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 Religion An Extreme Form Of Escapism?
Is religion a form of escapism? Is it merely a means of people finding ways to cope with their fear of death? Some may find the answer quite obvious to them but I encourage you to think through what warrants escapism.
I'll start by saying that I don't think all forms of escapism are bad. A dose of fantasising is probably quite beneficial to your mental health, like winding down after a busy day by watching a movie. It's only when you neglect your real-life duties that escapist holidays become a problem.
With religion, however, escapism goes to a whole new level. The thing with most forms of escapism - watching movies, reading novels, gaming, even drinking or drug taking - is that you know you're escaping from reality. You're aware that you're indulging in something that is fake. But religion doesn't simply provide you with a fantasy; it provides you with a fantasy and tries its best to convince you that it is real. Escaping from reality while thinking you're firmly in the real world is dangerous indeed.
Karl Marx got it wrong when he said that religion is the opium of the people. At least opium users know they've created a fake world for themselves. Religion is a Matrix.
Yes, religion is nothing more then people forcing themselves to believe in a higher power due to a fear of death, a fear of becoming nothing. Throughout time people have taken advantage of this fear and given it rules and limitations, turning a phobia into a mass disease.
Once, when I was a child, I formed a cult. Between me and two of my friends. We seriously believed in magic and wizardry and mirror dimensions and differing planes of existence and spirits and demons and spells and...
We forgot about it after a few years. Just FORGOT about it.
Because we only believed in it because we were depressed.
People who search for something to believe in are people who feel like they have something missing. Some people find themselves and who they are and what they were put on Earth for, and other people find religion!
Though, children being raised from birth into religion is a different story. But once upon a time, everyone was religious. Children being born into religion instead of seeking for it themselves is the reason we have atheists and agnostics and cult leaders and people who just don't give a shit and have no opinion. Children being born into religion is also why we have moderate religious people, people who are apart of a religion, but only for the moral code and the spirit of the teachings, as opposed to the literal ideas of magic and miracles and an afterlife or whatever.
But people who specifically find religion later in life... yes, they are escapists. I know, because I was one of them. You have no reason to be a logical person, and then one day go out of your way to start believing in the literal translations of fairy tales like the New Testament or the Ancient Greek legends. That's practically the definition of escapism.
Well.. I'm not sure what you meant when you wrote down escapism. I can make a ton of interpretations out of it. If you are referring to the terrorist activities? Then.. Yes! It is of extreme in existence. But, I would like to clear, that every word spoken that covers their sins under the sheets of religion are not true. A certain things fall in reality. But, not all of it is how they portray.
If your speaking believes. I'm pretty sure some are blind. But, I don't see the harm that certain believes have in humanity. A lot of good has been done so far. From the time faith rose, religion has grown with one's personality. And that is the only reason how things today are. I wouldn't say it's wrong. But, religion is in the mind. I don't say God is. But, I do say that is not fully wrong.
in a way it is, its an attempt at hope.That in the end there will be some grand homecoming, versus eternal nothingness. But, drugs and alcohol are extreme forms of escapism as well, why the hell not escape every once in a while.
It can be, but that's not what it necessarily is. What's wrong with thinking of religion as an evolving phenomenon? In the simplest terms I can muster, a persons religion is their belief/value system. Or how about an individuals particular brand of intolerance? I think of religion as consisting of specific principles of philosophy that an individual chooses to live up to and promote.
I think someone can "have no religion" only in the sense that they have not chosen a specific sect to exclusively identify with.
My religion has been an escape for me in a sense. It helps me put aside my nihilistic tendencies, and reinvigorates hope, where despair is setting in.
While religion may be capable of doing what you claim, and I do not necessarily agree that it is, does that necessarily mean it is not a coping mechanism? At the point where all of that can be reached without religion, does religion not become a crutch for reaching those things less directly and less critically?
Edit Oof. Also, I just realized this is a waaaaay old post after countering it... so feel free to ignore my post by all means. :P
While religion may be capable of doing what you claim,
and I do not necessarily agree that it is, does that
necessarily mean it is not a coping mechanism?
No
At the point where all of that can be reached without religion,
does religion not become a crutch for reaching those
things less directly and less critically?
I don't look at religion in the same way you do. I think we all practice religion in one form or another. I don't think anything can "be reached" sans a systematic hierarchy of values. I don't think religion necessarily entails theism, spirituality, afterlife considerations, supernaturalism, or an aversion to critical thinking. Why should I? I do think it entails recognition of the sacred and profane, though.
I don't think religion necessarily entails theism, spirituality, afterlife considerations, supernaturalism, or an aversion to critical thinking. Why should I?
Your use of religion is not the common usage of the term, then, and I would argue is so loose as to make it nearly if not entirely synonymous with general belief or morality. These are distinct concepts, and to conflate them ignores the specificity of religion as a particular system of belief. To say that all systemic hierarchies of values are religious is not only counter-intuitive to me, but flagrantly false. My system of values has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Moreover I question the efficacy and consistency of religion as a means towards a systemic hierarchy of values, and particularly as a means the benefits of which outweigh the costs.
Finally, I would contend that recognition of the sacred and profane is itself an escapist frame of reference and mentality. Neither exists objectively, and both obstruct more accurate understanding of actual reality.
Your use of religion is not the common usage of the
term, then
It's more common than you might think. There are plenty of people who understand that religion, like government, is something we must deal with as part of the human condition. In other words, we can do it in different ways, but we must do it in some way.
and I would argue is so loose as to make it
nearly if not entirely synonymous with general belief or morality.
I think religious beliefs are distinct from ordinary beliefs in that religious beliefs are concerning sacred (or highest) values. All systems of morality are based on these kind of value judgements. If there truly are people who are not religious (ie they hold nothing to be sacred), I wonder what their moral philosophy is based on.
These are distinct concepts, and to conflate
them ignores the specificity of religion as a particular
system of belief.
But religion isn't a particular system from my (not all that uncommon) viewpoint. It is all systems taken as a whole. Religions are particular varieties.
To say that all systemic hierarchies of
values are religious is not only counter-intuitive to me, but flagrantly false.
Can we make a child debate of this please?
My system of values has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
I think you are mistaken
Moreover I question the efficacy and consistency of
religion as a means towards a systemic hierarchy of
values, and particularly as a means the benefits of which outweigh the costs.
So you perhaps have some ideas of how to improve religion?
Finally, I would contend that recognition of the sacred
and profane is itself an escapist frame of reference and mentality.
Well then I would contend that NOT recognizing the sacred is the true escapist route. Who do you think would win? :)
Neither exists objectively, and both obstruct more accurate understanding of actual reality.
It's more common than you might think. There are plenty of people who understand that religion, like government, is something we must deal with as part of the human condition. In other words, we can do it in different ways, but we must do it in some way.
I absolutely view religion as an unfortunate reality of the human condition, at least in the short-term. I do not think it follows, however, that finding a more positive manifestation of it actually changes what religion fundamentally is. I think that if you are discussing a moral/value system divorced from spirituality, theism, etc. then by definition you are not actually talking about religion.
I think religious beliefs are distinct from ordinary beliefs in that religious beliefs are concerning sacred (or highest) values. All systems of morality are based on these kind of value judgements. If there truly are people who are not religious (ie they hold nothing to be sacred), I wonder what their moral philosophy is based on.
