CreateDebate


Debate Info

72
67
Atheism Christianity
Debate Score:139
Arguments:62
Total Votes:150
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Atheism (25)
 
 Christianity (28)

Debate Creator

CutMe(109) pic



Christianity in the U.S.

Christianity was never a force for good.  It's a religion that convinces people to worship an imaginary being that closely resembles a Psychopath.  Now that you're fired up, debate me.  Prove to me God is real or you can just go because no one has and if you do, I will surrender with dignity.  If you give up, I win.

Atheism

Side Score: 72
VS.

Christianity

Side Score: 67
4 points

Let me be absolutely clear: I am a nihilist and anti-theist.

That being said, I think it is inaccurate to say that religion has never been a force for good. For starters, "good" itself is a subjective construction with multiple potential definitions which makes it difficult to make any categorical statement. Most importantly, religion is a pervasive socio-evolutionary attribute that would not have been selected for had a majority religious population not created some sort of objective benefit to the species. I think that theism and deism are delusional coping mechanisms that were and likely still are necessary for the psychological survival of the species. In general, people are not equipped to reconcile their instinctual survival instinct with their conscious awareness of their own mortality and cosmic insignificance. Religion is an instrument that permits people to avoid a reality that is antithetical to their basic instincts. This, I think, is its only unique benefit to humanity (and one we may or may not survive long enough to evolve out of needing).

Side: Atheism
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Christianity
14giraffes(87) Disputed
2 points

….religion is a pervasive socio-evolutionary attribute that would not have been selected for had a majority religious population not created some sort of objective benefit to the species. I think that theism and deism are delusional coping mechanisms….

All of our experiences are at one level happening inside our heads, but that isn't the right criteria for deciding whether or not a thing is real; naturally explaining a process is not conclusive information as to whether or not a thing is true or false. Or as the father of American Psychology puts it,

"….there is not a single one of our states of mind, high or low, healthy or morbid, that has not some organic process of it's condition. Scientific theories are organically conditioned just as much as religious emotions are; and if we only knew the fact intimately enough, we should doubtlessly see 'the liver' determining the dicta of the sturdy atheist as decisively as it does those of the Methodist under conviction anxious about his soul. When it alters in one way the blood that percolates it, we get the Methodist, when in another way, we get the atheist form of mind." (William James, Varieties, page 14)

As for the replacement of religion by science in modern times, I adhere to the view annunciated well by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, that the modern state is psychically taking the place of religion by swallowing up religious forces, and argal taken the place of god. Jung goes into details of it's negative impact with examples from the Dark Ages in his book The Undiscovered Self.

Supporting Evidence: Gallup: Very Religious Americans Lead Healthier Lives (www.gallup.com)
Side: Christianity
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Atheism
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

My argument is not that subjective reality does not exist, but that it is substantively different from objective reality and therefore merits different consideration where questions of objective reality are concerned. While all experiences may be processed through the brain this does not mean that all experiences exist outside of the mind, nor even that they are accurately processed representations of objective reality.

It is interesting that you should quote William James since his statement actually lends credence to my views rather than yours, albeit that his obsolescence relative to more recent scientific discoveries causes him to attribute the biological determinism underpinning religion to the liver rather than genetics.

Carl Jung is a similarly outdated reference whose field was medicine rather than biology or psychology, and whose views you also misunderstand. Jung argued that religion was a linguistic association and expression of the individual human psyche, necessary for human happiness and development. His concern was not that religion was being replaced by science or secularism via the state, but that the state was being worshiped in place of religion to the detriment of freedom and morality. Nor was his criticism limited to the contemporary state, including as it did the "Dark Ages" which were several centuries removed from the present.

The Gallup study relies upon self-reported and unverified claims, and was also conducted over phone which introduces greater error than other methods. The study also fails to control for differentiated upbringing (whether respondents were raised to live healthy lives), educational background (did they learn how to be healthy), etc. The study also does not control for the influence of belonging to the dominant social order, an explanation which it also acknowledges as the most simple and intuitive cause for the difference between the groups. Even if the study and its conclusion were valid, its assumptive conclusion would actually validate my argument more than undermine it as it would demonstrate a conferred evolutionary advantage to a majority religious population over a minority atheistic population under prior and current conditions. Since it is a strict observance of a status quo majority religious society it does not speak to any prospective minority religious society either.

Side: Atheism
1 point

Hmm.. you've got a point. Thanks for adding your points!!

Side: Atheism
2 points

To help get this started, why do you believe in God? Why do you not?

Side: Atheism
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Christianity
2 points

this is the trap that "atheism" keeps getting put into.

.

"tell me why you are against christians"

.

.

.

.

no.

.

atheist don't have to do any such thing.

.

the apologetics movement seems to have its hands plenty full fending off made up arguments all on their own.

.

they don't need any help from actual atheists.

Side: Atheism
1 point

What do you mean when you say Atheists don't need help from other Atheists?

Side: Atheism
skyfish(276) Clarified
2 points

the christian apologetic activists do not need any help from atheists.

.

they invent their own straw men and then whale away with fury at them...

.

.

.

and they STILL lose.

.

its pathetic.

Side: Atheism
2 points

When will you christians relize that your god created satan,sin,pain,hell,suffering,hunger,and all the worlds problems. Yep people actually worship this douchbag. Why would he send people to hell for sin which he created in the first place. Wait and if god knows you are going to hell that means he created that person for the only purpose of burning.

Side: Atheism
0 points

This is what we are always trying to tell them but they WON'T LISTEN!!!!!!!!

Side: Atheism
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
0 points

Trying to blame God for your miserable condition will not excuse you from Hell.

Side: Christianity
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
0 points

Trying to blame God for your miserable condition will not excuse you from Hell.

Side: Christianity
CutMe(109) Clarified
1 point

Condition...? As in what? Being human? God is the fault of all of this and christians technically say this unintentionally all the time. You basically say "God made us perfectly in His image but it's our fault we're bad" is a contradiction and should not be taken seriously.

Side: Atheism

We gotta kill the Bible. There’s no way to make the leap into post modernism until most people think in a more “non-Abrahamic “ way. Even Hitler didn’t have the balls to kill it! He thought it was “flabby”. But he was too afraid of losing their support.

Side: Atheism
Blood(217) Clarified
1 point

Even Hitler didn’t have the balls to kill it! He thought it was “flabby”. But he was too afraid of losing their support.

Hitler was not a national socialist, he was a fascist.

Side: Atheism
0 points

You can't surrender to God with dignity, you can only surrender to Him with humility. You are not on equal terms with God so you can surrender with dignity, sorry.

Side: Atheism
CutMe(109) Disputed
1 point

Read what you just said again.

"You can't surrender to God with dignity, you can only surrender to Him with humility. You are not on equal terms with God so you can surrender with dignity, sorry."

Side: Christianity
Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

ooops, *can't". I hope that helps you to understand. Thanks for pointing out my typo.

Side: Atheism

There is no way for me, or anyone, to prove that God is 100% without a doubt real. God is a faith based god.

Side: Christianity
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Atheism
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Atheism
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Atheism
3 points

Like with any relationship, it would be an emotional response that facilitates faith, not arguments. Spirituality cannot be based on arguments, it just doesn't work that way. The best things cannot be spoken.

Side: Christianity
1 point

You're right. But some people can't handle the fact that we don't have faith in God and they insist on telling us everything we already know about the Bible.

Side: Christianity
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Atheism
14giraffes(87) Clarified
2 points

Every sect has it's neurotic persons who want to control what others think. Even the atheists are subjected to this unfortunate dilemma of having militants like these you mention.

Side: Atheism

That is true! I agree with you although I do not live in America or the U.S

Side: Christianity
2 points

After scientific data is in, the conclusions we draw are faith based, not scientific. There is good scientific evidence that decisions are emotional, not logical. What do atheists generally postulate? That material is unconscious, human consciousness an illusion, the laws of nature are fixed, free will an illusion, nature exists without purpose, etc,… These are faith based conclusions and science therefore still remains in an infantile state of existence.

"Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought… The sense-experiences are the given subject matter. But the theory that shall interpret them is man-made. It is hypothetical, never completely final, always subject to question and doubt."

- Albert Einstein, Out of my Later Years, p. 98

"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "

- Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, p. 24

Side: Christianity
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Atheism
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Atheism
1 point

Christianity was never a force for good.

Says who and proof?

It's a religion that convinces people to worship an imaginary being that closely resembles a Psychopath.

Uh huh because believing in something like that is totally imaginary. You just don't understand God so you just think that He reassembles a Psychopath.

Side: Christianity
GenericName(3429) Clarified
2 points

While I disagree with the OP's tone and methods, I have to say that as someone who spent much of my youth being raised by a Christian family and who tried to be Christian, I find the Judeo-Christian god to be quite monstrous. After all, someone such as me, who is incapable of forcing himself to believe in the divinity of Christ, is supposed to be sent to hell to be tortured for eternity, regardless of how good of a life I live.

Can't you see why non-Christians would see that as monstrous, if not psychopathic?

Side: Atheism
FromWithin(7683) Disputed
1 point

LOL, talk about denial of who and what you are and what you support with your vote. You say you lived a good life? You call supporting abortions for any reason living a good life?

You call delivering a late term baby out of the woman except for it's head, and then sucking his brains out to make it easier to completely deliver the child, as living a good life? When you vote for the very politicians who keep late term abortions legal for any reason, you might as well have killed the Baby yourself. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE so please spare us all how you supposedly have lived a good life and not deserving of judgment for your actions.

You are such a hypocritical phony! The so called compassion of the Left is inhuman! Bigoted Non-Christians who judge the Christian faith and call their God names, have the tolerance of ISIS. You are the most intolernt closed minded bigots I've ever seen.

60 years ago even Atheists respected Christians and understood all the good that Churches do for the needy. They did not fear our Christian heritage and would never be so bigoted and hateful to call God monstrous and psychopathic. Those names could be given to the supporters of the abortion trade. Live in your dream world. Your so called goodness is diaolical evil.

Now please do what you always do and lie about how you do not agree with late term abortions, etc.

I won't be replying again. You truly are a waste of time. Your denials of who you are and what you support is mindless.

Side: Atheism
1 point

Heh, sorry. I'm just new to this Atheism thing. I've been getting into arguments with Christians who won't leave me alone so I'm a little harsh sometimes...

And I love everything else you said about this topic. You stayed calm the whole time too!

Side: Christianity
CutMe(109) Disputed
1 point

1. The Bible.

2. You just don't understand God so you think He's the good guy.

Side: Atheism
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Christianity
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Christianity
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Christianity
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Christianity
5 points

But that doesn't really make sense now does it?

Side: Christianity
0 points

LOL, talk about denial of who and what you are and what you support with your vote. You say you lived a good life? You call supporting abortions for any reason living a good life?

You call delivering a late term baby out of the woman except for it's head, and then sucking his brains out to make it easier to completely deliver the child, as living a good life? When you vote for the very politicians who keep late term abortions legal for any reason, you might as well have killed the Baby yourself. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE so please spare us all how you supposedly have lived a good life and not deserving of judgment for your actions.

You are such a hypocritical phony! The so called compassion of the Left is inhuman! Bigoted Non-Christians who judge the Christian faith and call their God names, have the tolerance of ISIS. You are the most intolernt closed minded bigots I've ever seen.

60 years ago even Atheists respected Christians and understood all the good that Churches do for the needy. They did not fear our Christian heritage and would never be so bigoted and hateful to call God monstrous and psychopathic. Those names could be given to the supporters of the abortion trade. Live in your dream world. Your so called goodness is diaolical evil.

Now please do what you always do and lie about how you do not agree with late term abortions, etc.

I won't be replying again. You truly are a waste of time. Your denials of who you are and what you support is mindless.

Side: Christianity
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
2 points

I won't be replying again. You truly are a waste of time. Your denials of who you are and what you support is mindless.

I'm betting that won't last more then a few days at most.

Side: Atheism
CutMe(109) Disputed
1 point

I swear, I already disputed just about everything you said and it's not here anymore...

Side: Atheism
Jace(4706) Clarified
1 point

You did, in another thread in this debate where they have this same argument copy-pasted.

Side: Atheism