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.
Atheist shut the f**k up and listen, please and thank you...
When push comes to shove there is no debating whether or not people believe in a god, or not. People believe in all kinds of things, fairies, unicorns, santa claus, jesus christ, god, buddha, bhakta, fucking jiminy cricket, whatever.
This desire to know, to feel, to see what has not been already known or sought is the inevitable value that curiousity brings to the table. So long as there is mystery, the human will flock and want to understand it. Are there not mysteries day in and day out since the beginning of OUR species?
Can human beings ever truly know, feel, see ALL that which it seeks? Hell no, absolutely fucking not.
Some people believe that science or people can ultimately have every mystery, every "unknown" in science books one day, or discussed about at a local TED conference. This is ridiculous to believe that; this is human ego at its finest.
This does NOT mean people should not desire these "truths" or "unknowns", and strive to learn and understand; intelligence, knowledge gained.
The curiousity, the desire, the passion to want to believe in something that isn't right in front of our face, or taught to us in science books, or shown to us on the discovery channel, whatever, will never seize to exist; the drive will never go away, just like the desire for a human to survive, survial of the fittest, will never go away.
Atheist I call out to you. Please do stop with your bickering and insults to those who believe, acting as bullies in the name of science. I do not care what you or anybody else believes in, and I accept what you believe in; people will believe in what they want, regardless.
Atheists, when will you stop? When will you realize we (the "we" as in believers and non believers) should bind together, to come together science and religion/spirituality hand in hand, trying to figure this shit out together. Versus, "you're a fucking idiot for believing in X, Y, Z." This gets humanity no where. Obviously "religious people" have given itself a bad name from the extreme people; wars, anger, murder, ect. All in the name of their god? That makes all people who believe look insane for believing in the first place. There is good to believing in X, Y, Z god, it's not all ran by fucking power hungry people who brought wars because of different beliefs and systems. Religion and spirituality can be and is a good thing for people, its healthy, it's natural. Let it be.
Accept that these beliefs will never go away as I've accepted there will always be people who will choose to not believe. Until then, progress will be hard to come by.
Seriously? You expect people to treat your beliefs with respect when you address them with "Shut the fuck up and listen"? No, it ain't happening sunshine.
In Westernised countries, religion is dying. Non-westernised countries will westernise soon. Then, religion will start to die in those countries too. Religion will be dead in 1000 years, just like alchemy and witchcraft.
Of course, your whole rant is based on the false premise that religion can actually contribute anything meaningful to the world. Scientists and theists can go hand in hand. Science and religion do not go hand in hand; for science is the antithesis of religion
And before certain users (I know who I'm expecting) start, the type of religion being referenced here is obvious. Organised monotheism like Christianity and Islam.
These religions find truth via faith. Faith has never been proven to discover any truths. Besides anecdotal claims, it is quite safe to say that faith never will discover any truths.
Science on the other hand, has been proven to discover innumerable truths. Your rant would not be possible without science.
As a result, faith (thus religion) is a hindrance to science, and while believers in both can work symbiotically, the two systems cannot work symbiotically.
I'm afraid then that your rant is ill founded. The quicker the world secularises, the quicker we as a race will make progress.
I don't expect people to respect anything I've said with this post...
Which religion was I referencing? Which religion did I pin point? Monotheism? Dude, I named hinduism, buddhism, what the fuck are you talking about, is christianity the only religion you like to make fun of? lol cmon Chuck, try again...
My rant is possible because I am alive and can type and have a brain that is conscious, not because science has told me other wise. The better phrase would be "your rant would not be possible with society"...I agree with that.
I disagree completely, religion and science can work together, they're full of extremist people who call each other sides ignorant and foolish. The people are the problem not the fundamental beliefs as systems. Are you stating people will never see eye to eye? Perhaps there is truth in that, yet I still beg to differ. Humans are adaptable, moldable, most is possible.
Again, please excuse my words of "shut the fuck up and listen", are you sensitive to vulgar words? I'm sensitive to people calling my beliefs ignorant and foolish, fucking please...
I don't expect people to respect anything I've said with this post...
I quote:
Atheist I call out to you. Please do stop with your bickering and insults to those who believe, acting as bullies in the name of science. I do not care what you or anybody else believes in, and I accept what you believe in; people will believe in what they want, regardless.
That to me, sounds like an appeal for respect.
Which religion was I referencing? Which religion did I pin point? Monotheism? Dude, I named hinduism, buddhism, what the fuck are you talking about, is christianity the only religion you like to make fun of? lol cmon Chuck, try again...
You referenced the following:
fairies, unicorns, santa claus, jesus christ, god, buddha, bhakta, fucking jiminy cricket, whatever.
Jesus Christ and God are the most prominent, and thus are the ones I chose to pinpoint. It's not worth my time repudiating fairies and unicorns.
However, if you wish for me to make fun of every religion, I shall.
My rant is possible because I am alive and can type and have a brain that is conscious, not because science has told me other wise. The better phrase would be "your rant would not be possible with society"...I agree with that.
Don't be coy, you know what I meant. Your computer is a product of science, the means of communication for your rant.
I disagree completely, religion and science can work together, they're full of extremist people who call each other sides ignorant and foolish.
There is no such thing as an extremist scientist. Definition of extremism from Wikipedia:
Extremism is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards. In democratic societies, individuals or groups that advocate the replacement of democracy with an authoritarian regime are usually considered to be extremists, in authoritarian societies the opposite typically applies.
Science is neither an ideology nor a political stance, and thus cannot have its practitioners labelled as extremists.
he people are the problem not the fundamental beliefs as systems. Are you stating people will never see eye to eye? Perhaps there is truth in that, yet I still beg to differ. Humans are adaptable, moldable, most is possible.
No, I'm stating that religion and science do not work together. Never will a religion provide us with an answer that science cannot give us. The religious work fine with scientists, but their beliefs do not.
Again, please excuse my words of "shut the fuck up and listen", are you sensitive to vulgar words? I'm sensitive to people calling my beliefs ignorant and foolish, fucking please...
You have one of the most bizarre personalities I have ever encountered.
It's like you're constantly on edge, on defense. Before anyone has responded to you, you're immediately using swear words (not that there's anything wrong with them) and sweeping diatribe against your opponents. Then, when you're questioned or brought up on it, you take this freakishly mellow position, and try and turn their noticing of your thinly veiled rage into some proof that they're the ones that are truly angry.
I don't know, perhaps someone with more psychological knowledge than myself can give me a proper term, but it's really weird.
It's not an appeal for respect, rather a way to get ones attention.
You're wrong, some muslim extremists blow themselves up for "their glory", their perspectives are extreme within the realm of religion.
Some christian extremists randomly shoot people for "their glory", their perspectives are extreme within the realm of religion.
"Never will a religion provide us with an answer that science cannot give us"
Science cannot give me an answer to why I am, the meaning of why.
Religion, or spirituality, can give me an answer to why I am, the meaning of why.
Science does not answer anything but the observable world via experimentation, observable, method and test, theory and hypothesis, calling it fact, it is ever changing and adaptable and has been around for thousands of years, science that is. Modern science is modern for a reason, however, science was evident and existent in ancient times, used in different ways.
You're wrong, some muslim extremists blow themselves up for "their glory", their perspectives are extreme within the realm of religion.
Some christian extremists randomly shoot people for "their glory", their perspectives are extreme within the realm of religion.
How does this dispute what I was saying? I'm well aware that religious extremism exists, I was saying that scientific extremism is impossible.
Science cannot give me an answer to why I am, the meaning of why.
You assume that there is a why. At the risk of sounding redundant, why does there have to be why? Is it really so inconceivable that humanity is actually nothing special, and that we are only here through chemical reactions and a fair slice of luck?
Religion, or spirituality, can give me an answer to why I am, the meaning of why.
An answer that is in no way verifiable. I see it as more of a lull than an answer.
Science does not answer anything but the observable world via experimentation, observable, method and test, theory and hypothesis, calling it fact
Wrong. Nothing in science is ever called fact.
t is ever changing and adaptable and has been around for thousands of years, science that is. Modern science is modern for a reason, however, science was evident and existent in ancient times, used in different ways.
Again, I have no idea what you're disputing here. I know what science is.
My points were:
1. Scientific extremism is impossible.
2. Religion cannot aid science in any meaningful nor verifiable way.
"Religion cannot aid science in any meaningful nor verifiable way."
Oh it can't? The study of how, why, when people choose what they believe in can't help psychologists and sociologists in their field of work? This is already being studied and researched as we speak, therefore religion is helping science progress vis studies, research, experimentation, ect.
If you're strictly saying the pursuit of religion cannot aid science then I'd say you're wrong again. The pursuit of science is very similar to the pursuit of religion, they both desire the "truth". Who's to say the only proper and ultimate reality is the one science is pursuing? Surely it looks great, the scientific method that is, but it is not the only source of understand oneself or the life around them. Religion can and does aid people. Science can and does aid people.
Oh it can't? The study of how, why, when people choose what they believe in can't help psychologists and sociologists in their field of work? This is already being studied and researched as we speak, therefore religion is helping science progress vis studies, research, experimentation, ect.
By the same token, people who believe in fairies aid science.
If you're strictly saying the pursuit of religion cannot aid science then I'd say you're wrong again. The pursuit of science is very similar to the pursuit of religion, they both desire the "truth". Who's to say the only proper and ultimate reality is the one science is pursuing? Surely it looks great, the scientific method that is, but it is not the only source of understand oneself or the life around them. Religion can and does aid people. Science can and does aid people.
There is a difference betwixt the two.
Science is continually searching for the answers. Not once has science claimed to have all the answers, nor has it claimed that the answers it has are fact. It merely puts forth its best guesses to explain the crazy (at a scientific level) world we live in.
Organised Western religion however, claims to already know the answers. The papal system, thus Catholicism, is based entirely on the unproven claim that God has contacted and interacted with humanity. Abrahamism quite clearly puts forward within its doctrines the way to live your life, and how to achieve a happy afterlife. The Bible itself tells people to suspend reason and rely on faith. This is antithetical to science.
The only thing religion can do to aid science is to be a curious test subject. Aside from that, all it does is drive morons to prohibit and villainise science from and within society.
So then are you telling me that atheism is strictly against the judaism beliefs? The catholic, the abrahamic beliefs? What about buddhism or hinduism, or other beliefs in X, Y, Z god? You seem to have a beef with "western religion", and I can see why, it's obvious.
"The only thing religion can do to aid science is to be a curious test subject. Aside from that, all it does is drive morons to prohibit and villainise science from and within society."
Is this not enough? For mankind's curiosity is the reason why you and I are here communicating in the first place. Why should religion not be given the same chance just the same as science? Not every drivel given by mankind, but something as believing in a god? What the fuck is the problem with people believing in god and/or why cant religion and science work effectively together to achieve its goals in the desire to know?
So then are you telling me that atheism is strictly against the judaism beliefs? The catholic, the abrahamic beliefs? What about buddhism or hinduism, or other beliefs in X, Y, Z god? You seem to have a beef with "western religion", and I can see why, it's obvious.
No, I'm telling you that science and atheism are antithetical to religion. Not necessarily against, there's an important difference.
Is this not enough? For mankind's curiosity is the reason why you and I are here communicating in the first place. Why should religion not be given the same chance just the same as science? Not every drivel given by mankind, but something as believing in a god? What the fuck is the problem with people believing in god and/or why cant religion and science work effectively together to achieve its goals in the desire to know?
I did not mention people once in my last post. I have no problem with people choosing to believe in religion XYZ. What I do have a problem with is religion being used to infringe on scientific progress.
Religion (not the religious) is not given the chance to work with science, because it CANNOT work with science. Last time I checked my Bible, I don't recall seeing a ground breaking equation that made M-Theory testable within the lab. Last time I checked the Quran, I don't recall seeing a proof of abiogenesis. Religion offers nothing to science, nothing other than being a test subject.
I don't care whether people are religious or not, but I cannot stress enough how little religion's contribution to science is anymore.
Uhhhh.... okaaayyyyy.... Damn! People have been going on some rants lately.... I think I'll post a rant of my own later. Everyone should do it! It'll be fun. ;)
Well, if that's the way you feel why don't you plagiarize it word for word and post it yourself? You know... like you did Akulakhan's debate... that way after I post something pointless on it, and I will, you can ban me. :)
No, Christianity and it's petty cohort religions must be removed! They strangle our progress into science and technology. They enforce their pathetic reules and morals onto each generation, bringing our children under their mind control.
America was founded on freedom and liberty, and we Americans must unite against the tyranny of religion. As Karl Marx said "religion is the opium of the people" it subdues them under the addictive illusion that doing good deeds gets you a place in some magical domain in the sky.
If we are to succeed in spearheading progress in this world, then we as a nation must unite and take arms to bring down the dictatorship that relgion has over our state.
Your using the "bad" or "horrible" things that people do in the name of their god or religion and say all religion strangles this or that and must be removed.
What about the good religion does for mankind? Have you missed that? Have you encountered nothing but crazy extreme religious people?
Hmmm, the renaissance, and...? Like saying "Wait, what's wrong with you all? Hitler was good. Sure, he caused the deaths of 60,000,000+ people, but oh well! He created motor ways, and Beatles!" No religion is Bad, it does about 99.34571984% bad things. When was the last headline news you saw on RT or BBC that was showing something Good a religious act did?! A long time if you ask me. All I see is Terrorism, Pedophiles, Lies e.t.c.
Umm.. Screw you? No, I don't want to believe in your fucking religions for Christs sake they've only caused war and destruction, hypocrisy and pain. Through out man kind there have been religious disputes ending in, over time, hundreds of millions of deaths. "Yay, our crops failed, lets sacrifice a few thousand people." "Hey, I don't like your beliefs, i'll fly some planes in to your buildings!" "Don't follow my religion? I'll invade your country and prolong the war for decades to come!" All for religion. And, for what?! Just so a bunch of old biddies can have something to comfort them whilst they're waiting to die. You're anti sex, you're anti gay, you're anti other religions, you're anti humanity for fucks sake.
Now sunshine, if you want to go around telling people the things you believe, and that it's what you think, go ahead by all means. But don't come on to this website, tell the atheists to shut the fuck up, then expect them to convert to your messed up views. GROW UP AND STOP BELIEVING IN MAGIC.
There's nothing wrong with atheists accepting religion when religious beliefs don't harm anyone.
They also, on the other hand, have the moral high ground to get pissed off and militant when some religious extremist shoots a little girl in the head for wanting to go to school.
You're right to want them to accept your good side. What you seem to ignore in your statement is all the bad that comes from religion.
War comes from greed and belief. War has never been fought over science. Never once has someone declared war because a country favored quantum mechanics over their enemies that favored general relativity.
It's true that not all religious people are evil; this is obvious. Nobody, whether you follow science or believe in a religion, should ever make sweeping generalizations about any group of people. But just as atheists cannot simply make a generalization about you (that you are a foolish zealot), you cannot make a generalization about an atheist (that they are an immoral, jerkish sod).
If you want to bring people together, you cannot antagonize the people that are different from you simply because you are too ignorant to understand that not all of them are jerks, or better, that they are simply jerks for no good reason.
Since you do not understand this, your topic to bring people together failed with the title and went downhill with you making general presumptions about atheists.
I did generalize atheists, as you generalized me calling me a foolish zealot and that I am ignorant. Ignorance seems to be atheists favorite word to use, again another generalization, whoops my bad. Like I said, the bickering continues..
I didn't call you a foolish zealot. I was speaking hypothetically in terms of an atheist calling you such. I called you ignorant because you are ignorant; I was not making a generalization, I was calling you for what you are.
Also, I am not an atheist. Though I can't tell if you were calling me one or not.
You antagonize them by making the worded generalization that they are arrogant bullies. Also, you are speaking forcefully, which is disrespectful and antagonizing.
I don't care if anyone accepts my beliefs or not.
Then you would not have created this debate.
My point with this post was not to antagonize, but to stir up the pot if you will.
Stir up the pot? What do you mean?
Do you mean you were intentionally trying to get people's attention? By what means? By making them angry and antagonizing them?
You're mad at the people calling you out, and yet your intention was to 'stir up the pot'?
This implies you weren't prepared to reap what you sowed, which I would like to point out is a foolish en devour.
But then again, I don't know if I understand the context of the metaphor 'stir up the pot'. And at the same time, I don't think you do either.
Again, fuck you or anyone else who calls me ignorant.
Lol
I thought you were trying to 'stir up the pot'?
But you can't handle being criticized without resorting to contrived profanity?
Can you not handle the "fuck" word? lol seriously...
I can handle being criticized, I'm sick of certain people on this site who know jack and shit about anybody, yet they say "oh you're ignorant" That fucking word is used so much on this site, I see it all the time and all it shows are that the ones calling other ignorant, are the fucking ignorant ones.
Can you not handle the "fuck" word? lol seriously...
My reply has nothing to do with 'handling it' as you seem to think. I'm inquiring as to why you'd be cursing and swearing when your intention was to 'stir up the pot', because using profanity implies anger, but... if you were expecting controversy and criticism, why are you getting angry other then the possibility that you stepped outside your comfort zone intentionally?
I can handle being criticized, I'm sick of certain people on this site who know jack and shit about anybody, yet they say "oh you're ignorant" That fucking word is used so much on this site, I see it all the time and all it shows are that the ones calling other ignorant, are the fucking ignorant ones.
It's like everything I've said to you passes over your head.
You are ignorant either because your opinion is an incorrect generalization, or you are ignorant because you used improper wording to convey your thoughts.
You speak of how I don't understand the word, but you have yet to bring up evidence complimenting to the matter. How are you not ignorant, in some way, based upon the evidence I have brought forward?
And I will say your ignorance shines brighter than the brightest star in the universe if based upon your presumptions of me you think I am ignorant, you've called me ignorant.
But what evidence do you have of my ignorance where I have given you evidence of your own?
'Because I called you ignorant' is not evidence. That is a statement of 'Because of A, B.' But what you lack is a reason for 'because of A, B,' as where I have given reason to my statement of 'because of A, B.'
The evidence is since you do not know the whole picture, that is, you have no clue why I wrote this post, other than few words that I've already given you.
You don't know why I wrote this post to begin with.
You don't know whom I was speaking to. (although you claim I claim it was generalized to all atheists when this is not true).
You weren't the one writing the words on this computer.
This is my "because A, B, C" fucker.
Now, since you've called me ignorant based off of petty evidence of yours, you automatically created yourself to be ignorant of my motives and intentions. Fuck off.
The original post generalizes atheists. I'm getting tired of reiterating this. This is not up to interpretation. This is not an opinion. In the way you wrote the original post, in the way that you used the English language, you argued in a way that generalized all atheists.
You are literally trying to say that your point, that extremists are bad, somehow equates to mean exactly what the original post means, when the original post does not mean that. One does not simply, twist the English language.
This argument has nothing to do with your motives. It has nothing to do with your intentions. This has to do with the fact that you incorrectly used the English language, and when I called you out for misusing it, you said 'nuh uh, I didn't misuse it,' even though you did, and now you simply cannot admit that you did out of arrogance and ignorance.
You claimed in your reply that I am ignorant because you think I think all atheists are this or that when I never claimed such a thing.
You call atheists out as a whole, not as a sect. Therefore, based upon your own choice of words, you appear to have an opinion on atheists, and not 'some' atheists.
I claimed extreme atheists are fucking retarded, just as extreme religious people are fucking retarded.
I didn't see the words 'extreme' in what I read. I saw just the word 'atheists'.
There's a different between being ignorant, using generalizations, and as you say "calling it for what it is"
You're either ignorant in your opinion or ignorant in your choice of words. Either way, you are ignorant. Which is it?
Many atheists on this site are fucking ridiculous. They know who I speak of.
Again, fuck you for calling me ignorant, you're ignorant for not knowing what the word ignorant means. Not to mention you presumptions and assumptions are ridiculous. Your feeble words mean nothing. The pot has been stirred.
Many atheists on this site are fucking ridiculous. They know who I speak of.
You didn't say 'many atheists' with your opening thread. You said 'atheists'. You cannot assume that people can read your mind and know that you are referring to just a select few, because that is ridiculous.
Therefore you are ignorant.
Again, fuck you for calling me ignorant, you're ignorant for not knowing what the word ignorant means.
I cannot read your mind, and I instead base my replies based upon what exactly you wrote in your opening thread, and that makes me ignorant?
Lol
Not to mention you presumptions and assumptions are ridiculous. Your feeble words mean nothing.
I presume and assume nothing. I based my response based upon your words. And the words of your opening thread generalize atheists; there's nothing contrived about that. To say they don't is to contradict the English language. To say that the opening thread is not what you meant is to either contradict yourself or to admit that your opening statement was inaccurate as to your beliefs.
Either way, you are or were mistaken in some fashion. Which is ignorance.
The pot has been stirred.
I'm getting the hint that you are either attempting to be an internet troll, or you have no idea what you want to convey with this metaphor.
I can assume though that the atheists whom I have spoken with on this site do know I am speaking to them.
I don't expect those people to reas my mind, rather read the texts.
In fact, my "focal point" was generally generalized in the general direction of extreme atheists.
So yes, you are correct I did not explain this part properly, however it's irrelevant. Now that you know what I meant; now that you know I meant extreme/ atheists who are fucking wannabe bullies, let's move past this shall we?