Your argument is circular. You define religious beliefs as any beliefs with an hierarchy of values, and then define all hierarchical value systems as religious. This wholly ignores hierarchical systems of morality which are not derived from what would commonly be conceived of as "religious".
I contend that the religious morality is premised upon subjective realities, while there still exist moralities derived instead from objective realities. I think that divorcing religion from faith (and thus subjective truth) so dilutes the term as to make it meaningless and redundant. If all morality is religious, why not just call them moralities and do away with the concept of religion itself? Simply, religion denotes a specific conceptualization of morality.
Incidentally, I do not hold anything as inherently sacred but I also do not personally place much value in morality. I could elaborate, but I think this is somewhat tangential to the matter at hand.
But religion isn't a particular system from my (not all that uncommon) viewpoint. It is all systems taken as a whole. Religions are particular varieties.
Religion as a general term can encompass multiple religions, but it remains attached to those general concepts (e.g. faith) which semantically distinguish it from other general terms (such as morality).
Can we make a child debate of this please?
???
I think you are mistaken
Why? Because you think every possible perspective is religious? Again, I point to my argument of dilution and redundancy.
At any rate, I verily doubt it. I take nothing on faith. I also hold no morality.
So you perhaps have some ideas of how to improve religion?
I am not sure how this follows from my critique of religion. I consider the question of religion to be one of mitigation, as the aspects which make it most dangerous (e.g. faith, inflexibility, etc.) are inherent to what religion is.
Well then I would contend that NOT recognizing the sacred is the true escapist route. Who do you think would win? :)
From what, precisely, am I escaping? And what is there to "win"? I am genuinely confused by your observations here.
I'll have to take your word on that I guess :]
Not really. Objective reality is that which actually exists, independent of our perception of it. If we did not exist to label things as "sacred" or "profane" those value judgements would cease to exist, while the things themselves would still exist.
I absolutely view religion as an unfortunate reality of the human condition, at least in the short-term. I do not think it follows, however, that finding a more positive manifestation of it actually changes what religion fundamentally is. I think that if you are discussing a moral/value system divorced from spirituality, theism, etc. then by definition you are not actually talking about religion.
Despite your insistance that it's "definitely impossible", I expect to see more non-theistic religions arise that eschew spiritualism, honor the scientific method etc. I think plenty of people are capable of having a more evolved religious outlook. I think that claiming not to be religious is a serious barrier to improving it's practice. I say, let's articulate and compare our religious beliefs. I think it's quite reasonable for an atheist to consider themselves "deeply religious" in an Einsteinian sense, and that way of looking at religion is an improvement over the theistic way of looking at religion that you appear to advocate.
Your argument is circular.
Explaining religious beliefs as those concerning the sacred and equating the sacred with that which is regarded to be of the highest value is not circular.
You define religious beliefs as any beliefs with an hierarchy of values, and then define all hierarchical value systems as religious.
No I didn't/don't, I defined them as I just reiterated above
This wholly ignores hierarchical systems of morality which are not derived from what would commonly be conceived of as "religious".
There just might be a better way to view religion than how it's commonly conceived.
I contend that the religious morality is premised upon subjective realities, while there still exist moralities derived instead from objective realities.
There are none whose understanding of truth is not limited by personal subjectivity, and no "moralities" either.
I think that divorcing religion from faith (and thus subjective truth) so dilutes the term as to make it meaningless and redundant.
I think religion entails faith, and not necessarily poorly reasoned faith as so many atheists insist.
If all morality is religious, why not just call them moralities and do away with the concept of religion itself?
Present a practical method for doing away with the concept of religion and I'll have your answer.
Simply, religion denotes a specific conceptualization of morality.
Sounds reasonable.
Incidentally, I do not hold anything as inherently sacred
Not even the pursuit of truth?
but I also do not personally place much value in morality. I could elaborate, but I think this is somewhat tangential to the matter at hand.
You don't care if people adhere to agreed upon standards of behavior or not?
Religion as a general term can encompass multiple religions, but it remains attached to those general concepts (e.g. faith) which semantically distinguish it from other general terms (such as morality).
But should it? and if so why?
???
Sorry bout that...
I'm not saying that "all systemic hierarchies of values are religious". Rather...something more like: Socially established personal value systems are socially established personal value systems, be they considered religious or secular, these are what we should be comparing with one another. Claiming not to be religious is an impediment to sincere efforts to do that.
Why? Because you think every possible perspective is religious
More or less
Again, I point to my argument of dilution and redundancy.
Religion is the blanket term for our sacred value systems. If we are talking aboutreligions, we are talking about group identity based on our differing attempts to articulate them. Systems of morality are the standards of behavior we maintain in light of our religious beliefs.
I take nothing on faith. I also hold no morality.
To say you hold no morality is tantamount to saying you fear nothing and desire nothing. To say you take nothing on faith amounts to saying you don't make decisions based on assessments of probability.
I am not sure how this follows from my critique of religion.
To be frank, we have yet to come to terms on what religion is so it's no wonder. But I thank you for the challenges nevertheless.
I consider the question of religion to be one of mitigation, as the aspects which make it most dangerous (e.g. faith, inflexibility, etc.) are inherent to what religion is.
What religion is...I'd enjoy reading an explanation authored by you about what religion is....Or simply answer, who is the authority on what religion is?
From what, precisely, am I escaping?
Having YOUR religious beliefs critiqued :)
And what is there to "win"?
Nothing but bragging rights unless something is wagered :)
I am genuinely confused by your observations here.
I was trying to reduce the charge of escapism to absurdity.
Objective reality is that which actually exists, independent of our perception of it.
How did you learn that there is "that which actually exists, independent of our perception of it"? Or is this just something you assume on faith?
If we did not exist to label things as "sacred" or "profane" those value judgements would cease to exist, while the things themselves would still exist.
What evidence do you base this belief of yours on?
Despite your insistance that it's "definitely impossible", I expect to see more non-theistic religions arise that eschew spiritualism, honor the scientific method etc. I think plenty of people are capable of having a more evolved religious outlook. […] is an improvement over the theistic way of looking at religion that you appear to advocate.
I do not consider it impossible for new theisms/religions to develop. My point is that it is impossible to separate religion and spirituality from their assumptive aspect. If we so utterly redefine religion as to be entirely secular and without spiritualism, it becomes a de facto term to supplant terms such as science and logic. This is unnecessary as we already have the terms, and confusing because it distorts the common usage of terminology without real purpose. While new perspectives on religion may be improvements upon older theistic perspectives, this does not make them preferable to non-theistic, non-religious perspectives (it just makes them less bad).
(There are none whose understanding of truth is not limited by personal subjectivity, and no "moralities" either.
I spoke in absolutes when I intended to convey relativity. What I meant is that I consider the theistic morality more subjective and the atheistic morality potentially less subjective.
I think religion entails faith, and not necessarily poorly reasoned faith as so many atheists insist.
I think that faith is inherently poorly reasoned by nature, though some faith perspectives are less unreasoned than others.
Present a practical method for doing away with the concept of religion and I'll have your answer.
I was speaking rhetorically to demonstrate that religion and morality are not mutually interchangeable substitutes. “Religion” and “morality” exist as distinct concepts, although they interact considerably.
Not even the pursuit of truth?
Correct. I hold the pursuit of truth as preferential to the alternatives. There is nothing “sacred” about it though.
You don't care if people adhere to agreed upon standards of behavior or not?
I do. However, that is not the same thing as morality. Morality is a system of value judgments that enforces standards of behavior. I find morality to be highly subjective, contradictory, and inefficient (although I appreciate its evolutionary origins in individual and social development, as well as its positive aspects). I think that a preferable amoral system for regulating standards of behavior is conceptually possible, although impractical to implement on any widespread level given individual and social attitudes and perceptions on morality and behavior.
But should it? and if so why?
It is not a matter of should, but a matter of is. That is what the term means, linguistically. To define it as you suggest is to make it synonymous with pre-existing terms already describe. I elaborated on this above.
I'm not saying that "all systemic hierarchies of values are religious". Rather...something more like: Socially established personal value systems are socially established personal value systems, be they considered religious or secular, these are what we should be comparing with one another. Claiming not to be religious is an impediment to sincere efforts to do that.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I still do not understand how being non-religious is an impediment to comparing established personal value systems. If my personal value system is not religious then ignoring it seems to be the most insincere approach?
More or less
Then this is primarily a disagreement of semantics, I think… and we are not going to see eye to eye on it because we are using the term very differently.
Religion is the blanket term for our sacred value systems. If we are talking aboutreligions, we are talking about group identity based on our differing attempts to articulate them. Systems of morality are the standards of behavior we maintain in light of our religious beliefs.
My “value” system is not sacred. It is also not connected to a group identity. It still exists. It is not religious, by the parameters you outlined above.
To say you hold no morality is tantamount to saying you fear nothing and desire nothing. To say you take nothing on faith amounts to saying you don't make decisions based on assessments of probability.
I suspect we use these terms quite differently as well.
Fear and desire, but with very few medical exceptions, are innate biological realities to the human condition. Morality is an individual and social construction built around those fears and desires. I consider it an obstruction to a more direct understanding of fear and desire, as well as a potential inhibition upon emotional growth and maturity.
Regarding faith, to me this expressly implies a strong belief in something without (and even against) evidence. It is in no way synonymous to probability assessment, but is a claim to an absolute truth. Rarely does someone say they have faith that something might be true… it is almost always that they have faith that it is true. Usages outside of that are so infrequent as to render it, in my opinion, a misuse of the term altogether inconsistent with its actual meaning. When I say I take nothing on faith, I mean that I hold no strong views on anything particularly if I have no objective reason to hold them to begin with.
What religion is...I'd enjoy reading an explanation authored by you about what religion is....Or simply answer, who is the authority on what religion is?
I define religion rather loosely to include anything organized around a spiritual perspective. On that basis alone I find it dangerous and objectionable. Beyond that, specific practices of religion can become even more dangerous and objectionable.
Having YOUR religious beliefs critiqued :)
When, precisely, did I do that? I do not have religious beliefs, as I understand religion and faith. If you would like to critique my atheism, my amorality, or any other aspect of my worldview I accept that readily.
Nothing but bragging rights unless something is wagered :)
Lol.
How did you learn that there is "that which actually exists, independent of our perception of it"? Or is this just something you assume on faith?
I see what you tried to do there. However, I do not assume that it exists absolutely; rather that it more probabilistically exists than not. Further, it is entirely possible to view objective reality conceptually for the utility of debate without proving its actual existence.
What evidence do you base this belief of yours on?
They are ideas that we came up with. Nothing else holds them. We cease to exist, they cease to exist. Seems pretty clear to me, and not as a matter of faith. Correct me if you disagree.
I don't belong to a religion. However I disagree strongly with your opening argument.
Yes, religion is nothing more then people forcing themselves to believe in a higher
power due to a fear of death, a fear of becoming nothing.
Religion is so much more than a fear of death, firstly since most religions teach that there is an afterlife why would they fear death? People can be religious because they are born into a religious family and have been brought up to follow a certain faith. Now, I'm not saying it's right to thrust your opinions onto your child. However if a child has never had any understanding of death except that there will be an positive afterlife for him how could he create a fear of death? I'd say people who have no religious belief can be more fearful of death. I know I'm fearful. I'd hate to think one day I'm just going to go to sleep and never wake up, destined to rot in the ground yet that is what I believe will happen to me.
People turn to religion for many reasons some may have had a life changing experience and believe it was a divine intervention from God (narrowly escaping death). Others turn to religion in a time of crisis perhaps an ill family member or appearing at a crossroad in their life. If it enriches them and makes them feel better by being able to communicate with their God why should it be of concern to anyone else.
Since there is no evidence to prove God does not exist who is to say that any God or religious stance is incorrect? I could be wrong, you could be wrong. There may even be a God, so I'd be reluctant to say that religion is escapism at all let alone extreme escapism
In reading your response, I'm reminded of the writings of both Miguel de Unamuno and Karl Marx.
Miguel de Unamuno argued in the first chapter of his book, Tragic Sense of Life, that the man of flesh and bones wishes to persist in and of himself indefinitely. This means, Unamuno writes, "that your essence, reader, mine, that of the man Spinoza, that of the man Butler, of the man Kant, and of every man who is a man, is nothing but the endeavour (sic), the effort, which he makes to continue to be a man, not to die." And, it seems, the tragic sense of life emerges at the point where our knowledge of our mortality encounters our hope for that persistence, or our immortality. The religious phenomenon, irrespective of whether it promises an afterlife, is an institution and Philosophy of death: one that promises it explicitly and one that attempts to prepare the human spirit for it, one way or another.
And for Marx, I don't think there is any way for me to paraphrase the genius without demeaning it.
From the introduction of his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:
"For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.
The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman [Ubermensch] , will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."
That's the thing though isn't it? It doesn't have to be Heaven or Hell in the traditional Judeo-Christian sense, Pretty much anything that says "life" continues after death would fit the bill.
When something dies, the first thing we see is a cessation of activity. Then some bloating and discoloration, and if you watch long enough, some really gross but ecologically important things happen until just some bones remain. And in the right environments, those bones disappear too. Going by pure empirical data, there is no reason to believe that there is life after death. Even with all the fancy technology and understandings we have today, we still see nothing to provide us with any evidence that life continues on. Indeed by all appearances, that life is completely and totally gone and never coming back.
This is not to say that life does not continue after. What it says is that if life does continue, we have absolutely no reason to believe it does. Only divine intervention could tell us that. And divine intervention itself is not verifiable, at least as yet, neither is the divinity to provide it. So without divine intervention, why would we go ahead and assume there is an afterlife of any kind, unless we simply were to afraid to admit that, yes, death is quite permanent?
I do agree with you that religion is about more than death. But every religion does have some answer to this question, and the answers vary so widely across time and geography, that this does seem to be a culturally divergent response to the fear of mortality.
I'm not arguing that escapism isn't involved with religion nor am I arguing that fear of death isn't a part of religion. I'm arguing that religion isn't just about fear of death.
I don't understand why you didn't dispute but whatever.
"firstly since most religions teach that there is an afterlife why would they fear death?"
I am saying religion was created to offer a way of escaping the fear of death. Yes religions say that there is an afterlife, that is how they quell that fear.
" People can be religious because they are born into a religious family and have been brought up to follow a certain faith."
And I am still saying that the root purpose of religion is to quell fear of death. Whether or not fear is sustained is irrelevant, in such cases the purpose has been filled.
" I'd say people who have no religious belief can be more fearful of death"
That is completely right, and that fact is why man created religion.
"People turn to religion for many reasons some may have had a life changing experience and believe it was a divine intervention from God (narrowly escaping death). Others turn to religion in a time of crisis perhaps an ill family member or appearing at a crossroad in their life."
What you just listed more terms of escapism and still adds to the argument that religion IS a form of escapism.
"Since there is no evidence to prove God does not exist who is to say that any God or religious stance is incorrect?"
Whether or not god exists is irrelevant, religion is the culprit of the argument, god may exist and there still be no afterlife, so god is not part of this question.
I am saying religion was created to offer a way of escaping the fear of death. Yes religions say that there is an afterlife, that is how they quell that fear
Not all religions promote a heaven and hell concept if that's what you meant by that statement.
That is completely right, and that fact is why man created religion.
You later state that this debate has nothing to do whether God exists. However God's existence, or lack of, determines whether religion was created by man or created by a God. Therefore there is nothing to prove what created the concept of religion.
What you just listed more terms of escapism and still adds to the argument that religion IS a form of escapism.
That was in the context of arguing that religion isn't just a fear of death. Not whether some acts involved with religion are forms of escapism.
"Not all religions promote a heaven and hell concept if that's what you meant by that statement"
Yea some offer reincarnation instead. All religions offer something, name one that doesn't.
"You later state that this debate has nothing to do whether God exists. However God's existence, or lack of, determines whether religion was created by man or created by a God. Therefore there is nothing to prove what created the concept of religion"
It may give religion the means of explaining itself(however poorly) but god isn't the one offering an afterlife(or whatever) religion is.
"That was in the context of arguing that religion isn't just a fear of death. Not whether some acts involved with religion are forms of escapism."
Fear of death was just one thing I listed. I was supporting the whole view that it is a form of escapism. And whether or not the contexts intended it, you listed things that use religion as escapism.
Yea some offer reincarnation instead. All religions offer something, name one that doesn't
But a lot of non-religious people believe in a life after death. The after life concept does not strictly belong to religion.
It may give religion the means of explaining itself(however poorly) but god isn't the one offering an afterlife(or whatever) religion is.
But if God were to exist in, lets say, Christianity. Then heaven and hell would exist so how would that form of religion be escapism if what they believe is true? And God in this religion does offer an afterlife. He asks that you obey him to gain acceptance to heaven. You can't be sure that any given God doesn't exist and any form of afterlife doesn't exist. How is something escapism if it's true?
By the way I don't believe in God but that's not to say any religion isn't right.
And whether or not the contexts intended it, you listed things that use religion as escapism.
But again I argue that there is no proof. Let's say someone narrowly avoided death and turned to God. What's to say that wasn't God's intervention and he asked that person to follow him. It's not escapism.
"But a lot of non-religious people believe in a life after death. The after life concept does not strictly belong to religion."
If it's not religion then it isn't covered under the topic. The topic is whether or not religion is escapism.
"But if God were to exist in, lets say, Christianity. Then heaven and hell would exist so how would that form of religion be escapism if what they believe is true?"
I can believe what I see in a weed hallucination is real with all my heart. The weed is a form of escapism(was in my case) but because I thought was I was seeing was real, it didn't man it was real. People can believe in religion and it still be escapism.
"By the way I don't believe in God but that's not to say any religion isn't right."
There is a difference between me saying a religion is bad thing(it is) and me saying it is a form of escapism.
"But again I argue that there is no proof."
Escapism is an analytical concept, therefor proof will most of the time be analytical.
" What's to say that wasn't God's intervention and he asked that person to follow him. It's not escapism."
But the reasons people had for choosing to follow him are, unless of course god went to every single person. It is escapism.
ARE you saying that people of faith are the ONLY ONES who fear death? Come on....be realistic.
I personally think most athiests are empty and many live like it. I think for the most part they choose to be emotionally excluded from society in a way searching more heavily for happiness, and when they confront people who do have faith, they don't know how to act. They seem easily offended and parnaoid when they are confronted with someone who does have faith in God.
You keep saying man created religion. But see what you don't get is that my faith is not about religion, its about a relationship that I have with Christ. Its not going to church, getting baptised, taking the sacriments....its about my daily prayer life, our communication to eachother. You cant get this and will never get it because you have never been convicted by the Holy Spirit. You can have head knowledge about this...but certainly nothing involving your heart.
It is not religion that is bad. It is human beings who twist it to fit what they want it to say.
ARE you saying that people of faith are the ONLY ONES who fear death? Come on....be realistic.
Everyone fears death. Some choose to face it without illusions "I was dead millions upon millions of years before I ever lived and it did not inconvenience me in the least" - Mark Twain,
Point being, we were all already dead, and we all remember it well - in that we don't. Why should the second time be different?
I personally think most athiests are empty and many live like it. I think for the most part they choose to be emotionally excluded from society in a way searching more heavily for happiness, and when they confront people who do have faith, they don't know how to act. They seem easily offended and parnaoid when they are confronted with someone who does have faith in God.
It's interesting how quickly you dismiss a minority for the sole reason, you don't know any of them. Do you believe eskimos eat their babies?
Considering we make up less than 10% of the total US population I haven't had a chance to meet many other atheists. I find that to a number we all are very thick-skinned, just as emotional as any other member of society, not really searching for anything at all, and not easily offended or paranoid (notice we don't talk a lot about the end of the world, meanwhile the god people are endlessly paranoid about revelations). It's odd you have such disdain for the few atheists you encounter and apparently only here on this site. You've not won a debate since you got here. Do you imagine it would be different if we were arguing in person?
See, I find the opposite. I find, the moment I begin arguing in person, as if I'm on this site, with a theist whether casual believer or actualy priest or preacher, they are the ones changing the subject or agreeing to disagree.
I imagine you are as much a mouse in person as on this site.
You keep saying man created religion. But see what you don't get is that my faith is not about religion, its about a relationship that I have with Christ. Its not going to church, getting baptised, taking the sacriments....its about my daily prayer life, our communication to eachother. You cant get this and will never get it because you have never been convicted by the Holy Spirit. You can have head knowledge about this...but certainly nothing involving your heart.
Well, neither I nor you knows whether the one you are replying to has ever been "convicted by the holy spirtit" so why make that assumption?
I'm in not such a unique position though of being an atheist raised extremely religious. I've gone to Catholic schools, I dated a Baptist preacher's daughter for 3 years, I have 18 credits in religious studies, I know chritianity inside out.
I can say without a doubt it is a scam and a cult with 0 proof to back up a single claim it makes. It is only by the grace of god I escaped (that was said out of irony, not religion).
It's not the "heart," it is the brain, it is not knowledge, it is fear that leads the relgious to believe as they do.
I'd rather be wrong and free than right and a slave to your cult honestly, but just from an intellectual perspective, there honestly is no reason for anyone to be a member outside of fear or a vague sense of "belonging."
It is not religion that is bad. It is human beings who twist it to fit what they want it to say.
Agreed.
Start giving gay people equal rights, start feeding the poor, stop protesting soldier's funerals, stop starting wars and crusades, stop stoning people, stop asking for a tithe but not paying taxes, stop worshiping a god who burns down cities, starts plagues and turns people into salt, stop demanding dumb obedience, stop rejecting science, stop thinking you're right and everyone else is wrong, stop pretending to drink blood and eat flesh every sunday, stop buring other religion's books, stop using fear of a mythical place called hell as a political tool, start encouraging condoms in countries with an AIDS epidemic, stop discouraging stem cell research and other scientific advances that actually help people, stop denying proven facts like evolution,
start fucking reading other people's responses before replying or down voting.
