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.
WHAT MAKES ATHEISTS ARROGANT?
all they boast about is that they are smart we atheists are smart all day when u ask them about their age? they instead explain their name. i wonder what make this people smart people who " once you say god or religion to them they automatically activate blindness, deafness, and dumbness they don't know what you said they don't want to know what you said. the problem with them is not their belief in atheism but it their prejudice....... wait since am speaking 2 atheists i got to repeat what this is about.... coz otherwise this deaft dumb and blind subhumans will start talking about something else.... prejudice or , mindset, misjudgment, narrow-mindedness, one-sidedness, partiality, pique, preconceived notion, preconception, prejudgment, that's the point of this question.
and then they think we the religious people are the stupid, subhumans, they boast logic, logic, logic, logic.
Atheists at CD tend to be rather high-minded. But equally, their opponents are high-minded as well. Both can be dull-minded. Both can be irrational. Both can be…,…,and whatsoever is necessary to get under the skin of their opponent.
As for me, I normally ignore debates on the question of God’s existence. Consider the inherent problems of the following views; and thusly why I prefer to ignore these debates.
Atheist: God does not exist because I have seen the evidence he doesn’t.
This is normally derived from a seemingly contradictory verse of the Bible. Meaning, God does not exist because the bible is contradictory. This is dull-minded; it only evidences one’s supposed knowledge of the bible as true without the possibility of error.
Fact: the bible is not evidence of god’s existence or non-existence.
Opponent: God exists because I have seen the evidence he does.
This is normally derived from a seemingly convenient verse of the Bible. Meaning, God exists because the bible evidences god’s existence. This too is dull-minded; it only evidences one’s supposed knowledge of the bible as true without the possibility of error.
Allow me to reconcile this adversarial debate.
What makes anyone think that God gives a shit one way or the other?
Either you think that he does or does not exist. Which ever position one presumes, all of us need to recognize it is a first presumption. Therefore both sides stand by faith.
Actually I think most atheists would say that they don't believe in god because they have seen no evidence of his existence, not because they have seen evidence of his non-existence. You can't really prove a negative.
I do agree that most debates about god, or religion in general are fairly futile. Everyone claims to be right, and everyone else is wrong and rarely does it get anyone anywhere.
I would also point out that you make the assumption that this is an argument exclusively between those who believe in the Bible and God, and those who reject the Bible and God. This position ignores the vast number of religions and belief systems that currently exist, and have existed in human history. I would argue that a believer, as you describe them, rejects 99% of other deities and supernatural beings. The atheist just happens to go one God further.
Actually I think most atheists would say that they don't believe in god because they have seen no evidence of his existence, not because they have seen evidence of his non-existence. You can't really prove a negative.
Atheists and their opponents can be rational. My post does not deny such. Hence that is why I used the term “can be”. And the final sentence of the first paragraph indicates why: “and whatsoever is necessary to get under the skin of their opponent.”
I do agree that most debates about god, or religion in general are fairly futile. Everyone claims to be right, and everyone else is wrong and rarely does it get anyone anywhere.
Agreed.
I would also point out that you make the assumption that this is an argument exclusively between those who believe in the Bible and God, and those who reject the Bible and God. This position ignores the vast number of religions and belief systems that currently exist, and have existed in human history.
The terminology of my example does not support the inference of exclusivity. Nor does it affirm or deny all other forms of disagreement betwixt the opponents. It merely references an instance of a disagreement and not all disagreements.
I would argue that a believer, as you describe them, rejects 99% of other deities and supernatural beings. The atheist just happens to go one God further.
But a believer is what he is because he believes in at least one; the rejection of thousands of gods is not the negation of “believer”. He is not 99% atheist and 1% or .0001% believer. Believer is a quality and not a quantity that is predicated of a person.
I have no disagreement that there can be people on both sides that are thick headed or ignorant. The maker of this debate would be one example.
My overall point was that you seemed to be oversimplifying the debate, and clearly implied that it was a debate exculsively between Christians and Atheists. Buddhists, for example, also don't believe in the Bible, or that it provides evidence for God's existence, and therefore would fall into the catagory with atheists, however I think we can both agree that this is not where they belong.
Firstly, rarely will I intentionally present misleading arguments. In fact nearly all of my arguments are the result of avoiding a misleading argument.
Secondly, I endeavor to do so because it is an attempt to avoid debating what I did or did not affirm or deny.
Finally, it seems as though I have once again failed to accomplish that goal. So, in an effort to rectify this failure because of oversight, would you specify from which terms whereby I “clearly” implied exclusivity, and hence the reason/s I failed to recognize the implication of exclusivity?
Let’s change the question.
Evolutionists deny the theory of the creationists.
Creationists deny the theory of the Evolutionists.
Both draw their inferences from the same evidence. But the inference of each is contrary or contradictory of the other’s. One infers evolution from the evidence. The other infers creation from the evidence.
Now, if they are disputing the validity of the other’s inference from evidence of the fossil record, does that mean that that dispute is the only dispute betwixt them concerning their competing theories? No! Does that mean that other members of their camps do or don’t debate that question or thousands of others? No! In fact, it is both reasonable and prudent to reduce their interaction with one another to its simplest distinction; for it is certainly fruitless to indicate all possible arguments betwixt these two individuals concerning their contrary or contradictory inferences from the same evidence, let alone indicate all of the arguments betwixt the members of their camps.
(My post only represents an example of one of the many (but not addressed) examples of disagreement betwixt the Atheist and his opponent. Nor does it take into account the thousands of shades of believer the Atheist disagrees with. Moreover, it does not exclude those arguments and nor does it exclude those who are opponents to the Atheist.)
Okay, fair enough. That makes sense. Often in debates like these I do see people making generalizations about one side or the other, but I guess that isn't the case.
I am sorry I labored the point. I just think it is necessary to demonstrate I intend to be fair. And thusly that is why I defended my post. (You should know I was not attempting to insult anyone’s intelligence; that is the reason for my defense.)
I was raised in catholicism and at the age of 12 I saw the true light. I’m 58 now and have been Atheists since 12 years old. I’m a strong believer of evolution. All of the religion crap of god and all that fallows is true bull shit. It never was nor will it ever will be. Man created god and religion because they are superstitious.
Som quick rules of thumb if you want to launch off into a rant about people who arrogantly think they're just soooo smart:
1. Learn how to form complete sentences.
2. The shift key is your friend.
3. "u" is not a word. "coz" is not a word. "2" is a number. If you want to compose messages to people as if you're texting them on your phone and have to pay by the letter because you have a really horrible service plan... do it when you're NOT trying to convince people that you're not an idiot.
4. If you have to go to a thesaurus to say what you're trying to say, you're probably in over your head. At the very least, don't just copy the terms you find there in alphabetical order... it's a bit of a giveaway, mix it up a little. This:
wit u i've proved my point........ didn't i say when u ask atheists about something they'll answer u with a different subject....... the question was wat makes u arogant, when someone says religion or god and you started talking about how dumb i'm at writin my writing is like i'm texting somebody......... if i ask u wats ur name not will u not only tell ur name you'll just start explaining not sayin explaining 4 an hr bout ur age....................see ur dumbness, blindness, and deafness..................... the question is your age not name your age, the question is your age not name your age, the question is your age not name your age, the question is your age not name your age, .......................................atheist r truly smart gcomeau(367)........................... my case has been proven by your dumbess ,gcomeau(367),....................... in disputing this you'll probably start talking about stars or the moon or the clauds or an airplane.
i don't boast i'm smart arrogance is the last thing 4 me.....................but wat was ur vote atheists r truly smart write ha ha ha ha lol don't fool ur self. fool.
i don't boast i'm smart arrogance is the last thing 4 me
This is false. You are incredibly arrogant. You clearly believe you are automatically superior to atheists (or 'blind, deaf, dumb subhumans'). You are completely closed off to the fact that your beliefs may not be true and there is no way to know. Oddly enough, this is a mindset that I have found vastly more common in religious people than atheists.
We muslims are not prejudice to anything. unlike christians we invite logic, science, philosophy, faithful people to question about their faith. to be faithful blindly is christianity not islam...... if you are not using fiction, falsehood and lies the Quran stands every type of test quran logic, quran and science, and quran corrects wat bible got wrong. we recognize the bible and other religions that exist on earth we recognize atheism agnostism, deism, we don't assume about it with our minds. we have a complete knowledege within our faith.
If the quran is logical then tell me what logical argument it has or which can be clearly extrapolated from it stating weather or not god is knowable. Don't simply state your case, provide no evidence, and expect your position to be accepted; its insulting to any reasonable person. I will greatly appreciate it if you put it in logical form, please.
Most Atheist are not arrogant, their tired of people like you so they either say it frankly, in a way entertaining to them or some other way which can possibly be construed as arrogant. Most atheist grow up in a religious world, they are the minority;Thus they need tough skin and sometimes, teeth.
We muslims are not prejudice to anything. unlike christians we invite logic, science, philosophy, faithful people to question about their faith. to be faithful blindly is christianity not islam...... if you are not using fiction, falsehood and lies the Quran stands every type of test quran logic, quran and science, and quran corrects wat bible got wrong. we recognize the bible and other religions that exist on earth we recognize atheism agnostism, deism, we don't assume about it with our minds. we have a complete knowledege within our faith.
Admittedly my knowledge of Islam is much more limited than my knowledge of Christianity so I am not going to dispute any of your claims about your religion.
If it is true that Islam is not prejudiced then you regularly violate a tenet of your religion. This debate is prejudiced against atheists and there is no way to logically dispute that. You lump all of us together as arrogant and dumb, and even refer to us as subhumans. Then you have the audacity to immediately claim that isn't arrogant or prejudiced? You are not fooling anybody.
PS: But I do appreciate the effort you put into making this post something I could actually read.
To be quick. We are right and you are not. You just have to prove that your invisible, all powerfull imaginary friend really does exists. And do not come with some book. Give me proofs on your claim.
