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 might be biased since I'm an Atheist, but I can't see organized religion being anywhere near as powerful in the future as it was in the past. Scandinavian countries are already beginning to become largely Atheist, Czech Republic is mostly Atheist, and even America is at about 12% Atheist.
As science continues to disprove religion people will eventually lose faith in it.
As a Christian Deist, I also support this view. And, not so much that the spirituality aspect will disappear, but organized religion will indeed fade as people find new ways to worship God, i.e. through earnest effort to find justice and peace, through loving one's neighbor as oneself, through embracing science as the means by which God works.
Now I don't suspect organized religion will ever entirely fade, but as the middle ground between science/logic and spirituality becomes more explored and comfortable, more people will be at ease leaving organized, tradition-based religions to find a belief set that they and others better identify with and understand.
I pray to Jesus Christ, God, Yeweh, the Virgin Mary, Buddha, Krsna, Zeus, Satan, Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny every day that organized religion goes away.
Unfortunately as long as people have a limited time on earth, they will be looking for someone to tell them they'll live forever.
And as long as people want to live forever, there will always be someone to use that to control them...
It's like one of those guys who calls you and tells you you won a million bucks, and all you have to do is send him a thousand so he can send you the check. Anyway...
here's how it works: For a number of centuries organized religion has an iron grip on the majority of people, as people get smarter, these religions have to change with them, becoming more and more diluted, resembling less and less the original, and losing members as it inevitably never changes fast enough. At that point a newer, more modern belief system will begin to take hold... we'll call it "spiritual" as the orgainzed religions slowly die, "spirituality" will slowly gain, and at some point these new religions will begin organizing, and we go through the whole crazy rollercoaster ride again.
Meanwhile something like 8% or at its max maybe 20% of sane people like myself will always be there to laugh our asses off at the crazy people and wishing for a day when they all gain their sanity. But it won't happen.
The percentage of non-religious people has been increasing in all 50 states, and overall has doubled since 1990, while the number of self-identified Christians has declined.
They've already debated that premise for the last 25 years and I see no change whatsoever in what was then and what is now in organized religion. 25 years ago they thought the church could not hold the younger generations and I suppose the same worry is there now. Religion did fade away for a short time and came back with a vengeance when the born-again movement came. I think it will, forever, ebb and flow.
Organized religion, unfortunately, will be with us for centuries to come.
It's going to take a long time for people to wake up to the idea of humility. By this, I mean we ought to be humble enough to admit that the BIG questions we cannot answer, for we are only human. We need to realize that it is not possible to use reason to determine which existing religion to be a part of, as none offer modern supporting evidence.
Anyway, some people have come around to the idea, but it will take a very long time for people to shed the "I'm whatever religion my mommy and daddy told me to be" attitude and think for themselves.
Anyway, some people have come around to the idea, but it will take a very long time for people to shed the "I'm whatever religion my mommy and daddy told me to be" attitude and think for themselves.
Not only are you setting up a straw man, but also providing a pathetic ad hominem attack as well. Because I am religious I do not think for myself? What kind of bull is that?
I'm not saying religious people don't think for themselves. Most, however, adopt the religious ideals of their parents, without ever even considering the principles of other religions.
lol you seem to be the kid of person who would just say stuff they have heard w/o researching it yourself. exactly the kind of person youre bashing. in 2008 the PEW forum did a study showing that barely under half of all U.S. adults have switched religious affiliations during their life. Even this study everyone is freaking out about done by Trinity College found that most Americans raised in nonreligious homes ultimately join a religious community. Doesn't sound like people are just "following mommy and daddy," sorry kid
There is no doubt that organized religion has been on the decline for some years now. Personally, I think that organized religion will rebound sometime before the next quarter century passes from now, around 2030 lets say. I believe there to be an anti-religious movement going on right now that will run itself out sometime in the near future. I mean, we just elected the most liberal president ever in American history in 2008. There is a lot of division between denominations right now in America with the Episcopalian's having gay bishops and what have you. That is one of the reasons why I am a nondenominational right now. I don't really see anything to my liking when it comes to any of them. That doesn't mean that they don't have good foundational beliefs though, I just disagree with some of their non-core beliefs. Once those divisions get stamped out and they become more unified, a comeback will ensue. Maybe its just blind optimism, who knows. I think people will come to their senses soon. :)
I believe there to be an anti-religious movement going on right now that will run itself out sometime in the near future. I mean, we just elected the most liberal president ever in American history in 2008.
I fail to see how one follows the other. 1. Obama is religious (unfortunately) 2. He's not even that liberal, he's frustratingly moderate the way he keeps trying to work with neo-cons and hasn't done anything about gays being kicked out of the military.
I'll ignore the rest of your statement, as the whole thing sounds to me like it came from bizzaro world.
The first sentence is purely my opinion. You may have a different opinion. I don't really care to be honest. I am basing my second sentence off the fact that he was the most liberal senator in Congress in 2007, the year before he was elected (1). Obama is not religious at all. He admits in his own book that he is not really religious. The United Church of Christ is a religion that contradicts itself many times over on just about every issue. They are so liberal on so many views that most democrats find shelter in it so they can keep following their liberal views. I'm not even going to talk about Jeremiah Wright either.
I've only read The Audacity of Hope but in it he discusses his struggle to come to terms with his faith, being brought up in a non-religious household.
My mother's own experiences as a bookish, sensitive child growing up in small towns in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas only reinforced this inherited skepticism. Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones. Occasionally, for my benefit, she would recall the sanctimonious preachers who would dismiss three-quarters of the world's people as ignorant heathens doomed to spend the afterlife in eternal damnation—and who in the same breath would insist that the earth and the heavens had been created in seven days, all geologic and astrophysical evidence to the contrary. She remembered the respectable church ladies who were always so quick to shun those unable to meet their standards of propriety, even as they desperately concealed their own dirty little secrets; the church fathers who uttered racial epithets and chiseled their workers out of any nickel that they could.
For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness.
He goes on to talk about how his mother still taught him the lessons of religion, in terms of love, kindness, and charity. Meanwhile, she also provided religious instruction as part of his education, exposing him to not just one religion, but many.
He then discusses how he was drawn in by the historically black church, as not just an instrument for worshipping and learning about God, but for spurring social change.
And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship, the grounding of faith in struggle, that the historically black church offered me a second insight: that faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts, or that you relinquish your hold on this world. Long before it became fashionable among television evangelists, the typical black sermon freely acknowledged that all Christians (including the pastors) could expect to still experience the same greed, resentment, lust, and anger that everyone else experienced. The gospel songs, the happy feet, and the tears and shouts all spoke of a release, an acknowledgment, and finally a channeling of those emotions. In the black community, the lines between sinner and saved were more fluid; the sins of those who came to church were not so different from the sins of those who didn't, and so were as likely to be talked about with humor as with condemnation. You needed to come to church precisely because you were of this world, not apart from it; rich, poor, sinner, saved, you needed to embrace Christ precisely because you had sins to wash away—because you were human and needed an ally in your difficult journey, to make the peaks and valleys smooth and render all those crooked paths straight.
It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
"Already disadvantaged by a late start and a lack of funds, Mr. Keyes had, during the course of a mere three months, managed to offend just about everybody. In that sense, he was an ideal opponent; all I had to do was keep my mouth shut and start planning my swearing-in ceremony. And yet, as the campaign progressed, I found him getting under my skin. For he claimed to speak for my religion—and although I might not like what came out of his mouth, I had to admit that some of his views had many adherents within the Christian church. His argument went something like this: America was founded on the twin principles of God-given liberty and Christian faith. Successive liberal administrations had hijacked the federal government to serve a godless materialism and had thereby steadily chipped away at individual liberty and traditional values. The answer to American renewal was simple: Restore religion generally—and Christianity in particular—to its rightful place at the center of our public and private lives and align the law with religious precepts. In other words, Alan Keyes presented the essential vision of the religious right in this country, shorn of all compromise. Within its own terms, it was entirely coherent, and provided Mr. Keyes with the certainty and fluency of an Old Testament prophet. And while I found it simple enough to dispose of his constitutional and policy arguments, his readings of Scripture put me on the defensive.
Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, Mr. Keyes would say, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination. Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but he supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.
What could I say? That a literal reading of the Bible was folly? Unwilling to go there, I answered with the usual liberal response in such debates—that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my religious views on another, that I was running to be a U.S. senator from Illinois and not the minister of Illinois. But even as I answered, I was mindful of Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation—that I remained steeped in doubt, that my faith was adulterated, that I was not a true Christian."
---------
If he was anywhere near as religious as he says he is, he would be a conservative. A majority of conservatives are religious, so why does he not agree with hardly any of their viewpoints on religion and government? The man is not religious. He denies central tenets of the Christian faith to which he was baptized in.
----------
"An exception is Chicago Sun-Times columnist Cathleen Falsani, who interviewed Obama in 2004 for her book, “The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People “and asked him specific questions about his religious beliefs.
“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition,” said Obama, who has declared himself a Christian. But then he adds something that most Christians will see as universalism: “I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”
Falsani correctly brings up John 14:6 (and how many journalists would know such a verse, much less ask a question based on it?) in which Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That sounds pretty exclusive, but Obama says it depends on how this verse is heard. According to Falsani, Obama thinks that “all people of faith — Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone — know the same God.” (her words)
If that is so, Jesus wasted his time coming to Earth and he certainly did not have to suffer the pain of rejection and crucifixion if there are ways to God other than through Himself.
Here’s Obama telling Falsani, “The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.” Falsani adds, “Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.”
Here’s Obama again: “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”
Any first-year seminary student could deconstruct such “works salvation” and wishful thinking. Obama either hasn’t read the Bible, or if he has, doesn’t believe it if he embraces such thin theological gruel."
He goes on to talk about how his faith does not rule his policy decisions. How faith cannot rule policy decisions in America. It is admirable that he can be a man of religion and not want to impose doctrine on the non-Christian members of our country. Afterall, it is what our country was founded upon.
Seems to me this makes him far better than conservatives. If you read his judgement of abortion, for example, you'll find that he personally opposes it, but still supports a woman's right to choose. He does not deny central tenets of Christianity. Rather, he sees a distinction between his personal religious beliefs and the laws that should be made in our country.
I still don't see how he is a man of religion. You cannot be both a democrat and a Christian at the same time. I'll just agree to disagree with you on those points.
You cannot be both a democrat and a Christian at the same time.
WHAT?! You've got to be joking, right?
If you think the Republican party has the monopoly on the Christian faith, you're out of your mind. Democrats just happen to understand that this is a nation without a state religion, and thus our policies must reflect that.
No, i'm being honest. You cannot be both a true Christian and a democrat at the same time. They don't mix. How many atheists do you see as republicans? Goes the same way. If you were a true Christian you would see the viewpoint that you are voting in ignorance to your own beliefs if you side with most democratic views. A true Christian would know John 14:6: "Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to my Father except through me.'" There is no such thing as other religions if you are a true Christian. The other religions are committing idolatry, but you would not know this, because you are not a true Christian. Now, on the other hand, there are a lot of fake Christians out there, so I could see your viewpoint as well.
You cannot be both a true Christian and a democrat at the same time. They don't mix.
In your mind they don't. But Jesus himself was a liberal, if not an anarchist.
How many atheists do you see as republicans?
Well, how many gays do you see as republicans? Officially not many. Because the party has been hijacked by religious narrow minded zealots. Unofficially however, the party has as many gay members as any other party. It's just that they remain in the closet or pay for rent boys. There are quite a few embarrassing examples of this in the republican party...
There is no such thing as other religions if you are a true Christian. The other religions are committing idolatry, but you would not know this, because you are not a true Christian.
Neither are you. If you are wearing a cross on your neck, if you bow to religious paintings or sculptures at the church, then you too are committing idolatry. If your clothes are made from more than one fabric, them I'm afraid you too are not a true Christian.
If you don't follow EVERYTHING prescribed by the Bible then you too are not a true Christian. I could go on with this, but I think you get the message.
It amazes me, how those who see themselves as true believers and followers of Jesus, are the first to separate themselves from the rest of the world in a manner that completely disregards every core teaching of the man you follow. People like you will go look at the small print in the Bible in search of something that makes the activities of other people sinful, in search of something that implies that everybody else but you will burn in hell. It amazes me that you would focus and interpret that one sentence that Jesus said, in order to show how the rest of the world will burn in hell, instead of focusing on the dozen other sentences in which he calls for forgiveness and love and unity despite of our differences.
If I was Jesus and I could choose who comes to spend eternity in my home in Paradise, do you think I would pick people that can't get on with other beliefs and differences? Do you think I would pick people that see themselves as better or superior or more righteous?
Do you think I would pick someone that followed my commands to the letter, but still carried a lot of hate and rage towards other people?
In your mind Jesus was a liberal if not an anarchist as well.
----
Ok then objectively prove to me that the republican party has been "hijacked" by religious narrow minded zealots. I don't have to use ad hominems to prove my point, obviously you do.
-----
I seriously doubt you know anything about who a true Christian is and what beliefs they have. I can't debate anyone who keeps setting up straw men and using even more ad hominems. Why don't you keep it a little more respectful? Now, list your points and I will try to answer them in a respectful manner. Until then, i'm not going to address this hate-filled baloney.
I'm neither a true Christian, nor a fake one, but that's neither here nor there.
You don't seem to understand the difference between personal beliefs and political actions. One can be fully Christian but understand that the job of a politician is to seek what's in the best interest of everybody (Christian or not). Since you don't get the distinction, it's not worth continuing to battle back and forth.