Total posts: 1,499
-->
@triangle.128k
there's nothing wrong with preferring one's own culture. u r racist for saying that's wrong.
Created:
I SUPPORT THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT OF ALL MEN TO FUCK DEAD CHICKENS
Created:
Posted in:
do ya'll also believe in an afterlife gene or something in our brains? i've pointed out the only way it's possible for this to be hallucination is for us to have evolved, like our beliefs in God and such, to sometimes hallucinate this stuff. but every time i point out that the only way it's true for us to hallucinate this, is for there to be a gene or something in our brain causing it atheists so consistently insist that's not what their position is. An afterlife gene or something does sound stupid, i know, but it's the only rational alternative to people actually experiencing the afterlife.
i understand that people seeing the afterlife sounds too good to be true, but that's pretty plainly a possibility, if not the best explanation when you look at books like "evidence for the afterlife" by dr long. but i dont think it's possible to not admit, if you are honest, that people just conistently experience eleboarate afterlife stories. there's no reason it should be that way that they have these experiences, but that's the way it is.
it's not common for atheists to even say it's possible that they've expeirenced the afterlife, even though that's an obvious possibility. maybe if you press most atheists they'll admit it. there's a large number though, who are more likely to just say there's absolutely no evidence for the afterlife, when this is to anyone with a brain, plain evidence for the afterlife. remember, i'm just saying it's evidence, i'm not saying i've made ground breaking arguments and proven the afterlife with no doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
i concede it might be better to describe it as people experience elaborate afterlife stories, around, the time they die, as i acknowledge it's possible they hallucinate before or after they die. but as a matter of wording, it's accurate to say people commonly experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die.
Created:
Posted in:
it's a fact. people often experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die. they're called near death experiences. these are either people experiencing the afterlife, or they're people hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories. this latter point is the only thing that is a rational possibility that an atheist can claim. but it's a far fetched stupid theory. i've seen atheists try to claim people dont experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, but there's no other way to describe it. they died, clinically. they're not hallucinating random imagery like aliens or fractals or something like a drug trip. no drug causes consistent elaborate afterlife stories for people. what i'm saying is especially true for the exceptional examples. visit nderf.org to get an idea of the basic and exceptional examples. even the basic examples are afterlife stories to some extent. but even if it was just the exceptional examples we used, it's still right to call the situation as people experiencing elaborate afterlife stories when they die.
this isn't even looking at the strong scientific evidence for why near death experiences are probably authentic afterlife experiences.
it's irrational to say people arent commonly experiencing elaborate afterlife stories when they die. it's a stupid, but admittedly possible, theory to say they're just hallucinating all these stories so consistently. it's at the very least a big mystery as to why they would just hallucinate all this, to which atheists have no good answer, and most of the time their ideas are irrational or incoherent. i expect lots of irrational nonsense from atheists in this thread.
Created:
the main reason they suggest masks even for those who get vaccines is because they dont want people to spread the virus to those who dont get the vaccine. but if folks get the opportunity and are too stupid to take it to get vaccinated, fuck em. i realize that the vaccines are not a hundred percent effective and even those with vaccines might die, but it's a negligible amount. there's risks to being alive, that's just the way it is. we should re open the economy soon and do away with mask mandates for these reasons.
i would also prefer to give stimulus money first to those who get the vaccines, and again fuck those who dont get vaccinated. so that's the only reason i'd postpone getting back to normal in the next few months, to give people a chance to get vaccinated and get paid.
Created:
Posted in:
a spirit or soul is required for near death experiences to make sense as authentic experiences of the after life. it's a ridiculous argument from atheists, who have no other choice but to claim that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate after life stories when they die. (no drug causes people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories)
Created:
Posted in:
Philippians 4:13 "I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me."
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
what r ur thoughts now that the defense is making its case? my thought process was that at first he was innocent, then the prosecution gave its witnesses so i thought guilty, but now with the defense witnesses, i'm thinking it's just a "he said she said" of experts all contradicting each other. so what can a person really think but there's reasonable doubt to acquit? i admit i dont follow the case closely though, so there might be more to it. god knows the media sucks at reporting this stuff.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
if i had shallow reasoning such as you are using, then id say u r guilty of appeal to ignorance fallacy, straw man fallacy, and appeal to probability fallacy. of course, the truth is that people can have different opinions regarding the evidence that exists without committing fallacies.... so the only fallacy u r for sure guilty of is the straw man fallacy in how u characterize my arguments.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
i guess u can't win on the substance, so u try to weasel in a win on style.
except, considering that u were uttering demeaning vitriol before i was, i guess that makes you the first loser even on style
Created:
i think the easiest thing to do is find a way to cover the rest of the uninsured. maybe a public option or expand obamacare everywhere. but then grow healthcare costs under the inflation rate for a long stretch. that way we can have everyone covered and get costs under control. it's less important how we do it, but more important to focus on outcomes that matter the most, access and overall cost.
Created:
the main problem we have in implementing a universal plan is that we are trying to do it after the fact.... after already having a system for hundreds of years. other countries started from scratch a long time ago. so what could happen, given it requires price controls to get costs under control the most, lobbyists will fight tooth and nail to prevent that. so we could end up having a system that covers everyone but doesn't do anything about the cost. that's not a good thing to do either. it could, in theory, bankrupt us if they dont do it right. i'm almost a single issue voter on healthcare in wanting a more liberal system, but even i can't deny there are risks if we dont do it right.
Created:
every other developed country spends half as much as we do and covers everyone. it's possible then for us to do the same. it would require price controls to get down to that level, given that that's the main reason they are cheaper. but it's still possible. plus we could just take some of the edge off with price controls and dont have to go as deep as everyone else does. plus even countries like china and other countries have just as much innovation on a per capita basis as we do, so im not convinced we would suffer on innovation.
the main factor for quality of care is the number of doctors a country has. that determines the wait times. on most things, we are below average on wait times, so it's misguided to say quality of care will always suffer. it's because we have below average number of doctors. we have more specialists than most other countries so our wait times in that regard are a little better. giving the rest of the ten percent of uninsured health care wouldn't change our wait time dynamic much at all. it's less about the type of system, and more about the number of doctors.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
you can't reason with someone who refuses to listen to facts and logic, such as you refuse to listen. you are as full of willful ignorance as they come.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
"And you may feel obliged on your next three second visit to Google that there are just as many websites that say otherwise."
my guess, is that you are just pulling this out of nowhere. cause ive googled this several times, and the unanimous consensus is what i have said. there are zero sources that say what you just said here. plus add to the fact that you haven't presented any, and at this point i'm thinking you're just making stuff up. for the purposes of this debate, ive established as true that serious optic nerve damage is irrreversible. expecting a higher standard of proof than what is readily available on the internet from unanimous and credible sources, is an unreasonable expectation.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
you may not realize this basic point but glaucoma is a disease which damages the optic nerve. so if someone who treats glaucoma says optic nerve damage is irreversible it doesn't matter that the source is from a specific disease.
here is another website from another three second search.
"Unfortunately, once damaged, the optic nerve cannot be repaired since the damage is irreversible.
The optic nerve is composed of nerve fibers that do not possess the ability to regenerate on their own. The nerve fibers, if damaged, cannot heal on their own. Thus, damage to the optic nerve is permanent"
The optic nerve is composed of nerve fibers that do not possess the ability to regenerate on their own. The nerve fibers, if damaged, cannot heal on their own. Thus, damage to the optic nerve is permanent"
you may feel unobligated to google this, but if you did, you would see a whole list of sites that say the same thing. the science on this is settled, even if you dont like it.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
ok i repeated my three second search, and got google's source of information. a very reputable website.
"Damage to the optic nerve is irreversible because the cable of nerve fibers doesn't have the capacity to regenerate, orheal itself, when damage occurs.Oct 29, 2017"
i'm sure you will just do what the other non thinking atheists have done and just claim if soemone's optic nerve heals then by definiition it wasn't irreversible even though that was the understanding of science at the time.
why do you keep harping on me insulting you, when all you've done is insult me in a low brow way? you've provided nothing to this debate except base skepticism and insults.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
my quote was google's official answer, which is pretty authoritative. polytheist witch also cited information that says serious damage to the retina is irreverssible. my initial article on the miracle stated that as well. so far all i see from you is an inability to use weigh sources and insults "ridiculous" "uneducated" "unintelligent" etc. you're too unsophisticated and partisan to know that the argument is in my favor at this point, and that you need to do your own research to verify what i say is true, or for you to provide contrary evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
a good wage should come from the employer, not from the good will of customers. plus the current system allows and justifies employers paying a few bucks an hour, which is ridiculous. i actually respect people who dont tip, cause the system is perpetuating this stupid system. it would be okay if tips were just good will for good service, but it's become expected. i like people to have the freedom to tip, but outlawing tipping would make more sense than our current system, because our current system just creates more problems than it solves, so just shutting down the whole system at least has a logic to it.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
it's well known the large majority of folks dont read fine print. anyone who tries to pull a "gotcha" and scheme money out of donors for this reason is taking advantage of them. just because it's legal doesn't make it okay. it's approaching the ethical nature of stealing. this is basic morality.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
u just made it way too complicated. it's a simple question, are the republicans becoming more or less liberal with time?
Created:
i think a lot about politics, but never really considered that this issue could be argued either way, i think.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
i dont know you well enough to really say for sure, but from this short conversation, it appears that you lack a basic moral compass for basic decency.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
here is the result from my three second google search...
"With sufficient damage, sight is lost. Damage to the optic nerve is irreversible because the cable of nerve fibers doesn't have the capacity to regenerate, or heal itself, whendamage occurs.Oct 29, 2017"
apparently u r too stupid to do a google search. you look like u a newbie to debating, so i suppose i should expect idiocy.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
something tells me you didn't go from completely blind to seeing again. if you make the claim that that sort of thing happens to people in normal circumstances, you have to show evidence, because you u made the claim. this isn't about my claims, so you cant just dismiss it, it's about atheist claims. that's the whole point of the thread. atheists have knee jerk reactions and think i'm asking them to prove miracles dont exist. all i'm asking for is for them to show me evidence that things that look supernatural that happen to theists also happen to atheists, too, if that's their claim.
anyone with half a brain would be able to keep all this straight. but you dont find rational thinking from atheists, so i'm not surprised.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
so is your argument if someone is stupid enough to be ripped off, they deserve it, or maybe the con man in that situation is blameless for simply doing what's legal?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
then it will be debateable. as it sits now, it's uncontested. it might be as good as a fact that today's expert was accurate, for all we know.
Created:
today a breathing expert testified that even a normal person would have died from the actions of of the policeman. and that the drugs didn't cause him to die. pretty much the nail in the coffin of his guilt. anyone who still is trying to justify his actions is clouded by politics and emotion.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
why do you hold our leaders to such low standards? "it was technically legal" isn't much of a defense, morally speaking.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
feel free to provide evidence
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the defense needs to bring in its own doctors if there's any room to doubt the autopsy conclusion.
but i could see it being such, that floyd was dead man walking, on fire so to speak. the policeman was a spark, but if floyd was already on fire, should a spark be the cause of him getting burned to death?
and if defense realy wants to argue it, they could question whether we ccan be sure there was a spark to begin with from the policeman given the nature of the blaze
and if defense realy wants to argue it, they could question whether we ccan be sure there was a spark to begin with from the policeman given the nature of the blaze
what do you think of this analogy?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i agree that he's guilty at this point, just not murder, manslaughter fits.
but it's still possible to ask.... so the question is, is it reasonable to doubt the autopsy conclusion? if the situation is such that floyd was a dead man walking, can we be sure without doubt that the policeman was the cause?
i think the answer is that we should trust the autopsy. but i think it's plausible to question the autopsy.
Created:
this article talks about the doubt that the defense is trying to sow
notably, The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s handwritten notes on the first couple of pages of Exhibit A said, “if [Floyd was] found dead at home alone + no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an [overdose].”
