BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion delays societal development

There will always be people who believe stupid things. And you're right: there are people who believe that the earth was created by a sky fairy in six days, five thousand seven hundred and seventy-two years ago. There are also people who believe that the homeopathy is effective, that Jews control the world, or that vaccines cause autism, despite evidence to the contrary. On the whole, though, religion is overwhelmingly in support of old-earth and evolutionary theories. In a survey conducted by the Pew Forum, 77% of Christian Americans (in the 12 largest denominations) were found to attend churches that support teaching evolution. Leaving Christians aside, Jews, the second-largest religious group in the United States, are also 77% in favour of evolution. Are those 33% of people who believe in creationism really so harmful to our society, especially considering that their views are disregarded by the vast majority of educated people? The same Theory of Evolution that you consider a key issue, ironically, was conceived of at least in part by Charles Darwin, a religious man who believed that behind evolution was an omnipotent Creator. The Newcomen Steam Engine, which led to the Industrial Revolution, was invented by Thomas Newcomen, a Baptist preacher. On the whole, while groups of religious people do exist who insist on ignoring the balance of evidence, there have been in the past, and still are, religious people at the forefront of important scientific discoveries everywhere. They do not seem impeded in the slightest by their faith. I realize that Darwin didn't read about evolution in the Bible, he came up with it himself. Nor did Newcomen open up Corinthians and find a blueprint for a steam engine. My point is merely that faith is neither harmful nor beneficial to society, it depends on how it's used.
Religion delays societal development

Fair enough, I suppose you could say my argument is against wasting time. But what is religion, being as old as the dawn of humanity, compared to 64 years of video games? To take what we know today and throw it away in the name of creationism is utterly ridiculous. Sure we can study nature as the "marvels of God", but when we make discoveries contradicting religious claims as we have been doing since it's release, then what's the point in holding on to those claims? What annoys me is that people continue to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years, that babies could be born walking and talking, along with countless other nonsense from religious texts, despite the fact that evidence has been gathered proving otherwise. Along with the growing number of discoveries we make, there are those ignorant to the facts we produce. Science is dedicated to disproving it's theories, whereas religion "knows" it's right. People have had faith for thousands of years and it contributed essentially nothing to man's understanding of the world. It's only been in the last couple centuries that some men have dared to question the religious interpretation of things and form opinions based on the weight of evidence rather than the current church doctrine. The result has been an explosion of technological, scientific and medical insight and a revolution in the way people live. A century ago most people did not have electricity, running water, central heating, antibiotics or lifespans >50 years.
Religion delays societal development

The problem with the argument, as I see it, is that it has nothing to do with religion. It sounds more like a crusade against multitasking. When Google changed their logo to a Pac-Man game, billions of man-hours were wasted, and yet I don't see you protesting that. Yes, the human mind is in some sense incapable of thinking about two things at once. My point wasn't that we can, my point was that it's possible to balance the two aspects so that real accomplishments are possible. To use Pascal as an example, you surely don't expect him to spend 24 hours a day writing philosophical works. To complain about how he spent his free time is an exercise in folly. To sum up my first point, your main complaint (as I see it; again, feel free to correct me) has nothing to do with religion. It's time-wasting in general that you're complaining about, in which case it would be just as effective to argue about video games. Second, to somebody of faith, everything they do is an extension of their belief in god. So when Thomas Aquinas tries to reconcile Aristotle with the teachings of the Catholic church, essentially leading to an enlightenment, he's doing it as a Christian. Truly religious people - and I know many of them - don't have two modes, "god" and "science". They can think about god's wonders while conducting research, or marvel at the miracles in nature while praying. To say that worship and societal advancement are mutually incompatible is wrong, because to a religious person, making great discoveries can be a form of worship.
Religion delays societal development

You're right in that I should have been more specific about my opinion. However, your restatement of my argument is incorrect. Yes, belief holds some responsibility for delays in development of society. Though I didn't say that religion causes the inability of reason. Only that one cannot think about religion and reason simultaneously. I'll use this as a better way to explain it: If you have work to do, and at the same time there are youtube videos to distract you, you can only do one or the other. While you're doing your work you are not watching youtube videos. While you are watching youtube videos you are not doing work. I am aware that there are individuals who were and are religious and yet still had impacts on modern day society. Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Pascal, etc. But when they were developing these ideas, they weren't thinking "God". When we stop to think about God that's just what we do, we stop. Seeing as you are an atheist, I'm sure you understand that religion was created because mankind had know idea what anything was. Being the curious creatures we are, we eventually temporarily put aside such notions and through rational inquiry, came to the understanding we have of the world today. My point is that without religion, people would have all that extra time to put their skills to use.
Religion delays societal development

I want to start off like you, by saying that I am personally atheist. But I feel the need to argue a position I once held, for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate. I'm going to restate your argument as the following, because you haven't been specific enough to allow anything else. "Religion (defined as 'The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods') has in general caused delays in the development of society. These delays are caused by an inability to think rationally and analytically while worshiping a diety." Feel free to correct me. As much as religion is based on blind faith, the assertion that it "holds back societal development" still requires evidence. Of course, like in any trial, no evidence need be offered the other way, for religion is "innocent until proven guilty". Still, there is some evidence to show that religion has, in past, been beneficial to societies and led to developments in science. - In ancient Egypt, the Pharaohs were able to manage great civilizations while simultaneously serving as the head of a church. Their accomplishments include great military feats, as well as engineering projects like the Pyramids. These things definitely required analytical thinking, and yet the religious beliefs of the Egyptians didn't prevent them from thinking rationally when necessary. - Avicenna, one of the great medical scholars of the medieval Islamic world, was a "devout Muslim and sought to reconcile rational philosophy with Islamic theology." Again, he showed his capability to think analytically through his famous works, The Book of Healing and the Canon of Medicine, and at the same time believed firmly in Allah. I'm assuming your statement was intended towards the Judeo-Christian god, but I see no reason to limit the discussion like that. If Eastern religions are taken into account as well, things get more interesting. The Dalai Lama, a devout believer in a god, has in past said that "[i]f science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." Again, he shows the capacity of some believers to think rationally and at the same time hold a particular faith. An important distinction to make is that statements like "cannot" are absolutes: if one says that one "cannot think about what benefits our evolution while thinking about an omnipotent, invisible entity", it is necessarily referring to all possible cases, at all points in time. Unless the statement is revised to be more specific, simply finding one case of a rational thinker who was also religious disproves the whole argument.
Religion delays societal development

I'm going to start off by saying I detest religion. I understand it's origins, but I consider it an insult to humanity that in this day and age people are still willing to follow prehistoric nonsense. In my opinion I believe that the continuation of blindly following "faith" only delays the development of society as one cannot think about what benefits our evolution while thinking about an omnipotent, invisible entity. History and (what should be) common sense shows us that analytical thinking has led us to where we are today. Faith, by definition, is not analytical thinking.
Joy of Satan

I'm just going to refute the two main points my opponent consolidated for me.A. I've mentioned that when it comes to religion, words and meaning gets distorted in my little bit the last round. It's like how one country's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.B. No, I cannot look at goats with flaming eyes and tell you it represents good. I also cannot look at a snake woman and see anymore meaning. It's because the way you and I were raised puts the stress of good and bad differently from other cultures. It's the whole Plato's cave, on how our perception is based on society's. Goats are actually symbolic and good in other cultures. It's all about being open-minded and accepting. Note: These arguments can excuse many crazy people/action and there is a large chance you will feel like it's wrong. However if they don't hurt anyone, you cannot be so narrow minded and bad mouth it.
Joy of Satan

I might be misinterpreting what you are saying but by all means, correct me the next round. I'm going to shorten the whole rant into one sentence: this form of Satanism is false/contradictory since it claims Satan is good, and different from other religions, but uses their negative symbols. I'm not going to go in depth into all your examples, but your first one is why call Satan truth and light when use darkness. Light, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, can be "spiritual illumination." Religion is not meant to be taken literally, and there could be many reasons to use darkness. Black soil is fertile and grows life. It could be any number of things and judging the religion based on color is not a real criteria. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Next, your main second point is why use the goat head when the goat head in Christianity is evil? Well, you did quote that they are not connected to other religions, so you can't judge their symbols on other religions. However, the contradiction is the point. You claim evil/bad, I will use to mean something good. An example is the Impressionistic movement, where "impression" is used as a criticism and insult, but was later turned around and accepted. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster used the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an arbitrary symbol to criticize religion, but later embraced it and started a whole new religion off that. Now you do briefly touch on by saying "and people say no means yes. No, it doesn"t." However that's your opinion that A is always A, whereas other thinkers who push pass the norm would rather say A alludes to B and C. This is a matter of opinion and also many words have roots that differ from what they mean. Trim use to mean in Old English "to make firm or strong; to settle, arrange," while the current usage (and thus is now defined as) "to remove by or as if by cutting." http://www.impressionism.org... http://dictionary.reference.com... The bit about money is irrelevant since all religions need money to advance, particularly when a rival/parallel religion has more and in your opinion spreading the wrong idea. It's their duty to spread "truth," a virtue that this form of Satanism agrees with. Also I would like to remind my opponent to be respectful and not make random baseless assertions (your entire last paragraph), saying it's your opinion doesn't excuse or validate these claims. Thank you, and I'm curious to what you'll say.
Joy of Satan

Isaiah 65:2 says, "I extend my hands all the day unto a people who walk in a way that is not good and is evil." It continues that God says (in my interpretation), therefore when they ask for my help I will not allow myself to be found. It's like eating potato chips and ice cream and cake all your life and then you want God to save you from that heart attack. He isn't going to, because you knew right from wrong, and yet you had free will to make your own decisions and chose wrong. So no, why would you expect him to help you while you feel it screaming out at you? The purpose and meaning of life, to me, is growth. You gotta learn your own lessons, to grow. All things in the universe grow, or they die. Temptation isn't put their because He hates you or wants to destroy you. How can you expect the human race to be worthy of becoming part of a galactic brotherhood if when given the opportunity to do right for yourself and others you do detriment and harm to yourself and others instead? Ever heard the expression, "Heaven can wait?" Yea because you're hear to learn. Heaven doesn't need to intervene to show you the way because if instead of looking outward for answers and instead look inward, there you will find the answers already within.
Joy of Satan

Why do you assume the arrogance that just because you don't understand that it, it can't be true. Most people find meaning in their respective religious text that others cannot. I don't understand why the Bible claims that God is omnibenevolent and all powerful, but decides to solve his problem with a genocide. It is inherently contradictory but it's one of the largest religions. Maybe if you took time to open your mind you might, but your views doesn't mean others don't understand. The irony screams out to me and I fully understand. Just a note, my opponent has accepted all my rebuttals and is just debating on my grounds. None of his original points stand beside the idea that "it's contradictory."
Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism in Europe and the US.

Hello acetravel, thanks for joining the debate. The main thrust my of my argument does not concern the separation of church and state, rather the attitude of the media in particular and society in general towards the muslim community. It would appear that it is considered acceptable to make disparaging comments about people of the Islamic faith when similar remarks about Jews would be considered anti-Semitic. http://www.islamophobia-watch.com... So we can see that, while anti-Semitism is (rightly) condemned, Islamophobia has gained mainstream social acceptability.
Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism in Europe and the US.

I think you exaggerate the facts in your example too much. First, do you really sure the replies in the 'http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk......' can represent well the opinions of whole English? Even if it is true, what make you think they really have to intention to say 'I hate muslim and Islam.'. Don't you think it is the problem of the separation of church and state to the law system or the principle of territorial privilege for jurisdiction? If some minor church in the UK require the same thing like the muslims to the government, you may think it is the problem of the separation of church and state to the law system and in the problem of lawmaking course. But, because only changing to muslim and other religions, if you say it is the Islamophobia, it is the too much over exaggerating this situation. If you really want to say Islamophobia, you show us more relating examples like the news in the discrimination to the muslims with their daily lives. In addition, Jewish people were harshed from the far past, but today is different than the past. Respecting human rights is the common value in our current age, so the discrimination like the witch-hunting are efficiently prevented in the modern age in the Western World. In addition, Muslims have many different aspects than the Jewish in the past so the problem in the present is different. It is not the problem of the new anti-Semitism in Europe and the US. Finally, bigots always find their victims. It is not the special situation. Of course everyone included me have some prejudice, but I don't think they do not distinct the most of the peaceful muslim and the terrorists. I want to more detail examples related to this problem. I'll wait your reply.
Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism in Europe and the US.

I would like to invite my fellow debaters to read the following news item: http://news.bbc.co.uk... …and then read the public reaction to the story… http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk... There has been a Jewish community in England for almost a thousand years and they have had their own religious courts, the Beth Din, since 1706. http://www.theus.org.uk... For many years, the Jews were held in suspicion by British people, often persecuted or even viciously attacked, a notable example of such an incident being the massacre of the Jews at Clifford's Tower in York, England, in 1190. http://www.bbc.co.uk... However, since the end of World War II when the horrors of the Holocaust were exposed, the Jewish community have received the sympathy and respect of most European and American people, with only the most bigoted of xenophobes continuing to voice anti-Semitic views. However, since the events of September 11th 2001 in the US, and the subsequent terrorist atrocities in Europe, European and American bigots have largely refocused their vitriolic prejudice away from Jews (and newly arrived immigrants) to people of the Islamic faith. While nobody questions the existence of the Beth Din, there is a public outcry when the Islamic equivalent is proposed. Thus, Islamophobia has largely replaced anti-Semitism in Europe and North America.
There is no objective morality

>Previously proven Con can't just say previously proven without reference and then assume it adds something to the argument. Making claims without justification is nonsense. Otherwise I could just say "There is no objective morality" and claim it was previously proven and automatically win. >Intuition has no relevance Having views and hearing other people describe their views is not intuition. Otherwise all my experiences are intuition. When someone is talking to me, do I have intuition that they are saying something? Con is confusing sensory perception and self-awareness with intuition. >Framework assumes morality exists It does not. This is like saying that if I said "There are no blue dragons" I assumed dragons existed. I could be claiming that there are other types of dragons, but I could just as easily be saying there are no blue dragons because there are no dragons. Disagreeing that objective morality exists doesn't necessitate me believing in another type of morality. Follow up- I don't think it would be the right thing to do as I don't believe in that concept. I don't think it would be wrong either.
There is no objective morality

>This was never established but assumed by Con Proved previous, this arg is nonsense. >1st and 2nd hand experience that people have subjective (personal) views concerning morality. Intuition has no relevance >a moral code ex post facto Previously proven >This is also controversial and thus requires support. framework assumes morality exists, anything else is semantics and squirelling Follow up - do you think that your action would be the right thing to do in that situation? Presumably you would, right?
There is no objective morality

> Situational ethics problem at hand This was never established but assumed by Con >Pro assuming conclusion I am not assuming the conclusion. I expressing my position based on 1st and 2nd hand experience that people have subjective (personal) views concerning morality. I also never claimed that individual perception is what made things moral only that some individuals have moral perception. >One cannot establish a moral code ex post facto This claim is controversial and thus requires support >Morality exists This is also controversial and thus requires support. >arguments hold for all situations Assuming this means that the reason arguments for objective morality hold for all situations, I have yet to see these arguments, and thus can't agree or disagree with them. Response to question: Yes I would stop them as I habitually try to prevent the suffering of others when possible.
There is no objective morality

Rebuttal:>Limits morality to specific situations and excludes virtue ethics and other non-situational ethical theoryOpponent assumes this case as well, individual feeling not necessarily present always. Situational ethics is problem at hand. This refutes Pro case.> People have subjective moral perceptions of actions prior to taking them.Changes nothing. Pro assuming conclusion, that morality is subjective so an individual's perception is what makes things moral or not.>bjective justification is a reasonable approach.because one cannot establish a moral code ex post facto>Even assuming that subjective morality fails, this does not necessitate objective morality.1.) morality exists 2.) morality can be only subjective or objective - all things can be only subjective or objective3.) subjective morality fails4.) but morality exists5.) morality is objectiveReason arguments are pretty much dropped here, the arguments hold for all situations, not necessarily only some situations, even if logical arguments have been made against them.Follow up to question - were you to see someone attempting to enslave another person and assuming that you had the means to (a weapon of some sort, presumably) would you stop them?
There is no objective morality

First argument: Rejection of P1: Limits morality to specific situations and excludes virtue ethics and other non-situational ethical theory Rejection of P2: People have subjective moral perceptions of actions prior to taking them. Ex: Someone could consider hurting someone but then not do it because they judge it to be immoral. Rejection of P4: Not obvious. Subjective justification is a reasonable approach. Rejection of C1: Even assuming that subjective morality fails, this does not necessitate objective morality. Second argument: P1: This is assumed but requires support. P2: From a consequentalist perspective, as my opponent has pointed out, we can't know the consequences of our actions and thus we can't determine actions. P3: Assumed but requires support. Response to question: While I subjectively find it wrong, I don't think it can be objectively proven to be wrong. In fact, historically, logical arguments have been made in support of slavery so the rejection of slavery is not "common to all humanity"