Yes, Because we all know by contrast that heaven is a bunch of people not having sex and deciding whether they hate gays more or poor people more. It's a riveting debate really. Have fun in heaven. I'll take hell, thanks.
333 days ago | Side: True
Just one of a million debates that are forever alone. Please disturb.
333 days ago | Side: True
I suppose Libertarians would have to find their own afterlife to avoid the free-loading Liberals and the moralist conservatives.
333 days ago | Side: True
So when the government takes money off you and gives it to the poor, it is "freeloading", but taking all the money from the poor and keeping it, that's fine. And why is it you think liberals are somehow exempt from paying tax?
332 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
clearly you didn't catch the humor behind this whole debate topic.... to avoid all the unnecessary quibbles, read Atlas Shrugged.
332 days ago | Side: True
Oh god I hate Rand, you should read Atlas Drugged by Stephen.L.Goldstein.
332 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
|
Wow, someone doesn't really see the bigger picture here....
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
I disagree the Meening Of Life is 42 and Hell is somewhere The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy does'nt exist
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
...... WAIT, WHAT R U TLKIN BOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
333 days ago | Side: True
I love The Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy and according to those books the meening of life is 42
333 days ago | Side: True
The "Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy" book series is fictional. Thus, it should not be considered a logically accurate source for this debate.
333 days ago | Side: True
Not all fictional books are scientifically inaccurate. Some are very accurate, including H.I.V.E., Alex Rider, and Peppa Pig!
333 days ago | Side: True
True. However, they still are fictional books, and there scientific/logical accuracy is flawed enough that they shouldn't be used in a debate such as this.
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
Some believe the Bible to be Fictional and a lot of people do not believe in Science but these are still permisable in debates and in the end debates are about opinion and in my opinion Hell is somewhere The Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy does not exist and as this debate is about the meaning of life and hell I thought my opinion to be valid, it got a debate going if nothing else
333 days ago | Side: True
I am aware that many atheists tend to believe the Bible to be purely fiction... A lot of people seriously don't believe in science? No, the majority of debate tends to be based on fact, rather than opinions. Opinions can be used in debates if they have logical reasoning behind them, yes. What do you mean "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" doesn't exist. It certainly does, considering I have a copy of the book in my "library."
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
I never said the Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy did'nt exist read my full posts what I said was Hell would be a World were it did'nt. You are wrong debate is based on opinion but facts are useful to help support your argument/opinion
333 days ago | Side: True
You did say the Hitchhiker's Guide didn't exist. You said, and I quote: "The Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy does not exist..." So... You believe that Hell would be a world where the Hitchhiker's Guide didn't exist...? No. Once again, the majority of debates are based on factual information. For example, the definition of hell is a factual debate. However, varied religions and perceptions of Hell can influence one's definition of hell.
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
To quote me correctly and not out of context: "Hell is somewhere The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy does'nt exist", it does not say The Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy does not exist except in my own personal Hell which I have not reached but that is just my opinion. I find it interesting that you argue that a debate should be based solely on facts but you will gladly quote people out of context and twist their words to suit your argument either that or you dont bother reading what other people post before jumping in with both feet, either way that is not a good way of debating
333 days ago | Side: True
I was quoting from your argument that you made about 1 hour and 34 minutes ago. I don't see why you call my argument as "diving in," seeing as all of my arguments in this debate are logically sound.
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
I have re-read everything I have posted and in all of them I have said that Hell is somewhere The Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy does not exist, I assume you have not read my complete posts or are choosing to quote me out of context, whilst your other posts may be logically sound not reading someones complete posts or misquoting them is not, maybe it's my fault and my posts have not been clear enough for you but I shall leave it at that unless you have something new to add to the debate because at the moment we are just arguing in circles and stating and re-stating our opinions which is not moving this debate forward
333 days ago | Side: True
The "Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy" book series is fictional. Thus, it should not be considered a logically accurate source for this debate Really? If find fictional sources the most logically accurate arguments against fictional debates.
333 days ago | Side: True
The fact that you view this as a fictional debate is highly presumptuous.
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
Of course. Jesus was a partisan, obviously, and conservative with all his long hair, sandals, and helping the poor.
333 days ago | Side: True
This debate has nothing to do with Jesus's validity. It concerns the definition of hell, and whether there is any meaning to life.
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
Either way. Jesus and hell are equally mythical .
333 days ago | Side: True
Considering you are an atheist, of course you wouldn't believe that both Jesus and hell are mythical. However, both those issues are opinionated, thus can not be said with absolutely certainty.
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
Considering you don't believe in Narnia of course you would believe a talking lion is mythical. However, both those issues are opinionated, thus can not be said with absolute certainty.
333 days ago | Side: True
It was a spelling mistake, obviously... Fixed, anyway. Care to make an actual argument?
333 days ago | Side: True
... the irony of your reply is absolutely priceless. Care to read again? The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
316 days ago | Side: True
There is no logically accurate "meaning of life." Several religions have some concept of the meaning of life, however that is religion-exclusive. By definition, Hell is "a nether world in which the dead continue to exist."
Supporting Evidence:
Definition of Hell.
(www.merriam-webster.com)
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
There is no such thing as "the meaning of life" or, indeed "hell". It is not just conservatives that pay taxes, you know. They just pay more because they are usually rich. To me, hell is a place where no one cares about eachother at all. A world where the homeless are ignored, the poor are left to starve and die. Families are damned to a life of servitude because they can't pay to go to school, and therefore can't get a good job, and therefore can't pay for their kids to go to school either. Houses burn down whilst the conservatives stand around going "they ain't takin' my money!" because the family did not pay the full fees for fire services. Do you know what it was like when we used to blame the poor for being poor? You know, back in Victorian Britain? Around 25-30% of the population were living in poverty. The elderly were either left to die, or placed in workhouses and worked to death. Children were made to work because the families couldn't afford food. When the liberal reforms happened in the early 1900s, national insurance was introduced, pensions were given to the old, and the government began giving free school lunches to the poor. Sick pay was also introduced. These reforms were the foundation for a society in which the poor are helped, everyone gets free healthcare, and we started caring about eachother. What is your problem with helping others? Why is it you care more about your own personal wealth than the wellbeing of others? If you don't want to give up your money to help another person who is in need, you are selfish.
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
What is your problem with helping others? The problem is that we end up taking Darwinism out of society. Therefore..., people how would have normally died before reproductive age due to their stupidity are now living longer and multiplying. This has caused a massive increase in the world's population resulting in Global Warming ;)
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
I'm sure the right wingers would love it if we just killed all the poor.
332 days ago | Side: True
No..., not the poor..., the stupid ;)
332 days ago | Side: True
I think the conservatives be having a pretty bad time in their liberal-free "heaven." Who would they blame all their problems on, what with all the homosexuals in the closet and all the atheists in denial?
333 days ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!!!
|
