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.
Should we all be atheists?
Neither side has really pushed itself imto victory. God is a possibility as we all know, but if everybody was an Atheist would the world be a much better place? What do you think?
Religion did not cause all wars and people just use it as an excuse for intolerance. I will not say that the history of religion is spotless, but you are kidding yourself if you think the world would be a better place without any religion.
I never said religion caused ALL wars... only religious wars... which usually occur due to religious intolerance. Would the world be a better place if religion never existed? I don't know, but if everyone were to become athiest now... it just might improve. To be honest, I don't even think people should be athiest. Agnosticism seems like the most logical choice to me.
You can't win a war without an army. Greed may be why the leader's choose to go to war, but religion may be what drives the soldiers. Take the Crusades for example, religious conviction is what made ordinary pilgrims become warriors.
Nope. while it made major contributions with the propagandas of war and corruptions. At the same time, it is a major source of comfort and reason for order during times of calamities, tragedies and even in the face of nearing death
I already said it, the results depends on your intentions
The positive effects that religion brings can be accomplished without religion. Religion may have helped shape the way society is today, but now we should be able to realize that just because an old ambiguous book tells us stories from the past, that doesn't mean they're true. Religion causes unnecessary controversy, spawns extremist groups who use religion as a weapon (like you said), can be a basis for war, seperates people, and brainwashes them.
Remove religion? I never said we should make it illegal. This was supposed to be a hypothetical scenario where everyone became athiest and agnostic through their own free will.
Our debate was about what will happen if everyone became an atheist. I gave arguments that it will be a bad idea to have a civilization without a religion to support it.
Oh, give me a break! Don't throw that cocky bullshit at me. I keep giving you arguments and you keep giving me the same response. Do you want me to agree with you, is that it?
I'm not going to waste my time typing up a counter argument when I already have some that address your's just fine.
Sir, I gave you 5 examples where religion becomes a need. Yet instead of disproving them, you excused yourself by saying "Maybe I should clear up that I'm an agnostic... not an athiest." Then it all went down from there and I still havent got your counter-argument
You are a senior member but I question your ways of debate.
1. Can you say to a dying man that he has accomplished nothing that will be remembered?
Or you can tell him that he is about to solve the great mystery of what comes after death...
2. Can you say to a mother who lost her child that her sweet will go to nothing?
Nobody knows where her child is going. Sure, saying he's gone to a better place is comforting and all but even the Bible says he'll be stuck in the ground until Judgement day.
3. Can you comfort the grieving men by saying that it happens all the time?
Saying what happens all the time?
4. Can you say to orphans of war that their protectors are dead?
If they are... then yeah.
5. Even soldier's diaries are pestered with prayers.
Because they're RELIGIOUS. There are athiest and agnostic soldiers too.
Comforting people with the words of the Bible almost feels like a lie. Nobody living can gurantee that the Bible is accurate.
You are a senior member but I question your ways of debate
I had originally responded to the portion of your argument that said 'don't be so fixed on one side'. I had forgotten about your list... and I find that 'sigh' to be annoying.
Or you can tell him that he is about to solve the great mystery of what comes after death...
You do realize that you converted him into an atheist, right? Which means that there is no mystery after death. Just nothingness. Will that comfort him?
Nobody knows where her child is going. Sure, saying he's gone to a better place is comforting and all but even the Bible says he'll be stuck in the ground until Judgement day.
Aye, but having a religion to support you in times of grief makes a big difference for a mothers mental health. In worst cases, a broken heart can do alot
Saying what happens all the time?
Anyone can do that. Question is, will that be a wise idea?
If they are... then yeah.
There are two types of child abuse, first is the physical, then the mental. Both cases produces the same results.
Your action of telling them them they should give up hope is the same as abusing them mentally. And by this, you expose a kid on the bitterness of the world and it will cause them to grow up as problematic adults.
Very, very foolish
Because they're RELIGIOUS. There are athiest and agnostic soldiers too.
No, during times of trouble people do not flock on the Church simply because they wanted to. Its because they have fears that they cannot carry alone.
