By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - How to Destroy an Athiests in a argument! (Updated with poll)

 

Who won?

The Athiest 40 70.18%
 
The creationist 17 29.82%
 
Total:57

Here is a trippy video about what is consciousnesses. I thought it belonged here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qjfaoe847qQ#!



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!

Around the Network

This and this is how you destroy an atheist in an argument



Not funny...



richardhutnik said:
badgenome said:
This also works for "How to argue for Neo Keynesianism."

The difference though is, "We are all Keynesians now", including Obama, no matter how many protest to the contrary about Obama.  And I suggest HIGHLY people look up what a Keynesian is before they get on me for saying it.

Obama never was and never will be from Kenya! Unless you can show a birth certificate to prove otherwise!



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

one thing is for sure we are all from africa



Tsubasa Ozora

Keiner kann ihn bremsen, keiner macht ihm was vor. Immer der richtige Schuss, immer zur richtigen Zeit. Superfussball, Fairer Fussball. Er ist unser Torschützenkönig und Held.

Around the Network
Mendicate Bias said:

I agree with your basic premise. In theory if we could regulate government spending during economic downturns in a way that assured bolstering of the economy that would be great. The problem comes after, once the economy has rebounded. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of this too, they just like spending on different sectors.

I do think that there are legitimate expenses for governments to undertake, including healthcare. I'm not saying that we have the best healthcare system but it is much better, in principle, than what it was before.

I'll also say that a major problem with our gorvernment is the lobby system. Private companies should have no say in government policies, while at the same time government should have minimal involvement in the private sector. Barring legitimate regulations that is.

btw I heard at some point that your a professor at a university, is that true?

More to the point, they just like different sides of New Keynesianism. The Democrats like Paul Krugman, who was a respectable, mainstream (if Keynesian) economist until '99/2000 when the double whammy of his joining the New York Times and the Bush candidacy/presidency turned him into a fucking loon. The Republicans like Greg Mankiw, who initially comes across as saner than Krugman (he'd be hard pressed not to) but still thinks that the government ought to try to finagle the economy into doing what it wants, only he prefers creating deficits through tax cuts without matching spending cuts. Actually, they're both just partisans who use economic mumbo-jumbo to justify whatever their team is doing and slam whatever the other team does.

I don't think Obamacare puts us in a better place for the same reason that all the previous price controls and other government interventions haven't put us in a better place. It's just more of the same on steroids, only with a decidedly more corporatist flavor this time. As usual, Obama put on his demagogue pants and pretended to be battling some nefarious evil (health insurers with their whopping 3% profit margins) in order to sell the thing while cutting deals to make sure that the health care industry's big players all actually supported his bill. Corporations aren't stupid, and they know that when something as huge as a health care overhaul is going to happen it's best to get on board to get the carveouts they want, so they did. Big pharma did especially well for themselves. It's actually a myth that these giant corporations have any fondness whatsoever for the free market when in reality they enjoy corporatism just as much as the government does; it keeps smaller competitors off their backs, among other things. (In other lobbyist news, it's worth nothing that Liz Fowler, the architect of Obamacare, just joined Johnson & Johnson a couple of weeks ago.)

And I'm not professor, LOL. I do work at a university, but I'm in research.



richardhutnik said:
badgenome said:
This also works for "How to argue for Neo Keynesianism."

The difference though is, "We are all Keynesians now", including Obama, no matter how many protest to the contrary about Obama.  And I suggest HIGHLY people look up what a Keynesian is before they get on me for saying it.

Well actually to be fair....  If you told John Maynard Keynes was alive now, and you told him you wanted to raise taxes on the rich, he'd probably slap the shit out of you.  Tax increases should only ever come when the economy was is booming.

Obama has essentially moved from Keynsian economics too... I don't even know what you'd call it.   The only term i could come up with is Neo-Liberal fantasy economics... and well, that's just insulting.

I can't think of a single economic theory that would support his debt ceiling negotiations position for example.

I feel like this might deserve it's own thread... but i'm not good enough to create a borderline trolling OP that generates discussion.



irstupid said:
Alara317 said:
HesAPooka said:
I'm not religious, but I also don't go around bashing people who are.

Criticizing religion is "There's no substantial proof in god or the spiritual.  Until you can prove it, I can't take your claims as anything more than empty claims." 

That's the most pathetic argument ever invented.

It has the exact same counter argument.  "Prove that God doesn't exist"

That's the most pathetic counter argument ever. The one making the claim has to prove it. Otherwise, if you can't disprove flying space unicorns in the andromeda galaxy, it's a totally valid theory.



I LOVE ICELAND!



Player1x3 said:

This and this is how you destroy an atheist in an argument

Are you serious? WLC is a clown, he doesn't destroy anyone.



I LOVE ICELAND!