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.
It doesn't matter until you die anyway - only then do you find out which religion is right. In the meantime, just be a good person because it's the right thing to do, not to rack up heaven points.
Even you have to admit that when a reward is close at hand you try harder, or faster, or better.
Religion isn't the bad thing here, because some people try to use it for good. It's corrupt people who use it for bad that make it seem bad.
Basically religion is a tool, much like a gun, or a hammer. Not inherently evil or good, but instead a medium for the intentions of the wielder to be cast through.
I have one question regarding this debate is it from the perspective that Religion has never existed or if Religion was suddenly stopped or banned?
If Religion never existed then that would be good because we would know no different so there would be nothing to compare life to. If it was banned or stopped I think that would be bad because I believe in freedom if Religion
Someone once said: "The love of religion is the root of all evil. Try to imagine a world without religion. Who in this world would point out the existence of evil? They'd call it a mistake, undesirable, unworkable, they'd seek to find better alternatives, but without a religion they could not call it evil and condemn it for eternity.", which I found suiting for this debate. It truly captures why religion is the source of many (if not all) tensions that the world deals with and has dealt with for the last couple of centuries.
However, I see why people need to believe in something. Kirkegaard, a Danish existentialist philosopher, described it well. His argument was that faith in a higher power was needed for human beings, when life had treated them in a way that had crushed them (e.g. 'a son was ripped away in a brutal school-shooting' or 'a mom that dies while giving birth to her first baby'). At that time, it is necessary to have faith in something supernatural that is bigger than oneself, in order to grasp the pain that one feels. So, I think faith is an important part of human life, but I do not feel strongly about more established religions that want to dictate what humans should and should not do.
Without religion so you really believe mankind would not still be evil? Not commit rape, or murder? There are humans, and there are things that humans believe in and do. Let us please separate the two. I disagree with that quote. Here's why. Humans have human error and are prone to mistakes. Humans are not perfect. Without religious humans would still bring war upon each other, would still rape, would still murder, would still lie and cheat. So really, that quote is an establishment from a person whom has a bone to pick with religion, not mankind. Really, human kind is the problem not what humans believe in. The human psyche, the human being, as a whole and its entirety is the source of evil, not religion itself.
"When you are christian your law is laid out for you in codified form. You can have some kind of debate over this or that, but basically you are supposed to except God's will. There is no argument about whether there is a definite right or wrong. And once you know this law, nobody else can be right unless they agree with you. So you wind up with "You are wrong. You are Mistaken. You are Sinning. You are in error. I find that extremely restrictive and impossible"-Mira Sorvino
I feel that if we didn't have religious people, than the world would be a better place. Because what Mira said, is completely true. Wouldn't you think it would be better if everyone could just be their own individual self without religion controlling their beliefs on right and wrong?
What I think is that religion divides the world. If there were no religion, just a simple belief that there is one supreme power, then the world would be a whole lot of a better place.
Do not think that by this statement I am advertising forced conversions.
" For they shall divide you, due to lack of sense in their heads "
Well I guess it would be the same as it is now given that he's not real anyway :P But lets he was then I guess it would be ok not much difference... but who knows?
Religion is mans way of making sense of things, in this sense it was a good thing, but with all of the radicals in every religion going as far as to kill for what they believe in i would say it was the worst thing to ever hit mankind, if religion never existed the advancements of science would also be further along because there would have been no oppression of it by the catholic church.
I do have to say that I am not one for religion the way it IS practiced, but how it COULD BE practiced. I enjoy intelligent discussions with my friends about whether or not God exists, and we accept who we are. I'm no talking about the spiteful arguments that you will doubtlessly find on websites like Facebook or YouTube, which use only name-calling and mudslinging to prove a point, but real, thoughtful discussion. As well, there are people who literally couldn't live through their life without the idea that there is a purpose to life. There is, obviously, corruption in the churches, but all in all, I consider religion to be a necessary evil.
