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.
Why should religious people shut up, when you never do?
Atheism isn't proved to be the absolute truth. You have no proof that religious Gods don't exist.
So when you give us the evidence, proving 100% that there is no chance that there is a God - I promise you I will shut up and join your club.
How about we all just accept, that we believe differently, and let each other believe what we each do .. and just get along with our crappy lives ?!?!?!
Atheists brag about how free they are - but from my experience, you're obsessed with turning the world into nonbelievers, that you have no freedom at all.
I am PROUD to say, that I congratulate you that you've become atheistic. I think it is AWESOME that you believe what you do.
But what makes me disrespect you is that you call others who don't believe what you do arrogant - how arrogant is that?
Don't tell others to shut up when you have nothing better to say.
Atheism isn't proved to be the absolute truth. You have no proof that religious Gods don't exist.
He doesn't need proof that they don't exist, for how can you prove the non existence of something? Fairies, demons, werewolves, vampires, unicorns, and the chupacabra have not been proven to not exist, why don't we believe in them as well?
It is the job of religious people to demonstrate to other people that god exists. Not the non believers job to prove god does not exist.
So when you give us the evidence, proving 100% that there is no chance that there is a God - I promise you I will shut up and join your club.
By that reasoning, you believe in everything I listed above. This is a childish position.
How about we all just accept, that we believe differently, and let each other believe what we each do .. and just get along with our crappy lives ?!?!?!
Because religious people want to legislate their religious beliefs or stall the progress of science. Abortion, gay marriage, creationism taught in schools, stem cell research being halted, etc.
But what makes me disrespect you is that you call others who don't believe what you do arrogant - how arrogant is that?
I don't necessarily agree with his statement, but I do find it arrogant when religious people make random remarks about god's existence, but if I ever were to make a remark about god's non existence I would be met with hostility and/or criticism for offending other's beliefs. For some reason if they shout god exists or imply it, I must keep quiet. But if I say my belief that god does not exist, I must not say such offensive statements. This is hypocrisy.
"I don't necessarily agree with his statement, but I do find it arrogant when religious people make random remarks about god's existence, but if I ever were to make a remark about god's non existence I would be met with hostility and/or criticism for offending other's beliefs. For some reason if they shout god exists or imply it, I must keep quiet. But if I say my belief that god does not exist, I must not say such offensive statements. This is hypocrisy"
Not all religious people are like that. I may be catholic, be i respect other people's right to their own beliefs. I just get offended when people say i am wrong to believe in religion because of a lack of evidence. It is called faith for a faith for a reason, we believe it with or without scientific evidence.
I will agree with you tough that religion should not be involved in government as it may lead to people losing some of their own inherent personal freedoms.
I know, but the people who are like that do take up a considerable percentage of the religious population. I don't think I made it clear earlier which is my fault, but I was referring to real life encounters. Online of course nobody gives a fuck.
Like if it's thanksgiving and you're over a friends house and they all say "grace" and the father says "everyone bow your heads" and you don't and they say "are you going to bow your head" and you say you're not religious, there is a fair chance you will be confronted or at the very least receive dirty looks for lacking belief in a higher power.
I work at walmart, and there was a guy preaching the bible with a loudspeaker from the back of his vehicle in the parking lot. Nobody asked him to leave the property, the police didn't come, he preached for an hour or two and then left. But what would have happened if an atheist came over there and started discussing some of the inconsistencies and atrocities of the bible, or what if he began discussing the non existence of god? The chances are extremely high that he would have been asked to leave, or he would have been harassed.
I just get offended when people say i am wrong to believe in religion because of a lack of evidence. It is called faith for a faith for a reason, we believe it with or without scientific evidence.
I would say people are incorrect to believe in anything without evidence. The existence of god is arguably one of the more important if not one of the most important questions a person asks themselves, is it not?
So why is it that we use evidence and science for building bridges, buildings, and nuclear power plants, but on the most important question of all we throw out evidence and science and rely on blind faith?
Would you cross a bridge with your family solely on blind faith? Or would you prefer the bridge had been tested and inspected by a safety inspector?
The scientific method is the most reliable method to the truth. Faith in the absence of evidence is not.
Religious people do provide sufficient evidence to non believers that their god exists however the non believers say it's not good enough. So at the same time the non believers ask the believers to provide evidence, and they do, they get turned down, as if the mission of the believer is to solely give the non believer the evidence they desire.
It's like your asking for evidence, receiving it, and throwing it back in the faces of the believers saying "it's not enough".
What is enough for you non believers? OTHER THAN holding the hand of their X, Y, Z god and seeing them physically.
Religious people do provide sufficient evidence to non believers that their god exists however the non believers say it's not good enough.
Sufficient? No. Poor evidence? If it can even be called poor evidence, yes. Of all the people I have spoken with in regards to evidence for the god they believe in, they all have poor examples of evidence.
If I said a dragon cat was in my room, and I told Bob that my evidence was that I can "feel" that it's there, I assume Bob would say that that is not enough evidence to justify the belief that a dragon cat is in my room. To which I would reply "well, I've given you the evidence, you just say it's not good enough".
Your argument is the exact same as my argument for a dragon cat in my room. And now you want to say that Bob is being unreasonable by not accepting my ridiculous claim of invisible dragon cats in my room? Please reexamine your argument.
It's like your asking for evidence, receiving it, and throwing it back in the faces of the believers saying "it's not enough".
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the evidence proposed is complete nonsense? What is the evidence for a god anyways?
What is enough for you non believers? OTHER THAN holding the hand of their X, Y, Z god and seeing them physically.
For starters, evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny. So far, none has.
"If I said a dragon cat was in my room, and I told Bob that my evidence was that I can "feel" that it's there, I assume Bob would say that that is not enough evidence to justify the belief that a dragon cat is in my room. To which I would reply "well, I've given you the evidence, you just say it's not good enough"."
I don't care if Bob doesn't believe in what I say, nor to I expect Bob to be hasty with such claims (as per your dragon cat o lord of thunder almighty, lol).
I do expect Bob to at least respect my claims that I believe in what I believe in not simply because "i feel" but because of evidence such as human existence, complex nature, complex DNA, complex science, pain AND healing (not one or the other), art, music, design, creation, ect.
I've said before that the "core" of the evidence I claim is because I feel this is true, just as scientist FEEL they're truth and what they're seeing and experimenting and testing to be true. So really I am a scientist, I am a scientist of belief and of faith; surely every man feels what they believe to be true, this is without saying.
Some scientists claim they "know" versus they "believe or feel" in science, when really that's bullshitting because to know something one must feel they know they believe in it.
You use your fucking dragon cat analogie (which a poor one at that), so simply and dull as if believing in any god is simple or dull.
Once again, you used words I've said in the past and thrown your weak assumptions of me in my face.
I've said this once and I'll say it again, those who don't believe, especially atheists, ask the wrong questions that have no answers to them. So if they're asking the wrong questions, such as "Can you show me your god?" or "What evidence do you have (other than "I feel") to confirm the existence of your god?" versus "How does your god help you?", or "WHY do you believe in the existence of god?", or "When did you first realize you believed in your god?"
You see, the standard questions most atheists arise are presented as an attack on the believers, rather than an objective based question, it is subjective to atheism. Why can't an atheist ask a believer how they came about believing what they believe in versus telling them they're ignorant? Ignorant to what? To the "truth" science can bestow upon its people? Since we all know the truth is hard to know for certainty, then many truths could be established to be truth, given it's logical and rational, not a "dragon cat" example.
At least the evidence I have given is logical and rational yet it is thrown back at me stating it's not good enough. Well to be quite honest I do not feel obligated to prove to you fucking atheists anything. I have never felt I owe anything to atheists. Then perhaps they'll say "you've been defeated, you're running because you've got no solid proof". And that's when I give the the finger, and say I am not running from anything. I know which ground I stand on. However, I will say you atheists and non believers probably should work on your debating skills and stop with the "well that evidence is nonsense" when it's obviously not nonsense, not nearly the nonsense of the fucking dragon cat o thor o glory, I say fuck that cat. I say I believe in my god.
(as per your dragon cat o lord of thunder almighty, lol).
Is this a thunder cats reference? lol
I've said before that the "core" of the evidence I claim is because I feel this is true, just as scientist FEEL they're truth and what they're seeing and experimenting and testing to be true. So really I am a scientist, I am a scientist of belief and of faith; surely every man feels what they believe to be true, this is without saying.
The "core" of the evidence for scientists is not just whatever they feel to be true. Their evidence is objective evidence. Yours is subjective evidence. You are not a scientist, for a scientist is an expert in science, and their beliefs come from use of the scientific method. You are far from an expert in science, you do not even know what the word scientist means. Your beliefs come from personal whim not objective evidence or the scientific method. You claim to believe in science but you know so little of it. Belief has no bearing on the truth, once again.
Some scientists claim they "know" versus they "believe or feel" in science, when really that's bullshitting because to know something one must feel they know they believe in it.
It would be both, they both know and they believe (not simply feel). These beliefs and knowledge come from objective evidence, experimentation, and most importantly use of the scientific method.
You use your fucking dragon cat analogie (which a poor one at that), so simply and dull as if believing in any god is simple or dull.
You failed to provide a distinction between the dragon cat and god. Your argument for god is identical to my argument for the dragon cat. If it is a poor example then explain how.
Once again, you used words I've said in the past and thrown your weak assumptions of me in my face.
Which assumptions have I made that are weak or false?
rather than an objective based question, it is subjective to atheism.
