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.
Pretty vague question. Are you saying that you believe that the debate on theism/atheism that Americans in particular have is less substantive than in other countries? If so, in what way(s)?
I find their arguments far less substantive. All both sides seem to really care about is trying to demonize the other. Whereas outside the US we focus on philosophical aspects of the debate and trying to inject new arguments into the god/no-god debate. We also tend not to (I'm coming at this from a theists perspective) try to conflate atheism with Stalinism and religion with extremism. We're not focused on the actions of each group; but the philosophies of each group.
So guys like Sam Harris (American), Dan Barker (American), Daniel Dennett (American) and Christopher Hitchens (British-American) only focus on demonizing Christianity, ignore the philosophical aspects of the debate, and never interject new arguments into the god/no-god debate?
We're not focused on the actions of each group; but the philosophies of each group.
Interesting. I guess you don't include yourself in the "we're" group? After all condemned Buddhism because they practice capitol punishment and because of the actions of Buddhists influencing the actions of a local government.
Sounds like you're focused on the actions of each group, too; not the philosophies.
Personally I'm not prejudice enough to think nationality governs how one argues, but I am liberal enough to find that suggestion to be a rotten one.
You've disputed me earlier comment; but your arguments don't seem to have any relationship to anything that I've said. Could you be clearer in identifying what exactly it is that you would like to dispute?
Sounds like you're focused on the actions of each group, too; not the philosophies.
This is true. I see both American atheists and American theists as being equally fanatical in their actions. American theists perhaps more crazy in their philosophies; but both equally nutty in their actions.
I'm disputing your assertion that all American atheists and theists have less substantial arguments than atheists and theists of other nationalities; I'm disputing your assertion that all American atheists and theists only focus on demonizing one another and completely ignore philosophical aspects of the "god question;" I'm disputing your assertion that American atheists and theists contribute nothing new to that debate and subject; I'm disputing your implication that all American atheists compare religion to extremism and all American theists compare atheism to Stalinism; I'm disputing your assertion that all American atheists and theists focus on is the actions of their respective opposite groups and ignore the philosophies.
I am disputing these things because although some Americans obviously argue like this, not all do (as you implied).
I am also myself asserting the opposite of many of your claims, if in a more general and moderate manner: sometimes non-Americans atheists and theists have very weak arguments regarding their faith or lack thereof; non-American atheists and theists have been known to focus on demonizing one another and ignore philosophical aspects; lots of non-Americans contribute nothing new to the "god debate;" many non-Americans make false comparisons of their religious opposites; occasionally non-Americans only focus on actions and not philosophies.
So in short, in addition to your original statements being stereotypical generalizations that are equivalent to racism, the intent of your statement is completely lost and pointless because all of the things you singled out and criticized Americans for doing non-Americans do just as much. It's unfair and hypocritical, and I haven't thus far seen you produce a single shred of evidence or support for your position. So I went ahead and posted a bunch of stuff that refuted your assertions (Americans that do all of the things your criticize Americans for not doing, and don't do the stuff you criticize Americans for doing).
That, my friend, is what I was trying to dispute.
but both equally nutty in their actions.
Hmm...
No. I don't know of any atheists who claim Jesus told them to handle poisonous snakes before dying from a snake bite. I don't know of any atheists who mutilate genitalia because they don't believe in god. I don't know that anyone's skeptical inquiry led them to make themselves a religious martyr and blow themselves up in a crowded area.
> I don't know of any atheists who claim Jesus told them to handle poisonous snakes before dying from a snake bite.
Weren't the "Heavens Gate" suicide cult atheists? They drank poison on the belief that a passing UFO was going to beam them up; but that their physical bodies were preventing their teleportation.
I don't know that anyone's skeptical inquiry led them to make themselves a religious martyr and blow themselves up in a crowded area.
Weren't the Tamil Tigers, responsible for more suicide bombings that Islamic extremists, also atheists? While their goal may have been National Socialism, according to Wikipedia they were also atheists.
I'm not trying to case atheism into a negative light; but given that atheism does not possess a doctrinal system, there's no reason to suppose that atheist are immune to the violent excess that we've seen in religion. Atheists simply have less motivation to engage in some acts.
Furthermore, atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. Skeptical inquiry is not at all associated with atheism because to suggest so would be to imply that atheism has some form of dogma. While individual atheists may indeed be critical thinkers. I disagree strongly with implying that you cannot be an atheist unless you are a critical thinker/skeptic. You're not doubt familiar with the concept of "apathism". An apathist might indeed be an atheist; but I'd not be inclined to say that they are atheists by way of skeptical inquiry.
