Total posts: 130
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Literally Sam
I acknowledge that racism is still a tremendous problem, and that racism is something we absolutely have to oppose and criticise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have only just stepped into the whole morality thing, so excuse my lack of knowledge.
"But morality is subjective, they could be right for murdering that people" And I would say that they are logically flawed
This would be considered your opinion. How does your belief that they are flawed over rule their freedom to interpret morality. For you to say that someone is "flawed" is to say that they are wrong, is it not? It seems that for someone to be flawed, is at the very least, to say that they are misled. But how can one be misled if the answer is subjective?
Also, how is Sam racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I find it interesting that you consider the argument “almost good” and then rebut the foundation of the whole argument. The whole point of his thesis is to demonstrate that ISIS can be wrong about morality, just like how they can be wrong about science. The whole point of his argument is to show that morality is objective through an atheistic PoV.
Question. If a religion which condoned the torture of every second child appeared, what would be your reaction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What do you think of Sam Harris's "moral landscape"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh so you think the problem isn't systemic?
no
Let me address this in a form that might be similar to you: You are committing a fallacy here, a categorical fallacy, you are assuming that individual action is what we are punishing.
Sure seems like that case when you are punishing all police, instead of those who mess up their job.
Furthermore, their inefficiency at their job is another big problem,
I feel like people like you do not appreciate how hard being a police officer is. Everyday, police are fighting crime for our country, risking their lives for others, and what they get in return is a bunch of cock heads blocking the road, preventing a critically injured officers from reaching the hospital. Nevertheless, uninformed activists have keenly stepped up to the chance to humiliate officers, by placing themselves in situations alike that which an officer might find themselves in and showing just how easy it is. Of course, in the scenarios activists failed to keep the public and themselves safe.
A thing I have found lefties love doing is to put race into every single equation there is, and to deconstruct national pride at all cost. Take police killings as an example. In America, 1099 people were killed by police due to lethal force (remember, not all of these people killed are acts of injustice. Some include police shooting down maniacs running around killing people). Now compare that to medical errors, which killed 100, 000 Americans last year. For some reason, I don’t see any snowflake liberals prancing around with their signs at hospitals…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Then I would reply by saying it's like putting all children in time out because one kid punched their sibling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Defunding the police because they're doing a "bad job" is like taking food away from a starving child because he's hungry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Comparing the N-word to other rude words is a false equivalence because it is rooted in actual trauma suffered by African Americans at the hands of white American society for centuries. Because of its history it is a dehumanizing word on a level no word in the English language can compare to.
1) This is why I bought up the example of "hep hep". That too has a dehumanizing history. Why is it that if I say one, I get attacked by lefites, and I say the other at little children's birthday parties and it's perfectly fine?
2) Even so, this matters not. It is surely silly to ban a word purely on history. This would be like accepting someone at a job interview who had a successful grandfather. Surely it would be more sensible to judge it on a present level.
In short, history clearly cannot be the factor which allows you to determine whether a word should be banned. If it did, then you would have trouble expalaining why the word "hep hep" isn't as stigmatised as the N-word. There is a factor, yet to be exposed, which is making you weary of using this word.
Before you say “but that’s the past, move on”, let me ask you... have you ever been on ancestry.com? Have you ever heard the stories of your great great great great grandfather? Must be nice to have a family history and culture to look back on.
No actually, I have never been on ancestry.com. Nevertheless, you make the assumption that I am not black. Very interesting.
Ever sit around with your white friends talking about time travel, and what it would be like to go back in time and witness the country’s founding? Not of you’re black, you would have been hauled off and sold.
Ever sit around with your white friends talking about time travel, and what it would be like to go back in time and witness WW2? Not if you've Jewish, you would have been hauled of and killed. And yet you use the term "hep hep" so freely.
To answer your question, no I don't talk about time travel with my friends.
Ever listen to people talk about how wonderful our constitution is? Now imagine what it is like listening to that conversation knowing that the same document they are talking about says that you are three fifths of a person.
Do you think I am the kind of person to spend my free time reading the constitution?
Nevertheless, this is a red herring. The n word is nothing to do with the constitution.
To be black in America is to live with all of this on your shoulders. This is what the N word is rooted in, and what is being thrown at black people every time it is used.
Kanye West literally has a song named nigger in parris. Is he not black? Why can he say it and others cannot? Does it not seem racist to restrict white people from using a word purely because they're white? If black people were truly weighed down by this terrible word, then why do they use it so freely in their songs and speech?
The rest is a just slippery slope fallacy.
Incorrect. In disputing my point, you clearly believe that you should ban the n-word because it is rude. Using the same reasoning, I can then ban all rude words
p1. The n word is rude
p2. Rude words should be banned
c1 The n word should be banned because it is rude
p1. The word stupid is rude.
p2. Rude words should be banned
c1. The word stupid should be banned because it is rude.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
You've left 3 people hanging man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If Trump said "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story book man", what would you say. Would you think "oh pity he's English is a bit lazy today, no matters"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Joe Biden:Vice President under ObamaSelected Kamala Harris to be his Vice President while he is PresidentHas the full support of BLM, in terms of who to vote for in the 2020 election.
Also Joe Biden
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story book man"
"I don't want my kids going to a racial jungle"
When referring to black people "if you don't vote for me, you ain't black"
Here are official, irrefutable things, Obama and Biden did to help black people while their ticket was active:
And here are official, irrefutable things, Trump has done to help black people, which you of course turn a blind eye to.
Followed by good to the country.
So what do you have to say about sleepy's racism. Or are you going to zero down on trump and forget about good old joe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What do you think would happen if the best women’s team played the best men’s team. Not even the best men’s team, just a team which made the semi finals.
Created:
Posted in:
The left are always pushing for gender equality and complaining when men who take a couple testy pills compete with women. There is more than testosterones which differs between men and women. Men are usually taller. Men have larger fists. Men have more muscle mass. Men have different bone structures. Men have quicker reaction times. Just take a look the at the under 15's team smashing the 6th best women's soccer team competing in FIFA women's. Is the only difference some testosterones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbCID2Gtax0 - Fallon Fox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrMem2TiAqQ&t=220s - Alanna Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrSt1luwkMY&t=1s - 17 year old man mauling women
There are two fair proposals.
1. A separate league for trans people. Not enough people competing? Pity, that doesn't mean you can terrorise other divisions.
2. Since the left are always crying about how men and women are treated differently, and how the woman's soccer team earns less than the men's, let's allow everyone to have a good time together. Men vs women soccer. Men vs women boxing. Men vs women UFC. We can divide everyone into weight and let them brawl it out. 150 kg men vs 150 kg women. That's fair.
I'll tell you what's not fair, a man breaking the skull of a women. It's pitiful that these men are making a living mauling women. Step in the men's ring and you shall be humbled.
Created:
Posted in:
Can we just Ragnar some credit for typing all that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Khabib Nurmagomedov's father passed away due to Covid, which was pretty big within the UFC community. Are you suggesting that Covid isn't real? Come on, man.
Created:
Posted in:
Any of you watch UFC? What do we think? Is the Mcgregor era over?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t intend to offend, I was just surprised to see the mysterious myth everyone talks about’s name pop up. You were before my era so I do not even know you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Can we talk about how you never replied to my very extensive argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
This is the first topic we have agreed on lmao.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Well that was all very interesting
==
I will first pose my case against free will and then rebut yourargument.
The argument from a thought experiment
Pick a random country. Any country. Notice the process thatyou are going through. Notice how it feels to make a “choice”. Notice thatthis, if anything, is going to be the freest choice that you make in your life.You have all the countries and all the time you want to pick a country.
Let’s now examine this process. Within the first 3 secondsof being confronted with this question, you were faced with a blank, where nothingoccurred to you. After this period of blankness, random countries would popinto your head, and you likely had two or three countries. Let’s say that you hadthe countries Japan and Australia in mind.
There are two things we can observe at this stage.
1. You cannot think of a country you don’t know
2. You cannot think of a country that didn’t occur toyou.
The first is obvious. You can’t think that you don’t know.The second has larger implications that you would think, as everything mustoccur to you before you can consider it. But by using the term “occurring”, is likesaying the thought “crossed my mind” or “dawn on me”. The process of something occurringto me is completely random. I cannot control what occurs to me, that is the natureof something occurring.
