Best Recent Content - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Best Recent Content

  • What do you think of Conspiracy theories?

    Evidence said:
    Erfisflat said:

    @Erfisflat
    Sorry for the late response, but I was deep into researching, cross referencing, weeding, then pondering on all the new videos coming out on Giants?
    You want to talk about it here, or open a new thread? This one is "what do we think of conspiracies", we should approach this on a more positive note, don't you think?
    Oh, and remember when I just landed on Flat Earth, since then I have been saving videos into my "favorites", and have been going through them lately. I cant believe how many of them have been removed!?
    Yes, definitely a new thread. I'm aware of how many flat earth videos have been deleted, a lot of them offering some simple proof that I posted here, deleted only days after I posted. Do you remember Brian Mullin, the flat earth engineer? It's like he disappeared!
    Evidence
  • What do you think of Conspiracy theories?

    Erfisflat said:

    @Erfisflat
    Sorry for the late response, but I was deep into researching, cross referencing, weeding, then pondering on all the new videos coming out on Giants?
    You want to talk about it here, or open a new thread? This one is "what do we think of conspiracies", we should approach this on a more positive note, don't you think?
    Oh, and remember when I just landed on Flat Earth, since then I have been saving videos into my "favorites", and have been going through them lately. I cant believe how many of them have been removed!?
    Erfisflat
  • White privilege is not real

    Fascism said:
    @CYDdharta How is it a straw man? 

    @BaconToes You highlight the phrase "group of people" and use that against @Pogue. "Group of people" implies a collective. When someone refers to white people as a group, they view them as one entity. The individual is not considered. If individuals are considered when judging a group, then sure: Men are not stronger than women because some women are stronger than some men. "Group of people" judges all men as one entity and all women as one entity. In this case, men are generally stronger than women. Same thing applies to white privilege. White people are more likely to be born rich than black people in general, therefore white privilege exists. 

    @Varrack Privilege doesn't imply systematic racism. 
    Privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people. 
    There is a difference between higher wage and being born rich. Higher wage can be a result of privilege, but it is not absolute since higher wage can also come from hard work. So it depends how the higher wage was acquired. Being born rich isn't a result of hard work, therefore, it is a privilege. If you can prove that Asians are born richer than white people then I will agree that they have privilege. 
    Privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

    I not following your logic in deducing white people have an inherent right, advantage, immunity that is granted to them.  How is being born into anything here in America a privilege? There is nothing in the definition "privilege" that denote just because someone is born into a particular family that it in of itself is not a privilege. Can you give some specific's on exactly how and when white privilege occurs, not hypothetical situations? But real world "privilege." I read where a flesh tone band-aide was a sign of white privilege.  That is nonsense, manufacturers usually mass produce base on statistical marketing.  Example: why are door's manufactured at 6' 8"?  It because that 95% of the population is under the height of 6' 8".  Now is that short people privilege?

    I contend that, while there is discrimination and it goes both ways.  I don't believe there to be a systemic issue of privilege in today's society.  This notion is part of selling identity politics and is going to cause more division amongst social groups. This ideology play right into fringes of left.  So, if we are going to prove or disprove the existence of "white privilege" give some real case studies and real worldwide spread evidence because you can derive a hypothetical situation for anything you want to prove.

    "White people are more likely to be born rich than black people in general, therefore white privilege exists" 
    • This is all probability, not a privilege. When particular demographic is nearly 77% of the population, yea there is going to be a higher number of that demographic having more wealth, not because of privilege, but probability. 
    • Higher wage can be a result of privilege, Negative, again it's due to the probability.  It's just like the mythical gender wage gap, it is a miss representation of statistical data. 
    Race and Hispanic Origin
    White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)76.9%
    Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)13.3%
    American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)1.3%
    Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)5.7%
    Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a)0.2%
    Two or More Races, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)2.6%
    Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(b)17.8%
    White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)61.3%
    • But it is not absolute since higher wage can also come from hard work. YES, this is what it is all about.  I've had a simple philosophy in my career, it's just working harder and smarter than the next guy/gal.  It's paid off, most people usually don't what to put for the effort. Employers don't get rid of assets, that get rid of dead weight.  Work hard and you will be fine.
    • Being born rich isn't a result of hard work, therefore, it is a privilege. Negative, no one controls where and how they are born. It is all happenstance. 
    So, let's talk about some real-world instance of privilege.  
    BaconToes
  • If the Christian God is good, why did he kill so many people? Does this make him evil?

    The premise is:

    First, let's start with the definition that we need.
    Good- something that is morally right
    The Bible states he created good and evil so they sort of even each other out so let's look at God's actions. 
    I hope we all can agree that killing innocent people is wrong. If we can, why did he do it?

