Bohemian's Waterfall
Yes, agreed. She is being quite childish, this is the reason I left other debate sites for the more serious format and less childishness. I don't know what she thinks she is accomplishing by driving more people away.
And all the down-votes are not accomplishing anything, I've gone through and up-voted every argument she has down-voted.
Isn't denying non-catholics access to contraceptives itself a violation of religious freedom? Why should other people's religious beliefs dictate whether I can have contraceptives provided or not? No one is asking them to use contraceptives, simply that those who choose to use them should have access.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/317009
You know this was the exact same insult levied against Ron Paul when he tried to explain the motivation for 9/11, typical.
Ron Paul never said the United States was the world's largest terrorist group. Comparing yourself to Ron Paul, won't do you any good.
I'm not trying to justify the act itself
That's exactly what you've done. Saying "It's the only way they can resist" is a justification, a false one at that. Let's look at your very first post in this debate. ThePyg said: 'inb4 gary says "terrorists taliban and insurgents are innocent"' and what was your response? You said "Innocent of what?". So not only do you think they are justified you think they are innocent. The fact that you've been trying to justify the actions of the Taliban is well documented throughout this debate.
Your denial will cost you this debate.
I was even unaware they used such practices, this is first time I've heard of Taliban strapping bombs to children, are you sure this is a routine practice and not an isolated incident?
Why am I not surprised that you were unaware of this? And yes, I'm very sure. One of my buddies on his first deployment had an 8 year old little girl walk up to him strapped with enough explosives to blow them all to hell. No, this is not an isolated incident. They have "schools" where they teach children the quickest way to get to heaven is to blow up Americans. Like I said, the Taliban has a fucked up ideology.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/317009
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/31/afghanistan-taliban-should-stop-using-children-suicide-bombers
http://digitaljournal.com/article/317009
Well, maybe not anymore, but for most of the war the population supported the aims of the taliban against the foreign invaders
If that aim was getting rid of Americans, I'm sure they probably did have a majority support at one point, that support has since eroded. The more important point to make is that the Taliban ideology has always been a minority view. The Northern Alliance had been fighting the Taliban long before the U.S. came in.
Actually as the legal government of the country when it was invaded they have the legal high ground
Not when you harbor and give safe haven to the world's most wanted man, you don't. Not when you train and support the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. As many international organizations will confirm, the United States was well within it's legal rights.
Can you not even realise when you make such stupid statement
You mean like saying that the United States Invaded Afghanistan for it's non-existent oil?
You are unbeleiveable. 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war.
Not according to Osama Bin Laden. According to him, it was a war against the Great Satan, and a war against the Infidels.
Now, by your logic, since he is responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths across latin american (e.g. in Cuba and Venezuala most notably), they have the legal right to invade the US,
No, you're right there is no excuse for that, I don't condone that, I don't agree with my government especially when it comes to things like this. I don't deny that my government does some really fucked up things. Although I can tell you exactly why this happened though. Ever since the cold war, there has been this irrational fear of communism, many conservatives believed that countries one-by-one would fall to communism and that The US would be swallowed up. They adopted policies to oppose communism by any means necessary, and sometimes that meant supporting brutal groups like the Contras.
is this not directly comparable to Afghanistan granting asylm to Bin ladn and few associates?
Somewhat. Although there are some important differences. First of all Luis filed for political asylum in the united States, that request was denied. So then he tried to sneak into the United States, was apprehended, detained by the department of Defense, and then held in an Texas Jail for nearly 5 years. He was charged with lying to federal agents and for falsifying his immigration papers. He was ruled innocent of those crimes. Although the trial was hardly fair, it's quite different than the story of Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Hell, the Taliban constructed training camps for Bin Laden's soldiers in Afghanistan. Luis posada, was one man. Osama Bin Laden had a small army.
The Taliban are an indigenous group that came to power with popular backing in Afghanistan in 1992
Bullshit it did. The Taliban seized military control of Afghanistan with Pakistani militia soldiers, weapons, and supplies. And without this Pakistani support it probably would have failed. The Taliban also launched rockets into cities, burned crop fields, denied UN food to 160,000 starving people, dragged people out of their homes and executed them. This caused people to flee the country. Popular support my ass.
Source:
......
more later
I'm not trying to justify anything
Bullshit you're not. Should we review past comments?
When I questioned you about the Taliban using children as suicide bombers you said and I quote: "it is the only way they can resist...", Please tell me what this is if not a justification? When I questioned about them using IEDs in heavily populated areas you again said: "the Taliban have had to use all available means of maintaining their existence"
I merely recognise the problem of big countries thinking they have some God given right to invade smaller weaker ones.
You think this is a war between countries?
I don't beleive this to be the case, their is a moral, legal, and principled dimension to any conflict
And the Taliban doesn't have either the moral nor the legal high ground. The Taliban was part of the Al Qaeda support structure, the U.S. was perfectly within it's right to take out that support structure.
You have an elementary misunderstanding of what action you are justified in carrying out, one of the real problems is that we (in the West) feel that we are the superior people, and we have the right to tell others how to live their lives
What do you think the Taliban has been doing since they came to power? Telling people how to live their lives. Remember what I said earlier, the Taliban represents a minority ideology and any who opposes that is threatened with violence or even death. You must obey by their rules. Anybody who thought the country shouldn't be ruled by their strict interpretations of the Koran was intimidated or killed. If you send your daughter to school they will blow up the school. Any attempt to uplift women or to modernize the country was meet with strong resistance from the Taliban.
The government and military which you support does, if you support them you must support their policies
I probably disagree with the Federal Government more than I agree with it, this however does not require me to agree with your assessments.
I wonder why they are unaware, could that be intentional at all?
Well if everybody knew about it then it wouldn't very well be clandestine, then would it?
Don't respond to this. I will edit the rest in later..
funding groups that are equally savage,
This issue is much more complex than I think you are willing to admit. Does the U.S. government support and fund rebel/insurgent forces in other countries. Yes. Are some of these groups using tactics banned by international law, yes. The US Government has a history of backing rebel/insurgent groups, if it perceives the Dictatorship which it is rebelling against as being the greater of the two evils. Sometimes I think the US government is wrong in it's assessment in who is the greater evil. Most of the time though the dictatorships are worse than the rebel/insurgent groups backed by the U.S.
Sometimes a war between different tribes or ethnicities is incorrectly viewed by western media and by Policy Makers as a "Revolution". When we pick sides in an ethnic or tribal war this can have ramifications, which is why the Conflict in Libya worried me. Time will tell.
Yes, current data suggests their support has dried up, but this is a recent development, for most fo the war they have had significant support
As I pointed out and as you neglected, the support was only for the --aims-- of the Taliban and not necessarily the Taliban itself or it's tactics, and even then it was still a minority.
obviously now that situ is impreoving they are realising that they don;t need the Taliban for the their security. Imagine that.
fair enough, you must be doing something right, I'll admit that
http://
you invaded to secure oil and gas interests
Apparently you don't realize that Afghanistan doesn't have any oil of it's own. It has to be imported into the country. But nice try.
http://www.indexmundi.com/afghanistan/
No, I'm saying you are largely responsible for allowing him and his puppet regime to come to power
You still haven't presented any evidence. Making yet more claims =/= evidence. Also I would like to point out that there is a world of different between allowing him to come to power and causing him to come to power. If you have evidence for the latter I would like to see it.
You'd be surprised what fragmented groups lacking any other effective means of resistance will do when their backs are against the wall, you say that with such certainty but it's quite obviously wrong, we are all human, and we all the same capacity to commit evil acts, although I admit when hideous attacks are mandated by your ideology (especially if it's religious) it can increase their savagery .
Therein lies the problem. You can justify any atrocity so long as it's committed by the losing side in the conflict.
In war there will always be SIDE A vs. SIDE B, and each will lay claim to the legitimacy of their cause, but the only clear way to distinguish a legitimate force from an illegitimate one is the moral boundaries they are willing to cross in the process. The Taliban doesn't have the support of the International Community precisely because of how it treats women and children. Their own women and children.
Now, aside from that, I really just can't stand your pontificating, you are currently backing and sponsoring any insurgent or terrorist group that will try to overthrow the elected government of Iran.
I am doing no such thing. I have no 'beef' with Iran. Iran more than any other nation has good reason to hate us, the CIA-led Iranian Coup was the result of neo-conservative war mongering. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans are completely unaware of these types of clandestine operations and are conducted without our consent. As much as Iran may hate us, they know in a war (either conventional or Nuclear) they would lose and they have expressed no desire to engage the United States in Conflict, contrary to what some Politicians may claim.
The Taliban still have significant support, and it is only recently that it has begun to wain as the polling data indicates so please let's not try to paint a false picture of the US being liberators, when you invaded they had significant support, and may still significant support.
The poll you linked to stated that only 29% of afghans are sympathetic to the aims of the Taliban. Not only is do these people represent a great minority, but those who sympathized only sympathized with the --aims-- of the Taliban, and not necessarily with the Taliban itself or the tactics of the Taliban.
Whether the United States was a Liberator or not is a matter of semantics, but the truth of the Matter is that Afghanistan was in Pretty terrible shape when we entered it, being one of the poorest and most illiterate nations in the region. More hospitals, schools, wells, roads and radio towers have been built under US occupation then during the entire duration of Taliban Control. Your link also indicates that those who think the country is moving in the right country outnumber those who do not.
You cannot give the U.S. credit, even when Credit is due.
I admit that even in recent time Karzi has come against the US on certain issues, particularly drone attacks against his own people (that even killed his own cousin), so ya recently he had to come out against you in order to maintain what little credibility he has even though he's rigged every election he's stood in and only rose to power because of you, his regime has been a classic puppet regime from the day you created it.
So you think the United States rigged Afghan elections to elect a man that dislikes us? Evidence?
Holy Christ man, I would like to have a conversation without it turning into a novel. You know you don't have to respond to every single sentence I write. Dispute the argument not each individual sentences. I simply don't have the time to respond to all of this.
And Also a word of recommendation: I wouldn't use InfoWars as a source if I were you. Alex Jones is a well known conspiracy nut, and his website is not a credible source of information.
Maybe someday China will invade your country and then US citizens will take up arms against them if your military is defeated, then self righteous Chinese people can post statistic like about US insurgents.
They could post it but it wouldn't be in their favor. I very much doubt Americans would strap suicide bombs onto children, use human shields, decapitate civilians on video or plant IEDs in busy marketplaces.
We also have better aim ;-)
But to give you some perspective, the insurgency especially in Afghanistan isn't just an anti-occupation force. Imagine if China invaded the US, now imagine a corrupt and violent Radical religious group has taken control of the country and was recruiting Americans to fight against the Chinese Occupiers. That's basically the situation in Afghanistan. The Taliban and other sectarian groups are entities with radical fringe ideologies that the average afghan would never support and under the Taliban Afghans have suffered. So many are forced to choose between this crazy radical religious group and an occupying foreign power. The only reason we have anywhere near the level of support we have now is because of how we operate (not in spite of it). People have a tendency to prefer their own countrymen to foreigners, the fact that we have the level of support we do from local afghans is a miracle in itself.
Oh yes, the government that was put into power witbh US backing, ya, there not a corrupt puppet regime at all
Oh yes, because President Karzai loves us {Rolls eyes}.
That was sarcasm in case you didn't catch it....
About 78% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, are caused by anti-government forces.
Source:
http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/
Do you doubt that the overwhelming majority of people who suffered and died at the hands of your countries hideous aggression were civilians?
I doubt that this graph is even remotely close to reality. According to this graph not a single insurgent, Sectarian extremist, Militant, Iraqi soldier or afghan soldier was killed in the course of the whole conflict, which is obviously false.
