To answer the question you gave, "Is abortion the taking of human life?" I will point out that actually, abortion can be the saving of human life.

If a young girl gets pregnant before her body is able to safely deliver the baby, if there is an ectopic pregnancy, or if there are such serious medical complications that the baby cannot be delivered alive, an abortion will save the life of the mother. It may not save the life of the fetus, but in the case of medical emergency the fetus cannot always be saved.

As to whether it is human, it consists of human cells. This cannot be denied. Whether it is life is another matter. In its very earliest stages the zygote is not a life in its own right -- it is organic, but it is currently a cluster of cells without any kind of consciousness.

But if we do that, don't we risk implying that we can't be responsible for our own choices and actions?

I'm normally not one for conspiracy theories, but it does seem a little coincidental that Diana's bodyguard, with whom it was rumoured she was having an affair, was removed from his position and was killed three weeks later in a motorcycle accident.

I'm not convinced that Phillip would have made the decisions, though; Diana's actions were reflecting poorly on the rest of the Royal Family and I think it more likely that someone else (maybe someone who was responsible for maintaining their public image) made a private decision to have her killed.

If you can persuade me that you're willing to make a proper contribution to this debate, I will lift the ban I've just placed.

This is a serious debate. Please do not go off-topic.

Oh yes, I'm happy to disagree with people as long as it remains civil, and you've always been pretty civil towards me.

But it's a nice feeling when you realise you agree with someone on something.

That's not what he was actually saying, if you had read the OP.

He was saying that MANY Americans aren't interested in the rest of the world. Not the elite or those in power who have vested interests in what happens outside the USA, but the average American on a site like this one.

We aren't talking about the people who offer the UK gas, or keep a check on China. Those aren't the everyday Americans writing debate after debate and hypocritically belittling those who don't understand American issues because well, those people aren't American.

I have seen many a site where most people assume you to be American and are very surprised when they find out you aren't because "everyone's American on the Internet".

Considering the number of very samey US-centric arguments on here, this site is not much of an exception.

Jeffrey, I know we've had many disagreements on this site, but I completely agree with you on this.

I've seen several debaters trying to make specifically American issues relate to the whole world. For example, those who criticise "liberals" when what they actually mean is the American Democrat party and their supporters, or those who criticise "conservatives" when they mean Republicans.

I can see how it might be interpreted that way.

On the other hand, modern black culture is not all a result of white people. The concept of a collective culture may have been formed as a response to slavery and oppression, but the people who engage in that culture were the ones who shaped and influenced it.

This is the kind of attitude that makes me actually want to be a Christian again.

the most violent race of human beings throughout the history of mankind.

We can only assume this. In recent history, from perhaps the 1600s onwards, this is perhaps true, as white people were the most powerful racial group.

But we have no records for the time in history when all humans had a tribal mentality and would gang up on each other to steal land and resources, and wipe out other cultures. Furthermore, there were plenty of very violent non-European civilisations such as the Mongols, Atzecs and so on. There were plenty of very violent non-European leaders such as Mao and Pol Pot.

So in short; yes I agree with you on everything but the bit I quoted above. When Empress Wu was torturing her subjects and Attila the Hun was leading invasions, the Europeans were a disorganised rabble who still painted their faces with woad.

In some ways I feel like a country shouldn't ban something on religious grounds. Allowing one religion to have monopoly over the laws of a country can lead to escalating situations where the country becomes a totalitarian theocracy. For example, women in Saudi Arabia not being allowed to do anything without a male relative's permission.

However, consumption of beef is not a right, and if the majority of the population supports the ban then it should stay.

I would have said a fairer course of action to non-Hindus would have been to allow the consumption of beef in private property, but ban it from being sold by street vendors and in restaurants.

I voted Labour in June's General Election, but I may have voted Conservative if I'd liked their policies and Theresa May had struck me as actually being competent at her job. As it was, I preferred to vote May out and have another run with some new policies and ways of thinking. I didn't vote Labour because I was left-wing.

While I basically support everyone to have the same rights and freedoms, I don't shout about it from the rooftops and people who do that tend to give me the impression that they want to know how great and wonderful a citizen they are, rather than actually caring about the issues.

Although I'm bisexual, I'm not really a fan of the LGBT community as a group as the vocal people in that group strike me as being more aggressive than progressive. Similarly, I'm not really a fan of the modern day feminist community.

I have some more right-wing attitudes to education, child discipline and immigration. I don't agree with Trump, who is further right than I am, but I don't see the issue with having slower, more controlled immigration so public services can cope better with the population growth and requirement for people to understand more languages.

I don't see the issue with slapping a child on the wrist (in school or the home) as long as you aren't beating them or touching them inappropriately.

I am in favour of gun control, but most people in the UK support gun control and it's not particularly tied to a political party.

I oppose fox hunting, as most left- and right-wingers do.

I believe in people working hard to earn an appropriate place in society, and I believe that businesses are a good thing for the economy (but I also believe that they should not be allowed to grow more powerful than governments, and they should be paying, not dodging tax).

I strongly dislike being put into the left-wing box. I might lean slightly more left with my opinions than I do right, but I have more in common with someone slightly on the right than I do an extremist on the left.

I'll take this to mean I've won the argument as you don't have anything to say in reply.

I think it less to do with liberals and more to do with history.

Many black people were forcibly separated from their cultures when they were sold into slavery. Today, a lot of African-Americans do not know their original roots because of this. Therefore "black culture" came about not as a result of old traditions, but as a way for people to distinguish themselves from the whites.

(I say a lot of African-Americans; I understand there are some African-Americans who settled in Western countries at a later date and retained their original cultures).

Asian-Americans tend to have stronger ties to their original culture than African-Americans do. Asian cultures, especially the Confucian cultures, have a strong emphasis on educational achievement. Parents are often very keen to see their children succeed.

Indian parents, especially Hindus, also tend to want to see their children become doctors, lawyers etc. so push them to work hard at school.

It's mostly about culture, not about who's in charge.

I think it's very simplistic to say that right-wingers are less intelligent. There is a tendency for them to be less well educated, but that alone doesn't necessarily mean they're less intelligent.

Does the study take into account the different types of left- and right-wingers? For example, you can be fiscally right-wing but not morally right-wing. You can be a left-winger who believes everything they read in the newspaper. What sort of intelligence is being tested?

People who are dogmatic are more likely to be less intelligent and this goes for both extremes on the left-right spectrum. This is because adhering blindly to one set of beliefs and immediately rejecting critical analysis of these beliefs implies gullibility and / or a lack of ability to think for oneself. Both right-wing and left-wing people can be dogmatic.

Failing to critically analyse your own beliefs, or being unable to acknowledge that you aren't always right, doesn't necessarily mean low intelligence but it can be indicative.

Prejudice, too, can and has been demonstrated by the left wing, although it tends to be wrapped up in a parcel of, "This isn't racism / sexism, it's justice."

I think there is a general trend for the right-wing to have lower IQs than the left-wing, but I have a feeling that low IQs are associated with extremes and the higher IQs are generally more centrist.

Of course I might be biased in that view.

Agreed, but it goes both ways.

Extreme liberals may throw accusations if they happen to be poor at debating.

However, I have also seen plenty of examples of extreme conservatives living up to those accusations if they themselves are losing. They often attack their opponent with ad hominems, calling them evil, crooked, dumb, or making inferences on their gender or race.

The extremes on both sides are equally unpalatable. Thankfully they are a small minority of the population, even if they are vocal.

We all know that their are species of animals (the vast minority) whereby the female is the stronger of their species.

Don't you ever do research before you blindly write something down?

Among animals other than mammals and birds, it is far more common for females to be larger than males. Females are the larger sex in most reptiles other than lizards and crocodilians; in most amphibians and fishes; in the vast majority insects, spiders and other arthropods; in almost all “wormy” animals; in various phyla of tiny animals such as water bears and rotifers; and in almost all parasitic animals. In hard-shelled animals such as molluscs and lamp shells the sexes seldom differ in size, but when they do, females are the larger sex, and the same is true for brittle stars, sea lilies and sea stars. Overall, I discovered size differences between the sexes in 49 different animal classes and in 86 percent of these females were the larger sex

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-fairbairn/animal-female-size b3177995.html

With hyenas, the female is the stronger of their group so therefore they are OBVIOUSLY following the role they were meant to follow.

This is true. Hyenas have to survive. Humans have society, and their needs (Maslow) are met by modern life, so the rules of nature do not apply as they would in the wild.

Men are OBIOUSLY the stronger of the two in the human race. Feminists refuse to accept the natural order of human beings. They ignore evolution, they ignore God, they are insecure people who refuse to accept the naturral order to life.

No one is forcing them to play any role, we are simply not trying to deny the naturral roles of people.

"Natural roles" assume that we still live in "nature". Unless you're living in a tribe somewhere in the Amazon rainforest, you probably don't live in nature. You probably live a relatively comfortable existence with access to food, shelter, technology and so on, since you are able to use the Internet.

The roles are clearly not that natural if they vary between cultures. For example, take a look at the Chambri people of Papua New Guinea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people

I, along with the majority of "feminists" (traditional, not SJW feminists) are happy to allow men and women to do whatever roles they like, whether they are traditional or not. Your role is your choice, but you don't have a right to force someone to do something.

The roles between male and female in nature is obvious.

Actually they aren't.

In hyenas, the females are more aggressive than the males, and the head of a hyena clan is female.

In jacana birds, the females are not the ones that nurture their young. This is left to the males, and the females leave to mate with other jacanas.

In clownfish, the female clownfish is the dominant in the group. If the dominant clownfish dies, the second biggest clownfish changes sex to female and becomes the dominant clownfish.

In buffalo, the female buffalo democratically decide the movements of the entire herd.

In bees, the queen bee is female.

In komodo dragons, the female komodo dragon can lay fertilised eggs without a male.

In the praying mantis, the female is larger than the male and frequently decapitates the male after mating.

In marmosets, female marmosets do not nurture their young and leave this to the fathers.

In topi antelopes, the female is the one which pesters the male for mating.

In orcas, the pod is matriarchal and headed by a female.

In lions, the lionesses are the ones which do the hunting.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3487328/donald-trump-anthem-twitter/

I can put context-free sources into my debates too.

I cannot understand how anyone could trust a Christian to make rational decisions based on hard facts when their minds are contaminated with fanciful notions of some mythical character zooming around the cosmos who must be praised every day in prayer, verse and hymn.

The majority of Christians are perfectly capable of making rational decisions, especially those who are not strong followers of the faith and believe that rational thought is a better means to understanding faith anyway. A very good example of this is Quakers.

Please, please cast your mind back to the time when you were being brainwashed by the ''CHILD-LOVING'' clergy and recall some of the ridiculous nonsense you were asked to believe.

I wasn't asked to believe anything in church. In sermons, we had Bible passages analysed and were told that these might be good guidelines. I've spoken to plenty of people who'll take much of the Bible as allegory.

Christians are dangerous people to have in public office, especially high office.

''I MUST PUSH THE BUTTON IN THE NAME OF GOD AND COUNTRY''.

Mushroom clouds appearing all over the globe because ''The Lord'' came to me in a dream and ordered me to annihilate all sinners.

And those people are the sort of people that should be getting de-radicalised. I never said every single Christian ever was going to be suitable for the role.

Then again, I live in the UK where people are Christian, but usually do a good job of keeping their beliefs separate from their work and family lives.

How can God be love when He hates those who will have nothing good from Him? God is love, so how can an atheist in Hell be loved by God? How can God be love while He hates atheists?

Isn't it good to know God punishes sin, and isn't it good to know sinners will be forever separated from those who thank God for His mercy and know that they have it?

You must be a satire account. Either that or you're undergoing a serious crisis of faith, in which case... message me. I've been there.

Moving onto the topic:

How can God be love when He hates those who will have nothing good from Him?

God does not hate. This is the very kind of Westboro Baptist Church / Old Testament style thinking you tell everyone NOT to follow. God is love. Jesus told us that much. Jesus also told us to love our neighbours, no matter what colour or creed they may be. God is not a hypocrite... so God does not hate.

God is love, so how can an atheist in Hell be loved by God?

Either Hell does not exist, or God still loves you in Hell (which I find strange... but that's religion for you).

How can God be love while He hates atheists?

Atheists do not have any idea that God exists. Perhaps, because you've been raised a certain way, you have been "trained" to see God in things. But think of it like being an artist or a mortician. If you put on "artist" glasses then you see great beauty in everything and everything is a potential subject for a painting or a piece of creative art. If you put on "mortician" glasses then you might see death, rot and decay where others might see life. It's just an example and doesn't correlate to how theists and atheists see the world differently. It also doesn't mean that one view is right and one wrong. It just illustrates how you might not see the same thing in something because you have not been "trained" to see it.

So if atheists don't see God through no fault of their own other than they don't have access to the "God" glasses, why would God hate them? God loves everyone.

Isn't it good to know God punishes sin, and isn't it good to know sinners will be forever separated from those who thank God for His mercy and know that they have it?

Why create beings in the first place if you don't intend to be merciful?

It's God's rules, he can let who he likes into heaven. But it doesn't necessarily prove there is a hell. Jesus said that if we believe then we get life beyond death. If we go to hell, we're still conscious after death. It would make more sense to annihilate the sinners so they simply no longer exist, than it would to turn them into the toys of one of God's former followers.

Just because certain theists on this site write ridiculous debates, it doesn't mean those opposed to them can't take the moral high ground.

Of course Christians should be allowed to run for public office. Any properly qualified individual from any demographic should be allowed to influence the politics of their country.

Christianity is not a disease to be cured. Whilst one might disagree with someone's beliefs, it doesn't mean they need another religion, or atheism, being pushed down their throats.

The only time I would say an individual should not be allowed to run is if they are completely fanatical (Christian, Marxist, atheist etc.) and their beliefs are going to harm others, in which case they should probably be de-radicalised.

We should also encourage those holding official positions to be properly representative. Around 70% of Americans identify as Christian, therefore around 70% of elected officials should ideally identify in the same way (they don't have to be "fundamental").

In the UK, the ideal number of Christians would be around 40% to reflect the religious views of the populace.

I don't think any publicly funded school should be allowed to enforce any type of worldview.

This includes political parties and religions. While atheism is not a religion it is still a worldview. You can be a quiet atheist just as you can be a quiet Republican or a quiet Christian, but it remains something that shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Having a secular school is fine as it doesn't favour any one religion. Having a multi-faith school is something I'm OK with.

Having a school promoting atheism (rather than simply free-thinking) makes me uncomfortable as much as a school promoting Christianity, Marxism or anything else would make me uncomfortable.

I think it's dangerous to put up pro-atheism posters in a science department because it encourages the belief that science is directly opposed to theism when this is not the case.

Something like, "Question Everything" would be more appropriate as it's not pushing atheism but still encouraging young people to be independent thinkers -- something which a pro-atheism poster is actually not doing.

Now you know how everyone else felt when seeing Bill O'Reilly throw fits on live TV.

I think a better question for debate would be: "Is NowASaint afraid of atheists?"

After all, you wouldn't expend this much time and effort trying to bring atheism down at every opportunity, if you were secure in your own beliefs. The fact you seem to hate atheism implies you're afraid they might influence you and change your mind.

Either way, you're obviously a "real" Christian whereas I never was, so this is clearly the way Christ would have acted.

"You're stupid, you're going to hell, now follow me!"

Oh wait...

It benefits the pre-modern society as its teachings encourage people to accept the status quo "because it's how God intended".

In a world with low life expectancy, it provides a comfort blanket for those who expect to die young.

However, it's not so beneficial when faced with the social and technological progress of the modern world, as it is often a conservative force that doesn't want to lose its power over people.

Here's my argument: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Is thereagodthatiscapableofandisactiveininfluencingthelivesofhumans#arg828250

I mean, so does the constant pathological desire to spread one's views by creating a hundred new debates every day with the same topics and buzzwords, and not replying to opposing points. It doesn't mean it's a mental disorder.

Onto the actual topic, I did respond to you when you posted this in a debate earlier -- as I have done the last few times you've taken a debate argument into a new debate -- but like the other times, I'm still awaiting a reply.

There are three main "brands" of Islam: Sunni, Shia and Sufism. Sunni Islam has a small branch called Salafi, which is responsible for a disproportionate amount of radicalisation, and has also killed a lot of mainstream Sunnis.

Sufism is generally quite peaceful.

Shia is seen as being relatively peaceful and the literature contains a lot less violence and more guidance on how to resist oppression in an ethical way. This is because the Shia school faced less political oppression. Shia Muslims have also not given up itjihad (I assume you know what this means, since you know about Islam).

Sunni Islam is a larger group (and I will impress upon you that like all religious groups, it is composed of individuals who do not all think as a collective). However, it has been influenced more by Wahabism (I assume you also know what this means?) which has resulted in schisms, meaning radical groups like Salafi exist.

The problem is that the media and many politicians, who don't know any better, lump all types of Islam together, which is a bit like lumping Catholics and Protestants together and blaming all followers of Christianity for something like the Magdalene Laundries.

Just checking, are you referring to me (as you disputed me)?

Why should we believe Paul over any 21st century preacher who claims to know things that weren't previously mentioned in the Bible?

I'm not sure how humanity can justify making other living things suffer for the sake of its own vanity.

I can see why testing pharmaceuticals on animals may be justified as animals like mice are argued to have less of a capacity for suffering. But for the sake of beauty and skincare, we should either test on artificial skin grown in the lab, or get people to volunteer to test it.

I seem to recall seeing something from Fox News where the (male) newsreader descended into huge, globbing fake tears because of some news story where someone wasn't being a proper patriot, or something. "I'm sorry... I just LOVE THIS COUNTRY SO MUCH... HOW COULD PEOPLE DO THIS?"

Not only unprofessional, but incredibly manipulative.

After the Manchester attack I was curious to see how the American news might sensationalise it so I went on Fox News. I immediately became suspicious... all the "advisors" they had on the air were unusually attractive, immaculate-looking young women who looked like they were fresh out of college. These "advisors" weren't asked any questions; the male newsreader sat on the sofa between them and monopolised the discussion, while draping himself around them. There was another advisor, an older woman via video link, who was being pressed for a "woman's" view on the tragedy like she had some magical insight because of her chromosomes.

I would have laughed, had I not realised this was the sort of everyday viewing the right-wing consumed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWuE3KSgnOw

The video link is an example of Fox News being a clown network.

I've never been so thankful for the BBC and Sky News. The level of professionalism on a lot of British TV news stations seems to be much higher.

If we were able to solve all real problems on Earth (though I would argue that money would still need to be spent in order to maintain the solutions to these problems), I'd say it'd be worth it to investigate aliens.

However, I think alien investigation would probably be more likely to yield results if we were to send out probes in our own Solar System to explore potential hotbeds for life, like the moon Ganymede which contains ice, or if we were to investigate comets like the Rosetta probe did.

If we are to discover alien life is possible, we are much more likely to be successful if we start small. If we discover bacteria on another moon or planet, that's the point where we've established life exists elsewhere, and we could go back to beaming radio messages.

No, I don't think you have to know or believe you're an oppressor to be one.

Obviously it's much clearer-cut if you know you're squashing certain people down, but you can be unaware of what you're doing and still be squashing those people down.

For example, you could be a man in the 19th century who genuinely believes women do not have the logical capabilities to make a sensible choice, and is worried that to allow them the vote would be to doom the country. This may be due to Victorian ideas or the kind of "science" that being peddled about by phrenologists etc. at that time.

You could have been taught in school that Jews are a threat to the Aryan race and if you don't have any reason to question it then you'll believe it just as surely as you would if you'd been taught the earth was flat.

I acknowledge it also paints the human race in a bad light to see everyone as either an oppressor or a victim. So while we may play the role of one or the other at times, our power shifts through our lives. So a child is "oppressed" in that they have less power than the adults in charge, but they can still take the role of a playground bully. A low-end office worker may have less power than his boss, but he can still go home and beat his wife. His wife may hold another sort of power (e.g. financial or social) over him, and so it goes on...

Oppression is not always "bad" (for example, letting pets or young children do whatever they like is probably not a good idea).

For the most part it's power dynamics and I also don't agree with the notion that all white people (or men, or straight people, or able-bodied people) are oppressors and all black people (or women, or gay / queer people, or disabled people) are victims. Some groups may or may not have certain advantages or generally hold more power in society, but it's too complex to try and draw generalisations.

I'll take this side to play devil's advocate.

"Being the oppressor" is subjective. You could argue that you are the oppressor if you are directly allowing oppression to take place. For example, a man in the late 19th century using physical force to keep his wife in the kitchen and out of the polling station, or a white person in 20th century America forcing a black person to the back of the bus.

There is also the argument that if you are complicit in oppression, or if you are allowing yourself to benefit from the oppression without doing anything to stop it, then you're part of the oppressing group.

Examples include:

The daughter of a slave owner who is in full knowledge of what her father is doing, but chooses to ignore it because she has a very comfortable and wealthy life. She uses dehumanising slurs to refer to the slaves and enjoys watching them get punished, though she doesn't oversee or punish them herself.

A youngster in 1930s Germany who believes the Jews to be evil. When he goes out with his parents, he sees their behaviour towards them and doesn't stop it or even consider that it is wrong. He and his school friends talk about what they want to do to Jews "to help save Germany" but never carry out their fantasies.

A young woman in modern day Russia has three older brothers whom she knows routinely beat up gay men coming out of underground haunts in central Moscow. She doesn't particularly agree with what they're doing, but she doesn't do anything to try and stop them.

We could expand that to say that two centuries ago, a specific class of people (white slave owners and their families in the Deep South) were the oppressors. So yes, classes of people can be oppressors.

However, expanding this to an entire skin colour, gender or sexual orientation is very dangerous as it implies that huge groups of diverse people who don't hold a central shared viewpoint all think exactly the same way.

I don't think they should be completely logical but logic is far more important to a debate than emotion.

When the debate is on a more objective topic (for example, arguing about whether something is real), logic is especially important because the side with the most logical reasoning is more likely to be the one that's correct.

When it's something more subjective, such as whether something is moral, emotional reasoning has more of a role to play but should not be used as a crutch.

Emotion tends to be what people resort to when they have no logic to back their arguments up. As someone who prefers to stay calm and logical, it irks me if someone's argument is nothing but emotion, as that's when the fallacies usually start.

This isn't an answer to the question.

The question focuses on a god's influence over human life. Not the universe.

Your answer could equally well be given by a deist, who does not believe in a god who intervenes in human affairs, but who believes a conscious entity of some description brought the universe into being.

It is also possible that something can be created from your "magic nothing": http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/making-something-nothing-theory-says-matter-can-be-conjured-vacuum

https://phys.org/news/2010-12-theoretical-physics-breakthrough-antimatter-vacuum.html

I'm not particularly opinionated on this matter, but the No side needs some love.

SETI costs $2.5 million a year. In the grand scheme of things, and considering how much countries like the USA spend on other things, that really isn't very much.

Even if radio waves travel at the speed of light, our nearest star (excluding the Sun) is just over 4 light years away. For a contact to be successful, there are a lot of things that would need to happen:

1. The region of the universe where the radio waves are going must contain at least one star with a planetary system.

2. At least one planet in that star's planetary system must be capable of sustaining life.

3. The life-sustaining planet must have life on it.

4. That life must be reasonably evolved (not bacteria).

5. That life must be of human-level or above intelligence. For example, dinosaurs are complex life forms, and the likelihood of finding something else so complex close by is very low, but they would not be of sufficient intelligence to be able to respond.

6. That life must have the technology to detect the transmissions from Earth. Don't forget that before the 20th century, we would not have been able to detect the transmissions. So we are assuming the life is in the equivalent of our 20th century or later.

7. The transmissions must come through properly.

8. That life has to recognise the transmissions as being extra-terrestrial.

9. That life must have the technology and willingness to respond to us.

10. Back on Earth, assuming the SETI project has not been abandoned or humans have gone extinct, we have to still have the ability to respond to the signal.

11. Then what?

We would not be able to visit the aliens, learning things from them would be very difficult given the length of time transmissions take, and there is the chance the life would be hostile.

As can be seen the probability of getting a response in a nearby system is so absurdly low it begs the question of why we don't put the money to better use.

Spend it on better telescopes, better instruments, more scientists. Or stop looking out to the stars and focus on improving life for people on Earth -- the life that we know really exists.

Pal, you're an atheist.

You're an atheist for every single god that exists or has ever existed, with the exception of the Jewish one. You don't believe in Thor, Ra, Woden, Guanyin, Susanoo, Kukulcan or Vishnu. I just went one god further than you.

If you'd been raised in a different culture or at a different period of history you'd believe in a different god and think the Christians were the heretics.

If your only critique of agnosticism -- not being sure if God exists, or not being particularly fussed because it is not impacting your life -- is that it's "stupid" then I think you need to reexamine your own beliefs.

You're a parrot

Funny you call me a parrot when you have two identical responses you rattle off in every debate no matter the subject:

"God did this, atheists are fools for not seeing it!"

"Repent you sinner for you will be cast into the lake of fire and burn in hell for all eternity."

Dermot... he thinks I'm Irish because my profile says "United Kingdom"... he must not have done too well in his world history exam!

When my Irish friend was complaining about not having done as well in his Leaving Certificate exams as he'd wanted, I should have reassured him that they don't actually exist...

This is priceless.

I'm so impressed that the right-wing Daily Fail reported that story. Normally they don't report stories that go against their agenda, or if they do they distort the facts until the story becomes a half-truth.

Not really. The majority of environmentalists want to live a relatively nice lifestyle, but the thing that sets them apart is that they try and avoid waste and an excessive carbon footprint.

It would be hypocritical if you were taking a lot of unnecessary hot showers or driving places you could realistically walk.

But a lot of environmentalists are happy to simply try and reduce their harm to the environment (e.g. by making sure they recycle as much as possible, not leaving lights on in rooms that aren't being used, cycling instead of driving and so on).

You completely missed the fact the original post was mocking the ancients for believing gods came from water. The idea that humans were made out of earth is really not that different.

You are going to act that stupid and then expect me to read your twisted renderings of my statements and your stupid responses?

I don't know, but you seem to expect me to, so may as well extend the courtesy.

Atheism is soooo stupid.

I'm not an atheist but I still disagree. Disbelieving in a god isn't stupid.

You just can't face reality, can you?

Most atheists would argue that the reality we can see is the one that exists. As for not being able to face reality, atheists aren't the ones with the afterlife comfort blanket. When you're dead you're dead and that's it. It might be scary, but it's better than the idea that you can go to heaven as long as you do x, y and z.

You hope to be exonerated in death and exempt from Hell, don't you?

I don't want to go to any afterlife, thank you. Being forced to continue to exist after one's natural life has ended sounds like torture no matter how pleasant it is. And it's not about being "exonerated" because if I die and there's no afterlife, there's nobody to gloat to. I wouldn't even know I was "exonerated".

You think you are better, stronger, and smarter than God, don't you?

Atheists don't believe there is a God, so there's no competition.

If there actually was an all-powerful God then God would win.

God says you are a fool and I have to agree with God.

Only your version of God. The thousands of other gods which have existed across the millennia -- which, by the way, have no more or less evidence than the one that's currently in favour -- have had little to say on the topic.

They are if they are implemented unfairly.

For instance, dress codes at work for a woman might involve high heels and make-up. High heels are extremely uncomfortable and can lead to foot deformities (not to mention some women cannot physically wear them due to disabilities etc.). Make-up has been linked to skin cancer, women may not want to wear it and the only reason why you would wear it is to look pretty. It has no other function.

The dress code I mentioned would be sexist assuming the only requirement for men is a suit and some smart shoes.

My sixth form had a dress code but it was not rigorously followed. For example, we were told that our skin couldn't touch our seat when we were sitting down, or it meant our clothes were too short. Guys often broke this rule with their shorts, but it was the girls that were called out on it much more often (even if they were wearing shorts and not a skirt).

There was one girl, of about 17 years old, who was told her skirt was "distracting" an adult male teacher.

There was another girl who was told her tights were "giving the wrong impression" when she was sitting right next to another girl whose tights were of the same denier (thickness). The only difference was that one was a model student and the other girl was not.

Then again, the dress code was still fairly lenient in most situations. It was better than having to wear a uniform, especially considering we were in sixth form (ages 16-18 and an optional two years of study, for those who aren't familiar with the UK system).

Yes, we do need to eat meat, at least in nature. Meat contains the proteins we need to sustain our energy. Being exclusively vegetarian is a modern-day choice as we have much greater access to protein supplements, mycoproteins and beans and lentils that may not grow in our part of the world.

Humans are by nature omnivorous; they derive certain nutrients from plants, while things like proteins come from other animals.

Onto the question of is it ethical.

I don't think it's ethical to eat meat that's been reared in inhumane conditions, such as chickens that have been kept in cages, birds that have been force-fed (foie gras) or calves that have been locked away in sheds and deprived of maternal contact (veal).

Free range animals and wild animals that have been hunted are more ethical as they have had a better quality of life.

However, those of us who eat a lot of meat should also consider the destructive force that cattle rearing etc. has on the environment, e.g. deforestation to make way for poor quality pasture.