CreateDebate


Debate Info

35
62
Same Not The Same
Debate Score:97
Arguments:60
Total Votes:116
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Same (18)
 
 Not The Same (42)

Debate Creator

JakeJ(3255) pic



Imagine No Religion...........................

 

 

 

This picture os wrong on so many levels.

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

How is this different then if I where to hold up a huge picture of a white girl who was raped and murdered by a black man and I put in huge letters: IMAGINE NO BLACK PEOPLE

I would be called a racist. Would I not? Because not all black people murder and rape. 

 

It's the same thing. 

Same

Side Score: 35
VS.

Not The Same

Side Score: 62

Jake...first off I want to compliment you on this and other debates where I see you "growing up" right along with us. You've been doing well and getting better.

This message and your analogy are the same...there is no difference. That it was taken from a song of peace bears no relationship to what your message is and it's right on buddy. If there were no religion or people who took their religion to be what it is...this could have never happened. I don't think you're saying if there were no Muslims and I believe I've taken this in the context in which it belongs. If not, I stand corrected.

Side: Same
1 point

i'm just on this side so people can see what i have to say:

first, it's not that same as someone's race. religion is a choice (sort of) and your race is not (yet).

The fact is, people use anything to control the masses. radicalism doesn't come from religion. religion just sometimes gets abused by radicals. just how Darwinism and Communism have been abused by radicals.

Milgram already showed us how people are very easy to manipulate. you don't need religion. all you need is an authoritative figure. It can either be a priest or a Communist revolutionary.

Religion is just another ideal. if anything, it's just another ideology. If you really want to imagine a way better world, imagine no ideology.

Side: Same
ledhead818(636) Disputed
2 points

"just how Darwinism and Communism have been abused by radicals."

What is Darwinism?

Side: Not The Same
ThePyg(6761) Disputed
1 point

basically the theories of Darwin. Evolution and Natural Selection.

Social Darwinism is one of the theories that abused Darwinism. Claiming that those who are poor and sick deserve it and must be kept in their place.

Side: Same
Agape(3) Disputed
1 point

I'm just opposing the thought of the world being a better place without ideology. ....actually, ...it won't. it will either be empty people living like zombies having no idea why they are living, or chaotic everyone living each by their own idea of what life should be about and you can't tell them nothing coz it's there ideology and you don't have the right to oppose it.

but I agree religion and race is not the same thing in the argument above. one is a faith you personally by choice choose and the other, ...well .... you don't have much saying in it. BUT.... the main point is people's actions. being evil doesn't result from religion but their misunderstand of the true essence of true religion. we are human beings with feelings either positive or negative and a free will. a man rapes not because he is black but because he choses to follow his selfish wants regardless of the fellow human being. so, evil comes because of selfishness not color and we can say the same thing with those who use religion for selfish reasons. the twin towers were attacked out of selfish ideological reason's regardless of fellow human beings sitting in their offices. man may blame religion but I think even if there were no religions in this world, evil will still be there coz man is naturally selfish in his ways. one way or another twin towers or more evil would have wrecked the earth because of selfish desire for more power, control, man's ego, greed, etc ...and you don't need religion to support these. with or without religion man will still be a selfish man UNLESS something inside him changes ............and here is where religion is misunderstood coz still the same man misuses it for selfish reasons.

......true religion is meant to bring peace to human society and true meaning of life between humans and God. equality that all men are created by one God and all are equal in his eyes, ...noone is greater nor lesser as some islamic radicals would like others to believe. ....but man, even with God, would want to win browny points with him by taking into their own hands evil selfish actions in the name of God. that's human selfishness in religion and it's not a religious problem. selfishness is everywhere, even in an ethiestic world there is selfshiness and THAT'S the major problem, and only true religion tries to cure every human being of that problem. but misunderstanding of the truth will always be there and so chaos will still prevail unless we wake up and grow up and see the truth as it is.

Side: Not The Same
1 point

I agree its similar not exactly but yes in the that term both would be offended

Side: Same
4 points

Well, how it's different is people choose to be religious, they don't choose to be a specific race.

But what is similar is that the color of one's skin has no bearing on the things they do, and whatever religion someone chooses has no bearing on the things they do.

I would argue though, as religion is a choice, and has done more harm than good throughout history, it would be adventageous to shed ourselves of the superstitions,

and instead rely on reason, common sense, and laws to dictate our actions.

that said, had a handful of evil people not used jihad as an excuse to crash into the twin towers, it's very possible they would have come up with some other excuse.

Religion doesn't make people evil, it just makes it easier for evil people to control the ignorant.

And religion doesn't make people good, it just makes it easier for good people to control the ignorant.

Better to not be controled at all I think.

Side: Not The Same
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
4 points

But what is similar is that the color of one's skin has no bearing on the things they do, and whatever religion someone chooses has no bearing on the things they do.

This is demonstrably wrong. Religions are behaviorally prescriptive systems: just look at the 600 Mosaic Laws from Exodus to Deuteronomy. People in America, for instance, aren't fighting gay-marriage legislation because their religion doesn't have any bearing on the things they do. They don't forsake modern medicine so they can faith heal their diabetic children because their religions have no bearing on what they do. It's quite the opposite in most - if not all - cases.

Religion doesn't make people evil, it just makes it easier for evil people to control the ignorant.

This may be a technicality, but religions do have the unique ability to make good people do and justify evil things. Which is pretty much evil.

Side: Same
2 points

hm,

so you believe that a religious person has no choice in their actions?

a christian has no choice but to oppose gay marriage?

a jewish person is physically incapable of eating pork?

no person who believes in the ten commandments has ever broken one of them?

Just because a religion influences does not mean those influenced have no choice in their actions.

I say that given a choice between A and B, any person regardless of age, sex, race, or religion, has every opportunity to choose either A or B.

Religion influences people yes, but people still have free will.

I'm incredibly confused by your reply, I can only guess you must have misundertsood my statement.

Side: Not The Same
p6667(66) Disputed
0 points

JakeJ, you're an idiot. The color of someone's skin doesn't tell them to abide by religious doctrine. There's a difference between an active moral authority and the arbitrary shade of your physical appearance.

We know religion is responsible for jihadist martyrs, on the other hand black people definitely aren't solely responsible for rape.

What a terribly weak argument.

Side: Same

This is not nearly the same. Firstly, a person chooses whether or not to be religious, and if they choose to be religious, they choose which religion to follow. This is not true for race. Secondly, for these two to be the same, the sign would have to say "Imagine No Islam" or "Imagine No Christianity," targeting a specific religion rather than the broad umbrella of religion.

Side: Not The Same

I agree completely.

Jake's example doesn't give the motive behind the crime, whereas the motive behind 9/11 was certainly a religious one (a holy war).

If Jake had given a reason, and hypothetically the crime had been committed because the girl was white, then you could say "imagine no racism" a statement that almost anyone could wholeheartedly support.

Side: Not The Same
1 point

Your right I should have made it more clear. But don't you think this picture is unfair?

Side: Not The Same
3 points

I'm not saying that the picture is right, but the comparison you made doesn't really stand.

The black rapist didn't commit the rape in the name of his race, and neither did his race encourage or dictate the rape.

However, the same is not entirely true for religion. And when I say religion I refer to organized religion, not spirituality. Countless attacks have been made in the name of a god, and countless crimes have actually been condoned if not performed by the official clergy throughout history.

Now the issue I have with the particular picture is that the motives and reason of that particular attack, in my opinion, are not exclusively related to religion. International politics probably played a larger part. A similar slogan for me would have been: "IMAGINE... NO POLITICS".

Side: Not The Same
2 points

No it is completely different. If the picture said "Imagine No Muslims" then I would agree that it is similar. But the picture is talking about all religions, saying that because everyone has their own religion it causes conflict and violence and death. The analogous statement for race would probably be "Imagine No Race" as in everyone is the same race. I wouldn't like to live in a world where everyone is the same race, but it would be a more peaceful world and that statement in it of itself is not racist.

Furthermore criticizing religion is not racism. And religion is not exempt from critique. I don't know where you guys get it into your heads that we are not allowed to get upset when religion directly harms innocent people.

Side: Not The Same
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
1 point

The picture is kind of saying, "Imagine no Muslims."

It is a photo of the twin towers. I think it is more directed at Islam than Christianity.

Side: Not The Same
2 points

I mean it depends upon your interpretation I guess, and we don't know what the author had in mind, but I have seen that picture before and my understanding was that it was an attack on religions by pointing out the evils of one.

You wouldn't really be able to find a picture that showed a negative effect of every religion, but you could find a bunch for each.

Side: Not The Same
2 points

Do you know where these words come from?

John Lennon's classic, "Imagine"

Imagine there's no Heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

It is not a message of hate, it is a message of hope. Hope that one day people will see past religion, and onto humanity.

So many people love this song, but it infuriates me how few actually listen to it. The message is amazing, but people only hear what they want to.

Imagine
Side: Not The Same
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
2 points

Yeah actually I did know that. It is a beautiful song but the message sucks.

one part in particular sticks out: "Living for today"

If you are living for the present, doing what feels good at the moment, in the long run you can hurt yourself and others. You can become addicted to drugs etc., because hey it's what feels good and is fun at the moment.

You see, there are consequences.

The message: Hey, what if there where no consequences and you could do whatever you wanted?

Not the case.

The Beatles and John Lennon made great music, but John Lennon turned into a nut.

Side: Same
Argento(512) Disputed
1 point

Yeah actually I did know that. It is a beautiful song but the message sucks.

one part in particular sticks out: "Living for today"

If you are living for the present, doing what feels good at the moment, in the long run you can hurt yourself and others. You can become addicted to drugs etc., because hey it's what feels good and is fun at the moment.

I think the song is talking about living in the moment. Not dwelling in the past, not indulging in mental projections of a future. Because all you really have is the present.

But the brain does not like to live in the present because the brain thrives on drama. So most of the time it hangs in the past, perhaps at a time when someone did you wrong, or in the future, perhaps one where you are super rich and everything you are not now.

But if you brought conscience to the present moment, which is all you REALLY have, then life is so much better, and you don't even need drugs to get high because the present moment is fine as it is.

Side: Not The Same
ledhead818(636) Disputed
1 point

Why are Christians so opposed to fun? Loosen up.

The meaning of the song is not to do whatever you want even if it harms people anyway.

Side: Not The Same
p6667(66) Disputed
1 point

People don't need religion to know right from wrong. You said it yourself. Drugs can hurt people. So we should probably do something about it. This is called judgment.

Don't surmise that someone who can't make logical decisions without threat of being eternally reprimanded or has to be rewarded with eternal glory has MORE morality than someone who can decide the above situation on their own.

Side: Not The Same
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
0 points

Where do you live? Because now I'm going to have to slap you.

That is not the message. It is a message of what I have previously stated.

That you should not worry about going to heaven or hell. You shouldn't worry about money or possessions. You should not hate or discriminate against others not exactly like you. You should simply live for your own, and others happiness.

You can get mad about people misinterpreting the bible, well this is my bible.

Side: Not The Same
1 point

Religions first came to be through exploitation of ignorance and fear. They can only perpetuate their own existence by enforcing those same qualities. If you object to these premises, take heart in knowing you will go to heaven, or something like that. I will take heart in the fact that your grandchildren have a good chance of living without the shackles of stupidity.

Side: Not The Same
1 point

well, first of all, most (emphasis on most) religions are the same. dont hurt people, dont lie, cheat or steal. dont rape. things like that.

second, when they say "imagine non religion" they mean imagine a word where people dont fight and slaughter over minor differences in religion.

Side: Not The Same
1 point

The difference is that in this case it is demonstrating the damage of an ideology, of a form of ideas, or faith, which people willingly take part in. The photo is designed not to exhibit angry sentiment towards people who are religious but to exhibit anti-religious sentiment. It is anger at a concept versus anger at the people practicing the concept. For example, if one were to post a picture of Auschwitz, one couldn't say that the person was being racist towards German, we would say, and rightly so, that the person was trying to demonstrate the horrors of Nazism and of Hitler's brutal policies.

Side: Not The Same
1 point

KINDA HARD TO CHOOSE YOUR SKIN COLOR.

Not so much your religion.

Details details details.

But no, fuck that shit. 9/11 was NOT the fault of the Muslim religion. It's called Terrorism. FEAR. It isn't driven by religion. That's just a cover. It's driven by human greed.

Side: Not The Same
1 point

i disagree and agree it is the same but it is not at the same time because one you cant change your skin color but at the same time you may be emotionally blackmailed into by your family I'm church of england only because my family threaten to disown me when i wanted to be catholic so it has the same bonds s skin color but not as tight and anyway you cant get rid o religion unless you killed everyone which makes the picture redundant doesn't it ? because people even atheist have small beliefs like chicken noodle soup is good for colds unless you use a certain recipe it doesn't do much for it.

Side: Not The Same
1 point

I am a born again atheist, I was raised in the Jewish faith and found the stories to be very compelling and interesting but always thought of them as stories. Religion is a choice people make to divorce themselves from the evolving reality in which they find themselves. They fill in unknowns and unknowable with "god did it" it's a lazy philosophy which hold humanity in contempt, denies it it's virtues (as they are from god), and condemns it it's failing (as they are from free-will). It is a cynical and nihilistic and holds no place in an evolved society.

Side: Not The Same