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.
My comment refers more specifically to morality which extends beyond simple democracy and which atheism does not complement. The idiom ‘march to the beat of your own drum’ suggests an individual concerning themself solely with assuaging their own desires to the exclusion of external factors; irrespective of any potential detriment to those around them. Society functions at its optimum when there is a foundation of universal moral standard, however, when this is infiltrated by multiple alternatives, the dissonance would corrode that foundation (collapse).
So my question to you is, why are most factors which we would use to indicate societal health actually improving if this ideology is causing society to fall apart?
Depends on what factors you are referring to. If you mean in the physical sense then yes, societal health has improved vastly and is continuing to do so. If you even mean in terms of our knowledge and understanding of those who are unlike ourselves then maybe (although even that remains superficial at times). However, if you mean in terms of what we collectively place value on, that is what remains vulnerable. No society is functioning so well that it is devoid of problems that are in need of ‘fixing’.
There are many problems in need of fixing that are major enough to affect the bedrock of society, so much that the stability is threatened. Its members may decide that whatever they elect to do with their lives is their right and that may be a fair opinion to hold; yet many of those decisions have had serious repercussions (i.e. in regard to health, finance, the family etc.). The more who make such decisions, the greater the number that constitutes society etc...
The newest religion (excluding Scientology) originated over 2000 years ago, you still see people try to cling to bronze-age ideals thanks to it. Without religion we would be living in a truly modern society right now, without all the prejudice caused by it (not saying all prejudice comes from religion but most does.) The only way to live in "this day and age" is to think as if we actually are and not act as if the kind of fictional literature you see in the holy books is still relevant.
Just to clarify: Islam started about 1400 years ago, not over 2000, and Sikhism started about 500 years ago.
Additionally, far from most prejudice comes from religion: We have been prejudiced against each other for every single characteristic we can use to separate ourselves.
My mistake. To address you saying how religions are prejudiced against each other, that alone was one of the main reasons that I started to leave religion. Think about how many wars have been caused because of religions and their misguided ideals, because of religions people have died, killed, tortured, abused, and assaulted over nothing.
While I agree that the nature of religion tends to provide ample reason for people to kill each other, the truth is that we as a species always find reasons to kill each other. It is the tribalism inherent in our psyche that leads us to create "us vs them" mentalities which then get combined with struggles for resources, ethnic disparities, etc, which so often lead to violence.
Luckily, that is on the decline, as global violence is lessening.
Without religion we would be living in a truly modern society right now, without all the prejudice caused by it (not saying all prejudice comes from religion but most does.)The only way to live in "this day and age" is to think as if we actually are and not act as if the kind of fictional literature you see in the holy books is still relevant.
If the society and the world of today had not copied the 10 commandments from the Bible, for example do not murder, do not steal , the world would be in chaos. The world of today with its laws are based from the book that your called fictional literature
Moses and the 10 commandments are not new! These are the first laws given to protect the Jews .
You mentioned Hammurabi code
Hammurabi claimed that his code of laws was authored by Marduk, the most important Babylonian god. He also claimed that Marduk required Hammurabi to rule in his name.
Hammurabi code is not really useful today, look for example the aspect of this law : Under the Code of Hammurabi, men had considerable power over their families. Babylonian men could sell their wives or children into slavery in order to pay off their debts. They could also disinherit a son if they chose to. These measures were extreme and required men to justify their actions in a court of law. Men who wanted to sell their family members or disinherit their wives or children had to prove that it was necessary and, especially in the case of disinheriting a child, evidence of bad behavior. This procedure gave women and their children some protection from a clearly patriarchal society.
Moses and the 10 commandments are not new! These are the first laws given to protect the Jews .
I didn't claim they were.
You mentioned Hammurabi code
Hammurabi claimed that his code of laws was authored by Marduk, the most important Babylonian god. He also claimed that Marduk required Hammurabi to rule in his name.
Hammurabi code is not really useful today, look for example the aspect of this law : Under the Code of Hammurabi, men had considerable power over their families. Babylonian men could sell their wives or children into slavery in order to pay off their debts. They could also disinherit a son if they chose to. These measures were extreme and required men to justify their actions in a court of law. Men who wanted to sell their family members or disinherit their wives or children had to prove that it was necessary and, especially in the case of disinheriting a child, evidence of bad behavior. This procedure gave women and their children some protection from a clearly patriarchal society.
Hammurabi's Code was one of the first codified sets of law in human history, and many aspects of it were disseminated amongst the people of the Middle East, which heavily influenced the 10 Commandments and the Judaic laws. Pointing out some aspects of it that weren't adopted does nothing to change that.
That doesn't explain how great civilizations that existed long before the bible were able to function as effective societies displaying culture and innovation and weren't at all chaotic. What about Amazonian tribes that have no concept of the bible that care for and feed their communities with no christian god in evidence whatsoever? They live a caring and even sustainable lifestyle.
We still have murder and theft and a US prison population of whom the vast majority profess to be christians.
Yes, I'm sure some did and others didn't, what's your point? There are plenty of things we would consider horrific now that were carried out in praise of various gods, the Spanish Inquisition, for example.
Living in chaotic what? Sorry, I didn't understand that point.
If you are saying that some of the big civilizations from before biblical times were all chaotic you would simply be wrong.
Wrong question. Neither are right. Atheism denies existence of superpower (not proven by any scientific achievements). Theists easy show the fallacy of religious beliefs, they do not follow.
But I refuse to believe that one is superior and the other is inferior. We're all equal. There is already a lot of discrimination between theists. Theists and atheists can't afford to try and prove who is superior.
I like how people say "Oh that was the Old Testament." You cannot pick and choose which things to believe from the OT its all or nothing. Believing in only part of the OT means that you use rationality outside of religion to make informed decisions
The day and age have nothing to do with anything. This is one of the actual reasons why theism is so important. So that axioms don't change with the whims of some particular culture or another. Right is always right. Wrong is always wrong. Times and cultures don't change this. What IS IS.
So I presume you support slavery then, since that is what is detailed through theism? As GenericName said, why aren't you troubled by the change in Christianity, and in fact the change in society over time? Would you rather society and societal values were identical to those of 2000 years ago? I shutter to think of how you think women should be treated xD
The Church never favored slavery. Seriously. You can go and look at all of the dogmas of the Church. You won't find it as a dogma of the Church. You won't find any encyclicals defending the practice. As time goes on, we discover through the Church that something is IMMORAL,(slavery for example), but I can't think of a single instance where the Church or her councils declared something immoral to now be a moral good. When immorality is discovered, it can be corrected to the moral view, and put in line with the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. Only anti-theists take the power upon themselves to declare immorality as a moral good.
You needn't shudder to think how I think women should be treated. My wife and I, (who are both Christians), have utmost respect for each other, and the sanctity of marriage and the family, and have been happily married for 35 years and running. Jesus and His Apostles preached nothing but love and respect for women to men and men to women. If you're referring to the OT, keep in mind that not all theists are orthodox Jews, or Islamic men. A good chunk of theists are of the Christian variety which brings in God among us. The incarnation....Jesus Christ, which clarified much in the theistic world. Some don't accept Him. But those who do, and think that even may be the majority, but I won't say that as a fact, as I haven't looked it up. Anyway, only theism allows for one to have the freedom to do what is right, and the sense to not change what it wrong, into what is right. May God bless
I think you may want to change how you say this, and claim that the New Testament does not support slavery, as the Old Testament (still part of Christian dogma in many, many ways) most certainly and explicitly condones and regulates slavery.
Additionally, while the doctrine of the Church did not condone slavery, the institution itself condoned it for quite a long time, and that effectively led to the same outcome.
Only anti-theists take the power upon themselves to declare immorality as a moral good.
That still does not remain true, as I previously explained.
How does theism give one the freedom to do what is right? Where the Crusades right? Was it right for Charlemagne to order 4500 people to be killed for failure to convert to christianity? No it is wrong
Don't you find that claim questionable considering Christianity (and all other religions) have indeed changed drastically over the course of their existence? The mere existence of events such as the Council of Nicea, where very fallible humans came together to decide what was or was not Christian doctrine and dogma, seems to indicate (to me at least) that religion is not some immoveable institution that resists the changes of time.
I guess I made my comment a bit on the black and white side. This question is a black and white question pitting theism against atheism. To answer your follow up, Jesus Christ did leave a Church. The Church keeps an eye on the times. This is true. It's part of the mission. What dogmas are, (or at least de fide dogmas), are validations of Christian principles which existed since Christ, but needed codification due to challenges as time went on. But only the Vicar of Christ himself. The spiritual descendant of St. Peter, can declare dogma. What changes in the Church is not right and wrong. It's generally practices and approaches. This is something entirely different. You will not ever hear the Church declare sexual immorality, for instance to now be a moral good. You won't have the Church declare that murdering innocent children, (or anyone for that matter) is a moral good. Yet non-theistic....that is secular society....feels the they have the power to re-define what is morally good. This is rock that is the foundation of the Church. The preservation and protection of ethics and morality. There is one more element to this which you'll find in my clarification to the person below you on this thread. God bless, Steve
It's generally practices and approaches. This is something entirely different. You will not ever hear the Church declare sexual immorality, for instance to now be a moral good.
But you do hear the opposite, like how priests were allowed to marry and have families for much of Catholic history, until a very political decision led the Church to create a theological backing behind a very financially based decision.
You won't have the Church declare that murdering innocent children, (or anyone for that matter) is a moral good.
The Church did indeed declare that murdering people was a moral good, and they were by modern standards innocent. Mind you they had a flimsy theological justifications (referring to incidents such as "Witch Hunts", Inquisitions, Crusades, and similar such events), but it was still the Church declaring that murder was a moral good.
Yet non-theistic....that is secular society....feels the they have the power to re-define what is morally good.
As does the Church, seeing as how they declared their concepts of morality well after human civilization had started up. If the Church was as old as humanity, I would see what you mean. But religions think they have the power to re-define what is morally good just the same as secular groups do. The difference is that secular groups don't attribute their claims to any sort of deity.
Which one is better is a personality type decision. Between personality types: the atheist is the type of person who wants to fit everything inside his/her head while the theist likes to speculate about the mysterious questions while openly admitting faith. Atheists tend to give a little too much over to science while standard monotheists like to fight science. Both are tasteless. There probably exists a god but you're not going to discover him through a microscope, nor by contemplating how small the earth is. Best methods for realizing god are given by the mystics of various faiths.
Anti-theism is indeed a thing, it just isn't a religious belief.
Anti-theism, often found with more "militant" atheist, is the belief that theism is a negative thing, and something to be opposed and criticized. Literally "against theism".
Believe in God or not, you may believe in supernatural force.
The wind is invisible
Electricity is invisible
Demons exist, they are invisible
Atheists denies the existence of God, but do not deny invisible forces around them. It's impossible to conceive that a house, a car, a planet , the solar system came to existence by themselves !
Just because something is not visible purely using our eyes does not mean it is "supernatural".
Wind and electricity can be measured and observed, and electricity can be visible in certain situations.
Demons can not be measured, nor observed.
Any creation has a creator.
But you believe there is an exception to this: God. If you believe there is an exception to this, how can you hold this to be a universal truth that all others must be held to?
But you believe there is an exception to this: God. If you believe there is an exception to this, how can you hold this to be a universal truth that all others must be held to?
Because it's impossible that life,the human body, the animal world , the vegetation, with their complexities came suddenly by accident, without any intelligence behind these masterpieces .
It's impossible that the solar system is well organized by accident without any intelligence.
Same as It's impossible that a house , or a car or a TV or a computer with their complexities came by accident , someone must have made them !
This is the universal truth a creation has a creator
How is the solar system well organised? None but the tiniest speck of of it can support what we would consider life, the rest seems to be desolate and deadly.
If the distance between sun and earth was reduced, how would be the life on earth ? It's never too late to educate yourself a little bit more than yesterday :)
If the distance between sun and earth was reduced, how would the life on earth ? It's never too late to educate yourself a little bit more than yesterday :)
The distance between the sun and the Earth increases and decreases by a VAST distance simply during our orbit.
The meme that the Earth had to be have been placed exactly where it was for life to exist simply does not have scientific backing, and is contradicted by the very nature of Earth's existence in relation to Sol
The meme that the Earth had to be have been placed exactly where it was for life to exist simply does not have scientific backing, and is contradicted by the very nature of Earth's existence in relation to Sol
According to your argument,therefore other planets are also suitable for life ,because the distance has no importance, the scientific backing cannot explain why only earth has life and others have nothing.
According to your argument,therefore other planets are also suitable for life ,because the distance has no importance, the scientific backing cannot explain why only earth has life and others have nothing
I never claimed that distance has no importance. That is the second time you have employed straw men, please try to avoid more in the future. I said that there exists a range in which life can exist, referred to as the "Goldilocks Zone". In our solar system, Earth is the only planet that fits what we believe are the necessary qualities for life: Terrestrial, possesses water, and exists within the Goldilocks's Zone.
There are many who believe it is possible for certain very basic forms of life to exist within our solar system on Jupiter's moon Titan, which is believed to have liquid water under the ice. We can not yet for certain that no other life exists in our solar system, and based on our current understanding it is statistically unlikely that we are the only life in the galaxy, let alone the universe.
You should not claim that science can not back up a claim if you have not researched the science behind a claim. That is not being open minded.
This question is back on track, the order in the universe to make life suitable on earth must have been created by someone who knows better physics than human's VERY small knowledge, that they are still studying without understanding.
Could you please show me a single evidence that your cell phone , your car came by accident?
This question is back on track, the order in the universe to make life suitable on earth must have been created by someone who knows better physics than human's VERY small knowledge, that they are still studying without understanding.
You have made this claim multiple times, but you have not provided any evidence of it. Do you have any evidence?
Could you please show me a single evidence that your cell phone , your car came by accident?
Please take this opportunity to answer a very simple question: Are you trying to be taken seriously on this website? If you are, repeatedly asking the same question that has been addressed about half a dozen times is not the way to accomplish that. If anything, it will simply make people (including myself) assume that you are a "troll".
Because it's impossible that life,the human body, the animal world , the vegetation, with their complexities came suddenly by accident, without any intelligence behind these masterpieces .
You do not have the evidence to claim it is impossible. I can see why you would think it is improbable, sure. To the same degree that you are convinced in said impossibility, I am tempted to say your religious beliefs can not be true, as they would be impossible.
You do not have the evidence to claim it is impossible
If you were a reasonable person , with an open mind , you would agree that nothing came by accident. If your parents had never met, by combining their cells to form you , you would not be here to debate on internet .
It was impossible for your mom she gave birth to you without the sperm of your father, do you agree?
You are the result of the procreation, remember this : every creation has its creator
If you were a reasonable person , with an open mind , you would agree that nothing came by accident.
You have just indicated that you are not open minded at all, nor are you being reasonable. You are dismissing the possibility of something simply because you do not believe in it, which is the opposite of what you are calling for from others.
You are the result of the procreation, remember this : every creation has its creator
That is a belief, not an objective fact, and it is a belief that even you think has exceptions.
Sorry, your arguments are not strong enough to beat the facts that you deny. Please prove me with evidence ,that your cell phone came came suddenly by accident without a creator , I'm waiting for ages !!!!
First, you are not demonstrating facts, you are making claims, and those claims are not being substantiated by you. Second, if my arguments are not strong enough, then you should not have difficulty proving that to be the case. Why don't you? Third, I will tell you again that nobody is claiming that my cell phone came about naturally. That is a straw man and is lacking any logical value within the context of this conversation.
Sorry, but your argument is still not strong, you claimed solar system came to existence without any intelligence behind its conception, therefore it's same as you deny that all creations have creators, like the physical objects around you, are they not created for a purpose ? The solar system, the earth and its complexity , are they not created for a purpose ?
If you could prove me that your cell phone, your car ,like the earth and solar system came to existence by accident I will believe you instantly!
Again, claiming that does not make it so. Demonstrate why you think my argument is not strong.
you claimed solar system came to existence without any intelligence behind its conception,
I never once claimed that. I said there is evidence that it could have come about without any sort of supernatural origins, and I gave you evidence supporting that idea.
therefore it's same as you deny that all creations have creators,
Except I do not deny the possibility of a divine origin. I am more than willing to admit that is a possibility, and if I am confronted with substantial proof one day, then I will believe it. As of right now, most scientific evidence points towards a natural origin, not a supernatural one. I have closed my mind to nothing and denied nothing.
like the physical objects around you, are they not created for a purpose ?
Some are, some aren't.
The solar system, the earth and its complexity , are they not created for a purpose ?
In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, no.
If you could prove me that your cell phone, your car ,like the earth and solar system came to existence by accident I will believe you instantly!
Okay this is the last chance I am giving you: I have addressed this straw man fallacy half a dozen times. Prove you are not a troll by reading this line, and stop using it. It is not contributing anything to this conversation, it is not proving anything, and it is not accomplishing anything other than restating a "rule" based on your religious beliefs that you acknowledge has an exception. If you repeat this again, I will have no choice but to assume you are either A. trolling, or B. incapable or unwilling of having a legitimate conversation and debate.
We have evidence for air. We can measure its temperature and its volume for instance. We can see secondary evidence for air as well like blowing leaves. We have lots of evidence for electricity too, we can measure amps, volts etc.
We have no evidence of demons. Your statement about atheists and "invisible forces" is not a valid conclusion.
It's impossible to conceive that a house, a car, a planet , the solar system came to existence by themselves !
Any creation has a creator.
You mean that you don't think it is possible, others certainly do think it is possible. There is evidence for these things happening due to natural laws.
Any creation has a creator? What about the Christian god? Saying he doesn't need one makes your statement a fallacy of special pleading. If a god can exist without a creator why not a universe?
We have no evidence of demons. Your statement about atheists and "invisible forces" is not a valid conclusion.
People suffered from attacks of demons, their testimonies and their experiences proves the existence of these evil spirits ,they normally dwell in haunted houses
You mean that you don't think it is possible, others certainly do think it is possible. There is evidence for these things happening due to natural laws.
I'm Still waiting for an evidence , that it's possible that a house , or a car, or the solar system came by accident :)
The order among the planets , the galaxy , the solar system , must have been created by a superior intelligence, there's no doubt.
Except, you know, essentially the entirety of the astronomer community (the people who spend their lives studying this sort of stuff) completely and utterly disagree with you.
Lastly, nobody is claiming that my house, car, or cellphone came about "naturally and by pure accident", so please leave out such straw men in the future.
You seemed to have missed the parts where I showed you evidence for things that you said there is no evidence for. You then say "...their testimonies and their experiences proves the existence of these evil spirits ..." What you seem to think is evidence for your beliefs is incredibly low, ridiculously low compared to things you say we have no evidence for like air and electricity.
If what you say is conclusive proof is valid then ghosts, aliens, goblins and all other religions aside from yours would would also be real. Someone saying they believe something is far from enough evidence to show something to be real.
You have a seriously skewed standard for comparing evidence of things. You say there isn't evidence for things like the big bang despite there being huge amounts of evidence for it but when it comes to your beliefs you take the word of people agreeing with you as it is true.
You clearly have not thought this out and have a huge double standard here. I see you have 10 arguments but only one point, you are here to say silly things then down vote those that point it out I think, not to debate. Expect no further reply our first exchange illuminated the obvious flaw in your stance.
What you seem to think is evidence for your beliefs is incredibly low, ridiculously low compared to things you say we have no evidence for like air and electricity.
I don't know who are the "we" you are talking about ,many are not part of these ignorant who are "we".
I'm still looking at your evidence that evil spirits do not exist, I see nothing, just because you never experienced it, it doesn't mean they do not exist !!!!
He is saying that you dismiss scientific evidence for concepts you disagree with, claiming it is illegitimate, while at the same time pointing to people who claim personal experience.
It is confirmation bias, but he is just saying it in more words.
He is saying that you dismiss scientific evidence for concepts you disagree with, claiming it is illegitimate, while at the same time pointing to people who claim personal experience.
It is confirmation bias, but he is just saying it in more words.