- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I disagree because in the first place, without atheists beliefs, then debating with someone about religion would be nonsense. Besides, there is nothing wrong for believing that there is no God. I believe that they should also be able to spread what they believe, and let other people just judge on who would they choose to believe.
I would say that being chased by a hungry lion is worse because I have asthma. And I think i would have a hard time running very fast in order for him to not reach me. Also, I would easily get tired and my energy would be drained because of that. Unlike paper cut, which I have experienced for lots of times, doesnt really drain my energy, although it still makes me cry a little cause it's too painful
I think Im going to go with the theist side here. Of course I wont make it a very serious debate, because im sure Joe here is going to troll me off again :)
But here's my point, You're saying that religion was invented to troll atheists. So im assuming that you believe that there is a thing called religion(God). For atheists, who dont believe in God, i was just wondering, how could you say that something doesnt exist. First and foremost, for you to say that something doesnt exist, then there must be a thing that exists primary to that. You cannot justify that something isnt there without the approval that there is really that something.
Yes, I guess it is possible since I am both a theist and an evolutionist. I believe that there is nothing wrong in believing in God, and also believing in the facts of science. I study in a religious school, and yet they teach us science very well. They just let us discover or choose which between the two would we pick when it comes to beliefs.
Of course my first intuition was for me to get angry, but once you've really realized that this person had given up so much(pride) and took a risk in order for him or her to tell the truth, then I think I would just forgive him for that. Besides, who am I to judge him o her that what they did is not right. Im sure that at one point in my life, I have done the same thing too. So it's a matter of fairness.
I guess my answer would be a no. What would be our basis as to what truth really is? What Im saying is that there maybe certain things as to what we call as the "truth" but where do we know that 'that' thing is really the truth. It is also subjective, and people just make up what truth really is based on their perception about a thing.
Id rather be unique than just to conform because by being unique you tend to exercise your will, and your opinion about something. If you just conform, then nothing would be of new ideas because all you have to do is follow these certain norms or rules that are given. You cant innovate because in order to conform, you must follow what other people do, thus it hinders you from being if a better chance than others.