- 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.
"But without that evidence when we are behind a veil of ignorance any unjustified claim has equal value."
So then, by your own admittance, while Christians cannot tangibly prove God exists, atheists also cannot prove He doesn't.
"I present the age old contention that if you hold that existence implies creation, then for you to claim that god exists necessitates the position that he must have been created."
God wasn't created. He was the beginning. Otherwise, He wouldn't be God.
"Assertions born from the observable world and conclusions born from the self evident premises within represent man's means of knowledge."
"Conclusions born from the self evident premises within," by which I assume you mean an individual's decisions made from instinct. Again, a test of faith, as humans are all wired differently and must take what each one feels as either right or wrong.
"Wasn't aware my position neccesitated evolution."
Your position certainly doesn't necessitate intelligent design. And has been shown, atheists tend to either believe in the Big Bang or evolution.
"Evolution doesn't dictate a view on the origin of life and is observable.Creationism dictates belief of a higher being. One is supportable, the other is not. One is a process described by evidenced events, the other is an argument of neccesity."
Evolution is not described by evidenced events, otherwise it wouldn't be refuted by scientists. No evidence exists for evolution. That's a fact. So then, by your contention, both could be "arguments of necessity."
"I am god remember?"
If you were God, you wouldn't be an atheist.
"You lack justification beyond an argument from supernatural capability, which if taken as correct invalidates reason. So yes, it is unreasonable."
Again, this depends on what "reasonable" means to an individual. Once more, to believe in God is reasonable to me, even if it's not reasonable to you.
"If the pursuit of my own self-interest and the fulfillment of my utility as the highest value is a disease, it is one I gladly accept."
Narcissism (which you readily accepted) means "being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity." Basically, you're stuck on yourself. Basically, it's pointless to debate with a vain person because, in their minds, they're always right. I wouldn't be boasting about that. Makes you sound like the average woman.
"But arbitrarily forcing a fate upon me would defy any notions of free will in the grand schem of things. If I fulfilled my life as a moral being, and the end result is reward, if I hold value as a product of finality then I should be allowed to cease."
It doesn't defy free will. You choose the kind of person you want to be, thereby choosing where you will spend eternity. It isn't "forced" upon anyone. They make their own decisions. To Christians, simply ceasing to exist in not a reward, or an option.
"To hold a negative and to strive to disprove a subject are different. When the status quo has been done away with, it then becomes my duty to disprove the notion of god in a forum of equal ground."
Then your duty is worthless, because you cannot disprove God, nor can you "disprove the notion of god."
Use facts to back up your argument, not useless speculation. "According to a federal Institute of Medicine study in 1999, fewer than 10 percent of those who try marijuana ever meet the clinical criteria for dependence, while 32% of tobacco users and 15% of alcohol users do" (http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/
I'm not sure what you mean. You said the health benefits weren't enough to justify legalization and gave LSD as an example. What I meant was LSD may have some health benefits, but it also causes mental disturbances and marijuana doesn't. So the two substances can't really be compared.
Marijuana is much less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Studies have shown that marijuana increases concentration and creativity, probably because it stimulates both sides of the brain. Not to mention, were marijuana legal, it's estimated that the U.S. would save around $11 billion a year (I'm not sure if the money we would save by not arresting otherwise harmless marijuana users factors into this, but it's still quite a bit of money). It would create more job necessity and availability. And I've never heard of using marijuana making anyone aggressive, so they couldn't use that as an excuse for demonizing it. :)
Without a doubt. As far as everyone knows (and thus far the evidence does not argue against the fact that) that poor boy did not intimidate, antagonize or confront Mr. Zimmerman. He was just on his way home. If this grown man really felt intimidated by this young man, then he should have left the issue to the police rather than destroy an entire family's life.
I know they say jury duty is every law-abiding American's duty, but forcing people to serve as jurors isn't really fair. Some people would rather not get involved - our justice system makes citizens ultimately decide another's guilt or innocence, which puts a huge burden on the everyday citizen.