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!

Atheism IS a Religion

VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
edited June 7 in Religion
For reference, we'll be discussing "Western Atheism".  As a disclaimer, I make no supposition that "All" of any group of individuals are "All" the same or "All" believe the same way.  For the purpose of debating this subject it's necessary to establish that in this context, "Atheists" is a reference to the prominent leaders (And the numbers that maintain their belief) in Atheism in Western Culture today: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer and Peter Singer.  Understanding that there are individuals out there who do not necessarily believe the same way that the individuals listed above do, we're going to discuss prominent Atheism as the majority and not the exception to the group.


The case for the assertion that Atheism can be viewed as a Religion can be found in an answer that an Atheist might have for the question "Are you a Christian"? 

An Atheist might answer with, "No, I'm an Atheist".

When asked "Are you a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu"?  An Atheist may answer the same, "No, I'm an Atheist". 

This is indicative that being an Atheist is analogous to being a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.  On the same hand this also suggests that Atheism is analogous to Christianity, Islam or Buddhism.  In layman's terms, Atheism can be viewed as comparable to Religion.

To make this further evident we should ask ourselves the following:

1. What does Atheism have in common with Religion?
    a. They have their own worldview: Materialism: The theory of belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.  Atheists interpret all data within the worldview of materialism.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/materialism
http://strangenotions.com/nothings-the-matter-with-atheistic-materialism/
    b. They have their own Orthodoxy : Authorized or generally accepted theories, doctrines, or practices. Atheists maintain that everything can be explained as the product of unintentional, non-directed, purposeless evolution.  No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/orthodoxy
    c. They have their own Apostasy: To abandon one's former religious faith.  Antony Flew was one of the world's most prominent Atheists before he changed his mind.  He was vilified by Richard Dawkins and the New Atheist Movement and was accused of "Tergiversation" (Changing one's loyalties; abandoning a belief or principle).
http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/09/eminent-atheist-changes-his-mind-the-antony-flew-story/
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tergiversate
    d. They have their own messiah: Charles Darwin.  In thew views of the New Atheist Movement, Charles Darwin destroyed Theism by providing the explanation of life that doesn't require God as a cause or explanation.
    e. They have their own preachers and evangelists: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.  These Men aren't out there to ask that Atheism be given respect, they're looking for converts and calling for the end of Theism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
    f.  They have faith: God cannot be proven or refuted, to deny it takes faith.  Evolution cannot account for why our universe is orderly, predictable or measurable.  Evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why we have rational explanation.  The source of our self-awareness, the source of our consciousness, the universal sense of right and wrong...none of these things can be accounted for with any degree of rationality by Atheists and so faith steps in.
http://strangenotions.com/do-atheists-have-faith/   ;

Now as to the meaning of Religion.  While I admit in the past I have held strictly conservative views on the meanings of words, I concede that context is the supreme ruler of communication in that the meaning of a word can change not only over time, but by how people use them.  It's still worthwhile to respect our socially accepted meaning of a word before attempting to build a case around it.

Religion:
[Mass noun]
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods.

1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship.

1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

To summarize, one could say that if something is Religious, then that something is concerning, related to or regarding God(s).  Atheism is a direct position against the existence of God(s).  While distinctions are firmly in place between Atheism and traditional Religious practices, the hallmarks of  Religion are observable within the Atheist community and those are:

1. Faith based belief.
2. Ritualistic acts
3. Moral code with supernatural origin
4. A worldview and organization of one's life based upon such
5. A social group bound together by the above

To clarify,1). Atheism is faith based as I've mentioned before, there is no proving or disproving God and therefor any belief or disbelief is faith based at some point.  2). Atheists apply the materialistic worldview to all data as a matter of rigorous practice.  3). Atheists have admitted openly to having a moral code which comes off more often than not as "I don't need God to be good" but since Morality is beyond scientific understanding...it's supernatural.

https://www.thoughtco.com/defining-the-characteristics-of-religion-250679


For these reasons I contend that Atheism is a Religion, a Religion unlike any other but a Religion none-the-less.














joecavalryErfisflatagsrImbsterm_abusteitSilverishGoldNova
  1. Is Atheism a Religion?12 votes
    1. No
      58.33%
    2. Yes
      41.67%

Comments

  • joecavalryjoecavalry 151 Pts
    No, atheism is not a religion. Atheists have a belief of not following religion or at least the one they were born with or referred to before. If atheism would be a religion, they would not follow that religion either. Instead, atheism, is more of a get away plan. Atheism doesn't have any or too many rules like other religion which also creates another point.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    edited June 7
    @joecavalry, I disagree, the definition of Atheism has nothing to do with Religion as Religion is not exclusively the worship of God, the recognition of the supernatural or otherwise.  Religion can simply be a system of beliefs that govern your behavior.  Atheism is simply not believing in the existence of God...there are non-theistic religions out there such as the Quakers, an Atheist could very easily become a Quaker, and adopt their practices without ever believing in the existence of God.  I do however, agree with your statement that it's more of a "Get away plan" as Atheism seems to be a wild stab at neutrality in reference to God although it's disingenuous intellectually.

  • ImbsterImbster 89 Pts
    Moral code with supernatural origin???Hold On. What is true and observable in my view, in epistemological sense is that I got morals from my parents who believe in a God and morals from my teachers who believe in a God also and morals from books believed to have been made by God. I didn't get it from any supernatural being or entity that speaks to me in visions or any other way. Does that mean I got it from God if I got it from people who believe in a God? Stop associating conclusionary things to DIRECT THINGS. I call you out to make personal experience claims right now, make any lie that you wish to my questions in this 1st paragraph. So God at time/times flashed words in your head morally related and you understood them right away when you were young? Were you able to apply these built-in animations at heart by God right away to your fellow peers, companions and parents? Did you right away and surely and always felt a responsibility to be always morally right? Let's just say education(whether formal or not), a human system, plays a big role in comprehending hundreds of systems even your moral system.

    No, I got it from people who could fully comprehend and understand words based with their accumulated logic and perceive examples and demonstrations thy fully apprehend enough they could relay it unto me. Two words, free will, there is no such as thing as God using people as instruments to do things. From what I know, humans translated earlier moral-related terms for even you to understand right now and we don't even acknowledge them cause there's a bigger fish to recognise. Why do you think there's 'bad influence' that destroys biblical moral codes most of the time? There are people who spread evil and teach the opposite of morals and you tell me there's a supernatural origin that has embedded it unto all of us when we were conceived. Strong no, formal education gave me morals. No don't say God gave me morals through this medium because free will. You think when I was young I perfectly understood deep down why I shouldn't hit people as if it's built-in me already not to hit other kids?? If morals were some built-in code made by an omnipotent supernaturally originating God then evil shouldn't be able to hack it easily therefore free will certainly is true proving that God has nothing to do anymore with modern human morals as he does not wish to intervene or doesn't have power to.

    Point to him as the source sure, the creator of these morals but he never taught them properly to all his children he should thank his other children for doing so but he can't even thank them cause free will. We needed a book, a priest and a system to be established for ages for good morals to continuously flourish amongst generations not a god. He created it as 'resoures' and left it to be found by treasure hunters and I got it from those treasure hunters but as 'finer products' because they were ultimately processed. I'm giving the degree of rationality here you claim atheists can't account for. Consciousness? Our obviously coordinating organ systems aren't enough? As if God had power to intervene with how strong my immune system is.

    I don't even consider Charles Darwin as my 'messiah' and that is just as offensive as to a muslim when I push that Jesus is the Son of God, the messiah. 
  • melanielustmelanielust 226 Pts
    edited June 7
    Atheism exists to reject religion, whether by apathy - individually believing that no God exists and religion is unnecessary;  - or by action, where atheists might attempt to bring down religious establishments. The points you listed were very clear, logical, and EXCELLENTLY researched, as usual. However, from your first point I had my doubts. The way people answer questions is not indicative of a religion; it is trivial semanticity and not enough to make a broad judgement or definition of a group. While atheists are a demographic of people, and there are certainly those who try to follow or enforce a moral code, atheism is far more diverse in that not everyone chooses to believe in such codes. Plenty of atheists are nihilists and think that true morals don't exist. Ultimately, atheism is more of a philosophy than a religion: like any school of thought, there will be some purposeful organization, but as it is based off of the rejection of religion/God, I do not think it could be considered an organized religion, or a religion at all.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 360 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Christians believe and have faith in the words of men.

