Does CD have a problem with atheists?
The reason I raise such a question is because I've been having recent troubles with atheists on this site, quite often these atheists tend to drag religion into a debate saying my point it null and void because I cannot observe things such as "reality". Why? because "religion denies reality...Religion does not allow the questioning of itself. Considering that religion claims something to be real means it also denies the questioning of reality. There are some exceptions, some people do question, but I'm talking about the majority."
Quite often I've seen statements such as "it is a fact that religion keeps people stupid" and "You are prejudiced against atheists, because they ask questions about your religion (that also includes the questions about reality) you may not even think about. If you do you go to hell, according to the rules of an old and pointless book."
Now, I understand that there are many intelligent atheists within the site, likewise I understand that there are some Christians and members of other beliefs who act in similar manners. But if we all acknowledge that there is a problem with these people maybe we can move towards solving the issue.
Yes
Side Score: 38
|
 |
No
Side Score: 42
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
OK, so..., I'm an engineer. Which means that if you give me a problem, I'll give you a solution. Please note that the solution is not guaranteed to be optimal. If you are annoyed that people you respect don't take your arguments seriously because you're religious then... 1. Start posting arguments that are the exact opposite of what you intend. 2. Give up your religion. 3. Stop respecting those people..., or rather..., stop caring what other people think ;) Side: Yes
Well, in my experience you're one of the few (not the RAF, though i don't know!) No, what i meant was most of the religious types i have come across are quite narrow minded. Now that isn't a good thing on a debating site, given that there is no point arguing with someone if they won't listen. I don't think CreateDebate has any particular problem with atheists, it's just some of the people who use it. Side: Yes
Yes, it's difficult to argue against a religious person, BECAUSE that person DOES reject realty. By saying "God exists" and then an atheist saying "Prove it" There is NEVER proof. It becomes this cycle of logical arguments, but in the end it comes down to proof that theists can't ever give. The best they can do is try to feel like they win the argument by saying "I feel it in my heart" or "The bible is simply correct and you can't change that". But there is never any actual proof of a being that transcends time and space and can manipulate reality how he desires. We talk about contradictions, but that's not proof either. The biggest proof is to actually see god manipulate nature in a way that is impossible for any human to do. I'm talking levitating mountains, not with science but with an act from god, where people KNOW it's god, even me, and other miracles that defy reality. A doctor or scientist can restore hearing to a deaf person, or sight to a blind person with technology, so saying a god did that is meaningless. But if a god did something truly amazing that defies physics, then I would consider that to be perfect evidence. It should be possible if god is all powerful. If god does not wish to be known, or does not exist, then I would not expect anything to happen. Side: Yes
2
points
I agree, but it's kinda nice for a change. I never experienced it, but finally Christians on here can feel what it's like to be a minority, rather than the ones in charge. With an almost 100% Christian congress, with European history being dominated by the influence of the Church and the Christian Dark Ages, and even daily life, to be surrounded by religious people, it's nice to have the upper hand for once. - But the real question is: Why are atheists drawn to this website? Even though in the real world atheists are a small minority, they are a majority here. What makes an atheist want to debate more than a Christian? If this site reflected the population of the USA, then there should be a Christian majority to match the numbers you see in real life, yet there is not. I find this interesting. Side: Yes
2
points
But the real question is: Why are atheists drawn to this website? I think because atheists tend to pride themselves on logic, even though it's a quality some of us lack. Alternately I think a lot of religious people don't have a lot of interest in debating their faith because their faith isn't something that they think, it's something that they know. To the religious mind god is a permanent and very real part of life; they don't see any point in arguing about that any more than you or I would enjoy debating about the existence of the sun. That, and what with atheists not being religious and all we have to find something to do with our time, seeing as how we don't pray or go to church. Side: Yes
On a personal level, I find this site attractive based on even just the sales pitch. It's a place where I can share my thoughts in a free manner, and find some really interesting and thought provoking discussions. Any place where I can state my opinion and not get clubbed over the head is something of a sanctuary to me. I also pride myself a bit in being open minded, and the "format" of the community here allows me to really consider the counter-argument, without any repercussions. It's a less judgemental atmosphere, the spit-filled religious battles aside. It's also quite fun to test my "battle prowess" under these sort of conditions. Side: Yes
"Why are atheists drawn to this website?" If we're going to go along the lines of stereotypes then, atheists tend to be those who see themselves as clever and good at science. They then follow the stereotypes such as "nerd" or "geek" and use the computer and internet alot. After a while they wash up on the shores of CD. Side: No
2
points
While it's true that most atheists simply don't agree with the base difference in thought between the two "factions," that doesn't mean we have a problem with any religious person. It's absolutely true that I think the majority of religious arguments are illogical and completely inconclusive as far as evidence goes, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with religion. The only time I'll get furious with somebody is if they attempt to convert me, or interfere with what I believe based on their own beliefs. Otherwise, I'm friends with plenty of religious people, some of them extremely devout. It's when people start attacking each other on the site that problems arise and egos are bruised - and both sides have initiated at one point or another. Side: Yes
|
I dont find a problem with them on here but I dont allow people to get to me but I do find that some Atheist's can be a pain when they start with the attitude that I am right so you are wrong and refuse to listen to any argument but this is not restricted to just Atheist's there are a lot of other people on here with the same view which I think is a strange attitude to have on a debate site. I just work from the attitude that we all have the right to believe what we believe and if some people dont have the same respect for me screw em Side: No
Again, could we please put the word "some" or even "most" before the word "atheist" when posting these debates? Ax, you may not like the way I spell, but I don't think you've had any of these issues with me... and I'm atheist. Now.... color favorite realize theater behavior (hehehe) Side: No
Your question is whether CD has a problem with atheists, then you go on to only describe perceived problems you have with atheists. I'm on this side because, on any debate site, an atheist will more often win the debate due to the nature of "faith" and the rules of debate. Atheists are an extreme minority in the world though. You guys get hordes of holidays, 99.9% of politicians representing "us", the words on money and in national anthems, and self-validation from every athlete and celebrity to ever receive a reward and then thank your invisible friend. Debate sites aren't too much to ask for I think. You all are a greedy bunch. But for yourself, it sounds like you are trying to separate the entity of a religion from those who practice it. For example, I will argue that the nature of the popular religions is to, as you say, keep the populace dumb. It's for self-preservation. How can the world have been created 8,000 years ago if one learns about fossils and carbon dating? How can god have created the earth when one learns about the big bang? How could humans have been created from nothing when one learns about evolution? These are extreme examples and religion, the christian religion specifically in Westernized countries, does a great job of stradling the issues. When speaking to the congregation they are to take it on faith these sciences are mistaken. When speaking to the world they're parables... okay. Personally, I don't even care about the obvious moronic tendencies. I think they're hillarious actually. Social issues is where real harm is done, from denying women healthcare (trying to) on the basis of "hey, stop having sex whore and it won't be a problem" to decades of blocking condom donations to AIDS riddled areas of Africa, to their attitude about gays. The list goes on. And through the power these religions wield they are able to convince hordes of people that these evil social policies are good, that good policies are evil, etc. You can say you disagree with some general thing your particular religion does, sure. But it's your religion. You should not expect others to say "except Ax" each time some general negative is put forth about it. I see this a lot from the religous. Because some in the congregation don't believe this or that they want the world to ignore that particular thing their relgion does or stands for. Energy would be better spent trying to change that thing about the religion though, than trying to convince others to turn a blind eye to some thing they disagree with about that religion. Side: No
"I'm on this side because, on any debate site, an atheist will more often win the debate due to the nature of "faith" and the rules of debate." Is that also why you're okay with having the same debate over and over again? All of you're posts are the same with all of the same jokes. You don't just disagree with religion you seem to have a very deep problem with it. "and then thank your invisible friend." Okay see that's the kind of stuff that isn't needed. Even if it was you need new material.. for real. And then you go and say "this is what Christians believe". NONE of those things you listed represent my beliefs!!!!! You just pick the absolute easiest things to argue and go at them like a monkey on a package of hotdog wieners. Now.. if you want to debate how religion is involved with social and or political issues, great, I might even agree with you on a lot of things. But instead of having a fresh healthy debate lets just beat a dead horse into the ground. Right? Side: Yes
But the thing about your "invisible friend" is that although that's a pointless and unneeded insult, to an atheist, your "invisible friend" DOES appear to be invisible. The only thing that points to it existing are what you say and what your holy books say. Otherwise, there's no evidence at all in the real world. I try not to insult religion or religious people, but it does get annoying when they try all sorts of arguments, yet in the end, I still see no god, and they still believe, despite the fact that god himself has not said anything. And that's just it. I don't see the god, the religious person's argument against the big bang or against evolution is shot down with logic and facts, and anything that supports religion is often man made or shows no actual evidence. You can't expect to not be insulted by some atheists when there is no evidence for a religious person's side. It truly appears to be an invisible friend. A "personal relationship with Jesus". But you cannot show me Jesus. At best you can say you pray to Jesus, and say that he talks back, but that is not going to convince anyone. It just seems like it's all in a theist's mind and nothing more. Side: No
2
points
2
points
Also I'm having a hard time taking this seriously, coming as it does from you. ...quite often these atheists tend to drag religion into a debate saying my point it null and void because I cannot observe... Quite often these nationalists tend to drag nationality into a debate saying my point is null and void because of my nationality. You've said things like I cant correct the English of a Briton because I'm American. You've made sweeping generalizations about the American populace. You've tried to tie someones irrational or stupid behavior to their nationality, and judged people before they even formulated their argument on the same. My suggestion? Instead of feigning moral outrage (which for the aforementioned reasons sounds whiny and hypocritical), handle it like I handle your unyielding nationalism. Make fun of it an poke holes in the arguments; if they're really as flimsy as you say, it shouldn't be so hard. Side: No
"You've said things like I cant correct the English of a Briton because I'm American." I labelled it as ironic, when you then proceeded to correct my english with American grammer, I was insulted. "You've made sweeping generalizations about the American populace." Yes, but they are based on something other than media, plus I will openly admit them to be extreme opinions. I do not make statements similar to "it is a fact that all Christians are stupid" " Make fun of it an poke holes in the arguments; if they're really as flimsy as you say, it shouldn't be so hard." I've tried, but poking fun at people's beliefs isn't my forte. I preder to feign shock and outrage. Side: Yes
3
points
Still sounds like you can dish it out okay, but you can't take it. By all means, continue faking outrage, just know that until you at least try to practice what you preach, or in this case, to not be the thing you're complaining about, I won't be able to take this debate or any points similar to it seriously. Side: No
I agree with Chad. You said "Poking fun at people's beliefs" That is not what we are talking about. I said this when I first joined, "Don't be a dumbass just because you're religious". He means if atheists are wrong, you should be able to beat their arguments. You should be able to convince them with logic and evidence, not convincing them to have faith. Pascal's wager explains that very well, and once a person understands Pascal's wager, they realize they if you convince them to believe Christianity, then they would also have to believe in every religion. All religions have roughly the same amount of evidence. That is a MAJOR hole in your argument. You cannot win a debate while that is true. Because that is true and you cannot change the truth, your argument is defeated. It is this way with every argument. Christians cannot win religious debates because there is only one truth. There are either gods or there are not gods. The evidence that there is a god is lacking, so beyond simple faith, there is no way to remain a Christian under this sort of true scrutiny. In search of the truth, one must abandon faith for a moment and look only at the facts, evidence and logic. Side: No
Some people differ in opinion to atheists, and some atheists will not accept the beliefs of others. Some even go as far as to just randomly spout out that religion is rubbish and Nummi said: The bible contradicts itself in a debate that wasn't entirely related to the Bible at all. Everyone has a difference of opinion to another person somehow, and some atheists cannot accept or understand why other people are religious. Side: No
As a CDer, I have no problem with atheists; in fact, for me they're a breath of fresh air so long as they manifest themselves as people with a strong moral code. I do have grave problems with Christians as a group simply because in my opinion they stand in the way of real progress for humanity. Give me someone who's adopted the Golden Rule as their moral code over anyone who's adopted sheer unadulterated dogma. Not only does dogma serve no useful purpose, it has over the millennium been shown to be beyond hurtful and destructive--not only to humans but to the planet as a whole. Nevertheless, I believe in a strong moral code based on The Golden Rule--simple, straightforward, easy to grasp and understand. Unless we as a species develop such a moral code we'll not last for long as we can see now standing at the precipice of annihilation. The Bible, the Koran, and other religious books have been developed with a decided bias for the good of a few at the expense of the many. They've been total failures as the world can at long last attest. As for the religious leaders who utilize these books as tools of teaching, welllll, a pox on the lot of them. Side: No
|
