#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
- Arguments with the highest score are displayed first. Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument. To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
-
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
- Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account. All scores are updated in real-time. To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
- When you are ready to voice your own opinion, use the Add Argument button to create a new argument. If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Favor and Oppose link within that argument to create a new reply.
Is there really a god and are we supposed to believe in any religion?
Yes
Side Score: 65
|
 |
No
Side Score: 79
|
 |
 |
|
i'm gonna vote on yes, but really... w/e happened to maybe? not to mention this is a two part question... i dont' know. the Universe is beyond understanding. and what is God? God is something also beyond understanding. Humans feel that they are brilliant and good enough to understand the Universe or God... that just makes them arrogant. Both atheists and theists have so far proven themselves to be ignorant and arrogant of any form of wisdom. Posted 113 days ago
they claim that there's no way there can be any thing supernatural. that's ignorant and arrogant since we haven't collected nearly enough data to make any sort of assumption like that. agnostics admit they don't know. they admit we haven't learned enough about the complexity of the universe. they look to philosophy to tie into scientific theories, unlike atheists who make quick assertions claiming something doesn't exist. theists on the other hand make up something based on nothing. although, theists tend to be more philosophical (and not on a large scale, just more than atheists). Posted 110 days ago
Well the terms Atheist and Agnostic are fuzzy and overlapping. There's strong Atheism and weak Atheism. Also since it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, when an Atheist says "There's no God," they really mean "God is in the same class as fairies, etc., therefore we should behave as though he does not exist." That however, is kind of a mouthful. Also you're wrong when you say Atheists don't look to philosophy. Atheism is strongly tied to philosophy. There's obviously a limit to how much we can prove through Science and that's where philosophy comes in. I do agree that due to their inherent skepticism, Atheists are less likely than Theists to take philosophical "leaps of faith."
Supporting Evidence:
Atheism vs. Agnosticism
(atheism.about.com)
Posted 109 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism vs Agnosticism
"we should believe as theough he does not exist". see... that's saying there's no God. although i do see why they wouldn't believe in something like Iejova or Allah, but the thought of a supernatural being... there's a difference. it could possibly be a mass for of energy that is able to bend the laws of science (scientific yet a "philosophical leap of faith"). Posted 109 days ago
"we should believe as theough he does not exist" You misquoted me. What I actually said was: "we should behave as though he does not exist" In the future, I suggest you copy and paste. Subtle changes can cause important distortions to the meaning of an argument. "it could possibly be a mass for of energy..." Indeed it could. The key word is possible. Fairies are possible. Magic is possible. We shouldn't believe in something simply because it's possible. Posted 108 days ago
actually, no. possible has a... possibility. a mass of energy itself is not supernatural. you're talking about mythical creatures that do. as for behavior... so when people say "God doesn't exist" they really just mean "we should behave like he doesn't exist"? that sort of sounds like bullshit. what kind of atheism are you going by? i actually go to an atheist board, and i've thought of something like that. they will tell you flat out "no, God doesn't exist, there's no 'possibility'". and even the definition of atheist, they "disbelieve" God. what you quoted seems more like a leaning agnostic who's sided with secular thinking. and atheist without balls really. Posted 108 days ago
"a mass of energy itself is not supernatural" No, but a mass of energy that is "able to bend the laws of science" is. As for whether or not Atheism allows for the possibility of God, well that's another debate, and not one that I really care about. To quote Einstein: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." "and atheist without balls really." Oh, like, totally burned. Posted 108 days ago
he said from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest. Einstein was more of a pantheist, but on the agnostic side. he saw that the universe was beyond understanding, so that we can never really know the answer. he doesn't believe in a personal god at all, but in reality, that wouldn't make you an atheist. his views were very pantheistic/agnostic. Posted 107 days ago
Well pantheism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. A pantheist believes god is nature. Since an atheist obviously believes in nature, he could simply refer to that as god, which seems to be what Einstein did. But regardless of Einstein's views, I was simply using that quote to help you understand my position. And yes, my position can be called atheism. pantheism can be split up in different ways. there's the arrogant (metaphorical) kind that says that the Universe might as well be God, but there is no God. there's spiritual kind that says we're all part of something much bigger. and then there's the philosophical kind that actually looks to the complications of the Universe to see that the Universe in theory is just as complicated as the concept of God (the kind that i go by). Posted 106 days ago
"there's the arrogant (metaphorical) kind that says that the Universe might as well be God, but there is no God." Here it seems to me you're willfully ignoring my previous argument. This kind of pantheism does not necessarily affirm the non-existence of God, just that it makes no sense believe in anything outside the bounds of nature. There's nothing arrogant about that. "and then there's the philosophical kind that actually looks to the complications of the Universe to see that the Universe in theory is just as complicated as the concept of God" So let me get this straight. You say: 1) The Universe is super complicated. (agreed) 2) People's concept of God is super complicated. (ok) 3) Therefore God exists and He = the Universe. (ok...) 4) But at the same time God is more than just Nature. (huh? why?) 5) Oh, and he also created the Universe. (how do you derive this?) Looks like pretty crappy logic from where I'm sitting. Posted 106 days ago
mythical creature that points a wand at people? first, they were made up by people for stories. we're talking about something much more complex than just what's made up or not. we're talking science and philosophy. this is the universe and how it works. not "o, flying spaghetti monster". Posted 103 days ago
Well I think the concept of God, even this supernatural mass of energy that you've described, is like fairies in that they're both something people just made up. Let me see here... We both agree that God is possible. However, I believe that without evidence, there's no reason to believe in him. You say that the universe is complex and that the concept of God is complex, therefore we should not "rule him out." I guess we're really saying the same thing, no? Posted 103 days ago
nope. atheist believe that god doesn't exist. i don't believe that cause there we haven't reached that level just yet. that is agnosticism. agnostics believe that so far we haven't reached a level of understanding. the real difference is on who makes the assumptions. Posted 102 days ago
Says you. Let's Google the term "atheism". Here's the first five definitions: 1) Wikipedia: Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities. 2) Infidels.org (clicking on the "About Atheism" link): Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. 3) atheists.org (clicking on the atheism link): Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena... 4) answers.com: 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 5) carm.org (clicking on the atheism link): Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. Clearly there is more than one definition for the term. Posted 102 days ago
|