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
and even if the policeman is guilty of something, just how much did he contribute to the death? are you able to answer that without speculation?If Chauvin was breaching procedure and engaging is excessive force (which he was), if this contributed to George's death, then he is guilty of murder. Since we know he was breaching procedure and engaging in excessive force (as testified by his superiors), it seems pretty clear cut that he is guilty.
also you didn't answer the question. are you able, without speculation, partition how much the policeman contributed to the death and how much the drugs did? at least, i assume the autopsy examiner might say the drugs contributed even if the offiicial cause of death was homicide.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i'm not sure where the video i saw was, but the doctor responding to the defense was just the ER doctor who declared him dead due to asphyxia. obviously the autopsy examiner is more important.
Created:
it's pretty damning that the police chief thought it was murder, and the autopsy examiner thought it was homicide.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i see u just posted the autopsy report. but i was just asking about what i saw on short clips on tv. maybe the defense is trying to poke holes in the autopsy opinion? not sure
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i think the medical examiner said that the cause of death was asphyxiation, but that it could have been caused by either strangulation or by drugs. how much do you think this leaves open for debate how much the death was caused by the policeman and how much by the drugs? and even if the policeman is guilty of something, just how much did he contribute to the death? are you able to answer that without speculation?
Created:
-->
@Athias
i'm not sure if you have already stated it somewhere, but do you have any evidence that a coronavirus vaccine would cause serious side effect harms? at least with the johnson and johnson vaccine, you have a hundred percent chance of not dying as a benefit. on the bad side, we have a theoretical chance that a vaccine could cause serious harm and a small chance of minor side effects. is there anything more specific than that as far as potential harm?
Created:
-->
@Athias
@Unpopular
it looks like i'm not the only one who had trouble communicating with athias, here is something he said that makes it look like was saying vaccines are pointless...
"One's injecting oneself with a vaccine provides little more than a placebo effect, except unlike a placebo, vaccines can harm."
but i think if you look at the context, he was saying that, only if the person's immune system didn't work properly. he seemed to make it sound like we might as well assume we are all immuno compromised.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
oh it's a yes no thing. i'm interested in your thoughts on my last question. but as for yes no, i would ask.... 'does everyone have a happy eternal life?'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
how can i guarantee that me and my loved ones will live happy for eternity?
how would you etrnlvw, answer that?
Created:
from Quora
Given that Republicans lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight Presidential elections, and that Trump never polled above 50%, why doesn't the GOP realise that Trump 2024 or a Trump endorsed candidate is a almost certainly a losing ticket?The current iteration of the Republican Party has relied on a shrinking base of rural white voters since Nixon's Southern Strategy back in the late 1960s. It's been kept afloat by gerrymandering, voter suppression and the Electoral College ever since.
Today even all that may not be enough. Deep red states like Georgia and Arizona have already turned blue. Without those two states the Republican advantage in the Senate and Electoral College have vanished.
If only the Republican Party had a real leader who could come up with actual ideas and policies that might make people's lives better. Maybe then they could expand their base to minorities and college educated suburbanites. Instead they choose to cling to Trump since he brings 80% of the shrinking Republican base with him. It's clearly a losing strategy which is in some ways a shame. For Trump to cause the Republican Party to descend into the party of white victimhood and wacky conspiracy theories is definitely bad for America. That's the choice they have decided to make. Good luck with that.
Created:
i mean if someone wanted to argue that they dont want to be a guinea pig and that there may be side effects we dont know of, that's at least plausible. but the arguments being made in this thread are, just, incoherent.
Created:
species to species evolution
"Fossil hunters have discovered the remains of the earliest ancestor of the modern whale: a small deer-like animal that waded in lagoons and munched on vegetation. ... In less than 10m years, the whale's ancestors completely transformed as they shifted from a four-legged life on land to a life in the ocean."
Created:
-->
@Athias
you should just admit that your position is incoherent. "my immune system might not work properly therefore i'm not getting the vaccine" is one of the self evidently stupidest things i've heard lately.
Created:
-->
@Unpopular
well argued. yes it does boil down to medical testimony. and, even if he gets away with murder, he should be punished in some way for going too far.
Created: