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.
Should we base everything off of South Park?
I find it weird but whenever a South Park episode airs, i agree with what they're saying. This is mainly because they attack both sides.
**Euthanasia**: You're messing with God when you attatch a dead person to a machine.
**Global Warming**: It may be happening, but the hysteria over it is premature.
**Britney Spears**: The media is what's destroying her (the media destroys everything though).
**Writer's Strike**: Writers don't understand the internetz very well.
**Porn and Children**: Children get horribly screwed up if they look at porn before puberty (usually).
**Sex Education**: In Elementary school, at least, it's wrong. You never know who the hell is teaching this shit to your 8 year old.
**Teachers with Students**: If a female teacher, no matter how hot, is fucking a 14 year old, it's wrong. The main problem is that these kids fall madly in love with their teacher and are willing to do ANYTHING for her. The courts should not be giving some exception just because they're hot.
**Feminazism**: They're based off of a good movement, but seem to always take things too far, usually just making the feminist movement look rediculous. They're counter-productive.
**Hippies**: Retarded, smelly, dirty, and useless.
**Catholic Church**: Is really bad at stopping pedophilia.
**Religion**: The bible is just stories that help you guide your life and shouldn't be taken literally.
**Anti-Evolution**: They don't understand evolution, obviously.
**Richard Dawkins**: Equates God with a Flying Spaghetti Monster and really shouldn't be in a religious debate.
**Atheists**: Best seen, not heard. Basically, the have the right idea, but usually just fuck shit up when they start talking (because they can't think philosophically... i know i know, this can be confusing for people like Ledhead who says that Agnostics are Atheists, but we're talking philosophy here, and philosophically, agnostics are not atheists).
**America vs. Terrorism**: Terrorists are bad and must be stopped, but it seems that Americans are constantly paranoid over a terrorist attack that we can't live happily.
**Miracles**: Another example of how rediculous religion can be.
**Programs like DARE**: DARE seems to think that lying about how harmful drugs are will make children do the right thing when the moment comes.
"South Park" is far more clever than it's given credit for. It presents great ideas in a very smart, very accessible manner that the public loves, no matter how left/right a person is. I love "South Park."
Indeed. I think it's an expression of the "blunt truth" of things in society. As in, the side of reality many people don't want to see or acknowledge or step out of the box to ponder.
However, I personally don't watch the show just because it is cartoonish. They tend to bore me, so I don't prefer it if I can watch something else. Has to do with my hearing loss. But it is funny when I give it a chance.
If you are going to reference me in a negative manner you really should allow me to defend myself. That's pretty dishonorable.
I'm not sure what you mean by should we base everything off of South Park. I think the show is entertaining and I often agree with the views it presents, but I wouldn't go that far (if I even knew what you meant.)
While the show is fun to watch, it often oversimplifies things and tries to make everything black and white which you have a tendency to do so I am not surprised you think we should "base everything off of" it.
All of your ideologies are based upon categorizing both sides of an issue as extremists and then claiming the "superior" position in the middle. This is really great if you want to act like an elitist prick, but it is kind of intellectually dishonest. I suggest you stop viewing the world through a cartoon and actually experience things for yourself.
And regarding your reference to me:
I'm sorry you can't seem to understand this no matter how I try to explain it so. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is about belief, and agnosticism is about knowledge. I have shown you dictionary entries and websites, but you don't seem to understand. All babies are born atheists. They do not believe in a god. They don't even know what the concept of god is. But all atheism is is not believing in a particular god. Atheism in it of itself does not deny the possibility of the existence of god. It makes no reference to this. While there may be some atheists who deny the possibility of the existence of a god, and I have not met any, this is not characteristic of atheism. Just as an example Buddhism is considered to be an atheistic religion. This just means there is no god explicitly stated.
"i know i know, this can be confusing for people like Ledhead who says that Agnostics are Atheists"
Saying I am confused is referencing me in a negative manner. I am talking about philosophy as well as these are philosophical positions. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp this simple concept that atheism and agnosticism do not even refer to the same thing.
I am not having a "bitch fit" I am responding to your debate. That is usually what you do on a debate website.
wow, i didn't know that saying that it might get confusing is all of a sudden negative. If anything, I was understanding where you come from, but was trying to point out that i am referring to a different understanding.
The show, as well as most other people, see a difference PHILOSOPHICALLY between those who claim atheist and those who claim agnostic. I understand that to you and others that not knowing is technically not believing, but those who claim agnostic still do not want to be paired up with Atheists.
The show attacks philosophical Atheists. Philosophically, I can not be Atheist. I believe that God is possible. Technically, that's not enough to make me a theist, so it just makes me atheist, but if I decide that the concept of God is way over my head and really something I can't answer, than the last thing I want people to call me is Atheist. Same for all others who call themselves Agnostics instead of Atheist. Sure, by a very general definition, Agnostics are usually Atheist (since it defeats the purpose of theism, but that's possible to), but the culture that Atheists have created among themselves has become something new.
They're referring to the hardcore atheists like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. Those who strike down any possibility of a deity or superior force of energy. Technically, they are agnostic as well, but philosophically, they find Agnostic venture as bullshit.
I guess this can be the settlement. By a very plain, non-searching definition, I am an Atheist. But philosophically, I am nothing of the sort. I still sometimes find the probability of there being a God more reasonable than the probability of there not being a God. But, I don't hold those mathematical foundations as truth because there is still so much that we don't know, it would be irresponsible to accept that.
"the culture that Atheists have created among themselves has become something new."
This extreme culture that you seem to think exists doesn't. It is a myth propagated mainly by theists who want to cast atheists in a negative light.
Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are not hardcore atheists because they are prominent figures. If you actually knew what you were talking about, which you clearly don't, they do not "strike down" the possibility of a god.
There is no alternative definition of agnostic or atheist when you attach the word philosophically to them, I don't know what is wrong with you. Atheism and agnosticism are philosophical positions.
You have to be either a theist or an atheist. You either believe in a god or you don't. Whether you think it possible to prove or disprove god's existence is a totally separate issue.
It is not the plain "non-searching"(whatever that means) definition of atheism. Because of the strong Christianity of the United States the colloquial meaning of atheism has become strong atheism which is the outright rejection of the possibility of a deity. But this no more the definition of atheist any more than the definition of muslim is people who commit terrorism for allah. Like I have said before Christians want to make atheists seem extreme and so a social stigma has developed with the word atheist that isn't correct. I have never met a strong atheist, and I know a lot of atheists. So quit buying into the propaganda. Like I said earlier instead of taking the word of a cartoon, try getting your information first hand.
Richard Dawkins himself said that the ONLY POSSIBILITY of intelligent design would be that of an alien race. This is extreme Atheism. To doubt any possibility deity of some sort has become... neo-Atheism. It's not that the definition of Atheism has changed, it is merely the philosophy that many atheists have lived by.
I guess we can at least agree to that people who call themselves Agnostics instead of Atheists are the ones who are less doubtful about the possibility of a God. Those would be people like me. Then, people like Richard Dawkins and everyone in the "Debate Faith" room are the stronger Atheists who are technically Agnostic (because they do admit that technically you can't prove a negative) but do not consider that God may be possible. I may be technically an Atheist, but certainly not like Hitchens or Dawkins.
"In The God Delusion Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for "I know there is no god". He categorises himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" under this definition."
He does not deny the possibility of a god. Therefore you are incorrect.
So he just denies all exhaust points of a God. Sort of like Newspeak. Take away anything that means it, and then technically it doesn't exist.
Intelligent Design can be the least personal God possible, a lot like Deism (Deist actually believe in intelligent Design). In fact, it's the very first statement of God (as in, God is the creator). If you deny it's initial definition, you are basically denying it.
He does not claim that he KNOWS there is no God, that would be silly, but he denies any thought of it.
That is much different from people like me who actually find Deism and Intelligent Design as very probable. We do not claim that is the answer, for the same reasons that Dawkins doesn't claim it isn't the answer, because we do not know everything there is about the Universe. But Dawkins equates an ideal like God as any other mythical being that you could make up "You can't disprove a flying spaghetti monster". Agnostics, philosophically, don't think anything like that.
I know that you know nothing about Dawkins because you used the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is what South Park had him saying, but in reality his own favorite example is that of an invisible flying teapot orbiting Mars. Next time you want to debate something, at least do us the favor of having some idea what you're talking about.
You have taken this quote out of context so many times that it literally makes me want to punch my computer screen for sheer frustration.
Ignoring the dishonest tactics employed by Ben Stein during the interview, what Richard Dawkins was actually talking about was a scientifically measurable intelligent design. He said that if we were designed, it would be from have to have been from aliens, because science does not deal with magic, or the unmeasurable. The idea of god is by definition supernatural since it can't be observed.
Finally, I am curious about why you have such a huge issue with Richard Dawkins. I'll admit that he is a little extreme about his views, but he has also made tremendous contributions to our understanding of evolution. He even came up with the idea of applying evolution to fields outside biology, specifically the evolution of ideas, which he called memes. Regardless of his views on religion, this warrants praise.
If you want to talk about Dawkins's quotes, then at least use something that he said, and not something he was tricked into saying through dishonest means. Here's a speech he gave titled militant atheism. Maybe you'll be able to actually learn what Dawkins really thinks, and not what FAUX news thinks he thinks.
Oh that is the quote of Dawkins' that they tried to use to say he believes that an alien race designed all life. I completely remember that now. They took it out of context and bastardized the hell out of it. I'm pretty sure it was featured in the movie Expelled.
It's pretty easy to tell when someone has actually done research and when they have just watched an episode of a cartoon about something.
On a slightly unrelated note have you seen the Dawkins rap? It made its rounds on the social networking sites, but just in case.
I believe it was made by creationists to make Dawkins and several other prominent atheists look foolish, but I actually think it is fantastic and makes them seem really cool.
I actually never said I dislike Richard Dawkins. All I said is that I am not an atheist in the sense that he is.
I think he is a brilliant scientist and I like much of his work. I just disagree with him philosophically.
and the mix up with the spaghetti monster. Saying the teapot thing was basically the same thing and the spaghetti monster term is used by all of the other atheists, so I figured that is what ledhead would understand.
I didn't take the quote out of context, i basically said what you said. He said the only possible way of their being intelligent design is if an alien race did it. I was actually pointing out that he doesn't allow God into his explanation. So... what's your beef?
I just spent half an hour trying to find the debate where you call richard Dawkins an asshole. Couldn't find it, but am almost positive you said it. If you deny this then I will keep looking.
My point with correcting you on the spaghetti monster thing is that you basically just copied the argument from south park without actually knowing anything about the man's actual arguments against religion. I understand that the meaning is effectively the same, however, the spaghetti monster was not originally used as an argument for atheism, but instead against teaching ID in the classroom. Here is the letter that was originally sent to the Kansas School Board, where the flying spaghetti monster was born. In attempting to stereotype atheists the creators of South Park didn't really do their research (not that I didn't enjoy the "Go God Go" episodes).
You did take the quote out of context, because, as I said, Richard Dawkins was talking about how ID could hypothetically be a science. He said that the only way this was possible was if aliens had originally planted life. He then went on to say that if this were the case, then we might find evidence of design in DNA. We currently don't, but as a scientist he always must leave the possibility.
What I find ironic, is that, in order to prove Dawkins's closed mindedness, you continue to quote an interview that Dawkins tricked into thinking was for a movie called Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion. He was willing to give an interview for this movie, and had an open mind about it. His trust of Ben Stein backfired however, and his words were twisted so that their meaning in the movie Expelled was twisted to be contrary to their intent.
My only beef is from people misrepresenting the views of others, and stereotyping large groups of people.
But i wasn't saying that he advocated God or the accepted theory of Intelligent Design. I think I know what you mean by the whole intelligent design argument, and that's not what i'm talking about here. What I'm saying is that Dawkins in no way believes the possibility of a God.
"In The God Delusion Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for "I know there is no god". He categorises himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" under this definition."
He thinks there is a low probability of there being a god. I already told you this.
And I said that he's just being normal and not claiming that he KNOWS there is no God. But he puts it at such a low probability that the idea doesn't even matter to him.
For people who call themselves Agnostic, the probability of God existing matches the probability that it doesn't.
Philosophically, those who claim Agnostic don't match your average Atheist.
South park is a cartoon, produced for entertainment purposes. It's meant to be funny and outrageous.
I don't actually think we should agree with every viewpoint expressed on South Park. I doubt the writers even agree with everything. It's simply an extreme set of opinions meant to amuse and shock People.
The show has to constantly reach beyond it's own boundaries to continue to amuse. That's the appeal of the show. If they didn't, the show would be cancelled.
For god sakes, they had a rat running around with a penis growing out it's back. They depicted the insertion of food into the anus of an 8 year old boy, and then depicted him vomitting excrement.
One of my favorite episodes is the origin of the Mormon Church.
But in answer, no, of course not. South Park exaggerates to make a point, which is successful, but in the end, there's far more gray area than black and white. Also, do you really want people crapping out of their mouths? I thought not.
South Park is one of the few shows at tv which through their own type of humor are saying something which today's society is not willing to admit openly due to political correctness and kissing up to someone because of pity guilt. It is also the only tv series that I ever watch on a regular basis.
The reason why I like the show so much is besides it's political incorrectness, it is also a show where no specific group is made fun of, but rather everyone........too many different social groups to list right now. Any show which does not accept either far right (conservative/republican) or far left (liberal/democrat) ideologies is good because it is using common sense and realizing that no group, whether gay or straight, christian/jewish, male/female, white/black, religous/atheist does not deserve either more or less, but rather equal rights.
In my own words, as long as someone does not intimidate me due to some historical injustice that happened to their ancestors, it does not mean that they deserve any more rights. At the same time, it is ok to be somewhat suspicious, but not to the extreme. We ain't living in the barbaric times, at least in the western world.
