No, because you're giving up your life. You don't think that' s a gamble, because you don't value you life on earth enough. I'm taking the safe bet by living a good and secular life and ANY god who is good and just WOULD NOT send me to hell for not believing without evidence. So MY BET is the best by a wide margin.
You subscribe to a God and ANY god who seen you in an evil religion would be FURIOUS at how you thought of him and since you have a ridiculously small chance of choosing the right heaven, you'll probably end up on that God's Troll list
I've been there. I suggest hyper sensitive empathy in all situations. I only step up my intensity on a quip pro quo basis as to categorically test the meddle of my would be competitor. One is rarely in a rush to have to reveal themselves too quickly without observation first and if that is not the case then a fist fight is likely to follow, because you're probably being attacked, lol.
Ironically, it's when you turn your brain off that music gets easy. It's all muscle memory. You play enough patterns and suddenly you can play every song that has those patterns without thinking all. You just know that said part "feels" like this when you play it. The hardest music to play is the slow music.
Anyone can shred machine gun riffs with those satisfying 32nd notes to keep you on beat. Holding out long and syncopated notes while throwing in well times micro shreds while using dynamics and feeling bends to make those holds sound good is the truly talented application of music. I drifted off into guitar speak for a second, lol. That was my first major instrument.
Don't count out google translate. That's what helped me check myself this far. But as I go on, I have to use it less and less. I never need it for grammar anymore (it's not great for grammar anyway because you have to enter the phrase in English with Spanish grammar for it to work right half the time.) but I do use it to look up niche words that I hardly use.
Unfortunately, I'm not as strong in spoken Spanish because there's not a lot of Spanish speakers in my area that like atheists, lol.
I tried playing piano as a side gig for this predominantly latino/a church and it just didn't sit well with me because the pastor assumed that I was Christian and I didn't want to tell the guy because I also worked with him and things were delicate, lol.
there's multiple words for "from" I'm 80% sure I used the right one.
spanishaddict has really good conjugation tables and THE BEST forums. Look out for this poster named Lazarus. He's very traditional, so take him with a grain of salt, but the posts on there are well moderated. I'll give you a little trick. Do a "this vs this" look up on words that are similar in google and you'll get good answers.
For example. "saber vs conocer" or "para vs por" Stuff like that will yield you amazing searches. and master the word "que" and all it's subsets to a T if you want good Spanish "lo que, para que, la que, el que, por que, etc. "
Se deberia is an impersonal construct. It means One "does this" you always use the third person conjugation.
The subjunctive is something you use in specific situation and the best way to explain it in English is that it adds the word "might" to the conjugation, but there's a more formal way to explain it that would require a monologue by me.
One example would be Quiero que toquemos la musica. Which is (I want us to play the music) but because it's a conjugation verb with a conjugated verb after the "que" clause, you turn tocamos into toquemos. For subjunctive, you always change the e or I into A and A into e using qu to replace C's
What this roughly translates too is (I want that we might play the music) There's no perfect translation here though. It's basically like saying I WANT us to play music, but I don't know if we're going to or not. This is a REALLY basic introduction into subjunctive clause.
Fun factoid. My grammar was never that good to begin with, but it got worse when I learned Spanish (because of being a travelling salesman) and now I accidentally say things with Spanish vowels sometimes with my inner dialogue and add lot of mandatory "that' placements that are optional in English. Ergo, Spanish makes one's English sound funny.
It depends on how one defines atheist. If you take the literal "without god belief" meaning, then technically yes. But we can never know for sure. For all we know, ever baby is born a theist and worships their parents. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I was hoping it would so I wouldn't have to do it the hard way.
You're making the assumption that your life matters or that the universe gives a singular crap about any of us.
Look at the universe. Does it look like it cares about anything? No, it's just a bunch of things floating around.
Humans create meaning. That makes it a real human thing. Who cares if there's not god, at least now I know I have my life and I can do what matters for me. I happen to think that helping humanity does matter for me. Because I want The next genereations 60 or so years on earth to be equal or better quality than mine.
Your way doesn't help humanity, it's a bold gamble on a man made game. You could spend your life actually helping people but instead you look to the sky and wait for the "next step". Well what if there's no next step? That means everything you thought was good was a waste and you could have been finding your own meaning in life.
What meaning can you even try to make of your life if you get to the end of what you thought was the beginning and it turns out it is the beginning of what you now know is the end?
1. gravity is an event, not a thing and the things that are having gravity are physical.
2. Some physicists think that gravity is cause by a particle, although that really doesn't change the fact that the effect of gravity does not actually exist.
