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.



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.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Mentieth

Reward Points:16
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.
100%
Arguments:19
Debates:3
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Arguing on the internet is always fun...

If we want to talk about the "religion" of Christianity, read James 1:27. You are confusing the "church" with the religion. Like confusing China with communism.

Hundreds of people around the world dedicate themselves to exegesis, corruption of text is explicitly trying to be weeded out.

If you aren't willing to take the Bible seriously we cannot debate what it says. You don't know enough about the Bible to debate me on it. Sure, you can quote verses - I can use bible gateway as well... It does not mean you could pass a unit of systematic theology.

The comment that the world would be better without all religion is indicative of why this debate between us will get no where. See, why do you argue that? Well, because you don't think any of the religions true; you don't think God exists - else you'd at least accept Baha'i or Quakerism... We are debating on the level of established religion, doctrine, tradition, etc. However we have completely different metaphysical foundations. Nothing will change unless those are suspended.

1 point

I don't think it follows 'perfectly' as you say. You suppose that the founders of the church had the foresight to predict that the Roman empire would become Christian, allowing them to gain power, and that after the fall of the empire they would be still strong? And an ongoing legacy of power was their aim, despite them never participating in such power? -- even within the church, Paul often writes complaining that the churches are listening to the wrong teachers... Sure that could be power lust, but it at least shows he had no real power... Where is your evidence to back this claim? Fundamentally it is not portrayed in the Bible. Jesus turned down being made a political force and leader, and the early church always fed the line that they wanted to be "like Christ".

True, but a house will be renovated by a good man, whilst keeping its foundations. Systems do exist with irreparable foundations, but they are few.

A "good" Christian does NOT stone gays and adulterers. If you wish to seem intelligible in a debate about Christianity, at least understand what Christianity is! Jesus saved a prostitute from being stoned! (FYI, prostitutes commit adultery...) Jesus, therefore, was a rubbish Christian. You don't even know what it is you're arguing against. It's not Biblical Christianity.

What I am saying is this: people start wars for power, and justify it by the using religious ideology. That's not tautologous. What I argue is that the motive for "religious war" isn't the religion, but the ideology built around it, or the persons involved's want for something - power, money, etc.

I didn't say something worse would replace Christianity, but something would. Fact: Islam, communism (iron and bamboo curtains), fascism, imperialism... Half of these exist and are acting in our time. US imperialism, North Korean "communism", Iranian Islam... It's not a matter of me supposing my own back door, I just need to watch the news. Or sit in my high school history class.

It is very lazy. However I don't think it central to the issue, so we can discard it. The point is that there is by no means consensus, and as such no just cause to state your own aim so emphatically. (It was an analogy, much in the same way I shouldn't expand on the matter of mismatched concrete slab foundations of period housing. A brief comment critiquing the equity of analogy to truth is enough.)

2 points

Firstly, I don't mean to suppose creationism in terms of human life, or anything like that -- that's not the topic. I don't particularly like the scope of this debate, the options aren't 'creationism' or 'evolution'. That's rather naive. I'll side with creation for the simple reason that it's arbitrary to me, so I'll pick the one I'm expected to pick.

Evolution as a cosmology is nonsense. The universe is not building up, it is in fact winding down. All physicists agree on this point. Eventually the universe will die. As we are talking about the creation of the earth this seems to suppose a matter of cosmology, and as such evolution is not that case.

The reason I suppose creation is my own conviction, I have reasons, but my conclusion is implicit. My siding with creation here is arbitrary. Farewell.

1 point

It just doesn't follow. When the Bible was written - even if we take a liberal view and say early in the second century - the Christians were still being persecuted, they had no real sphere of influence. By the time they did have any real influence the people who wrote the Bible were well and truly gone. The charge that the Bible was designed to expand power is nonsense, unless you accept that they were trying to secure power for the generation of their grandchildren...

With the government though it is corrupt men that make it bad. If purely good men ran the government there wouldn't be a problem - there would be numerous referendums, but governments would still exist and they would work for good. The difference is the state of the people, not the structure. How is it that parts of the church can be categorically argued to be exacting good in the world, but others not so? Well, there are good people concentrated in the good parts.

Religion does NOT create wars. Religion has been instrumental in perpetuating wars, but not the cause. It's like, did the idea of terrorism cause the war in Iraq? NO! It was American government officials who realised their old friend (seriously, old friend) Hussein wasn't doing what they wanted any more - they just produced the "terrorism" propaganda to justify it. (I'm not saying terrorism doesn't exist, the point is that it doesn't validate war in Iraq)

If the Bible was never written the premise of modern western culture would be gone. Read 'Everlasting Man', it kind of deals with the matter of Christianity arising in history. You really don't understand the influence the church and Christianity has had on the west. Every legal code would be different. Also, it's rather foolish to make such a broad claim as 'if the bible were never written there's a very good chance the world would be a much better place.' You can't back that up with, really, anything. I mean, who's to say something else - worse - would have taken Christianity's place. If the Bible is just man-made then it would follow that man would write something else... If it is not man-made then we really shouldn't be ignoring it.

I agree there should be good reason to dispute psycho-history (although scepticism would argue the psycho-historian has to prove their own point). As it stands, there is dispute amongst people who know what's going on, so I'll leave it to them to settle the matter.

It matters fundamentally! But here is not the place to delve into that.

1 point

The complexity is the people. If the matter is religion itself then one must suppose that all religious people are aimed toward the matter of war. This is not the case.

Also, I'm assuming you take a rather rationalist approach, and so I'll invoke a sort of scepticism: if you can't prove it don't assent to it. In the words of Russell (paraphrased to more pedestrian terms): 'put up or shut up'.

