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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvjgIxuVdo4

That about sums it up.

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."

Because developed nations never fight each other? Nor undeveloped nations fight each other?

Eventually all war fighting will be done by unmanned machines. Scary, huh?

I was finally banned from a debate:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Is_one_source_better_than_another#arg193097

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.

I before e except after c

What about: Their ?

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?

What in my statement are you actually disputing?

Perhaps if Palestine becomes a state we might see a decline in some of the violence in that region.

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.

Faith is a belief. Atheism is a disbelief.

Belief =/= disbelief

Strangely Enough:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?_r=1

Although Personally I would oppose this move.

No, I don't upvote myself, nor would I need to.

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.

You are taking my statements too literally...

That is the good thing about atheists. They will never knock on your door and they will never fly a plane into your buildings, but the internet is fair game.

;)

For innovations in current technology you would be correct, but for brand new technologies (i.e. inventions) this creates jobs.

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?

I see a lot of mention of Classical Liberalism, and I think it's important to point out that the ideals of Classical Liberalism were not Democratic. They were an ideology.

Just as Liberalism and Conservatism are just ideologies, and it's important to note that Democrats were not always liberal and Republicans haven't always been conservative. So democrats of the past do not mirror the democrats of the present in terms of ideology or personal beliefs.

So anyway, why do Democrats all of a sudden support civil rights? Well, because of LBJ. That's about it.

Not quite. The democrats who opposed the new deal and who opposed the civil rights movement left the party and became republicans.

Classical Liberalism advocated a more limited government and free markets which was supported by mostly white farmers. In the early days The Democratic party was the more conservative of the parties. It wasn't until FDR's presidency did we really begin to see this transition from a conservative Democratic Party to a Liberal Democratic party. The pro-slavery southern democrats were largely conservative in their beliefs.

The democratic party under went a massive demographic change, where originally the party was supported by mostly rural folks, and over time became more associated with urban areas. The New Deal had split the party between conservative democrats and Liberal democrats. Many of these same Conservative democrats who opposed the New Deal became Republicans under Nixon's Southern Strategy. This is the reason the Democrats were the ones who pushed the civil rights movement in the 60's.

Sources:

http://www.answers.com/topic/southern-democrats

http://www.answers.com/topic/southern-strategy

http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-party

Machines create new jobs because you need people to build those machines, to maintain/repair those machines, and to ship them etc...

You certainly talk about me a lot. I'm flattered.

Yes, I did miss that point. The title of the video, "disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap" threw me for a loop.

Titles can be very misleading, and are often written by different people entirely. That is something I've noticed happens a lot especially with journalism.

And I think it's worth pointing out that Ken Miller believes in God, but he believes that God uses the laws of nature to work for him.

Not a functioning one.

I think you are missing the point joe. Ken Miller wasn't trying to dismiss or disprove intelligent design, he was trying to refute the argument of Irreducible Complexity. Irreducible complexity is an argument against evolution but does not necessarily support Intelligent Design. The point Miller was making is that biological systems are not bound to a single purpose, and that if you try to reduce the complexity of a biological system you may find that it may serve other uses. Biological systems that appear to be useless without certain components may actually serve other functions thus the mouse trap example.

Again this was not to disprove or dismiss Intelligent design but to refute Irreducible complexity.

Keeps the salty sweat out of your eyes. Be glad that you have them. Women who shave their eyebrows and then draw pencil thin eyebrows on look fucking ridiculous. I don't know who decided this was a good idea.

If we want to talk about who has a right to rule Israel the Jews who refused to leave Israel during the diaspora and have lived there for almost 5,000 years, these people called the Samaritans have virtually no say or influence over the the government of Israel but the Israeli Jews of European ancestry who have only lived in this region for a handful of generations are the ones who have total control of the government.

Talk about a 'rightful claim'.

You can't claim right to a land that your people voluntarily left 1,400 years earlier. This is like moving into a house your great great great grandparents once lived in and then telling the family that currently lives there that they must abide by your rules or get out.

As I see it neither side holds the moral high ground. Both sides Israeli and Palestinian have committed atrocious acts which cannot be condoned by a civilized people. This isn't simply a matter of resisting authority. Women and children have been targets, of both Israeli forces and Palestinian forces. We have seen random bombings and massacres. If the Indian people can successfully gain sovereignty from the British using civil disobedience then I see no reason why Palestinians cannot do the same. Their eagerness to resort to violence only hurts their cause.

Obama is too much like Bush for my liking. Although I still think he is an improvement. I would yet like to see dramatic change. Military bases in allied countries are expensive to maintain, and I think we should reduce our military presence in foreign nations. We should also leave "World-Policing" up to NATO and the UN. Focus on the economy here, as it presents a greater danger to ourselves and to the world than does Sectarian Extremism.

Both are used to take care of assholes.

For the price of a Netbook, you might as well pony up a few extra hundred dollars for some 400 times the memory and processing power.

Develop a following of worshipers who believe you to be a Hindu deity. They may do your bidding. Perhaps become a super-villain.

I don't know that I would even label this liberalism, but what surprised me about the London riots is what little London police did to deal with the situation. They avoided nearly all effective non-lethal riot control practices. Why is that? They seem to avoid police brutality by going in the opposite extreme which is to do nothing but posture oneself in an imposing manner. We saw how effective that was. Although I disagree with Pat as to the cause of the riots. It seems to me the vast majority of the rioters came from disproportionately poor neighborhoods. Inequality at least seems to be a strong contributing factor.

Absolutely agree!

Well considering that we once practiced slavery and now we have a black president, we have gone a long way in creating equality. However we are never going to completely eliminate racism. People will naturally treat people like themselves better than they treat people who are different; It's human nature.

Historically this is false. While public opinion influences laws, laws in turn can also influence public opinion.

Therefore the real issue with "gay marriage" is not legality but acceptance.

I beg to differ. I think what they want is the same legal and tax benefits as marriage.

The Goths are the original goths. And by Goths I'm talking about the barbarians who sacked Rome. They brought about the Dark ages, whats more gothy than that?

They're perfect for each other.

For those who want to be technical. Slavery as it once existed in the united states has ended. Slavery around the world still exists if not in a more meager form. Nazism as a fringe ideology still exists but the threat of Nazism to global security has effectively ended. Fascism, well I'm not sure what this is even referring to, but Fascism is alive and well today. Communism wasn't really ended by war at least not in any direct way, the USSR fell because it's economy couldn't be sustained.

So while war is a terrible thing that results in many deaths, it must remain an option when all other negotiations fail, and yes sometimes it actually works.

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/ 1/6/8/8/3/5/1/irony-11074321783.jpeg

This sounds like one of my cheesy jokes. On a related note what do you call a sleeping police officer? Answer: A pig in a blanket.

A helluva lot better than I can do with photoshop.

Downvoting without rebuttal means that you disagree with me but are unable to support your own argument and therefore are probably basing your opinion on emotion and rhetoric rather than objective evidence.

Unless someone wishes to make the argument that the average amount of cloud cover has grown exponentially over the last 100 years, then I don't see how this 'blows a gaping hole' in anything.

Step #1: Return iPod to the store.

Step #2: Buy literally anything besides iPod.

My son played a pro-sport for a time and I have seen it all. I knew a kid who killed himself because he didn't measure up to his fathers standards.

Because it's rational to make generalizations based on a singular rare occurrence??

Idiots like this shouldn't be allowed to have kids in the first place.

:P

So if you get liberals on there...you will get abortion and same sex marriage, group marriage...as most liberals are moral relativists. If there are more conservatives you get people who oppose abortion, favor marriage between a man and woman....and most likely they are beleivers in God.

If my memory serves me, there is only one congressman who doesn't believe in God, and that's Pete Stark. The difference isn't that conservatives believe in God it's that Republicans and Democrats have different views about God. Democrats tend to be less religious but equally spiritual.

Some people seem to think that everybody should abide by their particular religious views.

"Separation of church and state" only appeared in Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists...but today Americans think it appears in the First Amendment.

It does. Read the Establishment clause.

This is not cut and dry. What amazes me is that for 150 years or more SCOTUS members fought and defended things today the court is striking down.

Like Slavery?

The sound of a cat's footstep, the roots of a mountain, and the beards of women.

I thought you were gonna say something like yellow cake, or nuclear jelly. Why is it that the least appetizing foods are always considered delicacies?

Can someone please help me quantify just how stupid Palestinian Leaders are?

7

There, I quantified it.

If someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Give me everything you own. Your house, your car, your wallet, everything." And if you fight back he shoots you in the head (dead).

But we are not talking about one person. We are talking about a lot of people. If one death inspires others to act on behalf of justice, then the end result won't be the same if they are victorious.

I have no problem with the ending of potential human life, every male who has ever masturbated has ended millions of potential human lives. The ending of actual human life is a little harder to justify.

I suppose the transformation from potential human life into actual human life occurs somewhere between the stages of Zygote, Fetus, and Baby. Exactly when this occurs I cannot say. I will say that in Life there are a lot of moral gray areas, and abortion is one of the biggest moral gray areas that one may encounter. One should not take such a decision light-heartedly.

If a person is to have an abortion they should have it as early in the pregnancy as possible, before the development of the nervous system. I don't think abortion should be a form of birth control, but we also shouldn't take the option completely off the table.

There are numerous credible sources that will confirm this.

Such as:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(19970630)11:8<873::AID-HYP510>3.0.CO;2-6/abstract

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101122172010.htm

http://www.wcny.org/arcticair/climate-change/

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Experience_Future_Events_Washington

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes/?source=A-to-Z

Climatologists around the world have witnessed receding ice caps, in addition to the recorded temperatures which clearly and definitively show a warming earth. This is verified by numerous independent research from various countries or international communities. It's not just the United States government, or the IPCC, it's nearly all scientific organizations which study climate change which say precisely the same thing. The earth is getting warmer. To say otherwise is nothing short of denial.

Global warming is a recorded event. Temperature gathering devices all around the world have given us a clear picture that the average temperature is increasing. You can debate the cause all you want, but the earth is getting warmer.

We can only hope that both sides walk away from the table equally unhappy.

We have no right as Americans to tell Israel what they can or can't do.

Yet, we have a right to tell Palestinians? Our unflinching support of Israel I think is part of the problem. The United States has supported Israel for largely religious reasons, it's not right.

This stinks from a mile away. I think the lady on the video made a good point, if there is a real emergency they can bust your door down. I wouldn't be worried about the door if there was an emergency. But at least that way I will know when someone has entered my house, and they better have a damn good reason for it. The key box raises a lot of accountability issues.

Or it could be indicative of corporate lobbying resulting in government favors, but if that's how you want to look at it...

I'm not familiar with that particular expression.

Spending is not the cause of economic downturn, it is when demand does not keep up with supply. This is why governments try to increase demand during recessions or even depressions. If you increase demand then you can improve economic activity. How do you do that? Simple: Buy more stuff. Buying things creates jobs. This is the reasoning behind public works projects, they create jobs and thus improve the economy.

That's the question isn't it? This was a lose-lose proposition. Bail them out, go a few billion deeper in debt and reward bad business practices. Don't bail them out and millions of people will lose their jobs.

Because they wanted them to flop. It's more profitable if they flop.

This video explains it much better than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlvVumYdMGs

A Bailout would have never been necessary if not for the deregulation of the housing market. The bankers made risky investments which they knew where going to flop, not because of an assumed safety net, but because it was suddenly legal to do so.

What? I don't follow.

Fair enough. This is why I think Block Grants are such a brilliant idea.

http://www.answers.com/topic/block-grant

How do you define nudity? When National Geographic shows bare breasted indigenous women, are they showing nudity? Maybe it is only considered nudity if they show a really nice pair.

{Laughs}

Thanks, for that!

I was going to post that video as soon as I saw the title. You beat me to it. Personally I'm a Keynes man myself.

You have to see part One, first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MwHiiLVyXs&feature;=related

extremely attractive people, in general, have less skill and talent then everyday looking attractive people

The reason why they are less skilled is BECAUSE they have it easier and they don't need to rely on developing practical skills.

