- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
If you really have to, then this is the list of acceptable religions I've compiled thus far - (quoting myself from another debate)
My list of religions that are not bad includes - Sikhism, Buddism, Advaita Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism, Deism/Atheism (which aren't really religions, but formally are), New Age mysticism among some others that I've not yet decided on.
Most of these are Eastern, though. Seems like you didn't have any variety there.
Additions so far - Catholic Christianity
It'd be fine if it were merely that.
But they keep shifting their grounds on a completely arbitrary basis.
If they dare doing it more concretely (as in removing the Old Testament entirely) then such things can be really easily discredited and dismissed.
As it stands, it is a (the preachers here) (paraphrasing myself) group of apes too foolish to realise they've evolved past that stage.
Lots of justification for the Right believing and acting on what they do is the myth of the godlessness and sin of their opposition, and a more active or united Religious Left would largely invalidate that claim.
Couldn't have expected otherwise in a clash of dogmatists of denominations.
Whether Right or Left would vary based on the stage in history you look at it.
Of course it would. Those words don't directly represent any eternal concepts, after all.
There is almost no Christianity where I live. Which means it's all at the extreme left. But that doesn't matter - India is a secular country.
Debates on these websites would take on a whole different atmosphere if every time the Right dropped a dozen scriptures the Left was ready with a dozen counter scriptures
If it was an entirely American site for religious debates. But it isn't. As you can see, christian theology is dead here.
Face it, some of the champions of the Right, like Trump himself, really are not model Christians, whereas champions of the Left often lived lives immersed in helping the poor and needy. It's a stark contrast.
When Stain reproached Catholicism, I realised - it is the Evangelicalism and Protestants that are the disgrace on Christianity.
Capitalism isn’t the contradictory concept, anarcho-capitalism is.
Actually, considering that I preceded that statements by some arguments on its etymology, it refers to anarchocapitalism. (Though I can see why that might seem suspicious.)
If the extreme form of Socialism is Communism,
It isn't, though. Any extreme form is always meant in contrast to some other comparison. You have ignored that.
Socialism is democratic, communism is totalitarian.
under which your Liberty is protected by enforceable law.
By limiting liberty of others. And yours, too.
Rights are purchased at the cost of freedom.
Nothing is free doesn’t necessarily mean that everything has a price,
I'd say that's basic syllogism, but
because not everything is for sale.
That changes things.
Even so, I never said that Capitalism is based on everything having a price.
That's because we aren't talking about the same set of things.
This doesn't apply only to education, it applies to most things we take for granted,
No, the government doesn't have to be the sole provider.
It's just what I decided under the veil of ignorance - that everyone should be literate and have access to information (and preferably some minimal healthcare, but that might as well be lumped into the education and be self administered).
Anyone who can afford should, of course, be able to get better services. Which is generally the part of private market.
After they have an education, they might be able to do well. Whatever, I'd hate having a life of ignorance, so unless we differ there, you should agree that no one should have a life of ignorance for being born into conditions that can not materially afford information.
Whatever, I'd rather not talk about that again with an idiot of your level. I've already destroyed all you said here. But it is a dogmatic faith, unfounded on reason - destroying any arguments is redundant.
I shouldn't have typed even that much; you're too worthless. You know what, just ban me (I won't be looking at you reply either way, because I know that it is, as always, the fear to read me and become an atheist.)
Let's just remove the Old Testament.
I mean, who cares? It isn't part of the real Bible.
Funnily enough, I haven't ever seen any of the fanatics claiming such things to ever be in a position to do so. None of the big Christian denominations exclude the Old Testament from their Bible. And I only care about what the more influential zombie leaders do, at best.
Nothing from the Leviticus?