CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Well before he committed the sins he did himself as a living breathing person, he only had the original sin on him. So if you can get to heaven with the original sin, then I'd say yup Hitler would be in Heaven if he was just aborted.
If aborted babies go to heaven then abortion is a good thing. So abortion doctors are actually very noble people because they are willing to sacrifice their own salvation to guarantee that the babies make it to heaven.
Interesting point, but using that logic would cause all of us to be aborted, which would cause us to become extinct by our own hand, which is an illogical choice, because circumventing God's plan would surely bring about a new plan, that may not include us at all. IMO.
"using that logic would cause all of us to be aborted, which would cause us to become extinct by our own hand"
At first, extinction sounds like a bad thing, but since my reply was to Srom I'm talking about things from a Christian perspective. From a Christian perspective death isn't a bad things if you're going to heaven. By exterminating all babies you're sending them to a better place. Wiping out the human race would be a good thing because it would reduce the number of people going to hell. The longer the human race survives, the more people end up in hell.
"circumventing God's plan would surely bring about a new plan, that may not include us at all. IMO."
Maybe it's gods plan that we wipe out humanity. Maybe this life is really a test to see who is willing to sacrifice themselves and put an end to the suffering of humanity by ending it all.
Now obviously I don't believe any of this. The point of my posts in this debate are to show just how easy it is to take Christian theology and turn it into something completely demented and destructive.
Actually, Christians would generally say murder is a sin - killing is apparently no problem and there is no guidance on the distinction between the two, so feel free to make it up as you go along.
There is (conspicuously) no voluntary abortion in the Bible and accidental abortion (Exodus 21) is treated as a property crime against the father - not as a death punishable by death.
in the Christian faith, one must make a conscious decision to accept Christ into their heart for salvation. an unborn fetus, baby or toddler does not have the capacity to be able to make that decision. That would be called the grace of God. For those who would say otherwise, I would say that you do not know him well enough and you do not understand him.
Yes they damn well do because it wasn't their choice to die. It was the choice of their scum-of-the-Earth parents that decided they wanted to kill their own flesh and blood because they didn't want to deal with consequences of a mistake that they made.
Christian brainwashing? Okay. Anyways, that's not what all Christians would say. Our Church doesn't condemn gays. Some Churches do and some don't. I wouldn't make generalizations about Christianity since there are many branches of it.
What you replied does not directly relate to what I typed. I simply typed that the baby has not chosen to spite god yet. You replied that not all Christian denominations condemn gays, but that is without warrant since I also did not say all or even any Christians condemn gays.
So to reiterate, I only stated that Christians would have nothing to say about the baby, and I gave no reason why. You stated something that would require an assumption, but for you it was a false assumption.
Well you said the baby didn't spite God yet. So, I assumed you were saying that if you spite God you're gay. Spiting God sort of leads to condemnation. Our church doesn't condemn gays. Some do and some don't. That's where I was going.
I did think about it logically. There's no evidence that indicates the existence or nonexistence of heaven, so to claim that it doesn't exists, is illogical.
Where the consciousness is produced , has not been proven.
People know that the brain is where the mind comes from. It is basic biology and an undeniable fact. I could give evidence for this but I'm not going to bother trying to prove to you what I know you know is true.
Therefore when the brain dies the mind dies with it.
"Whatever" is the cuntiest thing to say ever when your sore about your opponent making a point you can't refute. Anyone who in this day and age denies that consciousness comes from the brain is a moron.
I don't know this for sure , since I didn't create the debate , but I believe he meant that even if you don't believe in God to think about the question hypothetically .
While I agree personally that consciousness is rooted in the brain, and do not believe in the existence of a 'soul' myself...
If one believes that the 'soul' exists and represents our true 'essence' for lack of a better word, perhaps the brain could be described as a physical interface through which the soul interacts with the body, and by extension, the world.
Within that framework, damage to the brain resulting in personality shifts, loss of memory, and any number of other things could in fact be the result of that interface being damage, rather than the mind (or soul) itself being damaged.
I am not trying to make a solid argument for the existence of a soul here, mind you- just pointing out that our conclusions regarding the function of the brain are based off of correlations between activity and different observable outcomes, and are more or less predicated on the assumption that we have access to all available information. They still represent the best model to date, but may well see some revision if and when new information becomes available.
Well there is no more evidence for this indestructible, intangible, metaphysical thing inside you known as your soul than there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster so why even consider it? Through logical observation all you can see from which the consciousness may come from is the brain.
Such a thing would not necessarily be indestructible, intangible, or metaphysical, even if it is typically described as such. If it exists, it exists in a form that is able to interact with the brain, which works in a physical, measurable manner. It simply is not detectable by any means that we are currently aware of. Our history is full of discovered phenomena that were rendered observable by some form of invention or other.
Regardless, my point is not to suggest that the soul exists or that it does not, merely that our understanding of the brains functions is based entirely on correlations between brain activity and/or damage and the observed affect on the individual. We haven't conclusively proven that the subjective experience that we call the mind or consciousness is an effect of the brain activity, merely that it correlates with it very strongly. The brain causing the mind is a conclusion that we draw from what we are currently able to observe. The brain as a physical interface for the soul is equally consistent with that data, we are just as of yet unable to test for, prove, or falsify the existence of the soul. Key word being 'yet.'
I'm not saying that the soul should be considered- I'm saying that the conclusion you've drawn fits the data, but we are still lacking information to call it fact and be done with the question. If our understanding of the brain was that complete, we would be able to construct one artificially to verify our conclusions against, and we're not quite there yet.
Where the consciousness is produced , has not been proven.
Please leave this fucking website. You just supplement my notion of your unintelligibility even more. I now know of you to be a troll, or, just a mindless use of CO2 wasting the earths precious essentials.