3. We are not seeing distorted light incorrectly. The brain is processing it correctly, but the light that is entering our eyes has been bent in advanced and we can even tell that it's bent and work around it, so this is far from an illusion. We're not falsely seeing light as bent. It's ACTUALLY bent.
Spare me your needless sarcasm. I didn't ask him to vote and he'll vote how he votes. Seriously, you need to learn to wind down a bit. It's a rap battle. We're here to have fun and being contrarian all the time gets old. You won't disintegrate if you act nice for a bit.
I'm glad I could help :) honestly I thought your vote was funny and I was being sincere. The perfect symmetry of your counter bomb genuinely made me happy.
Also, I clearly said in the description that nobody had to explain their votes and that funny comments are welcome. So while you're entitled to your vote please do not insult speedrace who did nothing wrong in all of this.
Btw, I don't actually have a problem with centrism per se. I do believe in no political parties. But I kind of played up my position for the sake of the battle. I think Centrism is better than most if not all political systems. I just happen to like staying away from party labels because I don't believe any single party can encompass my beliefs properly.
I think he votes with a great deal of objectivity. This seems like a dubious topic with ill intent behind it. Furthermore, you might be poisoning the well here because if anybody is going to give you a vote with your level of contention, it's this guy for sure.
Judging by those highly fallacious syllogisms you used in that other debate, I'm willing to bet that the problem with how he votes lies within you.
Some people who get voted against by the most objective voters might consider the fact that their arguments need improvement.
You seem to have went the external route and "blamed it on the system"
well I never said that generalizing about Christians believing in the resurrection was fallacious. That's a reasonable statement. I simply disagreed about that necessarily making them delusional.
While it's true that some sects might not specifically hate gays, that doesn't exempt the rest of Christians who do and there are other immoral ideas that those same sects pick up. Even if Christians weren't picking up any tenants at all, the fact that they believe in god would ultimately be disadvantageous to them and the more they believe the more disadvantageous it is.
If someone follows Christianity, but doesn't believe a word of it would hardly apply to this argument because we're talking about it being disadvantageous and we can't cite advantage if it's having zero impact on their life at all.
It then logically follows that the cases to look at are those that take on at least some tenants.
Well I'm not saying that all Christians believe that. I'm simply saying that if one becomes a Christian, they are likely to adopt the tenant.
Regardless of whether they do adopt that tenant, the fact that they're Christians means that they always run that risk so I consider disadvantageous on average because I cannot simply speak to individual cases in this topic. I have to address how it affects people on average.
It would count if we could repeat them scientifically.
For instance, there's a Bible verse where two people are perform some ritual I believe involving animal sacrifices.
Jesus may have been involved, but I think it was Old Testament.
Anyway, One priest did their ritual and it failed and then the one with God on their side did their own ritual and it worked. I think it was Moses actually.
Now if we could reproduce that ritual, it would give us a precedent that "something is making this happen" and we could cite such examples as being contrary to physics and we could start with the hypothesis that "this may be god" and then take it to it's conclusion to see if the model fits.
At least in this scenario, I would be willing entertain the idea of giving god exceptions.
No, because you're giving up your life. You don't think that' s a gamble, because you don't value you life on earth enough. I'm taking the safe bet by living a good and secular life and ANY god who is good and just WOULD NOT send me to hell for not believing without evidence. So MY BET is the best by a wide margin.
You subscribe to a God and ANY god who seen you in an evil religion would be FURIOUS at how you thought of him and since you have a ridiculously small chance of choosing the right heaven, you'll probably end up on that God's Troll list
Muchas Gracias
You're darthvader1 correct?
Well when most of the world is religious it necessarily follows that they will have more charity.
If you go per capita, then atheists organizations are least tied.
Phil Sessions Mans at least 4 atheist charities that I know of.
You're thinking of the gamble wrong. It's not "Atheism or Hell"
It's "Atheism, or Hell X, or Hell Y or Hell z or etc, or etc, or etc."
There's 10,000 plus religions in the world and I'm being quite modest with that number.
So how do you know you're saving yourself from the right hell?
You're an atheist to 9,999 religions.
I'm just an atheist to one more than you.
Are you saying that since God prescribes his own rules to himself that he could make square triangles if he didn't restrict himself?
Sure, now please explain that in a way that is logically coherent. I'm not poking fun at you. I'm dead serious.
sorry. i'm wiped today, I promise it will be done before I go to sleep, lol
felt. That's all I can say there.
In general, people are in too much of a hurry.
I've been there. I suggest hyper sensitive empathy in all situations. I only step up my intensity on a quip pro quo basis as to categorically test the meddle of my would be competitor. One is rarely in a rush to have to reveal themselves too quickly without observation first and if that is not the case then a fist fight is likely to follow, because you're probably being attacked, lol.
