- 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.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).|
Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Can science explain how our planet exsists in the state that it dose ie supporting life. Despite how incredibly rare that is? Can it explain how our planet somehow hit the intergalactic lottery and not only has all the right factors for supporting life interrerorly but exteriorly as well such as the moon, being the exact right distance from the sun, and having Jupiter in just the exact perfect position to protect us from meteors despite scientists themselves stating how incredibly rare even one of these factors are by themselves?
Quite right. Atheists belive their is no God and thus that the universe in all its complexity can exist. And the exact correct conditions for life observed here on earth could happen by simple random chance. Despite the mathematical likelihood of such a planet forming with these exact Characteristics in the exact right place ie the correct distance from the sun with a gas giant like Jupiter close by to protect the planet from meteors is so infetesmally small as to be virtually impossible. I doubt this.
You just unwittingly proved my point. You made the claim that God dosent exsist thus you have the burden. As you said I rejected your claim my proof (if it's even required) is your inability to prove y I urge own opposing claim is you can't prove that God dosent exsist thus it's not irrational to think that he does. People thought the world was flat until it was proven otherwise, people thought the world was the center of the Universe until it was proven otherwise, in the same vain people belive that God exsists and until it is proven otherwise their is no reasion to belive that he dosent.
How can Atheism predate humanity? Just because a species isn't intelligent enough to to conceive of a God or ask questions that may lead to assumptions of God's existence dosent make them atheist. And even if it did we are talking specifically within the context of Humanity.
he who makes a positive claim must prove it
That actually was not originally a part of this rule. That was a latter addition added due to the false assumption that one cannot prove a negative. That is obviously false. If I make the negative claim that you are not stronger than me (provided that it's true) then I can quite easily prove such a thing.
if you didn't claim he exsisted contrary to all common sence and logic
I assume you were around back then? If so I'll assume it is simply the senility catching up to you, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate
Are you suggesting that atheist predates religion, because if so then there are very many archeologists who would like to have a word with you.
As for your following point whigh I won't quote as it is very long
All I will say is ASSERTIONS ASSERTIONS EVERYWHERE.
humans have always believed in fairies and sea monsters and wechselbälger
Prove to me they don't exsist I dare ya
I never said they didn't. Not that I belive they do I simply mean that I never made that claim and therefor I need not prove it. So no.
BTW sea monsters do exsist they are called giant squid.
Simply because capitalism relies on the already established law of nature. Those who risk the most revive the most. Those who work to establish a company for instance and take on the considerable risk involved gain the most from the success of their endeavor. Those who risk nothing receive nothing.
Capitalism works because it is natural Communism tries to reshape nature so it fails.
The thing about the second ammendment is that an armed populose is significantly harder to oppress. Despite all the power of the state guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the oppressed (a lesson I though we already thought you brits) guns even the playing field.