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.
First think of something immoral that an atheist would do that a theist would not: What is their? Nothing. Now think of something immoral that a theist would do that an atheist would not do: 9/11 attacks, 7/7 bombings, animal sacrifice, sacrifice of infants, thuggee murders, attacks on abortion clinics etc the list goes on.
An action is still immoral no matter how deluded the wrongdoer is. If a psychopath murdered some one and did not think it was wrong, that doesn't change the fact that what they did was wrong.
True, but doesn't mean we should hate them for doing what there god told them. If I believe in god I would fear going to hell so I would do what god tells me.
Well I don't hate them for it anyway (I try not to hate any one) . However even if I did believe in that rubbish I would rather go to Hell than kill people in the name of a malevolent deity, I would be in hell mentally any way for all eternity due to the guilt of killing some one.
You going to Hell is not a right reason to kill some one. It is selfish to put your salvation before some one else's life.
Are you saying that I a god existed and told you to torture mercilessly and kill a 3 year old or else he would send you to hell, would that make torturing and killing that 3 year old moral?
That is no excuse, they should no better. If some one murdered you because they were part of a religion which taught that their God wanted people to murder each other does that mean that they should be let off?
But how is them not knowing even relevant if what they did was still immoral? The debate isn't about them not knowing it is about them being immoral or not.
Those actions are not moral because they cause suffering for others.
Morality is based on what is right and wrong. In religion, God decides what is right and wrong.
Good=To obey God
Evil=To disobey God
If you aren't religious, then you are ultimately deciding what is moral. You would typically base your moral standards off of an emotional response to different things. However, a lot of the time people acquire their morals from their government. Making marijuana illegal has led to many people believing that smoking it is immoral... But is it really? Many people would disagree and a lot of them would even say that it is good for you.
You are right it is debatable whether some actions are immoral or not. But some actions are so obviously immoral that any decent person (which excludes religious extremists as they are not decent people) would say that they are.
That's assuming that their god doesn't exist. If he does and everything they did was according to his law, then they did nothing immoral. Of course our standards are different though. We aren't part of that religion, therefore we don't feel bound by those laws.
Well there is no way there God can exist because there is scientific evidence for the big bang which contradicts the creation stories of just about any religion I have ever heard of. And even if there god did exist then that god would be immoral so what they did still was immoral.
Well there is no way there God can exist because there is scientific evidence for the big bang which contradicts the creation stories of just about any religion I have ever heard of.
The big bang doesn't really contradict their stories... And it isn't a proven fact.
And even if there god did exist then that god would be immoral so what they did still was immoral.
That God wouldn't be immoral, because he decides what is and isn't moral.
It is not proven but it is still dumb to deny it as there is so much evidence for it and it does contradict the Abrahamic creation story. I do not think God, even if he does exist gets to decide what is moral or not, I think only humans do as it is a human concept.
It is not proven but it is still dumb to deny it as there is so much evidence for it and it does contradict the Abrahamic creation story.
There's also a lot of evidence for aliens and Bigfoot...
How does it contradict their creation story?
I do not think God, even if he does exist gets to decide what is moral or not
Yes he does. If God created everything, then he gets to decide what is right and wrong. I've said this a lot recently, but Good=To obey God and Evil=To disobey God
Just look at the terms... good is "god" with an extra O. Evil is "Eve" with an L (evil used to be spelled "evel"). Eve was the first person to disobey God.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, was merely just the tree of free will. It gave them the ability to obey or disobey God.
He always had a reason to kill them though, didn't he? The flood was because of their wickedness... But he spared the righteous (Noah and his family are one example).
Did he kill people? Yes. But if he exists, then he gets to determine which deaths are justifiable and which ones aren't. Right and wrong is according to his standards, not ours.
He always had a reason to kill them though, didn't he? The flood was because of their wickedness... But he spared the righteous (Noah and his family are one example).
Did he kill people? Yes. But if he exists, then he gets to determine which deaths are justifiable and which ones aren't. Right and wrong is according to his standards, not ours.
I'm not religious, by the way lol.
If you're not religious, why are you acting as if you are. but your argument is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It is also a contradiction.
He always had a reason to kill them though, didn't he? The flood was because of their wickedness... But he spared the righteous (Noah and his family are one example).
Did he kill people? Yes. But if he exists, then he gets to determine which deaths are justifiable and which ones aren't. Right and wrong is according to his standards, not ours.
I'm not religious, by the way lol.
So you're saying if a person kills another person its murder, but if a "spirit" kills a person its acceptable because the "spirit" is a higher power?
No... That's not what I'm saying. Come on, man! I thought you said you have more knowledge than me.
How is this any different from what you mean? You're either uneducated or stupid. I hate to use such fowl assumptions but you continue to contradict yourself.
So you're saying if a person kills another person its murder, but if a "spirit" kills a person its acceptable because the "spirit" is a higher power?
Oh, good grief. If God exists and he has always existed, then he determined what is right and what is wrong. To be good is to obey God. To be evil is to disobey God. He cannot disobey himself. God was trying to abolish evil from the face of the earth, that's why he sent the flood. He saved Noah and his family, because they were the only ones still obedient to God. They were still good.
You have to realize that God supposedly always existed. He made everything, therefore, he decides what to do with his creations. Apparently he used to think that the proper punishment for sinners, was an early death.
In Old Testament, sins were unforgivable... But then Jesus came and died for everyone's sins, thus making them forgivable.
How is this any different from what you mean?
Because what isn't acceptable to you, may be acceptable to God. If he exists, then you ultimately don't decide what is acceptable, he does. He makes the rules, not you.
You're either uneducated or stupid.
You have no clue what I'm trying to say! I've simplified it for you a couple of times now and you're still lost. Maybe I need to capitalize my argument... I AM NOT RELIGIOUS! I AM NOT ARGUING THAT GOD EXISTS!
You have your mind so set on bullshit, that you won't even read what I'm typing for you.
I hate to use such fowl assumptions but you continue to contradict yourself.
Then point out my contradictions! There isn't a single one.
Oh, good grief. If God exists and he has always existed, then he determined what is right and what is wrong. To be good is to obey God. To be evil is to disobey God. He cannot disobey himself. God was trying to abolish evil from the face of the earth, that's why he sent the flood. He saved Noah and his family, because they were the only ones still obedient to God. They were still good.
You have to realize that God supposedly always existed. He made everything, therefore, he decides what to do with his creations. Apparently he used to think that the proper punishment for sinners, was an early death.
In Old Testament, sins were unforgivable... But then Jesus came and died for everyone's sins, thus making them forgivable.
Why are you telling me this. I already know this. don't let whatever degree you have go through your head.
Because what isn't acceptable to you, may be acceptable to God. If he exists, then you ultimately don't decide what is acceptable, he does. He makes the rules, not you.
Once more, I already know this.
You have no clue what I'm trying to say! I've simplified it for you a couple of times now and you're still lost. Maybe I need to capitalize my argument... I AM NOT RELIGIOUS! I AM NOT ARGUING THAT GOD EXISTS!
Your ignorance is showing quite swell. I have every clue at what you're saying. You're bringing up arguments as if you're debating me. Maybe you should re read your paragraphs and if you can read you'll see it seems like you're defending god.
Then point out my contradictions! There isn't a single one
I already have. but you're so stuck up, you refuse to have an open mind.
Why are you telling me this. I already know this. don't let whatever degree you have go through your head.
LOL! You can't bullshit the "Bullshit Man!"
If you knew all of that, then you wouldn't be disputing me.
Once more, I already know this.
Hehe... You're such a lazy debater.
Your ignorance is showing quite swell.
Oooooo... Lets see what everyone else has to say. I'll make a debate titled, "Am I truly ignorant or is Tim17 just dyslexic?"... Something along those lines.
I have every clue at what you're saying.
You aren't very convincing.
You're bringing up arguments as if you're debating me. Maybe you should re read your paragraphs and if you can read you'll see it seems like you're defending god.
Ding ding ding! There it is! Absolute proof that you haven't been paying attention to what I've been typing.
I am not defending God, I'm explaining what the Bible means. That doesn't mean I believe it is accurate... Just that I have an idea as to what the authors of the Bible were trying to say, whether they made it up or not. If you're reading this, type "cheese" on your next argument.
I already have. but you're so stuck up, you refuse to have an open mind.
You haven't pointed out any contradictions. You just keep trying to insult me.
Don't worry... We'll see what everyone else thinks.
You're not comprehending very well are you? I know now you aren't defending the bible. In your previous arguments you made it seem like you were. Now that were at a full understanding I will go find a debate with people who actually know how to debate and aren't boring. Have fun getting your rocks off.
Oh the irony! So making a debate titled "am I as ignorant as Tim17 says I am?"(title may not be worded correctly) isn't to give you some kind of "moral victory?" It sure seems like it to me. But they do have counseling for people with such low self esteem as yourself. I advise you to go see you one.
It only seems like that because you're an idiot. It was clearly an attempt to shut you up. My self-esteem could never be so low that I would question whether you are smarter than me.
I advise you to go get an education. You can't live with your mom forever... Well, I guess you can... And you probably will.
Please tell me more false assumptions you know about me? You my friend are idiotic. Its obvious your attempt failed. You may want to try harder next time. Now are you letting your "arrogance" get in the way? You've clearly showed that you lack an open knowledgeable mind. They still let old people like you get a GED, so I think you better get one as soon as possible.
Please tell me more false assumptions you know about me? You my friend are idiotic. Its obvious your attempt failed. You may want to try harder next time. Now are you letting your "arrogance" get in the way? You've clearly showed that you lack an open knowledgeable mind.
You say all of that, but you can't back it up. All you've done is try to insult me. Emphasis on the word "try".
They still let old people like you get a GED, so I think you better get one as soon as possible.
I'm not old... And I already have a college education, so no need to back track.
Insult? I'm not sure If you're joking or just have a bad memory. But you have been making false assumptions "aka" insulting me also. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm simply dishing out just like you are buddy. And I don't have to back up anything to a stranger I'll never meet. I know how successful I am and what degrees I have. All these false assumptions you're coming up with aren't phasing me at all. Stop dishing out if you cant take it.
Insult? I'm not sure If you're joking or just have a bad memory. But you have been making false assumptions "aka" insulting me also. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm simply dishing out just like you are buddy.
My memory is just fine. Apparently you don't recall that you started this shit.
"If you're not religious, why are you acting as if you are. but your argument is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It is also a contradiction."
"What makes you think I don't know what they mean? I guarantee I have more knowledge than you."
Two ignorant lines that started this bullshit... Not to mention you disputed me first, not vice versa.
You didn't like what you read, so you resorted to calling my argument "stupid"... As people who have found themselves backed into a corner, usually do.
If you have more knowledge, why don't you try to show it? You must understand the topic better than I do, if you are more knowledgeable than I am... Yet you have been off topic most of this debate. You talk a big game, but you can't back it up.
And I don't have to back up anything to a stranger I'll never meet.
Sorry to break it to you, but you are on a debate site.
I know how successful I am and what degrees I have.
That's because it is a figment of your imagination.
All these false assumptions you're coming up with aren't phasing me at all. Stop dishing out if you cant take it.
Is that why you tried to impress me with your credentials? LOL!
My memory is just fine. Apparently you don't recall that you started this shit.
Yes, I do recall starting this but did not mean for it to go this far. We still wouldn't be arguing off topic if you didn't have such a low self esteem to go and make a pointless debate.
Two ignorant lines that started this bullshit... Not to mention you disputed me first, not vice versa.
You didn't like what you read, so you resorted to calling my argument "stupid"... As people who have found themselves backed into a corner, usually do.
If you have more knowledge, why don't you try to show it? You must understand the topic better than I do, if you are more knowledgeable than I am... Yet you have been off topic most of this debate. You talk a big game, but you can't back it up.
False, I see you love assuming things. I'd be more then happy to proceed with the debate in a civilized manner, but you're making it impossible since you keep insulting me and when I defend myself you continue making false claims and in your little head I guess you think you're right and your false assumptions are true. I also just said don't dish out if you cant take it, then you say I talk a big game but cant back it up? you're not doing so good backing up your nonsense.
Sorry to break it to you, but you are on a debate site.
OK so how about we get back on topic about the debate?
That's because it is a figment of your imagination.
Na, I believe your college degree is.
Is that why you tried to impress me with your credentials? LOL!
And your childish irony continues! LOL!
Now how about we get back on topic with the debate in a friendly status.
Yes, I do recall starting this but did not mean for it to go this far. We still wouldn't be arguing off topic if you didn't have such a low self esteem to go and make a pointless debate.
We were arguing off topic before I made that debate.
False, I see you love assuming things. I'd be more then happy to proceed with the debate in a civilized manner, but you're making it impossible since you keep insulting me and when I defend myself you continue making false claims and in your little head I guess you think you're right and your false assumptions are true.
You could have gone back to the original topic at any time. Nobody is stopping you.
I also just said don't dish out if you cant take it, then you say I talk a big game but cant back it up? you're not doing so good backing up your nonsense.
Yeah... You say you're smarter than I am (talk a big game), but you aren't proving it... You never did, not even when we were on topic (can't back it up). You'll probably just say you don't need to though... In that case, then stop responding to me. I like to argue, so I can keep going with this bullshit lol.
OK so how about we get back on topic about the debate?
Can you do me a favor and go back and reread our arguments first, at least the ones that were on topic... And actually, you responded to a point I was making to someone else, so maybe you should read my arguments with that person as well? Get everything into context before you start making assumptions.
Na, I believe your college degree is.
Oh... good one lol.
And your childish irony continues! LOL!
Okay, maybe you should reread all of our arguments... Even the ones that were off topic, then tell me who was acting childish.
Now how about we get back on topic with the debate in a friendly status.
I've been waiting for that the entire time... I made a point that you never refuted.
We were arguing off topic before I made that debate.
I said we may not still be off topic if you hadn't of made that debate.
You could have gone back to the original topic at any time. Nobody is stopping you.
The same applies to you.
Yeah... You say you're smarter than I am (talk a big game), but you aren't proving it... You never did, not even when we were on topic (can't back it up). You'll probably just say you don't need to though... In that case, then stop responding to me. I like to argue, so I can keep going with this bullshit lol.
I did not say I was smarter than you. And I was directing my point about personal life, not debating. I don't have to back up my personal life to you. So once more, stop assuming things.
Can you do me a favor and go back and reread our arguments first, at least the ones that were on topic... And actually, you responded to a point I was making to someone else, so maybe you should read my arguments with that person as well?
I will admit I'm too lazy to read through all the arguments. Would you mind bolding them in your next statements?
Get everything into context before you start making assumptions.
Now isn't this ironic?
Oh... good one lol.
Thank you.
I've been waiting for that the entire time... I made a point that you never refuted.
Would you mind bolding them in your next statements?
"Because I actually understand what their religious texts mean, unlike you."
That statement shows you do not require evidence to make claims.
You do not hold supreme understanding over religious texts - and it's overwhelmingly ignorant to assert you do. The religious texts are ambiguous (to some degree) in their interpretations, across the board of all (claimed) religious believers. You believe the writer to have a certain meaning and context, which you feel you've "accurately" deduced. This is why we have thousands of different brands of Christianity (and other major religions) - largely from people starting their own religion as their interpretation is somewhat different from the current community. How this doesn't unequivocally expose to people that it's all a bunch of made up stories I find perplexing.
First, let me make clear that I find it difficult to take seriously a person who copied and pasted a completely unoriginal page long argument... twice.
Okay, now that I got that out of the way...
That statement shows you do not require evidence to make claims.
No, there is plenty of evidence. That's coming from me, someone who isn't even religious. All you have to do is read the book as well as the different translations and get a little bit of historical background. Are there parts that are difficult to understand? Definitely, but if you put the entire book into context, the puzzle starts to fit together.
I'm not claiming the Bible is accurate. Just that it isn't all just a bunch of random shit. There is a message to it all.
You do not hold supreme understanding over religious texts
I never said that I did. I just hold a pretty decent understanding of the Bible. I didn't spend time and money in college studying the thing so that I could remain confused, as most people are when it comes to the Bible. I wanted to know more about it than the average person. Actually, my main goal was to be able to convince people that it's all bullshit... But as of now, that's pretty difficult... Although, I do have pretty good evidence.
and it's overwhelmingly ignorant to assert you do.
Sorry to overwhelm you with my ignorance. Maybe you should take some time off.
The religious texts are ambiguous (to some degree) in their interpretations, across the board of all (claimed) religious believers.
I was talking specifically about the Bible. There are Christian and Jewish texts not included in the Bible. I think it was eighty gospels that were reviewed. Most people only know of the main ones: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
You have to understand all interpretations to figure out what it means. Some we can discount. Mormonism isn't the most reliable, at least in my opinion.
You believe the writer to have a certain meaning and context, which you feel you've "accurately" deduced.
Yeah... Okay, sure... It's somewhat of a theory, one with plenty of evidence. You can call me ignorant as long as you call believers in the Big Bang ignorant as well.
This is why we have thousands of different brands of Christianity (and other major religions) - largely from people starting their own religion as their interpretation is somewhat different from the current community.
They all had an origin.
How this doesn't unequivocally expose to people that it's all a bunch of made up stories I find perplexing.
Some people think Obama is a Muslim, some think he is the anti-Christ, some think he is an alien, some think he is a double agent, some think he is a puppet, some think he's having an affair... Most of that is obviously bullshit, so is him being president bullshit as well?
"First, let me make clear that I find it difficult to take seriously a person who copied and pasted a completely unoriginal page long argument... twice."
That in and of itself would not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person. The argument I wrote then copied, applied to both separate debates and is completely unrelated to any point being made here. That's what's called an ad hominem.
You provided no evidence at any point for anything.
"Because I actually understand what their religious texts mean, unlike you."
You might not see it but the implication made is you have some insight into "what their religious texts mean" others do not fathom as well as assuming a full understanding of their intellectual capacity and state.
"The religious texts are ambiguous (to some degree) in their interpretations, across the board of all (claimed) religious believers."
"I was talking specifically about the Bible."
Religious texts include the bible... lol
"You believe the writer to have a certain meaning and context, which you feel you've "accurately" deduced."
Yeah... Okay, sure... It's somewhat of a theory, one with plenty of evidence. You can call me ignorant as long as you call believers in the Big Bang ignorant as well."
It has zero evidence. Evidence is scientific - there is no science in scripture. I'll copy paste from another post I made just for you, as it applies here as well ;). "Atheists consider any evidence presented and go along with what's proven to be true scientifically. Then search for more questions to find out more about the cosmos (eg: 2+2=4, testable, replicable, verifiable - scientifically proven.)" And how is it you think people who theorize the big bang as plausible are in some way ignorant just for thinking it....? The level of your ignorance astounds me.
"How this doesn't unequivocally expose to people that it's all a bunch of made up stories I find perplexing.
Some people think Obama is a Muslim, some think he is the anti-Christ, some think he is an alien, some think he is a double agent, some think he is a puppet, some think he's having an affair... Most of that is obviously bullshit, so is him being president bullshit as well?"
Uh... hum it seems we got a little off topic there.
That in and of itself would not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person.
It affects my opinion on how well you can conduct an argument.
The argument I wrote then copied, applied to both separate debates and is completely unrelated to any point being made here. That's what's called an ad hominem.
No, that's called plagiarism.
You provided no evidence at any point for anything.
The argument didn't need any.
You might not see it but the implication your making there is you have some insight into the texts others do not fathom.
What are you, some sort of internet-bot? You already addressed that point.
"The religious texts are ambiguous (to some degree) in their interpretations, across the board of all (claimed) religious believers."
Why are you quoting one of your previous arguments?
Religious texts include the bible... lol
No shit! That's what you didn't understand the first time. That's why I felt the need to clarify.
It has zero evidence. Evidence is scientific
Wow, that couldn't be more wrong. There is such a thing as scientific evidence. That's not what I'm talking about.
Evidence- "sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion"
there is no science in scripture.
Does there need to be?
Atheists consider any evidence presented and go along with what's proven to be true scientifically.
You still think I'm religious don't you? Hehe.
All I can say is... good for them, what's your point?
And how is it you think people who theorize the big bang as plausible are in some way ignorant just for thinking it....?
Good grief, how did you not figure out what I was saying the first time? I didn't say people who believe in the Big Bang are ignorant. I basically said that to claim the belief in one theory which has evidence as ignorant just because it's a theory, is hypocritical if you don't claim the Big Bang theory to be ignorant as well.
The level of your ignorance astounds me.
Honestly, coming from you, I'm really not that offended.
Uh... hum it seems we got a little off topic there.
Actually, it was on topic. Apparently comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.
Point out exactly what you think I plagiarised. And it's not just Sagan i paraphrase - if you spent not a lot of time researching in the scientific community you'd see tremendous point borrowing throughout my arguments - this does not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person, only someone who fears being seen as "wrong." You've made it plain you have no interest in rational debate. Goodbye.
I copied my OWN writing - that's not plagiarism lol (the short number of sentences from other sources could hardly be considered plagiarism lol... ad hominem101)
Actually anything proven is scientifically proven. Science is merely testing and documenting the results, simple as that. Science can refer to either the body of knowledge or to the way of thinking; skeptically interrogating your surroundings. Mathematics is the language of science (all math is science.) There is no other kind of evidence but scientific evidence as all evidence which is actually evidence has been determined to be true via the scientific method (testable, replicable, verifiable). (Pure logic and theories may remain but doubt must be suspended between possible conclusions in the absence of definitive evidence.) Anything else is bullshit.
You clearly have no interest in or are incapable of rational debate. "Honestly, coming from you, I'm really not that offended." Lines like that come from people who don't debate things to arrive at a common understanding of what's really true - more important to that mindset is being seen as "right" or just offending those who don't agree with them - which is deeply corrosive to intellectual discovery. I've not once made an attempt to offend you - but I do find you highly ignorant and I state this only in hopes it inspires you to notice and perhaps overcome it (no offense intended - as far as I can tell your ignorance is honest.)
p.s. It's not that I couldn't make the remote correlation between your Obama analogy and the point I had made - but it was so absurd, personally bias, and unrelated that I didn't humor it lol. The point I made is; it's apparent to anyone, who takes the time to consider, that all religions in all their different flavors have been invented entirely by humans. Your point is not anywhere near that, and though I see the parallel you were attempting to draw it's just so far off from being analogic... it's outright stupid.
I copied my OWN writing - that's not plagiarism lol
No... Only part of it was your own. The parts that you copied from other websites and tried to pass off as your own is where the plagiarism comes into play.
(the short number of sentences from other sources could hardly be considered plagiarism lol... ad hominem101)
It doesn't matter the amount. You still took someone else's work and passed it off as your own... Plagiarism101.
Actually anything proven is scientifically proven.
I think you abuse the term scientifically. How did science prove that this argument was typed?
To examine the text of a book and come to a conclusion as to what the message of the text is, you don't need science.
Science is merely testing and documenting the results, simple as that.
Science is definitely a tool... But it's not as simple as that. It's a tool used to better understand the world... Not the meaning of the Bible or any other religious text.
Science can refer to either the body of knowledge or to the way of thinking; skeptically interrogating your surroundings.
Oh, thanks Carl Sagan! Trying to pass someone else's statement off as your own again, I see.
Scientific thought would be more along the lines of, "The Bible's creation story is impossible! Here's why... Blah, blah, blah."
Trying to understand the message of the book, is unrelated. My argument is not that the Bible is accurate, just that the message is clear.
Did you use science when reading Green Eggs and Ham?
What does science have to do with simple comprehension?
There is no other kind of evidence but scientific evidence as all evidence which is actually evidence has been determined to be true via the scientific method (testable, replicable, verifiable).
Testimonial, statistical, analogical, anecdotal and scientific.
Evidence should lead to the truth... Or at least be used to form a theory. When using the scientific method, evidence is applied to come to a conclusion.
If you're outside and see a cat jump, you now have evidence that cats jump. You acquired that evidence through observation, which is only part of the scientific method. Observation alone, is not science.
You clearly have no interest in or are incapable of rational debate. "Honestly, coming from you, I'm really not that offended."
Oh, give me a break! The debate took that turn because you steered it in that direction. I specifically remember you saying, "Your ignorance astounds me". I'm not sure if you were trying to insult me or convince me that you are smarter, but I know how it appeared. Next time you want to say something like that, I suggest you look in the mirror first...
Lines like that come from people who don't debate things to arrive at a common understanding of what's really true
I often arrive to a common understanding with the people I debate with. Just look on this debate page! You just decided to try and insult me from the get-go, so what goes around comes around!
I've not once made an attempt to offend you
LMFAO! Are you serious?
but I do find you highly ignorant and I state this only in hopes it inspires you to notice and perhaps overcome it
Haven't tried to offend me, huh? You can't prove anything I said to be wrong. Actually, I think you're disputing me because of one sentence in an argument I was having with someone else. You probably don't even know what I was arguing about. Do you even read my arguments? Say "cheese" somewhere in your next response if you do.
(no offense intended - as far as I can tell your ignorance is honest.)
We'll hold this to a vote for the CD community to decide who came off more ignorant. I'll go ahead and make the debate.
It's not that I couldn't make the remote correlation between your Obama analogy and the point I had made - but it was so absurd, personally bias, and unrelated that I didn't humor it lol.
Personally bias? Ugh... My brain cells are dying. My opinion of Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that analogy.
The point I made is; it's apparent to anyone, who takes the time to consider, that all religions in all their different flavors have been invented entirely by humans.
Well, no shit! I've told you, what... Three times now, that I'm not religious and you still haven't taken that into consideration. That's why I assume that you only read part of my arguments.
My argument was about the meaning of the Bible, not the divinity.
Your point is not anywhere near that, and though I see the parallel you were attempting to draw it's just so far off from being analogic... it's outright stupid.
Okay, then... What was my point? If it's so stupid, then you should be able to explain to me what I said... And why it was wrong.
Point out exactly what you think I plagiarised. And it's not just Sagan i paraphrase - if you spent not a lot of time researching in the scientific community you'd see tremendous point borrowing throughout my arguments - this does not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person, only someone who fears being seen as "wrong." You've made it plain you have no interest in rational debate. Goodbye.
"So what's the implication here? It's that religious people are moral, and atheists are not, because morality can only come from a supreme being who sets rules, and enforces them...
... What truly astounds me is just how frightening an admission this is. Surely, we've all heard this "myth" uttered by someone, haven't we?
It really is that scary. I tend to give even the people who make this nonsensical claim the benefit of the doubt that they're just ignorant, not terrifying close to committing a horrible crime, but what if they really meant it?
Well, next time someone asks you how an atheist can possibly have morals, take a good look. You've either met a moron, or someone capable of the most evil crimes imaginable if they thought for a second - as you do, dear reader - that god is a fairy-tale.
Why don't all atheists commit murders and go on theft-heavy crime-sprees? Because we wouldn't like it if people stole from us, or tried to kill us... We have basic human empathy, just like most theists.
I genuinely don't believe even most of the people who ask such an incredibly insulting question honestly believe what they're saying, because how could they?
OF COURSE you don't need a holy book to tell you right from wrong - especially when the scriptures for "the big three" religions especially are full of actual endorsements of murder and rape and misogyny, and every other evil thing a bronze-age man could possibly imagine.
Us atheists are good people because we want to be. We don't treat people badly because we ourselves don't want to be treated badly. This isn't hard to fathom.
So next time someone asks you, as an atheist, how you could possibly have any morality, ask them as a theist how they could possibly be AGAINST stoning to death disobedient children. Or killing people for working on Sundays. Or locking women away during their period, for the protection of men.
THESE are the morals of the bible... If you THINK morality comes from a holy book, then holy shit, are you ever deluded.
If they don't rather quickly realize just how stupid a question they just posed to you, you need to run away; You've just met someone who only doesn't kill you because they're afraid of the seat that would save them in hell..."
The relative breadth of possible transgressions implies nothing regarding the overall morality of either. A greater variety implies nothing regarding the total.
By that logic, if you've got oranges, and I have oranges, bananas, and strawberries, you assume I have more fruit- but it's entirely possible that you have a bushel of oranges, and entirely possible that I only have two of each kind of fruit.
Everything I've observed suggests that religion has absolutely no bearing on morality. Monsters are monsters, whether they've been indoctrinated into a religion or not.
"What if they aren't delusional? What a shocker that would be to all of the atheists."
The idea is that atheists are open-minded and the religious doctrines are the opposite. We approve of questions, knowledge seeking behavior, scientific discovery, education - the major churches of this world have openly declared war on these things. Atheists consider any evidence presented and go along with what's proven to be true scientifically. Then search for more questions to find out more about the cosmos (eg: 2+2=4, testable, replicable, verifiable - scientifically proven). Religions pretend to have answers for all of the unimaginably big questions - which is extremely corrosive to learning anything new, and dampers us intellectually as a species. We are starting to be able to answer very large questions about the cosmos - much in stark contradiction to the doctrines (which is not all that surprising given there is no science in scripture :P).
"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: What are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or what you think could have beneficent social effects if it were believed; but look only and solely at what are the facts." - Bertrand Russell
It's not that the majority of atheists haven't considered the religious doctrines, it's that the majority of those holding religious beliefs haven't taken the time to learn what we know to be true - or refuse to even try (and often get extremely offended at simply being questioned.)
I find it interesting that it seems if not for their religion, many religious people (I don't mean to generalize) would see no problem with killing someone else. I honestly think in the end it depends on the individual person in question, but if you need religion to give you morals, then I would say you were less moral than those who have morals without religion.
Just read all of the holy books (Koran, Bible, Torah, etc) and it will be obvious that religious people are immoral. Either that or they are pathetic and ignorant. Pathetic for wanting to feel like they're part of something bigger, and ignorant for disregarding the rules/guidelines/beliefs of their religion (an example is Christianity. According to the Bible, people who curse at their parents must be put to death).
(an example is Christianity. According to the Bible, people who curse at their parents must be put to death).
That would be Judaism, since they still feel bound by the old law... But even they aren't that extreme anymore.
Jesus came to fulfill the law. He died for our sins. That means that prior to Jesus, everyone was condemned when they disobeyed God's law. Jesus introduced a new covenant, which allowed forgiveness for disobeying the old laws. Any sin can be forgiven, except refusal to believe.
The new testament clearly states that the old testament still applies.
Matthew 5:17-19
Acts 24:14
Timothy 3:16
Luke 16:17
Peter 20-21
Fuck, even Jesus Christ still wanted the old testament to be followed.
Matthew 15:4-7
Mark 7:9-13
Matthew 5:27
John 10:35
Besides, most Christians say the entire Bible is the word of god as such must be followed. Not "oh I'll just follow this part of the Bible because it's the part that sounds most appealing".
"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled"
Like I said, Jesus came to fulfill the law... As is mentioned here.
Acts 24:14
"But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets."
This doesn't contradict anything I said.
Timothy 3:16
There is no such verse as Timothy 3:16. You're either referring to 1 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Timothy 3:16. I assume it's the latter, which says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,"
That verse supports my argument, not yours.
Luke 16:17
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail."
This could also be referring to Jesus' New Covenant, which wasn't an abolishment of the law, but rather a revising.
I don't think you understand what Jesus did to the law. He fulfilled it. He wasn't saying that the law no longer applies... He made it so that if someone were to break the law, they could be forgiven. Prior to that, they were pretty much screwed if they disobeyed God's law.
Peter 20-21
Uhhh... If you're referring to Peter chapter 20, verse 21, then I have some bad news... That's not even in the Bible.
I'm assuming 20-21 are the verses, so what's the chapter?
Matthew 15:4-7
You need to read those verses in context with the rest of the chapter. Let me show you how it began: "Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
So, as you can see, even Jesus' disciples disobeyed the "law" at times.
Mark 7:9-13
Go ahead and read those verses again. They support my argument.
Matthew 5:27
That's the verse about committing adultery. I made a debate about it before because after that verse, Jesus says to pluck out your eyes if they make you sin. Some say it was just to exaggerate the importance of not sinning. I'm not sure, but you have to understand that Jesus fulfilled the law by dying on the cross. The law wasn't fulfilled when he was still alive.
I know a verse that will contradict your entire argument. I was going to wait until the end to give it to you, but what the hell! Here ya go: Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
The only completely necessary law is to believe.
John 10:35
Eh... I don't really need to respond to this. Just reread Romans 10:4 lol.
Besides, most Christians say the entire Bible is the word of god as such must be followed.
The Old Testament teaches of a Messiah that would come and fulfill the law. That was supposedly Jesus.
Not "oh I'll just follow this part of the Bible because it's the part that sounds most appealing".
I still think Christians (and other theists) are idiotic though...
That's because you don't believe what they do. You have a completely different perspective.
As you learned from our debate, Christianity teaches that the one sure-fire way to get into heaven is to believe. That pretty much convert-proofs Christianity. Teaching people that questioning their faith may lead to them being condemned to hell, is a pretty good way to maintain their loyalty.
"Atheists can't have any morals, because morals come from God, and the bible! That's why you're all so wicked..."
So what's the implication here? It's that religious people are moral, and atheists are not, because morality can only come from a supreme being who sets rules, and enforces them...
Every theist who has EVER said this is admitting that they themselves are only NOT killing, raping and stealing because they're afraid that God will see them in their moment of evil, and smite them for it.
"You atheists don't believe in heaven and hell, so why would you bother to NOT rape my girlfriend and then kill her? I mean, I'd have done it myself, but God would have punished me for it later, so instead I did the human thing and formed a caring relationship."
... What truly astounds me is just how frightening an admission this is. Surely, we've all heard this "myth" uttered by someone, haven't we?
And each time someone says it, what they're REALLY saying is "The only reason I don't commit unspeakable crimes is because I'm afraid of eternal judgment and torture. I'm dead-set on going to heaven, so no raping for me!"
It really is that scary. I tend to give even the people who make this nonsensical claim the benefit of the doubt that they're just ignorant, not terrifying close to committing a horrible crime, but what if they really meant it?
What if these people - who sadly represent the majority here in America - are really only NOT committing every heinous act they can think of because they're afraid of the cosmic judge in the sky who will hold them accountable for every misdeed? What kind of sociopath would genuinely ONLY not kill and rape because they know they'll get caught?
Well, next time someone asks you how an atheist can possibly have morals, take a good look. You've either met a moron, or someone capable of the most evil crimes imaginable if they thought for a second - as you do, dear reader - that god is a fairy-tale.
Atheists don't do good because we expect to go to heaven, or fear going to hell; Atheists do good because we want to.
Why don't all atheists commit murders and go on theft-heavy crime-sprees? Because we wouldn't like it if people stole from us, or tried to kill us... We have basic human empathy, just like most theists.
I genuinely don't believe even most of the people who ask such an incredibly insulting question honestly believe what they're saying, because how could they?
OF COURSE you don't need a holy book to tell you right from wrong - especially when the scriptures for "the big three" religions especially are full of actual endorsements of murder and rape and misogyny, and every other evil thing a bronze-age man could possibly imagine.
Us atheists are good people because we want to be. We don't treat people badly because we ourselves don't want to be treated badly. This isn't hard to fathom.
So next time someone asks you, as an atheist, how you could possibly have any morality, ask them as a theist how they could possibly be AGAINST stoning to death disobedient children. Or killing people for working on Sundays. Or locking women away during their period, for the protection of men.
THESE are the morals of the bible... If you THINK morality comes from a holy book, then holy shit, are you ever deluded.
If they don't rather quickly realize just how stupid a question they just posed to you, you need to run away; You've just met someone who only doesn't kill you because they're afraid of the seat that would save them in hell...
And for some reason, that psychopath thinks YOU have issues with morality. Go figure.
Where have I seen this argument...? Oh right, you've read The God Delusion haven't you?
And each time someone says it, what they're REALLY saying is "The only reason I don't commit unspeakable crimes is because I'm afraid of eternal judgment and torture. I'm dead-set on going to heaven, so no raping for me!"
Although the stereotype is many times true, let's see what the "evil" Bible says.
Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
These two verses speak on what you just stated. Paul (author of Romans) was addressing the view that we can sin however we want now that we are free from the punishment of sin. Paul says this is not true because we should hate the sin, not the penalty of it.
So I agree with your statement that many religious people fall into the category of following morals out of fear, however the Paul says this shouldn't be. And to a point, the "religious" people who follow out of fear are not seen as Christians or are "lukewarm" Christians (Revelation 3:16).
So you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't? it is God Himself that promotes a salvation or Hell mentality, maybe He needs to take responsibility. Avoiding Hell is a very valid reason to believe.
Atheism is a disbelief in God. You are either atheist, meaning you don't entirely believ in God or your are theist, meaning you do. Atheist is a blanket term for any of those that do not assuredly believe in God. This includes, Nihlists (hold no belief in existence) ,Agnostics (hold no belief or disbelief in God), and even Apatheists (cares not for the existence of God).
I think so. Not necessarily because they do more things that are right, but because of the reasoning behind it. A religious man won't steal because god is watching. An atheist won't steal because it's the right thing to do.
(Of course there are exceptions, but generally this is the case)
I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that either atheists or religious individuals are any more or less moral than one another. There are cases of immorality and morality on both sides, and outward appearances in the absence of actual data suggest they're about equal. I don't believe religion or the lack thereof has a meaningful affect on individual morality.
All that changes really is who or what the immoral individual chooses to blame for his or her actions.
No atheists don't have a better sense of morality than religious people. Atheists, will have to come up with their own definition of what is right and wrong in their own eyes. So in a sense, they center themselves as god because they are setting rules of what they think is right or wrong. So basically what they believe in is humanism. Sometimes even they will borrow morality from somewhere else and not really come up with their own moral standpoint.
As for myself? I don't consider myself religious, but people can label me religious if they want me too, they are just wrong if they do label me religious. I hate religion but love Jesus.
"As for myself? I don't consider myself religious, but people can label me religious if they want me too, they are just wrong if they do label me religious. I hate religion but love Jesus."
Atheists, will have to come up with their own definition of what is right and wrong in their own eyes.
This doesn't mean that they would have a worse sense, just by itself.
Sometimes even they will borrow morality from somewhere else
Sort of like borrowing from the Bible or Jesus/God? Just because they get it from somewhere else doesn't make it wrong.
Everyone comes up with their own ideas of right and wrong in their own eyes, religious or not. For religious people, it is just ignoring some parts and following others. I just don't see why you have come to your conclusion.
This doesn't mean that they would have a worse sense, just by itself.
They basically our following humanism when it's all about them and when they come up with their own definition of what's right and wrong.
Sort of like borrowing from the Bible or Jesus/God? Just because they get it from somewhere else doesn't make it wrong.
Well if they borrow something from what Jesus/God said then why don't they believe? It doesn't make sense that someone who believes a God doesn't exist would borrow what God established in His Word as his own morals.
For religious people, it is just ignoring some parts and following others. I just don't see why you have come to your conclusion.
Yeah religious people are ordered to follow those rules and regulations. But as for Christianity it isn't because you can freely believe in it or not. That's the difference between religion and Christianity.
They basically our following humanism when it's all about them and when they come up with their own definition of what's right and wrong.
So what? You haven't given any reason why someone picking there own version of right and wrong is bad.
Well if they borrow something from what Jesus/God said then why don't they believe? It doesn't make sense that someone who believes a God doesn't exist would borrow what God established in His Word as his own morals.
I was actually referring to those that do believe. They get their morals from somewhere else. Basically, what I was trying to say was that you said people were wrong for making up their own morals and also for getting them from somewhere else.
Yeah religious people are ordered to follow those rules and regulations. But as for Christianity it isn't because you can freely believe in it or not. That's the difference between religion and Christianity.
So what? You haven't given any reason why someone picking there own version of right and wrong is bad.
Well, there's a possibility that one can figure "Oh, well if I do something extremely bad and kill myself, no consequences!"
I was actually referring to those that do believe. They get their morals from somewhere else. Basically, what I was trying to say was that you said people were wrong for making up their own morals and also for getting them from somewhere else.
Actually, Srom was stating that he felt it was silly to pick and choose what you believe to be right from a book you feel is wrong.
Then, why doesn't anyone follow all of the rules?
Well, actually the Bible explains this pretty well. We're not perfect. We can try, but we will never be perfect, and will never not sin. But we can try. We're encouraged to try(repent).
Well, there's a possibility that one can figure "Oh, well if I do something extremely bad and kill myself, no consequences!"
People don't kill themselves because they feel they can get away with it.
Actually, Srom was stating that he felt it was silly to pick and choose what you believe to be right from a book you feel is wrong.
I can't go around killing people because the Bible says don't. Some things in the Bible obviously make sense. I don't think people actually go to the Bible for morals, they just happen to overlap.
Well, actually the Bible explains this pretty well. We're not perfect. We can try, but we will never be perfect, and will never not sin. But we can try. We're encouraged to try(repent).
Yeah, everyone makes up their own idea of what is right and wrong. Religious or not, everyone does it. So, to say that not using the Bible makes you more likely to come up with your own ideas is a false statement.
True, a lot of times I find atheists that are much more pleasant than Christians I know. However on average religious people have a better sense of morality.
"However on average religious people have a better sense of morality." - What do you base that on when the scriptures for "the big three" religions especially are full of actual endorsements of murder and rape and misogyny, and every other evil thing a bronze-age man could possibly imagine?
Being religious does not make people any more moral. If the only thing that is stopping some one from committing murder or rape is the fear of going to hell then they clearly are just a sociopath or psychopath anyway as they would with no empathy for others or remorse for their actions.
The majority of the worlds population follows one religion or another; they aren't all psychopaths or sociopaths. These conditions are recognized as deviations from normal. If the majority of the world in fact suffered from these conditions, we wouldn't have labels like 'psychopath' or 'sociopath;' those states would in fact be called 'normal,' and we'd have alternate terminology to describe what is currently accepted as normal.
"The only thing stopping religious people from committing murder or rape is fear of retribution" is no more correct than "Atheists have no morals because they don't believe in God."
I'm sticking by my stance- that religion has little to no influence on an individuals capacity for morality.
It is all very focused on what you call moral. If i say it is moral to murder, who is to say i am wrong, because all they could do is disagree, and to back that up they would have to use their own sense of morality. So in my opinion, the only answer you could post for this debate is opinion.
But based on my sense of morality, on average i would say t he average follower is more moral. (again based on my sense of morality)
No if anything atheists who state that they have a better moral sense in fact do not. By stating that they have a better sense of morality, they are being extremely prideful and are trying to gain attention for their "moral acts" yet these acts are conditional acts.
It is ridiculus to paint an entire belief system with a broad brush. Thats like saying all catholics are rapists, muslims are all terrorists, and evangelicals are all antigay twats with God complexes. if your gonna judge, do it on a case by case basis.