Innocent of what? If you mean innocent of committing an aggression against the US, and doing nothing substantial to provoke or antagonise the US
You mean the Taliban? Except for harboring, training, and supplying Al Qaeda forces. Besides decapitating civilian hostages and videotaping it and posting it on the internet. Besides planting IEDs where civilians live and work. Besides using children as suicide bombers. Besides assassinating Government officials. Besides spraying battery acid in the face of little girls who dare to go to school. Girls are not allowed to go to school according to Taliban Theology.
This in addition to Al Qaeda forces and Al Qaeda leaders, (those directly responsible for 9/11) that have been found in both countries. As well as foreign Radical Islamic militia groups that bolster Taliban forces.
Congratulations you are an apologist for the of Islamic Extremism.
Yes you would. In time you will come to understand. Kids are like little balls of energy, and when they are using that energy it is usually to scream, yell, annoy, and to destroy property. When you keep small children occupied, they become like little Gandhis. I have yet to meet a parent who is not elated by the prospect of something which occupies their children. You cannot possibly watch or entertain a child 24/7 especially when you are busy doing other things (like driving). Trust me on this.
While I think it's delusional to insist that we were attacked because they "hate freedom", or because of who we are, but I think the video is pining the tail on the wrong donkey.
The fact is, 15 of the 19 Hijackers, were from Saudi Arabia. Why is that? Saudis were upset with the a foreign military presence (infidels) in a holy land (Arabia). Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as having banned the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia". Following the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, there has been a strong U.S. Military presence in Saudi Arabia. This is one of the three reasons Osama cited as his motivation for the September 11 attacks.
The other two reasons being American Support for Israel and U.S. sanctions against Iraq. 2 of the 3 reasons are explicitly religious in nature, but all 3 reasons are the result of U.S. foreign policy. Interestingly enough, the Iran Coup was not cited by Al Qaeda as a reason for the attacks. None of the Hijackers were Iranian.
Also a point for correction, the mujaheddin and the Taliban are not the same group. The Taliban was a radical splinter group, with the majority of the former Mujaheddin becoming part of the Northern Alliance, which has been the principal opposition to the Taliban and to Al Qaeda. The Northern Alliance has been largely incorporated into the New Afghan National Army.
So yes, there are a lot of things the U.S. could have done differently, but a large part of the problem is that Al Qaeda is just fucking crazy. I agree with Ron Paul's foreign Policy. To assert that Isolationism caused WW2 is absolutely asinine. The notion that not getting involved in other nation's wars, somehow causes more war is completely ludicrous.
That's strange because I don't remember you giving any proof when you made the statement to begin with. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it. But i'll bite:
You are making a categorical claim, essentially claiming that all English belongs to the category of "Queen's English" which is false. American English doesn't nor does Old English, in fact some forms of British English wouldn't either.
Most of the animals I see are not gay
What relevance is that? We are talking about all animals on earth, some of which have displayed homosexual tendencies. This is not even a matter of opinion. Some animals show homosexual behavior, this is a fact. It has been observed. There are documented cases of it. I could provide a dozen or more credible scientific sources which will all confirm precisely what I have already stated. Our conversation cannot progress any further until you recognize this fact.
Wikipedia is full of false information about it has high vocabulary
Actually studies have shown that Wikipedia is incredibly accurate. See links below:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/
In cases where Wikipedia isn't accurate generally it is from vandalism, which is both apparent and easily correctable. The high vocabulary of it's article authors only lends more credibility as it demonstrates a higher level of general understanding and subject matter expertise.
Animals have got it into there brain that they need the opsite gender.
For the most part, however gay animals are the exception to that.
How are the same gender of penguins going to reproduce?
In many cases they don't. Do you have any other questions?
Actually homosexuality has been observed in animals with a fair amount of frequency. There are many recorded cases of this occurring. Humans are not the only ones to display homosexual behavior. In the article above it has been observed in Penguins. To say that there are no gay animals is blatantly false. There seems to be some underlying biological or environmental cause.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/
If this doesn't read like a spaceship landing on top of Mt. Sinai, I don't know what does
I would say nothing does.
Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently.
Sounds more like a volcano eruption.
Don't believe me? See for yourself:
http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_gdp.gif
http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_emp.gif
Warren Buffet explains that Trickle-down economics hasn't worked:
I said not all wealthy people own businesses, and you rendered this statement as no rich people are part of businesses. Do you know the difference between owning something and participating in it? Owning something means you can dictate the price. Not all wealthy people can dictate the price of the industry they are in. Stockholders, bankers and investors for example. Do you honestly think that if for example we raise taxes on an oil tycoon he is going to raise the price of gas for everybody? Of course not the amount of money he loses from the tax increase would pale in comparison to the amount of business he would lose for raising gas prices unnecessarily. Since when have market prices ever been determined by personal income taxes, ever? Prices are determined by supply and demand. Income tax has been lowered on the rich consistently over the last 20 years or so and it has never resulted in a better economy. The only thing we can safely say it has accomplished is to make the rich even richer.
The policy your talking about has been the justification for stratifying the American people. The gap between the rich and poor has consequently grown over the years as a direct result. It is to their benefit to make you believe that this benefits me and you, but it doesn't.
What if we are the product of one of those advanced civilizations? Would that make them Gods to us?
Are you saying you think this actually happened, that extraterrestrials are the basis of all world religions, or is this just a hypothetical question?
No, it's a personal income tax, not a business tax. First of all, not all wealthy individuals own businesses. Secondly, the only costs that do get handed down to customers are increases in business expenditure. Products and services are going to remain at whatever price allows them to make the most profit, if the cost of running a business has not increased and the demand for the given products and services has not risen, then it makes no business sense to increase prices. Most wealthy business owners operate their businesses based on profit and not on their own personal income. For these reasons personal income taxes do not translate well into market prices, and this has been the excuse for giving wealthy undue advantages, that in many cases is not even asked for.
I'm saying there is no land the Jews can rule that won't upset the local population already living there. This isn't so much a statement about Jews, but a statement about people in general. People generally don't like foreigners coming in and taking control of their government.
I'm a little bit confused by that as well...I think maybe what he means is that if the U.S. had set aside some land for a Jewish state, some of the current violence could have been avoided. Although arguably that may just create anti-semitism in whoever is already living there.
Having full faith does not guarantee you are in the correct religion, remember that Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Wiccans and all other manner of religions also claim to have absolute faith in their beliefs as well. Therein lies the problem. Obviously they cannot all be correct and all of them assert faith, so it seems pretty naive to assert that your religion is the "one true religion".
As far as evidence, at least the kind of evidence we can confirm "empirical evidence" is not possible for supernatural or metaphysical claims. What claims religions do make about the physical world are often contradicted by science, thus this war between science and religion.
Sins are an invention of the Abrahamic faiths and don't exist outside of those religions. It is sometimes said that sin is a fictional disease, for which the fictional solution is to adhere to those religions. Most religions don't acknowledge the existence of "sins", so it would be senseless to look for the solution to it in other religions.
Not so much as we should choose that which is most internally consistent, leads to happiness, and best explains the facts of the world. If there truly is a Benevolent God he would not punish myself or anyone else for following where our reason leads us.
That's not the extent of my claim.
Yes it is. You've asked me to present evidence that something didn't happen.
My claim is that I believe what I read in the Scriptures based on faith FIRST, but if someone would provide evidence against what the Bible teaches/claims, then I would disbelieve the circumstance in question.
First of all, that you have faith in no way supports the veracity of your belief, nor would it constitute a good reason for others to believe it. One may have faith in literally any unfalsifiable implausible claim, and it would still be no better or worse than any other faith claim. There is no relationship between what is believed upon faith and what is actually true. None whatsoever.
Second of all, that you believe it on faith tells me that you WOULDN'T disbelieve if evidence were actually presented, because faith is not an evidence-based belief.
You, on the other hand, when it comes to the Bible, but undoubtedly not many other writings, including news reports, etc., feel a need to initially disbelieve it's accounts because there is no way for it to be proven?
Because of the extraordinary and supernatural nature of biblical claims, the burden of proof would be much higher than for non-extraordinary and non-supernatural claims. Nevertheless good reporting and journalism often contains an evidential source. Not to say I have never believed in a news story without examining the evidence, I am quite certain that I probably have rushed to conclusions without first examining the evidence, and I am quite certain you have as well. Having said that I am arguing that this is what you have done in regards to the Bible.
What is proof to you anyway?
This is a very good question. While proof and evidence are used interchangeably in colloquial usage I am more or less just referring to evidence and I think there is an important distinction to be made between proof and evidence. The simplest explanation is that evidence unequivocally supports one explanation over another and evidence can range from being very poor evidence to very strong evidence, whereas proof conclusively rules out all contrary explanations.
So to answer your question, what in my mind would constitute good evidence would be independent reliable sources which corroborate each other.
Eyewitness? Well, Jesus Christ was an eyewitness, and the writers were eyewitnesses, so that doesn't suffice for you.
The eyewitnesses are only spoken of through the bible itself and do not exist independently from biblical texts. To date no independent accounts or testimonies have been found except for the biblical texts themselves. Why not, if said events were as miraculous as claimed?
The first writings about the life of Jesus do not appear until some 70 to 80 years after the fact, this alone should raise some serious doubts. What other historical personage or historical event relies on uncorroborated texts written almost a century after the fact? Jesus himself didn't write a single word of the bible. Why is that? Are we to believe the son of God is illiterate?
Tell us what evidence could possibly be presented to you about creation? About the global flood, and Noah's Ark, and the parting of the Red Sea, and such, exactly WHAT evidence would you personally require, since all people have differing requirements on what and how they believe?
Different claims have differing burdens of proof depending on the extent of their claims.
If I claimed to have a friend with heterochromia (Two different colored eyes) the burden of proof would certainly be lower than if I said I had a friend with natural glowing red eyes. Perhaps just submitting a picture of my heterochromia friend, but if I sent in a picture of my friend with glowing red eyes, you would be more inclined to say it was a photoshop and would demand more evidence...perhaps seeing this person face to face.
I have often insisted that finding a universal layer of silt across the globe within the geologic would constitute evidence of a global flood. Egyptian records corroborating the red sea splitting, since they would not be motivated to corroborate a story that makes them look bad, I think would offer decent evidence of such an event. But by no means is evidence limited to my imagination.
Just because you haven't experienced God's spirit, does that mean you don't believe Him?
I am not in a habit of believing things which are impossible to see, hear, taste, touch, smell or measure in some way.
Some of us have experienced the Holy Spirit of God in our lives
And for you this may be compelling reason to believe, but for others it is not. Personal anecdotes of things which cannot be objectively tested or verified, are incredibly susceptible to cognitive and social biases and thus are incredibly unreliable. People often overestimate their own objectivity.
Your lack of evidence doesn't negate the reality of God.
The "reality" of God has not yet been established, only presumed.
Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln existed? Why? Eyewitness reports, records, pictures, a monument? But, you didn't experience him in the flesh, and touch him, and talk to him, nor did you hear his voice. "Abraham Lincoln" could be a deceptive ploy carried out by some world organization meant to bring down slavery.
If the existence of Abe Lincoln was just part of a massive international cover-up, this claim would require even greater evidence than if it weren't true and he was a real person. In that sense it is diss-analogous to the statement that some of the claims of the bible may be false or exaggerated.
LOL. So, what you're saying is that there are perfectly unbiased scientists who study creation/big bang/evolution, etc?
I never claimed that. However the scientific method if followed properly is designed to filter out biases, this is why we have double-blind studies for precisely this reason. When religious doctrine prevents you from accepting or investigating evidence which may contradict that doctrine, then you fail to follow the scientific method.
ICR says "This is true, I will try to prove it"
Science says "This might be true, I will try to refute it"
Your science gods who believe in the big bang and evolution are some of the biggest Godhating people on this earth, and they are full of deceptive scientific practices, leading to fabricated conclusions.
I emphatically disagree. There are many scientists who believe in God, but in a God more consistent with scientific findings. Dr. Ken Miller, for example. Even for the scientists who don't believe in God, it can hardly be said that they hate something that they personally don't believe exists. Even if they did, that would not in any way refute any scientific discovery made by them.
This is an ad hominem. Argue the science not the scientists.
Granted. Sorry. Your argument against evidence and ultimate truth and belief is totally fallacious, as well.
You nor anyone else posses "ultimate truth" and to insist that you do is very naive. Also would you mind pointing out specifically what fallacy I have committed?
King James Version says "Unicorn", not OX.
Follow the link here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/
It is terrible reasoning because you are claiming that something is true because there is no disproof. This is an argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The problem is that the burden proof rests on the person making the affirmative claim (i.e. you). There are a potentially infinite number of claims which cannot be disproven, this does not give them good reason to be believed. In my example, we have yet to disprove the existence of invisible moon bears, so would you say we should believe that invisible moon bears exist?
But, why wouldn't one believe that the accounts happened?
In regards to how true it may be, it doesn't really matter why someone does or doesn't believe in something. This is an appeal to motive.
Many, many people believe in the literal Genesis account of God's creation
Many people also think Justin Beiber is a good singer. Many people once believed that the earth was flat.
btw, the intelligent design scientists are offering all kinds of new evidence in support of it (www.icr.org)
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is not a scientific organization. Setting out to prove what they have stated that they already believe, is in direction opposition to the scientific method. Their doctrine prevents them from finding any evidence that would contradict their 'mission'. Most of their "research" was conducted in their own libraries, and most of these researchers are not scientists but christian apologists. If you can find any ICR researcher that has an accredited degree in biology, geology or astronomy I would be very surprised. Those wishing to join ICR must sign a statement of faith.
and if one believes in the Genesis account, what the heck is so hard to believe about God raining fire and brimstone from heaven down upon the immoral towns?
Noting, if you believe in the Genesis account.
If you want to wreck people's faith you really need to offer infallible and conclusive evidence against the stated claims of the belief.
Infallible evidence is neither possible nor necessary, in fact no evidence at all is necessary until the affirmative claim first provides supporting evidence and then and only then can counter-evidence be requested. What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
However my intention is not to "wreck" anyone's faith, I am merely making arguments and your argument was particularly fallacious.
The Bible contains many parables and metaphors, one must think beyond that of a three year old.
Which ironically is what leads people to believe in:
-Unicorns (Job 39:9)
-Giants (Genesis 6:4)
and
-angels that look like inter-locking wheels covered in eyes (Ezekiel 10:10-14)
Speaking of moon bears:
What you're saying is that you don't believe the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, but have NO PROOF that it didn't occur.
How is it that people are still using this blatantly terrible reasoning? Since when is it reasonable to demand proof that something isn't the case.
EXAMPLE:
"What you're saying is that you don't believe the Galactic Battle of Invisible Moon Bears, but have NO PROOF that it didn't occur."
I was finally banned from a debate:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
It seems to me that there is no measure of conformity of thought like conformity of outward actions. So to be concerned with one is to be concerned with the other.
Well the actions that government is concerned with are those affecting the survival of society and it's prosperity which is only a fraction of all possible actions, even so one may conform in action and dissent in thought or to dissent in both action and thought.
I think removing "those specific" from the statement wouldn't detract from it's meaning at all so... Do you think of yourself as "anti-religion"?
I am only anti-religion when religion is anti-me. I may dispute religion in terms of veracity and usefulness, but so long as religion doesn't presume to dictate my actions or beliefs then I am perfectly fine with others being religious.
I don't think you can make a critical comment about religion in general without referencing something that's not common to every religious sect.
Here is something common to all of religion the priority of faith over reason, and the presumption of the supernatural.
The same goes for government. If you can point out something about government in general that is objectionable without referring to a specific type of government, I would understand my logic to be flawed.
Have you ever conversed with an anarchist?
Well I think that what it would be overwhelmingly deleterious of, would be the false distinction that there are religious and non-religious people.
Of course there is a distinction between the religious and the non-religious, it may not be a black and white distinction, but a distinction can be made nonetheless.
How do you become a athiest or non christian when you read the Bible?
As Penn points out, I think what happens, is that what you are told about the bible and what the bible actually says, are two different things. There are certain things within the bible that most churches and preachers don't talk about, and when you read them for the first time it really makes you think.
For me personally I think it was difficult to pinpoint exactly what it was that caused me to become a disbeliever, but one thought that always laid heavy on my mind was "How do I know I am in the correct religion"?
Group think has it's advantages and disadvantages.
Social advantages I'm sure, but as for epistemological advantages there are none.
Do you agree that the institution of a government is the same sort of "move away from independant thought"?
Disagree. Any legitimate form of government is concerned with actions and not innate personal beliefs. Political parties on the other hand do lend to this sort of group-think. George Washington in some of his early statements expressed his concerns over the creation of political parties.
Please critique the following statement: "Religion consists of those specific philosophical principles that an individual decides to live up to and promote"
If I were to find fault with this statement it would be the use of the word 'Specific'. The principals a religion chooses to promote are often very inter-related not only with each other but with the dogma of that religion. Some of the more successful religions typically include doctrine which attempts to punish or dissuade dissenting thought. There are notable excepts however.
You might criticize a religious sect as you recognize it, but to criticize religion itself would be just as pointless as attempting to criticize government in general.
I don't see anything pointless about either. Both of these social institutes exert an incredible influence over our lives so it is important to criticize them so that they remain honest, the problem with religion is that people are often afraid to criticize it publicly.
Are you willing to defend the "can only" portion of that statement?
How about if I said "overwhelmingly will", would that be better?
I was introduced to planking a while ago when I saw some younger soldiers doing it. There is no real rationale behind this phenomena, it's a product of the current culture of arbitrarity. Planking is when someone makes their body flat like a board and lays on top of something.Just type "planking" into google image and you will see what I'm talking about.
For largely the same reason I oppose atheist "churches". It is a move away from independent thought and towards group-think. It is these belief re-affirming institutions and practices that I have criticized religion for. To make atheism more like religion can only have a deleterious affect, not just on atheists but on everybody. It gives the impression that we must totally surrender ourselves to some pre-defined school of thought.
Strangely Enough:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/
Although Personally I would oppose this move.
I forgot that we're supposed to pretend that your arguments aren't rife with fallacies, because you don't understand them. It's like you think your arguments should be given special considerations because you're an incompetent debater. I'm not going to afford you that luxury.
I disagree because you need people to extract the raw materials that make up the machine, you need people to build the extraction tools, you need people to transport these raw materials, then you need people to refine the raw materials, then you need to transport these materials to an assembly plant, you need creative people to design the machine patent, you need to build an assembly plant, you need to manage and oversee the assembly plant, you need sales pitch and advertising guys, You need lawyers to guard the patent and the assembly plant, you need security guards, then you need warehouse and stores to distribute the machines, then you need guys who know how to repair these particular machines, guys who know how program the machines, guys to build the software so that it can be programed, you need people to write the instruction booklet, to print the instruction booklet, you need boxes to ship the machine in, then you need people to make these boxes, to design the logo, then you need to electricity or fuel to run the machine etc.....
For every job lost due to technology more are created. It is no coincidence that the most prosperous nations are also the most technologically advanced.
As for civil rights, you're talking about how voters shifted their party support
And the racial attitudes that voters have tend to follow them when they change parties.
What I'm talking about is the legislative position, which civil rights was not a Democratic policy.
But lynching was?
