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.
I require a 3rd party opinion on an argument in a debate.
Once again, I've joined one of those religious debates. And unsurprising I ended up arguing with the same person I always end up arguing with in debates. The problem I have is the way this person debates.
Their Argument:
"I'd say yes, as religion is slowly fading. Now why do you think is that? Why is religion fading? I'll give you a hint - it's not because we are getting dumber."
My Argument:
"Care to support that with statistics? Oh wait, you can't. Why? because there isn't a global census on what people believe.
So unless you've interviewed 7 billion people on their faith (at which point you could inform the UN and several other governing bodies), I don't see how you can be in any position to claim "religion is slowly fading."
Their reply:
"Care to support that with statistics?
Statistics? If you got an adequate brain you should understand why there are no statistics needed. But still there have been done just that and I am not going to waste my time searching them just so you could deny hard facts, again.
Oh wait, you can't. Why? because there isn't a global census on what people believe.
This is too stupid for me. My mind works on a higher level. Try to tune up yours and then try again.
So unless you've interviewed 7 billion people on their faith
What is religion? What is faith? Religion is a means of keeping people stupid so they could be easily controlled. Faith is trust without evidence. If you think they are good things then you have proved yourself an idiot.
Anyway, that's what religion was before, now it primarily just keeps people stupid. But I'm sure I've said that previously a couple or even several times and not because I like to think so but because I know so.
Faith is faith, it's blindness by definition.
at which point you could inform the UN and several other governing bodies
Do you really like providing stupid comments so much? It's just so... worthless. Could you try providing something that actually has some substance?
I don't see how you can be in any position to claim "religion is slowly fading.
The fact that humanity as a whole is becoming smarter and smarter, and then there's also the fact that atheism is growing. Those two are connected. Atheism is growing because humanity is becoming smarter; more and more people see religion as the idiotic shit it is and has always been.
Then there's the fact that science, logic, objectivity, and rationality disprove pretty much everything about religion. These are the things you so very much like avoiding and denying. Or you only avoid or deny those that hurt your feelings conceived from delusions, or you change available knowledge to satisfy those feelings. Either way, you suck big time - something only you can change but won't 'cause indoctrination seems to be far too deep and thorough, probably coupled with inherent stupidity. No hard feelings, they are simply observations, but unfortunately sad ones at that - the only kind you make derivable."
Nummi or no, the person you are debating has their head so far up their ass it's hard to tell if they might be trolling.
Without actually addressing my opinion on the topic of the debate (and who I think it right in that regard), in terms of debating style you (Ax) are being relatively civil and rational, and the person you are debating argues like a child. To blow off and ignore reasonable challenges, like being asked to support your assertions with statistics, with responses like, "This is too stupid for me. My mind works on a higher level. Try to tune up yours and then try again," is infantile, and i don't know how any self-respecting debtor could make such a public utterance and still expect to have their opinions taken seriously, in any regard. What exactly is he trying to say, here, anyways? That his mind is so great it works on a level beyond cold hard facts? That his mind is so powerful it doesn't need statistics to back up its claims? That by "tuning up" your own mind you might come to see things from his perspective?
This is why it sounds like Nummi. Nummi is obsessed with the idea of some capital "T" Truth that exists out there in the universe, hovering like massive 3D Word Art, that you can attain (like he has) if you just think enough.
So I guess it is the massive ego complex of the person you are debating with that reminds me of Nummi.
I agree he comes across as being pretentious with an attitude of i'm better than you so I dont need to back up my arguments peppered with insults, unfortunately he's not the only person on here who uses this "style" of debate. There's too many people who are quick to start insulting people instead of debating them properly.
Nummi's clarification is correct; he has a fairly distinctive writing style, even if his arguments are not distinctive. His presentation of the arguments is unique, even though the arguments themselves are trite (and, if I may be so bold as to say, a shame to atheists).
Ax established himself as a delusional moron first time in an England debate, or some debate like that. If I remember correctly I included in one of my arguments there something about atheism. I didn't even think about religion then but Ax brought that in and from there it went crazy. He is delusional, he has shown that many times over. Since Ax has established himself as a delusional moron who's not much worth debating with I tend to avoid starting a new mess with him, but if he replies to my arguments then I will reply to his. That's right, the debate he is talking about is of his own making; he began it by disputing my argument. He could've not done that and thus avoided the creation of this worthless and childish debate.
