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.
Atheists, what is wrong with more evolved pond scum...
Atheists tell me man is nothing but evolved pond scum and that we became such through survival of the fittest. Given this, what is morally wrong with one bag of evolved pond scum shooting bag of lesser evolved pond scum. Is the shooter not simply more fit to survive?
Given this, what is morally wrong with one bag of evolved pond scum shooting bag of lesser evolved pond scum. Is the shooter not simply more fit to survive?
If I lock you in a room with a gorilla and I give the gorilla a loaded machine gun, is the gorilla more evolved or does it just have a machine gun?
Atheists tell me man is nothing but evolved pond scum
Atheists don't tell you anything of the sort. Atheists articulate the scientific intricacies of evolution by natural selection and you, in your fucking stupendous ignorance, interpret it so narrowly and so reductively it sounds like dog-shit. Your brain is dog shit.
Given this, what is morally wrong with one bag of evolved pond scum shooting bag of lesser evolved pond scum
Interpretation: "I have formed my own idea of what atheists and scientists say about evolution, which isn't what they actually say. Then, I've reduced it to such mind-bogglingly ridiculous simplicity that it makes no sense, thus, having effectively proven myself incapable of deducing or comprehending nuance, I illustrate perfectly that I am a fucking retard".
I'll try to answer that stupid question. Most of us atheists don't care if people entering are NOT atheists. We just want decent people. Most of us atheists don't care what your beliefs are, as long as you don't try to demand that the country follow your lead. Unlike you CYA Christians, most of us live by "society's rules" and the Constitution, not the ancient, mythical Bible. We welcome anyone that is stable and follows our Constitution and wishes to be a productive citizen.
Some of our "already citizens" do not like our Constitution. They want to follow that ancient book.They are WORSE than most of those "entering our country".
Flushable Al i am not concerned with religion like you Progressives are. Is it not the Constitution that protects religion Flushable Al ? Now for your "Some of our already citizens " do not like our Constitution statement Flushable Al that shows who you are Al. Take the 2nd Amendment Al you Progressives oppose it but don't anyone step on the 1st Amendment. Al you Progressives love your confused world.
We have OBVIOUSLY confused YOU ... no problem. The Constitution protects "religion" ... or not! I'll take the Second Amendment, thank you, and I, as well as MOST "progressives" will. We do NOT oppose it! We oppose the NRA RAPE of it. The 2nd was written when a single shot musket, that could be reloaded in about 2 minutes by an expert. We oppose not bringing it into the 21st century because it is KILLING hundreds! I'm sorry you can't follow logic, and that it confuses you. You might try studying to be a progressive ... after you get off the "flusher". Bowel problem??
Obviously the only confused are the Progressives Flushable Al !So Flushable Al what we need is just a single shot musket. Do you ever wonder why Progressives are really Regressives there Al ?
Al the NRA has raped you LMMFAO ! Bowel Al can you describe the difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendment ? Remember Stupid both are protected by the Constitution
So you agree that ordinary citizens can have 5" cannons since the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment with that in mind? ROFL. And do you limit freedom of the press to offset hand-operating presses? What a moron.
No, I don't agree that citizens can have 5" cannons, but, be my guest. If you are stupid enough to fire a cannon, rocket launcher, shoulder held missile, you have MY permission. What a moron!
So what this fool is saying is that he could not care less what the Constitution says.
BTW, do you know how delusional and narcissistic you sound when you imply people who disagree with you are less intelligent than you? I mean, really, the canned arguments you are make sound like you barely got out of government school and do not even know what a college classroom looks like.
Evangelists: Tell me man, are YOU all just "evolved pond scum" like the rest of us, or are the religious "created pond scum"?? Does one smell different than the other?
The President you back is OBVIOUSLY "evolved pond scum", he only became religious to "create" a following. Have you noticed how badly the pond scum in Washington REALLY stinks since you put him there? He, himself must kind of smell like a porn star ... don'cha think? It will take a while to "evolve" into something palatable again, the Washington swamp, I mean.
Number 2 America cannot be racist when the 1st Negro President was elected twice and White Progressives want a fat , overweight Negro woman to run for POTUS !
They were also openly racist. Two percent of American presidents have been black. The only way someone could believe this implies the opposite of racism is sheer debilitating idiocy.
Number 2 you could not remember if the "Boy King" Obama was the 43rd or the 44th POTUS
Outlaw, you are too stupid to remember that I'm English. The reason you expect foreigners to have a comprehensive grasp of white American history is because you're stupid.
OH, outhouse, you need help! Help with understanding the English language and common sense.
I would like to help you, somehow. I strongly recommend, before you "flush" next time, that you check your stool for "gray matter". You seem to be losing it daily.
I have never heard one evolutionist suggest that we should live by survival of the fittest. If you don't understand someone's viewpoint why try comment on it?
Your ignorance does not change the reality that natural selection is survival of the fittest. And atheism cannot give us a rational reason to live any way. That is the point. Now answer the OP. What is immoral about one bag of evolved pond scum killing a lesser evolved bag of pond scum? You kill cows, right? Why not a human that is less evolved than you, like the cow?
I empathise with the human being - being that I wouldn't want to be killed then I don't kill myself. Most atheists believe that killing is wrong. A human being doesn't need an ancient text to feel that.
Your ignorance does not change the reality that natural selection is survival of the fittest. And atheism cannot give us a rational reason to live any way.
Please explain how believing in a false God is a rational reason to live, and how not believing in a false God is ignorant.
What you are saying just seems to me to be utter madness. It isn't rational to believe in something you have literally no evidence even exists. That is the precise opposite of rational.
For many species (including humans), the group proved more fit than the individual, and fit groups required social behaviors like trust, cooperation, etc. Those "morals" evolved with the populations and environments.
Atheists tell you that ? Well the truth according to you is that a man called Adam and a woman called Eve were tempted into eating a magical apple 🍎 in a magical garden by a talking serpent 🐍 this so annoyed god 👻 that he sent himself down to earth 🌏 to impregnate a Palestinian virgin so he could be born as Jesus so that he could be crucified for our sins 🤔🤔 😂😂😂😂🤪🤪🤪
You kind of got it correct, except for the ending.
Actual: God created Adam and Eve inside the garden of Eden. Satan, in the form of a serpent, tempted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit that God explicitly told them not to eat. Therefore, Adam and Eve got kicked out of the garden and doomed to go to hell for eternity after death, along with the rest of humanity. So, God sent Jesus to be born of a Palestinian virgin in order to be the sacrifice so people can go to heaven.
Survival of the fittest/evolution is based on the theory that animals and plants which have adapted best to the environment in which they live will flourish and produce more of their kind than other plants and animals less suited to their habitat.
Your goeilla scenario is seriously flawed as it was the superior brain of mankind that developed firearms, which in many instances been used to kill the great apes.
Your argument is also based on the false premise that apes can use machine guns.
Man's ability to use his relatively large brain has enabled the human species to inhabit almost every climate zone on earth, except the South Pole, and perhaps others.
So, insofar that survival of the fittest means being able to best adapt to the environment in which we, and other living organisms live, mankind has, for better or for worse, become the dominant species.
And just like there is nothing immoral about using my superiority to kill the ape, there is nothing immoral about using my superiority to kill a less evolved human, at least in Atheistland.
there is nothing immoral about using my superiority to kill a less evolved human, at least in Atheistland.
So your argument is that I need to take a work of fiction literally in order to have morals? How completely stupid. What is your explanation for atheists who do good deeds? Are you saying atheists never do good deeds? Because this is even more stupid than your first proposition that if I do not want to kill gays, as the Bible orders, I therefore have no morals.
Just as the Pope blessed the Italian Air force before going to bomb a defenseless and underdeveloped Abyssinia with poison gas there are men of violence from all religious denominations and also from those who believe there is no God and lean towards the theory of evolution for the answers to the mysteries of the Cosmos.
Killing is abhorrent but in nature, natural selection, slowly and insidiously eliminates the weak and unsuited so the strong can survive and flourish.
