WizardDevil's Waterfall RSS

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

Coming from a life where my parents were often incorrect, or downright asinine, I can complete and utterly say that not letting kids speak their minds is a terrible thing to do. I would often argue with my parents about things they were entirely wrong about - whether it was something I was being accused of, or something I wished to do that they didn't want me to (No, not drugs). Think about it. Merely because they are one's parents, does this mean they are correct all the time?

1 point

Considering the possibility that Jesus might have been nothing more than a preacher-philosopher, I would say it's quite possible, then, for anyone to be just like Jesus - especially if they can get a lot of people to write hyperbolized stories about him.

Speaking of which... Anyone here think anyone can become like Goku?

3 points

The article was entirely biased toward Christianity - especially at the end, where a quote from the Old Testament appears (Note that this cannot possibly be a Jewish reference, because it would not be called the Old Testament). While an argument stating that the government should not be controlling where individuals pray, or something of this nature, would have been entirely unbiased, one stating the government should not try and control where CHRISTIANS pray, where CHRISTIAN symbols go, and that like, is entirely biased.

2 points

One of the main tenents of science is that nothing can be proven. No one feigns that the Big Bang most definitely happened - in fact, now scientists are claiming that Big Bangs happen all the time, and are not a special occurence at all. If anyone were to claim that, without a doubt, the Big Bang happened, they'd be liars - and unscientific. However, it is the best explanation available when looking at the facts. God, however, is not even reasonably provable. Evolution explains everything that a theist can try to explain through God - why beauty exists, how the world is complex and how it formed that way, why prayer is helpful to humans (Note that I did not say that prayer works, but merely that it is helpful to humans). While Evolution is the best theory we currently have to explain these things, it is not the answer-all theory. It may, indeed, be proven incorrect sometime in the future.

1 point

I never stated it was irrelevant. I was merely stating that the reasoning behind this need not have anything to do with the actual choice of being an atheist.

1 point

No. (And while I'd like to leave it at that, I obviously cant, so.....)

This leaves open the possibility of one coming in and arguing from such childish arguments as, "No, you're wrong, cause I said so." About 33 characters, give or take a character. Entirely pointless, entirely meaningless, and entirely fallacious, but none the less something which I experience from ill minded people on a regular basis. Debating should be between individuals willing to take the time to think out their position and argue about it intelligibly. 50 characters, for all its annoyances, is not nearly as bad as it could be. (Note that my opening line, including the spaces and parentheses, is 71 characters, and 58 without the spaces. It took me nothing more than a moment to write.)

1 point

Such a law has serious flaws to it.

To begin with, consider a scenario where an 18 year old boy has a child since he was 16. Unplanned, unexpected, a mistake if you will. The 16 year old boy decides to keep the child, and attempts to do his best. Now let's say a war were to break out. At age 18, this boy, now a man, decides he wants to fight for his country. If we have a country where this is sort of the status quo (Consider the current levels of teen pregnancy) less people will be eligible to join the military. Further, even in peace times, the amount of people protecting the country from potential threats would also be dwindled down. The law wouldn't be able to truly cover these possibilities because they are common place and purely accidental.

Further, the law would have to state which kind of family a soldier could not have, for is not your parents part of your family? I'd be willing to bet that, statistically (And no I don't have any to back me up on this, so I admit the possibility I'm wrong) that most of the current individuals fighting in our armed forces are individuals who, if not for the military, would still be living with their parents for one reason or another. I'm currently 21 and am in this scenario. Because i have siblings and a mother, should this not bar me from military service? If all we can get in our military is those who have no relatives, or only distant ones, then our military would be run thin and almost meaningless.

On a moral level, I don't see a moral quarrel with the act in and of itself. The immoral thing to do would be to purposely have a family in order to cause them suffering by going to war and never being with them. Note the word purposely.

1 point

I'm unsure of what you're saying, but from the way I'm understanding it, by your logic, science doesn't exist, logic doesn't exist, philosophy doesn't exist, and debating doesn't exist. So why are you here?

1 point

I do not believe we have the option to give up - taking such a choice is just as bad as anything else currently wrong with the world. What it will take is cooperation and getting our facts straight - Is global warming truly occuring? What can help the global economy and what cannot help it? Why do people think that we're fucked for stupid things like believing homoexuality is okay? <_<

I see no reason why we cannot do these things, with a little effort, time and a lot less pride.

