CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Start your own community!

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS Jace

Reward Points:4299
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
95%
Arguments:6153
Debates:14
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
0 points

That would just make you a moist robot

Yes. And?

2 points

Whether one believes that they have free will doesn't determine whether they actually have it, anymore than believing in the existence of anything else determines its actual ontology. Are you a philosophical idealist? That's the only way your remarks make any sense (and I don't think idealism is logically defensible).

Jace(4299) Clarified
1 point

I think that religious instruction is one variable among numerous ones which may or may not affect how someone behaves. Pinning the actions one takes upon a single source seems indefensible to me, particularly where we can observe that two people receive the same or very similar instruction but do not necessarily act the same. This suggests something at play a priori to and/or in conjunction with the role instruction may play.

Regardless of your motives for posting the question, you nevertheless made the claim that religion encourages good people to do bad things is a fact. My response that everything is a presumption is not an unsound criticism of that assertion. It stems from my epistemic nihilism, which questions whether we can know anything to be a fact at all.

1 point

What makes you think this is a condition we can advance ourselves out of? That we don't know anything now is not a consequence of our discoveries or technology (or etc.), but of the practical limitations on the human capacity for knowledge. We can't overcome an innate shortcoming.

1 point

I'm an atheist (well, more properly I'm an agnostic I suppose) and I don't believe what I can see. It's stupid to believe anything at all, because we can't know any of it whether it's spiritual, scientific... doesn't matter.

Jace(4299) Clarified
1 point

Whether they are convinced is down to their dispositions and previous experience. As is the role of the religious leaders. I'm a hard determinist, and religion like all ideology strikes me as more an artifact than a strong determinant. Everything is a presumption, but if you want to call this particular one a fact that's fine by me for the sake of discussion. As I said, if we take that as given it's a fairly non-unique observation that holds true for ideology generally. I don't see much cause to single out religion from the pack, really.

1 point

Reductionism attributes consciousness to the physical brain as well, which places your "bigger picture" under its purview along with the rest.

1 point

That depends entirely upon the theist. Some believe precisely as you assert that they don't. At any event, believing something doesn't make it so.

1 point

No such thing as good people or bad things, for a start.

Further, people adopt whatever perspectives their dispositions and experience compel them to adopt. The same goes for the actions they engage in. The mere existence of a religious idea or doctrine isn't sufficient on its own to induce anyone to "bad" acts. That person must be disposed (a) to adopts the religious belief(s) in question, and (b) act upon them. Should both be fulfilled that suggests some a priori motive to the religiously associated action.

Presuming even that religion did make "good" people do "bad" things, then that would hardly be unique to religion. It would be a consequence of its operating as an ideology, which secular perspectives do just as assuredly. "Bad" things have been done in more than the name of just religion...

Jace(4299) Clarified
1 point

Yes, I think I understand your point. In your view, it is sufficient to a right existing that a claim of its existence is made. Whether that claim is actually realized doesn't matter. Does that sound accurate?

What confuses me in this account is that it seems that every right would be both a right and not a right at once. Presumably one would not claim to have a right if someone else were not threatening what one is claiming a right to in the first place, which suggests that the right exists to one party and not to another at the same time. For instance both the fetus and the woman do and don't have the respective rights in question at the same time. The realization of the claim seems necessary to identifying whether or not someone has a right, then.

For that reason, at least, that's why I think that a claim alone is not sufficient to saying a right exists. Perhaps you could say that it exists in concept, but I'm not sure what the utility would be in making such an observation. If I claimed that I could bench 200lbs but couldn't, one could say that I can do it in theory but it wouldn't seem reasonable to say I could bench 200lbs because I claimed I could. Similarly, even if a right exists in concept it doesn't make sense to me to say it actually exists if it isn't realized beyond the claim.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Does the sacred have intrinsic value?
Winning Position: Yes
Winning Position: What is the appropriate response to ignorance?
Winning Position: No
Winning Position: Echidna
Winning Position: No

About Me


"More or less an egoist, nihilist, skeptic (not cartesian), determinist."

Biographical Information
Name: Owlman 
Gender: Chap
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Websites: Nihilist Owlman

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here