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.
Christians aren't hateful at all. Jesus taught to love our enemies and I do. We aren't filled with hate but rather love because of what Christ has done for us.
As for atheists are hateful or not. I don't have an opinion of that because if I do say something, I would get ridiculed and my opinion doesn't really matter if I do say it or not to them.
Christians aren't hateful at all. Jesus taught to love our enemies and I do. We aren't filled with hate but rather love because of what Christ has done for us.
How do you know? Christians are supposed to filled with love, but that doesn't necesarilly mean that they are. Just because it ought to be a fact does not mean that it is a fact. So what reason have you got for saying that Christians in general are more compassionate than the average person?
I am not full of hate. I hate no man even those who may wrong me. I feel love toward my fellow man(humanity as a whole). I do not hate sinners because we are all sinners, no one is perfect but our sins can be forgiven if we ask for forgiveness.
Alot of people say god loves everybody. Does he love me because I am a zoophilia. If god does love me he would understand that I would go through hell to be with my dog. Do you hate me. Do you have something hateful to say about me.
No I don't hate you. I may not understand your sexual/romantic preference and I don't think God would approve of it, I'm fairly certain he wants the species to remain separate in terms of romance otherwise he would have made interspiecies cross reading possible. However I am certain that he dose love you, what father does not love his children? Even if he disapproves of your sexuality I'm sure he loves you all the same. And I certainly do NOT have anything hateful to say to or about you, I don't understand how a human would be attracted to a non-human but that's just because I have no point of reference for such a thing.
Your entire perspective revolves around casting every single person around you into guilt and shame and imperfection. You tell people that they are innately bad, and that the only way to make up for that is to believe what you believe; that is inherently coercive.
No I don't. People can believe whatever they want to believe. If people have questions about Christianity I'm happy to answer. But I don't press my religion on other people.
Read closer. I never said you forced your religion on other people. What I said is that your religious perspective constructs a coercive concept of sin in an attempt to justify its own necessity.
It is an objective truth that every human possesses a dual capacity for "bad" and "good" behavior. It is a subjective belief that falsely elevates the capacity for "bad" above the capacity for "good", and this is precisely what the concept of sin does. The very notion of sin is the idea of immorality and transgression as inherent to the human individual, yet there is no comparable attribute inherent to the human being for the capacity of "good". In religion the actual, internal capacity for "good" is expressly externalized as "salvation" that must come from an exterior force (in the case of Christianity, God). This removes our own agency and culpability because it tells we are incapable of redeeming ourselves, and that the only way we can be "good" is through the salvation of an external entity.
The clever thing about religion is that it convinces people that the "bad" within them is their nature and that they themselves are powerless to bring forth the "good". It teaches people that they cannot be "good" without religion, when in truth the capacity for "good" is an innate attribute of the human condition that exists wholly independent of (and actively in spite of) religion.
good[...] exists wholly independent from (and directly in spite of) religion this is an opinion. It cannot be proven and is therefor irrelevant.
Anyway. People are inherently evil. When I look at the world around me as well as at the events of history i see that man has no greater a capacity than his capacity to destroy. Yes we have good in us as well as we are the creations of God the source of all good. But we are creatures tainted by sin. And therefor temptation dwells within us all. A strong devotion to God helps us overcome our inherent nature. This in no way removes our own agency or culpability as we must still chose to follow the word of a God and avoid sin. God cannot make us do anything which we will not do willingly, he did give us free will after all.
this is an opinion. It cannot be proven and is therefor irrelevant.
The irony. My point is substantiated by the existence of agnostic/atheist morality. Meanwhile, there is no proof of God whatsoever... must make Him pretty irrelevant, huh?
People are inherently evil. When I look at the world around me as well as at the events of history i see that man has no greater a capacity than his capacity to destroy.
Prove this beyond an assertion of belief. Prove that human nature is objectively more "evil" than "good". Then you can show how this negates my point at all, since my argument does not remotely rely upon the two being equally manifested.
My point is that in whatever proportions "good" and "evil" exist they are both fundamental to human nature, and that religion displaces the "good" from our nature and attributes it to an external entity ("God"). This inherently removes our agency; it says that we cannot be good on our own. You have not addressed this issue of displacement at all; in fact, you have underscored it.
A strong devotion to God helps us overcome our inherent nature.
Oh, really? Then please do explain the Crusades, the Inquisition, and every other violent act perpetrated in the express name of religion. If you deny that these represent strong devotion to God, then prove why your interpretation of "actual" devotion is correct.
God cannot make us do anything which we will not do willingly, he did give us free will after all.
Again, prove it. There is no evidence that we have free will, and an accumulating amount of research the indicates we do not (Source 1: Hallett 2007, Source 2: Rigoni et al 2011, Source 3: Fischer 1993, etc.)
No it's giving them warning. If you were about to drive off a cliff and you were unaware of that would you then get offended if I told you that you are about to drive off a cliff you should turn now?
Then in that case aren't radical Islamists doing the same thing? There trying to save the world from eternal damnation by serving the "one true God Allah". Btw, what if Christianity is wrong, in that case havent you helped condemn someone to hell any way by making them follow the teachings of the wrong religion?
Radical Islamists serve a false God. One of hate and death, God would never order his followers to do the things Islamic terrorists do. And btw I never forced anyone to follow any teachings so no. And that's irrelevant anyway because Christianity is not wrong.
1. There is no solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus
First I would like to give you from bibical evidence the Book of Matthew, The book of Mark, The book of Luke, and the book of John.
Secondly there are many non-secular sources
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
-Testimonium Flavianum
"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus ..."
-Tacitus
2. The Bible Contradicts itself multiple times
Such as?
3. Scientific Errors contained within the bible
Such as?
4. Plagarizations of other religions are contained in the Bible
I'm on this side since if we use the actual definition of Christian and apply it, we sift out the fake ones from the true Christians. Therefore, Atheists become more hateful by default. Perhaps the debate should have defined the terms better.
Most of them constantly ridicule religions. If that's not pure hatred then I don't know what is. Maybe if they went to church then they could learn how to love.
The reason I dislike Christianity so much is that it never sounds like they want to help sinners. It really sounds like they are upset that sinners exist and blame sinners for everything. It feels like they hate the people committing sins.
It doesn't work for anyone. People look at hate and love as two different things, rather than hate just being the lack of love. You can't know hate without love.
I guess it could only really be one-sided though, when looking at the big picture. Everyone's guilty of being an asshole... Except maybe an infant lol.
That's a Christian saying. Now regardless of the minority that actually follow this rule, and just decided to hate both, they still have a declared rule allowing them to hate. Now that's not to say atheists don't hate. Their are a hell of a lot of militant atheists who hate the idea of God, and hate Christians for believing what they call 'stupid', but to be an atheist you don't subscribe to the ideology that you have to hate religion and God. That's completely parallel to Christianity which must hate sin.
I don't think the Bible is totally exempt though. There are plenty of contradictions within it, and it isn't full of love and kindness. That's because men have corrupted the teachings within it. People just need to try and separate the fact from the fiction.
Mhmm. Tons of misinterpretations. I know I heard once that the greeks had three words for love. They knew three different kinds. The bible only uses one.
Well okay, true. Though it's not because they are atheists it's because their crimes are usually attributed to other subscriptions in their life. An atheist extremist could be a left wing extremist, of he shoots up a school. What i mean is, they don't label them atheist extremists because they aren't acting in the name of atheism.
If they are not acting in the name of atheism then they are not atheistic extremists. They are extremists who incidentally are also atheists. The difference is that Christian extremists are acting in the name of Christianity; the extremism is integrally connected to the Christianity.
Associating atheism with school shootings as you have also feeds a false construction of atheists as being more inclined towards violence and immorality. In reality, there is zero evidence to support that association (including in the context of school shootings).
You should see what Islam's extremists do. Suddenly the signs don't seem as mean once you see mangled body's and rubble left over from a suicide bomber.
This refutes my point how, exactly? Your argument is effectively that Islamic extremists are more hateful than Christian extremists... which has nothing to do with the relative hatefulness of Christians versus atheists. Try again (or don't, and save me the wasted breath).
But that was done in the name of national expansion. Just because the people who conquered their land (fairly I might add) where Christian that doesn't mean Christianity is to blame.
In the US this may have been the case, but the mass slaughterings of the tribes in South America were done by Spanish Conquistadors on behalf of the Catholic Church.
Guess what gave Spain the funding for its mission? The Catholic Church, the Spanish government at the time answered to the Papacy. The Spanish Crown was seen as the head of the Catholic church in spain.
Idk why, hating gays is a part of mainstream christian dogma. Their simply just doing what their holybook tells them to. In fact, they actually are going easy on gays, if they truly followed the bible at its word, they should be killing them
I am sorry but I just hate christians. They always have to stick there noise in everything. They just can't leave other people believes alone. They always try to get you to believe in god. I am sorry but if I wanted to believe god I would come to you. Christians are trying to make the world in there gods view of things. Christians are the most hardest people to argue with. They can't ever give a good reasonable argument they always have to go with god said this and god said that.
It's not easy not to hate them considering all of the crap they have done to others through out history and how even today they are still forcing there religion on others.
I do not disagree. My point was that in the context of a debate question asking who is more hateful, opening with "I hate Christians" is not an especially apt argument in defense of atheism.
I did, and regardless of everything else you said you discredited yourself from the offset. I am not saying you are wrong to feel that way, or that it is invalid... just that it was ineffective.
Weird. I thought you were like joking, but then I checked the "Active Now" thing and I don't see any. I see "Intangidummy", but he doesn't count as anything worth time.
Oh like the gaytruth guy who had no arguments whatsoever besides posting weird verses and videos? I'll keep that noted so I dont waste time with that person.