1 point

I find autocorrect to be extremely hilarious... Sadly, few of my friends find it nearly as funny :P

3 points

The health benefits can be explained, or hypothesized about, in terms outside of religious terms. The social aspect of religion is intergral to human health, further, a firm set of beliefs can help to ward off depression, anxiety, and many other things which can lower one's lifespan.

The statistics which show individuals who go to church live longer prove nothing about why this happens - as it says clearly in #5.

3 points

What school did you go to where they presented a godless version of Evolution?

I dunno about anyone else, but the school I went to presented Evolution as being a process where God was unnecessary - not one in which God was necessarily absent. The question of whether or not God was involved in our evolution is a matter for philosophy and religion, not science. The idea of God must first be proven for God to move into the question of our evolutionary routes.

I personally think we should hold a class in school in which we discuss such matters as they are - philosophy and religion. To place this sort of thing in the realm of science is a disgrace to science, because it is not scientific at all - it is placing the conclusion before the facts.

1 point

At the heart of this question should be whether or not the institutions involved in law making should have a say in whether or not we, as free individuals, should have the right to take our own lives. This question, regarding the morality of rights, instead of the morality of self death, should be more important to this question. People can argue for years on whether or not suicide and euthanasia are moral. And this is the issue with whether or not morality of self death should be involved in this debate - with so much disagreement, who is one individual to hoist his belief onto another?

This question leads to what I feel to be the answer. Nothing should be considered anymore right because of who the person is arguing for it - whether we agree that they are authoritative or not. An argument is right because it is right, and logically so, not because a group agrees upon it. This line of thinking has been, time and time again, proven to be fallacious, the examples of which I won't bore anyone with unless necessary. If, indeed, no one person, then, should force their opinion on any matter upon another, by this logic, then why should the government? The government can be just as wrong as another. Perhaps there are legitimate instances in which suicde or euthanasia can, indeed, be the morally acceptable choice of action. This is all based on perspective, and, in regards to one's own life, the most important perspective is the self.

Based on this line of thinking, the government should have no more a right to stop me from killing myself than any one of the members on this forum do in telling me to stop believing what I do.

1 point

Your argument (Did you steal it from that website, or are you the author of that material? Either way, seems lazy the way you presented it) tell not of whether killing oneself should be legal or whether it should not. Even if I were to ascertain a viable argument by which suicide or euthanasia could be determined immoral (Which, upon inspection, an open minded individual will not find one in your paragraphs), even then, you have failed to answer the question presented.

The question is whether or not it should be legal - not whether or not it is moral. Morality and legality are entirely exclusive and separate.

Further, your argument is the equivalent of saying, "if you do A, life will be better." This is a poor argument for what you're trying to do (Evangelize hopeless individuals into your religion). While Jesus and the religion he spawned have statistically been shown to help some people come back from the brink of suicide, so have other things. You haven't offered any real proof as to why Jesus should be the one we should trust. Why not the giant flying spaggheti monster? Would a whole group of atheists not offer the type of social support necessary in our times of need? Why not drugs and psychiatry? Can one not evade suicide through these things as well, perhaps?

For my own argument, see the left side of this debate.

1 point

This would only make sense if we take heaven and hell out of their religious contexts. The religions that generally believe in a heaven and hell also believe we must believe or worship in order to get to heaven. Without this belief, belief in a heaven and hell become just as meaningless as a God who would rather you believe arbitrary nonsense than be true to one's self.

The idea that a heaven and a hell exist, and admittance to heaven being dependent upon one's honesty and sense, are plausible philosophical concepts. But not much more. When placed inside a religious context, it no longer makes sense.

1 point

I don't understand...

I take it this is supposed to be a joke, or a logical comparison, but I actually don't understand it O.o Well, I do up until the vegetarian part, anyhow...

1 point

Not what I was attempting to say.

In the actual debate, my opinion would be that the perception is real, but there is no material form to darkness, evil, good, or cold, and therefore, realistically, they do not exist.

However, if I were to take this position, based on the two options, I would have to agree that these things are 'an absense of God'. The two options are not opposite options to the same argument. Instead, we're arguing whether or not darkness and cold are the absesne of God? What is this exactly? Or am I the only one who truly sees the nonsense of the option "these are all a lack of God"?

