I don't really understand what atoms and molecules are,
But looking at online pictures, they look like spheres, sphere's have centers,
Therefore, what we're made of has centers.
As for distinguishing one clone from another, one Ship of Theseus from another,
Well despite being the same shape,
They're not in the same location in existence,
My clone is not me, 'I'm me, thinking my 'own thoughts, feeling my 'own experiences.
I currently think it's a reasonable enough position to hold,
To sort all energy (People) into a single set of sorts,
Though I prefer to be an individual Egoist, myself.
My pinky is identifiable as it's own finger, capable of being hurt on it's own,
Though a pain in it may resonate out to other body parts, or other body parts resonate to it,
Shares blood with the rest of the body, acts in tandem, is usually thought of as part of a whole body.
But is replaceable, that the whole see's no difference between a transplanted pinky and the old, (Assuming no transplant rejection).
Though sometimes I worry about consciousness, individuality, if we're material, where does it lay.
Cerebral cortex, some might hazard, but if all about it get's replaced, material and experience,. . . . Feels there's no holding on at times, to our 'selves, but I ramble.
In the end I hold to the visceral experience of 'appearance of self.
Even when one believes in a might is right philosophy, or that greed or self interest is good for the individual, ought be pursued. . .
Seems to me little reason to 'preach such, or encourage said philosophy in others.
One benefits most by others being altruistic, while oneself is selfish,
Secretly breaking one's own word whenever beneficial, while always trusting others to keep theirs.
Course, that's only 'if said philosophy actually 'is good for oneself,
Are many other arguments that being straight and honest, right by others is good for oneself, 'other than in the sense of the group, but for the individual as well.
Truly unhappy some would argue, are those unable to emphasize or do right.
Like Barry HBO or Homelander (The Boys)
I suppose it 'does sound better to be a united powerful nation, than a weak nation or number of smaller warring nations,
But. . . Ends are not always what they seem,
And Means Ends in themselves.
I'm not negative towards this debate, but curious.
All a person would have to do is block the exits of a building in which people gather, and light a fire with gasoline and tinder in the right locations.
For mass murder, I think of guns as a subpar method for an individual.
What matters is the insanity, weakness, and twisted minds of the perpetrators, and perceived popularity of guns.
'Maybe.
As for war, the 'number of people on Earth, might be more a cause of death in war, than guns.
Supply chains if broken causing starvation, thirst, disease,
Masses of repeated combat,
I'd hesitantly offer the Taiping Rebellion, as an example of less guns rather than more, yet an enormous death toll, even in modern times.
Besides, armies of powerful nations will never get rid of their guns, even if they strip them from the citizens to remove their autonomy.
I think.
Honestly I don't know,
Men and women are different biologically,
Different roles depending on culture,
Have their own difficulties and eases in life,
Shivering in the cold or baking in the heat, both hard situations.
I'm not saying either sex is the cold or the heat, just that even in different situations, either situation can be difficult in it's own way.
Could be I don't have an accurate view of Black Pill viewpoint,
Just to me, is that the statement that if something appears to offer/be more beneficial, that it attracts people more than something that appears to 'not offer/be more beneficial.
Seems clear cut, so I'd assume Black Pill argues something 'more.
(Edit on reading #17)
Eh, to my thinking statistics don't matter so much as desire.
If one 'wants a girlfriend or boyfriend, I imagine they can improve themselves some, search till they find a person.
It's not a 'certainty, success or failure,
But I think they'd be able to succeed more often than not, so long as they have their head on straight, and are not mentally dysfunctional, cruel in word and deed. Able to identify people 'worth spending one's life with.
In that sense, it's what's inside, rather than outside mattering, to my mind.
I'm not saying unattractive people have the exact same effort, as attractive people,
Because they don't, it's 'literally in the wording of Unattracting, attracting.
Though 'what people consider attractive varies from culture to culture.
But Black Pill, sounds like it's claiming that women 'only care about looks, and some individuals have no chance of getting with another person, so they ought not even try.
