What objectively makes taking away a privilege different than infringing on a right? I have the right to enter my own, I have the privilege to enter a neighbor's home. If I'm barred from both of those places at the same exact time, one's an infringement, one's a denial of privileged. Sounds the exact same to me. Both were taken, easily, and both are stopping me from entering a place that I have the physical capabilities to. Only actual difference, is what we call them, nothing objective.

Here's why reading the book does not matter. I can read the book and I won't believe, because belief is objective, you can't make yourself believe, just as you can't stop yourself from believing. The only thing reading the bible will do, is allow you to know why you should or shouldn't believe, and from there the choice is up to your level of susceptibility. Though some people, don't even need that much persuasion. They might in fact be just gullible enough to believe "god is real" because some guy in pastor suit said so, to deny that this is reality is just lying to yourself.

Now on to what you say about the religion needing to make a significant change for you to be a true member. Can you prove that, more so than just saying it? or at least explain logically why that simply must be so? I've explained logically why I feel that it mustn't so surely you have some explanation for your claims.

I present to you the nail clipper. I won't bother showing you a picture, surely you know what it is.

This is an invention made for the sole purpose of clipping nails. The nail clipper, as a device to clip your nails, was never augmented it still exists to day in the form it was first made in, as a simple nail clipper. The only augmentations ( I know of) that were made to it, did not enhance, improve, or overall really change the nail clipping portion at all, they simply added a nail file.

Morals are subjective. If it is against your moral code, then you have no moral obligation to do it.

How would this benefit you though? You'd be killed either way, and if you decided not to talk, you'd just be keeping false secrets to yourself for nothing.

You don't believe what you post here? So you're... disingenuous?

Well to answer the question in the end, it's to make the god(s) more powerful, and less likely or even unable to be challenged. If you here that lord Xerxies is a God, and you're really ambitious you might try to kill him. Can't have that now can we, when we want to control a population. That control is maintained by having some God exist, but in a place humans are unlikely, or unable to reach him. First it was on Mt Olympus, we reached the top saw no God, and now he's beyond reality.

What you described to be a right, is literally a privilege. You say a right is something that is inherent of being a human. I ask what is inherent, and can't be taken away? I can think of simply 'being able to kill' simple as that, is inherent of being a human, yet we do not generally have this as a right, in fact only a select few are given this privilege under specific circumstances (soldiers in war time, and police with a hostile criminal). Or how about our very own lives, those are entirely inherent to us being humans, thus we have the right to do as we please with it right? Wrong. We can't drink or smoke before a certain age, on the grounds that we would be shortening our own lives before we even understand the repercussions of drinking and smoking. We must wear our seat belts and helmets because if not we're risking our very own lives. And the bit to sum it all up, we can't simply kill ourselves, if we even attempt to do so, we'll be detained and deemed mental. I feel these things we call rights, are only different than what we call privileges because we in some countries write them down and call them such.

Having a question answered wrong, isn't the same as being wronged.

I agree mostly. A small argument with the guy has changed my opinion of him. I don't agree with the majority of what he says, but I now accept that he's genuine in saying it.

Ah okay. That is great to know, and it also clears up negative opinions of you I could have had in the future off of incorrect assumptions that you believe the majority is always right.

For what it's worth this was not a bad argument we had.

I supposed I can't know until the situation arrives, but I believe that generally I'd be content with the criminal knowing what they did was wrong, and would not do it again.

TBH I do not know. However I feel that the majority of human nature is too petty to just accept that the criminal is rehabilitated, and would still seek that the criminal face some form of punishment just out of some kind of sense of retribution. Me personally if, I knew that a person would never steal again, after their rehab, that'd be good enough for me, yet I am friends in real life with people who firmly believe the "eye for an eye" code of law, stating that what one does as a crime, should be done to them out of fairness.

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to make this into a yes or no question debate, just to get some kind of consensus on what CD would do with this proposition, I admire your objectivity on this debate, and I urge you to participate, on the one I make.

