frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Religion or Atheism Which is better?

LogicLogic 213 Pts
In my  view, Religion has given purpose to many meaningless people, While at the same time giving hope to the hopeless.  And chances are one of them are right. So is it so bad , To try out a new religion?
DavidDebates

Comments

  • I prefer religion, real or fake it keeps you active. I happen to believe it's real.
    Khan823m_abusteitSonofason
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    @ludil_hanza Same here. I mean, You reap the reward if it IS real. A very good reward.  
    m_abusteitSonofason
  • inc4tinc4t 124 Pts
    For many people religion provides a good way to live and a life purpose. It is also a great way to drive a sense of community.
    That said, for many it is important to believe in individuality.
  • Neither one is better, a religious person can be just as smart, morally good or fulfilled as an atheist
    SaltyDog
  • ale5ale5 123 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @melanielust, good point.  Religion is a good way for many to achieve self-actualization, but certainly not the only way
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Every religion has blood on it's hands. The various worshipers of yahweh (baptist, jews, catholics, islamic, etc) have been killing, torturing and stopping progress for thousands of years. The purpose of religion is to control the masses, and turn a profit in the process. Although it has good people in it, the over all effect is negative. Much of the division in our world today can be attributed to religion, and the dominant religions keep splintering into smaller groups that fight over the various versions of the same text, or if new text is valid or not. I ask you to take a few minutes to look through http://whatstheharm.net/. Religion may give some sense of peace, but the impact on the world is not peaceful in any sense of the word. 
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Every religion has blood on it's hands. The various worshipers of yahweh (baptist, jews, catholics, islamic, etc) have been killing, torturing and stopping progress for thousands of years. The purpose of religion is to control the masses, and turn a profit in the process. Although it has good people in it, the over all effect is negative. Much of the division in our world today can be attributed to religion, and the dominant religions keep splintering into smaller groups that fight over the various versions of the same text, or if new text is valid or not. I ask you to take a few minutes to look through http://whatstheharm.net/. Religion may give some sense of peace, but the impact on the world is not peaceful in any sense of the word. 
    Imbster
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    Yeah, Stalin [An atheist] must have been great, In your opinion of course @Coveny  .  None of the religions above, Order the killings of innocents, As has been done by each religion. 
    SaltyDog
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Logic he's a great example of theists destroying the world yes. Son of a priest, raised in a devote christian household, where he was abused from birth, but still chose to spend five years in the Greek Orthodox seminary. So thiest made him the man he was regardless of his personal feelings which could be fall into something like (1) Anti-christian (which is NOT the same as atheist) (2) all about the power (given that he chose to go to seminary maybe he did believe but chose power over following his beliefs) But like I said it really doesn't matter, theists made him the man he was.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    @Coveny  You said it yourself 'he was abused'  Whose fault is this? His parents.  So that must have left a psychological scar on him.  Theists made him the man he was, Not the religions those theists follow. Blame the followers, Not the religions. Also, I'm not christian.  
    I'm a muslim, And follow logic and use my reason in every action.
    http://islamiclearningmaterials.com/miracles-of-the-quran/
    Reason allows me to believe. Reason before belief. 
    uzairmahmud
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Logic if you are abused by christians you'll tend to see christians in a bad light. You'll tend to work against christians, and hate christians. The whole community back his father's abuse because the father was following the bible in beating him. Religion trapped him in a cage where no one helped him, and it pissed him off so he fought back against it. It was more than just his parents fault, religion must shoulder the burden as well. Thiests are representatives of their religion, their religion is not blameless when the teaches abuse, and create hostility. 

    You are islamic which means you believe in one more prophet than the catholics that abused him. Yahweh is your god just as it was for Stalin's parents. 

    Religion is in no way based in reason. Religion is installed in children when they lack the critical thinking skills to stop it. Very few people ever dispute that programing because to do so disrupts the very foundation of their identity. The medical term for this is cognitive dissonance. It's not even a debate I have to have with you. You can look at any other religion but the one installed in you and laugh at it right? There are roughly 3000 religions that exist, and you only believe in one of them. Thor promised the miracle of no Ice Giants, and we have proof of that miracle because there are no Ice Giants, so Thor must be real.

    Reason...

    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    First of all, The ones who follow the religion, Don't represent the religion. I'll give you an example. Let's say a religion tells you to feed the poor, take in the orphans, pay charity to the poor.  And it's followers a psycho megalomaniacs.  They will STILL and ALWAYS be, Megalomaniacal psychopath.  And if the religion tells you to kill steal, Be a psycho, All the bad things you can imagine, And it's followers feed the poor, Give home to the orphans, Pay charity to the poor.  The only one who represents a religion, Is it's prophet. 
    I worship Yahweh? You just showed me how ignorant you are on the topic of religion.  Islam doesn't worship yahweh, Nor does it take jesus as a god. We believe allah sent a messenger for each age, And jesus was one of them. We worship ONE god, Allah. That is true monotheism.   I do know what the word reason means,It's quite obvious you didn't check my link. It contained content, Which NO 7th century man from the desert could have known.  And ALSO, That 7th century man was illiterate.  Induction. Use my reason.  That must mean something with that kind of knowledge, Knew it. And allah has 99 names, And the All knowing is one. 
    uzairmahmud
  • agsragsr 456 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Coveny, imho religion by itself is not bad. Soviet Union systemically abolished religion, killed off priests, rabbi's, etc. it replaced it with a common brainwashing propoganda where everyone believed in purity of communist leaders for 3 generations.  North Korea is another similar example.
    I think that blind faith (religion or otherwise) is risky and can be abused.  That said, there are many great benefits of religion - like sense of purpose, community, structure, etc.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Logic said:
    I worship Yahweh? You just showed me how ignorant you are on the topic of religion.  Islam doesn't worship yahweh, Nor does it take jesus as a god. We believe allah sent a messenger for each age, And jesus was one of them. We worship ONE god, Allah. 
    Are you trolling me? Allah is the word for god in islam. God and allah are just the same word in different languages. But the abrahamic god actually has a name, and that name is yahweh. .
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh

    There is some contention that Yahowah or Jehovah are the correct name
    https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah

    And there are others still
    http://www.eliyah.com/yahweh.html

    But that I as an athiest have to correct you on what your gods name... I mean the irony of that is not lost on me. And you tell me that I'm ignorant? ROFL I mean really man did you research it at all or was it like license agreement and you scrolled to the bottom and just clicked yes? Check the links out bro, you really should know the name of your god if you are going to worship him.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @agsr you are taking a very kind view to religion. I mean I could debate the death tolls, but I'd have to deal with BS stuff like the above where people attribute people to atheism who weren't driven by atheism. The death toll of people driven by religion is pretty impressive, but I'm not gonna go that route. I'm going to link you to a site, and I want you to read through one section... the one about children dying slowing and painfully because of religious people. 

    http://www.whatstheharm.net/children.html
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    @Coveny  Find me a single verse of the qur'an using the word yahweh.
    Allah means god? Holy crap!  Allah doesn't mean god, God can be turned into plural. i.e Gods.  It can be made feminine or masculine i.e Goddess, God [masculine by default]  
    Allah can't be made either.  There is no such thing as Allahs.
    god mean 'Ilah'  not allah.  You're lecturing me on my second language
    ? This is funny. I'm the one lecturing you here. 
    uzairmahmud
  • agsragsr 456 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Coveny, these are tragic examples and these people are clearly disturbed to do this.  
    I am not convinced though that declaring all religions evil because of these black marks is appropriate.  
    There are evil religious people and evil atheists.  Similarly there are great amd kind people who are deeply religious.

    To me, it goes back to abuse of power In general.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Logic I cannot believe we are having this debate, I’m an atheist I shouldn’t have to teach you about your religion… I mean I shouldn’t. But I guess I am. So, major differences between say the catholic religion and the Islamic religion is that. 1) Islam believes Christ was just a prophet rather than the son of god 2) Islam believes there has since been another prophet name Mohammad No, the Quran does not mention Yahweh. The Quran like the new testament has scrubbed your gods name out to show that it supersedes all other gods. However, the old and the new testament are still valid in Islam(at least parts of it), and the Quran follows all the major catholic points such as Abraham, Moses, Mary, etc. https://www.namb.net/apologetics/a-comprehensive-listing-of-references-to-jesus-isa-in-the-qur-an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Christian_Bible Again, the only points of contention are about whether Christ and Mohammad were prophets. You both trace your religion back the Jewish bible. In which god was given the name YHWH which most biblical scholars believe to translate into Yahweh. To further “prove” this Arabic-Christians worship Allah. http://www.equip.org/article/allah-does-not-belong-to-islam/ From that article “it is time for all of us, especially Christians, to exercise caution when it comes to attacking the term for God in a language foreign to most of us. No other term exists in Arabic for the God Christians claim to be the one, true God.” Now as for your claim that ilah means god in Arabic this is correct, but so does allah. It’s a generic term for Yahweh. In English you “should” say god rather than Allah if you want to refer to the generic, but if you want to refer to the specific name, your gods name is Yahweh. (which is the exact same god as christians)
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @agsr here we are going to disagree. I don't think the people who did these things were "sick or evil" individuals. I think they believed they were doing the "right" thing based on their religious teachings. I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes on this topic. http://www.sualci.com/images/steven-weinbergs-quotes-5.jpg
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • AveMariaAveMaria 35 Pts
    Religion has discovered heliocentrism, the Big Bang, genetics, gravity, the solar system, and the inner workings of earthquakes and volcanoes in the name of God.  Atheism has killed off religious people in the name of rejecting God.
  • islander507islander507 121 Pts
    @AveMaria, I don't think it's as clear as you suggest.  Many scientific discoveries are based on various pursuits, not just in the name of God.

    Similarly, while true that atheism killed off religious people in some cases (like communism regime), not all atheism is in that spirit.
  • AveMariaAveMaria 35 Pts
    @islander507  The discoveries I just listed were all from Catholic scientists (Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, etc.), and the Catholic Church teaches that science is the discovery of God's creation.  So, God had to at least play a moderate role in their motivation. And the basics of atheism obviously do not include "exterminate religion," but the scientific and societal progress athiesm has made has generally been toward since the neutral to morally wrong side.  Atheism has not contributed nearly as much to modern life as religion has.  Even great atheist scientists like Steven Hawking and Carl Sagan all made discoveries based off principles founded by the religiously devout.
  • islander507islander507 121 Pts
    @AveMaria, since you are advocating that religious pursuit hasn't contributed as much to modern life as atheism, what about all discoveries in the last 100 years..automobiles, planes, space travel, google, facebook, debateIsland?
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @AveMaria um when claiming yourself to be an athiest gets you killed... people will claim to be theists who don't believe. (I've never been burned alive, but I assume it sucks)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics

    I think that both proves that athiest wasn't an allowed choice, AND that religion is NOT supportive of science.

    As for the point of morals... are you serious? Who got rid of slavery? Atheists. Who got women equal rights? Atheist. Who are making laws so that beating your child to death will land you in jail? Atheists. Who made it so you can't stone your wife to death if she's not a virgin? Atheists. Homosexuals not getting killed? Atheists. And the list goes on and on.

    Theist have a LONG history of fighting for things that we now see are morally wrong. You literally have ZERO moral high ground, and you do not... I mean like completely do not believe in the morals taught in those books/gospels.

    I mean mixed fibers... really? Bet you go to a doctor rather than a priest to rub oil on you when your life depends on it. You MUST cherry pick the bible to be able to give it any validation of moral grounds, and you know how you choose what to follow and what not to follow in out of the bible? The same morals Atheists use.

    Oh and for the record worshipers of yahweh are still burning people alive in 2017?!?!?!? 
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/90-yr-old-burned-alive-for-witchcraft/articleshow/57880346.cms

    So that stuff isn't ancient past, we here in the US have the atheist morals that prevent you from being the theists you want to be.
    Imbster
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • AveMariaAveMaria 35 Pts
    @islander507  Well, Henry Ford and the Wright brothers were Christian, so there goes automobiles and planes.  Space travel wouldn't be physically possible without Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, or Rutherford, and was further progressed during its heyday by Christian scientists like Werhner von Braun and Robert Boyd.  And Mark Zuckerberg has been quoted saying "religion is very important" and has taken "atheist" off his own Facebook profile, while Google's founders (Larry Page and Sergey Brin) are both practicing Jews.  So there you go.

  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    It's ironic that this just came up in my facebook timeline right before I looked at this response...

    http://www.wbtv.com/story/18577233/nc-pastor-wants-to-isolate-gays-lesbians-until-they-die-out
    agsr
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    @Coveny You're a special kind of ignorant huh?  The qur'an scrubbed other gods? Funny, Cause there are more than enough verses saying Allah is one. And a full book [in Sahih Al-Bukhari]  Called : The Oneness of god.   So try harder <span>:pensive:</span>    
    We believe in parts of the New and Old testament? Holy crap! And this guy is trying to teach me false things ABOUT MY RELIGION.  The Injeel [Which no longer exists, due to fabrications made by man]   is what we believe. Another fun fact, The Hebrew version [if there is one] MIGHT be a slightly legit injeel.  But goes back to the fact that you can take 2 bibles, And quote from the same book different words.
    And again, Yahweh was never the name of any god. Did you know moses went to Hajj? Why would he do this, If he doesn't worship Allah?
     Or if Allah didn't exist at the time?  Yahweh is a man made fiction.
    And yes, Allah only belongs to islam.   
    [Pretty cool how you learned about the islamic view of the bible FROM WIKIPEDIA.]  That article you gave me saying Allah doesn't belong to islam. Had me laughing from the beginning. The moment he said Allah is equivalent to god in the english language, Is when the argument fell like humpty dumpty.  Allah cannot be made plural.  It doesn't work Like Allah's. Allah can not be made feminine or masculine. [That's goes back to the royal huwa concept]  http://www.answering-christianity.com/allah_not_elohim.htm  That site sets the record straight on tons of misconception and more.   And just because religion has been used as an excuse to do evil things doesn't mean it can't be used as an excuse to do good. I don't know what kind of psychological scar you got, that makes you hate religion so much. But drop the ego a bit. Some islamophobic 'teacher of theology '  isn't going to be the one to teach me about my own religion.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Logic ;By scrubbed out I mean they took out instances of the word yahweh and put in "the lord", or "god" or in your case "allah" or whatever. They did this to "prove" that yahweh supersedes all other gods. If you care to understand the reasons behind it why the gospels the bible was taken from were changed.

    I'm a special kind of ignorant... let's have a look at YOUR link. ROFL

    Did you know that Elohim is Allah (Elohim is a generic term for god, and you both worship yahweh which is the proper name of allah and elohim)
    Jews do call Him: Allah-im.  Aramaic-speaking people also call GOD Almighty Allah. (so jews call the christian god Allah, and it's not just an islamic thing)
    The Bible called Jesus a slave (abd) of GOD throughout the Old Testament! (so your link references how islam is based off the old and new testament)

    This is YOUR link... which you apparently didn't read. Thanks supports what I've been saying. ROFL, go home you're drunk

    Here is some more information for you to ignore because of your cognitive dissonance:
    EL, ELOAH [el, el-oh-ah]: God
    ELOHIM[el-oh-heem]: the plural form of Eloah
    YHWH / YAHWEH / JEHOVAH [yah-way / ji-hoh-veh]: strictly speaking, the only proper name for God. 

    https://www.gotquestions.org/names-of-God.html

    I really don't know why it is that theists have no clue about their own religions. I swear you guys just scroll to the bottom and accept the agreement without ever reading anything
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    You do know that islam is supposed to be the continuation of the injeel?
    And every prophet, Is a slave to god. 
    But you said Allah is Eloh.  Allah is a word [same meaning, but not same word]   My problem is that you keep saying Yahweh Is the same As allah. Another problem with the word Yahweh, Is that there are different forms 'YHWH, YAHWEH, JEHOVAH/'  But allah only has one, That is allah. There is a difference, Stop acting like an expert in theology.

  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Logic No I did not say that Allah is Eloh. The site you linked said Elohim is Allah. I just showed how elohim is the generic name for god, and the proper name for that god is yahweh. Which means that allah is the generic name for god, and the proper name for that god is yahweh.

    Now on the point that YHWH actually means yahweh rather than jehovah or any of the others I have conceded there is some dispute about that point, but went with yahweh as it's considered the accepted addition of the letters. As shown the quran references the old testament which is take from the jewish bible, which says that gods proper name is YHWH. Allah was also used by the jews in the days where there was just the old testament, and at that time they sometimes referred to yahweh as allah. This is a language issue though. Allah is a generic term for your god, and your god is the same god as christians and jews which most agree translates from YHWH to yahweh. So I just use yahweh. Given that you just found all this out, I really don't you've had time to do the proper research on disputing if yahweh is the correct translation of YHWH, but even if you could, it doesn't change the fact that YHWH is the proper name of god of jews, christians, and islam.

    As an athiest I do not accept that yahweh supersedes any other gods. So I will call him by his proper name, just like I call thor by his proper name rather than referring to either as god. To me both of these gods are equal. 
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • AveMariaAveMaria 35 Pts
    @Convey  Every single one of the heretics burned in your Wikipedia article was killed before the 1700s except for 2 of them.  The vast majority of the burnings took place during Catholicism's most primitive stages, and in very few number, considering the span of years.  The Church has stopped burning heretics long before the rise of atheism athiesm, not because of secular values values, but because of Biblical ones on loving your enemies and forgiveness for one's sins.

    As for slavery and women's rights, Abraham Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, and more were devoutly Christian.  So was Susan B. Anthony.  And don't atheists also have a long history of fighting for things that are morally wrong?  Theists and atheists alike have the capacity to do evil, whether in the name of God (which, by the way, is the highest form of blasphemy) or not.

    And of course I go to a doctor instead of a priest if I'm injured or sick.  The only person who was able to heal someone using only the power of God was Jesus, and the Catholic Church teaches that science isn't our way of discovering God's creation, so of course I'm going to rely on God's miracles that we have already discovered than some Christian Scientist nonsense. You seem to be confusing the crazy Obama-is-the-Antichrist-and-the-Earth-is-6,000-years-old-and-flat Christians on YouTube with the majority of rational-minded Christians.

    Finally, your evidence that religion is destroying the world and that it ultimately leads to heretic burning is one article from the India Times.  Do you really think that kind of thing I say still commonplace and/or respected by most Christians?  At best that is poor data analysis and at worst it is a weak conclusion to an argument riddled with the typic



  • AveMariaAveMaria 35 Pts
    (Continuing) typical new atheist cliches of "you are a cherry picker" and "Christianity is intrinsically anti-science."  God bless.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @AveMaria If you start spelling my name the server show you the correct spelling and you can just click on it.

    I really don't want to go down the list of "christians", but I really can't ignore Lincoln. Most consider him anti-christian for most of his youth, he wasn't as outspoken when he got older, but he did chose his words carefully on the matter.

    "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Lincoln in a letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln

    As for the priest thing could you tell me what James 5:14 says on the subject?

    I'll agree the witch burning is no longer "common" sure, but it's still happening. There is a case to be made for all the children we are killing in the middle east is because of the perpetual holy war between christians and islamic theists. The body count on that is in the millions at this point, and it's still happening today. Next let's talk about molestation. Pick your denomination and I can show multiple cases of priests screwing children, many of which were spewing hate about the LGBT community before they were caught. Theism is a blight on this world that helps a few but harms the majority. You personally may have some more open beliefs (because it seems to be going that direction as it fades away) but you are a theist which means you help all those actions.

    I've never been anything but an athiest. I've never found anyone who could explain to me why god created evil as a child in a catholic school where the priests were fondling the altar boys. I could never get past why something all powerful would create evil. In doing so he shows himself as anything but merciful. 



    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • AveMariaAveMaria 35 Pts
    @Convey  To start off, Lincoln was a Christian.  He didn't belong to any particular denomination of Christianity, but he was a Christian.  The letter you cited was his thoughts on the rigidness and overly-literal interpretation of Scripture provided to him by the Protestant churches he grew up with.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/puzzling-faith-of-abraham-lincoln.html

    Also, James 5-14 talks about praying for illnesses to go away.  It does not say that prayer is the only method of getting rid of illness.  As I said before, science is our way of discovering God's creation, so it is in no way unholy to use it for healing.  Prayer is used in addition to medicine by many Christians (myself included).  

