azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

Lol. I think either you completely misunderstood my post or I wrote it very badly. I'm against the abrahimic Gods. The thing about those mass suicidic cults is that the same has been done for aliens, not just God. It's complete brainwashing that is a relatively new phenomenon that has only affected lets say 2000 people? Within the last 30 years? My point is that it is so irrelevant and anomolous with humankind's history, especially when it comes to religion, it should not hold any strength and if it does, it shows that religion needs to be in place to stop people from doing that... (as they did it on scientific reasoning)Facts are facts, but they can be used subjectively. The thing about saying we need to know about everything before making a decision is impossible and tbh says that as people we can't make a decision. ANY decision we make, we will never know the impact of it, not only is it because we can't see into the future that would have been, but also we can't see everybody it might've affected.I personally believe sodomy is wrong. And it's not science if both parties consent to it. If that is the mentality, then when the time comes IF I WANT, then I SHOULD be able to be part lion, part tiger, and have sexual intercourse with baboons. It means if a girl of 12 consents to a 90 year old, it's ok. Don't act like it won't happen, because slowly everything is becoming legal. Even drugs are becoming legal. There's no science to everything... Now I'm not against oral sex... but anything more than that is imo not right. Religious people to do not do things just to please God, but because they also think it's the right way of living.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

Regarding the cults, the reason why I find them relevant is because followers of the abrahamic religions dismiss them as being completely "crazy" when in my opinion, the abrahamic religions in themselves are as deranged as cults. So I find them relevant because it shows what happens when people try to say that they have access to "god" or can possibly know his/her mind. There are people out there who still believe in talking snakes... I admit your point in saying we can never know "everything", but you must admit that when you make a desicion, even as simple as buying a new computer, you do research and try to find out as much as you can so that you will be better equipped for making a decision. It's as simple as that... we become more educated so we can make better decisions. Which leads to the final point... religious people do not do things just to please god, but because they also think it's the right way of living. I think we are all entitled to the same freedom religious people want of choosing the best way of living if this behavior is not going to harm anyone else. I've never come across any scientific evidence as to why sodomy is bad for you. Therefore, I have no basis for saying it is "bad". Why is it bad? If you point out something in science, then you will agree that we need education, scientific facts, to help us make desicions that are not bad for us. But if you just "think" it is bad for no reason at all... then it makes no sense. I dont understand your argument about being part lion part tiger. A girl of 12 consenting to sex with a 90 year old... i think if we continue with this god bullshit, children CAN be brainwashed into doing things without questioning them. Have you watched the videos about Jesus Camp? It is very close to the same brainwashing that cult leaders do... and you know what makes it so wrong? that it is targetted at children, who are suceptible . Just as a girl of 12 , we both would agree, has not reached the age of consent to have sex; the children from jesus camp also have not reached the age of consent to accept or reject ideas independently. why? because they have not been exposed to more information about the world. how can god be for the greater good when it inhibits our ability to decide for ourselves? About drugs. I believe they are bad because Ive read enough about their effects on the body. Thus I can say they are bad, there is evidence. But saying things are bad just because of some intuition about god, is just plain ignorance.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

Even though I'm against abrahimic religions, I still respect them and find it insulting that they're thought to be as deranged as cults.Obviously you should do the same when choosing your religion. I haven't really got a problem with athiests except when they think they're intellectually superior because they're athiest. They think that only ignorant and stupid people believe in God, and smart person knows that holds no basis, but it's different to say 'there is no God' than saying 'I do not believe in God'. Same goes to theists who say 'there is God' rather than saying 'I believe in God'.Thing about being more educated, it doesn't mean more common sense, which in that video you showed yourself, people are loosing these days. I would say in general the way people are educated, raised these days, they don't have much common sense. That I would say is more important than any education in the world.My argument about the extra inter-species breeding, part lion shit is to do with today's mentality of 'if he wants to, then he should' or 'if it doesn't hurt anybody...' etc. It's a downward spiral that will only lead further and further from the strict 'man and woman have sex for kids'. A bit of leeway is ok. But in todays society... homosexuals? transvestites? transexuals? zoophilia? necrophilia? Where does it stop?? There isn't a limit because we're loosing morals to 'science' or i would say 'freedom'. Right now, zoophilia might be looked down upon, but give it a few years and it will be today's transexuality. Understand that freedom isn't always a good thing. It comes with it's negatives.You're right about that Jesus camp thing. That is brainwashing and I think a lot of Christians themselves would be against it, but it is not God who inhibits the ability to decide for yourselves, but he definately gives the best path and it is for us to decide whether or not to take it, but in the end karma always comes back around. If you have lived a good life (whether or not you believe in God) you will be rewarded and if you have lived a bad life (whether or not you believe in God) you will be punished.It's not ignorance if you agree with God or to have faith in God's word. Take me for example. I know that we would live in a much better world without alcohol, yet I drink it myself. People argue against drinking it. At best people say it should be drunk responsibly. I personally agree with that, yet in my religion you shouldn't drink any. I've had many bad experiences with alcohol.. I'm pretty sure everybody who has drunk it has. Now, would you be better off without alcohol or with it? I SAY without it, yet ACT with it. It's not just God said so... but He is right? Same with smoking (except I don't really smoke).
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

I have the same respect for abrahamic religions as I do for cults. Why? I put them on the same level as I think that people's opinions should be respected. And to me, religion, whether cult-ish or not, is nothing more than an opinion of how the world works or how it should work. I agree with what you say about common sense. and in that video you clearly saw how common sense is being lost. About your fear of loosing morals to "freedom" which comes from a scientific understanding, I ask you... what is so bad about that? Why do you see it as some dooming scenario? So what if your neighbor likes to fuck a dog? As long as we can prove that nor him or the dog are getting diseases, how is this making the world BAD? what are the negatives of that ? .... seriously.... I think all the negatives you see come from a "desirable" image of the world that is imposed by religion.... For me, a desirable world comes from people respecting other people's view, not looking down upon them because they have different preferences, and where people are free to do what they want as long as they dont harm each other. Isn't that the tenet of most religions anyway? love thy neighbor ?When I agree that alcohol is bad, Im not agreeing with god's word, Im agreeing with medical evidence about what it does to the body... And I agree that a world without alcohol is better, but as long as you are inflicting the harm only upon yourself, I have nothing to complain about. So tell me, why do you see zoophilia as negative? what is so bad about that? ... (use it as an example of the downward spiral in the world) I think you will not be able to prove it, without using your own subjective "morality". All I m saying is that we need to think criticaly about where our morals come from and religion is not a good source for moral standards. Below is a video of the source for "good doing" for religious people: the fear of going to hell. How can such a story be a source for "morality"? Good christians and atheist alike, do not need such religious stories to do good.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

A religion cannot be cultish.. because they're both different things.The fact that you argued for zoophilia shows that this has gone beyond point. You're telling me that I can go up to somebody and kill them. He's dead so I don't hear him complaining... so it is ok. Kids should be slitting their own risks. Even even they cause permanant damage, it's ok because they're only doing it to themslves. We should take drugs, because we're doing it ourselves. I'm glad you think that way.By saying alcohol is bad you ARE agreeing with 'God's word'. God says 'alcohol is bad', you say 'Yes, it is bad'... you are agreeing with God. Maybe for different reasons... but the conclusion is the same.I just want to know now if you are against zoophilia, yes or no. If you are not against it for the reasons that people should be able to do what they want with themselves... then I really do not want to continue debating.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

The reasons we should give for guiding our morality should have a real foundation. You didnt answer WHY you are against zoophilia, why it is harmful to engage in such behavior... is it because god's word should be followed blindly? just "because"? I'm against following for the sake of following, and against giving people rules without proof of why those rules are good for them. I am not an advocate of zoophilia. But I accept that I have no reason, other than my personal OPINION that it is disgusting, to make a moral judgement and condemn it as "wrong". So, again, if you say it is wrong... what is the reason behind it?? please convince me with something other than "god says so".
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

Ahh ok. When it comes to sexual acts.. its a lot harder to argue with because you can't really explain why it's bad. Same as homosexuality.. it's hard to explain why it's bad. All I know in my heart is that it's wrong. You're asking me why... I don't know why.. I do know that it's wrong though.. and it goes hand in hand with this 'downward spiral' in todays society. 1 thing though, I don't do anything because God says so. I agree with Him... not follow Him blindly.Thing about right and wrong - There is no proof to it. That is one thing I can garauntee you 100%. It's purely opinion or one's own thoughts. Science has no morals. Nor has facts. Morals, right and wrong does not go hand in hand with numbers, statistics and tests. Morality is outside of explanations through science. Sometimes you do things for the sake of doing. You don't question everything. Some things you can question... and still do it, some things you question and don't do it, but questioning everything is just as bad as not questioning everything.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

thing about right and wrong- there is no proof to itthats where we differ. religious people base their morality on a "gut feeling they cant explain". while non-religious people base their morality on actual evidence on whether something is harmful to myself or to my neighbor. It is quite a simple way to find out what is right or wrong without the need for a direct phone line to god. the knowledge of right or wrong does not require god. you say that you agree with god when you acknowledge that alcoholism is bad for you. i say that actually "god" agrees with you and science. there is no need for god to tell you alcohol is wrong. you know it is a harmful substance to your body. but thats it... end of story. this "downward spiral" is just a spiral in the minds of religious people who see their morals (that have no actual basis) become eroded. i see nothing wrong with this. as long as the morality we are acquiring is one infused with tolerance and love for ourselves and our neighbor.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

Naaah... this downward spiral has nothing to do with religion imo. It's through what I've seen, done, heard of etc. that I believe this, whether religion was there or not. I think religion plays a big factor in it, but it's not a religious thing for me.Science has no morals. Moral is based on judgment, opinion etc. It's not a religious thing either, but right and wrong is not science. Science is simply an explanation of things.You commit suicideScience says you are dead. Morals say it's wrong (or in certain culture it's right).Science can't judge whether dying is good or bad. It can only state what happens. Morals are judgments.It's kind of silly to say religious people do not base their morality on evidence..lol. You hear them all the time arguing, debating continuously using evidence to prove their righteousness. Both sides rely on evidence... and if you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

I don't know why.. I do know that it's wrong thoughgood thing you aren't following Him blindly...
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

Yeah good thing. If I WAS following him blindly then I wouldn't be thinking about it at all...
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

"If people were to behave better "i see many references to people believing in god committing horrible atrocities - crusades, burning witches, suicide bombings, 9/11, and tons more which i would think would point to no - and i don't see the overwhelming good that supposedly follows religion. there is assertion by some that Christians give more to charity without any source but even if that were the case it would appear that the overall effect of belief has still been more negative than positive to me.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

No, it's not for the greater good. I think that whether people worship an idle or no they are going to act in such a way as they're nature and experience determined.Religion is simply something used as kind of a scapegoat. As an example; if the commandments were handed down in the way the old testament proclaims they were, amidst all kinds of shenanigans, I firmly believe the addition of a god would not have been a necessity, that even they as wild as the book claims them to be, would have wrapped their heads around acting in such a way was self-destructive, without the introduction of some god. (For the record, most likely none of that happened, and it is simply a variation on similar stories found from the older version, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, but it serves as an example)It would seem on the surface to many atheists then, that religion at worse is simply a no-lose, no-gain thing people do.I disagree. I think while many aspects of religion, indeed most, encourage good behaviour,I believe taking the easy-out of describing to the religious masses that the reason this optimal behaviour is desirable as "uh, uh, because god said so" encourages stupidity and a lack of reflection,which while in many cases leads to a group of people who act properly in society,at the same time makes it really easy to get them to do ridiculous things like blow up buildings in the name of allah, or crusade against the middle east in the name of god.Thinking people do not act in such a way. I think one who doesn't believe in a god is more likely thinking about these kinds of moral dilemmas instead of simply following some prophet's imagined wishes.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Not inherently either

The unspoken premise of your argument with which I would disagree is that all religions promote moral absolutism. That's really more a characteristic of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism-Christianity-Islam). Perhaps Confucianism might fall closer to the moral absolutist end of the spectrum (I'm definitely not an expert on Confucianism, so someone more schooled in Confucianist thought could disagree with that classification). But Buddhism, Taoism, at least some sects of Hinduism, and a good many of the neopagan religions -- just to name a few as a contrast -- espouse situational ethics, not moral absolutism. These don't break down nearly so neatly into "because our God said so" moral behaviors, because that's not how their religious ethic works; the religious morality is based more on principles than precepts. So instead of the Ten Commandments, which are a list of absolute no-nos, you've got things like the Eightfold Path or the Wiccan Rede, which are broad statements of ethical precepts both clear enough and flexible enough to be applied situationally. Those don't easily lend themselves to moral justifications for doing ridiculous things like waging religious wars, because the moral lens is not "hey, those neighboring heathens over there are in violation of Commandment One and we should wipe 'em out as offensive in the eyes of our god," but is rather something like "what kind of relationship with my neighbors comports with speaking truth, acting in peace, and refraining from destructive conduct" (e.g., Buddhism) or "do I even need to care what my neighbor believes and if so, what non-aggressive response can I make that would not presume to assert moral authority over someone else" (e.g., Taoism).Interestingly . . . one could argue from this basis that the problem is monotheism. Religions with one god seem to go in for moral absolutism with a lot more frequency than religions with no gods or religions with a bunch of gods. So viewed in that way, the answer to the question "is belief in God (singular) for the greater good" would very possibly be "no", but would also be distinct from the question of whether non-monotheistic religious belief is for the "greater good."
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

I wouldn't really say it's monotheism, but definately the religions that are strongly monotheist. However, I do not blame 'monotheism' for it, it's more of the agression these religions (abrahimic) have. Your thoughts on eastern religions are interesting and I'm guessing you're saying they are based on philosophy?
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

That's a valid point about the Abrahamic faiths, and again perhaps Confucianism, being comparitively "aggressive." I'd have to take a closer look at other monotheistic religions in antiquity (the cults of Mithras and Akhennaton were both big ones) to make a determination about whether moral absolutism seems to be a facet of monotheism generally or just of Judaism-Christianity-Islam.I am not certain if I am saying that Eastern and other faiths are based more on "philosophy," just that their ethical structures are not necessarily a black-and-white list of "thou shalt not"s. They are frequently presented more as broad precepts to be applied situationally rather than as hard-as-fast rules about certain proscribed behaviors.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Yes, for the greater good.

Well seeing as their cults I wouldn't really look into them too much. I did some research into them and they do seem completely different to Abrahimic faiths. I would certainly say that Eastern religions are based on philosophy with them being more interested into the understanding of one self in correspondance to the universe. Mythology, history, culture and philosophy I would say are basis of eastern religions also with the founder having lesser significance than abrahimic faiths.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

A "cult" in the ancient world was simply a religion devoted to the worship of one deity or deities from a broader pantheon -- a religious practice or "veneration". "Cults" in the ancient world were more like the ordinary, run-of-the-mill religions of today; referring to an ancient cult doesn't really correspond to the modern-day usage of "cult" at all. I wouldn't dismiss the religions of antiquity so lightly.
Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: Not inherently either

You're asking two different questions here. One is whether belief in god -- which we can generically identify as "religion" -- has historically been beneficial for mankind and/or civilization. The other is whether we should promote "the idea of God," which begs the question of whose idea of what god.Has religion been a beneficial force? Meh. It has its pros and cons. Religion does appear to be sort of hard-wired into the hominid psyche. We marvel at the inexplicable, we engage in metacognition (thinking about thinking) and other forms of cognitive abstraction, and we're socially organized around hierarchical moral norms. Religion is an old, old force, dating back to before homo sapiens was homo sapiens. (No, I am not suggesting that any specific religion is that old, just that religious behavior such as ritual disposal of the dead dates back to earlier hominids). So in some ways religion seems to be a functional extension of our creativity, our intelligence, our ability to think symbolically and representationally, and our cognitive process for contending with the unknown.But has it been a good force? Meh. It's driven art and innovation, but also torture and warfare. Sometimes it pushes scientific development forwards (late-antiquity Persia); sometimes it holds it waaaaaay back (late-medieval Europe). As an organized phenomenon religion has really always been more a creature of politics than one of faith. Over the aeons it's produced some good developments in social welfare, and some bad developments in social welfare. One might say it's the nuclear power of cognition -- potentially useful, but also potentially very dangerous.Should we "promote" it? Not as an end unto itself, I would think. I can't imagine what value "promoting" religion would have other than to enforce the status quo of a specific given religion. Promoting religion generically -- as in, "hey everybody, go out and pick one!" -- seems rather a useless exercise. Promoting faith-derived personal experience, not in a "read-this-book-go-to-church" way but in a "I had a profound experience that's really triggered some significant insight" way, might be worthwhile in terms of developing one's individual thinking . . . but I'm not sure that's what you're driving at, or sure that's what the effect would be, of attempts to "promote" religion as a phenomenon. As far as promoting a specific religion goes . . . which one? Most big religions generate their own PR, but I betcha Dievturība or the Ordo Aurum Solis could use a good publicist.