CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
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 opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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.
Are moderate theists hypocrites?
The majority of theists attempt to dismiss themselves from the extremists of their respective religions. Are these people, however, hypocrites? Are not the extremists the ones who actually follow the teachings of their holy books? The Old Testament of the Bible, for example, is simpathetic toward slavery and advocates violance toward non-believers. Most Christians and Jews, however, choose to ignore these parts of the Bible, and focus on the parts that sound nicer. The same could be said about most Muslims and and other, non- abrahamic,religions.
10- They vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of their god.
9- They feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but they have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt
8- They laugh at polytheists, but they have no problem believing in a Trinity god
7- Their faces turn purple when they hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but they don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!
6- They laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but they have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5- They are willing to spend their lives looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but they find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.
4- They believe that the entire population of this planet with, the exception of those who share their beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet they consider their religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince them otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence they need to prove Christianity.
2- They define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. They consider that to be evidence that prayer works and they think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1- They actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but they still call themselves Christian
Broad sweeping generalizations about any group of people are not a legitimate argument in any sense of the word. I could use this trick to try to prove anything about anyone. There is no fact in your 10 statements. You sight no specific examples. You quote no one. However you do quote stereo-types and give assumptions. I suppose you also believe all black people love watermelon and fried chicken and that all white guys have small penises. All blonds are dumb, and as long as we are giving examples of things you seem to think are true but are only reality in the minds of bigots and small minded people, you are extremely logical and forward thinking.
Of course they're hypocrites. Tell you what Christians, I'll stop mowing my lawn on Sunday if you promise to murder your children the moment they're disobedient. I mean, you can't expect me to live by the Bible if you won't even do it.
Of course they're hypocrites. Tell you what Christians, I'll stop mowing my lawn on Sunday if you promise to murder your children the moment they're disobedient. I mean, you can't expect me to live by the Bible if you won't even do it.
Another example of how little you know about Christianity.
Tell me where, in the entire New Testament (seeing as how the Old Testament only pertains to Jews) is it stated that disobedient children are to be slain.
Another example of how little you know about Christianity.
Tell me where, in the entire New Testament (seeing as how the Old Testament only pertains to Jews) is it stated that disobedient children are to be slain.
Matthew15:4
"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children.
Oh the OT is only for Jews excuse again. Have you come up with an excuse for things Jesus said too?
Jesus was making a point. Much like the whole "he without sin cast the first stone" thing.
Jesus's role was to spread love and forgiveness, and the whole "God is vengeful" thing wasn't true. That's why he was crucified in the first place. He was taking their beliefs in an entirely different direction.
Jesus's role was to spread love and forgiveness, and the whole "God is vengeful" thing wasn't true. That's why he was crucified in the first place. He was taking their beliefs in an entirely different direction.
Really?
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
So he's taking their beliefs in a new direction by demanding they follow their old beliefs. That sounds logical.
He did not abolish law or the prophets... that's obvious. People are still supposed to follow the rules that the Old Testament asks of everyone. The difference is how human beings themselves are supposed to react to those who don't.
This is Elementary shit... I can't believe that I'm actually having to explain this to an adult.
He did not abolish law or the prophets... that's obvious. People are still supposed to follow the rules that the Old Testament asks of everyone. The difference is how human beings themselves are supposed to react to those who don't.
This is Elementary shit... I can't believe that I'm actually having to explain this to an adult.
You have to explain yourself, because you're not making any sense.
Are you saying that Jesus came down to earth to advise that there were no longer any consequences for breaking the law?
No... that humans can not break divine laws in order to punish others for breaking divine laws. Basically, judgement is in God's hand.
goes back to "Let he without sin cast the first stone". The point that he was making was that as humans we make mistakes, and it is not our right to judge others for their mistakes.
No... that humans can not break divine laws in order to punish others for breaking divine laws. Basically, judgement is in God's hand.
goes back to "Let he without sin cast the first stone". The point that he was making was that as humans we make mistakes, and it is not our right to judge others for their mistakes.
Surely you're aware that the Bible (even the Jesus parts that everyone's so fond of) is full of contradiction.
You're starting to sound like a Christian who isn't aware of the things Jesus said and did that they don't teach in Sunday school.
Luke 19:27 Jesus Christ said to His disciples: "But those, mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. KJV
Are you really ignorant of these things, or are you just pretending to be for the sake of your arguments?
He was making a point about the distributions of minas. It started when people were unsure of his demands when it came to him, so he made a point on "well, why don't you just bring them here and slay them before me?"
His disciples then understood his point. That wealth and enemies had common ground.