I'm pretty sure this question: "What evidence do you have (other than "I feel") to confirm the existence of your god" is an objective question not subjective to atheism.
Why can't an atheist ask a believer how they came about believing what they believe in versus telling them they're ignorant? Ignorant to what? To the "truth" science can bestow upon its people? Since we all know the truth is hard to know for certainty, then many truths could be established to be truth, given it's logical and rational, not a "dragon cat" example.
Because how they came to their conclusions is a different subject entirely. We all care about the truth, correct? We want to believe in things that are true, correct? So then why the fuck is how someone got to their beliefs going to be important? It's not. Not to mention that every religious belief in god that I've ever encountered does not rely on evidence or science at all, it relies on personal whim and feelings and miraculous experiences. Frankly, I'm not too interested in your pursuit of god story most of the time. I'm mostly interested in the facts and evidence for your belief, not personal feelings that lead you there.
They are ignorant to science, yes. The scientific method is the most reliable method to the truth, and people choose to ignore in favor of their own ideas which have no evidence.
The truth is difficult to know for certain, which is why we have the scientific method BECAUSE it is the most reliable method to the truth.
At least the evidence I have given is logical and rational yet it is thrown back at me stating it's not good enough.
It is not logical and rational. Intelligent design is pseudo science, it has no credible evidence behind it.
Well to be quite honest I do not feel obligated to prove to you fucking atheists anything. I have never felt I owe anything to atheists. Then perhaps they'll say "you've been defeated, you're running because you've got no solid proof". And that's when I give the the finger, and say I am not running from anything. I know which ground I stand on.
You don't have to prove anything to us, until then though your beliefs will be unverified nonsense with no credible evidence supporting them.
You sound like a child honestly with all this cursing you do and the anger you express when debating. Calm down...really.
I will say you atheists and non believers probably should work on your debating skills and stop with the "well that evidence is nonsense" when it's obviously not nonsense, not nearly the nonsense of the fucking dragon cat o thor o glory, I say fuck that cat. I say I believe in my god.
I am always working on my debating skills, for there is always room for improvement. I couldn't understand though why you said only atheists and non believers. Are atheists and non believers disproportionately poor debaters compared to theists and believers?
Your evidence is nonsense. Detach yourself from your own personal convictions and open up your mind. I am not inseparably attached to my agnostic atheism. If evidence comes forth suggesting that god is likely, I will become a believer (assuming god is benevolent). Mine is the pursuit of truth. To me, it sounds like you are on the pursuit of a conclusion, that god exists no matter what and that no evidence can change your mind for you will always have your "personal" evidence.
The dragon cat was intentionally ridiculous to display how ridiculous your god sounds. I was actually debating on making it a ham and cheese sandwich instead.
I say I believe in my god.
Pursuit of a conclusion, despite the evidence to the contrary. Classic closed mindedness.
"you do not even know what the word scientist means"
Boy, I know more about science (something you greatly believe in) than you know about science, and I believe in both science and spirituality. You have no fucking idea what I am, who I am, who I know, who I've spoken with, and you continue to presume I am this or that. Please, Mark "spare me".
"You sound like a child honestly with all this cursing you do and the anger you express when debating. Calm down...really."
This is my way of weeding out those who mean more than less to me, whom I can filter to this or that. People like you who think my words are childish because I say a few "fucks" or "shit", and get all emotional about particular words, causing you to call ME childish. Did you catch that psychology? Guess not. You miss the point of most things I say, you latch onto what your mind considers proper or not, as we all do, however you turn and call me childish simply because I say a few "bad words". How cute.
"Pursuit of a conclusion, despite the evidence to the contrary. Classic closed mindedness."
Who is more closed minded?
One who believes in what they cannot see? (with sufficient evidence)
or One who believe in purely science and all of it's observable glory? (with sufficient evidence)
I say the one whom believes in BOTH is far less closed minded than the one who bases all of their "best way of method to the truth", when you're being closed minded to other methods of truths.
I say you Mark, yes you Mark are the more closed minded person.
Boy, I know more about science (something you greatly believe in) than you know about science, and I believe in both science and spirituality.
I find that hard to believe given the excessive number of ignorant statements you've made regarding scientific matters.
Also, you've used the word "son" and "boy" when referring to me and other people on this site. May I ask how old you are? There is no need for such a condescending tone even if you are older than me and others on this site. And if you are older than me and others on this site, what does this say about your level of mental development given the ludicrous statements you've made on this site?
People like you who think my words are childish because I say a few "fucks" or "shit", and get all emotional about particular words, causing you to call ME childish
You sound like a child when you overreact by responding with the standard issue of insults like "fucker" "dickwad" etc. Why not, you know, get over it?
Did you catch that psychology? Guess not
The only one getting emotional here is you. You're the one getting angry, not me.
however you turn and call me childish simply because I say a few "bad words". How cute.
I don't care if you say "bad" words. You sound like you're genuinely pissed so I'm telling you to calm down.
Who is more closed minded?
One who believes in what they cannot see? (with sufficient evidence)
It would appear that you are. You believe in god, no matter what. I believe god does not exist, but I am open to evidence supporting his existence.
"cannot see" if you are saying that in the sense that it is undetectable to science and our senses, then how can you have any evidence at all?
I say the one whom believes in BOTH is far less closed minded than the one who bases all of their "best way of method to the truth", when you're being closed minded to other methods of truths.
Well you confused the first one as actually possessing credible evidence when it clearly does not. The second method regarding science and the scientific method does have vast amounts of credible evidence.
As for "other methods of truth", what are those? I only know of one, and that is the scientific method.
I say you Mark, yes you Mark are the more closed minded person.
I'm still waiting for you to properly demonstrate how I am closed minded. You have failed to provide a sufficient basis for that claim.
"And if you are older than me and others on this site, what does this say about your level of mental development given the ludicrous statements you've made on this site"
Duuude, my age has nothing to do with this. I'm just as old as some of you people, older than some others, and younger than some others, fuck my age man. I use "boy" every once and a while, nothing crazy man. Again stop focusing on my saying "boy" or "fuck", these words do not matter to the point at hand.
However, when you say "childish", or "ignorant", or that im "absurd", those are directed toward me and that's childish.
I've already through this with Mackindale, he got over it man. I stop using these terms once you stop saying Im a fucking child and ignorant. Fucker.
I'm telling you im not genuinely pissed so believe that and enough with your bullshit man. You people are so fucking gushy and sensitive inside.
You're closed minded by saying the scientific method is the "best" way for understanding the truth and disrespect people who believe. Leave us the fuck alone, or say or ask something worth debating and discussing, not simply "you're ignorant because you do not believe in the scientific method". And I say "No i do believe in the scientific method AND in spirituality." SO for you to say I am ridiculous and ignorant and childish and foolish, you're doing nothing but saying "Science method is great, and you're foolish to believe in anything else" So I say fuck you for believing in that and calling me ignorant. These are no words of a child, Mark. These are words of a man defending himself against the tirade of feeble words, such as yours.
You believe in the scientific method like a mad scientist, it's a long and rough road ahead for the mas scientist. Is this a good enough demonstration for you Mark?
Duuude, my age has nothing to do with this. I'm just as old as some of you people, older than some others, and younger than some others, fuck my age man. I use "boy" every once and a while, nothing crazy man. Again stop focusing on my saying "boy" or "fuck", these words do not matter to the point at hand.
I know your age has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Typically in my experience and I'm sure many others, when a younger person is speaking to an older person who considers himself superior in virtually all aspects of knowledge compared to the younger person, that older person will typically address the lesser experienced person as "boy" or "son" or words of that fashion to imply some sense of superiority over his opponent. I've seen older folk do it all the time, both to me and other people in real life, as well as on the internet. It's a disrespectful and dishonest tactic that has more to do with the person's ego than the arguments at hand.
You're closed minded by saying the scientific method is the "best" way for understanding the truth and disrespect people who believe.
How am I closed minded? I'm open to pretty much anything, so long as sound and credible evidence is presented. If you found evidence strongly suggesting god does not exist, would you continue believing?
Leave us the fuck alone, or say or ask something worth debating and discussing, not simply "you're ignorant because you do not believe in the scientific method"
I'm pretty sure virtually everyone on the planet uses some form of the scientific method.
And I say "No i do believe in the scientific method AND in spirituality."
Wait, is it god or spirituality that you believe in?
You believe in the scientific method like a mad scientist, it's a long and rough road ahead for the mas scientist. Is this a good enough demonstration for you Mark?
I'm not a mad scientist, I'm not even a scientist. I don't even have a degree in a science. I'm not even sure what kind of demonstration this is.
"I know your age has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Typically in my experience and I'm sure many others, when a younger person is speaking to an older person who considers himself superior in virtually all aspects of knowledge compared to the younger person, that older person will typically address the lesser experienced person as "boy" or "son" or words of that fashion to imply some sense of superiority over his opponent. I've seen older folk do it all the time, both to me and other people in real life, as well as on the internet. It's a disrespectful and dishonest tactic that has more to do with the person's ego than the arguments at hand."
You're extremely sensitive. I mean, I'm a sensitive guy myself, but DAMN. Moving on...
"How am I closed minded? I'm open to pretty much anything, so long as sound and credible evidence is presented. If you found evidence strongly suggesting god does not exist, would you continue believing?"
You claimed I was closed minded because I use "nonsensical" logic, am absurd to believe in a god based off of "little to no evidence supporting".. Yet you say you're open minded. Then be OPEN MINDED to people like me, let me believe, why fight it? You're battling/attacking against a very strong force here, called people who believe, of all shapes and sizes. Accept it, and state your opinion, but please do spot with the bullshit attacks, such as "you're ignorant, foolish, ect". Thats complete bullshit, people like you are bullshitting yourselves.
"I'm pretty sure virtually everyone on the planet uses some form of the scientific method."
Obviously... moving on.
"I'm not a mad scientist, I'm not even a scientist. I don't even have a degree in a science. I'm not even sure what kind of demonstration this is.'
You do not need a degree in "science" to understand it. We're all scientists in our own way, "the science of sleep", "the science of eating", "the science of art", "the science of religion", again, we're scientists in our own way. Science is the attempt to understand the observable world around us, with fact and theory, blah blah, ect.
"The mad scientist" example was precisely an example to describe scientists/people who go so far beyond their own minds and their minds get so out of hand and entranced by something that they don't even remember where they are, what they doing, figuratively and sometimes literally.
You're extremely sensitive. I mean, I'm a sensitive guy myself, but DAMN. Moving on...
I would disagree.
You claimed I was closed minded because I use "nonsensical" logic, am absurd to believe in a god based off of "little to no evidence supporting".. Yet you say you're open minded
That would be right, I am open minded.
Then be OPEN MINDED to people like me, let me believe, why fight it?
Do you have any idea what being open minded means? I am open minded towards your propositions, I gave you a chance to defend and explain them. Your explanations are unsatisfactory and your evidence is non existent.
You're battling/attacking against a very strong force here, called people who believe, of all shapes and sizes.
I agree that it is a very strong force, the blind belief in god and religion, that is why it's been responsible for so much harm throughout history. It's this belief without evidence that is the root of the problem. We have people who believe that if you mutter some phrases at church to a piece of bread, it automatically becomes the body of a man 2000 years ago, and then they proceed to commit cannibalism. Fancy.
Then we have people who are muslim extremists who believe that if they perform a suicide bombing in the name of Allah, that they will bear witness to virgins galore in heaven when they die.
Both are unverified beliefs, with just different behavioral outcomes. The root of the problem is the same, someone made a proposition and everyone believed it without question.
We're all scientists in our own way, "the science of sleep", "the science of eating", "the science of art", "the science of religion", again, we're scientists in our own way.
Definition: A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
"Do you have any idea what being open minded means? I am open minded towards your propositions, I gave you a chance to defend and explain them. Your explanations are unsatisfactory and your evidence is non existent."
Anything and everything I say to you is grounds for "yeah, not good enough". NOT because my words and evidence are not good enough, generally speaking. But for YOU they're not good enough, and that's fine. Claim they're not good enough for you, not for me, or perhaps any other person. This discussion is between you and I and for others to see and jump in if they so choose. However, you're speaking for the concept and evidence of the scientific realm, and i'm speaking for my concepts and evidence of the scientific realm and of the religious and spiritual realm.
"Definition: A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
We're not scientists "in our own way""
Mark, you might not be. However I am a scientist, of many aspects of life. I study life, I study all different sorts of religion and have been for quite some time now, years and years. I study natural science and physical science; mother nature, pi, weather phenomena, animals and insects, mathematics, I am a musician, as said before I study religion of all kinds, I study different scientists, I study atheists and agnostics, I study sports (particularly american football, football, and cross country) I have played these sports for years, surely I am no professional however I am an avid learner and I do have experience in these sports, I study societal aspects of culture, I study people, went to school and studied sociology and psychology.
I have not studied tons of microbiological life, or anthropology, or marine biology, to name a few, however I've done a decent share of work on these aspects of life. This doesn't mean I cannot discuss these matters, or that simply because I do not have a masters or something that I do not know that which I speak of or on.
I do not agree that people whom have not "gone to school" and simply study these things as I've said above, are not scientists. Every person is in fact "their own way a scientist".
You sir must have insecurity issues with yourself if you're telling me you're not a scientist in your own way. Well, quite frankly, "it sucks for you".
Anything and everything I say to you is grounds for "yeah, not good enough". NOT because my words and evidence are not good enough, generally speaking. But for YOU they're not good enough, and that's fine.
Anything and everything? Well, if anything and everything you said was complete nonsense, you would be correct. That's not the case though, you have said some things that aren't complete nonsense I'm certain. In regards to your evolution-creationism hybrid theory, that is complete nonsense for you can't even explain it adequately nor do you have any evidence that such an event occurred in the way you described.
Claim they're not good enough for you, not for me, or perhaps any other person.
Your claims hold no weight scientifically. Why should anyone believe them? Your claim is merely a hypothesis, blind speculation.
I have not studied tons of microbiological life, or anthropology, or marine biology, to name a few, however I've done a decent share of work on these aspects of life. This doesn't mean I cannot discuss these matters, or that simply because I do not have a masters or something that I do not know that which I speak of or on.
Then why did you make up this creation evolution theory?
"I have not studied tons of microbiological life, or anthropology, or marine biology, to name a few, however I've done a decent share of work on these aspects of life. This doesn't mean I cannot discuss these matters, or that simply because I do not have a masters or something that I do not know that which I speak of or on.
Then why did you make up this creation evolution theory?"
Again Mark, you're missing the fucking point mate.
I'm allowed to create a theory on these matters for I am thoroughly read Genesis, and I have thoroughly studied on Darwins Evolution theory. Therefore, I am allowed to make a theory of my own. REGARDLESS if I have no field experience in microbiology.
Did you miss the part when I said one does not need a damn degree to have a sound opinion on something? Yet you claim because I have no degree that I can't make a sound theory on Genesis and Evolution?
I'm allowed to create a theory on these matters for I am thoroughly read Genesis, and I have thoroughly studied on Darwins Evolution theory. Therefore, I am allowed to make a theory of my own. REGARDLESS if I have no field experience in microbiology.
You're only able to make a hypothesis at this point. Until you can test your theory, which includes the fact that god created life, it will remain a hypothesis.
Did you miss the part when I said one does not need a damn degree to have a sound opinion on something?
You need credentials if you want your opinion to be worth a damn. If you go to a physics conference and say you dislike einsteins theory of relatively because it just doesn't sound right to you, no one is going to give a fuck what you say because you've brought nothing to the table, nor are you even qualified to bring anything to the table.
In regards to your evolution creationism hybrid hypothesis, how would you go about showing that it is a reasonable proposition? Is there a compelling reason why we should change the science textbooks to now state "evolution-creationism hybrid theory" ? Unless you have evidence behind your ideas, they won't amount to much.
I don't need any scientist to give a fuck about my opinions. I don't need anyone to give a fuck about my opinion, this is something I can live with. All I need to do is say my piece and beliefs and my words will do the work on their own, with mother natures help of course.
I know my theories about evolution and genesis are sound and logical, rational and evident. And I do not have a particular goal about these theories of mine. I do not need them to be in science books.
Mark, the winds have heard my beliefs and mother nature will do the work for me; she will carry on my inner beliefs with the wind, godspeed. Whether you believe me or not this is happening as we speak.
I do not attempt to change any science textbooks, for the textbooks do not matter to me; textbooks these days are out of date anyhow. Science books are established and should be to taught to people, the ways of science. However, my theories are not said to be put into some school textbook, perhaps I shall write a book one day, or blog, or what have you, but textbooks, nah. I care more about people than I do getting my theory written in a standard textbook.
I do not attempt to change the beliefs of others, yet I do intend to provide certain information that is sound and logical. Yet you atheist hear one thing and another thing is misunderstood; you people do not grasp these theories, you are one sided, yet you call yourselves open minded. I am about balance, that is my purpose in this life. Have you found your purpose? Perhaps not, you're 20 years old, correct? Some may have found theirs at age 10 or maybe not until they're 70 on their deathbed, I don't know. I care for people to find their balance, whatever that may be. Hopefully, it is a balance for the betterment or good of themselves and not for the balance of the worse.
You fight a war you cannot win. Good luck.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" ~ Albert Einstein
I don't need any scientist to give a fuck about my opinions.
It's fine, they never did.
I know my theories about evolution and genesis are sound and logical, rational and evident. And I do not have a particular goal about these theories of mine. I do not need them to be in science books.
Because you're personally invested, of course they sound logical, rational, and have mountains of evidence behind them.
Mark, the winds have heard my beliefs and mother nature will do the work for me; she will carry on my inner beliefs with the wind, godspeed. Whether you believe me or not this is happening as we speak.
No, mother nature isn't doing anything for you. Matter, energy, and all of existence will continue following the laws of physics.
you people do not grasp these theories, you are one sided, yet you call yourselves open minded. I am about balance, that is my purpose in this life.
It's not one sidedness. You and I appear to have different ideas about what open mindedness is. You seem to believe that open mindedness is meeting your opponent halfway, essentially compromising on your difference of opinions. That is not what true open mindedness is though.
There is a famous quote which goes as follows "Be open minded, but not so open minded your brain falls out". It is on that basis, that I consider your ideas but I cannot embrace them for they do not make any sense, nor do they have evidence supporting their conclusions.
Have you found your purpose? Perhaps not, you're 20 years old, correct?
I have goals, dreams, ideas, career goals, what I want to do, places I want to visit, lots of things. I have things I dislike about myself, things that I want to change, I want to become a better person overall. I have purpose, in this sense. If you are seeking a different sort of "purpose", possibly in some spiritual or religious sense, then I would say I do not have "purpose" in that sense of the word.
You fight a war you cannot win. Good luck.
And you know this how? I'd prefer to think of it as the triumph of science and reason over religious superstition and nonsense. Also, isn't religion declining in America and in much of the world in general?
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" ~ Albert Einstein
Already heard that quote plenty of times. Einstein was a pantheist I believe. And Einstein wasn't speaking of religion in the typical sense of the word, he meant it as something different than most of the population. Here is an excerpt of what Einstein said:
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.
Mark, you're one of the lamest atheists I have ever discussed with.
I've got many friends and and have spoken to many people whom are atheists or agnostic, and we've discussed in depth, more in depth, more creative, more intelligence than you or any other atheist on this site I have spoken with.
You are a young atheist, you once were theist, so not only are you a young and immature atheist, you recently decided to change your beliefs, and that's fine.
Understand where you stand in this world. You refutes of my claims are weak, and your insults to me are weak and useless. Look at yourself deep within and your approach to debates before talking shit about theism, which is what you've been providing, talking shit without anything truly sound with your arguments. All I hear and read from you sir are insults and standard atheist arguments without any style.
Mark, you're words are dull and fragile. I hope you grow up in your beliefs of atheism.
The ONLY "evidence" believers can propose is from holy books which are unsupported scientifically and historically and are riddled with contradictions and absurdities. Therefore, holy books are not evidence. That's all I've ever heard from believers other than poorly formed "proof" from archeology and science or logical fallacies that mean nothing. Then there's just attacks on things they don't understand like evolution. So yeah, the only thing that's truely convincing real evidence and proof is physical. Show me god and I'll convert. Until then I'll take what I hold to be true from REALITY. thank you
All of mankind would love to "see this god" in the "show me your god" question, for the whole world to see in physical form, then surely there would be no doubt that it exists.
However, this is hardly the case. Case in point would be that faith exists because one cannot see their god they worship or what have you.
I have not once given a "holy book evidence type" response (other than using Genesis as a possible precursor to the darwin evolution mindset) and I've give nothing but scientific evidence throughout my stay here at the create debate site.
Everything I've said has been my honest truth, and I've gotten nothing but it's not good enough. I'm not saying I am trying to convert anybody, yet when I give solid evidence it's taken as though it is "poor evidence". and I'm given bull shit latin phrases to describe a scenario or say it's a "logical fallacy". This is ridiculous.
Misconceptions and misinterpretations are well grounded within science and religion. The difference is that within science there is a common agreeance to a situation. For example the evolution theory is nothing but a theory that has provided sufficient evidence of its proponents yet is taken as a fact and not a theory; no man has seen thoroughly with their own eyes, unbiased, out side the box, viewing the whole evolution process before their very own eyes, this is impossible. The facts that we have to base this evolution theory off of are evident to the eye of the beholder, and they believe in it without having had been there to see the beginning of the first step of X, Y, Z steps; the first cell on earth being produced.
I personally believe in the evolution theory and darwinism, but not in the same way perhaps others, such as atheists believe in evolution. Atheists use evolution as a way to "debunk" anything religious, especially the creationist beliefs. I believe in evolution to back up claims of mine. So what do you say to a man who believes in both? Will you say "you must pick one or the other"? Will you say "well, you can believe in this because it's got 'more' evidence than your 'creationist' side" (BTW I don't believe in the Abrahamic creationist belief, I've got a rather different version)
The problem with your evidence is that if it's not excepted by the science majority then its not going to be accepted as fact.
The, evolution is not indisputable fact, theory sounds like this
Someone digs bones (not necessarily Fossils) out of the ground and everyone concludes that these must have belonged to an animal. But one person interjects and says "well they are bones and animals have bones but that is not definitive proof that these bones belong to an animal."
I know what evolution is and I know who Darwin was, I was educated in Ireland, wtf is Darwinism.
Only creationists fear evolution, where as evolution I think you'll agree, doesn't care who believes what. I can't see how it can be used to refute a god, only creationism, or a creationist god.
I don't have a problem with people choosing to believe in a god and evolution as long as that view doesn't contradict the evidence. Genesis contradicts the evidence because even in its most diluted form it implies Man was the last animal to be put on earth.
"Genesis contradicts the evidence because even in its most diluted form it implies Man was the last animal to be put on earth."
To me, the fundamentals of Genesis truly states that not that man was the "last animal to be put on earth", but that we humans are the "special humans/animals to have 'free-will' and complex thoughts and philosophies" Not that we're the "last" ones, but that right now, we're currently the special mutha effing breed. Really that's my main point with how I believe in both creation and evolution.
Genesis does not say that life started from one cell and evolved through natural selection. Genesis says god created man from dust, then took man's rib and created a female.
The Theory of Evolution says man evolved from ancestral primates, not that he arose from dust through god's will. Nor does evolution say that female humans originated from a man's rib.
To believe in creation and evolution is contradictory. All you do is close your eyes to the evidence and say "no they are in agreement!".
"All you do is close your eyes to the evidence and say "no they are in agreement!"."
ALL I DO!? Seriously Mark, you think all I do is close my eyes, say "theres no place like home", say "no they are in agreement", tap my heels together and hope for the best?
Cmon man, give me more credit than that. That's what I call insulting, when one does not give credit where it is deserved.
I've not only given you logical and sensible opinions, but I gave them honestly. I'm not talking out of my ass man!
Cmon man, give me more credit than that. That's what I call insulting, when one does not give credit where it is deserved.
I've not only given you logical and sensible opinions, but I gave them honestly. I'm not talking out of my ass man!
You say that genesis in regards to adam and eve is totally in agreement with the theory of evolution.
I explained to you in clear terms how this is completely wrong. And you offer no counter argument, all you do is insist that you gave me your "logical and sensible" opinion. I call bull shit. Your main point does not address the conflicting ideas I brought up in my previous argument. Address those points successfully, and I will concede that your position is both logical and sensible. Otherwise it remains illogical and complete nonsense.
I'll repost it: Genesis does not say that life started from one cell and evolved through natural selection. Genesis says god created man from dust, then took man's rib and created a female.
The Theory of Evolution says man evolved from ancestral primates, not that he arose from dust through god's will. Nor does evolution say that female humans originated from a man's rib.
"You say that genesis in regards to adam and eve is totally in agreement with the theory of evolution.
I explained to you in clear terms how this is completely wrong. And you offer no counter argument, all you do is insist that you gave me your "logical and sensible" opinion. I call bull shit. Your main point does not address the conflicting ideas I brought up in my previous argument. Address those points successfully, and I will concede that your position is both logical and sensible. Otherwise it remains illogical and complete nonsense.
I'll repost it: Genesis does not say that life started from one cell and evolved through natural selection. Genesis says god created man from dust, then took man's rib and created a female.
The Theory of Evolution says man evolved from ancestral primates, not that he arose from dust through god's will. Nor does evolution say that female humans originated from a man's rib."
Genesis also states that life was present on earth BEFORE mankind was.
Evolution states that life was present on earth BEFORE mankind was.
Evolution states that life came from a single cell then evolved to what we are now.
Genesis states God states it created this and that (out of thin air presumably) first created land (that which the first cell could have been out of) and sea (that which the first cell could have came out of) then the birds, bees, the G's and the C's (joke), then other animals, then the humans.
Genesis states females came from the ribs of a man. (this is controversial and I don't completely believe in this)
Evolution states humans evolved from primates, both male and female, stating nothing of the rib creating female ordeal.
Mark, fundamentally speaking, Genesis and Evolution are NOT far off from each other. Simplistic logic states they both are similar on the premise that both say there was land, then animals, then humans came along.
Most of the other material in Genesis can be taken "with a grain of salt", however, when picked a part, you're left with already previously said events; land (sea), animals, humans. No matter how you san refute that it's still there.
Evolution states, land (sea), animals, humans; the first cell needed something to obtain it, it needed either land or water or both to help it produce.
I've stated these theories of mine plenty times in past debates, within the last few days, you must have missed it.
To say I have not presented a "counter fucking argument" is bullshit, and you say you're calling out my bullshit. Mark, you're missing the details mate. Pay attention.
Genesis also states that life was present on earth BEFORE mankind was.
Evolution states that life was present on earth BEFORE mankind was.
Evolution states that life came from a single cell then evolved to what we are now.
The sequence of events is not what I am speaking of, so they can either disagree or agree it doesn't matter.
Mark, fundamentally speaking, Genesis and Evolution are NOT far off from each other. Simplistic logic states they both are similar on the premise that both say there was land, then animals, then humans came along.
They are quite far off actually. This is like saying carbon and plutonium are both generally the same, since they are both elements. So yes we can simplify it to the point of meaningless comparisons, like you have done here in regards to adam and eve and the theory of evolution being essentially "the same".
Genesis states females came from the ribs of a man. (this is controversial and I don't completely believe in this)
It's very clear in the bible. On what basis do you reject certain aspects of the bible while accepting others?
To say I have not presented a "counter fucking argument" is bullshit, and you say you're calling out my bullshit. Mark, you're missing the details mate. Pay attention.
Only now after you realize you cannot defend your argument do you concede that the part discussing eve being from adam's rib may be false.
Evolution says that life came from one cell, then evolved. Genesis states that god created all the creatures as they are, fully formed, and placed them on the earth. Directly contradictory.
Only now after you realize you cannot defend your argument do you concede that the part discussing eve being from adam's rib may be false.
Evolution says that life came from one cell, then evolved. Genesis states that god created all the creatures as they are, fully formed, and placed them on the earth. Directly contradictory."
Only now after?..... You're full of yourself and your feeble thoughts.
I am defending myself to you, have been, and will continue, in the way that I know. And you claim you know how and when I am defending myself? What is this bullshit, Mark? Which part am I not defending? At which point in this fucking "genesis and evolution" discussion have I not been defending myself.
You've been doing a poor job, all you want to do is focus on very general sequences of events.
You want to ignore the parts that are directly contradictory. Namely how God took Adam's rib and created a woman.
You also ignored this part:
Evolution says that life came from one cell, then evolved. Genesis states that god created all the creatures as they are, fully formed, and placed them on the earth. Directly contradictory.
A poor job, how? On your terms, fuck that noise. I don't need to oblige by your terms of defending ones self. Who do you think you are, Mark? I'm doing just as good a job as I should be doing.
I ignore nothing other than your retarded remarks about those who believer, I discuss and point out everything else we've discuss.
Mark, I've discuss the Adam and Eve and the rib in other posts, obviously you missed them. I did not ignore that part, however that part of this discussion means little to me.
Some believe god did take a rib out of a man and used that to create a woman, I'm not sure if I believe in that entirely. In fact, I do not know if I partially believe in that, well, part of me does, part of me does not. What else would you life me to tell you on that part? You're focusing on Adam and Eve, while I was simply stating when stripping down both evolution and genesis they state: Land (sea), other animals, human beings. This is irrefutable. Adam and Eve are the "details" while I am explaining a complex process in a standard logical way. This is similar to that, without great detail.
You seem to want more detail, and that's fine, however, the discussion of mine originally was stating the simplistic logics/process of both genesis and evolution.
"You also ignored this part:
Evolution says that life came from one cell, then evolved. Genesis states that god created all the creatures as they are, fully formed, and placed them on the earth. Directly contradictory."
Again, I did not ignore it, you're not paying attention.
I already stated above how I view it.
Evolution states land (sea), first cell, other animals/lifeforms and human beings.
Genesis states land (sea), other animals/lifeforms, and human beings.
Regardless of how long these events took to process into the next life form, they're both precisely stating that first there was land or sea, then some sort of life form came to be, then others, then human beings.
The HOW, the more complex details of both can and are contradictory to each other, HOWEVER, the simple logic behind these two theories/facts, whichever floats your boat are similar to each other.
And it's not a poor job on "my terms", it would be general debating terms. You defend your position poorly, I've already shown you where it's contradictory. But all you want to do is ignore the contradictory parts and focus on "simplistic logic".
This is like saying carbon and plutonium are the same, because they're both atoms. This isn't simplistic logic. This is picking one aspects of two items, and declaring them very similar or identical to one another.
How you view it makes no sense. Like I showed you above, it's like saying the Titanic and my dodge neon are the same, because they both contain metal.
Mark, YOU claim I defend my position poorly. I say I do not defend my position poorly. It's irrelevant what you claim about my thoughts.
I do not ignore, you're the one ignoring billions of people.
Are the Titanic and the dodge not a form of transportation? Oh that's right, you cannot make those correlations, or even if you could, you do not see the similarities.
Once again, you choose to ignore the facts, not me. You're one sided, you're "science is right and everything else is wrong" and I'm "science is right and so is spirituality and religion beliefs in X, Y, Z god (s)".
Mark, YOU claim I defend my position poorly. I say I do not defend my position poorly. It's irrelevant what you claim about my thoughts.
Your arguments in defense of your position are shit, dude. Get over it and come up with a better argument, or keep telling yourself that your position was defended spectacularly well in your opinion.
I do not ignore, you're the one ignoring billions of people.
How am I ignoring billions of people? I once was a religious person, I used to believe in god. I went out looking for the proof, evidence, and arguments supporting god's existence. The proof, evidence, and arguments I did find pointed to "god almost certainly does not exist". Why should I believe what billions of other people believe, simply because lots of people believe it? Belief does not have an effect on the truth. When will you understand that billions of people believing in something does not change what is the truth?
Are the Titanic and the dodge not a form of transportation? Oh that's right, you cannot make those correlations, or even if you could, you do not see the similarities.
Don't forget to add into your impeccable argument that my brother's scooter and the NASA space shuttle are identical, they're both forms of transportation after all.
You're one sided, you're "science is right and everything else is wrong" and I'm "science is right and so is spirituality and religion beliefs in X, Y, Z god (s)".
There is no proof or evidence that god's exist, or that spiritual awareness in some supernatural form exists either. It is therefore irrational to hold beliefs in these things. So how can you say that spirituality and religious belief in gods is "right" or at least "rational" ? Science contradicts those last two ideas.
Mark, you're one of the lamest atheists I have ever discussed with.
I've got many friends and and have spoken to many people whom are atheists or agnostic, and we've discussed in depth, more in depth, more creative, more intelligence than you or any other atheist on this site I have spoken with.
You are a young atheist, you once were theist, so not only are you a young and immature atheist, you recently decided to change your beliefs, and that's fine.
Understand where you stand in this world. You refutes of my claims are weak, and your insults to me are weak and useless. Look at yourself deep within and your approach to debates before talking shit about theism, which is what you've been providing, talking shit without anything truly sound with your arguments. All I hear and read from you sir are insults and standard atheist arguments without any style.
Mark, you're words are dull and fragile. I hope you grow up in your beliefs of atheism.
Mark, you're one of the lamest atheists I have ever discussed with.
I've got many friends and and have spoken to many people whom are atheists or agnostic, and we've discussed in depth, more in depth, more creative, more intelligence than you or any other atheist on this site I have spoken with.
Cool.
You are a young atheist, you once were theist, so not only are you a young and immature atheist, you recently decided to change your beliefs, and that's fine.
Says the person who can't defend their position.
Understand where you stand in this world. You refutes of my claims are weak,
Lol, seriously? Sounds like denial.
Mark, you're words are dull and fragile. I hope you grow up in your beliefs of atheism.
Outgrow your belief in a higher power, there is no evidence for one so far.
I'm not in denial, Mark. You can't accept my beliefs in a "higher power". I care not, Mark. I don't need you or anybody else to believe in what I believe in, the thoughts and actions of people speak for themselves. I will not outgrow my belief in a higher power, I am bound to it. Just because you've lost your god, just because your god has died to you, just because your minds-eye is blinde to your god, doesn't mean I've lost sight of my god.
It's okay man, let it go. Let people believe. Your words will not bring down anything, will not change anything.
I'm not in denial, Mark. You can't accept my beliefs in a "higher power".
Since when was this about acceptance of your beliefs? You can believe whatever you want, all I'm saying is that your beliefs are conflicting, and all you want to do is cover your eyes and ears and say they're in perfect agreement. Aka cognitive dissonance.
Just because you've lost your god, just because your god has died to you, just because your minds-eye is blinde to your god, doesn't mean I've lost sight of my god.
My god has died...? No, it's more like growing up and realizing your imaginary friend was actually...gasp...imaginary!
It's okay man, let it go. Let people believe. Your words will not bring down anything, will not change anything.
You can continue your primitive beliefs, you've become a somewhat distant victim of religion through your continued faith in irrational beliefs that have no evidence to support them. The human mind will always try to justify it, even to the point of outright denial of evidence to the contrary.
This has become more about your conflicts, your internal "demons" if you will, with believing in anything, lest how you do not believe people should have faith in this so-called "GASP, imaginary friend"
Well Mark, I'm here to tell you once and for all your words mean nothing to those that believe. You CAN'T ACCEPT THAT PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF AND OTHERS believe in X, Y, Z god. Let it be, STOP FIGHTING IT! You are fighting a war against a force stronger than you or I will ever know. Stop it, Mark, fucking stop.
My beliefs are not primitive Mark, they're natural, ingrained into our very DNA. Your denial of this is the issue, with yourself.
Mark, you are not understanding people like myself.
I believe in science and all its glory, I believe in evidence, I believe things are evident both within the scientific realm and religious/spiritual realm.
So again, for the billionth time, I do believe in evidence of both sides. Yet, you claim I am in denial. Denial of what? What is there for me to deny? I accept FUCKING BOTH scientific realm and the religious/spiritual realm.
This has become more about your conflicts, your internal "demons" if you will, with believing in anything, lest how you do not believe people should have faith in this so-called "GASP, imaginary friend"
Internal demons? What internal demons have I displayed?
Well Mark, I'm here to tell you once and for all your words mean nothing to those that believe.
This only supports my position that a fair percentage of religious people are closed minded to ideas that are in disagreement with their religion. Of course they won't listen to me. Thank you for adding validity to my position.
You CAN'T ACCEPT THAT PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF AND OTHERS believe in X, Y, Z god
So long as your belief in x, y, z god doesn't impact my life, why should I care? Oh, that's right, because lots of religious people like to legislate or impose their religious beliefs on other people who do not share those beliefs. Things like stem cell research being halted, womens rights for abortion being deprived, gay couples being deprived the right to marriage, the completely fabricated controversy around theory of evolution, etc.
You are fighting a war against a force stronger than you or I will ever know.
Being brainwashed as a child into believing in a deity that likely doesn't exist, I was actually part of that side. I think all ideas should be criticized accordingly, especially if they disagree with objective scientific evidence. Religion or belief in a god is no exemption. I virtually never bring it up in real life, but on a debate site arguing your point is the objective of the site.
My beliefs are not primitive Mark, they're natural, ingrained into our very DNA. Your denial of this is the issue, with yourself.
This has to be a joke. Belief in a god is not ingrained into our DNA. Curiosity about the world and everything around us is what is ingrained in our DNA. God is just what happens to fill that cavity in your case, and much of the world.
I'm not denying that humans are curious of the world around them, I am denying that belief in god is ingrained in our DNA.
So again, for the billionth time, I do believe in evidence of both sides. Yet, you claim I am in denial. Denial of what? What is there for me to deny? I accept FUCKING BOTH scientific realm and the religious/spiritual realm.
Well, there isn't any evidence supporting the claims of religion, the existence of god, or the existence of a spiritual realm. I may be wrong though, I'm always open to evidence. Do you have any for religion, existence of god, or the spiritual realm?
Mark, grow the fuck up mate.
Why not, you know, get rid of beliefs not grounded in reality?
"This only supports my position that a fair percentage of religious people are closed minded to ideas that are in disagreement with their religion. Of course they won't listen to me. Thank you for adding validity to my position."
And I can turn around and say "Thanks for supporting my claims that most atheists are close minded people because they call people ignorant for not believing in what they believe in or claims are in disagreement with theirs".
Which is it Mark, you or me? Or neither, or both? Cmon man you pull shit out of your atheist ass. You're claims of people me are weak. I'm reflecting the ridiculous-ness that you're gleaming back at you.
Since when did I fucking EVER impose my beliefs onto you? Nah Mark I've done nothing but defend myself against your retarded comments about ignorance. I don't give a flying fuck what you believe in or don't believe in. You'r being disrespectful for the fun of it. Stop it, Mark.
Theory of evolution - I believe in this in its entirety.
Theory of creationism - I believe in this in its entirety.
The scientific realm - I believe in this in its entirety.
The religious/spiritual realm - I believe in this in its entirety.
X, Y, Z god (s) - I believe in this in its entirety.
Afterlife, in any shape or form - I believe in this.
Stem cell research - I believe in this.
Gay marriage rights - I believe in this; I believe gay people should have similar rights as other people have rights.
Abortion - I believe woman have the right to choose.
What else do you fucking want man? What are you arguing against?
And I can turn around and say "Thanks for supporting my claims that most atheists are close minded people because they call people ignorant for not believing in what they believe in or claims are in disagreement with theirs".
Not if you still cared about making any sense at all. A response like the one you wrote wouldn't make any sense, since that is not my position. I don't care if people believe in the same thing as me, nor do I consider them ignorant for not believing what I believe.
What I do expect is for a person's beliefs to make logical sense, as well as be empirically justified.
So no, you couldn't really respond with that statement, because it wouldn't make sense. Not to mention, it's a straw man. I recommend you work on avoiding logical fallacies in your arguments.
Which is it Mark, you or me? Or neither, or both? Cmon man you pull shit out of your atheist ass. You're claims of people me are weak. I'm reflecting the ridiculous-ness that you're gleaming back at you.
You or me for what? You haven't even presented my argument, all you've done is shown me your poor interpretation of it. Your interpretation is completely wrong. Work on your comprehension skills, perhaps it'll prevent another misunderstanding.
Since when did I fucking EVER impose my beliefs onto you? Nah Mark I've done nothing but defend myself against your retarded comments about ignorance. I don't give a flying fuck what you believe in or don't believe in. You'r being disrespectful for the fun of it. Stop it, Mark.
I didn't say that you were imposing your beliefs on me, I said religious people were.
Theory of evolution - I believe in this in its entirety.
Theory of creationism - I believe in this in its entirety.
These two theories conflict with each other. So far you have been unable to demonstrate how you resolve this obvious conflict.
The scientific realm - I believe in this in its entirety.
The religious/spiritual realm - I believe in this in its entirety.
If by religious/spiritual realm you're talking about existence of god and the existence of spirits and other "planes" where beings of some sort exist, then you should also know that science and the religious/spiritual realm also conflict.
X, Y, Z god (s) - I believe in this in its entirety.
Based on what empirical evidence? Or is it personal whim?
Afterlife, in any shape or form - I believe in this.
Again, based on what empirical evidence? Or is it just wishful thinking?
Stem cell research - I believe in this.
Gay marriage rights - I believe in this; I believe gay people should have similar rights as other people have rights.
Abortion - I believe woman have the right to choose.
Again, "just a theory". No, SCIENTIFIC theory. An idea that has evolved past being a law that explains why something happens and predicts that it will consistantly happen due to sufficient evidence to believe so. No, you cant see evolution happen right before your eyes, but archeologists can. We have skulls, common ancestry, carbon dating. We have all this support that it does happen, without having to see it. It's not a matter of faith. Faith implys that there is little to back the believed claim. No, evolution is an accepted reality. We dont need to believe in it because it really happens.
With god this isnt the case. No we cant see god. No we cant see evolution. This is where you say, "oh well theyre the same". No theyre not. God has no other underlying evidence to support that he is real without seeing him. Evolution does.
Also look at the word "fallacy" it means FALSE or false logic. Therfore whatever you said that was a fallacy is trash.
D00d I was saying I not one person can see everything in this universe as it is right now, like blam. Of course scientists have got evidence of this or that I wasn't refuting that.
He doesn't need proof that they don't exist, for how can you prove the non existence of something? Fairies, demons, werewolves, vampires, unicorns, and the chupacabra have not been proven to not exist, why don't we believe in them as well?
Some might believe in those things, and why bother even tell them it doesn't exist? How come you tell me a unicorn doesn't exist when you have no proof supporting your statement ?
It is the job of religious people to demonstrate to other people that god exists. Not the non believers job to prove god does not exist.
That is probably the dumbest thing I've heard for a long time.
What your telling me here is, that you don't need proof for your belief, but I do. With that attitude no one is going to take you seriously.
By that reasoning, you believe in everything I listed above. This is a childish position.
No I don't believe in everything above. I don't feel the existence of unicorns and werewolfs. I no what you're gonna reply to that one, you aren't the first atheist I've debated with.
I know you're gonna make fun of that we feel God's existence .. and just go ahead. I'm not even gonna listen, because I don't care how stupid my faith sounds to you, all I care about is that I believe.. what bothers me is that others don't respect my belief. Because why shouldn't they? I respect every religion on this earth, I might think that islamic people are kinda crazy but still .. I respect their belief.
I have never given anyone a reason to hate my religious views.
Because religious people want to legislate their religious beliefs or stall the progress of science. Abortion, gay marriage, creationism taught in schools, stem cell research being halted, etc.
I support everything that is proven to be true. Evolution f.ex.
I support gay marriage, I don't believe in crationism.
But one of the things of the list I don't support is abortion, but that has nothing to do with my belief. I just think it's wrong of many other reasons besides my religion.
I don't necessarily agree with his statement, but I do find it arrogant when religious people make random remarks about god's existence, but if I ever were to make a remark about god's non existence I would be met with hostility and/or criticism for offending other's beliefs. For some reason if they shout god exists or imply it, I must keep quiet. But if I say my belief that god does not exist, I must not say such offensive statements. This is hypocrisy.
I agree with you. I hate when people mock my religious vies, because personally I haven't done anything that could make you hate my religion.
I've heard from many, that religion is the cause of war and other horrible events, but I have never started war but some have I know. But you can't blame the religion for something a group of people did.
Some might believe in those things, and why bother even tell them it doesn't exist? How come you tell me a unicorn doesn't exist when you have no proof supporting your statement ?
The evidence for the things I listed is either lacking, or totally non existence, therefore a position of "these supernatural beings exist" despite your complete utter lack of evidence, your position becomes unreasonable and irrational. The person can continue believing in it, it's just that that belief would be unwarranted, unjustified, unreasonable, and irrational.
I didn't say the unicorn doesn't exist. And if I did say that it didn't exist, I don't ever mean so literally. When I say something like "god does not exist", I do not literally mean god does not exist no matter what I have proof of his non existence etc. I am saying it fairly casually, for I do not feel like explaining "well based on the evidence, god's existence is highly unlikely, and then you have to factor in the...blah blah blah". It's shorter and easier to say "god does not exist". If someone confronts me on it, I clarify that for them so they know that I didn't literally mean what I said, I was only saying it for the sake of not being super technical while typing here.
That is probably the dumbest thing I've heard for a long time.
What your telling me here is, that you don't need proof for your belief, but I do. With that attitude no one is going to take you seriously.
If you have a problem with the burden of proof, that's not my problem. It is how things are. Based on your logic, I could say "I can fly" and Bob down the street would say "no, you cannot". And I would say "well you have to prove that I cannot fly, otherwise your belief that I cannot fly is unreasonable and dumb". You pretty much give me license to declare whatever crazy shit that I want to say, and all I have to do to the people who disagree is say "prove that I cannot do what I claimed".
So no, what you heard was not the dumbest thing you've heard in a long time. To do that, you need only look at what you wrote, and realize the consequences of your logic.
No I don't believe in everything above. I don't feel the existence of unicorns and werewolfs. I no what you're gonna reply to that one, you aren't the first atheist I've debated with.
I know you're gonna make fun of that we feel God's existence .. and just go ahead. I'm not even gonna listen, because I don't care how stupid my faith sounds to you, all I care about is that I believe.. what bothers me is that others don't respect my belief. Because why shouldn't they? I respect every religion on this earth, I might think that islamic people are kinda crazy but still .. I respect their belief.
I have never given anyone a reason to hate my religious views.
Respecting religion does not mean that you must never criticize the person's religion. People who get offended by that are being childish. All ideas are open to criticism, even religion. So if I or anyone else criticizes your religion, why does that surprise you? Why is your religion exempt from criticism?
Religion does not deserve automatic respect, it has to earn that respect. And so far no religion that I have encountered has been worthy of respect, only criticism.
I support everything that is proven to be true. Evolution f.ex.
I support gay marriage, I don't believe in crationism.
Good. You're better off than a good chunk of religious folk already.
But one of the things of the list I don't support is abortion, but that has nothing to do with my belief. I just think it's wrong of many other reasons besides my religion.
Are you of the belief that life begins at conception, and therefore once the egg is fertilized it is entitled to human rights and cannot be aborted since by that belief it would be considered "murder" ? It logically follows that the womans rights are deprived in favor of this zygote/fetus being, correct?
I agree with you. I hate when people mock my religious vies, because personally I haven't done anything that could make you hate my religion.
I would say don't take it so personally. I welcome it when people criticize my views or beliefs, so long as they intend to have a rational coherent discussion with me. If it's some idiot saying "you believe we came from monkeys!? that makes zero sense!", and then they proceed to mock me simply because they're not listening to what I'm saying, they're just waiting for me to finish talking so they can continue their ignorant statements. At this point, in real life, I would simply end the discussion and let them believe they "won".
One more thing, mocking does not equal hatred.
I've heard from many, that religion is the cause of war and other horrible events, but I have never started war but some have I know. But you can't blame the religion for something a group of people did.
Religion is one of the causes of war. If we didn't have religion, it is arguable The Crusades would not have happened. I mean, it may have happened anyways for other reasons like money and power, but taking away religion would be one less reason to go to war. And let's face it, MANY wars have been fought over purely religious disputes.
One thing that I STRONGLY dislike or possibly even hate about religion is this idea that you can believe in something on faith alone, even if you lack evidence or even if all the evidence in the world is against you. I can think of no justification for this absurdity.
The evidence for the things I listed is either lacking, or totally non existence, therefore a position of "these supernatural beings exist" despite your complete utter lack of evidence, your position becomes unreasonable and irrational. The person can continue believing in it, it's just that that belief would be unwarranted, unjustified, unreasonable, and irrational.
So ??? If beliveing in dragons and stuff makes sense to you .. why not let me believe it ? I really don't see the problem.
You pretty much give me license to declare whatever crazy shit that I want to say, and all I have to do to the people who disagree is say "prove that I cannot do what I claimed".
Okay.
I tell Bob I can fly - Bob doesn't belive me.
I don't care, and I go around the world telling people that I can fly, whilst Bob goes around the world convincing people its a lie.
Both of us have no evidence proving our claims, but apparently Bob doesn't need to prove his point, but I do ???
Doesn't make much sense in my head.
Respecting religion does not mean that you must never criticize the person's religion. People who get offended by that are being childish.
The person who started this debate called christians arrogant and told us to shut up. That is not criticism to me.
Are you of the belief that life begins at conception, and therefore once the egg is fertilized it is entitled to human rights and cannot be aborted since by that belief it would be considered "murder" ? It logically follows that the womans rights are deprived in favor of this zygote/fetus being, correct?
No not correct. I just think it takes away our humanity.
I mean - one of the things that makes us different from animals are that we can love.
Animals kill their youngs, and if we do too in my head were gonna be just like animals. But that's just how I think about it.
But still, I'm not really saying abortion should be illegal .. it's just something I would personally never do.
So ??? If beliveing in dragons and stuff makes sense to you .. why not let me believe it ? I really don't see the problem.
Believing in dragons and stuff does not make sense to me, because that belief lacks evidence. That is why the belief would be unwarranted, unjustified, unreasonable, and irrational.
I don't care, and I go around the world telling people that I can fly, whilst Bob goes around the world convincing people its a lie.
Both of us have no evidence proving our claims, but apparently Bob doesn't need to prove his point, but I do ???
Doesn't make much sense in my head.
You made this original statement: Atheism isn't proved to be the absolute truth. You have no proof that religious Gods don't exist.
What you're saying is we should believe Bob can fly, simply because we cannot prove that Bob cannot fly.
Similarly, you are saying that God exists even though you provide no evidence, and also because we cannot prove god's non existence.
If you shift the burden of proof to the non believer, you give people license to declare whatever crazy shit they want with no need for proof or evidence. Does this clear it up?
The person who started this debate called christians arrogant and told us to shut up. That is not criticism to me.
I wasn't defending him. I'm not accountable for what he says.
But still, I'm not really saying abortion should be illegal .. it's just something I would personally never do.
If I were a girl, I'd probably do it if I happened to get pregnant at an inconvenient time. More people should adopt your attitude though.
Believing in dragons and stuff does not make sense to me, because that belief lacks evidence. That is why the belief would be unwarranted, unjustified, unreasonable, and irrational.
If believing in dragons makes sense for me, why should you even bother telling me it's untrue, when I don't care about evidence?
What you're saying is we should believe Bob can fly, simply because we cannot prove that Bob cannot fly.
No, what I'm trying to say that Bob hasen't got any reasonable reasons to tell people that I can't fly.
I feel God everywhere I go, that is the only proof I got. I know well that it is not going to convince you that I'm telling the truth.
But if I tell you I feel God, why should you go around telling people I don't, because you can't really know whats in me or what I feel.
Does this clear it up?
No .. I still think you need just the same amount of evidence to prove your claims as I do mine.
If believing in dragons makes sense for me, why should you even bother telling me it's untrue, when I don't care about evidence?
If you don't care about evidence, then you have bigger problems.
No, what I'm trying to say that Bob hasen't got any reasonable reasons to tell people that I can't fly.
The reasons are not important. Let's say he doesn't have any reasons for you not being able to fly. At this point, we should all believe that you can fly even though you have no evidence? This is what I'm trying to point out. You can replace the "flying" thing with anything. You could claim to be God himself, but that you just don't feel like showing off your godly powers. Get what I'm saying now?
That is why it is up to the person making the claim to prove it. Not the job of the other person to disprove it. Otherwise, you can declare yourself God or some other crazy shit, and we'd by default have to believe you.
But if I tell you I feel God, why should you go around telling people I don't, because you can't really know whats in me or what I feel.
I'm not. I'm saying that I don't believe you, and that no one else should believe you until you can prove that you feel God. I don't know how you would go about proving that anyways.
No .. I still think you need just the same amount of evidence to prove your claims as I do mine.
You're missing the point here. I'm not asserting that god does not exist. You are asserting that god does exist, but you have no evidence. Therefore, nobody should believe you.
If you don't care about evidence, then you have bigger problems.
It's not that I don't care about evidence.
Just that as long as they aren't real ... then I don't care.
That is why it is up to the person making the claim to prove it. Not the job of the other person to disprove it. Otherwise, you can declare yourself God or some other crazy shit, and we'd by default have to believe you.
In this debate, there was a person starting this debate, by making my claim.
He or she, according to you, should have evidence supporting them.
There wasn't a christian who started a claim by telling God exist, following by an atheist who said the opposite.
No, it was an atheist who claimed that there is no such thing as God.
Therefore the atheist is claiming that there is no God, and me ? I was questioning his claim since he hadn't got proof.
Therefore, in this particular debate, the debate starter is the one who claimed, therefore him who needs evidence - not me, because like you said it is up to the person making the claim to prove it. Not the job of the other person to disprove it.
Just that as long as they aren't real ... then I don't care.
You just said you didn't care about evidence.
What I'm saying is there is no evidence so far that supports god's existence, and neither is there evidence supporting the existence of dragons. So why do you believe in god yet you disbelieve in dragons?
In this debate, there was a person starting this debate, by making my claim.
He or she, according to you, should have evidence supporting them.
I don't speak for the person who created the debate. If they make claims, you should take it up with him/her, not me.
There wasn't a christian who started a claim by telling God exist, following by an atheist who said the opposite.
No, it was an atheist who claimed that there is no such thing as God.
Therefore the atheist is claiming that there is no God, and me ? I was questioning his claim since he hadn't got proof.
He declared religion nonsense, which from that statement I guess it can be reasonably assumed that he includes god as the nonsense, which logically follows that god doesn't exist. But even a refutation of his statement doesn't mean god does exist, nor does it put god's chances of existing as favorable. All it does is rule out the 100% non existence of god.
Therefore, in this particular debate, the debate starter is the one who claimed, therefore him who needs evidence - not me, because like you said it is up to the person making the claim to prove it. Not the job of the other person to disprove it.
The debate starter made a claim, so prove it.
He needs evidence if he is to claim with 100% absolute certainty that god does not exist. But as far as I am aware, this is impossible. I don't think its possible to prove the non existence of something. All you can do is become certain by varying degrees of certainty.
I am the other person so I don't need evidence.
To deny his absolute claim that god does not exist, you would be correct, because he would need evidence for his absolute position that god does not exist. I don't know if he means it in that way, because most atheists I know say it for quick conversation, but actually mean that the chances of god existing are so miniscule that it's not even worth considering.
What I'm saying is there is no evidence so far that supports god's existence, and neither is there evidence supporting the existence of dragons.
What I am saying is just that as long as hit hasn't been proved wrong it could be.
I don't speak for the person who created the debate. If they make claims, you should take it up with him/her, not me.
I was replying to him or her who started the debate in my first argument.
He declared religion nonsense, which from that statement I guess it can be reasonably assumed that he includes god as the nonsense, which logically follows that god doesn't exist. But even a refutation of his statement doesn't mean god does exist, nor does it put god's chances of existing as favorable. All it does is rule out the 100% non existence of god.
Uhm that wasn't what I was trying to point out. What I was trying to point out was, that I wasn't the one who needed the proof, since the one who claimed something was the atheist who said he hadn't got proof. So he needs evidence according to you.
He needs evidence if he is to claim with 100% absolute certainty that god does not exist.*
I have never done so either, I believe everything is possible.
What I am saying is just that as long as hit hasn't been proved wrong it could be.
But dragons have also not been proven to not exist. Why don't you believe in dragons (or any mythical creature) then?
You're saying that god's non existence has not been proven. But the non existence of dragons has also not been proven. By this logic, you should believe in both god and dragons.
since the one who claimed something was the atheist who said he hadn't got proof. So he needs evidence according to you.
He needs evidence if he is to claim with 100% absolute certainty that god does not exist.
I agree. If he is claiming something with 100% absolute certainty like that, he's going to need undeniable proof/evidence.
I have never done so either, I believe everything is possible.
Theoretically, anything is possible, but you must also look at the likeliness as well. A playstation 3 could exist at the center of the sun for a split nano second, but the chances of that are so insanely low that it's not worth considering. I throw the existence of god in this pile, because I have found no evidence supporting his existence.
It's funny that you won't take your own advice and provide proof that God exists. I do not think that it is impossible that a god exists, but I don't believe in God just because I feel like it, or it's better for me. What if people did that with everything? Just believed things without adequate proof? There are so many instances where that can hurt others. And sometimes, in Christianity, it does. Venting about religious people not shutting up doesn't mean that you never shut up about religious people, so saying that she doesn't shut up either means nothing here. Fallacy. You missed the point when she called them arrogant. It wasn't about her not believing what they believe. It was about them preaching at others and being so sure that their god exists, that they're right. That's where the arrogance is.
Maybe she does have something better to say. It would take a lot more space to explain her life story though.
It's funny that you won't take your own advice and provide proof that God exists.
What I meant was, that as soon as atheists HAVE provided proof that God doesn't exists, I will believe it.
But I have never tried to get atheists to believe in God. All I want is respect.
I don't like when people call my belief arrogant without realising how arrogant they are.
Atheists try to turn me into a nonbeliever - to do so they need proof.
I am NOT trying to make atheists into believers, so I don't need to prove anything.
It wasn't about her not believing what they believe. It was about them preaching at others and being so sure that their god exists, that they're right. That's where the arrogance is.
I get that, and I agree - but many atheists are just the same. They are so sure that there isn't a God .. but whatever.
I am a little agnostic, because I believe I CAN be wrong .. therefore I just hate people calling me arrogant.
Maybe she does have something better to say. It would take a lot more space to explain her life story though.
Yeah but just telling people to shut up doesn't explain it very well does it?
That's not the point, I don't think. I think the point was venting about religious people, not thinking she will get a lot of "look at me" attention. It doesn't bother me at all. If "look at me" people bothered me, I wouldn't enjoy entertainment. Many people in entertainment had a dream, and part of that dream was to have the attention on them, on what they do, the work they created, etc. Spotlight on them. Nothing wrong with that. There's no need to get annoyed or angry that someone is getting attention or wants it. Everyone wants attention.
I find it ironic that you called people with religion arrogant. That itself is one of the most arrogant things i have heard on this site to date. Just because you believe something not to be true, doesn't mean that the people who still believe are wrong to do so.
That is not generally true some of us just don't believe in god, we don't want to convert you we just want facts and to be honest the bible kind of hard to believe, and athiests, religious people are not arragent they are just trying to defend their religion from our countless questions.
I was not talking about all atheists. I understand that they have a right to question God's existence, and i do not judge them for it.
My argument was directed towards the creator of this debate who shows in the quote above his complete disregard for other people's beliefs. That is what i found offensive.
If that's one of the most arrogant things you've heard, you haven't heard anything arrogant at all. You are right. Just because someone doesn't believe something, doesn't mean they're right. They need to have reasons for saying what they do and adequate support. I'm sure that you, as a religious person, think atheists are wrong, no? And you think that with no good reasons to be so sure that YOUR god exists, and not everyone else's god, or everyone else's non-god. That's what's arrogant about it.
There is definitely some great opinions on both side but i'm going to have to go with God still exists. People believe in god because it gives them something to hope for, someone to talk to when they are alone. Someone they can ask for help, or mercy because they want to be the best person that they can be. He lives in our dreams and our hearts! To become an atheist is ones on choice but if they can't be quiet about it why should we? Why can't we agree to disagree that we both have different opinions? One of my best friends is an atheist. Why should what we believe in matter in how we view one another?
People believe in god because it gives them something to hope for, someone to talk to when they are alone. Someone they can ask for help, or mercy because they want to be the best person that they can be. He lives in our dreams and our hearts!
But don't you care about whether your beliefs are true? Belief in God is just wishful thinking, it is not based on credible evidence.
To become an atheist is ones on choice but if they can't be quiet about it why should we?
That's because the atheist was not the first one to shout his non belief to the world. It was the believer who first shouted his belief to the world.
Why should what we believe in matter in how we view one another?
It shouldn't. That's just how the majority of religious people view atheists, typically with some negative view. Atheists do the same thing to religious people as well, but seeing as how religious people VASTLY outnumber atheists, the religious people do it more.
Yeah, I agree. People don't randomly go "I don't believe in this god!" It's a response to other people, even if they are the first to write it. If there was no talk of it anymore and everyone noticed this, no one would be randomly talking about atheism.
Exactly. I mean, we don't have congregations of people who celebrate or discuss the fact that they do not believe in werewolves or bigfoot.
Atheism is really just a response to people who so proudly believe in their god, that they find it offensive whenever an atheist says god does not exist, but it's perfectly fine for a theist to say god exists in some fashion. The atheist is expected to keep quiet if a religious person says god exists. But if an atheist says god does not exist, he gets the wrath of religious people for "offending" them.
"Respect my religious beliefs" the hypocrite will typically say. But if a religious person says something about god existing, it doesn't make much sense when an atheist says "respect my beliefs".
You shouldn't believe something just because it helps you to. What about the truth, or what seems most likely? You don't need to force yourself to believe in god to have someone to talk to, or something to hope for. That's the thing. He only lives in your dreams and hearts. Maybe you can create your own little god of support, in your own heart, without declaring him to be real? If you need hope of an afterlife, people who don't even believe in god believe this because of their experiences, first hand. :). I do.
You declare, without any evidence, that God is not real. There are no direct indicators to the validity of either position. However, indirect indicators point heavily to God, or some variant on the concept to exist. How, for example were proteins spontaneously formed? How did things such as bacterial flagellum evolve without some guidance? How did the universe it self start? Where did the super dense particle of the big bang come from? These must be adressed before God is dismissed completely.
God still exist.But good for you i won't judge you're decision to be an atheist also not all religious people brag only a few and a lot will be judged.
God exists in people who believe in him. He may not be understood in many ways but us Catholics understand his actions. I am not hindering anyone in their beliefs but I just want to say that religion is not entirely a hindrance to the world as many people think. It gives us a guiding principle to live in a society of peace. I am not saying that all Atheists are bad and all Christians are good. I am just saying that people should be given the right to believe who they want to believe without any evidences whatsoever. We may look foolish to others but that foremost is what makes us happy. People believe in God because they believe they can be happy with him in the end. Anyone who doe not believe in him are free to do so. We are given choices in life. Every Christian and Atheist know of this. It is our time here on earth is what makes us right. If we can live in a just society then why should we make each other suffer just because of their beliefs? Let us together find our happiness here on earth and let us believe what we want to believe.
I dont believe atheists always try to apply the statutes of the Bible to see if God exists. To be frank, one can you use more active approaches to prove the existense of God or not, its quite similar to what I do. I fast and pray and it does work. I just want everyone to know that the Christian version of God expects many of us to seek his face, and I dont just mean going to church on Sunday and sitting at the front of the podium. I literally mean to SEEK HIS FACE!!! If you really car you should try it.Know God for yourself and stop listening to pastors and evangelists.
Religious people invent apologetics and theology to teach and brainwashing little kid up !!
if you are truly believe in it,then you are totally unintellectual.
to trust god ?
you will not have any chance to get that !
not until you die.......you will realize that all of this church things just how emptiness it is ....and life is going to end without reaching to the other side !
Congratulations on making the crossover to logical, rational, and evidence based thought processes.
I used to be a Catholic as well until early 2011 perhaps late 2010, when I went through a period of agnosticism, then sometime later agnostic atheism. Although, I usually just shorten it to atheism.
I believe we can come to a mutual agreement eventhough i am atiast i do not go shouting my ideas to the world, but unlike me my dad is a jerk about it, he does not like that i am athiest and the rest of the family is catholic and he just is a jerk praying in front of me mockingly and lecturing why god is real and how his religion is great and how we could have evolved frome monkeys and WILL YOU JUST SHUT UP ABOUT YOUR GOD DAMN RELIGION.
he does not like that i am athiest and the rest of the family is catholic and he just is a jerk praying in front of me mockingly and lecturing why god is real and how his religion is great and how we could have evolved frome monkeys
Study up on some of the arguments he proposes in favor of god, and then refute them with your metaphorical sniper rifle. Religious people tend to repeat the same nonsense, shouldn't be hard to find a refutation for your dad's arguments.