CreateDebate


Catninja's Waterfall RSS

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

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

2 points

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.

0 points

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

1 point

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.

2 points

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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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

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

4 points

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.

1 point

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.

2 points

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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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...

1 point

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.

3 points

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

catninja(249) Clarified
1 point

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.

2 points

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.

3 points

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.

3 points

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

2 points

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.

1 point

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.

catninja(249) Clarified
1 point

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."

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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).

2 points

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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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).

1 point

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.

1 point

You've linked me to a Christian website.

[it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it

Seriously? I'm not surprised the belief was abandoned. Organic matter comes from organisms, which are alive.

This just proves the point that science is able to grow and develop in the light of new evidence and ideas.

So here we are, face to face with the first contradiction of evolution

This is a false and deliberate misrepresentation of evolution. This is abiogenesis, not evolution.

Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate.

Because cells can evolve too.

Everything should be in the process of changing into something else—with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.

Tiktaalik. Archaeopteryx. Australopithecus. I was able to come up with an example of each off the top of my head.

We haven't discovered all fossils yet, and individual organisms don't have a very good chance of becoming fossilised. If there weren't many in a species, none might be preserved, or we might simply not have found them. Remember there's an entire ocean that would be very difficult to search.

Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists.

False (see above).

As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism.

Yet if a need arises, it's a case of adapt or die. Take the case of the peppered moth as an example of change we can observe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepperedmothevolution

Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry! Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their genes are different. Their blood is different.

Tail length depends on habitat; if you spend a lot of time climbing then you need a longer tail for balance, or for swinging from branches.

Teeth variation depends on the food available in the climate and that individual species' diet.

Opposable thumbs depend on if the animal is evolving to be an efficient climber (no thumbs) or to use tools (thumbs).

Genes will change over millennia if the breeding pool is isolated. Humans still share 96% of their genetic material with a chimpanzee.

all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within their own families, just as God decreed

False. See my point above.

Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists.

Seismic shift, such as subduction can cause changes in the fossil layer.

All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils?

Much evolution took place during the "Cambrian Explosion".

Before the start of the Cambrian, their corpses and droppings were too small to fall quickly towards the seabed, since their drag was about the same as their weight. This meant they were destroyed by scavengers or by chemical processes before they reached the sea floor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrianexplosion#Increaseinsizeanddiversityofplanktonicanimals

Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it.

This is a guy who was writing in the nineteenth century. A lot of theories weren't backed up very well. The luminiferous ether was believed right through the nineteenth century. Science can now do better.

The Bible explains very graphically about a Flood that ravaged the face of this earth, covering the highest mountains and completely destroying all plant and animal life outside the ark.

And then a gem like this gets dropped. A book is clearly worth more to these people than observable evidence.

No such process of fossilization is taking place today. No oil or coal is forming by present natural forces at work.

This is patently false. It takes millions of years for this sort of thing to form and it requires a lot of pressure, meaning it's not possible to observe it. Even if we could observe the process, it would be taking place so gradually it would be impossible to detect.

"And, let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous (even if you are reassured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure was calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeros would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being?

This is a misrepresentation. The chances of creating something that looks like a human being are slim. They are equal to the chance of creating a human that more closely resembles an ape, or the chance of creating a Neanderthal. We could have never evolved at all, but then we wouldn't be here to marvel at how unlikely it is!

There are billions of inhabitable planets in the Universe. It is likely that on at least one, life would arise. After this it's a series of small steps, each with a degree of probability.

To follow our ancestry back through the sons of Adam, "who was the son of God," is so much more satisfying than to search through dismal swamps for bleeping monad forebears.

In the writer's opinion. Most scientists would argue it's more satisfying to actually look at the world around them and think about how far life has come.

The true cause for evil and the true remedy for it are found only in the Word of God. Sin has defaced the image of God in man, and only a personal encounter with the perfect Saviour will bring a reversal of the problem of evil.

And here's the propaganda at the end.

1 point

It says God formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

So humans came from dirt according to the Bible. Thanks for proving my point.

To believe life came from non-life takes a lot more faith, baseless faith, than to believe the Living God created living things.

It doesn't. It's still better than the intellectual cowardice associated with the cop-out clause of "we don't know so it was God".

