Debate thread (revived)

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 1:53 am

Did I remake a debate thread? I can't find seem to find one from the search feature so here it goes:

1. Rules? What rules, just don't nuke each other in the process

oh and talk about stuff non calculator related

Topic: Sorry, i'm gonna change it. I knew it was gonna be a bit flat.
OS X or Windows?

kalan_vod · Post by **kalan_vod** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 2:14 am

currahee wrote: Topic: Should Israel really be where it should be?

I think they a right for being where they are as it has been their spot for a long time.

CompWiz · Post by **CompWiz** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 2:53 am

Yeah, they were there way before the other people. They have holy cities there, they were given that land by God. (that's what jews/christians believe)
How does the holocost mean that Isreal people did something wrong?

And how can the Iranian leader claim it didn't happen? That's just rude.

And they have managed to hold their own against the arab countries.
I don't think that they will even consider moving, even if the US offered them some land here.

kalan_vod · Post by **kalan_vod** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 3:50 am

Lord forbid giving any of our land!
Yeah why does the Israels moving concern that of the hallocost?

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 4:22 am

Sorry,

that was a bad topic. Since well, all i've noticed is polyticks for debate, how about a classic? MacOS X or Windows? (this includes the upcoming Windows Vista OS)

kalan_vod · Post by **kalan_vod** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 4:25 am

What about linux?

necro · Post by **necro** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 4:38 am

Anser: Unix

New topic, which is better, theism or athiesm
My opinion: Loose religous belief is fine, but strong faith is bad. Why (prepare for psychological discussion)? Because strong faith is diffiucult to achive with out creating a strong wall of negative habbits to keep disbelieve out. The stronger you believe, generaly, the more you have to attack everything else to feed you confidence in your rightness...a form of displacement where you try to make it logical and moral to disbelive the ideas of nonbelief. These methods lead to a increase in aggression, of low self esteem in the unconscious, and a strong dislike of change...in other words, to believe strongly, most people need hate and attack harshly to stave off and deny their own resservations.

Further more, this also leads to massive rationalisation. That means that you say things like "Well, god understands if WE get an abortion, but it is wrong and any one else desserves to go to hell...I mean we weren't sober, it wasn't our faults..." which is obviously a bad patern to set your self up for. Well, that said, the religous also try and isolate them selves from non religous "Why don't you just go red lighting if you don't believe in god." Attacking other's with diffrent believes in areas of shared moral is quite common, and rather sad. I have noticed this in my own parents for example.

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 7:05 am

What about letting the topic of religion rest in peace?

The only kind of debate that has the potential to actually lead somewhere is related to some profession. I remember we had an interesting conversation with Kalimero about software development, but no-one else joined. It's here:

http://joepnet.com/hosted/maxcoderz/php ... .php?t=364

CompWiz · Post by **CompWiz** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 12:45 pm

We could start the AMD vs. Intel CPU's debate again. That was fun.

Homestar · Post by **Homestar** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 3:01 pm

necro wrote:Anser: Unix

New topic, which is better, theism or athiesm
My opinion: Loose religous belief is fine, but strong faith is bad. Why (prepare for psychological discussion)? Because strong faith is diffiucult to achive with out creating a strong wall of negative habbits to keep disbelieve out. The stronger you believe, generaly, the more you have to attack everything else to feed you confidence in your rightness...a form of displacement where you try to make it logical and moral to disbelive the ideas of nonbelief. These methods lead to a increase in aggression, of low self esteem in the unconscious, and a strong dislike of change...in other words, to believe strongly, most people need hate and attack harshly to stave off and deny their own resservations.

Further more, this also leads to massive rationalisation. That means that you say things like "Well, god understands if WE get an abortion, but it is wrong and any one else desserves to go to hell...I mean we weren't sober, it wasn't our faults..." which is obviously a bad patern to set your self up for. Well, that said, the religous also try and isolate them selves from non religous "Why don't you just go red lighting if you don't believe in god." Attacking other's with diffrent believes in areas of shared moral is quite common, and rather sad. I have noticed this in my own parents for example.

I think nerco's hit on a pretty good discussion topic.

Personally I agree with everything Nerco has said... with one exception...

If your belief is truely correct.

Before I continue my arguement I want to make sure I state one fact. atheism is a belief ... a belief in no god, but a belief none-the-less.

many things you said like: "The stronger you believe, generaly, the more you have to attack everything else to feed you confidence in your rightness...a form of displacement where you try to make it logical and moral to disbelive the ideas of nonbelief." -and- "Well, that said, the religous also try and isolate them selves from non religous"

- are very true for those who bitterly know they are wrong, but don't want to admit it for their own 'personal benefit' (liberals). Although this attitue never benefits them, or others; they are 'blinded' by their bitterness and passion, that is many times Isolated and taken far out of proportion (aka. Michael Moore).

