azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Hey Pancho, I'm from Northern Ireland and couldn't really give a tinker's damn about Republicans and Democrats.Both Bill and Hillary Clinton came here and helped the peace process enormously so I'm very aware of humane side of Democrats.I'm also aware of the role Tip O'Neill and Senator Kennedy played in promoting 'Noraid' which was an American organization formed to collect money for the murderous I.R.A.I observe from afar how it's usually the Republicans who pull the United States out of the financial quagmire after a term or two of Democratic government.Your juvenile name calling only goes to graphically illustrate your ability to refer to the thesaurus and your arrested intellect.At 73 I've long since retired and right now I'm in the process of making a guider for my grandson who will be visiting me soon.I find cyber hero's such as you amusing as it is unlikely that the likes of you have ever achieved much in life, so you hit the computer and spew out your resentment from the anonymity of your computer room.You see I obtained a 2nd class honours degree in civil engineering in 1965 and after a junior management position with an international concrete company went on to form my own business. My firm ran for 28 years and had a full time, slightly fluctuating permanent workforce of between 120 and 130.I had to find sufficient work for my workforce of 130, ( small by American standards I know), ensure the work was completed to the required standards and then make sure we were paid.All this plus receiving numerous threats on my life from the terrorist groups of both sides of our little warring community.However, here I am living a pleasant life in Bangor Co. down and owning a modest apartment in Nice, Cote d' azure.You and the likes of you pale into insignificance and will never cut any ice with me whatsoever.I engage in such forums for the amusement I have observing phonies trying to project themselves as achievers.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

I would argue no, and the article linked below (though it is biased) supports my argument. I say that people have no choice as to whether or not they accept a religious belief, because they have no choice in the brain that they are born with, or the environment they are raised in etc. ('Nature and nurture')Utter nonsense. I accept that religious indoctrination is an extremely powerful tool, but to argue that people have no free will at all to decide what they believe is just utter fucking nonsense. It's demonstrably false. Several of my own personal friends have devout religious parents and became atheists in adulthood. Furthermore, many people switch religions during the course of a lifetime.I quickly scanned the article you linked and that too, is fucking nonsense. For example:-After all, though we can choose our religious affiliation, none of us can ultimately choose what we truly believe or don't believeImmediately he is contradicting himself. I'm free to choose whether I believe Jesus or Mohammed was the prophet, but I am simultaneously not free to choose whether I believe Jesus or Mohammed was the prophet. What the fuck?Inculcation -- either political, religious, or cultural -- can "lock" a mind into a belief system, that is true. When the belief is critiqued the mind can also become irrational in trying to defend it. However, we are the ones who are ultimately in control of our own minds, not the other way around. The mind has an autopilot, sure, but it can always be taken over by conscious will, and a belief can always be analysed objectively using the law of reason.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

So a child taken to church has the choice to use free will and reject religion is to you plausible ? Most children do not even know why they are in church or have the ability to question what they don't even understand .Your friends became atheist in adulthood or changed religions so what ?The vast majority do not follow this trend do they ? You're totally ignoring the fact that a mere child is rarely given a chance to pick or choose it's religion as it's part of them from infancy where the first introduction to religion and god is presented
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

So a child taken to church has the choice to use free will and reject religion is to you plausible ?No, it is not "plausible". It is everyday reality. I attended a catholic primary school and was taken to church regularly. I entirely rejected religion.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

Well no it's not ' everyday reality ' . You're the exception to the rule , to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Well no it's not ' everyday reality ' . You're the exception to the rule , to claim otherwise is ridiculous.Oh yes. It's "ridiculous" to not arbitrarily assume I am the only person in the world with the capacity for freedom of choice.Or...You could just be a brainless idiot.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

So your considered opinion is that no one is indoctrinated as everyone makes a free choice as to their religion ? You really are terrible at debating , I thought you couldn't top your 9 / 11 for debate for stupidity you've actually surpassed yourself with this latest claim
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

