Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think it's pretty obvious when I'm being an assh-le , I enjoy being such as its the deserved reponse to those who refuse to debate fairly on here , regards being wrong it's utterly absurd to even suggest I'm ever wrong LOL
If anyone is ever offended by what I say well then they can take that offence roll it into a long tube shape, drop their pants and shove it up their a-s
. And you ain't an exception May. Your attempt at playing the higher moral ground aint fooling anyone.
Well he / she / it keeps claiming they're always right as they have a degree and that means they know everything
That's a state I'm very familiar with in fact an afternoon session is on the cards , and please never take back what you say with drink on board as its what you genuinely feel so go with it
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's a very large matter. The Reverend Jim Jones managed to convince 909 people to kill themselves due to their belief in this fantasy. The very fact that you are genuinely arguing it is "no matter" when a large group of people have social interactions on the basis of a complete delusion is extremely worrying.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
My post had nothing to do with extremists. It was about the cult mentality at the heart of religion.
There are none. Belief in a delusion is not "useful intellectually." I'm not a smarter person if I believe in the tooth fairy.
My post has nothing to do with good or bad so please learn to read.
Thanks for refuting yourself. I appreciate it.
You gave no examples of anything except how to misread words and misunderstand debate topics. I was patient with you and systematically refuted all of your objections, but the problem is that you have the attitude of a spoilt child, so when somebody debunks something you write you simply stamp your feet and start endlessly repeating yourself.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not think that religion can be intellectually inspiring to anyone as it is fundamentally anti-intellectual. Spiritually inspiring? Sure. But no one ever says, "I feel like intellectually stimulating myself. This book on economics is too boring, so I will go and read the Torah instead". Religion does not feature a consistent intellectual framework one can study and use to acquire new pieces of knowledge. In fact, it features the exact opposite: to read a religious text and take it seriously, one must purposefully suppress their critical thinking - and deeply religious people often say so plainly and proudly. Faith is negation of logic, and they take pride in being able to have faith. This is as anti-intellectual as it gets.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is an opinion the logical reasons for which I have provided. If something being an opinion invalidates it in your eyes, then this conversation is pointless. And I have already told you, Maxx, many times that repeating the same points and dismissing arguments against them is a poor debating strategy that impresses no one and makes you look unintelligent.
Discussions of fantasy can be intellectually stimulating, I agree: I have participated in a lot of discussions about imaginary worlds and characters. What can not be intellectually stimulating is discussing fantasy as if it is reality: you are no more intellectually stimulated them than when you take an LSD and start seeing flying rhinos and pondering on the depth of their existence. As for discussions on the history behind the Bible, those are scientific, not religious discussions.
You are misrepresenting my position. I have never said that an offshoot from a religion is not a art of that religion "because it occurs elsewhere". What I did say was that the things you clam to be offshot from religion are not such, and I have explained why I think this. You have not really challenged my reasoning in any way. I explained already what I think about your claim that music may have originated from religion, yet here you are just repeating that claim again.
Why is it always like this in conversations with you, Maxx? Why do you not try addressing people's actual arguments?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
what you are not actually answering, is how is it not part of religion. As well, i have seen many religious scholars as well as students engage in deep intellectually conversation about the contradictions of the bible, the interpretations, and so on. How is that not intellectually stimulating? This is not about wacoks on drugs, it is about people who have a specific way of life. It does not matter if they are wrong in their beliefs; that is not what this post is even about. Their religion is not intellectually useless and you failed to explain why other than bringing into play that their ideas are incorrect. the post is not about if their beliefs are true.@MayCaesar
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am not answering that? I made multiple large comments exploring that issue from all sides and explained precisely why I do not consider those things a part of religion. Did not see much pushback on those arguments.
The story of the crucifix of Christ is a part of Christianity. The "Chocolate Jesus" song is not. It is a song referencing religious entities, not a religious entity in itself - much like me referencing Christianity in this comment does not make me a Christian person. Are there explicit religious songs out there? Sure: Quran is typically sung and the song is a part of Islam. There is a difference, however, between a religious song and a song inspired by religion. Something that is a part of religion is something without which it changes, and nothing changes in Christian teachings if one stops playing music at their local church.
Once again, discussing religion can be intellectually stimulating, much like discussing Star Wars can be. There is nothing intellectually stimulating in giving up on the most basic logic and taking wild fantasies seriously, just like there is nothing intellectually stimulating in trying to become a Sith. Your brain is stimulated, but not intellectually: the effect is closer to the type of stimulation you get after consuming a lot of psychodelic mushroos, where you gradually succumb to wild fantasies and lose touch with reality.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"There's only one way for a person to become religious, and that's by switching off the part of their brain responsible for rational thought."