Not even close. Heavily religious. You really shouldn't need me to tell you this; you have a computer, any superficial research you do into the Heavens Gate cult will reveal it's strong ties to Christian scripture and New Age ritual. And as a part of their religious adherence, some of them mutilated their genitalia, which was something I mentioned the religious are notoriously fond of doing.
Weren't the Tamil Tigers, responsible for more suicide bombings that Islamic extremists, also atheists?
The Tamil Tigers we're not particularly motivated by their religious beliefs, but they were not motivated by a lack of belief in god, either, which is what atheism is. When religious fanatics blow themselves up, they're doing it in the name of god and as a direct result of their religious teachings. When someone who happens to be an atheist blows themselves up (like the Tamil Tigers) they're not doing it because of their atheism, they're doing it because they are motivated by political, ethnic (etc.) reasons. So what if they happened to be atheists? Atheism would have had to have been a primary motivating factor in the suicide bombings in order for it to be relevant, and it quite simply wasn't.
but given that atheism does not possess a doctrinal system, there's no reason to suppose that atheist are immune to the violent excess that we've seen in religion.
If it did posses a doctrinal system there would be reason to suppose that they would be immune to the violent excess that we've seen in those that posses a doctrinal system?
I think you need to rethink that one and try again, buddy, because that doesn't make one lick of rational sense.
To address what I think you're trying to say, here, I never implied that atheists were immune to violent excess.
Atheists simply have less motivation to engage in some acts.
Exactly. Which means atheists are less prone to engage in such acts, which is the point I already made.
Skeptical inquiry is not at all associated with atheism because to suggest so would be to imply that atheism has some form of dogma.
Why does that mean atheism has to have some form of dogma? It seems to me in order to arrive that the philosophical conclusion that god doesn't exist, which is what atheism asserts, some manner of thinking and/or questioning must have occurred, which is all that skeptical inquiry means.
While individual atheists may indeed be critical thinkers. I disagree strongly with implying that you cannot be an atheist unless you are a critical thinker/skeptic.
First of all, where the hell did I imply that? Really. Please. Point it out.
Secondly, you seem to have two entirely different terms confused for the same thing. One is "skeptical inquiry" which means uncertain questioning, or doubtful examination. The other is "critical thinker" which is basically a reference to someone who thinks skillfully. You can be the most skeptical inquirer on the face of the planet and not be a critical thinker. So when I call atheists "skeptics," it's because that's what I think they are; that's part of being an atheist. That does nothing to say anything at all about their critical thinking skills. You pulled that one out your ass.
This isn't a quote of yours but the stuff below is REALLY IMPORTANT and you've already shown you have a habit of ignoring parts of my posts so I wanted to catch your attention. So read, please:
Why did you ignore 4/5th of my post (the part where I address, dispute, and refute the various aspects of this debate and your position in it) in favor of only talking about 1/5th of my post (the part where I debate some minor semantics)? From where I'm sitting, it seems like you can't defend the bulk of your argument and position so you're ignoring it and instead only addressing small, nit-picky things you think you can handle. Speculation, I admit, but what am I supposed to think?
What definition of "religious" are you using? Theists believe in the existence of deities (i.e. god(s)). I agree that Heaven's Gate was (and still is, they aren't all dead) a religion; but it wasn't a theistic religion; but an atheist religion because they lacked a fundamental belief in any gods. Unless I'm wrong, their belief was that aliens did it all. Yes, the did get into a bit of genital self-mutilation; but there's no reason to suppose that that was associated with any kind of theism given their lack of belief in gods.
When religious fanatics blow themselves up, they're doing it in the name of god and as a direct result of their religious teachings. When someone who happens to be an atheist blows themselves up (like the Tamil Tigers) they're not doing it because of their atheism, they're doing it because they are motivated by political, ethnic (etc.) reasons.
So what is your take on groups in the Middle East that employ suicide bombings in the pursuit of secular goals? I'll quote from The Middle East Quarterly:
[Some researchers suggest that to understand terrorism it is more important to study what terrorists do rather than what they say.[1] University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape argues, for example, that Islam has little to do with suicide bombing. Rather, he suggests, that suicide bombers, wherever they are in the world, are motivated much more by tactical goals. He juxtaposes the suicide terrorism of the (non-Islamic) Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) with Islamist suicide bombing to demonstrate that a desire to end occupation is the common factor rather than religion. Therefore, he suggests focus upon religion is a distraction and that policymakers seeking to stop the scourge of suicide attacks should work instead to address root causes, which he sees as the presence of troops or interests in disputed or occupied lands.2].
If this is true, which I'm inclined to think that it is, then the obfuscation of suicide bombing with religion represents a logical fallacy and poses a significant security risk to our secular way of life by keeping us focused on religion as the culprit while giving the non-religious motives of suicide bombing a free pass. In short, we're not likely to stamp out suicide bombing while we're focused on something that isn't really the cause.
> If it did posses a doctrinal system there would be reason to suppose that they would be immune to the violent excess that we've seen in those that posses a doctrinal system?
If you possessed a doctrinal system that clearly prohibited violent extremism, then it would be reasonable to presume that atheism is immune to violent extremism because that's the whole point of your doctrine. However, as painful as it might be to hear, that there is no doctrine means that you can do anything you want. Secular morality or personal morality might prevent most atheists from engaging in violent extremism; but lets not assume that we're all in possession of the same personal morality.
To address what I think you're trying to say, here, I never implied that atheists were immune to violent excess.
Fair enough.
It seems to me in order to arrive that the philosophical conclusion that god doesn't exist, which is what atheism asserts, some manner of thinking and/or questioning must have occurred, which is all that skeptical inquiry means.
Not necessarily. While some atheists have indeed gone though a logical process of questioning religion and come to a conclusion that either there is no god or that the existence of god is unlikely; some atheists simply label themselves atheists for purely emotional reasons (mostly in response to some of the more violent or bigoted excess of organized religion). Still other atheists are technically apatheists that neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of deities...they simply just don't give a toss about it. It's not a meaningful debate to them; but they're likely to either tick "irreligious", "atheist", or whatever religion might happen to be marked on their birth certificates.
you seem to have two entirely different terms confused for the same thing. One is "skeptical inquiry" which means uncertain questioning, or doubtful examination. The other is "critical thinker" which is basically a reference to someone who thinks skillfully. You can be the most skeptical inquirer on the face of the planet and not be a critical thinker.
Point taken. Excellent point, BTW.
Speculation, I admit, but what am I supposed to think?
There is some truth and some fallacy in what you've pointed out. If I've not taken something that you've said, it's because I'm not actually debating it. I'm not debating it because I either agree with the points that you've raise or I disagree with the point; but know that I don't have a sufficiently strong counter-argument.
The parts that I do take are with parts that I agree so strongly with (NB: that's usually when it's something that I had previously disagreed with; but you've convinced me of your point) and that I want to alert you to the fact that you've persuaded me. Or that I disagree with and think that I might have a reasonably appropriate counter-argument.
I should point out, the atheist/theist debate for me isn't an emotional argument. I do a lot of inter-religious debating and often the debates (if a debate can ever be considered "over") finish with a meta discussion among the participants as to how we can improve our debating skills or use of critical thinking skills. These days I've come to consider many atheists close friends though the debating process. We fight like cats and dogs online and then catch-up for network gaming sessions afterwards. I'm not a "truth-seeking" debater. I debate because I just find it enjoyable. It's like playing poker. But I prefer theist/atheist debates because its somewhat easier to tip your opponents hand by getting them a bit emotionally worked up every now and then.
P.S. So far on createdebate.com, you offer the best debates from the atheist side. So I do actually enjoy debating with you. Most atheist debaters here (and I'm assuming this might be true of theist debaters on this site) get too emotionally involved in the debate which makes them either a pushover or not worth the time. You haven't lost it (yet), so you're putting up a good fight and THAT is something I can respect.
MW, dictionary.com, wikipedia, it doesn't really matter. Heavens Gate is a religious cult by all their definitions.
I agree that Heaven's Gate was (and still is, they aren't all dead) a religion; but it wasn't a theistic religion; but an atheist religion because they lacked a fundamental belief in any gods.
They worshiped Do, the Captain, and Ti, the Heavenly Father. Their dogma included Jesus Christ and teachings from Revelation, particularly those concerning salvation and damnation. Whatever that is, I don't consider it to be atheist. Heaven's Gate certainly isn't monotheistic, but they are not atheistic, either.
Yes, the did get into a bit of genital self-mutilation; but there's no reason to suppose that that was associated with any kind of theism given their lack of belief in gods.
Because of the teachings of great ET beings, one of whom resided in the body of Jesus Christ and one of whom is referred to as "the Heavenly Father" they cut off their junk to prepare themselves for the afterlife preached by these divine beings. That sounds like theistic insanity to me.
So what is your take on groups in the Middle East that employ suicide bombings in the pursuit of secular goals?
Unless I am much mistaken I don't think that anyone ever blew themselves up in pursuit of everyone having the freedom to worship whatever they like and believe whatever they choose. The Tamil Tigers certainly didn't act with this motivation. Secularism is just freedom of and from religion. You might say that their goals lacked religious motivation, something I admitted to already, but you cannot call them "secular."
He juxtaposes the suicide terrorism of the (non-Islamic) Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) with Islamist suicide bombing to demonstrate that a desire to end occupation is the common factor rather than religion. Therefore, he suggests focus upon religion is a distraction and that policymakers seeking to stop the scourge of suicide attacks should work instead to address root causes, which he sees as the presence of troops or interests in disputed or occupied lands
The most famous Islamic suicide bombing actually preceded the occupation of Muslim countries, so how could a desire to end an occupation that hadn't begun have been the "common factor" in the 9/11 attacks?
If this is true, which I'm inclined to think that it is, then the obfuscation of suicide bombing with religion represents a logical fallacy and poses a significant security risk to our secular way of life by keeping us focused on religion as the culprit while giving the non-religious motives of suicide bombing a free pass.
It's not true, not completely anyways, and I just showed you why. But I'm not the one claiming it's only one factor that drives people to blow themselves up; I said religion was a prominent factor. You're trying to deny that religion is involved at all. I have no problem admitting that the desire to end an occupation probably played a part in driving people to blow themselves up; I've already said as much. I'm just also saying religion was a factor, something you seem to be unsuccessfully denying.
You want to look at "common factors?" Look at suicide bombings throughout history and see how many of them have religious under/overtones and come back and tell me religion has nothing to do with it.
If you possessed a doctrinal system that clearly prohibited violent extremism, then it would be reasonable to presume that atheism is immune to violent extremism because that's the whole point of your doctrine. However, as painful as it might be to hear, that there is no doctrine means that you can do anything you want.
But that doesn't make any sense. The doctrine that you claim to follow doesn't in any way physically or mentally prevent you from breaking it. The single core philosophy of Jainism is non-violence, but that doesn't mean that a Jain is physically incapable of harming someone. Possessing a doctrinal system or not does absolutely nothing to say that doctrine is always followed.
Indeed, you're saying atheism could be immune to violent excess if only it had a doctrinal system like theism does - except we see violent excess from the theists (the ones with the doctrine) too!
some atheists simply label themselves atheists for purely emotional reasons (mostly in response to some of the more violent or bigoted excess of organized religion).
I've never actually met anyone who became an atheist (or a theist or deist or agnostic) out of spite. So I'll have to withhold my opinion on that until I've actually met someone like that, and become convinced such a person exists.
Still other atheists are technically apatheists that neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of deities...they simply just don't give a toss about it.
No, atheism is an assertive position: god doesn't exist. You cant be apathetic and arrive at that conclusion. You could be an agnostic, but not an atheist.
I'm not a "truth-seeking" debater. I debate because I just find it enjoyable. It's like playing poker.
I'm in the same boat, but when you ignore my refutations of your assertions it feels like we're playing poker and I just won a hand and you refuse to give me your chips. It's just a debating pet peeve of mine.
P.S. So far on createdebate.com, you offer the best debates from the atheist side. So I do actually enjoy debating with you. Most atheist debaters here (and I'm assuming this might be true of theist debaters on this site) get too emotionally involved in the debate which makes them either a pushover or not worth the time. You haven't lost it (yet), so you're putting up a good fight and THAT is something I can respect.
Thank you. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I am American, born and raised. My main reason for getting involved in this debate was to show you that Americans are every bit as competent (and incompetent) as everyone else. I intended to demonstrate this with the substance of my arguments, but I guess I ended up proving it in a roundabout way with my arguments, themselves, and showing that I, as an American, can handle myself well in a religious debate, and thus Americans are not what you said they are.
If we had to stop the debate here, I would be happy with the result.
Also, it's not just the religious debates; I've seen people lose their emotional cool in debates about school uniform or "Which Shout is Best in Skyrim." It's just people not being able to handle their shit, not necessarily the subject matter.
The way you phrase it is very strange. I am not sure what you are complaining about other than American's talking about the atheist/theist debate, as if both sides have nothing to share.