When there is new evidence as to where life came from, the theory may change.

Living things always come from living things, and the only logical originator of the first living thing would be the Living God who was always there and always will be there.

You've contradicted yourself in this statement. If living things ALWAYS come from living things, which living thing did God come from?

So your idea is similar to abiogenesis; it's possible for something to come from nothing.

You are building a hope for death, a false hope, a fools hope, hoping to be exonerated in death and free from judgement.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the science. Science does not exist to build hope.

Scoffers walk according to their lusts. They love their lusts more than life so they fly off, riding high like moths into the fire of Hell.

This has nothing to do with anything... are you capable of making a single argument without dragging Hell into it?

1 point

Literal interpretations of Genesis imply humanity came to life by earth.

There's a good possibility that abiogenesis could have taken place in the world's oceans when there were good conditions for life to form.

However, there are other theories that suggest bacteria might have been carried on comets or meteors. I do consider that a bit of a cop-out, as the life still needs to have been formed somehow.

2 points

Climate change is the long-term alteration in climate as a result of global warming. Actually, it can involve parts of the planet becoming colder. For example, if the sea temperature rises enough for warm currents like the North Atlantic Drift to be diverted, the temperature in Britain would become lower.

Global warming is the process of greenhouse gases filling the atmosphere and trapping heat (an extreme example of global warming is Venus).

Your assertion that it's "climate change" in winter and "global warming" in summer is inaccurate.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=global%20warming,climate%20change

Google Trends shows that people tended not to search much for either term in July last year. "Climate change" had a noticeable spike in Google searches at the end of May / beginning of June (around the time Trump announced he was pulling out of the Paris Agreement). "Global warming" did not.

There are no statistics available to decide what keywords are actually in the news at specific times of year, so there is no evidence to support a seasonal inclination towards one term over the other.

1 point

What do you mean? You quoted Corinthians, which was written by Paul.

Where did Paul's information come from? Can you point me to a verse in the Old Testament?

1 point

Basically we are mammalian animals and in all other mammalian animals, the larger and stronger usually instinctively is the one who steps up when protecting family is an issue.

We no longer live in caves and most of us in the developed world don't live side-by-side, and having to contend, with wild animals. Unless you're in a very dangerous community, or a country like Nigeria or India where there is a real threat of rape, abduction or murder to your family, there is not enough physical threat in the modern world to justify needing to put the strongest member of your family in the role of "protector".

In other mammals, it is quite common for the mother to be the protector as the father often leaves after impregnating the female. An example of this is the stoat.

1 point

My sixth form had a school dress code which was followed subjectively, and it resulted in teachers picking on students they didn't like.

There was a rule where you couldn't dye your hair a bright colour. Two girls went into a lesson after the school holidays, one with bright green hair, the other with bright pink hair (let's call them Green and Pink). Green was complimented on her hair by the head of sixth form, who then told Pink in the same breath that she (Pink) had to cover it up with a hat if she didn't want to risk suspension.

The only difference? Pink wasn't well-liked by the teachers; Green was seen as something of a "special case" due to some mental health issues, and treated much more leniently in every situation.

There was also a rule where you couldn't wear short shorts unless you were wearing tights underneath. Two girls went to the head after having had an argument in which I had been involved. It was summer, so both were wearing short shorts with tights underneath. The tights were of a similar denier (thickness). One of the girls (we'll call her Sarah) was a very hard worker, a model student who ran a human rights club on Friday lunchtimes. The other girl (we'll call her Jane) was fairly average at everything.

The head of sixth form told Jane that her tights were too thin; when Jane pointed out that Sarah's tights were of the same thickness, she got the response, "It's Sarah so it's OK."

I'm sure there were unfair cases with the guys, but these were the ones that stood out in my memory.

In both cases the person discriminating was the female head of sixth form.

1 point

39% of young working millennials and 44% of older working millennials work more than one job (compared to just 29% in the general working population)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/reneemorad/2016/09/29/survey-more-than-one-third-of-working-millennials-have-a-side-job/#6355e873132f

Just under half of 15-24 year olds in the USA are employed: https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment-rate-by-age-group.htm

A study of 1,000 adults in the USA suggests that baby boomers may actually be more entitled than millennials: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/ baby-boomers-millennials-more-entitled-older-generation-savings-homeowner-income-study-house-car-a7742411.html

Millennials are not actually that much more entitled than anyone else.

