CreateDebate


Skaruts's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Skaruts's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Why not?

The people going would be happier, I would be happier, everyone would be happier.

Of course, prudes wouldn't be happier, but fuck them, no one called them to watch.

Win/win.

2 points

No matter how hard anyone believes whatever they believe, and no matter how many people agree with it, reality will not budge.

Reality is, in the most absolute form, undeniable, irrefutable and indestructible. No deniable, refutable and destructible fantasy can ever prevail in such a clash.

1 point

Everyone and their mothers would be properly taught how to think coherently since elementary school, rather than being only the scientists that learn that in universities.

That would mitigate most of the world's problems...

1 point

Better late than never. Fuck sake, we can't be soft hearted and amicable towards populations that aren't willing to reciprocate.

The latest years have been proving us that the people who are in charge don't necessarily have a higher IQ than any common mortal.

Skaruts(195) Clarified
1 point

Why would you want to join an ideology when ideologies are what have been causing most of the conflicts the world has seen through history and in modern times?

Emotional reasoning is what feeds ideologies. Just because you agree with a thing or three is no good reason to side with any ideology. Ever.

Stay rational rather than emotional. ;)

1 point

That's quite the non sequitur...

I'm not a feminist and I support abortion to the fullest that is within reason and safety for the woman.

1 point

Actually, women CAN do any of that. If they don't do it, it's because they chose not to. There's nothing to stop them.

If they don't do it because they are afraid of WORDS! then it's still their own choice.

A woman who acts the way she wants despite WORDS is the woman who's praiseworthy, not the one who cowers behind the pity of others. Brave people do more to change the world than cowards.

History was never made by cowards.

1 point

Yes, but that has nothing to do with inequality, and that's just one cherry picked "problem" in YOUR society. There are many of the same sort of "problems" that affect women and men in that same way, and you're just choosing to focus on one that, seemingly, favors your convictions (confirmation bias).

That women in muslim countries had that sort of problem be the worse of them, they'd be doing really well. Women in western societies are doing that well.

The attitude to have towards that kind of thing is to make people see their hypocrisy, not to become a hypocrite yourself.

A woman who laughs and calls herself a slut before anyone else can do it, is a brave and praiseworthy woman who's doing a ton more to lead the world out of that mentality than the people who incite snow-flake mentality onto women in general.

Do not celebrate weakness. Take the weak and make them stronger.

1 point

I'd hire a full-time harem! That would leave me with 99.999% of the 100 million to feed the poor with.

1 point

If it was naturally cruel, it would've been extinct a long, long time ago. If you put ten cruel people in an island and wait, they will self destruct.

Humans are naturally competitive and survivalists. Both traits that made us prevail the ages and the eras, but also traits that sometimes, in modern culture, are expressed in what many perceive as forms of cruelty. But there are ways in which you can observe the natural tendency to be kind to each other. Kids tend to be troublesome, but mostly due to what they learn with their friends, or due to rebellion towards authoritative parenting.

Unkind people are not the majority, they're just more noticeable since they're usually damaging, loud, etc. Kind people tend to gang up on the unkind and prevail, as happened in the two world wars we know, and in many lesser conflicts in history.

1 point

An intelligent and open minded Wiccan might be able to point out things that both sides were neglecting to consider. Same happens with an atheist on a religious debate. Leaving people out just because they don't share your opinion or your opposer's opinion is not very intelectualy healthy thing to do. One might vote "neither" and still might or might not have interesting things to add to the argument anyway.

I don't believe you can make a third category now, but I believe you can do it when creating a debate. Some time ago people could create their own categories. Don't know what happened to that...

Skaruts(195) Clarified
1 point

It's just a philosophy, not my religion.

Many people try to disqualify buddhism as a religion using that reasoning, however is fails to take in consideration that buddhism has many of the properties that qualify religions, in which believing in a deity is not mandatory. I can't judge your position towards satanism from what you said, but just wanted to underline that.

As you said later on, people follow buddha, but buddha is not a supernatural deity, and still, yes, budhism is qualified as a religion, as it, again, has many of the same properties that qualify something as a religion.

Still, you don't need to identify as anything in particular in order to absorb its good practices. My mother, just like some examples you gave, wasn't a buddhist and could never be confused as one, even despite that she adopted many of their ideologies to her life. That doesn't make someone a religious person, and for that reason I find it hard to believe that your choice to identify as a satanist is justified (though, again, I don't know up to which point you are into it).

I don't believe I him or any of their supernatural

You see, this kind of contradicts your avatar and your name, through which one gets a first impression on where you stand.

Some satanists are jus angsty teens that do so

True, and very ridiculous at that too.

I don't know what statement you're referring to..

I meant my previous statement.

Well only if they are serving a supernatural purpose. Like if someone prays to Satan or invokes a demon then that is a religious practice because you have to believe in the theism to conduct it.

Exactly. Most of what I see is exactly that. Further on you refer to something else as mainstream satanism, but at least where I live this is the mainstream satanism, even if it's not very mainstream on the big picture. And it's mostly what I was refering to in my first response.

I may be ill informed if there's a more serious minded and benevolent or socially and individually beneficial version of satanism. But this kind of satanism is what I refer to as a sub-set of christianity, where most of them don't even realise the contradictions they fall into (some not believing in god yet hating it, some not noticing they believe the same things just with a different attitude towards them, etc). Some of them don't even know what gehenna was except from what they read in Cradle of Filth music lyrics (one of my favorite bands. :) Ironicaly.)

