They let children that are underage watch porn
It is not as if computers choose to do that, or anything. Besides, there are far worse things in life than porn.
the also waste you time when you could be finding something good to do.
Says the person posting this response on a computer.
And not all things computer related are a waste of time. They can give you information, help you network, get directions, etc. If the person using the computer is wasting their time, that is their choice. Don't blame the tool, blame the user.
they are the source of slang words come on WHAT are slang words.
Well, they are A source. But the swing kids and various ethnic American groups had slang DECADES before computers. Slang will always be there. And so what? What is bad about slang?
ban computer before they take over the world.
They already have. And thing are a heck of a lot more efficient now.
1.7 mb pdf...further, one that my computer doesn't want to read without downloading another program. I don't think I'd know that if I didn't try.
The text you printed was out of context. It didn't say word one about RFIDs. It simply said details about...something...that was never identified.
Meanwhile your other link simply gave some information about what an RFID is, but not its relevance to this topic.
Also, you are the one making a claim. If you actually give enough of a shit about this to try to warn people, you shouldn't be trying to rely on them to do the footwork to convince themselves. A cut-and-paste would save both parties a lot of time, and help focus the debate further.
Not everyone likes to download massive PDF's. Though it is good to have the link handy to double-check the context of whatever you would post, it would save a lot of time for both parties if you just show us exactly what you consider to be proof.
Here's a question for you: would you find it hard to believe that it is a series of chemical reactions that cause us to feel hunger?
In that case, it has been known for a long time that humans need energy to function and live, that said energy comes from what we consume, the the energy is finite so we need to keep eating and drinking to keep the energy coming in, that when our reserves of energy are starting to run low, we get hungry, and that even as infants we are programmed to respond to hunger by searching out sustenance. Hunger helps us survive, which is what almost ever aspect of our biology is geared to do.
Emotions are a little different, but they still function similarly. In a really basic sense, emotions either feel "good" or "bad". Good emotions generally indicate that our needs are being met. Bad ones, such as sadness emerge in response to stimuli that may have a detrimental effect on our survival.
They aren't perfectly fine-tuned however. Sometimes things that cause happiness may not be in our best interests. Many things that bring out negative emotions aren't typically life-threatening. But taken in conjunction with our ability to reason, to learn from experience, to observe things empirically and other factors, they help us survive (usually) by inclining us towards or away from certain situations.
What more are emotions but the response to stimuli? And why would this have to be anything more than physics and chemistry in action? What really separates sadness from hunger?
Yes, but I would recommend not doing so unless you are paying with cash (and know for a fact you have the cash on you). Glitches and downed connections can theoretically render your credit or debit cards temporarily useless. And then you are stuck with a half eaten bagel and no way to pay for it.
Sorry, I didn't even see this til now. I can't remember exactly what my mental image of you was, but I didn't expect the piercings, and I think I expected you to look a little older.
No insult at all, I doubt anyone on here looks like I Imagine them to.
well, I just checked the debate where he put up the picture, and the picture is gone. However, here's one with a video of him:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
That is actually...a very solid dispute, as per the terms of my argument.
That being said, "If they share the same customs, and values that made Mexico what it is today" I somewhat doubt that they are crossing the border. I suspect that those that cross the border are those that are are either more "Americanised" to begin with or are desperate for something better than they are experiencing. But does that mean the have to actually share our customs and values?...
What are our customs and values anyway?
I very much doubt you and I have a whole lot in common in these fields, yet we are both American. Honestly, are not "customs and values" rather arbitrary based on location, upbringing and familial biology? If we were so very similar in mindset, would not political discourse be much less fraught with dissension and argument?
Should the country that's the best at attracting people to move there
You should probably count net migration. Because if the amount of people leaving is significant, that could trump the opinion of those entering (since the people leaving actually have experience with the locale.)
If net, than:
http://www.mongabay.com/reference/stats/
US is #25...
The thing is: once people become adults, the thought processes they use tend to become more or less crystallized. There are exceptions, but most people will be about as illogical at 40 as they were at 25 or so. However, teens aren't as locked in. Their brains are still changing, their worldview still expanding (at least for most teens), they are still able to change many of their behaviors and methods of thinking with greater ease than most adults. Srom says he's 15. If there is any chance at all of him becoming more logical and reasonable, that chance is probably higher now than it would be in a decade or two. If he chooses to remain theistic, I'd rather see him be a more logical and rational theist when he's an adult than he is now.
I probably can't do much about that, but it doesn't hurt to try.
As a general rule, I'd say I'm a 5. But it really depends on definition of God is being used. I don't really believe in any of them, but a pantheistic God seems at least a little more logical to me than one that is separate from its creation, or one who is defined as having a human type personality.
Maybe, maybe not.
I have been debating srom off and on for quite a while now. We were even allies for a moment.
In the time he has been here he has actually improved a little bit. Not much, but more than I had previously expected.
My goal is not to turn him away from God. that is never my goal with theists. My goal is to make him a more intelligent theist. And I believe he has the potential, though it may take quite some time, and I may not be the one to do it...
My point is you don't have to decide to be atheist. If you don't know of God you don't believe in him. If you don't believe in God, you are technically an atheist. In order to be a non-atheist (which is a theist) you have to conceive of God, and then choose to believe in him. Until you have made the choice to believe, you are in the default position, the simplest level one can be at the subject, which for this topic would be agnostic atheism.
Well, I do not believe in the Devil. At all.
However, allow me to play....ahem....devil's advocate here.
The devil supposedly wants people to turn away from God. But he also has a reputation for being a sneaky trickster who uses deceit to get what he wants. It seems that he might be able to be a more effective devil if he could sew corruption within the ranks of Christianity. Contort its meanings in a way that would lead the Christians he had corrupted to do horrible things in the name of God or of their faith. Things like, say, launching the occasional crusade, burning a witches here and there, convincing people that it is rational to believe in witches.
And hey, it seems he would be a heck of a salesman. I wouldn't really be surprised if he could, say, write a book that supposedly portrays a history of God's actions and claims to explain what God wants and doesn't want; and then convince everybody that this book is in fact the word of God! Imagine all of the bigotry, misunderstanding, warfare and murder that would emerge if he did that....
Later on in life once the baby grows, he/she will understand the religion thing and they he/she can decide to believe in God or believe that God doesn't exist.
Atheism isn't all about "believing God doesn't exist" though. Some atheists feel that way, but that isn't what makes them atheist. What makes them atheist is a lack of belief in God. That is the one thing all atheists have in common.
The baby doesn't know anything about God and religion.
If they don't know about God, then they don't believe him. A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. Because you have to be aware of the concept of Gods in order to believe in them, atheist is the default position. Its like how everyone is a non-smoker until they smoke their first cigarette.
So, anyone who is unaware of the idea of gods is automatically an atheist by definition.
Description:
Most inclusively, anybody who lack a belief in any deities. There are sub-groups of atheists, but the previous description is the only one that includes all atheists.
I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ
Or any other deity. But about Jesus specifically- an atheist would definitively only disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, not necessarily his existence as a historical figure. Technically, a spiritual atheist might even believe that Jesus had "powers", but not that he was any kind of divine being. This is extremely rare, but I have encountered at least one atheist who espouses this belief.
one who puts faith into "science" and "logic".
Frequently, but this is not a requirement of atheism. This is more descriptive of scientists and rationalist. Although most scientists and rationalists are atheist, not all are, and not all atheists are scientists or rationalist. The interest in these methodologies does appear to be higher among atheists than theists, however.
An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts.
I don't celebrate it at all.
Besides, in modern American society, Christmas has been elevated beyond being a purely religious holiday for many people. It is holiday closely linked to materialism and capitalism now, as well as traditionally being a general reason to celebrate and be with family memebers and friends. I would argue that many Christians don't celebrate Christmas as a purely religious holiday any more, and atheists who celebrate it could have any number of reasons.
Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it.
There are plenty of moral atheists out there. Besides, religion does not hold the monopoly on morality. Basic morality is biological in nature, and one's morality actually has less to do with their religion or even their upbringing than it does their genetics.
Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians.
Many Christians hate atheists, members of other religions, and homosexuals. Atheists, not having any system of beliefs to fuel hate, have a less of a reason to be hateful. And also, many atheists are attacking the religion, not the person.
And the remaining accusations could all be stated about Christians and how they treat non-Christians.
Marijuana, like tobacco, causes cancer as it contains carcinogens.
In the quest to investigate the link between cancer and marijuana, research can be roughly divided into two categories: lab research and investigation of long term users outside of the lab. Yes, as an unfortunate amount of lab animal deaths can attest, cannabis does contain carcinogenic molecules. However, research involving actual users paints a rather different picture.
http://scienceblog.com/10660/
There is some controversy regarding the efficacy of these findings. Because marijuana is illegal, it is difficult to find users to participate in these studies, particularly finding heavy long-term users. It has been argued that if it were legalized, it would be much easier to find participants from a wider range of the population, and the information gathered could prove to be more accurate. Still, working with what we've got, it appears that marijuana use not only does not have anywhere near the effect that cigarette smoking does in terms of carcinogenic properties, it even seems to lower rates of certain types of cancer.
Marijuana is also highly addictive.
Not highly. It is significantly less addicting than tobacco or alcohol, about on the same level as caffeine, but usually with less severe withdrawal symptoms. Pretty much anything that stimulates the reward centers of the brain will have some addictive qualities among a large enough sampling of users. But marijuana is very low on the totem pole compared to many legal and even non-regulated substances.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/
http://health.ezinemark.com/
Studies have also shown that uses of marijuana usually lead to more dangerous drugs such as meth and cocaine.
Studies have also shown that most marijuana users drank alcohol before smoking pot. But alcohol is not considered a gateway drug. Why? Lower incidence of illegal drug use. But lets think about this for a second. As long as marijuana is illegal the people who use it can be classified as "people who are willing to break at least one law." Among adults, alcohol drinkers aren't classified that way. Some might be willing to, and those who are may end up using illegal drugs. Others will be totally law abiding, and since that is the majority of them, alcohol does not get considered a gateway drug. The only way to fairly compare the two would be to put them on the same legal standing and do studies at that point. Further, people who buy marijuana illegally have a greater exposure to other illegal drugs than those who don't since many dealers deal in multiple drugs. I suspect that the legal status of marijuana plays more of a role in its status as a gateway drug than any actual medical reason.
If you believe that marijuana does not kill people, try telling that to the relatives of the 30,000 people in Mexico that died due to drug violence.
The War On Drugs is at least partially to blame here. First, the strategy behind the WOD is to increase the cost. But since most drugs, marijuana included, are highly elastic commodities, this doesn't much reduce the demand. Instead it makes for wealthier drug lords, and competition between them leads to violence. The harder we crack down, the worse the situation gets. Also, we would make it less profitable for the drug lords by opening a legal channel of distribution and cultivation. Having marijuana as a legitimate source of retail would seriously reduce the number of people obtaining it illegally. It could also be regulated for quality and purity this way, which is currently not possible.
