Zephyr20x6's Waterfall
What if I pay you in a bunch of upvotes for a one time use here and now? Sounds like a deal? ;)
Love but that requires a lot of effort and head ache and nagging, so maybe being high and drunk at the same time after taking a painkiller to amplify, right before adventure time comes on.... That sounds nice lol.
I was half joking, I'm not totally sure if an old man can take ecstasy and not die or something. IDK. I might want to look into that now.
Dude don't actually do that, I hear it feel amazing as you could ever imagine but you won't be able to orgasm for years, it ruins sex for you. Maybe even your whole life. Do it when your an old man and you can tell you and your wife or whatever are starting to lose interest in sex, XD.
I'd say whatever causes happiness/contentment/satisfaction is the best feeling of all. That or Fucking on ecstacy, I never done it and I hear the result after sucks, the ride down is AMAZING!
I think I really been developing a sense of humor as of late, though I might be becoming obnoxious. I think my personality is changing to.
You actually got me to chuckle out loud with that, bravo, bravo. :)
Do you want me to take this debate seriously or is this another one if your ideas for a good laugh?
I'm drunk right now so I'm I'm probably stupid for drinking , but this interesting... LMAO HAHAHAJAJAJAHAYAHAHATA
Dude you are funny! I like you man, I'm glad you joined. Welcome to CD.
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
Majority of democrats don't want to outlaw all guns, at least not the democratic politicians I'm familiar with. Most of us merely argue for some gun control.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
This is probably the most fallacious generalization, I don't think any significant amount of people are trying to outlaw meat, especially half the country. I'd say the majority of democrats don't believe this.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If by legislated respect you mean the freedom to love who they want like we can, then yes this is probably one of the truest generalizations. Honestly, I'd consider it more of an insult to republicans than democrats.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.
Iv come across republicans who used welfare. Anyway with how republicans and democrats SHOULD be, I disagree. I feel that our society should help the less fortunate. If I become homeless and starving on the streets, yes I'm going to be on food stamps, however that doesn't mean I'm going to take advantage of the system.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. A Democrat demands that those they don't like be shut down.
Where you getting this from?
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
Non-believers don't want to silence anybody, in the political world I will admit there are people here and there that are against Christmas decorations, I do not agree with them.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a republican needs a road to drive on, he uses the roads that have been provided for him. If a republican needs to educate his children he uses the schools that everyone else pays for, etc.
If you say something, and I respond to it according to my understanding of it, and you mistake my actions to mean confusion...
It is confusion if you don't understand what I mean.
Or my actions are not readily apparent because I don't consider what I thought I'd heard to need any immediate actions...
If we are having a discussion, and you respond back not understanding what I meant, I can clarify.
"the nature relating to the involvement of the male and female genitalia." That's how.
Wouldn't it be much easier to just say sexuality? Now you are just making language more effort that it needs to be, we can make language easier and simpler by having broad defining words, and specific defined words.
Beside's my dictionary is specific enough anyways the definition Q used was the same as mine if I'm not mistaken.
How can one know if there is confusion until the listener acts on what he or she thought she heard which may not have been what the speaker was intending to say?
If I say something and your response to it indicates confusion, there we can tell there is confusion.
If one is intending to speak broadly, let him do it with broad breath. The existence of broad language gives rise to laziness and encourages against the use of clear and concise language.
Broad language is required to talk about broad things however. By your logic the word, sexuality shouldn't exist, so how do we talk about sexuality if there is no word for it?
When the word has several different definitions. Each Definition means something, but using the word makes the meaning unclear, and easily twisted into meaning something that was not intended. I'm arguing in general here, not on any specific word or definition.
Not with understanding of context and where it is being applied, and if their is still confusion the speaker can elaborate.
What really matters is not the word used but the intended definition the word describes. And if you change a word's definition to mean something it was not originally intended to describe, you corrupt the idea it was meant to embody.
I completely agree, to be fair I think this is something that is defining us here on this debate specifically.
If it wasn't intended to mean anything specific then fine, but if it Was intended to mean something specific, then using the more general term gives occasion for deliberate misinterpritation and corruption of the idea that is intended to be described.
Same thing can happen to words that are more specific, and how are you supposed to refer to things in general without generic words? Generic things exist we need words to define them, Sexuality is very general, but it still exists thus the word should exist.
But what in the world does this debate have to do with homosexuality? Why are you bringing that up?
This debate was made to settle an argument about homosexuality.
The most specific definitions of words are the ones which ought to be used officially.
Because with specific definitions there is far less miscommunication, and no bastardization of the language, and no taking advantage of one's words. All in all, a far more efficient manner of communicating one's thoughts and ideas.
How does one abuse more general definitions? If a definition means exactly what it was supposed to mean it can't be abused. Show me an example of how my definition can be abused and I'll show you how it isn't.
Obviously.
What benefit does a complex and jumbled mix of contradicting communication have on society?
None but my definition doesn't contradict itself however, it is just more general, maybe it isn't supposed to refer to anything specific.
We can play semantics all day long, or what definition is better. Do you have an actual argument on how homosexuality harms anyone? Or how your definition is the true definition?
How do we prove which one is the proper one. You see this bursts your whole original argument, because now legal dictionaries disagree so now they don't hold as strong of authority as you thought.
The eggs aren't conscious living beings thus they haven't developed a personality, feelings, mind, etc, they are the same as a rock or a tree at most, just like the fetus. A newborn however has more consciousness than a tree however.
Here is a legal dictionary definition of sex, and it agrees with me and Quoc, not you.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/
Stop bastardizing the English language ;)
I'm more inclined to take a medical dictionary's word relating to anatomical matters than a general purpose use dictionary. It is a higher authority.
On legal matters? Those definitions are designed for communicating in the medical field, they are actually not more official cause it is medical, just more practical for that field.
Sexual Intercourse
The act in which the external male reproductive organ—penis—enters the external/accessible female reproductive tract—vagina
Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.
From the same link as yours.
Legal Dictionaries and Medical Dictionaries are the proper sources to consult when it comes to disputing word definitions. The layman's language gets bastardized far to quickly and far too often to be of any actual use in understanding others.
Do you have a legal dictionary then, since it is law and politics that this is about?
Actually, it is extremely important for a country to keep growing in population. Someone has to pay for all those retirees. It is because we have more old people than young people that we need to allow illegal migrants to stay, work, and pay taxes to pay for social security ;)
I agree reproduction must happen, I am just saying that we have more of a problem with over-population than lack of reproduction, so if we are going to compare who should get more benefits, then the homosexuals should get more, I don't think it should be compared though.
What is bad about it, is that it's bastardizing the language, and the common law.
I could say the same as far as language goes, and it is more blatantly obvious that marriage being defined between one man and one woman is not for the integrity of the language but biased for the political views against same-sex marriage.
As far as law, laws change, that is why we have politics. To decide how laws are enforced, what laws we need, don't need, and shouldn't have is all part of our political system.
Marriage has always forever been strictly between male and female. If it has ever been anything else, that culture is long gone, erased from history, and not surprisingly either.
Other countries accept homosexuality they are still around, so I don't know what you mean by "erased from history". The culture is still here, maybe not here in America, but it is still here. Marriage has not always been strictly between one man and one woman, that is our time period now. This argument could apply just as well during the time of slavery for slavery, not every country had slaves.
Even the Greeks and the Romans, widely accepting of homosexual and pedophilic relations, never granted a homosexual union sanction as a "marital" union (except in the case of a single mentally deranged king using governmental authority for privilege not granted to plebs)
Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality, pedophilia is actually harmful on the child psychologically. Homosexuality however doesn't harm anyone any more than heterosexuality does.
Why? Because Marriage is not about love, or sex, or living together. Marriage is, and has always been, about procreation and the inheritance rights of offspring, and the ever continuance of human society. None of which apply to homosexuals. They can do what they want, but the legal benefits of marriage are for the Encouragement of procreative unions to keep society alive, and the other benefits are for the upbringing and inheritance rights of offspring that result from such procreative unions.
So then why do we allow those whom can't reproduce to marry? If this was the case wouldn't it be better if a couple was only allowed marry during their first pregnancy? Homosexuals also can adopt which I would argue is much more productive for society than creating more children as over-populated as we are. Reproduction I'd argue maybe shouldn't be as encouraged in society as much as it is, as we don't need anymore children, as we all feel like we need to pass on our D.N.A. and honestly a few people willing to sacrifice that opportunity for the better of our population should be more encouraged. I think if we are going to compare whom needs more benefits than homosexuals probably deserve them a bit more than heterosexuals. Also, why don't married couple's benefits get seized when no young have been produced?
What is so bad about redefining homosexual marriage? I doubt marriage has always strictly meant to be between one man and one woman, it was our culture that did that, as our society.
"3
: an intimate or close union"
AAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRR
We both have freaking dictionary definitions, you are not the only one with a dictionary definition... I think I've repeated that several times. You are making this a lot more cut and dry, black and white then it really is. We are not saying words should mean whatever the hell anyone wants it to mean, but the meaning dictated by society is relevant here, and easier to go with (I'd argue consistency may override society though).