While i do think there are some absurd issues (the whole war on christmas thing), I think it is important that Americans voice their opinions (resonably) so that we keep other people's perspective on the matter in our minds so that one group is not under/over-Representative.
" I think it is important that Americans voice their opinions (resonably) so that we keep other people's perspective on the matter in our minds so that one group is not under/over-Representative."
Maybe it's just the lack of reasonableness on both sides of the American atheist/theist debate that I'm picking up on. And with so many internet users being American, I feel like I'm being exposed to (and often stereotyped as a theist) by their unreasonableness.
America has a lot of bat-shit crazy Christians. So, naturally, we also have a lot of atheists who are used to putting up with bat-shit crazy Christians. This doesn't mean that our atheists are also bat-shit crazy, nor does it mean that their arguments are likewise impaired. I think you might be confusing a high percentage of single-brain-celled, born again, evangelical, Republican Christians in this country for a lack of intelligent religious discourse in this country altogether, and I can tell you you're dead wrong. A) because this religious insanity says nothing about the opposition to it, atheism, and b) because we have a large number of highly respected and fiercely intelligent Christian apologists in this country, so even the religious side isn't all ignoramuses.
I think it's very easy to just point the finger at the Christians and say that it's all their fault. However, as a non-American, I've had too many disconcerting experiences of both American religion and American atheism. For example, when discussing "virtual particles" in subatomic physics, I've seen American atheists suddenly screaming that this is proof that there is no god. Like...the god question isn't even been discussed! We're talking about physics and suddenly there's a raving lunatic in the room talking about something completely different.
Now, I've seen both Christians and atheists doing this and it seems very much to be an American thing.
We're talking about physics and suddenly there's a raving lunatic in the room talking about something completely different.
Now, I've seen both Christians and atheists doing this and it seems very much to be an American thing.
So your assertion is that only Americans are ever raving lunatics when it comes to religious issues?
Do you consider the men who flew the planes into the twin towers to be raving lunatics, in addition to being homicidal maniacs? I do. I think most people do. So how can you even imply that religious insanity is a strictly American phenomena?
Indeed, if you think about it, most of the religious insanity and most of the insanely religious people that has/have existed throughout history (we're talking upwards of 98%) existed before the USA even existed as a country, so I don't know how you can say things like religious and atheist insanity and nonsense is very much an American thing and expect anything but laughter.
I don't mean to be rude, but I really think you ought to have thought this one out more before you went and made a debate on the subject, especially since your position relies on the kind of shameless, baseless stereotyping and generalizing we see in racism. It comes across as very crude.
Do you consider the men who flew the planes into the twin towers to be raving lunatics, in addition to being homicidal maniacs?
Sure I do. But there were only 12 of them.
most of the religious insanity and most of the insanely religious people that has/have existed throughout history (we're talking upwards of 98%) existed before the USA even existed as a country
I think that's an interesting point. This isn't exactly a counter-argument but a rhetorical question:
It it religious fanaticism when it's the norm? So some extent, I wonder if the "fanatics" of history were in fact not so odd at all and that their religious fervor might've been considered reasonable normal for their time. That's just a though I'm having after your comment. I've got no idea what the answer is.
Then you must admit that being a raving lunatic is not the sole province of Americans.
It it religious fanaticism when it's the norm? So some extent, I wonder if the "fanatics" of history were in fact not so odd at all and that their religious fervor might've been considered reasonable normal for their time. That's just a though I'm having after your comment. I've got no idea what the answer is.
Interesting question. I doubt they we're considered fanatics at the time, but they are by todays standards.
But more to the point:
So you assert: Theistic and atheistic insanity is purely an American thing
So I refute: But what about theistic and atheistic insanity that existed before America did?
So you non-answer: ... I don't know
Come on, dude. You can either defend your position or you can't; proposing vague related rhetorical questions doesn't count. You've made these (quite frankly offensive, and I don't offend easily) claims about Americans and then the first refutation I offer up you can't think of what to say. Admit that your claims are false and poorly thought out or defend them; making claims you can't back up is a hallmark of ignorance, and I don't think you're all that ignorant.
It does'nt bother me if a debate concerning Atheisim and Theism is posted up and it is mainly Americans who join it then who cares at least it gives you someone to debate with if you so choose
True. Good point. There's not a whole lot of debate going on on this site (and it's a debating site!?), so any opportunity probably is a good opportunity.
Are you saying America is exempt of having there own beliefs? What a dumb topic. Why don't you join the debate instead of trying to create division. This is't a natinal issue its a world issue.
