Total posts: 1,331
Posted in:
the best interpretation is that adam and eve was not a literal story, given human history evolving the way it did
Created:
Posted in:
i imagine Oprah Winfrey when i see this thread... "everyone gets an abortion! you get an abortion! and you get an abortion! and you get an abortion! abortions for everyone!"
Created:
discussion on why it's irrational to say there's no evidence for afterlife. more philophsic oriented
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
do you still view the bible as inerrant?
before i thought you weren't very open minded, but now you seem too open minded
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
are you still a christian? how do you describe how your faith reconciles with your stance on abortion?
this new you is hard to tell if it's genuine. you went from no abortions to abortions for everyone. lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
it still doesn't sound like you are being serious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
are u being serious?
Created:
"At the most basic level, neuroscientists say, when a person’s brain changes in profound ways—as happens when that person goes into cardiac arrest, for example—their perceptions and emotions change in profound ways, too."
what i see, is that i post scientific evidence, but you choose to ignore it and respond not with a decent scientific response but rather with weak philosophy instead. what you post is more in the realm of philosphy than science, after all.
Created:
article about philosophically why an afterlife obviously exists
more
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
yes gun nuts will use the emotion that i hurt their feelings to avoid the cold hard logic that impulsive people with guns are more likely to murder others than if they didn't have a gun.
Created:
there's no doubt that having a gun handy when someone is impulsive will increase the likelihood that someone will be murdered. gun nuts like to pretend that impulsive people will just wait until they later get a gun and the murder will happen anyway. it defies logic or an understanding of human nature. of course, if someone is impulsive, and they happen to have a gun, the are more likely to kill someone. gun nuts also pretend that everyone who is denied a legal gun will get one illegally... the problem, is that's not true, not everyone who is told they can't have a gun will get one. that also defied logic... 100 percent of those denied will get a gun? ridiculous logic. so, if someone is told they can't have a gun, and they dont happen to have one when they're being impulsive... murder is less likely to occur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
our society and government is reactionary, though, they wait until there's a crisis point to do anything. that's not the smart response. we do have a democracy, but it's more accurately a representative democracy, so if the representatives can figure out a method to prevent future problems, they should. our representatives know better, often, that's why it's designed the way it is.
Created:
Posted in:
that has an interactive quiz where everyone can balance the budget. the bottomline is that trimming spending here and there and increasing taxes here and there can solve our future debt problems. nothing drastic needed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
if you acknowledge that the debt could or will proably be a problem someday, maybe you should put more emphasis on coming up with ideas about how to prevent that. the path we're on is unsustainable, and your focus is on saying it ain't so bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
but that doesn't mean there never will be a problem, right? unless you are cool with us spending a hundred trillion a year? my point, there is surely a limit on what is safe and responsible... so what is your theory on that?
Created:
THE END IS NEAR MY FRIEND, THE BEAST IS AWAKENING, DESTRUCTION IS AT HAND
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
maybe, but we gotta try anyway, gotta try to stay dominant
Created:
Posted in:
even if that were true that it's part of china, sometimes the only real option for survival is to deny all terms and conditions. to my understanding, china taking it over, would cause a massive shift in power between china the usa and the rest of the world. it would be the rise of china and the decline of the usa.
Created:
i think the question depends on the nature of the crime. if it's not a serious crime, then postpone. if it is a serious crime, then it wouldn't be just to not take care of it now. for whatever reason, everyone disagrees whether this is a serious crime or not.
Created:
another debate thread at a different debate website
example.
the legal standard of 'evidence' is whether it is probative, whether it increases the likelihood for something being true. an anecdote is just an anecdote... but lots of anecdotes are a trend, and they are evidence. 'anecdotal evidence' and 'circumstantial evidence' are actual concepts, and everything i'm arguing is at the very least anecdotal and circumstantial. you just choose to ignore it. i provide lots of evidence, and all you have in response is philopshical quibbles, you have no science to support your claims other than speculation. you dont even have good philsophy on your side... if you it's common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, maybe an afterlife exists? it's not rocket science. we should at least entertain that idea since you are so weak when it comes to the science aspect.'brain chemicals' 'people are seeing something that soothes them', these are the realm of philsophical arguments, not science. what if the afterlife is exactly like these experiences purport them to be? what if you saw that was true when you died? would you claim you had no indication that there was an after life over your whole life? you at least had an indication that there's an afterlife. objectively even if you didn't want to call it evdeince, it indicated something to you, but you chose to disregard it. to quibble and say you had an indicator of an afterlife but no evidence is objectively an irrational statement... you have an indication of the afterlife, thus you have evidence of an afterlife.out of body experiences. you just choose to ignore it. when out of body experiences are investigated, they are almost always accurate. someone who just guesses what happened outside of their body are almost always wrong. these incidents involve credible witnesses like doctors. pam reynolds was being monitored the whole time of her surgery and saw medical equipment during her surgery that she could describe that lay people do not know about. it's a well established story. there can be something little like someone seeing shoes on the window sill of another hospital room that they had no access to. the accuracy of these stories are based on science... it's not science to the degree of certitude that you prefer, but it's basic science. these investigations and be repeated and verified as circumstantially accurate, which basic science.you also just choose to ignore that blind people struggle to come to grips with having sight during their expereince. for your argument to be true, you, again, just have to ignore this evidence. at best, for this point and all the others, you should be arguing that if the truth is as presented then evidence for the afterlife exists. you should at least be be open minded to that possibility, not just ignoring it all out of hand.you dont give good reasons why someone who hallucainte dead family members almost exclusively when they see earth beings. you have speculation that people are close to family, but it's a weak point, cause not everyone is close to family, some people are close to friends, some people are obsessed with taylor swift or elvis presley... they dont see celebrites or living people, it's almost always dead relatives. your only possible explanations for this are weak.you dont even have a plausible explanation for why communication is always telepahtic with these experiences. why aren't they talking during these hallucinations? you have no plausible explantion.if it's common for people to no longer fear death and be absolutely sure of an afterlife after these exerpeinces, and they say their expericences were more real than this life... it's just to not think maybe they are being accurate in their reports.all you have to argue is philsophy, not science. you dont even have to believe that an afterlife is probable or that it exists, just that evidence for those propositions do exist. all you are proving is that you have a deep seated need to be a skeptic, all you have is empty rhetoric.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
a perfect impression, perfect example
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i would be guess almost certainly that twitter bans porno to minors. i dont know why this is a relevant question, cause no one thinks everything is protected speech.
Created:
Posted in:
the supreme court says lies are a protected body of speech. of course not all lies, but in general. what twitter should do is just put a disclaimer on the problem posts. i know there are a lot of people who purposefully lie, but my impression is that most those guys are just guillible and stupid. free flow of ideas is important. defeat wrong info with disclaimers and with truth. that's the american way, regardless of if it's twitter or the government.
Created:
Posted in:
also i dont know what world ya'll live in, but books can contain all the same misinformation and lies and dangerous ideas. i dont know why ya'll are trying to split hairs to argue with me, when you should just be agreeing with me, that books should be treated the same as social media.
Created:
Posted in:
on facebook, conservatives can be banned just for not being politically incorrect. it might not be wrong or dangerous. i'm sure the same happens on twitter. there's an obvious left wing bias in the media and social media. so even if it's not techncially conservatives being banned for being conservative, it for practical purposes is that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So would you be OK banning books that r dangerous or for the same reasons u support banning conservatives on twitter?
Created:
Posted in:
At first I thought Twitter should ban bad info and conservatives then I realized free speech is free speech as a principle regardless of it's the government or anyone else doing the banning
Created:
Posted in:
I use to think referencing God in the government was going to far. Then someone asked me if it's really a big deal, and then I was like not really.
When I was a teen I trusted the government on the Iraq War. As I got older I realized I was too deferential and they never adequately tied terrorism and saddam... I was too gullible
Created:
Posted in:
free speech is a virtue, regardless if the speech is respected by the government or by private citizens and companies.
so it seems as far as the masses move, liberals are suppose to be opposed to book bans, yet support banning conservatives on twitter. i know not everyone falls into that category, but this is the brainless overall overture, movements.
i know a lot of liberals on here support twitter banning conservatives. do you also support those who ban books? if you oppose them banning books, why do you not also oppose twitter banning conservatives?
Created:
Posted in:
There's also burn out to consider. A person might be willing to donate a fifty spot, but where do they draw the line? Eventually a person will stop being willing to donate even if they can cause a lot of good change. This is important in itself but also highlights that finding the most worthy causes is important.
Created:
Posted in:
I like the idea. I also like prizes for private sector to compete on maximizing overall wellbeing.
I also like making donation and charity more culturally relevant, like an expectation fir even ordinary Joe's or status for ordinary Joe's. Or as sex appeal for average joes
Created:
Posted in:
ron might be able to win against the dems, cause dems can't pick decent opponents. but it shouldn't be hard to beat desantis. all he really amounts to is being a troll on social issues, there's not much substance to the guy.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
the gospel of john is poetic, and discusses mysteries that depend on the context. i mean you are citing verses that you claim are contradicting each other right in the same chapter or thereabouts or the same book, i would think you'd give the book a little more credit and find something more of a slam dunk. why didnt you find something more clear like "moses was a jew" v "moses was not a jew". ? it looks like you aren't even trying to be open minded about context or interpretation.
1. i mean the trinity is a contradiction itself by human standards. it's a mystery. if you don't accept that it has to be understood deeper, than you can find all sorts of verses that talk about the differenent persons in a different way and conclude it dont make sense. jesus is God, the father is God, but they are both God. in the sense that jesus is his own person, the father can be considered greater, but in the sense that they are both God, they are both equal.
-a few analogies i use to understand the trinity. a three leaf clover, three parts yet one. a father and brother, in one person we find a father a son and a brother. multi dimensions, in this dimension Jesus reigns, in heaven the father reigns, and the holy spirit has its own dimension. even if the son is in heaven, he is of earth, so he's a visitor to the other dimension even if he's God.
i understand by earthly standards the trinity doesn't make sense, but you have to be open minded.
2. jesus wasn't a judge in his earthly ministry, but he will be a judge when at the end of time.
3. in the sense that no one under jewish law no one can consider one witness adequate, jesus understands his own testimony isn't considered adequate. but he also understands in another sense that even though that's the case, what he says is true, that's just the way it is.
i think you need to find clearer examples and be more open minded to different contexts and interpretations.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
My hunch is the site likes darts format the best. That seems to be a big draw for me too
Created:
-->
@Stephen
i already stated my position. my position is that there are things that look like they are probably contradictions, but they depend on how you interpret them. if your position is that there are clear contradictions, i asked for three examples that someone is willing to defend to be clear contradictions. you are the one dancing around the topic. either put up, or shut up.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
There r debate sites that r more active, like debate Island. Depends on how u define 'best'
Created:
https://www.makeuseof.com/best-debate-sites/
Created:
-->
@FLRW
you just did what i pointed out that skeptics do, and spammed a long list of contradictions that include a lotta fluff. can't you do as i requested and pick your strongest three and then defend your position?
Created:
can you prove otherwise? usually when this topic comes up, atheists just spam a bunch of alleged contradictions, but they all depend on how you interpret them. they let the debate get lost in the weeds, and they never prove the bible is full of contradictions like they claim it is.so, instead of spamming, can you find three clear contradictions that you are willing to fight are clear contradictions?
my position is also that it looks like there are a few contradictions and errors, but it depends on how you interpret the bible. for example, jesus said no one has ascended to heaven but the father, but the old testament says two men were taken up by a whirl wind to heaven. this looks like a contradiction. apologists say jesus meant no one has gone to heaven with their own strength and those two old testament men were taken up by whirlwind, not with their own strength. this superficially looks like a cop out, but it depends on the original language of the bible and how you interpret it.
Created:
i think the healthiest way to hobby politically, is to keep abreast of the major topics in the news, and how it fits into your world view. and have a few well developed ideas on political topics that interest you, so that you can contribute to public discourse in a way that you desire. getting stuck nonstop watching cable news for the latest details isn't healthy, but doing it a little can be fun and healthy. being a tool that picks fights all the time isn't healthy, but learning when to pick a fight is healthy and educated individuals should be able to do so when the time is right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
i think you and Roosevelt will get along just dandy
Created:
Posted in:
There's a whole subculture about dating that could go with this. 80 percent of women only fight for twenty percent of guys. Really, incel culture has a lot to add... ya sometimes they go too far, but they gotta Lotta truth too
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
if you dont believe a word of it, that's just your bias. the government says it was critical and they talk about the subjects that were involved, which sound critical. i mean you might be right that it wasn't critical, but that's just you choosing to ignore what the government is signaling. your motive in ignoring it, could only be that you lack objectivity.
do you acknowledge that trump's behavior at least looks unethical?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
is there evidence trump was trying to make money off it? i read an article that said he was trying to have source documents so he can prove he's right when arguing with people... it was ego related. i guess i do suppose that that's a little weak for a reason for why he'd take all the documents though.
i really dont know what he was trying to accomplish in taking all those docs.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
i wouldn't vote for the guy, but even i can relate to the MAGA, and have a little maga in me too. if i say 'fuck it let's watch the world burn', it's only cause i'm partly MAGA myself. except, i recognize it's not a virtue and can still think objectively... the virus hasn't completely destroyed my brain.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
this is my favorite definition of the term 'trumpanzee'
An irrational creature prone to wild overreaction, rattling its cage at the slightest provocation and indiscriminately flinging its feces around until everything is covered in excrement.(That is the original definition from the person who coined the term)"The devout Trumpanzee is immune to fact or evidence caring only for the unintelligible howls of the tribe's Alpha male"
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
are you at least capable of acknowledging that trump acted unethically and irresponsibly?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
even if trump didn't commit a crime, are you capable of at least acknowledging that trump acted irresponsibly and unethically? i would guess that you would rather let your emotions dictate your views and want to rush to trump's defense, end of story. and of course as always add something that doesn't have anything to do with the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
too bad the MAGAs are so bad at thinking objectively, where instead they let emotions dictate how they view political issues
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
cause i'm a hater
Created: