- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
First, this is my first post in about 6 months, so thank you for posting something so egregiously offensive and ignorant that I was inspired to reply to you.
That's why he made women for a reason, it was for men.
What the actual fuck is telling you that women were made for men? Women, like men, are independent agents that may or may not interact with other independent agents. They may marry men (if they want), cook for men (if they want), work for men (if they want). The key thing is that they can choose, like any other independent agent, to do so; they're not a pack animal to be bartered off and told to do things because others own them.
How kind of your god to make women such that men, in their infinite wisdom and compassion, could love women. And the ways they show their love! Such as the unequal pay, the constant harassment and misogyny, the spousal abuse, the sexual assaults. Because clearly every man deserves a woman to love (and love him back) because that's what God ordained.
It's pigs who think like this -- that women are objects to fulfill their sexual desire, that women have an obligation to fulfill men's desires and wishes -- that cause so much strife in society because no one challenges their view. Please, go up to a women and say "You are mine. Go make me a sandwich" and see if you won't get broken nose.
"It's not natural and it's now how God wanted us to be from the very beginning."
That's false. Unless you believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, then we may have a whole new set of problems. God didn't fucking care. Humans have been around for far longer, and homosexual behavior even longer still.
Let's take intelligent design to be a valid theory (it's not). So don't you think, when God decided to make those final few gene changes in the embryo to make the first few human beings, God would've said -- if he actually cared about homosexuality -- "Hm, I want to make sure none of that filthy homosexual behavior all those animals are partaking in is not done by my perfect creations. I better not give them that gene/inclination because that would be pretty fucked up of me to make someone born that way, and then require them to change the very fundamentals of who they are in order to get into Heaven."
Clearly there are enough human beings on the planet, and homosexuality in no way makes heterosexual couples less inclined to have children. It's not like humans are in danger of dying out because heterosexuals aren't having sex anymore.
So thanks Srom, for being so fantastically obtuse, to bring me back after half a year of absence. I hope some day you won't be such a tool with regards to women and sexuality.
I thought this was a parody video for almost the entirety of watching it. Thanks for the chuckles though; I really hope this guy isn't representative of your personal arguments because quite frankly, they are incompetent. Regardless of whether or not I believe in God, anyone with a shred of logical capabilities (I hope) could see that his arguments are circular at best and riddled with fallacies at worst.
And then, more on topic, why does there need to be a war on Atheism, or Christianity for that matter. If you look to the most historically successful people on Earth, the ones who have existed for thousands of years, outlasting all their persecutors, the pogroms, the ethnic cleansing, you'll realize that the common thread is they know how to integrate into a society and synthesize their values with that civilization. Being at peace with other religions does more to perpetuate your own religion than any "war" on religion (short of literally waging war on that religion).
Mhm, please, tell me how your private school education necessitates that you are "gifted" and that you are more intelligent than all those imbeciles at public schools. Please continue to tell me, then, that this private school education gives you the capability to understand and criticize public education, which you clearly are so experienced with.
Obviously, not all students learn the same way. You think the standardized curricula (and standardized tests that grew out of that) afforded students more paths of learning? Common Core education provides merely a framework in which states will be given more leeway to approach specific curricula, as well as giving teachers the opportunities to modify their teaching to enable student growth. For a great example of how tests will be modified to encourage actual learning (creative, applied problem solving, rather than rote memorization of processes). For some great analyses of the math section of the Common Core, please see the link below. Or, for an example of how a Common Core question might be would be different from the current sort of standardized test question, see http://map.mathshell.org/materials/
The sorts of questions that will be implemented by Common Core standards (at least by the states adopting Smarter Balance assessment systems) will be much more in line with expecting students to actually struggle through problems, to face failure, and to give them a more reasonable expectation of how learning is done. Learning isn't a formula; it's a mindset.
You have provided no definition of God, life, or really better (and timescales in which we can measure "better").
Additionally, it is logically impossible to make any sort of judgement without having some confirmation of God right now. That is, assuming there is a God (at this moment, and whatever God is), it would literally be impossible for someone to conceive of existence without God. Similarly, assuming there is no God, it would literally be impossible to conceive of a consistent definition of what God would be.
That being said, the existence of a God is rather unimportant. For many people, the idea of a God is the important thing; living as if there is a God (however one defines God) provides a manner in which one may live, just the same as living as if there is no God provides a manner of living. It comes down to personal preference, and whether or not you see a God as being necessary for you to live a happy (however that is defined) life. I cannot say for you whether your life would be better with or without God. Only God could tell you that.
Has anyone here read any of the Common Core standards? Through my University, I've taken several courses regarding education, been placed in classrooms (before and after implementation started), and talked to a wide variety of educators.
Everyone has almost unanimously been optimistic about what the new standards will mean in terms of education.
Previous standards were WAY more focused on testing and evaluation. The new standards--while yes, they have exams--is focused quite a bit more on assessment. Equating the two is quite a mistake: evaluation is "Did this student get a C or above on this arbitrary exam?" Assessment, on the other hand, is more "How is this student approaching this topic, and how, as an educator can I do better to provoke and enhance his or her interest in this subject?" There is quite a bit more leeway for educators to make the time for exploration rather than memorization and teaching for the test. All the criticisms on the other side mention the emphasis on rote memorization and the lack of practical experimentation and implementation, which is exactly the changes that will hopefully and probably be gained when the standards are implemented fully.
Jumping the gun, before the standards are even fully in effect, let alone for the several years afterwards that it will take before results can be measured, is effectively saying the education system is good as it is. Accepting the education system as is is not only dangerous but irresponsible; these kids need to be prepared to learn and innovate at a much higher rate and scale than ever before, and implementing standards like Common Core will greatly help.
We are currently in the midst of a revolution in the education system in the US. So many points (technology, teaching methods, federal/state standards) are converging that it will be exciting to see what comes out.
I'm living in "communal living" right now, part of the Berkeley Student Cooperatives. Houses have to pass fairly rigorous health and habitability inspections by both school, BSC, and city officials. We buy organic food collectively, share and cook it collectively. We do 5 hours of workshift a week, keeping the house up to shape. There's great house cohesion, everyone respects one another. Someone can be fined for being "uncooperative" and missing too many workshifts.
Communal living is very easy, in fact. It just depends on your lifestyle; I probably wouldn't be living in a cooperative if I had a family, or at least I wouldn't be living in a large cooperative. Perhaps sharing a backyard garden space with a few families in one neighborhood, but that's probably the maximum.
Not necessarily. Why could something not exist perpetually and eternally? I see no reason not to believe this is the case, and in fact, if one does not accept the fact that something could exist eternally and perpetually, then one cannot believe in a God (who would, by definition, have to exist eternally and perpetually). Either you accept that things may exist without a creator (the only argument that would, in fact, allow for an omniscient, omnipresent deity), or you require the need for a creator (but then who created the creator?). And clearly we may reject the latter, so we are left with the former argument; and really, if something may exist without a creator, then why invoke a creator at all?
There's problems with both your second and third assertions. Existence hardly implies creation, and even if it did, a creator would not be necessitated.
Or, if you would like, we could attack the argument from a different angle.
Assuming there exists a creator, must there not also exist something to create the creator (after all, the first creator exists, and from there it follows your initial argument). And on and on the argument goes indefinitely.
There are much stronger arguments in favor of a creator; the existence theory is perhaps the most tenuous.