And I'll sign up for that religion. Why not? Not like I have to follow it. Christians sure as hell don't follow their's.
"ARE you saying that people of faith are the ONLY ONES who fear death? Come on....be realistic."
No i only pointed out one instance in which it is escapism.
"I personally think most athiests are empty and many live like it"
I personally think most who follow a religion have something wrong with their brain functions that interfere with their ability to think.
"I think for the most part they choose to be emotionally excluded from society in a way searching more heavily for happiness, and when they confront people who do have faith, they don't know how to act."
Because its hard to confront someone blinded by faith just like its hard to talk to someone on high off weed.
"They seem easily offended and parnaoid when they are confronted with someone who does have faith in God."
Because expressing blind faith is an offence at humanities ability to think.
"You keep saying man created religion. But see what you don't get is that my faith is not about religion, its about a relationship that I have with Christ. "
Im sure you two are very close, you shoot hoops together and play checkers on Tuesdays.
"Its not going to church, getting baptised, taking the sacriments....its about my daily prayer life, our communication to eachother"
That sounds hard, why not just sign up with T Mobile? Create a pal plan.
"You cant get this and will never get it because you have never been convicted by the Holy Spirit."
Because when invisible things try to talk to me I go see my therapist.
"You can have head knowledge about this...but certainly nothing involving your heart"
Wait, knowledge come fro the heart? Damn, all this time I thought it came from the brain. Stupid biology teacher lied to me!
"It is not religion that is bad. It is human beings who twist it to fit what they want it to say"
I am sure it is for some...but for the masses it is much more. I am a Christian so I will speak to this faith. I am a Christian because I have weighed the evidence and taken into consideration everything science says and does not say, studied the Bible....and have come to the conclusion that there must be a intelligent designer. I believe Christ came to earth to do what He said...to save me from spending eternity in hell...But its more than this. Sure I don't want to die now....I am in the prime of my life. I am not afraid of death....just missing those who I leave behind. But my faith is no different than others who use escapism as a way of life. People addicted to sports, music, even the computer....etc. look at these as gods.
"I am a Christian because I have weighed the evidence and taken into consideration everything science says and does not say, studied the Bible....and have come to the conclusion that there must be a intelligent designer."
You must have weighed using a broken scale but whatever.
" People addicted to sports, music, even the computer....etc. look at these as gods."
There are people who believe there is a all powerful computer or music in the sky? I never knew. Either I have just never seen these guys or you have an odd definition of god.
Why do you insist on doing investigative inquiry backwards? It is a ludicrous effort to try to find positive proof for a negative statement. It gets even more ridiculous to attempt to do so with a concept that has no measurable substance and no limits. Let me make an analogy with something that actually has physical substance and limits:
"I believe that, somewhere on this planet, there is a person named Azzafazoo Mildocrimeny."
I could say "sure, it is an unlikely name that I just made up off of the top of my head, but there are nearly 7 billion people on Earth, and many of them come from cultures whose naming conventions are unknown to me, plus a parent can conceivably use any name they want! So in order for me to stop believing this, you have to prove me wrong!"
As a skeptic, which would be the more logical path to take?: a) try to contrive some way to attempt to get the names of each and every person who lives, an impossible task that would take an entire lifetime and never actually be fulfilled or b) ask the person to provide evidence for the claim and be prepared to accept it when they do. If a google search reveals that, yes indeed, Azzafazoo Mildocrimeny is out there happily living, then the believer wins and the skeptic now has the belief needed. And keep in mind, as impossible as this task is to disprove, it is far easier to do so with a specific, definable and limited search (a human being with that name) than it is a being with no form or limits that could be anywhere or everywhere.
The thing is to have a basis for your belief. You have a reason to believe, so provide those reasons. It really isn't that hard of a game to play.
Skeptic would be the most logical. But I am NOT MAKING A FACTUAL STATEMENT. I never professed to make one. However the athiest does....he says THERE IS NO GOD. He should be the one to prove it. Atheism is a faithed based religion, our government even calling it a religion. So I am not out in left field on this. They have faith in what they see and believe just like I do. ....to say there is a God takes faith, to say there isn't one takes faith as well.
I have reason to believe. I have examined both my faith in God and Christ, the Holy Spirit and what science has to say about life. I do not believe that believing in God is irrational. First of all I do not think that science has dispensed with God...because it can not begin to address that first cause. Why are we here and how did we get here? I do not believe my experience with God has been delusional at all. I think the other side is delusional. Dawkins is a well known atheist. He thinks his atheism is grounded in biology as most athiests do as well. He thinks Darwins account of evolution explains the universes complexities. Does it? He thinks there is no need for a designer, therefore God does not exist. Most atheists fall into this trap. Your statement reminds me of what Bertrand Russell said, "Disproving God is as difficult as disproving the speculation that there could be a teapot in space orbiting the moon. It is impossible to say for sure that there isn't one, but we basically know it isn't there and we don't spend our valuable looking for it."
This however is no proof...it is a faith belief. Nevertheless the question is still there. How did we get here and why? No scientist can answer that...so we are left to wonder.
Why do I believe (warning it might be lengthy)....well I will start with biblical prophesy. I think they are real and authentic. I have studied world religions particularly the writings of Buddah and Confucius. Not a single example of predicted prophecy. In the Koran there is only one and it deals with Muhammeds return to Mecca. In the OT there are over 2000 predicted prophesies. These were not guesses, they happened. These propchecies were specific and detailed enough to know they are true. Of course I can't go through and explain all of them but I will say this. If you look at those that deal with geography and the cities that Israel had dealings with, history will back them up. Study Babylon the city,,,,history backs up the prophesies. I also believe that the archaeological confirmation of Noah and the flood is huge. I think archaeologists have uncovered things that help confirm the Scriptures. Records of the people who lived in that era also events have been verified. I think the OT is a great source of historical facts. I might add that IMO its not the lack of information as to why people dont believe the Bible or believe in Christ its the surrendering part. They do not want to submit to the authority of someone else. We live in a time of relative morality and a growing culture who is trying to live without God. I have comfort in the fact however that I do stand with the majority who share a belief in God. I am not alone, and in quite good company. Many scientists believe in God. Ever hear of Robert Jastrow? Look him up see what he has to say about this.
REad his quotes...what he has to say about creationism. I watched a great video about our planet(cant remember name)...Its perfectly placed and if it were either 10% bigger or smaller, life would not be possible. It's the right distance from the sun, we get just the right amount of heat and light. If we were any farther away we would freeze and closer we would burn up. I think this is incredible. Then to top it off there is the axis of the earth. I believe they said that ours is the only one that is tilted...I think 23 degrees. Then there is the moon. Did you know that if there was no moon it would be impossible to live on earth? It creates the tides...which is one of the miracles of our survival. The tides aerate the oceans which provides oxogen for the plankton...and plankton is the foundation of the food chain. All this perfectly in working order. They talked about the air we breathe, and lightening and its function. The ozone, the water, and the human body. Blood flowing thru our bodies, red blood cells, bone marrow, the eye. All perfectly formed and working together. All this created by an explosion? The beauty of the peacocks tail.....random? No I dont beleive it. I believe someone created this all to work. Do you know how the eye works? I didnt know this but tears make it work. And our tears come out a tiny hole in a bone...then thru a tube that the tears come out. Amazing. Who created this this way?
So the prophecies along with miracles, Christ and how he is someone who has transformed billions of people since he lives on earth...what science cant answer...the wonderment of creation, the animals, mountains.....lead me to beleive in God. I believe God created everything, that He has always existed...he is eternal. I have a confident belief in heaven and hell, the afterlife...and the promise that I will one day be with God. I dont beleive by blind faith...I believe there is evidence. Evolution on the other hand is based on things unseen and mountains of missing fossils.
I just went and goggled the human cell and read a piece by Emile Borel. The probability of producing a human cell by chance is 10(119,000 power) to 1, a number that we could never comprehend. According to scientists it could never happen.
"However the athiest does....he says THERE IS NO GOD."
A burden of proof always goes both ways, THE burden of proof(hope you know the difference) goes to the affirmative. Making a statement on the existence of god requires a burden of proof, since it ins't a question on the existence of god, it is two conflicting statements.
"Atheism is a faithed based religion, our government even calling it a religion"
Atheism is not a religion, not only does it not group by any means, it has no set system, and doesn't follow any scripture. They list is as a religion for easier census means.
" I do not believe that believing in God is irrational"
Being irrational while believing in the irrational equals rational by irrational standards, so your good.
"First of all I do not think that science has dispensed with God...because it can not begin to address that first cause. Why are we here and how did we get here?"
And the explanation you came up with is that there is a flying deity that has and always exist? That is just as vague and void as the belief that there isn't a god. Where did god come from? Same dilemma, same problem, not a rational answer.
" He thinks his atheism is grounded in biology as most athiests do as well. He thinks Darwins account of evolution explains the universes complexities. Does it? "
It matters of biological expansion and diversity yes, Darwin presented the answer of why we are the way we are and led the way in later discovering how we got there.
"He thinks there is no need for a designer, therefore God does not exist. Most atheists fall into this trap"
That is not true. Most atheist are vocal against god because it is the most blindly accepted theory. You see people every day who believe but can't explain why and most of the time know nothing of there own religion(especially Christian youth). If god wasn't such a blindly accepted theory, atheist as a whole would be much quieter. All god is is a theory. Religion on the other hand is entirely disprovable and is the button that truly pushes atheist the way I see it. As long as you have the evidence to support the belief god exists, I don't draw as much of problem(although I still intently disagree). However believe in a religion is pure idiocy as it constitutes the assumption that you have even the slightest knowledge of the intent and actions of such a supreme being if he were to exist. Religion tries to put god into human terms, and if god is real, then no such thing can be done.
"This however is no proof...it is a faith belief. Nevertheless the question is still there. How did we get here and why? No scientist can answer that...so we are left to wonder."
So you decided it was rational to get your answers from a book that not only said a virgin gave birth(illogical) and that Jesus came back from the dead(illogical) but also would have you believe the Earth is only a couple thousand years old(ILLOGICAL)? It seems in the pursuit of your "answers" about life, you have dropped logic and reason completely.
"These were not guesses, they happened. These propchecies were specific and detailed enough to know they are true."
In order for a prophecy to be considered valid, it has to state the exact place, person, and the precise time and precise event and it must happen on the dot. If it is just vague enough, odds are its going to happen! Unless it said in the Bible " And Jimmy will go up the mountain will be struck by lightning at midnight on the second day of the second month in a decade after the 2000th year after the death of Christ", no "prophecy" is credible.
"In the Koran there is only one and it deals with Muhammeds return to Mecca"
I personally know that to be false, there are several prophecies, however I don't have my quran with me to site at the moment.
" I have studied world religions particularly the writings of Buddah and Confucius"
Those religions are lifestyle religions, of course they aren't going to have any prophecies.
" I also believe that the archaeological confirmation of Noah and the flood is huge."
You believe that he fit every species of animal at the time in his boat? That is nothing short of retardation. Not only would species like otters, sharks, and whales not have been able to be transported but would have died in such a large scale flood(ever hear that sharks die die if they stop swimming? Well that tends to happen even more when they resists boulder crushing water currents), they show NO indication of a massive species drop before humanity took its toll.
"I have comfort in the fact however that I do stand with the majority who share a belief in God. I am not alone, and in quite good company."
The popularity of an ideal doesn't justify it. The white majority of the US at one point didn't speak out against segregation. That didn't justify it did it?
"Its perfectly placed and if it were either 10% bigger or smaller, life would not be possible. It's the right distance from the sun, we get just the right amount of heat and light. If we were any farther away we would freeze and closer we would burn up. I think this is incredible. Then to top it off there is the axis of the earth. I believe they said that ours is the only one that is tilted...I think 23 degrees. Then there is the moon. Did you know that if there was no moon it would be impossible to live on earth? It creates the tides...which is one of the miracles of our survival. The tides aerate the oceans which provides oxogen for the plankton...and plankton is the foundation of the food chain. All this perfectly in working order."
Because nature is the ultimate designer. All things react to the things around them. You don't think there were millions of other particles on their way to becoming planets that were assembled in every possible way? It is that much of a stretch that we are the lucky ones? It had to happen to someone. And because of our location we were able to progress and nature worked out itself, the perfect system until we humans came along. Humanity is nothing more then a huge genetic mistake, the mutation that allows us to be what we are(amazingly it its in the jaw) is what makes us so destructive.
" All perfectly formed and working together. All this created by an explosion? The beauty of the peacocks tail.....random?"
Actually...........YES. And what's interesting is that science explains the relationship between all things while religion says you should just admire it.
"Christ and how he is someone who has transformed billions of people since he lives on earth...what science cant answer...the wonderment of creation, the animals, mountains.....lead me to beleive in God."
Interesting, everything you just listed is explainable by science.
" I believe God created everything, that He has always existed...he is eternal"
And again, how is that any less vague then not believing in a god? He's is eternal? He is forever?
If you turned to religion because why science couldn't fully explain why we are here, then explain why god is there! You will have even less success then you will through scientific means, because science is ever expanding, always growing, and all that Bible can do is pick up dust.
"I dont beleive by blind faith...I believe there is evidence. Evolution on the other hand is based on things unseen and mountains of missing fossils."
Considering you believe there is a being between all existing matter that can control and create while being in between matter even though there is no evidence to support his being in between matter or anywhere else for that matter. You think god cares about you? We are a planet among BILLIONS and expanding. You are a grain of sand in a sand box factory.
"I just went and goggled the human cell and read a piece by Emile Borel. The probability of producing a human cell by chance is 10(119,000 power) to 1, a number that we could never comprehend. According to scientists it could never happen."
Actually that is a similar probability to ALL living things and if any other cell is created, it would be a different organism. SO think of it this way, there was a 10(119000 power) to 1 that there would be another type of organism. And there has been, insects alone over time would make up a HUGE section of that chance.
"And I can't believe something came from nothing."
That is not true, you believe in god who apparently came from nothing
I said I believe by faith....I said that there is no way to prove God either way....so why is that burdon on me?
And athiest by most definitions makes the factual statement...THERE IS NO GOD.
I showed you proof that our govenment declared that athiesm is a religion. Noticed you did not address it.
Atheism and belief in God are both faith based. You said you could not prove there was not a god...so you are relying on faith in what you believe to be true. They are the same things..........
You said, "So you decided it was rational to get your answers from a book that not only said a virgin gave birth(illogical) and that Jesus came back from the dead(illogical) but also would have you believe the Earth is only a couple thousand years old(ILLOGICAL)? It seems in the pursuit of your "answers" about life, you have dropped logic and reason completely."
But if you believe in God and the Holy Spirit consumes you nothing is to hard to beleive nothing for God is impossible.
WEll I think some people are to consumes with logic that they don't enjoy life...they dont dream....I am sorry they are colder.
And show me the prophecies in the Koran.
I beleive God is eternal. You know if you are wrong....can you deal with the consequences?
"I said I believe by faith....I said that there is no way to prove God either way....so why is that burdon on me?"
Because in formal debate, a burden of proof is required of all statements. And you since you are admitting that your belief has no foundation in logic or sense I'd suggest moving to another debate.
"And athiest by most definitions makes the factual statement...THERE IS NO GOD."
And there is more then enough evidence for us to meet our burden. You on the other hand rely on faith which doesn't really do anything.
"I showed you proof that our govenment declared that athiesm is a religion. Noticed you did not address it."
You are really a dumb shit. I have addressed it TWICE. I responded and made a debate on it. Also, the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to declare what atheism is for the world, just so you know. But seriously, did you not check your new arguments? because YOU are the one who keeps not responding.
"But if you believe in God and the Holy Spirit consumes you nothing is to hard to beleive nothing for God is impossible."
You intelligence over the course of this debate appears to be dropping. I suggest you stop taking that drug religion.
"WEll I think some people are to consumes with logic that they don't enjoy life...they dont dream....I am sorry they are colder."
Colder because we depend on logic rather then faith? Doesn't make sense as the happiness and thinking patterns are unrelated, except in cases of mental trauma.
"And show me the prophecies in the Koran"
I told you I do not have my quran with me. I am at my summer home and forgive me for not bring religious texts on my vacation.
"I beleive God is eternal. You know if you are wrong....can you deal with the consequences?"
Yes I can because a benevolent god doesn't require faith. And also, the concept of heaven and hell seems ridiculous to me so I am not worried about that one bit.
Idols were things people believed were gods. When they wanted rain, they would pray to the idol they believed controlled rain. I have never heard of a computer that can make it rain(we are still working on the whole weather machine project). I have never heard of anyone worshiping music in order to have a good day(Native tribes chanting was just a way of worship to things like the sun). Your conception of what god is must be horribly screwed if you think simply enjoying things elevates it to godhood.
"I am sure you idolize things in your life....probably yourself."
I don't idolize anything. The mere fact that retards like you are allowed to pollute the this existence would be all the prove I need to know that there is no supreme being.
And you have to name call to make yourself seem supreme...make yourself seem tough. Retard? I mean really what grade are you in?
Money can be worshipped and inanimate objects can be as well. So don't tell me people who do not share a faith in god cant replace that with something else.
You can't answer the questions I have asked you so your going to act juvenile, to take the focus off your weaknesses.
I hate to piss on your fire but if you get shirty with someone name calling perhaps I could remind you of all that name calling you did to others on the abortion debate? Don't be a hypocrite...
"And you have to name call to make yourself seem supreme...make yourself seem tough. Retard? I mean really what grade are you in?"
I seem to remember you calling me a Nazi and insulting my political views when I was being respectable. You hypocrite.
"Money can be worshipped and inanimate objects can be as well. So don't tell me people who do not share a faith in god cant replace that with something else."
There are people that believe therer is an all powerful hundred dollar bill!? I never knew.
"You can't answer the questions I have asked you so your going to act juvenile, to take the focus off your weaknesses"
What are you talking about? I have replied to all responses you have made to me. If i have missed one point it out please so I may respond.
Hold on dipshit you are telling me I am not answering your questions but you didn't answer my post.
"But I am NOT MAKING A FACTUAL STATEMENT."
That is a gross understatement.
"However the athiest does....he says THERE IS NO GOD."
A burden of proof always goes both ways, THE burden of proof(hope you know the difference) goes to the affirmative. Making a statement on the existence of god requires a burden of proof, since it ins't a question on the existence of god, it is two conflicting statements.
"Atheism is a faithed based religion, our government even calling it a religion"
Atheism is not a religion, not only does it not group by any means, it has no set system, and doesn't follow any scripture. They list is as a religion for easier census means.
" I do not believe that believing in God is irrational"
Being irrational while believing in the irrational equals rational by irrational standards, so your good.
"First of all I do not think that science has dispensed with God...because it can not begin to address that first cause. Why are we here and how did we get here?"
And the explanation you came up with is that there is a flying deity that has and always exist? That is just as vague and void as the belief that there isn't a god. Where did god come from? Same dilemma, same problem, not a rational answer.
" He thinks his atheism is grounded in biology as most athiests do as well. He thinks Darwins account of evolution explains the universes complexities. Does it? "
It matters of biological expansion and diversity yes, Darwin presented the answer of why we are the way we are and led the way in later discovering how we got there.
"He thinks there is no need for a designer, therefore God does not exist. Most atheists fall into this trap"
That is not true. Most atheist are vocal against god because it is the most blindly accepted theory. You see people every day who believe but can't explain why and most of the time know nothing of there own religion(especially Christian youth). If god wasn't such a blindly accepted theory, atheist as a whole would be much quieter. All god is is a theory. Religion on the other hand is entirely disprovable and is the button that truly pushes atheist the way I see it. As long as you have the evidence to support the belief god exists, I don't draw as much of problem(although I still intently disagree). However believe in a religion is pure idiocy as it constitutes the assumption that you have even the slightest knowledge of the intent and actions of such a supreme being if he were to exist. Religion tries to put god into human terms, and if god is real, then no such thing can be done.
"This however is no proof...it is a faith belief. Nevertheless the question is still there. How did we get here and why? No scientist can answer that...so we are left to wonder."
So you decided it was rational to get your answers from a book that not only said a virgin gave birth(illogical) and that Jesus came back from the dead(illogical) but also would have you believe the Earth is only a couple thousand years old(ILLOGICAL)? It seems in the pursuit of your "answers" about life, you have dropped logic and reason completely.
"These were not guesses, they happened. These propchecies were specific and detailed enough to know they are true."
In order for a prophecy to be considered valid, it has to state the exact place, person, and the precise time and precise event and it must happen on the dot. If it is just vague enough, odds are its going to happen! Unless it said in the Bible " And Jimmy will go up the mountain will be struck by lightning at midnight on the second day of the second month in a decade after the 2000th year after the death of Christ", no "prophecy" is credible.
"In the Koran there is only one and it deals with Muhammeds return to Mecca"
I personally know that to be false, there are several prophecies, however I don't have my quran with me to site at the moment.
" I have studied world religions particularly the writings of Buddah and Confucius"
Those religions are lifestyle religions, of course they aren't going to have any prophecies.
" I also believe that the archaeological confirmation of Noah and the flood is huge."
You believe that he fit every species of animal at the time in his boat? That is nothing short of retardation. Not only would species like otters, sharks, and whales not have been able to be transported but would have died in such a large scale flood(ever hear that sharks die die if they stop swimming? Well that tends to happen even more when they resists boulder crushing water currents), they show NO indication of a massive species drop before humanity took its toll.
"I have comfort in the fact however that I do stand with the majority who share a belief in God. I am not alone, and in quite good company."
The popularity of an ideal doesn't justify it. The white majority of the US at one point didn't speak out against segregation. That didn't justify it did it?
"Its perfectly placed and if it were either 10% bigger or smaller, life would not be possible. It's the right distance from the sun, we get just the right amount of heat and light. If we were any farther away we would freeze and closer we would burn up. I think this is incredible. Then to top it off there is the axis of the earth. I believe they said that ours is the only one that is tilted...I think 23 degrees. Then there is the moon. Did you know that if there was no moon it would be impossible to live on earth? It creates the tides...which is one of the miracles of our survival. The tides aerate the oceans which provides oxogen for the plankton...and plankton is the foundation of the food chain. All this perfectly in working order."
Because nature is the ultimate designer. All things react to the things around them. You don't think there were millions of other particles on their way to becoming planets that were assembled in every possible way? It is that much of a stretch that we are the lucky ones? It had to happen to someone. And because of our location we were able to progress and nature worked out itself, the perfect system until we humans came along. Humanity is nothing more then a huge genetic mistake, the mutation that allows us to be what we are(amazingly it its in the jaw) is what makes us so destructive.
" All perfectly formed and working together. All this created by an explosion? The beauty of the peacocks tail.....random?"
Actually...........YES. And what's interesting is that science explains the relationship between all things while religion says you should just admire it.
"Christ and how he is someone who has transformed billions of people since he lives on earth...what science cant answer...the wonderment of creation, the animals, mountains.....lead me to beleive in God."
Interesting, everything you just listed is explainable by science.
" I believe God created everything, that He has always existed...he is eternal"
And again, how is that any less vague then not believing in a god? He's is eternal? He is forever?
If you turned to religion because why science couldn't fully explain why we are here, then explain why god is there! You will have even less success then you will through scientific means, because science is ever expanding, always growing, and all that Bible can do is pick up dust.
"I dont beleive by blind faith...I believe there is evidence. Evolution on the other hand is based on things unseen and mountains of missing fossils."
Considering you believe there is a being between all existing matter that can control and create while being in between matter even though there is no evidence to support his being in between matter or anywhere else for that matter. You think god cares about you? We are a planet among BILLIONS and expanding. You are a grain of sand in a sand box factory.
"I just went and goggled the human cell and read a piece by Emile Borel. The probability of producing a human cell by chance is 10(119,000 power) to 1, a number that we could never comprehend. According to scientists it could never happen."
Actually that is a similar probability to ALL living things and if any other cell is created, it would be a different organism. SO think of it this way, there was a 10(119000 power) to 1 that there would be another type of organism. And there has been, insects alone over time would make up a HUGE section of that chance.
"And I can't believe something came from nothing."
That is not true, you believe in god who apparently came from nothing.
Implied in the question is that religions offer false teachings - i.e. God isn't real and there is no afterlife, but some people believe otherwise in order to escape from the harsh reality. Under such an argument, religion would indeed be a form of escapism.
Well look at the harm that nonbelievers have thrusted on society.
Take communism...... it’s an atheist ideology. It calls for the elimination of the exploiting classes and it pushes violence as a way to social progress. It calls for using any means necessary to do it. Marx was an atheist and atheism was a central part of Marxist doctrine. It also was a part of the Soviet Unions ideology. China today still holds to this doctrine. Both Stalin and Mao enforced atheist policies by systematically closing churches and by murdering priests and religious believers. Do tell me what Communist regime was pro-religion? Same with the Nazis they also held a secular, anti-religious philosophy very similar to communism. They wanted a master race. (Similar to Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood when she targeted Blacks) Their enemy of communism was the capitalist class. The enemy of Hitler was the Jews and other races they thought inferior. If you look at communism and the Nazis they both treated the Christian churches as enemies. And they used revolutionary measures in order to try to create human beings and a new social order devoid of religion and more importantly morality. All I am saying is this……the Crusades was a dark time in Christian history, I do not deny this. But you need to compare both the Crusades and the crimes of atheism applying a constant standard.
If Christians have to answer for the Crusades, atheism has to answer Torquemada. (sp) Who is responsible then for the inhumanity done in the name of atheism?
You look at these regimes, both communism and the Nazis and you can see that they operated without any moral restraints. Yes the Crusades were horrible but nothing compares to the bloodshed carried out by atheism.
You can not say that religious beliefs and godly people that stand on faith have caused all the worlds miseries. They are not the only source of human conflict and violence. Atheism is responsible as well and must take a direct hit.
"Well look at the harm that nonbelievers have thrusted on society."
Look at the harm that believers have thrust on to society. Hatred, war, loss of self worth, should I go on?
"Take communism...... it’s an atheist ideology."
Look at theocracy. Worst, most destructive and most constantly failed system ever devised........it's a religious ideology.
" It calls for the elimination of the exploiting classes and it pushes violence as a way to social progress. "
Violence? Do you really want to go there? And this is coming from someone of the christian faith? I might die laughing. You say you are for morality and such, no religious as done more "evil" in the way you would most likely define it then christianity.
"It calls for using any means necessary to do it."
Same is said by religious radicals.
"Marx was an atheist and atheism was a central part of Marxist doctrine"
Marx was a brilliant man who would die again if he saw how his ideal has been twisted and abused.
" China today still holds to this doctrine"
And they seem to be doing pretty well all things considered. I mean, we could be in Africa right? They live in a religion consumed continent and it is the biggest shit hole on earth.
" Both Stalin and Mao enforced atheist policies by systematically closing churches and by murdering priests and religious believers."
Can you blame them?
"Do tell me what Communist regime was pro-religion?"
The first colonies of the United States, until they died.
" Same with the Nazis they also held a secular, anti-religious philosophy very similar to communism"
Do you need me to go on and list the empires throughout history that have killed masses in the name of religion?
"Their enemy of communism was the capitalist class"
Duh
"They wanted a master race."
We all want something, the Jews want Jerusalem, the Muslims want........ Jerusalem, the Christians want............................... Jerusalem. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
"f you look at communism and the Nazis they both treated the Christian churches as enemies"
I treat the church as my enemy, and the preacher at my local church is related to me.
" And they used revolutionary measures in order to try to create human beings and a new social order devoid of religion and more importantly morality"
Not this argument again. I've addressed this in our abortion debates.
" All I am saying is this……the Crusades was a dark time in Christian history, I do not deny this"
You think the crusades are all that is wrong with christianity? You are sadly mistaken.
"If Christians have to answer for the Crusades, atheism has to answer Torquemada. (sp) Who is responsible then for the inhumanity done in the name of atheism?"
You would be right if atheism was a religion. It is not however.
"You look at these regimes, both communism and the Nazis and you can see that they operated without any moral restraints. Yes the Crusades were horrible but nothing compares to the bloodshed carried out by atheism."
You think religion, let alone christianity is more innocent then atheism? Oh troubled mind, troubled mind, I have pity on you. By the way, im pretty sure if jesus were alive, he'd be a communist.
"You can not say that religious beliefs and godly people that stand on faith have caused all the worlds miseries"
Where did I claim this?
" They are not the only source of human conflict and violence. Atheism is responsible as well and must take a direct hit."
Direct hit? Evolution has been proven(check the links on my profile). Score= Atheism: 987654321 Religion: 1 Yay im on the winning side.