However, it is more difficult for millennials to find jobs than their parents did in their youth, a job is no longer guaranteed for life, and in a lot of countries, higher education is more expensive than it was.

1 point

You're the fool if you think insulting anyone gives you the moral high ground. Watching your furious rants is oddly entertaining, like watching a toddler having a tantrum because the grown-ups aren't giving him the attention he wants.

Just don't sulk like a little boy if your so-called "debates" go completely ignored.

And if the only people who do reply are on the extreme far right, you can carry on deluding yourself that everyone on this site, and indeed the world, agrees with you. Have fun in your deluded bubble.

2 points

I've had to explain macro vs micro evolution more times than I can count

I'm not going to claim credit for someone else's writing or try and paraphrase, but this sums up what I'm trying to say.

For biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons —- this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

(https://www.thoughtco.com/g00/microevolution-vs-macroevolution-249900?i10c.referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/)

Therefore the terms, "macro" and "micro" evolution are overwhelmingly used by creationists to refute one type of evolution or both.

1 point

My friend, you never replied to my argument on "Did Jesus Hide Dinosaur Bones in the Ground to Test Our Faith"?

For your reference, here it is:

Fossilization takes an improbable event that has less chance of happening than winning the lottery.

Yes, this is true. However it is only true for each individual organism. If you take into account the number of organisms that have died, you will end up with a lot of fossils. However, there is no guarantee you will be able to find a sample of everything.

This is why we haven't got a complete fossil record.

At least that was Richard Dawkins answer for why the fossil record lacks all of these intermediaries theists demand.

The fossil record that we do have is full of transitional fossils (I'm assuming this is what you meant by intermediaries?)

Here are a few examples. I'll link the article for you at the end.

-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.

-Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.

-Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.

https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

And then we magically see 10 intermediaries on a chart.

The intermediaries we cannot find can still be charted using educated guesswork. We have the start point and the end point, and we often have at least one transitional fossil. So, scientists can normally make a good guess, which may or may not be disproven when the rest of the fossils are unearthed.

1 point

You really don't understand sarcasm, do you?

Nor irony it would seem as your president supports all of those things, therefore you must too.

Do you support them all? If not, quit suggesting liberals all support the same things.

0 points

So we're deceptive liars because we said something that went against your beliefs?

2 points

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has spiked since humans have been on this planet: https://climate.nasa.gov/system/contentpages/mainimages/203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg

Temperatures have warmed around 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) since 1880: https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

Add to this the melting glaciers, the loss of Arctic sea ice and rising sea level (https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm)

This is how we know global warming is happening.

2 points

only debate moderates

False. You've banned me and many other moderates.

You've basically banned everyone who disagrees with you or plays devil's advocate, presumably because if an idea isn't far-right conservative, you don't want to hear it. Are you really that insecure?

3 points

Coming from the guy who supports:

- Banning refugee children from the USA

- Defunding an organisation that helps prevent cancer in women

- Air strikes that kill civilians including children

- Reliance on dirty coal, which will make air dirtier and result in more cot deaths near power plants

- Leaving it to individual states to decide the legality of abortion

- Not giving fathers paid paternity leave

What makes you think you're so much better?

1 point

No, it doesn't look the same as it did 10 years ago. Europe is paying for the mistakes of Britain and the USA.

Many of those mistakes were created by a Republican president and a right-wing prime minister of a left-wing party.

1 point

It's more likely that it'll come about as a result of energy deficiency.

We currently can't sustain the whole population on nuclear and renewables. So when it's no longer possible (or economical) to extract fossil fuels, the energy industry is going to take a massive hit.

Rising energy costs will mean the poorest in society will no longer have electricity in their homes. This will lead to huge inequality, which culminates in resentment and riots.

The US and the rest of the developed world is likely to see prolonged power outages. The West's reliance on electricity means it'll be impossible to access money, use shops and access food.

