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
Kasz216 said:


1) Infant mortality rate is in fact a health indicator that has to do with lifestyle.   Just the lifestyle of the mother. Their smoking/drug use etc, is all vitally important.

2) Different countries measure infant mortality different.  In the US, any child that is born and breathes is an infant.   Other countries require a certain weight or length to qualify.

3)

3)  ) 

(Numbers are statistically standardized vs and "average" amount of accidental deaths  hence why some countries life expetancy drops)

Technically every health indicator is affected by life style, just some less than others. As far as I know every developed countries uses WHO guidelines for infant mortality rate and it has nothing to do with weight or height.

Also I would love to see the source for that figure, not to mention a more up to date figure too. I've had to research these things pretty extensively for class and I've never heard about standardization against accidental deaths, and would be interested to see which organizations use it in their calculations.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

Around the Network
badgenome said:

Which might have something to do with why they spend less on health care. A cause, rather than an effect.

We also spend a great deal more per capita on education than every European country save Switzerland and Norway (and Luxembourg, which isn't so much a country as a rumpus room with an anthem), with much poorer results to show for it. I can't see why full nationalization of the health care sector would go any better. Trying to make the wasteful Leviathan that is the US federal government run like these little boutique countries seems like a fool's errand to me.

But even big countries like Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan, are all healthier than us and spend a smaller percentage of their gdp, despite having nationalized universal healthcare.

As for our education system, rich towns use additional tax revenue to bolster their public schools. I would know since I lived in a town that used this model to keep its high school well financed and constantly had the school ranked as one of the best in the state and country. Poor inner city towns don't have this benefit and lack basic resources to effectively teach their kids.

I'm not saying that the government is going to come in and everything is going to be fine and dandy. But I really don't think a corporation that's more concerned with its bottom line, is going to worry about implementing preventative healthcare or care about the general wellbeing of people in society.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

DaRev said:
KungKras said:
DaRev said:
KungKras said:
 

The difference is that the scientific method is MADE to describe the real world, while the bible is only really good for explaining what christians believe.

The bible says generally to love everyone, and to forgive everyone, are saying that the real world doesn't subscribe to this type of thinking?

Those are behavior guidelines. They don't tell me enything about the physical world except that christians believe in loving and forgiving everyone. (Which, judging from other passages and christian actions throughout history can be debated)

What? I fail to see any reason to your response. Isn't the question whether or not science and Christians belief "describe the real world" - whatever that means? The bible clearly describes the real world. What evidence do you have to the contrary since you're making this claim? Are saying because a few people misuse Christianity that means the whole of Christianity does not subcribe to the real world? That's silly. For look at that clown that shot all those children in that school in America last week. Does that mean that all American kids are gun wielding muderous baby killers? 


Christianity has a book that was written 200 years after jesus died. No one really knows when he was born. No one has ever seen god and when they do there alone and only have stories. So what do you really have accept I talk to him in my  head or you have a feeling. You know schizophrenia has the same symptoms. Most that deny it realize that is unlikely to be true, accept to people who are more insecure about their after life. Hell is scary, doesn't make it real, Heaven is great, Don't make it real. What you feel inside could just be you exciting you self and creating chemicals to give you a sense that you feel god. That simple.

So you ask what proof of science? Everything you own you should throw out, thats science that made that. So science, yea I see it all the time and helps me to learn facts, time and everything. So yea you keep kicking it up to the elusive god of the sky but I will go with what is working.

Did you know that The 25th of december is actually a pagan holiday and the bible never even mentions it to be celebrated. The 25th is actually the "birth day" of the sun- god, "Sol Invictus" or "Mithras"? Did you know December 25 was the co...
ncluding day of the pagan winter festival called the "Saturnalia"?

The christmas tree is also pagan along with celebrating birthday's, Which christians didn't celebrate christs birthday at first because it being a pagan idea. Lets also not forget that jesus birthday is really not known. So when people ask why I celebrate christmas while not be christian. I say, why do you? Your not Pagan.

The very name "Christmas," combining the name of Christ with the pagan mass.
 
 

 

 



DaRev said:
Torillian said:
DaRev said:

Nothing, you can see happended by chance. The whole of creation fits together to perfectly to be by chance, for even if Big Bang was by chance, that would also have to mean that everything after were also by chance. And that is higly rediculous. So Big Bang made you have 2 legs instead of 9? Why do women always only have two breasts - is that by chance or by design? Why is water clear, and not pink - is that by chance as well?

Or, are you assuming that Big Bang happened by chance, but everything after that is not by chance or not randum?

The more you continue, the more I realise how flawed Sciece really is I mean seriously, Science tries to prove everything, the problem with that is it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove everything. At some point you must apply FAITH and plain old fashioned belief = that's part of what I mean by Science pointing to a Creator. Science proves that everything is by design and not radom.

This is really a terrible argument.  Yes, everything you just said happened by chance and if water were pink, women had 5 tits, and you walked on 7 legs you'd be talking about how the world was perfect and how the big bang could have made water pink, wonderfully 5 breasted women, and the perfect number of legs.  In order for your argument to make any sense you would have to prove that the current existence is the best it possibly could be and was therefore "perfect" and I find that a hard pill to swallow when you really look at the world.  

dude, don't worry, one of these days Big Bang will Bang again and give us three breasted women, and a "perfect" world. But since its all supposedly happended by chance we really can't be sure, so let's keep our finger crossed as we could end up with no breasted women, or even dicks for breasts  

Thank God I believe in intelligent design.

You do know we found A higgs boson partical don't you?  Just watch.





Mendicate Bias said:
Kasz216 said:


1) Infant mortality rate is in fact a health indicator that has to do with lifestyle.   Just the lifestyle of the mother. Their smoking/drug use etc, is all vitally important.

2) Different countries measure infant mortality different.  In the US, any child that is born and breathes is an infant.   Other countries require a certain weight or length to qualify.

3)

3)  ) 

(Numbers are statistically standardized vs and "average" amount of accidental deaths  hence why some countries life expetancy drops)

Technically every health indicator is affected by life style, just some less than others. As far as I know every developed countries uses WHO guidelines for infant mortality rate and it has nothing to do with weight or height.

Also I would love to see the source for that figure, not to mention a more up to date figure too. I've had to research these things pretty extensively for class and I've never heard about standardization against accidental deaths, and would be interested to see which organizations use it in their calculations.

Don't think many ogrinizations actually use it.  Largely because well... the only groups who make comparisons vs countries are political orginizations trying to lobby for something, including this source.   Since comparisons vs countries are completely worthless because of all the differnt factors

As for who's it is... and the actual flaws assosiated with it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/

(not perfect, though it's more accurate then no adjustments at all.)


The really sad part is.  Nobody has ever bothered to actually do it the long way... by actually removing accidental deaths and homicides.



Around the Network
Mendicate Bias said:
Kasz216 said:


1) Infant mortality rate is in fact a health indicator that has to do with lifestyle.   Just the lifestyle of the mother. Their smoking/drug use etc, is all vitally important.

2) Different countries measure infant mortality different.  In the US, any child that is born and breathes is an infant.   Other countries require a certain weight or length to qualify.

3)

3)  ) 

(Numbers are statistically standardized vs and "average" amount of accidental deaths  hence why some countries life expetancy drops)

Technically every health indicator is affected by life style, just some less than others. As far as I know every developed countries uses WHO guidelines for infant mortality rate and it has nothing to do with weight or height.

Also I would love to see the source for that figure, not to mention a more up to date figure too. I've had to research these things pretty extensively for class and I've never heard about standardization against accidental deaths, and would be interested to see which organizations use it in their calculations.

As for infant mortality... (and other stuff related to choice.)


http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/08/infant-mortality-measurements-not.html



Alara317 said:
KungKras said:
Alara317 said:

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I don't argue with religious folks.  

Yet you argued with him before you stopped :P

I know, I'm so goddamn ashamed, too.  I made it clear I don't like debating religion becuase people can't do what it takes to make religion a legitimate debate topic and are unable to even try to rationalize their standpoint, yet all that did was open myself up to people trying and failing to find fault in my arguments.  

I understand why though. It's so hard to just leave these things be xD



I LOVE ICELAND!

spaceguy said:
DaRev said:
KungKras said:
DaRev said:
KungKras said:
 

The difference is that the scientific method is MADE to describe the real world, while the bible is only really good for explaining what christians believe.

The bible says generally to love everyone, and to forgive everyone, are saying that the real world doesn't subscribe to this type of thinking?

Those are behavior guidelines. They don't tell me enything about the physical world except that christians believe in loving and forgiving everyone. (Which, judging from other passages and christian actions throughout history can be debated)

What? I fail to see any reason to your response. Isn't the question whether or not science and Christians belief "describe the real world" - whatever that means? The bible clearly describes the real world. What evidence do you have to the contrary since you're making this claim? Are saying because a few people misuse Christianity that means the whole of Christianity does not subcribe to the real world? That's silly. For look at that clown that shot all those children in that school in America last week. Does that mean that all American kids are gun wielding muderous baby killers? 


Christianity has a book that was written 200 years after jesus died. No one really knows when he was born. No one has ever seen god and when they do there alone and only have stories. So what do you really have accept I talk to him in my  head or you have a feeling. You know schizophrenia has the same symptoms. Most that deny it realize that is unlikely to be true, accept to people who are more insecure about their after life. Hell is scary, doesn't make it real, Heaven is great, Don't make it real. What you feel inside could just be you exciting you self and creating chemicals to give you a sense that you feel god. That simple.

So you ask what proof of science? Everything you own you should throw out, thats science that made that. So science, yea I see it all the time and helps me to learn facts, time and everything. So yea you keep kicking it up to the elusive god of the sky but I will go with what is working.

Did you know that The 25th of december is actually a pagan holiday and the bible never even mentions it to be celebrated. The 25th is actually the "birth day" of the sun- god, "Sol Invictus" or "Mithras"? Did you know December 25 was the co...
ncluding day of the pagan winter festival called the "Saturnalia"?

The christmas tree is also pagan along with celebrating birthday's, Which christians didn't celebrate christs birthday at first because it being a pagan idea. Lets also not forget that jesus birthday is really not known. So when people ask why I celebrate christmas while not be christian. I say, why do you? Your not Pagan.

The very name "Christmas," combining the name of Christ with the pagan mass.
 
 

 

 

 

Religion to me is more than God or gods. Yes to others this is important but I see it differently.

I somewhat disagree with John Burroughs. To disregard the part religion played in making the west what it is today is to do it a discredit.

First of all religion gave the west belief. In the US citizens were taught that they were "blessed by God" and America was God's land. It served a common purpose of togetherness and made them believe anything was possible with god as the leader.

From the anthem "In God is our trust" to the pledge "one nation under God" promoted this.

In Europe colonisation of the new world to "spread the gospel" - we all know it was about wealth but religion was beneath the surface - brought great prosperity.

It was the push for more..  more speed, more lands, more weapons... more wealth that drove science.

As America and the west now become less religious they are losing that bond that held them together and drove them on. They are becoming lesser on the world stage as other nations that hold on or try to recapture their faiths become more powerful.

I don't believe athiesm can provide this bond. Hitler, Stalin and the emperor Hiroshito realised this and in they own way tried to become themselves gods, making people die in their name but in the end it never worked.

Religion is the greatest divider of peoples, it can also be the greatest unifier.

Even modern China has now realised this, promoting Taosism, Buddhism etc for a more "together" society.

I am not religious in any way but believe it plays a big part in the cohesion of any major society, regardless of the religion.

I am not saying athesim could't work, but those that tried it all seem to fail.

 



spaceguy said:
DaRev said:
Torillian said:
DaRev said:

Nothing, you can see happended by chance. The whole of creation fits together to perfectly to be by chance, for even if Big Bang was by chance, that would also have to mean that everything after were also by chance. And that is higly rediculous. So Big Bang made you have 2 legs instead of 9? Why do women always only have two breasts - is that by chance or by design? Why is water clear, and not pink - is that by chance as well?

Or, are you assuming that Big Bang happened by chance, but everything after that is not by chance or not randum?

The more you continue, the more I realise how flawed Sciece really is I mean seriously, Science tries to prove everything, the problem with that is it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove everything. At some point you must apply FAITH and plain old fashioned belief = that's part of what I mean by Science pointing to a Creator. Science proves that everything is by design and not radom.

This is really a terrible argument.  Yes, everything you just said happened by chance and if water were pink, women had 5 tits, and you walked on 7 legs you'd be talking about how the world was perfect and how the big bang could have made water pink, wonderfully 5 breasted women, and the perfect number of legs.  In order for your argument to make any sense you would have to prove that the current existence is the best it possibly could be and was therefore "perfect" and I find that a hard pill to swallow when you really look at the world.  

dude, don't worry, one of these days Big Bang will Bang again and give us three breasted women, and a "perfect" world. But since its all supposedly happended by chance we really can't be sure, so let's keep our finger crossed as we could end up with no breasted women, or even dicks for breasts  

Thank God I believe in intelligent design.

You do know we found A higgs boson partical don't you?  Just watch.



I wish him luck trying to figure this stuff out - dude looks like he's 90. He will die 100 times over, generations come and gone before he figures out anything other than light crashes into itself lol. Good luck with that. Thanks, but no thanks, until Scienece figures out the Universe I'll read my Bible, and die with Science and Faith.

 

Question, he mentioned the Universe expanding, and the possibility of other Universes expaning as well - but what are these Universes expanining into, i.e. what is outside of our Universe? By the way where did these Crystal and exploding Light particles come from? Possibly that unknown void that our Universes are expanding into?



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

DaRev said:

I wish him luck trying to figure this stuff out - dude looks like he's 90. He will die 100 times over, generations come and gone before he figures out anything other than light crashes into itself lol. Good luck with that. Thanks, but no thanks, until Scienece figures out the Universe I'll read my Bible, and die with Science and Faith.

 

Question, he mentioned the Universe expanding, and the possibility of other Universes expaning as well - but what are these Universes expanining into, i.e. what is outside of our Universe? By the way where did these Crystal and exploding Light particles come from? Possibly that unknown void that our Universes are expanding into?


Everything you're asking is untestable. The expansion of the Universe is a rate that exceeds the speed of light. The higgs boson confirms our Standard Model of particle physics. The higgs boson was only theorized prior to such a finding.

Question, have you taken any physics or biology courses at the college level?