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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Imagine a world that lived by the Golden rule, treating other's as you want to be treated.
Can you imagine a world where people treated each other as they would want to be treated?
Such a world would have few abortions because people would not want to be killed.
Such a world would have few abandoned children from broken homes because those who would abandon others would not want to be abandoned.
Such a world would have few alcoholics because they would not want to live with an alcoholic.
Such a world would have few drug addicts since they would not want to live with drug addicts.
Such a world would have few marital affairs because losers who chase after someone's spouse would not want some idiot having sex with their spouse.
Such a world would not push Gay appreciation days onto everyone's children in public schools, because they know they would not want opposing views pushed onto their own children.
Such a world would not try to force a Christian owned business to cater things that go against his faith, because a Black man would not want his private business forced to cater a KKK convention, etc. etc.
Such a world would have little road rage because no driver would want to be screamed at when he makes a mistake in traffic (as we all have all done before).
A world trying to live by the golden rule would care for one another, treating each other with respect. What a world that would be!
Libs screamed for equality then persecuted the Christian baker and kept attacking him, not for persecution but simply to target him. Just like they did those they didn't accept in the Jim Crow South.
Not really, no. The baker told the gay couple that he would make a cake, but not a wedding cake. Therefore, outrage. They were given an option, and refused to take it. Also, the baker would've probably been fine with being refused service based on the server's religion.
Asking a Christian Baker to bake you a cake that is against his faith does cause suffering to the christian baker. So preferably you should try to find another baker to bake your cake. If you cannot find another baker to bake your cake. Then you could go back to the Christian Baker and see if maybe you could come into a compromise.
What you shouldn't do, is ask a Christian baker to bake your cake, and when they refuse they offer you contacts for other bakeries to bake your cake, and you ignore those and take him to court out of malice.
You don't, but just like everything else, you perform tests, look at history, and look at data to determine how you should act and what are the best choices for the future.
We are a race of humans. When you hurt a human it causes emotional or physical damage that can be measured. In some cases emotional or physical damage has been shown to cause humans to be less productive and provide what we call "suffering". Suffering is negative because it does not produce a productive and successful society. (Measured by the amount of people who report they are happy or content with their life, and are not starving or living in absolute poverty)
You could make your same argument for the Health Industry.
What is a healthy person? Who are you to say that vomiting all day every day isn't the most healthy a person can be? What if I want to vomit all day every day? How do you know being healthy doesn't involve vomiting all day every day?
As an atheist, this fool has no idea what morality should be. And study the atheist David Hume to learn what science cannot deal with ethics. Once again, you prove atheists are irrational and dumb as a box of rocks.
As an atheist, this fool has no idea what morality should be.
What is your reasoning for alleging this? You seem to be under the false impression that debate is a place where you can simply make vague claims of fact without having any responsibility to reason them out with whomever you are talking to. In other words, you are typically religious.
And study the atheist David Hume to learn what science cannot deal with ethics.
Science has no relationship to ethics. You might as well point out that maths can't deal with history and pretend you've said something enlightening.
Once again, you prove atheists are irrational and dumb as a box of rocks.
The precise opposite is true. You have proven that you're an aggressive little halfwit without anything intelligent to say.
Experience with 1000s of those fools, and I do not care what you think debate is for.
Pond scum, it was the atheist moron who thought they could be related. Your argument is with him. Again, no one cares about your subjective feelings about the truth. Get help for that narcissism.
And you confirm atheists are dumb as s box of rocks. Thanks.
So your reasoning is a guilt-by-association fallacy?
and I do not care what you think debate is for.
So you are on a debate site but you don't want to actually debate?
Your argument is with him.
So you are telling me who I am talking to?
Again, no one cares about your subjective feelings about the truth.
So you presume everybody is interested in your subjective feelings, but become aggressive when other people have different ones?
Get help for that narcissism.
So you demonstrate your own narcissism, and then attempt to project it onto your victims?
And you confirm atheists are dumb as s box of rocks
So you confirm your own narcissism and pointless aggression?
Thanks
So you attack everybody who responds to your false claims and then follow up by being polite? Do you understand that you are exhibiting symptoms of severe mental illness?
The burden of proof is on you. Prove that is the right morality instead of its opposit? If you cannot, then your view is arbitrary, your opinion, with no binding force
All views are an opinion. And it would be immoral (and unreasonable to expect) me to be in a dictator position where I can force everyone to adhere to my personal opinion of morality to "test" if it is correct. So you have given me an impossible request and pretended it was a fair dispute.
Right, atheism destroys morality, making do not rate children no more worthy than do not eat rocky road ice cream. It is why no moral person is an atheist.
Yes, per naturalism, all things in nature must have a naturalist explanation, which means tested via the scientific method. If it exists, it is detectable by the senses. As non-material things are, by definition, not detectable by the senses, they do not exist under naturalism. No non-material things = materialism.
And the issue is not why don't atheists murder or not murder. The issue is can an atheist provide a rational, non-arbitrary, universal reason not to murder. The answer is no starting with the idea we are all nothing but stardust.
So the better question to you is why not murder? If all you can give me is your personal preference, you have embraced the problem.
You don't murder out of self-interest. Societies that have constant murder aren't pleasant to live in.
Basically everything is Stardust, that doesn't mean it is meaningless. Humans are simply creatures that are born with a brain that has pre-programming. So out of self-interest we want the best for ourselves.
Some things make us happy, that feels good, some things make us sad, that feels bad. We want to avoid sadness and gain happiness. When I see a fellow creature get injured, my brain automatically reacts and feels empathetic towards it. Making me want to help that creature.
This is built into our evolutionary brain, which means most likely helping others and feeling empathy is good for natural selection. Which seems correct because the most sympathetic and empathetic societies seem to become the most successful. You do not murder (murder meaning killing without reason) because it is a lot of effort for very little gain. Especially since almost all humans generally have families (or "tribes") that will avenge them.
Reducing murder increases the quality of life of all humans.
If am allowed to say my self interest is that I not murder then I am allowed to say my self interest is that I do murder. Again, you have removed morality from the equation. If a man rapes and murders your daughter, you may not like his choice, but you have no moral grounds to object.
You wouldn't be able to tell a woman what to do with her body because you wouldn't want to be told what you can and can't do with your body.
You wouldn't want to tell a gay couple they can't live with the one they love because you wouldn't want to be told you can't live with the one you love.
People wouldn't prosecute others using their own belief because they wouldn't want to be prosecuted for someone else's belief.
People in bad situations would be able to better themselves without condemnation from others because those others wouldn't want to be condemned as well and denied help should they need it.
....you don't mind being told you can't murder someone with your body.....
I just....I seriously think you didn't understand the point of this debate. Obbbbbviously you wouldn't murder someone since you yourself don't want to get murdered. You amused me, thank you for that.
No, you really didn't, in fact you did the exact opposite with your comparison. But since you don't have the power to ban me in this debate then strut around like you usually do, you can go ahead and keep thinking that if your ego needs a lil boost.
Seems like you're the one dodging. Since you're here, maybe you can explain what you think an Atheist is? You can't ban to dodge the question so perhaps you'll answer it. I know several of us would like to know.
"In such a world", a person like Trump could not exist. Considering that, it WOULD be nice …. but, does that mean no one could complain about someone else' sexual habits? About their contraceptive methods? About which religious (or not) doctrine they go by? About their, maybe "liberal ideas"? Nice, but maybe a bit boring ….. ;-)