Do not deny it
Comforting people with the words of the Bible almost feels like a lie.
Should it really matter what you believe in when it solves your problem without causing troubles to other?
You do realize that you converted him into an atheist, right? Which means that there is no mystery after death. Just nothingness. Will that comfort him?
You do realize that NOBODY knows what comes after death, right? It is a total mystery.
Aye, but having a religion to support you in times of grief makes a big difference for a mothers mental health. In worst cases, a broken heart can do alot
That may be so... but like I said, what comes after death is a mystery. Everyone knows that, whether they admit it or not.
Anyone can do that. Question is, will that be a wise idea?
Will what be a wise idea? You're going to have to clarify a little more.
Your action of telling them them they should give up hope is the same as abusing them mentally. And by this, you expose a kid on the bitterness of the world and it will cause them to grow up as problematic adults.
Very, very foolish
No, you don't tell them to give up hope. I told you I'm an Agnostic. I said that for a reason. I want you to understand that my responses are coming from an agnostic point of view, not an athiest. Kids should be taught early on that there are multiple theories about what comes after death. Teach them to keep an open-mind, but don't brainwash them into believing a theory is a fact.
No, during times of trouble people do not flock on the Church simply because they wanted to. Its because they have fears that they cannot carry alone.
Do not deny it
Yeah... religious people or people that still hold some belief in that religion.
Should it really matter what you believe in when it solves your problem without causing troubles to other?
I don't care what people believe in. That's fine. I just think we should, by now, understand that our beliefs are not facts. That is why I think it is illogical to devote your entire life to a religion that may not be correct.
You do realize that NOBODY knows what comes after death, right? It is a total mystery.
That may be so... but like I said, what comes after death is a mystery. Everyone knows that, whether they admit it or not.
You're ruining the fun
The debate is about the scenario of what will happen if everyone became an atheist. While I play the side that its a bad idea, it seems like your sitting on the fence.
If you do not have a stand, how can I debate you?
Will what be a wise idea? You're going to have to clarify a little more.
The victim lost a person he loves. By telling him that it is a normal occurrance is just the same as saying that life is meaningless and disposable. That wont soothe a broken soul
No, you don't tell them to give up hope. I told you I'm an Agnostic. I said that for a reason. I want you to understand that my responses are coming from an agnostic point of view, not an athiest. Kids should be taught early on that there are multiple theories about what comes after death. Teach them to keep an open-mind, but don't brainwash them into believing a theory is a fact.
Dont use your belief to dodge the question. By opening the children towards further theories is the same as abandoning them in their quest to find answers.
Adults are to be firm in teaching them how to decide their path not to let them guess how
Yeah... religious people or people that still hold some belief in that religion.
I don't care what people believe in. That's fine. I just think we should, by now, understand that our beliefs are not facts. That is why I think it is illogical to devote your entire life to a religion that may not be correct.
The debate is about the scenario of what will happen if everyone became an atheist. While I play the side that its a bad idea, it seems like your sitting on the fence.
If you do not have a stand, how can I debate you?
I chose this side because I lean more toward atheism, than theism. If I made a debate titled: Should we all be Agnostic, would you still support the 'no' side?
The victim lost a person he loves. By telling him that it is a normal occurrance is just the same as saying that life is meaningless and disposable. That wont soothe a broken soul
I do realize this is going to be confusing, me using my agnostic views in place of atheism, so if you'd like for me to start another debate, I can do that... or we can continue it here.
We don't know the meaning of life... only what our lives mean to us.
Dont use your belief to dodge the question. By opening the children towards further theories is the same as abandoning them in their quest to find answers.
Adults are to be firm in teaching them how to decide their path not to let them guess how
I didn't dodge the question. You just didn't get the answer you were looking for.
Abandoning them in their quest to find answers? That's bullshit. It's helping them open their minds.
I chose this side because I lean more toward atheism, than theism. If I made a debate titled: Should we all be Agnostic, would you still support the 'no' side?
Try to start a debate like that and it will quickly decay into another "Does God exist" debate
I do realize this is going to be confusing, me using my agnostic views in place of atheism, so if you'd like for me to start another debate, I can do that... or we can continue it here.
We don't know the meaning of life... only what our lives mean to us.
This question never resulted into a useful argument. Lets skip this
I didn't dodge the question. You just didn't get the answer you were looking for.
Abandoning them in their quest to find answers? That's bullshit. It's helping them open their minds.
You failed to understand that children are simple minded, they see things in black and white, true or false. You cannot just make them an agnostic without making them choose a side first (and doubt it)
While its nice to teach them how to be openminded, making them take lessons they cannot understand is the same as leaving them to learn on their own.
Try to start a debate like that and it will quickly decay into another "Does God exist" debate
I don't care what other people say. I'd be making it so that you and I could argue without you constantly pointing out that everyone is supposed to be Atheist in this debate.
You failed to understand that children are simple minded, they see things in black and white, true or false. You cannot just make them an agnostic without making them choose a side first (and doubt it)
While its nice to teach them how to be openminded, making them take lessons they cannot understand is the same as leaving them to learn on their own
There are children who have been atheist or agnostic their entire lives. How did they learn?
I don't care what other people say. I'd be making it so that you and I could argue without you constantly pointing out that everyone is supposed to be Atheist in this debate.
eh? o_O
I never said that everyone has to be an Atheist. I simply said that if you do not have a stand, how can I debate you?
There are children who have been atheist or agnostic their entire lives. How did they learn?
Ive heard of children in Atheist summer camps but Agnostic? I dont think thats possible. Can you provide me with a source?
I never said that everyone has to be an Atheist. I simply said that if you do not have a stand, how can I debate you?
"The debate is about the scenario of what will happen if everyone became an atheist. While I play the side that its a bad idea, it seems like your sitting on the fence."
Ive heard of children in Atheist summer camps but Agnostic? I dont think thats possible. Can you provide me with a source?
There are actually several books and websites on raising children without religion. Just Google search "Agnostic children".
"The debate is about the scenario of what will happen if everyone became an atheist. While I play the side that its a bad idea, it seems like your sitting on the fence."
And what did I said next?
There are actually several books and websites on raising children without religion. Just Google search "Agnostic children".
I searched for it. But most of the results offered are bias towards either Atheism or Christianity. No real results about pure Agnostic children
Perhaps you can enlighten me if its truly possible?
You do realize that NOBODY knows what comes after death, right? It is a total mystery.
That may be so... but like I said, what comes after death is a mystery. Everyone knows that, whether they admit it or not.
You're ruining the fun
The debate is about the scenario of what will happen if everyone became an atheist. While I play the side that its a bad idea, it seems like your sitting on the fence.
If you do not have a stand, how can I debate you?
Will what be a wise idea? You're going to have to clarify a little more.
The victim lost a person he loves. By telling him that it is a normal occurrance is just the same as saying that life is meaningless and disposable. That wont soothe a broken soul
No, you don't tell them to give up hope. I told you I'm an Agnostic. I said that for a reason. I want you to understand that my responses are coming from an agnostic point of view, not an athiest. Kids should be taught early on that there are multiple theories about what comes after death. Teach them to keep an open-mind, but don't brainwash them into believing a theory is a fact.
Dont use your belief to dodge the question. By opening the children towards further theories is the same as abandoning them in their quest to find answers.
Adults are to be firm in teaching them how to decide their path not to let them guess how
Yeah... religious people or people that still hold some belief in that religion.
I don't care what people believe in. That's fine. I just think we should, by now, understand that our beliefs are not facts. That is why I think it is illogical to devote your entire life to a religion that may not be correct.
We would all end up worshiping celebrities,they would be in all the papers,magazines and all over the net,wow couldn't live in that world,Hollywood as heaven.
Everyone should be agnostic. Seriously, it's basically nothing more than being honest. You can believe what you want as long as you know that you don't know.
Neither side has really pushed itself imto victory. God is a possibility as we all know,
;) I'm sure some people know what I'm was going to say.
but if everybody was an Atheist would the world be a much better place? What do you think?
No, the world would not be a better place with everyone being atheists. Some of the worst killers and genocidal maniacs in history were atheistic; some of the worst killers and genocidal maniacs in history were religious. People are the problem, which means that nothing is going to change.
No, the world would not be a better place with everyone being atheists. Some of the worst killers and genocidal maniacs in history were atheistic; some of the worst killers and genocidal maniacs in history were religious.
I see. Now with the basis you have set up your argument is that genocidal, infanticidal, or any type of unjust form of mass murder is unavoidable because of human nature? Are you saying that humanity cannot change it's ways?
May I ask for evidence or a logical explanation so I may further reason with your sentiment?
In my personal views of humanity, I think humans are not evil but are simply learning what should be universally considered right and wrong. Humanity, as a whole, has witnessed some horrific acts of injustice, but we have learned from the mistakes of men and have began to change our views on what we should consider moral. After all we are still animals, and we are an advanced species so somethings we do can be attributed to things we may see from any advanced form of life.
Forget my views, I would like to hear your reasoning.
Morality and justice must be objective, otherwise it is merely preference.
As Socrates said, injustice comes for selfishness.
We are all selfish and self-preservationistic peoples.
Therefore, injustice will always be here until we stop being selfish.
However, according to naturalistic explanations, selfish-preservation is the biggest aspect of the organism psyche and is intrinsic to nature.
From a religious explanation, then we are all evil.
As Glaucon says, the only reason people are just is because they cannot be unjust successfully, which is why 2 year olds are the most violent (they haven't learned that they cannot do injustice successfully) and why rulers are corrupt (they can do injustice successfully).
Selfish: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.
From this definition I feel as it is safe to say that the civilized society we live in today focuses on others than the preservation of self. Although we indeed do tend to be selfish, with the moral implication that helping others is better than helping oneself we can say that we are reaching a state of an equivalent equilibrium between morality and justice. Things such as taxation or voluntary contribution are ways of sharing the wealth of men for the entire nation.
The overcoming of selfishness is indeed already in our sights as a human race. I feel as if we are still reaching a utopianistic state. Regardless of the problem of its impossibility we may reach a state where we are indeed near perfection or on the edge of glorification due to our overcoming of selfishness.
Sharing wealth and being equal is not the same as not being selfish. Being selfish or self-preservationistic in any sense is doing anything that is for one's own good. As psychologists says, there is no such thing as genuine altruism since even the things that we do that are good are for our own good. We do not do anything altruistically unless we feel that we will have something in return.
Sharing wealth is a sign of being non-preservationalistic. Equality is a measure of how much we can display care for one another. Even if we can do a random act of kindness for someone with a slight loss of our possessions we can do so for morality of the populace deems it as something that should be done. Modern day voluntary contributions are a logical example of our overcoming of the lust of the acquisition of one's personal achievements.
Sharing wealth is not a sign of being non-preservationistic. As I said, we only do things that are good for our being, according to modern psychology. Sharing makes us feel good, not because it is good for others intrinsically, though it is good for others.
Actually sharing wealth is indeed a display of being non-preservationalistic.
Preservation:
1. To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
3. To keep or maintain intact
If we are willing to no longer keep our capital and we are willing to display our non selfishness by giving to others we are showing others that we being preservationalistic will soon be behind us. Regardless of how it makes us feel we are still losing the preservation of our capital and thus cannot be preservationalistic.
Sharing wealth, as I have said now for the third time, is not a display of a lack of self-preservationistic. We only do what we desire. Whatever we desire is based in self-preservation, whether this preservation be our pleasures or life or mental psyche. So until you can accept that point, which is based in science and philosophy, then there is no point in discussing further.
Sharing wealth, as I have said now for the third time, is not a display of a lack of self-preservationistic.
The preservance of self logically implies that the beholder of the object whether tangible or intangible will preserve or, in all practicality, keep the object to themselves. If the object is capital and a man gives his earnings out to charity through a voluntary exchange then he is no longer preserving, or keeping, his capital and thus, at that precise moment, cannot logically be deemed as preservationalistic for he is not keep or preserving his capital for his own gain.
We only do what we desire
This cannot be true. For a man may not desire to share his wealth but must share it through the levy of taxation.
Selfish: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.
This is the definition of the word selfish. It only benefits one's self. If at all the act committed benefits another being the person is no longer applicable with the term "selfish". He is no longer in a preservationalistic state for that time period. I completely understand the sentimental value of your argument, however, I believe you are misinterpreting mine.
Indeed I understand your argument. The reason I am proposing this is for multiple reasons:
1) Everybody is born as a non believer.
2) I feel as if it is one less form of discriminatory references.
3) Other topics in Government can be discussed without the repercussion of religion such as polygamy or gay marriage.
4) Seeing eye to eye will be more common. Other topics of course shall arise but as a massive body of persons we can further relate to one another, and possibly have a better unity as a populace.
However, Quocalimar, your sentiment is one to be regarded for your claim is legitimate. I only ask you this.
In you opinionated viewpoint, do you think humanity could have achieved more if religion did not exist? Do you think our morality would have been improved or the affairs with bureaucrats in office would bring more liberty to the public?
In you opinionated viewpoint, do you think humanity could have achieved more if religion did not exist?
Certainly. I imagine there would have been less roadblocks to freedom, and less trouble getting to the present, and most likely less discrimination.
Do you think our morality would have been improved or the affairs with bureaucrats in office would bring more liberty to the public?
I don't think morality would have changed at all. Originally morality was placed in the hands of deity so that people felt like they had to act a certain way to please said deity, but the deity didn't literally tell people this, people made it up. So the morals of today are made by people, and projected onto deities. Without them, the morals would have still been made they just would have been projected onto whoever was able to spread them.
Islam say's we are all born muslim's,and if you convert,they call it revert,as on reverting back,that is why muslim's think if you aren't with us,your a christen.Atheism hasn't a god yet,science is still looking.All religious No are in decline,so to become an athiest from western religion you need to revert to islam and denounce allah,WALLAH
It would seem as if we would argue over several different things with slightly more efficiency for the barrier of religion would not oppress against polygamy or gay marriage. People can argue with logical reasoning.
I think that if we all thought the same thing about where we come from, we wouldn't be human. Would the world be better without religion? No.
if, for example, we all looked exactly the same, the world should not have any more prejudice or discrimination because of appearance, right? It would be a better place, just because we would have less differences among us, right? But looking exactly the same doesn't mean we would be better people. In fact, I'm sure we would still discriminate about he way we dress, talk, walk, etc.
So, in the end, looking the same wouldn't make that much of a difference.
The same thing happens with atheism. If we all thought the same about one thing, we would find other differences and other things to divide us because in the end we are the same people. Atheism wouldn't neither fix that nor make it better.
So no, we shouldn't all be atheists because it wouldn't change a thing about anything.
I'm going to say no, though I do think if religion was gone everyone would be happier. But for the time being, you can't convert people to your beliefs ( or lack of.) Freedom of speech/ religion everyone, remember this.
Besides, you said "God is a possibility, we all know." No, some people will tell you 'I know God does not exist, I am certain.'
But in any case, yes I think we should all be, but it is a view, trying to impose such a thing on to other people would be wrong.
Atheism acts like there is no evidence for God (when they know there obviously is, at least in some shape or form), and proclaim no existence because of "lack of evidence", and so NO! People, mankind, ought to come up with their own conclusions, after being born into X, Y, Z, to configure within themselves whatever believe in.
Atheism is like saying "I don't believe there is a God, though I know there could be something, and yet I will not say that there is one or not."
And least it's better than being Agnostic saying "I don't know because no one knows for sure, and so I don't know and no one know for sure and so why believe in ANYTHING?" LOL
As an Atheist, I think it would be nice if everyone else was too. But I do not think it is necessarily right to push it upon everyone. For many people religion is very important, and not all theists are "bad". The world would not be a much better place, there will always be people who have different beliefs about things, whether they are religious or not. So there will always be conflict. All of us being Atheists would solve nothing, because our beliefs outside of religion would still remain the same.