I argue like a child while Ax is keen on avoiding logic, rationality, all those good things? Since when is avoiding reality not childish?
The tune up his mind thing... he is stupid. That's all it means.
I guess it was part retaliation/trolling. Was rather amusing writing that argument.
i don't know how any self-respecting debtor could make such a public utterance and still expect to have their opinions taken seriously
So you would rather I lied?
Nummi is obsessed with the idea of some capital "T" Truth that exists out there in the universe, hovering like massive 3D Word Art, that you can attain (like he has) if you just think enough.
You could be more wrong, just let your imagination wonder. But seriously, you're dead wrong.
There is no truth, no right or wrong. Could you call that the truth about our universe? Very likely.
Once again, whether I am a 'delusional moron' or not is entirely your opinion.
I also recall Mack saying you are delusional (also in a religion debate). Very likely some others. Am I wrong?
My opinion yes, but an opinion that came from observation, it came from reading your arguments, as I've said many times. You are, in reality, delusional, it is a fact. I really hope you know what a delusion is.
There's a difference between being wrong and being delusional. You're not just wrong, you are delusional, as I've repeated many times over.
If I remember correctly you claim that the Scandinavian countries were the best in the world because they had a high amount of atheism.
So? That's also one of the reasons those countries are the most peaceful. Atheism also means freedom of mind - something that doesn't really exist with religion.
"I also recall Mack saying you are delusional (also in a religion debate)."
I doubt it is true.
"Very likely some others. Am I wrong?"
Yes you are. I've yet to meet a respectable person on this site who calls me delusional.
"My opinion yes, but an opinion that came from observation, it came from reading your arguments, as I've said many times. You are, in reality, delusional, it is a fact. I really hope you know what a delusion is."
And this is why I set up debates questionging your arguments.
"There's a difference between being wrong and being delusional. You're not just wrong, you are delusional, as I've repeated many times over."
And you are wrong.
"So? That's also one of the reasons those countries are the most peaceful."
Sources?
Also, the British Empire was at it's height there was the longest era of world peace known to humanity.
"Atheism also means freedom of mind - something that doesn't really exist with religion."
Yes you are. I've yet to meet a respectable person on this site who calls me delusional.
I'm not wrong, but you definitely are, with 100% certainty. As you can see the above link.
And this is why I set up debates questionging your arguments.
Questioning my arguments while you believe there is a magic dude in the skies somewhere? That the bible is actually true? Or that even some parts of it are? You are, in reality, delusional. Proof is your stupid arguments, I'm not gonna pinpoint them out.
And you are wrong.
That's the thing. Those delusional won't claim themselves as such. If they did they wouldn't be delusional any longer, would they?
You are very wrong, downright delusional, as you have proved many times and as I have stated many times.
Think what you will, say what you will, it won't change the reality that you are delusional.
You need professional help if you care about the health of your mind.
Sources?
Really? You ask for sources when all it takes to realize and understand it is simple logic?
I already said why, atheism also includes freedom of mind, of opinions. If everyone is the same they have no reason to be on each others' throats. There is only one atheism, people may differ but that one aspect remains the same. Atheists also tend to think far more than the religious, about everything, thinking develops and advances one's mind.
Can you say the same about religions? No. Religions have rules that are required to be followed, extremely stupid rules that tend to claim that all other views are wrong and must be denied, rules that even demand killing those that are different. Rules that do not allow freedom of mind. It's funny, a religious is not supposed to defy or deny religion, yet denies the part where he is supposed to kill others, and by that exhibits a bit of free will. Hypocrites, you included.
Also, the British Empire was at it's height there was the longest era of world peace known to humanity.
Completely irrelevant. And world-peace through force and subjugation.
Poppycock.
Really? Is it now?
Being an atheist generally means that the person has no predominating rules to follow, it means that the person is free to think about anything and everything. Is the same true about religion? Of course not. And there you go, simple.
Since Ax has established himself as a delusional moron who's not much worth debating with I tend to avoid starting a new mess with him, but if he replies to my arguments then I will reply to his.
I have this problem most frequently with Srom. He has, in my book, established himself as a delusional moron, and most of his arguments are on that level. So when they crop up I treat them like delusional, moronic arguments. But Srom does occasionally make coherent points and defends them in an intelligent way, and it would be foolish of me to dismiss the times he does this on the basis that he's acted like a moron before. Ax has his moments (he and I have had our heated disputes, too) but I dare say he is level-headed and reasonable a great deal more than Srom, so from my perspective it is incredibly foolish for you to ignore a coherent challenge just because you've had beef with the challenger. If I can put up with arguing with Srom, you arguing with Ax should be no problem; you shouldn't have to cop out of replying or providing support for your assertions.
That's right, the debate he is talking about is of his own making; he began it by disputing my argument. He could've not done that and thus avoided the creation of this worthless and childish debate.
So? This is a debate site, on on which you made an assertion, and Ax disputed (started debating) it. This seems kind of part-and-parcel of a debate site. As for the part about this being worthless and childish, this is essentially peer review; or an appeal to a third party to garner a fresh perspective on two peoples locked opinions. As that is a key aspect of the modern scientific method, would you really be so bold as to call it worthless and childish?
I argue like a child while Ax is keen on avoiding logic, rationality, all those good things? Since when is avoiding reality not childish?
That may have happened before, but it's water under the bridge; he's being logical and rational and all those good things right now.
So you would rather I lied?
No, no, I think it's good you spoke your mind. It would have simply been more effective to say, "I'm a troll and my mind is closed for business, now piss off," if you were really hellbent on making a public spectacle of yourself, but I think what you said does a pretty good job of showing you up as an ignoramus who hides behind words like "logic" and "reason," but proves he doesn't know the first things about either of those concepts.
It is bad debate style...and they should know that there are statitics about this very thing happening. I don't think you will be able to help the situation though, other than just debate through it.
Of course the argument may be rash, and not backed up with evidence, but the statement it is making is correct. So correct, in fact, that it may excuse it's lack of self-explanation and degrade you in your lack of knowledge on this matter- because it is so obvious.
I'm going to go a step further than he did, and provide for you the proof:
there is no global census asking people what they believe in.
Don't blatantly claim that to be true, without checking yourself to be correct.
The wikipedia article doesn't state how fast atheism isgrowing compared to religions.
Well, if you looked deeper, it showed how much Atheists exist in those countries currently in comparison to how little they were before- and how religious beliefs were depleting.
The rest of your sources ony apply to the United States as I had said before, there is no global census asking people what they believe in.
All countries add up to 'Global'. England has changed from almost 90% Christian to 50% in the span of a few decades. The United States is a country that is powerfully religious. It's more religious than the country that gave them the religion, and this is giving birth to the Westboro baptist church- yet the number of Atheists is growing dramatically. The Global percentage of Atheists is in 4th place behind Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, (Atheism almost above Hinduism.) There are currently 850 million Atheists in the world, and a few centuries back, there was pretty much 0. How can you explain those changes? Or how can you be this buried in your own beliefs to deny the obvious? If those links are not good enough for you, how about this: http://www.atheistalliance.org/news-a-articles/archive/519-global-survey-finds-fewer-religious- people-more-atheists
And about that previous debate we had, where you were ever so reluctant to reply; were you defeated? If not, I'll ask for you to dispute my argument that has been waiting there for so long.
"Don't blatantly claim that to be true, without checking yourself to be correct."
I did check, if you can find a global census on what people believe in then please enlighten me on the matter.
"Well, if you looked deeper, it showed how much Atheists exist in those countries currently in comparison to how little they were before- and how religious beliefs were depleting."
In certain countries, not the world.
"All countries add up to 'Global'. England has changed from almost 90% Christian to 50% in the span of a few decades. The United States is a country that is powerfully religious. It's more religious than the country that gave them the religion, and this is giving birth to the Westboro baptist church- yet the number of Atheists is growing dramatically. The Global percentage of Atheists is in 4th place behind Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, (Atheism almost above Hinduism.)"
So you've stated that 2 countries which had a strong Christian faith are now having a growth in atheists, that does not mean you can say the whole world is growing in atheism.
While Christianity may be depleting in countries like Britain and America, it is growing in nations which had previously been mainly atheist, such as China and Russia, the world's most populated country and the world's largest country.
"There are currently 850 million Atheists in the world, and a few centuries back, there was pretty much 0."
Well at least you surpassed Nummi in the ability to provide statistics. However, i try not to provide biased websites as sources, I'ld appreciate it if you took the liberty to do the same.
While the website says "A recently released global survey on religion and atheism has found that atheism is on the rise and religiosity is declining." It doesn't say how the survey supports such a claim, nor does the report from the survey itself make such remarks.
It also goes on to talk about how the 'international survey' questioned 50,000 people (when several countries have over 100million people) in 57 countries (out of over 193).
So, once again, the is no global census on what people believe in, so comments such as "I'd say yes, as religion is slowly fading. Now why do you think is that? Why is religion fading? I'll give you a hint - it's not because we are getting dumber" are riduclous.
"And about that previous debate we had, where you were ever so reluctant to reply; were you defeated? If not, I'll ask for you to dispute my argument that has been waiting there for so long."
I've mentioned this several times already, I tire of listening to the arrogance of atheists. I will not be replying to your argument, now stop trying to provoke me into doing so.
I did check, if you can find a global census on what people believe in then please enlighten me on the matter.
I did, later on in my argument.
In certain countries, not the world.
Are you seriously this ignorant? I have already shown you the statistics. And those statistics show a large amount of change.
So you've stated that 2 countries which had a strong Christian faith are now having a growth in atheists, that does not mean you can say the whole world is growing in atheism.
While Christianity may be depleting in countries like Britain and America, it is growing in nations which had previously been mainly atheist, such as China and Russia, the world's most populated country and the world's largest country.
Those communists have no freedom any way. And it's odd how those imprisoned countries are more religious than the free ones. It's really a compliment to Atheism.
Atheists have existed for as long as theists have, they've just often not voiced their beliefs due to political reasons.
There were less Atheists, and they did not voice their beliefs due to how much religious there were. I already know that Atheists existed, I'm just saying that there was not much compared to now.
You're starting to sound like Nummi.
Well, with you denying your own country quickly depleting with religion, why not?
Well at least you surpassed Nummi in the ability to provide statistics. However, i try not to provide biased websites as sources, I'ld appreciate it if you took the liberty to do the same.
Just because this site was owned by Atheists, doesn't mean it was biased. It displayed statistics. Statistics are not biased.
While the website says "A recently released global survey on religion and atheism has found that atheism is on the rise and religiosity is declining." It doesn't say how the survey supports such a claim, nor does the report from the survey itself make such remarks.
But it does show the statistics of Atheism and religion, and how they have changed from Atheism rising, and religion depleting.
It also goes on to talk about how the 'international survey' questioned 50,000 people (when several countries have over 100million people) in 57 countries (out of over 193).
And with how much you wish it not to be true, this survey does show change, no matter how small it seems.
So, once again, the is no global census on what people believe in, so comments such as "I'd say yes, as religion is slowly fading. Now why do you think is that? Why is religion fading? I'll give you a hint - it's not because we are getting dumber" are riduclous.
So, with Technology developing, new inventions and cures to diseases are arising (Recently on the news Scientists have developed a treatment for pancreatic cancer, and a way to lessen the symptoms of Alzheimer's). We are definitely getting dumber. Because, clearly, with access of practically infinite information increasing (the internet) we are certainly getting less informed of the world. As stereotypical of your opinion that the world is getting dumber, you should get more informed of how worse it was in the past.
I've mentioned this several times already, I tire of listening to the arrogance of atheists. I will not be replying to your argument, now stop trying to provoke me into doing so.
Why is it arrogance. Tell me why my argument was arrogant, instead of being the hypocrite and displaying arrogance of yourself. There is a reason you are not replying to it... and it is because, I have choked you. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will continue to believe I have triumphed over you.
The word "census" means asking everyone in a population, seeing as many people have yet to be surveyed in their religion, a global census has yet to exist.
"Are you seriously this ignorant? I have already shown you the statistics. And those statistics show a large amount of change."
As I said later on in my argument those statistics showed information for 57 countries our of over 193. Please explain how your statistics can possibly be relevant for the entire planet, instead of just calling me "ignorant".
"Those communists have no freedom any way. And it's odd how those imprisoned countries are more religious than the free ones. It's really a compliment to Atheism."
And you had the audacity to call me ignorant? You assume that they are both communists (Russia is in fact now capitalist) and that Communism automatically leads to dictatorship (Russia is a democracy with elections as do China)
"Well, with you denying your own country quickly depleting with religion, why not?"
I've yet to deny that my own country is growing in atheism.
"Just because this site was owned by Atheists, doesn't mean it was biased. It displayed statistics. Statistics are not biased."
You did not link me to statistics, you linked me to a site giving an interpretation of those statistics, which was biased.
"But it does show the statistics of Atheism and religion, and how they have changed from Atheism rising, and religion depleting."
You cannot just dispute a statement with another statement, that gets us nowhere. You need to dispute the statement with a statement supported by statistics.
"And with how much you wish it not to be true, this survey does show change, no matter how small it seems."
What? I've just disproven how your survey doesn't fairly represent the whole globe (in contradiction to your biased site) and the only thing you can think of to dispute back is "this survey does show change" with no reference to the survey and no statistics from the survey.
"So, with Technology developing, new inventions and cures to diseases are arising (Recently on the news Scientists have developed a treatment for pancreatic cancer, and a way to lessen the symptoms of Alzheimer's). We are definitely getting dumber. Because, clearly, with access of practically infinite information increasing (the internet) we are certainly getting less informed of the world. As stereotypical of your opinion that the world is getting dumber, you should get more informed of how worse it was in the past."
I was denying that the would wasn't getting more "dumber" I was denying that "religion was fading" and the connection with religion "fading" to the world getting more cleverer.
"Why is it arrogance. Tell me why my argument was arrogant, instead of being the hypocrite and displaying arrogance of yourself. There is a reason you are not replying to it... and it is because, I have choked you. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will continue to believe I have triumphed over you."
Oh dear, you've gone at it again.
I will not be replying to your argument if you choose to dispute this one, my debate with you is over.
The word "census" means asking everyone in a population, seeing as many people have yet to be surveyed in their religion, a global census has yet to exist.
It still displays change.
As I said later on in my argument those statistics showed information for 57 countries our of over 193. Please explain how your statistics can possibly be relevant for the entire planet, instead of just calling me "ignorant".
57 of the major countries. Not the little ones in between. These major countries hold most of the world's population.
And you had the audacity to call me ignorant? You assume that they are both communists (Russia is in fact now capitalist) and that Communism automatically leads to dictatorship (Russia is a democracy with elections as do China)
But they aren't countries that would be considered... admirable. Russia is packed to the brim with deadly weapons. So is China. These countries are flooded with pollution, stricken with poverty and enslaved by their military. Their crime rates are way too high, so are their death rates.
I've yet to deny that my own country is growing in atheism.
It's already 40-50% Atheist.
You did not link me to statistics, you linked me to a site giving an interpretation of those statistics, which was biased.
The site has both statistics and interpretations of them.
You cannot just dispute a statement with another statement, that gets us nowhere. You need to dispute the statement with a statement supported by statistics.
It was carrying on from what was said before. That there is an obvious change; a difference.
What? I've just disproven how your survey doesn't fairly represent the whole globe (in contradiction to your biased site) and the only thing you can think of to dispute back is "this survey does show change" with no reference to the survey and no statistics from the survey.
Because surveying a large chunk of the world that carries most of the population is not enough to show even the tiniest amount of change...
Oh dear, you've gone at it again.
I will not be replying to your argument if you choose to dispute this one, my debate with you is over.
(I'm not going to reply to your argument as I've already stated, but I'm just going to comment on this comment)
If you really think that I'm being unreasonable, why don't you set up a 3rd party debate like I have? I'd like to see how the others react to your arrogance.
Statistics? If you got an adequate brain you should understand why there are no statistics needed
---
This is too stupid for me. My mind works on a higher level. Try to tune up yours and then try again.
---
A debate style like this, if its a serious discussion, is undeniably bad. Very condescending. Another thing it is though, is it's funny. Only because it's totally messed up to debate that way lol.
In this case you did not end up, you began, you initiated it.
The "always"... Your mind must be pretty fucked up if I'm always on your mind. I mean, I actually forgot about you for quite some time. I don't obsess with people, no reason to.
Seriously, what are you doing? Is your life really that boring?
hey man youre quite difficcult to understand !! first you start an argument and then you start to include someone else and then you fight with him and then he fights with you and then the third person fights the second and then you all three start fighting and seeing you all a fourth person starts to fight ofuck!!ofuck!!ofuck!!
