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.
I guess that makes collecting stamps, brushing your teeth, and masturbating a religion too, because all of those things are important to "a person or group." That definition seems pretty useless since it can apply to almost anything.
an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Semantically since you used the word "or" anything only needs to qualify under one or more of these things listed above in your definition. LittleMisfit used collecting stamps as an example. It is an interest. It may not be a belief. It can be an activity that is important to someone.
It qualifies his assertion as "applicable". His example fits your definition. He is pointing out how your definition is too open. Almost anything qualifies.
I said it was "pretty useless." Pretty as an adjective means "To a fair degree." If a definition is too vague and can be applied to nearly anything it makes it useless to a fair degree because the people who are talking about religion won't likely know what the other person is referring to since it can refer to just about anything. For example, if I ask someone what religion they are, I would expect them to say something like Christian or Muslim because people typically use the other more specific definitions of religion instead of using the definition you provided. Using your definition if someone asked me what religion I was and I responded with "I'm a tooth brusher" they would look at me funny and think I had a screw loose.
So basically, people need to become less ignorant by learning different usages of words and establish common ground before they continue a conversation.
Yes, so many debates end up going nowhere because people are using different definitions of words and don't realize it until it's too late. Either that or their argument fell apart and they are trying to use semantics to weasel out of admitting they're wrong. I see that kind of stuff all the time on debate sites. It's fine to use uncommon definitions in debates as long as they are clarified and agreed on beforehand.
Although your definition of religion is perfectly valid, I just don't find it very useful in conversations because it will just cause confusion.
For the record, I upvoted your argument earlier and because I agreed with you. I forgot to mention this and now some guitar playing imbecile is riding my dick, because of my initial post and also did not understand my satire and continued to argue. :'(
You did an outstanding job in showing me that my logic wasn't sound.
I decided it was more fun to stoop down to his level... it's really just about the only way to make any progress with him, since he refuses to debate civilly with me. I apparently pissed him off prior to his Enaccpersona account.
He should realize that what he is saying isn't relevant to the situation.
Ok. Maybe you should entertain the idea that it might be relevant. Just for a few seconds. Up to you though.
I do not follow.
You telling me I did a good job against you goes against your character. You recently banned me from a debate and told me I was an idiot after you changed the side options that were both a form of no to make me look stupid.
Ok. Maybe you should entertain the idea that it might be relevant.
I did...it's relevant to this debate but not to my argument. What he is asserting does not refute my point.
Saying, "It's not this concept, it's this other one." is not refuting an argument. You are only butting heads. Then his only responses that actually addressed my claim were basically "this definition is dumb". That's not how to debate...
You telling me I did a good job against you goes against your character.
You are just trying to separate what you think is good from something that you think is bad, but there is no conflict between the two in this situation. It doesn't go against my character at all. I like complimenting people when they've done something worthy.
You recently banned me from a debate and told me I was an idiot after you changed the side options that were both a form of no to make me look stupid.
I figure that if they are coming into the kitchen, then that means they can handle the heat...the insult kitchen...haha I am half asleep.
You are just trying to separate what you think is good from something that you think is bad, but there is no conflict between the two in this situation.
It is a conflict. People who insult people are not supposed to compliment others, and vice versa. Maybe if I see some more compliments I can believe you.
I figure that if they are coming into the kitchen, then that means they can handle the heat...the insult kitchen...haha I am half asleep.
Whatever. Making an evil trap like that and then saying stupid shit that the person can't argue against because you banned them goes against complimenting them.
It is a conflict. People who insult people are not supposed to compliment others, and vice versa. Maybe if I see some more compliments I can believe you.
And this is written where exactly?
Whatever. Making an evil trap like that and then saying stupid shit that the person can't argue against because you banned them goes against complimenting them.
You stated that I threw you out of the kitchen, which means you were insinuating the instance of when I banned you from the topic, so it would follow that you were referring to the debate topic as the kitchen..
Not necessarily the topic itself, but the actual debate is the kitchen.
How is the debate not the kitchen? That's where all of the "heat" was (assuming you can call the weak arguments you posted as heat). You are the only who doesn't understand metaphors.
Agreed. And, I got thrown out of the kitchen before you turned on any heat. How can you determine I can't handle heat? It is clear that you couldn't handle the heat when you banned the one giving off heat. :)
You banned me from your debate. I am still banned from the debate. You have closed that kitchen. It isn't open. I am really glad that you understand this metaphor so well.
Like I said. That was not the kitchen. You assumed that that was what I was referring and you still are for an obvious reason, because you lack the comprehension ability for this specific situation.
You Said:When you assumed that I was referring to the kitchen as the debate topic. (Later you say that you were talking about it, so I don't see how my assumption was wrong.)
I Said:You stated that I threw you out of the kitchen, which means you were insinuating the instance of when I banned you from the topic, so it would follow that you were referring to the debate topic as the kitchen..(I was not agreeing that the topic was the kitchen.)
You Said: Not necessarily the topic itself, but the actual debate is the kitchen.
How is the debate not the kitchen? That's where all of the "heat" was (assuming you can call the weak arguments you posted as heat). You are the only who doesn't understand metaphors. (Here is you saying that the debate is the kitchen once again. You also tried to correct my statement, but only said the same thing that I said which means you agreed that you were talking about the debate as the kitchen, but you were disagreeing with it at the same time.)
You say:Haha, this is why I am arguing with you.
This was you:
The debate topic wasn't the kitchen.
I say: Wow. That shows that my short term memory sucks. Ok the "kitchen" isn't any area in particular. You enter the kitchen by uttering insults. ( I was admitting that I forgot what I said and then corrected myself. I did say that it wasn't the kitchen and was sticking to that statement.)
You say: Agreed. And, I got thrown out of the kitchen before you turned on any heat. How can you determine I can't handle heat? It is clear that you couldn't handle the heat when you banned the one giving off heat. :) (Once again you are assuming that the debate was the kitchen even though I have already sad it wasn't.)
Plus, you said I enter a kitchen whenever I insult you, which I did do.
Entering the debate was not entering the kitchen.
You are still assuming that the kitchen was the debate and that when I banned you from the debate, that meant that I closed the kitchen. That isn't the case. You are not following.
Haha, you must be really pissed right now that you can't ban me.
You also tried to correct my statement
Oh, bringing this up again. I already explained to you how this is wrong. Oh yeah, the weed has killed your short term memory. I told you that I was clarifying, not correcting you. -1 for you.
but only said the same thing that I said
And yet, you have trouble recognizing them being the same. -1 for you.
but you were disagreeing with it at the same time
I said that the debate was the kitchen, that I agreed you said the same thing, that we are both discussing the same thing, and somehow you took this as some kind of disagreement. -1 for being stupid.
Entering the debate was not entering the kitchen.
I didn't say entering the debate was entering the kitchen dumbass. -1 for not knowing what I said. I said I entered the kitchen by insulting you in the debate.
Haha, you must be really pissed right now that you can't ban me
If I was pissed I wouldn't even be responding to you.
And yet, you have trouble recognizing them being the same. -1 for you.
I never said that.
I said that the debate was the kitchen, that I agreed you said the same thing, that we are both discussing the same thing, and somehow you took this as some kind of disagreement. -1 for being stupid.
Well...Idk, maybe it's because you hit the "dispute" button?
I didn't say entering the debate was entering the kitchen dumbass. -1 for not knowing what I said. I said I entered the kitchen by insulting you in the debate.
And I was just clarifying to make sure that we were on the same level, you seem to have misunderstood it to be a disagreement.
You say:How is the debate not the kitchen?
Umm...You asked that not I. ^
I say:How is the debate not the kitchen?
You say:How is the debate not the kitchen?
And didn't say it wasn't..
Which then I corrected myself and admitted that I did say it wasn't the kitchen.
If I was pissed I wouldn't even be responding to you.
Liar.
I never said that.
You are the one who can't fathom them being the same and continue to bring it up. If you actually thought they were the same you would have dropped it a long time ago.
Well...Idk, maybe it's because you hit the "dispute" button?
If you don't know, then no one knows because it was really dumb.
And I was just clarifying to make sure that we were on the same level, you seem to have misunderstood it to be a disagreement.
Nice try pal.
Umm...You asked that not I. ^
You quoted it. It is in your post. I did not claim you described the debate as the kitchen because of that.
Which then I corrected myself
This is you admitting that you fucked up. You for sure fucked up. Just own it, and stop accusing people of not following what you say.
I didn't claim there wasn't heat stupid. I literally said there was heat. Your reading comprehension is just about as good as your metaphor comprehension.
Haha, you are so dumb, you don't even know what before implies. It is hilarious that you don't know that the events described after the word before are implied to have happened. That's like you saying there was no World War II when I say the Hitler was elected before World War II. You are so awesome right now.
So there was some heat in that situation I.E the present and not before or after, because you were bitching about what went on during the situation, which is how I know you couldn't handle the heat, BECAUSE AFTER THE FACT, YOU WERE BITCHING ABOUT WHAT WENT ON.
You have no idea if I can handle heat coming off of responses that I can't respond to.
Like I said, you were bitching about it after the fact, so that entails that you couldn't handle the heat, otherwise you would have picked up from where we left off, but you were clearly bitching about it, before you picked it up again.
That's not how it works. If you want to show that you can't handle the heat, you stop someone from responding to your posts like a bitch. Which one of us did that?
You have made a "connection" that is not really there.
That's a sign of weakness in one of your cognitive abilities and you use that particular ability quite often, so that implies that you have a weakness in your primary function, which denotes low intelligence.
You have made a "connection" that is not really there.
What is it you always say? "The simple minded always point out the obvious"?
That's a sign of weakness in one of your cognitive abilities and you use that particular ability quite often, so that implies that you have a weakness in your primary function, which denotes low intelligence.
They don't believe in God, therefore they have a belief that there is no God.
The definition I provided follows a notion that Theism involes the belief in a god or gods. The definition I gave stated Atheism as the lack of religion or the disbelief in god or gods. If we treat Theism as the positive and Atheism as the negative then it follows that Atheism is the lack of belief. Theism would have a higher value (numerically) if we look at it this way. Anything less than that is the lack of the higher quantity. We would treat Atheism as the zero quantity since it is the default belief at birth. Theism is an additive. Thus it has a higher quantity than Atheism. See what I'm sayin here?
Utter rubbish. You've just been told that Atheism is a lack of belief. And you yourself have stated that "They don't believe in God".
Even if you wanted to dispute the definition of what having a belief truly is, you can't deny that the definition of a religion has to involve a belief in some sort of deity somewhere. Seeing as this is something Atheism rather desperately lacks, I can't see how you can justify defining it as a religion.
This is like the problem where religious people ask Atheists to prove that God doesn't exist. Since you're the ones doing the believing, you should be the ones doing the proving!
Every religion includes a belief system, community, myths, rituals, ethics, material expression and sacredness. Atheism only includes three out of the seven.
Atheism won't match up to the list! Just admit it. Every single religion will match up to the list I provided. I didn't get that definition from some dipshit internet site either. Plus, you're definition is retarded. It's like saying that the definition of bread is "something soft that you can eat." By that definition, hundreds of soft foods are bread.
Because it's what you learned first and now you won't accept anything new.
No, because it specifically says that your definition is wrong. Take it from a person who has an actual education on the subject. In college, your definition is considered to be inaccurate... duuuuuh, don't drool all over yourself. You still have a chance to gain some knowledge if you decide to pay attention.
I would, but I left my boombox at my homie's crib
Well, shit! Maybe next time.
Yes...and you were the only one who suggested it...
No, because it specifically says that your definition is wrong.
All you've provided is a different usage for the word religion, that doesn't mean that the one I provided is wrong.
Take it from a person who has an actual education on the subject.
That would be an appeal to idiocy in this situation.
In college, your definition is considered to be inaccurate... duuuuuh, don't drool all over yourself.
When discussing the word usage that I have provided of course it would be in inaccurate in that particular situation. duuuuhh
You still have a chance to gain some knowledge if you decide to pay attention.
And that's how you end your "retort". Pathetic.
Roogly doogly doo, okayfine.
Finally, some progress.
To sum it up...you've committed about 3 logical fallacies(not including ad hominems) and failed to refute the logic that I have provided. Stressing your opinion over and over is not how to refute someone's point. If you are going to respond to an assertion, then actually show that the assertion is not logically sound. Making more assertions does not invalidate someones point. You've got to bring down walls before you can rebuild them, but you seem to think that smacking the walls together is how to get shit done. The walls are the assertions.
And you'll probably respond to this with an insult(and a terrible one at best) because you think that you are superior.
Directed towards someone with a kindergarten education level.
All you've provided is a different usage for the word religion, that doesn't mean that the one I provided is wrong.
No... it doesn't. It does however, mean that atheism is not a religion.
That would be an appeal to idiocy in this situation.
You can't get any worse... so what do you have to lose?
When discussing the word usage that I have provided of course it would be in inaccurate in that particular situation. duuuuhh
Oh, good grief. It's a good thing your arguments are supposedly "satire", because this is just ridiculous.
And that's how you end your "retort". Pathetic.
You didn't like it? Nooooooooooooooooooo! My goal is to impress the people on this site that I consider to be the most ignorant!Why Jc... I mean Intang... I mean Jake... wait, no... I mean TheRammer... oh, fuck... I meant OnTheCrapper... nah, GlibbertyGlo... no... TheDebater...? Ah, shit... that's wrong... Fun1-50! Wait... dammit, they're all blending together! WHYYYYYYYYY!?
Finally, some progress.
YES!
To sum it up...you've committed about 3 logical fallacies
Ohhh... only three?
and failed to refute the logic that I have provided.
It's just such shitty logic! I think I need to ask the audience.
Stressing your opinion over and over is not how to refute someone's point.
Thanks for clarifying that your brain function is a bit off.
If you are going to respond to an assertion, then actually show that the assertion is not logically sound.
Do I need to be taking notes?
Making more assertions does not invalidate someones point.
It's really difficult to get the chance to with you. It's like... debate seriously OR stoop down to his level and call him an idiot? I'm always more tempted to go with the latter.
You've got to bring down walls before you can rebuild them, but you seem to think that smacking the walls together is how to get shit done.
Just to be clear, are these walls tangible or intangible?
And you'll probably respond to this with an insult(and a terrible one at best) because you think that you are superior.
Well... I'm not going to fix it now. So, enjoy the insults!
Directed towards someone with a kindergarten education level.
You are pooing yourself again.
No... it doesn't. It does however, mean that atheism is not a religion.
And I dropped that point long ago, but you are slow on the uptake so....
You can't get any worse...
That is quite true, because I only ascend.
Oh, good grief. It's a good thing your arguments are supposedly "satire", because this is just ridiculous.
I'm glad you think so. I go for ridiculous.
You didn't like it? Nooooooooooooooooooo! My goal is to impress the people on this site that I consider to be the most ignorant!
You know you are just incapable of coming up with anything decent or original. Lol...
Why Jc... I mean Intang... I mean Jake... wait, no... I mean TheRammer... oh, fuck... I meant OnTheCrapper... nah, GlibbertyGlo... no... TheDebater...? Ah, shit... that's wrong... Fun1-50! Wait... dammit, they're all blending together! WHYYYYYYYYY!?
Who is jake? o_o
It's just such shitty logic! I think I need to ask the audience.
And I've debated plenty of people who were able to actually refute my shitty logic. You can see the shitty logic, but you can't explain why it's shitty...you can only regurgitate.
It's really difficult to get the chance to with you. It's like... debate seriously OR stoop down to his level and call him an idiot? I'm always more tempted to go with the latter.
You're just a crappy debater. Call me a hypocrite if you want to, but that won't change the fact.
Just to be clear, are these walls tangible or intangible?
And I dropped that point long ago, but you are slow on the uptake so....
Well, you never told me, so...
That is quite true, because I only ascend.
You apparently have a long ways to go.
I'm glad you think so. I go for ridiculous.
Typical excuse to try and cover up your stupidity.
You know you are just incapable of coming up with anything decent or original. Lol...
You're just jealous.
Who is jake? o_o
Some dude...
And I've debated plenty of people who were able to actually refute my shitty logic. You can see the shitty logic, but you can't explain why it's shitty...you can only regurgitate.
You just don't understand. I refuted your logic long ago. I'm sure an outsider would agree.
You're just a crappy debater. Call me a hypocrite if you want to, but that won't change the fact.
It's not a fact. It's your opinion... a really hurtful one too, since my goal is to impress the people on this site that I consider to be the most ignorant... dammit!
I basically did. All of your responses were completely pointless. Your particular argument doesn't refute mine at all. The only thing that you did was, provide a different word usage for religion. GTFO., Should have given you the hint to shut the fuck up.
You apparently have a long ways to go.
Because I don't have a limit.
Typical excuse to try and cover up your stupidity.
Wrong again. yawn
You're just jealous
True. I am a bit jealous that the stupid can have more fun than I.
You just don't understand. I refuted your logic long ago. I'm sure an outsider would agree.
The only thing you did was prove your logic, which what you provided, did not go against mine at all.
It's not a fact. It's your opinion...
Maybe. Our interpretations don't affect what is real.
I basically did. All of your responses were completely pointless. Your particular argument doesn't refute mine at all. The only thing that you did was, provide a different word usage for religion. GTFO., Should have given you the hint to shut the fuck up.
You were using it in the metaphorical sense, like "hockey is a religion in Canada". All I wanted was for you to admit that atheism is not an actual religion, since you answered on the yes side.
You seemed to assume that I was saying that your definition was wrong... which wasn't actually the case, as I thought I made clear.
All I wanted was for you to admit that atheism is not an actual religion, since you answered on the yes side.
So all of your arguments were pointless. This is a debating site not an informing site.
You seemed to assume that I was saying that your definition was wrong... which wasn't actually the case, as I thought I made clear.
Don't dispute an argument unless you're going to attempt to refute the actual point then, dumbass. I thought I made that clear.
You're like a religious man running around the streets trying to spread your word. You try to separate yourselves from the religious and their mentality, but you are no different. You are as dimwitted as most of them are.
So all of your arguments were pointless. This is a debating site not an informing site.
Apparently it's your arguments that were pointless... since they were meant to be "satire".
Don't dispute an argument unless you're going to attempt to refute the actual point then, dumbass. I thought I made that clear.
I was refuting the actual point. The point being that you think atheism is a religion. Religion in the metaphorical sense doesn't count. Kind of like when you were arguing that the mind's eye gives you actual sight. You knew what the debate was asking... you just decided to try and confuse everyone.
Me: "Atheism won't match up to the list! Just admit it."
You: "I will never admit it"
You said that I had a different usage of the word, but even when applying my usage, you would not admit that atheism is not a religion. Is it so crazy to assume that you thought atheism was still a religion, no mater the usage?
Apparently it's your arguments that were pointless... since they were meant to be "satire".
The point of them was to mock you, because you actually thought that you were refuting my argument.
I was refuting the actual point. The point being that you think atheism is a religion.
You must dispute the reasoning behind the argument to refute it. Giving me another variation of the word does not refute my reasoning. Do you not understand that?
Religion in the metaphorical sense doesn't count.
Because you say so? LOL
You knew what the debate was asking... you just decided to try and confuse everyone.
You are so stupid when it comes to making conclusions about me. Please stop trying, it'd be for your own good. I think you are just trying to annoy me when you make these stupid conclusions, well you aren't. If that isn't the case, then you are just an idiot.
Me: "Atheism won't match up to the list! Just admit it."
You: "I will never admit it"
You said that I had a different usage of the word, but even when applying my usage, you would not admit that atheism is not a religion. Is it so crazy to assume that you thought atheism was still a religion, no mater the usage?
It's naive of you to assume. I imagine, that someone who is supposedly smarter than me, would take the hint.
The point of them was to mock you, because you actually thought that you were refuting my argument.
Your original argument was to mock me?
Because you say so? LOL
Because it's a metaphor.
You are so stupid when it comes to making conclusions about me. Please stop trying, it'd be for your own good. I think you are just trying to annoy me when you make these stupid conclusions, well you aren't. If that isn't the case, then you are just an idiot.
Oh, so you didn't know what the debate was asking? Oh, that's reasonable.
Anyways, I'm pretty sure I am annoying you. You're still trying to insult me ;)
It's naive of you to assume. I imagine, that someone who is supposedly smarter than me, would take the hint.
My assumption might have been incorrect. If that's the case, then you're on the wrong side.
I can't use metaphors because they are metaphors. Circular reasoning.
Oh, so you didn't know what the debate was asking? Oh, that's reasonable
Yup. That's exactly what I said within that phrase.
Anyways, I'm pretty sure I am annoying you. You're still trying to insult me ;)
Once again, I can't reiterate this enough it seems, I am not trying to insult. There are two speculative options there. I don't know which one it is. Reality has already decided the conclusion. You are so stupid when it comes to making conclusions about me., may be a fact, because all of your assumptions are far from the truth, but if you are only trolling, then I renounce that statement. I am not trying to insult, I am just trying to open your eyes.
My assumption might have been incorrect. If that's the case, then you're on the wrong side.
This is incorrect. My initial argument does not belong on the other side.
I can't use metaphors because they are metaphors. Circular reasoning.
It's kind of like saying that your grandma is a dinosaur. You're obviously saying she's old, but she isn't really a dinosaur. What you're saying is that atheism is a religion. That metaphor implies that it is a very important part of your life, but it isn't really a religion. Your argument isn't applicable to the topic.
Yup. That's exactly what I said within that phrase.
It's kind of like saying that your grandma is a dinosaur. You're obviously saying she's old, but she isn't really a dinosaur. What you're saying is that atheism is a religion. That metaphor implies that it is a very important part of your life, but it isn't really a religion. Your argument isn't applicable to the topic.
Well DUH. That's how metaphors work. You don't take the literal meaning, you take the metaphorical meaning. You just take things too literally and think that's how it should be done, that's the problem here. You want it done your way. You are still trying to correct me, because you want it to be said your way. Get over yourself.
You don't take the literal meaning you, take the metaphorical meaning.
Then you were off topic the entire time... even before I began debating with you.
You just take things too literally and think that's how it should be done, that's the problem here.
LOL! Yeah... that's the problem.
You want it done your way.
What!? Motherfucker, you don't know me! You don't know shit, you bathroomselfielowselfesteemcrybabyegotisticaluncivilizedangermanagementretard! ... or something like that.
You are still trying to correct me, because you want it to be said your way. Get over yourself.
Well... yeah. What's the point of debating if you're not trying to convince your opponent?
Then you were off topic the entire time... even before I began debating with you.
The topic does not say don't be metaphorical.
What!? Motherfucker, you don't know me!
What I've said lines up perfectly with this situation.
Well... yeah. What's the point of debating if you're not trying to convince your opponent?
You don't just pop in and say, What you are saying is incorrect and what I am saying is correct because I say so. Which is technically the only way you've been arguing, because apparently a debater can't be metaphorical with their approach!
That's what the topic description is for. It's there so that the topic creator can establish what it is that they want to talk about, if they are not wanting to be specific, then there is nothing wrong with approaching it from another angle.
The hint would be to look at the topic and then look at the topic creator's arguments.
That would simply tell me that they are employing a certain usage of the word, it does not imply that any other definitions are excluded.
I'm not going to do shit their way simply because I see them doing it, because there have been no rules established that suggest that I should do it that way.
Me: "What qualifies as a religion goes much deeper than "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group".
You: "Oh why does it not qualify? Is it because what I have provided is not the popular definition?"
I never said that your definition doesn't count. I was merely saying that what qualifies as a religion (an actual religion) goes much deeper.
Me: "Every religion includes a belief system, community, myths, rituals, ethics, material expression and sacredness. Atheism only includes three out of the seven."
You: "K."
At this point, I still thought that you were referring to actual religion... not a metaphor.
Me: "So do you still think that atheism is a religion?"
You: "Oh, yes. That's why I continued to debate after my argument was refuted by cartman. Your particular argument doesn't refute mine at all. The only thing that you did was, provide a different word usage for religion. GTFO."
I actually wasn't trying to annoy you here, but rather attempt to debate civilly. When you said "K", it seemed like we were on the same track... but then you said "yes", which in retrospect, suggests that you take metaphors literally. When you brought up that I was using a different "word usage", then it became a bit off topic... it seemed retarded to be using it in the metaphorical sense. Also, "GTFO" set the tone... so I realized right there that we wouldn't be able to have a serious debate.
Me: "In order for it to be a religion it has to match up to that list 100%".
You: "What I've basically already said...You are using a different usage of the word religion. Your arguments are not applicable, so fuck off."
A metaphorical religion isn't a religion. The way a metaphor works, is that it gets rid of the word "like". What you were saying is that "atheism is LIKE a religion". I was simply clarifying. I also attempted, once again, to debate civilly... but you went ahead and told me to "fuck off", so... whatever.
What follows were mostly just insults and comments I used to confirm my suspicions on who you actually are. It's funny how you think that I go into stuff like that with some sort of extreme confidence in that I know who you or any fake accounts are. I can claim that I know... and whether I am wrong or not, it will still narrow down who it may be. I got the reactions out of you that I wanted... and they got you banned. Which then tied you to the account that you are currently using, WhoIsJc.
I was merely saying that what qualifies as a religion (an actual religion) goes much deeper.
Yes if we were to be talking about the usage that you were referring to, then it does become much deeper, but it was already established by my initial post, that I was referring to a different usage of the word, but you thought it'd be intelligent to impose your usage of the word. If you wanted to share your word usage for religion, then you should have just clarified rather than trying to dispute, because if you dispute me then I'm going to assume that you are saying that I am wrong in every way. There's no reason to dispute someones argument only to share what you think.
"K" was to imply "whatever. don't care." It was sarcasm... That's why I disputed and used italics.
I thought you were just ignoring the sarcasm, my bad. :Notetoself:(guitarguy can't take complicated hints)
The way a metaphor works, is that it gets rid of the word "like". What you were saying is that "atheism is LIKE a religion".
That's not a metaphor it's a simile.
What follows were mostly just insults and comments I used to confirm my suspicions on who you actually are.
Suspicions? I thought it was already well out in the open. Still slow on the uptake I see.
It's funny how you think that I go into stuff like that with some sort of extreme confidence in that I know who you or any fake accounts are.
I give you more than one speculative option of what I think may be going on. You always only pay attention to one of them. One of my options were, that you were just trolling, which was true.
It's funny of how you think that I thought that. :c
Yes, that sentence would be. A simile actually includes the word "like" or "as". A metaphor doesn't. With a metaphor, the term "like" or "as" is invisible, so to speak. Either way, if your version of religion was in the metaphorical sense... then you weren't actually saying that atheism is a religion. You were saying that it is like a religion.
Suspicions? I thought it was already well out in the open. Still slow on the uptake I see.
Actually... everyone else thought that you were Jc, smartass.
It has more to do with the fact that it devalues religion to being no more important or valid than being an anime fan. If anybody is going to be devaluing religion, it should be the atheist, not the adherent.
It has more to do with the fact that it devalues religion to being no more important or valid than being an anime fan.
That's not a fact, it's an opinion. I don't think it devalues it at all. I happen to think that having something that you love is very important in life and regardless of what it is.
It isn't just about having something you love. Otherwise being religious and being a hobbyist would be synonyms. Different religions obviously have different beliefs, and different people adhere to these beliefs differently. But being legitimately religious implies that you don't just love the tenants of the religion, you believe them to be true regardless of evidence to the contrary or lack of supporting evidence, you believe that your religion can essentially answer all of life's questions, you are required to have faith in things that cannot be presented to you, and you have some conceptualization of an afterlife since that and faith are the two universal traits of all belief systems that are largely agreed to be religions by both adherents and detractors.
The Olympic committee, the Cato institute and Otaku all undeniably love what they are a part of. But not all of the other statements can be applied to them in pure reference to their organization.
And atheists? Agnostic atheists do not believe atheism to be undeniably true, the lack of God itself is not considered to be an answer to all of life's questions, no atheist is required to have faith in atheism unless they have secretly been convinced of God's existence but won't admit it, and belief in afterlife is permitted but certainly not needed.
Pretty dure religion is better defined as putting faith in something larger than yourself. Apple dictionary says: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion. Going by that, no. Atheism is the opposite of a religion.
Well that's just great, but can't you see that none of that has any relevance to those of us who don't believe in your god? I don't understand how this is a valid argument.
This does depend but I will say in general yes. WHile many will claim they merely lack a belief, when pressed it becomes obvious they are making the positive claim that they believe a God does not exist. Which is a belief statement. If they were truly agnostic they would simply say 'I don't know".
You did it again- you disputed a sarcastic claim, and in so doing, threw a vote to the other side. If you're having difficulty recognizing sarcasm on this site, I recommend the following:
1) Read the comment.
2) Double-check the "Side" line.
3) Is the comment consistent with the Side taken?
-If Yes, then it probably is not sarcasm, though it may be a troll.
-If No, then it's a likely candidate for sarcasm. Continue.
4) If the comment is assumed to be sarcastic, is it then consistent with the Side taken?
-If Yes, then you have identified a case of sarcasm. Great Job! :)
-If No, then you're probably just dealing with a troll.
Now, if you were just objecting to his specific definition, that's fine- but is a usage case for the 'Clarify' link, which doesn't cast a vote.
It is useful to point out mistagged arguments and responses, but automatically concluding sarcasm overlooks the possibility that the person just posted their argument incorrectly which seems to happen a good deal on here. (Back when the side and tag were independent, disagreement between the two was quite rampant.)
In this case pakicetus would not have been able to discern which had occurred without knowing AveSatanas' position which might entail researching all of AveSatanas' posts.
No, it's fine. I haven't been around for much of CDs history, so was unaware of all that. I was mostly going for lulz though, to be fair. I can't get annoyed at nit-picky, I do it all the time!
It always strikes me as humorous and self-defeating when the religious try to assert that atheism is a religion. In the process they degrade and water down the meaning of the word, sometimes until the point where any gathering of people is a religion. What does this do for them though? Does it not serve to strip away all that is special and useful about their system of belief? Does it actually remove the differences between a theist and an atheist? Would the WANT to remove those differences?
Its just a way of avoiding the responsibility of addressing certain complaints, and it serves more to disrespect their own beliefs than their opponent may actively try to do.
Atheism doesn't, but the "other" atheism, that I'm calling "Militant atheism" for the sake of argument would seem to qualify.
Belief system: Ostensibly science, but an active belief that there is/are no god(s). This is fundamentally distinct from a lack of belief in any god or gods, and is backed in myth, which takes the form of accepting hypotheses as fact. While it is reasonable to accept theories as fact until proven otherwise, this takes it a step further.
Community: Check.
Myths: Check- see belief system.
Ritual: Anti-religious campaigning in general would seem to qualify.
Material Expression: The crowned pentacle of The First Church of Satan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Darwin fish, etc- you see these on bumper stickers everywhere, and they parallel the .
Sacredness: See belief system.
So while normal atheism doesn't qualify, militant atheism certainly does. I voted overall on the no side, but I maintain that for some atheists, it really is a religion.
Ritual: Anti-religious campaigning in general would seem to qualify.
I don't think so, because I wouldn't consider religious campaigning to be a ritual either. A religious ritual usually consists of a symbolic reenactment or some sort of sacred tradition.
Material Expression: The crowned pentacle of The First Church of Satan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Darwin fish, etc- you see these on bumper stickers everywhere, and they parallel the.
The Darwin fish was basically made to mock the Ichthys though, wasn't it? Actually, so is the Pastafarian symbol... and Satanism is considered to be a religion by many. Those are symbols of different groups though, not atheism itself (with the exception of the Darwin fish... maybe). Their followers may consist of mostly atheists, but so does Buddhism. Would you consider the Buddha a symbol of atheism?
Material expression in religion almost always contains paintings, statues, music, clothing, architecture and ritual objects. Also, a symbol in religion is considered to be sacred.
Sacredness: See belief system.
Sorry, what is sacred to a militant atheist?
So while normal atheism doesn't qualify, militant atheism certainly does. I voted overall on the no side, but I maintain that for some atheists, it really is a religion.
A militant atheist is an atheist who is hostile towards religious theism. They oppose religion... it doesn't make sense for them to be religious themselves.
Because there is atheism, and then there is atheism.
Atheism, using the definition of the word (and what most people seem to accept it as), describes the lack of a belief in any particular deity or deities. This is also described as the 'default' belief, as nobody is born believing in a god or gods. This term is often conflated with agnosticism. That is not a religion.
Atheism, looking at another common (and technically incorrect) usage of the word, describes a positive belief in the nonexistence of any and all deities. The difference is not merely semantic. This is the militant crowd, the anti-religious crowd, and their behaviors parallel religions extremely well in many cases, and past muster of most of the established requirements for a religion as well. In particular, their campaigning against religion in general appears little different on the outside from the campaigining of each individual religion against other religions. To this crowd, atheism is most definitely a religion.
It appears to be a contradiction of sorts, but it isn't- what we're really looking at is a pair of homonyms/homographs.
Atheism, using the definition of the word (and what most people seem to accept it as), describes the lack of a belief in any particular deity or deities. That is not a religion.
So is this the objective definition or what?
Atheism, looking at another common (and technically incorrect) usage of the word, describes a positive belief in the nonexistence of any and all deities.
How is the "lack of" a positive in this sense? If Atheism is the lack of belief it cannot qualify as a belief since it is the lack of the belief. They inherently contradict each other. If Theism is the additive to one's life then Atheism must be the zero level or the starting point at birth. Theism is added. Thus it is the positive. If someone lacks that belief then they are returning to that zero level. Also if religion involves the worship of a god or gods then Atheism cannot, in any sense, qualify as a religion.
The lack of a belief in any god or gods is the accepted objective definition.
But as I noted, there are two definitions at play here, so it's really more a case of homographs/homonyms than anything else.
In the case of the latter, I am not describing or asserting the lack of a belief. I am stating an active belief- that there is no god or gods. It's one thing to not believe in something, and something else entirely to actively believe something does not exist. Religion does not always involve the worship of a god or gods either, mind you. Buddhism, for example, has its Asuras and Devas that seem somewhat similar to demigods and gods respectively as shown in other religions. However, Asuras and Devas are not worshipped, and don't take on any of the other connotations associated with deities from other religions either.
Objective Atheism can be described as NOT (Believe (God)).
Militant Atheism (for lack of a better word) can be described as Believe (NOT (God)).
The lack of a belief in any god or gods is the accepted objective definition.
Then regardless of any other notion if the belief does not involve the belief and worship of a god or gods then it cannot logically qualify as a religion. Atheism fails to grasp both of these, and thus it cannot be called a religion.
In the case of the latter, I am not describing or asserting the lack of a belief. I am stating an active belief- that there is no god or gods.
I see, but how does this logically apply itself as a religion since it negates the worship and devotion to the preferred deity or deities? It cannot logically do so.
Religion does not always involve the worship of a god or gods either, mind you.
If I am to follow this definition: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
Then I can logically infer that the worship of a deity is required in order for something to qualify as a religion.
Buddhism, for example, has its Asuras and Devas that seem somewhat similar to demigods and gods respectively as shown in other religions. However, Asuras and Devas are not worshipped, and don't take on any of the other connotations associated with deities from other religions either.
I do not accept Buddhism as a religion. I have a quote here from Nevada Thera answering the question "Is Buddhism a religion?".
"It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."" - Nevada Thera.
Buddhism more fits to the notion of a philosophy than a religion. If it does not require the worship of a deity I will not give it any allowance to be qualified as a religion.
Objective Atheism can be described as NOT (Believe (God)).
Militant Atheism (for lack of a better word) can be described as Believe (NOT (God)).
Both still lack the worship of a deity. Neither can qualify as a religion regardless of how you wish to phrase it.
I'll have to concede the argument then; you've moved the goalposts for the definition of religion to suit your stance on the issue.
Understand, though, that this stance makes it a tautology. Limiting the definition of religion to 'worshipping gods' of course makes atheism not a religion; your stance is basically "They don't worship gods because they don't worship gods."
I disagree with your position, but I can't debate with you on this as we can't agree on a common premise for the exchange. I maintain that Buddhism is a religion, it's practitioners agree, as do most of the world.
I'll have to concede the argument then; you've moved the goalposts for the definition of religion to suit your stance on the issue.
Okay, why do you say that when I use definition I have used on this debate before you even posted? I have yet to change the definition of religion. Your logic doesn't qualify it as so. I see no reason as to why you would even post this. Just walk away in shame or something. You don't have to make up some bull just to be cool.
Buddhism is considered a religion by its practitioners and most of the world.
You just said Atheism was and was not a religion. Also most of the world may not be aware of philosophical logic and reasoning. If worship is negated it cannot qualify as a religion, but as a philosophy.
Limiting the definition of religion to 'worshipping gods' of course makes atheism not a religion; your stance is basically "They don't worship gods because they don't worship gods."
Limiting the definition? Please. I have presented you with a definition. You could have contested the definition but instead you wanna cop out. I have given you sound logic. You refuse to contest it. My argument is that if their is a lack of belief it cannot qualify as a religion. If the lack of belief is present then, logically, one can infer that the lack of worship is evident, which doesn't fit the definition I have provided. Do not even try to reword my argument if you can't understand it. It's futile. Totes futile.
I disagree with your position, but I can't debate with you on this as we can't agree on a common premise for the exchange.
First, thank you for unbanning me. This will attempt to address both the points from your previous post as well as the one I'm responding to.
In regards to the 'objective definition' question- I was referring to the accepted general definition of atheism in that statement, not the accepted general definition of religion. Having re-read the exchange, I can see how that could have been misunderstood, so I apologize for the ambiguity.
I contest your definition of religion, and also that Buddhism itself is not classified as one; the fact that some of its adherents do not believe in the supernatural aspects of it does not change this in my mind, at least. It's true that, for some of its adherents, it is merely a philosophy- but isn't that true of all religions? Certainly, there are those who look at the teachings attributed to Jesus in a philosophical light, without necessarily believing in the dogma- this doesn't disqualify christianity from being considered a religion. I believe that considering Buddhism a philosophy oversimplifies it and does not address a number of other concerns regarding it, such as the karmic cycle. The "message" from the karmic cycle essentially boils down to the golden rule, and that can be looked at philosophically, sure- but actual belief in the karmic cycle goes beyond philosophy and is firmly in the realm of religion in my estimation.
My fundamental disagreement with you seems to be rooted in what constitutes a religion. I tend to favor my definition (surprise surprise) in part due to personal bias (I have to admit that), and in part due to the fact that it doesn't exclude one of the largest world religions from the classification.
Using your definition, Neither "Objective atheism" nor "militant atheism" qualify as religions; I concede that much.
Using my definition, "Objective atheism" still does not qualify as a religion, but "militant atheism" does. Mine also allows for Buddhism to be considered a religion as well.
Touching on your latter post more: I understand my response can be interpreted as a cop out, but it was more intended as a suggestion that further discourse was largely futile, as we're basing our arguments on varying definitions of the words in question.
If you would like to continue debating the subject, I believe we'll need to either agree on accepting one of our definitions or a compromise between them as a premise for the discussion. Alternatively, we could fork the debate and debate it out using each of our definitions individually. I have offered my contention regarding your definition, and would like to hear your response to that, if nothing else.
It's true that, for some of its adherents, it is merely a philosophy- but isn't that true of all religions?
Quite so. All religions can be philosophies, but all philosophies are not religions. Its like all mechanical pencils are pencils, but all pencils are not mechanical.
Certainly, there are those who look at the teachings attributed to Jesus in a philosophical light, without necessarily believing in the dogma- this doesn't disqualify christianity from being considered a religion.
Correct. Yet if one denotes themself as a Christian then worship and belief logically follow along with the philosophy of Christianity. Thus is qualifies as a religion.
I believe that considering Buddhism a philosophy oversimplifies it and does not address a number of other concerns regarding it, such as the karmic cycle. The "message" from the karmic cycle essentially boils down to the golden rule, and that can be looked at philosophically, sure- but actual belief in the karmic cycle goes beyond philosophy and is firmly in the realm of religion in my estimation.
I see. Well, I would put it like this. They believe in the Karmic Cycle, that every action may result in a positive or negative reaction on the part of the original owner of the action. One can see this as a moral implicatiom or simply a power at work beyond conceptualization. However, this belief is not given to a deity, but to an idea of causation between the forces of good and bad.
My fundamental disagreement with you seems to be rooted in what constitutes a religion. I tend to favor my definition (surprise surprise) in part due to personal bias (I have to admit that), and in part due to the fact that it doesn't exclude one of the largest world religions from the classification.
I am sure my definition is a biased one. It comes from Google, but it's the one I most agree with.
If you would like to continue debating the subject, I believe we'll need to either agree on accepting one of our definitions or a compromise between them as a premise for the discussion. Alternatively, we could fork the debate and debate it out using each of our definitions individually
Could we simply acknowledge that "militant atheism" and buddhism are both grey areas in respect to classification as religions, wholly dependent upon the definition? I understand if you wish to contest the assertion, but rethinking it, there really isn't much to our disagreement beyond that, at least thats apparent; it would appear that whether we went with my definition, yours, or both, we'd still be more or less where we are now. Going with one anothers definitions would require us to either abandon or completely rethink our positions, and since it would be based on a definition that we don't personally agree with I doubt it would be particularly useful either; in retrospect, that part seems like a silly suggestion.
Maybe establishing a compromise between our definitions might be better- that way we both have to rethink our position somewhat before proceeding, but neither of us has to completely rethink or abandon our position. What do you think?
Nope, I do not see how it can in logic. My understanding of the word Religion means "to bind one back to its source"...namely God. So I do not see how Atheism can be called a religion. Atheism like Religion, is human created reality from out of our brains. They share that in common.
Atheism is just the state of disbelief towards deities. A religion is a system. I have the disbelief that trucks can't fly. If I were to give this disbelief a name, then would that make it a religion? Nope.
No way. I find it highly illogical the notion that atheism or theism are religions. If atheism was a religion, all atheists would agree. If theism was a religion, all theists would agree. Facepalm.
Of course it isn't. To put it broadly, religion defines a belief in some sort of deity, and a following of the rules set by said deity. Atheism is a lack of belief in, or the act of being against a belief in such things.
To put it another way, the definition of Theism is (again, broadly) a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. The meaning of the prefix 'a' used on this word to make it become Atheism, means not or against. Therefore, Atheism means not having or being against a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Any religion is built on some factor of belief or faith. The very definition of this word is contradicted by the definition of Atheism, as I have just shown; therefore no, it does not 'count' as a religion.
The argument that Atheism is 'a belief in science' or 'a belief in no God' is utterly ridiculous. To tackle the first idea, there is no need to have a belief in science, as the scientific method is highly reliable for producing solid fact. To answer the second idea, isn't it impossible to believe in the non-existence of something? Doesn't that contradict the meaning of the word belief?
The way this question is phrased makes it sound like Atheism should WANT to count as a religion, as if it's some exclusive club to be part of. This idea is wrong, and it disgusts me.