As for myself, you agree people are instrumental, there is no religion without people. My point seems made.

1 point

If we want to continue your knife analogy: if the knife was made with intent to be used as a killing tool it is to blame. That's ridiculous. Also you would have to prove that Christianity was made for such a purpose as expanding power. It doesn't make sense. The early Christians were persecuted! Maybe you could argue that it was hijacked and made into a power hungry tool, but that can't have been the original aim.

Moreover, you miss the point: is government wrong? Well no. (I'm an anarchist and I admit that - because if the government was truly democratic it wouldn't matter.) Ideas and organisational structures (which is what religion and the church are - from a secularist view) are not bad, they are but tools. It's like arguing the red cross is bad -- in theory you could distort its resource pool to do something horrid (poison water or something).

Not to mention that the topic is about religion, which means you would have to show that religion (in all its forms) are geared toward causing war. Sure religion can be used to "justify" war, but only after people have started it. (Just like communism, Zionism, and all other manner of ideas and structures.)

Agreed believability does not mean truth. But complete un-believability doesn't make sense. If it is complete nonsense no one would take it seriously; it doesn't mean it's true, it means it has something of truth in it or about it.

Psycho-history isn't a debunk field. It has helpful things to say, but it isn't the whole story. If it is treated as such it denigrates what it is, and loses credibility. Why people dispute is not the issue: it is disputed, so it can not be taken as sure footing in making further assumptions and inferences. And too, agreement of different views don't necessarily make them true. My tarot card reading could match my horoscope: big deal!

(On the alpha matter, you again give away your argument: '... resulting in either fear or respect (or a combination).' That is, it is not the fact they are the strongest, but that they are the most respected (or feared) - probably due to their strength. The point being there is a civility to it, a bit of complexity, it is not purely animalistic (in the base sense).

1 point

Your own language gives away the weakness in your argument:

'Emperor Constantine ... use[d] Christianity as a tool to expand his own power.'

'Christianity was used by popes as a means to expand their power.'

These are instances not of religion causing war or consolidating power, but people using religion. The fact that you say, 'Christianity was a loving peaceful religion during the time Jesus was alive and perhaps even a few years after', shows very well that the religion itself does not necessitate the ills. So they must be caused by something else. What is different from Jesus and His 12 disciples and the Popes? The people. Hitherto it is the bad people, not the religion.

The unicorn analogy does not "fail hard", merely examine it. Why would you not let me then sleep with your mother (who is apparently also your wife... I don't judge)? Because you didn't believe me -- assuming the unicorn would kill you if you didn't let me. What this highlights is that if Jesus was lying flat-out and had no truth to what He said, no one would believe Him. This is not to say, necessarily, that all He said was true, but it does show that there must have been some believability to it. That is the point to be made.

In all seriousness when a wikipedia page opens with '... controversial study ...' your not in a favourable position. Psycho-history - which I'll be honest, I don't know a whole lot about, I know the tiniest of tiny bits - seems to me a bit like psycho-analysis: it does seem to answer all the questions, but that doesn't mean it lines up with reality. I'm sure there is part of psycho-history that's great and insightful, but to predicate the entirety of human history on one school of thought is foolishness (other just as credible schools of thought exist and refute the notion).

(The alpha's comment was more a side-note, but I'll address it. The phenomena of alpha's needs to be taken in a more complex manner than you suppose. Why do we listen to the government today? Is it because we don't have the power to overthrow them? Nonsense! It's because there is a lack of unity and solidarity, because we like what they say, because we can't think of anything better, there's a myriad of reasons. To suppose that we can tell the social structure, and the reasoning for said structure, of ancients, of which we have a few bones and some cracked pottery, is ridiculous -- and frankly arrogant. We suppose we know so much more than we do.)

1 point

I shall keep within the bounds of the debate topic.

If we are to be purely logical then we must be agnostic. As per the work of Godel, we know that formal logic cannot produce either: (1) all truth, or (2) justifiable truth. That is, logic either won't tell us everything, or it we can't trust it.

Now, take the idea of scepticism. It is not logical. It is a device employed by logicians (in fact most effectively by the theist Descartes). However it is not logically justified. As an axiom it is unsupported, so everything on top of it is moot. Scepticism has pragmatic usefulness but it is not logical.

And, only scepticism can lead one to atheism. Because the other logical root to atheism is a universal negative proof: which requires omniscience, which would qualify one to be a god (of sorts). Only god can disprove God.

The theist has it simpler, the theist needs only one instance of God to prove Him.

Atheism has failed to produce the necessary universal disproof; theism has failed to provide the logical proof: agnosticism.

"All I know is that I know nothing" - Plato (Socrates)

3 points

I agree with what you have said here, but you've posted on the wrong side.

The domain of the debate is what 'creates' wars, that is: cause. You have admitted that it is not religion that creates, it is religion that perpetuates. Moreover, it is not so much religion that perpetuates, but ideology (insofar as religion is used as an ideology). This does not conclude that religion creates wars, your argument resolves to say strong held belief perpetuates wars, that is not the same thing.

1 point

In the context of this debate you are agreed with my position here. I don't think we should dwell on it. I do not blame atheism, I merely use the example that the thing that is in common with despots is not their religious belief: hitherto it is unreasonable to suppose that is what causes the despotism. Your arguing my side. (Welcome to the dark side - we lied about the cookies.)

Atheism can no more prompt or cause war as religion can ('religion' used in the standard understanding). It was used as an example to demonstrate my point is all.

(I may respond to your own argument - to be honest I haven't read it yet...)

Displaying 3 most recent debates.

Winning Position: No.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


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