A rational thought process does not necessarily result in a rational conclusion. There are many who become theists and many who become atheists based on both rational and irrational thinking.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No, not necessarily. You're radically simplifying what a rational thought process encompasses. It also includes a resistance against making conclusions absent sufficient facts and the scrutiny of evidence to ensure it is reliable.
Cool.
A rational thought process should not result in any conclusion, rational or otherwise, where there are insufficient facts to justify that conclusion. Hence, I am entirely correct that one must switch off the part of the brain responsible for rational thought in order to become religious.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agree that my definition is short and simple, however, I believe it is correct as truly logical derivation includes "a resistance against making conclusions absent sufficient facts and the scrutiny of evidence to ensure it is reliable."
So, exactly which worldview, religious or not, is entirely rational? Truly rational thinking sometimes requires postulates, which themselves are not rational conclusions. In other words, facts cannot always be the basis for rational thinking.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I see. So making conclusions is the same thing as not making conclusions? That's quite the interesting contradiction.
That is a question entirely separate from the topic.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm not sure where you got that summery from. You disagreed with my original definition, pointing out that it was not entirely complete; all I'm saying is that it technically is correct because logical derivation (what I said in my definition) would technically include not making conclusions without sufficient evidence (what you said was missing from my definition). Nevertheless, I think we agree on the definition regardless of how to word it.
Actually, I don't believe it is. It establishes the purpose of challenging the rationality of religion, which is what you're doing. If you believe that all worldviews are not rational, then why would it matter if religion isn't either?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I see. So you can't remember your own posts? Or spell words?
It's the opposite of correct. You defined a logical thought process as "the logical derivation of a conclusion", but as I explained once already a logical thought process does not require a conclusion, or require a conclusion to be logically possible.
Then it isn't a definition.
Then you're wrong. Again.
This topic is about the rationality or irrationality of religion, not the rationality or irrationality of tennis, beansprouts, feudalism or the Arabic language. Please learn to stick to the topic. Also, don't assume that all irrational ideologies are equally irrational.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Exactly where did you say that? All you said was that a logical thought process does not make conclusions when there isn't adequate facts or evidence to support that conclusion; you never said anything about a logical thought process not needing a conclusion at all.
While I do agree that not all logical derivation results in a conclusion, the purpose of logical derivation is to come to a conclusion.
I get that; my point is, why would I sit here and debate you on the rationality of religion if you think that all worldviews are irrational. It's like if I called someone smart, and then immediately followed by saying that everyone is smart; it wouldn't be much of a compliment to that person. You haven't really challenged religion by putting it in the same place with every other worldview.
So what your saying is that some irrational ideologies also have a measure of rational thinking?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
A song can represent religion, yet not be a part of religion - much like a sculpture can represent a woman, yet not be a part of a woman.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
My point of view is that of logic. Why would I look at this from any different point of view? I do not see a single flaw in my reasoning: it is very likely that there are multiple flaws, but you have not pointed any of them out yet.
I just explained how something can represent something, yet not be a part of it; I gave a specific example. Yet you still keep connecting the two. How does the example I provided fit in your theory according to which something representing god is necessarily a part of religion? For that matter, why are you even talking about representing god specifically when there are religions that feature no gods at all?
A statue of a woman represents a woman. A statue of a woman is not a part of a woman. Or do you insist that it is?
I have not said that a song or a piece of religious art may be "just" that. It has to be more than that, naturally, as it has a particular context. Much like the score from the Gladiator movie is much more than just a bunch of notes played on a bunch of instruments. And that score is not inherently a part of that movie: an orchestra can play the score outside of the context of the movie, and while the connection is still maintained, it is a more sophisticated connection than just "A is a part of B".
The "aside" you mentioned is quite essential. Asking how aside from the fantasy aspect I can consider religion to be intellectually useless is like asking how aside from it being wrong I can consider the idea that 2+2=5 to be intellectually useless. That is where the uselessness comes from, my friend!
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're absolutely right. People with expertise don't waste their time bragging about it on the internet. Actual experts are already validated by their peers, so they don't need to seek validation from random strangers on the internet.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is a thing called the borrowed library effect. This is like where one reads a load of information from a whole variety of books, and then pretends and/or assumes they have the exact same expertise as the professionals that wrote those books. I believe that is what has happened with May
I agree , I believe also that your friendly challenge will be ignored for the very reasons you state
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Okay, by the same logic, a song about bananas is part of bananas. Do you agree that bananas have a song that is part of them? And when you eat a banana, do you also eat that song?
"Represents" and "is part of" are not equivalent relations, buddy. You seem to be confused about this.
To your last point, I have explained why religion is intellectually useless. Not every discussion of it is. When will you stop reacting to soundbites and start responding to what people actually say, maxx?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra