- 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.
No, you're right, a little persecution here and there, a dash of police brutality, hate mail, and death threats, nothing to worry about. It's all good, we can ignore it.
they aren't going to settle for the lesser preferred gender just because of a bit of persecution.
You're right, actually, quite a few people resort to suicide.
You're just saying "clearly" to make it sound like there's one side to this argument. Clearly there are two.
"yes it is clearly wrong if a baby is created solely for the purpose of science. a baby is a human- and although they cannot speak and tell you how they feel, they clearly have feelings- not only physical needs but a natural born need to feel love and affection from a mother."
It may be wrong from your moral standpoint, but what if the research that fetus is involved in goes on to save millions of lives in developing an HIV vaccine, and the only way that could have happened was through stem cell research? Are millions of people worth more than one child when the world is full of orphans needing clean water and enough food?
It seems selfish to me to say that crucial moments in the history of scientific development need to be stopped for the needs of a new child, which do not clearly have feelings, as you have so aptly cited. Have you ever been inside a child's brain to know what they feel?
How is the Christian god different from the Jewish god or Islamic god?
Let me answer that for you: they're supposed to be the same person. This verse from this book in particular may be referring to Christians, but what's this debate about again? Oh, right, THE BIBLE.
I see what you're saying, that everything abides by a set of laws at a higher level, and there seems to be a semblance of rationality there.
However, the pool analogy isn't relevant. And here's why:
If you give a pool ball the same input for two shots, choose the same angle, same force, spin, etc., you will have the same result.
If you ask a human to make a choice twice, will they come up with the same answer twice? It's possible, or even likely, but humans, dogs, animals, and any other sentient beings have the free will to act within their own system. They can make decisions rationally, weighing outcomes, and make a decision. So, they might answer the same twice, but that does not exclude the possibility that they could have or would have chosen differently.
I'm not saying humans are this super special magical master breed where laws don't apply, but if humans don't have the ability to do what they want, then why do they?
"While claiming that free-will somehow doesn't separate man from cause and effect, an essential characteristic of god(s) and other super rational entities in most conceptions of them. This is where free will is absurd in its implications, humans are not super natural entities."
So you're saying the only thing that can have free will is God because that's what most people think a god is? I don't understand.
Not sure if troll...
A pool ball does not "decide" anything; however, user input, geometry, and physics control predestined motions and actions for the pool ball, determining where it goes on the table. Applying the same cookie-cutter, clear-cut arguments with human existence and emotions is patently absurd and lacking in depth and forethought, as everyone makes their own choices, and is different.
BTW, I'll be going on a nude killing spree soon, so if you want me to stop by, just send me a message. I wasn't planning on it, although I chose to join this website of my own free will, I chose to pick up this argument of my own free will ,and I chose to respond to your comment of my own free will.
I believe you have superficial mistaken for another word. I find this argument:
" To suggest otherwise is to say that humans are super-natural and little gods not connected to cause and effect."
quite lacking of anything more than superficial conjecture. If you wanted to make a statement and call me superficial, don't "put anything simply," like you did in the next sentence:
"To put it simply, your analysis is superficial and a more indepth one will lead you to reject the existence of free will. "
How? Why? Where's your proof? I gave you examples of my free will and choices, where are yours? You don't seem to get the idea of a "debate," where you need evidence to back up your claims.
" the evidence for it is lacking and the definition absurd in its implications."
Once again, back up your claims! You haven't provided a single reason for me to believe you're anything more than one who does not understand what they're talking about, and trying to cover that up with poor formatting, hiding your real arguments, and making me dig for facts, eventually leading to a thought overload.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!