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 think it's because it's the default setting for a lot of peoples arguments for instance Homsexuality one of the first arguments against Homosexuality will nearly always be "in the Bible it says it's a sin", bang a debate about Homosexuals is now a debate about religion. Also when people use Religion as their main ammunition in debates it will also be used against them.
Because it's a very controversial subject where many different people have very strong views, and if you for one minute doubt those views, they ban you and declare enemies on you I'M NOT GOING TO FORGET THAT ISMAILA.
Because it's not religion is not viewed by people in the same way as one would a political party. Someones political ideology is their own opinion, on what they think is right. However, to a religious person religion is heir whole life, they base their lives around it. It's far more important to them. But it's far more astounding to atheists who feel just as strongly about it, to realise that it's wrong, oh, so wrong, and that when they try to explain, people reject it. Really basic things, like "Nothing can come from nothing, thus how do you explain the existence of God" and they just say " Oh well, God works in mysterious ways.." So it has a lot stronger effects on people. That is why it is controversial, as it causes a lot of controversy when someone decides to go a bit far. You insult someones family, you realise the other person knows nothing of your family, so you don't get that angry. Religions on the other hand? Rolling up the sleeves :)
Good to know, but is this because you simply don't care one way or another, or do you simply think that every person is entitled to their own opinion, so as the Beatles once said, let it be.
I also think that since religion and spirituality are determinations of reality, determinations of actuality, it is more significant. We are not concerned about our right to believe or disbelieve, but whether we are right or wrong.
Here maybe I should attempt to put it in another way, because religion makes statements about the origin of our universe, predicting to understand new properties of our existence, claims historic events, it is all about reality and actuality. It is about what is, rather than what should be. People are raised to believe their beliefs with such faith that they are seen as facts. Those whom are concerned with what is, and want to try to determine reality are concerned with other people's determinations of reality, their ideas about what is. I myself want to see reality as for what it is, I debate those theologically because the claims of theology if true have a determining factor on what is.
I'd also like to add a reasoning to why there is such conflict between atheists and theists.
Religion also has an impact on ethics as well, we may have separation of church and state, however the church has some good power in state, "under god" was added to the pledge and so was "in god we trust" on money. That isn't so bad though, but does violate the separation of church and state, then our schools pay special attention to prayer, you can be fired from some places for being atheist up in the bible belt, political asperations are made impossible for you. Claiming atheism as a politician is political suicide, you are not allowed to be mayor in most states, if we had a president whom came out atheist right after would leave a good number of Americans hitching about it. We are politically oppressed which allows a bias in society to look out for the theist over atheist. Also there is social issues apart from politics, we aren't well liked by some and are easily judged based on our atheism. Sure atheists are quite abusive some of them are, but what happens is that the somewhat minor outcasting in society, the Shit that some of us get drive us in that direction... I try not to be like that and remain civil in debate. I've heard someone accuse an atheist as being discriminatory for merely saying "god doesn't exist" as if disagreeing or telling someone "you're wrong" is discriminatory. Atheists generally feel walked on by theists, where the most minor of possibly offensive things are seen as offensive causing some of us to be quite hateful while a majority of us are not necessarily hateful but if we could sway people from belief, belief would be less of an issue thus we want to convince people that beliefs are ridiculous to have.
I would not consider myself fixated on religion, but it is an issue which I do feel compelled to engage with because I think that religion is a negative force that harms individuals and society. If people's ignorant mysticism ended at the confines of their skull, it would be fine and I would leave well enough alone. However, religion pervades the way that people view life and conduct themselves in a way that obfuscates, actively ignores, and undermines reason and knowledge. This has had and continues to have direct, visible, and negative effects on individuals and society.
Do you have any problems with the wording of the 1st Amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Supporting Evidence:
First Amendment
(constitution.findlaw.com)
Yes, I do have a problem with how the First Amendment is worded. It should be written to protect the freedom of and freedom from all beliefs, not just theological ones. Its ambiguity is at least the partial cause for the oppression of non-theistic people throughout the history of this country. The clauses of the First Amendment which refer to religion have been interpreted largely to mean that the state shall not establish a church and that religious freedom may not be abridged; it gives little to no protection for agnostics and atheists.
I also am not sure exactly how that was a response to my original point.
It's cause it's a emotional topic, and people can't understand one another. That's my point of veiw. It's quite meaningless to debate religion. One should just accept that you think differently.
To the contrary, I think I quite readily understand the perspective of most religiously inclined people. I appreciate why they feel the need to believe in a higher power against reason and fact, why they prefer superstition to knowledge, and so forth. There are fairly basic evolutionary and biological factors at work.
I also find debating theology to be quite important. While it is unlikely that the person you are debating will change their ideas your exchange will likely be overheard/read by others and may push other people to reconsider their views.
I also refuse to sit in silence when confronted with a deeply imbedded and highly problematic ideology which is highly damaging to the rights, freedoms, and well-being of both individuals and society at large. If someone is a racist, do you just accept it? If someone is anti-gay, do you just accept it? If someone thinks genocide, do you not challenge that?
The only advantage to debating religion is so that one can come closer to understanding one antoher, and as you said, reconsider. Overall, just making your brain work. Although once you've done that once or twice, I see it as meaningless.
If someone is racist, or anti-gay, I don't care. As long as they don't voice it that is. I think it's highly immoral to push ones ideals on another and highly immoral to judge or 'punish' another for ones own ideals. Although it is allowed, I feel the same way about children. People typically raise their children to 'follow' their path. Christians usually raise christain kids. It's how things typically work. I don't think that's right though. If I were to meet a anti-gay person, I would mearly share my point of view. Same for racists. I don't feel that it would be moral to judge them, nor to try to change their ways (Unless they're trying to force their veiw point on to others). I mearly would want them to think.
I see debate as being about more than just personal growth and mutual understanding, but as a greater driving factor in overall public opinion development.
I think my other point has been rather misunderstood. I was by no means advocating that a person who believes in religion should be punished, judged, or silenced. Rather, my argument was that the mere possession of a misguided and prejudicial belief manifests itself in the day to day conduct of people in a way that is damaging to individuals and society. It is highly improbable if not impossible that a racist/homophobe/etc. would act with good care and compassion towards those against whom they are prejudiced. The closed-mindedness of religious dogma also actively obstructs social progress, intellectual development, and the development of knowledge in a way that directly harms others. Furthermore, should those views be vocalized but not actively countered then we risk the perpetuation of those damaging views and our silence becomes tacit consent.
but as a greater driving factor in overall public opinion development.
I'm indifferent on this. I suppose it's somewhat true, but in my experiance, most people 'stick true' to their opinions. And many don't give it a second thought because they feel talking, or debating their religion 'threatens' them. For example, there's a tv show... I forget what it's called, but it's a show where two oposites 'switch places' for a month. So a atheist went to live with some christians for a month. Somewhere in the show a christian was asked by a atheist something like "What if God didn't exist..." Or something going into possabilities, and the christian pretty much ignored the question and said "But he does", seeming too 'theatened' or something to discuss it.
I think my other point has been rather misunderstood.
No misunderstanding. I was mearly answering your question, and sharing my thoughts/opinions.
The closed-mindedness of religious dogma also actively obstructs social progress, intellectual development, and the development of knowledge in a way that directly harms others. Furthermore, should those views be vocalized but not actively countered then we risk the perpetuation of those damaging views and our silence becomes tacit consent.
Agreed, to an extent. People should be aware of all the 'religious veiws' out there, preferably by a young age so that they can't be tainted by negative beliefs or things that they'd regret. Then again, as an example; which do you think a child would prefer to accept? A boring world of no magic (Atheism) or a world controled by a great mystical being, where resurrection and afterlife is possable? >.< A ideal world is so hard to think of.
I think the issue with your example though is that those people were already certain in their beliefs. There are a fair number of people who are less certain, who are questioning and uncertain, and I think it is important that there be an informed dialogue to which they can look to inform the direction they take. I also think that the repeated expression of an idea gradually works its way into what becomes accepts as given.
No misunderstanding.
The reason I felt misunderstood was because you seemed to imply that I was advocating punishing, judging, or silencing in some form which I was not.
Which do you think a child would prefer to accept? A boring world of no magic (Atheism) or a world controlled by a great mystical being, where resurrection and afterlife is possible?
I find your question problematic because I personally find the secular view of life to be far more liberating and beautiful than a world pre-defined and restricted by dogmatic belief. To me, theism removes the majesty of serendipity and chance by forcing judgements and dogma onto it; it creates the illusion that life has to have an explanation and a meaning to be beautiful which gets in the way of appreciating life for life. I think if a child were raised viewing the world in that secular light they would be far more grateful for what life gives them.
I think religion used to serve a function in human history when the conscious self was emerging and developing, because it gave people reassurances against their fears of death and sense of injustice when faced with difficulty and inequity. At one point it imbued a survival advantage, but as the human mind continues to evolve and societies change with increasing rapidity religion has become increasingly obsolete in its inflexibility and otherization. In giving explanations for life and death, religion also entrenched inequity and even justified it and lent it validity. The cover stories of religion also mask the insecurities and fears that we still carry as humans, rather than actually equipping us to grow into a place where we are reconciled with the realities of life and death.
So perhaps in the short term a child might find a story about a man in the sky who imbues people with purpose to be more comforting, but I think it is a grave injustice to cripple the emotional and intellectual development of a child.
The reason I felt misunderstood was because you seemed to imply that I was advocating punishing, judging, or silencing in some form which I was not.
I have aspergers, it's not uncommon for us, people that lack social skills, to make misunderstandings like this. I'm not one that makes assumptions often, so I wouldn't be one to think anything in particular of what you say unless it's said straight out.
So perhaps in the short term a child might find a story about a man in the sky who imbues people with purpose to be more comforting, but I think it is a grave injustice to cripple the emotional and intellectual development of a child.
I personally think I'd be much happier if I could come to believe in something like 'god'. I would think it would be comforting, and help me emotionally. How would you see it as crippling? Most of the greatest minds known to man have been people that believed in deities.
It seems that I perhaps felt misunderstood because I misunderstood what you were saying (talk about a convoluted sentence ;). Thanks for sharing the personal detail; it helps me put what was said into a bit more context. I'm probably a bit on the spectrum myself and occasionally understand words differently than other people.
I can understand why for some the ability to believe in religion would be a comfort. To me, it cheapens life a good deal because it reduces the amazing complexity of life into simple myths. I do not doubt that people who are religious can still develop intellectually and even emotionally in some ways, but ultimately I think it limits their full potential because instead of seeking true knowledge and understanding of the world and ones self it becomes easy to let religion fill in as an excuse and explanation. I think religion prevents people from seeing the world and themselves in an honest light precisely because it makes up stories to fill in our insecurities and lack of knowledge. Does that make more sense?
This next sentence I quote is evidence, in your wording that you're not.
which do you think a child would prefer to accept? A boring world of no magic (Atheism) or a world controled by a great mystical being, where resurrection and afterlife is possable?
You lean to theism and religion in your logic.
THings are not always about what the child wants to learn about, they are about what the child needs to learn about. It's all well and good to like the idea of a world of mystical wonder, and afterlives, but if that's not reality it's not good for you. Kids want to live in a world where superheroes exist, but you have to eventually tell them Dc Comics is just that, comic.
Debating = A greater driving factor in overall public opinion development.
This is what I was indifferent on. I have no opinion on this viewpoint. Were you misunderstanding what I was saying?
You lean to theism and religion in your logic.
I'm certainly not into theism. I've been more of a atheist throughout most of my life. As for leaning toward religion? Uhm, not sure what "Leaning to religion", means exactly. Are you referring to my calling atheism boring? Well it is to me. I'm a atheist (Mostly) and I see life as boring.
It's all well and good to like the idea of a world of mystical wonder, and afterlives, but if that's not reality it's not good for you. Kids want to live in a world where superheroes exist, but you have to eventually tell them Dc Comics is just that, comic.
If they want to believe in 'magic' and what not, why not let them? Who is to say magic doesn't exist? We all are here, aren't we? Nothing can explain how material appeared out of nothing, yet here we are. The big bang explains the formation of our universe, but it doesn't say where all of this came from? I personally have no idea, nor does anyone else, although many believe it to have been 'god', but there are no scientific explanations. I won't tell my kids anything but the truth, but why not let them dream? I personally wish I was capable to do that. I would be so much more happy if I could believe in such mystical things.
Well it is to me. I'm a atheist (Mostly) and I see life as boring.
I supposed I can't change your opinion but being an atheist, and not having to focus on belief in a god, has freed me up to seeing other interesting things in life. I personally like to see people bend science to their whim, rather than play with illusions.
Nothing can explain how material appeared out of nothing, yet here we are.
Scientists theorize when Earth was nothing but a mass of volcanic activity and lightning storms that the energy was enough to produce life, in the form of tiny micro bacteria. Then the rest was History.
I won't tell my kids anything but the truth, but why not let them dream? I personally wish I was capable to do that. I would be so much more happy if I could believe in such mystical things.
I have nothing against religion, I'll let people believe what they like, I was confused with your response though. So I was defending the atheistic point of view.
Scientists theorize when Earth was nothing but a mass of volcanic activity and lightning storms that the energy was enough to produce life, in the form of tiny micro bacteria. Then the rest was History.
I know all about this, but I'm talking about the universe as a whole. Material as a whole.
Don't take it personally but this part made me laugh, I picture you saying to them on their thirteenth birthday."You can have the blue pill; Or the red pill."
>.> I don't know how I want to respond to this. xD
To the contrary, I think I quite readily understand the perspective of most religiously inclined people. I appreciate why they feel the need to believe in a higher power against reason and fact, why they prefer superstition to knowledge, and so forth. There are fairly basic evolutionary and biological factors at work.
I also find debating theology to be quite important. While it is unlikely that the person you are debating will change their ideas your exchange will likely be overheard/read by others and may push other people to reconsider their views.
I also refuse to sit in silence when confronted with a deeply imbedded and highly problematic ideology which is highly damaging to the rights, freedoms, and well-being of both individuals and society at large. If someone is a racist, do you just accept it? If someone is anti-gay, do you just accept it? If someone thinks genocide, do you not challenge that?
It might be because it was a double post. There are two of the same post from you, it happened sometimes. >.< Stupid computers. If you want I can up vote them to be nice? xD Really, a double post should be deleted, not down voted.
I think it was in response to what I said; I got simultaneous downvotes on similar posts at about the same time (also without comments) so I reach my conclusion therefrom. Even if it were for a double post though they should say so, and seriously if that was the reason someone needs to get over themselves and care about something more important than a computer glitch.
Whatever though. I'm really not deeply offended or anything, just irritated by how many people do that. So while I appreciate the up vote offer it's not necessary. :)
I mostly defend the faith because a lot of people here get a false view on what I believe or think it is and I just back it up. A lot of the times the non-believers don't like the answer that I have but you know what if you don't like it then why do you ask in the first place?
Please take this in a non hostile way. People use their religion to make decisions that affect everyone. So, the non believers would be forced to follow ideas that they believe are false. I believe that's what the root problem is.
I don't see how the secular laws prevent you from doing what you want. I see the main conflict that religious people are "afraid" that the "sinners" are ruining the country.
Religious people have to abide by secular laws in spite of their concerns that it's bad for the country.
I'm a 'Constitutionist" if there is such a thing.
You can do anything you want with your religion or against religious tennents. The Constitution keeps either sde from taking it too far. So, unless and until it becomes a Constitutional issue, I don't care what either side is up to.
I guess I don't understand the double edge sword part then.
The real problem is that the boundaries are invisible. So, if a religious person proposes an idea that seems innocent, like we should have prayer in school. At first it doesn't seem so bad. Then the secular group shouts, we don't want to participate. The boundary is determined. Then, the government tries to do something, but it violates religious belief. The religious side yells, and boundary determined. With all the yelling it feels like each group is trying to get the other to only believe what they believe in, but it is needed to make sure the system doesn't fail.
Implementing a secular system of governance is adopting a particular approach, and that does require all members to adhere to it. However, the difference between a secular system and a theocratic system is that the former allows for diversity of opinion and individual authority over ones personal choices whereas a theocracy adheres to a single, narrow ideology and does regulate the behavior of others accordingly. Secularism is effectively an absence of impositions and greater freedom of personal expression, whereas theocracy is a unilateral imposition in direct violation of personal expression and freedom. In short, yes, they are both systems but they diverge with respect to the extent of personal liberties and freedoms they extend or deny.
I completely agree. Atheists are usually the ones starting the arguments, and as Christians, we can't just sit idly and watch them mock Christianity. You gotta do what you gotta do.
I was born and raised 'Christian" but I have no defensive nature like that. I would rather pick my battles and base them on Constitutionality and science I guess - because I know that religion is pretty much anything goes.
I guess I'm just passionate about my beliefs. But I rarely start debates on religion, because I think it's pointless to argue about the same thing all the time.. but eh. :/
Right, so here is the thing. Christians do not have to start the argument because they hold the power that allows them to impose their beliefs upon atheists. Naturally, atheists are going to protest that. Would you be as critical if it were women contesting patriarchy, Hispanics disputing racism, etc.? Moreover, while atheists may open the dialogue it is Christians who initiate most of the exchanges when they force their views onto the lives of those they disagree with.
And for the record, I do not and never have mocked Christianity. My discussions are grounded purely upon reason and fact, and my comments are a legitimate critique of a belief system to which I have never received an intelligible counterargument.
I would not consider myself fixated on religion, but it is an issue which I do feel compelled to engage with because I think that religion is a negative force that harms individuals and society. If people's ignorant mysticism ended at the confines of their skull, it would be fine and I would leave well enough alone. However, religion pervades the way that people view life and conduct themselves in a way that obfuscates, actively ignores, and undermines reason and knowledge. This has had and continues to have direct, visible, and negative effects on individuals and society.
Why? You just answered your own question. The first amendment allows people too. Just because you have no religion doesnt mean religion itself should ever be talked about. You still have people who want to debate about it.
I would rather not see people argue about religion but only because I know we have a Constitutional right to believe anything we want and for that reason it seems like a waste of time.
But we already have a Constitution that keeps people from legislating their religion and from forcing it onto others. Right?
Their 'decision making' can only go so far before it will meet a Constitutional challenge.... so why waste the time, energy and bandwidth picking apart anything that falls short of that?
To be fair this dicussion is centered in the CB community, where much of the theological discourse is approached from a western perspective where many nations do promise religious freedom. I think this is less a matter of ethnocentrism than it is people speaking from their personal experience and about cultures/nations with which they are more knowledgeable. I think a claim to ethnocentrism would be more valid if someone were making erroneous statements about other cultures that misrepresented others in a negative light.
Yes, I understood your point. My point was that he probably did that because within most CB debates on religion we are discussing the U.S. or countries which extend similar guarantees. At any rate, I just wanted to put it out there. We don't really need to debate it unless you are keen to.
While we do have a constitution which guarantees freedom of religion and expression, the reality is that this country has a dirty history of not fulfilling those guarantees. Anti-sodomy, anti-marriage equality, anti-abortion, pledges of religion, religion on our money, and so forth are just a few of the more contemporary ways in which religion has been forced upon people in violation of the First Amendment.
They could but the reality in fact is that they do not. The only arguments advanced against homosexuality are purely religious. The opposition to abortion is similarly religious. The same with anti-sodomy laws. As for religion on our money and in our national pledge of allegiance, those are intrinsically impositions of religious belief on individuals who do not share those beliefs.
Then you are quite honestly the first person whom I have encountered with that view (and I have spoken with a lot of people). Would you care to share your rationale? I would contend that insofar as you are rather in the minority of anti-abortionists the prevailing force at work in regulating abortion and the lives of others remains religious.
Also, I do not see that this counters my point in any way that religion has been used to oppress non-theists. That oppression could occur for other reasons does not make it any less true that religion has been used oppressively despite the First Amendment.
I still think you are missing my overall points and would like to hear your thoughts on those as well.
I do appreciate your linking me to the explanation of a non-faith based anti-abortion stance, although I was rather hoping for a somewhat more concise personal expression from yourself. I have contention with the con in the debate in question, but this is not really the place for that. I would be interested in taking the matter up in a challenge debate here if you would be.
Your point that there is a non-religious justification for the anti-abortion stance is valid, though I still consider it moot as it is not the driving force at all in anti-abortion law. That is still attributable to religion, and consequentially anti-abortion laws are still an imposition of religious belief on the lives of others.
Conception (in the debate over when a human life begins) is a point where the secular lines of reason and many religious views converge.
As a non religious person who opposes abortion, I can't help it that many religious people arrive at the same conclusions that I do by different means.
Believe me, I get aggravated and frustrated when religion gets drageed into the exchange.
If you want to make a challenge debate? Give it a try.
My responses will be pretty much along the lines of what I shared in that link, though.
I appreciate your frustration by religious justifications against abortion, and I appreciate that those people do not represent you. The point still stands however that actual laws affecting the personal lives of other people are being passed not for rational reasons but for religious reasons, which makes anti-abortion laws just as much a religious imposition as the other examples I mentioned.
It sounds like perhaps you are not all that interested in having the debate, at least at the moment, so I'll just content myself for the time being with reading that over more closely.
"The point still stands however that actual laws affecting the personal lives of other people are being passed not for rational reasons but for religious reasons, which makes anti-abortion laws just as much a religious imposition as the other examples I mentioned."
I'm sorry but I have to dispute that. When laws are made they are heavily debated by more than one side and any law-maker can raise the separation of Church and State aspect as a Constitutional issue. Likewise, the laws can be challenged on that basis in court. You may not agree with the rationale in some laws and that's fine - but that alone doesn't make it an imposition of religion.
Also, like I said earlier... there are points where secular lines of reason and religious views intersect. One of the 'Ten Commandments' is "thou shall not murder." Should we be precluded from making laws against murder - just because it's a religious teaching or commandment?
Should we throw our laws against murder out for that reason?
Of course not.
I hope you've read the debate that I linked to more closely and with these thoughts in mind.
If the sole or primary reason a law is passed is religious belief then it is a religious law. I see no way to argue around that. For instance anti-sodomy laws and anti-same-sex marriage laws are purely motivated by religious belief and the desire to regulate the morality and lives of others according to that belief. Laws such as these are distinct from laws which religion simply compliments (e.g. anti-murder) because they are expressly religious. There are actual, non-religious reasons why we do not allow murder; there are not actual, non-religious reasons for anti-sodomy and anti-marriage equality laws.
You are correct that laws can be brought before the judiciary on the grounds of Constitutionality if they are in violation of the First Amendment, and they have been. The problem is that the judiciary, for all that it is idealized, is strongly influenced by religious politics. For instance, the question of the phrase "under god" in our pledge of allegiance and "in god we trust" on our money, which are clearly an establishment of religion in government have been challenged but the challenges have not been uniformly upheld and the Supreme Court has repeatedly turned down opportunities to hear the cases. It also remains that just because something can be challenged as unconstitutional this does not makes its original passage any less religious.
Regarding the debate you linked to, I read through some of it and disagreed with the vast majority of it. The truth is though that I am not terribly inclined to read through a debate between two people to whom I cannot respond and engage with. If you want to bring their arguments to our discussion I would read them.
I think that it's not that we're fixated on religion.. it's just that when you see someones state something you strongly believe against, or if you see someone bash your religion... you feel the urge to start an argument with them. At least in my case.
Hah, I continue to speak of religion because I'm defensive to remarks by many atheists and agnostics on this site.
Why am I defensive?
Because many atheists and agnostics say more things like "religion is stupid, insane, idiotic, irrational, lame, primitive thought, illogical" then claim things like "science is the best ever. science is the only rational truth. science is this.", or "logic is this, faith is that." instead of trying to find a middle ground they have beef with the extremist aspects of religion, which is unfair to religion and the freedom of all thought.
Have you once considered that perhaps the critiques being offered up by atheists and agnostics might be valid? Sure, there is some unnecessary hostility at times but to be fair the religious have brutally imposed and enforced their will upon those who do not share their beliefs for centuries so by comparison what are a few verbal insults? Your sense of persecution is akin to a white man feeling abused and attacked when minorities or women point out his privilege and argue for equality.
Also, why should I find a middle ground on something when not a single person of faith can give me any argument which remotely approaches a justification for giving religion any credibility whatsoever? I do not focus on the extremes of religion, but directly at its heart; I am all encompassing of my critique.
Finally, I fail to see how my critiquing your beliefs is unfair to religion or in violation of your freedom of thought. I hold all thoughts and beliefs to the same standard I apply to religion; the only thing which would be unfair is if I were to give religion a pass. And I have never once said that someone should not be able to think what they do; my argument has always been merely that those thoughts are unfounded and damaging.
I dont feel persecuted, I feel attacked by dumb fucks online. There is a huge difference. I'm not saying you are a dumb fuck, I am simply stating the truth. Thats what you want right, the truth? LOL
The justification you seek is like asking the Universe. "SHOW ME YOURSELF UNIVERSE", and within science it will show you some of itself, and you continue to ask "I WANT ALL OF IT!". When did the Universe EVER say it will show you everything, and anything the truth as to offer?
Religion is seeking THE SAME SHIT people like you seek. Do you not see this? The evidence that which you seek for is there, you simply choose to believe otherwise; it's not "good enough"...
What I find unfair, is that people like you whom say "your evidence is not enough", ( when evidence is OBVIOUS), and bash people. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I CALL UNFAIR. Not simply questions beliefs as mine. Theres a huge difference.
I say, try to come up with better questions and perhaps you will find the answers you seek.
You mentioned you were defensive, which implies feeling attacked unfairly (in other words persecuted). Ultimately it doesn't matter if you want to call it attacked or persecuted to me, the point I was making remains the same: atheists are at least as attacked as theists in our society, and are certainly more marginalized and discriminated against, which makes hostility from atheists rather understandable (though not necessarily productive).
I seek no justification or explanation from the universe. I readily acknowledge and accept that there are things about the universe which I will never know, and which humanity may never know at all. I do not need or want that explanation, and I do not need to substitute religion in as an explanation for the things I do not understand. Ultimately, that is the function of religion: to try to make some sense out of what we do not know. But in the end there is no reason to think that religion is the truth at all, just a mental crutch for our insecurity.
I think we have had this discussion already, but you have never actually provided me with a single piece of evidence or even a rational that makes the case for thinking religion is even partially true. It is not unfair of me to not believe what you do absent your actually providing me the evidence you claim to have.
There is nothing wrong with my questions and I am not seeking answers in the sense that you are. I accept the limits of my knowledge, I accept the reality of my existence. My questions are ones of probable validity and truth, and apply them equally to both the secular and the theological.
Like I told Doherty, or whoever the fuck it was, I'm not doing to write down every single reason why i believe, nor give you reasons over and over and over, to every single person on this troll infested site whom asks for it. It means little to me to provide you with "my" evidence, or any other person on this site, lately. I've written down countless times why i believe and general philosophical evidence for why every other religion perhaps.
The response is generally the same. "Your evidence and the evidence of others are not enough. Fine, I don't care to try to give someone evidence when they push it back saying its not enough. I become numb. Why? Because no matter what I say, or any other person whom believes says about their beliefs and religion, they cannot grab god(s) out of air and show it to you. And so just because you have not experienced god, or spirituality, or religion, does not mean others haven't.
I don't even know what your intentions are anymore Jace. You're simply using words to describe a situation, versus giving any sort of beliefs of yourself, about anything. What the fuck is your point, Jace?
You are merely attacking beliefs with nothing. You are literally using nothingness to say words. For what?
I do not need to substitute religion in as an explanation for the things I do not understand. Ultimately, that is the function of religion: to try to make some sense out of what we do not know. But in the end there is no reason to think that religion is the truth at all, just a mental crutch for our insecurity.
Your quote. You're doing nothing, but use these words above to prove what?
So fine, you don't "need" religion.
It's like you're saying I "need" religion. When did i ever say I needed it. Or are you setting standards to how you think I am. LOL
You are now taking away my right as a human to believe in whatever I want. regardless of necessities. What ever happend to free thought?
Can you see how much full of shit you are, Jace? LOL you're a fucking joke.
I never asked you to write down every single reason. I asked you to give me just one, because in all the debates I have had with you you have never done that. It is not my responsibility to wade through your entire debate history and make your argument for you. I do not say that others have not experienced faith because clearly you have, but rather that that experience is not rational or factually based in reality.
I think my intentions have been quite explicit as have my views. I disagree with you that faith is factual or based in reality on the basis that there is no proof and that there is bio-evolutionary evidence that strongly indicates religion to be a byproduct of the human brain. This is not an attack, it is a valid criticism and is precisely how I approach any stance (religious or otherwise) which I find to be unsubstantiated.
"You are literally using nothingness to say words." Whatever the fuck that means.
I never said I was doing nothing, I said that where my efforts to understand the world fall short of a total explanation I am okay with that and do not need to substitute religion for an actual understanding of that which is not yet known. And yes, I am saying that people like you need religion whether you think you do or not. There is no other reason why people would cling so desperately and defensively to something that has no basis in reality or fact, and which actively stands in contradiction to reason and knowledge. Religion is a coping mechanism for those incapable of facing reality head on.
I am not taking away any of your rights; only someone with enough privilege to take their rights for granted would seriously accuse someone who challenges their beliefs as taking them away. You are free to believe what ever you like. You are free to express it. By the same token I am free to believe what I do and to express it. That is all I have done.
I am not full of shit, and your personal attack is both unnecessary and unproductive. What did you seriously think you were adding to the exchange by saying that?
I do not say that others have not experienced faith because clearly you have, but rather that that experience is not rational or factually based in reality
This is an attack, not criticism. It's as much as an attack as me saying you're full of shit. It goes both ways, don't you see it?
This is old news, this is nothing new; your inquiry that my thoughts are not rational or factual. Where is your evidence to prove that? I see nothing, NOTHING to prove that nor have you said anything to prove that.
I said that where my efforts to understand the world fall short of a total explanation I am okay with that and do not need to substitute religion for an actual understanding of that which is not yet known
Once again, simply because you do not "need" to substitute something, lest religion, does not mean other people "need" anything. You are using the term need as if it is a requirement for certain people, but not yourself, that is bull shit. I do not believe because I need to believe in religion. One reason why I believe is because I want to believe due to various reasons. And so without myself giving you any reasons, I stop because you say such things. What's the point in giving you, or anybody, reasons if you're simply going to say "oh well you need it, and your evidence is not good enough". Do you get my point? I don't need religion. I want to believe in spirituality and do have faith in it.
You claim religion is a coping method. I say having faith is natural. And so technically, coping methods are natural, however, I do not consider what I am doing to "cope with reality". There is no "coping", I'm not using religion or faith so that I can simply feel better about myself. I have faith because I believe the world around me was created by something, whatever that may be. I have faith because there is nothing on this earth that gives me a more reason to believe in it, so therefore, I believe in what I cannot see. I believe because there has to be more than what meets the eyes. I have faith because I am having rational thought, I am thinking clearly logically, and I am in reality. I do not believe because I want to want to believe in fantasy. I have faith in something real and you choose to not see it. That is fine.
Do not claim I am not in reality simply because you are blind to it.
This is where I feel attacked. You claim I am not living in reality. Or rather, you're saying, I have faith because you think I can't take reality and need to cope with life by having faith in god(s). That is an attack, not criticism.
It may be offensive to you, but it is factually accurate because religion is purely a matter of faith and not of fact or reason. That makes my comment an accurate observation and it is not an attack. An attack would be if I called you a "fucking joke" or said your arguments were "shit" (sound familiar?).
You want my evidence that your beliefs are not factual or rational. My evidence of the absence of your reason and fact is their actual absence: despite multiple inquiries neither you nor any other religious person has presented actual proof or sound reason for believing religion is true. My expression of other views is not a valid reason not to present that evidence; I hold those views precisely because no one has ever furnished evidence to prove me incorrect.
Simply because you do not "need" to substitute something does not mean other people "need" anything. This is bull shit.
Need was perhaps the wrong word. Rather, I should have said that the religious depend upon religion to cope with the world; and in general it does seem to have served as a coping mechanism quite well. Evolution has historically imbued an evolutionary advantage on the religiously inclined because it tends to foster greater optimism against adversity (e.g. believing that things happen for a reason makes trauma more endurable). A combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies supports the following findings: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2; and(4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels. Interestingly, however, the prevalence of religion is on the decline globally which calls into question the continuing evolutionary preference for religiosity.
The religious do not consciously use religion to benefit themselves, but that does not change that religion functions in such a capacity. To address your specific points:
I have faith because I believe the world around me was created by something. - This is effectively saying you have faith because you have faith. There is no reason in there at all to think that the world was created.
I have faith because there is nothing on this earth that gives me more reason to believe in it, so therefore, I believe in what I cannot see. - Translation: you believe more in what you cannot see than what is tangibly right in front of you.
I believe because there has to be more than what meets the eyes. - Why? This is an emotional desire/need with no proof or rational justification.
I have faith because I am having rational thought, I am thinking clearly logically, and I am in reality. - You just said that you believe because you believe (no reason, so no rationale), that you believe more in something you cannot see than you do in tangible reality (not based in logic or reality), and that you feel there has to be more to life than there appears to be (not based on reality, and concluded from an emotional need for greater significance and meaning).
You’re saying, I have faith because you think I can’t take reality and need to cope with life by having faith in god(s). That is an attack, not criticism.
More or less, yes, that is what I am saying. However, my argument is based upon scientific research which indicates that religiosity is actually a direct evolutionary consequence of natural selection expressly because it does protect people from a reality which is wholly indifferent to us as individuals and which ultimately lacks a universal purpose or meaning. Until you actually confront the science and rational I have given you supporting this conclusion you are dong nothing other than validating the claim. This may offend your sensibilities and emotions, but that does not make it an attack because as far as the evidence indicates these are accurate statements.
I would say it is because it is a subject which people have strong feelings about, so you can get a debate far easier then on a lot of other subjects, where feelings are not as strong. If you have a debate on science, law, politics and other topics, people will bring their religion into it, religion will be brought in as an argument in the majority of debates.
Wait, are you saying that being an atheist is the same as being someone who cannot stand on their own? The irony is too much to handle. It is the religious who cannot stand on their own without being held up by their faith in some god. Also, being an atheist on CB has gained me at least as many enemies as it has allies.
Wait, are you saying that being an atheist is the same as being someone who cannot stand on their own? The irony is too much to handle. It is the religious who cannot stand on their own without being held up by their faith in some god. Also, being an atheist on CB has gained me at least as many enemies as it has allies.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
You have 19 allies and 3 enemies, just wondering if you're Republican. The math is about right.
You miss the irony then. It is the religious who are dependent upon a fictional construct to get through life, and it is the non-theists like myself who stand on our own. Your statement is baseless and insulting for no reason.
I am not a republican, and am somewhat confused about what math has to do with that. Not all of my allies were made through conversation on religion, and not all of my enemies and allies are listed because I generally do not bother to formalize it. I know who people are and they know who I am. The tally is somewhat superfluous.
Christians can stand on their own, they just choose not too. Why take on the world by yourself? This like saying one needs a spouse because one is too weak.
I always enjoy the excuses atheist give, superfluous. I'll add this one to the list.
Atheists use these so many times to justify their religion, what's one more?
logical fallacy, critical thinking, pseudo-problem of logic, a matter of proper authorities, logical coherency, uses incorrect authorities, debating has rules, equivocation, logical errors, anecdotal, Irreducible Complexity, converse error, and sophistry.
There is a difference between not being able to stand on your own and not choosing to do so. You can't stand on your own and rely on the other atheist here to back you up. You are only quiting because you don't have the support you need. Come back later when your friends are here to hold you up and coach you on.
Of for fucks sake, seriously? I can stand on my own in debate and actually prefer it. I don't generally tag team, either in live debate or on this forum. I stopped debating you because it was not going to go anywhere since you are just running your own arguments in circles.
FAIL! Look through the arguments... I NEVER left my own opinion. If asking the question means you're guilty of being fixated own the subject of the question then you're fixated on religion...
Well, rather than add my own name to the list... I would rather take yours off. Though, you claiming that you are an atheist and trolling of religious discussions support my suspicions... I'll accept your outrage as an indication that you don't like to be seen for your fixations.
Trolling is trolling... I troll everything, so am I fixated with everything??? As for my *outrage"??? Where is this 'outrage' you speak of... I'm not seeing it.