He was making a point about the distributions of minas. It started when people were unsure of his demands when it came to him, so he made a point on "well, why don't you just bring them here and slay them before me?"
His disciples then understood his point. That wealth and enemies had common ground.
c'mon...
Here you unintentionally underscore how worthless and meaningless the Bible is. If you research the meaning behind it, you'll find too many interpretations to count, one completely different from the next; even amongst so called Bible scholars. When something doesn't mean what it says, it says nothing.
I guess movies like Donnie Darko were not your favorite. Too many interpretations.
In general, historical pieces have different interpretations that scholars can debate about for years. Attacking something and calling it worthless just because there is a debate on the topic doesn't help your argument. You might as well call the theory of Evolution worthless since there is constant debate within the scientific community on the certain course. The general idea holds common ground (evolution is fact) but the direction things took (habitual origins and missing links) can hold many alternate paths.
Maybe you just get too frustrated over religious debate. It may not be your thing, since you hold such a harsh bias.
I guess movies like Donnie Darko were not your favorite. Too many interpretations.
Donnie Darko is in fact, one of my favourite movies. And too many interpretations for a movie? no such thing. Interpretations when it comes to an instruction manual on how to prevent yourself from being tortured for all eternity...not so good. Electricians using a manual that's open to interpretation...not so good. Heart surgery based on personal interpretation rather than established correct procedure...also not good.
If you can't understand that, maybe debates about Donnie Darko (and this web site) might not be your thing.
That's why. I view it as a spiritual guide for people.
A spiritual guide huh. That's what we need isn't it; a spiritual guide about bludgeoning babies, gutting pregnant women and selling our daughters into prostitution. And what exactly does the word spiritual mean to you? (I'm in the mood for some mealy-mouthed bullshit)
Well, I guess spirituality would mean belief in some kind of spirits.
Well in that case I agree with you, and still don't understand why you'd take issue with my view that the Bible is an instruction manual for those who believe they can escape mortality. If that isn't what it is, what was the point of Jesus?
But if you wanna know what people get from the bible, you'd have to ask people who actually use it as a guide... like Christians.
I know exactly what they get from it. Sheep need their shepherd don't they?
This sounds like a good argument but it is actually a pat answer given all the time by critics of the Bible. Give some real examples. Show us exactly what you are talking about. If there are so many and they all disagree then it should be easy for you, no.
Jesus said in Mark 10:14 "He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."
Matthew 18:6 "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
OK so your dumb. The old testament is taking into account by EVERY Christian religion. Thats where the get the WHOLE creation story. Way to be a dumbass.
yes but is that really a problem, everyone is a hypocrites. take it this way, some words by the famous George dubya, (Harold and Kumar reference) "do ya like givin (omitted)jobs? now do ya like gettin (omitted)jobs, then your a f*kin hypocrite!"
I've not found a religion that was not at its base in some instance hypocritical. This is regardless of the extent to which one follows said religion. Show me any degree of it, and I will show you vast, uncompromising, and self-illusiory examples of hypocrisy.
Now, if one is talking of the hypocrisy of not following exactly to a word one's theology, I would say even if one follows a theology by the word, they will end up hypocrites. It is simply impossible to collect so many insane rantings into one, sensical and agreeing guide.
Are there hypocrites in the church, of course there are. There are hypocrites in politics, and in social work, and in law enforcement, and in social work, and everywhere else as well. There are always people that are going to get involved in good things and make them something ugly and self serving. If you really look you will find a lot of good sincere people in Christianity who earnestly seek to follow God. The basic message of Christ that He offers us forgiveness and reconciliation with God and faith that results in good works toward our fellow man.
You completely missed the point, then proceeded to preach.
Sure, there are good Christians, however as a percent there are no more or less good Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, etc, etc, etc.
If we are speaking in broad strokes, as you are, than I would say with religion one has a tool capable of corruption, without it, one lacks that tool. And you see it all the time. Not a sane atheist will ever fly a plane into a building, protest a gay wedding, protest a 9 year-old's funeral, start a crusade, imprison someone for not believing what they believe, behead someone for saying the earth's round, deny AIDS infested Africa condoms, etc. I could go on forever.
However, otherwise sane people have and currently do use religion as an excuse to do all of these things.
One is capable of feeding the homeless or other charitable acts, without the threat of a hell or the promise of a heaven.
One is not however capable of committing an atrocity in the name of a god, if they do not believe in a god.
On the whole, religion is a step back. It is a primitive superstition born of our primitive imagination and clung to only through fear and indoctrination.
Now though to what I was talking about and the point you missed.
You cannot follow your religion to the word, without at some point acting in some way counter to what is said in your book - nor can any religion. Turn the other cheek, the bible said to stone them to death, stone them to death, you were supposed to turn the other cheek. And there are many contradictions.
That was my point. I appreciate the opportunity you lent to explain why religion is a plague though.
It depends on the theology and religion. Remember that the Abrahamic religions use a text which is largely inconsistent, so different theologies exist with emphasis on different parts.
What is hypocritical is when a member of a religion chastises other sects for heresy or not following the texts correctly, since most sects do follow the texts correctly, just different (and contradictory) portions.
Hypocrisy is you telling someone to do something because you believe it to be right, but you end up doing the exact opposite just cause you feel like it.
If a Christian is moderate in his beliefs (as in, he doesn't believe everyone who's not a Christian to be a slimy sinner who will burn in hell forever), than I just see him as a good Christian.
Theists, in general, don't have to be part of a religion. They just need to believe in a God of some kind. So even if hypocrite wasn't the right word for this debate, moderate theists don't have to be a negative type at all...
And anyway, devout Christians who deeply study their beliefs will often find reasons to NOT be an extremist, even though they extremely believe in their faith. We even see this on a much larger scale when the Vatican conducts scientific research. Often, they use science to disprove modern miracles, and they also try to use it to try and understand "God's Work".
Personally, I'm an Atheist. But this whole hatred towards religion seems to be overplayed. Yes, religion is a major tool by the powerful to control the weak, but the way it has shaped history is remarkable. If human beings never developed the concept of God, society would be incomprehensible. Would it be better? Impossible to determine. So why pick on religious people so much?
Your whole argument misses the point. The question is not how strongly they hold their beliefs, but how they obtain those said beliefs from a certain book and decide to completly ignore the rest of the teachings from that same book.
And you missed my point. Hypocrisy would me saying "don't steal" and then I steal.
If a Christian says "take the bible literally" and then doesn't, that is hypocrisy. If a Christian instead has his own interpretation of the stories within the bible, how is it hypocrisy?
and, of course, the most important: Theists don't have to be religious.
Again this is a generalization. Not all Christians do this. Unfortunately the ones who behave badly get all the attention and press. You are basing all your opinions by what you see in the press. If you really want to be open minded and find out if your opinion is true or not find a church in your area and visit it. Talk to the people there. Ask the pastor some pointed questions. Go to the source.
I suppose you'd rather we all sat on our hands doing and saying nothing while ignorant fools and violent lunatics hijack science, medicine, the education system, the legal system, the bedroom, the movie industry, the music industry and bit by bit drag us back to the dark ages?
Making sure that our progression is secular does not require the elimination of religion. Stalin failed at it (and by the way, no one has hijacked science, medicine, the education system and etc. more than the Atheist Communists).
And how exactly are the religious people currently hijacking all those things? Sure, we see groups of people (extremists, whom we can all agree are bad, theists or not) who try to hurt progression. But modern science was at one time religiously dominated (modern science being the kind which we all go by today, atheist or not).
With modern science, much religious belief has gone down the toilet for scientists, at least. But this "hijacking" that you speak of has actually happened the other way. Many great scientific revelations before our time were made by religious scientists.
And even today, NO ONE has done more research on disproving miracles than the Vatican themselves.
The largest three religions in the world are NOT any form of Atheism or Agnosticism.
Atheism is on the rise, and I see that as a good thing. But not because religious people are evil scum who try keep things in the dark ages. It merely means that intellectually we are evolving. But even today, religious people (in general) are not as you described (the whole hijacking thing).
The science community continues to flourish. And, the science community is becoming less and less religious.
If you have a problem with, specifically, bible thumping Conservatives trying to push theocratic laws, than just make that the purpose of your debate. But you've obviously shown that you have a dislike towards the very idea of religious belief. You find it primitive and something that people should obviously see as childish.
Unfortunately, that doesn't help you at all in debating faith. That only makes those with faith more likely to cling onto their bibles, and that's bad for all of us.
Making sure that our progression is secular does not require the elimination of religion. Stalin failed at it (and by the way, no one has hijacked science, medicine, the education system and etc. more than the Atheist Communists).
Your last statement hardly makes sense. If your contention is that Russians hijacked science during the cold war and Stalin's reign, this is correct, but this period was less than one century and localised to Russia and its allies at the time.
Religion has inhibited science for thousands of years, and has hijacked portions of it for about as long.
And how exactly are the religious people currently hijacking all those things? Sure, we see groups of people (extremists, whom we can all agree are bad, theists or not) who try to hurt progression. But modern science was at one time religiously dominated (modern science being the kind which we all go by today, atheist or not).
With modern science, much religious belief has gone down the toilet for scientists, at least. But this "hijacking" that you speak of has actually happened the other way. Many great scientific revelations before our time were made by religious scientists.
There is no atheistic conspiracy. Science has demonstrated a lack of a need for god, and so the researchers follow with this in their beliefs.
It's closer to say an enlightenment is afoot.
Atheism is on the rise, and I see that as a good thing. But not because religious people are evil scum who try keep things in the dark ages. It merely means that intellectually we are evolving. But even today, religious people (in general) are not as you described (the whole hijacking thing).
Try reading the Wedge Document. Creationists in positions of influence are trying to destroy science and secularism.
I never said there was an Atheist experience. I merely said that science used to be religiously dominated and that was at its rise, not its downfall. In fact, there is no downfall.
Discovery believes in the Philosophy of Intelligent Design. Sure, it's not a physical science, but it's a belief that is NOT pushed onto the majority of us. In general, science is NOT in trouble, despite what Conspiracy wingnuts will try to tell us all. Science continues to progress.
Discovery believes in the Philosophy of Intelligent Design. Sure, it's not a physical science, but it's a belief that is NOT pushed onto the majority of us. In general, science is NOT in trouble, despite what Conspiracy wingnuts will try to tell us all. Science continues to progress.
a bunch of people who believe in their religious beliefs. Makes sense.
Just how I believe in my Atheist beliefs.
Interestingly, 93% of scientists are Atheist and Agnostic. So science is still currently dominated by Atheists and Agnostics. That is what we want right now, right?
Although, all I want is more science done... which is still happening.
a bunch of people who believe in their religious beliefs. Makes sense.
Just how I believe in my Atheist beliefs.
If you read the document you would understand that it is more than that, it is a group conspiring to eliminate secularism of the state, in order to replace it with Christian theocracy.
I don't have to read some propaganda to know what is going on, I have eyes. You claim to have logic and then believe everything someone puts in print. Start thinking on your own for a change.
I don't have to read some propaganda to know what is going on, I have eyes. You claim to have logic and then believe everything someone puts in print. Start thinking on your own for a change.
The Wedge document is straight from the horse's mouth. It is a private memo that circulated amongst the top level intelligent design supporters, and described plans to destroy modern science and replace it with theism.
Again true science doesn't start out but eleminating a portion of the possible solutions to a problem. What is common today in the area of origins is junk science. In no other area would it be allowed to go about this way.
Again true science doesn't start out but eleminating a portion of the possible solutions to a problem. What is common today in the area of origins is junk science. In no other area would it be allowed to go about this way.
Intelligent Design and Creationism are not solutions and never were. They are political strategies to incorporate religion into a secular state. They offer nothing of substance, and they do not follow scientific protocol.
Evolution and Abiogenesis on the other hand are scientific theories about life, and so they stand by the merit of their own evidence.
Not speaking out has lead to the steady Islamification of Europe. It's lead to anti-blasphemy law, it's lead to the sanction of abuse against women through Sharia courts.
How is religion hijacking science and medicine? Stem cell research?? Nothing has held us back more than religion and looking the other way and keeping quiet allows it to happen.
Intelligent design?? I suppose the best way to keep this nonsense out of the public system is to avoid contesting it...that's your strategy?
Of course I dislike the very idea of religious belief; what rational person in the year 2010 doesn't? Primitive and childish? You bet your ass I find belief in talking snakes and people living inside of whales primitive and childish; you don't?
And obviously arguing on this website isn't going to accomplish anything other than personal amusement...that's why I do it.
I suppose you'd rather we all sat on our hands doing and saying nothing while ignorant fools and violent lunatics hijack science, medicine, the education system, the legal system, the bedroom, the movie industry, the music industry and bit by bit drag us back to the dark ages?
I should like examples for each and every one of those claims.
No one is trying to drag society back into the dark ages. A bit dramatic don’t you think.
What we are asking for is to not be discounted for our beliefs but to allow open and honest debate. For example the thing you call “Science” starts out with the premise that an intelligent creator is not a possibility. So they say, “OK, we know there is no God so take that out of the realm of possibilities. Don’t even suggest that. Now let’s open-mindedly explore the origins of life.” Real science discounts nothing but leaves all possibilities open for examination. As for medicine, what? Look around the world. Most of the doctors that are reaching out into the remote poor areas of Earth and working with the destitute are Christian doctors and medical missionaries. These people aren’t bleeding folks with leaches but rather bringing medical skills and practice to areas where there was none before. What is your issue with that? As for education, why should Christians not have as much say as anyone else? According to you those practicing Wicca, humanism, alternative lifestyles, revisionism, and any other view are free to express their views and influence our educational system but not Christians. Why?
It appears to me that you have an agenda yourself. You seem angry and bitter toward Christians. I’m sorry if at some point in your life a Christian or someone masquerading as one hurt you or offended you but that isn’t an excuse to lash out at all of us.
Depends on your definition of moderate. What people really means when they say moderate is “fits in with current times” which is not the purpose of religion at all – do not lie, cheat, steal, kill never gets old. You don’t choose to break the speed limit today because you felt like it, you obey the law or use the given system to have it changed, people with grudges against religions are usually the type of people with inflated self worth or were abused so feel they must strike back at the faith rather than the person.
Most people do not know how to stand up for their religion or themselves so to deflect some of the heat they choose to blame the extremists.
Democracy allows for slavery and advocates violence. The very first democracy was the Athenians who put their women in burkas, did not allow them to vote made them property of their husband and it was permissible to hit her instead of the man. Democracy also funds itself by selling mercenaries and weapons to other faction usually opposing ones -not much has changed today. Women are exploited and abused by men, soldiers fight in foreign wars for promise of cheaper resources for their economies and weapons are sold to anyone willing to match the price.
In fact it’s the most violent and manipulative system of government there is but because it allows free reign to people with money no one wants to close the system down until they have “had a shot at the top,”
Religion is the cornerstone of every civilization known and unknown, no time exists that religions have not fashioned it’s cultures, laws and policies. People struggle with it’s concepts because they cannot take the time to read through the whole of the material to get the picture and like a new gadget want it working now without them putting in any effort.
Lastly religion is honest about human nature - politics and social theory isn’t. You can be as nice as you like to Charlie Manson he’s not going to become a productive member of society. In any religion a man who lies, cheats and steals cannot be considered for any post – in a democracy they elect them to the senate.
Hypocrisy is hard to be defined in most religions as it is somewhat of a given in all of them, along with all humans to begin with. Acceptions to the rule always apply. Overall, Id say that No, Moderate Theists are not Hypocrits as long as Christians, Bhudists, Atheists, Catholics, Muslims and Abrahamists are not Hypocrits. Interpret my answer as you wish but there is no real correct side inside of this argument. Just referencing which one is more hypocratic. Which is stupid and non-constructive. So dont do it.
No more that what atheist are. They claim there is no God and yet pretend to be one, a prime example of a hypocrite. All-knowing atheist, what an oxymoron.
Hmm...Christians claiming to be all-knowing while at the same using no evidence to back up their claims and yet Atheists and Agnostics know more about the Bible and the history of their religion than they do. That's true hypocrisy.
And be like you and all your atheist friends? How do you guys pat yourself on the back? The modesty and lack of arrogance, how I long to join your cult.
Does it hurt to be that stupid? You don't even seem to know what a cult is.
Cult: A particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
As you can see, your religion is the text book definition of the word "Cult". You really need to try using a little bit of rationality in the future. The more comments you make, the more you prove how little you actually know. I've found that most religious extremists, such as yourself, make up the majority of the uneducated.
Definition #5 of Merriam-Webster: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
What is pathetic; are those that claim to know everything and have everything wrong. It is facts that you want then pick and choose only the ones that fit your belief, this is what sad is.
Where did you get your facts? From a book, the web, etc. You have not personally seen any results from experiments, you only have faith that what you have read is true. The definition of religion is just this. You are nothing special, just a believer in something other than God.
"Christian have been persecuted for two thousand years."
And with good reason.
"Those that cannot comprehend, throw stones."
Stones are thrown towards those who can't keep their religion to themselves. I know you'd like to believe that you're above everyone else just because you believe in an imaginary deity, but you couldn't be further from the truth.
There's no such thing as sin. There are only the moral rights and wrongs established by human society. If you made an effort to learn something new, you'd know that. You really need to make an attempt to get your head out of your ass and try to get a grip on reality.
"you only have faith that what you have read is true."
That statement, right there, is proof that Theists are hypocrites. You accuse me of putting faith something that I read, when you have done the exact same thing with your outdated 2000 year old bible. In any case, you're wrong on both accounts.
"The definition of religion is just this."
Actually, a religion requires the worship and belief in some kind of imaginary deity.
American Heritgae defines Religion as #4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Atheism is a religion. Whose god is science. The definition of cult is the followers of such.
CULT 5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
When reason fails you do you always resort to name calling and irrationally lashing out at those you disagree with? There are people who could help you with that. Try to relax and discuss this in a rational and logical way. OK?
When reason fails you do you always resort to name calling and irrationally lashing out at those you disagree with? There are people who could help you with that. Try to relax and discuss this in a rational and logical way. OK?
