- 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
Sounds like you finally clamed the fuck down ;)
Calm down and Chive on ;)
It's fine. More people kill out of emotion than anything else really. In the first place, bigotry is a feeling.
Yes yes, I get all that. But at the bottom of it all, I choose which emotions I believe are conducive to leading a healthy vibrant life and will myself to encourage them and act upon them while choosing to sort out my negative emotions, preferably in a way that doesn't cost the loved ones around me. So in the end, it's still reason. Living with emotion as a guide is... akin to eating according to appetite. I never feel like kale. But I eat kale anyway. Damn.
Then an absolute morality with "do no harm" at it's centre may in fact be beneficial to humanity, shall we make it official right now and live by it? XD We could make a new Hippocratic cult!!!
Hahaha, if only it were that simple. What if one of the children he kept from being aborted became a second Hawking and brought great prosperity and joy to many others? The world is super complex like that.
It is interesting that everyone is debating right and wrong without a strict definition of either. Does right and wrong actually exist? As Christianity seems to be the focus of prudish vigilance, I would like to quote the bible: "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial." 1Corinthians vs 6. Here we have an incredibly pragmatic view on the cans and cannots. "You're allowed to do everything. But if you choose with your free will to continue harming yourself physically, emotionally, as a person, then you're a serious piece of work. Note, the bible includes ways to heal oneself and to negate emotional harm so this isn't some "I tell you, you do it" shit. Instead of whether right and wrong are relative, I would like to propose that the idea of right and wrong itself is incredibly narrow. The world is more complex and beautiful than that, otherwise I would look down on it.
Do you mean then that as long as the paper trail is complete, then it is valid 'proof'? I find this hard to accept. However, a trail of evidences that cover every single possibility of fraud or extenuating circumstances cannot exist, conceptually speaking. Thus I'm for the other team ^_^ whatever convinces wins!!!
We must understand that scientific 'truth' (this mathematical statement/these statistics are) is distinct from philosophical, psychological and etymological 'truth'. It is us who use the word who are confused, not the definitions in and of themselves.
The key argument for 'absolute truth' seems to be that without the subjective view point of a human being (being with a consciousness capable of understanding viewpoints), the world around us would still exist. Thus 'truth' is equated with reality. However I would like to propose that truth in itself requires a viewpoint. For example, if a person with extensive brain damage who was once a murderer was asked "have you ever murdered another person?", this person can, quite 'truthfully', say "no I haven't". This degree of truthfulness is analogous to if we were asked the same question (assuming no murderer is reading this, if there are, my apologies), as we cannot guarantee what we are not consciously aware of. Who knows? I may moonlight as a serial killer I my sleeping hours when I have no alibi for myself. Therefore, truth has to do with integrity and choice. While the objective reality may be that I have, in fact, killed someone, I can nonetheless 'truthfully' say that I have not.
It all depends on how aware we all are of the complexity of reality and consciousness, it's not so black and white as this happened or not, a lot of times we 'create' realities with our minds, emotions and beliefs (the situation mentioned above being an extremely simplistic example of this).
Truth, in the bible, means specifically the seen world and the unseen world as seen by their Creator, not simply the exact atomic configurations of what we understand to be 'reality'.
Therefore! Truth, correctly has close ties with the word "sincerity", because only creatures with a will can be truthful. A rock, however hard it tries, cannot.
It depends. But I am going to stick to this side because most humans are eating meat unnecessarily. The animals go through so much pain we can't even comprehend! We are living in an advanced generation where we can easily live off plants. We are eating meat because we value our taste buds over the animals life. The pleasure you get is more important than the animal suffering. So I say its murder.
To what moral basis are you referring? According to Darwinism (this isn't a slam, just a literal truth), animals are no more than organic machines. Under Monotheistic ideology, consuming meat (at least, certain types of it) is perfectly fine.
Accidental copy - please ignore (I hate this character minimum... People who want to ignore it just spam characters, what's the point?)
? He submitted a factual, logical viewpoint. All of the things he said were true. He did not insult anyone, he was not disrespectful, he simply voiced his opinion. Yep. That totally means he is an "Evil bastard" Brilliant.
I have had all of those. They are nasty. Also, they are not as healthy.
Would you rather he ate it raw?! How can you possibly feel sick about something that is literally ingrained in nature?
We are naturally omnivores, not herbivores. Look at your teeth sometime. See those pointy ones? Those are meant for tearing MEAT.
Your kidding me right? That is the dumbest argument I have heard all year(though maybe I should just read more of your posts). If you are so worried about pain, spare me the pain of reading something that stupid.
Good is that which decreases suffering. If someone has incurable disease then speeding their death could be good to stop prolong suffering.
Evil is that which increases suffering. For instance the pope don't believe birth control which leads to poor kids and orphans. The pope increases suffering so he s evil
If there wasn't an afterlife, then what would one be afterwards? Is it possible to be nothing? Really, that kind of thing is beyond human comprehension.
For one thing, people have to have souls. Everyone has a kind of light in their eyes before death, and if people don't have a soul then how come we haven't created any humans? Taken dead ones and made their hearts beat and brains function? It would be very hard, but possible, if we isn't have souls. So, in that case, there would be some kind of afterlife for our souls anyway.
Well, Einstein was a genius so his quote is true. Einstein knew what he was talking about.