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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
If a woman hates misogyny, Atheism isn't 4 u, Christianity is
Atheism is the religion of misogyny-
Why? Atheism says biology is reality and nothing else. And in biology, the women have the babies. The women take care of the babies. The women are weaker and "built differently".
Christianity praises women and tells men to love and respect their wives. Whether you think religion is sexist or not, Atheism is worse.
Do the women not give birth in Christianity? This isn't even 100% true. Most species are this way, however there are exceptions in which the male takes the embryo, carries it to term and gives birth.
The women take care of the babies
Do Christian women not care for their babies? Many species have demonstrated the males to care for their young; some even exclusively take care of them.
The women are weaker and "built differently".
Yes, women are built differently and every religion teaches this as well. Women may be weaker than men in some areas however they are also stronger in others.
Christianity praises women and tells men to love and respect their wives.
Give me a moment to stop laughing...
-
hang on...
-
Ok, I'm better.
-
Christianity teaches women to be silent in church and to submit to their husbands. They were considered the spoils of war for men to do as they please. After the fall - while farming became more difficult for men, women were cursed with severe painful labor and that her husband would rule over her.
Wrong. Already did this debate. It's a letter to one church who had people, who happened to be women that had problems with gossip and arguing. And yes I can prove it. The rest of the Bible tells us the value of women and how to treat them.
Atheism simply assumes women are a weaker biological agent and should obviously be treated as such. And? I can bury you in articles about Atheist women complaining its misogyny is beyond the pale.
You responded to only one example, and if it's not meant for Christians to follow, it really shouldn't be in the Bible (but of Christians are known for cherry picking).
The rest of the Bible tells us the value of women and how to treat them.
Yeah, they're considered business transactions when it comes to marriage and they are spoils of war to be used however the man pleases.
Atheim simply asdumes women are a weaker biological agent and should obviously be treated as such.
No, atheists simply believe there is no god and doesn't go further than that.
1)It's an actual letter to the Corinthians and even gives the name of the women causing the problems.
Oh so there's really no reason to have it in the Bible. If Christians aren't supposed to follow these things, you could really just get rid of about 20 books of the NT.
2)If that argument falls apart, the misogyny argument is dead.
Only in your deluded little head does it fall apart. The argument still stands.
3)Atheism's misogyny problem
Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods. There is nothing even gender specific in it, therefore any "misogyny problem" you claim can't exist. You say a lot, but have yet to actually provide evidence to the contrary. You claim misogyny because women give birth and take care of babies. You still haven't answered my question, do women not do this in Christianity?
-----"The rest of the Bible tells us the value of women and how to treat them.
Yeah, they're considered business transactions when it comes to marriage and they are spoils of war to be used however the man pleases."-----
Nope. Any handoffs to the old testament are irrelevant. We aren't OT Jews. We are under the new testament, and are Christians. The OT was given because ancient man was archaic according to the Bible itself. The NT was revealed when man was enlightened, thus your blind claim is irrelevant and illogical.
Nope. Any handoofs to the old testament are irrelevant. We are under the new testament.
This is what I mean about cherry picking. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not replace it. He makes it quite clear the OT is still just as relevant. Christians just like to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with modern society.
Oh? So why can we eat pork, don't stone adulterers, don't kill gays, and eat shellfish then? There is a reason. Surely we just made that crap up on our own. Nope.
So you only follow what he said and just ignore everything else in it. How is that not cherry picking? Interesting to see you're actually OK with homosexuality and murder though.
You didn't have to give an opinion. It's the law of divided middle. Jesus never spoke directly of either and you claim only he is worth listening to, therefore both are permissible.
You want "cherry pivking"? Go on an atheist apologetics site, copy and paste their claims on the Bible, and then I'll prove to you what cherry picking is. Go ahead. Paste them.
No one knows more Atheists than I do. I'm on 15 different debate sites. Most got their core "lack of beliefs" come from the leaders of the new Atheist movement who? Are the kings of cherry picking. They rot the minds of kids by literally lying about what the Bible says. We know that it is indoctrination because just 2 decades ago, 90% of the U.S. youth were Christian and with less reason to believe so.
Most got their core "lack of beliefs" come from the leaders of the new Atheist movement
I got mine from trying to be a good Christian by reading the entire Bible. My lack of belief is due to lack of evidence for a god.
who? Are the kings of cherry picking.
The difference is we have nothing we refer to as complete writings that were said to be inspired by a perfect being. Because of that, we do get to decide what we agree with and what we don't. When Christians claim the Bible is the perfect word of God, they're not afforded the same luxury. Either way, pointing out flaws in something else doesn't refute your own. That's like a kid getting in trouble for breaking a window and arguing that his brother broke the TV.
90% of the U.S. youth were Christian and with less reason to believe so.
At least you admit there's no reason to believe in your religion
So... you fulfilled the parable of the sower. That won't cut it at judgement day. Not to be all "religious". I smoke pot and drink , and don't care to judge, but when a brother derails spiritually... Just saying. If a pothead hangs on and another doesn't guess who gets grace...
Aah yes. We don't believe in the myths of the magical nothing that created consciouness, nor do we believe in the hyenas became whales myth. That's your religion. Remember.
If you do not believe in the nothing you have an infinite regress of causes paradox. Thus, you have defied common sense by trying to use an infinite regress as your basis for Atheism.
The lack of evidence for a god. It's that simple. As I stated, the lack of a god does note create an infinite regress. We simply get to a point we don't have answers.
Are you admitting to polytheism? And doesn't polytheism simply point to its own monotheistic event horizon...the greatest conceiable being who actually is beyond the infinite regress because he created its infinite loops in the first place?
No, that's why I prefaced my statement with disagreeing with the premise.
And doesn't polytheism simply point to its own monotheistic event horizon...the greatest conceiable being who actually is beyond the infinite regress because he created its infinite loops in the first place?
You're presupposing anything can exist outside of your infinite regress.
By the way, watch out for the hippo that's roaming around your house.
There isn't anything outside of an infinite set. Otherwise it's a finite set. And if it is finite, explain to us how any "thing" can exist inside of nothing.
-----"90% of the U.S. youth were Christian and with less reason to believe so.
At least you admit there's no reason to believe in your religion"-----
Nope. If you were older you would believe according to statistics, which kills the "intellect theory". It's a repudiation of the atheist indoctrination that this generation got, which is beyond obvious. The evidence is everywhere. You just don't care, which makes it not a matter of intellect, but of the heart. I've presented my site to say, 200 atheists. Only one bite, and? He got 1% through it, cursed me, and ran off. I know because it showed me what all they looked at... and he didn't get far. You are scared to look because you want and need it to be wrong. If it were a matter of intelect...
Nope. If you were older you would believe according to statistics, which kills the "intellect theory".
You have no idea my age, but this just goes to show how faulty statistics can be. You specifically said the stats were from 2 decades ago (let's say 1997); when I was in my late teens (a youth), yet I am an atheist. You also have to consider as atheism becomes more and more accepted, more people will be willing to come out as one. It's also particularly dangerous as a youth to do so because they risk being kicked out of their home and losing support from their family.
The evidence is everywhere. You just don't care,
Yet no one can show us this evidence. You'd think if it were "everywhere" this wouldn't be so difficult.
which makes it not a matter of intellect, but of the heart.
This is one of those statements that really is meaningless. Whether "of intellect" or "of the heart", it all comes from the brain. Regardless, this sentiment can be said about any religion so how does that so how does that lead you to what is true?
1)You would happily go look.
No I wouldn't. You've invited 200 atheists, one actually decided to look and quickly realized it's crap...perhaps your content isn't what you think it to be?
2)The highest IQ's on Earth would not be Theists.
IQ does not fully measure every aspect about people. It doesn't even fully measure their intellect.
Let me emphasize this:
You claim it's not a matter of intellect, but rather a matter of heart. If a persons heart can lead them to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc...how can you use that as a gauge for what's actually true?
You also have to consider as atheism becomes more and more accepted, more people will be willing to come out as one. It's also particularly dangerous as a youth to do so because they risk being kicked out of their home and losing support from their family.----
Then I bet you can't wait until Islam moves into the West with power and silences all atheists.
1)The left doesn't get to pull out the Russian tinfoil then reject other tinfoil form. Sorry.
2)If you think Islam isn't infiltrating the West, go look at the religious affiliations of your Congressmen and Senators and of Europe. Boy they appeared suddenly. No caliphate there. I'm glad you don't know what a caliphate is or how to spot one...
-----You also have to consider as atheism becomes more and more accepted, more people will be willing to come out as one-----
Islam is growing faster than atheism in the West and actually blocks itself in its own dogma from what you label as enlightenment. Atheism will be pushed back in the closet by no effort of Christianity.
Because I was the points champion on debate.org in 1 on 1 debates, which was liberaly biased. And I provided you a site that will determine your eternal future.
-----The highest IQ's on Earth would not be Theists.
IQ does not fully measure every aspect about people. It doesn't even fully measure their intellect.
Let me emphasize this:
You claim it's not a matter of intellect, but rather a matter of heart. If a persons heart can lead them to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc...how can you use that as a gauge for what's actually true?-----
That's why I made my site. Because it's an hours long debate concerning that very issue. (It's actually not a hard argument, just long to rehash) If you truely wanted to know you would have happily hopped on it. The fact is, you need or want there to be no God. That's why you don't hop, then go back to watching liberal television.
Given an atheist doesn't believe in God, how could he have any qualities such as those you list? Many of us do say if such a god existed yes that would be true, but as others disagree, how is that objective?
So according to you, what's said in the epistles is irrelevant because they were written to churches or cities and the OT is irrelevant. When it comes down to it, the 66 books of the Bible - the inherent word of God - could really just be 6 books: the gospels, Acts and Revelation. I've never met a Christian that cherry picks more than you.
Of course not, but as this debate states we [atheists] consider nothing more than biology when it comes to our reality (which we really don't) - biologically humans are no more important than a seahorse; we are on equal ground as all living species.
That's what it sounds like Bronto is trying to claim. A reason atheists are misogynists is because it's the women that give birth, which must mean he believes Christian women do not do this. You can call me crazy all you want, but I'm not the one making that claim
Christianity teaches women to be silent in church and to submit to their husbands. They were considered the spoils of war for men to do as they please..
..Could you give me one shred of evidence about that?
1 Cor 14:34: The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
and to submit to their husbands
Ephesians 5:22-24: Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
They were considered the spoils of war
Deuteronomy 20:14: Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you.
-----Deuteronomy 20:14: Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you.-----
1)The men were going to take the spoils with or without God.
2)The spoils include children, who are males
3)All soldiers were men. So obviously they wouldn't keep men as spoils.
Well, the people they "took spoils from" in the Bible were sacrificing babies alive to the devil by cooking them. So your proposal is... let em cook babies because that's obviously the moral thing to do. Of course your argument would be "why didn't God do anything?" if he'd applied your request.
in the Bible were sacrificing babies alive to the devil by cooking them
Prove it, and I don't just mean prove where it says that in the Bible (since Deut 20 lays out general rules and isn't referring to a specific city), but prove any of it was real.
Of course your argument would be "why didn't God do anything?" if he'd applied your request.
No, the god of the Bible has proven to be highly immoral and I wouldn't put it past him to allow such attrocities
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
If you actually have read the Bible you should have no problem with the claims I make. Of course, as you have said yourself, only the Gospels, Acts and Revelation have any relevance to your belief and the rest can simply be thrown out.
And is genocide wrong if the group you destroyed was toxic and destructive, or is it self defense? Can I genocide ISIS, or would that make me a bad person?
Of course not. So if I genocided the Nazis am I evil, or did I simply destroy the Nazis? (Remember, the people God had destroyed made Nazis look like sheep)
So does God. So what's your point? That Stalin was fine for genocide but God is not? Because if an atheist does it "morality isn't objective", but if God does it, put on your objective morality seatbelts. (Nevermind that God himself would have to define any objective morality in the first place)
So both religions are equally toxic. I've never disagreed with that. I know the arguments you have with me in your imagination have led you to believe I support Islam, but I don't. I hate all religions.
You asked for facts of these acts taking place today to which I said they aren't. So despite me saying it's not happening today, you still want proof of it happening? Wtf are you smoking?
-----Christianity teaches women to be silent in church
1 Cor 14:34: The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says-----
1)The laws of Corinth. God commanded them to obey the laws of the land. Render unto Caesar...
Ephesians 5:22-24: Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything-----
This is an example of quote mining and intentional leaving out of context. You've intentionally left out the verses telling men to submit to their wives.
It's a straw man. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god and has nothing to do with genders or roles. If, however, you believe that women being the ones to give birth indicates misogyny, if your god did exist, he would have to be a misogynist.
-----Deuteronomy 20:14: Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you.-----
And technically these women were taken from violent, evil men who sacrificed babies to the devil. So the Israelites saved them.
1)Based on? Atheist objective morality? Now prove it was "wrong" and tell us what morality model you are using.
Really? This old hat? Objective morality is an ambiguous term and allows morality to change as one desires. I base mine on what is good for humanity and society, as well as deciding if it's something I would want to have happen to me. Is murder good for humanity or society? No. Would I want to be murdered? No.
2)It does in Darwinian theory. The one that imposes its will wins.
Thank you for demonstrating you don't understand Darwinian evolution.
People on this site tend to think things cannot be called right or wrong without invoking religion. This usually leads to endless bible quotes on the one hand, or a shirking of the moral argument on the other. Few present (or believe possible) any secular notion of morality.
Also, I never said that I think I don't exist. That's a claim you invented, in fear that otherwise you will have to consider the possibility that you are wrong. It isn't a rare or surprising tactic, so you get no points for the failed attempt at creativity. (Neither did Dermot say any such thing.)
The original question doesn't matter. You don't get any claims under pure skepticism with certainty. Some portray it as the self contradictory "Only one thing is certain that nothing is certain" - again, an unsurprising tactic.
However, I prefer not to overuse Skepticism, especially when the claims are specific and it's easy, both being fulfilled here. However, if I may want to do that, I'll have to refrain from any refutations.
When I say, "I exist", and when you say "I exist", both of these mean completely different things. And that's just 2. As I showed, there can be more.
So that can mean - either you think that "I exist" must always be certain as the collection of symbols/sounds, or you expect equivocation to be your greatest ally. Neither possibility seems bright for you.
The semantics you present here are not really what the debate you lost was about. I proved that one can be certain, and you are certain one can't. You can go back and look if you like, but I'm done here.
You lost it because you couldn't have won. Except for those poor tactics, which can perhaps fool you into thinking that you won. It isn't even the first time I've put it to be so obvious that even you could understand.
Not really. If it was an insult, you should playfully accept the jab back. If not, then I poked you back anyway, and you are an adult, thus, you will be okay.
Not actually. Any "infinite regress" that was created by the simulator is not any law that confines the simulator, because the simulator created said "regress".
Not actually. Because you have no way to define the reality of the simulator. Time, being born, and beginnings probably do not exist in said "simulator's reality.
Aaah. You've proven my claim. Atheism doesn't seek evidence, facts nor philosphy or even logic. It is a fixed stance of cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases that has nothing to do with said "facts or evidence" but is wishful thinking, or what the atheist actually wants deepdown to be true. Atheists just want to die in order to be justified in doing whatever they want in this particular allotted time period. Admit that it is true.
It doesn't particularly matter if I continue to exist or not. I see Atheism as refusing to open the fridge because there might be a delicious meal in there. I'll open the fridge myself, and if the meal is there, I will partake.
I personally think all things that can exist do exist somehow. If you stop time or time doesn't exist as we know it somewhere, then you just "are".
It's more than that - you have to spend your life moving to a particular fridge of many possible ones, and it might be empty, or worse, the wrong one. Not to mention the argument against the wager, that the fridge will have nothing even if it's the true one if you came for what's inside.
There isn't actually any multi choice wager. Jesus was the one that mentioned the eternal Hell that Atheists think of.
I can also give you the perfect, logical reasoning as to why if any are right, it's Christ. (As I demonstrate on my page). I checked all the fridges for you, so now you don't have to. Now you are back to the original fridge.
And besides, not picking any fridge for fear of not picking the one with the delicious meal is faulty logic. And there aren't actually very many fridges to actually pick from using deductive reasoning alone.
That's what you think because you're culturally bound. I, on the other hand, proclaimed myself as liberal for a while. Until I noticed something wrong with it, that it wasn't an accurate descriptor for my views.
Anyway, that's what atheists you've met seem to you to think. For me, there's no "religion = Christianity", and anyone who wants to assert that is an idiot.
I accept that their are different religions. But I also accept that God in the Bible was clear that there are other spiritual forces at work besides Him. And if you take a close look, you see something in common with these different "gods". And the trait is what brought the judgement of God in the OT.
I've had many Christians here cry that atheists give more attention to their religion and acknowledge it. Some as to why Islam isn't criticised on this website (this one has mostly been FromWithin, but he's too vocal, especially when we add his alt NowASaint).
And I've seen some atheists, who've rarely known other religions, do that "religion = Christianity" thing. Though I don't deny that some do, it isn't a stance I can reasonably support at all, except when the context makes the reasoning behind such an assumption clear (which happens probably only in debates).
I've had many Christians here cry that atheists give more attention to their religion and acknowledge it. Some as to why Islam isn't criticised on this website (this one has mostly been FromWithin, but he's too vocal, especially when we add his alt NowASaint).
And I've seen some atheists, who've rarely known other religions, do that "religion = Christianity" thing. Though I don't deny that some do, it isn't a stance I can reasonably support at all, except when the context makes the reasoning behind such an assumption clear (which happens probably only in debates).
I've had many Christians here cry that atheists give more attention to their religion and acknowledge it. Some as to why Islam isn't criticised on this website (this one has mostly been FromWithin, but he's too vocal, especially when we add his alt NowASaint).
And I've seen some atheists, who've rarely known other religions, do that "religion = Christianity" thing. Though I don't deny that some do, it isn't a stance I can reasonably support at all, except when the context makes the reasoning behind such an assumption clear (which happens probably only in debates).
I'm not afraid of any permanent end. Quite the latter. If I don't exist tomorrow, I lose nothing, and won't care. But if an eternal, timeless happiness is there, of course I'm on board. It's common sense. It simply means my survival instincts work.
It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. What does matter, is that you have a dogmatic position, due to cognitive dissonance, that actually gets you pissed off it that atheist dogma is challenged. And now you are infull intelkectual retreat and have fled from the tpoic of this devate in order to not have to respondto the premis of the debate. In Lamen's terms? You ran out of answers and got mad.
Atheists don't have any preconceived notions about the role of women in a modern society.
The psyche' of individual atheists is as diverse as all other groups and their attitudes are formed freely without the hindrance of religious hocus pocus nor having to adapt the holy scriptures of their faith to fit in with the comparatively recent development of the equality of the sexes.
The few references to females in the Christian bible usually depict women in a lowly, subservient role, such as Martha who anointed the feet of Jesus with nard, an expensive perfume and wiped them with her hair.
Muslim's brutal treatment and heartless attitude towards women is well documented.
The logical conclusion is that women's rights and equality are better served by those who are not influenced by the archaic teachings of a bronze aged book.
3)Almost everyone, male or female, was shown in a subservient role, including Christ himself, who washed his disciples' feet.
4)Liberal Atheists (And most Atheists are liberal) have allied politically with Islam, which shows its true, misogynistic nature.
5)Christian cultures were the first to give women rights in the first place. Apparently that book did more good than you care to admit. Atheism has given no equality to women in Atheist nations. It has suppressed them.
Sure you do. You believe in biology. In biology, female mammals take care of the children, females are weaker, and the dominant male protects the herd and mates by imposing his will.
1)Define bad and good, or evil and good with Atheism. Atheist Liberals and Atheist Conservatives themselves would disagree on what is bad and what is good, what is good, and what is evil.
2)If God exists, he determines what is "bad" and what is "good".
3)Show us misogyny in the Bible. You can't use the example above (Sylynn's example). It's already been proven wrong, refuted, and debunked.
The problem is Christians like yourself try to lump everyone who isn't your version of Christianity into the atheist label. The share of the population which truly is objectively atheist is far smaller than you always imply. Which means even if there is a share within atheism which are guilty of misogny then it is a very small part of the whole population. And yet you and conservative authors try to extrapolate from that a claim of women will flee atheism in droves because they're treated so badly. It's simply one more example of conservative religious spin trying to literally scare people into coming to your side.
Not according to the demographics on this site. I see... oh...about 60%. Which insinuates that either you are wrong, or the massive minority is obsessed with religion more than any other group by far. And? That's why I doubt their "Atheism". Even they aren't convinced the other way. You pick it.
This site has only about 10 frequent repeat posters now, and many of those are the same persons using multiple avatars. You can't generalize to US or world populations based on the banter in this site.
I've been on three major debate websites and this one had the most active members of any of them. But even if you do have one where a throng is arguing with you that primarily is evidence that you're a tool wherever you go, not that your opponents are guilty of misogyny.
Having a child shouldn't be considered a sign of weakness, and in many species, the female and the male take care of the child. For example, penguins in Antarctica. The female penguins leave the egg with the male penguins, who take care of it, even after it hatches. Biology is not what is inherently misogynistic in this situation; society is. Even as people say that atheism holds sexist bearings through biology, Christianity shows situational sexism throughout many chapters of the bible. For example, when man is first created, woman is created as the man's help out of his ribcage. While just a small example of inherent sexism throughout the story of this religion, it has indeed helped build up the built in sexism of our society. Biology was never sexist. Biology cannot be sexist, for biology is about the survival of a species and its members. Biology is about natural selection, and if it truly was sexist, women would have died out a long time.
Uh huh. And that explains why secular socieities have rampant sexism and serious human rights violations, and Christian nations have open feminists, a plethera of women in positions of power (comparably), and a woman got the popular vote in the Presidential election.
This sounds like a tortured version of "sexism" to me. Is it sexist that men have been available for the draft all this time while women were not, or is that "situational sexism"? Is it sexism that males are put in laboring jobs at retail stores far more than females, or is that "situational sexism"? Is it sexism that if a family isn't provided for, the burden of shame goes towards the man, or is that "situational sexism"?