Recreate the topic with the actual options. If the argument is whether or not evil is LIKE cold or darkness, then make the options "Evil is a lack of God" and "God created Evil". If the argument is evil, cold and darkness either exist or are a lack of SOMETHING (NOT a lack of God, as the idea of darkness or cold being a lack of God is just... retarded) then the options would be "These exist on their own" or "These are a lack of SOMETHING".

Seriously. Try again.

1 point

Valid evidence by whose standards?

Also, I don't think the question is faith in regards to religion, but merely faith in general. And, no, coorelation is by no means a substitute for actual proof, but it is entirely relevant to belief, and, sometimes, more impressive than fact. Without faith, science, truthfully? Would not exist. For science to exist, we must have be able to find, in our own minds, a REASONABLE amount of evidence that our science will yield worthwhile results. And what palpable evidence is there that it certainly will? I would be willing to say, in most cases, none. A hypothesis is all a scientist can logically conclude upon BEFORE science occurs - and a hypothesis is SPECIFICALLY reliant upon one thing - a faith based in reason and coorelation, but NOT proof. Proof is the child of science, and science is a child of faith.

Religion, then, is just one step behind science. Religion cannot yield proof. Religion, by definition, is a product of faith and belief. But these are, for the most part, reasonable evidences, even if, no, I do not agree with them.

On the opposite hand of reasonable faith, there is blind faith. Faith entirely marred in itself is blind faith.

2 points

Wow, personal attacks? Nice argument. Point proven. I'm done.

2 points

I don't think so. Faith is, by definition, the belief in something without fact. This is not to say that it has to be BLIND faith. Blind faith is when one accepts something for no legitimate reason at all. Faith is oneself can have coorelative evidence - but not factual evidence. We have no way, and, no reason, to believe we, as humans, will always be right in the things we decide to do or believe. Yet, the only thing we can accept, if we do not trust ourselves, is inaction, and, thus, illogical unproductivity.

3 points

This argument is rigged. I like neither choice. I don't believe that cold or darkness exist, but merely they are concepts we have created to explain these phenomenon, the absense of heat and the absense of light. Good and evil are both like this - Concepts we have created to convey phenomenon which does not exist. For example, a man helps an elderly woman out of her car and helps her with his groceries. Most would say this is a good thing to do. However, there is no tangible form of goodness. There's facts, that we interpret a certain way to come to a conclusion.

The options for this argument, however, is my true problem right now. If i did not believe that these things existed, this topic forces me to say that they are the absense of God? What kind of, honestly, idiotic bullshit is that? The absense of heat is NOT the absense of God. It is a physical phenomenon related to the prescence or absence of HEAT ENERGY. Nothing more and nothing less. Further, I don't believe in God. I believe the prescence of light and the prescence of heat STILL means the absense of God.

Try again.

Edit: I forgot to mention - The reason behind my actual choice in this debate is because I believe darkness and cold exist in our minds - and was the more reasonable option, therefore, between the two.

2 points

I think men should have a say, regardless of whether or not they actually make the final decision. This decision, while, yes, ultimately weighs more on the females life, it also has an effect on the males life. Not every situation involved a woman harmed by a father who simply doesn't wish to deal with what he did. There are situations where it was a complete accident and one or the other, or both, are not financially, mentally, emotionally or physically able to care for the child, or they simply did not want the child. A father can not want a child for reasons other than selfishness. It is unfair to tell men 'deal with the consequences' while we give women the option to do away with a potential problem through one relatively simple surgery. I say, if men don't have a say, then they shouldn't have to pay child support if they don't want to.

0 points

Sorry to be 'that guy', but this seems like a pointless debate. Who cares about the terminology? Is that truly what we're fightng for? It sounds to me like we're trying to hold onto a word. Come on. If we're worried people will confuse us, atheists, people who simply lack a belief in God, with the ardent New Atheists and others of that kind, then let's come up with a new term that refers to what we are. We're not going to be able to change people's viewpoint of what an atheist is simply because we deserve it, because ardent God haters use the terminology wrong. They want the term, and sociologically, they have it. Get over it. Come up with something new.

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