I'll admit,
Doesn't really seem feasible to argue that physical attraction has 'no power,
Humans rely on their eyes, visual images, first impressions,
Stands to reason it'll be important.
Your suggested black pill sounds a bit 'gray though,
A lighter shade of black so to speak.
People's choices can effect their looks, their mannerisms, actions.
There exist people attracted to what is inside a person, though that's not to say the outside 'doesn't tend to matter to people.
Still, when I Google Black Pill, result I get is
"Black Pill adherents believe that looks are genetically determined, and that women choose sexual partners based solely on physical features (“lookism”), so whether or not a person will be an incel is predetermined."
Just sounds 'way too self defeating to my ears,
To say 'solely physical features, and predetermined.
Ignoring causation that is, and speaking practically, by how people make choices, see choices available,
Predetermined doesn't matter 'too much, as an end is often not known, until one arrives.
Eh, corrupts 'and enhances, I'd suppose.
Though if one 'only used social media for interaction with other humans, I'd think there'd be some 'severe malformed development and interactions,
But maybe human'd adapt.
'Lot goes into human interaction, visual, audio, even touch with some people, touchy feely.
Intricate cultures where even how one sits with their leg, effects what's being conveyed, some say.
Still, social media 'does make it easy to find information, keep notes, sources, find more people, converse at one's own pace.
Letters were 'long an instance in human history, learned humans having conversations, well thought out between one another.
@NoOneInParticular
Eh, religions are not a 'single type of mass produced axe.
Some axes are better than others,
Some are better for certain tasks,
Sometimes you pick the same type of axe as those around you, even if it's just the same color.
Some people don't want an axe, but many in the lives they live, find it useful.
People argue a 'lot about the 2nd Amendment in America.
Various meanings in fiction books.
Or far the viability or righteousness of different political systems.
I suppose the importance/difference of saying what something 'be, or what something 'might be.
Is that if self practicing, one only needs 'reasonable certainty.
But in subjugating or forcing the cooperation of others, one needs 'certainty.
Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory
Galileo suffered through the humiliation of having to deny his theories in order to save his life. He was Catholic, believed in God, but, on the other hand, he was a great believer in the role of science and the fascinating beauty of God's creation.
Gregor Johann Mendel was a meteorologist, mathematician, biologist, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia.
Through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance
A person doesn't need religion to discriminate against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy against oneself, the state, or favorite anime.
I disagree that religion is a wall between people and the pursuit of truth.
Matthew 5:27-28, is just common sense, (In my view of it)
Of how thoughts can effect a persons 'heart, or even their actions in time, should it fester.
If religions are often just what people think reality 'is, a history of what 'was, and how people 'ought act, what's so dissimilar in atheist groups who believe in the same reality, history, and ethics?
Though I might be taking liberties, with the three examples I give,
Posts number ,
#50 and #56
Of the thread,
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6396-systemic-racism-exists?page=1
I take the view myself, that it comes from a manner of nature and nurture.
The things we call good and evil, in a person.
With 'or without a focus on religion, people often enough have based hierarchies based on how well we can kill each other.
The 'error, in my opinion, is the idea that a human can be 'without religion.
Oh 'sure atheists exist, and people so called as opposed to religion.
But they mistake themselves, 'I think.
They are not without 'creed, subjective valuation of themselves, others, and the world they inhabit.
He spouts off about replacing religion with 'reason, as if the practitioners of organized religion as we traditionally see it have lacked for reason.
Failed to use it in their understanding of their religion, and the world.
Unless one is talking about some 'math equations, we aren't likely to arrive at the same conclusions using reason.
There's plenty of educated Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Criminals, Cops, Law Abiders, and Anarchists.
People's values are not likely to disappear, and that's in a way what religion 'is, in my way of thinking.
Values.
If you gave 'everyone the exact same genetics, exact same experiences, prevented 'any deviation, that we shone, reflected, myradiated like a set of geometric patterns on a mirror, we'd arrive at the same conclusions.
Though there's no objective 'reason, that the starting point and conditions following 'ought be.
Rambling. . .
Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.
Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness.
Ah, but I'm incoherent, and rambling, post #3 was rude of me I'm sure.
Still, the part you quote, stands 'against his earlier statement of
"Without religion it is hard to justify cutting off the tip of a baby's penis. Without religion it is hard to pin down why liking the same sex is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why women should be submissive to men. Without religion it is hard to justify how owning another human being is just. Without religion it is hard to explain why changing your gender is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why killing someone for doing work on a certain day of the week is permitted."
Besides which your quote,
"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."
Of his misses the context, that he's implying we 'won't be like that now (Using Atheism and Logic), but only needed religion as training wheel.
My thoughts on Pro's round 1 argument.
I don't know why it so often amazes me, how stupid I think some atheist arguments are.
I suppose it's because I expect 'more from atheists, though I 'really shouldn't.
Maybe I just don't pay as much attention to people who make religious arguments.
Eh, not really a 'need to go in depth, I'd think.
I suppose birds of a feather, flock together, wolf packs, human packs, and such.
But we're all human, able for the 'most part, to 'recognize that.
mairj23's angle of 'just white people are racist is a bit much, in my view.
Just look at Africa, Rwandan genocide, and all the other inter-tribal strife.
Same as the rest of the world, 'cultures clashing, as they sometimes do.
'Really would help to define and contextualize what you mean by "Systemic racism is real in America", I 'think.
Lessens the chances that it becomes a debate of defining terms.
Though I'm fond of freeform debates myself, at times.
I just find it difficult to follow along the debate, to check points Pro or Con clearly and remember, I also disagree with both of you on a number of your interpretations and arguments of the Bible, but 'also oddly am an atheist not 'much interested in the subject of religion.
Tried to read a few times, just can't get into it.
Slightly, though I think it's demonstrable that Atheists and Agnostics 'have converted to theism, at times.
I don't really have a habit of reading Mall's debates, but I suppose I'll check for a bit to see how this one goes between Mall and MisterChris.
Man, I hate debating topics I have little understanding of.
I usually end up bull******* the debate.
Not that my sides right or wrong, or even that I'm saying the right or wrong words,
But I don't 'know if I'm saying the right or wrong words, 'or if my side is right or wrong.
Darn, I thought I was Con somehow. . .
Well, finish what you start I suppose.
Hm, clarification on 'right?
One could say all Americans have a right to guns, but what's meant by that is Americans who aren't mentally crazed, Americans who don't have a criminals past banning them from guns.
So if I made the argument that all nations had the right to nuclear weapons, but then clarified it by countries of significant power or trust, would that meet your title of,
All nations should have a 'right to nuclear weapons?
If not, I'll go the every country has a right to nuclear weapons route, never mind their past or present,
But then make my arguments based on those countries not having a right to exist or that nuclear weapons should be allowed to all, never mind their past or present, in order to achieve some sort of objective.
If a person 'doesn't have the right to be offended, is there much they can do?
Usually if offended, a normal person would insult the person back, or say heck with you and avoid them.
Maybe in a workplace tell your supervisor and have them work something out, or have the supervisor put something in the persons file.
Low brow people, would respond with violence, though I suppose insults are low brow too.
And rich people would sue for slander, libel, or defamation.
But if you don't have the right to be offended, why would you do anything other than accept, and cope?
I don't really understand what atoms and molecules are,
But looking at online pictures, they look like spheres, sphere's have centers,
Therefore, what we're made of has centers.
As for distinguishing one clone from another, one Ship of Theseus from another,
Well despite being the same shape,
They're not in the same location in existence,
My clone is not me, 'I'm me, thinking my 'own thoughts, feeling my 'own experiences.
I currently think it's a reasonable enough position to hold,
To sort all energy (People) into a single set of sorts,
Though I prefer to be an individual Egoist, myself.
My pinky is identifiable as it's own finger, capable of being hurt on it's own,
Though a pain in it may resonate out to other body parts, or other body parts resonate to it,
Shares blood with the rest of the body, acts in tandem, is usually thought of as part of a whole body.
But is replaceable, that the whole see's no difference between a transplanted pinky and the old, (Assuming no transplant rejection).
Though sometimes I worry about consciousness, individuality, if we're material, where does it lay.
Cerebral cortex, some might hazard, but if all about it get's replaced, material and experience,. . . . Feels there's no holding on at times, to our 'selves, but I ramble.
In the end I hold to the visceral experience of 'appearance of self.
Even when one believes in a might is right philosophy, or that greed or self interest is good for the individual, ought be pursued. . .
Seems to me little reason to 'preach such, or encourage said philosophy in others.
One benefits most by others being altruistic, while oneself is selfish,
Secretly breaking one's own word whenever beneficial, while always trusting others to keep theirs.
Course, that's only 'if said philosophy actually 'is good for oneself,
Are many other arguments that being straight and honest, right by others is good for oneself, 'other than in the sense of the group, but for the individual as well.
Truly unhappy some would argue, are those unable to emphasize or do right.
Like Barry HBO or Homelander (The Boys)
I suppose it 'does sound better to be a united powerful nation, than a weak nation or number of smaller warring nations,
But. . . Ends are not always what they seem,
And Means Ends in themselves.
I'm not negative towards this debate, but curious.
All a person would have to do is block the exits of a building in which people gather, and light a fire with gasoline and tinder in the right locations.
For mass murder, I think of guns as a subpar method for an individual.
What matters is the insanity, weakness, and twisted minds of the perpetrators, and perceived popularity of guns.
'Maybe.
As for war, the 'number of people on Earth, might be more a cause of death in war, than guns.
Supply chains if broken causing starvation, thirst, disease,
Masses of repeated combat,
I'd hesitantly offer the Taiping Rebellion, as an example of less guns rather than more, yet an enormous death toll, even in modern times.
Besides, armies of powerful nations will never get rid of their guns, even if they strip them from the citizens to remove their autonomy.
I think.
Honestly I don't know,
Men and women are different biologically,
Different roles depending on culture,
Have their own difficulties and eases in life,
Shivering in the cold or baking in the heat, both hard situations.
I'm not saying either sex is the cold or the heat, just that even in different situations, either situation can be difficult in it's own way.
Each to their own devices, jah.
And likely some pursuits more likely to bear fruit, than others.
Could be I don't have an accurate view of Black Pill viewpoint,
Just to me, is that the statement that if something appears to offer/be more beneficial, that it attracts people more than something that appears to 'not offer/be more beneficial.
Seems clear cut, so I'd assume Black Pill argues something 'more.
(Edit on reading #17)
Eh, to my thinking statistics don't matter so much as desire.
If one 'wants a girlfriend or boyfriend, I imagine they can improve themselves some, search till they find a person.
It's not a 'certainty, success or failure,
But I think they'd be able to succeed more often than not, so long as they have their head on straight, and are not mentally dysfunctional, cruel in word and deed. Able to identify people 'worth spending one's life with.
In that sense, it's what's inside, rather than outside mattering, to my mind.
I'm not saying unattractive people have the exact same effort, as attractive people,
Because they don't, it's 'literally in the wording of Unattracting, attracting.
Though 'what people consider attractive varies from culture to culture.
But Black Pill, sounds like it's claiming that women 'only care about looks, and some individuals have no chance of getting with another person, so they ought not even try.
I'll admit,
Doesn't really seem feasible to argue that physical attraction has 'no power,
Humans rely on their eyes, visual images, first impressions,
Stands to reason it'll be important.
Your suggested black pill sounds a bit 'gray though,
A lighter shade of black so to speak.
People's choices can effect their looks, their mannerisms, actions.
There exist people attracted to what is inside a person, though that's not to say the outside 'doesn't tend to matter to people.
Still, when I Google Black Pill, result I get is
"Black Pill adherents believe that looks are genetically determined, and that women choose sexual partners based solely on physical features (“lookism”), so whether or not a person will be an incel is predetermined."
Just sounds 'way too self defeating to my ears,
To say 'solely physical features, and predetermined.
Ignoring causation that is, and speaking practically, by how people make choices, see choices available,
Predetermined doesn't matter 'too much, as an end is often not known, until one arrives.
Eh, corrupts 'and enhances, I'd suppose.
Though if one 'only used social media for interaction with other humans, I'd think there'd be some 'severe malformed development and interactions,
But maybe human'd adapt.
'Lot goes into human interaction, visual, audio, even touch with some people, touchy feely.
Intricate cultures where even how one sits with their leg, effects what's being conveyed, some say.
Still, social media 'does make it easy to find information, keep notes, sources, find more people, converse at one's own pace.
Letters were 'long an instance in human history, learned humans having conversations, well thought out between one another.
@NoOneInParticular
Eh, religions are not a 'single type of mass produced axe.
Some axes are better than others,
Some are better for certain tasks,
Sometimes you pick the same type of axe as those around you, even if it's just the same color.
Some people don't want an axe, but many in the lives they live, find it useful.
People argue a 'lot about the 2nd Amendment in America.
Various meanings in fiction books.
Or far the viability or righteousness of different political systems.
I suppose the importance/difference of saying what something 'be, or what something 'might be.
Is that if self practicing, one only needs 'reasonable certainty.
But in subjugating or forcing the cooperation of others, one needs 'certainty.
Many different denominations pop up though.
Whether in religion, politics, or philosophy,
Because different people have different interpretations.
Difficult to say something 'does or doesn't, sometimes?
Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory
Galileo suffered through the humiliation of having to deny his theories in order to save his life. He was Catholic, believed in God, but, on the other hand, he was a great believer in the role of science and the fascinating beauty of God's creation.
Gregor Johann Mendel was a meteorologist, mathematician, biologist, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia.
Through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance
A person doesn't need religion to discriminate against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy against oneself, the state, or favorite anime.
I disagree that religion is a wall between people and the pursuit of truth.
Matthew 5:27-28, is just common sense, (In my view of it)
Of how thoughts can effect a persons 'heart, or even their actions in time, should it fester.
If religions are often just what people think reality 'is, a history of what 'was, and how people 'ought act, what's so dissimilar in atheist groups who believe in the same reality, history, and ethics?
Though I might be taking liberties, with the three examples I give,
Posts number ,
#50 and #56
Of the thread,
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6396-systemic-racism-exists?page=1
I take the view myself, that it comes from a manner of nature and nurture.
The things we call good and evil, in a person.
With 'or without a focus on religion, people often enough have based hierarchies based on how well we can kill each other.
The 'error, in my opinion, is the idea that a human can be 'without religion.
Oh 'sure atheists exist, and people so called as opposed to religion.
But they mistake themselves, 'I think.
They are not without 'creed, subjective valuation of themselves, others, and the world they inhabit.
He spouts off about replacing religion with 'reason, as if the practitioners of organized religion as we traditionally see it have lacked for reason.
Failed to use it in their understanding of their religion, and the world.
Unless one is talking about some 'math equations, we aren't likely to arrive at the same conclusions using reason.
There's plenty of educated Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Criminals, Cops, Law Abiders, and Anarchists.
People's values are not likely to disappear, and that's in a way what religion 'is, in my way of thinking.
Values.
If you gave 'everyone the exact same genetics, exact same experiences, prevented 'any deviation, that we shone, reflected, myradiated like a set of geometric patterns on a mirror, we'd arrive at the same conclusions.
Though there's no objective 'reason, that the starting point and conditions following 'ought be.
Rambling. . .
Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.
Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness.
Ah, but I'm incoherent, and rambling, post #3 was rude of me I'm sure.
Still, the part you quote, stands 'against his earlier statement of
"Without religion it is hard to justify cutting off the tip of a baby's penis. Without religion it is hard to pin down why liking the same sex is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why women should be submissive to men. Without religion it is hard to justify how owning another human being is just. Without religion it is hard to explain why changing your gender is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why killing someone for doing work on a certain day of the week is permitted."
Besides which your quote,
"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."
Of his misses the context, that he's implying we 'won't be like that now (Using Atheism and Logic), but only needed religion as training wheel.
My thoughts on Pro's round 1 argument.
I don't know why it so often amazes me, how stupid I think some atheist arguments are.
I suppose it's because I expect 'more from atheists, though I 'really shouldn't.
Maybe I just don't pay as much attention to people who make religious arguments.
Don't you have 'days to think about it, research?
Seems early to throw in towel. .
Well, it sounds a fun debate, for whoever accepts.
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3300/fc03298.htm
Eh, not really a 'need to go in depth, I'd think.
I suppose birds of a feather, flock together, wolf packs, human packs, and such.
But we're all human, able for the 'most part, to 'recognize that.
mairj23's angle of 'just white people are racist is a bit much, in my view.
Just look at Africa, Rwandan genocide, and all the other inter-tribal strife.
Same as the rest of the world, 'cultures clashing, as they sometimes do.
Personally I'm not bothered by the topic.
'Lot of wiggle room for whoever accepts though, to win, 'I think.
How does one judge superiority or inferiority?
"I won't be able to respond the last 2 rounds because of some summer work I have to do." - TheUnderdog
Darn, I was curious how debate would progress.
'Really would help to define and contextualize what you mean by "Systemic racism is real in America", I 'think.
Lessens the chances that it becomes a debate of defining terms.
Though I'm fond of freeform debates myself, at times.
I just find it difficult to follow along the debate, to check points Pro or Con clearly and remember, I also disagree with both of you on a number of your interpretations and arguments of the Bible, but 'also oddly am an atheist not 'much interested in the subject of religion.
Tried to read a few times, just can't get into it.
The truth about UFOs to be exposed in US government report | 7NEWS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lxtwKB0Fuc
Never read Mein Kampf, but I gotta say I found Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard 'pretty terrible.
I actually liked how short and simple it was.
I suppose some people philosophers have written entire books, in responses to arguments made by some other philosophers, in history.
Too bad about the forfeit and concession, Ancap460's Round 1 looked strong to me.
Slightly, though I think it's demonstrable that Atheists and Agnostics 'have converted to theism, at times.
I don't really have a habit of reading Mall's debates, but I suppose I'll check for a bit to see how this one goes between Mall and MisterChris.
"Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels"
Just need less people.
Ah well.
Man, I hate debating topics I have little understanding of.
I usually end up bull******* the debate.
Not that my sides right or wrong, or even that I'm saying the right or wrong words,
But I don't 'know if I'm saying the right or wrong words, 'or if my side is right or wrong.
I actually don't really have an opinion on schools.
Thanks for the thought in your second round, my mistake though, still getting used to site.
Also apologies for my second round being a bit. . Villainous? Insane?
Just the way that it worked out.
Note, nothing Lemming says in comments should be used against him in voting process.
I don't think your stance is that 'no countries should possess nuclear weapons though, is it?
Darn, I thought I was Con somehow. . .
Well, finish what you start I suppose.
Hm, clarification on 'right?
One could say all Americans have a right to guns, but what's meant by that is Americans who aren't mentally crazed, Americans who don't have a criminals past banning them from guns.
So if I made the argument that all nations had the right to nuclear weapons, but then clarified it by countries of significant power or trust, would that meet your title of,
All nations should have a 'right to nuclear weapons?
If not, I'll go the every country has a right to nuclear weapons route, never mind their past or present,
But then make my arguments based on those countries not having a right to exist or that nuclear weapons should be allowed to all, never mind their past or present, in order to achieve some sort of objective.
If a person 'doesn't have the right to be offended, is there much they can do?
Usually if offended, a normal person would insult the person back, or say heck with you and avoid them.
Maybe in a workplace tell your supervisor and have them work something out, or have the supervisor put something in the persons file.
Low brow people, would respond with violence, though I suppose insults are low brow too.
And rich people would sue for slander, libel, or defamation.
But if you don't have the right to be offended, why would you do anything other than accept, and cope?
What a long time that took. . .