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.
Atheism is not religion.
The term atheist is a compound word. It consists of two words: "a" and "theos" from the Greek language. "A" means without, and "theos" means "god", so the compound word atheist means "without a god". It is the lack of a belief in a god or gods.
100% spot on girl, even if there was a God and I had proof of a God I still wouldn't be part of any religion, to me a religion is nothing more then a cult, the only difference is the amount of members, 100 people follow a nut job its a cult, 1 million its a religion.
I agree that it isn't a religion, what I don't agree on is that it is a ''lack of belief''.
The term is, in my opinion, ridiculous. I am an atheist, that doesn't mean I lack belief. It just mean I don't believe in superficial things.
The lack of belief in God, sure. But many describe an atheist as someone that lacks belief in general. Someone who hasn't got an opinion on the afterlife at all, or whatever.
Having a belief and having an opinion are not necessarily the same thing. A belief is one type of opinion, namely an uninformed one; an informed opinion is a thought.
For starters, Darwin's theory never posited the origins of the human species. It was more rudimentary than that because it was the first introduction of the notion of evolution. That theory itself is quite adequately substantiated.
Further, the general theory of evolution which has continued to develop from Darwin's initial premise is founded in multiple fields of scientific research (not the least of them being genetics).
Darwin's theory is correct on many areas. It is correct organisms evolve to more complex organisms, and .. sometimes they can even devolve.
There are many evidence supporting Darwin's theory, but as far as I know there is nothing proving we come from apes completely.
Believing we came from apes is in my opinion a belief, but I also think it is a more educated.. lol, if I can use that word, belief than other religions. ( I assume you know what I mean by an educated belief)
The Theory of Evolution advanced by Darwin is both verifiable and substantiated. Again, it never indicated that humans descended from any particular lineage, only that we did evolve. Subsequent research does indicate compellingly that apes are our closest biological relatives, though the notion that we evolved from apes is a misleading rebuttal introduced by anti-evolutionists. It is more accurate, and also substantiated by fossil evidence and genetic testing, to state that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes.
Darwin's theory of evolution suggests all species share a common ancestor. That would of course indicate that we have a common ancestor with the monkey, as well as all other species walking on this earth.
Do you now agree that we do have evidence that humans evolved from apes, or do you still not believe it has been shown? I don't feel like your argument said anything.
No I do not. You don't seem to tell the difference between developing FROM something, and having common ancestors.
The only problem you may have is that we didn't develop from modern apes. The species that was around a long time ago split off into 2 groups. One developed into modern apes. The other developed into humans. Do you agree we have evidence to support that?
Humans have common ancestors with every single species on earth according to Darwin's theroy.
You keep repeating this, but you don't explain what about this concept bothers you. And, when you say "according to Darwin's theory" it implies that you aren't convinced that his theory is correct.
There is no evidence that we developed from apes. Show it to me if you have it, then I'll surrender.
Aren't you the one who presented this "fact"? Evolution claims that apes and humans have a common ancestor, not that humans came from the apes that are around today. What is it that you have a problem with?
No becuase in this entire debate people have failed to give me any reliable source of this statement.
you say "according to Darwin's theory" it implies that you aren't convinced that his theory is correct.
Not that we developed from apes - but the his theory of evoltion besides that.
What is it that you have a problem with?
I didn't have a problem to begin with, now I do.
In the beginning there was Jace who implied we come from apes - I asked him if he had any proof of this, because I was generally interested and curious, and I've never seen the proof people who claim this to be true have.
So I asked what proves us being from apes? You said yourself ''some developed into modern apes, some developed into human beings'' Where is the proof of that statement?
I do have a problem now though- because I've asked for this proof or source a couple of times during this debate, and instead of showing me people debate me, and think I disagree with evolution.
No becuase in this entire debate people have failed to give me any reliable source of this statement.
False. Jace gave you evidence. That's why I stepped in and asked you if he cleared it up because you didn't actually say anything. The 2 main sources of evidence come from the fossil record and from comparing DNA. Jace gave you a paper that compares ape and human DNA.
Not that we developed from apes - but the his theory of evoltion besides that.
Your statement doesn't make sense. I don't know what you mean by developed from apes.
So I asked what proves us being from apes? You said yourself ''some developed into modern apes, some developed into human beings'' Where is the proof of that statement?
Ok. You didn't ask this before. You simply said that Darwin's theory says we have a common ancestor. I can't just imagine the question you have. Jace gave you a really good article that compares DNA of species around today. I have included it again for you. It examined mitochondrial DNA which is a small stand alone piece of DNA that is much easier to analyze. They found the sequence of the DNA for humans, chimpanzees, a gorilla, and an orangutan. They figured out which mutations would have been needed to go from the common base to what is currently around to get a timeline of when the species split from each other. The small differences in the DNA show that there was a common ancestor.
I do have a problem now though- because I've asked for this proof or source a couple of times during this debate, and instead of showing me people debate me, and think I disagree with evolution.
Well, that's weird because I haven't debated you. I was asking you questions to figure out what you need to know.
Your stance on evolution is a bit shaky but headed in the right direction. First it should be known homo sapiens are apes. The original contention is flawed based on this.
If you are interested in how we know the lineage of our ancestry Jace and Cartman have provided some great resources. For further reading you should look into endogenous retro viruses. That really nails down on how we know our relations to other apes.
It should be noted there is no definitive study "proving" these claims but a large body of evidence that supports the conclusion. You can do your own research on ERVs, you will find no shortage of evidence for instance.
Jace gave me his words .. I don't consider that sources.
WRONG! At the end of his argument he put 2 links. Source 1 and Source 2. Those were linked to actually sources.
That source you gave me says we have the same ancestors. Not what I was looking for.
"Darwin's theory of evolution suggests all species share a common ancestor. That would of course indicate that we have a common ancestor with the monkey, as well as all other species walking on this earth."
You got exactly what you said evolution says you will find. I can't figure out what you are missing.
Everything branched from some kind of common ancestor, we use fossils and DNA analysis along with other methods to determine how long ago that common ancestor was.
I can't figure out what you are looking for. You seem to have a semantic problem. Like if you were analyzing the theory of gravity and claim that nothing about the theory of gravity says apples will fall from the sky. Evolution doesn't talk about developing. It talks about evolving.
That was entirely non-responsive both to my analysis and the evidence I provided. Since you seem more inclined to overlook both repeatedly, I have no desire to continue this particular exchange with you.
I recognize that it was unintentional. However, it rather clearly indicates that you did not read my post closely at all (the citations were fairly apparent). Further, Cartman repeatedly indicated that I had provided sources yet rather than go back and check if you had missed something you made negative assumptions about my integrity based on stereotypes you hold. I hope you can understand why, in that light, I do not feel interested in continuing in this particular exchange.
Yes I know he did it repeatedly, but since I never noticed your links, I thought he was saying your own words were proof, which isn't proof in my opinion.
I did not base anything on stereotypes, I don't even know what you meant by that.
It is more accurate, and also substantiated by fossil evidence and genetic testing, to state that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes.
No it isn't. We are classified as apes, so it makes sense that our ancestors would be apes. It is like saying I share a common ancestor with my father, which, while technically true, is unnecessary.
While there is some debate within the biological community regarding our classification as apes, I have yet to see any argument that demonstrates a necessity of separating ourselves from that clade.
If you trace humans and (other) apes back far enough then that distinction is entirely necessary. Regardless, unnecessary distinction is not the same as inaccuracy (quite the opposite, actually).
Regarding the distinction that humans are (probably) apes; this did not appear an especially relevant point in the context of the exchange. I was not attempting to provide an exhaustive and entirely accurate accounting of human evolution (hence "more accurate" and not "most accurate"); rather, I was attempting to present a simplistic correction to someone who needed a basic explanation and not a detailed exposition.
Whatever your reply, I am not especially interested in continuing this exchange since it is exceptionally tangential from what had already become a tangent. No offense intended.
What type of evidence do you need? Birds that swim? Fish that fly? Maybe birds that can't fly? Or are you going with the "It's just a theory" argument.
Well, it is called Darwin's theory of evolution, so it is a theory, but that's not my argument. There are lots of things we consider as fact that technically are theories - like gravity, but that doesn't make it less of a theory.
What type of evidence I need? The debate wasn't whether evolution happned or not, the debate was if humans evolved from monkey. I think it is weird to assume just because birds can fly, and fish can swim, that automatically means us humans evolved from apes.
I don't want evidence supporting evolution - I was just curious to see the evidence Jace was talking about proving the evolution from monkey to human.
I didn't mean to come with any argument against it - I just wanted to see the evidence.
One misconception is that man came from apes. This is not what evolution would suggest. What evolution would suggest is that we shared a common ancestor with the Great Apes. As for evidence, I would suggest you read THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH by Richard Dawkins. I'm no evolutionary biologist, but the book is well written so that most people ( even me) are able to grasp its content. It's a long read but well worth it.
Sounds great - to be totally honest I don't like Dawkins that much, but I will definitely give that book a try. Right now I'm stuck with reading for exams so Dawkins is second priority right now ;)
Scientific theories are explanations with lots of evidence supporting them. Now you asked for evidence for evolution from ape to man. Sorry, i can't give you any.
But...I can give you evidence that we and Chimpanzees have a command ancestor:
One of the pieces of evidence supporting common decent is the extreme similarity in the genetic code of Chimps and Humans. 99.9% of our DNA is shared with Chimps.
Another one is the similarities in the ways Chimps and Humans act. They have relationships, have sympathy for other Chimps, and heck, they've even made simple tools for making things more efficient.
And oh man, there is so much more out there... you can read this for the time being:
Sure we share similar DNA to all sorts of creatures but it is the sequence these similarities are in that show common ancestry. Naturally we share not only common DNA with our parents, grandparents and so on but also the sequence the information is in. Sea horses may share similar DNA to humans but the sequence of that DNA is not similar as it is with apes.
Further cementing common lineage between species can be done by comparing endogenous retro viruses and their location shared between species. A retro virus inserts itself into the genome at a random location of its host, it is highly unlikely that such a thing would happen to many different species of canine for instance in the same locations in the genome for many different viruses with increasing commonality over time. This is one way we know how dogs are related to wolves.
This information can tell us the window when species diverged by the progression of the accumulation of retro viruses over long periods of time. Viruses that were inserted after a genetic split between species would not be shared between the two species and their many descendants.
A quick google could get you plenty of results for retro viruses but I included a link.
Have you read the Wikipedia article yet? I'm sure there are a lot of things that don't have to do with similarities. And what about the way Chimps act? There aren't any other species that create tools and have empathy for one another (As far as I know). And 80% is nothing. Chimps are the only species on earth that has 99.99% of it's DNA in common. And if evolution didn't exist, there would be and INCREDIBLY small chance that we would have 99.99% of our DNA in common with any other species. Let alone the other similarities. So it's really a waste of time pointing out the 99.99% stuff and saying "There's still a 0.01% chance!". It's an incredibly plausible explanation, so that's why we say its fact. Here's an example: Does water evaporate, condense, freeze and melt? Yes! But there is an incredibly small chance that our brains are tricking us into thinking that it is doing that, or maybe we are brains in jars and our sight and touch are being stimulated to think that! But that is absolutely ridiculous.
are you speaking of Roman Catholicism ?? ................................................................................................ PS: are you agreeing w/ me about atheism suppressing other ideologies ??
They would be included under the label of Christian as I understand it.
are you agreeing w/ me about atheism suppressing other ideologies ??
Being an atheist doesn't require one to suppress or eliminate other ideologies, or even want to do so, similarly to how being an atheist doesn't require a belief in evolution. Both are common in the atheist community, but not necessary to being an atheist.
You know before you same this this site I was on the verge of accepting Christianity. Serving how you treat people on here has convinces me that it's not a moral way to live. You seem to have zero empathy.
"I was on the verge of accepting Christianity" ... well, God does not call you to accept "christianity" .... God calls you to accept and receive his son ... if you refuse and reject him (Jesus) you have no one to blame but yourself .... nice try
I see. So you believe that no one can influence or dissuade anyone else from Christianity? I assumed you spammed for that purpose. You are trying to influence but all you do is dissuade.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a God and religion. To say this is a religion is ridiculous. I don't believe what the KKK does is right, does that mean I'm part of some kind of racial supremacist group? No. So because I don't believe in God or religion, does that mean I'm religious? No. Come on.
The only reasons Theists desperately want atheism to be a religion is because we claim it isn't. If we were insisting on atheism being a religion, I'm pretty sure all theists including Srom would die to try to prove why it isn't.
No, they actually have a better reason. If you read the end of the article Srom posted it tells you exactly why they do it. They don't want Atheism taught in school. If you make Atheism a religion it can't be taught in school. Of course they try to equate evolution with Atheism so it can't be taught either. So, it isn't just a "revenge" thing.
No. Evolution is. We don't teach religion in schools. We don't actually teach Atheism either. They try to make evolution a religious doctrine so it can't be taught in science class.
They do try to make pupils conscious of the fact that there are different denominations, but mostly just the catholic protestant distinction. They also try to make it clear why Denmark is protestant and not catholic.
Yes there are a lot, but we have a public church that is founded by the country, and what that church believes in is what is taught in those christianity classes.
I wouldn't die to prove that Atheism is a religion because I would die a worthless death. I would rather die if someone told me to stop believing in Christianity and I would tell them no. That would be worth dying for.
No, it would be worth dying for because I died for something I believed in. Christ died for us. So I'm returning the favor and dying for my belief and it would be a good thing I didn't re annouce my faith because if I did then God would disown me in front of His Father in Heaven and I wouldn't want that to happen.
You don't seem to understand my comment. Your death would be poetic and deep because of the reason you just stated here - Christ died for you, you die for him. Poetic!
It'd be useless because there is nothing to die for. Jesus is dead, God isn't real.
Jesus isn't dead. He is alive to this very day. He is working in the lives of people who believe in Him and people are converting to Christ. If Jesus was dead then Christianity wouldn't be the number religion right now and a lot of people wouldn't be following it.
No his grave was found somewhere in Israel with traces of human dna in it. ''Jesus, son of Joseph'' was on written on the grave, and next to him was Maria, Joseph and all of their other children.
If Jesus was dead then Christianity wouldn't be the number religion right now.
Only 1/3 of the world's population consider themselves christian, and a big part of those are agnostic.
Why should I give you a comment about it when you won't understand? I've debated with you multiple times. It's useless sometimes debating with you. And it'll take too long just to write up an argument and it will be a waste of time since you won't understand.
Probably because you don't understand it yourself?
I do understand.
And each time you've lost miserably
Ha! No, I walked away from some of them because I've already explained my point to you. I didn't want to keep debating with you because you would go on and on when I proved my point. For example, "Are mormons Christian" debate. I explained something to you about geography and you only quoted the first couple of words when I had already explained to you but you didn't read the context of my argument at all that came after the words you quoted.
Because I am rational?
No, it's because whatever I say and I prove my point you keep going on and on and so I have to walk away from it and not say anything to you after your last argument.
I do explain things to you. It's just you don't quote everything I say. You pick and choose from my arguments what you want to say. This is a prime example.
Walking away = giving up
Walking away from a fight makes you the greater man - walking away from a debate is just weak.
I walked away because I already proved my point with you the last debate I had with you which clearly this is an example of why you don't read or pay attention to everything I say and you only take parts of my argument and not the whole argument that I present.
When I quote, I quote a part of the sentence - just so you know which part of your argument I am answering. I don't see the need to quote the entire sentence, you're not stupid, are you?
I walked away because I already proved my point
No you didn't - I just read the entire debate we had. Not one time did you ever prove anything with material a nonbeliever can accept.
Debating with you is always frustrating.
That usually happens when one is rational, and the other one isn't.
Although I doubt you ''walked away'' because I don't understand your argument. Plenty of people upvoted agree with what I said - I got lots of upvotes.
I think it is you who doesn't have a comeback, and instead of admitting that, you are saying I don't understand, which is low, even for you.
I even stated in my very last argument in the "Is Mormons Christians" debate that I'm no longer going to debate with you at that subject because clearly you don't understand when I proved my point that Mormons aren't Christians. And then you disputed what I said and I didn't continue because I was right that you clearly would keep going on. So yes, I did walk away because you didn't understand.
You get a lot of upvotes on here because this site is biased towards atheists and the majority of the people are atheists. I am only 1 of the 5, Christians on here. Of course you're going to get upvotes because you have atheist friends to back you up and upvote you. I on the other hand when it comes to religious debates like theses NO ONE upvotes me at all. And if someone does upvote then somebody down-votes whoever upvoted me. And I'll get down-voted.
If this site had mostly Christians a wide majority would upvote me and you would feel the same way I feel that I'm practically facing everyone who is atheist against 1 Christian on this debate.
No one shares your opinion only means you don't get upvotes - that doesn't mean I do.
I get upvotes when my arguments make sense and trumph my opposition. I get downvoted when it doesn't. I don't get downvoted solely based on the fact that I am atheist, lots of my stupid atheistic arguments have gotten downvoted.
I got upvoted because my argument against yours was good, not because I am atheist, and you're not.
You aren't answering my argument because I don't understand, because I do understand. I answered your argument with a valid argument. You won't answer me back because you simply can't.
Not to mention there are several other people who've replied to your argument, and you haven't replied to them either. Are you saying we all misunderstood your article?
Actually, most people refuse to upvote you because you're a shitty debater. I (and lots of other people, including atheists) have and do upvote other Christians.
It is a religion. It's actively believing that a God doesn't exist.
It is classified as the seven things on what makes up a religion, it contains which is Narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
Here is an explanation on why Atheism is a religion and it contains all of the seven things in detail and it gives proof.
Let us take a look at this link here, and evaluate the criteria he uses:
Narrative- His example doesn't apply to atheism directly. He's talking about evolution and you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, nor are atheists required to believe in evolution. Like most theists, he confuses a lot of things for atheism that are not commentary on religion one way or the other.
Experiential- This first category of experiential cannot be applied to atheism as presented because Darwin is not the founder of atheism. There IS NO founder of atheism. It emerged independently in countless cultures.
For his second part- asserting that expressing a sense of freedom after leaving a religion is a sign of religiosity is as stupid as saying "If somebody is really stuffed after a big Thanksgiving meal, they must be hungry".
And then when he talks about "faith", he really dips in the moron punch. He's describing HIS beliefs regarding atheism, not what atheists believe. Atheists don't need faith because they didn't have to violate the laws of chemistry and physics to get the answers we get. He might think so, but that is not part of our experience. Besides, once again, atheists aren't required to believe in science.
Social- Atheism can factor in on this category, but so can anything that people have in common. We're social creatures. Is getting drunk at the bar with your homies a religion?
Doctrinal- Atheists have a lot in common because we tend to think in similar ways, and there is a huge forum for the dispersal of our ideas, but there is no doctrine, explicit or implicit. If you don't believe in God, you are an atheist. That is not a doctrine, its a definition.
Ethical- He goes out of his way to explain how he feels that atheists cannot fit into this category, so it can't be used to support his premise.
Rituals- What is his obsession with Darwin? Seriously. Anyway, this one is huge stretch and you can tell by his writing that he realizes it and just hopes his readers either feel the same way or are too dumb to recognize his lapse in reason.
Materiel- No seriously man. Darwinism is not the same thing as atheism. He really seems to forget who he is targeting. He is also pretty ignorant of the wide variety of reason an atheist may respect nature, none of which involve "sacredness" in a religious sense.
Okay Srom, We'll stop the ''attacking'' if you can come up with one, only ONE religion other than atheism that doesn't believe in a superior power.
Your article forgot a very important factor about religion - that is that every religious person believes in something that is bigger and more powerful than us humans.
That is, in my opinion, the definition of religion, the constitution of religion, if you will.
But, if you can name a religion, that isn't atheism, which believes human beings are the most intelligent or powerful beings that exists, then we can discuss whether atheism is a religion or not.
Remember, this is not an attack, let's have a serious friendly debate.
With those steps it is basically impossible not to be religious. If all you need to do in order to be religious is to wonder where everything came from, then religion has lost it's meaning.
The link is using Ninian Smarts criteria which is a collection of pretty stout measures of what constitutes a religion. The authorn of the linked article uses some bad logic to fit athiesm in that mold though. The objection you raise is a valid one, reductio absurdum seems to be tha fallacy in that instance. The criteria are so loosely applied anything is a religion.
The "social" part also is ill applied. By their measure any piece of philosophy would fit into the measure. Read John Locke? By their messures it would fit if you agree with things he said on liberty.
It would seem most of the criteria has been reduced to the point it is useless to include atheism as a religion in that link.
The piece of writing woefully mischaracterizes many stances and historical instances of atheism. A lie can be told in a line or two and to show why it is wrong could take many more. It would be a tedious exercise to address all the extremely slanted rhetoric in that piece of writing.
Here you are basically saying everyone who ever wondered how the universe came to life is religious. If that's all it takes, then it is impossible not to be religious, because everyone has an idea of some sort how it came to life. I don't think this this point makes anyone religious - just philosphical, human and curious.
2. Experimental
Darwin is not the ''Jesus'' of atheism. First of all, not all ahteists believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Second of all Darwin didn't start the atheistic movement.
3. Social
I am a libertarian - if I were to write a book about libertarianism, I would hope that if a person who isn't a libertarian will be when he is done with my book. Does that make me religious? According to this point, I am - ergo, stupid point.
4. Doctrinal
Are you saying in order to not be religious you can't learn anything at all? Again - with this list it is impossible not to be religious. If it's impossible not to be religious, then that means everyone is religious, right? Then religion lost it's meaning right there.
5. Ethical
Religion doesn't own morals and ethics. Morality and ethics is natural, and recorded in several other species. As far as I know, species except human beings are not capable of having an opinion on where they end up when they die.
6. Rituals
There is no such thing as an atheistic holiday, or an atheistic ritual. Saying we do rituals because we celebrate christmas and birthdays is .. ridiculous in my opinion, and again a perfect example why this list makes it literally impossible not to be religious.
7. Material
This article says ''some atheists'' a lot. You do realize most atheists aren't active atheists? Atheism doesn't play a role in most atheist's lives. That's the whole point of atheism. We don't have materials representing our belief, opinion or whatever you'd like to call it. There are of course some people who go to an atheistic gathering or whatever, but they make a very small minority.
In my opinion, this list is stupid. If I were to compare it to something, I'd say all you need to be in order to be considered human is to have:
Organs
Legs
Arms
Blood
Hair
Asshole
Nose
Just because a lot of other species fit that list, doesn't make them human beings.
Your analysis is wrong because the article doesn't even fit. It would be more like having your list and saying "I have this thing that has everything but a nose, and since it mostly fits it is human."
Your argument is correct that those criteria are so relaxed that many things fit that shouldn't, but there is an extra problem that you didn't point out. The article even admits it that Atheism doesn't contain all the criteria the article listed as being needed. I was just making fun of the article some more. Your argument is good.
It is a religion. It's actively believing that a God doesn't exist.
No, it isn't. Atheism merely means "no gods". An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. It is never specified wether an atheist actively disbelieves or simply does not believe. As such, there are both, atheists who active disbelieve, and atheists who simply do not believe.
As for your link, it's incredibly idiotic. Atheism (by itself) contains nothing pertaining to the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the meaning of life, morality, rituals, etc.
That website has misrepresented the atheist position to you. There is a difference between I believe "X" is false, and I don't believe "X".
You: The number of hairs on your head is even.
Me: I don't believe you.
You: Ah ha! So you believe that the number of hairs on your head is odd!
Me: No, not believing that there are an even number of hairs on my head is not the same thing as believing there is not an even number of hairs on my head.
It is classified as the seven things on what makes up a religion, it contains which is Narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
Neat, there is one thing that makes up an atheist, not believing in the existence of any gods, that's it. You can believe extra dimensional beings seeded life on Earth and our purpose is to buy and store as much cheese as possible while proclaiming that evolution is a lie, and as long as you don't believe in any gods you are an atheist.
Here is an explanation on why Atheism is a religion and it contains all of the seven things in detail and it gives proof.
I read the site, it is inaccurate. I would be happy to address a few of what you think are their strongest arguments or "proof", but it would take a long time to address the page's entirety.
Ahh here we go again. The attacking begins, I'm all alone and nobody is backing me up. It feels like it's just me against everyone on the site on this debate.
I love this!!! Srom, we understand plenty - most of us have been theists before we we were healed from the brainwash. So when you can't answer to the very rational and good arguments opposing your belief, just admit it, instead of acting like a victim of bully.
No it doesn't feel good. It feels like it's me against everyone else. No one is backing me up. You have people like you who back you up and others but I have no one on this site. They upvote each other and give support and all I get from people is down-votes. A prime example is the Warjin debate where I got down-voted to oblivion and everyone didn't like that. I guess, I don't have right to state my own opinion really if I get downvoted to oblivion.
There are days where I question why I keep coming back to this website. It's so frustrating to debate with people who don't understand.
Silas was backing you up. And dadman probably would if he actually tried to use this site for its intended purpose. But yeah, its true you attract a swarm of critics. And don't know whose downvoting, but that is unfortunate.
But, you do cry wolf. I'll be the first to admit I've been impolite to you or your ideas on occasion and I'm sure there's been people who have been meaner. But I've seen plenty of my fellow atheists simply dispute you, which is something that is going to happen on a debate site. Disagreeing is not attack.
And I'm sorry bud, but an American Christian trying to act like he's part of a persecuted minority is ludicrous. African-Americans are a persecuted minority. Homosexuals are. Muslims are in this country. But Christians? You guys are the dominant belief system here by far. You guys have a place of worship ready for you in any town you choose to visit. And the Christian right probably has more power in politics now than it did when I was born. You can walk into a grocery store in most cities and reasonably assume that about 70% of them are your brothers and sisters in Christ. So, I mean, you might have less people "attacking" you if your arguments were more congruent with reality.
Look at all of the responses that I have to type up. I don't have the time to do that and everyone is basically debating against me because I'm the only Christian in this debate. Dana has a different view. It's basically me against the whole site. Do you think that's fair? No!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look at all of the responses that I have to type up.
How about you answer just one of the arguments opposing your original argument? So far you've only answered out of topic comments. Maybe you should take that time and response to just one of the others. We have are about 4 people who've replied your argument, and you didn't answer anyone.
everyone is basically debating against me because I'm the only Christian in this debate.
If there were more christians here, we would debate them too.
Do you think that's fair? No!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you put yourself in a homosexual's situation now? Imagine being different than everyone else you know, and when you do speak up about your feelings/beliefs, people ''attack'' you and tell you you're wrong.
It isn't a belief that a God does not exist, it's the lack of belief in a God. So no. It isn't classified as anything to do with religion. We don't believe in a God or religion, so how does that exactly make us religious?