The financially privileged in the developed world will suffer most; the majority of poor people in places like sub-Saharan Africa are likely to be able to continue their lives as normal.

1 point

Making numerous debates with identical themes is based off of low self esteem and need to get approval from others.

1 point

Technically speaking, a phone is a computer.

Phones are ideal for making calls, which is important to have in emergencies. They can also do most things that a laptop or desktop can and are quicker to power up.

However, if you want to do in-depth research or write anything up in digital format, they're really not that great. I often start doing things on my phone, but start up my laptop when it becomes clear they'll take me a while otherwise. And even though I can speed-text, my 90WPM typing speed is still much faster and results in fewer mistakes.

1 point

Give me a real book any day.

For starters, eBooks need to be read on a screen. Reading them on your phone or computer is bad for your eyes as the screens aren't optimised for that kind of thing. So if you want to enjoy an eBook, you have to buy a Kindle.

What do you do if you can't afford a Kindle, if you lose it or if it gets stolen? What if you want to encourage a young child to read but don't trust them with a Kindle?

If you're reading with a young child, it's much harder to be interactive with an eBook (e.g. getting them to point at pictures or following the text with your finger).

Books have character, e.g. the way they smell, the way they feel, the little tears and imperfections that show it's been well-read, the chance to find a bookmark or pencilled note in a second-hand book...

When researching, it's much easier to flick through a book to find a certain chapter, page number or the index.

What happens if we have some crisis in which we lose electricity for days, weeks or even forever? We would then lose all our written knowledge and culture, as the Internet would be down too.

1 point

When the child is going off and doing things on their own, that's the time to get them a phone. A basic flip phone, on Pay As You Go, is probably best. The child is responsible for buying their own top-ups so they have to pay for their own calls and texts.

When they decide they want a smartphone, they can save up for one.

1 point

It's more likely that Europe will become a group of federated nations, or a United States of Europe, due to the increased assimilation that's required for closer EU ties.

Either that or Europe will remain much the same as it is now.

1 point

False. I know this for a fact; Irish terrorism has been part of my country's history.

2 points

I was forced to learn to swim, to play the piano and to do two Duke of Edinburgh Awards. I was a lazy child who wouldn't have done those things on my own. So I was pushed into doing certain things, but it means I had more on my CV and when I applied to university.

However, at the age of sixteen I was also pushed into a school that really wasn't right for me and I underwent a lot of stress trying to switch partway through the school year.

I don't think most parents push too hard, unless they're tiger parents.

1 point

I need to clarify what you're asking. I assumed you were talking about adopting a child over having a child naturally, but then you switched to abortion.

Which are you referring to in your question? Adopting, or putting a child up for adoption?

1 point

Would you be able to explain to me where Paul got his information from?

1 point

Yes, if you don't hand your country off to foreigners

I thought that was the USA's whole schtick? Building up a nation of immigrants? Or is it only OK when they're white?

How dare they not allow the mass influx of white people into their countries.

It's more the case that white people don't go to live in those countries unless they have a reason to do so, e.g. for work. People don't generally migrate to countries at an economic disadvantage.

I'll address the points I've been making in more detail.

Poland being racist

37% of Poles surveyed said they wouldn't want a Jewish neighbour: http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/01/25/anti-semitism-seen-rise-poland/

People of other ethnic groups being attacked in Poland by Poles: http://www.dw.com/en/poland-racism-on-the-rise/a-36812032

Dismantling its hate crime policies: http://lambdawarszawa.org/lambdawarszawa/poland-is-dismantling-the-hate-crime-policy-warn-civil-society-groups/

Trump being racist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examplesus56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ americas/donald-trump-don-cheadle-racist-misogynistic-golf-slurs-a7612651.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/12/20/tom-arnold-claims-has-tapes-donald-trumps-racist-outtakes-from-apprentice.html

1 point

As Epicurus said:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Since evil and/or suffering happen, these statements are contradictory. An all powerful, all knowing and all loving god cannot exist while suffering continues.

True. An attempt to explain this is called a theodicy and usually requires some tweak to established doctrine in order to make it work.

1 point

It is true that you are able to achieve no matter your race or sex. I want to make my views on this very clear. I think the gender wage gap is either false or a huge exaggeration as it doesn't take into account the sorts of jobs people do; women, especially those in relationships with young families, are more likely to work part-time and are more likely to be pressured to prioritise their children over advancing their careers. There is also equality in law, at least in Western countries.

However, there is evidence that you're at a disadvantage if you're of a different racial group.

Noon (1993) sent two fake identical resumes to the top 100 companies in the United Kingdom. One had the name "Evans" and the other the name "Patel". The majority of responses were sent to "Evans" (the white name) rather than "Patel" (the Indian name).

More recently, in the United States, Bertrand and Mullainathan sent resumes with either African-American or white sounding names. They found:

Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback.

Source: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct;=j&q;=&esrc;=s&source;=web&cd;=1&ved;=0ahUKEwjc_5H3zf7UAhWhIcAKHf- RD9cQFggoMAA&url;=http://;www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html&usg;=AFQjCNEjjJgZXWzjTK6nEqh6AXvE1A53TQ

In the USA, belonging to a different racial group means you are less likely to be able to get a mortgage than your white counterparts, even when your credit rating is on similar levels:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1870173/thumbs/o-CHART-6-570.jpg?5

Black men receive longer prison sentences for similar crimes: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/RaceCharts3.png

Young white men with criminal records are more likely to get a callback on a job than young black men with clean records: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1870202/thumbs/o-CHART-13-570.jpg?6

But this is race. Let's look at sex.

Rich and Riach, two economists, sent off fake applications for jobs. Each resume was the same apart from the gender of the name. They found that qualified women were more likely to get engineering, secretarial, accountancy and computer analyst jobs than men.

In school, science is peddled as a "boy subject" and its teachers are usually male. Women are therefore less likely to take the subject forward. This means women are less likely to be able to go into STEM fields.

An exception to this is my old high school where most of the science teachers were female and there were a lot of girls taking sciences at A-level (which meant they'd be able to apply for a STEM course at university).

If you are female, you are more likely to have to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace than men. There are many cases of women being told that if they don't wear make-up, short skirts and high heels, they won't be promoted.

If you are female, you also have to make the choice between your family and your career in a way that men are rarely expected to do. If you decide not to have children to focus on your career you become "ruthless" or "unwomanly". If you decide to have children and put them in daycare, you're an "unfit mother". If you decide to have children and get your partner to look after them, you're "emasculating" him.

Taking time out for pregnancy also means you are more likely to be passed over for promotion.

So while individual choice has a huge role to play in whether or not you succeed in life, it assumes that no employer is in any way sexist or racist and that you are encouraged equally in school to go into various fields of work.

1 point

This is the same guy who said to me, and I quote:

I won't waste one second chasing you around because I have no respect for your Liberal beliefs.

Quite funny seeing as I don't consider myself a liberal, and also because he spends his time on a debating website doing nothing but trying to start ad hominem debates with liberals.

3 points

I think he's on a mission to show everyone how much he hates liberal people.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I'm going to say that SOME liberals support the addressing of other power imbalances (such as racism) through positive discrimination, to give equity rather than equality (treating people according to their needs instead of treating them exactly the same).

However, the less vocal majority of liberals see it as discrimination of another form, see equity as being too subjective and argue it will just cause a greater rift between majority and minority groups.

But bronto's mistake is assuming that all liberals subscribe to exactly the same belief system, and assuming that the extreme, minority end of the spectrum is representative of every liberal everywhere.

1 point

I eventually managed to find a less puerile satire of liberal views: http://rfnnetwork.com/california-replace-official-state-animal-politically-correct-species/

This is at least more intelligent than the memes you posted.

Liberal views can be satirised properly (and I enjoy most satire if it's relatively intelligent) but in order to do so you require a critical brain and enough emotional detachment to stop it turning into an angry, deluded rant.

A lot of the conservative humour panning liberal views was not particularly well thought-out and came from sites rampant with misspellings, a disregard for good grammar, excess punctuation or just a disregard for the norms of the non-fiction style which the piece was supposed to be imitating.

By contrast, it was quite easy to find well written and witty liberal satire of conservative views.

2 points

Unfortunately many of them are either quite specific to my country or issues I've seen debated before.

I also feel like anything related to liberalism or atheism (or anything that can be interpreted as relating to it, such as the provision of universal healthcare or an issue regarding immigration) will cause a lot more trouble than it is perhaps worth and bring out a lot of people who want to insert propaganda into one or both sides of the debate.

I've also undergone a massive change in my belief system in the last six months, so I'm still establishing my views on a lot of issues.

1 point

Yes, I understand that.

But if the lifespan of soft tissue can be extended far past the point where it should have decayed, there's no reason why there couldn't be a way to preserve it almost indefinitely.

Blood vessels are after all made up of a lot of components that don't decay easily.

1 point

I don't really support either side, so I'll pick this one, but will explain why I don't support either side.

There is definitely an idea that you are hardwired with your sexual orientation. I don't know if this means you're born with it or it just happens as you age. There is also the idea that sexual preference is fluid and can change over time.

For instance, I thought I was gay for several years but ended up in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. I still find the same sex attractive, but I've found myself to have a little more attraction to the opposite sex than I used to.

Before I started thinking about my sexual orientation (from the age of about twelve onwards), I assumed I was straight but that I was forcing myself to be interested in having a relationship when I wasn't really.

As some people express their sexuality in terms of a preference rather than a very set "I only like x", I think it's a mental thing but not something we can control. I prefer dark hair to fair hair, but I'm not convinced I was born with that preference.

So it's not a conscious choice.

I think there's also some physical biological influence, e.g. the way the brain works, but it's not necessarily anything to do with genetics. So you may or may not be born with it.

Like most things, there are probably a mixture of factors.

Whatever the reason for same-sex attraction, people should still be allowed to live their lives as they please and their attractions are perfectly valid and OK.

3 points

Humans, as a whole, love labels. Humans have always liked to subdivide themselves, whether that's by skin colour, native language, gender or nation. In the past, it was tribes and clans that caused divides, and such was people's loyalty to the group that they would fight or kill others that didn't have the same label as them. Unfortunately labelling can also lead to the extreme kinds of situations that cause the other group to be dehumanised. It was a factor behind the Holocaust, the Irish Troubles, the Sunni / Shi'ite divide, the Crusades and arguably the witch trials of the medieval period.

Nowadays people tend to prefer labels as a way to show they are individuals, in a world that has been expanding so rapidly that the current individual mentality is seriously struggling. It's where the "snowflake" insult comes from; people want to stand out from the crowd and be recognised for who they are.

I think labels fulfil several functions:

- They help you find out who you are, important in an individualistic culture

- They help you find other people like you so you can be reassured you aren't alone. People can unite and form communities behind that label, e.g. LGBT

- They can help you identify groups you want to avoid

I don't really go in for labels. I used to have a Christian identity, and before that I used the atheist label, but I don't think it's worth using the "agnostic" label unless I need to explain what I think quickly to people.

I don't really use my "bisexual" label since I'm currently in a relationship that passes for straight, and I don't particularly want to get involved with the LGBT+ community either.

I don't use a political label because people then judge you for the label rather than your individual beliefs, which might not all align with your chosen position.

I sometimes use the labels "English", "British" and "European" but only in some contexts as the former two can have quite negative connotations when used as labels and the last one is politically charged.

Some people like labels. I can accept that. But a label doesn't define who you are so much as explain who you are. You can change. You can step outside your label at times. And you should always assess a person by their beliefs, not their labels.

1 point

I'm sure I will Dermot, I just need to think of something good. Most of my debate topics are not particularly interesting. I also don't want to create dupes if I can help it.

1 point

I think there is truth to some conservative arguments. Conservatives believe everything is a matter of individual choice and free will. I don't fully agree with that as I believe there are wider societal structures that can unconsciously influence people.

Approaching a subject with a purely conservative mindset is like when you're gardening and you can easily identify the weeds. You cut off the bits of weeds that you can see instead of pulling them up at the roots. You're addressing the symptom, or the bit that's showing, but you aren't addressing all the ugly bits underneath.

Similarly, I think approaching a subject with a purely liberal mindset is like being not quite sure what needs pulling up in your garden because you can't discern everything that's harmful. You're trying too hard to see into the soil for the roots but you don't want to try pulling anything up to find out, in case you pull up something that isn't a weed.

That might be a silly analogy, sorry if it seems that way.

Extreme conservatives believe strict gender roles are the best for society, while extreme liberals want to see them done away with entirely. Gender roles can give you a very strong sense of self and sense of belonging, which helps keep society harmonious. They avoid domestic discord and they have some basis in nature, however tenuous you may argue that basis is. While liberalism allows people to break those chains and do what they want in life, extreme liberalism (such as radical feminism) criticises those who genuinely feel comfortable in those gender roles and willingly choose them. This means that people do not fill roles that they feel suited to, making them feel lost.

Bear in mind I don't believe gender roles should be enforced upon anyone, and I completely accept that many women feel more comfortable in careers than they do as a housewife. But they do have some plus sides which is why they were around for so long, and while people should be given equal opportunities they shouldn't be forgotten altogether.

Another topic is crime. Conservatives often believe that crime results from broken homes and bad parenting. There is some evidence to suggest that offenders, especially young ones, may be more likely to come from single-parent families. Single parents may have difficulty juggling the jobs they need to survive with disciplining a child. There is the argument that the child may not get enough attention from their parent and start behaving badly to get that attention.

Obviously, liberalism adds more to this picture. A lack of government support means single parents are faced with more financial pressure. They are more likely to live in poorer areas with worse educational access and simply don't have the money or resources to send their child to a different school. The schools themselves are underfunded and often can't spare the resources for an intervention if a child behaves poorly, is not attending school or is not working hard. And so on, until the child reaches adulthood and is trapped in poverty because of unemployment in the area, because they can't afford to move to somewhere where there are jobs and because they did not have the same educational opportunities as other people who may be applying for the jobs.

Conservatism can often be quite a shallow investigation of the issue. I agree that in a policy-making sense, it won't do much long-term good for tackling social problems. But there are often nuggets in a conservative argument that can be actually sound points, as long as you take care to remove the external shell of religious reasoning and / or "it's just the way things should be".

1 point

I don't have a particularly strong view on this topic, so I'm going to choose this side to balance things out a little.

I think that while it can be a deterrent to have nuclear weapons, it isn't a necessity.

Most countries don't have nuclear weapons. Admittedly, most of these countries are not particularly hostile with the countries that do have nuclear weapons.

I'm from the UK, where we have a nuclear deterrent called Trident. This is a system of submarines, in various secret locations around the world, which contain nuclear weapons. The topic of whether or not we should renew it has been the subject of much public debate in recent years, as soon Trident will need to be renewed.

Renewing a nuclear deterrent such as Trident takes a huge amount of taxpayer money which could feasibly be spent on things which will benefit the lives of citizens (or not make so many cutbacks on things which citizens need or enjoy). In a country with some social democratic leanings and publicly funded healthcare, it makes sense to not tax people more than necessary, and to try and avoid debt.

There is also the argument that it is immoral to fund Trident from taxpayers and pension schemes, when around half the British population is against a full renewal of Trident.

Nuclear weapons can be dangerous not only for our enemies, but for our allies too. Back in 2016, Trident misfired a missile at the United States. It would have caused a diplomatic, climatic and social catastrophe had the missile actually been armed.

It is unlikely that our greatest threats are going to come from nuclear war. The West is highly vulnerable to cyber-warfare, which we should also be addressing. Even if terrorist groups in the Middle East launch a nuclear weapon at the West, launching a nuclear weapon at them in retaliation will be ineffective, will probably kill civilians and cannot hope to kill all the terrorists responsible. There is also the idea that terrorists are not tied to any particular nation so they can operate from anywhere in the globe, including from the security of our own borders.

It may be more effective to have decoy nuclear missiles. Protected under Official Secrets legislation, this would have the same effect as a nuclear threat. Just having nuclear weapons around has helped keep the peace; if the West had decoys, there is still a good chance our bluff would not be called.

And if we did have to use nuclear weapons, it's worth remembering that retaliation could result in entire arsenals of such weapons being used, which would potentially make swathes of the planet uninhabitable for years to come and affect more lives than just those involved in the war.

2 points

Don't worry, I'm argumentative too. I spent years trying to find an active debate platform and I've been having the time of my life since I joined this website.

Call me strange but I get irrationally miffed when people DON'T dispute me at all, especially if I've spent a long time writing an argument... otherwise I never know if people have given in or they just don't think me worth debating.

I also like it when someone supports my argument with an extra point I hadn't thought of. It actually means more to me than an upvote does, but to be honest I just like people to engage in what I say so I can engage back and keep an interesting communication going.

Sometimes I don't have a strong opinion on a debate (like this one, I suppose), so I just choose a side to play devil's advocate or for fun. It doesn't mean I always agree one hundred percent with the side I've chosen. Don't worry, I don't dislike people who dispute me, unless they attack me as a person rather than attack my argument.

So, feel free to dispute away! Maybe we should debate sometime, as we might actually learn something from one another. It would probably also be more civil and rewarding than a lot of the debates on here.

I believe we can actually challenge one another on here, if you ever come up with a burning topic you'd like to discuss. :)

2 points

I believe it was Mill who wrote, "Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

Although being unintelligent is obviously not the same as being a farm animal, you would lose a lot of your capacity for high concept thought.

It seems to almost demean your value as a human being to select something as base as your own pleasure and desires, and sacrificing that which makes you human.

Almost all of my hobbies and interests require an average or above-average level of thought or intelligence. I have a lot of creative hobbies, I do a form of drama which involves the ability to improvise, and I really pride myself on being able to come up with spur-of-the-moment ideas. If I were to lose my intelligence, I would lose everything that makes me, me.

(Before people call me boastful, I believe myself to be creatively, linguistically and relatively philosophically intelligent, and I have a good memory, but I'm below average in social intelligence, common sense and capacity for mathematics, problem-solving or understanding and being able to follow instructions. There are many different sorts of intelligence).

There is also the idea that my mental health could one day be improved (how miserable is miserable, by the way?), or I could use my intelligence to come up with solutions to make myself happier. Failing that, I could use it to make other people happier as my happiness is not so important in the grand scheme of the world. If I was always happy and unintelligent, I would never get my intelligence back and I would never have much cause to want to better myself.

So for the sake of my humanity, I would have to pick intelligence. I would almost certainly hate myself for it, but I believe it is the better of the two options.

1 point

No, because if you're a kid then it's your parent or guardian's responsibility to set parental controls. The Internet is not designed for children and very large parts of it are designed for adults.

If you censor porn, opinions etc., then it'll be driven "underground" to the dark web, where it'll become more hardcore or extreme and potentially be a lot more dangerous.

There is also the argument that censorship goes against freedom of information. An informed citizen is potentially a citizen who thinks for themselves, which is why censorship tends to be employed in places like China and North Korea.

2 points

What was the slogan they used? I saw the one you used (liberals denying science) but they didn't have a slogan in the argument you actually replied to.

1 point

Do you have any empirical evidence that either good or evil predate humanity?

If not, then surely they are just abstract concepts invented by humanity to describe certain types of human behaviour?

Almost certainly. But sometimes you've got to change your argument depending on who's going to dispute you.

Since the guy creating the debate is known to be very religious, I decided to frame the argument in a way he'd find more persuasive, using religious philosophy.

I'm not a theist and don't personally believe in an objective concept of good and evil.

1 point

Fossilization takes an improbable event that has less chance of happening than winning the lottery.

Yes, this is true. However it is only true for each individual organism. If you take into account the number of organisms that have died, you will end up with a lot of fossils. However, there is no guarantee you will be able to find a sample of everything.

This is why we haven't got a complete fossil record.

At least that was Richard Dawkins answer for why the fossil record lacks all of these intermediaries theists demand.

The fossil record that we do have is full of transitional fossils (I'm assuming this is what you meant by intermediaries?)

Here are a few examples. I'll link the article for you at the end.

-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.

-Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.

-Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.

https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

And then we magically see 10 intermediaries on a chart.

The intermediaries we cannot find can still be charted using educated guesswork. We have the start point and the end point, and we often have at least one transitional fossil. So, scientists can normally make a good guess, which may or may not be disproven when the rest of the fossils are unearthed.

1 point

EDITED: Accidentally replied to the wrong person, my apologies for that.


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

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