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.
Where as a believe may blindly agree with scripture or the vatican, an athiest may have been a former catholic, christian, etc..and then have decided to question their perception. The severity only lies in the difference in degree of belief between zealotry and the scientific method..
Yes, I do believe that an atheist takes the concept of God more seriously. I am not an atheist, so I cannot back this claim with personal experience, nor am I a believer. However, I could divide my friends into 50-50 so I've heard their stories and arguments.
Many believers (not all, however) take God as a given. He is there, there is no disputing it. When I ask believers how they know God exists, they often reply with either "Because that's the way it is" or "How else could the universe have come into existence?" When I describe a multitude of other ways for the universe to have come into existence, they cannot give me a reasonable counterargument. It seems to me that believers think of God as an infant thinks of it's mother: they are there because they just are, they are the most benevolent thing in existence, and they only want the best for us.
Atheists, on the other hand, have much better arguments. I could spend hours arguing with my atheist friends about the concept of God (in fact, I have). They obviously take this concept much more seriously. I believe this is mainly due to the fact that Atheists are outnumbered by a large percentage when compared to believers. Believers are the majority of the world, and therefore do not have to prove their beliefs nearly as often as Atheists do. If an Atheist went up to someone and told them that they were an Atheist, they would most likely be bombarded with questions about why they believe what they do. However, if a Christian went up to someone and told them such, there would be no dispute; it is the norm and therefore requires no explanation.
A side note: I realize that what I say about Atheists and believers do not apply to everyone. My friends are not the world, and neither are the articles I've read and the videos I've watched. So anything characteristic that I give to these two categories of people are in every sense general.
A believer is just that, they believe God exist. An atheist claims that God does not exist without any proof of this. They do not state that they believe God does not exist, simple God does not exist. To out right lie and say something unproven is the way it is, takes more faith then any believer.
An atheist claims that God does not exist without any proof of this. They do not state that they believe God does not exist, simple God does not exist. To out right lie and say something unproven is the way it is, takes more faith then any believer.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief (because of the tremendous lack of evidence) that a god exists. It's not an assertion that there is no god (no matter how improbable), because that's impossible to know, just as it's impossible for you to know that there is.
In that sense, we're all agnostics who can be plotted on a graph entitled, "Tendency to believe absurd claims without sufficient evidence"
Just curious, how many times does someone have to explain to you that, even if something doesn't exist, nobody can prove a negative?
In my experience, atheists tend to be more well-versed on religious scripture and philosophy, and have devoted more time to considering the possibilities and implications that come along with the existence of God. This is how many of them become atheists in the first place; by thinking long and hard over a matter, rather than just taking what they are told at face value, and coming to a different conclusion than the one they have been raised to believe without question.
I'm curious about how lacking a belief in God requires more faith than believing in God.
Do you really think that the statement 'you cannot prove a negative' means 'you cannot prove that negative numbers exist'? And you have absolutely revolutionized the field of way logic works by dispelling this statement, merely by pointing out that negative numbers exist? That no one who ever wrote that statement realized that negative numbers exist? You never cease to amaze me with your ability to create the stupidest strawmen ever.
The statement 'you cannot prove a negative' refers to the impossibility of proving that something doesn't exist. I could make up a ridiculous mythical creature right now, you couldn't prove me wrong. However, it would not be very intelligent of anyone to automatically assume that this creature does exist just because I said so and no one can prove me wrong. I really hope you can see the painfully obvious comparison.
This is very similar with the assertion that Unicorns exist. If someone makes this claim, the burden of proof is on them to show that it does exist. Of course I cannot prove that unicorns don't exist, because I have not looked everywhere to see if they do. The burden of proof is always on the person that is making the claim.
When it comes to Unicorns and gods, I am withholding final judgment until sufficient proof is presented. I honestly don't know if either exist, but I must operate as though they don't. I am an agnostic when it comes to knowledge of something, and an atheist when it comes to functional belief about these ideas.
Now if someone makes the claim that they know that no gods exist, then again the ball is in their court to show that no gods exist. Most atheists do not make this claim, though some have made attempts.
Oh I understood, but you aren't adding anything productive to the discussion. You are pushing the stereotype that theists don't want to listen to any evidence contrary to what they believe. So they plug their ears and run away.
Please add good reasoned arguments, instead of furthering stereotypes.
I think you're associating me with the 'wrong' people. The irony of stereotypes. And yes, I'm a hypocrite, and you are lynching Negroes. But right. Here's the deal: I wouldn't classify you as a contemptuous moron with a roll of sandpaper up his ass if you didn't act like it half the time.
Maybe I don't get the internet war between Atheists and die-hard never-shut-the-fuck-up religious morons,(of which both sides continue to use trite and dead arguments continually, still assured they work.) but it seems to me that everyone likes to complain a little bit too much.
Don't you ever get tired of the fact that every single time you put something up, all of your arguments are destroyed utterly by someone who has a much higher intelligence quotient than you do? Or that your stance on just about everything seems to be the unpopular one? Do you ever think that maybe you're not going to get through to anyone on this website because they all realize you're an ignorantly smug dolt? Do you ever think to yourself, "Hey, maybe I should find myself a new hobby!" I mean, seriously. What's your angle here? Do you like being continually told you're wrong by so many?
Looking back on that block, I might be a tad drunk. Whatever. I needed that. Thanks~
What arguments have been destroyed by someone of higher intelligence? The human race has proved that intelligence is something they lack. Winston Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter." To find one above average here, now that's funny.
Yes, my stance on many things tend to be unpopular. I don't follow blindly the next going trend, do you?
My angle here is to invoke thought. Must people don't care to attempt to do this, it hurts their head. I'm guessing headaches are common for you.
It bothers me not in the least bit to be told I'm wrong. Being told this and being proved wrong are not one in the same. My motto is "Dare not to fit in, but stand out." I'm glad to know that so many confirm that I standout.
What arguments have been destroyed by someone of higher intelligence?
Go through your history, it'll be easy to find a few times where even just aveskde has destroyed the entire impact of your arguments.
The human race has proved that intelligence is something they lack. Winston Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter." To find one above average here, now that's funny.
I find it ironic that you're pointing out how little intelligence the human race has. Just a touch.
Yes, my stance on many things tend to be unpopular. I don't follow blindly the next going trend, do you?
I'd really hope not.
It bothers me not in the least bit to be told I'm wrong.
You're on the wrong site.
Being told this and being proved wrong are not one in the same.
Of course not.
My motto is "Dare not to fit in, but stand out."
What an awful motto. It's like "be who you are," but without any of the modesty or respect and an unearned sense of self importance.
I'm glad to know that so many confirm that I standout.
It's easy to stand out when your stances are ridiculous.
I usually keep an open mind until I start hearing a crazy guy who'd run over an innocent blind man to avoid the chance hitting a semi rant about nonsense and then proceed to create a bunch of debates trying to haze atheists.
Because my opinion differs from yours and does not always appear to conflict with the 'majority' of people on this website does not mean I do not have an open mind. I keep an open mind as long as what I am hearing is logical.
If you actually read what was said, you would know better. Comprehension is not one of your strong traits. You are as far from logical as one can get. Anybody that claims they are the logical one, is full of BS.
What the does it say on this web-site? Stir the pot. I do my part. I am deeply sorry that you fall to understand debating. Maybe you should try something your good at like whining.
And why would you say that? Is it because I disagree with you? Or is it because when I read something of yours, I immediately decide to pick it apart before looking at the bigger picture.
You are as far from logical as one can get.
Since everything is subjective and you're usually on the shit end of the stick, I rather believe there's a certain amount of irony in your statement.
Anybody that claims they are the logical one, is full of BS.
You're saying claiming your stance is the logical one makes it irrelevant? How childish. That's part of debate.
What the does it say on this web-site? Stir the pot. I do my part. I am deeply sorry that you fall to understand debating.
You're becoming rather trite at this point. I don't think you're looking very far into my background, I suppose.
Maybe you should try something your good at like whining.
And now, with this statement and a previous one of yours, the irony is in full effect.
Edit:
You might want to work on your grammar and your spelling a touch. Just as a side note.
Most atheists I know have become so because they questioned their beliefs and have actually thought about them and considered them, as opposed to blindly conforming to whatever is thrown at them, It's just like characters like Santa and the tooth fairy: young children believe in them at first, until they start to question their beliefs, and eventually come to realise that they may not exist at all. belief in God is the same thing. Those who think about these things take it seriously, and as I have only seen atheists who thought about and questioned their beliefs, I am going to say that they do take the concept of God more seriously.
The presumptions on the other side lead me to take the opposing view. It is false to say that any self-proclaimed believer blindly believes and therefore doesn't take the concept of God seriously. The questions pondered by atheists and the religious are different in nature. Whereas the atheist takes the concept of God seriously when deciding whether to accept or deny its existence (rejection of God based on rationality, or lack of quantified certainty/probability), the believer must come to terms with the uncertainty and wrestles with it daily. Read Kierkegaard if you would like to see the scope of seriousness that believers take to the concept of God
The seriousness of the two sides is that on one hand you have those that require proof. If solid proof was presented then their views would adjust.
That of a believer has views that do not adjust with evidence or logic.
I do not believe that those with religion deal with uncertainty as the general consensus on the after-life and creationism has already been decided. If you ask how the earth was created, there is an answer. The only uncertainty is the method. The methods get debated in contrast to solid proof, such as man living besides dinosaurs.
I doubt that the general populous reads Kierkegaard. Take a sample of church goers and I'm sure they are dead serious about God. The problem is they will kill for such a belief and rarely consider the idea that there is another answer. Take an atheist for example, presented with solid data, many will change their beliefs.
So maybe the question is , which delusion has more weight and validates our existence as an evolving society that compliments technological and ethical advancement? Seriously we can only SEEERIOUSLY consider that which is based on the scientific method.
It has removed us from our ancient "witch-hunts." and saved us from the ravages of simple disease that would seem like miracles or acts of god.
In all seriousness,.....that which ensures our survival should be taken more seriously. That, is worth more than the scripture that has no basis, or the dated prejudice against sexual orientation because of such beliefs.
As far as I know atheists as a group have not dedicated themselves over two millennia towards disbelief, building cathedrals to unbelief, starting wars and inquisitions over who disbelieves the most or in the right way. In the present day, atheists are not advising important politicians to make policies that might end the world in order to fulfill unbelieving prophesy, neither are they working with strong funding to turn schools into centres for indoctrination into ritual and dogma, neither do they fly planes into building to punish believers or blow themselves up in crowded areas to scare the religious.
God has never ordered a war, what man does in the name of God is not the doings of God. The only time God has put a hit out on anybody is the one currently out there. Watch out for buses.
Your profile says "Christian-other", so I am going to assume a few things. Please feel free to let me know if none of these are true about you. I am going to assume that you believe that the Bible is true, and probably the Word of God. If your some form of protestant evangelical or fundamentalist, you probably think as well that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is without any errors.
Building on this idea, the books of Judges and Joshua show God telling the Hebrews to wipe out entire nations of people. Whether it be because they have offended/sinned against him, this is a pretty common theme in the Old Testament. To say that God never declared a war either means you don't believe the Bible to be true, or you haven't read it. Perhaps what I assumed above is not correct about you them.
It would not be entirely out of character for the god of the Bible to declare war, and in fact, it seems entirely in character.
I will leave you with a quote from Richard Dawkins, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
I believe that God and Jesus do exist and that the Bible is a book inspired by God and written by man. Because the Bible is written by man, one can assume that it is not infallible. To error is human.
If ten people were to write about something they have witnessed like a car accident, there would be ten different accounts of what happened. The only thing that would remain the same would be the fact there was an accident. Now take into account that the Bible was written many centuries after these events took place and the events were told to each generation, who in there right mind would take it that the events happened just like they were written. Are there inconsistency in the Bible? Of coarse there are. Writers are also known to exaggerate the truth to make a point. What makes anyone think the writers of the Bible didn't do the same?
About the wars in the Bible, the Taliban claims God told them to drive a plane into the World Trade Center. What makes you think the Hebrews didn't claim the same.
Now address man's words I have a quote of my own.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." Blaise Pascal
So if you can't trust the words of the Bible to be accurate, how do you come to the conclusion that it was inspired by a god? If a god inspired this book, why wouldn't he preserve it? Honestly, if it's his word to us, then I'm sure he would want us to have a clear, unchanged account of his actions in the world. Perhaps he doesn't have the power to preserve the written word. Another idea might be that he wants to play tricks on us, and give us contradictory ideas of who he is.
How do you decide what is true in the Bible and what is not? Do you have anything beyond the idea that a spirit guides you to the truth?
I ask you this, how do know anything is the truth? Moon landings, pictures from Mars, etc. You have to decide this for yourself.
As far as the words inspired by God, this is simple the act of doing what you believe is the right thing to do. A preacher believes he/she has been inspired by God to do this. I might say their passion led them to their occupation, isn't this merely the goal of every person. The artist, the mechanic, the engineer all inspired by something.
I decide by studying the methods in the gathered information, and study the information to see if I can come to the same conclusion. I use logic and reason as my tools, with the help of the scientific method to test reality. When new information is found which disagree's with my views, I'm able to adjust and change them to reflect the new information.
You can sincerely believe something, sincerely believe that you are doing the right thing, and also be absolutely wrong. Sincerity and passion have no consideration when we are talking about truth. A pastor in the 1800's could stand in front of his congregation and preach a message of God's acceptance of slavery, and sincerely believe that he was right. His passion and inspiration, though full justified in the Bible, would not make slavery any less morally despicable than it is. Passion and sincerity have no bearing on truth.
How do you choose from scripture what to follow, and what not to follow? Do you accept the things that you like, and toss aside what you don't like? How do you arrive at truth?
God has never ordered a war, what man does in the name of God is not the doings of God. The only time God has put a hit out on anybody is the one currently out there. Watch out for buses.
The debate is about unbelievers compared to believers. In other words the comparison of whether unbelievers or believers act the most loudly and seriously in defense or because of their (un)belief.
It has nothing to do with god, unless god is an unbeliever or believer.
My post was in response to ap0110 and not in response to anything you said. For some reason the computer did not place it as such.
So it does have something to do with this debate, it is a response to a question asked. By the way everything is connected somehow, some of us can plot those dots left out. Others simply draw a straight-line and jump to the wrong conclusions.
