CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is Atheisim a Religion?
Everything taught in schools in this modern day says that man evolved from nothing. This is technically an unproved theory, and therefore a belief. But is it a religion, and should it be taught in schools? Is the government imposing a religion?
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group .... been classified as a religion for quite some time
indeed ....... The Sunday Assembly was started by Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, two comedians who were on the way to a gig in Bath when they discovered they both wanted to do something that was like church but totally secular and inclusive of all—no matter what they believed .... an obvious element of the soon to emerge One World Religion
This is an old discussion but I'll revive it for the moment.. I AGREE with you.. Traditional marriage was a RELIGIOUS affair.. And, if it STAYED that way, gays COULDN'T get married in the traditional church.. That's because, pursuant to the 1st Amendment, government had NO say in how religion was practiced..
But, it DIDN'T stay that way.. The government decided to attach some RIGHTS to marriage, and THAT, my friend, is was brought marriage OUT of the church, and INTO the public.. Public law is guided by the Constitution..
In it, the 14th Amendment clearly says, that if SOME people have a RIGHT, then EVERYBODY has that right..
So, if the church wants to restrict gays from marrying, they need to CANCEL all the rights that go along with marriage... That'll DO it. But, nobody wanted to DO that, so the Constitution prevails..
Here is the relevant passage:
"... nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Jesus: .. But from the beginning of creation .. God made them male and female .. for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother .. and the two shall become one flesh .. so they are no longer two .. but one flesh .. what therefore God has joined together .. let no man separate
the Apostle Paul: .. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife .. and the two shall become one flesh ... this mystery is great .. but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church .... nevertheless .. each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself ..
and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband
What you are talking about is the religion of naturalism in which material is ascribed supernatural power to cause life. It is a waste of time when mingles with science. No scientific inquiry or endeavor requires belief in naturalism. Naturalism dictates interpretations of science excluding data which contradicts conclusions, therefore any science used to support naturalism is not true science but is rather a system of religious dictates.
The second law of thermodynamics says that when energy changes from one form to another form, or matter moves freely, entropy (disorder) increases. " Apply that to your chemical soup, and you find that when all your chemicals are mixing together, they get more random instead of orderly.
This is dumb. A straw man is something you invent to argue against instead of arguing against the facts.
The fact is that life does not come from non-living material, it comes from it's parents. The logical conclusion is an original parent.
When you say God is a thing created in your imagination, then you are creating a straw man argument as an imagined thing cannot be eternal due to the fact that being eternal shows it existed before you were capable of imagining it; so the thing you are imagining cannot be the eternal God. Any argument against God can be shown to be a straw man argument as they always imply God is something that He is not and they argue that what God cannot be proves the thing they argue against (which cannot be God) is not God and they are right; their straw man is not God.
If you know what you are about to say is dumb, why would you write it out?
A straw man is something you invent to argue against instead of arguing against the facts.
Which is exactly what you religious loons have done.
The fact is that life does not come from non-living material,
There isn't a single belief system that agrees with you. You advocate that life came from non living material mute than I do.
comes from it's parents.
What a shock, you agree with evolution.
The logical conclusion is an original parent.
You have argued against this statement before.
When you say God is a thing created in your imagination, then you are creating a straw man argument as an imagined thing cannot be eternal due to the fact that being eternal shows it existed before you were capable of imagining it;
It isn't a strawman. You just refuted the ontological argument. That's a religious argument, but one used by your opponents.
so the thing you are imagining cannot be the eternal God.
You have an awful lot of description for a thing you can't even imagine.
Any argument against God can be shown to be a straw man argument as they always imply God is something that He is not
False. As can be seen by the fact that you have never once shown that.
and they argue that what God cannot be proves the thing they argue against (which cannot be God) is not God and they are right; their straw man is not God.
Except the thing they argue against is exactly what Christians say God is and since they aren't misrepresenting what Christians think it isn't a strawman.
If by "rank below" you mean it is a worse argument, then yes, you are right. It doesn't get any worse than a living creature saying that living creatures can't possibly exist then making some conclusion based on that.
If the only theory of the beginnings of life was evolution, yes, my logic would be screwed up, but remember that the theory you are speaking of is not the only theory out there. The logic of the theory of evolution is screwed up, not mine. And if you want to prove otherwise, you actually need to find out what is wrong with my logic.
If the only theory of the beginnings of life was evolution, yes, my logic would be screwed up, but remember that the theory you are speaking of is not the only theory out there.
It is the only theory. You have an incomplete story. Plus, you didn't argue against evolution. You argued against life existing with the second law of thermodynamics.
The logic of the theory of evolution is screwed up, not mine.
You haven't even argued against evolution.
And if you want to prove otherwise, you actually need to find out what is wrong with my logic.
The "lack of belief" notion is a lie and a copout. Most Atheists believe certain things that have led to their "lack of belief". Are there exceptions? Yes, and just like religion. Are there technically people claiming to be Christian who don't believe Jesus was who he said he was? Yes, but the overwhelming majority do believe. Atheists almost all believe in Darwinian theory, and that if God was there, there would be no suffering, and that if God was there, the world would be a perfect place. They are also almost all white males, which proves it is somehow cultural within their ranks.
Please, tell me again, what atheists believe... You ARE, of course, more expert at what I believe than I MYSELF. Tell me MORE.. I'm waiting.. Got me a bowl of popcorn.
NAS., if reality hit you up the teeth you still wouldn't recognize it.
Let's take a look at the meanings of the word religion.
1) The belief in and the worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods. I DON'T BELIEVE IN SUCH A BEING(S).
2) A particular system of faith and worship. I DON'T WORSHIP ANYONE NOR ANYTHING.
3) A pursuit or interest followed with devotion. WELL IF ATTENDING THE GYM REGULARLY ( 5 TO 6 TIMES A WEEK) AND DINING IN GOOD RESTAURANTS CAN BE DESCRIBED AS DEVOTIONAL THEN I GUESS THOSE PURSUITS COULD, ACCORDING TO THE OXFORD DICTIONARY, BE DESCRIBED AS RELIGIONS.
However, as I seldom, if ever, think of, nor talk about my disbelief in the aforementioned figments of mankind's over vivid imagination I fail to see how any rational person could objectively interpret my contented state of untroubled enlightenment as a religion.
The fact that I don't believe in talking snakes, five small loaves & two little fishes feeding 5000 people, Noah's Ark and all that jazz seems, for reasons I can never understand, to upset some people.
You lot appear to be obsessed with the the fact that atheists disregard the religions of the world.
I am also convinced that you are the epitome of the classic 'devil's advocate', championing a faith which you don't believe in.
But, what the heck, it's all good clean kindergarten fun.
You, sir, seem to be beyond reach in your opposition of the truth, and all you are doing is calling for your own death and God is reluctant to answer that call or he would let you have it now. God does not want you to be burning in Hell forever or you would be there now. I guess he still has a purpose for you here though I'm not sure what it is. I hope it turns out good for you, but the way things are going now I know it's going against you and I really do feel sorry for you and so many others here who are like you in their animosity against their Creator.
Correction. You do believe in a superhuman controlling power called "Evolution". In your religion of atheism, it was superhuman before you believe life existed and it caused life, and it is superhuman as it propels life to god-like qualities. When atheists claim they believe in no god or have no religion, they are only trying to fool themselves thinking they can fool others into believing they are intelligent and not fools.
Atheism is the religion of fools, atheists are only fooling themselves and in reality they make a mockery of themselves though they will fight like devils trying to deny it....they are like the town drunk.
Your dictionary definition of religion is not worth much as it's usage of "especially" or "especially a personal God or Gods" is really showing that atheism is a religion in which your mind is your god and you think that in death it is superhuman as you believe it gets you out of reality and is therefore greater than being human. The claim of atheists to be exempt from religion is a joke. They are as religions as any old Hindu....believing their existence justifies them to be exempt of punishment in death.
Now pardon me for what is following, as I do consider you to be an intelligent person but you say some pretty stupid things in your pretense of arguing against God...which you are not doing.
Your comparisons of created things to the Creator of all things is nothing but a straw man argument...you toss out things that are less than God and insist they cannot be God......duhhhhhh, how long did it take for you to figure out that things cannot be the Creator of all things? For the life of me, I cannot understand why atheists continue making those kinds of comments when they are void of logic and transparent straw man arguments which are against things that cannot be God. It's foolishness, there is no argument against God.....any attempt to argue against God in reality is an argument in favor of your own condemnation in death, you are only opposing yourself.
Naturalism as Religion .... Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society.