1 point

You should have created a neutral category. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in either satan or god, and I have to downvote my own comments to be sure to not contribute to any of the sides, since I don't believe any of them has any more meaning than the other.

1 point

You still believe in a religious mythological character if you're a satanist. And you probably still believe in god if you feel the need to be at the side of something opposite to it.

I'm not a satanist, I'm an atheist, and that's because I don't believe in things that aren't evidently true. Satan is just as included in that statement as god is. And satanist rituals, practices and worshipings, are enough to classify satanism as a form of religion (more often than not, at least in europe and in the US, some sort of sub-set of christianity).

And like it or not, satan is an invention that blossomed from religious (leaders) beliefs as a way to instill fear on people thinking about desobeying their doctrine.

3 points

The devil is but a part of religions, you know? Your religion tells you about the prophets, about christ, and also about satan. Or is it not true that it tells you if you don't worship mohamed you will end up with satan? Whether you like it or not, satan is but something that belongs to religious beliefs, as a way to induce people to obey their religion. What you hate is just a part of what you love.

Satanism is included in what I consider as "religious beliefs" (more often than not, it's but a rebel sub-set of christianity), since their conduct has many of the properties that classifies a religion.

1 point

We're on the same boat. But I'm curious about what astrologers and believers in astrology think about this.

Skaruts(195) Clarified
0 points

Satan is a part of christianity. In fact, lucifer and hell had nothing to do with the common depiction we give it nowadays, of some kind of monster with a goatie (and many many others) and a (supposedly) underground cave full of fire that you may get into in the afterlife. Hell was, in their time, (as depicted in the bible, if I'm not mistaken) a dump where they dumped the dead bodies of those not worthy of jesus' love and such things. Lucifer was who ran the dump or something.

Hell was not something of the afterlife nor supernatural, but something very real (assuming the stories in the bible and christianity are historicaly real), although, the reasons why they dumped the bodies there had influence from supernatural beliefs.

I can't remember all the details so take all I just described as just as a rather close approximation to what it was (my best attempt from the top of my head now).

But the point is, satan is part of christianity. Most satanists don't even think about that, I guess. Most christians don't either. It could be argued that satanism is but a sub-set of christianity as well. A rather fanatic/fundamentalist rebel/revolted subset of it. Either way, Satan, in it's current depictions and in mythological depictions, is just as imaginary as god.

EDIT: That dump was Gehenna.

1 point

Energy is not the movement of atoms. Electrons and protons have energy in them, and empty space (without particles, without radiation, without matter of any kind) still has energy that can create matter, and still has weight.

Go on youtube and look for a video called A Universe from Nothing by the astrophysicist Laurence Krauss. He's much better at explaining this than I'd ever be.

2 points

Existence of matter only proves matter exists. I don't understand how people can infer anything else from that and fail to detect their fallacy.

1 point

Scince doesn't prove things. Science disproves things. It's only in math that you can prove things, not in science.

Still, if science disproves the existence of souls (which pretty much does already by default, since there's no evidence for it), many people still need to have a personal imaginary friend to make them feel safe.

1 point

Neither. They're both deluded positions.

Where is that neutral button again?

1 point

I read a book called "The Seventh Seal" by the portuguese author and reporter "José Rodrigues dos Santos", in which the character learns about how the hebrew numerology was used in the time the bible was written and before that to convert words into numbers for varied reasons.

I don't remember the details, but he pointed out that the name Neron had the value of 666 and the name Jesus 888. The fact that 888 was a higher number symbolized how the people who calculated it considered Jesus to be above the emperour Nero (which isn't surprising considering they were christians).

As a conclusion, from the character in the book, Neron Kaiser was the true anti-christ.

I couldn't really do the same math myself, mostly because there's multiple variations of numerologies and, if I recall correctly, of hebrew too, and, being a complete layman at hebrew I couldn't find the correct data to evaluate. However, it seems to make sense, as the emperour Nero was probably the biggest threat for christ and for the christians.

EDIT: Actualy, I just found this: http://ostrakinos.wordpress.com/2006/06/ 06/neron-kaiser-the-calculated-beast/

And this: http://www.math.harvard.edu/~elkies/mp666.html

But none of them points towards sources of hebrew alphabets or something that could bring us to do the math for ourselves... which is annoying...

1 point

The way they are doing it, no. Not at all.

There's one big difference between teaching myths that shouldn't be taken serious, considering the evidence against them, in a separate classroom, and teaching myths and stating them as facts, in a science classroom, and that they should be taken seriously over any evidence against them.

I wouldn't have a problem with teaching it in the former sense. This is not what's being done in certain countries, and I'm totally against that. Religion has no place in science classrooms.

1 point

By all means, yes. Only retrograd conservatives and religious magoos think otherwise.

Of course, parents should educate their kids in a way that they could have at least an idea of what they're getting into. But sex WILL be a part of their teen age, whether parents want it or not.

And it's only healthy for them. Both physically and mentally healthy. Sex and relationships are part of what makes a boy become a man and a girl become a woman. It's part of our nature and it's part of our growth experiences that makes us feel whole.


2 of 11 Pages: << Prev Next >>

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