Ironically, it's when you turn your brain off that music gets easy. It's all muscle memory. You play enough patterns and suddenly you can play every song that has those patterns without thinking all. You just know that said part "feels" like this when you play it. The hardest music to play is the slow music.
Anyone can shred machine gun riffs with those satisfying 32nd notes to keep you on beat. Holding out long and syncopated notes while throwing in well times micro shreds while using dynamics and feeling bends to make those holds sound good is the truly talented application of music. I drifted off into guitar speak for a second, lol. That was my first major instrument.
I didn't fail because of skill, but rather my lack of seriousness for getting a degree. While I love education, I detest school. The irony right?
I unsuccessfully attended college for music education. I play a few instruments.
Don't count out google translate. That's what helped me check myself this far. But as I go on, I have to use it less and less. I never need it for grammar anymore (it's not great for grammar anyway because you have to enter the phrase in English with Spanish grammar for it to work right half the time.) but I do use it to look up niche words that I hardly use.
Unfortunately, I'm not as strong in spoken Spanish because there's not a lot of Spanish speakers in my area that like atheists, lol.
I tried playing piano as a side gig for this predominantly latino/a church and it just didn't sit well with me because the pastor assumed that I was Christian and I didn't want to tell the guy because I also worked with him and things were delicate, lol.
great translation!!
there's multiple words for "from" I'm 80% sure I used the right one.
spanishaddict has really good conjugation tables and THE BEST forums. Look out for this poster named Lazarus. He's very traditional, so take him with a grain of salt, but the posts on there are well moderated. I'll give you a little trick. Do a "this vs this" look up on words that are similar in google and you'll get good answers.
For example. "saber vs conocer" or "para vs por" Stuff like that will yield you amazing searches. and master the word "que" and all it's subsets to a T if you want good Spanish "lo que, para que, la que, el que, por que, etc. "
I used it all up going holiday ham on RM.
I'm out of rap juice at the moment so i'll do this in a bit. I want to make sure I go super ham to do your R2 justice
mucho gusto y si quieres practicarlo, el espanol. llamame desde aqui
Hey, you got named dropped bro, lol.
lol, I was showing off my skills :)
Se deberia aprender (One should learn )
Se deberia is an impersonal construct. It means One "does this" you always use the third person conjugation.
The subjunctive is something you use in specific situation and the best way to explain it in English is that it adds the word "might" to the conjugation, but there's a more formal way to explain it that would require a monologue by me.
One example would be Quiero que toquemos la musica. Which is (I want us to play the music) but because it's a conjugation verb with a conjugated verb after the "que" clause, you turn tocamos into toquemos. For subjunctive, you always change the e or I into A and A into e using qu to replace C's
What this roughly translates too is (I want that we might play the music) There's no perfect translation here though. It's basically like saying I WANT us to play music, but I don't know if we're going to or not. This is a REALLY basic introduction into subjunctive clause.
se deberia aprenderlo el constructive impersonal y el verbos subjunctivos.
Also, check out this sick rap I just dropping on RM
https://www.debateart.com/debates/685
You can vote on it, but if you do, RM is going to accuse you of trolling, lol. I don't like telling people not to vote on things. It seems unamerican.
Let's Call this Ralph's Theory
"All debates are reducible to rap battles without rhymes."
That's my unified theory of wrap.
Typo it was suppose to be "self pining" not self "self Pinning"
Damn, you really brought it that time.
Fun factoid. My grammar was never that good to begin with, but it got worse when I learned Spanish (because of being a travelling salesman) and now I accidentally say things with Spanish vowels sometimes with my inner dialogue and add lot of mandatory "that' placements that are optional in English. Ergo, Spanish makes one's English sound funny.
It depends on how one defines atheist. If you take the literal "without god belief" meaning, then technically yes. But we can never know for sure. For all we know, ever baby is born a theist and worships their parents. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I was hoping it would so I wouldn't have to do it the hard way.
You're making the assumption that your life matters or that the universe gives a singular crap about any of us.
Look at the universe. Does it look like it cares about anything? No, it's just a bunch of things floating around.
Humans create meaning. That makes it a real human thing. Who cares if there's not god, at least now I know I have my life and I can do what matters for me. I happen to think that helping humanity does matter for me. Because I want The next genereations 60 or so years on earth to be equal or better quality than mine.
Your way doesn't help humanity, it's a bold gamble on a man made game. You could spend your life actually helping people but instead you look to the sky and wait for the "next step". Well what if there's no next step? That means everything you thought was good was a waste and you could have been finding your own meaning in life.
aaaand that's the long way.
