Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Obvi

I'm living in "communal living" right now, part of the Berkeley Student Cooperatives. Houses have to pass fairly rigorous health and habitability inspections by both school, BSC, and city officials. We buy organic food collectively, share and cook it collectively. We do 5 hours of workshift a week, keeping the house up to shape. There's great house cohesion, everyone respects one another. Someone can be fined for being "uncooperative" and missing too many workshifts.

Communal living is very easy, in fact. It just depends on your lifestyle; I probably wouldn't be living in a cooperative if I had a family, or at least I wouldn't be living in a large cooperative. Perhaps sharing a backyard garden space with a few families in one neighborhood, but that's probably the maximum.

Not necessarily. Why could something not exist perpetually and eternally? I see no reason not to believe this is the case, and in fact, if one does not accept the fact that something could exist eternally and perpetually, then one cannot believe in a God (who would, by definition, have to exist eternally and perpetually). Either you accept that things may exist without a creator (the only argument that would, in fact, allow for an omniscient, omnipresent deity), or you require the need for a creator (but then who created the creator?). And clearly we may reject the latter, so we are left with the former argument; and really, if something may exist without a creator, then why invoke a creator at all?

There's problems with both your second and third assertions. Existence hardly implies creation, and even if it did, a creator would not be necessitated.

Or, if you would like, we could attack the argument from a different angle.

Assuming there exists a creator, must there not also exist something to create the creator (after all, the first creator exists, and from there it follows your initial argument). And on and on the argument goes indefinitely.

There are much stronger arguments in favor of a creator; the existence theory is perhaps the most tenuous.

Have you heard of the vocal minority? Generally, it appears to me that there are small minorities of theists and atheists that like to argue to till they're blue in the face, but the vast majority of both sides are willing to let the other alone.

And really, that's all we should hope for; you have your beliefs, I have mine, and our mutual beliefs are of no concern to the other.

For sure. I mean, of course it would be better for people to actually go through the trouble of searching if a debate has already been created, but most people just stick to the homescreen. But you're right, it is good to have a fun "debate" to relieve the pressure and make the site less stuffy.

Truth. I don't usually participate in these kinds of debates, but she is being ridiculous. She was worried about this site turning into another formspring, but she's the one posting formspring questions as debates (What's your favorite color/scent?). Honestly, I couldn't care less about silas "leaving" (it's a website, and if you check his page, he was just on here 6 hours ago....doesn't sound like he's gone). I just care about people posting meaningful debates on here. And the occasional jokes by joe aren't so bad either ;)

In nerd terms, right brain is Captain Kirk, and left brain is Spock. We all know Kirk and Spock need each other to better themselves. Pure right and pure left aren't so good, but together, they help drive innovation, science, technology, policy, and everything else. (Also, right brains, the ones who act impulsively, seem to me to be the ones most likely to destroy the Earth in a nuclear holocaust, but that is neither here nor there).

In other words, yes, the human race is worth saving, even if that is a biased wish to remain alive. Sure, there are many corrupt and evil individuals, but collectively, it seems to me that the world tends to advance rather than retreat in progress, even if the timeline is slow.

Hey, that's what a good compromise is, right?

Why do either?