    We need to further define what is moral if the definition is simply something that is good.  Then you don't have morality, you have subjectivity. Because what is good for one person may not be good for another.  Morality is a guiding principle that resulting in objective goodness.  To have objective goodness a moral must be timeless (transcending),  demands accountability, precedes humanity and is value adding to human life.  If we remove any one of the four criteria, you no longer have a moral. [1]

    Transcending: First, goodness entails a moral authority which crosses all times, places, and cultures. Must have a standard. People groups can’t make up their own values. Instead, value applies to all people regardless of what anyone thinks about it.  That’s what philosophers mean by “mind-independent.” The Nazis can’t be justified in doing what they did no matter how many people agreed with it.  Instead, goodness must extend beyond the individual mind or community consensus to be the standard by which ALL people and cultures are compared. The value inherent in objective goodness must transcend humanity in this way.

    Preceding:  Second, goodness cannot have been invented by the first humans. After all, any values established by man can be later undone by men. [2] It would be absurd to think the first humans could come up with whatever value system they wanted because they were first on the scene.  It doesn’t take much effort to see the advantage of lying or stealing as virtues. No, that isn’t an option available to us. Goodness wasn’t invented. It was already there. (Consider Romans 1.28-29)
    • Romans 1.28-29:  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them
    Holding Accountable:  Third, there is no objective goodness if evil goes unpunished. In other words, where there’s no justice, there’s no injustice. When people are allowed to do bad things without any consequences, there is no justice. Objective goodness demands justice. But there’s not always justice in this world. 

    • In a purely natural world with no accountability for all people, there’s no justice for all people. If there’s no justice for all people, there’s no justice at all. If that’s not good, then goodness must include universal human accountability and chaos may ensue 

    Value Giving:  Fourth, objective goodness must include the intrinsic value inherent in all human life.  By intrinsic, I mean they all have equal worth just for being part of the species and not for any act, experience, or attribute they have or lack.  It would make no sense to violate the rights of a human being if they aren’t valued in the first place. Evil and suffering experienced by humans only makes sense if the species has worth beyond itself and that their value is an objective fact of reality

    The second argument - The Bible states he created good and evil so they sort of even each other out so let's look at God's actions. 

    This premise is based on King James Version of Isaiah 45.7, where it states..."I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."  Many would like for the word evil in this verse to mean 

    1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.
      "his evil deeds" · 
      synonyms: wicked · bad · wrong · morally wrong · wrongful · immoral · sinful [3]

    However, there is evidence to the contrary.  More modern versions of Isaiah have translated the verse as...

    We can also examine the original Hebrew meaning from a lexicon. 

    7451.  רַע raʿ, rah; from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (nat. or mor.):—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, × great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured). + mark, mischief (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st), wretchedness, wrong. [4]

    Notice how the "Evil" connotation carries either a natural event or an evil man/thing. If we go a little further in-depth and evaluate the sense of the word we find...


    Two things to be noted from the Bible Sense Lexicon: 1) the sense of the word is an event resulting in loss or misfortune. 2) Looking to the arrow we find Isa 31.2 has the same Hebrew word with the same sense.




    Notice from both Isa 32.1 and 45.7 both verses have the same Hebrew word רַע raʿrah; and they both carry the same sense of the word.  One is interpreted as a calamity and the other a disaster.  If we look at the entire verse of Ish 31.2 we find the word evildoer or doer of evil.  

    Isaiah 31.2"  Yet He also is wise and will bring disaster, and will not call back His words, but will arise against the house of evildoers, and against the help of those who work iniquity.[5]



    Now we can see how רַע raʿrah; is used to mean a natural event/misfortune and רָעַע râʿaʿ, raw-ah´; is a doer of evil.  Now let's evaluate the sense of the word.

     

    Here we can see the Hebrew word that denotes one who does evil.  So, the only logical conclusion is Isa 45.7 does not carry the idea that God is a creator of evil or a doer of evil as thought of in our modern English definition and usage of the word evil.

    Evil can be thought of as the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light.  Let's evaluate some verses that testify to God's goodness. 

    • Genesis 1:31  And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
    • Psalm 100:5  For the LORD is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations.
    • Luke 18:19  And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
    • Romans 12:2  Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

    A verse that testifies to God not being associated with evilness, sin, or wrongdoings.