This is progress. In clarifying I'm sure you read my argument (a feat most trolls do not seem to be capable of), in reading my argument I feel you to be less of a troll, and I feel you more to be just misinformed or differently opinionated.

Now what you say is that if a vast majority of a group believe in a specific moral frame work that it is that moral frame work, that is objective. Well it is here that we must stop arguing because it will ultimately boil down to me saying I don't agree, and you saying you don't agree, but before I opt out, I'll at least tell you why I don't agree.

If the majority but not the entirety of people agree with something, this proves to my sense of logic and reasoning that the majority of the people has one opinion on this subject while some, if even the smallest inkling but some none the less, don't agree, then it is opinion vs opinion, which is the definition of subjectivity.

I'll read what you type back, but I most likely will not reply, I however ask this of you. Are you saying that the majority is right, no matter what? That is what it seems like to me.

Why?

Note: I'm not disputing you because I'm asking an unbiased, unloaded question to gather information, not to trap you in some fallacy or whatever reason people dispute with questions. In short, that question has no pretense, it simply is asking what is implies. Why is it radically wrong?

I expect a clarification as an answer since in answering my question you would not be agreeing or disagreeing with me, since I am not making any claims.

Well now we're off track since we've established that I stated an opinion, and then reiterated that it is an opinion. However, I wouldn't exactly call it a blind opinion. A blind opinion might be saying you're a troll, never having had met you before. It's an opinion based off my impression of you, in pretty much every encounter we've had.

Now onto asking you why you're still disputing. A dispute is supposed to be a tool used to say something opposing the person's previous statement, seeing as how I've yet to state anything new, and you've yet to state anything more than reiterations of my statements, I wonder why you're disputing. It is my opinion from personal experience with other's I've deemed troll, that those I've deemed trolls tend to dispute even when disputing isn't necessary. Just adding that to my list of opinionated reasons I believe you to be a troll.

There are no morals, Hitler didn't do anything wrong. Not objectively. That is what I'm saying. Any wrong doings in this world, are only wrong to those who feel it is wrong, but to anyone who doesn't feel it is wrong, it won't be wrong, right and wrong are opinions, what part of that don't you get?

If you asked can you kill me, I'd say not not because it's wrong (even though that'd be my opinion vs yours) I'd say no because I don't want to die. My not wanting to die, has nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with my general enjoyment of living.

As for your question is killing me wrong. The answer is a big fat no! Not objectively. If me and you are the only people alive, and you kill me and you justify it for whatever reason. it's simply your living opinion, vs my dead, non existent one, making yours right.

Past this, into the second paragraph we get into what is, and "i believe because etc" I'm opting out of that portion of the argument now, because that argument never goes any where with the religious. hate to use a cop out like this, but nothing you can say will convince me the stories are definitely true, and nothing I can say will convince you that they might not be true, so it's a pointless endeavor.

Well I don't really know what you're disputing, if you read what I typed with an open mind, you'd see from the beginning I stated this as my opinion, and stated that this is my opinion because these people think drastically, unrealistically different from me.

This is another example (you asked me in another debate how what you say seems blurry to me) I say that anyone who honestly believes everything in the bible is good, is just odd, and that oddness seems unrealistic to me. Unrealistic online means trolling.

I'd say under normal circumstances, it is always better to actually know things, or to just not know at all, than to know the wrong thing.

However under specific circumstances there is this as an example: Misinformation can really only help you in an accidental situation, where you use the wrong information thinking it's the right information, and because of some unrelated coincidence the use of that misinformation proves more beneficial. As a specific example:

You are misinformed that stop signs mean go faster. You encounter one, and proceed to go faster, in not stopping at that stop sign you managed to avoid a car jacking. Now while this misinformation would normally have been useless, it was useful in this one random unpredictable incident. The reason I don't consider this normal is because in a normal case, it'd be better to just inform the person that stopping at stop signs can potentially get you mugged, thus letting you know something about an actual incident, and allowing you to deal with it accordingly, as opposed to negating it entirely by accident.

So to sum this jumble of thoughts up, yest there are some situations where it would be better to be misinformed, but those situations are entirely coincidental, and if any correct knowledge about them could be gathered, it'd be even better to have that knowledge than the incorrect knowledge that helped by some freak of nature accident.

Well a perfect example is this. On a recent debate with me you said that you don't consider Christianity blind faith, since the stories you believe are allegedly accurate retellings of historic events that happened to people from that time who documented it. I feel like no one could possibly actually believe this, so when I see someone say that they do, I feel because of my own sense of logic, and my own inquisitive nature that would never just believe that, that that person couldn't be sincere in that belief.

I'd simply say what you did was in my opinion wrong. You seem to have your mind clouded with the idea that right and wrong are objective, when in actuality they are not. Do you think an ant would think it's right that you stepped on it? How about a cow thinking it's right that you hold it in a cage from the moment it's born, then killing it one random day never letting it get an exercise? The answer is no it wouldn't yet stepping on ants is legal, and so is veal, because to humanity these are easily forgotten acts, and thus subjectively are not wrong.

I'll skip straight ahead to your why you don't consider Christianity to be blind.

You say that what you're reading is and hearing from your pastor is simply history, but I say that even if it is (even though it seems highly unlikely that history would be magical while the present is not) even if it is history, it's stories being passed down from older generations that could have been altered and you can't deny that, and it's all without evidence to top it off. Making the faith in fact very blind. You're blindly trusting that your pastor isn't lying, or blindly trusting that what your pastor is saying is exactly what happened, as if he were there, because he blindly trusted that his pastor and so on told the right story from the time.

Yes and no. Mostly no for reasons I will explain later in this argument, but also somewhat yes because elected officials without the right to kill, can permit others such as police officers to.

I say mostly no however, because 'rights' are just over glorified privledges, and whatever group is in charge, has the 'right' or privledge to do whatever it wants, even kill. They just don't say they can, but if the government wanted to establish it's group as a group with rights above average citizens (it wouldn't be fair, and a revolution might happen, but it would be possible) they can.

They shouldn't not have iPhones, and because two negatives become positive I'm on this side by default.

I feel punishment would still happen. it seems (in the U.S.) that punishment and sentencing is only the tiniest bit for the criminal and more so for the survivors, and or society. It's the reason we have repeat offended continually get put in the same punishment, for near the same amount of time, or even with time added solely because of being a repeat offended, even though the punishment has not shown any sign of rehabilitating the criminal. Our strike system is the same way. Three strikes and you're permanently incarcerated, is not a rehab, it's a punishment. It is not at all for the criminal to learn his lesson, it's entirely for society to feel that is has achieved justice.

It is like this. Even if Christianity did somehow come before people (not likely but whatever, it's irrelevant) people ultimately make decisions themselves, even with religious influence in mind, the people will make the actions. If the bible blatantly says'kill non believers' to blame the bible for killings, is absurd, because the people can choose to, or choose not to follow that rule. With this in mind, Christianity is not 100% free of guilt, since at the end of the day it is still doing the influencing, it's just not the main issue, or in it's dormant state, the issue we should be looking to stop.

I look at the bible like this: a guy is holding a gun to your head, but it's not actually a guy or a gun, but instead a story of a guy holding a gun to your head. Unfortunately we can't choose what to believe, and some people are stuck believing the guy is actually holding the gun to your head, and they go on to teach their children of the guy holding the gun to your head, but a logical mind will deduce from the lack of evidence that the guy might not actually exist, and that it's all just a story.

With this in mind, I believe that while men are responsible for the crimes of men, and Christianity only plays a small part in the decision to commit those crimes, that if we simply educate people better, the crimes of men, blamed on Christianity will be reduced and eventually gotten rid of even... only to be replaced with crimes of men blamed on something else (but that's a whole other debate :))

Subjectively yes. You are a reflection of your teacher's prowess to some extent, and if you feel the need to drop out this says the teacher was not doing a great enough job. If the teacher is cutting out the middle man, and blatantly encouraging students to drop out, that teacher is basically saying he/she has given up on you.

Murder is simply any killing that is deemed 'illegal' (and of a human but that's not so important right now) thus it is only subjectively wrong, to whatever body is governing.

You said (paraphrasing you) that it is odd to trust evolution when it is blind, how I ask you personally if you also think it is odd to follow blind faith?

Religious devotion is dependent on faith, and surety in the unknown. Patriotism has little to do with faith, only in the sense that patriots have faith that their country is the best but ultimately the faith is in a physical entity, or something we know to exist.

A patriot can say "I love my country" and list off physical reasons to, even if those reasons aren't necessarily unbiased, or entirely true, they still fall within the realm of possibly true. An example of this is how an American patriot might say "I love my country, because everyone is free" Now while it is not true that everyone is free, it is possible for everyone to be free, thus this statement isn't entirely unfounded, it's founded on the possibility of potential realities, that can exist for certain.

A religious devotee however, would not be pledging alliance to anything physical, but to something purely faith based. One might say "I love God because he gave me life." I won't explain why this is not the same as what the American patriot might have said because that's pretty much an entirely different debate altogether, however I will simply say they are different. The religious devotee here, has no alternative to God giving him/her life because without God life isn't possible, while the patriot could have an alternative, the alternative being another country being more free. This is also in part why religious devotion is so hard to shake. When there's only one God, he has a monopoly on pretty much everything.

I've said a lot about why I believe they are not the same, but I was expecting something in the description to sort of explain where this came from, with out that, I now feel I must ask you personally, what was the inspiration for this debate title that presumably you believe to be true.

I'd say yea he's a troll, but mostly because his views just seem so blurry, it makes me question not what he says, but how a person can honestly say it.

I feel this is also worth mentioning (even if it invalidates my point) I am certain Srom, goodmale, and prologos are trolls. In all of those cases, it's not so much what the people are saying that makes me thinks they are trolls (I've defended religion and bestiality before) but it was how the things they were saying, they seemed to say with absolute belief that made me feel they were trolls. I felt that if I had met these people in real life, that they would not have been saying they felt the way they felt about these things, they just seemed too outside of the norm for me to see seeing them as normal, as genuine.

So there's my views, take it as you see fit.

Not reading the whole text makes you uneducated, however it does not make you wrong for choosing, it just makes you quick to jump to conclusions, which is dangerous I agree, however I wouldn't say it's the most dangerous of these potential scenarios relating to religious people and their holy book.

You are right to say that making the claim that your religion is the best, when you have not experience the others, is a false claim, or more so it's an uneducated claim, and since it's entirely subjective it doesn't really matter. I've not tasted every flavor of ice cream in existence, hell I've never even had rocky road and I can get that any day if I wanted, yet if I were asked what's the best flavor in the world, I'd say pumpkin pie flavored ice cream in a heart beat, and that'd just be the end of it, no one would inquire further.

Now on to your point you keep making, on how religious people who have not read all of their holy book are a danger to society. Could you explain how, or give an example please?

I'll start by saying, religious people who have read their entire holy book, seem more dangerous to me, because those religious people are the ones claiming to know all the inner workings of God, and will usually have a verse quick and ready to throw at you to justify darn near anything they do, of course claiming it's in the name of God.

To help you out, we could at least agree that Muslims who have not read all of the Qu'ran could definitely be more dangerous than those who have read it all, mostly because in the Qu'ran they say some things that are pretty bad, then later in the book they either expand on them, change them, or verify them to be true. The way the Bible differs from the Qu'ran is that the Qu'ran states that anythign coming later in the book, supersedes anything that came before it. So in that sense only, does it make sense to me to even say they maybe a religious person who hasn't read all of their religious book could be more dangerous.

True but it's still disappointing that this is the way some people think.

Well I didn't see it.

It's lost in the mess of comments between me and you.

My computer won't load it.

Pick your excuse... however until you show it to me, you'll be affirming my assumption that you know nothing.

no

No

Crazy but technically life saving.

Hate to call you out (especially after allying with me) but would you happen to have some proof of that claim?

"Its [religion] caused more wars than anything else."

Daver said what I was coming to say.

The bat will kill the zombie. If you can't prove how it won't you really can'y say for sure that it won't. I however have crushed decaying gourds with bats before, I imagine a decaying zombie head to be somewhat as mushy.

I won't be getting myself surrounded, trust me. However if anyone should find themselves surrounded by a horde of zombies, individual shots won't do you much good.

The spread won't need to hit it if it's big enough to blow the zombie's body to bits. They say you can only kill a vampire with a silver bullet, but you know what would work just as well? Grinding it's body up into parts so small it couldn't do any damage anyway, even if it is alive. How this relates to the zombies, is by shooting my powerful shotgun with a huge spread, I'll be blowing holes into the zombies capable of decapitating them for one, and just all around leaving them useless bodies, with either no legs attached, or poorly attached rib cages.

3 Max, is perfect. Three zombies blocking one opening in the wall of the zombies, will leave me just enough space to duck and cover through while they're all disoriented from the shot.

Well online there's no point in arguing at all, no one has to admit anything. Those around you however will look at your arguments, and pick the side they most agree with and say it is correct, meaning you have to appeal to your potential audience. Since the majority of people in this world can't dispute facts, facts fall back to being the best way to win an argument.

What that first question was, was not an issue of omnipotence, it was an issue of logic. God can't defy logic, because logic is what humans use to understand things. The reason god can't make a pyramid in the shape of a cube, is because we would not call it a pyramid, we'd call it a cube.

You are misdirecting responsibility by saying God is above all. Thanks for providing the definition by the way. It is your responsibility to prove how God is so above it all (since obviously he won't) yet you don't prove it, you simply say it, and when faced with any opposition say "he is above all" that is by your definition, a cop out.

Well here's the problem with accepting the answer and moving on. You can do the same when i say "God does not exist" see how that works? The only difference is, for all you're claiming God to be, and God to be able to do, I can claim that he can't and at the end of the day, only one of us will have something to show for it. I say God does not exist because he can not make an iphone 6 appear right here in front of me, I'm right because he still hasn't.

What you said in the end, is the reason I will not believe he exists. No one can demonstrate his power for me, it's all he said she said, and stories.

It takes a lot to leave me speechless, this video came the closest. NSFW.

Officially facts are the only way to win an argument. You have to be able to prove your point, how do you do that without facts?

In a debate to legalize something, to have some one freed, to save someone's life, the only thing that matters at the end of the day when the ruling is called, is the facts, and the evidence.

Emotional appeals will only get you so far, and they ultimately rely on everyone feeling the same as you. Try the emotional appeal as a killer. Say "I killed her because she pissed me off. You know what that's like right?" For the people who don't know what that's like, you're just a crazy person just admitted to killing someone. In that scenario, the fact that you killed someone won over your emotional appeal to those that the killing was justified.

...

That is a red herring. Please stick to the central topic.

Don't bother, trolls like to pick the less favorable side, and defend it with bull shit. You're literally wasting your time, because everything you say, will be brushed aside for another what-if or "you're wrong/an idiot".

If a person is in your home illegally, not knowing what their intentions are, and being unable to establish what they might be in the short amount of time before someone has to make a move, the logical conclusion is that they want to harm you. I claim it as self defense, you're protecting your property, and potentially yourself.