What meaning can you even try to make of your life if you get to the end of what you thought was the beginning and it turns out it is the beginning of what you now know is the end?
No problem man. I know for a fact you voted on your own and RM shouldn't be flaming voters.
That was by far the most thorough rap vote I've ever seen.
I think you just gave me some homework, lol.
Seriously though, thanks for the vote.
Sure, if I stick a spoon in the water and it creates the illusion of bending. Are my eyes wrong or is the light actually bent?
Have you ever considered the opposite disposition?
That would be like saying a bent spoon was an illusion .
1. gravity is an event, not a thing and the things that are having gravity are physical.
2. Some physicists think that gravity is cause by a particle, although that really doesn't change the fact that the effect of gravity does not actually exist.
3. We are not seeing distorted light incorrectly. The brain is processing it correctly, but the light that is entering our eyes has been bent in advanced and we can even tell that it's bent and work around it, so this is far from an illusion. We're not falsely seeing light as bent. It's ACTUALLY bent.
Spare me your needless sarcasm. I didn't ask him to vote and he'll vote how he votes. Seriously, you need to learn to wind down a bit. It's a rap battle. We're here to have fun and being contrarian all the time gets old. You won't disintegrate if you act nice for a bit.
I'm glad I could help :) honestly I thought your vote was funny and I was being sincere. The perfect symmetry of your counter bomb genuinely made me happy.
Also, I clearly said in the description that nobody had to explain their votes and that funny comments are welcome. So while you're entitled to your vote please do not insult speedrace who did nothing wrong in all of this.
Who told you that atheists think life is meaningless? You're confusing me with a nihilist.
Oh wow. You just made yourself look silly by not seeing it.
"You can observe me, but you'll never know my superposition"
Talking about how particles have "superpositions" and you cannot know their position until you observe them.
This was the reference was obviously too slick for you and thus.
"That probably went over your head, like a neutrino particle. "
Here's your prize. A line from the rap to take home since it fits you so eloquently
Also, I don't advertise for votes. I prefer organic debates.
Actually, I blocked him on DDO for like three days a while back and we're more like friendly adversaries.
But I appreciate your vote nonetheless.
More voters = Better
lol, I like your dedication to vote symmetry.
No, I think you're right.
Btw, I don't actually have a problem with centrism per se. I do believe in no political parties. But I kind of played up my position for the sake of the battle. I think Centrism is better than most if not all political systems. I just happen to like staying away from party labels because I don't believe any single party can encompass my beliefs properly.
I would like that. Thank you
I think he votes with a great deal of objectivity. This seems like a dubious topic with ill intent behind it. Furthermore, you might be poisoning the well here because if anybody is going to give you a vote with your level of contention, it's this guy for sure.
Judging by those highly fallacious syllogisms you used in that other debate, I'm willing to bet that the problem with how he votes lies within you.
Some people who get voted against by the most objective voters might consider the fact that their arguments need improvement.
You seem to have went the external route and "blamed it on the system"
There's an old saying.
"Don't kill your golden goose"
I think it applies here.
well I never said that generalizing about Christians believing in the resurrection was fallacious. That's a reasonable statement. I simply disagreed about that necessarily making them delusional.
While it's true that some sects might not specifically hate gays, that doesn't exempt the rest of Christians who do and there are other immoral ideas that those same sects pick up. Even if Christians weren't picking up any tenants at all, the fact that they believe in god would ultimately be disadvantageous to them and the more they believe the more disadvantageous it is.
If someone follows Christianity, but doesn't believe a word of it would hardly apply to this argument because we're talking about it being disadvantageous and we can't cite advantage if it's having zero impact on their life at all.
It then logically follows that the cases to look at are those that take on at least some tenants.
Thanks for the vote
Well I'm not saying that all Christians believe that. I'm simply saying that if one becomes a Christian, they are likely to adopt the tenant.
Regardless of whether they do adopt that tenant, the fact that they're Christians means that they always run that risk so I consider disadvantageous on average because I cannot simply speak to individual cases in this topic. I have to address how it affects people on average.
The great egg debate strikes again!!!
It would count if we could repeat them scientifically.
For instance, there's a Bible verse where two people are perform some ritual I believe involving animal sacrifices.
Jesus may have been involved, but I think it was Old Testament.
Anyway, One priest did their ritual and it failed and then the one with God on their side did their own ritual and it worked. I think it was Moses actually.
Now if we could reproduce that ritual, it would give us a precedent that "something is making this happen" and we could cite such examples as being contrary to physics and we could start with the hypothesis that "this may be god" and then take it to it's conclusion to see if the model fits.
At least in this scenario, I would be willing entertain the idea of giving god exceptions.