Going against the laws of nature has devastating consequences a lot of which we witness every day.
Going against the laws of nature has devastating consequences a lot of which we witness every day.
Antrim, this is exactly why capitalism is such a terrible idea. It enables weak and stupid people to flourish and prosper simply because they are part of a rich company or family, while genuine geniuses are lost to starvation and poverty.
What you say is true about the privileged who are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
It has been my observation however, that many such people choke on the silver spoon and a family business can fail on the second or third generation.
If the son/grandson is more interested in acquiring a Ferrari than he is in the profit & Loss accounts and the trends of the market in which he is competing then that enterprise will surely fail, Ferrari and all.
Equally, large corporations which do not EVOLVE with the changing environment/market can, and regularly do also perish.
For instance, large sectors of the retail industry have moved online and companies such as Amazon are prospering while those who have failed to recognize and embrace this contemporary marketplace are going under;- thus the empty and boarded up shops.
The geniuses to which you refer are undoubtedly to be respected, but if they are unable to apply their academic genius to the development of products or services which people need or want, then their sagacity is of little use to themselves or anyone else.
Having a head crammed full of knowledge and innovative ideas is useless unless such brilliance can be applied for the benefit and/or welfare of all life on earth.
In the business world of survival of the fittest- natural selection- dog eat dog or whatever you wish to call it, only the fittest- shrewdest-sharpest-hardest working and I must add, the dirtiest scoundrel will survive.
Docile academic geniuses without drive and ambition will remain well down the ladder of influence.
I genuinely hate to bring this up again, but when I had my own business I employed a number of well qualified staff, two of whom had 1st class honours degrees, one in civil engineering and one in accountancy.
They were great at completing the functions which they were allocated but hopeless at innovation or taking the initiative.
It has been my observation however, that many such people choke on the silver spoon and a family business can fail on the second or third generation.
Sure, that can happen. And poor people can win the lottery or become famous musicians. But the exceptions only prove the rule.
If the son/grandson is more interested in acquiring a Ferrari than he is in the profit & Loss accounts and the trends of the market in which he is competing then that enterprise will surely fail, Ferrari and all.
Antrim, he doesn't even have to run the company if he doesn't want to. He can simply pay someone to do it for him. Or he can sell the company and spend a lifetime just living off the interest payments he makes from the bank.
There is no argument on Earth which will make capitalism comply with the laws of natural selection, because capitalism is the opposite of natural selection. It is artificial selection. It is giving nature the finger and telling her that humanity will choose who survives and who doesn't.
We've tried to refine it and have made rules to make it less brutal, but, generally speaking nature's law of the JUNGLE prevails in most aspects of life.
To go into denial and pretend that we have graduated from the survival of the fittest mentality is an enormous. naive mistake.
The French philosopher Alphonse karr described our misguided opinion of contemporary 'civilized life' with the quote, ''The more things change, the more they stay the same''.
By that he meant, we like to think that as a species we have become more sophisticated and civilized.
I don't even know what this means. It sounds like something I'd see posted on the wall of a sales office. Capitalism works in opposition to nature, and that is the entire basis of my argument.
We've tried to refine it and have made rules to make it less brutal, but, generally speaking nature's law of the JUNGLE prevails in most aspects of life.
You are so hilariously full of shit. When it is legal for me to eat you, then the law of the jungle will be the one we are using. In the jungle, animals do not enslave their own species and force them to compete for resources which are abundant and plentiful. That is not the jungle you are describing, it is Wall Street.
To go into denial and pretend that we have graduated from the survival of the fittest mentality is an enormous. naive mistake.
This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of my argument which really goes a long way toward exposing you as a liar. I have been arguing that capitalism is the precise opposite of a graduation. Survival of the fittest stipulates that the cleverest and strongest people should survive, but capitalism represents a form of devolution where the most stupid, dishonest and manipulative can prosper, provided they have the backing of a rich daddy.
The proof is really in the pudding, Antrim. You are writing in defence of capitalism and you are distorting and lying. This in itself proves that vile qualities are nurtured and rewarded under this system.
Well dear boy if you don't know what the law of the jungle means it is no wonder you're the awful failure you clearly are.
Now you've really shown your true colours and lack of intelligence by having to use schoolboy language in an unsuccessful attempt to mask your shocking failings.
''a misrepresentation of my argument''
You don't have a credible argument dear boy.
You're a negative, insignificant, time wasting troll who uses this forum to vent his resentment at his life's failures who doesn't really want answers.
Well dear boy if you don't know what the law of the jungle means
It is you who does not know what the law of the jungle means, dopey. Nowhere in the jungle does the monkey find 300 dollars so he can buy a machine gun to kill all the lions with. The jungle is a survival system predicated on how clever, strong and fast you are. Capitalism is a survival system based on how much money you have. If you see no difference between the two then it is because you are dumb as fuck, which neatly proves my assertion that capitalism contradicts nature, since people who are dumb as fuck should not survive long enough to want to defend capitalism.
You’re right Antrim , it’s dog eat dog anyone claims otherwise is a fool
Far from eating each other, dogs hunt together in packs because even they know that interspecies cooperation brings them better results than enslaving their own kind. The law of the jungle is not about artificially enslaving your own species to the pursuit of money. It is about hunting weaker species for food. Two completely different concepts which capitalists try to morph together out of nothing but sheer self-interest.
Afraid your interpretation of business is somewhat off the mark.
Almost always, not always, but almost always,the driving force of a private business is the founder and/or his/her go ahead offspring.
Firstly, and make no mistake about this, it would be more likely than not that once someone, or some management team was appointed to run the company while the owner went to 'sail his yacht down the Mediterranean' another 'clandestine', parasitic company would be operating parallel with the parent company.
The legitimate company would be milked while the 'MANAGER'S COMPANY' would be providing a good second income for the scoundrels.
If we go to your other scenario and the owner of the business which he inherited decides to flog the company then yes, he, depending of course on the value of the business, will be awash with cash, for a while at any rate.
One of the permutations of selling a business is, 2.5 times the previous year's trading PROFITS plus the value of any hardware.
Yes, the investment of the 'sale capital', or what was left of it, would earn interest, but as inflation eroded its value so the income would depreciate.
If the business was going to be prohibitively costly to take over then the potential buyer would walk away and start a competitive business at a fraction of the cost.
The hopeful business vendor would sooner or later, probably sooner, realize that the interest earned on his capital is well below what he needs to keep him in the lifestyle to which he had grown accustomed.
Nature, is an unforgiving harsh reality which we can observe in all its savagery in the wild.
Nature makes the rules, or as Maggie Thatcher put it, ''you can't buck the market''
Afraid your interpretation of business is somewhat off the mark.
On the contrary, you are the one telling us that hard work and innovation are what I need to compete with F1 Mclaren, rather than a shitload of cash. I am afraid that I understand enough about business to know the aim is making money, not having the highest IQ.
Firstly, and make no mistake about this, it would be more likely than not that once someone, or some management team was appointed to run the company while the owner went to 'sail his yacht down the Mediterranean' another 'clandestine', parasitic company would be operating parallel with the parent company.
The facts prove that you are just bullshitting again.
Kids of Russian billionaires flaunt lavish summer holiday lifestyles
You are throwing hypothetical obstacles in the path of something which happens every fucking day. Most companies have lawyers and legal protections against exactly the sort of thing you claim is inevitably going to happen to every company owner who wants to delegate management responsibilities.
Check out the stark contrast between the previous Capitalist country of Western Germany and the then separate Communist regime of Eastern Germany.
If we take the automobile as an example and look at the Capitalist system which ensured/s that only the cleverest, hardest working and visionary risk takers will survive the cut and thrust commercial bloodbath of the competitive market place of vehicle manufacturing.
f we take the automobile as an example and look at the Capitalist system which ensured/s that only the cleverest, hardest working and visionary risk takers will survive the cut and thrust commercial bloodbath of the competitive market place of vehicle manufacturing.