So your considered opinion is that no one is indoctrinated as everyone makes a free choice as to their religion ?No, that is a straw man argument which is contrary to what I have already written in this thread, and which you are clumsily trying to pass off as my "considered opinion". If you want to know what my "considered opinion" is then why don't you simply ask me, you bumbling fool? I have no interest in your childish false dichotomies where I must either believe X or Y.You really are terrible at debatingI truly don't think you understand what debating is. For you it is an exercise of ego, which explains why you abandon honesty at the first sign of being wrong.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

No it's not a straw man you idiotic dummy , your considered opinion was that people could excercise free will when it came to choice regards religion ; so again tell me about children excercising free choice when introduced to religious belief ? I do understand what debating is , that's why I destroyed your 9/11 nonsense .You're a coward who's yet to make a decent point in a debate
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

No it's not a straw man you idiotic dummyIt was the precise textbook definition of a straw man argument:-Your logical fallacy is: Straw Man.You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman Not only did you invoke a straw man argument, but you also invoked the false dichotomy that I can either believe in indoctrination or in freedom of choice, but not in both.your considered opinion was that people could excercise free will when it came to choice regards religionWhich is a completely different argument to the one you just made, in which you claimed this meant indoctrination cannot exist.This is a complete waste of my time. You are dishonest, childish and stupid.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

It's not you dummy here is what you said ........but to argue that people have no free will at all to decide what they believe is just utter fucking nonsense. It's demonstrably false......,So again I ask does a child excercise free will in religious choice ?Why are the majority of people believers is it out of choice ? This is a complete waste of time you're a dummy and a liar
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

It's not you dummy here is what you said..... "but to argue that people have no free will at all to decide what they believe is just utter fucking nonsense."And here is your purposefully dishonest, revisionist interpretation of that sentence:-So your considered opinion is that no one is indoctrinated as everyone makes a free choice as to their religion ?You are a fucking joke.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Yet again you totally miss the point so again I ask ... how does a child excercise free will and choice when it comes to religion ? Bet you still won't give an honest answer .......
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

I think you might have misunderstood my point. Just because it is possible to leave/switch religions, doesn't mean that you are making a choice. For example, take me. I left Christianity and became an atheist, but that was the result of the way my brain processed the information available, not my own choosing, so it wasn't a choice. That's the point, not that it's impossible to change your mind, just that you can't force your mind to change or not to change. The part were you talk about the article's self contradiction I agree with. I might be guilty of having skim-read a bit, as I didn't notice this the first time. I think that you cannot choose either religious affiliation, or what you truly believe - same thing anyway really, as you said."We are the ones who are ultimately in control of our own minds, not the other way around"I have to disagree with this statement, because "we" and "our minds" our the same thing, and we don't choose what brain we are born with. You can consciously choose to analyse your own beliefs, as you said, but that doesn't mean we can choose to change the result of that analyzing.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

I think you might have misunderstood my point. Just because it is possible to leave/switch religions, doesn't mean that you are making a choice.Obviously, that is exactly what it means. For example, take me. I left Christianity and became an atheist, but that was the result of the way my brain processed the information available, not my own choosingThe way your brain processed the information led to you making a choice to leave. The brain processing information and you making a choice are not mutually exclusive things. One leads to the other.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

I'm saying that I don't have a choice because once my brain processed the information, and accepted the arguments as valid (because of the way it works, which I had no choice over, as I couldn't choose the brain I was born with), I couldn't just remain a believer, I had already been convinced. I may have a choice as to whether or not I say I'm an atheist, but I have no choice as to what I believe. I wouldn't say that "One leads to another" because once your brain has processed the information, you can't just decide not to agree with it, because your brain is you. You may have heard of atheist saying things like "I wish I could believe, but there's just no evidence," well that's an example of them not being able to choose, and having to accept the facts how their brain processed them.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

I didn't intend for this to be an argument about indoctrination [...]That might be my fault. I was trying to press people who used indoctrination as an argument against the existence of choice by seeing if they would extend the rationale elsewhere. My suspicion being that most of them won't want to, because they value thinking their beliefs are chosen and/or because they value the belief that the religious are less autonomous than they are. I had hoped that honing in on what actually constitutes indoctrination that its relationship to free will could be better drawn out; it seems that was a rather misplaced hope though...
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Don't worry, not your fault. People were focusing on it anyways. It's my fault for not making things clear enough, I probably shouldn't have used the word 'religious' in the title for the debate I wanted.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

You say ....on what actually constitutes indoctrination ......That's the question thus the impasseindoctrination. ... Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

To my knowledge, there is no officially recognized definition which constrains 'indoctrination' to the religious context. In popular usage, it is regularly used in non-religious contexts and isn't considered incoherent when it is. The etymology of the word is also broad, rather than narrow. There's not actually much question about the meaning of indoctrination.The frequency of its ascription to religious ideas does not alter its definition. Rather, it is a reflection of the values and prejudices people have in relation to certain classes of ideas (i.e. religious, as opposed to political or ethical). However, the behavioral practices involved in political or ethical learning aren't appreciably different than those involved in religious learning. Therefore, it isn't how learning occurs that's really in contention but rather what is being learned. All learning is indoctrination, but only learning that we find disagreeable is actually called indoctrination. Exclusionary association between any class of ideas and the concept of indoctrination is an expression of prejudice against that class of ideas and for those ideas which are not similarly associated. Somewhat ironically, the exclusionary association you're making is itself part of an anti-theistic narrative disseminated more through emotive appeal and repetition than rational argument.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

There appear to be two basic definitions of indoctrinate. The first is simply “to teach.” The second is “to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view” or “to teach sustematically to accept doctrines, especially uncritically.” The Collins English Dictionary stated that the simple definition – “to teach” – is to day rare, and I think that is correct. When most people hear the word “indoctrinate” what they think of is systematically and uncritically teaching partisan and biased beliefs. My use of the term is perfectly correct and has nothing to do with 'making 'emotive appeals ' the argument I make is perfectly reasonable and your refusal to recognise the accepted meaning of the term is puzzling to say the least .
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

At no point have I disagreed with the definition of 'indoctrination', and I agree with the definition you've now presented. The problem with your position is that it isn't supported by that definition. Religious beliefs are not the only beliefs which can be partisan or biased. Therefore, your insistence on restricting 'indoctrination' to pertain exclusively to religious teaching is not supported by the definition of that term.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Well maybe if one lives in North Korea where 24 /7 the whole system is geared towards the teachings of the ' dear leader ' well then one has an example of what you claim .What beliefs are you referring to which I cannot question or critique in my society and where it's teaching is instilled morning , noon , and night , by teachers , parents and wider society ? Is it Math ? History ? Geography? because every one of theses subjects we were encouraged to question and test . Teaching someone a set of doctrines or ideas and telling them not to ever question or critically examine it is indoctrination. Teaching someone to think for themselves and be critical and skeptical of all ideas including their own is not indoctrination.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

Systematic instruction that encourages acceptance of partisan doctrines need not be absolute or totalitarian. You are, again, departing from the actual definition of indoctrination which you yourself provided.Nor is it true that we are taught to question math, history, geography, etc. Though sometimes we may be taught to question their conclusions, theories, etc... it is exceedingly uncommon to be taught to question the soundness of the fields themselves or the validity of their alleged personal or social value. If one is taught to think autonomously and critically without also being taught to be critical of those precepts themselves, then they have been indoctrinated into uncritically accepting those precepts as self-evident truths.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Well no I'm not , and would you care to provide an example ? .... indoctrination .........to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view” or “to teach sustematically to accept doctrines, especially uncritically.” ......You're not told to accept the subjects I named uncritically , your point makes little sense .
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

I have already explicitly identified your departures from the definition you've provided. Again, though, they are: (1) your addendum of magnitude or extent to the concept, where you conditioned the ascription of 'indoctrination' on the presence of extreme totalitarian censorship; and, with greater frequency, (2) your claim that indoctrination only pertains to instruction in religious beliefs even though that is neither required by the definition nor entailed by application. Again, there is a significant differentiation between the axioms of the subjects and their contents which follow from those axioms. Where these subjects are taught, they are generally taught such that students are encouraged to be critical of the contents but not of the axioms. The prevailing tendency is to teach these subjects on the implicit and repeated presumption that their axioms are necessary and self-evident truths. I'm aware of no educational institution which instructs through epistemic nihilism; are you?
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Yes and no. Yes because we have freewill given from God to make a choice to believe in him or not. And no because, without God you walk through life in darkness and never will be happy, and will suffer in life and death.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

i firmly accept with this statement.we always even in our day to day life we pray god only for goodness and even we believe that if we pray it is for greater good.as you have stated it is not matter of religions.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

I firmly believe that for MOST people in the world it is best that God exists. Purely because the consequences of crossing God are much worse than the laws. You can escape from the law, you can challenge the law, you can appeal against the law. The law is not perfect. The law has it's flaws. GOD IS PERFECT (in the believer's mind). You cannot disagree with God as he is MUCH smarter, wiser etc. he is not corrupted and gives what the person deserves. What's better/worse is that He takes everything the person has done at the end of their life - all the Karma added up at the end of life. So not just one bad incident, but fairly judges him/her after all of their actions.I will contribute more later.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Not inherently either

Yeah, but what about when that perfect, smarter, wiser, fair and uncorruptable god orders up a jihad . . . an Inquisition . . . a witch-hunt . . . a human sacrifice . . . a Crusade? What about when that god's followers determine that anyone who doesn't believe in their perfect, smart, wise, fair god is a dangerous heretic who should be put to death immediately and in a horrific way?I'm afraid it's not that simple, mate.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

It's not God who orders that though is it?You're bringing in the acts of certain people who have USED religion to perform certain acts. Not only have I said that we should be keeping religions out of this, but also that you cannot blame religion for how people have used it. Several wars were not caused by religion but I don't see you arguing against athieism for that...
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

It's not God who orders that though is it?Perhaps I am not getting your point, because your original argument seems to me to rest entirely on how belief in a "perfect, wise" creator being affects human behavior. And my point is, not always in good ways. Sometimes in good ways (as I have posted on at greater length), and sometimes in very horrible ways. The question wasn't about the existence of a god, but about belief in a god, and as an extention how such beliefs affect human actions.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

it does not have to be God that orders it - it is their belief in God that allows them to rationalize their behaviour
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

What about when that god's followers determine that anyone who doesn't believe in their perfect, smart, wise, fair god is a dangerous heretic who should be put to death immediately and in a horrific way?You put to much emphasis on man. Man will always make mistakes Christian or not. Our model on how to be a Christian is how Christ walked the earth. He was peaceful never forced anything upon anybody never put anyone to death for not believing in him. Anything other than this is an abomination on God, one of the ten commandments though shall not kill. I have never known of any Christian who is a firm believing to ask for anybody to be put to death.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

You put to[o] much emphasis on man.This whole discussion is about how belief in a god or gods affects humankind -- not about your personal belief system. Emphasis on man's reactions and how a belief in a god affects said reactions is, in fact, the entire topic of the debate here.one of the ten commandments [is] thou[ ] shall not kill.One of the other 10 commandments - in fact the 1st -- is that "thou shalt have no other gods" business that is the source of so many holy wars.As a point of interest, the original text of the Sixth Commandment read "thou shalt not kill other Israelites." You could kill all the Canaanites, Babylonians, Akkadians et. al. that you liked.I have never known of any Christian . . . to ask for anybody to be put to deathYou've never known of Christians asking for someone to be put to death? Then you've not read history. Start with imperial Rome and its campaigns throughout Europe and Asia, and also pay particular attention to the Reconquista, all nine of the Crusades into western Asia, the Saxon Wars and spread of the Holy Roman Empire, the Baltic Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the European witchcraze, the conquest of the Americas, the McCarthy era, and the bombing of abortion clinics by wingnutty members of "Christian Century." I'd be mighty surprised if you could find a single ten-year block anywhere in the last 1500 years during which Christians were not asking for some other group of people to be put to death.