You may still be unconvinced. If I were to ask you why Japanand Australia occurred to you, you may say that “I recently ate sushi, so Japanoccurred to me”. Notice that Japan occurred to you as a product of a memory ofwhich occurred to you (note that you did not choose for this memory to occur,it just did). The question still remains. Why did that memory occur to you? Well,you may say something like I enjoyed the taste of sushi. Even so, the questionstill remains, why did enjoyment have that particular effect on you? Why didn’tyou think “God, I had some awful Chinese take away a week ago, and that memory occurredto me, so China occurred to me”. Why didn’t China occur to you on the samereasoning?
Nevertheless, psychologists know that if subjects are placedin the hands of a good experimenter exposed to an independent variable, theyusually have no idea what is influencing them. If you were to give your businesspartner a hot beverage to hold as opposed to a cold one, they would more likelycooperate with you and when asked why they did what they did, they wouldusually, never say “well I was holding a coffee instead of a beer”.
We’ve now established that the countries Japan and Australiaoccurred to you, for if they didn’t occur to you, you wouldn’t have been ableto choose them. Imagine that you chose Japan, and I asked you for justificationfor your choice. Why choose Australia over Japan? When justifying your choice, you will run into the same issue as before. You may say "Well I've went to Australia a month ago so I decided to choose Australia". The question then becomes why did going to Australia have the effect that it had on you? Why didn't you say "well I went to Australia a month ago, let's go with something else".
==
The argument from determinism
The argument from determinism
Another thought experiment. If I were to collect every atom in the universe and run it into a simulation which simulates the laws of physics, I could hypothetically predict everything that will ever happen from that point onwards. Why? Well, what other factors can control your movement? What is outside of your body and disobeys the laws of physics which can affect your choice and movement. If you say the mind, then you have some serious issues. How can a non-physical thing impact a purely physical thing? Why can the mind connect to the human brain and not an animals brain? What happens to the mind when ones dies? When do I get my mind? Why do people who suffer brain damage from impact go through serious identity shifts?
==
Argument from neuroscience
==
Let’s inspect your syllogism, which is as follows
1. If Godexists then free will can exist
2. God, orsomething similar must exist
3. Therefore,free will must be a possibility
I have issues with both the first and second premise, whichI will now hop into debunking.
==
P1Rebuttal
Let’s inspect your syllogism, which is as follows
1. If Godexists then free will can exist
2. God, orsomething similar must exist
3. Therefore,free will must be a possibility
I have issues with both the first and second premise, whichI will now hop into debunking.
==
P1Rebuttal
If God exists then free will can exist
It may be a surprise, but my argument from a thought experiment includes God. In fact, free will as a concept is impossible.
Since God is the first cause, there exists no outer cause able to control his mind.
I find this very interesting, as it is a direct contradiction to what many Christian philosophers claim. Their claim is usually that "everything must have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause". Interestingly enough, when it comes to God, they say "No no, God is the expectation". With the Occams razor in mind, we can conclude that it is unnecessary to add God to the equation. Why add God and say that he is not constricted by the rules? Why not just stop at the universe and say that it just occurred?
==
P2 Rebuttal
I believe that the ultimate reality is randomness, though the name "ultimate reality" is far to fancy for such a cause.
==
Conclusion
Free will is one of my strongest topics and I will be extraordinarily impressed if you can debunk the points I have put forwards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Big talk coming from someone who couldn't defend their bible.I have always maintained that the Bible and God do not need defending, LOLL!
Are you like 50 because only boomers capitalise their lol's. Also, where did the extra L come from, is it the one you took when you couldn't rebut my argument?
What evidence? Pascal Wagers argument for God? Kalam cosmological argument? The fine tuning argument? The ontological argument? Those are all extremely poor arguments in favour for Gods exitance, all of which have been debunked in a neat little YouTube series.Only a dimwit would suggest that any of these airy fairy tales are needed to provide evidence. Christians don't live in ivory towers like atheists.
Well actually, it's religious people who use things such as the Kalam cosmological argument, not atheists. So yes your right, only dimwit's use these terrible arguments which poor atheists have to endure.
We have the unmistakable proof and evidence of a life changed.
I'm not being sarcastic when I say this but please provide this evidence to me. Tell me, in short, why is God real?
The God of the Gaps argument is a red herring argument.
You never see any specific facts in the bible, have you realised? Where're the testable numbers? Where're the chemical compounds? Where're are the dates? It's all just "God did this and God did that". How do we know that the bible doesn't prove exists? Consider the following 8 verses.
1 In the beginning Allah created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of Allah was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3 Then Allah said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 And Allah saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.
5 Allah called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”
And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.
6 Then Allah said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.”
7 And that is what happened. Allah made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens.
8 Allah called the space “sky.”
The bible is literally a bunch of stories of which anyone's name can be slotted in. The bible does not exclusively prove that your God is real.
- that everything else is metaphor - but the one who sits above the circle - is not a metaphor?
How do you know when the bible is speaking metaphorically and when it is speaking literally? It seems this is your own interpretation. Why did the bible say above the circle of the earth and not above the curvature, or above the sphere? Why circle? What idiot calls the globe a circle. Coincidently, people use to believe the world was flat. HMMM VERY SUS.
Also, can you tell the difference between the two sentences.
He floated across the ocean like a swan.
The swan floated across the ocean.
you - are the duck. Quack Quack.
Are you okay? I recommend you do a prayer for your sanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Big talk coming from someone who couldn't defend their bible.
Christians continually put up all sorts of evidence. Evidence which is credible and plausible.
What evidence? Pascal Wagers argument for God? Kalam cosmological argument? The fine tuning argument? The ontological argument? Those are all extremely poor arguments in favour for Gods exitance, all of which have been debunked in a neat little YouTube series.
What a ridiculous argument.
It's not an argument. It's meant to demonstrate that religious people are not mentally ill and their these delusions are a product people physiological need to know everything.
Nevertheless, Christianity seems very like the cargo ship religion. Consider the following.
The cargo religion explains who the cargos fill up with goodies.
Christianity explains humanity, things such as right and wrong and the beginning of the universe.
The cargo religion only makes a thing logical, but doesn't provide facts. E.g the religion makes it so that people can understand how cargos fill up. It doesn't consist actual evidence, say, a photograph of this God.
Christianity only makes a thing logical, but doesn't provide facts. E.g the religion makes it so that people understand the shape of the globe. You'll never find an atomic structure or mathematical formula in the bible.
The writer is not suggesting the world is a circle or a globe or even flat. It is a metaphor - just like the rest of the sentence - inhabitants like grasshoppers. And the heavens being stretched out like curtains
Notice how the rest of the sentence states inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in. Clearly, you are the one with poor grammatical skills if you are being bamboozled by this simple poetic line.
Of course, when describing the shape of the earth, there is no "it's curvature bent like a circle", it is simply above the circle of the earth. An assertion. A fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Atheists, why is it you feel that Theism as a proposition to be something you perceive as absurd or ridiculous?
Because theists not only believe with lack of evidence, they believe it irrespective to evidence.
or the results of mental issues (that's my fav lol)...
I would disagree. Throughout history, it isn't rare to see people who pin unexplainable things on a God. Take the cargo cult as an example.
It is common knowledge that settlers often sailed and conquered land, despite their being islanders living on "empty" land. When the islanders arrived, they usually brought technology and food, things that the islanders had never seen. When clothing and items needed repairing, they were shipped away and new items kept arriving as "cargo" in ships and planes. The islanders had never seen the settlers repair anything themselves, only they pack away their broken items into a cargo and magically, days later, they came back polished and repaired.
Evidently, then, the cargo must be of supernatural origin. As if in corroboration of this, the settlers did do certain things that could only have been ritual ceremonies
They build tall masts with wires attached to them; they sit listening to small boxes that glow with light and emit curious noises and strangled voices; they persuade the local people to dress up in identical clothes and march them up and down - and it would hardly be possible to devise a more useless occupation than that. And then the native realizes that he has stumbled on the answer to the mystery. It is these incomprehensible action that are rituals employed by the settlers to persuade the Gods to send the cargo. The the native wants cargo, then he too must do these things.
Curiously, the exact same thing happened independently on islands that were widely separated both geographically and culturally, as is noted by David Attenborough. Other islands started this "cargo cult" to explain these mysterious boxes which also seemed to contain goodies.
So no, I would not call religious people "mentally ill", though I will say that they are terribly misled.
I'd like to know what is so superior about interpreting the universe as a product of matter rather than a product of intelligent work,
To put simply, the prior has been tested by scientists around the globe, while contradicts almost all scientific facts that we know. Consider the following
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
Isaiah 40:22
Isaiah 40:22
Would you really call the earth a circle? Would you call a basketball a circle? The only people who would seriously call a ball a circle are little children who do not know the term sphere. Funnily enough, people used to believe the earth is flat.
==
In short, I treat Christians like how I would treat the "cargo cult". At the end of the day, you only live one life so if you want to waste your days praying for a cargo ship of goodies to come or for a man to rid you of your sins, you have all the freedom in the world to do as you wish. Personally though, I wouldn't want to.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'm doubtful it is real. No can answer the question of how a non-material thing can impact a material thing.
Created:
Posted in:
Polar express, where a man tokyo drifted a train with more than 6 carriages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But if every species on earth had a common ancestor, then all of the animals that existed at this time would have interbred with each other and as a result, there would either be only be one species on this planet, or no species on the planet if the species starved to death due to our distant ancestors interbreeding with the ancestors of every other species(which was the same species back then, so viable offspring would be produced)
Well no. The point of natural selection is that mutations occur, meaning that you can start with a single object and end with many different organisms. What likely happened is that yes, there was one speciesism to begin with.
Of course, you cannot expect every single organism in the world to stay shoulder to shoulder for millions of years, some will move into the oceans and other will move into forests. With different environments, the lucky organisms will receive random beneficial mutations, while the unlucky ones die.
Also, this isn't proof for God. God isn't the default answer for whenever you get stuck on something you do not understand. You still have the trouble of proving that a) God exists b) God did in fact do what you believe he did and c) that it was your God, as oppose to the thousands praised through history which did what you claim he did.
Created:
Posted in:
Story time.
A few months ago I was challenged to an online debate in an instagram group chat regarding banning the N-word with my friends friend. Me, being an expert debater, clapped my opponent so hard that they resorted to calling my schools headmaster and getting me sent to the principles office. Predictably, my headmaster wasn't too pleaded. They attempted to reason with me, however the reasons they gave for why the n-word is bad weren't the strongest. Upon reflection, I guess I understand that the school cannot be handing out candy for people saying the N-word, so I suppose they did what they had to do. After some back and forth, I conceded the "debate" because getting expelled wasn't looking too far fetched at that point.
The following is what I wrote. It was a while ago and I didn't put too much thought into it. Not my peak debating skill.
=
Hm, an interesting proposition indeed, however, I shall take this time to respectfully refute this claim. Clearly, for one to believe the N-word is rude is to overlook two fundamental factors, being a) how language can evolve over time and b) that rude words simply enhance the ability to free speech.
It is apparent that when the N-word was used in this instagram group chat yesterday at 22:36, controversy seemed to emerge. It is clear that those of whom were disturbed by the use of this word may be overlooking how language can evolve. Have any of you used the term “hip hip hooray”? For some context, hip hip hooray is allegedly derived from the German phrase “hep hep”, an anti-semtic term used during the riots of 1819, in which the Nazis use the phrase whilst rounding up Jews during the holocaust. Clearly, as this word is widely used in times of happiness and celebration, it can be concluded that any historical stigma attached to the word has been removed. The same can be said for the N-word. How do we know this? Black musicians, more than anyone else use this term frequently in their music. Notably Juice Wrld, who in his recent banger of an album dropped versus such as “Ain't too many real niggas here no more”, “That Tommy hit a nigga, Tommy Hilfiger, fuck niggas” “I don't smoke skunk, but tonight I'm getting stuck, nigga”. Surely, if this term was as derogatory as it is portrayed, black men would hesitate in using it so freely?
One may respond by saying “Juice Wrld is black, he has the right to say it”, however this just brings us down the dangerous rabbit hole of identity politics. Is segregating people by the race wise? Is limiting vocabulary on the basis of one’s race in fact racist?
As stated in the introduction, section b) focuses more on my personal right to free speech. Take a step back and consider why the N-word is actually bad. It’s rude? It’s hateful? These are both poor reasons for banning such a word. Are we now banning words on the basis that they are rude? Why is it that I am allowed to make attacks on your physical appearance, logistical coherence, mental cognitive abilities and your mother, but when race is bought into the equation, everything comes to a halt? Surely offending my mother is quite rude and hateful. Calling me a different species to that of my own is certainly rude. The N-word isn’t the only “rude” term there is in the English vocabulary. What is the solution, are we going to ban all hateful speech? What will that leave us with? Complimentary statements bring happiness only because there are hateful words to contrast with them.
==
Could someone rebut this? Am I missing something fundamental? I hope you get that I am not racist. What I'm getting at essentially is that people should stop living in the past. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of people to rid the n-word of it's age old meaning and instead turn it into the new hip hip horary?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't particularly care how some people translate it.
I thank you for your concession.
The fact is - it refer to murder - to breaking covenant.
You know why it refers to murder? Because you are using your own morality to infer this. People wanted it to be murder because it was nicer than kill. In biblical Hebrew, killing (harag) and murder (ratzah) are two different words. Guess what's in the bible? Kill not murder.
In relation to Hitler, my viewpoint has not changed by your scenario.
Hear this folks? If TS would not kill Hitler knowing his background and knowing that he was about to escape and evade justice forever. Wicked.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I would be lying to you if I said that I am still interested in this topic. Nevertheless, you shall receive a reply.
It is you shall not murder - and is translated that way in many translations. The Hebrew in the text actually indicates that a proper translation is "you shall not put to death an Israelite (Covenant keeper). The implication clearly is that it is forbidden to kill someone who is doing the right thing.
Thou shall not kill. (bible gateway)
You next section is essentially you dodging the question. So I will re ask it here without any room for oily play.
Imagine that you were to time travel to the year 1930. Imagine that, until that point, Hilter had done everything he had done. Imagine that you were walking through a playground and saw Hitler sitting on a bench. For the sake of the example, imagine that your life was not in danger. Essentially, it is just you and Hitler.
Imagine that Hitler came up to you and said that he was about to escape, to a place where no one would find him. Assume that you knew this was true. For whatever reason, you knew that you were the last person who would ever see Hitler.
You know that he has tortured Jews. You know that he has separated families. You know that millions have died because of him.
You are given a choice. You can kill him, or you can let him live, knowing that justice would never be severed.
Created:
Posted in:
What do we think about Trump being censored? Personally, I think that it's kinda unfair that he's been quite literally cancelled by media platforms, all of which are salty they have been exposed for clearly pushing "bad" information about Trump whilst instantly censoring anything negative about Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I wish you and your friends family all the best.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Capital Punishment is not murder. It is lawful killing.
The ten commandments states thou shall not kill, not thou shall not murder. If a religious person really did get their morality from the bible, they should say no to all killing. Clearly, they don't.
I do not think that the killing of 1 person is more justified than the killing of a billion.
If I bought Adolf Hitler to you and said that in order for you to save the entire planet, you had to kill Hitler, would you? Any sane person would say yes, however, the Bible clearly states that thou shall not kill. Simple.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I personally don't think that God will ask us to murder.
Though God did not necessarily ask Abraham to kill, he did ask him to sacrifice what he loves most, which God being omnipotent, should know is his son.
The 6th commandment is the statute which forbids murder. You shall not murder.
If religious people really did get their morality from the bible, then why are their Christians who are in favour of the death penalty? I'm sure, if you asked any Christian whether they would rather kill 1 person or a billion, all of them would say that the one person could go. Clearly, religious people do not get their morality from the bible, they infer passages from the bible into their liking.
the application to this is : if someone pretending to be God tells you to kill someone - you can know with the assurance of the Bible- God's word itself - that any so called new or fresh revelation is NOT from God.
And Abraham was hearing...
Created:
If God asked you to sacrifice what you loved most (exactly like what happened to Abraham), would you kill your son, or at least whole heartedly have the intentions of doing so?
Created:
Posted in:
As a follow up of my Satanism forum, I am starting a petition where, if successful, users on DART will be able to manually type their preferred gender, and religion.
Ay
Ay
Ay
Ay
Ay
Created:
Posted in:
After Donald Trump told protestors to go home and stop rioting, he once again highlights that this was a fraudulent election and the Republican party should have won by a "landslide".
I'm not very American politics, but I will say that I would have voted Trump over Biden in the elections (I don't trust democrats after Obama), though the outcome didn't really bother me much. I'm interested to hear what people have to say about this election. Was there fraudulent votes? Was Trump robbed or is he just salty he didn't win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
First, Europe isn't a country. Second, why did you choose Europe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
To have faith is to believe in something upon a) insufficient evidence or worse and more commonly so, b) irrespective of evidence. It is impossible to have faith in atheism, for the very definition of atheism is to have a lack of faith.
Created:
I want to be Jesus so that I can testify that I do not have superpowers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Add satanism as a religious option on the drop down menu in your profile edit plz
Created: