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.
I shall personally help you with tracking down and torturing the next person who starts a debate of a religious nature after you have been tracked down and tortured for creating this debate, which is of a religious nature.
Had to have some way to draw people in and so I made the title miss leading. Forgive me for the deception. Will work with you to torture whoever post on the other side of this debate.
Here is my argument, I think that these things always tend to turn friends into enimies but on the religous debate topic i vote that we give them a gift that sprays pepper spray at them
I believe in God and can also spell believe (your spelling of beleave). Let's see who is smarter, this site even has spell check. I wonder who as the lower IQ.
English is not my native tongue and I get bored using the spell check
How many languages do you speak.
Anyways, I wasn't out for a a dick contest - It is just a pure fact that the IQ´s of religious people tend to be less on average than that of non religious people.
What makes you think English is my native tongue. I speak Hick, Hillbilly, and then English.
For not wanting to be in a dick contest, you sure are one. To say that religious people have lower IQ's is just being a dick. IQ has little to do with one's believes or lack of them, as your case is. Name those facts. Facts are whatever one wants them to be. Facts and figures don't lie, but people do.
If you what to discuss fact then go for it. Fact atheism is a religion. Fact atheist have faith, faith in science. Fact atheist have a god, it is whatever is the center of their life. Fact atheist claim to be all-knowing, ironic isn't it.
It is true that Atheists can be quite zealous, (while trying to get into the thick heads of non-responsive creationist idiots) but their "belief" is not based on pure non-rational cultural inherited belief, but on probability. Atheists don't have creeds, they have rational thought - atheists don't have far out fairytales, they have quantifiable facts to strengthen their case.
Fact atheist have faith, faith in science.
Yeah but they don't need very much of it since science has proved itself countlessly and does so billions of times in millions of labratory´s all over the world, every day - and at the same time science has disproved the majority of statement religious people have made through the ages, so that the religious need to fall back on more and more vague statements, that get saved from idealogical death by their vagueness. Scientist don't need to wait for thousands of years for some sort of silly rapture to be proven right.
Fact atheist have a god, it is whatever is the center of their life.
Now that is stretching the God term quite a bit, but defining this ridiculous idea called God is anybody´s game I guess
Fact atheist claim to be all-knowing, ironic isn't it.
Maybe to you they seem to claim to be all knowing since religious people have a hard time understanding the simplest of scientific principles - I guess it might seem to a religious person quite big claims that scientists make - but dont forget that there is quite the competition between scientists about their ideas and they are not willing to approve of each others ideas without verifiable tests that prove them. Compared to religious people who try to kill people with differing religious ideas I guess from their eyes scientists must be as baffling as humans seem to baboons.
Scientist dont need to be anywhere close to all knowing to dwarf the intellect of people who bury their head in the quicksand that is religion.
I glanced at someones biased opinion and yes I said biased opinion. Nothing is done without some underlying cause, one wants to find results a certain way and one does.
Where do you get this information about science from? A book. One book is a fairytale and another is true? Don't use books to rule out the Bible. Have you been to the moon? How do you know man actually walked on it? Let me guess it was printed somewhere.
Religion is defined by American-Heritage as #4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Still without religion? What is your pursue of science, but a conscientious devotion.
Is there a God? How you answer this, will determine whether you are all-knowing.
I glanced at someones biased opinion and yes I said biased opinion. Nothing is done without some underlying cause, one wants to find results a certain way and one does.
I am not surprised that a religious person wouldnt understand the difference between statistical analysis and an opinion pieace. How would you suggest that someont could first ask a bunch of people their religious inklings, then give them an IQ test and then put the results up in a chart, and still get a biased result?
Where do you get this information about science from? A book. One book is a fairytale and another is true? Don't use books to rule out the Bible. Have you been to the moon? How do you know man actually walked on it? Let me guess it was printed somewhere.
Just to explain a little (but important) thing about science. Science is made up of cross-reference - When somone wants to prove a theorem, he doesnt do just one test - he does many , and in very rigid controlled test "boxes" so that there are no hidden variables. For some sciences (the hard ones, like pysics for example) you can do this quite easilly, but for other (the soft ones - like historical analysis for example) you cant control hidden variables as well - but the principle is the same - both use cross referance. So: No scientist would ever assume he had a sturdy case concerning some "fact" if you only had one source (as religious people do). In other words: I might get some of my information from books - but not a book (like religious morons)
Religion is defined by American-Heritage as #4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Still without religion? What is your pursue of science, but a conscientious devotion.
Well the difference is that science is a conscientious devotion to things that show stable and often occuring results. Religion is a conscientious devotion to "things" that no one has ever seen or been able to show others.
Is there a God? How you answer this, will determine whether you are all-knowing.
I thing if I said there was a God I would rather be All-lying.
The existnce of a superbeing that created the world and hides itself from it cant in any way be tested or assumed, but the probability of such a thing existing is one of the most unlikely hypothesis ever thought up.
Science is more magical than religion can ever be. Worm holes, Time travel, Evolution, parallel universes, need I say more. Proven and tested, Hahahahaha
all the magical theorems you mention have not been proved or tested - hence they´re called theorems.
On the other hand, all these theorems have well laid out and calcuable ways of how to test the hypothesis when it will be possible, (with comming technology)
That is the difference between science and religion. Both come out with far out ideas, but scientists need to show ways of how to test those ideas to be taken seriously (religious claims get taken seriously only when the one holding the claim is willing to shoot, hang or bomb you if you tell him he is wrong)
There are no religious extremist. They are following some man's rules, not Gods. A man of faith needs to take no actions. Al Qaeda is a cult, not a religion.
I would be very happy if religions where that way: that there would be no "middle guy". But we all know that religions are sustained by bat shit crazy televangelists, a bat shit crazy pope (who thinks it is alright to rape a child as long as you are a priest) and etc.
It is also evident that most people who fervently say they belive in the bible, have never read the whole thing and if they did they did so in small chunks and have little or no oversight of the work as a whole ( Usually I know more quotes from the bible than you people who claim to follow its word, and I am in no way a fan)
I am a big fan of farces and very interested in the psychology of human stupidity, so in that sense I am a fan.
Anyone who puts himself between you and the claimed; most great and unfathomable power in the world, is obviously a con man.
Imagine a mouse telling another mouse that he represented the sun and the other mouse should give him a tenth (or a tax subsidy, whatever) so the paying/swindled mouse can learn how to surrender to the heat of the sun in the right way.
Now, compare the size difference between the mouse and what she says she represents on one hand, and on the other a religious zealot and the size and complexity of the known universe. How blatantly obvious is it that the zealot is full of shit.
I don't mind people being in awe of the universe and fantasizing about it (even when the fantasy´s are wrongheaded) , what I do mind is when people stop fantasizing and say they have reached a conclusion about a thing so complex and awe inspiring, and then point me to a baldy written and immoral pulp fiction as their answer.
Then I just have to go "Are you stupid or something?"
Con´s usually hurt people but there are arguably exceptions, such as maybe Santa Claus (although he gets some complaints for being the deity of consumerism) I hardly think the three Abraham religions are one of those exceptions
For many years, people used IQ tests to try and determine someone’s intelligence. However, some researchers believe that IQ tests do not take into account the fact that different people might think in different ways, and have different strengths and weaknesses.
Most people would agree that Mozart was a genius - but Mozart would probably have struggled with Einstein’s theories just like the rest of us. This doesn’t mean that one man was more clever than the other – they just thought in very different ways.
Many psychologists now believe that what we call intelligence can be subdivided into different categories, all of which can all be measured independently. Different kinds of thinking are needed to solve different problems.
That is all very true. But this is a statistical report on whole groups - not specific people, and it shows that religious people are to a great degree worse in general logical problem solving (which IQ tests test) than non-religious people.
It may well be that religious people can have special talents, such as driving a traktor or shooting an Uzi, where they outperform the non religious.
You are right that IQ tests are general intellegence tests and do not apply to special talents, but then again special talents are rare (for both groups) so I dont think it matters much if a few of the religious people with low IQ show for example great social acuity (no sarcasm intended) - on average religious people are still dumber.
For an artful debate, develop a thought experiment, invite Thomas Jefferson; ask him why "the Creator" and "Supreme Judge of the World" was included in the Declaration of Independence, ask Thomas Paine why he considered himself anti-religionist, but acknowledged the existence of a Superior Being in Nature, ask why most if not all of the founders were at least "Deists". Ask the founders why they adhered to Natural Law philosophy, the foundation for the U.S. Constitution? For those whom are unaware of what Natural Law philosophy is, it is the rationale and reason for natures laws based on the recognition of a God as the author of moral and natural laws (gravity, human rights, freedom from government intervention in personal life, thermodynamics, nuclear forces, etc etc etc) . This is not the same as a religious belief system, which is a society (community) based formulated specific to ones belief in God. If we're tired of the religious debate, let's begin by understanding that a belief in a God is not the same as religiosity, HOWEVER, we enjoy our freedoms and laws today because of the very same philosophies by enlightened men, in the God of nature, who ever that being is or is not, that gave the free-world what it has today.