This is just standard capitalist propaganda. You have ignored the most glaringly obvious questions, such as how one begins mass producing cars in the first place without already having a significant amount of capital. Under capitalism, a person who is stupid, lazy and spectacularly rich has a massive advantage over a person who is hardworking, clever and visionary, in terms of who is going to have the more comfortable lifestyle. If it were about being clever or hardworking then Edison would not have profited from stealing the ideas of Nikola Tesla, and Tesla would not have died in impoverished obscurity. You can thrash against reason all you like, but it is called capitalism because the most important thing according to this philosophy is capital; not intelligence, not innovation and not hard work. Of those with the necessary capital, the cleverest and most hardworking do have an advantage, but the fact of the matter is that, without a large degree of affluence, you don't even make it to the starting blocks of economic competition.
Another thing you have neglected to mention is that, under capitalism, the incentive lies with selling you a product which you will need to replace in as short a time as possible. Things are not built to last and, when they are, cost an exorbitant amount of money to reflect it.
I refuse to believe that you're as stupid as you are making out.
Let's look at the facts surrounding the West German road to success.
After WW2 their country was a pile of rubble with their industries lying in ruins.
Internationally, Germans were not the most popular nation on earth.
Aa well as the U.K., and France they were one of the main recipients of America's MARSHALL PLAN.
Along with Britain and France the West German government ploughed this money partially into post war social programmes and industry.
The clever Germans have now become THE POWERHOUSE OF EUROPE whose manufactured goods are considered ( rightly or wrongly ) to be the best in the world.
To answer your point on how to raise ''startup capital'' I must first comment that you are loaded with a multitude of negative questions and seem to be totally devoid of ANY initiative or imagination.
Why do you concentrate on the negatives and fail to recognise all the positive factors of a capitalist type economy in which the individual, and not the government makes the running?
When I started my business I had to place the deeds of my home and it's accrued equity with the bank which had extended me an overdraft facility.
With this overdraft I purchased the plant and equipment with which to get my business up and running.
As I progressed I was making a net, net profit, before tax of £10,000 per week.
That was after ALL OVERHEADS such as,
light, heat, power, rent, rates, insurance, post package & stationery, repair and maintenance to plant and machinery, repair and maintenance to trucks and other company vehicles, membership fees to professional bodies, accountants fees, finance repayments, wages and raw material purchases.
In the overall scheme of things 2000 smackers per working day may be regarded by many as peanuts, but as far as I was concerned it was a reasonable achievement for someone from a poverty stricken background.
What separates the men from the boys is being able to keep going in the knowledge that for whose ever fault, MY FAULT, YOUR FAULT!, or NOBODY'S FAULT, if the business failed the hard earned equity on my house was gone and my name would be MUD.
Even though your gratuitous aggression and rudeness graphically illustrates you as a negative, time wasting troll I have answered your juvenile questions and blanked out the stupidities.
MY ADVICE TO YOU, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GOING INTO BUSINESS FOR YOURSELF.
Congratulations. You've just confirmed you're a terrible human being and the only reason you ever don't act out on it is your fear an omnipotent being is going to hand you over to devils. The rest of us don't need threat of devils to choose to be good. So who is the better person now, hmm?
Religious people do good based off of their religion.
Other people do good based off of societal pressures.
Question for Atheists: If you were born in a society where all morals were reversed, where you were told to steal and murder, would you? Would it be immoral?
If you were religious, the religion would have a definite view on morality.
Religious people do good based on fear of eternal damnation. That in fact is their prime reason whenever anyone who isn't from their faith says gee isn't it good enough that I be a good person.
And societal pressure is not why the non-religious are good. If that were true then this sinful wicked horrible society which the religious rant about would have us all acting like the worst monsters you could imagine. Yet we don't.
And in societies where terrible behaviors are accepted there are always people who disagree and resist doing them. Not every Aztec cut out hearts, not every Viking raped, and in both those cultural cases the practice or the society died out long long long ago though from your perspective it should have spiraled out of control forever.
Christians do not have this motivation, but thanks for proving your ignorance of my faith. But please answer the OP. Your irrational, clichéd responses do not answer it.
Where do you get your morals from? Religion provides an easy answer, but where do atheists get their morals from? Also, what if, for example, Hitler took over the entire world, and people had anti-Semitic views. Born after Hitler took over, would you be anti-Semitic?
Plus, religious people do not do good based solely on fear of eternal damnation. They do good because they believe it is right. That statement is rather presumptuous, and should be backed by evidence.
Short: You say that religious people do good based on fear of eternal damnation, and I say that's wrong. I say that non-religious people do good based on societal pressure, and you say that's wrong.
My conclusion is that without a religion, there is no objective right or wrong. There is what would be beneficial or non-beneficial for the species, but that still leaves a lot of morals incomplete.
All societies, those with religions and those without religions, have made laws by which their citizens must abide.
Hang on, you've just been arguing for three hours that society only obeys the law of the jungle. Not only are you dumb as fuck, but you're an absolutely massive hypocrite to boot. Which is it? Do societies have their own laws or do they follow the law of the jungle, you Janus-faced twit?
To claim individuals should follow societies' laws is to beg the question. Why should an more evolved bag of pond scum obey the laws of lesser evolved bags of scum?
In non-religious societies, there are indeed cultural norms. However, in ancient religious societies, many actions were done that would be despisable now. Plus, would it be immoral to kill babies who have a genetic defect to prevent the trait from possibly spreading and infecting a whole population? Would it be immoral to kill endangered species that pose little threat, but have little positive impact, on humans?
I am sorry, but what makes an evolved bag of pond scum "terrible" in Atheistland - the Q that is behind the OP and the one you ran from? BTW, do not try to speak for me, especially as to my motives. An immature, ignorant and irrational child like you could not even make a good guess. Thanks.
If you are indeed so scientifically inept and possess such a dismal grasp of biology so that you really think that Atheist Evolutionists claim that homo sapiens evolved from pond scum, than you're just too plain stupid to debate with.
So....yeah....go ahead, Einstein, what you said in your OP? Yeah....that's what we think. Pond scum can shoot pond scum with no deleterious consequences because such actions fall under the auspice of Darwinian natural selection.
Happy? Cool. Now run along and thump your bible. You know,,,,that book of fables and superstition that had great science lessons in it. Like how your silly sky god stopped the sun from moving in order to give his boy Joshua a bit more time to slaughter some women and children.
This is a decent question, thousands of unenlightened, uneducated, scumbags murder people every single day. If it your contention that every single one of these persons is walking around with definitive positions on Atheism and agnosticism, completely convinced of the lack of god, your nuts.
Christians are allowed in certain denominations to simply say a little prayer, and god’ll forgive you? How is that a deterrent from crime whatsoever.
No athiests is ever going to argue that a lack of education is going to increase happy thoughts and feelings in a community. Quite the opposite we all know that people left to their own devices, will divide into group with opposing views and slaughter each other. But when you teach them about god, they still slaughter each other. Religions are stories that attempt to control human nature. Athiests are people who believe they are evolved enough to make informed decisions. Like murder is bad, I didn’t need a magical friend to figure that one out, did you?
mehhhhh, answer my question, mehhhhh, you didn’t answer my question, mehhhhhh, without a magic guy who punishes and fixes everyone’s ideas and attitudes how can I live my life without an authority figure, mehhhhh, I have an IQ of 61, mehhhhhhh, my mommy told me life is like a bag of scum, god doesn’t like it so he pooped me into existence 6000 years ago, mehhhhhhh. Life clearly only follows the rules that I validate cause my parents read a book one time, mehhhhhhhh.
This is what you sound like to thinking people. How many times are people going to have to explain things to you? How long will you believe gibberish before your mind is unable to ignore it? The sad thing is I’m aware of the eventually, this will happen, unless your mind is incapable of seeing truth.
The truth is that one human killing another human doesn’t matter at all, but the future of all humans in this realm does matter to other humans. If it does not matter to you I would suggest you should smoothly transition to the next realm, and there you will be able to make all the arguments you want, since there you will be validated.
