- 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.
By that statement I mean that there isn't some kind of 'man conspiracy' going on and everybody is out to put down woman. Often you'll find that men deal better with positions of power (though not always) as they are able to dominate a situation more effectively. I am not pro-man though, I feel that both genders are of equal importance but feminists have to realize that recognizing that different genders do different things better is not sexism, it is realistic.
Stalin would definitely the best man to push USSR forward as a nation and into industrial success, there is no doubt about that. Trotsky was more of an intellectual, he wouldn't have been able to hold the fort down as well and was too self-aware to have been able to create a cult of personality, something that was necessary for USSR success. Though I think, had Trotsky been leader, it would have been a much more longer lasting nation and something which would have followed Communist aims more so than the Stalin-USSR.
yet I would consider myself a good person
How are you a good person? Without a God, how can you consider yourself a good person as there is nothing to set yourself against and therefore you a just a person. Without a base set of something you cannot be good or bad; you are as good a person as Hitler in that regard, unless you claim that you are a good person because you do certain things that you claim are universally 'moral'.
you cannot say that religion is the source of morality
Religion IS the source of morality. It gave people, who believed in them, a base set of what is moral and had them follow the rules etc. to live a relatively moral life (with reference to their particular religion). Also, most things people consider 'moral' today just stem from the 10 commandments which was usher in by a religion.
First of all, most people who claim religion to be a negative thing talk about the number of wars it has caused etc. which is false and so takes away a large backbone in the 'negative' argument.
Secondly, let us look at the other side of the coin. Has atheism benefited us more? Look as the USSR, with Stalin killing millions under his atheist state, North Korea letting a large proportion of its population starve. Religion more often than not provides a moral compass for nations and (although this isn't always true) it helps a country to act morally.
Thirdly, religion has often been responsible for education facilities and promoting thought, something which is inevitably good for humanity as it advances our thinking and our perception on different situations.
Thirdly, look at the 'great' societies throughout history, most of them have been grounded in religion. One can surely build from this that religion has brought people together as it allows them to have common ground. It also allows a framework for a successful nation to be built upon. You can even look at modern nations, as most of them have a religious grounding. Without the nations we have had, it would have been harder to people to discuss ideas, test theories and move forward as a human race and so from this one could claim that religion has been a positive influence.