Oh an ps, fuck you for calling me ignorant. Go ahead call me anything else you want, enough with the word ignorant. I am far from it, I see all sides to most more than most people. Savvy?
I can assume though that the atheists whom I have spoken with on this site do know I am speaking to them.
If you can assume that, then why run the risk of giving them ammunition against your argument by using actual, textual facts that you wrote yourself to claim that you generalize all atheists and not just them?
I don't expect those people to reas my mind, rather read the texts.
*read
Also, I read your text, and it generalizes atheists.
So yes, you are correct I did not explain this part properly, however it's irrelevant. Now that you know what I meant; now that you know I meant extreme/ atheists who are fucking wannabe bullies, let's move past this shall we?
It's not irrelevant. It's actually important to admit folly when folly happens.
Yes, we can move on now. Not that there is an argument to move on from, because both sides of extremists are obviously bad; this is not rocket science.
Oh an ps, fuck you for calling me ignorant. Go ahead call me anything else you want, enough with the word ignorant.
You just admitted to me that your opening statement was written ignorantly and incorrectly, and yet you are still offended at me for calling you ignorant? Why? That doesn't make any sense at all.
I said nothing of my opening statement being ignorant for I knew what I was doing before hand and whom I was targeting.
"So yes, you are correct I did not explain this part properly," is what you said. This is admittance of mistake, and since the mistake had to do with general knowledge of communication, you are admitting ignorance.
I did not make a mistake. Your (you) misunderstanding of my opening statement is not my fault.
I did not misunderstand your opening statement. You wrote it improperly and conveyed the wrong message. That is your fault, for not understanding the English language as well as others.
Not only are you ignorant, but apparently you are also arrogant.
Fuck off man, woman, whatever the fuck you roll with or how you roll with.
Fucking yoda over here wannabe.
Just because I said "So yes, you are correct that i did not explain this part properly" does NOT, NOT fucking mean I admitted any mistake. I only admitted that I obviously need to explain myself for people like you who needs fucking words spelled out for you.
When you apply meaning to words and clauses that do not mean what you think they do, yes, it's your responsibility to explain that you meant something different, and it is also your responsibility to admit that you were wrong in using words that meant something different from what you thought they meant.
It's like... you think you rule the English language and are entitled to say you're right about it when you were most obviously wrong.
At this point, it's not even in dispute to everyone (other then you) that your use of language was incorrect. At this point, I'm just trying to convince you to stop being an arrogant snob and just admit that you were wrong, because you were, and are for defending the idea that you were and are right.
Ignorance implies the person who's presumed ignorant does not understand or see the situation and/or circumstances and is "bias" to not knowing. I am fully aware of my words and I choose words wisely, considering certain circumstances. How can I be ignorant?
If you were fully aware of your words, you would have not written your opening statement in a way as to imply you were generalizing all atheists. But since you did, you obviously did not choose your words wisely, were not aware of what they meant, and therefore, you are ignorant.
You are literally trying to apply alternate and specific meanings to words and clauses that are meant to describe things in a general manner. I shouldn't need to tell you exactly how stupid that is to try and do.
If you were fully aware, and did not make a mistake (despite the numerous contradictions you have made), then that means are you not ignorant in your use of the English language, and are instead just ignorant in your applied opinion.
Or.
It means you are arrogant for believing that you can twist the English language and somehow be correct. Well... arrogant and ignorant, because arrogance requires ignorance as a prerequisite.
I knew what I was doing from the get go, you're just too feeble and weak to fucking see the whole picture.
Then do tell, what is the big picture that I am not seeing?
I have already told you it's obvious that both sides of the equation, when on extremes, are incorrect and foolish in their generalizations. All of my arguments are against this idea that you can get away with saying something that means one thing, and yet saying it means another when it most certainly does not.
So then, wait... not even you know what the big picture is? Then why would you challenge my knowledge of the big picture when you do not even know of it yourself? Or, are you simply a jackass, withholding obscure information from me because you know I could refute it?
I'm going to call you ignorant every time you debate ignorantly.
I'm calling you ignorant because you don't even know how to use the English language properly, and I call you arrogant for asserting you do when you obviously don't. You wrote something ignorant, then disputed it wasn't, then once it was obvious it was ignorant, you claimed it had a different meaning then what I thought, even though the English language is not an interpretive dance competition and you cannot just apply meanings to words and clauses that said words and clauses do not have.
And ultimately, you're probably just stupid. You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about; another show of how you obviously don't understand the English language. But the least you could do it take a bite of some humble pie and admit that you're full of shit and attitude, when this whole time I've been polite.
Hey, fuck you chatturgha, who do you think you are for calling anyone and everyone ignorant for no good reason?
I don't need nor care if you think I do not know how to "use the English language" properly..
Hey news flash dickwad. The english language is a fucking melting pot of words and phrases that is lazy and dull. The english language of America is used improperly day in and day out. Don't fucking lecture me about using a language that is already skewed to begin with. Know, no, no what I mean? Too to and fuck you, understand this?
I don't call everyone ignorant for no good reason, I call anyone that behaves ignorantly, ignorant.
Then you're not going to get anywhere on this debate website if you don't understand how to communicate your points properly. Oh well.
So your excuse now is that the English language is stupid and you can use it however you wish and always be right? Yeah, sure kid. Whatever you say.
You're also an arrogant minge as well, that can't admit folly when you make a mistake, which you did, in the most vital of debating skills: communication. Have fun getting shit on over and over again by people who think you say one thing but then get infuriated with your arrogance in thinking that you can say one thing and expect everyone to read your mind and understand that what you said isn't what you meant. You should feel lucky... I only think you're a dumb jackass. Others will think you're a liar, a double talker, a deceiver, and will overall not be a polite as I was for most of this conversation.
You can take my advice and shape up, or you can keep being an arrogant minge that thinks language doesn't mean anything in a hobby that involves language. Not that I care which you do. Whichever you choose, it's all to your own benefit or penalty. Have a nice day.
When push comes to shove there is no debating whether or not people believe in a god, or not. People believe in all kinds of things, fairies, unicorns, santa claus, jesus christ, god, buddha, bhakta, fucking jiminy cricket, whatever.
Believing in something doesn't make it true.
This desire to know, to feel, to see what has not been already known or sought is the inevitable value that curiousity brings to the table. So long as there is mystery, the human will flock and want to understand it. Are there not mysteries day in and day out since the beginning of OUR species?
Yes, and science attempts to explain natural phemonea rationally, rather than religion.
Can human beings ever truly know, feel, see ALL that which it seeks? Hell no, absolutely fucking not.
Theoritically, the human race will, eventually. If we survive long enough, that is.
Some people believe that science or people can ultimately have every mystery, every "unknown" in science books one day, or discussed about at a local TED conference. This is ridiculous to believe that; this is human ego at its finest.
Not really. Science is SO, so young and look at all the things it has explained already. Continual increase of knowledge and understanding will happen.
This does NOT mean people should not desire these "truths" or "unknowns", and strive to learn and understand; intelligence, knowledge gained.
Of course not.
The curiousity, the desire, the passion to want to believe in something that isn't right in front of our face, or taught to us in science books, or shown to us on the discovery channel, whatever, will never seize to exist; the drive will never go away, just like the desire for a human to survive, survial of the fittest, will never go away.
What? I'll admit, currently we know relatively little, but that does not make religion true.
Atheist I call out to you. Please do stop with your bickering and insults to those who believe, acting as bullies in the name of science. I do not care what you or anybody else believes in, and I accept what you believe in; people will believe in what they want, regardless.
Again, believing in something does not make it true. Why should I not try to sway opinions of religious people/s when there is no evidence to back religion up?
Atheists, when will you stop? When will you realize we (the "we" as in believers and non believers) should bind together, to come together science and religion/spirituality hand in hand, trying to figure this shit out together. Versus, "you're a fucking idiot for believing in X, Y, Z." This gets humanity no where. Obviously "religious people" have given itself a bad name from the extreme people; wars, anger, murder, ect. All in the name of their god? That makes all people who believe look insane for believing in the first place. There is good to believing in X, Y, Z god, it's not all ran by fucking power hungry people who brought wars because of different beliefs and systems. Religion and spirituality can be and is a good thing for people, its healthy, it's natural. Let it be.
Eh, science and religion are near polar opposites.
Accept that these beliefs will never go away as I've accepted there will always be people who will choose to not believe. Until then, progress will be hard to come by.
Actually, I'd imagine, as we progress and gain knowledge, religion and theism will decline, as we will begin to gain a more acute understanding.
your right people do target Christians and they always make fun of them it funny how atheist dint believe in smithies that created and i do respect other religion