Less than a century and a half ago, Charles Darwin popularized the credo for this secular religion with his book The Origin of Species .... Although most of Darwin's theories about the mechanisms of evolution were discarded long ago, the doctrine of evolution itself has managed to achieve the status of a fundamental article of faith in the popular modern mind. Naturalism has now replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world, and evolution has become naturalism's principal dogma. http://ow.ly/jTeh30aZmZ3
Nahhh... Biology is the CORNERSTONE of modern medicine, and evolution is the BEDROCK of biology... If you seek treatment at your local doctor, you BELIEVE in evolution.. If you think antibiotics work, you BELIEVE in evolution..
Atheists believe in NOTHING... Nonetheless, I've asked my fellow atheists over to my house to celebrate NOTHING, and we did.. But, it got boring after a couple minutes so we turned on the ball game..
It's true that some inmates made a religious claim. The government MUST uphold it, of course, because in this great land of ours, we have FREEDOM of religion - EVEN in prison.. Freedom MEANS inmates can BELIEVE whatever they want, and the government can't say they don't..
That doesn't mean atheism is "on a list of approved religions", because there IS no list.. The government can't APPROVE or DISAPPROVE of a religion.. That IS what freedom of religion means..
The atheistic religion of naturalism is illegally sanctioned in public schools which teach it fraudulently as science. The points you raise are the points which should remove atheism/naturalism from all science classes and keep it where it belongs in classes of religion or philosophy. The government by allowing and supporting by taxation if forcing a religion which teaches kids and young adults to fight against those who believe in God.
In your pothead excon self-righteous religion, you just can't shut up and keep it to yourself. You are compelled to present yourself as a jack ass to those who say God loves you.
In no way could Atheism be considered a religion. Atheism simply isn't a system of beliefs the way a religion is. A religion has common teachings and figures of worship, traditions that get passed down and a series of common beliefs that unite a group of people. The only thing Atheism has in the lack of a belief in a God. It is more common for two Atheists to have completely different opinions than otherwise, but they are both still Atheists. However, in a religious setting, they would be two different denominations because religion has a ridged belief structure far beyond what Atheism has.
Everything taught in schools in this modern day says that man evolved from nothing.
False. It teaches that we evolved from other living creatures. The bible more closely teaches that we came from nothing since Adam was just created from dirt.
This is technically an unproved theory,
Actually, it is a strawman fallacy.
and therefore a belief.
A belief held by Christians.
But is it a religion, and should it be taught in schools?
It is not a religion. Even you can only call it a belief. You created a strawman argument and you were only able to conclude it was a belief.
Your first argument: Yes, it says we evolved from other animals, who evolved from yet others, who evolved from yet others, who evolved from chemicals. Please note my other argument (4th from the top). The Bible does not teach that man evolved from nothing, because if you gather enough dirt and transmute its elements into the ones you need for life and put them in the place needed, life is created from dirt (by the way, who is talking? The person who believes time, physics, space, matter and everything came from nothing by accident?).
Your second argument: Correct, Atheism is a straw man fallacy as well as an unproved theory, the argument side of it addresses Christianity and related religions as cults having no evidence for their argument whatsoever, which is untrue.
Your third argument: See my first statement.
Your fourth argument: Forgive me from being unclear. The belief that God exists is the basis of the intricate beliefs of Christianity and like religions. The belief that no god exists is the basis of the intricate beliefs of Atheists. You cannot prove that there is no God as much as I can prove that there is a God. We can both give evidence, but currently there is no proof for either of our sides. Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity.
Your fifth answer relies on your earlier ones, my other responses will also suffice for this statement.
The Bible does not teach that man evolved from nothing
A dishonest debate gets us nowhere.
because if you gather enough dirt and transmute its elements into the ones you need for life and put them in the place needed, life is created from dirt
So, this is no problem for you to believe.
by the way, who is talking? The person who believes time, physics, space, matter and everything came from nothing by accident?).
That's better than the person who believes that the rules they believe exist don't actually have to be followed when convenient for their mental gymnastics.
Your second argument: Correct
Awesome, you got something right again. It is sad that the only way you get anything right is if I edit out the rest if your statement.
Atheism is a straw man fallacy
That's a completely idiotic statement. Good job. Twisting words and twisting it to something stupid. Impressive.
well as an unproved theory
Nope. Atheism isn't a theory.
the argument side of it addresses Christianity and related religions as cults having no evidence for their argument whatsoever, which is untrue.
People don't turn to atheism because atheists argue Christianity is a cult. Christians demonstrate that they are a cult and cause people to turn to atheism. The biggest mistakes you Christians make is to abandon science and claim God isn't involved. It's all your fault. Plus, you don't have any evidence. That is true, sorry.
Your third argument: See my first statement.
"Your first argument: Yes..."? You missed my point. Atheists don't believe what you say they believe. That's why it is a strawman fallacy.
The belief that God exists is the basis of the intricate beliefs of Christianity and like religions.
No, it is based on the idea that you can't understand the universe and need a bring to exist that can do all the things you don't understand. It's a coping mechanism.
The belief that no god exists is the basis of the intricate beliefs of Atheists.
No, it comes from actually thinking about what an intelligent being would do and noticing that the Earth appears to work exactly like a planet without a supernatural being existing.
You cannot prove that there is no God as much as I can prove that there is a God
And for every other thing that fits that pattern it makes more sense to not believe the thing exists. The overwhelming majority of atheists are not making the claim that they know for a fact that a God can't exist. The general belief of atheists is that there isn't a compelling reason to believe a God exists.
We can both give evidence,
False. Neither side can provide evidence. Your side hasn't found any evidence to present for thousands of years. That should tell you something, but alas it doesn't. My side can only provide a natural explanation for the things that are seen to be done by God and shorten the list of things associated with God. The definition of God is so vague that you can just change the scope of God without considering any facts.
Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity.
Since when did religion become defined as a belief system that can't be proved?
Your fifth answer relies on your earlier ones, my other responses will also suffice for this statement.
It's a debate website, you fucking moron. You look even fucking stupider than normal (a vey difficult task) when you can't even believe debating goes on on a website devoted to debate.
It's a debate website, you fucking moron. You look even fucking stupider than normal (a vey difficult task) when you can't even believe debating goes on on a website devoted to debate.
Bront recently banned you and i guess you saw his reasons.
I did. Did you see his reasons? He banned me because he didn't know the definition of liberal and thinks liberal means Democrat.
You're one of those with the most enemies and hostiles on CD almost twice as much as your allies.
So, because people get pissed off at the truth that makes me the bad guy?
You're blind to your stupid behaviour mostly seen in children who were not well brought by parents.
You think that Albert Einstein had foolish religious beliefs and you use his religious beliefs as your appeal to authority fallacy. Behaviors don't get any stupider than that.
You and i and many others can/will never have any serious good ending conversation with you.
True. Morons rarely have good conversations with me.
Nerh! he said your argument weren't coherent ..i am glad i didn't pay him to say that. common views from two different people.
No. He didn't. He said that because Muslims vote for the same political party as western liberals they must be liberals for adhering to Muslim traditions. He posted the definition of liberal as someone who moves away from tradition.
Nerh! your arguments arent coherent.
They are. You being stupid doesn't make me incoherent.
someone said you were cutting through points......so he got tired.
You keep having to point to what other people say instead of forming your own opinion.
You address points like stabbing a chicken in the back. Dude cut it from the head.
You fucking morons don't make any points. Head stab.
said he was confused, had contradictions in his own words making them sound riduculous(outwardly) but he must understand what he is Saying.
plus i never used beliefs but views.
we are not continuing this, it is s proper topic.
You think Einstein contradicts himself and you use him for your appeal to authority fallacy. You are a fucking idiot.
Morons who are at least intelligent than you.....
You aren't. You can't even attack my arguments. Still. Never once have you attacked my argument. If you were truly more intelligent wouldn't you be able to attack my arguments?
It is kind of sad that you have to keep cutting out my explanations in order to make your point.
You can't read.
This debate is getting us nowhere,
Then start debating.
this has been debated for a long time and I am just going to give you the link to the verdict of one of the most prestigious science authorities in the world for four hundred years: the Royal Society.
They say that we can still learn new stuff. That doesn't help your case.
If you wish to keep debating, that's fine with me I have an argument prepared.
Why the fuck didn't you start with your prepared argument?
I am tired of all this debating, it is sad that you have to cut parts of my sentences in order to get your point across. If that is the only way you can debate, then your point is not valid, or else you would use it. If you wish to keep debating, I have an argument ready, but I am going to hand over the verdict to the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, one of the leading authorities in science for about four hundred fifty years.
You didn't even do any debating. How are you already tired?
it is sad that you have to cut parts of my sentences in order to get your point across
No, what is sad is that every single thing you write had no basis in reality. I address everything you write. My point is that every thing you put forth is ridiculous. It needs to be broken down sentence by sentence.
If that is the only way you can debate, then your point is not valid, or else you would use it.
That depends on what my point is, doesn't it? If you don't make a statement that is based on reality, and I am just trying to point that out, then it is ok to break everything down.
If you wish to keep debating, I have an argument ready
What kind of idiot doesn't start with their argument?
but I am going to hand over the verdict to the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, one of the leading authorities in science for about four hundred fifty years
That verdict doesn't help you. They say that there is more about science that can be learned. Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean that the story with 0 answers is the right thing to go with.
Here again. you see. Then you scream. "fucking moron, don't you know this is a debate site? Then why are you on a debate site"
We didn't see anything like that, you fucking idiot.
You really have no fucking clue how stupid it is to think outlaw is a good debater. Holy shit. You get dumber and dumber every day. This is a serious question: Are you able to feed yourself?
I am not trying to beat you in a debate. I am telling to teach you the very basics involved with debating. You don't even fucking believe the British exist today.
I am telling to teach you the very basics involved with debating.
lol very funny coming from you.
Does that apply to all who get tired(annoyed but cant admit) when talking to you?lmfao
Those who ban you and your plentiful number of enemeies.
Outlaw60 is intelligent its just hard for your type to see it and the games he's playing with you. But i haven't said he's a good debator...he is using your own style to provoke you...
but you never get the message he's been putting across, do you?
He's urinating behind your wall...lmfao...
Same reasons i used to and still do avoid talking to you on real topics.
Does that apply to all who get tired(annoyed but cant admit) when talking to you?lmfao
It is not my fault that missions get annoyed by logic.
Those who ban you and your plentiful number of enemeies.
Oh no. Idiots hate being challenged. That must mean I am the bad guy.
Outlaw60 is intelligent
Seriously, he really isn't. He is really bad at this.
its just hard for your type to see it and the games he's playing with you.
I am the only one on this website who has ever gotten him to make a real actual argument. Do you know the power involved with getting a troll to make a real argument?
But i haven't said he's a good debator...he is using your own style to provoke you...
Provoke me? He doesn't prevoke anything. I corrected his spelling of the word too and he flips out and responds for times. That's being provoked.
but you never get the message he's been putting across, do you?
I actually do get the message. He rarely actually makes the message. But, I know exactly what he thinks. Out of curiosity, do you know what message he is trying to get across? I don't think you do.
Same reasons i used to and still do avoid talking to you on real topics.
You don't seem like a political troll with no brain.
Notice how your attacks of my arguments are that other people don't like me. Is that really your measure of truth? Notice that when I attack your arguments I point out how ridiculous your beliefs are. Like the fact that you don't think the British exist. I point out that that is a ridiculous belief to have. I don't use other people as my criticism of you. If you were actually right you could attack my argument instead of avoiding them. That's why you only resort to fallacies.
Wow, this was almost a year ago. My argument doesn't need to be broken up "sentence by sentence" when you do that it is called quoting out of context, and if you need to stoop that low to disprove my point you have no point.
Atheism isn't a religion, certainly. It can be called a mentality. Religions want you to "believe" in their mentality, which doesn't let you question what you observe. Even if, there's an answer given, it doesn't go well with practicality, to a great extent.
Atheism isn't a religion, certainly. It can be called a mentality. Religions want you to "believe" in their mentality, which doesn't let you question what you observe.
Theism is the belief in God, but not necessarily the worship or practice of rituals surrounding a particular God.
Atheism is the disbelief in God altogether, regardless of religion.
You can be a theist but not religious.
You can even be an atheist and religious (Buddhism, Jainism, Laveyan Satanism, etc). However, many people would probably refer to these more as 'philosophies' than religions, although that's a completely different topic to get into.
So, no, atheism is not a religion. Atheism can certainly lead to religion, just like theism usually leads to religion, however it is not in of itself a religious practice.
You're conflating atheism, a lack of belief in gods- the antithesis of religion - with abiogenesis, and likely abiogenesis with evolution. Though most atheists tend to be in general agreement with science, it's not a requirement. What's taught in school is science - and it absolutely should be taught.
