Haha, I like you man...but you're crazy!
If you could read you'd understand that the person I was replying to listed their 'kitchen cabinet' website as 'evidence' (which incidentally is as fit for purpose as any other evidence you bible bashers have)
the bibole tells you how to escape eternal hell, torture, death?
We're not going to escape anything. When we die, we go stiff, start to decay then we'll be buried or burned. You might not like the sound of it but that's it. Plain and simple. No eternal hell, no torture. You will not 'escape death'. No heaven, no 72 virgins, nothing.
Sorry, but if you can accept that as the most likely truth you'll enjoy your 70-90 years alive much much more.
What are you talking about?
Kitchen cabinats weren't inventrd, dumbo
read that back...what is the relevance of that statement?
The person I'd originally replied to goes around making tiny inutile contributions to debates and posts a link to their kitchen website as 'evidence'. That's what I was referring to.
luv the christadelphian bitch
wow, I'm really intimidated by a jebus loving gimp.
I believe you just made up that I believe in 'God day.'
Wouldn't it be ridiculous to just make up something someone believes in...plucked from thin air!!...some might even say the whole concept is 'stupid'!! bet AuntieChrist feels like a fool for assuming your beliefs would be founded on nothing!
Haha, this is a hilariously bad riposte! It seems Aveskde, AuntieChrist and RiceDaragh have pretty much summed up everything I would have wanted to say so I'll leave it in their capable hands.
you are the sick-minded, selfish, uncaring, ungracious, un-everything god on this planet, person I have ever known or heard of.
I don't see how I'm sick minded, selfish, uncaring and ungracious, simply because I refuse to subscribe to your delusions. You don't know me at all.
you are the only person so far I can actually hate with a passion
Cool. How 'christian' of you. How caring and 'forgiving'. Love thy neighbour and all that crap? What have I done to hurt you, your family, your friends...or anybody? I couldn't give a shit if you hate me or not, why not waste some time by praying for my demise...I won't lose any sleep about what your imaginary friend will do to me.
It pleases me that my contempt for your absurd beliefs angers you so much. It makes me think that deep down you know I'm right but you don't want to upset mommy and daddy by confronting them for indoctrinating you. Grow a brain or some balls, douchebag.
I know, it was a bad ending. I had to go eat some dinner.
haha, fair enough.
I don't point out anything religious. I just don't want you calling me a Jesus Freak as an argument or assumption.
The majority of people who argue against evolution are proponents of creationism, which I will admit, does rile me. I'm not implying that you are a 'Jesus-freak' and I get the feeling we're arguing the same point here. I'm saying that theory and fact are almost the same thing in science, and you're saying that scientific findings are 'theory' by definition. We don't really disagree, I just don't want the fact that the term 'theory' is used to become part of a creationists arsenal. I wanted to make it clear that the scientific use of the term 'theory' isn't the same as the colloquial 'theory'.
You can only declare anything a fact when it is beyond doubt, especially when you look at time from an end-of-time perspective.
I'm sure most biologists would argue that evolution is beyond doubt but I get what you mean. The reason I'm arguing against you is I feel that the vast majority of opponents to evolution on this website are fervent creationists, and I don't want the fact that evolution is a 'theory' (in scientific literals), to be hijacked by the god-brigade as an argument against logic.
I was merely making the argument from the start that the Theory of Evolution was Theory IN NAME ALONE and giving some debatable points to make on why its still considered such and Not the "Fact of Evolution.
I completely agree with you. The only thing I would want to add is that the term 'theory' in science, is the closest thing to 'fact' that any scientific proposal can ever become.
I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I'm making a statement that was supposed to be somewhat funny because THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO BE MADE EXCEPT THAT EVOLUTION IS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED.
and you are right, and as I said it is a stupid and leading question. I didn't really think you were trying to mislead anyone. I more just felt that your argument could be misinterpreted to undervalue the findings of evolution.
Throughout you're argument you state a multitude of supposed Absolutes, such as the last sentence in your second section. Both of these statements are assumptions of Bible-Blabbing and extreme-ism and are both not true nor very appreciated.
Having read both of them back it sounds like I was directing those statements at you personally, but it was meant to be in a general sense. I'd debated the topic with someone else recently and I must admit I might have confused yourself with them. I had thought that you were a pseudoscientist closet creationist at first, so apologies for that!
Merely a suggestion on my part, but you should adjust your arguments to be comparative and more, err, comprimisable in the sense that you are right but don't wish to necessarily insult everything your opponent sees.
Haha, taken on board. The problem for me is that I have no room for compromise on 'creationism vs evolution'...which is usually what these thing are about (even though I know that's not the case with yourself). I do agree that I should try to limit just insulting peoples perspective, for doing so I apologise. I try to focus on respectful debate, but on occasion I feel I want to highlight absurdities in peoples perspective and to joke about the topic is sometimes quite effective, however it often reduces the debate into ineffective ridicule. I appreciate that in your case (bearing in mind the mistaken identity) it wasn't fair or accurate, so genuine apologies.
Nobody cares where your from or 'how much' of an American you are.
Turns out we were calling it football before Columbus had even set sail, so you don't have much of a right to "hate it".
You don't really have much of a point. Are you saying that you prefer handegg to football because we call it football and you want to call handegg football? That's not really a justification for why you prefer the sport.
I agree with you on overstepping the boundaries from protection to intrusion, but I have to say that the threat of terrorism isn't unproven. 9/11 aside, there have been an abundance of terrorist attacks and attempts around the world in the last 10 years. While I appreciate that the threat has maybe been exaggerated, it certainly exists.
We all know about the man who tried to exterminate an entire ethnoreligious group of people and directly initiated the deadliest conflict ever, a global conflict resulting in the deaths of over 70 million people ...but did he always get a round of beers in? Did he let Eva Braun hold the remote control?
He could have personally given everyone in western Europe a footrub to try to make up for it and he'd still be a douchebag...so no, he couldn't have been a good man.
I hope you say religious in non-theist terminology.
???
I say 'religious agenda' meaning the disregard of overwhelming supporting evidence of evolution simply because it contradicts the idea that god created everything by clicking his fingers a few times over six days.
I still adhere to THEORY seeing as thats what they are all titled as.
As I already explained evolution is both theory and fact. That they use the term theory does NOT imply that it might be wrong. I've never heard anyone question gravity...never. To adopt a sentence you actually used, if I was to say "It is not a fact, by the way, as you cannot actually prove Gravity"...I'd be ridiculed. It would be stupid. I could claim that if I drop this ball how can you say for certain it will fall to the ground? Without my dropping it you cannot prove it, but based on repeated observations and overwhelming evidence it is, obviously, fact.
It is the exact same with evolution, a wealth of evidence and observations of evolution actually happening...but there's still people who deny it....and it is blatantly all down to religion.
Nothing(more or less) has definitive proof
I know what you are trying to say but to deny that evolution is a fact is like saying that gravity isn't a fact. While they are both known as 'theories' in the scientific sense, they are repeatedly observed and with a massive amount of supporting evidence they are overwhelmingly agreed upon by the scientific community. By overemphasising the importance of the title "the theory of evolution" when discussing it (especially among non-scientists)..you are blatantly seeking to mislead.
If Evolution was a fact, then why did this man post this debate to begin with? Ill leave you on that nice little note.
That 'nice little note' is probably the most hilariously bad riposte I've ever seen.
If evolution was clearly just a theory then why did he post it? People post stupid or leading questions all the time. In this case it is obvious that the person who posted this debate has a religious agenda. Evolution contradicts what his crazy, unfounded, old book says, that's why.
If you understand the concept that theory and fact are almost the same thing in science then you would accept evolution. I struggle to think of any reason anyone could deny it without religious influence.
I am an atheist and get what you mean with that skin crawling feeling when saying "I know"...
I wouldn't deny that there might be a god...but I would say that I am 99.99999% sure there isn't.
With any other absurd premise, I cannot declare that it definitely isn't true. You can say you have a pet dragon in your garden, but without coming and seeing for myself I can never be 100% sure you're insane...almost sure, but not 100%.
uuurgh, another debater with a religious agenda posing as someone with scientific knowledge but spouting nothing but pseudoscience.
EVOLUTION isn't supported at all.
absolute nonsense. It pains me to even reply to a statement like this.
there needs to be a crazy above fifty percent mutation rate
..and here was me thinking you understood evolution.
From your other post I thought that you understood the term 'theory' in the scientific sense. In the colloquial sense, theory means 'speculation' or 'opinion; in the scientific sense a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory. Evolution is a theory and fact in the same way that you having a nose on your face is theory and fact.
The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.
When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.
You sound like you understand why the term 'theory' is used...which makes me think you know that being infinitely evidenced makes it as much a fact as it can ever be! Evolution is both theory and fact. Why mislead people by stating that it anything but? If working on that basis we can argue that gravitational theory isn't fact, but in the more practical sense of the word, it is clearly 'fact'..nobody would even question it without some religious agenda.
Did you mean 'of course'? It's just strange because E and U are quite far from one another on a keyboard.
Do you know what 'coerce' means? It turns out it's more relevant than you think when talking about religion.
Again with the kitchen cabinet rubbish, you can't be much of a business person. If your trying to get backlinks, that's not how SEO works. If you're hoping people will cold click on your link randomly and happen to buy a kitchen from you then your wasting your time, the odds are literally in the millions.
What a fucking cunt
...that's about the most sensible thing you've said.
Don't even think of debating on my level till you read what I've written.
Saying that you really, really, really feel like your imaginary friend is in the room with you doesn't cut it...especially on a debating site.
That the way to do it!... If you don't understand something, or cannot accept that something is as yet still unknown...simplify!! Dumb it down! A big man in the sky with a beard waved a magic wand and ping..universe is ready! having a god of the gaps is great isn't it!
wheres the proof that there isnt
The burden of proof is on the believer. Can you disprove that I have a dragon in my bedroom? If I made such an absurd claim would you blindly accept it as true without using some sort of logic or reasoning?
I believe in one god
If I was to say with a straight face that I believe in fairies, everyone would think I was insane. I would have no real friends, wouldn't get a proper job, would never be taken seriously. For some reason though, it is socially acceptable for you to believe in your invisible friend.
Isn't it convenient that you believe in the exact same god that you were brought up to believe in? The exact same one your family believe in? The exact same one you were taught about in school? The one they spoke about at your church? What are the odds!!? Out of the thousands of gods who have been revered around the world by thousands of cultures over thousands of years...it just so happens that the god of your time, and your community is true! Turns out (with no additional knowledge or anything else to go by) that Zeus wasn't true, neither was Vishnu or Tenrikyo or Allah or Agdistis or Ah Puch or Ahura Mazda or Alberich or Amaterasu or An or Anansi or Anat or Andvari or Anshar or Anu or Aphrodite or Apollo or Apsu or Ares or Artemis or Asclepius or Athena or Athirat or Athtart or Atlas. What a stroke of luck for you!?
(I can go through B-Z for you if you wish)
Ace Ventura Pet Detective is a more believable story than the bible. Just because you were weak minded enough to be indoctrinated doesn't mean that the things you believe are true. You are not strong minded, you are the exact opposite, but you are stubborn...these delusions are so deeply ingrained that you will never accept you are being irrational. Even if it was 100% true...why would you want to revere your god? He is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Your God is the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
I never said anyone should be exterminated
You started a debate entitled 'Is there any justification for antisemitism?' In which you argued Jews deserve their persecution. You claimed the Jews were "milking the holocaust", describing the holocaust as a "wildly exaggerated" and "tired, old story". You then also added "DOWN WITH JUUIIIIIICCCEE".
In another debate you stated that "Another holocaust is right around the corner". All this is not to mention repeatedly linking to Neo-Nazi websites with a white supremacist message as 'evidence'.
I never said Blacks should be shipped back to Africa.
You started this topic! You're the only one still arguing that the blacks are dumb criminals who are severely detrimental to life in America.
In the debate "Blacks are animals" You argue in support of the statement by saying "Niggers do not want to sing Kumbaya with you, dickhead, they want to kill you"
What are you implying should be done? I think we all know what you're getting at.
You asked my IQ earlier, it is 160, what is yours?
1 - I'm almost 100% certain it isn't.
2 - It's really pathetic to state your IQ in some kind of attempt to garner some approbation online.
3 - I don't even know my IQ. I don't feel inadequate enough to get involved in the self-absorbed, vain attempts at self aggrandisement.
4 - Even if I did know my exact IQ, and let's say it would be higher than yours (which it would be). I still wouldn't tell what it is, because comparing IQ's online is the saddest form of dick-measuring I've ever heard of.
While we're on the topic though, you said that IQ, wealth and power go hand in hand...please tell us about your amazing life! With an IQ of 160, you must have a great job and wealth that most of us can only dream of!
Wow. You'll be embarrassed when you sober up and read that drivel.
Look up the wikipedia page on 'Intelligence Quotient'. You talk about it so much I think you could do with knowing a bit about it. It takes certain things into account. One of them being 'age'.
You link to a website that gives vague references from the 1980's. Stuff like, "The Department of Justice - Victimization in the US 1987"...No page number, no direct quote, no way of validating the information presented. If whatever your Nazi website is saying is true (which it may well be), I'm sure you could find something to validate it online that doesn't happen to be a White Power indoctrination site.
dumbass
dumb son of a bitch
shit-for-brains bastard
STUPID ASSHOLE!
educated idiots
FUCKING JEW
spineless fools
liberal schmuck professors
All good points...
Is this your attempt at a rebuttal?
I can just see you sitting alone smashing that out on the keyboard in your grand mansion (as you're so intelligent you must be super rich, but not as rich as those pesky evil Jews! - who by the way must be really intelligent if, as you say, they control everything and have the majority of the worlds cash?!)
I've been on this website for about two weeks and so far you've said that Jews should be exterminated because they are clever, rich and powerful...while you say Blacks should be thrown out of America because they are too dumb and poor.
Do you see how you've contradicted yourself...accept that you have an agenda and you're not thinking straight. You don't seem that stupid to me. You use the odd big word now and then. We would all think a lot more of you if you came clean now and started over.
Because he is the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Uuurgh...it is painful trying to talk sense into you.
No. Of course not. I think people with low IQ's make up the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder.
Well why didn't you say so earlier when you implied it was a result of crime?! It's funny how every justification and answer you have is in some way a slight at an ethnic minority. Is that just a coincidence?
Research has been proven this
Research..has...been..proven...this.
...What is your IQ?
Do you not understand that IQ is related to education? Do you not understand that standard of education is linked to wealth? Do you not understand that crime is linked to poverty? Can you not comprehend that many of these things are interlinked and obviously a society that is still racist will make life hard for ethnic minorities to get out of that circle. Given enough generations the barrier will break down but there is still a culture whereby poor people cannot get a good education, which means they cannot get a good job, which means they are on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder, meaning their children are more likely to receive a poor education and they are more likely to commit crime. Is that too much for you or would you just prefer to think that "them dumb niggers are always robbin' an rapin"?
I listed some rape statistics below. I invited everyone to rip them apart yesterday. No one has challenged them yet.
The website you linked to is a 'White Nationalist Racial Library'...it offers an abundance of positive articles and references to Hitler and Nazism. With titles like "Enduring allure of Hitlerism" and "Demonizing Nationalism", I can see why it's your favourite.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your website might have an agenda..?
Go and find a reliable source.
How do you know that the lower societal status is not due to crime?
Ridiculous question.
Are you suggesting that everyone of low societal status has committed a crime that has hindered their progression within society? Even if there was no crime in America there would still be people of low societal status.
The white people of the Appalachian mountains are about as low on the socio-economic scale as you can get in the U.S. and they have nowhere near the crime rate.
You're obviously clutching at straws here, it is pretty anecdotal to pull up a rural group with low socio-economic standing and claim that that supports your claim that 'black people will commit more crime than anyone else regardless of other factors like poverty/education/employment.' Crime in Appalachia is increasing faster than anywhere else in the US and the clearly defined correlation between poverty and crime that has been proven in urban areas may not be relevant in rural areas (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/
The fact that poor white people in Scotland commit far more crime than poor black people in London completely disproves your theory...move on and create your next debate with a racist, antisemitic or bigoted agenda.
Your theory doesn't explain the black-on-white rape epidemic either.
For starters it's not really a theory, it's pretty much accepted fact that poverty and the effects of low social status increase crime within society.
Secondly I never said it did. If I drilled down into every point you made I'd be here all day, and frankly I think you're a lost cause. I don't know much about the demographics of sexual assault, but I would love to see you provide some evidence. Has it crossed your mind that maybe black males aren't specifically targeting white women but it has more to do with the opportunistic fact that 80% of potential victims are white.
In fact, it sounds like a bullshit excuse.
The fact that crime is higher within low socio-economic groups is not a "bullshit excuse". I'm not black and I don't really consider myself entirely politically correct so why would I be concocting these wild irrational 'excuses'. I just try to think analytically about things and to not let any agenda I may have cloud my judgement on topics...something you seem to struggle with.
Most people do know that black people commit more crime per head of population, but that's not exactly what you asked. Crime is obviously linked to socio-economic status and if you just 'removed' every african american from the US, other ethnic groups would fill their low socio-economic standing and crime would very quickly rise within those groups.
Using the UK as an example, the further north you go the smaller the black community is. In Scotland there are much fewer black people but far higher crime and violence rates than anywhere else in the developed world. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Crime is a result of low societal status, not of increased eumelanin in skin.
