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.
Atheism is just a state of disbelief, there is no particular reason why two people are or have to be atheist, there is no dogma, scripture or necessary obedience to anything.
Stating you don't believe in any deities unties you from controlled groups and places you in human law terms at an even footing.
Well, this is kinda easy. You'd have to be rather biased to go with atheism, I think. Atheism automatically gives you a decent amount of freedom, simply because it's no longer corrupting your soul to eternal hell to simply look at someone and feel attracted to them.
I mean, one has a bunch of rules and doctrine to it which was likely modified many times in the past by priests of bishops looking to secure a little extra power, and the other... has no rules or doctrine.
Well, this is a silly debate.
Religion is the opium of the masses. People love feeling secure and having rules and a big Authority looming down over them.
Most atheists I know seem to emphasize personal freedom and civil liberties, whereas most (not all) christians I know tend to try to stick to traditions like prohibiting gay marriage, making all drugs illegal, etc.
Look at history. Religion has been used to rile up the masses and rally them for a leader to use as they will. The crusades. The inquisition. Catholesism and indulgence in Europe. All of these things exploiting peoples beliefs to get them to do or give them what they want. Money, firepower, sevice. The same goes for today at least for catholecism I'd say. They are a money making machine of corruption.
Atheism isn't a religion or system. It's a stance. A lack of belief in any deities. How can a disbelief be exploited? It promotes knowledge and free thought. Thinking for oneself and making critical decisions based on evidence.
The problem through the ages has not been religion. It was the corrupt leaders of the religion. True Christianity offers salvation to others, but does not force it on others. Salvation is not dependent on works that you do, it is dependent upon accepting the work that Christ did.
It is a free gift, all you have to do is believe, turn from your wicked ways and accept the gift of salvation through what Christ did on the cross, and rising from the dead.
The problem through the ages has not been religion. It was the corrupt leaders of the religion.
it was both. Christian leaders have led their people to do horrible things, and the religion also teaches horrible things. Ages ago it was defending slavery and permitting rape and justifying wars, today it is allowing couples to get away with letting their kids die due to "faith healing", getting away with bullying other religions or the godless, and simply keeping all of humanity behind by impeding scientific and social progress the best they can.
True Christianity offers salvation to others, but does not force it on others.
It offers salvation for what it decides is wrong. If i come up to you and tell you that you violated MY religions rules but you can be pardoned by joining my religion youd think i was an asshole. Truth is, most non christian people dont think they need saving, because most non christian people dont view humanity as good for nothing sinning evil fucks who need salvation.
Also it does force "salvation" on people. Thats, like, a christians number one job.
Salvation is not dependent on works that you do, it is dependent upon accepting the work that Christ did.
Thats idiotic. So i can literally do nothing my entire life, even do EVIL my entire life and as long as i believe some guy who may or may not have lived and probably wasnt the son of god did what he did i get to go to heaven? And someone who doesnt believe but does good every day and is a generally good person doesnt? Thats a horribly unjust system. Also if god wants me to accept what christ did so badly then he should provide evidence for it instead of unproven claims expecting that i believe out of ignorance.
It is a free gift,
no it isnt. you people think converting to your religion is so easy peasy, its not. To flip everything you believe all around takes massive mental gymnastics and brings stress and a multitude of other plagues to ones life. Belief isnt a switch you can flip on and off, it takes evidence.
all you have to do is believe, turn from your wicked ways and accept the gift of salvation through what Christ did on the cross, and rising from the dead.
1) what "wicked ways"? i have never killed, raped, or stolen. Everybody lies, gets angry, and feeds their sexual desires. Those things are all part of the human condition and are all completely natural and not "wicked" at all. Im a generally nice person. i make people laugh, i love my fellow man, care about and help others. There is literally nothing i could possibly feel the need to repent for. But thats what christianity makes you do. Repent for just being human. It supresses human desires and condemnes human nature. That is truely twisted.
2) Again, belief isnt a switch you can turn on and off. if it was you could believe in santa clause again or believe that the moon is made of cheese on a whim. But you cant. to believe anything two things must happen:
1) a person must be taught and conditioned to believe things before the age that critical thinking develops (usually age 12).
or 2) a person must be provided sufficient evidence to persuade them that something is true. This can be easy or difficult depending on the person because everyone has different levels of evidence necessary to overturn their beliefs.
Simply put, if you want me to believe it, and if god wants me to believe it, all you need to do is provide the evidence for it. And if it is true like you claim then that should be all too easy for you.
1. Ages ago it was defending slavery and permitting rape and justifying wars,
The bible never defends forced slavery. People were permitted to become Bond servants or slaves. This was something they could choose to do in order to live better. There were very strict rules for the "master" he had to take very good care of the servant and all his needs. The bible never permits rape. You are referencing (Judges 21. 10-24) First off I would like to ask a simple question: Where was the rape? It never says it outright in the verse, and therefore requires some very large assumptions. There were even regulations for how to deal with said regulation. Give them a peace offer (Deut 20.10-14). This verse even goes on to show how war captives were to be treated, as follows:
Provide them with housing (taking them in)
Allowing them 1 month to mourn.
Then allow marriage
If they divorce, no mistreatment.
Where's the rape?
Number 31 says nothing about rape. Where it talks about lying with a man could be any man not just hebrews.
I have studied the bible, and preached it for many (37) years. Rape has never been justified. All the scripture people use is misconstrued and screwed all around.
As for kids dying due to faith healing. I do believe God can heal, but sometimes he uses doctors to do this. I do not believe in faith healers. This is an example of people misinterpreting God's word.
2. If i come up to you and tell you that you violated MY religions rules but you can be pardoned by joining my religion youd think i was an asshole.
No I would not. I would tell you I disagree but that you have the right to believe what you want. Our number one job is to OFFER what the bible says, if you refuse, that is on you and between you and God. Not me. I have been commanded to tell you, but not force you to accept. If you say your don't want to hear it, fine.
3. he should provide evidence for it instead of unproven claims expecting that i believe out of ignorance.
He gave you his word, and the evidence is all around you. Just open your eyes.
4. We are all born sinners, that is what makes us wicked. Being the enemy of God, as sinners. Have you ever lied? have you ever lusted? have you ever taken even a little piece of candy or paper that was not yours? that is stealing. The human condition in a sinful condition. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God it plunged all of mankind into a sinful state, because we are descendants of them.
God put the knowledge into every mans heart and conscience that he needs God. That is why we get into so much sin, looking for something to fill that hole that is supposed to be filled by God.
It is easy. You make it hard by looking for evidence that is already provided.
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly
If you can make someone a slave im pretty sure that means against their will... Also slave is different than indentured survitude. A slave is not reimbersed for his work in any way. he is property. an indentured survant chooses to work and is reimbersed at the end of his time.
People were permitted to become Bond servants or slaves.
Correction: people were permitted to TAKE bond servants or slaves
This was something they could choose to do in order to live better.
How the fuck is being a slave "living better"?
There were very strict rules for the "master" he had to take very good care of the servant and all his needs.
No, he only needed to treat isrealite slaves well. Other slaves they just werent allowed to kill. As long as theyre beaten within just an inch of their lives but dont die its all good in gods eyes
The bible never permits rape. You are referencing (Judges 21. 10-24) First off I would like to ask a simple question: Where was the rape? It never says it outright in the verse, and therefore requires some very large assumptions.
Not just that one, there are others but let me address that one: Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
They were allowed to take them and just make them their wives just like that. It isnt a large assumption by any stretch to see that if a woman is carried off, theyre probably gonna be raped and probably not consensually.
Theres more similar and even better examples in:
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30
and Zechariah 14:1-2
There were even regulations for how to deal with said regulation. Give them a peace offer (Deut 20.10-14). This verse even goes on to show how war captives were to be treated, as follows:
Provide them with housing (taking them in)
Allowing them 1 month to mourn.
Then allow marriage
If they divorce, no mistreatment.
Where's the rape?
No no no. it isnt "provide them housing" its "take them (captive women) to your house". and its not "if THEY divorce", its "if you lose your liking for her" Where does it say that she must consent to having sex with you? What after a month of mourning shes probably like "yeah im totally cool with being a captive". ? Not likely.
Number 31 says nothing about rape. Where it talks about lying with a man could be any man not just hebrews.
What are you talking about? The last line tells them to take the virgins for themselves. Rape isnt condemned and its no stretch of the imagination to see that these men were permitted to force themselves upon them
I have studied the bible, and preached it for many (37) years.
What a waste of 37 years.
Rape has never been justified. All the scripture people use is misconstrued and screwed all around.
Zechariah 14: 1-2 "...the city will be taken, houses plundered, women ravished". im pretty sure that doesnt mean like romantically buttered up with flowers and compliments....thats pretty damn literal..
Sure they never go: "RAPING WOMEN IS OK. GO RAPE WOMEN" (actually it kinda does in zechariah...) but repeatedly the same theme with these stories is take the virgins, take the virgins, take the captive women, make them your wives. It says nothing of consent at all and, again, its so painfully obvious that these men can force these women to do whatever they want. If rape was really against god and totally not ok then it would be said SOMEWHERE that "You are not to force yourselves onto women, you may not rape a woman". But nothing. nowhere. the 10 commandments spell out clear as day what you are not to do, if rape was really all that against the bibles moral compass it would be in there.
As for kids dying due to faith healing. I do believe God can heal, but sometimes he uses doctors to do this.
If god needs doctors and modern medicine to heal people hes a pretty shitty god. that is literally the biggest cop out ive ever seen. Really? isnt it much more likely that god actually doesnt heal anyone and thats why we need doctors to do it? idk thats just me.
I do not believe in faith healers. This is an example of people misinterpreting God's word.
Im pretty sure he says quite clearly to ask and you will recieve. I dont see the misinterpretation in people thinking that applies to their sick kids too.
He gave you his word, and the evidence is all around you. Just open your eyes
classic. The bible is just a book. and a shitty one at that. it is flawed in so many ways throughout the entire thing and offers no evidence for any of its claims. Anyone can write down anything and say "this happened" but unless you actually prove that it happened its meaningless. The bible says a god exists but doesnt prove it. says the world flooded but doesnt prove it. says that a man turned water into wine and doesnt prove it. Its a book of empty claims and flawed science. if he actually expects me to believe it he must substantiate it.
There is no evidence in nature supporting a god. so far everything weve ever discovered aligns with a natural explanation according to natural processes. So...looking around doesnt do anything..
We are all born sinners, that is what makes us wicked.
inherited sin is and idiotic idea
Being the enemy of God, as sinners. Have you ever lied? have you ever lusted? have you ever taken even a little piece of candy or paper that was not yours? that is stealing. The human condition in a sinful condition.
Thats why christianity is immoral. it takes only the bad part of our nature and condemns us for it. and masturbation isnt even bad its perfectly natural and a good thing really. It ignores all of the good in us and focuses on what pieces of shit we are. If god was so fucking great and were made in his image than why create us as such pieces of shit? How is it just to make someone a certain way and then punish them for it? and yes he did make us this way, if he is omniscient and knew we would "fall" then he intendid us to be this way. It makes no sense at all.
When Adam and Eve rebelled against God it plunged all of mankind into a sinful state, because we are descendants of them.
ignoring the fact that that story is idiotic and unproven how does a guy thousands of years ago eating a piece of fruit make me worthy of hellfire? your god is entirely unjust. his morality is warped, cruel, and idiotic. hypothetically speaking
God put the knowledge into every mans heart and conscience that he needs God. That is why we get into so much sin, looking for something to fill that hole that is supposed to be filled by God.
or were just animals. like literally. its in our nature and explained by evolution
It is easy. You make it hard by looking for evidence that is already provided.
that makes literally no fucking sense. its hard to look for the evidence thats provided? What? No its hard because actual evidence, like, real scientific evidence doesnt exist.
Correction: people were permitted to TAKE bond servants or slaves
The poor people of Israel could become bond servants, but they eventually had to be released. However, people from other nations could be bought and enslaved permanently.
How the fuck is being a slave "living better"?
He seems to be referring to the Israeli people, and you are referring to the servants acquired from other nations.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Isn't that regarding the punishment for adultery? They expected a married woman who was being raped to "cry out" and if she didn't, they apparently figured she was enjoying it... So, they'd stone them to death.
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Not really about rape, but I guess it could be interpreted that way if you assume that the women would not willingly sleep with the men.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
That's about forced marriage... Not rape... Still pretty bad, though.
Zechariah 14:1-2
That's about what will happen to Jerusalem. Starting at verse three, it says how God will have his vengeance on the nations responsible.
ignoring the fact that that story is idiotic and unproven how does a guy thousands of years ago eating a piece of fruit make me worthy of hellfire?
If people realized that most of the Bible is allegorical, and that Satan and hell are metaphors, the world would be a better place. A literal interpretation of the Bible is dangerous.
Most scholars agree that at least some of the Torah was written during the Babylonian Exile. I think Leviticus and Deuteronomy most likely were, and that is why they are the cruelest parts of the Bible. I think the "laws" that can be found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were actually Babylonian laws that were eventually adopted by the Hebrew people. Moses actually has the same infancy legend as the Mesopotamian ruler, Sargon. Even though Moses gets credit for most of the Torah, many scholars have said that the Torah actually spans six centuries, with multiple different authors... So, I guess my point is, debating the people who consider the more violent Babylonian-like parts to be important and true to the entire Bible, is understandable... But looking at those parts and forming an opinion about the Bible, as if they were all meant to go together, is kind of silly.
Even though the Soviet Union used their definition of atheism to control the population, states and kingdoms governed by Christianity (such as Tudor England) typically control/controlled people's lives to a much greater extent. The Catholic church is a more than adequate example of this.
The freedom to practice your religion of choice is a secular characteristic of government. A true Christian state would have to enforce the dictatorial "Thou shall have no other gods before me" rule. Anything else would be a secular ruling, which is closer to atheism than Christianity.
Christianity has enjoyed hundreds upon hundreds of years of dominance in the modern world, forcing people to believe in their world view. Christianity has already proven countless times that they are the masters of controlling the populace, whether it be by warfare, by torture, by imprisonment, or by murder.
Atheism needs a few hundred years to even get to the starting blocks of controlling people. If anything, Atheism is freedom from the control of Christianity's tyranny.
My statement was specific to Christianity because that's the only tyranny that has affected me personally, but atheism is freedom from all religious tyranny. Yes.
However, I know that I would be sentenced to death in Pakistan if it were known that I was an atheist, so in that case, being an atheist would get me killed, which is why I am glad I live in a country with freedom of speech, and the freedom to not be religious.
Try to prove that God IS NOT a totalitarian dictator out to control harmless personal matters such as your very own sexuality. Use the Bible for quotes proving that God is not a dictator, instead of using the US Constitution (which was written by deists and Freemasons who believed in intelligent design but rejected the irrationality, miracles and blatant dictatorship of the Bible. Therefore you can say that they believed in their own version of a God).
Believe it or not, atheist democracies can exist. Heck, the very definition of secularism is that religion should not have an affair in politics. Secular countries are based on reason, realism, rule of law and individual rights, it is not supposed to care whether you are a Christian or an atheist or whatever metaphysics you think about. In other words, a secular country is inherently godless or at least neutral about God. Guess what, America is a secular country. If America based all its decisions onto desert scripture, it would end up turning into a Christian version of Islamic Iran. Also, unlike the Communists, modern day atheists are particular defenders of individual rights, secularism, freedom of speech, women's rights, gay rights, and every other thing on the Bill of Rights. Hardly totalitarian.
On the other hand, in a theocracy like Islamic Iran or the Medieval Catholic Church, God will make a massive deal about what you think or even feel, and he will send you to a concentration camp (Hell) for Thought Crime (Sin/Heresy). This is totalitarianism by definition (total control of everything up to thinking). Therefore, a theocracy will inevitably be totalitarian.
Besides, most of the atheism=totalitarianism arguments are based on Communism and Soviet Russia, but try to replace Stalin with God and you'll get the Medieval Inquisition or something similar. Communist countries only had a massive genocide rate thanks to modern weapons. If the Inquisition had access to modern weapons of mass murder such as gas chambers, would it turn out to be different from the Communist countries? I dare to argue that if Communism never existed, atheism would not be hated so much in America.
But in any case, I'd say atheistic systems are easier to manage by tyrants. People with religions will be more loyal to their gods, not some earthly statehead.
Still, it's easy for the state to abuse both. Crusaders would go to war thinking that their sins would be absolved by the priests for example. It's not that clear cut, but I'd still say that in this day and age, christians would be harder to control.
What has the theory of evolution done to the world? It has turned in on its side because "scientists are smart" and "if you don't believe in evolution you are stupid or ignorant or wicked." Atheism is a hegemony that the "rational" can't seem to comprehend.
Atheism and evolution are two distinct terms. One can be an atheist but not an "evolutionist", and vice versa. Any gripes that you have with evolution are with evolution, not atheism.
And how is atheism a hegemony? Perhaps you view it that way given its role in society, but to call a disbelief a hegemony would be incorrect.
Evolution is the gateway to atheism. If you accept evolution then you are more likely to accept atheism. If you accept evolution, you tend to have a sense of faith in the scientific bourgeois. If you have a sense of faith in the scientific bourgeois then you tend to believe that "they understand things better than we do." This is true for many people who don't even understand evolution. It then becomes a hegemony to believe in evolution. Evolution then rejects the notion that a god is needed for creation of the universe, thus spawning atheism. Evolution mocks and criticizes other religions for not being close to the evolutionary timescale. Thus, scientists tend to be atheists. Atheism then becomes a hegemony.
If you accept evolution then you are more likely to accept atheism.
Yes, but that is not the same as atheism and evolution being synonymous.
If you accept evolution, you tend to have a sense of faith in the scientific bourgeois. If you have a sense of faith in the scientific bourgeois then you tend to believe that "they understand things better than we do."
What on Earth is the "scientific bourgeois"?
There is the scientific community, which are far from bourgeois. Regardless, their social status has no impact on their findings. Laymen believe scientists because (in general) they have no agenda. They are not being paid by the US government to fabricate evidence for evolution. Everything science does has to be scrutinised, by peers and by laymen. And given all this, it is no wonder the laymen think that way.
This is true for many people who don't even understand evolution.
Perhaps I am wrong, but if you don't understand evolution, you're most likely a creationist or scientifically illiterate.
It then becomes a hegemony to believe in evolution.
False premise. A hegemony requires a driving force like government behind it. Most governments today not only refuse to support evolution, but actively dispute it (see every Republican candidate up until the present day).
Evolution then rejects the notion that a god is needed for creation of the universe, thus spawning atheism. Evolution mocks and criticizes other religions for not being close to the evolutionary timescale.
Please show me a dictionary or encyclopedia article which says this. In fact, find me one where the word "religion" is even mentioned within a definition of evolution.
If you accept evolution then you are more likely to accept atheism.
That's due to the power of critical thinking.
If you accept evolution, you tend to have a sense of faith in the scientific bourgeois.
There's no faith involved, faith would mean believing without seeing, and the proof is there for all to see.
If you have a sense of faith in the scientific bourgeois then you tend to believe that "they understand things better than we do."
Every discipline has it's experts, but they don't keep their cards close to their chest, they have to, in order to achieve consensus, publish all of their work.
Evolution then rejects the notion that a god is needed for creation of the universe, thus spawning atheism.
Evolution says nothing about God, it does however, prove that every living thing was not created at the same time.
It then becomes a hegemony to believe in evolution.
Are you feeling pressured?
thus spawning atheism
Atheism existed before the theory of evolution.
Evolution mocks and criticizes other religions for not being close to the evolutionary timescale.
Evolution is not a religion.
Thus, scientists tend to be atheists.
Scientists, generally tend to exercise critical thinking, it is a central tenet of the discipline, this means that they reject unnecessary hypotheses.
...makes sense to me...I agree that evolution is the gateway to atheism, even tho not all atheists may believe in evolution (I don't know what other theory they would support), or vice versa.
Turned religion on it's side. It disputes your religion so you get all riled up and offended. Your statement is like saying "look what knowledge has done to the world" or "look what truth has done". All it is, is a scientific theory we have established that got theists butthurt. You probably dont even understand evolution.
It has turned in on its side because "scientists are smart" and "if you don't believe in evolution you are stupid or ignorant or wicked."
Now replace evolution with creationism and you can see that it works both ways, especially the "wicked" part. Name a single monotheistic religion that has not been militant.
What has Christianity done to the world? The Bible has potential to teach us great things when interpreted correctly, but the problem is that it got into the hands of idiots. A literal interpretation of the Bible is dangerous.
Pretty sure atheism leads to more control, look at nazi germany, they all mocked god and followed hitler blindly without having their own personal god to judge whether what he was doing was right or wrong.
If you believe in god, and are true to the faith of it, then you will have an authority over the state, whereas if you dont believe in god, you will blindly follow your government 95% of the time. (Yep, made that statistic up, but its probably spot on)
Well the epitome of Nazi Germany was, of course, Hitler. And far from mocking god, he was a practicing Catholic, he was never excommunicated for his crimes against humanity (no Nazis ever were), and he actually called on gods authority and other aspects of religious dogma (not always monotheistic, I'll grant you) to make his points. And it was centuries of Jewish persecution by the Catholic church that softened Europe up for the Holocaust, in the first place. And, naturally, the main target of the predominantly Catholic Nazis was another religious group, the Jews. No, religion had a hand in everything that went on before, during, and after Nazi Germany.
All he did was give himself title of the father, and used religion to dupe the masses, and I said "if you are true to the faith" obviously the germans and hitler himself were not "true to the faith"
So while he did use religion to control the masses, that doesnt mean it leads to more control, these people may as well have been atheists for they had no belief in god, they did, but it was a false belief.
If you look at the way Hitler went after the church in Germany you will see he was not really religious. He told the pastors to keep religion in the private and out of the public. Follow him or pay the consequences.
Hitler was not a practicing catholic. He had forsaken his religion. Although many bad things were done by catholics in the name of God. Which were not really for God.
Yup just look at the Soviet Union, the dictators had full control over the masses because they denied religion and used the secret service or the thought police to silence those who represented any form of religion.
Atheism has no dogma. No leaders. It's not even a philosophy. Its the default category one falls under by not accepting theism. Atheism is a label. It has no control over me or anyone else. Whereas christianity and all religions really have some kind of code that the followers must adhere to, and in many, a dogmatic system keeping them in line.
Atheism definitely has its opinions respected by people (some atheist wholeheartedly find Richard Dawkins to be respectable in the atheist world) , and you claim all religions have some sort of leadership, but I disagree. Some religions don't need leaders to lead them, they simply believe in an X, Y, Z god based off evidence they find, whether it be in the bible, or the great buddhists texts, or hindu texts, or simply based upon a belief itself or a feeling. For example, let's take christianity, their so-called leaders are simply put there to "guide" or "help" a person, not to tell them what they should and should not do, the extreme christians may look to leaders to hold their hand, but not all christians need a leader to guide them, and even when they are guided it is not a must, there is still a choice. For buddhism, their "enlightenment" was first proclaimed by Siddhartha, and although he "lead" people, it's not to say those people would not have come across similar beliefs without Siddhartha first doing it, Siddhartha simply claimed there were certain techniques to reach their own enlightenment, this does not mean they were forced.
And if by code you mean, similarities with all religions are that they believe in something, in one shape or form, then they obviously have something they "adhere" to, which is their faith in X, Y, Z god.
Further, leadership and guidance could be considered guidelines, rather than rules. For example, atheist use science as their guidelines for their truth; scientists, atheists, chemists, physicist, ect are respectable people within the atheist world, and these people "guide" or "help" other atheist in their quest for "there are no gods, so those who believe claim there are must prove it to me".
In short, perhaps atheist go to each other for guidance, they go to the scientific realm for their answers and they considered these "facts" to be 100 percent unbreakable yet they admit science is moldable and ever changing. In a sense, scientific method would be atheists' leadership, in that their "code" would be to not believe in X, Y, Z gods because they've found no evidence to their liking to believe.
Cuaroc, you obviously haven't seen earlier arguments of mine. This is hardly my "first real argument". And besides, I don't need your comments claiming this was my first real argument, thanks but no thanks. I've got plenty more where that came from.
Yes, but atheism is far different than any belief.
SOME atheists like to go the scientific route and use knowledge of the Big Bang, evolution, and other physics and understandings of the universe as a way to find that a god is not needed for life and the universe, thus discarding it.
Others take a philosophical approach, and others simply find that the religion itself is flawed and that it's more likely that gods don't exist.
As AveSatanas said above, there is no dogma or rules to atheism. It is just a label that indicates that the one who follows it believes in no god for some reason.
Even I am only an agnostic atheist. I cannot know what happens after death, if I might find myself in a spiritual realm.
However, on the path to truth, I will rely on what I see and think and have learned, rather than fanciful, but erroneous hopes of immortality.
Atheism doesn't rely on science, but science does help. Despite your jab at science's "facts", science DOES change based on the evidence. If you say "I think tadpoles turn into frogs, and then frogs turn into birds", we could test that. It doesn't happen. If you think it does, then do an experiment and prove me wrong, but trust me, I don't think frogs turn into birds.
That is what science is. It is just observing the world and writing down details and testing them for accuracy.
If we observe frogs turning into birds, then science would change to reflect that.
That doesn't happen, so science doesn't change very much. Generally, when we write down a fact or theory, it has already been tested and shown to work. If something better or more accurate comes along, we accept that.
Religion does not, and that's why it can control people.
Religion can and does change, even christians now are not the same christians from back in the day, or buddhists now a days may have changed certain guidelines to enlightenment, same with christians or hinduism. Examples are simply although we're the same people as "back in the day", we've had different circumstances rule our environments and society than even 10 years ago. Time changes time, and time changes peoples and societies, nothing is ever stagnant really.
The way I view my god has changed since yesterday. I've learned something new everyday since I've been alive, whether I recognized it or not, I am a firm believer in that even. And that is scientific, it's like a never ending butterfly effect, everything effects another like a huge never ending domino effect. A philosopher once said you cannot step into the same stream twice.
So, although religion or spiritually may seem like it never changes, it really does. Trust me on that if anything. Whether it be for the betterment or for worse, that's up to mankind to decide.
What hasn't changed, amongst all religion is that mankind believes in X, Y, Z gods, and I don't see mankind changes its mind on that ever, so long as we've got freewill and hominoids exist.
Yes, I know, but that's the problem with religion.
If a Christian worshiped a witch hating, Jew hating, gay hating god a thousand years ago, and now that god no longer minds Jews or witches or gays as much, then are they still worshiping the same god?
I'm not sure what you're asking me. You're claiming what god does and does not think, that's a very complicated issue, almost like putting humanistic values to god.
Well, if gods don't exist as actual beings, and they are only concepts, then the concept of Jesus to a right wing Christian CANNOT be the same as the concept of Jesus to a liberal Christian, right?
So which Jesus is real?
Replace Jesus with any god, and political or religious sect with anything that makes a division among the same god, and you have the same problem.
There are human attributes attached to gods. There is jealously, famously. What if that god is worshiped not as a jealous god, but as a god that is simply nice to people and made the universe for all to enjoy?
How can there be one god with different attributes? What is actually being worshiped?
If you have no proof or evidence or logic behind the god's existence, doesn't that look like a real mess?
Well that's a tough question isn't it. And for anyone to truly claim that they know for certainty that their god exists, is not 100 percent right, yet who knows really? It obviously goes back to the whole "well no one can prove any gods do not exists, and no one can really prove any gods do exists" so it's ultimately left at a paradox or a stalemate. People believe because they're allowed to not because they're forced. I take that back, some people believe because they have fear of death, or some people believe simply because their parents believed, and some people believe because something traumatic happened to them and now they believe in hopes of "seeing them again", and some people believe because they want to believe. I mean there are almost infinite ways any individual believes in whatever they believe in.
No matter how you look at it, all these people have believed in something, whether it be the buddhist god, or hindu, or the judaism god, or scientology, or "everyone is their own god", or the god of the sun. So the obvious question is "which of these gods is real? Are any of them real? Are one of them real and everyone else is wrong?" Honestly, no one really knows which is real, or if any of it is real. Regardless of this, many people have believed in something since the beginning of our species' existence, and this speaks for itself. In my opinion there were always more believers than there were non-believers. My evidence? Look back to the history of our hominoid species and prove to me differently that since our existence there is not one thing or another about this god or that.
If I walked into a jungle, or somewhere in the congo, and found human beings that had no idea of the outside world, and somehow I could speak to them and ask them if they believe in a "higher being", do you honestly think they wouldn't have any idea about a god? I personally believe they'd have an answer to "Do you believe in a higher power, or any god", and I believe that answer would be "yes, we believe in X, Y, Z", versus, "no we do not believe in X, Y, Z". If this theory is to be true, based on the facts of our species, then in my opinion the original curiosity that our ancestors have are still in full force to this day and age. So as I've said above, the quest to "find god, or believe in X, Y, Z gods" will never go away, so long as we, the hominoid species exists.
Yes, but then where does their mythology come from? Why do these x,y,z gods have so many differences?
And why does secular research based on evidence lead to a universe without the need for gods or mythology? Why does looking only at the universe itself, rather than using faith and legend lead to such a completely different story of the universe?
If you walked into a jungle that had no people, what would you see? If you were far away from people who had beliefs, where would you see a god? I would see amazing life and the night sky with stars, the sun and moon, but I would not expect to have a god shout down on me. Now, you could say god doesn't do that- so then what does he do? How can you know it exists, except for human legends?
The universe is truly vast, and humans only live on one tiny planet. Can you imagine what it would look like from space? All humans, all mythology, all cities and all technology and knowledge of all that exists would exist only on that one tiny point.
How could any human know for sure? To say "I am the chosen people of my god" suddenly sounds a lot more silly, doesn't it?
If there is a god, that is fine, however there is no reason to think that there is. So why should I? When you cannot know of a god, yet people still believe, then when a person in charge says "Our god desires war upon those who were not chosen. Our god feels that the terrorists are evil, and must be destroyed", you then have war and strife and pain. Is that god real? It might be. Or it might not be. Without knowledge for sure, it only allows you to be manipulated.
You can't ask the god "Is what my leader said correct? Do you really want war?". You can't ask that, there will be no answer.
That allows people who believe in a god to be manipulated. People are afraid, and they want comfort, as you said. Lies are far more comforting than truth. That's why heaven and hell are concepts. A place where people who wronged you can suffer, and a place where people you like can meet up at again. It also provided an easy answer to why things exist, rather than things not existing. Instead of mathematics or physics, you just get a simple "God did it." That's easy to comprehend and provides the illusion of knowledge, which can fulfill people. Introduced at a young age, religion will stick with most people regardless of whether or not it's true.
It's almost like you're saying I believe because my parents told me about god. I don't fully agree with that, I mean I had no choice to become existent in this world. I did not choose my parents, they simply had sex and viola here I am. My point is that I cannot be blamed, nor can my parents and their parents and so on. I've met people who were not born into any religious home and have found their god in whatever way possible. These people exist and they're not simply labeled "the exception", they're real and many people have become this way.
Once again, you claim people believe in any god because it's easy and they're afraid, and I disagree. I personally think it's hard for believers, for reasons like this, they're told "why believe in any god when science can provide you all the answers you seek?" I think this is absurd for any man to say this, as if science has answers for all the questions in the universe. I do not believe science is the end all for said reasons. For example, science cannot tell me precisely why I exist, they've got the answer "well the big bang happened, and your parents had sex, and here you are", that doesn't answer the "why". My beliefs in god can and do have answers, in that the universe has allowed my complex mind to even fathom the existence of a god, so I go with that because it's intriguing to me. Far more intriguing than the scientific realm. Nature, the universe, the stars, animals, plants, us humans are the most beautiful things to exist and I find it hard to believe that there wasn't anything involved in allowing us to exist in the first place. So I am a "creationist" and I believe in "evolution". I believe something started the "domino effect" and we're obviously alive, how is this even possible? As you say we're so tiny in this vast universe yet we're the only species, in my opinion, to question, to have thoughts, about the universe and beyond. What other species do you know has the same brain, the same free will type thoughts that allow us humans to be imagine these things. We're animals and made up of the same things the universe is made out of, so in that sense we're not special, yet our brains allow us to build things, to create art, to have these magnificent talents and attributes.
Until I know for certain that other species do similar things and think similar thoughts, I will continue to believe that our species is special, in one way or another. So with this said, I will continue to believe in the god I believe in because there is no other explanation to the "why are we here?", "does this life have meaning", ect. Even if there was another explanation I would probably still believe that something, or some being, began everything. In Logic, we've got A. then B. then C. And consider we're at B. and we came from A. and are going to C. (A being the past, the beginning, and B being the current space and time and C being where we're going, individually and in the societal sense) In this logic there was A. the beginning of everything we can possibly imagine, so therefore, I believe something, or some being, allowed the universe to be, it created it, us, everything we find to be amazing to all the pain that is endured. It's fucking tough being a human, isn't it?
What is your deal with science? Science only has answers on things that it has seen, and educated guesses, or theories on things it hasn't.
You said "that doesn't answer the "why"." Yes, there is no why to that. It is the same as I mentioned in another debate. The answer does not satisfy you. You are unable to comprehend your existence without putting meaning to it. What if there is no meaning? What if you really are just here for no reason, and it is up to you to define your actions and life?
You also say "fathom the existence of a god", yet is it that hard? All you need to do is think of a wizard. Maybe turn it's body into something that looks like the sun or something you can't clearly define, and you have your answers. All answer to the wizard. The wizard creates and the wizard tells you why you exist. You might think this is insulting, but replace wizard with god, and we have what you are saying.
Saying humans are special is nice, but what about neanderthals? Could it have been that we killed them all? There was certainly neanderthal culture. They were NOT human, but they still had burials with paints and technology. Right away, we are shown that evolution is not guided by anything other than the choices of the organisms that are alive. Choose to eliminate the Jews, and the Jews are gone. There is no magic to it. Same with eliminating neanderthals. It is down to survival, not "chosen species".
I think you think of science as something boring or clinical. It is not like that.
Science is looking at the sunset and not just seeing it's beauty, but understanding it. Understanding how light wavelengths can be altered by atmospheric lensing and photon scattering. It is roughly twice as fascinating.
-
It is actually quite easy being a human. The most pain you may ever have to go through were my baseless insults upon you. Maybe you will need to get a job. That job will likely not involve walking naked through the snow or living inside a tree all winter, like chipmunks or squirrels do. It won't involve chasing animals through forest and trying to bite them to death with your teeth either. You would get a knife or a long stick, if nothing else. You have it very easy compared to most animals. You have a very long life too. Most animals do not.
-
And you also say "some being". Did that being evolve? Or is reality just the matrix? Just an imagined land from some god? What created that god? Why does that god exist? What does it feed on? You could say "unanswerable", but then why even say the god exists? It is comforting, like we both mentioned, but is it actually real? And how can you know?
I disagree, I think being a human being is tough. Your life must be the most simplistic life there is to to say humans have it easy, what the hell is that about?
You obviously have a beef with Jews and their claims that they are the chosen people. Well, quite frankly, I am not a Jew nor do I believe I am a chosen person. I believe the homo sapiens are special, definitely. We're the "perfect breed" right now, we're the ones allowed to have choice. There are no neanderthals alive and why is that? Who the hell really knows. Evolutionist claim this and that, yet really all that should matter are us humans, how we think, how we live, how we work together. I'm not saying our past is not important, but when it comes down to it, us homo sapiens are the important species, we're the ones that give meaning to this or that. Which brings me to the next part of this. You ask "what if there really is no meaning?" Fine, believe that it doesn't really bother me. I hear your side of the story, but I still stand strong in that I'd rather give meaning to my life, than to not have meaning at all. What's wrong with this? I say nothing, me finding me should be no concern to you. Just because you find no meaning does not mean the world must also not find meaning. We're all striving to live and to survive, whichever way possible.
I do not know whether or not this "being" evolved, or what happened before that, I'm sure life is a never-ending infinite cycle, rather than a never ending non existent cycle, obviously we're existent, and knows if there was another universe before this universe or if there is going to be another universe other than this universe. Or if the homo sapiens are going to evolve into another species. All I know is that neanderthals, and homo sapiens minds could speak to each other, could communicate in many more ways than the neanderthal could speak to the "previous ones". My point, even if homo sapiens do evolve 20,000 years from now they might be different or "more advanced" however I'm positive we'll be able to communicate with them, just as humans communicated with neanderthals. Either way, we're special, even with the potentiality that us humans may or may not evolve. None of that matters to me, I will not be around 20,000 years from now. What matters are my family, my friends, my thoughts, my life. And in this life I will continue to believe in a creator of this universe, and in the creator before this universe and so on.
Oh and for the record, I believe in many things within the scientific world, the observable method. I also believe in many things I cannot see, for example a creator. So you say "You have a feeling", and I say of course I have a feeling, am I not an emotionally driven human being? Are not all human beings alive because the previous generations before were "emotionally driven"? All I have are my thoughts and my skin, and my thoughts and imagination are almost endless.
Well, I was exaggerating. I suppose life isn't THAT easy, but still, I am happier being a human than a chipmunk.
And Jews? I don't really mind them. I will debate them viciously, but otherwise, they are generally fine people who don't seek to oppress or control others.
And you say we are allowed to make a choice? How do you know? Because you feel free? How do you know freewill isn't an illusion driven by your genetic code and experiences growing up, which were unavoidable via a cause and effect relationship stemming from the beginning of time itself? Sure, you can "think" about what you want to do, but it's not like you can choose your personality or where you grew up or what you've learned over time that continue to influence you.
You can't know that you're not a slave to your own mind. I see no reason why freewill can actually exist. Until you build a time machine and prove that it's possible for more than one outcome to occur, it is logical that the way things are influence the next moment, thus forcing us all on a loop where there is no freewill, thus we are not chosen by your god to have freewill, thus we are not special, thus your god has no reason to be called a god, thus I win. At least as far as that element goes, and only if freewill IS only an illusion. It is also possible it isn't, however, unless there is magic in the brain, all events around us are predetermined by cause and effect, and our brains respond to that.
A weak argument, but it is still there to haunt you, isn't it? How do you know we have free will?
-
Also, how do you know your creator is real? You say "believe" which indicates that you know it's not, and that you only wish or hope it is real, and thus call it real, at least real enough to debate about, but how can you prove it's real?
If you can't, then how do you know it's real? If you don't know whether or not it's real, then why would you believe in it?
Only comfort? Or is there some sort of knowledge to be gained? I feel knowledgeable understanding evolution. Do you feel that knowledge of a god is a fact? Or just a pure guess based on superstition and feeling?
Life is a game and we're on the big stage, but in actuality we all lose because we all will sieze to exist at some point in time. So nobody wins, not you, not me, it's not about winning or losing anyhow based upon already said facts. Like I said, we're all just striving to live, and you fight against a belief that's naturally ingrained into our DNA, our being as a whole. Disbelief in god seems to be natural as well, so which side is correct? Maybe this is the point in life. Maybe that is actuality. That's a difficult question to answer, and obviously you feel strongly that your side "wins", yet you cannot disprove that god actually does exist.
You're speaking of the matrix, that we are in some computer program, or something, and our choice is an illusion. And as much as I enjoyed the film and the concept I do not buy it. Why? Pain surely does hurt, and love surely does feel pretty good so therefore regardless of whether we're in "the matrix" everything I have experienced in this life seems real enough to me. Everything else is simply speculation. How do I know I'm allowed to make a choice? Because when I'm asked would I rather do this or that, I still choose one or the other. Even if I do not choose out of 2 things in front of me, I can still choose the 3rd choice or the 4th choice and so on. I am a slave of my own mind, my consciousness is all that I can base anything off of. I am my mind and my DNA. If life wanted me to be non existent I would not be typing these words to you now. I have a choice, even though I am a product of my nature and my environment. You are correct in that I did not choose to be alive, life chose me through evolution and the rest is history. These thoughts do not haunt me and trust me I've thought of these concepts many times in my life. I know I have free will because I have more choice than any other species I've encountered. I know I have free will because I am allowed to choose, this way or that.
Like I said before to me, the creator I believe in is real; this creator I believe in gave me a life to live, albiet a tough one; this creator I believe in gave me feeling, gave me emotion, and those are real to me. This creator allowed me to see its beauty in physical form. These are some reasons why I believe this creator is real; it is real to me, you don't have to believe me for it not to be real. I cannot prove to anyone that what I believe in is real, in the physically sense I cannot physically show you, that's impossible. The only real ways to show the creator I believe in is to be "morally good", to "live the good life and to be respectful to others" and all that cliche gooey stuff. There really are no other ways for a believer like myself that the creator I believe in is real. And of course you state then it must not be real. Then I say prove that it is not real. Both sides are at a stale mate, and until and if whatever it is I believe in shows itself to the universe, we will be at a stale mate; the infinite stale mate within time. What else do you want?
It is not the belief in god that is within our DNA. It is the desire to know and understand our place in the universe.
You say you choose this way or that? Only once though. You can't really choose though, or else you'd be able to go back and choose the other way too. Otherwise, you get only one choice. Not two.
-
As for your rant on how goodness is your creator, I find that insane. How can you say that is proof?
It is just you again creating a division between "evil atheists" and the benevolent deeds of those who believe. What about the bad things you do? What about when you insulted me without giving an argument? Is that proof the other way?
What about when horrible things happen to people? Is that also proof?
I was planning on saying you can't prove a negative, yet it seems I have. I don't know how feelings and deeds done by you prove something else's existence, but you seem to claim it does. If so, then the opposite must prove the opposite.
It is a stalemate, but because your idea is contorted and illogical, it is more logical to think that you are wrong and simply saying things you hope are true due to extreme fear that your life is completely pointless and you have no choice in it.
If your only proof is "I have emotion", which is a product of evolution, an unguided system of specification, then you have already lost. That's incorrect. It was not given to you. You were simply born as a human, part of a long chain of life. There is no magic or supernatural influence here. It is sad that you think there is.
Everything you just said is simply your way of going back to the standard atheist bull shit that we were just in. You're simply so opposed to everything I said without giving it much thought. You say horrible things happen, how does god allow that? I say I'm not sure, ask god yourself. I say my emotion and my mind is all I have, you say I'm insane. Once again, fuck that noise. I will continue to say "fuck that noise" every time you call me insane, an insult. I thought we were passed that in our talks? I suppose we aren't. I never stated that my "goodness" was the only proof, one again your assumptions take the better of you. This is not a game, you win nothing. Maybe you think you're the only player so every time you win, if that is the case then I'm not so sure about you Mackindale. I only mentioned "goodness" because as I already overly stressed, I cannot show you physically that god exists, that's insane if you think it's possible for someone to physically show you their god, cmon you must know that is not possible. So the only ONLY evidence people have for gods existence are themselves, their minds, their emotions, their deeds and so on. Once again, you're asking the wrong questions, you're asking questions that have no answers to them. So basically you're so overly upset that I believe in the "supernatural", or "god", and you can't believe that I believe, but I'm telling you, I believe. Not once have I told you "you're crazy that you do not believe in god", not once. Yet you continue to call me insane, that's in insult.
As for choice, I still have a choice regardless that I cannot "choose all that there is to choose or go back in time and choose something differently", I still have choice now and what is now is that should matter to me, and does.
Once again, me saying "I have emotion" is not the ONLY proof I have, "I have emotion could be substituted for 'i am human' therefore, I believe" with you it's "i am human therefore i do not believe". Either way, I choose to believe and you do not, that's fine. I do not attack your non beliefs not because I feel you are right, but because I am considerate and generally respectful to others, up until they're disrespectful to me, which explains my insults to you in recent past posts; I threw punches because you first threw them in recent past posts.
You continue to state that I am in fear of my life being pointless and that is the underlining reason why I believe in the first place. You state I am afraid because choice is all illusion and I have no choice. Why does anyone have to be afraid to believe anything? Why can't people believe because they're not afraid? I can say you don't believe because you're afraid of the truth. But why would I say you're afraid of the truth? That's crazy, and I will not say that to you. Just as you should not tell me I am in fear, so therefore I believe. Do you understand this?
Insane to me is when someone says "This must exist" and I say, "What exists?" and then they reply with bullshit that has no basis in truth or logic or anything sane at all.
I don't really care if I offend you.
You are in fear. You cover that fear with your god, don't you? So you don't feel fear.
But why are you so upset when I mention it? Why do you react so defensively when I say you're insane or illogical?
And you're SO full of shit. You CAN show me your god if it was real. Make it do a fucking miracle. Do it. I know you can't. Religious idiots always make excuses. You can't control your god? It's in hiding? Talk to it yourself? Fuck that.
If you are going to become so offensive to me, despite the fact that you can't show me shit, then don't waste my time debating your insane religious nonsense.
You know what you're saying is bullshit. You know it's stupid as hell. Gods don't exist. Are you a fucking child or something?
Grow the fuck up. Your gods and supernatural shit isn't real. You should be ashamed for taking this shit so seriously.
You're ridiculous. Something must have happened to you to make you so upset with people who believe. You know without a doubt no one can show you physically their god, and you blame them for not doing something you know they can't do. You're the child here, not me. I know what I'm saying is not bullshit. I know it's not stupid.
I take this shit very seriously, otherwise I would have tucked tail and run, but I did not and I will not hide from people like you. I get upset when people call me insane because they're talking out of their ass, considering I am not insane (in the sense you're claiming I am), and far from it.
In fact, people like you make me want to believe in my god more. In fact, you've helped me in my quest to understanding what it is I believe in. Was that your plan all along? If it was then I tip my hat and thank you. That's right, thank you Mackindale for helping me understand myself better. I appreciate your concerns.
Mackindale, both the science realm and the religious realm are after the truth, both want the truth, they just do it with different methods on how they reach their truths. You disagree with my methods and that's fine. I do care about truth, I care about the truths I'm searching for.
both want the truth, they just do it with different methods on how they reach their truths.
Science's method for pursuing the truth has been tested time and time again as the most reliable means to the truth.
Could you detail religion's process for discovering the truth? In terms of christianity, the bible is the truth, and that's final. Doesn't really give you much of a process. It just says "believe this, do not question it".
You're using christianity as the essence of any belief in god or gods of all people whom have believed in god or gods. Thats a very weak argument. Are you stating atheist in america are against mostly christianity?
Could you detail religion's process for discovering the truth?
I said "in terms of christianity", I was picking christianity as an example. Does any religion on this planet have a process for discovering truth that is competitive with the scientific method?
In America, christianity is what most atheists deal with. But it is not limited to christianity. A typical atheist lacks belief in all gods.
Do you seriously think that? You really think that there is truth to the supernatural?
Wow. You really are deluded, aren't you? You know why "The God Delusion" is called that? Why not The God Inaccuracy instead?
It's because it's a delusion. There's no god. There's not even the idea of a god outside of humanity. Animals don't worship a god. The stars don't care about gods.
Only people make their obscene temples and churches to what? Pure nothingness. It doesn't produce anything useful. It doesn't help anyone, not long term. It is a selfish desire for immortality and comfort from your own utter purposeless existence.
It's used fantastically to control people and drive them to do insane and irrational things. There's no sense to it. It's just wrong.
You have no idea or even a basic understanding of truth.
You are just making things up and proclaiming truth. It's very sad.
First of all, I know atheists who have never read Harris or Hitchens or Dawkins. Those who write pro-atheism books are authors, scientists, journos, but certainly not leaders. Jerry Falwell, however, is a religious leader. There's no disputing that.
The atheists I know do not see their atheism the same as a theist sees their religion. That is a mistake that many theists make. Atheists are not one big club. We don't have churches, we don't often agree on the same subjects, and we are normally not joiners. So, I don't see the connections you are making about atheists. At least, they don't resonate with my life.
Then, you wrote: "In a sense, scientific method would be atheists' leadership, in that their "code" would be to not believe in X, Y, Z gods because they've found no evidence to their liking to believe."
I disagree that the scientific method is an "atheist's leadership," because atheists seem to have an aversion to being lead, but that's another topic.
I would agree that atheists hold the scientific method in a much higher regard than certain religious circles. It makes sense that atheists tend to like evidence, and the scientific method is the process to find evidence and test theories. After all, the atheist credo, if there ever was one is, "Show me your evidence."
I think certain religious circles find science suspect because it frequently (past and present) has disproved many religious based beliefs, such as the nature of the universe, the orbits of our planets, the relation of the Sun to the Earth, etc.
Atheists seem to be one big club on this very site we're on. I can almost guarantee that there are more atheists on this site than religious or spiritual people.
Also, science does not disprove much of any religion, it just gives atheists, or those who do not believe, more fueling ideas that god does not exist because they claim science is the "closest thing to truth" that they can think of; and they claim that something that is not observable or testable is not true. I don't deny science, as a spiritual person myself. To me science and religion seek the same truth, yet they're different in how they proceed to understanding the truth; they both seek some sort of reality.
Atheists seem to be one big club on this very site we're on
One big club? There are a lot of atheists on this site, but it would be quite a stretch of the imagination to call us a club, that would imply we are organized. But we are not, we are each independent in our responses. We do not collectively organize a similar response. We're not even a club. It's just one thing a lot of people on this site have in common.
Also, science does not disprove much of any religion, it just gives atheists, or those who do not believe, more fueling ideas that god does not exist because they claim science is the "closest thing to truth" that they can think of
Science does not need to disprove any religion. I could come up with my own religion that science could not disprove as well. Why are you so stuck on this idea that atheists just want reasons to not believe in god purely out of spite towards God?
Science is the most reliable means to the truth, there is no better alternative.
and they claim that something that is not observable or testable is not true.
No, if someone makes an extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary evidence. If Billy Bob comes up to me in the street and says there is a live T Rex in his backyard, should I believe him even though he has no evidence? You seem to want us to believe people regardless of whether they possess or lack evidence.
To me science and religion seek the same truth, yet they're different in how they proceed to understanding the truth; they both seek some sort of reality.
Lots of religions claim to already know the truth, science gives you a method to find out for yourself. One method is a more reliable means towards the truth than the other, the more reliable method being science.
I mean, are you even reading what you are saying? Do you want to cut your eyes and shred your fingers, dismantle your nose and utterly destroy your senses? That would prevent you from observing things, and that would make your life VERY difficult, wouldn't it? It is good to observe things. It's bad to hallucinate and see things that aren't actually there. That wasn't a bridge, it was a cliff.
But with you, you are not even seeing a god, right? You are just assuming things because you feel like it.
The very fact that this distant god who never speaks or communicates to the world is NOT to be found anywhere is offensive when you claim it as truth.
And yet, on the other hand, you become personally offended when I say it's not real. Why?
It isn't like you've ever met this god. You don't even know what it is. You haven't observed it, nor has anyone else.
Why do you become angry at me when I say it's not real? That's not a normal reaction. I don't become angry when people say evolution is a hoax. I either calmly explain it, make fun of the person or I ignore it. I don't become angry and say "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT REAL".
That's what you do. If you want to deny that, then I'll say that's what religious people often do.
You become personally offended because you made up your own god. That's why it agrees with you on most subjects, right?
It's personal to you because it is you. You made it up yourself. It's all in your head.
"But with you, you are not even seeing a god, right? You are just assuming things because you feel like it."
I am seeing a god, what do you mean by that? I've told you over and over I see a god, a being, something, the beginning of something, the beginning of us. I don't say what I believe because I "feel like it", the feeling described is much more than a random "feeling", I strongly feel some sort of connection with this god, it's not simply a belief; what I believe in means more to me than the fact that I am capable of believing. Note this fact, it is important.
The value I defend are mankinds' rights to have belief in whichever god they find suitable. Which god is right? I do not know, I cannot say. What's evidence are that people believe and they believe in something, in a sense they believe in the same thing, just different. I cannot say which is right or wrong, all I know is that people believe in something and have for a long time, and I believe in this similar being, not concept. People call it whatever they wish to call it. It's like atheists asking "if there are multiple gods, how do you for certain which god is real or true?" This mindset is similar to asking "if there are multiple languages, how do you know for certain which language is real or true?" They're all existent, each language expresses its values to whoever understands it, and all languages are evident and real, language is probably the most important aspect of the human being, as a whole; the fact to communicate.
This is where I'm at. It's not only in my head, it's everywhere and everyone questions it.
"But with you, you are not even seeing a god, right? You are just assuming things because you feel like it."
I am seeing a god, what do you mean by that? I've told you over and over I see a god, a being, something, the beginning of something, the beginning of us. I don't say what I believe because I "feel like it", the feeling described is much more than a random "feeling", I strongly feel some sort of connection with this god, it's not simply a belief; what I believe in means more to me than the fact that I am capable of believing. Note this fact, it is important.
The value I defend are mankinds' rights to have belief in whichever god they find suitable. Which god is right? I do not know, I cannot say. What's evidence are that people believe and they believe in something, in a sense they believe in the same thing, just different. I cannot say which is right or wrong, all I know is that people believe in something and have for a long time, and I believe in this similar being, not concept. People call it whatever they wish to call it. It's like atheists asking "if there are multiple gods, how do you for certain which god is real or true?" This mindset is similar to asking "if there are multiple languages, how do you know for certain which language is real or true?" They're all existent, each language expresses its values to whoever understands it, and all languages are evident and real, language is probably the most important aspect of the human being, as a whole; the fact to communicate.
This is where I'm at. It's not only in my head, it's everywhere and everyone questions it.
Yes, but that's the major problem. Languages can coexist.
Gods that say "I am the only god" cannot. When one of the most popular religions says "Kill witches" or "gays are an abomination", along with other religions that say the opposite, or even practice magick, then what?
They can't both exist.
Ra is said to have created the world and the rest of the universe by mating with his own shadow, while Yggdrasil is the world tree, supporting the universe and all that exists. How can those both exist? One must be wrong, especially when there is ANOTHER tale saying that Yahweh did it and all humans are evil, with purity gained only by worshipping a human who was born as a god, as many other gods were.
This is nothing like languages. Is your mind so small you can't comprehend how illogical you sound? Are you trying to sound like a typical theist who has no idea what anything you're saying means? Try harder if you want my respect. Show me you've actually thought about every aspect and then SOLVED it. Not just made an excuse.
Religions obviously co-exists, so whats your point? Languages exist and many religions exists. People aren't simply talking out of their asses man, their fucking believing in something real. You need to get over the fact that I and others believe. We're not speaking nonsense, we're speaking reality. Science speaks reality. Get off it man. The point is people believe in something, and you don't like it. You're fighting something that cannot be touched. I comprehend many things, many fucking things, and my comprehension proves that mankind believes in something, and one of those beliefs are correct. You're pissed that not all can be true. I'm happy that others have believed from the beginning of our time. Get over it man, it's inevitable. You cannot win this war against the creator, whoever the fuck it is.
You're SO deluded it's like debating against a toddler or small child.
Yeah, you're right, genius. Religions do co-exist if you call the current war against "terrorists" co-existing.
However, if you had even the smallest amount of brain in your head, you'd realize I didn't say RELIGION.
I said GODS CAN'T COEXIST. Sheesh.
Are you trolling or something? I mean, I say irritating things to get idiots like you mad, but this is just stupid.
You claim to speak reality, yet where is that reality? I don't see a god.
I see people, machines, animals, space and stars and earth.
I see no gods. You're insane.
And yes, it is inevitable. Some people are just too thick to realize truth when it's in front of them.
I find it funny you get so angry though. You think it's a war? It's a massacre, if anything. There's no resistance. Everything you say is wrong and deluded sounding. Like you're some cultist who thinks you know "THE TRUTH". It's strange you don't realize it. I mean, seriously, "religions obviously co-exist"? Are you joking when you said that? Did you purposely write religion instead of god?
"Gods that say "I am the only god" cannot. When one of the most popular religions says "Kill witches" or "gays are an abomination", along with other religions that say the opposite, or even practice magick, then what?
They can't both exist."
You're stating that not all of these gods and religions can co exist, all gods cannot be true, so therefore no gods or religions are true. I say gods are obviously co existing, something that you seem to be missing when you're trying to understand me. I see gods and people are believing in them. Your grounds for disbelief are based upon the lack of physical representation, not against illogical or rational thoughts.
I'm not angry, these words I type are real words without intent to provoke anything more than general responses towards my statements and I am speaking my truth. I'm not trolling or bull shitting for the fun of it.
I've said before, I do not claim any truths, other than my own, really. I claim the ultimate truth is that man kind will believe in their own truths no matter what. So really I'm exactly where I should be.
I am only on a debate website to debate. You seem to have interesting ideas that are new to me and thought provoking, yet they still seem to be wrong. If you are happy with what you believe, then believe it. Your current beliefs do little harm to the world, unless you are trying to convert people, but otherwise, you are free to do as you wish.
However, you said "I see gods and people are believing in them."
I'd like to know where you see these gods as gods. Not just as concepts or ideas or past events. What are all these gods doing now? Where is Amaterasu? Where is Ra or Odin or Thor? Why does the myth of Jesus seem to have so many endings? "It is finished" to "Father, why have you forsaken me?"
Why can't religions even within the own religion agree?
If you want to know if there is actually a god, then where is your logic? Why should a god be illogical? That makes no sense. If gods actually exist, there should be evidence and it should be logical. What you are saying is not like that.
I don't disagree that books and legends of religion exist, nor do I doubt that people who believe those religions exist, however, the supernatural events themselves seem to be purely made up or delusional. Not real.
"Also, science does not disprove much of any religion, it just gives atheists, or those who do not believe, more fueling ideas that god does not exist because they claim science is the "closest thing to truth" that they can think of;"
Let me me specific. Science cannot disprove faith. Faith requires no proof, so science has more important things to worry about, like understanding the world around us. Religion and science have little to do with each other.
Science can and has disproved the authoritative teachings of religion's leadership may times over. I only need to refer you to Copernicus and Galileo as the poster-boys of proving religious declarations to be false. They were both attacked by the Papal Council for heresy for something we now take for granted; That the Earth revolves around the Sun.
In my view, science and religion are separate matters. Science provides answers with proof to back it up, and religion provides answers without proof, expecting people to "just believe." It stands to reason that atheists would want to stick with the proof. I wonder: Who would rather not have proof of an assertion?
Let me me specific. Science cannot disprove faith. Faith requires no proof, so science has more important things to worry about, like understanding the world around us. Religion and science have little to do with each other.
Science can and has disproved the authoritative teachings of religion's leadership many times over. I only need to refer you to Copernicus and Galileo as the poster-boys of proving religious declarations to be false. They were both attacked by the Catholic Church for committing heresy for something we now take for granted; That the Earth revolves around the Sun.
In my view, science and religion are separate matters. Science provides answers with proof to back it up, and religion provides a moral framework that has no need for evidence. The problem comes when religious people make declarations about the world that are later proven false by science. Religions should stay out of evidence-based areas of discovery and just stick to their faith.
So, it stands to reason that atheists would want to side with evidence.
But I wonder: Who would rather NOT have proof of an assertion?
"As if atheism has no control over its proponents? Paleeeasssee! "
This statement shows a lack of understanding of what atheists are. Atheists have no structure of leaders, unlike Christianity, so there is no control structure in place. Also, atheists are happy to be free from the control of religious groups.
What groups do you think control atheists, and in what way are they being controlled?
If there is one thing that is undeniably atheists' support of their beliefs, they are A. They refute the claim of theists claim "at least one god exists" and their support are mostly from the "scientific community, motives and goals". And these are my words.
In short, many atheists based their fundamentals upon the fact that not one man can physically show then with evidence their X, Y, Z god, or gods. In a sense, this is guidance and slightly leadership. Many atheists claim a persons beliefs come from the fact that they're born into such thoughts, well quite frankly the same could be said to those who don't believe in anything, that they were born into an atheistic environment. And there are examples of the "in between" without a doubt. As far as not all atheists or christians or whomever were "born into" their belief.
I agree with your first paragraph. Science is the best way humans have devised to understand our world and the universe. I think that's why atheists gravitate to evidence-based methods. Since proof of God is denied them, they dismiss it out of hand, as they should with any claim that is not evidence-based.
However, it is a tenuous definition of "leadership" or "control" as it relates to atheists. Saying that atheists agree on a basic definition of atheism does not define any group-think mentality that was forged or promoted by any authority of atheists. There is no singular control of atheists like we see in churches, synagogues, or mosques, controlling the people who enter these arenas.
This is very true. Atheists have no religious books they must adhere to either, like Christians have the Bible, nor do atheists obey certain people, like Buddhists have the Dalai Lama as well.
The Dalai Lama is just a religious figure.. No Buddhist have to listen to him and not even me. He organizes gathering or talks at his own whims and fancy and he has his own fans. Plus you can't use evidence to justify whether Buddha or Jesus exist since spirituality is a personal affair and does not need scientific justification. Christians are wrong for publicly insisting God's existence as do atheist are wrong for denying their believes.
Yes, but when it comes down to truth, Jesus either existed or he didn't.
There is no middle ground. Buddhism's Buddha, or Siddhartha DID seem to actually exist. The Dalai Lama is still a religious figure like you said. That's my point, is that even though no one HAS to listen to him, he is still respected in that religion.
True Christianity (I'm not talking about pagan-influenced Catholic/Protestant Christendom) will never be sanctioned by any political state, simply because it is anathema to the one controlling all political states--that is, Satanic forces (1 John 5:19)
Therefore, atheism, which HAS been sanctioned by various political states, is the one likely to control the masses.
