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.
Good answer. You have a wonderful style. Come to a debate site and tell people that there are a group of debates that should not be done, and don't provide a group of debates to use. Thanks for the help.
Seriously? You think it is trolling to ask someone what debate topics are ok, but not trolling to come to a debate site to tell people not to debate. You should change you name to animetroll639.
This statement in itself is biased. In saying the arguments are cliché and uneeded you are implying god(s) dont exist and trivial and their is no need to argue their existence or inexistence. If you deny this and say that their is the possiblity because you are agnostic, that is the very reason we argue over it.
No, he is saying that Atheists are always arguing that there is no evidence to support God at all, and that the Theists always come back with there arguments that God can't be proved false. Or, some slight variation on that theme. He is not endorsing one argument or the other.
Either way, every person as a belief in something, and to take a backseat, like "many agnostics do" (not saying he/she is agnostic), is still having a biased point of few. There is no such thing as a non-biased POV, when you want to get technical; we've all got beliefs and faiths in something and every human is influenced and manipulated by one thing or another..
Yes, that is true. I actually argued something like this in a different debate. BUT, The comment was "In saying the arguments are cliché and uneeded you are implying god(s) dont exist and trivial and their is no need to argue their existence or inexistence." and this is not what can be drawn from this debate. He hasn't revealed his biases.
That person saying that both atheists or theists are hypocritical and biased is being biased.
Had this person said, "Both atheists and theists are opinionated with varying degrees of beliefs, and so, they ought to both try to find a way to figure this out together."
That person saying that both atheists or theists are hypocritical and biased is being biased.
Yes. We are in agreement on this point. He has some kind of bias.
Had this person said, "Both atheists and theists are opinionated with varying degrees of beliefs, and so, they ought to both try to find a way to figure this out together."
Then, I am all ears.
Ok, but it doesn't matter if you think he worded it bad.
Either way, I have no idea what this has to do with my argument. I am saying that trumpet_guy is wrong that the debate creator did not reveal the bias that he is saying.
Ya know, I kinda thought that too a decade ago, but really I have come to realize that the subject of religion and spirituality is a very concerning and deep issue to discuss. Religion and spirituality, to me, is probably the most important subject to discuss in life; it is significant for and to the human psyche.
Saying it's cliche is ridiculous. If talking about religion is cliche, then science having the anatomy of the body explaining how the heart pumps and people need oxygen to survive, in text books, is cliche. It must go all ways. Cliche is a very thin word that holds little value to me. I feel like cliche is a word many hipster like to use. But I digress...
I enjoy debating and discussing religion and spirituality, for I feel it says a lot about a person (on their particular beliefs) more than what meets the eye.
Yes, they are. I myself am a deist. I feel no need to get in reach, with my creator whatever it truly is. Identifying which kind is pointless so im not going to dispute my imagined god. I find it pointless to follow any religion when i can directly acknowledge him. Every human is hypocritical it's only natural. We're emotional thinkers, it will happen.
You must realize, now that you acknowledged that i have it. You should understand my mentality is not similar to someone such as yourself. I percieve a different reality, and interperate information in a way i can only understand. Also your statement is quite ignorant. Who are you to catagorize a whole species by gender? Every human is born with the same personality traits. It's the experiences and perceptions of our upbringing, that impacts which ones we prefer and show. Even a logical thought is an emotional thought. Not unless you think emotion comes from somthing irrational, such as the: "heart," or "soul." When the closest person in your life dies, your brain reacts to the situation. Just because we can choose the most rational situation, doesn't mean we skip the first step of reactions. Such as: "Jealousy," "Vengence," "Anger," and "Fear." We all have experienced these emotions. Are you trying to say a part of our brain is instictive towards them? That emotions don't coincide with though processing. Also for me a fifth is a depressent and due to my chemical imbalance, i have little amounts of: saratonin, and dopimene. It flatlines the ones i do have keeping me calm and reflective.
I will mostly agree with the debate as written- Theists and atheists are both hypocritical and biased and they should stop fighting.
I disagree that the first portion 'theists and atheists are both hypocritical' as a blanket statement, though I agree that the term is applicable to the majority of both sides.
I agree that both sides are biased. Everybody is biased. One can't 'turn off' ones biases, and attempts to do so usually result in overcompensation.
I agree that they should stop fighting- but not that they should stop debating and searching on both sides of the question. But keep it civil! Seems to be too much to ask...
I disagree, there doesn't need to be a fight. Both theist and atheists take everything much too far. Cartman just told me that every Christian is a murderer- was that necessary? Theists sometimes think every atheist is the antichrist. Bottom line, we always try to taint each other's argument by tainting each other
"Always"? Not always dude. You got your rational debaters and you got your irrational ones. There's always going to be irrational people, but there are people on both the Theist and Atheist side that are willing to debate without the taint.
I didn't say all Christians were murderers. Christians said that. Christians think it is ok to blame people for your ancestors, so I am rightfully allowed to do the same. But, I actually wasn't calling all you guys murderers. Plus, how are you any better? You said that no Christian has ever murdered anybody. So, you are a liar.
I meant that as in it is not doctrinally acceptable for Christians to murder. I apologize for being unclear. But when do Christians blame peoples ancestors?
This statement in itself is biased. In saying the arguments are cliché and uneeded you are implying god(s) dont exist and trivial and their is no need to argue their existence or inexistence. If you deny this and say that their is the possiblity because you are agnostic, that is the very reason we argue over it.
Also, both sides have some sort of misrepresenting things, but both sides make legitament points that the other side usually ignores or shows unfounded information or points in response.
It isn't stating that the arguments are cliche and unneeded- it is stating that the fighting is what needs to stop. Assuming that means all debate must cease is a non sequitur.
Your second statement is blatantly supporting this debate while your vote goes against it...
ALL positions are biased because we are unable to separate ourselves from our biases. Attempts to do so tend to result in overcompensation at best.
All people are also hypocritical in some way or another.
Both positions are hypocritical if taken as a whole or if generalized, though individuals on both sides can show significantly lower hypocrisy than baseline. If there even is a baseline...
Maybe this is technically true, but it's not a non-sequitur in this context. Specifically, Theism and atheism are viewpoints/positions exclusively held by humans insofar as we are able to determine at the moment. Possibly an argument that animals are atheist, but thats an entire other debate regarding the capacity of animals to have abstract beliefs. Speaking more generally, I'm unaware of any non-fictitious animals, extraterrestrial or artificial intelligences, or anything to that effect that has ever participated in a debate with humans.
'...that a debate all of its own'
I mean, you can argue this if you want, but it's been pretty well established that our psyche is not one that lends itself to neutrality, and we can't separate our rational mind from the rest of it. It follows from that that all individuals are biased, most aren't even aware of it.
'all people are also hypocritical in some way or another.'
Also pretty well established. Show me somebody who has never done something they previously swore they would never do, and show me somebody who has never done something they've judged someone else harshly for, and I'll show you two liars.
'Both positions are hypocritical if taken as a whole or if generalized'
Most atheists claim that their position is the 'scientific' one. However, the overwhelming majority of these have never conducted or even reviewed the results of a single scientific experiment since finishing high school. It is rather hypocritical of them to place their faith in the words of one body of people while eschewing the other. Doesn't apply to those who actually conduct experiments or make an effort to follow research and review things themselves.
Similarly, most theists claim to follow the holy book or books of their religion, but in fact the overwhelming majority have not actually read said holy books in any significant level of detail. Those who have tend to be reading retranslations of retranslations- a significant amount of context can be lost here. Take, for example, the commandment 'Thou Shalt not Kill' from the Torah / Old Testament of the Bible. This is a poor translation, and often cited as one of the inconsistences in the Bible, what with the wars, death penalty, and whatnot. The word used in the original Hebrew transliterates to 'ratsakh' which literally means 'to dash to pieces' but is used mostly as a synonym for 'murder.' Killing in self-defense, during combat in wartime, as a punishment for a capital offense, etc are not 'ratsakh.'
Both sides tend to cherry-pick what facts, writings, etc. they bring to an argument, and tend to misrepresent conclusions drawn from factual data as being factual data itself- even when said conclusions involve inductive reasoning rather than deductive. Both sides tend to gloss over or omit facts and writings that are counter to their cause as well.
Many (not all) atheists show hypocrisy by insisting on a scientific response from theists, when they themselves haven't performed any scientific research or review on their own, instead regurgitating what they've been told, and oftentimes inaccurately. They demand science without offering it themselves.
Many (not all) theists show hypocrisy by insisting that their holy book must be accepted as the very word of God, decrying the scientific material as works of men, while themselves listening to a preachers take on a retranslation of a retranslation; very few take the time to read their retranslated retranslations themselves, still fewer make the effort to understand the material contextually in the original language. They decry works of man while themselves swearing by works of man.
Whats wrong about debating about what youre passionate about, even if its repeated hundreds of times? Theres always new arguments coming up, new evidence found, new styles of arguing, new people to argue with. Sure, i might be tired of debating lolzors or srom over and over and over because its the same deal, but to say that all theists and atheists should stop is just dumb.
This to me is as naive as saying republicans and democrats should stop fighting because their are hypocrites on both sides. Atheists and theists disagree, it is a topic to be debated. There are atheists out there that are absolute jerks, and there are theists out there that are plain thoughtless but that doesn't mean that a clean, healthy debate shouldn't be allowed at all.