    • Psalms 5:4  For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, Nor shall evil dwell with You.
    Recall that there is no morality without accountability.  Just as in modern times, why have a law if the law is not going to be enforced?  Here are some verses that speak to God hold mankind accountable.  
    • Ecclesiastes 12:14:  For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.
    • Amos 5:14-15:  Seek good and not evil, that you may live; So, the LORD God of hosts will be with you, as you have spoken.  Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
    • Romans 13:4:  For he is God's minister to you for goodBut if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
    • James 1:13-14:  Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.  But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
    • 1Peter 3:17:  For it is better if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
    • Romans 6:23:  For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    The book of Hebrews reveals that Old Testament events served as a Copy for the Shadows of things to come.  In other words, physical Israel served as a copy of what happens in the Spiritual realm or what is know as Spiritual Israel in the Christian age (shadow). 

    • Hebrews 8.2-7: a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.[6] 

    Taking the totality of what we've revealed to this point we know God is not evil, the events recorded in the Old Testament are there for our learning so we may understand how our physical actions impact our spiritual wellbeing.  We also know that morals must entail accountability, be of a standard that transcends all of humanity, precedes humanity and have an intrinsic value for human life.  Eliminating anyone factor leaves mankind with an unstable opinion that relies on one's own perspective and may result in a conundrum of what might be good for one, may not be good for another.  

    I will stop my rebuttal of the premise for now and address the events state below from the author of the source material in the premise.  The author claims the examples to be the hardest to answer in proving God as not being an immoral entity. I will not have time rebut all 50 events listed, but to prove that all the events can be refuted as not being immoral acts of God, you can send me a message and let me know which event(s) you would perfer to be argued.  

    Author's List: Such examples are bears mauling 42 children, Jephthah sacrificing his daughter, God killing King David's child to punish David, God inflicting thousands if not millions of civilians with tumors, Moses' army killing women and children, etc.[7]


    [1] http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2017/debating-atheists-arrival-of-evil/ ;
    [2] Gregory Koukl, The Story of Reality, p73 
    [3] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evil
    [4]  Strong, J. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 2, p. 109). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
    [5]The New King James Version. (1982). (Is 31:2). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [6] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 8:2–7). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
    [7] http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html  
    WilliamSchulz
  • White privilege is not real

    I generally don't enjoy these subjects but I'm going to have to take sides against the idea that White Privilege exists.  If you're going to say that one race has it better or worse than another and therefor "Privilege" exists then we're going to have to establish first and foremost what race you're comparing that race to and exactly how.

    If you're going to say that it's harder for one race to obtain a job then I'm afraid I must see some sort of fair comparison as the statement is purely relative.  So let's say I buy it, ok...so they have it harder than who?
    with_all_humility
  • White privilege is not real

    CYDdharta said:
    Pogue said:

    So, it seems like you ignored my point and I did not say that. Seems like a straw man. 
    1. It is harder to get jobs if it is a poorer area. There is less business because it is poorer. 
    2. If you are making just enough money to survive, how can you save?
    3. How can you find enough money to move if you are barely finding enough money to survive? 

    Overall, it seems like you ignored my response and my first argument. That is ok. You only need that for an honest debate. 
    They can't get jobs???  They can't save money and move away like white people did???  You sound like a racist.  I read your post and links, they said minorities haven't been prohibited from the mentioned communities for half a century.  That is a significant amount of time for a country that's less than 250 years old.  No one is limiting anyone's progress and mobility, the people in these communities are limiting themselves.
    Don't strawmen. Pogue clearly says it makes it harder for then to get jobs, so there is no reason to interpret this as it being impossible for them to get jobs.

    Then it you want to make claims of your own try backing them up in future.
    Fascism
  • White privilege is not real

    Pogue said:

    So, it seems like you ignored my point and I did not say that. Seems like a straw man. 
    1. It is harder to get jobs if it is a poorer area. There is less business because it is poorer. 
    2. If you are making just enough money to survive, how can you save?
    3. How can you find enough money to move if you are barely finding enough money to survive? 

    Overall, it seems like you ignored my response and my first argument. That is ok. You only need that for an honest debate. 
    They can't get jobs???  They can't save money and move away like white people did???  You sound like a racist.  I read your post and links, they said minorities haven't been prohibited from the mentioned communities for half a century.  That is a significant amount of time for a country that's less than 250 years old.  No one is limiting anyone's progress and mobility, the people in these communities are limiting themselves.
    PogueFascism
  • Should high schools provide daycare services for students who have children?

    @BaconToes A retort to that comeback is abortion.
    I mean, I am pro-choice, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    But, having an abortion at such a young age comes with its risks.
    And most teens are too scared to tell their parents
    Erfisflat
  • How far is competition necessary in regards to the learning process?

    Is competition an essential part of the learning process? Would we learn the same without competition? How much competition is good for learning? 
    aarong
  • Pedophilia is no different from transgenderism

    Pedos are cancer. So are trans...
    whiteflameWokeWhale

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch