#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.
|
What is Good? What is Evil
Scientists have not been able to prove this yet!
Add New Argument |
1
point
1
point
Athiests do a lot of crimes. Not the religion. It is the individual that goes to the extreme. Not the religion. What did America do to Japan that ended WWII? I didnt hear Jesus in the bomb I just heard science. I didnt hear Jesus during Watergate. Did you? I didnt. That's completely retarded and not even worth my time. 1
point
1
point
Ok, I see what you are saying. You are misinterpreting his comments. There are 2 motivations for crimes. Personal, which are committed by religious and non religious people. These crimes are not associated with religious beliefs. Like the examples you gave: the bombing of Japan, etc. Then there are crimes specifically motivated by religious belief, like physically harming gays, or terrorist attacks. The criminals in these cases are specifically saying they are doing it in the name of their religion. He is saying that what we don't see are the crimes done in the name of Atheism. People don't go out and say, "In the name of nothing because there is no God, die". 1
point
In the end it is always the individual who makes the decision. Not the religion. I have never read in any religion that told people to actually go and kill a number of people. Also these "crimes" or "terrorist attacks" are because of America's actions in the past. They are truly just getting revenge for the pestilence we bring them. These people happen to be religious. Thats it. It is always down to the individual not the religion. 1
point
Well go over there and shoot innocent people. Also this all started because the US decided it wanted some oil. Saudi Arabia asked us to leave and we refused. We were looking for "weapons of mass destruction" and we didnt find any. So we practically just invaded and felt it was fine and these actions give the military complex a ton of power. Eisenhower spoke of the military complex in his farewell address to warn us about it and everybody falls for the patriotism and propoganda America shows. We see our twin towers falling, which is very tragic and not nice, but the have daughter, mothers, cripples, sick, poor, etc; dying for no reason. They just get slaughtered. Have you seen Jarecki's movie "Why we fight"? It is pretty good. If you can claim that it is America's fault then I will claim that there is not a single innocent person over there. They brought pestilence to us, they are all guilty. Your timeline is out of order. "Weapons of mass destruction" came after they attacked us. So, they brought pestilence to us, so it was ok to attack them weapons of mass destruction or not. According to your logic. Didn't see that movie. 1
point
Saudi Arabia asked us to leave and we didnt. That made them made because we just decided to take that oil which makes a country massively rich. The United Arab Emirates is one of the richest in the world because of it. Also Osama was even in interest with our C.I.A. The media peps us all up for the war. http://www.corbettreport.com/ 1
point
1
point
1
point
If it is ok for them to destroy the WTC Nobody said what they did was okay. then I feel justified in saying that oil in the ground belongs to everybody in the world, and the country that is able to get it should be allowed to. Critical word you used: ALLOWED. They must get the okay from the country that has the oil. If we decided to share everything them a country has the right to invade and take all the food they can. Right? No. That isnt right. You pay for what you want. Meaning purchase the oil. You are just saying it is okay for America to apply natural selection to other countries. 1
point
You justified their action. No. I said it is America's fault for not being smart. Last time I checked, we don't get our oil for free. Saudi Arabia gets tons of money from us, they have no reason to complain. We wouldn't need soldiers over there if they were civilized, and not backward thinkers You do know the events I am talking about occured like back in the later 1900's? Also we get most of our oil from Canada now. So that argument isnt that strong. They sell to many other people. Also if they were civilized? Yes because everybody in America is civilized because we are perfect. 1
point
1
point
1) We didnt leave when they asked 2) They killed 3000 innocent people and 4,400+ soldiers over the course of the war. 3) We kill 100,000+ people. That is not justice. That is the most unjust thing you can do. We have killed nearly 30x the amount of people they did and that death count is jist the civilians. If you are saying that is fine because they killed 3000 people amd knocked down to material buildings which is not higher in value than a human then I have nothing else to say. It is cruel. 1
point
1
point
They didnt kill an infinite amount of people that math isnt even correct nor structured properly. It would be 3000+4,400 = 7400. 110,000/7400 = 14.86 which is only the civilian count for Iraq. I didnt even bring in the rest of the numbers. Thats isnt infinite. That is an invalid operation. Your math is incorrect. 1
point
That math is incorrect. Like I said. Which is worse? What we did. We killed 14.86 people for every person that died. Does that even makes sense? How can you ask such a question? 14.86/1 = 110,000/7400. That does not make it any better especially since I didnt even list the total death count. 1
point
That is impossible and false and you know that. They killed 7400. Thats it. Thats all they killed. We killed 110,000. Thats only a portion of the total count. They didnt kill an infinite amount of people because that is impossible. You know that. I am not going to debate if you are truly going to claim they killed an infinite amount of people. How are you even here if they killed an infinite amount of people? 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I have never read in any religion that told people to actually go and kill a number of people. Sure there are. The Bible has several passages about killing people. So does the Koran. Usually as a punishment for something. From there it is not a big leap to apply that logic incorrectly toward something else. These people happen to be religious. We are making the slight distinction when the person thinks they are fulfilling a religious goal because there are many people who agree with that person's actions. The case where a serial killer turns out to be highly religious is where the person just happens to be religious. The case I am talking about is usually a group of individuals using religion. 1
point
Sure there are. The Bible has several passages about killing people. So does the Koran. Usually as a punishment for something. From there it is not a big leap to apply that logic incorrectly toward something else. Show me where it says to kill somebody else because the bible says: A) Dont get revenge B) Dont Kill Please source some quotes or scripture because I cant see this being true. We are making the slight distinction when the person thinks they are fulfilling a religious goal because there are many people who agree with that person's actions. The case where a serial killer turns out to be highly religious is where the person just happens to be religious. The case I am talking about is usually a group of individuals using religion. Also they are in a terrorist group. The point and purpose is to cause terror. They arent fufilling a religious goal they just use it to convey themselves to follow the orders and protect them. Like you said they "use" religion. It isnt "the" religion itself. I don't know what parts of the New Testament advocates killing, but here are some examples of the Old Testament: For touching Mount Sinai Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13 For taking "accursed things" Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26 For cursing or blaspheming And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16 For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 For animals (like an ox that gores a human) If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28 For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 For worshipping other gods If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10 For disobeying parents If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 For witches and wizards A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27 For giving your children to Molech Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2 For breaking the Sabbath They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56 For cursing the king Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10 1
point
1
point
Like I said show me where it says to kill some one. You showed me laws Christians arent allowed to follow. They cant apply. Thats isnt a checkmate. Thats a fail. If you have read the bible it says follow the laws of the land. Those were the laws of "pre AD" times. I dont see these written in American law. Thus we cannot follow them. 1
point
I asked you to show me where it tells me to kill someone. You sourced things no Christian could do for more than 2000 years. We cant even do any of those things. The bible does not advise us to kill. The things you sourced simply acts as a historical text of laws that took place during that time period. I asked you to show me where it tells me to kill someone. That's not really fair then. I said the Bible talks about killing. You can't ask which part says that YOU are supposed to kill someone. I said the Bible talks about killing. The Bible has violence in it. Clearly, I have backed that up. You can't just deny that it is in their because you personally don't follow it. Especially since you can't guarantee it won't be followed by others. My argument is valid because earlier I was saying that violence exists. 1
point
1
point
If they really wanted us out because we are taking their oil, they should attack the oil companies. If they are upset because they are religious they should attack a random building completely away from the reason they claim to attack. If I punched Abby for you stealing my cookie, that's really dumb. I would clearly only be doing this because I have something against Abby, and I don't care about the cookie. 1
point
If they really wanted us out because we are taking their oil, they should attack the oil companies. If they are upset because they are religious they should attack a random building completely away from the reason they claim to attack. Again. That makes no sense. You have American troops helping out with the "taking of the oil". Do you think they truly care about the oil company if the government advised its people to do so? Really? If I punched Abby for you stealing my cookie, that's really dumb. I would clearly only be doing this because I have something against Abby, and I don't care about the cookie. The correct situation would be you punching me and Abby because we want to keep our oil to ourselves but you decide to take it. That is the correct example. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Also do you know what really is sad. 3000 lives were lost during 9/11. Also between 2003 and 2012 we lost 4,486 soldiers in the Iraq War. Do you want to know how many we killed? Do you want to know how many innocent people we have killed? The death to just for civilian deaths range from 110,591 to 120,816. 1
point
1
point
1
point
Maybe you should stop defending the people who attacked us, who knew full well that we are much more capable of destruction. They brought all of this on their people. It is their fault for not being smart. Was America supposed to say, oops, we understand now, we are leaving. No. The only thing we could do in that situation is to retaliate. 1
point
Umm no. America did the first act. They retaliated. We decided to over do it. Retaliation would be at max 10,000. But 100,000 and that is only the civilian count? Also according to me you arent responsible for your government so please dont push that on me when my whole argument is how america cant go and take things that arent theirs. 1
point
You say it makes sense that the destroyed the WTC. Hence, those people were guilty because of the actions of America Umm again no. I said it makes sense that they retaliate. Two wrongs dont make a right. If a homeless person walked into your house and sat on your couch. Who do you shoot after he refuses to leave when you ask him to? Oh so America is homeless and has nothing now? Please explain to me how that makes sense. America would just walk in your house and steal your couch. America isnt homeless nor a poor nation. You kow that. That analogy cannot even be given. 1
point
A super rich guy walks into your house. Without permission a guy came into my house okay. Sits on your couch and eats from your fridge. So he invaded and used my stuff. Which is mine. Yet decided to do so anyway okay. He gives you money, but you don't want him around any more. Sure. Now I just have to realize that he only paid for some of my food and ate the rest and. Who do you shoot and kill? Who would I shoot? Nobody I dont shoot people. Who would your tyoical guy shoot. They rich guy before he ate his food. 1
point
Talking about throwing around broken cliches why don't you give it a rest with all you anti Islam bullshit, extremists in any form be it race, religion or whatever are bad news it doesn't make everyone of that race or religion bad people if it does then all white Brits are racist (EDL, BNP etc), all Irish catholics are terrorists (the IRA) and all Americans support and arm terrorists (again the IRA and during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan America supplied weapons to the Islamist freedom fighters who eventually became Al Qaeda). So stop flinging broken cliches about and get it through your head that there are bad people in life some use religion as an excuse, some use race and some are honest and say I'm just a nutter that wants to kill people, if you take away the excuses your still left with nutters that will want to kill and destroy things. Maybe 9/11 might not have happened maybe it would, it would all depend on what cause the people involved in that decided to champion and if that cause brought them together. There have been terrorist attacks by non religious people because of animal rights, anti abortionists have carried out terrorist attacks. My argument was that taking away religion does not stop someone being a possible danger. 9/11 might still have happened without religion but instead of the guys involved being islamist they would have bee Afghan, Palestinian or Israeli terrorists acting out because they were unhappy with the Wests actions in the middle east, we'll never know but dangerous people are dangerous regardless of the excuse they use. Religion may be the catalyst for peoples actions but who knows what the catalyst may be without it. Yes but without religion I find suicide runs very limited. For example how would person A convince person B to travel to different city and sacrifice himself to kill person C that is completely unrelated to person B. Without an ultimate reward and "knowing" that you are fulfilling "god's will" it less than unlikely. That could well be true but when dealing with lunatics we cannot compare their way of thinking with the way sane people think, like the guy that shoots up a school and commits suicide by cop without religion some of these guys might do something as demented as that. Or in the case of animal rights or abortion all it takes is person A and B to feel passionate enough about their cause to commit a terrorist attack upon person C, be it the offices of a makeup company or a doctors office. Look at the actions of the EDL's supporters recently firebombing a curry house in the wake of Lee Rigby's murder just because the owners were Asian. Now your getting it!! You don't need religion to fuel extremism all you need is hate, whether it is because of someone's race, religion, politics stance on animal rights or whatever, extremists are dangerous regardless of their reasons/excuses and you cant blame everyone who is that race, religion or whatever because of the actions of a minority. 1
point
John 16:1 “All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. 3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 1
point
Hinduism is older than Christianity I think it started in about 2000 BC and Buddhism started about 540 BC so both religions are very older and are still thriving, I'm not sure what you mean by Christianity being more credible, compared to the other two its a relative newcomer. Although the basic tenets of the religions are pretty much the same be nice to each other, don't steal, don't murder etc its just a shame not all the followers actually go along with the teachings. 1
point
The earliest Christian writings so far discovered are about 2000 years old, there are many problems with old "Christian" artefacts as Christianity did not officially start until after Jesus death, his disciples and original followers would still have been thought of as Jews or whatever faith they followed before they heard him, technically in my view they would have been the first Christians as they were followers of Christ but as the religion did not exist back then historians would disagree. On this basis something written by a jewish person praising Jesus is not technically a Christian writing it all depends on your point of view. The other problem is there have been so many forgeries in the past that if something is discovered people tend to be skeptical about it. But to answer your question simply so far the oldest discovered were in Jordan and are roughly 2000 years old. 1
point
1
point
I'm like it in real life as well but luckily my "handlers" are normally there to tell me when I'm rambling!! Most of the time I like to get the facts straight before I post something but if its something I'm not 100% about I'll normally say so or I'll mention if its my point of view. 1
point
Have you seen the Coen Brothers film The Big Lebowski? If not it stars Jeff Bridges as Jeff Lebowski the "Dude" probably the most laid back guy in the history of film making, he smokes a lot of Thai Stick, drinks a lot of White Russians and goes bowling, he basically takes it easy and goes with the flow. The Church Of The Latter Day Dude basically uses the Dudes ideology (the main thing with Dudeism is going with the flow, taking it easy) fused with the teachings of Taoism but also mixes in bits and pieces from other ideologies for instance Jesus is thought of as one of the great Dudes in history. A lot of people dismiss it but if you read the Dude De Ching (it's the Taoist writing the Tao De Ching on one page with the Dudeist version on the facing page) and the Abide Guide To Living it can be quite enlightening, one of the most important teachings is being open minded and doing no harm, you can also check out dudeism.com which is where I got ordained which will give you a bit more of an insight. Basically its fun (which is rare in religion) but the underlying message is a good one. Its probably best to start with the movie and the website which should tie it all together and see what you think. By the way my Avatar is a painting of The Dude. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
I don't think she sounds ignorant she just sounds sure about her beliefs for all we know she may have questioned her beliefs and come to the conclusion that Jesus and God is the answer. Your statement which sounds like you have assumed she has never questioned her beliefs which therefore makes her ignorant makes you sound like the ignorant one. 1
point
No problem, it annoys me when people just say stupid shit just because of someone's beliefs the whole so your a christian you must be an idiot attitude and the assumption that because you believe in a God or creator or whatever you must have been brainwashed as a child. There's no need for it and it gets decent Atheists a bad name. 1
point
That's the problem with life some people are not happy unless they are harassing someone else and unfortunately the anonimity of the internet makes people braver/more foolish, I treat the internet like its a big pub but with more witnesses so if I wouldn't say something in the real world I won't say it on line (works most of the time) 1
point
1
point
1
point
God and everything he says is good, Devil and everything he says is evil. Also just to help specify, Devil lies, but does not have to so if Devil is saying something that seems Good, it's evil unless confirmed by God to be good. Think about it this way God is Good with one less 'O' Devil is evil with a 'D'. Is there any value put upon destruction in the Bible/ Christian religion? I am honestly asking I don't know. I know there are other religions that see the benefits of destruction. In Hinduism, for example, there is Vishnu who creates and Shiva who destroys, then Vishnu creates. (pleased forgive my simplistic view of Hinduism here, I'm just trying to give a quick example) I'm not positing any religion or belief system is better than any other, I am asking if Christians recognize any value in destruction. Some things must be destroyed so others can be created. What if after rescuing the puppy, you find that it has a mutated form of rabies that can only be contained in an aquatic setting and the well is about to be cover with a concrete slab to build a new environmentally friendly factory, which will create new jobs for Americans, and the government inspector is coming and he will stall the project if there are any issues? Wouldn't it then be good to throw the puppy back in and allow the construction to move forward? Clearly there's no answer to this because we can define whatever we want . It's all in our mind , saving the puppet from the well may be a good thing because you want it to live to see the wonders of the world , but it might also be a bad thing because the world is dangerous . For instance , the puppy is dying on the road , one can take pity on it and help it but one can also scorn it and left it there , it's just an standard measured by your own mind for the individual . As for the "better" answer it's just controlled by the majority , helping people by donating is good because the majority says so , helping people can also be good by killing them because the majority says so , majority holds the most of the things and that's why people stand together , if you aren't sure about the choice you'd stick to the majority , because it encourages/enforces/comforts you to make the decision no matter it's truly "Good" or "Bad" . 1
point
1
point
|