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.
Logical flaws exposed....No Charge
For anyone who is willing to submit to an examination of their beliefs, I am willing to help identify logical contradictions within them. This is what I wish someone would do for me, so I am just applying the golden rule here.
Note: If you refuse to reveal your position by answering the questions I ask, I won't proceed.
Also: If I leave you with the last word it is because I believe I have accomplished what I set out to accomlish. If you disagree, please create a debate about it and post the link at the end of the Q and A session.
Also: If you would rather put me to the test...just say so.
Mmkay. Well it is a strong belief of mine that love does exist. Not as some weird spiritual thing, but still. Many people say true love does not exist, I disagree.
When you say belief, do you mean ideology, be it political or ethical, or particular 'belief' in something others would strive to disprove the existence of?
E.g. Homosexuals should marry= one type of belief.
There is no God= different type of belief.
Because in terms of spiritual beliefs, I have non. Political/ethical.. You bet ya :P
Certainly! There's no point in saying " Scientology does not exist." Of course it does, it's a practiced religion. What is false is the juvenile story it prophesying of..!
If someone says " I believe in spirits." You ask them what they are, and they reply, " Well, they're non living beings in the after life." Then yes, that is very poorly defined. However, if the person talking about the spirit, in their opinion, describe it as something which, providing they have the science to back it up, and the religious ideology too, can describe a spirit in such a way where you believe a lot of hard work has been put in to getting it right, then no it is not poorly defined.
In general though, though I disagree with these people, I do not think it is a poorly defined concept. I think though illogical, the next logical step is to describe the indescribable ( at the time, humans had no explanations for things easily explained by science today).
Don't feel the need to read all that if you do not wish to, I am just going on a nonsensical rant ;)
Nope. I have accepted the fact, that it is a sound description, and providing there is a God, very logical. However, with all science has taught us, it is illogical to argue against what we think we already know ( whether to do so is the right thing to do or not).
:( that's so sad. Anyway, it says that most babies with this disorder do not survive but there is always even a small chance that the baby will survive.
13. Is it moral to direct our limited medical resources toward attempting to keep a child alive that is almost certainly nonviable, and away from other situations where our medical technology is way more likely to be effective?
If you are willing to debate that is different, but pulling someone in to change the way they think is not favorable to me. If you wish to debate however you are subject to this I must comply.
Nobody could provide and present proportional, sufficient evidence of the existence of a God. It may be so, but there is no logical justification of the claim that any deity has or ever existed.
Doctrine antagonistic to theism is just immoral. Just because it contradicts with your belief?
Although you can not present proportional evidence that any deity has ever existed,
Faith. Although no proportional, sufficient evidence could be provided and presented that any deity has ever existed, it is still possible that God(s) exist.
Well, Prayer is rather a coping method. Whatever you pray for won't necessarily come true.
Internal reasoning shall fulfill your prophecies when praying (If it is worth so). However, it does not necessarily always happen, thus showing his lack of concern (If he existed).
You may not have understood me, I think that health is a moral concern b/c being in good health usually promotes happiness, but it's not a direct concern so to speak.
Well, I believe that only something or someone that has the capacity to feel empathy can be defined as an "observer", and that only something or someone that has the capacity to feel compassion can truly "exist".
If someone demonstrates a change in attitude towards another after hearing another person's story they probably are able to feel some degree of empathy.
In order to remain logically consistent you would have to answer no. Remember a few posts ago when you said.....only something or someone that has the capacity to feel compassion can truly "exist".?
Oh, the pacific ocean may "exist", but not in the sense that an individual does.
So what you have is the object that is the pacific ocean may exist in the sense of taking up space, but what defines whether or not an individual exists is not in the same sense; like in dualism.
Would the following be a correction to your initial statement?
Well, I believe that only [snip] someone that has the capacity to feel empathy can be defined as an "observer", and that only [snip] someone that has the capacity to feel compassion can truly "exist".
But they don't exist, if they can empathize they'd only be able to do it in the same sense that a computer records data ie it's like writing something down on a sheet of paper.
If every individual is an observer, sure. An observer is essentially a kind of individual. But we don't know for certain that every individual is an observer, so really no.
No, I only meant to say human history. I also meant to exclude basic biological conditions of human history such as the need for water and nutrition. So I basically meant to state something about the things one would write in a history book.
