CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:64
Arguments:56
Total Votes:67
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 A Question(s) to Non-Theists. (53)

Debate Creator

Apollo(1608) pic



A Question(s) to Non-Theists.

Let us first assume the premise that a god exists. Forget any perceived exisential impossibilities, ramifications, and/or paradoxes of such a notion. This is the subject of an entirely different debate that has been done so many times already.

Assuming this, which religion, in your perhaps completely subjective opinion, is the "best" interepreation of the reality of a god's existence? Which do you most agree with? 

 

What do you believe the nature of such a god would be/which religion's interpreatation would you be most in agreement with?

Add New Argument
2 points

Buddhism. All other religions consist of worshiping an all powerful being, an all vengeful, wrathful being. All the other religions ( Judaism, Muslim, Christian e.t.c.) are based on the principals of " base your life to this ultimate being, or you will suffer for all eternity! Not only that, but people are willing to go to war over their beliefs. I don't recall reading in the history books about the Buddhists fighting the Arabs for land or anything else. Just to note, I wouldn't follow any of them , be there a God or not! I am just saying if I were forced to I would embrace Buddhism.

2 points

At first thought, I think this question is a good one. But the only thing I can come up with an analogy to try to explain why I feel I can't answer that question. It would be like:

Let's just pretend vampires exist, but ignore all the preconceptions of vampires for a moment that would be in conflict with this. Now, what do you really think vampires are like then?

I would hope your answer is something like “Well how am I suppose to judge what this being is without knowing anything about it?“. I guess the only things you can judge is what couldn't be (or by default, be) because of logical conflict.

So in that regard, I would imagine that this deity didn't create the universe otherwise their incompetent, and is not all powerful or just doesn't care.

wardogninja(1789) Clarified
1 point

Maybe you can look at the question in a different way, like aside from your disbelief in a deity, which religion most closely matched your own perspectives and beliefs on morals and the world?

riahlize(1573) Clarified
1 point

Well that'd probably be what “religion” I am. I've refrained from saying it simply because it's never been relevant to a debate before and some immature debaters that I've discussed with (previous to this site) have attempted to use a label, like religion, against me, as if being it made my arguments invalid. :)

I have never found a religion that I felt suited me well enough to call my own. Eventually I settled with (Atheistic) Eclectic Paganism, which mine constitutes more philosophy or love of something than it does religion.

I'm a cherry-picker and I know it! ;)

1 point

Well, not every religion makes any judgment about the existence of a god. If we are talking about religion than I'd choose Buddhism without at doubt.

That's almost cheating, I could become Buddhist today and remain as atheist as ever.

If there must be a god than I would still be a non-practicing Buddhist and just kind of ignore him unless he deigned to make himself known to humanity in some definitive way.

2 points

That's because Buddhism has two main aspects - one as a religion, and one as a philosophy of life.

To be a philosophical buddhist is not to be theistic, it would be like saying 'I'm a Christian because I follow the message of Jesus'. It seems somewhat illogical to me to refer to this as a 'religion', as religion implies the following of a higher power.

A god that requires no worship and encourages the growth of his or her creation. A moral god. Oh wait, that's Satan. Look it up

BookBird101(575) Disputed
1 point

Satan encourages violence, death, conflict, etc. He doesn't care about what's right and not right. He has no remorse for his actions. Sure, you don't have to worship him, but I don't think he encourages people to grow and live their life the "moral" way.

nummi(1432) Disputed
3 points

violence, death, conflict, etc.

Yet god is the one who condones all that. In fact who considers most of it right.

He doesn't care about what's right and not right.

Oh yeah, god really does not care about those at all. Considering all that he regards as good (slavery, raping, killing children, etc.)

He has no remorse for his actions.

It just gets better and better...

Sure, you don't have to worship him,

Only an idiot would worship god.

but I don't think he encourages people to grow and live their life the "moral" way.

This is so true. God is not moral, not even remotely close.

AveSatanas(4425) Disputed
1 point

Sources for this? I'm guessing the bible. Satan preceeds the bible and was put in as a boogyman to blame evil on. Lucifer means light, truth, and morning star. Satan in sanscrit (language preceding the bible) means truth. Watch on YouTube: Christianity fail satanism win. Its animated and explains satanism as what it is in reality. Or watch any other satanist youtuber. You know nothing of real satanism.

None of them. A true God wouldn't need a tool as anthropological and flawed as religion.

I would probably relapse into a sort of pick and mix paganism like I did after I realised Christianity was a steaming pile of bullshit. They tend to be very accepting of outsiders, and I like the symbolism and rituals involved with nature worship. Also I'm a huge fantasy nerd, so Paganism is kind of like pretending the stories I used to read about dragons and elves and magic are true.

Another reason I'd choose Paganism is that there's no solid doctrine telling you what to do and believe, it's more of a pick and choose thing, there's no one threatening you with hideous and inhuman visions of eternal agony or shoving books in your face or telling you what you can and can't do with your penis/lungs/liver.

1 point

Excluding Buddhism, I'd have to choose Christian Catholicism. It is less fanatical when compared to most other religions, and is most popular among the majority. It's beliefs are also less controversial when compared to Islam or Judaism.

And, it is the religion which I had recently de-converted from.

1 point

If religion was real, if there was SURELY a god, I would go with either the oldest, most ancient religion to be found, or I would go with deism.

However, that is like asking, if you had to either believe in fairies, unicorns or leprechauns, which would you believe in?

There is no proof for any of those, so there is really no reason to assume that.

If you do science, then until I see a fairy or unicorn, there is no reason to say they exist.

However, if I could choose a religion to be true, and magically make it real, I would go with Asatru, simply because Vikings are fucking awesome.

Or Kemetism.

1 point

Superpolytheism! Go mad!

1 point

Your question is flawed in that it assumes the existence of God requires the existence of religion.

If God exists, God just is. Religion is a man-made set of institutions that may or may not have anything to do with God--religion has more to do with regulating yourself and trying to regulate your neighbors.

1 point

Assuming this, which religion, in your perhaps completely subjective opinion, is the "best" interepreation of the reality of a god's existence? Which do you most agree with?

Though I don't assume that my own personal religion is "the best" by any stretch, it is (inescapably) the one I most agree with. I suppose that to recognize the interpretation of a religion besides my own as valid, would effectively render it my interpretation. If it's appropriate to consider Syncretism as a religion then I shall tentatively accept that label.

What do you believe the nature of such a god would be/which religion's interpreatation would you be most in agreement with?

I look at god as an intellectual construct that comprises one's "ruling logic"