- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Death is good. It cleans the world of those not fit to live anymore so the ones who are fit to live have enough resources to live. I don't love it. I just respect is as a necessary force and am able to face it with no regrets or fear.
I don't hate God. I don't feel any emotion towards things that don't exist.
The Crusades were a fight by the Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic Churches in Europe to reconquer the so-called "holy lands" - at least for the first 3. The 4th was the Catholics invading Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) to make their own Venice, Italy the trading capital of Europe. So, the Crusaders were actually trying to conquer other lands instead of protecting their own.
Athiest communism and Islam? Would you look at that, more religion! This seems to be a recurring theme!
GenericName is right. The Gengri Mongols were the ones who stopped communists and Islams.
DON'T BE A FOOL, REPENT AND BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
You actually are going to end up holding a cardboard sign in the city yelling, "THE END IS NEAR!"
This is the way it used to be, but now it's basically the opposite. If a cisexual white man insults a women or a black person or a queer person, then they are labelled as a discriminating jerk. If a white police officer shoots a black man, then the whole African-American community blows up about it, even if the shooting was in self-defense and unavoidable. If a black police officer just blatantly shot a white person for no apparent reason, anyone who protests against it is called racist. Legally and economically, white men do have it better than everyone else, but socially, they don't.
The way that our parents and grandparents and every other generation of American that lived here was because the British people that migrated here fought the current inhabitants, won, and set up an actual society. They won the land through war and claimed it. Comparing that to people, some with drugs or criminal histories, who just randomly cross an established border and try to set up a life in land they are living on unfairly is inaccurate. If all of the illegal immigrants in America or those that want to live in America want to fight us to try to claim our land, then go ahead. Conquest and settlement is a lot different than illegal immigration.
Death is not my friend, as I have pointed out multiple times. You are talking about death as if it is a conscious being. Death is an event that happens daily when a person's body fails to support them anymore.
Since Hell is a form of negative reinforcement invented by the Greek priests to keep people in line, then it's not actually possible to burn in Hell.
Jesus Christ actually was executed because he went crazy from heat exhaustion and went into the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and demanded that the tax collectors from Rome leave.
So you're saying that it would be good to have every single organism that ever lived here on Earth right now? Death is definitely not a curse. It can be rough sometimes, but it happens to everyone.
If design doesn't randomly develop, then how do incredibly complex compounds like polysaccharides form? It's because of the basic chemical characteristics of the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that make them up. Carbon, which has four valence electrons, and oxygen, which has 6, both bond easily with hydrogen. How did those atoms that used to be completely separate end up as starch inside a potato? They were moving around in the random manner that atoms tend to do, until they crashed into each other to form one of many glucose molecules that then combined to form starch. With extreme heat and pressure, carbon crystallizes to form diamond. It goes from an unstructured mess of carbon atoms to a nice pattern. Random occurrences do produce order. In addition, life has the ability to grow and develop. In response to your argument about the complexity of the human body, I offer this: before an embryo is formed, it is two single-celled organisms: a sperm cell and an egg cell. They combine to make an embryo. In about 18-25 years, that embryo will most likely be a fully developed human being. Now isn't that funny? It went from two simple cells to an organism with billions of cells. If organisms can grow at the individual level, couldn't they develop as a population as well? Now let's go back to that huge chemical mixture of billions of cells called a human. Let's say something in its environment changes undesirably. These billions of cells, which are actually pretty amazing things, will start to change their DNA to adapt to it. If one cell doesn't change and is killed, then it will be replaced by a duplicate of another cell that has adapted. This change in the environment isn't sudden, like being thrown into a fire. It's more gradual, like an increase of smog in the air or a decrease in the nutritional content of food. Now, maybe the said human won't be able to completely adapt in time. But it reproduces, and the genetic information held in its own sperm or egg contains the adaptation that its cells had to make to survive. This new generation of human will have that adaptation, and will build on it to better survive in its environment. The genetic code will be passed down between multiple generations of the organism, and in thousands or even millions of years there could be a completely different organism descended from that original human. That is all evolution is - the expansion of an adaptation over multiple generations. Imagine that first cell (most likely Archaea, a prokaryotic bacteria). Now imagine that its environment changes. Just like the human, its single cell will begin to change its DNA to survive in the environment. Around 3.5 billion years later, I'm sitting at my table typing this. Evolution is very explainable and supportable, and not at all scientifically impossible. If you take a barrel of a human body that has been cut to pieces (pretty morbid, I know, but in response to your analogy about the clock) and shake it around, you won't get a human, even though the parts all came from the same organism. That's because the human was formed by conscious beings (cells) with the intent of making it, just like the factory worker who assembled the clock. There is nothing that is random about life.
Let's say that a girl in high school gets raped. She becomes pregnant. That means that she has to live 9 months with a fetus inside of her. She has to skip classes for appointments with doctors, is viewed as a freak by classmates, and can't play the sport that she was really good at and might have gotten a scholarship for. Pregnancy could literally ruin someone's life. On top of that, the girl doesn't know how to keep the fetus healthy, so the baby would end up being born with Down's syndrome or some birth defect. There's a high probability that either the baby or the mother would die during the birth. Let's add the assumption that the girl's parents probably aren't able to support a child, so the baby would grow up in a poor environment. The girl would have to give up everything to take care of the child she was unprepared for. That's two lives doomed to fail, and one of them had that fate before its life even began. In this situation, it would be immoral to everyone involved to force the girl to give birth. What if it was someone you knew in that situation? This kind of thing is actually pretty common. I live in a town that is fairly high-class, and my son knew three girls that became unexpectedly pregnant. One of them died, one now has a child that is missing a leg because she didn't know how to take care of the fetus inside her, and the other dropped out of school because their GPA dropped from a 4 to a 1. I'm not saying that abortion should be treated as some kind of protection, but it should at least be available to those with a valid reason for not being able to raise a child.
Death is not the enemy of life. If organisms didn't die, then the world would be overrun. Death gives new organisms a chance to live. Death is inevitable. I accept that, and I intend to live life to the fullest that I can. Since you are scared of death, you are convincing yourself that there is something after death. So you waste your time trying to prove yourself to a fictional deity that you have been brainwashed into believing in. You accept whatever the people in charge say that "God" says as the truth without question because you are scared that they will tell you that you have lost his (but really their) approval. You waste your life telling people that they are wrong and that religion isn't actually just a bunch of lies made to explain things that people don't understand. Let's be honest- if you really wanted to change anyone's opinion, then you wouldn't be trying to do it on some random debate site that less than a hundredth of a percent of the world's population has heard about.
You say it can be proved and will be proved? Prove it to me now. Why do you care if anyone else goes to Hell? All you do is insult people, tell them that they have no chance of getting God's approval, and recite useless garbage that is evident in nearly all of your posts. You aren't proving anything to anyone, other than that you are some overly pious fanatic who will believe whatever someone better than you says.
Okay, now you've gone and twisted it again. I do think that marriage and sex is only between a man and a woman, but only because that is the only way for people to reproduce and that sex is only for reproduction. To blame STDs on homosexuals isn't discriminatory or anything, but it is wrong. STDs are just bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms that can be transmitted sexually.
Nobody has the ability to explain life yet, as no one has actually figured out any purpose of life. Science can explain how life actually started, however. The first organism was formed by random occurrences of basic chemistry, and then it started to reproduce and evolve from there.
When did I ever say science is anti-religion? I actually said that you can't compare the two things.
We have a brainwashed and mind numbed generation who believes God can't tell them what to do or where to go
Isn't following orders from a voice in your head without questioning a little bit brainwashed? I'm pretty sure that's where people like the 19 men who hijacked 4 planes on 9/11/01 got their idea.
If Stephen Hawkins (I'm still not sure who you're referring to, but I'm going to assume that you're talking about Stephen Hawking given the reference to physics) is an educated fool, then you're an uneducated fool- unless Sunday School counts as education.
I actually think that you just string random words together to try to confuse people. Your grammar is literally atrocious. The letter that my 4 year old nephew, who happens to be in preschool, actually was more grammatically correct than basically every post you've made.
Again, you throw out the same grandiloquent garbage that makes you sound illiterate without providing any actual proof. There are no historical facts that prove the existence of God to be true.
P.S.: Addressing a single one of multiple points made by someone with some of the exact same phrases that you've overused since the day you made an account doesn't make you good at debating. It actually makes you seem like some Auto Reply robot.
It is false that it isn't possible to survive eternally. Theoretically, it could happen. There are a few examples of organisms that are considered biologically immortal. The hydra, for instance (not the Ancient Greek mythological Hydra), has the ability to perfectly replicate its single cell multiple times. These duplicate cells are not different organisms, but rather expansions of the original organism. As long as even one of these cells survives, it can duplicate, and the original cell lives on.
Other than that, you are right.
Let's break down the word "atheism" here. "a-" means not, and "-theism" means religion. Therefore, "atheism" literally means "not religion". Therefore, calling atheism "the religion of fools" is incorrect, similar to just about everything else you've posted on this website.
They like to blur the lines between believing and knowing.
And you don't? You have no proof of anything you say about how the world started.
"Science" doesn't have the ability to create life. It's just a natural occurrence. Atoms and molecules endlessly smash together everywhere, and occasionally, some of them react and form a new substance. It was inevitable that one day, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and phosphorous were going to react in just the right combination to form DNA, thus creating life.
Who is Stephen Hawkins? I don't think you're talking about the Australian Olympian rower, the Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Environmental Sciences & Professor of Natural Sciences in Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, or the tax specialist...
Actually, according to Merriam Webster, religion is, " the belief in a god or in a group of gods". Science is not a religion. The only things scientists believe in are actual things that have proof of existence. Saying that objects fall at a rate of acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s is not a belief, it's a fact that can be proven. Saying that plants convert water, carbon dioxide, and light energy into glucose and oxygen is not a belief, it is also a fact that can be proven. Saying that there's a place called "Hell" that's full of fire where a fallen angel that causes all evil lives? That isn't proven and never will be proven. So relating science and religion isn't right. Religion is just a set of beliefs that people create to explain the things that they don't have enough knowledge to understand. You? You're scared of death. You don't understand it. That's why you try to convince yourself that there's something that happens to you after you die.
Jesus taught forgiveness
Only if the person in question was actually sorry. In addition, this is the American judicial system, not Jesus. There is a big difference. If someone commits a crime, they should receive the appropriate punishment.
I thought America was a place where people got a second chance, (if they deserved it)
He definitely does not deserve a second chance. He killed two people. Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get a second chance? He never did anything illegal before he put a bomb on the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
He didn't even know any better!
So you're saying that a kid who had been alive for 8 years in this destructive world we live in didn't know that it wasn't okay to take someone's life? He doesn't know the effects of death? Did you know not to kill someone when you were 8? If you didn't know that, you must have had a pretty messed up childhood.
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.
I got a 70% on economics, 20% on personal
The definition of a Christian is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. Now, taking into account that all of the Christian religions, like Baptism, Calvinism, Protestantism, and Methodism, are based off of the scripture and teaching of Catholicism, and that Catholicism is the only religion to be directly created by Jesus Christ, I think it is safe to say that Catholics are Christians.