    Atheists believe and have faith in the words of men.

    Atheists believe, without empirical or logical evidence, that the earth is round, it goes around the sun, the sun is a star, it was all created from a lucky, random cosmic big bang, which is illogical and has never been proven empirically, along with macroevolution. What caused all of this? Gravity, otherwise known as big G.


    Wowsil

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 234 Pts
    Of course Atheism is a religion.  Religions, like Catholicism, or Islam, or Atheism, are all attempts to explain the unknowable. they claim to have answers to questions that, by definition, have no answers.  Atheism is, thus, a faith-based belief.  The opposite of religion isn't atheism, it's agnosticism, the lack of faith in any belief system.    Agnosticism is the realization that the questions religion tries to answer cannot be answered, and that one religion is no more valid than another. 

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 360 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Why do people confuse religion with theism? I believe in a creator, but i don't practice a religion.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    edited June 7
    @Imbster

    Imbster said:
    Moral code with supernatural origin???Hold On.

    Origin: The point or place where something begins, arises or is derived.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/origin

    Yes, supernatural origin.  So let's use your example of something that you possess that you obtained from your parents who obtained it from theirs who believed in God.  If my Great Great Grandfather obtained a gold nugget from Sweden, gave it to his Son who in turn gave it to his son who would give it to his son later on and eventually gave it to me...then the origin of the gold nugget is still Swedish.  It doesn't matter who had it, who used it or who was responsible for its transfer from one hand to another, its origin remains the same through time.

    Additionally, you've taken my generalizations about prominent Atheism in Western Culture and narrowed it down to a personal level by implying that these ideologies don't necessarily apply to you.  Please see my disclaimer at the beginning as I make no attempt at painting with a broad brush stroke for "All" Atheists.  We can however, still have a debate concerning Prominent Atheism...we just can't resort to using one's own personal experiences or beliefs as cause, justification or evidence.






  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    @Erfisflat , good point.  Case in point - Quakers.  The Quaker religion is without a higher power but is a recognized and accepted Religion none-the-less.  You could be an Atheistic Quaker and nether views or beliefs would contradict one another.  In that regard, there could be such a thing as a "Religious Atheist".  Likewise believing in the existence of God(s) does not necessitate a Religion.
  • EvidenceEvidence 86 Pts
    Vaulk said:
    For reference, we'll be discussing "Western Atheism".  As a disclaimer, I make no supposition that "All" of any group of individuals are "All" the same or "All" believe the same way.  For the purpose of debating this subject it's necessary to establish that in this context, "Atheists" is a reference to the prominent leaders (And the numbers that maintain their belief) in Atheism in Western Culture today: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer and Peter Singer.  Understanding that there are individuals out there who do not necessarily believe the same way that the individuals listed above do, we're going to discuss prominent Atheism as the majority and not the exception to the group.



    Religion:
    [Mass noun]
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
    1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods.

    1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship.

    1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

    To summarize, one could say that if something is Religious, then that something is concerning, related to or regarding God(s).  Atheism is a direct position against the existence of God(s).  While distinctions are firmly in place between Atheism and traditional Religious practices, the hallmarks of  Religion are observable within the Atheist community and those are:

    1. Faith based belief.
    2. Ritualistic acts
    3. Moral code with supernatural origin
    4. A worldview and organization of one's life based upon such
    5. A social group bound together by the above

    To clarify,1). Atheism is faith based as I've mentioned before, there is no proving or disproving God and therefor any belief or disbelief is faith based at some point.  2). Atheists apply the materialistic worldview to all data as a matter of rigorous practice.  3). Atheists have admitted openly to having a moral code which comes off more often than not as "I don't need God to be good" but since Morality is beyond scientific understanding...it's supernatural.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/defining-the-characteristics-of-religion-250679


    For these reasons I contend that Atheism is a Religion, a Religion unlike any other but a Religion none-the-less.



    I agree, atheism is a religion, their doctrine is the BB-Evolution, and their Prophets are the ones you so well pointed out, the greatest one being Darwin (which would be like our Jesus Christ).
    Theism/atheism are two sides of the same coin, which is "religion".

    But don't stop here, because if you dig a little deeper, you will see that just as we have two sides to religion 'theism/atheism' there is also two sides to the concept of God:
    One side, the popular side is that God/gods can only be believed in, as in blind faith
    Two, that God is real, which is the God we find in the Bible, the God I worship and serve, who is real and can be known through science.

    Look, in theism (theos which is Greek for god/gods) all the gods are believed to be in what?
    Ask any theist, and I do mean ANY theist as to;

    1. Who is your God/gods?
    Answer: Deities.

    2. Where would we find these god/gods?
    Answer: Well since the concept of god/gods is a supernatural one, .. they'd all be in the supernatural realm.

    3. Can you theist imagine a god/gods outside of religion? In another words;  Is the concept of your god/gods based on scientific evidence, or do their existence really just boils down to having to believe them on blind faith?

    What I'm saying is that; there is not ONE religion on earth that believes that their god/gods are scientifically real, .. not one, otherwise every religion along with their gods would go out of business, .. just go and ask Sid Roth, or any powerful Christian Leader/Minister/Teacher/Pope!?

    1. The "Unknown God" mentioned in the Bible whom me and my family serve,

    2. The tens of thousands of gods created by religions, which from about 325AD includes our One and Only Possible Infinite Creator "I Am" mentioned in the Bible, and evidenced by nature/creation, who was turned into a man by Constantine and the Catholic Church, and then deified to at least three gods, and are thought to reside in the "supernatural realm" along with all the other fallen angels/demons and evil spirits.
  • EvidenceEvidence 86 Pts
    Vaulk said:
    For reference, we'll be discussing "Western Atheism".  As a disclaimer, I make no supposition that "All" of any group of individuals are "All" the same or "All" believe the same way.  For the purpose of debating this subject it's necessary to establish that in this context, "Atheists" is a reference to the prominent leaders (And the numbers that maintain their belief) in Atheism in Western Culture today: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer and Peter Singer.  Understanding that there are individuals out there who do not necessarily believe the same way that the individuals listed above do, we're going to discuss prominent Atheism as the majority and not the exception to the group.



    Religion:
    [Mass noun]
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
    1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods.

    1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship.

    1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

    To summarize, one could say that if something is Religious, then that something is concerning, related to or regarding God(s).  Atheism is a direct position against the existence of God(s).  While distinctions are firmly in place between Atheism and traditional Religious practices, the hallmarks of  Religion are observable within the Atheist community and those are:

    1. Faith based belief.
    2. Ritualistic acts
    3. Moral code with supernatural origin
    4. A worldview and organization of one's life based upon such
    5. A social group bound together by the above

    To clarify,1). Atheism is faith based as I've mentioned before, there is no proving or disproving God and therefor any belief or disbelief is faith based at some point.  2). Atheists apply the materialistic worldview to all data as a matter of rigorous practice.  3). Atheists have admitted openly to having a moral code which comes off more often than not as "I don't need God to be good" but since Morality is beyond scientific understanding...it's supernatural.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/defining-the-characteristics-of-religion-250679


    For these reasons I contend that Atheism is a Religion, a Religion unlike any other but a Religion none-the-less.



    I agree, atheism is a religion, their doctrine is the BB-Evolution, and their Prophets are the ones you so well pointed out, the greatest one being Darwin (which would be like our Jesus Christ).
    Theism/atheism are two sides of the same coin, which is "religion".

    But don't stop here, because if you dig a little deeper, you will see that just as we have two sides to religion 'theism/atheism' there is also two sides to the concept of God:
    One side, the popular side is that God/gods can only be believed in, as in blind faith
    Two, that God is real, which is the God we find in the Bible, the God I worship and serve, who is real and can be known through science.

    Look, in theism (theos which is Greek for god/gods) all the gods are believed to be in what?
    Ask any theist, and I do mean ANY theist as to;

    1. Who is your God/gods?
    Answer: Deities.

    2. Where would we find these god/gods?
    Answer: Well since the concept of god/gods is a supernatural one, .. they'd all be in the supernatural realm.

    3. Can you theist imagine a god/gods outside of religion? In another words;  Is the concept of your god/gods based on scientific evidence, or do their existence really just boils down to having to believe them on blind faith?

    What I'm saying is that; there is not ONE religion on earth that believes that their god/gods are scientifically real, .. not one, otherwise every religion along with their gods would go out of business, .. just go and ask Sid Roth, or any powerful Christian Leader/Minister/Teacher/Pope!?

    1. The "Unknown God" mentioned in the Bible whom me and my family serve,

    2. The tens of thousands of gods created by religions, which from about 325AD includes our One and Only Possible Infinite Creator "I Am" mentioned in the Bible, and evidenced by nature/creation, who was turned into a man by Constantine and the Catholic Church, and then deified to at least three gods, and are thought to reside in the "supernatural realm" along with all the other fallen angels/demons and evil spirits.
  • ImbsterImbster 89 Pts
    Imbster said:
    No, I got it from people who could fully comprehend and understand words based with their accumulated logic and perceive examples and demonstrations thy fully apprehend enough they could relay it unto me. Two words, free will, there is no such as thing as God using people as instruments to do things. From what I know, humans translated earlier moral-related terms for even you to understand right now and we don't even acknowledge them cause there's a bigger fish to recognise. Why do you think there's 'bad influence' that destroys biblical moral codes most of the time? There are people who spread evil and teach the opposite of morals and you tell me there's a supernatural origin that has embedded it unto all of us when we were conceived. Strong no, formal education gave me morals. No don't say God gave me morals through this medium because free will. You think when I was young I perfectly understood deep down why I shouldn't hit people as if it's built-in me already not to hit other kids?? If morals were some built-in code made by an omnipotent supernaturally originating God then evil shouldn't be able to hack it easily therefore free will certainly is true proving that God has nothing to do anymore with modern human morals as he does not wish to intervene or doesn't have power to.

    Point to him as the source sure, the creator of these morals but he never taught them properly to all his children he should thank his other children for doing so but he can't even thank them cause free will. We needed a book, a priest and a system to be established for ages for good morals to continuously flourish amongst generations not a god. He created it as 'resoures' and left it to be found by treasure hunters and I got it from those treasure hunters but as 'finer products' because they were ultimately processed. I'm giving the degree of rationality here you claim atheists can't account for. Consciousness? Our obviously coordinating organ systems aren't enough? As if God had power to intervene with how strong my immune system is.

    I don't even consider Charles Darwin as my 'messiah' and that is just as offensive as to a muslim when I push that Jesus is the Son of God, the messiah. 
    @Vaulk

    The point here is God like 'If I made a business I'd let someone else run it'. That's exactly what he does with morals. Point him out as the source and never ever acknowledge your teachers, your parents, your companions who have taught you well and are your primary preachers of morals while God has never. Primary because if illustrated in a pyramid, morals are at the bottom DIRECTLY CONSUMED by humans.. God can't intervene with free will. He can't be inside them and possess them to flourish upright values. Tell me one damn personal experience where God taught you full comprehension of the ten commandments. Through your religious preachers? Free. Will.

    It's like God as a well of pure water but wells can't walk nor splash people or squirt them with water to drink so people go to the well and get water and give them to others for survival. Now then, a father's son is thirsty and they are far from the well so he has to travel. He reaches the well and comes home to satisfy his son's thirst.
    For you it's no source, no water .For me no work, no water.

    Do you seriously believe if crimes greatly arise God would do something or humans would do everything? You are so convinced your God is the source of morals then why does his creation show more upright morals than him? Not doing anything when there's rape? I could just watch a man rape a woman in the middle of nowhere and pray to God as hard as I can that He save her but no, nothing will happen, faith alone doesn't solve anything right? But if I save her and a little article is published God will be credited and dumb people will even argue "See? God saves rape victims and doesn't let them get raped you dumb atheists" when I'm atheist, God shouldn't even support me and consider me his child and therefore have no use of me. Don't tell me the "It was his/her time" argument unto why she was raped. That thing should only be associated with baby deaths.

    God is the biggest witness to any crime and not even the court has realised that but he doesn't even wish to participate in any which should've solved a lot of cases instead of them being abandoned. Why when humans do nothing it is considered lacking better morals but when God...

    And if I just watch her get raped, and some other witnesses saves her and sees me, I'm THE ONE that goes to court and is questioned why I didn't do anything and get accused of 'enjoying' the rape and why is God not accused nor questioned the same as I? Didn't we both just watch??? Religious bias. Doesn't he have a moral responsibility? Yeah just to respect free will. Done I'm morally upright, God is morally neutral like a student always waiting for other students to answer a teacher's question never raising his hand.
  • EvidenceEvidence 86 Pts
     


    I sent the comment, yet the "Leave comment" box remained with my comment in it??
    Only on this Post, .. ??
    Ill send this and see what happens?
  • EvidenceEvidence 86 Pts
    Ah, good, back to normal.
  • EvidenceEvidence 86 Pts
    @Imbster
    "The point here is God like 'If I made a business I'd let someone else run it'. That's exactly what he does with morals. Point him out as the source and never ever acknowledge your teachers, your parents, your companions who have taught you well and are your primary preachers of morals while God has never. Primary because if illustrated in a pyramid, morals are at the bottom DIRECTLY CONSUMED by humans.. God can't intervene with free will. He can't be inside them and possess them to flourish upright values. Tell me one damn personal experience where God taught you full comprehension of the ten commandments. Through your religious preachers? Free. Will."

    I can't believe how man has regressed to where God had to appear on a Mountain to tell them about these basic Ten Commandments? I mean come on; "You shalt not kill, you shalt not steal, or take what is not yours etc." .. seriously? I mean it's OK to teach a 2 year old, .. and maybe to "remind" a 4 year old, but to have to teach this to full grown adults who have been living on Gods Earth for a few thousand years, and have built civilizations, big cities, empires!?
    And then what, .. man blames God for them regressing to a child-like state?

    Read Genesis again, you know, creation and all. Where God prepared EVERYTHING for man, then gave him Eve, and told them to fill the earth with children. God even shown up every day "In the cool of the Day" to chat with them, to see if all was well, and to see if they needed anything? Like before God made Eve, He seen that Adam was not really happy, even though he had the Garden to keep him busy, and all the animals as company, and without Adam even having to ask, God knew there was something wrong and made him Eve.

    Yes, read Genesis again, then the rest of the Bible because from what I read in there, I see that God is VERY concerned about man, having provided EVERYTHING man would EVER need, and if he would have asked for ANYTHING that God didn't provide, God would have surely created it and gave it to us.

    So it's not that; God is just watching, .. He is torn in the heart, saying; "I an sorry I ever created man" and because He sees nothing but sin, He looks away from all the evil that we are doing to each other. And yes, He will definitely hold those of us who do nothing to stop evil spreading, especially those that sit back and watch as evil spreads, accountable. It will be like Jesus explained about the worker that received one talent to work with, and instead of doing something with it, he hid it, and on the Last Day gave it back to the Creator.

    It's like if we buy our children a beautiful car, and they trash it, and even get hurt doing it and come to us blaming us for the "shitty-car" we bought them, and look what injuries it caused them!
    SuperSith89
  • ImbsterImbster 89 Pts
    I wouldn't buy my child things he's not ready for unlike God. I'd wait for the right age to come to upgrade his pick-up truck to a bugghati.
    He is torn in the heart, saying; "I an sorry I ever created man" 
    He sees nothing but sin? He never saw mother theresa? Even my religious teacher wouldn't tell me that.
    If we regret something don't we do something better?Don't we fix it?
    @Evidence
    Why don't you read the Bible again especially exodus since you insist continuing after Genesis. In that desert sure God gave them everything they needed and wanted but he took something more precious than the material things they were always spoiled with, He took their chance, ability or even capability to reach Jerusalem all because Moses didn't talk to a rock when God commanded him and instead tapped the rock twice with his staff. Don't even cover up God was testing their obedience I mean when a baby does the opposite of what we command we don't ban the baby from his/her crib or his/her milk bottle we just even laugh at it. God isn't seeing them as children but CREATION that he has absolute rule over.
  • Atheism is simply a descriptive word.
    Atheism describes the antithesis of religion.
    Therefore Atheism cannot be regarded as a religion.
  • EvidenceEvidence 86 Pts
    Imbster said:
    I wouldn't buy my child things he's not ready for unlike God. I'd wait for the right age to come to upgrade his pick-up truck to a bugghati.
    He is torn in the heart, saying; "I an sorry I ever created man" 
    He sees nothing but sin? He never saw mother theresa? Even my religious teacher wouldn't tell me that.
    If we regret something don't we do something better?Don't we fix it?
    @Evidence
    Why don't you read the Bible again especially exodus since you insist continuing after Genesis. In that desert sure God gave them everything they needed and wanted but he took something more precious than the material things they were always spoiled with, He took their chance, ability or even capability to reach Jerusalem all because Moses didn't talk to a rock when God commanded him and instead tapped the rock twice with his staff. Don't even cover up God was testing their obedience I mean when a baby does the opposite of what we command we don't ban the baby from his/her crib or his/her milk bottle we just even laugh at it. God isn't seeing them as children but CREATION that he has absolute rule over.
    (I've been cut off from Debate.org ???)

    Upgrade to a Bugatti? Adam was a Bugatti, we don't know how long he's been in the Garden. We do know he was a scientist since we read he was doing Taxonomy (identifying and naming all the animals) way before God took one of his ribs and created Eve out of it. Adam was one of Gods perfections, after his creation God checked him out and found "it was all good".

    Mother Teresa, .. are you serious? She was a devout Catholic possessed by demons where even the Catholic Priests had to perform their famous "exorcism" on her several times over her life. I mean she caused millions of young female victims to join the Catholic religion after her, .. may God have mercy on her soul!

    Yes, God, just like we do tried to fix the problems, but free will stands between God and the fixin'? Imagine a Bugatti with free will, you do a nice front wheel alignment on it, and it purposely cross-eyes it's front wheels tearing up 3 year warranted tires in just 3 months, just like the almighty illuminated ones that run all the auto shops/tire shops in the States do.

    Moses tapping the rock? Like I said, they were NOT children, but man gradually regressed to a stubborn childish state denying their Creator just as they do now. That's why I said God had to call Moses to teach them basics like the Ten Commandments; "You shall not take what's not yours, .. DUH!" for petesakes.
    And yes, the little "desert" trip was to weed out the chaff from the wheat. But just as we see it today with the Germans, evil begets evil. This is why the Lord said for now: "Let them be, I will come and separate the chaff from the wheat, their bodies I will burn with unquenchable fire, and their souls (since the mind/spirit of man cannot be destroyed) I will cast into that fiery hell prepared for the Devil and his angels where they will be tormented day and night (remembering their wicked, conniving evil deeds in life) forever and ever."

    "CREATION that he has absolute rule over" ??
    God didn't create robots, but individuals with their own free will, .. just like He our Creator has. Remember we were created in His image, not evolved from a wet rock.

    God is far from laughing, it GRIEVES Him to see how man enjoys torturing his fellow man. To rob, pillage, cheat, torment others, men women and even little children all while rolling their eyes back up into their sockets in enjoyment!

    I mean take a look at this,


    has not God blessed the Germans, providing the sun (which they desperately try to cover with chem-trails) and the rain (which they also use for destruction with their-HAARP) like he has other nations (even more) and this is how they repay Him? It's like: "In your face God, we rather worship the branches of a dead tree than You! Lucifer is our God, and it is him who we worship, .. see!"


    Choose wisely people, God is not blind nor stupid, He takes a note of everything, and we will give an account to not just every action, but to every word we ever uttered!
    And since we are adults with enough knowledge and power to destroy the whole world (unless God stops them) we shall be judged like adults. He will not treat us like little kids, sending us into the corner to think about what we did, but will cast us into hell to be tormented day and night with the thought of what we did!

    (I've been cut off from Debate.org ???)
  • @Evidence Debate.org is officially dead. May it rest in peace.

    Anyways, I personally see Athiesm as a lack of religion. Definitely an interesting topic, though.
  • EvidenceEvidence 86 Pts
    @Evidence Debate.org is officially dead. May it rest in peace.

    Anyways, I personally see Athiesm as a lack of religion. Definitely an interesting topic, though.

    Debate.org dead, .. why?

    Most atheists that I know are very religious, dedicated to denying the gods in religions, .. of which none is our Infinite and Eternal Creator "I Am".

    Just imagine what will happen when God opens the eyes of the masses where they realize that none of the god/gods found in religion is our Creator God who is mentioned in the Bible! When they'll hear the Bridegroom coming, they will run to get some oil for their lamps (truth), but by that time the Bridegroom will close the door, and those who didn't care before as to which God/gods they worshipped will be left outside, in the dark .. weeping and gnashing their teeth!

    When I talk to Christians about it, they get terrified, since they cannot imagine God being real, and not the one in their religion.
    The Priests and Ministers won't even debate the idea, .. "Not debatable!" they say! But of course, .. since they make a living proselytizing the different gods in religions. That's why the Catholic Religion became the richest organization on the face of the whole earth, .. and with so many people, everyone want's to get in on the action.

    Like Billy Graham, Jim Jones, Benny Hinn, David Koresh, and even Eric Dubay the Flat Earther is selling his version of god/gods! They all have their agenda, and what better book to use to sell their personal god/gods than the Bible, right? The History and the stories in there are so good, Christians don't even realize that the god/gods the business, or social club organizations and the cults (because that's all they are) sell have nothing to do with our Creator mentioned in the Bible. And since it has been over 1,700 years of this, no one dares to question the Religion because even their own family would disown them!
    "Faith my son, .. just believe! Seeking evidence shows lack of faith! God hates unbelievers, trust us, we speak for God so we will take full responsibility, God will not punish you if we're wrong, but will judge you according to your faith" .. and so on. Sad, especially when there is hell to pay!
    Erfisflat
  • ImbsterImbster 89 Pts
    edited June 12
    Contradictory already @Evidence.

    I've watched the video and will only say that on first thought, these are forms of anti-religious fanaticism and any fanaticism is not good for the betterment of a man or society. On second thought, this is just their pure culture.

     How can God be 'grieving' when He only judges according to faith? Good deeds count sends you to heaven? A belief even the bishop wouldn't agree. It's faith in Jesus' death and resurrection that sends you to heaven. Listen here historian, since you claim Catholic Religion is the richest organization then that already goes against Bible teachings. That's why when Catholics give, they act like Pharisees compare it to the woman who had little but gave all. THAT is faith, depending on God's WILL to keep you alive and not FREE WILL for yourself hey I need money for myself. As scholars have proposed people may align their free will with God's will but even as simple as 'paper with value' alignment doesn't happen. That is what the religion proposes. Why they roll their eyes back up into their socket manifesting enjoyment? Who wouldn't enjoy the abusive thought faith in Jesus alone has saved me or my sins are too small?

    The history and stories there are so good in the Bible! My favourite part was when David was told to collect 200 foreskins from a certain race of people to be given to Saul to have the hand of Saul's daughter. Let's not forget that the one God appointed to guard hell and be hell's ruler could actually enter heaven and manifest to us gambling and the earliest side effects of betting. Hey what about one of the most questionable women in the Bible Esther going through perhaps the most unpolitical or royal way to become queen.

    No it doesn't grieve him to see man torture other men but specifically it grieves him for NON-BELIEVERS of CATHOLICISM to torture other men.

    Ephesians 2:8-9
    For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;  it is the gift of God, not of our works, lest anyone should boast

    Links that debunks good people go to heaven
    http://www.allaboutgod.com/how-to-get-to-heaven.htm
    https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/becoming-a-christian/is-christ-the-only-way/dont-all-good-people-go-to-heaven
    https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-only-way.html

    Jesus is the way not your way or the amount of times you helped a woman cross the street.

    So you don't tell me God is grieving with the amount of sin man does because if everyone was catholic, everyone would be saved just by believing in a very important religious teaching about Jesus. Salvation isn't something to be earned in the catholic religion but is already a GIFT. I'm very sure the catholic priests who have molested children are enjoying heaven.