I don't see how they are stupid for thinking a word means X. Everyone thinks a word means something, by that logic both you and me and nearly every person on earth is stupid, while those incapable of learning language are smarter than us ;)
EXACTLY! Thank you. This view I feel is much more productive to the use of our language, from my personal experience, homosexuals are considered capable of intercourse by most people, at least how it seemed to me, which the other two debates were invented to do statistical research on that, on this site.
The act is defined properly. Vaginal penetration by a penis is intercourse and anal penetration by a penis is either anal sex, sex, or sodomy. There is no reason to change the definitions
Exactly so why are you trying to change Merriam's definition, isn't that hypocritical?
Just because we have a specific word for vaginal penetration by a penis and a specific word for anal penetration by a penis does NOT mean that homosexuals are apart from society. It DOES mean that we want to be perfectly clear about what we are talking about.
We already are you are trying to obfuscate the word, to most people intercourse means almost any form of sex, or sex regardless of orientation.
Having different words does NOT mean that homosexuals are not equal to others. Conversely, using the same word doesn't mean homosexuals will be automatically accepted.
I agree, however I still disagree with your definition.
one was by me, the other was by him, that is why there is two. .
It's quite funny I just did the same thing right now. This debate is definitely better formed for the issue though so congrats on that.
I disagree, I think your word does what you are claiming mine are because most people generally see intercourse being capable of referring to anal sex. Want to hold a debate or not to see?
With regards to the word, "Love" - there is only one definition and that definition is gender (sexual orientation) neutral. It can be used to refer to both heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
same with intercourse.
However, we have specific words to refer to specifics sexual acts.
Your point? I understand there is a difference with the world love and intercourse with that, but I don't see the relevance in it.
We have the word sodomy, to refer to anal sex, and we have the word intercourse, to refer to straight sex. There is no reason to introduce anal sex into the definition of the word intercourse because we already have a word for anal sex; sodomy. If we did NOT have a word for anal sex, you could argue that we could use the word intercourse in order to refer to anal sex. But that is not the case. ;)
There are actual words for specific kinds of love?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
We also have different words for specific kinds of music. Rock music, rap, hip-hop, Jazz, etc, should the most popular music be considered music only?
why? I have given far more reason why mine is more accurate .
Edit: I mean practical thus should be accurate.
True, when people think of intercourse they first think of what intercourse means for them, however it seems to me that these same people still think intercourse is more flexible than that. It is the same exact situation with love, when heterosexuals think of love, they think of heterosexual love, should homosexual's love use a different word, even though most people acknowledge that homosexual love is still love? when I think of music the first thing that pops up in my mind is rock, does that mean all other forms of music is not music?
I am not convinced that most people think (or use) the word intercourse to refer to anal sex. I did a sample during lunch and no one said that they associate anal sex with intercourse.
If that is the case the I can understand why you hold your stance, but with everyone I've meet, in seems as though intercourse refers to any form of sex that uses one or more genitalia. I have no idea if you hang with people whom are biased however. Maybe we should have a debate to perform the goal of a survey to see what people on this site thinks, therefore the statistics aren't based on people we are familiar with but complete strangers to get better statistical information. I find with everyone I meet that intercourse generally refers to anal sex, vag on vag sex, or vag/pen sex, and that each form of intercourse is merely a more specific form of intercourse. I have never heard anyone with the opinion that homosexuals don't have sexual intercourse so I am too still unconvinced.
Maybe you're hanging out with the very people who do not know when to use "you're" and when to use "your." ;)
I do acknowledge I have a bit of a grammar issues at time with the words "you're" and your, and sometimes I do use the wrong one, and it is somewhat illiterate, and I do think it is better to be more literate with that, however it is irrelevant to this argument.
You don't understand. You are one of the FEW who thinks anal sex when someone uses the word intercourse.
I do not instantly think of anal sex when I hear the word intercourse comes up, I think of sex in general beyond just oral sex. From how I've seen people use the word "intercourse" I get the feeling that the same thoughts come up. sex, is sex, is sex no matter whether it is male on male, female on female, or male on female, etc. When I hear of intercourse I typically think of sex, and I suspect that it is the same with other people. People will be quick to say that those two men or two women had intercourse, if we didn't think of intercourse as synonymous with sex, most people wouldn't say that.
The BEST way to communicate with people is to agree on a specific meaning for words. Claiming that you are NOT going to use the dictionary (agreed upon) meaning and instead use what you think the meaning of the word ought to be (regardless of what the majority think it means) is NOT the best way to communicate with people.
I didn't say that was the best way to communicate people, you misunderstand me. What I think the word ought to mean is dependent on how it is typically used. I agree with a multiple of dictionaries, and disagree with a multiple of dictionaries as you do. Are you saying that using the words how most people don't think it means is more productive than using the words how people think it means? Joe, the thing here is, I am "biased" to my definition based on efficiency of the language, it is completely see through, and blatantly obvious that your are basing your definition on a personal opinion, not on the efficiency of said language.
The word intercourse is already understood by the vast majority of people to mean penis/vag action; not anal sex. Most people are heterosexuals and most heterosexuals do not have anal sex. Therefore, most people mean straight sex when the use the word intercourse. If you have any statistics to prove me wrong, bring it ;)
That is the first thing they think of specifically because of their sexual orientation, just like when we think of love, the first thing we think of is a man and a woman, does that mean that two men or two women don't love each other? of course not. The same people that think of vag/pen when they hear the word intercourse will easily apply the meaning of intercourse to a man/man or woman/woman relationship therefore the way people use the word intercourse can mean anal sex. Also likewise on the statistics part.
Good luck with that... Personally I'd rather use the language for the purpose it was invented and that is to communicate the best I can with people, and trying to convince people that words should mean this and that is somewhat counter-productive to the purpose of the language. I do like to put thought into what words should mean but how they are already understood is important to.
It is NOT MY definition. Look it up in the dictionary.
When I said your definition, I meant it was yours because it was the one you chose to promote, I understand it is a legitly from a dictionary.
Just because you may have been using the word incorrectly or misunderstand the actual meaning of the word, does not mean that your definition is correct. The definitive answer is in the dictionary. I am not making this shit up. ;)
The dictionary definition isn't necessarily "correct", as I have said pie could mean carrot and carrot could mean pie, all language really is, is a bunch of sounds strung together with meanings attached to them, and with text, little pictures we refer to as "symbols" strung together with meanings attached designed for these two forms of language to correlate with each other. I can find different dictionary definitions for one word of which they all disagree, not fully 100% disagree but do oppose each other in some way. For example here is another dictionary definition (I like this dictionary as I find it's definitions to be the most agreeable definitions that should be used)
"
1
: connection or dealings between persons or groups
2
: exchange especially of thoughts or feelings : communion
3
: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Now we have two dictionary definitions... Which one do we go with?
I would find that very Ideal definitions to go by, however the meaning behind the words have already been decided by population, and I think it would be much more practical to take that into consideration. Typically the way intercourse is used does seem to encompass sex, it seems to be a more "professional" way of saying "sex".
Oral sex is Felatio. Anal sex is sodomy. Panis/vag action is intercourse."
I think this argument is a much more efficient argument and almost made me change my stance a little only for a second though ;), but I don't think people ever refer to heterosexual couples have anal sex as sodomy, nor does this change the fact that people typically still refer to anal sex as intercourse.
Felatio is a very specific form of sex. Sodomy is a very specific form of sex. Intercourse is a very specific form of sex.
Felatio, and Sodomy, yes, intercourse however no, not in the way we use it.
The word "consummate" concerns itself with the very specific form of sex called "intercourse." The word "consummate" does NOT deal with the specific forms of sex called "felatio" nor does it deal with the specific form of sex called "sodomy."
The definitions are very clear. I don't see a reason to obfuscate the meaning of those words. ;)
I think with dealing with definitions it is important to keep in mind, how separated or united we may or may not become, I think it is more efficient for the language to try and keep us all on the same page (well as best as we can). Your definition does not accurately reflect the way people use those words typically, and the way we use those words typically aren't inconsistent with our language.
Oral sex is Felatio. Anal sex is sodomy. Panis/vag action is intercourse.
I think this argument is a much more efficient argument and almost made me change my stance a little only for a second though ;), but I don't think people ever refer to heterosexual couples have anal sex as sodomy, nor does this change the fact that people typically still refer to anal sex as intercourse.
Felatio is a very specific form of sex. Sodomy is a very specific form of sex. Intercourse is a very specific form of sex.
Felatio, and Sodomy, yes, intercourse however no, not in the way we use it.
The word "consummate" concerns itself with the very specific form of sex called "intercourse." The word "consummate" does NOT deal with the specific forms of sex called "felatio" nor does it deal with the specific form of sex called "sodomy."
The definitions are very clear. I don't see a reason to obfuscate the meaning of those words. ;)
I think with dealing with definitions it is important to keep in mind, how separated or united we may or may not become, I think it is more efficient for the language to try and keep us all on the same page (well as best as we can). Your definition does not accurately reflect the way people use those words typically, and the way we use those words typically aren't inconsistent with our language.
Very well put, that goes hand in hand with my point quite nicely I think. The way people use the word sex and sexual intercourse is nearly synonymous and people usually consider all those other things sex, so to say sexual intercourse is only vag/penis like Joe said would only complicate things more than it needs to be.
What good is it to have dictionaries if we are not going to abide by their definition?
I'm just saying their definitions aren't 100% law, they are good, because they do a pretty good job at defining words.
What good is it to have a language if we can't decide on a definition?
Well just in America there is about 300,000 people, I think it is is unrealistic to expect people across the world of any language to be on the same page about what means what, especially one of the biggest languages in the world. We are all on the sane page for the most part making the language beneficial, but the fact that we have semantics is because language can get debatable.
Sexual intercourse is NOT anal sex. Sexual intercourse if penis/vagina action ;)
Sexual intercourse is sex, therefore if we accept your definition of sexual intercourse and therefore sex, and sex can't involve the anus, then the term "anal sex" contradicts itself.
Sexual intercourse between two men or two women is still considered sex. There is no official definition for any word, pie could mean carrot, and carrot could mean pie. The important thing I think in taking into account with language are what the words typically mean, or imply, their history is somewhat relevant to however words change, and consistency of our language's workings. Dictionaries try to define words taking into account practicality and its typical meanings so dictionaries are good, but they aren't language law since they are always changing and tend to disagree with each other. Nobody denies that homosexuals have sex, majority of people I know considers sex between two men or women sexual intercourse, if not what should we call sex between two men? Should we stop using the term "anal sex" and call it something else? It's just not consistent with how we use our language, however if you ask any random heterosexual guy to explain sexual intercourse, they will most likely explain heterosexual intercourse as that is the first thing that pops to mind. I'd suspect that is what happened with that dictionary, but I disagree, homosexuals do have sexual intercourse and therefore whether or not marriages need to consummate, homosexuals marriages do.
I find this very agreeable.
.
.
.
.
it solves the issue of equality with pregnancy. Allowing both the man and the woman equal power in the decision to abort or not has the issue of the man having so much power over the biology of the woman. Giving the woman the determining power in the decision to abort, gives the man no choice in whether or not he wants father said potential child, where the woman has the choice. Allow the woman the choice in the matter of abortion and the man the choice to support her, then I personally feel a fair order has been established. I also see this as easily abusable, so I'm wondering if perhaps the man should have to decide before their is said abortion or else he is financially equally responsible?
I completely agree with you 110%, I wouldn't want you debating with me any other way.
I do not disagree with that, however I can morally disagree with people if I want.
I am fine with that, I hold the political opinions that I agree with morally, not of what is easy.
You are missing my point...
I don't care what is law necessarily, because that is essentially what I want to change... again that is the point of politics...
Your argument is just as valid as saying "that marriage is not legally required to include same-sex couples".
Depending on what personhood means, I'd want to change the law to make consciousness a factor in that. If personhood meant having human D.N.A., nothing more, nothing less, then "personhood" is irrelevant to me on whether or not it's life should be defended. If personhood are those with a list of rights, one of those rights being the right to live, then I do not agree with the laws right now.
I feel like we are just going around in circles, and I don't want to come off as rude, but it is starting to annoy me...
I researched Anencephaly a bit (well mostly looked at the Wikipedia page) and based off what I have supposedly learned about anencephaly I would totally want my baby aborted if he/she was going to have this disorder. The baby can't think or feel thus is indifferent, and even if the baby could think or feel at all I am pretty sure he/she would not be quite fond of his/her situation. Those conditions don't sound like conditions I want to be in, and if I was totally ignorant on the indifference that permanently unconscious beings had, I would not want to be alive and have that condition, to have a part of my brain actually gone, only survive a couple years at most. It does not sound like a fruitful life, and the baby is incapable of enjoying it, and luckily incapable of being tortured by it due to not being conscious. Of course I don't know much about this new disorder you have shown me but this is the conclusion I have come to based on what I have found thus far.
The person in the coma's consciousness has began and developed long enough to have prior feelings and thoughts for the matter, unlike the fetus. What is with this bombardment of responses all being focused on my opinion of being pro-choice, I had two or three other responses like this I am beginning to feel like a broken record... LOL
You can call a fetus a child if you want, what I am concerned with is whether or not that "child" or fetus has obtained consciousness or not.
http://pullupyourpants.org/name
It basically originated in prison to tell others to you were available for sex, to be another prisoners bottom bitch.
agreed .
Not all young people are like that though.
Do you know the origins of this new traditions? I think you would find it quite humorous.
It's also kind of assumed humans went extinct. Remember there is the possibility that Susan Strong may be human. Also you do remember the episode where rainicorns parents came to visit and expressed that humans were a delicasy thought to be extinct, and the ice king is or was once human who survived the war. So it is also theorized that some humans did survive but of most of them were probably eaten, it is also theorized that the animal hat fin wears helped his survival somehow as the fish people Susan lives with have those. So humans could have or are still around but are just VERY VERY rare.
Adventure Time is like my crack cocaine. I freakin love that show. Yeah that sounds about right adventure time, actually has a seriousness underlying it while having a childish look and feel to it, that's why I love it. Did you know the land of Ooo is actually post-apocalyptic? Apparently humans nuked it all or something and magic started to become part of the world.
If that's so, then So are you... We both pulled up dictionary defenition. That oppose each other. If anything you were being intellectually dishonest, by trying to redefine all atheists as something most don't claim to be. If you consider your dictionary defenition the true defenition then you are denying my dictionary defenition (which by the way I backed up with the defenition of weak atheism, and the prefix and main word defenition combo making it arguably a stronger case.) Making you a cheater. So are we both cheaters or are neither of us cheaters which is it?
Sounds luke a sore loser thing to say...
In what way am I cheating? This isn't a game it s an argument, there are no rules, just a competition of my logic v.s. your logic.
You are saying a newborn baby is an agnostic (meaning weak) atheist.
Exactly
The baby is any kind of atheist because it neither doubts nor asserts God.
You can repeat things over and over all you like without actually refuting anything, it won't make you any more right, and it only makes you seem to be the one in denial and delusion.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." - Albert Einstein
You do not need to doubt god if you never heard of god to be an atheist, and asserting god would make you the opposite.
If anything the newborn is an apatheist, but 0% theist or atheist. apatheist
When you break down the prefix A- you get non- so Atheism = nontheism. In other words if you are not a theist you are technically an atheist. Apatheism is just another form of atheism. In my book whether you call yourself a "pure agnostic", apatheist, etc, if you aren't a theist in any sense then you are an atheist. The relationship between the two terms are binary. Atheism to theism is like non-blue to blue, whether it be green, yellow, orange, grey, black, white, or even clear if its not blue its not freaking blue. You can only be an atheist or a theist, because atheism describes anything that is not a theist, you can't be neither. To not be a theist automatically makes you an atheist and to not be an atheist makes you a theist by double negative, so by being neither you claim to actually be both. So since babies are 0% atheist and 0% theist does that make them 100% theist and 100% atheist? That's like saying "this color is not blue, but its not not blue". It's just plain ridiculous.
A dictionary defenition is typically societies defenition, when a debate becomes clouded by semantics it is more essential to understand what the other is trying to say and not what others think they are saying. There are multiple dictionary defenitions for the term atheist/atheism.
This online dictionary defines atheism as a lack of belief and ironically VERY biased towards theists, stereotyping us as haters of religion, and even it defines atheism as a lack of belief.
http://m.urbandictionary.com/
Heres a more professional site describing the difference between weak atheists and strong atheists. Weak atheism is the broader defenition of atheists meaning to lack belief in god.
http://definitions.uslegal.
The prefix A- means not or without
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/
Theism is a belief in god
http://i.word.com/idictionary/theism
The reason a lot of dictionaries define atheists as strong atheists only is due to the positive atheist being the stereotypes of atheism, we make a VERY small percentage of the world population so its no surprise that the stereotyping of atheists shows up in your average dictionary. What I find funny is society will define the prefix A- to mean not or without and even quicklier to define theism as a belief in god, but when put together let's just throw all consistency in the English language out the window and have atheist mean denial of god. It shows how biased our society truly is.
Now I have not only given you an alternative dictionary definition of atheism opposing yours (showing that there truly is no official meaning for anything) from a dictionary stereotyping atheists in other ways, I have also given you a more "official" defenition of atheism opposing your defenition, given you the only definitions really used for the prefix A- and theism.
Let me ask you this? Why are you so determined to fight me on this? You can redifine the words all you want by getting alternative definition from other dictionaries but it the situation will stay the same. It is what it is and you can't change reality by redefining it, a baby is born with a lack of belief in god that's the point here, and if the majority of atheists define their atheism in a certain way fighting us on that is a pointless war that does nobody any justice.
You do not need to doubt gods existence to be an atheist until you understand the concept of god, to not have a belief in god after knowing the concept of god requires as much doubt as it takes to not believe in unicorns.
By your logic, a spoon is an atheist.
Nope you are completely and totally ass backwards wrong to the highest extent of universal incorrectness and your incorrectness can be blamed on nothing more than your failure to be knowledgeable on the English language in other words ignorance :P
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=-ist
Even if that were true, so what? You obviously know we aren't talking about spoons... If what you said was based on any truth whoopdie freakin doo we can call spoons and rocks atheists...
If a personal god does exist then the answer is yes, if a personal god doesn't exist then the answer is no. There is no reason to think any god exists.
Look it's a bird, its a plane, no wait I just realized something... Who gives a Fuck?!?! Lol
It would be a VERY good argument if you could prove it to be the Christian god and not the Norse gods that created everything lol. the people of that culture back then would use the same argument as you. :).
Damnit... That didn't come close to answering my question... You shady politician you! ;)
And may I ask president cavalry, what it is you will be doing?
Hmm well thanks for the links, I'm definitely have to check those out.
I think its good to acknowledge that news channels aren't always trustworthy and one should not take everything it says as absolute truth. Iam curious though where you get your news from?
Now Joe is prolly going to troll you with something to do with you mentioning god having mercy on that site creator.... Or I am completely off ill just have to wait and see... ;)
That must be some pretty good weed... Or whatever the hell you are smoking. Joe, what are you on and where can I get some?
I think randomDude may just have anger issues he doesn't know how to deal with, he made a debate about anger issues before. Honestly I want to try to help the guy out... I feel like an ass because I trolled him a couple of times because he gets pissed off so easily... Anyways... I kinda think randomdude shouldn't be on here if all he wants to do lash out at everyone, at the same time he's kinda funny. All in all I'd prefer to see him happy not angry... He's just going to piss everyone off which has made me feel less bad for him since he is bringing this on himself but it seems as though he can't help it. I think It's ironic he has angry bird as his profile pic and it makes me wonder if he might be trolling us. He needs to chill out, be a little nicer to people, solve his issues... Not just for those around him for himself especially.
Same goes with me, but usually it is only a problem in person. I take everyone seriously, not in the sense of being easily offended ever, but just take it in seriously, and even when I know others are joking with me I will often have a serious reply. Idk why? Lol.
That is true I agree with you there. It doesn't show much substance when you are trying to show off two girls kissing to persuade people to join you. I wasn't being serious though.
They don't seem to have a problem with it, and I don't have a problem with it... For obvious reasons. ;)
I love Norse mythology, it seemed so much more interesting from what I read, like literally superheroes of their time. There was good guys, bad guys, neutral guys, everyone had a back story, they alm had different abilities. I sometimes wonder if superheroes will in a sense replace old mythology. The stories of christianity... Are strange... Like the twighlight zones. Somewhat nonsensical to me.
Well if we look at what romance means freedictionary.com will say it is love in terms of emotion over libido. The question for what we are talking about when we talk about romantic love, is how much emotional attachment is required before it is called "love". Obviously we aren't talking about love towards family, friends, objects, but towards girlfriends/boyfriends, but what is the difference between a "thing" and love? And wouldn't that differ for everybody? Well we can look at the brain activity that goes on during love, and determine on a less subjective grounds from there. What I have observed and experienced on what people call love, is, love is painful. Love puts out a lot of obstacles for people, think about it, every break up you have was an accumulation of pain brought onto yourself in vain. Did you get anything out of that relationship? Well wisdom and experience perhaps, but what doesn't give you that? The marriage statistics say now that 68% of our population gets married, and 38% end up divorced. Being Caucasian and male there is a 44% I will get married. How significant I find religion being the basis I have a 35.4% chance of marrying someone. The fact that I am not a father (thank goodness) significantly decreases the probability of marrying someone. Of course marriage and love aren't necessarily the same thing. All to often people go about love in an unhealthy manner. Love in the brain is seen as an addiction, breaking up causes "withdrawal symptoms" of being without that person, love is essentially a drug which is why I think going at it in a healthy way is important. People will stay in abusive relationships out of intoxication, and can't quite kick the habit, and that makes love something to be weary of. Now speaking purely from personal experience I've found it appropriate to deem the addiction of love with a "quicksand" effect. The addiction can be very slow or very fast relative to different relationships either way it is gradual to some extent, the long you stand in the quicksand the more you will sink in and the harder it is to get out. I like to say that one of the biggest mistakes one can make in life is falling in love with the wrong person. The idea that we are all destined to find our true love is not completely realistic, not everyone does, that is the reality. Of course there is the "7 billion people in the world" rational that I have been fond of, but it is flawwed as we aren't genuinely going to have the time, the circumstantial place, and compatibility to start with to date 7 billion people. I know I come off as cynical however I am not trying to say love is hopeless, but that we need to not need love. We need to be secure in ourselves to know that we can be perfectly happy without it, then will we be ready for love. I often find that people with this mentality are more successful with "genuine love", and it is my hypothesis that not seeing love as a mystical thing intertwined with the idea of fate, do we deal with our desire for affection and romance in a healthy manner. I don't humor the thought that there is someone destined for me somewhere on this earth by some mystical force. The fact that there is 7 billion people means that someone or quite a good number of people out there are inevitably to be compatible with me by chance, it is simply about finding any of these people and then other variables working out in my favor, relationships don't just happen no matter how compatible we are but also if us two can make it work as well, and etc. The probability of love for any one person is hard or too difficult to determine as so many variables have to be investigated as well as unknown variables. If our society invented an entire science to try and determine one person probability of finding genuine love it probably could give this person a somewhat good idea, but society wouldn't ever do that much for one person, and doing so for people in general won't be as efficient as everyone is different. All in all I have come to the conclusion that it is healthier to set a standard on a healthy fulfilling relationship and not settle for less. It is better to be alone
Well if we look at what romance means freedictionary.com will say it is emotional attachment. The question for what we are talking about when we talk about romantic love, is how much emotional attachment is required before it is called "love". Obviously we aren't talking about love towards family, friends, objects, but towards girlfriends/boyfriends, but what is the difference between a "thing" and love? And wouldn't that differ for everybody? Well we can look at the brain activity that goes on during love, and determine on a less subjective grounds from there. What I have observed and experienced on what people call love, is, love is painful. Love puts out a lot of obstacles for people, think about it, every break up you have was an accumulation of pain brought onto yourself in vain. Did you get anything out of that relationship? Well wisdom and experience perhaps, but what doesn't give you that? The marriage statistics say now that 68% of our population gets married, and 38% end up divorced. Being Caucasian and male there is a 44% I will get married. How significant I find religion being the basis I have a 35.4% chance of marrying someone. The fact that I am not a father (thank goodness) significantly decreases the probability of marrying someone. Of course marriage and love aren't necessarily the same thing. All to often people go about love in an unhealthy manner. Love in the brain is seen as an addiction, breaking up causes "withdrawal symptoms" of being without that person, love is essentially a drug which is why I think going at it in a healthy way is important. People will stay in abusive relationships out of intoxication, and can't quite kick the habit, and that makes love something to be weary of. Now speaking purely from personal experience I've found it appropriate to deem the addiction of love with a "quicksand" effect. The addiction can be very slow or very fast relative to different relationships either way it is gradual to some extent, the long you stand in the quicksand the more you will sink in and the harder it is to get out. I like to say that one of the biggest mistakes one can make in life is falling in love with the wrong person. The idea that we are all destined to find our true love is not completely realistic, not everyone does, that is the reality. Of course there is the "7 billion people in the world" rational that I have been fond of, but it is flawwed as we aren't genuinely going to have the time, the circumstantial place, and compatibility to start with to date 7 billion people. I know I come off as cynical however I am not trying to say love is hopeless, but that we need to not need love. We need to be secure in ourselves to know that we can be perfectly happy without it, then will we be ready for love. I often find that people with this mentality are more successful with "genuine love", and it is my hypothesis that not seeing love as a mystical thing intertwined with the idea of fate, do we deal with our desire for affection and romance in a healthy manner. I don't humor the thought that there is someone destined for me somewhere on this earth by some mystical force. The fact that there is 7 billion people means that someone or quite a good number of people out there are inevitably to be compatible with me by chance, it is simply about finding any of these people and then other variables working out in my favor, relationships don't just happen no matter how compatible we are but also if us two can make it work as well, and etc. The probability of love for any one person is hard or too difficult to determine as so many variables have to be investigated as well as unknown variables. If our society invented an entire science to try and determine one person probability of finding genuine love it probably could give this person a somewhat good idea, but society wouldn't ever do that much for one person, and doing so for people in general won't be as efficient as everyone is different. All in all I have come to the conclusion that it is healthier to set a standard on a healthy fulfilling relationship and not settle for less. It is better to be alone than to be in love with the wrong person, love is a rare addiction that can be EXTREMELY healthy for you but only with the right person, otherwise it is no different than any other unhealthy drug.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/
http://www.positscience.com/
O.0 I had to look that up... No I think I was just being blonde (it happens to me sometimes I hate to admit) and I got confused whether the pic was on the right or left of which I was referring to and I got mixed up on which on should go first for my sentence to make sense (where I should have just read it). Or perhaps... Freudian slip!!! I wonder what else I'm repressing... Lol... FIX ME JOE!!!
