The debate "God is like oxygen. You can't see Him but you need Him to survive" was started by
April 12, 2016, 4:47 pm.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
fadi, Doormatt, blanco, confident, MitchellKags and 3 visitors agree.
RyanWakefield, SocialistForrest, danielle, luke1567, openparachute and 4 visitors disagree.
Yeah, that article was written by Stephen Moore.... I'm sorry to say that I can't take him serious.
Cruz's plan (not quite a 10% flat tax) would leave the US with $8.6 trillion deficit over the next decade.
Again, I'd advocate for a tax plan based on empirical data that shows economic growth projections, foreign policy analysis, GDP, projected government expenditures, etc....
I get economics isn't really a science per-se, but it's the best we got and we need to look at nonpartisan economists to swat down tax plans that simply don't work.
We also need to implement public policy like social security based on scientific data (life expectancy, need, etc....) rather than talking points.
Religion simply can't give us an accurate look at the world we live in and can't be reliable as a source of political policy making. Just look at the middle eastern countries that follow religious law. They are a$$ backwards and can't keep up with the 21st century.
I believe theocracy of any is and will continue to be detrimental to our growth and future.
why the hell didn't people vote for Carson?
"Our analysis finds that the plan would reduce federal revenues by $5.6 trillion over the next decade. However, it also would improve incentives to work and invest, which would increase gross domestic product (GDP) by 16 percent over the long term if the tax cuts were appropriately financed. This increase in GDP would translate into 10.9 percent higher wages and 5.2 million new full-time equivalent jobs. After accounting for increased incomes due to these factors, the plan would reduce tax revenues by $2.5 trillion."
wait did it say raise wages (bernie), yet increase incentives to work? can this truly be done by a simple tax plan? we don't need to turn socialist? yeah!
it's Cruz who has the 10% tax, Carson changed his to 14.9%
Steve Forbes thinks carson's tax plan is the best
Yes, Alex. I believe it is bad. Public policy ought to be made based on the best data available not some book written thousands of years ago that may or may not be true, that is impossible to interpret in a standard way, and that promotes some of the most absurd "laws" ever imagined (now, I don't believe you would outlaw the wearing of mixed fibers or anything like that, but where do we stop if we set aside empirical data for the Bible?)
Let's look at tax plans for example, Ben carson proposed the tithe plan. This plan was analyzed by multiple groups and found to leave the US with an annual budget deficit of $1.1 trillion..... Thats why we should base our tax plans and other policies on scientific data. Now more than ever. The data is so much easier to collect these days, so much easier to analyze, and can be helpful in predicting future trends to make our politics more about adapting to what's to come rather than reacting to what has happened (many experts saw the 2008 recession coming years in advance because of such data mining and analysis).
As for the whole this country was based on Christian values thing..... What is that supposed to be an argument for? That the people for the time were generally more religious? It has nothing to do with our politics today. Furthermore, the argument can be made that this is not the case and is done so fairly frequently, but I don't feel like this line of arguments will really lead to us resolving the conversation at hand so I'm gonna opt out of it unless you really want to push the issue.
Then you don't support equality you just pick and chose what is beneficial to you.
I have no problems with someone praying in private for themselves or in a congregation or public parks, etc... Don't care one bit. Do what you want. I have no right or interest to infringe on that practice.
However, I do have every right to criticize the act and the belief. I don't have to respect a belief in order to allow it. Racism is a set of beliefs held by some and I will happily tolerate their droning on about it, their organizing rallies etc.... However, if I see or talk to someone who is obviously racist, I have every right to ridicule that belief. No belief is above ridicule.
the whole nation was founded on christian beliefs. look at the pledge of Allegiance before atheists changed it. loom at nor buying alchol on Sundays. religion is everywhere Sosocratees. a reasonable tax plan that would be submitted with or without the bible isn't that bad
my religious beliefs influence my political doings. is that bad? is it bad to do what I feel is religiously right, as long as my religion isn't radical or anything?
If you give the kid 5 minutes to himself to pray what does that affect. You are thinking way too far into it.
I would argue the 1st amendment gives me that right......
Second, a belief is not a theory (at least not in the scientific sense)....
Sure, they can push a tax plan based on the Bible, however, that opens up the discussion of his religious belief influencing his political beliefs. Just like you see someone who has socialist leanings as a potential communist, I see political leader with religious ideologies dictating their politics as a path to theocracy.
Here is a map of all the schools receiving public funds to teach creationism.
I'll explain the context of it then. 7th grade English class here. What gives you the right to tell somebody their beliefs are wrong? It's a belief, just like a theory. The only difference between the two is the word in retrospect. You can't disprove or prove either. So if somebody days they need G-d in their life then they need him, just like if somebody says they need to breathe they need to.
what non-Christian school is being pushed to teach creationism? saying "the christian belief is creationism" is ok. they may be pushed to say evolution is a theory and not treat it as a fact.
what is wrong for a canadate to put out a tax plan based on what they believe is right?
OK.... I don't see how any of what I said contradicts this.
You can't pick and choose where to be equal. That's where America stands now. Either be equal or don't. It's black and white. If a kid wants to pray in school let them pray. If a man wants to marry a man, let them marry. If a woman wants to work pay her equally to a man. If a black man gets attested give him the same respect as a white man.
By theory I mean the scientific definition of a theory of course....
Germ theory for example, big bang theory, evolution, gravity, etc... Are all theories
This is a debate app, you're supposed to offer contradictory opinions.... I really don't care what people believe so long as it doesn't effect others.
However, religious beliefs do effect society. We have school boards being pushed to phase out the teaching of evolution or to introduce creation as a valid alternative. We have laws like limitations on abortion clinics coming from a religious belief. We have presidential candidates basing their tax plans off of the church tithes. I could keep going, but I think you get the picture.
You're as ignorant as right wing conservatives.
Who cares what a person believes in? Are you their daddy?
Not really, I have no problems with attributing the placebo effect to beneficial outcomes and I have no problems with attributing the placebo effect to God in some cases..... Doesn't bother me one bit if you want to make that claim.
My opposition to God comes from the magical thinking it creates causing actual harm. Things like faith healing.... And yes, that is an actual issue of actual consequence in the states. We still have 38 states which exempt parents from liability should they cause the death of their child through opting out of Medicine and instead turning to religion.
Placebos can work though. The mind is a powerful tool. Which is what G-d is to a lot of people. Only ignorant people push both sides apart. They both can coexist, by you saying one doesn't it means you're just as ignorant as the people who say only science exist.
While I acknowledge the fact that believe in some supernatural entity can give one strength and give one the will to fight through a disease, I reject the notion that this is the norm.
In fact, studies show that some prayer actually harms patient recovery. Now, we can look at a number of prayer studies and come to some fairly wild conclusions, but it's fact that many of the studies conducted have been pretty bad.
One of the most comprehensive studies of prayer on health found that patients who knew they were being prayed for had more complications after procedures.
We must also consider the placebo effect when it comes to prayer.
The placebo effect is a well known effect in medical research. All drug companies must prove that their research has statistical margins large enough to make the placebo effect mute or compensate for it. Prayer studies have long been plagued by not having statistics which can overcome the placebo effect or simply don't correct for it.
So there is a good argument to be made that prayer and a belief in God are nothing more than a placebo effect.
are theories proven or just that theory?
We have plausible theories that explain why all matter exists without a God. Since those theories have more evidence to support them than there is evidence for God, I'd argue that it is reasonable to opt for those.
Furthermore, which God. Over the course of human history there have been thousands...
the function that must have God for existing is every single price of matter in the universe. without God there is nothing
Ever think to some people it is? Or just ignore the people that wanted to die but found G-d so they lived. They don't matter? Or only you and your beliefs matter?
It's still a false analogy. Furthermore, there is no biological need for God... I don't have a system that says "must have God in order to function".
In order for this topic to be proven correctly, you'd have to demonstrate the necessity of God for living... I doubt you or anyone is prepared or equipped to do this so it's not a valid analogy....
Does that prove you need it to live? No. Stop being closed minded, and your panties in a wad because somebody mentions G-d.
It can coexist with intelligent people, but never will wroth ignorant people.
My car does it all the time... It's called an O2 sensor....i can use it to measure my fuel trim, detect vacuum leaks, exhaust leaks, etc...
I can also use a chemical test kit to measure oxygen in my radiator fluid with a head gasket test kit.... At work I use pulse-ox to measure o2 bound to hemoglobin. So yes, I test for oxygen all the time.
Sosocratees let's say I deny O2 exists. do I still need it to survive? yes. would I be dead without it? yes.
Sosocrates, how do you measure oxygen? You physically doing not a scientist but you. Let me guess you don't you read about how scientist can and what they have learned. Why does everyone make a fuss about religion and science when they both can coexist?
I can measure oxygen, I can feel it (winds), I can touch it (if I freeze it), I can transform it (via chemical reactions), I can't do any of those things with "God".
The absence of my belief in God has also never harmed me, in fact I've only benefited from it. The absence of oxygen however, has always caused me issues....climbing at 14k feet is way harder than climbing at sea level....
This is a flase analogy and nothing more.... Thanks for playing.