I know that God will be there for me no matter what. I know that I have salvation in Jesus. As pissed off as I get at God, and this happens often, I am spiritually satisfied. :D
Christians get angry at God. If I did not care about God, I would not care what He does. I am a sinner saved by grace. It is the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and Him raising from the dead that gives me hope. :)
I am not "getting emotional". That is kind of sexist for you to accuse me of getting emotional. Men can express themselves just fine but not women, and I call bullshit on that. Seriously, bring a logical argument, or admit defeat. Oh, and by the way, this is America, so speak Spanish, damn it. ;)
Jesus existed, that much can be proved. Killing someone via Crucifixion, has also been proved. that leaves the potential of him dying on the cross as feasible, as for his exploits, I won't say whether or not he did or didn't but he probably didn't.
Jesus didn't die on the cross. There are several factors against this, which you can search on the internet. For example, in crucifixion the knees of the victim are broken, whereas Jesus' knees were just fine.
Christians get angry at God. If I did not care about God, I would not care what He does. I am a sinner saved by grace. It is the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and Him raising from the dead that gives me hope. :)
I am sorry. I am working on the anger. If you want to know why I struggle so, please shoot me a message. I have been through stuff that would make a soldier cry. ;'(
Religion only provides an illusion of those things. Morality, comfort, and answers are all independent on religion, and if people want REAL answers, REAL comfort, and REAL morals it will be obtained outside of religion.
So thou shall no kill is not a real moral? What about thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bare false witness agains thy neighbor are those not "real" morals? What is a real moral any way? What makes it real? Is it not a mental construct like its "illusional" counter parts? And for that matter what is "real" comfort is comfort not simply that which one finds comforting how can that be faked? And real answer come on you have as many answers as we do and they are just as credible as ours.
If morality strictly comes from religion and only justified by religion then it is not "real" in the sense they aren't properly justified in my opinion. Comfort isn't real if it is originated by presumption and and baseless beliefs in my opinion. Morality and comfort obtained outside of religion in my opinion neither of these are as good as morality obtained independently. As for answers, which of our answers are you comparing ours to? Atheists lack belief and nothing can be attached to a lack of belief, though we are more prone to scientific explanation, and secular philosophies. Sometimes there isn't an answer for something, but that doesn't mean "god did it" it means we still need to find them which is what science is about finding answers starting from no conclusions made rather than starting with a conclusion and trying to prove it.
Murder is wrong because you are ending the life of another taking away from their freedom to live, religion is not necessary to understand this.
The comfort of life after death is based on a baseless belief, with no reason to believe it, believing it to comfort the thought ofnonexistence after death is delusional, in the same sense that I might not ever be rich can be uncomfortable why not believe that I will have a million dollars next year to comfort myself from the thought that I may never be filthy rich.
Using god as an explanation doesn't hold up because it is a baseless belief, we should just accept the fact that we will never know what created us in our lifetime. Some would argue god IS the only explanation because there are no other explanations, however this could just be failure of human imagination and god doesn't explain where we come from at all, because in order to explain where everything came from we would need an explanation that it itself doesn't need an explanation, how does god not need an explanation? Because he's all powerful? Idt it is as easy to explain something as saying something all powerful created us, otherwise why can't the universe be all powerful? At least we know it exists. Thus god explains things just as much as the big bang, but at least the big bang has evidence.
Well the universe is not all powerful in the regard that it follows laws, but why not say it has an infinite lifespan. I don't necessarily believe this (though there is a theory among three competing theories that suggests this) but I also don't think it is that easy either.
I could say god created the Big Bang and in fact I do. Nothing happens no world is created no life is born without the consent of god. And I don't care if you opinion is its better to obtain morals without religion. It's my opinion that denying god is in and of its self immoral.
sigh If you are saying lacking belief in god is immoral to get back at me, so be it, I didn't say being Christian made one immoral or it is immoral, but whatever floats your boat. I was arguing that life without religion is a good thing, if you didn't want to hear that don't enter a debate about it. That simple.
Like I said, do what you will, believe what you will. I'd debate you on it but I think our conversational exchange has gone on long enough so another time if you wish.
Not what I mean. I believe if we took religion away from those who do believe now and made it so they never did believe, they would feel a emptiness from it. I believe some people need that comfort in life.
Many many people would feel that they have a meaningless life. Also, when times are tough, people turn to religion to help them get through the stormy waters.
I would argue that religion provides no intrinsic purpose to life either. On a superficial level perhaps but overall? If we are all just existing to provide a deity with a purpose for existence there is no overall purpose. We live our lives and then go to heaven/hell for eternity, but for what? I don't find the idea of being forced to live for eternity particularly attractive.
Life without religion is all the more worthwhile; all the more valuable. It gives us motivation not to sit and wait around but to seize every opportunity. It lets us know that we are in control of our own lives and we need to establish our own purposes.
Need it be said; just because religion gives people hope or purpose does not make it true. It may help people get through hard times but I would suggest that this sort of hope is detrimental. It encourages people to pray, wait and hope for the best. This is asinine. As a species we need to learn to face reality as what it is; it may not be what we want it to be; but it's all we've got.
Humanity has lived its existence for the past milleniums (whether we want to see it this way or not, it is a fact and not an opinion), based on the words of Moses. He claims to have been instructed by god to deliver a message that carried the 10 commandments; the 10 things that should be banned on earth. Independently, I exclude this theory from any religious affiliation, because like I said; humanity has been marked through history and future with this words. Whether they actually hold a religious act or not, it is up to each religion to decide how was his message sent and why; what was Moses purpose on earth. Regardless A or B, a person with any sort of humanitarian reasoning, knows that excluding religious views away from the words of Moses doesn't change anything; killing, robing and commiting adulterous acts is wrong, which is why I said that we have lived history based on those words. However, it has to be accepted that the people who follow these rules are mostly those affiliated to religious views and that a person who doesn't follow any, is more propense to commit acts that defy this rules, not only religiously; but constitutionally, as our constitution has also been writen based partly on these words. I think that the only thing that holds our morals and ethics, is the church, because even though they reprimand many of the things we like to do (some of which are very irrelevant), they do follow a strict road to what's good and they follow an ethical path, promoting their followers to maintain role-model behaviours. The day we separate religion from government (I think), this will be a chaos, because religion is the only thing that encourages us to do good and not wrong.
Compassion encourages us to do good and not wrong, the government forces enough morality for justice between people to be preserved, and promote a better quality of life. Any further morality is good but not necessary.
Some aspects of life might get better, you know like a lack of crusades and a lack of religious persecution, but then all the good religion did wouldn't exist. The art it brought aside, religion has kept some people from doing the killing that they might have. I'm sure in most wars we have the thing keeping the soldiers steadfast is the idea that they are fighting for a sound county and a sound god, if they didn't have that their resolution would be weaker and all of the wars the U.S. has won might not have happened.
Practically speaking, humans are confrontational and vicious. We want to fight, we find reasons to. Christians fight with Catholics over the rules of the same basic religion. We are all on a site dedicated to arguing with random strangers, controversy is on some level fun. Basically what I'm saying is if religion didn't exist, things wouldn't just be better suddenly, humans would find another thing to argue about.
If a person can't do good and can't stop doing bad without religion then that person lacks compassion thus making them a sociopath. You are implying that we are all sociopaths?
No I believe that person is implying that the people who don't do bad things because of what their religion teaches them would not have that guiding factor in their life other lives and thus do bad things. It is my observation that a society draws its morals from the religion that was prevalent at the time of its founding and individuals that come after draw their morals from the society so it could be argued that morality stems from religion.
Religion if anything motivated morality with the fear of god, whether they are good morals or not. People back in the day MIGHT have been to primitive to have enough morality necessary for any form of government... Possibly and even so Id. But where did those morals come from that were in religion? People most likely. You can be moral with out any form of belief in god, if this is so then morality doesn't have to
Religion if anything motivated morality with the fear of god, whether they are good morals or not. People back in the day MIGHT have been to primitive to have enough morality necessary for any form of government... Possibly and even so I'd say we would still have got there eventually. But where did those morals come from that were in religion? People most likely. You can be moral with out any form of belief in god, if this is so then morality doesn't have to come from a belief in god thus people we wouldn't be worse off without religion as she is saying. Christianity can justify any morality, thus I don't see your connection. Though our government has been INFLUENCED by Christianity, christianity may have a cultural bias having a teaching leaning towards certain moralities thus our government has been influenced from it some of the primitive outdated morality of that teachings have been apart of it like for instance the intolerance of homosexuals, slavery, and oppression of women. I'd argue without religion morality wouldn't have been so easy to justify and using our compassion we would develop healthier morals to define our government. However religion influence government morality but doesn't create it. The founding fathers strongly disliked religion and were deists. Morality defining our government came from our compassion and critical thinking until christianity started to take over.
Actually only Tomas Jefferson was a deist. George Washington was actually a devout Apiscopalian. But any way religion is a way of teaching morality by making a way of life and thus more natural for the believer. Religion has a profound effect on a society's moral fiber look at the differences in laws between western culture and eastern culture these differences are a result of different moral staderds existing in the two cultures the most noteabl difference between the two cultures is the religion most people in these parts of the world follow so putting on our sociology caps hear we can deduce that since laws are products of morality and the single greatest difference between east and west is religion than the differences in the laws is a result of the differences in religion thus morality and by connection laws are the result of religion it's elementary my dear Watson.
Well I can't argue with that last statement so long as Islamic country's exists. But I will say that without religion human morality would be light years behind what it is now. Religion has always been a driving force behind the spreading of morals. The good as well as the questionable.
Not necessarily, I've known plenty of good moral atheists, there are some countries I can't say I'm too educated on which ate mostly atheistic and have been known for a high quality of life. Religion drives morality a certain way perhaps but that might not necessarily mean that without religion there would be significantly less morality, just not as driven by religion as much.
Religion was one of the first methods of teaching morality if it didn't exist it would have been much harder for early man to grasp the concept that killing was wrong
This might be true, but that was because we were to primitive to understand the benefits of the selflessness it takes to form a government, we are more evolved now, morality may not have been easy to understand then without the fear of hell, gift of heaven, etc but that was then this is now.
And religion is important now for other reasons. It comforts people and gives them a prepose and a feeling of belonging. This can manifest in good ways and it dose and it can manifest in negative ways and it dose. But people are people if religion went away we would simply find another reason the hate and kill one another.
and religion is important now for other reasons. It comforts people and gives then a purpose of belonging.
I don't think it is worth cons especially when these are baseless comforts and purpose therefore delusional.
this can manifest in good ways and it does, it can manifest in negative ways and it does. But people are people if religion went away we would simply find another reason to hate and kill each other.
I completely agree, however the problem religion causes isn't just a total net pos/neg effect. It distorts morality in a way where anything is justified. Nobody wants to do bad for the sake of evil, people only want to do good for the sake of good, evil is only done by the indifferent or the deluded. Nobody has ever said "I killed someone because I knew it was evil and I just wanted to be evil." (Unless insane perhaps which that kind of insanityis probably not to often.) But people have said "I saved this person because it was right!" People only do evil when they benefit off of it and are indifferent to others or if they think that they are actually doing something good, however for most people the sake of good is enough to do good. Religion allows any morality to be justified since nobody knows what god approves of or disapproves of, and since god is all good if he approves of something it must be moral but if he disapproves of something it must be immoral. While religion has been used to manipulate people, religion equals the battle field of morality a bit more. Religions inexistence makes wrong harder to justify and right easier to do so.
i don't think it's worth cons especially when these are baseless comforts and prepose therefore delusional wow just wow your attitude, nothing has descusted me more who the fuck are you to judge the personal beliefs of others? You atheists think you know everything and that you can pass judgement on whomever the fuck you please well you better be careful you wouldn't want to fall of your pedestal way up there. I would respond to your second point but your first point is so infuriating that I'm finding it hard to think straight.
Hey I think religion is somewhat delusional, I have never heard any reason to believe in god and it has warped peoples perception of reality where they deny scientific facts and cause hatred towards others. Don't get me wrong I respect all equally regardless of race, sex, sexuality, or even religion. Tell me why do people not give a crap when republicans and democrats often speak negatively about each other's opinions, if I said democratic convictions are silly nobody would look at it as discriminatory, same goes for philosophy. Why is spirituality the only category of ideals that people are sensitive over?
Because a religion is more than just that. It's a way of life it's a world view it becomes a part of who you are of your identity. it defines you as a person religion is a deeply personal thing it's really vary difficult to explain its something you need to experience to understand.
No, I understand religion can become a very big part of your life, that is what makes hard to get away from for some. A lot of atheists have felt that as well (most atheists used to apart of a religion their entire life, I'm a rare exception.) A lot of atheists expressed that they felt sad to leave religion behind knowing they never could return (or at least rarely) but also felt free as well from religion. Look you chose to let religion become such a big part of you life, and look people are going to have opinions about it. People need to be able to express themselves freely with ideals, because ideals are based on determinations of reality, since this affects our perception of reality it is good to hear other's perceptions on it (even if they think it is a bit nutty) regardless of how big they take part in our life's. If politics became like religion in a sense where it comforted our lives so much and brang us this happiness (whether it is based on reality), we would not be open to each other's political opinions, then where would we be? Same goes for philosophy. People are going to have opinions towards religious ideals, and they are not going to understand how important those beliefs became to you over your life.
Discussing it is fine but intentionally attacking someone else's religion and saying things like the world would be better of without religion is just inflammatory this debate wasn't seriously created to spark intelligent conversation it's just another way for atheists to gode Christians into a flame war. Seriously you guys need to grow up and leave us alone.
Oh how republicans "attack" democrats or democrats "attacks" republicans? So I can't have an opinion on religion unless It's pro religion? Like how vegetarians believe it is more moral to eat veggies nstead of meat. Anarchists says we are better off without government and politics but I don't see anyone calling them intolerant. I don't hate religious people, I don't want to illegalize religion either. If someone says the democratic party is "stupid" or "delusional" nobody sees them as being all that offensive. I don't think you are delusional though I think religion is a little bit. If someone says a certain philosophy is delusional nobody calls it racism. What causes some atheists to be more militant about religion ishow we are forced to treat religion like it is above all ideals, and not being allowed to have any opinions about religion unless It's pro-religion. A second ago you were trying to argue that atheism holds the world back Morally by saying people can't be moral without religion. So if the majority of the world is atheistic its worse in your opinion but if anyone says the same thing about religion its hateful? How is that fair?
All he did with his last statement was give his point of view on how religion can be used to justify doing bad things and you have a go at him accusing him of being judgemental about peoples beliefs when you a couple of posts above did the same about eastern religion and Islam, didn't you also call Muslims filthy dogs on another debate? Who the fuck gave you the right to sit in judgement on other peoples beliefs?
I was pissed off that he called religious people delusional. I know religion has been used to justify bad things. I don't deny that. And as for my comments on Muslims I was referring SPECIFICALLY to the Muslims that invaded Jerusalem and slaughtered all those Christians and Jews. And there is no denying Islam is an extremely violent religion.
When someone else made the comment that religion makes some people do bad things, you responded with "I agree all the time Islamic countries exist", that comment had nothing to do with the invasion of Jersualem and Islam is no more violent than Christianity or any other Religion have you ever met any Muslims or been to an Islamic country?
Islamic countries have extremely sexist laws against women in an Islamic country a women can be put to death for any of the following offenses walking without a male escort, driving, being raped, using the bathroom without permission, being seen in public with a man other than her husband, getting an education, or even having a job, don't believe me look up sharea law I may have misspelled that but whoopty fucken do. also the Middle East is a hot bed for violent Muslim extremists. Hmm I wonder ware the hot bed for violent Christian extremists is? Oh yeah that's right nowhere.
I assume by your answer that the answer to my question is no, Sharia law varies country to country and not all Myslim countries are run that way, also in most countries Women wont be put to death for driving and the other examples you have cited.
You say that the Middle East is a hotbed of violent extremists and that there no countries the same for Christian Extremists, whilst there are none at the moment the last time we had this debate I reminded you of the troubles in Ireland which for a long time was a hotbed of Christian extremism. If I remember rightly you seemed to think that a particularly nasty group of Irish Extremists were freedom fighters and defenders of the faith, when you consider that large parts of the Middle East are warzones the extremists in these areas would be considered freedom fighters and defenders of their faith.
I will explain this to you again the orange volunteers are Protestant Irish who don't want to live in a countries with a catholic majority the IRA are Catholic Irish who want to be free of British control of course their is conflict it's not just about religion though its as much about politics.
It is not as simple as you seem to think I will try and explain it to you, yes Northern Ireland is part of Britain has been for Hundreds of years it was originally a Catholic majority until Scottish and English settlers arrived there, the Catholics and Protestants have been fighting and killing each other for 400 years. For a long time Northern Ireland was allowed to run itself, the Northern Irish government was called Stormont by the start of the 20th Century the population the population was about 50-50 Protestant and Catholic and they lived divided in separate areas but frequently caused trouble with each other mainly due to religion, partly due to politics, Stormont eventually lost control and violence escalated so home rule was no longer a question Stormont was disolved and Northern Ireland was governed from London who sent British troops in to try and quell the violence. British troops were originally welcomed by the Catholics as they remained neutral but the violence between Protestant and Catholic continued. It was not until the 90's that order was finally restored and Northern Ireland is now governs itself.
You can kid yourself the troubles were political but that is a small part of the problem the main problem has always been religion, if a Protestant wanted freedom for Northern Ireland he would not have been able to be part of the IRA because he wasn't Catholic.
The IRA was a Catholic terrorist organisation the same way Al Quaeeda is a Muslim terrorist organisation or do you believe they are all freedom fighters?
If you still believe the troubles were political why have historians described Northern Ireland as an area divided by religion?
why have historians described the Aries as devised by religion because thaw main stream loves to demonize religion. It's cool and gets them fans. Northern Irland is a very isolated incident (and I still maintain that the violence was mainly political) Catholics and Protistants live together peacefully despite our differences everywhere els.
Your clutching at straws now, you dont want to believe that Christianity can spawn the same kind of people that Islam can so you try and excuse it but Religion causes rifts in society, reading some of the comments on this site shows that, Ismalia and JWilson and their comments about Catholocism, your intolerance of Islam, Srom and many other Christians homophobia the list drags on. Sad but true, although I dont think the problem is actually religion itself but the way some people percieve it or maybe their just using Religion to cover up their prejudices but until mankind learns tolerance it will always be a problem
People use all kinds of reasons to justify intolerance not just religion. I don't dislike Islam because I'm Christian I dislike it because it has given rise to so many terrorist factions many of which are supported by Main Stream Islam. And I'm not homophobic while I disagree with the life style I don't hold it against any one who is gay.
People will use any excuse to cover up or not admit their prejudices but we were debating Religion and that is a big excuse people use instead of admitting they are bigoted towards another part of society. Please could you supply some proof that mainstream Islam supports Terrorists.
I didn't say you were Homophobic and I'm glad to hear your not, so I assume you are supportive of Gay marriage and adoption.
Al Quida has been publicly endorsed an praised by imams all over the world even some hear in the US so it has its main stream supporters. As for supporting gay marriage I would be fine with it being legalized as long as there is a special Claus in the bill that states that religious institutions are not required to conduct a wedding for a gay couple. Other wise that's government telling religion what to do and that violates the first amendment. As for Gay adoption I think it would work out best for the children if gay and lesbian couples where only allowed to adopt gay and lesbian children. Not to sound prejudice of any thing that's just my take on the situation.
The IRA was publicly endorsed by some Catholics worldwide including Priests that hardly makes Islam or Catholicism in general supportive of Terrorism just shows that no religion is free from Militants.
Your stance on Gay adoption is kinda prejudiced as you are saying you think a Gay couple should only be allowed to adopt a Gay child so they would be unable to adopt a Baby, I assume you'd be fine with a Straight couple adopting a Gay child, if you are your are still prejudiced and a little homophobic just not as bad as some others. If you truly weren't you'd be happy for a gay couple to have the same rights as a straight couple.
your stance on gay adoption is kinda prejudiced you are saying Gay couple should only be allowed tho adopt a gay child so they would be unable to adopt a baby
I thought gay people where born gay are you saying that it is in fact a choice? And I'll admit I'm a little prejudice but I'm willing to allow them way to much to be considered homophobic. Just slightly prejudice.
Stop twisting my words being Gay is not a choice and anyone with half a brain can understand that but the majority of people don't realise they are Gay or Straight until they start to become physically and emotionally attracted to one sex or the other, on the other hand if you watch kids at play most little boys prefer to play with other little boys and if you asked would probably tell you they don't like girls and its probably the same for Girls so I suppose everyone is born Gay its not until puberty some choose to become straight, so Gay adoption no problem.
Your final statement about not being Homophobic just a little bit prejudiced, being a little bit prejudiced is being a little bit homophobic. Its like saying I'm not racist I just don't want to allow Black people to sit at the front of the Bus or eat in the same restaurants as Whites.
Whether your a full on bigot or just a little bit of one the moment you say I don't think that guy should have the same rights as me because of sexual orientation, religion, race or whatever your are being bigoted.
What about the crusades, the opression of women, the homophobia now, the support for slavery? Your religion might not be as extreme as Muslims right now, but it is just as capable of negative manifestations as is anyone else's, give the bible to a highly influential person full of hate and you will get Christian extremists. There are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims, good Christians and bad Christians no religion is better than the other. The amount of radicals might fluctuate but in the end it is all the same, no one religion is better.
Support for silvery? No Christian except for the crazy KKK terrorist wanna bes think slavery is in any way justified. And women are seen as equals in marriage this isn't Islam but abortions are forbidden not because women have no rights but because god tells us that it is akin to murder. And homophobia eh I'll admit that's kind of a 50/50 thing with Christians some don't like gays other don't mind them. But none are violent about it.
That is exactly what I have been saying but not many are willing to listen these religous debates nearly always turn into a pissing contest between the different groups trying to prove their right, what scares me is that different groups of Christians argue amongst themselves and then moan about Atheist intolerance when they accuse each other of not being a proper Christians because their practices differ. If different groups of the same Religion cant tolerate each other what hope is there of tolerance of people with completley different beliefs.
It's sad to think that in the 21st Century the Human race has come so far yet learned so little
Not necessarily, I've known plenty of good moral atheists, there are some countries I can't say I'm too educated on which ate mostly atheistic and have been known for a high quality of life. Religion drives morality a certain way perhaps but that might not necessarily mean that without religion there would be significantly less morality, just not as driven by religion as much.
Maybe it's selfish to not kill a man because you don't want to go to hell but at least it keeps that man alive.
Maybe you're weak if you need a hand to not become addicted to alcohol but if you need it and it'll save you why not reach out. God acts as that non judging, allegedly all forgiving, hand.
Overly religious people have made things bad, or maybe they were corrupt but that's not to say all religion is bad.
I never said all religion was bad, one of my bestest friends is catholic, some of my close friends aresome religion or another. My closest family member is VERY spriritual and it was because of his drug addictions and his spirituality empowered him enough to kick it. I don't hate religion, I'm not discriminatory, however I do think if it wasn't for religion, at least right now, we'd all be better off. Some may think it is "bad" to have such an opinion on religion, I think that is a product of political correctness. I don't want to illegalize religion, or treat anyone unfairly for it.
How would people know good without God if good and bad exists then a evil (Satan) and a saint (God) must exist..where do you think our laws came from do not murder, do not steal, etc
Morality is an artificial construct formed by compassion. I do think religion was used back in the days when people were too pirimitive to cooperate as a society thus religion was invented to scare people into cooperating with each other, we are more evolved now. I don't kill people not because there is a law against it (though I'm glad there is) nor because religion is at often times in modern days against it, but because I would feel bad for the person, empathy allows me to feel others pain, I would look horribly at myself for causing pain to another person and ending their life. Morality's origins are completely emotional, morality has a goal we want to accomplish due to our emotions of compassion, though there are logical ways of going about it.
As a human being who does not believe in any deity, I will say that I have lived my entire life without any "guidance" from the church (or anything of that nature). I know what is right and wrong because I have emotions, and I am not a heartless killer. My family taught me the difference between right and wrong. I know good without a god. What scares me is the people who claim that they wouldn't.
It wouldn't neccesarily mean everyone is a sociopath, but the church is actually the only thing that encourages us to do good and not bad. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual sociopaths (those who kill others for example) are those who don't have any sort of religious view. Yes, there are also people inside the church who are sociopaths, there are some rotten tomatoes. But what is the majority? Wouldn't you agree that most sociopaths are indeed those who belive in nothing? The fact that we don't believe in anything doesn't mean we're bad, I myself hold no affiliation. But fact is, nothing encourages people to follow ethics more than the church does. If the church dissapears, who will encourage us to do good? The government?
Our compassion encourages us to do good and not bad. The government forces us to be fairly moral towards each other. Morality is only necessary to improve the quality of life for everyone, which gets complicated because everyone wants different things arguably some freedoms more important than others, but justice is only reason morality is truly necessary, more morality can be good but not necessarily, necessary. for EVERYONE religion can encourage any morals good or bad. If one is only being moral for gods approval however they may put less thought into what is really moral and what isn't.