Now don't get me wrong, you can't judge a sect. or a religion by just one person or group. You have to judge a religion/sect. as a whole. No matter what religion, (or lack there-of) you look at, there will be "weirdos" and "extremeists". The best way to start looking at a religion/sect. is in their "scriptures/textbooks" Only after that can you understand their reactions, and be able to judge them correctly. Another good way is to look back into History. History tells many tales the religion doesn't necessarily tell; but once again you have to watch out for perversions that aren't true representations, but 'claim' that they are.

In your post you mentiones that "loose religion" is ok while "strong faith" is bad. Everyone beleives in something with "strong faith", and you seemed to have "strong faith" in "loose/no religion".

Where do you stand religiously speaking?

Personally I'm a strong Christian, and make sure not to 'isolate' myself, but to strengthen my faith by examining others.

(sorry currahee if this isn't what you intended, but you made a debate thread, and nerco made a statemeny, and I couldn't resist a good debate.)

necro · Post by **necro** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 3:40 pm

err...not so much, it isn't hard to not believe in something, thus the general lack of conflict in non-theistic groups. I realy don't care if other people believe I will go to hell, because I don't believe there is one. Of course, I still have morals and I follow them because I want to, not because I am affraid to not do so. On the flip side, if I was theistic, some one saying I am going to hell or I am w/e might flip me out.

For example, strong belief in certain Muslim interpretations lead to incredible iron fistedness and absolutism. Such a society further alowed for religous "loop holes" to be created to give people horrible ways to "get" want they want with out having god's punishment. That is why some young men want to be martered, they believe in a heaven in which all the things they are denied by their faith is abundant. This also apllies to christian faith, and some what to jewish faith, but doesn't apply to all polythiestic religions so far as I have concluded from my researching, as most are very open to the expansion of religion (assimliation of other religions) and have not the unwaivering and 'pure' definitions of religous idea that mono-theism does. That single focus is what brings into play all of the problems, so far as I have found.

"are very true for those who bitterly know they are wrong, but don't want to admit it for their own 'personal benefit' (liberals). Although this attitue never benefits them, or others; they are 'blinded' by their bitterness and passion, that is many times Isolated and taken far out of proportion (aka. Michael Moore)."

I think you just prooved my point with that attack and self isolation against the "evil" liberals
**********************************************************

Liberal is not religous in term. In fact, it is completely unrelated to this debate. However, to enlightne you, it is the belief that the government exists to help the people. How? By providing jobs to the jobless, health to the sick, charity to the impoverished, it is much along the lines of the teachings of jesus: it is generaly against war, a very christian out look (love your enemies closer than thy friends as they most need your love), against judging other people, also very christian ("he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone" "judge not lest ye be judged" etc), and has a high focus on empathy, rights, and freedoms and breaking tradition which is all very christian.

It could also be considered more comunist than the republican capatalism (btw: russia was not either, it was totalitarian.) Neither system are perfect, but I am a progressive socialist my self and I do not have any religion.

Arcane WIzard · Post by **Arcane WIzard** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 4:00 pm

necro wrote:New topic, which is better, theism or athiesm
My opinion: Loose religous belief is fine, but strong faith is bad. Why (prepare for psychological discussion)? Because strong faith is diffiucult to achive with out creating a strong wall of negative habbits to keep disbelieve out. The stronger you believe, generaly, the more you have to attack everything else to feed you confidence in your rightness...a form of displacement where you try to make it logical and moral to disbelive the ideas of nonbelief. These methods lead to a increase in aggression, of low self esteem in the unconscious, and a strong dislike of change...in other words, to believe strongly, most people need hate and attack harshly to stave off and deny their own resservations.

Except with Buddhism of course. In my opinion neither theism or atheism is better. If someone kills in the name of their god(s), even if such an action is literally encouraged by his religion, then the act of killing is wrong, not the religion. That is of course, if you feel there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong". Either way I don't believe you'll be punished for anything you did in this live when you die.

dysfunction · Post by **dysfunction** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 4:01 pm

It's not that I believe there isn't a God. I simply don't believe there is a God. (Lost yet? I'll post more when I get home.)

necro · Post by **necro** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 4:09 pm

In other words:
E=evidence
AE=evidence abset
G=God
<=against
>=for
/= =does not

(AE<G)+(AE>G)/=(E>G)

dysfunction · Post by **dysfunction** » Thu 15 Dec, 2005 5:23 pm

Necro: Ah, good to lear you're socialist too. We should discuss that sometime.

MaxCoderz

Debate thread (revived)

Debate thread (revived)

Re: Debate thread (revived)