    Very selfish of God to have one unity of people believing in catholicism to enter heaven but anyway that's all that matters to his people who believe they are in the correct and true religion, entering heaven. It doesn't occur to them nor sadden them that other people of other religions don't go to heaven but give them that 'eyes back up into their socket enjoyment' that they were right and other people were crazy not to believe in Jesus as the way.
  • SylynnSylynn 67 Pts
    edited July 7
    With such a long and flawed premise, this will take some time to get through, but here we go...

    "This is indicative that being an Atheist is analogous to being a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist."
    Most religions require a belief in a god. If you do not believe in the god, you can't hold to these religions. This doesn't make atheism itself a religion though. If you believe e-sports are real sports, and I do not agree with you, that doesn't make my disagreement a sport in of itself.

    "They have their own worldview:"
    Though religions have their own worldview, not all worldviews are religions. For example, racists have a worldview that certain races of people are better than others. This doesn't make racism a religion.

    "They have their own Orthodoxy"
    No, it doesn't. Atheism is simply the opposite of theism. Theism itself doesn't have it's own orthodoxy, and neither can atheism. Atheism can do nothing but reject your orthodoxy. 

    "They have their own Apostasy"
    Until you can demonstrate atheism is a religion, no it cannot have it's own apostasy. Apostasy is the abandonment of a religious or political belief. Atheism does not fall into either, therefore cannot have it's own apostasy.

    "They have their own messiah: Charles Darwin"
    No, Darwin was nothing than a man who stumbled upon an explanation for the diversity in species.

    "Charles Darwin destroyed Theism by providing the explanation of life that doesn't require God as a cause or explanation."
    Darwinian evolution does not offer an explanation for life nor does it address a possible need for a god. It is simply a means to explain diversity. Nothing more. In fact even when I was still a Christian I could accept Darwinian evolution as it had no impact on my then beliefs.

    "They have their own preachers and evangelists"
    I believe the word you are looking for is "activist". There are countless causes around this world with people who stand up for those causes, but this doesn't make the cause a religion. 

    "They have faith: God cannot be proven or refuted, to deny it takes faith."
    False. First of all, you offer no definition for faith. The best definition I can offer is when you believe something without a valid reason. If you have evidence to support your belief, no faith is required. However, if I am not convinced such evidence exists to warrant a belief, no faith is required to not believe it. Do you have faith for all the things you don't believe?

    "Evolution cannot account for why our universe is orderly, predictable or measurable. "
    First, no evolution could not account for this as evolution is again, nothing more than a way than explaining the diversity of life on this planet. It in no way addresses anything beyond life on this planet.
    Second, you're making a false assumption that our universe is orderly. It's only predictable or measureable because we have developed the technology and understanding to be able to make such predictions or measurements.

    "Evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why we have rational explanation.  The source of our self-awareness, the source of our consciousness, the universal sense of right and wrong...none of these things can be accounted for with any degree of rationality by Atheists and so faith steps in."
    I don't see how this relates to faith. A lack of an explanation for something is not an expression of faith. However, when you use a god as an explanation and have no evidence to support your claim, faith is required. 

    You provided a valid definition to religion, but definition 1.2 does not stand on it's own. A hobby of mine is photography; particularly landscape photography. It is a pursuit and interest of mine which I do follow with great devotion, however photography isn't a religion. 

    To address your claimed hallmarks of religion

    "1. Faith based belief."
    You have not demonstrated any faith based beliefs. 
    "2. Ritualistic acts"
    You have not provided examples of such acts. Ritualism is also not synonomous with religion.
    "3. Moral code with supernatural origin"
    We make no claims of the existence of the supernatural. In fact this would go against your claim that we are materialist
    "4. A worldview and organization of one's life based upon such"
    Again, just because you have a worldview doesn't mean it's a religion
    "5. A social group bound together by the above"
    The above has not been demonstrated to be true, and outside of that, social groups are not necessarily religious. 

    "Morality is beyond scientific understanding"
    No, it's not and can in fact be explained from an evolutionary perspective. We gain our morality by determining what's in our best interests, or what's best for human flourishing. For a species to survive, we have to figure out ways of getting along. For example, drinking battery acid is objectively bad for you. If I wish to live I would want to refrain from drinking it. If I wouldn't want to drink it, it would also be wrong to force someone else to do it as it would be detrimental for humanity. It's really not that hard to figure this out.
    Vaulk
  • Fr3akFr3ak 24 Pts
    You don't seem to understand what atheism means. A atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. It is a lack of belief, it is not a religion. And even if it was, so what? What would that prove? Atheists still wouldn't believe in any kind of god, so even if you somehow managed to warp that to fit the definition of religion, so what? Exactly what would that prove, and how would that change anything?
  • SylynnSylynn 67 Pts
    Fr3ak said:
    You don't seem to understand what atheism means. A atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. It is a lack of belief, it is not a religion. And even if it was, so what? What would that prove? Atheists still wouldn't believe in any kind of god, so even if you somehow managed to warp that to fit the definition of religion, so what? Exactly what would that prove, and how would that change anything?
    To expand on this (if you don't mind, Fr3ak). Do you believe in Leprechauns? Probably not. Is that your religion? Do you also follow the religion that doesn't believe in Thor, Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster, etc...? A lack of belief in something doesn't make it a religion. Otherwise, as I've already given an example, we would all subscribe to countless religions all based on the things we don't believe.
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    edited August 6
    @Sylynn I like it...let's do this.

    1. Atheism is analogous to Christianity, Islam or Buddhism.  Your refuting that Atheism is not necessarily a Religion as to this argument is accurate...but this argument specifically isn't posed as proof that Atheism is a Religion...it's merely supporting statement.  Therefor your conclusion that this doesn't prove that Atheism is a religion (While true) is an appeal to the already obvious.  As to your "Esport" reference.  Since my hypothetical belief in E-Sports as a real sport could not be a sport itself...then obviously your disbelief in the same also couldn't be a sport itself.  I'm afraid your example is a Faulty Comparison, firstly because you haven't offered two similar variables (My belief in E-sports as legitimate and your disbelief not qualifying as a sport itself), when you stand this comparison to the suggestion that Atheism is analogous to Christianity and other religions the comparison just doesn't align in any similar way, shape or form.  I conclude this to be a logical fallacy.

    2. The Atheist Worldview.  I'm afraid we have another Faulty Comparison here.  You've erroneously attempted to compare a Racist's belief that one Race is superior to another...to the Worldview of religious practitioners.  Racism is not a Worldview as the meaning of "Worldview" is:

    A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/world_view

    Racism is not a philosophy of life and is certainly not a conception of the world.  Racism is the act of prejudice, discrimination or antagonism against someone of another race other than your own base upon the belief that one's own race is superior to another.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

    Because of this I find your second point to be yet another logical fallacy.

    3. Atheists have their own Orthodoxy.  While I respect your opinion, I've already provided the definition of what an Orthodoxy is and how Atheists do have their own.  Your simple statement "No they don't" is admirable but does not do anything to argue my point.  You've provided no evidence to support your claim, but if your intent was simply to voice your disagreement then again I respectfully accept your opinion on the matter.

    4. The apostasy.  I've already defined the meaning of "Apostasy" and "Religion", and Religion does not require that you believe in God.  Religion can be defined as a pursuit or interest that one follows with great devotion.  Furthermore I'm afraid you cannot effectively refute a point by insisting that I must first complete a task that I've already completed.  I have provided my references, I've consistently used the exact same dictionary (Which happens to be widely accepted) and I've made no attempted at underhanded tactics here (Logical fallacies).

    5. Darwin being the Messiah.  I could very well be wrong about this so I'll approach with caution.  "It sounds like" you might be making a personal argument out of this.  I've taken great....great care to preface my debate so that everyone knows I'm not making some statement about their very unique and individualized beliefs or system of beliefs.  "Your" personal feelings or beliefs on the matter of Atheism are not the subject of this debate, never have been and never will be.  I'll no repeat the preface but instead refer you to it above.

    6. Preachers and evangelists.  Here we have the "All or nothing fallacy".  You're suggesting that because there are activists who exist to promote non-religious organizations...this serves as evidence against Atheism being a Religion.  So in your argument...if every activist isn't a Preacher or Evangelist...then none of them are...or it simply can't be proven that any of them are?  Either way this a logical fallacy.

    7. Faith.  First of all, I have offered no definition for a vast majority of the words I've used in my post...but for the sake of the argument:

    Faith: A strongly held belief
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

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

    Evidence: Signs or indications of something
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence

    Proof:Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proof

    The underlying argument that I've made is that if there's no "Proof" then it's a belief.  Please understand that there is a vast distinction between "Evidence" and "Proof".  To simply say that "I have evidence" means that there is in fact something that serves as reason to influence your belief...the distinction that demands notation here is that evidence (While it CAN serve as proof) does not necessarily require ANY facts or truth.  That said, any gap (And there are too many to count) that cannot be filled with Proof will require belief and any strongly held belief that you hold without proof...by definition is faith.  I have faith for many...many...many things, of which I have no proof or even logical reason to believe...it's not such a bad thing.

    8. I'm going to try to wrap this up and address the rest here.  If it isn't possible to achieve an explanation for something that meets or exceeds the standards of reasonable doubt...then any subsequent belief regarding that subject will require faith.  That's not an opinion or a personal view...it's empirically true that faith is what fills the gap when you have no proof of what you believe...no matter what that belief is.  Evidence can do a great deal to assist us in our beliefs but at the end of the day if the evidence does not serve as proof...then you either don't believe or you exercise faith and believe anyway.  If you believe that the world occurs naturally...then your belief is faith based...because while you can present evidence all day long for your cause...it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  The same goes for those who believe in the supernatural, God, ethereal realms ect...ect.  They have faith based beliefs because they cannot prove any of it beyond reasonable doubt.  They have evidence, they have supporting theories and explanations, suggestions and ideas but at the end of the day...there's no proving it beyond reasonable doubt. 

    - No faith based belief: Morality.  There you have it.  If you believe that morality is the product of human evolution...then you are in possession of a faith based belief because that statement cannot be proven and has evidence for and against it.  If you believe regardless of the lack of proof then you have faith by definition.

    - No rituals: I think this website is hilarious but here you go.  Before you claim that it's not a ritual...sigh...please see below for the definition of the word ritual.  Oh and I never suggested that ritualism is synonymous with Religion, I merely pointed out that it is something that both Atheists and Religious practitioners have in common...but I appreciate the comment none-the-less.
    http://atheismandatheists.weebly.com/rites-and-rituals.html

    Ritual: A series of actions or type of behavior regularly and invariably followed by someone.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ritual

    - Let us briefly discover this one.  If I were to ask the question "Why ought I not be selfish"?  Scientific rationale explains that "Being selfish isn't good for the whole of the group".  But there's a problem with this statement, it presumes another moral.  So I would ask "Why ought I be concerned with what's good for the group"?  Scientific rationale explains that "If the group doesn't survive then the species doesn't survive".  This also presumes another moral.  So then I ask "Why ought I be concerned with whether or not the species survives"?  The answer undoubtedly is "You ought to be concerned with the survival of the species because if the species dies out, then you will not survive".  So essentially if the Species is in jeopardy then my own personal interests are in jeopardy.  So in abbreviated form the reasoning goes something like this: I ought not to be selfish because it's better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me.  But acting on what is better for me is selfishness.  So all of this so-called description of where morality comes down to, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement:  I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.

    This is ridiculous, our Morality cannot be reduced to selfishness because our very own moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism.  So truly, evolution's explanation of the reasoning behind Morality doesn't do the job, it's a suggestion that Morality boils down to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all.

    So Morality "Isn't beyond Scientific understanding"?  Last I checked, Science is the study of the physical and natural world.  The first thing to note about Morals is that although they exist...they are NOT physical and have no physical properties.  You won't trip over them in the night, they don't extend into space, their weight cannot be measured, they have no chemical makeup.  They are immaterial entities.  Morals are, with a high degree of certainty, something real.  Morals however, cannot be proven empirically or described in terms of Scientific understanding.  It's clear from the existence of Moral laws that some things really do exist that science has no access to...even in principle.  Some realities are not governed by scientific laws. Science, therefore, is not the only discipline that gives us true information about the world.

    That said, I'd reach as far as to say that you'd be hard pressed to deny the existence of Moral laws and since they aren't physical and have no physical properties then they are beyond the realm of science I'm afraid. 

    Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the PHYSICAL and NATURAL world through observation and experiment.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science

    Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supernatural

    So there you have it.  If you believe that Moral Laws exist then you believe in something that is supernatural and cannot be explained by science by definition. 

    If Moral Laws are supernatural and the supernatural is beyond scientific understanding then Moral Laws are beyond Scientific understanding and therefor require faith to believe in.  This is what's called empirical truth.
    I R R E F U T A B L E







  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 185 Pts
    edited August 6
    Vaulk said:
    The case for the assertion that Atheism can be viewed as a Religion can be found in an answer that an Atheist might have for the question "Are you a Christian"? 

    An Atheist might answer with, "No, I'm an Atheist".

    When asked "Are you a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu"?  An Atheist may answer the same, "No, I'm an Atheist". 

    This is indicative that being an Atheist is analogous to being a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.  On the same hand this also suggests that Atheism is analogous to Christianity, Islam or Buddhism.  In layman's terms, Atheism can be viewed as comparable to Religion.

    Poor logic. This means they are mutually exclusive, not that they are automatically analogous in the fashion you want to make them.

    You can easily replace a few words in the above sentence to show how the logic does not hold.

    "The case for the assertion that cats can be viewed ascogs can be found in an answer that a cat owner might have for the question "Is that a Great Dane"? A cat owner might answer with, "No, it's a cat". When asked "Is is a German Shepherd, Dalmatian or Poodle "?  A cat owner may answer the same, "No, it's a cat".

    "This is indicative that being a cat is analogous to being a Great Dane, German Shepherd or Poodle.  In layman's terms, cats can be viewed as comparable to dogs. "

    So, are cats actually a type of dog? Your logic says yes

    You can't just assume mutually exclusive things are automatically analogous in any way you happen to feel like. Sometimes some mutually exclusive things can be analogoous in some ways (e.g. both cats and dogs are mammals) but in others they can be very different. Your argument does not support your own conclusion.


    1. What does Atheism have in common with Religion?
        a. They have their own worldview: Materialism: The theory of belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.  Atheists interpret all data within the worldview of materialism.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/materialism
    http://strangenotions.com/nothings-the-matter-with-atheistic-materialism/
        b. They have their own Orthodoxy : Authorized or generally accepted theories, doctrines, or practices. Atheists maintain that everything can be explained as the product of unintentional, non-directed, purposeless evolution.  No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/orthodoxy
        c. They have their own Apostasy: To abandon one's former religious faith.  Antony Flew was one of the world's most prominent Atheists before he changed his mind.  He was vilified by Richard Dawkins and the New Atheist Movement and was accused of "Tergiversation" (Changing one's loyalties; abandoning a belief or principle).
    http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/09/eminent-atheist-changes-his-mind-the-antony-flew-story/
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tergiversate
        d. They have their own messiah: Charles Darwin.  In thew views of the New Atheist Movement, Charles Darwin destroyed Theism by providing the explanation of life that doesn't require God as a cause or explanation.
        e. They have their own preachers and evangelists: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.  These Men aren't out there to ask that Atheism be given respect, they're looking for converts and calling for the end of Theism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
        f.  They have faith: God cannot be proven or refuted, to deny it takes faith.  Evolution cannot account for why our universe is orderly, predictable or measurable.  Evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why we have rational explanation.  The source of our self-awareness, the source of our consciousness, the universal sense of right and wrong...none of these things can be accounted for with any degree of rationality by Atheists and so faith steps in.
    http://strangenotions.com/do-atheists-have-faith/   ;

    a) Having a worldview is not analogous with religion. Think economic world views like Capitalism, Communism or people who's world views are based on general ethics like egalitarianism
    b) You're stretching definition of the word orthodoxy to the point where is loses meaning and any relevance to religion is lost. In your usage it just means "a typical way of doing things". On that basis professional wrestling has an orthodoxy. Going to the toilet has an orthodoxy. It loses any connection to religion and the moment you try and use it in a religion specific context of a hierarchical top-down belief structure that says what must be believed you lose the analogy.
    c) Similar to B, you're using the term in a way which loses any connection to religion and is just means "a minority of people doing something a different way". Again, professional wrestling has an apostasy by that standard (e.g.the ultra violent ones which used barbed wire). Going to the toilet has an apostasy (Some people use bidets, some people just go in bushes!).
    d) Unsupported claims. Personally I think it's very obviously Charles Darwin isn't a messiah (nor do all religions have a messiah anyway) and did not set out to destroy theism. The work he initiated has made certain specific beliefs untenable (e.g. man was created in his current form by a deity) but in general people are still free to believe whatever they want. You seem to be misusing the term to refer to having some kind of well known figure associated with it, which is not the meaning of the word
    e) Promoting something is not specific to religion. Pretty much anything people have an opinion on will be promoted by some people, e.g wrestling fans talking about how great wrestling is or, hell, even adverts for it on tv.
    f) A semantic solipsistic argument that is based on unsubstantiated claims.

