is not actually modern culture.

I didn't say it was modern culture. Don't misconstrue my words.

Works of art, music, and sculptures. These things are luxuries. not at all important to the many problems that plague our world today.

And inventions of science and technology are not luxuries? Tell that to those living in absolute poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.

Furthermore, instruments do not solve our problems, people do. And for people to have the impetus to solve problems, we need to constantly self-reflect and think about how our actions impact others. This was what the Chinese philosopher Confucius argued for. Confucius recommended that people reflected on their actions three times each day. If I were to use this example, a majority of people might not be able to understand what the Confucius's Analects says in the original text, but that does not mean that it is not important.

Reguardless of what it says. It only helps if people can understand it. Which, the majority cant. And im pretty sure modern writers have written the same things in language that is easy for everyone to understand. Shakespeare just wrote it first.

My first literature teacher told me that those who say exactly what you are saying that it is difficult to understand Shakespeare, haven't actually read Shakespeare at all. You obviously show yourself to be extremely uncultured, specifically when it comes to Shakespearean literature.

And, you'd find that most modern writers draw huge references to Shakespeare's work. One example is the two-time Booker Prize winner and 2003 Nobel Laureate in Literature, essayist, novelist linguist and translator J.M. Coetzee. For example, in his book Disgrace, he quotes Shakespeare's Sonnet 1, "From fairest creature we desire increase, / that thereby beauty's rose might never die." Beautiful words written by Shakespeare. Coetzee quoted this to depict the irrational rationalisation of a sex addict who's a, fictional, communications professor. The novel, Disgrace, sets itself to highlight the life of those who have experienced the gruesome Apartheid in South Africa. And anyone who knows any history about the Apartheid and racial discrimination and conflict would know that this book is not only a great contribution to our English and, more importantly, South African cultures, but also a great reminder of the irrationality of racial discrimination. I would think that that is an important problem in the world today.

The point is it's irrelevant in modern day. Past culture is not important at all.

How so? Past culture is the mother of modern culture. All of modern culture is rooted in the past culture.

Science is. Logic is. Skills are needed in economics, foreign affairs, science and technology, engineering, ext.

And very little of those skills are needed in creating works of art, such as music and sculptures, where an understanding of literature would be important.

In a world with war, global warming, terrorism, and increasing demand for technological advancement, Shakespeare is out or place.

Really? The last I checked, works of Shakespeare have provided mirrors of human nature. They show how the best and worst of humans can act when in various environments. Such depictions would give us opportunities to reflect upon our own actions and perhaps help us make better decisions in the future.

And who has (or is most likely to have) the child's best interests at heart? The parents, or the government?

Whether or not which party has the best interests of the child should have little influence whether or not the child should be given the choice of being taught creationism or not. Just because one has the child's best interests at heart does not necessarily imply that one always will make the best decisions for the child or even tend to make the best decisions for the child.

A market good that has a higher marginal utility (is more useful) is a better available means to achieve the ends desired than some other means. That is an economic definition of superior quality.

I should have re-phrased and first ask you the question, "More useful, to who?" Yes, I do not doubt that your economic definition is true when we are speaking about economic goods. However, just as you argue that education is not necessarily a right, I would argue that there are no sufficient reasons to suggest that education is necessarily an economic good or should be analysed as an economic good. That is because education has such a large disparity in terms of variety and it's impact on people that it cannot be analysed as a whole. What is important is not completely cutting out the possibility of giving the widest and most sensible range of education options to students to choose from, which is what this debate is about.

It is the parents' responsibility to see to the education of the child. Doing that in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the child is not bad. The government doing that in a manner that is in the best interest of the state, and not the child, is a bad thing. I stand by my statement.

Even if I were to agree with your statement (and I don't), the outcome of one's education is not determined by what type of education one receives or who the education provider/s is/are. It is very much a determinate of the individual student's attitude and what he/she chooses to, ultimately, make out of their education. All the parents and government can do is to help them make informed choices. But to be able to make informed choices, one must necessarily have sufficient choices in the first place. Sufficient in terms of appropriate scope and depth of education. And I would argue that creationism is appropriate, when doing studies in comparative religion and theology. One might not agree with theological concepts, theories or arguments, but that does not mean that one should not study them or that one should not have the choice to study them.

The parents are acting as a proxy for the child, in the absence of the legal right to choose their own education and the child's inability to make a rational decision as to what sort of education is in his own self interest.

Why should you have a legal right to choose their own education? I'm afraid you'll run the risk of going down a very slippery slope because at what level do you think a child has the right to choose what they study?

Furthermore, if it is in the child's own self interest, shouldn't the child be the the ultimate decision maker? In a free market economic model, that is always the case in a specific market.

No, it is a criteria for choosing the child's proxy.

And are parents the best choice of the child's proxy in all cases? Or does it stop when the parents have no further personal and emotional interest in the child? And then what? Will you make the child's education entirely arbitrary?

(1) Bearing in mind that the government will always make decisions based upon what is good for the government and (2) no third party would be any more likely to protect the interests of the child

On what basis do make these claims?

what criteria would you use to choose the child's proxy for deciding what is best for that child?

Are you assuming that I think a child needs a proxy in terms of choosing what subjects they study in schools?

The parents are the consumers. The product is the education of the child. The ends which the parents wish to achieve is the success of the child.

But what you are doing is using the children's education merely as a means to an end (i.e. your personal feeling of achievement in having a successful child). You are not respecting the child as an end in themselves. In such a free market set up, all you are concerned with the motive of the parents, since they are the consumers, and completely neglecting the children's interests.

A superior quality (more useful) product will eventually gain more market share.

How is "superior quality" necessarily equivalent to "more useful"?

You quoting Murphey does not answer my question. If you were even suggesting that indoctrination by the government (via choosing what the children should and must study) is bad, then isn't it a fact that parents choosing what their children should and must study is also indoctrination, and therefore bad?

The parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child. The state has no emotional interest, and an incentive toward the good of the state, not the child.

Now, you may say this. But look at your prior statement on the free market. The only form of consumer welfare that your free market was concerned with was that of the parents', when in actual fact, the children are the more direct consumers of the service provided, education.

Furthermore, whether or not a "parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child", is utterly inconsequential because this is merely an argument from emotion. Just because you have a vested emotional interest in and toward the good of the child does not mean you necessarily (1) should make decisions for the child and/or (2) make the best decisions for the child.

Really? What about being stage and/or screen actors? Or scriptwriters? How about journalists, news anchors and TV program hosts? Those who work in the advertising and marketing industries? These are just some jobs which could very possibly require a higher level of proficiency in the English language. And just because it is not a job requirement does not make it invaluable as a form of knowledge. For example, being able to press and fold clothes might not be a major job requirement other than perhaps a domestic helper, but that does not mean that it is not an important, fundamental lifeskill. In the context of literature, the study of literature at such levels helps to preserve and perhaps enrich the culture of English speaking societies. Just as infrastructure and sculpture preserve the architectural heritage of a society, works of literature, such as those by Shakespeare, preserve the language heritage of our society.

So, there would be a free market of ideas, right?

You support a free market of ideas, right? Okay, let's look at what you say.

I would much prefer that parents (including myself) be at liberty to choose those subjects which they believe will benefit their children the most

Wait, in a free market, the market forces of demand and supply decide which are the best theories and ideas based on their own value. What you are saying here is that parents should decide which ideas are more valuable. That is absolutely hypocritical.

than the government indoctrinate the children into whatever value system it believes will make good, little worker drones or "entitlement" votes for the state.

Right. If the government choosing what children study is indoctrination, then what does that make parents choosing the subjects their children study? I would think that that is extremely close to indoctrination as well. Again, a conflicting, at least, and hypocritical, at worst, statement.

ReventonRage(626) Clarified
1 point

There never were and never will be any evidence for bronze age mythology.

And I agree with you, so I have no idea why you are trying to dispute my argument.

And the rest of your statement is thoroughly convoluted, so I have no idea what I am supposed to rebut and/or clarify.

ReventonRage(626) Clarified
2 points

I did a brief search of quotes by Norman L. Geisler, the author of the book that you've raised.

One of the quotes I found is this. Norman said, “A skeptic once said to me, 'I don't believe the Bible because it has miracles.' I said, 'Name one.' He said, 'Turning water into wine. Do you believe that?' I said, 'Yeah, it happens all the time.' He said, 'What do you mean?' I said, 'Well, rain goes through the grapevine up into the grape, and the grape turns into wine. All Jesus did was speed it up a little bit.”

Well, all I can say that there is absolutely no credible evidence that supports the ability of Jesus, or anyone, to "speed it (turning water from rain into wine) a little bit", to the rate that Jesus did (i.e. immediate transformation).

Yeah just like evolution which I am currently studying in biology and the whole thing is so confusing. And I don't agree on it.

Just because a topic is confusing that is why you shove it under a rug and/or completely dismiss it as untrue or illogical? That is academic dishonesty. When some one wants to make a stand on whether he/she agrees or disagrees with an academic theory, he/she must necessarily give sufficient logical, sound, valid and binding reasons to justify their opinion.

explains about creationism in scientific terms and they aren't using the Bible and they are using eternal sources

Really? Enlighten me. Give me concrete, peer-reviewed pieces of evidence.

Sorry I haven't replied you for so long, I'm happy to engage in discussion if you're still interested.

It is irrelevant to modern writing. If you wrote like Shakespeare nowadays nobody would understand you. Good literature is something that generally every reader can understand upon reading it.

I disagree with you on a few levels.

First, you said, "Good literature is something that generally every reader can understand upon reading it." This is definitely not true. There are so many sophisticated writers today such as Salman Rushie and perhaps Anne Rice who write incredible works of literature without every reader understanding all of what they are writing just the first time. Good literature should not be judged by how easy it is to understand alone, but how sophisticated it is and how relatable it is to the readers.

And you said that, "It is irrelevant to modern writing. If you wrote like Shakespeare nowadays nobody would understand you."

Why is it irrelevant to modern writing? Shakespeare invented words like "assassin" (and thus, "assassinate" and "assassination") and phrases like "as cool as a cucumber". It would be great for students to know the etymology of these English words and phrases. If anything, it makes the English curriculum much more interesting and fruitful.

It shouldn't need to be analyzed 50 times over for a metaphor that might be there. I find it annoying

First, just because you find such in depth analysis annoying does not mean that Shakespeare should not be in the high school curriculum. That is just falsely appealing to emotion.

Second, such analysis is required to put words in in context, of how the words are used in a sentence, monologue or soliloquy and of the societal context of Shakespeare's time and/or the historical, societal context of the time period Shakespeare is writing about (with reference to the famous tetralogy).

I'm back, again.

Yeah, I am on the same page with you on this. Purely because I think that, at least where education is concerned, giving students more choice as to what they can study is better.

We have to remember two things, though:

1. No everyone who wants to learn about creationism necessarily have to agree with creationism.

2. Creationism has no place in a science classroom, unless the sources and teachings are backed up with peer-reviewed scientific theories, experiments and pieces of evidence.

Ignoring srom's extremely stupid and ignorant statement, I think that this is a profoundly difficult question to answer.

First, by asking if the dead have rights, are we asking about persons who have lived before and are dead or are we asking about humans who are not alive. Distinguishing between the two would differentiate between whether or not humans like say the late Benjamin Franklin (to give a completely random example) have rights vis-a-vis a foetus (an example of a human who is not alive).

Next, does such a question presuppose that persons or, more generally, humans have rights in the first place? If it does, then why should we make such an assumption a priori? If it doesn't, then why not?

And finally, if we were to say that rights exist at all, then what kind of rights exist? What rights do persons or humans who are alive have?

These are profoundly deep questions and implications that cannot be dismissed.

For the sake of this argument, I will assume that persons who are alive do have rights. I would then argue that the difference between those persons who are alive versus those who are dead would be the idea of sentience. If a human is not sentient, then I do not think that he/she can claim to have rights to anything at all.

Many of the rocks that lie beneath our feet are know as sedimentary rocks. This means they were originally laid down under water, and when the water eventually disappeared, the sediment dried, hardened, and became rock.

A very poor description of the formation of sedimentary rocks. They are formed when detritus undergo a process called cementation as minerals precipitate from a solution in a water body.

About 85% of the rock surface around the world is made up of sedimentary rock, indicating some time in the past, the world was covered by water

This is true, but it does not serve as proper evidence for Noah's Flood. According to the Theory of Plate Tectonics, the current tectonic plates on the crust were split up from a supercontinent, called Pangaea, that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras. This was surrounded by a single ocean, called Panthalassa, that covered the rest of the surface of the Earth. As a result of rifting in the Early and Middle Jurassic periods, Pangaea broke up to form two smaller supercontinents, Laurasia and Gondwanaland. These were separated by the Tethys Ocean. Eventually, over millions of years of rifting, Laurasia and Gondwanaland eventually split up again, resulting in the tectonic plates and corresponding oceans that we know today. During rifting and subduction, some of these land areas previously buried under water will be exposed above the surface, thus revealing sedimentary rocks on Earth's land.

Did you know that marine fossils have been discovered even on the highest mountain peaks? Its a fact. But many people say "Those mountains weren't necessarily mountains when they were covered by water. Tectonic plates have been up heaved and lowered many times through out history. True. But geology does provide evidence as we shall see, for massive flooding in every part of the world.

Yes. And do you know where these mountain peaks are? I'll tell you. They're, primarily, in the Himalayan mountain range. What happened was that due to the tremendous amount of rifting that occurred in the early eras of Earth's tectonic development, part of the ocean floor of the Tethys Ocean was uplifted, allowing for the formation of the Himalayan range over millions of years. Thus, what we know as the Himalayan mountains was actually made from land that originally made up the ocean floor of the Tethys Ocean.

Thus, what you thought was a flood was actually an ocean. I could go into more detail, but (1) I don't think you're clever enough to understand and (2) I think I've given sufficient information to rebut your imaginary dream.

Note: I am, actually, quite an excellent Geographer as well. (I scored A* for Geography at the GCE O Level, A Level and Higher A Level, and I did an undergraduate course in Geography as well.) So, don't try and bullshit me with geographical theories.

Ah! One of my other passions apart fro- debate and philosophy would be literature! My reason for advocating Shakespearean literature to be taught in schools is simple - it is beautiful.

It is beautiful because the depth and sophistication of Shakespeare's work inspired many modern tales and developments in the English language. Words such as "assassin" (and "assassination") and phrases like "cool as a cucumber" were invented by Shakespeare. Much more lessons in etymology could be learnt by studying Shakespeare's work. This will definitely allow students to better develop their reading and writing skills.

I am quite sick of abortion debates, so I'll write my three strongest arguments for abortion and let's see if any of you "pro-life" people can rebut them. While many people have formulated different arguments for abortion (some better than others), not all of them are grounded in the concept of sentience. Unlike them, all of my three arguments do, at least, relate to the concept of sentience.

1. The Sentience Argument

1. Only a being that is conscious and capable of experiencing pleasure and pain can be said to have interests.

2. A sentient, and therefore morally significant, being is one with an interest in continued life.

3. Ergo, only a sentient being can be said to perhaps have a right to life. (From (2) )

4. Normal human foetus begins to possess a rudimentary capacity for sentience in the second trimester.

5. Ergo, an early term foetus is NOT a being with an interest in its own continued life. (From (3) and (4) ) (Or, Only a human foetus from the second trimester on can perhaps be said to have a right to life)

6. Ergo, an early term human foetus (i.e. foetus in the first trimester) does not have a right to life (from (5) )

7. Ergo, an early term abortion is morally permissible (from (6) ).

2. The Utilitarian Argument

1. Different sentient beings experience differing degrees or intensities of experiences such as suffering.

2. The prospect of death and dying is a more intense experience for a sentient being that possesses capabilities such as foreknowledge, fear, anticipation, and fuller recognition of dangers and of their own interests.

3. Ergo, the principle of respect for the interests of sentient beings does not imply that all sentient beings have an equal right to life. (from (1) and (2) )

4. A foetus, sentient or otherwise, does not possess foreknowledge, fear, anticipation, and fuller recognition of dangers and of their own interests.

5. Ergo, a sentient foetus may be accorded lesser moral significance than the sentient adult human being in whose body it gestates. (from (3) and (4) )

6. Ergo, the suffering experienced by a sentient late term foetus terminated through abortion, would be less than the suffering experienced by the pregnant woman, a sentient being, were she forced to continue with the pregnancy. (from (1), (2) and (4) )

7. Ergo, a sentient pregnant woman has a greater right to life than a (sentient) foetus. (from (3) and (6) )

8. Ergo, a late term abortion is morally permissible (from (7) )

3. The Personhood Argument

1. Personhood is defined in terms of the possession of characteristics and capacities such as consciousness, ability to reason, self-motivated activity, communication, and possession of a concept of the self.

2. It is more seriously morally impermissible to kill a person than a non-person, even a sentient non-person.

3. An early-stage foetus possesses little, if anything, in the way of consciousness, self-conceptualisation, reasoning and communication abilities.

4. Ergo, focuses are not persons (from (1) and (3) )

5. Ergo, foetuses cannot possess interests or rights, including the right to life (from (4) )

6. Ergo, it is not morally impermissible to kill them (from (5) ).

You might have noticed that in all three of my arguments, my conclusions are not necessarily the same. I am not advocating for a convergence in conclusion when I posit these arguments. I am merely stating three (quite) good arguments for abortion.

ReventonRage(626) Clarified
1 point

I know that, I worded the question very arse about tit. I was essentially saying that the definition is subjective.

Oh! The fault is mine!

Essentially, your question is whether or not the definition is subjective, yes? Well, in the English language, definitions are like axioms, though not exactly so. They are generally agreed upon by the community for the convenience of communication. Yes, it does make it subjective in this way. However, if you were to question whether or not the definition is subjective, it would be to posit some sort of a circular argument, I feel.

If you declare or come out as a homosexual then you made that choice to declare or come out as a homosexual.

Well duh! BUT, that is still different from becoming homosexual. One can be a homosexual and not declare it to the public. One prime example is Anderson Cooper. There is a difference between being a homosexual and declaring yourself as one. But, I wouldn't expect a naive and unsophisticated person such as yourself to know the difference.

I love such debates. It forces people to think (er, perhaps Srom should consider taking part...)

Well, I'm no philosopher, but I'll have a go anyway. Chances are what I'll say will make no sense at all, but worth a try.

Touche! ;)

But if the agent in question is one that produced the effect of space and time, wouldn't it be misplaced to apply the rules of contingency to this agent?

I think such a question would be a straw man, unfortunately. The "effect" in question was referring to the Big Bang and not the phenomena of space and time.

If it were not possible for anything to exist spatially and temporally, how could one demand that the cause be spatially and temporally contingent?

The assumption of this question is quite flawed. Theists do claim that it is possible for something to exist independent of space and time conditions. The burden is upon them to prove that such an assumption holds true.

But the odds we're discussing are far longer than that of the lottery. We're discussing odds of numbers so long, there aren't enough atoms in the universe to write it down.

I contend that the magnitude of the problem does not excuse the argument from being fundamentally fallacious. For example, an argument that commits the fallacy of appealing to authority is still fallacious, regardless of how credible and/reliable (or otherwise) the particular authority is.

But is that definition not subjective?

Uh yes. But "not subjective", in philosophical terms, is the same as "objective.

In that it is unknowable to our minds, but the definition is not applicable to other minds.

Nope. You have misinterpreted the definition. "Mind-independence" refers to all* minds. To argue that it is not applicable to minds other than our own would be to commit the genetic fallacy.

And yet Billy Craig sees it as the greatest ever proposed ;)

Ah well. He isn't exactly the best theistic philosopher/debater, even in our time.

Then I ask you to provide alternative explanations for the Resurrection.

That is really out of the question.

It was nice to debate with you again Reventon.

I share your sentiments. I wouldn't be able to debate as often as I (you or anyone of my friends here) would like due to military commitments.

Ah, Chuck... This devil's advocate thing is slowly burgeoning in CD! I don't have too much time here, so I'll just do a brief run down of why I disagree with each of these arguments.

The cosmological argument

Seeing as the universe probably came from the Big Bang, which brought our space and time into existence, the cause would have to be immaterial and timeless.

I'm no scientist, so I cannot comment on the science of it. Rather, I'll use an unorthodox approach by challenging the argument using philosophy and logic. OK. When we ask what is the cause of something, we are asking the agency which produced the effect in question. Thus, "causes" are spatially and temporally contingent. To say that there is a cause that is independent of space and time would be to ask an incoherent question. It would be the same as asking, "Which point on Earth is north of the North Pole?"

Teleological Argument

The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously.

Really? This commits the lottery fallacy. For example, if I were to buy a lottery ticket and I win and, say, 2 billion others did not, would that mean that someone rigged or designed the lottery in my favor? After all, the chances (1 in 2 billion and one) were also extremely, incomprehensibly long!

Objective morality

Is there actually objective morality? In philosophy, the term "objective" refers to "mind independence". My argument is that even if there is objective morality, it is, by definition, unknowable because we can't know anything if that object or idea is independent of our mind's thoughts and conceptions. Hell, since God is an unembodied mind, if he exists, even he can't know objective morality.

The resurrection of Jesus

This is the most stupid argument ever proposed. The underlying premise of the argument is that Jesus was supposedly of messianic descent. To argue that evidence of a resurrection (of which there is, arguably, none) somehow affirm's his messianic claim would be to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Personal experience

This is highly dubious. If someone claims to be insane, isn't it reasonable to question if he/she actually is insane or inflicted by some sort of mental disability? And when asked such a question, even if mental disabilities are personal experiences, don't there need to be some sort of proof of mental disability? To mount such an argument would be to say that mental disabilities exist because some people claim to be experiencing it. Furthermore, claims of personal experiences of God have always been culturally specific. For example, have you ever heard of any Christian who has repeatedly claimed that Thor, Isis, Allah or Zeus exist simultaneously?

You aren't born with it because you are young and you can't just say out of the blue I was a homosexual it has to be later down in life when you make that decision.

How does this prove that homosexuality is not natural? And no. Homosexuals did not decide to become homosexual. They merely decided to declare or come out as homosexuals.

I am not going to dispute your argument because it doesn't make sense

Show me how my argument doesn't make sense then. If you're going to make allegations, at least have the courage to back your statements up.

its too hard

Is it too difficult to understand? Or is it that you're too simple-minded to be able to understand? Or, it could be the fact that you're faced with an atheistic argument that actually makes sense to you, but you aren't brave enough to man up to your mistake.

I already did my part explaining the existence of God to many people on here and all you do is reject the evidence

Yes, I reject your "evidence" because I have very good reasons to do so. You, on the other hand, have not proven any of us wrong.

I am done explaining things about God because you don't get and never will get it until you die and you will realize that being in atheist was a mistake.

Ah... I am not done explaining things about atheism because you don't get and never will get it until you die and you will realize that being a Christian was a mistake. ;)

I did my part its time to do yours.

What are you talking about? I provided a solid argument for atheism. You haven't provided any good arguments for whether or not God is good.

ReventonRage(626) Clarified
1 point

Uh, I think he probably slept on his caps lock button... Still, only an idiot will think that putting caps lock on will MAKE HIS POINT CLEARER...


1 of 34 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]