    Finally, your point on the body count of Christian-Islamic conflict in the Middle East as well as child molestation was already addressed in my previous argument: both theists and atheists are capable of good and evil.  Theists committing evil doesn't justify or excuse atheists committing evil.  However, your argument on justifying God's existence when child molestation exists was not previously addressed and also relates to good and evil.  God allows evil people to exist because He gave us free will.  He lets us choose between good and evil, all while knowledge of His Word as well as the teachings of Jesus exist, so that we have a better idea of what good and evil are.  Many claim that because evil exists, God is unjust.  This is on the contrary; if God forced us to always obey Him, He would be unjust because He would not let His most intelligent creations think for themselves.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @AveMary He was NOT a christian. Another quote from Lincoln "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." 

    The scripture is pretty clear about how you should deal with sickness, it's killed a lot of people. You want to say you don't cherry pick, could you show the scripture supporting your "science is our way of discovering god's creation"? I'd like to read that version and chapter. It's the SOLE use of most christians, they ignore the bible when their life is on the line and chose science because it has a proven track record for curing and healing. I have yet to see one of those faith healers regrow a leg, but I've seen some really cool prosthetics... 

    As I addressed before in my previous argument yes both are capable of good and evil, but for a good person to do evil you need religion. 


    Atheists don't commit atrocities in the name of atheism, the same can not be said of theists and their various gods.

    Rather than getting into the impossibility of free will and all knowing, I'm just going to skip that and go to if god is all powerful he could wave his magic wand and we would simply know. Instead he's chosen to create creatures that's whole existence is to burrow through the eye, so they can make babies and burrow through another eye. Torture, starvation, rape, etc are all things yahweh could have waved away. If I could stop a child from being molested I would, that's the difference between me and yahweh, and that is why I will never worship him even if he did exist. He has the capacity to make this world peaceful, justified, loving, kind, fair, and all that stuff instead he has chosen right the opposite. This is your "loving" god? Ya that's not how I define loving.
    Khan823
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • AveMariaAveMaria 35 Pts
    @Convey  Have you ever heard the phrase "the Bible is not a science textbook?"  That phrase is right.  Nowhere in the Bible does it claim that it describes how the physical world works.  It's a guide on how to live your life the way God wants you to and how to get to Heaven.  There's a reason that Creation is condensed to two chapters, while sin and heroism get the majority of the book and Jesus getting almost half of it.  And you are right, the Bible doesn't say anything about science being our way of discovering God's creation, mostly because the Bible is not a scientific journal.  It is, however, the direct teaching of the Catholic Church that the sciences are our way of discovering God's creation.  It's also the direct teaching of the Catholic Church that Jesus wanted a universal Christian church, so He told His apostles to set up Catholicism.  This is shown in the Bible in Matthew 16:18, Matthew 28:19, and Luke 10:16.  You sound like a fundamentalist, telling me that because science is not mentioned in the Bible, then science is un-Christian, or that creationism is the only Christian form of science.  But if the church that Jesus set up says that science is Christian, why would you argue the contrary?  You are taking the most uncommon and least intellectual view of my religion to try and counter my argument, and yet the points you make come from a completely opposite sect.

    As for atheists never committing evil in the name of atheism, that is an outright lie.  The Soviet Union attacked religion since its earliest days; in fact, the term "militant atheism" came from Vladimir Lenin when describing his policies.  Mexico followed the Soviets' lead in the 19th-20th centuries, with a Soviet ambassador saying "No other two countries show more similarities between the Soivet Union and Mexico".  Even the French Revolution attacked various churches and forced priests to deny their role in the Church, with those refusing denial gracing my execution.

    And finally, your argument on God not wiping evil away with His "magic wand" is addressed in an entire book of the Bible.  The Book of Job is about a man named Job who is perfectly respectful and is vey faithful to God.  However, God and Satan make a deal; Satan is allowed to make Job suffer in any way imaginable, though he cannot take his life.  Satan's motivation is to make Job lose his faith in God, while God's motivation is to teach him His ways in the most extreme of ways.  Needless to say, Job spends most of the book grieving and ultimately throwing the greatest anti-God rant of all time straight at God.  God responds to this by asking him if he truly knows all there is to divine justice and God's true nature, to which Job replies no.  The moral of the story is that God is too vast for the human mind to fully handle, and that there are things He doesn't reveal to us because of His great complexity, such as why good people are allowed to suffer.  So there will always be things that no one on this earth will know about God, and that is fine, because it is innate in us that we cannot know.  This same complexity is why God is often portrayed as a bearded man in the sky in so many paintings; we can never actually know the true essence of God.

    Side Note: We could go back and forth on the Lincoln issue forever.  Let's agree to put that one to rest.



  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Well @AveMaria you are nothing if not consistent about misspelling my name. I got done teach logic islam I guess it’s time for Christianity next… take a seat it’s your turn.
    AveMaria said:
    Nowhere in the Bible does it claim that it describes how the physical world works. 
    Nowhere you say? Um I disagree
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

    AveMaria said:
    @Convey  Have you ever heard the phrase "the Bible is not a science textbook?"  That phrase is right.  Nowhere in the Bible does it claim that it describes how the physical world works.  It's a guide on how to live your life the way God wants you to and how to get to Heaven.  There's a reason that Creation is condensed to two chapters, while sin and heroism get the majority of the book and Jesus getting almost half of it.  And you are right, the Bible doesn't say anything about science being our way of discovering God's creation, mostly because the Bible is not a scientific journal.  It is, however, the direct teaching of the Catholic Church that the sciences are our way of discovering God's creation.  
    “"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," Pope Benedict XVI said of the AIDS crisis. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-says-condoms-wont-solve-aids-1646909.html

    So, um condoms increase the problem with AIDs? That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

    AveMaria said:
     You are taking the most uncommon and least intellectual view of my religion to try and counter my argument, and yet the points you make come from a completely opposite sect.

    Least intellectual view of your religion? I feel like you are calling me stupid with that. If I were to take the least intellectual view of your religion I would follow it, because would be the best way to show little intellect. Populate the world with incest... twice. Sacrificed himself ... to himself to cleanse the original sins he put on us. Man from nothing, but needed a rib for women. Talking snakes and bushes. We are his perfect form.. oh wait except for penises we need to mutilate those things. Do I need to go on? You want to call me stupid? I'm trying to be civil I mean Thor promised to get rid of Ice Giants and I don't see any Ice Giants... just say'n.   

    When christians torture children and they grow up twisted hating the religion that's not athiest, thats Anti-christian. You guys have been creating wackos for centuries, you get to own them. Not a lie, not even a stretch. Stalin is all about the christian hate as we was raised VERY orthodox christian, and from what I've read got beaten by his father (a priest) on a regular basis. I'm sure he quoted abusive christian's favorite passage (Proverbs 13:24) while he was drawing blood. I'm sure little Stalin made the connection between theism and torture.

    Well at least plutarco elias calles is a new one. I had to actually research that one. An illegitimate child in a highly religious area... it's a mystery why he didn't like thiests. A mystery I say. Looks like when he made it so christians couldn't parade crosses and grabs around it the killing started.  Cristero Rebellion (1926–29). So um the violence was started by christians really? ROFL. On the death toll wiki "war had claimed the lives of some 90,000 people: 56,882 on the federal side, 30,000 Cristeros" That's your smoking gun? (wish I would have read that first) Look we are playing the body count game and 60k isn't even a drop in the bucket.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero_War

    Just to get you started because almost none of you theist will deny this one. Crusades at 1.7 million dead. (would equal 34 million people today)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/was-obama-right-about-the-crusades-and-islamic-extremism-analysis/2015/02/06/3670628a-ae46-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html?utm_term=.aa1e281385fb

    The moral of that story is that yahweh is a d***. Let me start from the beginning. He made a bet, and that bet involved torturing someone who trusted him. That's not to vast for the human mind to understand, I've seen d***heads do that in my lifetime. It's not complex mystical behavior, it's being a d***head. It's cruel and narcissistic is what it is. Why in the world would you pick THAT story to defend evil. It's literally torturing someone for FUN. What yahweh should have said is "No bet satan, he doesn't deserve the abuse" it's not complex it's not beyond anyone's understanding. You don't make bets about hurting and torturing people. It's immoral. Is that seriously difficult for you to grasp? If so please don't go around other human beings...
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • VaulkVaulk 180 Pts
    edited May 12
    But on a minor note @AveMaria ,
    Nowhere you say? Um I disagree
    Firstly, this is a wikipage and the credibility here is on a similar level to "Buzzfeed".

    Secondly, and this is the funny part, there ISN'T anywhere on this page that attests to the Bible describing "How the physical world works".  There are several references to inconsistencies regarding how the Bible has described or referenced a number of things in the Physical World but makes no reference to "How they work".  This erroneously listed link is most likely a result of skimming websites before hastily copying and pasting the links for supposed "Evidence" and is consistent with what your opponent normally does.  You're not alone, you're not the only one who's tired of arguing logic against illogical ideology.
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    Well i'm back, Sorry for being gone so long.  I looked into the mater, And yes, You were right.  [About the Eloh , Allah thing. ]  
    Firstly, I will tell you why i believe in god. 
    There is such precision in the earth, So perfect that we can live on it.
    Our DNA is very complex. [I told you to watch 2 videos about this, seems you ignored me. ]
    There are also things the prophet  of islam could not have known.  
    For example, The expansion of the universe.  
    And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)
    But the word 'heaven'  in Arabic is 'Sama'  Has different meaning [So do hundreds of words in arabic]
    It's meaning are : Sky, Space, Everything above,Heaven [in some cases, very little].  
    And it says 'Expanding' .  The expansion of space was onl known in the 1930s.  
    Secondly, A picture you put said 'Only religion can make someone good do something bad'  Something around  that i guess.
    But apparently good people don't know what greed is, They don't know what being hungry  and needing to steal food is.  Anything can make a good man do something bad. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Logic I wasn't trying to change your faith, the eloh/allah thing is more about the frustrations of dealing with theists who don't know their own religion. I wish I could say it wasn't common, but that would be lying. Right now I see the fight between catholics, baptist, ete against islam as the main reason the US has the support of it's people to kill children in middle eastern countries, and killing children pisses me off. (not a fan of wars in general either) That's doing something bad, because of religion.The cherokee have this story of the two wolves inside us all that resonates with me. I think we all have the capacity to do good or bad depending on the situation, and I think religion is feeding the angry wolf. 

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/3e/a7/68/3ea7680d1f8ab69d0bc51d03fe5b65c6.jpg
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    @Coveny Religion is not the problem in the middle east. .In syria, Bashar Al-Assad is an oppressive leader, it has nothing to do with his religion. Rebels are fighting him.  End of that.
    And syrian kids are being droned, Blame your corrupt government, not religion.
    [Also, i didn't change faith. The fact that god has different names doesn't change anything]

  • WhyTrumpWhyTrump 139 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Logic said:
    Well i'm back, Sorry for being gone so long.  
    @Logic, we don't always agree :), but most certainly welcome back! 

    I think both Logic and Coveny are right in some ways.  I believe that some of the incidents cited are due to religion, but some are due to corruption in 3rd world countries.  I am honestly learning a lot from this back and forth debate.  Nice job.
    Covenyislander507Logicagsr
    WhyTrump - a good question
  • LogicLogic 213 Pts
    edited May 21
    @WhyTrump Debating is between to people who have different opinions on a topic, So thanks :smile:
    agsr
  • ImbsterImbster 77 Pts

    Religion is like a walker for babies. It's good for the young ones but as they mature they are bound to read what a Sunday school teacher has never taught them. The story about 200 foreskins, some laws about killing because of pork and abortion itself. They're better off with atheism because I as an atheist, I feel freedom to study any religion. That I'm not betraying any code by knowing the god of others. I don't have to praise but just be knowledgeable. I don't believe in a God but don't we still read things and make crazy theories about Marvel characters even if we don't really get to hold a non-existent infinity gauntlet.
    CovenyFredsnephew
  • Logic said:
    In my  view, Religion has given purpose to many meaningless people, While at the same time giving hope to the hopeless.  And chances are one of them are right. So is it so bad , To try out a new religion?
    Common sense is best. Current knowledge suggests that Atheism is common sense. Current knowledge suggests that Religion is nonsense.
    But quite frankly it doesn't matter, as long as one behaves sensibly and is respectful to others.
  • Logic said:
    In my  view, Religion has given purpose to many meaningless people, While at the same time giving hope to the hopeless.  And chances are one of them are right. So is it so bad , To try out a new religion?
    Common sense is best. Current knowledge suggests that Atheism is common sense. Current knowledge suggests that Religion is nonsense.
    But quite frankly it doesn't matter, as long as one behaves sensibly and is respectful to others.
  • Logic said:
    In my  view, Religion has given purpose to many meaningless people, While at the same time giving hope to the hopeless.  And chances are one of them are right. So is it so bad , To try out a new religion?
    Common sense is best. Current knowledge suggests that Atheism is common sense. Current knowledge suggests that Religion is nonsense.
    But quite frankly it doesn't matter, as long as one behaves sensibly and is respectful to others.
  • Atheism is most definitely better because you are not governed by an inauspicious god who hates the human race. "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror". - Richard Dawkins
    Coveny
  • VaulkVaulk 180 Pts
    edited June 5
    @awaketowhere,

    Since we can all agree that, historically, all religions have had bouts of violence and atrocity...let's discuss recent events.  Your reference to the "God of the Old Testament" is a very good one so we'll go with that one.  And because the topic of the Debate being "Which "Is" better, Religion or Atheism" then we have to address this as a current issue.  So let's talk recent history.

    Jim Jones - Athiest - Responsible for the largest loss of human life in a Mass Suicide - 1978

    When is the last time a Christian was responsible for, let's go with 5% of what Jim Jones did (900 people including Children), so that's 45 people.  When's the last time a Christian killed 45 people?
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Peoples Temple was a religious organization founded in 1955 by Jim Jones for disciples of christ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

    How many did Timothy McVeigh kill again? Good christian boy kill what 170 people? http://www.ethicsdaily.com/an-accurate-look-at-timothy-mcveighs-beliefs-cms-15532
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • VaulkVaulk 180 Pts
    edited June 5
    @coveny,

    In a 1976 phone conversation with John Maher, Jones alternately stated that he was an agnostic and an atheist.[42] Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, Marceline Jones admitted in a 1977 New York Times interview that Jones was trying to promote Marxism in the United States by mobilizing people through religion, citing Mao Zedong as his inspiration.[38] She stated that, "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion", and had slammed the Bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!"[38] In one sermon, Jones said that, "You're gonna help yourself, or you'll get no help! There's only one hope of glory; that's within you! Nobody's gonna come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to make heaven down here!"[12]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

    Edit: and I'll concede to that one, McVeigh...while it was never proven that he was part of any group of Militant Christians, did in fact kill 168 people in the Oklahoma City Bombing and left hundreds wounded.  That's roughly 19% of what Jim Jones managed to get.

    Edit#2 lol: Mcveigh admitted openly to being agnostic.  So we're back to the 5% then, name me an instance where a Christian killed 45 people.  Jim Jones was 39 years ago, let's say we go back as far as 50 years then to be fair.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4

  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Vaulk said:
    @coveny,

    "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion", 

    Um so you admit Jim was a theist? He just preached a different religion from the standard ones as most cult leaders do.

    Also as with many of the people considered athiest, but are really anti-theist, they grew up religious, were molded by religion, and are the results of that fall at religions feet. Raised Catholic, confirmed catholic. and believed in god. He was unhappy about how the catholic church had treated him after the bombing. (your article/comment is from the execution table where he renounced religion) 


    Vaulk
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • VaulkVaulk 180 Pts
    edited June 5
    @coveny,

    While many Atheists were once Theists...this makes no difference in the argument and is irrelevant. This is an "Irrelevant appeal", one of my favorite logical fallacies. And no, I make no admission nor did I make an admission that Jim Jones was a theist.  I never said he was a born Atheist, I simply stated that he was an Atheist.  What makes a Christian a Christian?  The belief in Christianity of course.  Jim Jones claimed to be an Atheist and disbelieved in God:

    "Off the record, I don’t believe in any loving God. Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist." ~ Rev. Jones

    "Well, thank you for the feedback, ‘cause, I must say, I felt somewhat hypocritical for the last years as I became uh, an atheist, uh, I have become uh, you— you feel uh, tainted, uh, by being in the church situation. But of course, everyone knows where I’m at. My bishop knows that I’m an atheist. He— He knows that I— I— I recognize only love, when I say— I’ll say, "God is Love"— well, you heard my preaching. You know where I’m at." ~ Rev. Jones

    http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=64931

    Christian: (Noun) A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/christian

    Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist

    That establishes that being an Atheist is simply a belief, there is no required practice, established methodology or qualification series that must be met in order to be an Atheist, you simply must disbelieve in the existence of God.


    And unless you can provide any sort of evidence (None of which I found in the article) that Mcveigh renounced his religion in conjunction with his execution then I'm afraid that's pure speculation.  I did manage to find some interesting research concerning interviews with Mcveigh by Lou Michel from CNN:

    In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.”(SEE NOTE 5)

      Note the above that McVeigh “said he was an agnostic” but not only that, but that he was defiant about hell itself and remain unrepentant.  Then we also find the same statement that he was an agnostic admitted by Lou Michel during a cyber interview with CNN.  Lou Michel spent hours interviewing McVeigh in writing a book titled, “American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing”.  Michel’s words are enlightening:

     Lou Michel: McVeigh is agnostic. He doesn't believe in God, but he won't rule out the possibility. I asked him, ‘What if there is a heaven and hell?’

    He said that once he crosses over the line from life to death, if there is something on the other side, he will -- and this is using his military jargon – ‘adapt, improvise, and overcome.’ Death to him is all part of the adventure.”

    http://www.tektonics.org/guest/mcveigh.htm


    At this point there is no evidence to support that Timothy Mcveigh was a Christian and whats more is that there stands reason and evidence to believe that he was Agnostic...not Christian.










  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts

    Jim Jones

    Irrelevant appeal

    As I have previously told you, you don’t get to choose reality, and part of reality is how we were raised affects who we are. It may not be a direct cause and effect but it has a HUGE bearing on how we turn out. So, the difference between growing up religious versus not growing up religious is relevant to the actions we take as an adult. Several of the proclaimed atheists just hated religion because of the abuse they received at the hands of it. Now that's not the case with Jones, but Jones was taken in by religion, and very religious at a young age. He felt like he was the messiah. (a belief his mother supported... see the growing up part that is relevant?) He believed himself greater than god, therefore a god himself, and a religion.

    From New Your article: “promote Marxism in the United States by mobilizing people through RELIGION”

    You have not linked the source of your two quotes or WHEN they were spoken, please correct this.

    Jones began his own religious quest around the age of 10. He visited churches in the small town of Lynn where he lived with his family and befriended a Pentecostal minister for a time. Jones began taking what he learned at these different houses of worship and started preaching to other children in the community. His overpowering religious zest turned off some, and he, in turn, disliked many typical teenage boy activities, such as sports, and objected what he believed to be sinful behavior, such as dancing or drinking. Biographers emphasize Jones’s strange childhood devotion to and obsession with the Bible

    Reverend Jones was an ordained pastor. A Methodist student pastor at Somerset Methodist Church in Indianapolis between 1952 and 1956. In 1956 became an ordained minister in Independent Assemblies of God. Jones became the minister of the Disciples of Christ February 16, 1964. A self-proclaimed messiah.

    http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=16601#_ftn41 - For the majority of the residents of Jonestown: “To love God’s justice on earth was to love Jim Jones; to be loyal to socialist values was to be loyal to Jones.”

    Time Magazine, December 4, 1978, Messiah from the Midwest - “The young preacher once threw his Bible to the floor and yelled at his associates, Too many people are looking at this instead of looking at me!”

     [2] FBI No. Q265 (17 October 1978) - “If my wife said, I'm not going to be a communist, I'd say, well, forget it, by God, I'll forget you too.”

    *Proof of his belief in the existence of god one month before the event.

     Event happened November 18, 1978.

    To recap, Jones was very religious growing up, was a pastor, and claimed to be the messiah. Even a month before the event he’s still using god in his declarations. He believed he was god, and could perform miracles... that’s a religion.

     

     

     

    Timothy McVeigh:

    A theist is a theist because they believe

    If that’s your bar, then Tim was a theist when the event happened (April 19, 1995) and still proclaimed himself a believer in 2001 to Time. “I do believe in a God, yes”

    The previous article you linked is from the execution table where he states he states he’s an agnostic (code for not sure if god exists) again he was a theist at the time of the attack, and as you stated the belief in Christianity makes you a Christian.

    You need to prove he was an atheist WHEN he killed those people…

    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • VaulkVaulk 180 Pts
    edited June 5
    @coveny,

    I haven't contested that Jim Jones "Used" to be religious.  I don't think it would be wise to disagree as there stands entirely too much evidence to prove that he was in fact a very religious person.  But again we have to look at what it means to be an Atheist, Atheism has nothing to do with what you used to believe.  There are no degrees of Atheism based upon a person's progression of beliefs.  So in layman's terms...it doesn't matter if you used to be Christian, Wiccan, Agnostic or a Satanist...if tomorrow morning you wake up and decided that you don't believe in God then you are in fact an Atheist.

    As far as the quotes from Jim Jones, the link below is a transcript from Court evidence (Q266) that was withheld until about 2003 and is without a date of the actual recording.  I can't attest to how the lack of a date credits or discredits any supposed statement made by Jones about him being an Atheist but it would appear that his statements made in the transcript are in line with what several people during interviews and that is that Jim Jones didn't believe in God.  Atheism isn't the lack of Religion...it's the lack of belief in God. 

    http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=27498



    And to address your first point, I agree that how you're raised has a major impact on your life...the things you do, what you're exposed to, your parents ect ect...they all play a role in determining who you are.  I also agree that Jim Jones "Was" very religious growing up, he was a pastor, he was a leader of a religious group and Jim Jones' group could easily be considered a Religion...but being part of a Religion doesn't have anything to do with being an Atheist.

    Again, the meaning of Atheism...disbelief in God.  You can be a part of a Religious Cult AND be an Atheist.  You can be a Religious Atheist because Religion can be a particular system of faith and Worship, it is not exclusively related to God.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

    Saying "By god" does not prove that you believe in God just as saying "Oh my God" doesn't prove that an Atheist is actually a Theist. 


    As for Mcveigh, I never contested that he wasn't a Theist...the argument is that he wasn't a Christian.  Mcveigh stated over the course of time that he believed in God and then went on to say that he wasn't sure.  And yes, believing in "Christianity" does make you a Christian...but Mcveigh never stated that he believed in Christianity and made it clear that he fell away from Catholicism during his time in the Military.

    So again I'll ask, when's the last time a Christian killed 45 people?











  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Vaulk

    Ok the title of this debate is "Religion or Atheism Which is better?" it's not "Christianity or atheism which is better?" so you are creating a strawman fallacy that is NOT the topic of the debate.

    From your definition of religion - "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

    If you believe yourself a god, you are an theist. (as opposed to an atheist who doesn't believe in any gods)

    Now I think it's important that he calls himself agnostic not an atheist. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic athiest.

    Next he said "we emphasize the teachings of Christ". So he follows the teaching of christ making him a christian by your definition because he believer in christ's teachings. 

    Also he say's "we are a church". "A building used for public Christian worship." per https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/church

    And lastly he says "god is love" indicating he does believe in a god.


    Here is the transcript of the section in contention:

    Jones: Well, I’m really heart and mind with you. I’m uh, you know, an agnostic. We have a— some emphasis on the terms of paranormal, because uh, it brings results, uh, there is something to therapeutic healing, all medical science has proven, but we don’t link that with any kind of causative factor of a loving God. Off the record, I don’t believe in any loving God. Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist. Uh, we— we think Jesus Christ was a swinger. He taught some pretty damn good things at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, uh, maybe a little paternalistic, but it’s still uh— all the emphasis of the judgment of character— the only time he ever mentioned judgment at all was in Matthew 25, and it had to do totally with what you were doing for other people, so we— we emphasize the teachings of Christ, but um, we’re a— we are as um— we’re the most unusual church I’ve ever run into, in— in this sense, uh, and we state in the church— I would’ve loved to have been in the foundation. For some years, I’ve been talking to our attorneys to try to get in a foundation, but we have such an influence in the denomination— Our bishop was here Sunday, that’s why we wanted you to meet him and the president of our— of our denomination, I don’t know whether you’re familiar with the— the— the denomination, it’s called the Disciples of Christ. It includes the FBI Director [Clarence Kelley], [Former President] Lyndon Baines Johnson, I think, Senator Monsdale [Sen. Walter Mondale] to give you some background of it—

    Maher: Oh, my God, it’s—

    Jones: And see, we’re linked, not only as Peoples Temple have— I have my own bishopry of the churches I’ve founded, of about 70,000 members altogether, but (stumbles over words), I’m in official capacity, assistant DA [Tim Stoen] who’s a member is also in official capacity, in the regional denomination of two million. It’s— uh, that stateswide. So we— Giving up the church meant giving up that kind of influence, uh, our— our whole denomination comes out with the most radical kinds of postures, and it’s always Peoples Temple’s caucus that does that—

    Maher: Right.

    Jones: —So— Otherwise, I would have left the church. I—

    Maher: I— I think you’re in the right place, because I think it’s exactly right, uh, because, you know, a lot of these folks have, through their education and their background has made them bigots and fools, that they can hear it from a collar, and they’re basically decent—

    Jones: Unfortunately, I think you’re right.

    Maher: —and— and that’s— I think that’s essential, because an awful lot of these little Christian people around, too. You know, they vote wrong all the time, and all this stuff, but fundamentally, they’ve— they— they’ve got some good ideas about principles, and if we could just reach them, and I think you’re doing it right, I think that’s the only way to reach them, is from— from— from positions where they— where they can hear it, instead of demanding that they listen to us on the street and—

    Jones: Well, thank you for the feedback, ‘cause, I must say, I felt somewhat hypocritical for the last years as I became uh, an atheist, uh, I have become uh, you— you feel uh, tainted, uh, by being in the church situation. But of course, everyone knows where I’m at. My bishop knows that I’m an atheist. He— He knows that I— I— I recognize only love, when I say— I’ll say, "God is Love"— well, you heard my preaching. You know where I’m at.. 

    Jones was a theist, if a weird one. He like many theists misunderstood what atheism means. If you believe you are a god you aren't an athiest. If you believe god is love you aren't an athiest. If you believe christ is a god you aren't an athiest. If you don't follow the normal denominations... that doesn't make you an athiest regardless if you call yourself an athiest. Jones is more of a Unitarian Universalists just before that denomination existed. http://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/higher-power/views Religions keep breaking into smaller and smaller pieces, this is an example of that break. Jones created a new religion and he thought that made him an athiest... it doesn't.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • VaulkVaulk 180 Pts
    @Coveny,

    We can agree that Jim Jones was most likely confused and although he was a self-proclaimed Atheist, he was most likely a hybrid of multiple beliefs, none of which can be substantiated to any degree past reasonable doubt. 
    The only person who knows what Jim Jones believe is Jim Jones, we can only make determinations as to what his beliefs were according to his actions and statements...some of which obviously contradict each other in regards to his religious preference.

    And while I concede that this argument isn't in line with the debate topic, my argument was directed towards statements made by @awaketowhere and were not off the topic that he proposed.  This all started as as a response to @awaketowhere , who used the argument that Atheism is better than Religion by using Christianity specifically to make his point.  He/She made several references to the God of Christianity, all of which were negative, in response (And I admit while it was in line with the argument, it was far too simplistic) I posted an equivalency opposition.  My argument is simply that Atheism is not necessarily better than Religion based on Religion being the only driving principle of bad things happening. 


  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Vaulk

    I can agree that motives of other human beings can never truly be known, and anything we are discussing is really just speculation on a topic that can never be "proven". (people lie, and are confused)

    Anytime you pit theist vs atheist it invariably leads to body count comparisons, which leads to discussions of the individuals who made those body counts. Individuals who both sides agree are horrible people. That's why I try not to initiate body count comparisons, but as you can see I still defend against them presented them.  

    Personally I feel like faith healing, pediphilia, child abuse, homosexual torture/killing, refusal to get children medical care, etc are all better indicators of the harm that theism brings to the world right now. (as opposed to historically) From my side (which I know you see yourself as different from) islam and christianity are just two different cults that worship yahweh, and want to kill each other. They are the same story as the protestants and catholics killing each other in years past. Gnostic atheists and agnostics atheists don't kill each other. We don't as a group protect pediphiles or defend pediphiles as some theists groups have done. Atheists are a "not group" which doesn't exist like anywhere else. We don't have name for people who don't golf. We don't have a name for people who don't drive, but because of the massive amount of pressure to conform we have a name for people who don't when it comes to religion. It's like some theist see us as a blemish that MUST be forced to conform, these are the ones I have a problem with.

    Taking the long view, it's been shown the more educated we are, the more we understand the world, the less religious and superstitious we are. So if that trend continues it's just a matter of time before all the religions of the world are resigned to myths. Sadly I won't be alive for it, so until that happens I can't tell the people I work with that I'm an atheist because I have to worry about it costing me work or my job.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • ImbsterImbster 77 Pts
    Just saying, misotheists hate God dystheists believe there's a possibility God is evil. They can't be atheist cause they still believe in a God but have a different view on him very far from religious teaching.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 204 Pts
    I don't understand the question.  Atheism is a religion.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair color.

    Atheist = a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Theist = belief in the existence of a god or gods
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theist

    Religion = the service and worship of God or the supernatural
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

    Oh but atheist do eat babies.... hehe 


    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 204 Pts
    Atheism is a belief of the nature of life and the universe, the same as any other religion.
    ImbsterSonofason
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    ImbsterSonofason
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 204 Pts
    @Coveny ; "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"  Atheism certainly fits that bill
    Imbster
  • VaulkVaulk 180 Pts
    edited June 7
    @coveny and @CYDdharta ,

    This is an interesting circle.  @CYDdharta - A "Religion" by definition can be a particular system of faith and worship.  Also: A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.  The meaning of Religion is simply not restricted to the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

    So, in this, an Atheist can in fact be Religious depending on the nature of his Atheistic beliefs.  Since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved beyond any reasonable doubt...then any subsequent belief that God does not exist is just that, "Belief".  And what might you call a belief without proof?  Well I suppose you could call it faith.

    Belief: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief

    Since you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, then ANY belief in this regard is faith.  So in this, there are faithful Atheists out there who believe that God doesn't exist despite their belief not ever surpassing reasonable doubt.  Likewise there are faithful Theists out there who believe that God does exist despite their belief not ever surpassing reasonable doubt.

    @coveny, Atheism is an accepted AND recognized Religion in the United States.  Please see below for reference, directly under the list of "Religions" you will find "Atheist".

    http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/




  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    @Coveny ; "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"  Atheism certainly fits that bill
    Atheism means not believing in god. There are no causes, principles, or systems of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheist means does not believe.. no beliefs held. So unless you want to define theism as having no beliefs, then the opposite of beliefs is still no beliefs. ergo atheism can not be a religion, and doesn't not in any way "fit the bill" of religion.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • VaulkVaulk 180 Pts
    edited June 7
    @coveny, I think you may have cherry-picked there.

    Coveny said:
    CYDdharta said:
    @Coveny ; "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"  Atheism certainly fits that bill
    @CYDdharta 's provided definition included that a Religion could be a "Cause" "Principle" OR System of beliefs held to with ardor and faity.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/principle

    Atheism could most certainly be considered a Cause and could likewise be considered a Principle.

    And there's a matter of semantics here, believing that God doesn't exist is a "Belief".  Disbelieving that God does exist is a "Disbelief".   "I believe he does not exist" - "I disbelieve that he does exist". Both statements mean the exact same thing.


  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Vaulk atheism has no "faith" or "worship". Nor does it have great devotion. You can't be devoted to not golfing can you? No you can't. So atheism can not be a religion, and you can not be a religious atheist. I get you guys simply can't accept that anyone could survive without religion, but ... you can. 

    Then you go from belief and lack of belief to the level of certainty of them. This really doesn't matter to the topic of atheism being a religion or not, but I'll go down the rabbit hole anyway. An acceptance that something exists is a belief. You can't "believe" that something doesn't exist. Nor does disbelieving in something mean that you believe in the opposite. I can say I don't believe you have a unicorn in your truck, without taking the stance that there is NOT a unicorn in your trunk. This is a false dichotomy, there are more than two choices. (as I've just shown) The same holds true with faith, I don't have "faith" that god doesn't exist, I just don't see cause to believe he exists. Do you have faith that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Does your religion that Santa isn't real drive you? Hopefully you can how taking what you are saying and applying it to things you also don't believe in makes the whole concept ridiculous. Actually I should have use myths as the example so I'll give you one more. You have faith that thor doesn't exist right? So you have devotion to "I don't believe in thor" religion? (fun times) No of course you don't. Just understand the absences of religion is a thing in people. The absence of a belief in god or gods is a thing in people. If we were talking about golf we wouldn't have this discussion because we all understand how ridiculous it sounds to tell a non-golfer that they have devotion, faith, or worship... not golfing.

    So pew does religious research and understands that some people aren't religious and include that in their survey, and to you that somehow "proves" that answering not religious ... means religious. How exactly could they word it to make them not religious? They literally chose religion NONE, and you still call them religious...




    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Vaulk no it is not a held belief. There isn't a "cause" or a "principle" or a "system". Is your cause to not believe in thor? Is that an important principle in your life? NO it's not.

    Again by your definition a belief is in the existence of something you don't have beliefs of negatives. I hope you can understand how many religions you would be a part of with this stance. Do you believe in unicorns and all the rest of the mythological animals? No... well that's a belief by your definition, so that's thousands of religions you follow and are devoted to. There are what around 3,000 gods you don't believe in that you would "believe" that they don't exist, and therefore you are in the religion of their non-existence, lets pack on a few thousand more religions. Sounds like it's impossible to be a monotheist at this point... 

    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • VaulkVaulk 180 Pts
    edited June 7
    @coveny,

    I'm sorry my friend, but Atheism is a belief by the meaning of the word: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.  So by this allow me to make an example:
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief

    Gods do not exist...do you accept this as truth?  If you do accept this as truth then by definition you are an Atheist and this is your belief.  Again I'm afraid you're cherry picking the definition.  Belief is not JUST accepting that something exists...it includes accepting something as truth without proof. 

    In opposition: Gods do exist...do you accept this as truth?  If you don't, then by definition you are still an Atheist and this is not your belief...your belief is listed above.

    Coveny said:
    @Vaulk no it is not a held belief. There isn't a "cause" or a "principle" or a "system".
    Oh but I'm afraid it is, Atheism is a principle because it is by definition: a belief that governs one's own behavior.  So let's go back into an example:
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/principle

    As an Atheist, do you pray to God?  Do you attend Religious services?  Do you worship God?  Do you attribute your success to God's benevolence?  If the answer to these questions is "No", then why not?  If the answer to this question is "Because I'm an Atheist" then you're admitting that your behavior in this regard (Specifically, what you won't do) is governed by your belief that God does not exist. 
    CYDdharta said:
    @Coveny ; "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"  Atheism certainly fits that bill

    Therefor Atheism is a Principle and while I'm curious as to where @CYDdharta got this definition, it certainly does fit the bill.  Atheism is a principle and since I've established that it's a belief...then it's without proof which requires faith.  Although I honestly haven't ever seen an Atheist enthusiastic about Atheism...I have seen many of them argue it with a great deal of it.

    Lastly, your reference to my previous link where Atheism is listed as a Religion...the "Religious Nones" is listed as "Other Faiths".






    Coveny
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Vaulk we are not friends don't patronize me. 

    I don't accept that god is true. I do not have a belief in god. You continue to present a false dichotomy where you must either "believe" in a thing, or "believe" in a thing not existing. There are more than two options. I don't accept that you have a unicorn in your trunk, while not believing anything about the contents of your trunk. My disbelief of your claim is valid by itself, this does not require or imply that I am making a claim in response. I could believe you have donuts in your trunk instead of unicorns. This would be a belief because I believe it to be true. The problem you are having is that you can only think in terms of a replacement as the other option. You understand believing that there is a unicorn in your trunk, and you understand believing there are donuts in your trunk, but you can't wrap your head around the idea of disbelief without something to replace it. If I believe in donuts, then I don't believe in unicorns in your trunk. This makes sense to you because I've replaced it and I believe in something right? But do you think that the one who believes in unicorns is also a non-donut believer, and the one who believes in donuts is a non-unicorn believer?

    You have not addressed the polytheism that your semantics creates. Do you admit that you "believe" that thor doesn't exist, and this is a cause, principle, or devotion in your life making you a polytheist? Because what you are trying to apply to me would also apply to everyone else. You don't get to cherry pick the definition to just apply to my lack of belief in your god, it must apply to a lack of belief in ALL gods, and all things. Anything you don't believe becomes a religion. Please address this concept rather than ignoring it. Talk about how you are a polytheist tell me all the not religions you worship. Tell me how that makes sense to you.

    And you keep going down the same line. Do you pray to, attribute your success to, or worship thor? Now does you answering no to that question mean the reason you don't is because you are a thor non-believer? No it doesn't. Anything you don't do, does not mean that you believe in a negative of it, or the negative of it is your cause, principle, or devotion. On the days I don't eat donuts I'm a non-donut believer, and the days I do I'm a donut believer? Somehow my cause, principles, and devotion go back and forth as I do or don't do different actions? Or do you somehow believe that my desire to eat a donut is a cause, principle, or devotion to by non-belief in thor, odin, unicorns, basilisks, etc ? No they are not. When I do something I do that because I want to do it, not because of the negative of all the things I'm not doing. Actually I should clarify, there are cases where people do an action because they don't want to do another action, and their motives are based on a negative, so it is possible, but it's the exception not the rule, and not germane to this discussion. 

    The definition is from #4 here - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

    Atheism is not a principle any more than your non-beliefs in unicorns is a principle. You don't use unicorns non-existence as the foundation for the decisions you make, it doesn't rule or govern your behavior, and you don't think it's moral to not believe in unicorns. Not believing in unicorns is not a principle any more than not believing in god is. There are 3,000 or so gods out there. You believe in yahweh, and those principles guide your life... because you BELIEVE. You are guided by not believing in the other 2,999 are you? As soon as you understand how you are toward the ones you don't believe in, then maybe, just maybe you'll understand what it's like to add that last one to the plie. 

    Yes because it includes "other faiths" like wiccan. 




    Evidence
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 204 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @Vaulk atheism has no "faith" or "worship". Nor does it have great devotion. You can't be devoted to not golfing can you? No you can't. So atheism can not be a religion, and you can not be a religious atheist. I get you guys simply can't accept that anyone could survive without religion, but ... you can.


    If Atheism has no "faith" or "worship", what do you think they do at atheist churches?

    What happens at an atheist church?
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Some people have a hard time losing religion for more than just the lose of god. I don't think anyone can disagree that there is a sense of community to religious groups, and athiest who've left that life want that community back. Like @CYDdharta ;and @Vaulk they really don't understand what not being religious means, so like a addict who swaps from one addiction to another they try to recreate what they've lost. Actually that's not really fair to them. Personally I see this type of behavior as a crutch to deal with losing religion, but it's completely understandable to want to meet and socialize with like minded individual. Just like a hunting club or whatever. I understand the mentality, it's just not for me, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid way to live your life outside of god. I'm rambling a bit now... sorry. Anyway, just a club or gathering of people who are accustom to gathering on Sundays for church, and want something to do during that time, that is what they do when atheist's meet. (even if that meeting place use to be a church)
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • andyandy 10 Pts
    Coveny said: Every religion has blood on it's hands. The various worshipers of yahweh (baptist, jews, catholics, islamic, etc) have been killing, torturing and stopping progress for thousands of years. The purpose of religion is to control the masses, and turn a profit in the process. Although it has good people in it, the over all effect is negative. Much of the division in our world today can be attributed to religion, and the dominant religions keep splintering into smaller groups that fight over the various versions of the same text, or if new text is valid or not. I ask you to take a few minutes to look through http://whatstheharm.net/. Religion may give some sense of peace, but the impact on the world is not peaceful in any sense of the word.  great@Logic
    Coveny
  • andyandy 10 Pts
    Coveny said: Every religion has blood on it's hands. The various worshipers of yahweh (baptist, jews, catholics, islamic, etc) have been killing, torturing and stopping progress for thousands of years. The purpose of religion is to control the masses, and turn a profit in the process. Although it has good people in it, the over all effect is negative. Much of the division in our world today can be attributed to religion, and the dominant religions keep splintering into smaller groups that fight over the various versions of the same text, or if new text is valid or not. I ask you to take a few minutes to look through http://whatstheharm.net/. Religion may give some sense of peace, but the impact on the world is not peaceful in any sense of the word.  great@Logic
  • andyandy 10 Pts
    Coveny said: Every religion has blood on it's hands. The various worshipers of yahweh (baptist, jews, catholics, islamic, etc) have been killing, torturing and stopping progress for thousands of years. The purpose of religion is to control the masses, and turn a profit in the process. Although it has good people in it, the over all effect is negative. Much of the division in our world today can be attributed to religion, and the dominant religions keep splintering into smaller groups that fight over the various versions of the same text, or if new text is valid or not. I ask you to take a few minutes to look through http://whatstheharm.net/. Religion may give some sense of peace, but the impact on the world is not peaceful in any sense of the word.  great@Logic
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    To be an atheist, you inheritantly "believe" or have faith in the words of men. Just like religion, some man, or group, has convinced you of the impossible, that you, and everything you know, came from nothing. There's no reason to claim that either theory is more valid than the other.
    AlwaysCorrect

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @AveMaria um when claiming yourself to be an athiest gets you killed... people will claim to be theists who don't believe. (I've never been burned alive, but I assume it sucks)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics

    I think that both proves that athiest wasn't an allowed choice, AND that religion is NOT supportive of science.

    As for the point of morals... are you serious? Who got rid of slavery? Atheists. Who got women equal rights? Atheist. Who are making laws so that beating your child to death will land you in jail? Atheists. Who made it so you can't stone your wife to death if she's not a virgin? Atheists. Homosexuals not getting killed? Atheists. And the list goes on and on.

    Theist have a LONG history of fighting for things that we now see are morally wrong. You literally have ZERO moral high ground, and you do not... I mean like completely do not believe in the morals taught in those books/gospels.

    I mean mixed fibers... really? Bet you go to a doctor rather than a priest to rub oil on you when your life depends on it. You MUST cherry pick the bible to be able to give it any validation of moral grounds, and you know how you choose what to follow and what not to follow in out of the bible? The same morals Atheists use.

    Oh and for the record worshipers of yahweh are still burning people alive in 2017?!?!?!? 
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/90-yr-old-burned-alive-for-witchcraft/articleshow/57880346.cms

    So that stuff isn't ancient past, we here in the US have the atheist morals that prevent you from being the theists you want to be.

    This is hard to explain because of our almost 2,000 years of indoctrination, .. but I will try. Tell me Coveny, how do you understand the word "theism/theist" to mean?
    In other words, .. since there are a lot of different interpretations of the word theism, which one would you pick as 'your own personal interpretation/definition'?

    Thanks.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Evidence I haven't seen a "lot" of interpretation of the word theism.

    Webster -  belief in the existence of a god or gods
    Dictionary - belief in the existence of a god or gods
    Oxford - Belief in the existence of a god or gods
    Vocabulary - belief in at least one god
    Free Dictionary - Belief in the existence of a god or gods
    Cambridge - belief in the existence of a god or gods

    So my "own personal interpretation/definition" of theism is ... belief in the existence of a god or gods
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @Evidence I haven't seen a "lot" of interpretation of the word theism.

    Webster -  belief in the existence of a god or gods
    Dictionary - belief in the existence of a god or gods
    Oxford - Belief in the existence of a god or gods
    Vocabulary - belief in at least one god
    Free Dictionary - Belief in the existence of a god or gods
    Cambridge - belief in the existence of a god or gods

    So my "own personal interpretation/definition" of theism is ... belief in the existence of a god or gods
    So your own personal interpretation/definition of theism is ... "belief in the existence of a god or gods", .. Hmm, now why would you pick that particular one?
    (pun intended)

    OK, you got a pretty general definition of theism; belief in God or gods, .. that's about what I got too. So theism, or a theist is one who believes in a God or gods, which could be anything from a piece of pine wood carved like a dildo (phallic god) to the Pharaohs like the hawk god Horus Pharaoh, the vulture goddess Nekhbet, and the cobra-goddess Wadjet, to the Popes, to Buddha the teacher of gods, .. to Mormo, to Allah, to Kenneth Copeland, Joseph Smith and Jessy Duplantis, .. to the triune Christian gods, to  Jesus Christ, and countless more, like the planets, the moon and the sun, day of a week and let's not forget money, .. do you agree?

    Now I'm sure you agree that each of these gods are also tied to some religion to keep them alive, correct? Like the Muslim religion would be all about Allah, the 7DA would be about the god Sabbath, the Latter Day Saints would be all about Mormo, the BB-Evolutionists would be all about 'Mother Nature and Father Time and their son Gravity', the Baptists would be all about the three-gods-in-one like the Trinity-gods, the Catholics would be all about Mary, .. so on and so forth, .. in other words; there is no single definition for God that everyone could agree on, would you agree with me on that?

    This is why the word God is automatically assigned to "religion" because anything and anyone can be their god, not only that, but they even tell me that "you cannot talk about God (any of the gods in theism) outside of religion", .. do you agree on this too?

    Yet I could be religious, very religious and not even have heard of any of these gods. For instance I could be religious about walking an hour every morning, or religious about keeping my car spotless, and so on.

    What I'm getting at here, is that the word "theism" is automatically  ascribed to those who believe in god or gods and visa versa. Also the word "god" is automatically ascribed to religions and visa-versa, .. but "religion" does not necessarily have to include god, matter of fact, like I said; a religious person could lack all knowledge of, or never mention the word god, or mention the name of any of the gods in theism.

    You see, that's me, religious, but not about any of the gods in theism. (here is where you would have to step outside of the box to get what I'm saying)
    I don't take the Bible as a religious book, I don't put it on an alter with lights shining on it, I simply read it religiously, just as I used to read comics when I was a kid.

    Since God is real, I can't even go to any religion to serve and worship Him, because as you can see the gods in religion are not real, I am required to have blind-faith to accept their gods. Just as I don't need to go to any religion to get a good sun-tan, or enjoy a day fishing, or read the book "War and Peace" by Tolstoy. I know God by definition, and from observing the laws in nature I know He is perfection. The book called the Bible also explains a lot about God, and I know it's the same God who is evident in nature, and the laws in nature, and He is unlike any of the gods in any religion.

    I also don't need to go to a private social club that discriminates against other social clubs, which is what every religion I went to was, a very discriminating social club.
    I like meetings, socializing with like-minded people, who share my beliefs that are outside of religious indoctrinations, or prejudice. I love the laws, which is already inherent in me, my physical makeup, and nature, and use common sense to decipher between good and evil. In other words the "laws" don't apply to me because I'm always aware of what is right and what is wrong, and should I break the law, I have a Lawyer/Advocate who won't let me rest till I turn and repent from erroneous ways.

    To sum it up, I am religious in seeking the truth of all things, to seek out and justify the evidence, with substance, .. not just accept it on blind faith.
    I am an atheist, not by religion (What do you believe in? "Oh, I'm an atheist") no, I'm an atheist because I know both from evidence that no god/gods in religion are real God, .. they even tell me that their god/gods must be accepted on blind faith, .. and I can also see this to be true by scientific observation.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Evidence I guess we're going to have a semantics discussion so let's get to it.

    Definition of religion:
    Webster - relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
    Dictionary - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    Oxford - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
    Free Dictionary -  The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe:
    Cambridge - the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship

    So unlike the term theism religion is less agreed upon. My assumption is this is to take into account religions like pantheism (what you are describing as your religion) or the like that say the universe/nature is god, or we are all gods, or whatever. The lines start getting a bit blurry on defining the term when you move from organized religions like catholic, muslim, etc and try to include new wave religions, which we all agree are religions, but aren't easily defined when you try to group them all together.

    You seem to be trying to play this like your a mystic or something and you're trying to baffle me with bull****. I"m not buying what you're selling. Here are the ONLY two contridictary statements from you that matter:
    1) God is real
    2) I'm an atheist

    These two can not co-exist, one is untrue. (see the definition of theism above)
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @Evidence I guess we're going to have a semantics discussion so let's get to it.

    Definition of religion:
    Webster - relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
    Dictionary - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    Oxford - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
    Free Dictionary -  The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe:
    Cambridge - the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship

    So unlike the term theism religion is less agreed upon. My assumption is this is to take into account religions like pantheism (what you are describing as your religion) or the like that say the universe/nature is god, or we are all gods, or whatever. The lines start getting a bit blurry on defining the term when you move from organized religions like catholic, muslim, etc and try to include new wave religions, which we all agree are religions, but aren't easily defined when you try to group them all together.

    You seem to be trying to play this like your a mystic or something and you're trying to baffle me with bull****. I"m not buying what you're selling. Here are the ONLY two contridictary statements from you that matter:
    1) God is real
    2) I'm an atheist

    These two can not co-exist, one is untrue. (see the definition of theism above)
    I like you Coveny, I like your reasoning, and I value your response. Yes, this is relating to meaning in language or logic. For instance if you were to seek the definition for "a noble gentleman", and among the varying definitions you found: "a commoner who frequents a brothel", wouldn't that raise a flag with you?

    @Coveny So unlike the term theism religion is less agreed upon. My assumption is this is to take into account religions like pantheism (what you are describing as your religion) or the like that say the universe/nature is god, or we are all gods, or whatever. The lines start getting a bit blurry on defining the term when you move from organized religions like catholic, muslim, etc and try to include new wave religions, which we all agree are religions, but aren't easily defined when you try to group them all together.

    So if the word "religion" is less agreed upon, should we just throw in the Creator of Heaven and Earth including all things in creation that He created, including languages, the ability to reason, and the order that we find in creation, all assigned by strict laws?

    If I say: "God is Love!"
    Response in most cases: "Oh, another religious nut. Go to the religious section along with the other dildo/phallic gods and talk about their weird sexual perversions there."
    "No, .. I mean the Real Creator, not any gods defined in religion. And I mean Love, Agape-love, not Eros/erotic-love"
    Response I got so far, including years of debating elsewhere: "semantics, that's all that is!"

    Pantheism:
    1.
    a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
    2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.
    .. is as far as to what I believe as the east is from the west. Pantheism identifies the Creator with the created, .. so no, .. religion does that, not me.

    @Coveny The lines start getting a bit blurry on defining the term when you move from organized religions like catholic, muslim, etc and try to include new wave religions, which we all agree are religions, but aren't easily defined when you try to group them all together.

    No, there is no "blurry lines" with me, it is either black, or white, no gray area in my logic. I will tell you if I'm not sure about something, and there are a lot of those, but what I'm talking about here should be very evident to you too. Since I've been here, my stand has always been that; "ALL Religions have their own god/gods and ideas of gods, NOT ONE knows, or would even consider our real Creator, this includes His Son Word. If they did, that would be the end of that Religion."

    The closest that any Religion can come to in letting Jesus in their church/congregation is by name (and Mexico is full of Jesus's), but they will make sure you know it is NOT the Jesus in the Bible, the Son of God, but their version of Jesus, a failure of a man like the Pope said, or some deified man to godhood; the trinity sun-god, .. or some Cherubim, .. anything but Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God Word.
    Here is a good example:


    @Coveny You seem to be trying to play this like your a mystic or something and you're trying to baffle me with bull****. I"m not buying what you're selling. Here are the ONLY two contridictary statements from you that matter:
    1) God is real
    2) I'm an atheist

    Mystic, .. me? Wow, what honor, sure is a step up from "uneducated, unschooled dumbass, ignorant piece of sht that just won't f*king die!"
    I, .. I don't know what to say!?

    I'm not selling anything, I got it, and I give it for free, that's all it matters, and no one has to take any of it: I know who our Creator is, and He is not any of the created-gods in ANY religion. But if semantics means little to you, then none of this matters, sorry that I wasted your time.

    As for:
    1) God is real, .. - yes, not only real, but the Only One Possible.
    2) I'm an atheist - yes, I don't believe that any of the gods in religion that the religious study in theology is our real Creator. But if you don't value semantics like diamonds or other precious stones, then my explanation is worthless to you.

    Mathew 13:
    The Parable of the Hidden Treasure
    44 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

    The Parable of the Pearl of Great Price

    45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, 46 who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it.

    The treasure I found was the true definition of the word Infinite, .. and with it I found the true meaning of Eternal and the more I dug, I found the true definition of "nothing", and I had to give up everything and everyone I knew, friends and family, relatives, wealthy acquaintances that loved me, and wanted to adopt me as a son, all I had to do is accept them as they are, including what they believed in, their religion, but I gave it all up, .. because it just didn't compare with what I found, .. the "truth" with evidence.

  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Logic said:
    In my  view, Religion has given purpose to many meaningless people, While at the same time giving hope to the hopeless.  And chances are one of them are right. So is it so bad , To try out a new religion?

    @Logic said: In my  view, Religion has given purpose to many meaningless people

    Hello Logic.
    You mean like Ferdinand and Isabella choosing the Inquisitors, meaningless, full of hate out of a job people for the Inquisition, .. that kind of "purpose"?

    The only "hope" any Religion has given to the hopeless is "false hope".





    This is what religion teaches;


    While these here starve


    The chances are that one of them are right? By all means, show me one that is right?

    Why not worship the One True and Only Possible, the uncreated God of Abraham, "The Creator" whom for obvious reasons no Religion can tolerate, and be religious about that, the truth!?
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Evidence People “love” to say “real” when speaking of their religion and gods. The implications is that they know the others are fake but theirs… theirs in the “real” one, or the way the worship is the “real” or “true” way. As an atheist, I have always found this funny. I mean it’s a theist saying how they can see all 2,999 of gods/20k+ denominations are fake, but this last one that they follow... it's not, and the irony of that is pretty funny to me. But even though you are just one god away from atheism, you are still a theist. (most theists are just one god away from atheism just like you...)

     

    On the “god is love”, and getting into the semantics of how you define love you seem to be trying for some mystic/higher plane stuff. Psychology defines 7 different types of love. (one of which is Agape) There is no mystic/higher plane mumbo jumbo on this. It's not "too difficult for the human mind to grasp" or whatever mystic BS you are trying to push.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201606/these-are-the-7-types-love

     

    Pantheism does not identify creator with created, pantheism says god is the universe, not that he created the universe. So no creation needed, and this is why I say the term religion is blurred. How do you define religion to include both “god created the universe”, “god is the universe”, and “we are all gods and goddesses”? With most organized religions, you have an entity. With pantheism, you don’t have an entity, but everything is connected. With new wave, there isn’t an “other” entity, humans are the entity, as well as all life is the entity. Semantically speaking that’s going to create blurry lines unless you segregate religion into 3 or more forms of religion. So yes, the lines are blurry.

    And you’re back to the mystic vague preaching at me again, still not buying what you are peddling. If you believe that jesus is the son of yahweh then you are a theist. If you just believe jesus is the son of the creator you are a theist. If you know who the creator is you are a theist. If you believe god is real you are a theist. I have defined the word theist very clearly, and even though you are attempting to muddy the water with all this talk of religion, you believe in a creator, you believe in a god, so you are a theist. Just because you don’t believe in OTHER gods, does not mean you are an atheist. That’s not the way it works. You only have to believe in one god to be a theist, and it really doesn’t matter how much mystic BS you attempt to use to muddy the waters by trying to make yourself seem better than other theists, you’re not. You are just like every other theist who have ever lived and all on the planet right now who thinks their god or their worship is the "real" or "true" way, and all the others aren't.

    @Evidence you are a theist. Period… end statement… your way isn't  "higher", "special", or "enlightened".

    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    @Coveny ;said: People “love” to say “real” when speaking of their religion and gods. The implications is that they know the others are fake but theirs… theirs in the “real” one, or the way the worship is the “real” or “true” way. As an atheist, I have always found this funny. I mean it’s a theist saying how they can see all 2,999 of gods/20k+ denominations are fake, but this last one that they follow... it's not, and the irony of that is pretty funny to me. But even though you are just one god away from atheism, you are still a theist. (most theists are just one god away from atheism just like you...)

    Lol, .. you missed the whole point. The "point was" to have you look outside of your religious indoctrination that says: "all gods belong in religion, and must be believed in without any evidence, .. on blind faith alone, or you cannot belong to this religion!"

    But I see you are very religious, and like all religious folk, the words "evidence", "proof" "real" and so on are meaningless to them, and it's because they don't want to give up their beliefs regardless of the evidence presented to them. I know how you feel, it is scary sometimes, the path is very narrow and full of thorns, and only a few people are willing to travel on it. This 'narrow path' is also very dangerous, and the consequences are just too great. Nevertheless, if you love and value truth, 'The Way' is worth it, for me anyways even if it costs me all.

    This is why the Lord said:
    Mathew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

    Now how does the above sentence make sense coming from Christianity, which is double the size of the second largest religion Islam, and 3, 4, 5 times the size/number of followers of the next religion in line, .. huh?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/5-religions-with-the-most_b_853000.html

    Christianity with 2.3 BILLION followers, now that's one "Wide Road" if you ask me!?

    @Coveny: But even though you are just one god away from atheism, you are still a theist.

    Yes, for you, .. just as for billions of other religious folk who can never turn, because all they know is the gods in religion, which must be taken on blind faith, just ask any religious person?
    Or better yet, show me just ONE god that you know outside of the ones in religion that they don't study in theology, or are not deities who live in the supernatural realm, .. just ONE?
    You can't because you're either a theist, or an atheist, .. which are two sides of the same coin; "Religion".

    See what I mean? And here I am talking about the Real Creator, which is out of the box/religion.

    Tell me, if I said the name "Henry Ford" the creator of the Ford Motor Company, would you consider him as a "real creator", .. or that I'm just babbling about religion again? How about "Nicola Tesla", or "Thomas Edison", .. real creators or they belong in religion!?

    @Coveny On the “god is love”, and getting into the semantics of how you define love you seem to be trying for some mystic/higher plane stuff. Psychology defines 7 different types of love. (one of which is Agape) There is no mystic/higher plane mumbo jumbo on this. It's not "too difficult for the human mind to grasp" or whatever mystic BS you are trying to push.

    Wait, .. so when a teen with a steady girlfriend takes a girl he just met at a party to the back bedroom, the girl should understand that he means it when he says: "But baby I love you, .. don't you believe me?" 
    No wonder teen pregnancy is so high, it's this: "There is no mystic/higher plane mumbo jumbo on the meaning of the word 'love' " type of religious belief that gets them there. No wonder you don't like the word "real", .. what do us evolving apes know about love anyways, .. right? Hey, it's mating season!

    As for the rest of your response, either you've not read a single word I wrote (which is not what I see), .. or you are so blinded by indoctrination (as we all are or were) that you read it, but unable to "see" my point, .. as if you had blinders on, .. the greatest of which is religion.

    You know, like when you go to a woman laying prostrate before a huge statue of the goddess Mother-Mary in prayer and you tell her: "But we are not to bow down before idols", .. she looks up at you, stares you in your eyes and says from the bottom of her heart: "Oh Lord no, I would never bow down before any idols!" .. because I have relatives that do, and say just that.

    @Coveny "And you’re back to the mystic vague preaching at me again, still not buying what you are peddling."

    .. OK, I am done here my friend, you are stuck in religion. I seen a spark there so I was hoping you could step outside of it for a bit, .. but no-can-do. I know it's hard, but you have to try harder.

    Is there ANYONE here that understands a little of what I am getting at? Anyone who can recognize the difference between characters like gods/creators created by religious fairytales, and a real Creator?

    Look, example:
    Zeus - Infinite
    Can anyone see the difference?
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Evidence
    All gods (including yours) must be believed in without any evidence on blind faith alone or you can not be a theist. If there was “evidence”, “proof”, or they were “real” it would not be faith. You say I feel evidence, proof, and real are meaningless, yet you have provided no evidence, proof, or stated anything real. I have just as much evidence, proof, and reality that thor exists as I do yahweh, jesus, or your creator. The same way you feel about thor, is the same way I feel about your god. 

    You say I’m religious? In the same way, the off is a TV station, in the same way that bald is a hair color, in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, in the same way that abstinence is a sex act, in the same way that unemployment is a job, in the same way that healthy is a disease, and in the same way that barefoot is a type of shoe. Reality does not change to fit what you can understand. Just because you cannot understand living without a god doesn’t mean that I am the same way. Your fantasy does not apply to me, and you don’t even understand the words you use. I believe in no god, I worship no god, therefore I am an atheist, and @Evidence you are a theist because you believe in a god. 

    You want me to debate against bible being logical? ROFL I’m not a theist. Theism makes no sense logical sense. (and that includes your theism)

    More of your mystic semantics word play BS. All gods are outside of religion. Gods are created, then religions spring up from them. Take the FSM for example. The god was created, then the religion came into being around it. Scientology created by a book about gods (creating them), which then created a religion. Gods are created by man, then they spread the word, and religion is born. I’m just speaking of religions that you were most likely around during their conception, but they all follow the same model. Word of the god is spread, and religion is formed. When only one person believes, there is no religion. Your creator is the same way. You are not special, your theism is not different, and you are not outside of the box/label just because you don’t want to be boxed and labeled. If more believe the way you do it becomes a religion.

    Henry Ford created Ford Motor Company, adding the word “real” implies there are others who are attempting to take created for creating Ford Motor Company, and to my knowledge no one has. There is evidence, and proof that Henry Ford created Ford Motor Company, and that isn’t in question. Also, there is no religion that worships Henry Ford for creating a company, so yes you are just babbling about religion again. Tesla created a lot, Edison on the other hand has been shown to have stolen ideas from others and was not the “real” creator. (just like the various imaginary gods who take credit)

    Semantics is the discussion of the meaning of words. The more a word covers the more difficult it is to define it. Love covers many things to most people and therefore the meaning is blurry. (even worse than religion) However lying to a woman to get laid isn’t about the definition of love, and the meaning of love isn’t the cause for teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy increases are directly tied to theist teaching abstinence rather than sex education. The science behind this is easily provable. Also I see nothing wrong with sex or “mating season”, I just think it should be don’t responsible and taught based on reality rather than fantasy.

    I didn’t say that I don’t like the word “real”. I have no problem with it. I said I find it funny when people with imaginary friends say their imaginary friend is “real” but other people’s imaginary friends aren’t. Would you prefer the word ironic instead?

    As for the false dichotomy of I either believe you or I didn’t read what you wrote. You may not understand that there are other options with your limited world view, but there are. I can read what you wrote, and find it to be utter bulls***, this is a valid third option. And again, god comes before religion, and your preaching to create a religion … that’s not a religion yet is an excellent example of that.

    I don’t tell people not to bow down before idols… I’m not a theist. Peddle your BS to someone who’s buying.

    You are not my friend, to say so is to lie, which is most of what you are doing in this thread. You are just like every other theist on the planet, you just have a different flavor of kool-aid. You have no great understanding, you have nothing but word play and trickery that you use to sound mystic and intelligent. You use that to fool others into believe you have a higher understand than them, your important, and you attempt to recruit disciples to your cause to create the religion you speak so strongly against. This is the nature of theism, it gives simple answers to complex questions, and removes the need for evidence, and proof. (neither of which have you shown any of) Also what you are peddling is not even that different from pantheism, so you are barely even changing the wrappings and trying to act like you’ve created something new or special. (to be fair all theist think their BS is special though) 

    As for your example, yes, I see I difference. Zeus (unlike Yahweh) wasn’t an infinite god. Zeus had powers beyond those of man but he wasn’t all knowing or all powerful. This is just another case of you trying to look smart, but really you're just babbling in an attempt to con people.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @Evidence
    All gods (including yours) must be believed in without any evidence on blind faith alone or you can not be a theist. If there was “evidence”, “proof”, or they were “real” it would not be faith. You say I feel evidence, proof, and real are meaningless, yet you have provided no evidence, proof, or stated anything real. I have just as much evidence, proof, and reality that thor exists as I do yahweh, jesus, or your creator. The same way you feel about thor, is the same way I feel about your god. 

    .....

    @Conevy : All gods (including yours) must be believed in without any evidence on blind faith alone or you can not be a theist.

    You've just said exactly what I've been trying to point out as one of your strongest religious beliefs, what you and billions of us have been indoctrinated with for thousands of years. Now read again what you just said, and then read what I have been saying all along.

    Did you read it again?
    This is rule number ONE of the World Wide Religious Indoctrination, and to make sure you read it again, here is what you said: "All gods (including yours) must be believed in without any evidence on blind faith alone or you can not be a theist."

    Hellooo, .. that's what I keep telling you, that to be a theist, you have to believe in these theistic gods without any evidence, on blind faith, .. which is WHY I am a true atheist (not the religious atheist who say they don't believe in any of these gods in theism, but all they do is talk about them), .. but me, I really DON'T believe in, or worship any of these gods as if they were real, because even the religions admit they are not.

    I believe in the One True God by definition, not by name, .. who can be evidenced through science, (observing the world around us including ourselves), and philosophy (the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline), .. yes, the "real One", .. the Only Possible One who is not existence (as you try to lay on me this pantheistic/Go Green/Recycle/Gaya/Eywa religion, but existence is IN Him, .. He is the Creator of existence/universe whatever your religion calls it. I call it "creation", so everything in existence is creation which was created by the uncreated Creator.

    Now how could I convince you otherwise if this (rather erroneous) "belief system" has been so deeply rooted in, .. in what you believe is your evolving brain!?
    What has your Pastor Dawkins been teaching you? That: "man thinks he has free will, but his 'mind' is the result of selection by some purposeless, accidental random chaotic evolution, the result of tectonic plate movement/environment and the food he eats."   So for me to even try to convince someone with such "opposing to nature" beliefs is futile.

    But because I consider you as my friend, despite the voices, .. what your favorite 'deities from the supernatural realm' (which you refuse to acknowledge) is telling you, like:

    "@Conevy said; You are not my friend, to say so is to lie, which is most of what you are doing in this thread. You are just like every other theist on the planet, you just have a different flavor of kool-aid. You have no great understanding, you have nothing but word play and trickery that you use to sound mystic and intelligent. You use that to fool others into believe you have a higher understand than them, your important, and you attempt to recruit disciples to your cause to create the religion you speak so strongly against." and you made it obvious that you are not about to give up any of your religious beliefs.

    .. even though I get tired of arguing with a brick wall, (heavily indoctrinated religious people), but since you took your time to answer my post (even though you did not address what I said but gave a generalized response from what YOU understood of what I said), I will respond, .. if for no other reason, to make sure others reading this could see for themselves the DIFFERENCE between one speaking from religious indoctrination, and one speaking from "faith" that was built on "evidence with substance", .. and not how you tell me that all gods have to be accepted by; blind faith! That is exactly what you're TELLING me.

    Again, .. here is what I have been saying all along, so let me rephrase it:

    "All gods that people go to Schools of Divinity and Trinity Colleges, or Mythical teachers, gurus to, to study, which is called theology must be believed in without any evidence, .. on blind faith alone, which is what every religion requires right off the bat, because they KNOW their gods are not real!"   In other words, they don't go there to question the reality of these gods/divine beings that rule in the supernatural realm, they just go to learn how to better communicate with them. They go to these schools:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=schools+of+divinity&oq=schools+of+divi&gs_l=serp.1.0.0l2j0i22i30k1l8.324621.331367.0.333631.29.21.0.0.0.0.202.2509.2j16j1.19.0....0...1.1.64.serp..13.16.2216.6..46j0i67k1j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i46k1j0i20k1.Rw215UWXEXQ

    .. to become "Masters in divinity", .. mediums to divining spirits. But it is not necessary to go to any school to divine for these spirits, anyone can speak on their behalf, as I shown you doing.
    To say that you are an atheist who doesn't believe in any of these gods because they are not real, is ridiculous.

    Why?

    Because the theist themselves admit they are not real, that you have to just believe without asking for evidence. The religion requires that you pretend that the particular god in that religion is real, no different than believing in Peter Pan:



    "I do believe in fairies, .. I do, and that the earth is a spinning ball in a vacuum called space, and that I am an evolving ape, and my ancestors are rats, .. and that if we just cut down enough trees for absolutely no reason, like we do at Christmas time, and chem-trail the hell out of our atmosphere in the name of "Go-Green" we can save the earth!" LOL

    What I am saying is NOT that these gods are not real, .. they are, if you just "believe" in them without seeking any evidence, .. as long as you take them on blind faith.
    God, our Creator on the other hand hates these gods (both idols, fairytale and demonic gods), because it occupies our mind and hearts, it takes mans mind away from reality. This is why in these Last Days all the Movies of Comic-Book Heroes are coming out so rapidly, to KEEP our minds in la-la land, .. or should I say "Gaga land".



    to be continued -
  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    @Coveny You say I’m religious? In the same way, the off is a TV station, in the same way that bald is a hair color, in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, in the same way that abstinence is a sex act, in the same way that unemployment is a job, in the same way that healthy is a disease, and in the same way that barefoot is a type of shoe. Reality does not change to fit what you can understand. Just because you cannot understand living without a god doesn’t mean that I am the same way. Your fantasy does not apply to me, and you don’t even understand the words you use. I believe in no god, I worship no god, therefore I am an atheist, and @Evidence you are a theist because you believe in a god.

    And again you present your religious beliefs, like that that the word "god" must be one of your gods in religion, the Greek gods that you say MUST be accepted on blind faith. Atheists acknowledge that "gods are not real, that they have to be accepted as real without any evidence"   just as theists do. You see why theism/atheism are two sides of the same coin; religion? And yes, if your religion teaches that "bald is a hair color", then that's what you'll have to believe and accept on blind faith.

    @Coveny said: Reality does not change to fit what you can understand.

    That's what @Erfisflat been showing you, that reality will not change to the sci-fi BB-fairytale no one can understand. So how are you handling the Flat Earth reality?

    @Coveny; Just because you cannot understand living without a god doesn’t mean that I am the same way.

    Hey, believe in what you want, religion rules this world. Me, I need evidence, and all evidence points to a Creator, and I know who the Creator is.

    "My fantasy don't apply to you?"   Who is the one who believes that the only gods that can exist are the ones in myths and fairytales? Or that the Earth and the heavens were created by a Religious Priests; "Big-Bang in nothing" story?
    I'm talking about "reality" here.

    @Coveny You want me to debate against bible being logical? ROFL I’m not a theist. Theism makes no sense logical sense. (and that includes your theism)

    What does "theism" has to do with the Bible?
    Religion can take a piece of wood and turn it into one of their gods that they then study in theology, so yes, that's what I have been saying that "theology makes no sense".
    The Bible reveals the Creator, while religion through their theology have taken the Bible and our Creator mentioned in there and by their man-made doctrines made Him out to be just another of their fairytale mythical god/gods.

    @Coveny More of your mystic semantics word play BS. All gods are outside of religion. Gods are created, then religions spring up from them. Take the FSM for example. The god was created, then the religion came into being around it. Scientology created by a book about gods (creating them), which then created a religion. Gods are created by man, then they spread the word, and religion is born. I’m just speaking of religions that you were most likely around during their conception, but they all follow the same model. Word of the god is spread, and religion is formed. When only one person believes, there is no religion. Your creator is the same way. You are not special, your theism is not different, and you are not outside of the box/label just because you don’t want to be boxed and labeled. If more believe the way you do it becomes a religion.

    That's what I've been saying, that the gods in religion were created by man, and then the religion, only I was hoping to open your, and everyone else's eyes to our One and Only Possible Infinite and Eternal Creator-God who can be known through evidence, .. not the created god/gods in religion that the world has been forced to believe in.

    Don't you see that some force has deceived man to believe a lie that; the ONLY gods that can exist are in religion? Which they must accept without questioning, without even seeking any evidence of? This is what you are teaching/preaching, that: "no gods can exist outside of religion"!? Wow, .. really!? And who are you to keep the truth from the people? Like your "Church of snake tongued NASA and 666CERN", forcing their religion on the world by, and through any and all means, secrecy, deception, censorship like that: "the only gods that you are allowed to 'believe' to exist, and worship are in the religions we, skull&bones member of secret societies have created! That; It is a sin to ask for evidence of any of our gods, it shows weakness, and is against our policy of "blind faith" that all religions require, to survive on!

    If I may quote one of JFK's last speeches:

    "Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

    If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent."

    There can be no greater danger than hiding God, AND His Creation like the earth, and especially man, and replacing Him in the minds of men with fake gods which you can't even ask the evidence of, and place our Flat Earth in some imaginary sci-fi fairyland, and make man out to be an animal, an ape, anything sub-human which is the religious ideas you are proselytizing.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Evidence  he's dodging the argument altogether which is disappointing, but not surprising, most devout atheists do. You'd think verifiable evidence of God would convert any atheist.


    Evidence

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Coveny said:

    You are not my friend, to say so is to lie, which is most of what you are doing in this thread. You are just like every other theist on the planet, you just have a different flavor of kool-aid. You have no great understanding, you have nothing but word play and trickery that you use to sound mystic and intelligent. You use that to fool others into believe you have a higher understand than them, your important, and you attempt to recruit disciples to your cause to create the religion you speak so strongly against. This is the nature of theism, it gives simple answers to complex questions, and removes the need for evidence, and proof. (neither of which have you shown any of) Also what you are peddling is not even that different from pantheism, so you are barely even changing the wrappings and trying to act like you’ve created something new or special. (to be fair all theist think their BS is special though) 


    @Coveny Henry Ford created Ford Motor Company, adding the word “real” implies there are others who are attempting to take created for creating Ford Motor Company, and to my knowledge no one has. There is evidence, and proof that Henry Ford created Ford Motor Company, and that isn’t in question. Also, there is no religion that worships Henry Ford for creating a company, so yes you are just babbling about religion again. Tesla created a lot, Edison on the other hand has been shown to have stolen ideas from others and was not the “real” creator. (just like the various imaginary gods who take credit)

    Yes, other so called gods, deities are attempting to take credit in creating the heavens and the earth too, you're right.

    @Coveny Semantics is the discussion of the meaning of words. The more a word covers the more difficult it is to define it. Love covers many things to most people and therefore the meaning is blurry. (even worse than religion) However lying to a woman to get laid isn’t about the definition of love, and the meaning of love isn’t the cause for teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy increases are directly tied to theist teaching abstinence rather than sex education. The science behind this is easily provable. Also I see nothing wrong with sex or “mating season”, I just think it should be don’t responsible and taught based on reality rather than fantasy.

    As I pointed out, the "meaning of love" is most definitely a big part of the 'cause of teen pregnancy'.
    What exactly is the fantasy version of "mating season and getting laid", which for humans can be every day?? I believe you have lost the ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality a long time ago, .. that's if you even had it at all coming from your obvious strict religious indoctrination.

    @Coveny I didn’t say that I don’t like the word “real”. I have no problem with it. I said I find it funny when people with imaginary friends say their imaginary friend is “real” but other people’s imaginary friends aren’t. Would you prefer the word ironic instead?

    Umm, ... how do you see/understand the words: Creator, God, Bible, creation again? You see, you can't even think outside your religious indoctrination (box) to answer this. Creator, God, Bible, creation must remain within your little box of religion and it's indoctrination, where NO god is even allowed to be mentioned outside of that! And yes, the better word for this IS ironic.

    @Coveny As for the false dichotomy of I either believe you or I didn’t read what you wrote. You may not understand that there are other options with your limited world view, but there are. I can read what you wrote, and find it to be utter bulls***, this is a valid third option. And again, god comes before religion, and your preaching to create a religion … that’s not a religion yet is an excellent example of that.

    MY limited world view??
    Tell me again: can you even imagine a Creator outside of your religious indoctrination?  Because I can, and I have.
    Also, a Book teaching us History and the dangers of worshipping gods in religion, and warning against hypocritical religious doctrines does not have to be a religious book. But yes, even a piece of stick can be made into a religious item, and your inability to realize this shows which one of us is the religious one. I bet you believe man landed on the moon too, .. right?

    @Coveny I don’t tell people not to bow down before idols… I’m not a theist. Peddle your BS to someone who’s buying.

    Theists/atheists have been so brainwashed that they can't even tell the difference between religion and reality!?
    If you believe in the BB-Evolution sci-fi fairytale, you are religious. If you are not allowed to accept, or even think about a Creator-God outside of religion, you are religious. If you have been made to believe that humans are animals, apes, not so distant relatives of rats, .. you are religious.

    The very fact that you think I'm selling something shows your religious indoctrination, because religions do sell something, it's all about money and power.
    Did I ask you for money, or to join my church so you can help pay my car, house etc? The only black person I've shown here is Ota Benga who was brought from Africa by the religious Satanist skull&bones worshipping Evolutionists.




    @Coveny You are not my friend, to say so is to lie, which is most of what you are doing in this thread. You are just like every other theist on the planet, you just have a different flavor of kool-aid. You have no great understanding, you have nothing but word play and trickery that you use to sound mystic and intelligent. You use that to fool others into believe you have a higher understand than them, your important, and you attempt to recruit disciples to your cause to create the religion you speak so strongly against. This is the nature of theism, it gives simple answers to complex questions, and removes the need for evidence, and proof. (neither of which have you shown any of) Also what you are peddling is not even that different from pantheism, so you are barely even changing the wrappings and trying to act like you’ve created something new or special. (to be fair all theist think their BS is special though) 


    "This is the nature of theism, it gives simple answers to complex questions, and removes the need for evidence, and proof."   True, but not just theism, but atheism does that too; "trust us, we are scientists assigned by and under the direction of the Pope himself! God did not create the earth, George Lemaitre did with a Big Bang" and Mr. Higgs boson gave the growth, and I the Pope is God.



    time 0:01:38 WHooooshh! I mean this is priceless.
    And again, .. I'm not creating something New, nor is this about any "created-gods", I am just revealing the Creator which should be as obvious to everyone as their nose on their faces. But in a world run by religions, and both history and science interpreted by religious indoctrinations, this seems futile. where even the logic of humans is controlled by religion, so outside of God opening the minds-eye to someone Himself, through His Son by some miracle, this is next to impossible.

    @Coveny As for your example, yes, I see I difference. Zeus (unlike Yahweh) wasn’t an infinite god. Zeus had powers beyond those of man but he wasn’t all knowing or all powerful. This is just another case of you trying to look smart, but really you're just babbling in an attempt to con people.

    I mean come on, stop with me trying to con people already. Look, you allowed yourself to go this far, you peaked out of the box so why stop now?
    Yes, Zeus is a creator, but obviously a created one, right?

    There can only be One Creator, and He has to be "uncreated" correct? Otherwise we have the problem of infinite regress, or we confuse Infinite with infinity. like infinite numbers and such.

    Now what is Infinite?

    In religious science, Infinite does not exist (admitting it does ,would be the end of that religion), just as "nothing" is not nothing anymore, and chaos creates order if you wait long enough, .. and so on. But the true and only logical explanation of Infinite is that it has to exist if we agree anything finite exists, and anything 'finite' has to be in Infinite (all you have to do is some scientific experiments with your mind).

    Infinite is NOT space
    not existence
    not a being
    and since anything finite had to be created, the Only Answer is by Infinite.

    Oh well, see how you guys digest this first? I mean this is milk, shouldn't be hard on anyone.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Evidence
    Well I just opened a book to crazy land. That is a LOT of fluffy with little to no content in it. You continue to play word games and speak around the topic of how your god is different than other gods. You try to change the meaning of theism and atheism to suit your needs, and make the meaning contradictory. I’m not going to address your book of Bulls*** that you wrote dude.

    If you have proof of your god show me. If you have evidence of your god show me. Oh you don’t do you? You require blind faith… just like every other theist on the planet. Why is it you think you blind faith is different from any other blind faith? I have no blind faith, I deal in what can be proven, nothing you have said can be proven, and it’s vague as s***. Stop with the word play BS though. 

    “everything in existence is creation which was created by the uncreated Creator”– You create logical impossibilities… 

    I tell you I’m an atheist and you say I refuse to pick my favorite “deities from the supernatural realm”. Well duh?

    Flat earth “reality”? ROFL man you are nuts. There are so many ways to prove the earth isn’t flat.

    In the same paragraph, you say “What does "theism" has to do with the Bible?” and “The Bible reveals the Creator”. Are you serious? You can’t make that connection? You need that explained to you? ROFL

    I have already stated that god can exist outside of religion. (man, you love to play with the word religion don’t you) I could create a god today, and there would be no religion for that god until I get others to believe. Also there are 3k in gods and 20k+ religions off those gods and you act like you’re a victim who can’t have the religion you want because the others are oppressing you. Ya man we just can’t handle 20,001 religions in the world… it’s just to much. ROFL

    Logical impossibilities: “how do you see/understand the words: Creator, God, Bible, creation again? You see, you can't even think outside your religious indoctrination (box) to answer this. Creator, God, Bible, creation must remain within your little box of religion and its indoctrination, where NO god is even allowed to be mentioned outside of that!” No I can’t define god outside of the definition of god? No I can’t mention god outside of mentioning god. Define your god so that it can’t be applied to other gods, let’s see how good your semantics “truly” are. Just understand religion has NOTHING to do with defining the word god.

    You have a book… I have a LOT of books. One of us has a limited view… 

    Yes, I believe man landed on the moon because there is a lot of proof of it. You obviously don’t care about “proof” though so here’s an article that I think your conspiracy heart might be open to.

    More mystic BS: “If you are not allowed to accept, or even think about a Creator-God outside of religion, you are religious.” So, I’m religious because I don’t think the way you want me to? I’m worshiping not playing golf, am I? ROFL

    As for evolution, obviously there is a TON more proof, but this one is my favorite.

    “Did I ask you for money, or to join my church so you can help pay my car, house etc?” Yes you did… several times.

    Science does not work on the “trust us” method. ROFL So much BS from you…

    No there cannot be only one answer, and that answer is an “uncreated” creator. All you are saying is that your all-powerful god has always existed, and that you cannot believe that dirt has always existed. You are word playing around it, but in your limited view you can’t believe anything but god. You cannot fathom existence without… god. I can, do, and live my life that way. 

    Oh look more semantic word play. You want to talk about infinite and infinity… you define them. How I define them is going to be what Webster, and other dictionaries define them as…

    Let me tell you how I digest this, you are full of s***. You are a theist who wants to be better than other theist, so you try to sound smart, when all you really do is look the opposite. You sound a LOT like Jim Jones and pantheism though, you aren't even original...
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Coveny i destroyed that popsci article, actually read the debate. You had to ask Google why you think you are a monkey on a spinning ball! Rofl @globetards

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @evidence the jigs up, @coveny proved we landed on the moon with his calculator!  This is just too much! Roflmmfao

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Coveny what scientific experiments have you performed to empirically validate any aspect of your belief system? 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Erfisflat name calling, ridicule, dismissal, and I wasn't even talking to you, @Evidence it looks like you DO have a religion after all...

    Erfisflat said:
    @Coveny i destroyed that popsci article, actually read the debate. You had to ask Google why you think you are a monkey on a spinning ball! Rofl @globetards
    Ctrl F erfisflat - Nope no previous responses to an article I posted. So you are a liar. (this is my shocked face) You haven't "destroyed" anything, you haven't even spoken against my article, you just make s*** up and expect people not to call you out on it trum...  erfisflat. I'm not buying the BS you are selling...

    Erfisflat said:
    @Coveny what scientific experiments have you performed to empirically validate any aspect of your belief system? 
    And it seems you also follow @Evidence complete disregard for the meaning of words. Atheists don't have belief systems, they don't have religion, they don't have gods, and they don't need to believe in anything, much less have a system or structure for that lack of belief. It is a lack of believe in any god that makes a person an athiest. This should not be a difficult concept to understand.

    Look evolution has been proven 9 ways to sunday, if you deny it, you are just being hardheaded. The moon landing happened, the idea that the entire world (which includes nations that hate us) would help in the coverup is ridiculous to begin with, but there is crap left on the moon that can be seen from Earth. Round earth has been proven so many times it's sad that people still buy that BS, but there are things you can do to test it yourself. But instead of going with logic, reason, and evidence you go with BS mysticism, while looking down on other BS mysticism, and I find that hilarious. You are both completely full of s***.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 6 Premium Member
    @Coveny
    I see you haven't bothered to even read my debate, or you would know who is the liar. If you'd like, I can copy it here, but you probably wouldn't understand your own model, let alone mine. It's all there, most here will agree. Tell you what, ask Google to pick your favorite for you.


    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    You didn't post it to THIS debate, just how egotistical are you? Dude I'm not going to look through every post you've ever made. If you say you destroyed my article, do it in THIS thread, or (and this is a CRAZY idea) link something... 

    You are a LIAR...


    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Covent belief system 


    faith based on a series of beliefs but notformalized into a religion; also, a fixedcoherent set of beliefs prevalent in acommunity or society

    Nothing about your belief system is empirically verifiable. So you are accepting words that men wrote as infallible fact. You believe you're a monkey on a spinning ball because you were taught so. If you have verifiable evidence, present it.

    "there is crap left on the moon that can be seen from Earth."

    Example. Have you seen this yourself? 

    "Round earth has been proven so many times"

    Not on the earth is flat debate,  and certainly not here, or when you were confronted about it. Your belief system is based on pseudoscience, and since you dodged my last question, (ultimately all of them) you may or may not realize your ignorance. Do you know what the scientific method is? 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Erfisflat a "believe" system by nature isn't empirically verifiable... that's why it's a belief system. Did you and Evidence just tap out so you could cycle the crazy around?

    Science isn't "infallible", science has proven itself wrong many times as our knowledge of the universe grows. 

    Ah the "you must know everything yourself, or you just have faith" angle. Not how that works, I don't have to burn myself to know a stove is hot. Science has checks and peer review that do the verification for me. It's not possible to know all the knowledge accumulated by mankind, but it is a higher likelihood of being correct than some random person's opinion. This is where credibility  and reputability come into play. People like you believe that your opinion holds the same weight as science, and nothing could be further from the truth. The scientific method is a way to get past opinion, and become objective about measuring and understanding the universe we live in. It's a way to say I don't believe you unless I can reproduce your results. It's a way for others to look at the methods you used and nitpick them apart if they do NOT take bias out of the equation, and it's a process that continues to get better and be refined to this day. Science doesn't have all the answers, science doesn't lie and say it's never wrong, but you also never see a theist come along and overturn science... another scientist has to do that. 

    Now as for your questions. No I have not seen the stuff that's on the moon, I don't have an interest in it. I have however seen that the earth is round. This isn't a debate about the moon, or a flat earth though is it? You are just wandering around on topics because you have nothing but fluffy when it comes to theism vs atheism. 
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @Evidence
    Well I just opened a book to crazy land. That is a LOT of fluffy with little to no content in it. You continue to play word games and speak around the topic of how your god is different than other gods. You try to change the meaning of theism and atheism to suit your needs, and make the meaning contradictory. I’m not going to address your book of Bulls*** that you wrote dude.
    ...
    @Coveny Well I just opened a book to crazy land. That is a LOT of fluffy with little to no content in it. You continue to play word games and speak around the topic of how your god is different than other gods. You try to change the meaning of theism and atheism to suit your needs, and make the meaning contradictory. I’m not going to address your book of Bulls*** that you wrote dude.

    So you don't want to even address my views, .. why? Because you don't want me to look silly by proving me wrong? Aahh.. you're sooo nice, thanks!

    @Coveny If you have proof of your god show me. If you have evidence of your god show me. Oh you don’t do you? You require blind faith… just like every other theist on the planet. Why is it you think you blind faith is different from any other blind faith? I have no blind faith, I deal in what can be proven, nothing you have said can be proven, and it’s vague as s***. Stop with the word play BS though.

    I have tried theists, like Christians, and I have tried atheists, and both sides respond the same indoctrinated way, so I didn't expect any different from you. I have given you the proof, but what you don't see just how deeply indoctrinated you are. I mean you just laughed at me for questioning you if you believe in the moon landing or not, .. I mean that's FIRST thing that people wake up to because, like most of us, we never took another look, we just accepted this huge hoax. Never giving it a second thought who were the ones that created the hoax? It was the Nazi scientist who just got off the plane from torturing Jewish twins in the concentration camps in Germany.

    I mean just look at what ideology/belief system governs these high Priests/Priestesses at 666CERN




    and this is how they worship their gods/goddesses:



    So if the plethora of evidence that @Erfisflat provided on the flat earth hasn't convinced you, buddy the LAST thing your MK-Ultra'd brain would, or even could accept is evidence of our Creator. So not only are you in a box, but in a box that's in a box, a religious atheist. It would take a lifetime to unpack you from all the indoctrinations.
    And then (just like some of my friends I talked to), even after they got convinced, they jumped back in the box They don't even want to talk about having been out of the box. Maybe you guys just feel safer there, .. I don't know!?

    @Coveny Logical impossibilities: “how do you see/understand the words: Creator, God, Bible, creation again? You see, you can't even think outside your religious indoctrination (box) to answer this. Creator, God, Bible, creation must remain within your little box of religion and its indoctrination, where NO god is even allowed to be mentioned outside of that!” No I can’t define god outside of the definition of god? No I can’t mention god outside of mentioning god. Define your god so that it can’t be applied to other gods, let’s see how good your semantics “truly” are. Just understand religion has NOTHING to do with defining the word god.

    I said that as soon as I mention Creator-God, Creation, Bible, .. people have been taught to associate these words with "religion", which is what you've been doing. So I said; you cannot even see these words outside of "religion", .. do you understand now?

    You know why that is? Because we've been trained, .. programmed to think that way, to associate words with false, or deceptive definitions, to place them certain unrelated categories, so we would never find our One True Infinite Creator.

    Why?

    Because look how many BILLIONS of dollars these religious worshippers of Shiva make like NASA and CERN, who call themselves atheists, .. and look how much the other side of the coin make, the theists!
    Religion is money, so they hide God from everyone, and give them one ultimatum, if people want God, they can choose from their religions, where they have tens of thousands of them. Where they have a god/goddess for both theists and atheist Like CERN's Shiva, the prancing god/goddess of Quantum Physics.

    @Coveny As for evolution, obviously there is a TON more proof, but this one is my favorite.


    Oh man @Erfisflat this evidence of evolution is almost as good, if not better than NASA's "Blue Marble" photo of earth!?
    Right there before our very eyes, viruses turn into tadpoles, then to lizards, then get out of the primordial soup, grow legs, lungs, hands and climb a banana tree, and now some of them evolved into monkeys, .. and, .. and, .. wait, That's It? Where do they speciate into humans?

    WOW, this is proof of evolution, and playing with water droplets in the ISS Zero-G Plane is proof of space. This is really sad. What's even worse is that this probably cost us taxpayers a billion dollars! I mean hey, viruses are hard to come by these days, .. with the economy so bad you know!

    @Coveny No there cannot be only one answer, and that answer is an “uncreated” creator. All you are saying is that your all-powerful god has always existed, and that you cannot believe that dirt has always existed. You are word playing around it, but in your limited view you can’t believe anything but god. You cannot fathom existence without… god. I can, do, and live my life that way.


    Yes, there CAN ONLY BE ONE ANSWER, that "Infinite is conscious" as in "I Am"

    Dirt was created, Intelligently Designed by God.
    God is not 'existence', existence is his creation.
    God is not a being, the best I heard anyone describe Him is Paul Tillich, "God is not a being, but the ground of being", when I read this, I was elated, I knew exactly where he was coming from, and what he meant by it. Oh I wished that Paul was still alive, so we could have shared our ideas!?
    Our mind, that spirit in us is of, and is God.
    No, we are not God, but children of God. That spirit, that breath that God breathed into Adam is of God and is God, but in this body, the spirit becomes a complete individual, with it's own free will.
    Our mind is as Infinite as God is, and as God, there is nothing impossible for us, and since our mind is Infinite, we never run out of space for our imagination.. well yeah, our mind is of God.
    As I understand from the Bible, this spirit will remain an individual with, or without a body, like Gods Holy Spirit. But God already prepared a better model of a body for us, one that will never get old, so be wise and choose wisely where you will spend eternity with your New-body!

    Those that chose other gods, like the Big-Bang-god as their Creator, God has prepared just the place for them; "in outer darkness" and here they can wait for a Big-Bang to create them a place they can live, but from what I understand from science, thing just don't pop-out of darkness and evolve. We have to have something to create from too so what we didn't create, God must have, we sure didn't!

    Look at the war Satan, and now those who took sides with Satan fight, trying to "be like the Most High" hoping to capture mans soul/mind, record it on disk/memory stick and put it in a robot, so they could escape Gods Judgement and live eternally, .. LOL





    there are a lot of movies with this ideology
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 6 Premium Member
    @Coveny ;
    "a "believe" system by nature isn't empirircally verifiable... that's why it's a belief system. "

    Right, which is why you have a belief system. Big bangism and evolution are not empirically verifiable, if they were,  then we can call them facts. You know this
    "Science isn't "infallible","
    yet you consider your belief system fact, because "Science has checks and peer review that do the verification for me" lol! In other words, your belief system that is based purely on pseudoscience is dependable because other pseudoscientist agree.

    My belief system has empirically verifiable evidence. I know the earth is flat, because I have verified this myself. Literally anyone can, no opinion needed. 

    "I have however seen that the earth is round"

    Please share this anecdotal evidence. I'll share verifiable evidence against it. So far all I've seen is a few nuh-uhs and but, but muh science book! 

    "This isn't a debate about the moon, or a flat earth though is it?"

    That is the basis of your belief system. If the earth is flat and geocentric, that means someone put it here. Then, your pseudoscientific belief system is disproved. Still waiting. Prove that ball earth. 
    Evidence

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Erfisflat the big bang and evolution are empirically verifiable, you have no clue what you are talking about.

    Fact is an interesting term, and although I probably shouldn't open up a semantics debate with you I'm going to do it anyway. The only fact is that I exist, everything else is just higher levels of likelihood. At some point the likelihood of something becomes so high we consider it a fact. The evolution is a fact on that scale, while the big bang isn't. There are a few other plausible theories, as well as "holes" in the big bang theory, but it's the most likely of what we currently know.

    Now you are calling science pseudoscience. Let's how how pseudoscience is defined:
    Dictionary - any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance,considered as having no scientific basis.
    Webster - a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
    Oxford - A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
    Free Dictionary - A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.

    So it is logically impossible for science to be pseudoscience, and again you are using words you don't know the meaning of.

    This is a debate about if atheism is better than theism, not a debate to convert atheists to theism. You want to create a "The earth is flat" debate and tag me in it I'll dance with ya, but that's not what this debate is about. 
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Evidence I don’t have a god, so I can’t tell you how my god is different from other gods. I’m not playing word games, or speaking around anything, you are confusing me… with yourself. 

    My meaning of theism and atheism have them as opposites one believes in god one does not. There is no contradiction in my definitions. Again you are confusing me – with yourself.

    I have stated my side, you have done nothing to prove me wrong. You talk in circle about gods who aren’t gods. How everything was created, but not everything was created. And many other logical impossibilities. You have repeatedly used words wrong. 

    More mystic crap I’m going to ignore.

    More on the moon landing. Nazi scientist… that’s rich, because it makes sense that everyone would agree to a HUGE hoax created by a Nazi.

    I see god outside of religion, you are the one who seems to completely ignore that possibility. I don’t just “see” outside of religion I LIVE outside of religion. I live outside of gods. Sadly, you can’t conceive that. You can’t imagine a world where there isn’t a creator, but you keep calling me indoctrinate as you quote the yehweh’s bible and make fun of people who worship yehweh in ways that are different than you. And you again refuse to define yehweh without using religion. (your favorite word play)

    So we are back to you believing in god, calling yourself an atheist, while you call atheist theist, and completely misuse words. Look I’ll say this again, define god in such a way that it’s logically possible for there to be god and not be god. Because thus far the closest you’ve gotten to is it’s not god if it has a religion, but then you use the same word to define gods that have religions associated with them. This is a logical impossibility even if you get to use your blurry word of relgion.

    NASA is a god? I mean NASA is pretty good, and they have sacrificed a few human, but really that’s what you are going with? Again NASA is run by humans, so by your definite all I need do is work at NASA to become a GOD!!!!! ROFL, your logic is SO bad… 

    Yes that’s proof of evolution, it’s literally happening before your eyes and you deny it. How well you have been programed, your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing the truth and facts. 

    How is it that you MUST have a creator for dirt, but there is no need for a creator of the most power, most complex, and most intelligent entity? Really man… dirt wins, look outside your box.

    You didn’t read the bible very, well did you? Angels do not have free will, and satan is on yahweh’s orders. Free will is a give given only to humans. Yahweh created evil and darkness. I’m taught a lot of theists about their religions in this thread, have a seat, you can be next. 
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @coveny  "A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method."

    Is the definition I look at. But we can disect that even more. Science has swayed from the scientific method, which can be defined as:
    a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    That is Natural science, which is the core of science. Something that is scalable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable, practical and demonstrable. 

    Formal sciences, like string theory, mathematics, logic, big bangism, etc. Are different because they require no empirical data, experimentation, or verification (pseudoscience). The numbers will add up regardless how many false axioms are used. Natural science precedes formal science for obvious reasons.

    I have shown, and I'm repeating myself because you keep dodging, with natural science, that the earth is flat. This inheritantly disproves evolution and big bangism, and any atheistic pseudoscience, which depends on heliocentrism, the false, assumed axiom th a props up your whole belief system. This makes us special. 

    "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla


    Evidence

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Erfisflat you define scientific method as:
    "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

    Let's see how that lines up:
    Dictionary - a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested
    Webster - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
    Oxford - A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
    Free Dictionary - The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to test the hypothesis, and development of a conclusion that confirms, rejects, or modifies the hypothesis.

    Ok so you are going with Oxford's definition, and rather than focusing on how the definition is the same as others, you are focusing on the "natural science" part, and contrasting it to what you are calling "formal science". Let's have a look at nature science then

    Dictionary - a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature, as biology or physics, as distinguished from the abstract or theoretical sciences, as mathematics or philosophy.
    Webster - any of the sciences (such as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena
    Oxford - A branch of science which deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology.
    Free Dictionary - A science, such as biology, chemistry, or physics, that deals with the objects, phenomena, or laws of nature and the physical world.

    So "natural science" just means science that deals with the physical world, and "formal sciences" deal with logic, mathematics, statistic. I'm more use to the older terms of hard and soft science, but ok. I'll even give you that natural science is the "core" of science.

    So basically you are going back to the axiom that the soft sciences are not "real" science, I haven't had that debate in many years, but yes math is a science. You can observe it, measure it, and experiment with it. Also you can not measure hard sciences without the soft science of math, and computers. 

    So I guess I'm going to talk about hard science that proves the earth is round.
    The physics of time zones and it being daytime and nighttime somewhere in the world all the time. 
    The physics of coriolis effect is different in the northern and southern hemispheres. 
    The sun gets lower in the sky as you travel away from the equator
    The stars change as you move around the globe, physically that's not how a flat surface works
    The horizon covers the bottom of buildings first moving up, indicating the earth is in the way

    While I have a lot of respect for Tesla, he wasn't right about everything, and made some wild claims. 
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 7 Premium Member
    "The physics of time zones and it being daytime and nighttime somewhere in the world all the time. "

    Globe earth proponents love the hundreds year old theoretical instances of so called proof. They cling to them like a story in the Bible. Errortosthanes was, quite frankly, an idiot. He also thought the earth was a ball (circumnavigation) because he'd seen elephants in the east (Indian) and again in the west (African). His experiment relies solely on a false premise. The distance to the sun. A close small sun will produce the same exact results over a flat surface. It's the very same proof as time zones.


    We can prove that the sun is close and small by simply looking up on any cloudy day.



    So again, the false premise is " the sun is so far away that it's rays are parallel when they reach the Earth" and this is only possible on a globe earth " If you think those rays are parallel, then you probably failed geometry.


    "The physics of coriolis effect is different in the northern and southern hemispheres. "

    Please ellaborate, there are different arguments against each example. Either way it's a red herring, this is not measuring the earth. 

    "The sun gets lower in the sky as you travel away from the equator"

    This is the law of perspective. As the tracks appear to converge, the telephone poles get lower too. Also a red herring, this is not measuring the earth.

    "The stars change as you move around the globe, physically that's not how a flat surface works"

    Same thing, the stars are close. Identical results can be found with my model. Definitely not measuring the earth. 

    "The horizon covers the bottom of buildings first moving up, indicating the earth is in the way" 

    Measuring the earth, but nothing specific here, no examples or measurements. 

    Ok, you at least tried. I'll give you that. Here's a copy paste from my debate. 

    With the curvature calculator found here:
    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

     you can see that an observer at 1000 feet looking at an item 163 miles away would find that object 10,631 feet below the horizon. This would place the peak of Canigou well over 1000 feet below the horizon however not only it, but other peaks near it are clearly seen. In the videos below you will see several, sometimes 6 or 7 noticeable and very clear distinct mountain peaks. Even peaks 4000 feet high can be seen and this peak should be over a mile below the horizon.



    http://canigou.allauch.free.fr/index.html

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 7 Premium Member
    "math is a science. You can observe it, measure it, and experiment with it."

    Math is a tool. You can't empirically observe it or measure it. You can use it to do these things, but as I explained, if there is empirical evidence against a theory supported entirely by mathematics, or against one of it's core axioms, this makes it a theory based on at least one arguably false assumption. You want to base your belief system on conjecture and assumptions? Sure, it all looks very nice on the drawing board, but how much of it is reality?



    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • SylynnSylynn 66 Pts
    I see I'm a bit late to this party, and rather than trying to respond to the wall of positions, I'll just lay out my own.

    "Better" is a subjective term. What does it mean to be "better"? If you're looking for hope that something after this life exists, sure religion is "better". If you can't figure out how to give your own life meaning and need someone else to do it for you (what I would call meaningless meaning), sure religion is better. However, if you're looking to find out what's true and care about believing more true things than those that are not true, skepticism is the way to go. Atheism is simply a position. It's a lack of belief because there isn't sufficient evidence to support the existence of a god - not something that can be better or worse. Are you convinced there is a god? Religion is better for you. Are you not convinced there is a god? I can't really say atheism is "better" for you, because if you're not convinced a god exists, you are an atheist. Whether you're a theist or atheist is not a choice. You can't choose what you believe. You can only be convinced or not convinced of a position. If you are convinced there is a god, you can than take the next step of choosing your religion (not much of a "choice" either since you'll naturally go with the one that matches the god you're convinced of).

    All that said, the premise is flawed. A better question would be, "Religion or Secular Humanism, which is better?" Religion has created a civilization in which people aren't capable of finding purpose or meaning for their own lives. It has created the need for people to find hope in things that can't be verified. It has created a people who believe they can't be moral creatures unless someone tells them certain things are wrong.

    Secular humanism however, adopts the idea of being moral for the good of humanity. What helps humanity flourish? Not sure if something would be good for your fellow man? Is it something you think would be good for you? We care about what's moral because it's right, not because someone told us it is. It's for the same reason when we teach our children what's good and bad, it's even more important to teach them why it's good or bad. Secular humanism decides what's moral based on reality, not the whims of a deity. 

    If I might keep my amended premise, "Religion or Secular Humanism, which is better?" - I must answer secular humanism all the way.
    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    1) Time zones. I talk about time zones and you respond with shadows. If there was a “small close sun" then a flat surfaces would not have time zones, and one area wouldn’t be in darkness while another area is in sun. To use your figures 2a has sun at all parts, but 2b does not have sun on the back side.

    2) Coriolis effect. If the earth is flat why is there a difference between the northern and southern hemispheres? 

    3) Sun’s height. To go back to your figure in 2a the sun’s height wouldn’t ever be “low” on the horizon, while in 2b it would. This isn’t justified by the law of perspective.

    4) Stars move. No your model does not account for stars flipping, or not being able to see them from different locations on a flat planet. Measures the earth

    5) Horizon covers bottom first. If the earth is flat the bottom of objects in the distance should just fad away, they shouldn’t disappear bottom first. This only works if the earth is round.

    You refuted NONE of my points.

    Your link is dead, but it doesn’t matter, you set the “rules” to prove the earth is flat without the use of math because you see math as a soft science… oh wait you don’t see math as a science at all. Pfft. You can “observe” addition, subtraction, division, etc and you can measure them as well. Math IS a science. If math is a “false assumption” then how can it be a “tool”? You contradict yourself… so much. 




    I still don’t have a “belief system” regardless of how many times you say it. 
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 8 Premium Member
    @Coveny

    1. Despite what you think, light does not travel infinitely far. A small close sun lights locally. 



    At night, the sun is just a few thousand miles away hidden by that much atmosphere . 

    2. Coriolis effect. I know what it is, please give a practical example. There are different explanations for each. For example the drain example is false altogether. 


    3.Sun’s height
    Yes, the law of perspective causes the sun to appear lower in the sky. Atmospheric refraction causes sunsets. The sun is magnified and lowered. Talk about intelligent design. 



    4. Stars are not trillions of miles away. They along with everything else in the world follows the law of perspective. They just go far enough away that they disappear. The laws of perspective are commonly known aspect of human perception. As far as stars "flipping", please elaborate on that. Are you claiming that north and south change positions? Or that, because the south faces north to see a constellation that a northerner would face south to see, that instead of those observers obviously facing each other on a flat plane, seeing a constellation between them from opposite angles, that this positively implies that one or the other is hanging from his toes? Come now. Maybe you do have an ape-brain ancestor or two.

    5. Horizon covers bottom first.

    Again, you give no examples. You do realize that I'm in no way claiming that the Earth is perfectly mathematically flat right? I do believe in hills and trees. There is also a thing called refraction.

    "Your link is dead" it's fixed now. It is an automatic calculator that tells you how much curvature there should be over a given distance from any given altitude. I did not make a rule disallowing math. I spoke against math as a science.

    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics

    You're making up an excuse so that can dismiss my evidence. There it stands, undisputed, empirical evidence that water is flat, as common sense tells us all, over 150 miles, while you point at the sky.
    Evidence

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ImbsterImbster 77 Pts
    @Erfisflat @Coveny
    You can't dictate and predict every atheist's belief system.

    atheism is a religion debate reference
    You can't just place Darwin as the god of atheism for evolution and all.

    Somewhere yes an atheist has a belief system that he may not even be aware of! But with religion they have a highly recognised belief system they commit to and devote to. Atheism is a wild ride for some people. They just realise one thing and they're atheist not giving it further thought unless someone challenges them they begin to come back to religion again. I mean given enough logic math is a religion.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 8 Premium Member
    @Imbster said: @Erfisflat @Coveny You can't dictate and predict every atheist's belief system.

    Im generalizing atheists based on majority consensus. 

    atheism is a religion debate reference

    ?

    "You can't just place Darwin as the god of atheism for evolution and all."

    Im not, the atheist's God is gravity. It created us all, in the magical creating explosion, again, I'm generalizing the atheist's belief system. 


    " somewhere  yes an atheist has a belief system that he may not even be aware of! "

    But with religion they have a highly recognised belief system they commit to and devote to.

    I agree totally. Gravity is a lie, how do you feel about that? I'm not religious, I don't feel that theism=religion. I know the earth is flat and based on that information, coupled with the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence that supports the firmament, I can assume, at the very least, the creation story, over theoretical physicists, a joke to the scientific method.

    " Atheism is a wild ride for some people. They just realise one thing and they're atheist not giving it further thought unless someone challenges them they begin to come back to religion again."

    I don't even read the Bible. Even if it contains the more credible origin story, it is still a book. It being such a widely pushed book, another sign of indoctrination, I can't fully accept it as infallible. @evidence has an interesting thought process that I'm still taking in. Either way, I know we are special. 

    " I mean given enough logic math is a religion. "

    Or a belief system created from mathematics. 
    Sylynn

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ImbsterImbster 77 Pts
    @Erfisflat

    I seem interested with evidence's new found thoughts.
    Anyway major emphasis on the atheism is a wild ride for some, I'm simply pointing out some people become atheists because they realize or read one thing and when they are seemingly pulverised by just that one thing that triggers them to be atheist they revert. I mean I don't blame they if they take the first step but maybe take more steps. Upon taking up atheism it is highly suggested to look over the many topics...
    though I as an atheist find nothing interesting yet with Charles Darwin having not finished yet my formal education.
  • SonofasonSonofason 53 Pts
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflat

    I seem interested with evidence's new found thoughts.
    Anyway major emphasis on the atheism is a wild ride for some, I'm simply pointing out some people become atheists because they realize or read one thing and when they are seemingly pulverised by just that one thing that triggers them to be atheist they revert. I mean I don't blame they if they take the first step but maybe take more steps. Upon taking up atheism it is highly suggested to look over the many topics...
    though I as an atheist find nothing interesting yet with Charles Darwin having not finished yet my formal education.
    @Evidence is a very interesting individual, I brought him over from DDO because he was the only person who had courage enough to publicly admit that he saw the flat earth. I had a few private flat earthers conversing with me, and some people just disappeared . Evidence knows the Bible and he's anti religious. If the whole world can be brainwashed into believing they're apes on a spinning ball going around the sun just by hijacking the education system, religions could just as easily be hijacked. I know the earth is flat, this means this is propaganda :


    The great deception. 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • SylynnSylynn 66 Pts
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    It's funny you provide your own definition to the word, "a person who believes there is no God." and then provide a link with the correct definition:

    "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"

    "But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists."
    Sure, but to that extent it would be disingenuous to suggest Christianity doesn't include the Westboro Christians that believe strongly that "god hates fags". 
    Yes, there are those who take their position a step further and want to make a claim that no god exists, but with regards to the actual definition of atheism (the one you linked, not the one you tried to pass off as the definition), it's simply a lack of belief. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 53 Pts
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    It's funny you provide your own definition to the word, "a person who believes there is no God." and then provide a link with the correct definition:

    "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"

    "But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists."
    Sure, but to that extent it would be disingenuous to suggest Christianity doesn't include the Westboro Christians that believe strongly that "god hates fags". 
    Yes, there are those who take their position a step further and want to make a claim that no god exists, but with regards to the actual definition of atheism (the one you linked, not the one you tried to pass off as the definition), it's simply a lack of belief. 
    I do not usually create my own words.  The definition I used for the word atheist is found in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.  You may need to scroll down to see the definition.  I will AGAIN provide the link:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Perhaps you are being disingenuous.  The definition is there for you to see.  I didn't create anything.  The problem is you left the page after you saw the first definition, without doing any further searching...scroll down and you will see the definition I provided, a perfectly legitimate definition for atheism.

    Here is an excerpt:

    ATHEIST Defined for English Language Learners

    atheist

    play

    Definition of atheist for English Language Learners

    • : a person who believes that God does not exist   <------------------------------------------------------------------------


    ATHEIST Defined for Kids

    atheist

    play
    noun  athe·ist \ˈā-thē-ist\

    Definition of atheist for Students

    1. :  a person who believes there is no God <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • SylynnSylynn 66 Pts
    No, I left the page after reading the only definition listed. The excerpt below written in paragraph form is their way of explaining the difference between an agnostic and atheist (two entirely different terms). The usage of atheist does not fit the context of their own definition and I would point that out as a flaw on their site. I would also believe that paragraph is more to explain the difference, with atheism focusing on belief whereas agnosticism is about knowledge. 

    I think it would be wise to introduce agnosticism to the conversation, because in order for someone to claim there is no god, they would have to be a gnostic atheist. Most atheists however, identify as agnostic atheists, meaning we do not believe in god, nor do we know if a god could even exist. 

    Like I pointed out in comparing Westboro. It's disingenuous to assume something is true of all atheists because of the words of a subset of us. Even Dawkins (someone to be considered a militant atheist) has said it's impossible to know if a god exists. 

    I understand the common use of the word - the usage in which most of us identify as - doesn't fit your personal agenda against us, but I can't help that. I know you have a narrative you're trying to stick to, but it only works on a minority of us. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    1) Time Zones – We’ve all seen lights fade away because the light source is too far away. I’ve never seen the sun “fade”, or look like a pin prick in the distance of darkness. Distance does not account for time zones.

    2) Coriolis effect – Again if we live on a flat disk WHY is it different on different places on the disk?

    3) Sun’s height – If the sun moves around on one side of this flat disk of yours it wouldn’t be lower in the sky all the time in certain parts of the world. Also, it stays directly above the center line of the planet. Law of perspective doesn’t work. Planes fades away at around 8 miles when it’s above us, we see none of the stuff you are indicating with them. Also even if everything you say is correct how is that “intelligent design”? It’s sounds like HORRIBLE design.

    4) Star move – Again the law of perspective does not make objects flip. Also if they stars are closer and smaller then they would fade if they moved away per the law of perspective. Stars don’t fade away. You make no sense.

    5) Horizon covers bottom first – I have given the example of a building were you can’t see the bottom, here is an example of a boat.

    As far as math being a science your article doesn’t disprove this to be true, it state’s “the answer depends on one’s philosophical views on the nature of mathematics”. I found an interesting article on the topic. 
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Just as a “for the record” being an atheist has NOTHING to do with thinking the big bang theory is true. These are separate concepts. An atheist can agree or disagree with the big bang theory and it makes no difference to his status as an atheist. The same is true of gravity, round earth, the moon landing, or whatever. This is why I stated earlier these topics are off the main topic of this debate.

    An atheist could be religious about money, or whatever, but an atheist can believe Darwin is god, as soon as they believe anything, or anyone is god, by definition, they quit being an atheist. This makes the phrase “The atheist god Darwin” a logical impossibility. (one of many that are being made in this thread)
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    I say "atheism is a lack of a belief in god" and you say it's disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists. Yes it's a well known fact that SOME words have many meanings others do not. Atheism and theism have very little blurriness of their definitions. As far as the strength of their believe or lack there of it has nothing to do with atheism or theism, that would agnostic and gnostic. It's a scale at that point.

    https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-98a62661b40389de41d38fa569335066 ;
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 53 Pts
    Sylynn said:
    No, I left the page after reading the only definition listed. The excerpt below written in paragraph form is their way of explaining the difference between an agnostic and atheist (two entirely different terms). The usage of atheist does not fit the context of their own definition and I would point that out as a flaw on their site. I would also believe that paragraph is more to explain the difference, with atheism focusing on belief whereas agnosticism is about knowledge. 

    I think it would be wise to introduce agnosticism to the conversation, because in order for someone to claim there is no god, they would have to be a gnostic atheist. Most atheists however, identify as agnostic atheists, meaning we do not believe in god, nor do we know if a god could even exist. 

    Like I pointed out in comparing Westboro. It's disingenuous to assume something is true of all atheists because of the words of a subset of us. Even Dawkins (someone to be considered a militant atheist) has said it's impossible to know if a god exists. 

    I understand the common use of the word - the usage in which most of us identify as - doesn't fit your personal agenda against us, but I can't help that. I know you have a narrative you're trying to stick to, but it only works on a minority of us. 
    I'm sorry, but you have already admitted that there are atheists you identify themselves according to the definition that I provided.  Shades of gray my friend, shades of gray.
  • SonofasonSonofason 53 Pts
    Coveny said:
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    I say "atheism is a lack of a belief in god" and you say it's disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists. Yes it's a well known fact that SOME words have many meanings others do not. Atheism and theism have very little blurriness of their definitions. As far as the strength of their believe or lack there of it has nothing to do with atheism or theism, that would agnostic and gnostic. It's a scale at that point.

    https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-98a62661b40389de41d38fa569335066 ;
    What you say is true, but atheism also includes the belief that no God exists.  There are no gnostic atheists, because it is impossible to know that there is no God.  From my perspective, gnostic vs. agnostic has nothing to do with degrees.  You either know something is true, or you do not.  There are no degrees of knowing.  If a supposed gnostic Christian were to find out that no god actually exists, could you still consider his former position of knowledge about god to be gnostic?  I don't think so.  We can be wrong about what we think we are, but we cannot know that which cannot be known.  Surely we can be agnostic with regard to many ideas or concepts, but once we know the truth, if it is indeed the truth, we are truly gnostic.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Sonofason agnostic and gnostic are opposite ends of the level of certainty. Certainty is a scale however. It is possible to mostly think god exists or to mostly think god doesn't exist. And yes you can go from being a gnostic to agnostic or vice versa, and this has nothing to do with absolute truths, this has to do with what the individual things is true. Again though this has nothing to do with atheism and theism, you either believe in god or your don't, your level of certainty does not change that classification. If you just barely believe god exists you are a theist, if you don't then you're an atheist. 
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 53 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason agnostic and gnostic are opposite ends of the level of certainty. Certainty is a scale however. It is possible to mostly think god exists or to mostly think god doesn't exist. And yes you can go from being a gnostic to agnostic or vice versa, and this has nothing to do with absolute truths, this has to do with what the individual things is true. Again though this has nothing to do with atheism and theism, you either believe in god or your don't, your level of certainty does not change that classification. If you just barely believe god exists you are a theist, if you don't then you're an atheist. 
    I will disagree.  But I have no problems with you thinking of it as you do.  It is my perception that knowledge must be true, and I personally associate gnostic with truth knowing.  

    Consider the word gnosticism as defined by Wikipedia:
    Gnosticism: (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge".

    Consider the definition of knowledge as defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
    Knowledge: the sum of what is known :  the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind.

    Obviously, from this definition we can see that knowledge is made up of either three components (i.e. truth, information, and principles), or quite possibly one component represented by three different words, (truth, information and principles)

    I will contend that the three are one.  Information must also be truth for it to be considered "true" information.  If it is not true information, it is disinformation, and disinformation is not information, but rather false information, which in all honestly cannot, by any reasonable account, be considered actual information.

    For information to be considered anything resembling knowledge, it must be true information.  And information is defined as "facts provided or learned about something or someone."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=information+def

    Principles are defined as "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=principles+def

    We can't get around the fact that knowledge must be true in order for it to be considered knowledge...on to my example.

    Expressions of knowledge
    I say, "I know that 2+2=4"
    John Doe responds, "yes, you're right, and I agree"

    Here we have an example of two people who know that 2+2=4.  This information is knowledge because it is true.

    Expression lacking knowledge
    I say, "I know that 2+2=5"
    John Doe responds, "no sonofason, you cannot "know" that 2+2=5 because 2+2 is not=5, because 2+2=4.

    Here I am displaying a lack of knowledge, which cannot be considered knowledge because knowledge must be true.
    John Doe is displaying knowledge because his response is entirely true.  
  • SonofasonSonofason 53 Pts
    All knowledge is true.  If it is not true, it is not knowledge.
    If you think you know something is true, but what you "think" is not true, you cannot know that it is true.  You can only think you know, and that is not knowledge and therefore not gnostic.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Sonofason your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is only one thing that I know to be true. I existed, as with science everything else is about how likely it is to be true. Absolute truth of an object is impossible, and even if it exists the semantics around being able to communicate that truth are nearly impossible. 

    You can think a false to be true, and be gnostic about it. It has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the situation or even the mostly likely truth based on measurable, objective, peer reviewed research on the topic. Gnostic and agnostic are concepts at the end of the christianity spectrum that few ever reach. Most people aren't completely uncertain or completely certain about anything. That's why it's a scale.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 53 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is only one thing that I know to be true. I existed, as with science everything else is about how likely it is to be true. Absolute truth of an object is impossible, and even if it exists the semantics around being able to communicate that truth are nearly impossible. 

    You can think a false to be true, and be gnostic about it. It has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the situation or even the mostly likely truth based on measurable, objective, peer reviewed research on the topic. Gnostic and agnostic are concepts at the end of the christianity spectrum that few ever reach. Most people aren't completely uncertain or completely certain about anything. That's why it's a scale.
    As I said, I am willing to accept your scale, but I assure you 2+2=4.  There are absolute truths, and if you know those truths, you have certain knowledge, or knowledge that is certainly knowledge.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 9 Premium Member

    @Coveny
    "Time Zones – We’ve all seen lights fade away because the light source is too far away. I’ve never seen the sun “fade”, or look like a pin prick in the distance of darkness."

    You should probably get out more. Get above the hills and trees too. Again you're still ignoring atmospheric refraction. 




     
    "2) Coriolis effect – Again if we live on a flat disk WHY is it different on different places on the disk?"

    You don't comprehend the words practical examples? How does just typing the word coriolis prove your position? I've given the most practical example  (drains) for you, and debunked it. Ball's still in your court. Also, I've never implied the earth is a disk. It may be an infinite plane. 

    "3) Sun’s height – If the sun moves around on one side of this flat disk of yours it wouldn’t be lower in the sky all the time in certain parts of the world. Also, it stays directly above the center line of the planet. "

    You don't even know your own model.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

    Let alone enough about mine to effectively argue against it. The sun analemma proves conclusively that the sun makes a larger circuit in the south. If the earth were a ball, the sun analemma would be symmetrical. 


    "Law of perspective doesn’t work. Planes fades away at around 8 miles when it’s above us, we see none of the stuff you are indicating with them.

    You mean you've never heard a plane, seen it directly overhead and watched it go away from you? It appears to be losing altitude, but we know full well they fly level. 



    "Also even if everything you say is correct how is that “intelligent design”? It’s sounds like HORRIBLE design."

    Your opinion of a model you obviously don't understand is completely irrelevant. 

    "4) Star move – Again the law of perspective does not make objects flip. "

    Should i copy and paste the last rebuttal? Maybe a mental visual would help. Imagine you and a friend are on opposite sides of a room with an arrow facing your friend on the ceiling. Call your wall the north and his the south. You will see the arrow upside down, pointing at him, while he sees it right side up. This does not imply that the room is a sphere. It's simple optics.

    "Also if they stars are closer and smaller then they would fade if they moved away per the law of perspective. Stars don’t fade away. You make no sense."

    As i said, you're ignoring refraction. Water in the air causes objects to be magnified and lowered. A simple experiment confirms this. Fill a clear glass with water and place it at the eye's level. Place an object partially behind it, so that you can see both the actual position and size as well as it's apparent position and size. I know how much pseudoscientists detest actual scientific experiments, so I've conducted it myself three different ways. Here are the results of one.

    As you can see, the refracted position and size have changed to match what you've explained. If the object being refracted is close to the horizon, the lower portions will be intercepted by the ground plane. This explains most of your misunderstandings, including your next point. 

    5) Horizon covers bottom first – I have given the example of a building were you can’t see the bottom, here is an example of a boat.

    Have a look at this if you think boats go over any curvature. It includes a scaled down experiment that explains what is going on.



    As far as math being a science your article doesn’t disprove this to be true, it state’s “the answer depends on one’s philosophical views on the nature of mathematics”. I found an interesting article on the topic. 
    https://arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/

    Thanks for not reading either article and reinforcing my position. Quote from your source:
    "After much thought, I no longer think math is a science. Science must be empirical, meaning it must be based on observations of nature, and it must be potentially falsifiable by new observations of nature. This article makes some valid points but doesn't adequately emphasize science's empirical requirement. I'm leaving this article on my website as a historical artifact, not as a reflection of my current views."

    And you still ignore my evidence. 


    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • SylynnSylynn 66 Pts
    How about we bring this conversation back to religion vs atheism and leave the flat earth conspiracy for another debate?
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is only one thing that I know to be true. I existed, as with science everything else is about how likely it is to be true. Absolute truth of an object is impossible, and even if it exists the semantics around being able to communicate that truth are nearly impossible. 

    You can think a false to be true, and be gnostic about it. It has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the situation or even the mostly likely truth based on measurable, objective, peer reviewed research on the topic. Gnostic and agnostic are concepts at the end of the christianity spectrum that few ever reach. Most people aren't completely uncertain or completely certain about anything. That's why it's a scale.
    As I said, I am willing to accept your scale, but I assure you 2+2=4.  There are absolute truths, and if you know those truths, you have certain knowledge, or knowledge that is certainly knowledge.
    2 is an abstract and can NEVER be an absolute truth. One apple will never truly equal another apple. This is the basis of Evidence whole stance that math is not a science because it doesn't directly represent the physical world. Logically speaking you are correct, BUT you must stay at a higher level of abstraction to achieve it. When you compare apples, one apples cannot be exactly the same as another.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    1) Time Zones – Me getting out more does not change that light sources “fade”, my point stands unrefuted. Refraction has nothing to do with darkness, not germane to this point. 

    2) Coriolis Effect – Still have not explained the differences, point stands unrefuted.

    3) Sun’s height – Your diagram does not address the suns’ height in the sky. In your diagram it stays the same height, and it wouldn’t be higher or lower in certain areas of the world. Secondly that proves a round earth rather than a flat earth, as the plane gets further away it gets closer to the earth by the viewer, even though it doesn’t really get closer to the earth in reality. My point stands unrefuted.

    4) Star move – We see the arrow exactly the same way in a room, it doesn’t flip. Secondly stars appear small not big, so “refraction” that makes objects bigger has no bearing on this discussion. Regardless of the size of the light, in the distance it should fade away if it’s like you say it is. (where the stars being close to the earth is the reason they move) My point stands unrefuted.

    5) Horizon – Your video show the boat “fading to obscurity” bottom first proving my point. (although all the talk about mirrors was annoying)  My point stands unrefuted.







    I have 5 points all of which are measurable which you have not refuted. You keep talking about things that do not address what I am talking about, and indicating they “disprove” me, when they don’t in any way. If anything you have reinforced my points proving the earth is a globe.
    Erfisflat
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    Sylynn said:
    How about we bring this conversation back to religion vs atheism and leave the flat earth conspiracy for another debate?
    Sounds like a LOVELY idea.
    Erfisflat
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 10 Premium Member
    Sylynn said:
    How about we bring this conversation back to religion vs atheism and leave the flat earth conspiracy for another debate?

    Ya, it looks like a stalemate  from ignorance anyway. How anyone can not understand how two people facing each other will see an object between them from two different angles is mindblowing. @Coveny whenever you get ready.



    http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4229#Comment_4229
    Sylynn

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Sylynn You too. Avoid it if you want, it proves atheists have the wrong belief system. Avoid it like the plague. 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Sonofason said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    be disingenuous to suggest Christianity doesn't include the Westboro Christians that believe strongly that "god hates fags". 
    Yes, there are those who take their position a step further and want to make a claim that no god exists, but with regards to the actual definition of atheism (the one you linked, not the one you tried to pass off as the definition), it's simply a lack of belief. 


    • : a person who believes that God does not exist   <------------------------------------------------------------------------


    ATHEIST Defined for Kids

    atheist

    play
    noun  athe·ist \ˈā-thē-i@Coveny

    Definition of atheist for Students

    1. :  a person who believes there is no God <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    wrong post, can't  delete, please ignore.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Evidence your back to ... wait NM you aren't. Did you go apply to NASA yet so you could be a god too? haha
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Coveny said:

    ..... 

    @Coveny said: I don’t have a god, so I can’t tell you how my god is different from other gods. I’m not playing word games, or speaking around anything, you are confusing me… with yourself.

    You don't have a what/who? A god, what's that?
    You see, if I was serious about my above statement, that's how an atheist who doesn't believe that a god exists would respond with..

    Can you, or ANYONE tell me something that doesn't exist?
    Impossible, because it doesn't exist.

    The Higgs boson didn't exist until Mr. Higgs invented it.
    The imaginary Big-Banged universe didn't exist until the Catholic Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaitre invented it.
    Humans used to be human, until some grave robbing, skull&bones worshipping atheists said we are animals.

    Coveny said: My meaning of theism and atheism have them as opposites one believes in god one does not. There is no contradiction in my definitions. Again you are confusing me – with yourself.

    Yes, the theists believe in gods that everyone must accept on blind faith, of which not one is our Creator God, (again, and again as you keep avoiding my comments just as @Erfisflat said) because our Creator can be evidenced by science, while the theistic/atheistic gods must be accepted on blind faith.

    Coveny: More mystic crap I’m going to ignore.

    Because your religion commands you to ignore evidence of both Creator of the Earth and everything in it, and His creation. The only thing you are allowed to accept is what they tell you, and that on blind faith. And you must mock any evidence against your belief system. typical of all religions, theist or atheist.

    Coveny: I have stated my side, you have done nothing to prove me wrong. You talk in circle about gods who aren’t gods. How everything was created, but not everything was created. And many other logical impossibilities. You have repeatedly used words wrong.

    This is a debating sight, and you keep making general fallacious statements about the evidences I present. As for your "Angels don't have free will", that's the gods/deities you claim you don't believe in talking, and I'm not an exorcist, so I cannot help you there.
    You can pray can't you? Just not to any of the deities that you don't believe in, OK?
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Evidence again making logical impossibilities. A god that's not a god. An athiest who believes in god. I hold with no religion, I hold with no god, and I very much hold there was not a uncreated creator which you have ZERO evidence of, and is a logical impossibility. If everything MUST be created, then how can you have an uncreated creator? If you show as proof of a creator the complexity of the universe, then anything that created it must be more complex, this is another logical hole in your argument.

    Theists believe in gods. period. end sentence. Just as you believe in your creator god on blind faith, and science does NOT support you. Speaking of fallacies you are committing one. It's called shifting the burden of proof. You say your god exists, then they burden of proof is on YOU. YOU must prove your god exists, I don't have prove it doesn't exist. 


    or here - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

    What fallacy have I made? Name the fallacy, and point to where I did it. Otherwise don't make vague baseless accusations.

    No I can't pray... I'm an atheist.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • SylynnSylynn 66 Pts
    @Evidence
    I'm speechless. The level of fallaciousness in your arguments is beyond anything I've ever seen.

    "Can you, or ANYONE tell me something that doesn't exist?
    Impossible, because it doesn't exist."

    So you think that everything that can be said doesn't exist actually does? You believe there is a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe? Again, I'm speechless.

    "The Higgs boson didn't exist until Mr. Higgs invented it."
    So Mr Higgs has the ability to create a physical object with just the power of his thoughts?

    "The imaginary Big-Banged universe didn't exist until the Catholic Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaitre invented it."
    How could a Catholic priest exist if the universe did not yet exist?

    "Humans used to be human, until some grave robbing, skull&bones worshipping atheists said we are animals."
    What it must be like in your mind... I don't worship bones, nor do I believe bones are capable of doing anything more than just providing structure and support to our bodies. You are clearly demonstrating you hate science, and I can't help you there. That being the case, you should probably get rid of every piece of technology you own as these are all the result of science.

    "Yes, the theists believe in gods that everyone must accept on blind faith, of which not one is our Creator God,"
    A theist is a broad term simply meaning someone who believes in a personal god. Christianity is simply a particular brand of theism. 

    "atheistic gods must be accepted on blind faith."
    No such thing

    "Because your religion commands you"
    I have to stop you right there since we don't have a religion. 

    I have to admit, I spent over 30 years as a Christian, but if I had been taught the ridiculousness you believe is true, I wouldn't have lasted a day in it. 
    Coveny
  • SylynnSylynn 66 Pts
    @Coveny - "No I can't pray... I'm an atheist."
    Sure you can. Just come up with an imaginary friend like they have, and talk to him. That's all they do, but they've simply attached the label "pray" to it.
    Coveny
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Sylynn haha I pray to Joe Pesci! I miss Carlin.   :'(


    Sylynn
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Coveny said:
    @Sylynn haha I pray to Joe Pesci! I miss Carlin.   :'(


    Me too!





    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • Coveny said:
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is only one thing that I know to be true. I existed, as with science everything else is about how likely it is to be true. Absolute truth of an object is impossible, and even if it exists the semantics around being able to communicate that truth are nearly impossible. 

    You can think a false to be true, and be gnostic about it. It has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the situation or even the mostly likely truth based on measurable, objective, peer reviewed research on the topic. Gnostic and agnostic are concepts at the end of the christianity spectrum that few ever reach. Most people aren't completely uncertain or completely certain about anything. That's why it's a scale.
    As I said, I am willing to accept your scale, but I assure you 2+2=4.  There are absolute truths, and if you know those truths, you have certain knowledge, or knowledge that is certainly knowledge.
    2 is an abstract and can NEVER be an absolute truth. One apple will never truly equal another apple. This is the basis of Evidence whole stance that math is not a science because it doesn't directly represent the physical world. Logically speaking you are correct, BUT you must stay at a higher level of abstraction to achieve it. When you compare apples, one apples cannot be exactly the same as another.
    Apples are apples.  If you have 2 apples you have two apples.  If you add two more apples, you've added two more apples.  2 apples plus another 2 apples is 4 apples.  You can say it isn't true, but then, you'd be wrong.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Sonofason An apple with bruises does not equal an apple without bruises. So although 1 does equal 1 and a high level of abstraction, 1 will NEVER equal 1 in a low level of abstraction, as it's impossible to have exactly the same object twice. To take the apple example into your math example 2 apples plus 2 rotten apples equals 4 apples right? And if you purchased those 4 apples from me you would have an issue because I sold you 4 apples, and apples are apples. Does it make sense now?
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • SylynnSylynn 66 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason An apple with bruises does not equal an apple without bruises. So although 1 does equal 1 and a high level of abstraction, 1 will NEVER equal 1 in a low level of abstraction, as it's impossible to have exactly the same object twice. To take the apple example into your math example 2 apples plus 2 rotten apples equals 4 apples right? And if you purchased those 4 apples from me you would have an issue because I sold you 4 apples, and apples are apples. Does it make sense now?
    We are talking about quantity of apples, not the quality of them. If I bought 4 apples and two were rotten, I still purchased 4 apples. Despite being rotten, they are indeed apples. Yes, as a consumer I would have issues, but the issue is because there is an expectation when you purchase goods, that those goods are in proper condition (in this case, not rotten). 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Sylynn why is there an expectation when you purchase apples? They are indeed apples. And no I'm not talking about quality I'm talking about levels of abstraction and using quality as ONE indicator of that. I could use the various different types of apples, differences in taste between apples, or any of hundreds (maybe thousands) of ways at a low level of abstraction 1 apple will never equal 1 apple.
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • SylynnSylynn 66 Pts
    @Coveny "why is there an expectation when you purchase apples?"

    Seriously? If you were to buy a brand new TV from a reputable company, brought it home and set everything up, but found it didn't work, you wouldn't be surprised? You didn't have an expectation that the device you spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on would function?

    "I'm talking about levels of abstraction"
    That's the issue. An abstraction is nothing but an idea without evidence of it's existence. I don't care if it's in perfect shape, bruised or rotten. I don't care if it's a Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, or a crab apple. If it fits the description of being an apple, it's an apple. 

    The same can be said for dogs. From a biological standpoint, is a poodle any less of a dog than a husky? If one husky loses a tooth is it now less of a dog than another dog? What if it loses a leg? Is it no longer a dog? 
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Sylynn would you? A TV is a TV after all? The description fits of it being a TV, it's a TV. 

    At a level of abstraction yes an apple is a apple, that's the issue. 

    A dog is the high level, a poodle is a lower level, your dog spot is even lower. At a high level they are all equal, but a husky isn't equal to a poodle now is it? And you sure wouldn't be willing to trade the family pet for another dog because a dog is a dog. 
    Erfisflat
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • SylynnSylynn 66 Pts
    @Coveny ;Would I be upset if I purchased a brand new TV and it didn't work? Absolutely. Why? Because I live in a real world, not in a world of abstraction. I'm done with your nonsense.
  • CovenyCoveny 178 Pts
    @Sylynn AND because 1 doesn't equal 1 at a low level of abstraction.
    Erfisflat
    ForDebating.com is a site for formal 1v1 and 2v2 debates that is estimated to be online in Oct. They will have weekly tournaments on a wide variety of topics that award prize money to the winner. 
  • Thus, when dealing with absolutes, I suppose we can say that there are absolutely no absolutes.  Because Coveny says there are no absolutes.  If there are no absolutes, then there are absolutely no absolutes.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Sylynn said:
    @Evidence
    I'm speechless. The level of fallaciousness in your arguments is beyond anything I've ever seen.


    @Sylynn So you think that everything that can be said doesn't exist actually does? You believe there is a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe? Again, I'm speechless.

    Yes, it does now, that you came up with it.
    If you really want to understand God, you will have to step outside your religious belief system, that you are nothing but a evolving amoeba, that your brain creates your mind, because this will never do.

    Look, when I tell my son to take out the garbage, and he is sitting there front of his computer playing, and tells me: "I can't" does that mean he really can't?

    What is real to YOU?

    Look at a table for instance, does the physical table go into your brain, or does your eyes digitize that table for your mind, which is YOU to be able to see it and recognize it as a table?

    Now the same thing happens when I hear you say the word "table", I visualize a table.
    Now tell me, which table is more real to me, the one I seen, or the one you suggested?

    The same when you said: "there is a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe", I actually visualized a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe!

    Now does what I said about:
    "Can you, or ANYONE tell me something that doesn't exist?
    Impossible, because it doesn't exist." make sense?

    @Sylynn So Mr Higgs has the ability to create a physical object with just the power of his thoughts?

    That's how creation starts, and that's how it will end, until they figure out how to mutate, or put an entire table into your brain where you can say: "Now I believe that table exist, I can feel and see it with my brain!"

    I am having a very difficult time typing here, the words trail behind, so I will cut this short, besides, the rest of your comments hang on you understanding that our existence does not rely on physics only, but you are far more than that.

    @Sylynn I have to admit, I spent over 30 years as a Christian, but if I had been taught the ridiculousness you believe is true, I wouldn't have lasted a day in it.

    Well said, which is why I left the Religion because I realized they did not worship the God of the Bible, but think that all gods are the same, created by the whim of man.
    This is why I say that theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin, the coin being "religion".

    By now becoming an atheist, you didn't change anything, now you just claim you don't believe in gods theist believe in, look, I can even ask you "which god/gods don't you believe in?" and you'll most likely tell me; the God Jehovah, and if I asked,, you most likely tell me all about Him!

    Can anyone give an accurate description of something, or someone that they say doesn't exist?
  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Coveny said:
    @Evidence again making logical impossibilities. A god that's not a god. An athiest who believes in god. I hold with no religion, I hold with no god, and I very much hold there was not a uncreated creator which you have ZERO evidence of, and is a logical impossibility. If everything MUST be created, then how can you have an uncreated creator? If you show as proof of a creator the complexity of the universe, then anything that created it must be more complex, this is another logical hole in your argument.

    Theists believe in gods. period. end sentence. Just as you believe in your creator god on blind faith, and science does NOT support you. Speaking of fallacies you are committing one. It's called shifting the burden of proof. You say your god exists, then they burden of proof is on YOU. YOU must prove your god exists, I don't have prove it doesn't exist. 


    or here - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

    What fallacy have I made? Name the fallacy, and point to where I did it. Otherwise don't make vague baseless accusations.

    No I can't pray... I'm an atheist.


    You need a Creator to create, which can be as simple as a robot that we program to create, to as complex as man, who can not only create, but dream up what he want's to create. It is THAT creator part of us that is God, for He gave us that part, our "mind" which is of, and IS God.

    Look friend, it is NOT a logical impossibility, you greatly underestimate who you really are, which comes from your indoctrination.

    @Coveny Theists believe in gods. period. end sentence. Just as you believe in your creator god on blind faith, and science does NOT support you.

    Science doesn't support a Big Bang, yet look how it is called science!?
    Why is the never observed, and I mean never ever observed thing like a quantum speck popping out of nothing, then Big-Banging in nothing and creates all this we observe with our senses considered science?
    A bad dream after eating too many burritos maybe, but someone actually observed such a thing?

    But look, even brilliant scientists will call it a "scientific possibility", yet no scientist has ever witnessed any quantum speck popping out of nothing and creating anything let alone our heavens and the earth and everything we see and can examine in it. So of course such religious science doesn't support me, because I am against religion and all the fake gods and creators they keep creating.

    How can there be ZERO evidence of an uncreated Creator when your mind is it? Nothing or no one can create your Mind, it was given from and of The Creator; The Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am".

    The Bible explains who our Creator is, and how He created everything, and we are so lucky because we have reached a time in mans existence where we can finally fully understand this, for never was man able to create worlds with people in it until only a few years ago. Sure we can't create men that have their own minds, this is when another human mind steps in and through a controller does the thinking for those created beings who are stuck in their created little world just as we are under this dome.

    Wake up people, get out of religion, and your religious upbringing and start using your mind,  not just what you've been taught.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch