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.
"Most athiests choose to be non-religious just to massage their egos because apparently it makes them smart."
I would say that this is not true at all. Most atheists are atheists because they have come to their own conclusion that to them, the evidence is that there is no god. Not because we all have huge egos. So kthx please become anhero.
Religions provides for emotional needs, atheist are with out that source of emotional fullfillment. Many of their egos are not massaged by them believing they are too smart to believe. Regretful atheists are everywhere, they are fearful of death where the religious have comfort, they live in a cold uncaring world well the religious have an all powerful god with its loving focus on them, etc.
Why believe in something? Because it give you benefits perhaps?
Do you really think I was suggesting it was a conscious process, or that There was an active comparison taking place? Shouldn't I be saying then that people do use their brains, aka use primarily reason instead of emotion evaluation, when choosing a religion. Classical and Operant conditioning works for more then just behavior. These two models describe how we learn. which is often a highly emotional thing.
most people fear the unknown, thats why they love religion, they love to think that life is planned, that there is something greater in the universe that they cant comprehend, something so strong and vast that it is the start and the end, and that being or force is strong and can protect them. i used to be a Christian i was terrified of the though of no after life, so i kept my head down and prayed. but the More i started to look into the Bible, the more contradictions and impossibilities i found. and many claimed the bible was the word of god, and the more problems withing the text i found, the more i wondered why would god contradict himself, obviously he wouldn't, so i stopped believing in him, so far the only thing that has made sense to me has been the evolution, until something else comes up that has a more logical approach, ill believe in evolution (a quick search in google about bible contradictions is astounding)
People do not use their brains when choosing a religion. In fact, the exact opposite is more likely what brought them to the religion they affiliate themselves with.
For the most part, there are two paths to religion. The first, and by far the most common, is indoctrination during childhood.
The second is desperation during a trying time (prison, poverty, abuse, drug addiction, etc).
Honestly, how many healthy, well adjusted adults do you know who suddenly decided to turn to religion? It almost never happens.
It takes an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind to open the door to something so obviously flawed.
It takes an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind to open the door to something so obviously flawed.
Don’t take offense, it is not intended.
If you are confident that religion is flawed, your assertion is the result of considering religion itself.
Please explain to me how it is possible to know religion is “so obviously flawed” without you yourself opening the door to religion. Furthermore, it can be affirmed that you have considered religion, but have failed to find a religion you are comfortable with.
You have indicted yourself with the same accusation when you assert that religion is obviously flawed; unless of course you have not studied religion. And if you have not, your argument is from ignorance and thusly baseless.
Like most people, he was probably indoctrinated as a child.
Its simple to look at the foundations of a religion and see if you like them, if the foundations are flawed; the basic beliefs, then what builds off of them deserve no study for they are a castle floating in air. You don't have to study a religion or "open your door" to them all, only spend a week or so reading its book and learning how its surrounding community operates to find out if its any good. Eventually, hopefully quickly, you start to notice a pattern and learn not just the foundations of various religions but the foundation of religion itself.
I was unaware that the subject ‘people’ included children (young); which by the way do not choose religion as per his and your arguments.
So, when the question is asked: “Do people use their brains in choosing a religion?”, I immediately deduce that young children have no choice and hence they do not choose a religion. They are simply walking through the door that is opened unto them where through they ignorantly and obediently enter. Ergo, the term ‘people’ must mean adults.
Now, as for your rebuttal of my rebuttal, I will only affirm this:
There is a night and day difference betwixt opening the door and turning around and walking out versus opening the door, walking in, and locking the door behind yourself.
Albeit, the argument I refuted basically asserted that any man who opens the door is condemned for doing so, despite the result or later consequence of opening the door. All of which was admitted by implication in his argument.
Did he not enter the door he opened? And did he not also walk out the same?
It takes an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind to open the door to something so obviously flawed.
I interpret him saying that your either a child, or emotionally needy to accept religion into your mind. The argument as I read it asserted the conditions necessary for someone to accept religion. I didn't read it as condemnation.
If as a child you ignorantly and obediently enter a door opened for you and stay in the room awhile; your probably going to know the room well. If later as an adult you decide you hate the room and leave, you have walked out a door you have not opened. That does not mean that you do not know the room. It does mean that he was in that room well he had an underdeveloped mind. If he decided to stay in that room after developing a more mature mind it would be because of the effects of indoctrination and his emotional needs.
Also, you can study/know about something and never believe it; you can know it well and refute it.
Also, you can study/know about something and never believe it; you can know it well and refute it.
Bingo!
It should be inferred, according to his argument, that any man who chooses to study religion as a subject has opened the door. Furthermore, the act of opening the door is the result of "an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind".
So, in essence, if you are guilty of studying religion for whatever purpose, the only reason you have opened the door is because of "an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind".
You will note the requirement, "it takes".
(I have no more to contribute. I have justified my contradictory position.)
Ok, I see what we disagree on or rather it seems we actually agree. The meaning I attribute to the saying "opening the door to religion" means accepting a religion into your belief system. It seems your attributing the meaning of the phase as studying the belief system. Under my interpretation it can be inferred that a man who chooses to study religion hasn't necessarily opened the door to religion but only wishes to know about it better. Only those who believes in a religion does so as a result of an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind. Your position makes sense under your interpretation.
And please read this short article entitled “Using the Brain to Examine a Scripture/Religion” found in pages 281-286 of this pdf book which you can download for free from here: http://extremelysmart.wordpress.com/download-my-book/
It seems that people blindly and without thinking inherit their environment’s religion.
Supporting Evidence:
using the brain
(extremelysmart.wordpress.com)
Then why is it that the Jews have survived a thousand years of Muslim rule in Egypt? Or that atheists and Muslims exist in Lutheran Iceland?
Because Jewish parents raised their children to be Jewish. People get their religion from their parents mostly, it's a sheer luck of the draw that you're not Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, etc.
However in either case, conversion or parents, no one arrives to the religion through thought. It's always an emotional choice.
Prove it.
Prove that no person or persons in the history of the world has ever thought about it logically and, based on his logical conclusions, decided to convert to a religion.
P.S. This is irrelevant to our debate, but please note that the title of the debate expressly states '...use their brains...'. You, as I recall, have referred to yourself as a 'gentleman scientist'. Surely, as a so-called 'gentleman scientist', you must realize that the brain (frontal lobe?) is responsible for emotions.
Prove that no person or persons in the history of the world has ever thought about it logically and, based on his logical conclusions, decided to convert to a religion.
There is no objective, empirical evidence for god, or the supernatural. There is no logical proof for them either.
Therefore what exists is an enterprise in logical sophistry and appeals to emotion. All religions must use this because no valid logical proof exists for their claims.
P.S. This is irrelevant to our debate, but please note that the title of the debate expressly states '...use their brains...'. You, as I recall, have referred to yourself as a 'gentleman scientist'. Surely, as a so-called 'gentleman scientist', you must realize that the brain (frontal lobe?) is responsible for emotions.
You're equivocating. Brains implies reasoning, as in the proper method of determining truthfulness.
There is no objective, empirical evidence for god, or the supernatural. There is no logical proof for them either.
Therefore what exists is an enterprise in logical sophistry and appeals to emotion. All religions must use this because no valid logical proof exists for their claims.
And yet, other than empirical evidence, there are many references in the Bible which were made quite before their time.
You're equivocating. Brains implies reasoning, as in the proper method of determining truthfulness.
Brain also implied one's mind or one's brain. One's brain does one's thinking - both logical and emotional (if that applies to them). The maker of this debate left the meaning of the key word ambiguous.
And yet, other than empirical evidence, there are many references in the Bible which were made quite before their time.
Sophistry.
Brain also implied one's mind or one's brain. One's brain does one's thinking - both logical and emotional (if that applies to them). The maker of this debate left the meaning of the key word ambiguous.
No. But that's only because most of us choose the religion that our parents raise us to believe in. Also, through intense thought and contemplation, a person can either change his religion or abandon the concept altogether, so in some cases people use their brains to choose religion.
