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.
Isn't It About Time We Banned Religion?
Come on...
You know it makes sense. Surely intentionally filling someone else's head with impossible bullshit should be a crime. Pretty much everything in the Bible is objectively wrong and I'm confident that's the case with the other so-called Holy Books. Why do we want people to believe stuff which is objectively wrong?
There is BEAUTY when you fail Troll and that evidence has been proven !!!!!!!! HELLO i am still here !!!!!!!! So what you going to whine about now you little whining bitch ??????
Can't do it. However, religion has for its entire history, been a profoundly useful instrument to entice the credulity of believers to vote for them because they too also believe in stone age fairy tales.
Can anyone point to any time in history any politician who has made it clear he is a non-believer, has...ever been elected ?
Yes. Great idea. No more imperfect men running around claiming to be God's ambassadors. Instead replace religion with salvation. We approach the situation understanding that we are all sinners and we'll never be perfect, but that God gave us Jesus Christ who atoned for sin allowing us to be in fellowship with God. We replace membership (religion) with transformation of you, the individual.
So yes. Let de-emphasize the relationships between men, their organizations, their rules, their rituals and let each individual without any organization or church, go before God and either humbly kneel before God recognizing Jesus as the atonement for sin or stick your fist out to God face and extend your middle finger.
This is this choice as opposed to men in big buildings, creating cash cow mega churches, wearing costumes, drinking wine and molesting children and let's throw in sanitizing the earth holy crusades and jihad if you don't believe like me while your at it.
The hypocritical fool speaks again. You support killing viable babies for any reason up to birth when you vote for the Democrat Party, and you have the nerve to preach against other's?
Yes. It's time to ban Marxism. Their beliefs are delusional and psychopathic. Let them go live in the non-Christian nation of their choosing. Preferably North Korea or Pakistan.
You should demonstrate your courage and lead from the front by getting yourself a soap box, a loudhailer and go into the Muslim community in deepest Bradford,England where you could denounce the prophet Mohamed and condemn the scriptures of the Koran.
Declare a ban on Islam and the compulsory demolition of all Mosques.
It would be a bonus if you could have someone take a few before and after photographs of you and ensure he/she posts the prints on YouTube.
This is where you Christians always seem to get confused. I didn't propose we should ban Islam. I proposed we should ban all religion. Your obsession with Islam causes the information you receive to become distorted during transition.
I have the right to be a Christian. Jesus is the love of my life...............................................................................................................................
Pretty much everything in the Bible is objectively wrong
The template the Bible provides is on display in such masterpiece's as Lord of the Rings. Philosophically, it provides tremendous insights into the natural order of our world, as well as the deviations (i.e. "Shadow World" inverses).
Other Religions, and corresponding texts, have varying degrees of Philosophical insights, as well as errors.
Other Religions, and corresponding texts, have varying degrees of Philosophical insights, as well as errors.
You'll never hear me argue that there is no philosophical and/or moral wisdom in the Bible. That has nothing to do with the damage religion has done (and continues to do) to our society. Try explaining the philosophical value to the millions of people who have lost their lives because of it. See if they agree.
The template the Bible provides is on display in such masterpiece's as Lord of the Rings
Excellent, then you would agree we should immediately turn all Churches into homeless shelters and place the Bible up on the shelf in libraries alongside copies of Lord of the Rings, where it belongs?
What if I were to tell you that scientists belive in God
A minority of them do, sure. But that just emphasises the danger. If this mental illness can affect otherwise rational minds then it's clearly a problem.
What if I were to tell you that scientists belive in God
Okay, please tell us which scientists are denying evolution and wanting Creationism to be taught in schools, which scientists are lobbying to stop vaccinations, which scientists are denying climate change, which scientists have confirmed souls exist, which scientists have proof water can be turned to wine or walked upon? The list goes on and on... ;)
Wow! What a jump! From, "There's a God" to "Denying evolution, wanting creationism to be taught in schools, lobbying to stop vaccinations, denying climate change, and confirming that souls exist." Maybe read the article. ;)
Yes, the "jump" was on your part in which you tossed out the 'scientists believe in God' claim. That was all you.
Regarding your hilaroius article, this is what "NewsPunch" is considered and I saw nothing there that would refute this review of that site....
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news.
The article was crap and I know Kaku, he is a sensationalist who takes sensationalizes Physics, and I know he would never make such a claim there is evidence for God.
I was alluding to the fact, so as not to humiliate you, that your source is not only specious at best, but the fact you did not do your research. If you had, you would have found Kaku was incorrectly quoted...
Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."
The Soviets tried banning religion. That didn’t work just like communism didn’t work.
Communism doesn't work for a variety of reasons. However, with Communism, removing religion is merely one of many changes that a society must undergo in order for a Communist government to take control such that the Prolitariat can function correctly. Trying to ban religion was one of the smallest problems facing Soviet life when compared to losing all of your property, possessions and money.
It'd be setting a dangerous precipice if we demand people believe in a singular thought process or theory. You don't like religion, don't see the value in it, that's fine. But no one has the right to demand others think and feel the same as them, and banning religion just because you don't agree with it would be the same as banning atheism because other's believe in God. It never works out well for anyone involved.
It'd be setting a dangerous precipice if we demand people believe in a singular thought process or theory.
No, not when that "singular thought process or theory" is the scientific method. It would actually set the best precedent possible if everybody was forced to adopt the scientific method. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing I am talking about, because you are twisting the parameters of language around your beliefs without even realising you are doing it.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing I am talking about, because you are twisting the parameters of language around your beliefs without even realising you are doing it.
You are trying to persuade people of the validity of your own personal bias, so your brain attracts you subliminally to the most attractive language possible. But the problem is that if your initial bias cannot be supported rationally, then it will translate to you using the wrong words.
You are trying to persuade people of the validity of your own personal bias,
What is my personal bias? That people should be able to think freely and believe what they want so long as it doesn't hurt others? Because yes, I've said that before.
But the problem is that if your initial bias cannot be supported rationally, then it will translate to you using the wrong words
Seems like you're making a conclusion based off your own personal bias.
This is stupid. Why are you asking me what your personal bias is? You are religious Minty. Openly religious.
That people should be able to think freely and believe what they want so long as it doesn't hurt others?
Explain to me how brainwashing young children with scientifically preposterous poppycock does not hurt others. Religion has a death toll higher than a small mountain, and you are going to pretend religion never hurt anyone?
You don't like religion, don't see the value in it, that's fine.
I see it as a serious obstacle to scientific progress. Less so now than in the past, granted, but it is still a major problem.
But no one has the right to demand others think and feel the same as them
You are distorting the argument again into some kind of childish emotional demand, when the reality is that the scientific method just objectively works better than all the other methods at obtaining factual information which can be utilised for survival.
You are distorting the argument again into some kind of childish emotional demand,
Actually I'm not. By banning religion in sole favor of the scientific method (something you agree with but other's may not), you are demanding that others think as you do.
when the reality is that the scientific method just objectively works better than all the other methods at obtaining factual information which can be utilised for survival.
I agree with that, but that in no way means anyone has the right to force others to agree with it, nor does it give them the right to judge others who choose to believe survival also includes the soul.
Yes you are. Demand was the precise word that you used.
By banning religion in sole favor of the scientific method (something you agree with but other's may not), you are demanding that others think as you do.
No, I am demanding people choose fact over fiction. Your argument is stupid, contradictory, and falls apart spectacularly at approximately the same point I begin calling you a hypocrite for not backing the teaching of Nazism to children. We shouldn't demand they think like us, right? So why do we care if there are a bunch of mini-Nazis running around?
I literally repeated your own terminology back at you. Stop taking my words out of context. I thought you were better than that, but turns out not, hey?
I literally said "By banning religion in sole favor of the scientific method (something you agree with but other's may not), you are demanding that others think as you do."
Then you argued:"No I am demanding people choose fact over fiction."
It's the same thing. Not everyone believes God is fiction, but you want them to see Him as it because you do.
1. An overhanging or extremely steep mass of rock, such as a crag or the face of a cliff.
2. The brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation: on the precipice of defeat.
You think one word that's right, I think another word that's also right. At most I was redundant, but it's still the word I was going for.
So you back giving equal time to teaching about the benefits of Nazism as teaching about the benefits of Christianity?
Teaching Nazism and the dangers of singular focus on racial hatred is not a bad thing. Teaching about the benefits of hatred is. You can't control how people take their teachings, people have done things in the name of science that steps solidly in the same kind of evil that some Christians have committed. There is not really any singular teaching (scientific or religious) that is free from atrocities.
I agree with that, but that in no way means anyone has the right to force others to agree with it, nor does it give them the right to judge others who choose to believe survival also includes the soul.
Since souls have never been shown to exist, we can therefore state that survival also includes Leprechauns riding Unicorns in the Kentucky Derby or any other non-existent entity or object that might cross our minds. In other words, an argument can be made for any bizarre or zany idea that you wish to offer simply because you really, really, really want to believe it no matter how absurd. Is that what you want? Completely nonsensical concepts ruling our societies instead of rational, reasonable goals?