For example, let churches and charity organizations take care of some of that stuff. Mainly because I think that the government is really bad/incompetent at handling this kind of stuff.

And churches are known for their competence in handling large sums of money?

Is that Legend of Zelda music that I hear? Also I'm surprised Youtube hasn't taken this down yet, I thought they didn't allow nudity?

Camping's followers are left with dejection and puzzlement.

"I was hoping for it because I think heaven would be a lot better than this earth," said Keith Bauer, a tractor-trailer driver and Camping follower.

Bauer "had some skepticism" but I put it aside because he believed in God.

Robert Fitzpatrick of Staten Island, New York, famously spent his life-savings to finance a massive ad campaign for the 'Doomsday 'message.

As the clock ticked towards 6 p.m. local time on May 21st 2011 - which Camping predicted to be the beginning of 'Doomsday' - Fitzpatrick waited expectantly at Time Square, New York City. While he waited, he was surrounded by revelers and mockers.

When 'Doomsday' failed to materialize, Fitzpatrick was stunned.

"I don't understand why nothing is happening. It's not a mistake. I did what I had to do. I did what the Bible said," he said, reported New York Post.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/149845/20110522/camping-doomsday-rapture.htm

http://www.gospelherald.net/article/internatio/47207/harold-camping-speaks-on-wrong-rapture-prediction-photos.htm

Rapture guy, Harold camping says that may 21 was the "spiritual rapture" and that the actual rapture is October 21.

Apparently he has no problem making a complete ass out of himself.

NOT SAFE FOR WORK (NSFW).

Just thought I'd mention that.

The title of this debate should be "Too much Information: What is learned cannot be unlearned".

Damn, I'm going to have to start going to church!

I corrected you, because you said that we (Americans) declared our independence on the constitution, and tried to cover up this blatant error by claiming that The Declaration of Independence was also the constitution. Which is untrue.

The Constitution and Constitute are different words, with different meanings. I suggest you read a book, preferably a dictionary.

When you say "The Constitution" when discussing American politics, refers specifically to the U.S. Constitution. The word "constitute' is a verb which means to "make up, form; compose".

It is appropriate to use the middle urinal if all other urinals are occupied. It's not good to waste urinal capacity. On a related note, should you make the tall guy use the urinal that is obviously meant for children.?

-Yes it's funny.

-No, that's mean.

This study is a bit confusing towards me.

That's because it's a study about women, and women are confusing.

Generally there are two types of men women look for at different stages in their lives. First women are looking for a man with good genes to have children with, and second she is looking for a provider who can take care of herself and her children. Sometimes it is the same man, sometimes not. When women say they like a "Bad boy" it is almost always referring to the first type of man. Scientists refer to these men as males with Dark triad traits, because these men are typically very self-centered they will sometimes leave as soon as they find out the woman is pregnant. This is when she looks for a nice guy who will provide for her kids, even though they are not his. The first type of man passes on his genes by having lots of illegitimate children with various women, and the second type of man will stick with one woman. Both of these evolutionary strategies have their own advantages and disadvantages.

He's tucking his arms into his chest. They taught him well!

You beat me to it. I was going to post this topic....only I was going to title the debate "Women are evil".

Yeah, I steal other peoples jokes and pretend they're mine. But that's just between me and you. No one else needs to know.

So you would say "It wasn't meant to be a factual statement"....Upvote me if you know what I'm talking about.

Not only did George Washington not write this (David Cobb did) but this version you present has been significantly altered from the original. Nor was it a prayer. It was a letter written to a Governor.

Source:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/ monument.asp

Well to be fair, there is a difference between attributing their poorness to them being liberal, than to attribute their liberal-ness to them being poor. As we know, the poor tend to favor liberal views.

You do realize that this story is completely fictional, right?

"With faith, no explanation is necessary.

Certainly something unreasonable such as faith, requires no reason; it abhors such.

Without faith, no explanation is possible.”

Explanation based on fact, logic, sound reasoning, and evidence... Does not require faith.