How is the fear of death and no belief in god irrational? Death to an atheist means the ultimate end to their awareness and physical body. They have more to fear in death than theists do. Religious followers believe in a complicated and multi faceted afterlife, each religion structuring their own. They believe this is just one step, that they will continue to exist after this. Being afraid of no longer existing in a conscience viable platform is something we should all fear. Its not irrational at all. It goes along with our basic human instinct to survive.

I like the use of blind faith vs. honest inquiry. Not all atheists are bible hating thugs. Some are good and moral people, doing the best they can with what information is available to them.

I can say that regardless of ones theological beliefs, we all look at the world around us in awe. It is amazing the trillions of living and growing things around us. The wide range of minerals and wildlife that are all balanced together. Each supporting a small piece of the entire system. Religious believers look around at what god created and imagine the work and care involved. Non religious believers look at the millions of years of survival and trial and error, each species developing excruciatingly slow. Adapting to the world around them. No matter what we believe, we see the wonders all around us.

I agree with a good portion of what you are saying. I believe that religion was a way to pass on morals and standards to other generations without them being questioned. I don't think people are stupid for believing in what they do, its a way for them to answer the most basic questions that humans have. Regardless of the accuracy of anyones belief, they give people hope and some piece of mind.

I know you aren't talking about Christianity, because God wants you to have a reason to believe in Him.

Romans 1: 20

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

That assumes complete authenticity of the bible, and the absolute fact that Christianity is the only correct language. All religious doctrine has been written and many times translated by humans. Regardless of the truthfulness of the content, you can't say for 100 percent certainty that all the words and grammar are perfect. Many translations from one language to another have varied meanings, mostly up to specific interpretation. The many different versions of the bible and proven inconsistencies between many similar religions prove just that. The roman catholic church follows the same doctrine of many different religions, yet interpret many things different. I live a moral and upstanding life. I strive to help people around me and follow many of the same morals as theists. The only real difference is what goes through my head when I think of death and beyond. If you believe my choice to no believe will condemn me, then so be it. Its your right to do so.

I feel that our very basic infant knowledge of the world around us is not a proof for your beliefs. Think of what was unimaginable years ago. People with diseases like schizophrenia and other now understandable ailments were once chalked up to some demon or attack from Satan. Don't us our lack of informational development as an argument. Many things that at one time were considered a religious issue are now highly accepted and daily technology. We learned information and answered a question. No one can answer all questions, and that's why this remains a deeply trenched and volatile debate. Each side striving to answer the glaring flaws that each side has. Not likely to ever be answered but well accept many many of us.

I totally see what your trying to do here. I also believe that the current ways we interact with each other on a national scale is very poor. But I disagree with this method. Each country has their own methods of developing patriotism and national pride. Some are obviously more effective than others. I don't believe that the pledge of allegiance to any country is a real way to do so. It helps to support an already established sense of pride, but does little to create one. A repeated statement, regardless of the content is not pride. People taking notice of whats around them, and being proud of the actions of their nation as a whole is what will create pride. Many of our conversations on create debate is evidence of pride. We are taking notice of the downfalls of our society and are concerned enough to want to figure out a better way to interact with each other. The pledge of allegiance is a unified way for us to express the way we support and care for our nation and fellow citizens. A better way to achieve the same goal is to create a sense of humanity alongside our national pride. We need to look at other nations as different people isolated by geographic location, not different people separated by different wants and beliefs. We should want to help them move forward and be successful. We are not in competition with them. We are all ultimately fighting for the same goals. Just some peoples priorities are different and their social progression is at different stages. Acceptance and a real sense of morals will go much further than a vocal string of words.

Was going to add an argument, but you covered it. Also, many very worthwhile and helpful bill have failed, because of the attached ride alongs. Forcing single issue bills will make them actually give full attention to each issue, not on one big issue and let someone else worry about the rest.

From what I can see while reading over the posts, that the atheist are actually putting forth some kind of argument while your side is doing nothing but bashing. Your generalizing an entire belief structure over a few down votes. Your inability to allow people to believe things outside of your own beliefs is archaic and a form of bigotry. I am aware that this forum structure gets much abuse from people idely voting down and bashing. So to counter it, offer solid debate, with well constructed ideas and quite complaining.

I disagree, the evolution of human morals and a family based social structure is a direct result of religious followers interpreting those metaphors and following their guidelines. They are not stupid, they are exercising their right to do so. I don't agree with them in any way shape or form. But the structure based on fear and cause and effect have helped us create a world not based on compulsion and instinct, but on right and wrong. I am grateful that the world has developed as such and given me the opportunity to live in relative safety and with the freedom to choose what I believe.

I usually overlook and ignore debates like this that have no real purpose but to bash one group of people, that most likely just believe something different than the debate creator. But Ill bow down to curiosity and join in. No they aren't stupid, not in the least bit. Everyone has their own complicated belief sets and everyone has them for a reason. If someone believes their is no religious deity than so be it. Most atheist don't put down people that have religious beliefs, so why is it always happening the other way around. I am atheist and have my beliefs, not because I hate religion, but because I have researched many religions and felt that the teachings and histories don't quite have enough weight and reliability for me to blindly follow them. My belief is that if I am wrong and a god does exist, then he won't punish me for making a decision based on available knowledge and past record. I should not be expected to blindly have faith in and follow a belief structure that has been responsible for an estimated 809 million murders in human history. I don't force by beliefs on anyone, and wholeheartedly respect the rights of people to believe what they want. As a matter of fact when me and my wife have kids, we are going to expose them to many religions, giving them the option to be educated and choose for themselves. We are NOT stupid, we are making moral and educated decisions. Just not the same decisions you are.

I have thought quite extensively about this argument and have come to the conclusion that no, I don't believe they should be allowed to use this site. Children at that age are very impressionable. A site like this gives many adults the opportunity to voice their opinion on any subject in a very specific manner. Their is no real way for any information or facts to be proved as true or false. Many peoples opinions are formed after years of hardship or just plain prejudice. Children of that age should be taught the facts, and their opinions of many topics should be evolved naturally. They should develop them through experience and education, not from reading the opinions of people who have had the time to develop their own. This type of website could be a huge advantage to exposing them to new ideas, but it should be from people their own age, with their same social situations. A site similar to this for school age children with a moderator of some kind would be the best way to go about this. We need the youth of this world to see the effects of our decisions and opinions, and make their own decisions accordingly. Not to just keep repeating our actions.

This should most definitely be a rule. Because this site is free and open to anyone, there is obviously a large amount of abuse to many very interesting and intellectual debates. Forcing a person to comment will add many different points of view to each argument and help to develop many details that other wise may have been overlooked. It keeps opposing debaters from voting down a quality and calculated response and only helps to push the conversations in the right direction. This site was designed to give people from all over the world a place to openly talk about any issue that concerns them and it should not be negatively effected by people with malicious intentions.

Yes, but it should be modified. We are a nation founded on the principles that you have to right to believe whatever you choose to believe. yet throughout our structure we embed a devotion to god. Schools force you to pledge allegiance to this country, and as citizens we should do so willingly, but the mention and implied devotion to a god or any other religious figure should and must not be included. We try to claim we are open minded and that we encourage the practice of what ever belief structure that you want, but that is obviously not the case. You can practice whatever religion you want at home, but in public, or when spending money you had better believe in the religion of the powers that be. That is not freedom, it is a mockery of what we claim to stand for.

Any nation can defeat any of the powerhouse nations. With much wealth also comes much poverty. The gap between the poor and rich will grow larger and larger until there is either civil war or worse, invasion. Wait long enough and any country will fall.

Making English the official language of The USA, defeats the purpose of why this great country was founded the way it was. We have already removed many of the policies and structures designed to make us a powerful and integrated nation. Our immigration policies and guidelines have degraded to that of many communistic nations. We no longer accept and encourage the practice of any religion, and the separation of church and state is barely noticeable. We need to stop the devolution of the principals that were used to found this nation and start to rectify the backwards steps we have taken.

Our world is already highly influenced by biblical principles. The moral and ethical structures that even secular societies have adopted are direct evolution of religious doctrine. I believe that the governments should not have any direct connection to religious structure. But should allow for people to practice as they wish. The bible states many times about the laws of god and the laws of man. It clearly defines there is two different structures. In a democracy we choose the laws and if we choose to enact laws that mirror religious doctrine then so be it. But the governments should not be an active participant in religious life and the religious governing structure should not have a say in government policies. No religion should have a status higher than any other. an estimated 809 million people have been murdered in history over religious belief. It is too powerful a topic to rule over people in any regard.

This statement is flawed in many ways. Grades and education are the ultimate goal in any educational structure. Educating people to know about the world around them is the first priority. But close behind that is teaching them the abilities to take what they have learned and to build off of it. If we take all creative aspects and curriculum out of the equation, then the ability to imagine and create is gone. This is especially important in the United States of America, where we have built a society that can no longer afford to have the labor pool within our own borders. We must rely on the ingenuity and creative prowess that the broad spectrum of our educational system provides. America and other highly developed nations have school systems that combine a structured educational system with the freedom to express our imaginations and creativity. Without an equal balance of both, the progress of technology and medicine would halt.