Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS PassionFruit

Reward Points:307
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.

Yeah, self defense from a 140 pounds skinny black boy with a bottle of Arizona and skittles. Zimmerman had a gun and a 200 pound ass to squish him like a bug.

Ha. Self defense. Seriously?

How can crediting invisible entities with these metaphysical questions any kind of explanation?

It is an attempt to answering those metaphysical questions. You have to start somewhere...

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Natural philosophy is the study of nature and the physical universe. Origins date back to Aristotle's branching.

Indeed but once again the need to understand, as fundamental as man's vital needs, generated first, as has seen Auguste Comte (if you are interested in the links between science and religion you should read Auguste is very interesting) theological explanations (or fictional), which are the most natural, then, under the influence of reason metaphysical (or abstract) explanations. Gods or to take your words invisible entities and then Nature or natural philosophy were the first attempted explanations.

Imagination always precedes reason because imagination is what comes to us naturally, easily. Reason demands more thought.

Behind every scientific conception there was an idea (product of our imagination). The idea was rectified by our reason (metaphysics) but remains an idea. Science verifies and tests the validity of the idea.

The fact suggest the idea (imagination); The idea directs experimentation (reason); Experimentation judges the idea (reason).

Astrology for example, is the origin of astronomy and research on the magical properties of numbers and figures which itself was the origins of mathematics.

The need to understand generates before anything theological explanations because they are the most natural and primitive explanations.

Science is not. Science comes from the progressive and reasonable rectifications of our first idea

So, religion (or any result of our imagination) is the first attempt to answer those questions.

For years the United States was the country for which one can be rich and own whatever he wants. One who has that economic freedom will tend not to commit crime.

But this economic freedom requires a system of classes. So, for one to be rich, there must be poor. So, even with economic freedom there will be crime. It is definitely not going to reduce crime.

More police isn't either. Police is kind of like really bad insecticide. If you have insect invasion, spaying them with insecticide is temporarily useful. But it will not prevent the insects from coming back.

This is so true. I have to note that the holocost was because of an ideology, I don't think it was entirely because of religion.

Religion is a belief, a product of our imagination. Imagination is part of the human mind and that is what is dangerous. Imagination is the cause of irrational fears. Irrational fears are the cause of many of the wars of the past and today.

Religion or any sort "belief" is inevitable because it is part of us. So, discussing whether it is harmful or beneficial will not bring us far because religion is nothing but a product. It is not a root.

There are certain degrees of dictatorships. Dictatorships can go from Hitler's dictatorship to a much much softer kind...A kind that does not hurt the population but keeps it happy, safe and naive. That keeps it unaware and distracted. A government that gives the population those little pleasures and superficial necessities to spare it the pains of life but most of all the troubles of thinking.

A government that confines our free will in a smaller space. It does not break our freedom of choice but softens it, in order to bend and direct it. It does not tyrannize. It hinders, compresses, extinguishes and finally reduces each and one of us to nothing more than a flock of timid and spending animals, of which it is the shepherd.

How dare you insult the poor class?

I am not insulting the poor class at all. I saying how things truly are.

Here you are, preaching that, oh, "they're too stupid to get out of that situation", or, "they don't know any better."

you might want to really read my argument before misquoting me.

They can do whatever they'd like to do.

They chose to live this life?

Think about all of the wonderful people who've came out of these horrific situations (crack moms and dads, projects, drugs, etc.).

These people are rare. Those people are not wonderful. They are incredible. I respect them a lot more than I respect the successful upper class people.

If they can do it, why can't the other people? Because at the end of the day, one chooses to pull the trigger of a weapon, one chooses to impregnate a girl or get pregnant with kids they know they can't support, time and time again.

My goodness... You think it is easy.

Yes, they chose to pull the trigger. Yes, they chose to rob a store. Yes, they chose to sell drugs. These people before they can concentrate on school have to survive.

Yes, those hundreds of young girls chose to have sex without protection. Oh but right, they knew better, right? Indeed, they definitely attended school regularly, especially sex Ed.

Yes, there are some lucky people who escape this vicious circle. How far is the child of a woman with no money going to go? That child chose to help his mother and siblings by bring some money so that he can just eat. By doing that, his time and energy is towards his job not school. If he is lucky and gets a job that brings a fair amount, he could maybe give his younger siblings an opportunity to have an eduction.

You obviously don’t realize that in these situations these people have to choose between education and survival. Indeed, school risks their chances of survival. I believe it is preposterous that these kids who have done nothing wrong have to chose between education and survival and education is the real key to survival! Education is the gateway to freedom.

Tell that to the millions of people that have made the conscious choice to work hard and succeed, despite immense hardships.

Most of these people have in common: a decent education or sufficiently supportive parents or guardian (financially) or both. The successful people had help. They had a sufficient amount of MONEY. Something that the lower class people do not have.

It's time to stop treating the poor like babies who can't think for themselves and that need elitist, condescending people like yourself

How am I elitist? I am saying the lower class men have a lower advantage than the middle class and upper class people have. It is like a race. The upper class and lower class start at the same start. But the upper class men have an unfair head start. So, the lower class men have to run incredibly fast in order to catch up with the upper class. It isn’t because the lower class is stupid or even lazy. The person born in the upper class has more opportunities than the kid born in the lower class. That is a fact. You know what the upper class kid has? Money. Money gives these kids a head start.

theirs no such thing as unjustly or unfairly rich

1/ Inheritance.

2/ A kid is born in Compton or Brooklyn. He had no choice. He lives in a shack with his sick mother. Therefore, at 10 he is forced to take illegal jobs in order to feed his family. Supposing that he was never caught stealing money or food at some 7 Eleven, he reached 17 with an passable record. He has gone to a shit public school his society refuses to pay for. He drops out because he found a job as a dealer. The jobs gets him money. Allows him to feed his family but not to pay proper care for his mother. A few years later she dies. One of his siblings die in a drug battle, he caught himself into. He needs more help and gets his sisters to start working. One gets pregnant at 17 , the other runs away. That baby is going to be born in a world with no hope to ever succeed because he is going to have to help his mother and uncle and if we are lucky father. He is going to have to eventually forget school.

Now, are you going to say that all of these series of events happen because they are LAZY? Do you think they chose to live a life like this? The only thing they did wrong was to be born on the wrong side of the track. No one can just work hard and succeed. To succeed you need the basic necessities: that is food, a home, education and a good health.

you work hard you become rich

I am pretty sure most of the lower class men in the United States work just as hard or maybe even harder than any middle class or higher class men. They remain poor.

Most of the kids in the upper class were given a private school and an ivy league. They did not have to anything. All they had to do was "sit on their ass all day" and study.

Exactly. As an atheist you essentially have to BELIEVE in science.

How did you conclude this from my explanation?

If you don't have faith in a God or in science, you are agnostic, not an atheist.

Ok, this is when statistics and facts are useful in an debate. We have reached the point where we disagree on a definition.

1/ Oxford Dictionary: atheism

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/


[mass noun]

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

2/ Oxford dictionary: disbelief


Pronunciation: /dɪsbɪˈliːf/


[mass noun]

->inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

example: Laura shook her head in disbelief

->lack of faith:

example: I’ll burn in hell for disbelief

3/ agnostic

Pronunciation: /agˈnɒstɪk/


a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

If you don't have faith in a God or in science, you are agnostic, not an atheist.

I am going to repeat again: atheism is the absence of belief in God. I am not going to go through my explanations again. I already tried to twice.

The way you are seeing agnosticism is that it is the guy in between atheism and theism. Now that is wrong. One cannot even compare atheism and theism with agnosticism. They do not even touch the same subject. Agnosticism is not about the belief in God ( atheism is a disbelief) but about the knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowing the existence of God. Many atheist are agnostics. Hey, even some theists are agnostics

Atheism, by definition, is doubt because atheism is not a faith. Agnosticism is another subject.

it is based on the belief that the universe is an explainable place without God

I think you are putting scientists and atheists together. Although atheists tend to be scientists, scientists can be theist. By the way, I don't understand how the belief in God excludes all scientific claims. But I am diverging. Scientist are study the phenomenons of life. Atheist disagree with the argument of "the existence of God". Atheists doubt. I couldn't stress more on that word. Doubt cannot exist in faith.

But there are gaping holes in atheists explanation of how we came to be. In general theism is a way to explain why the universe is the way it is (or why we exist), which atheism also does, they just say it was a chance occurrence rather than by design.

OK. So are you saying that just like theism cannot prove the existence of God, atheism cannot prove the nonexistence of God. But your statement implies that atheists claim that "God does not exist" and try to prove it. But they do not. They simply cannot to accept the claim that "God exists" because of the lack of proof. Not accepting a claim doesn't mean that you accept the opposite.

If I were to give you an idea with weak arguments, you would disagree with my arguments. When you disagree with my arguments you cannot reasonably accept my idea yet. But that doesn't you accept the opposite idea. You just disagree with my idea because it lacks evidence.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Images
Winning Position: No
Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: Yes
Winning Position: Yes

About Me

"« Sans la langue, en un mot, l'auteur le plus divin.............. Est toujours, quoi qu'il fasse, un méchant écrivain. » ----L'art poétique (Boileau)"

Biographical Information
Gender: Lady
Age: 29
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Democrat
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Education: High School

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here