    Now as to the meaning of Religion.  While I admit in the past I have held strictly conservative views on the meanings of words, I concede that context is the supreme ruler of communication in that the meaning of a word can change not only over time, but by how people use them.  It's still worthwhile to respect our socially accepted meaning of a word before attempting to build a case around it.

    Religion:
    [Mass noun]
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
    1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods.

    1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship.

    1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

    To summarize, one could say that if something is Religious, then that something is concerning, related to or regarding God(s).  Atheism is a direct position against the existence of God(s). 
    No, you couldn't. Read your definition again. Only one point relates to God(s) and that was "1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods.". Now tell me, does it say that any kind of relationship or opinion of God(s) qualifies as religion? Or does it say specifically that belief in and worship of God(s) qualifies as religion?

    While distinctions are firmly in place between Atheism and traditional Religious practices, the hallmarks of  Religion are observable within the Atheist community and those are:

    1. Faith based belief.
    2. Ritualistic acts
    3. Moral code with supernatural origin
    4. A worldview and organization of one's life based upon such
    5. A social group bound together by the above

    To clarify,1). Atheism is faith based as I've mentioned before, there is no proving or disproving God and therefor any belief or disbelief is faith based at some point.  2). Atheists apply the materialistic worldview to all data as a matter of rigorous practice.  3). Atheists have admitted openly to having a moral code which comes off more often than not as "I don't need God to be good" but since Morality is beyond scientific understanding...it's supernatural.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/defining-the-characteristics-of-religion-250679


    For these reasons I contend that Atheism is a Religion, a Religion unlike any other but a Religion none-the-less.

    1) You claimed religion was faith based but did nto support it and used definitions and logic which are solipsistic to the extent is loses meaning.

    2) A ritual is "A religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order." The use of the scientific method does not fit this definition. Also as it does not seem akin to religious ceremony, it is not merely a semantic point.

    3) Baseless claims.

    4) Stretching definitions so they have nothing to do with religion, see the comparison to wrestling, etc earlier in this post.

    5) Not even sure what point you're trying to make here, although again I'm sure it's some vastly vague over-generalisation that could also be applied to a whole host of non-religious topics (e.g. wrestling fans).
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    edited August 7
    @AlwaysCorrect Bravo and I appreciate the retort.

    In lieu of paragraphing my response as I normally do, I'm going to instead refute point by point in response in favor of effective debating.

    1.
    Vaulk said:
    The case for the assertion that Atheism can be viewed as a Religion can be found in an answer that an Atheist might have for the question "Are you a Christian"? 

    An Atheist might answer with, "No, I'm an Atheist".

    When asked "Are you a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu"?  An Atheist may answer the same, "No, I'm an Atheist". 

    This is indicative that being an Atheist is analogous to being a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.  On the same hand this also suggests that Atheism is analogous to Christianity, Islam or Buddhism.  In layman's terms, Atheism can be viewed as comparable to Religion.

    Poor logic. This means they are mutually exclusive, not that they are automatically analogous in the fashion you want to make them.

    You can easily replace a few words in the above sentence to show how the logic does not hold.

    "The case for the assertion that cats can be viewed ascogs can be found in an answer that a cat owner might have for the question "Is that a Great Dane"? A cat owner might answer with, "No, it's a cat". When asked "Is is a German Shepherd, Dalmatian or Poodle "?  A cat owner may answer the same, "No, it's a cat".

    "This is indicative that being a cat is analogous to being a Great Dane, German Shepherd or Poodle.  In layman's terms, cats can be viewed as comparable to dogs. "

    So, are cats actually a type of dog? Your logic says yes

    You can't just assume mutually exclusive things are automatically analogous in any way you happen to feel like. Sometimes some mutually exclusive things can be analogoous in some ways (e.g. both cats and dogs are mammals) but in others they can be very different. Your argument does not support your own conclusion.

    Your example of cats vs dogs is a perfect example that actually proves my point.  Cats and Dogs are in fact analogous by definition.  I apologize for not clarifying the term "Analogous" so I will do so here:

    Analogous: Comparable in certain respects, typically in a way which makes clearer the nature of the things compared.
    ‘they saw the relationship between a ruler and his subjects as analogous to that of father and children’

    1 Biology (of organs) performing a similar function but having a different evolutionary origin, such as the wings of insects and birds.
    Often contrasted with homologous
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/analogous


    Back to Cats and Dogs.  While Cats and Dogs are certainly different species, they are both, by definition, analogous in that they are both recognized and accepted traditional domesticated pets.  While (For example) Christianity and Atheism do not consists of the same beliefs and are quite different...they are both comparable in certain respects as they both pertain to one's own worldview concerning Religion and/or Gods.  Likewise Communism and Democracy are both opposing views to one another but are analogous in that they are both economical and political systems by which the said systems of certain countries are defined.

    Your example, while it was well thought out, is a faulty comparison.  You're example is that A and B (Cats and Dogs) are not one and the same.  You've also suggested that I have tried to use the same logic, that A and B are one and the same when in fact...I've used 3 variables instead of two. 
    My suggestion as listed above is that Christianity (A) and Atheism (B) are both a type of Religion (C).  Your example is that Dogs (A) are not Cats (B) and therefor serves as a faulty comparison and does not accurately exemplify my statement.  It serves to unfairly paint my example as false without providing a logical reason for such.

    Your example would need to look like this: Dogs (A) and Cats (B) are not Pets (C).

    I'll stop for counters to this point, and post my response to the rest after this is received.


  • Vaulk said:
    @AlwaysCorrect Bravo and I appreciate the retort.

    Your example of cats vs dogs is a perfect example that actually proves my point.  Cats and Dogs are in fact analogous by definition.  I apologize for not clarifying the term "Analogous" so I will do so here:

    Analogous: Comparable in certain respects, typically in a way which makes clearer the nature of the things compared.
    ‘they saw the relationship between a ruler and his subjects as analogous to that of father and children’

    1 Biology (of organs) performing a similar function but having a different evolutionary origin, such as the wings of insects and birds.
    Often contrasted with homologous
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/analogous


    Back to Cats and Dogs.  While Cats and Dogs are certainly different species, they are both, by definition, analogous in that they are both recognized and accepted traditional domesticated pets.  While (For example) Christianity and Atheism do not consists of the same beliefs and are quite different...they are both comparable in certain respects as they both pertain to one's own worldview concerning Religion and/or Gods.  Likewise Communism and Democracy are both opposing views to one another but are analogous in that they are both economical and political systems by which the said systems of certain countries are defined.

    I don't think you understand what "by definition" means. It isn't something you say when definitions are involved in a conversation in some way, but something you use when the very meaning of the word proves your argument. In fact they are not analogous "by definition" and you instead have to present a separate argument explaining why they fit the definition.

    You also don't seem to have understood the point or why your statements hear harm your overall argument.

    Firstly as I already stated in my previous post "Sometimes some mutually exclusive things can be analogous in some ways (e.g. both cats and dogs are mammals) but in others they can be very different." The fact that cats and dogs are analogous in some ways is part of my argument and does nothing to help you. The point of the argument you have chosen to make is not that atheism and religion is in someway analogous (because it of possible to have really stretched analogies, want me to make an analogy between religion and a childhood playground fight to prove my point?) but that they fall under the same classification.

    Your argument actually harms that. You have accepted my argument that cats cannot be classified as dogs. You also admit they are analogy in some regards. Therefore you implicitly concede that being analogous in some ways does not mean that two things automatically fall under the same classification - which shoots a hole into pretty much all of your argument seeing as you rely on these vague analogies for the majority of your points.

    Vaulk said:

    Your example, while it was well thought out, is a faulty comparison.  You're example is that A and B (Cats and Dogs) are not one and the same.  You've also suggested that I have tried to use the same logic, that A and B are one and the same when in fact...I've used 3 variables instead of two. 
    My suggestion as listed above is that Christianity (A) and Atheism (B) are both a type of Religion (C).  Your example is that Dogs (A) are not Cats (B) and therefor serves as a faulty comparison and does not accurately exemplify my statement.  It serves to unfairly paint my example as false without providing a logical reason for such.

    Your example would need to look like this: Dogs (A) and Cats (B) are not Pets (C).

    I'll stop for counters to this point, and post my response to the rest after this is received.
    This is very clearly a false claim as can be seen by just looking at my post.

    You want to see if Atheism (B) qualifies as Religion (C) by seeing if it is mutually exclusive with specific examples of religion such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc (A).

    In my example you see if  Cats (B) qualify as Dogs (C) be seeing if they are mutually exclusive with specific examples of dog such as Great Danes, German shepherds, Poodle, etc (A).

    I quote clearly provided the same breakdown, but for some reason you are counting the specific examples of religion as a category for you but not the specific examples of dogs as a category for me even though they are obviously comparable. I not only provided the same breakdown, what I posted was even quoting you in your own words! I literally C+Ped parts of your argument and then replaced words. It is your argument. It also results in faulty conclusions. It does not support your argument.
  • VaulkVaulk 199 Pts
    edited August 10

    I don't think you understand what "by definition" means. It isn't something you say when definitions are involved in a conversation in some way, but something you use when the very meaning of the word proves your argument. In fact they are not analogous "by definition" and you instead have to present a separate argument explaining why they fit the definition.
    I concede this point as a matter of fact and I did word it incorrectly in my haste to respond.  Well said.

    You also don't seem to have understood the point or why your statements hear harm your overall argument.

    Firstly as I already stated in my previous post "Sometimes some mutually exclusive things can be analogous in some ways (e.g. both cats and dogs are mammals) but in others they can be very different." The fact that cats and dogs are analogous in some ways is part of my argument and does nothing to help you. The point of the argument you have chosen to make is not that atheism and religion is in someway analogous (because it of possible to have really stretched analogies, want me to make an analogy between religion and a childhood playground fight to prove my point?) but that they fall under the same classification.

    Your argument actually harms that. You have accepted my argument that cats cannot be classified as dogs. You also admit they are analogy in some regards. Therefore you implicitly concede that being analogous in some ways does not mean that two things automatically fall under the same classification - which shoots a hole into pretty much all of your argument seeing as you rely on these vague analogies for the majority of your points.
    I never said that Atheism and Religion are analogous, only that they are comparable in some regards.  Since I've already defined analogous then I see no reason to go further on this.  I did specifically state that Atheism and Christianity (Among a few other religions) are analogous and it remains so.  They are also mutually exclusive in that they cannot occur simultaneously (You can't be Christian AND Atheist) but this does nothing to prove that they aren't still analogous.  And as to your statement about it shooting a hole in my argument...the references to Atheism being analogous to Christianity was simply a supporting statement to show that they can be considered similar in some ways...comparable.  It wasn't my argument as a whole and doesn't represent "Pretty much all of my argument". 

    This is very clearly a false claim as can be seen by just looking at my post.

    You want to see if Atheism (B) qualifies as Religion (C) by seeing if it is mutually exclusive with specific examples of religion such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc (A).

    In my example you see if  Cats (B) qualify as Dogs (C) be seeing if they are mutually exclusive with specific examples of dog such as Great Danes, German shepherds, Poodle, etc (A).

    I quote clearly provided the same breakdown, but for some reason you are counting the specific examples of religion as a category for you but not the specific examples of dogs as a category for me even though they are obviously comparable. I not only provided the same breakdown, what I posted was even quoting you in your own words! I literally C+Ped parts of your argument and then replaced words. It is your argument. It also results in faulty conclusions. It does not support your argument.
    I'll have to correct you here, nowhere in my post and I do mean nowhere did I state, suggest or imply directly or indirectly (And I challenge you to show otherwise) that "I want to show that Atheism qualifies as Religion by seeing if it is mutually exclusive with specific examples such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, ect".  By showing that Atheism and Christianity, Islam, Hinduism are analogous, I'm suggesting that Atheism can be considered similar to Religion by providing clarity through comparison of the things I'm standing side by side.  By showing the Christianity ect is a Worldview and Atheism is also a Worldview I'm further narrowing what they are and are not which provides a more refined understanding (Clarity) as to the two compared subjects.  You and I will have to agree to disagree that it hurts my argument.

    In your comparison:
    Dogs (A) (Great Dane, German Shepherd, Dalmation, poodle)
    VS
    Cats (B)
    there is still no third element.  Your example is to suggest that Dogs cannot be Cats.  Dogs and Cats were both variables (No matter how many examples of each you offered) and there are two variables to your example.

    My example:
    Types of Religions (A)  (Christianity, Islam and hinduism)
    VS
    Atheism  (B)
    Religion  (C)
    There are three variables in my comparison, types of beliefs, Atheism, and Religion as a whole.  I provided distinction between all three while also comparing a few Religious beliefs with Atheism to show a comparison.

    Also:

    You want to see if Atheism (B) qualifies as Religion (C) by seeing if it is mutually exclusive with specific examples of religion such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc (A).
    I made no such suggestion in my first point (The analogous elements) that Atheism might qualify as Religion.  This is unmistakable.  While the point was to offer a supporting argument, this particular support argument DOES NOT suggest that Atheism qualifies as Religion.  Instead it suggest that Atheism is "Comparable" to Religion and Religious beliefs.  The point itself does not serve and was not intended to serve as qualification for my argument.  Either you horribly misunderstood or did not read it correctly as I've double checked and found no reason to draw that conclusion.
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    Vaulk said:
    For reference, we'll be discussing "Western Atheism".  As a disclaimer, I make no supposition that "All" of any group of individuals are "All" the same or "All" believe the same way.  For the purpose of debating this subject it's necessary to establish that in this context, "Atheists" is a reference to the prominent leaders (And the numbers that maintain their belief) in Atheism in Western Culture today: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer and Peter Singer.  Understanding that there are individuals out there who do not necessarily believe the same way that the individuals listed above do, we're going to discuss prominent Atheism as the majority and not the exception to the group.


    The case for the assertion that Atheism can be viewed as a Religion can be found in an answer that an Atheist might have for the question "Are you a Christian"? 

    An Atheist might answer with, "No, I'm an Atheist".

    When asked "Are you a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu"?  An Atheist may answer the same, "No, I'm an Atheist". 

    This is indicative that being an Atheist is analogous to being a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.  On the same hand this also suggests that Atheism is analogous to Christianity, Islam or Buddhism.  In layman's terms, Atheism can be viewed as comparable to Religion.

    To make this further evident we should ask ourselves the following:

    1. What does Atheism have in common with Religion?
        a. They have their own worldview: Materialism: The theory of belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.  Atheists interpret all data within the worldview of materialism.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/materialism
    http://strangenotions.com/nothings-the-matter-with-atheistic-materialism/
        b. They have their own Orthodoxy : Authorized or generally accepted theories, doctrines, or practices. Atheists maintain that everything can be explained as the product of unintentional, non-directed, purposeless evolution.  No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/orthodoxy
        c. They have their own Apostasy: To abandon one's former religious faith.  Antony Flew was one of the world's most prominent Atheists before he changed his mind.  He was vilified by Richard Dawkins and the New Atheist Movement and was accused of "Tergiversation" (Changing one's loyalties; abandoning a belief or principle).
    http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/09/eminent-atheist-changes-his-mind-the-antony-flew-story/
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tergiversate
        d. They have their own messiah: Charles Darwin.  In thew views of the New Atheist Movement, Charles Darwin destroyed Theism by providing the explanation of life that doesn't require God as a cause or explanation.
        e. They have their own preachers and evangelists: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.  These Men aren't out there to ask that Atheism be given respect, they're looking for converts and calling for the end of Theism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
        f.  They have faith: God cannot be proven or refuted, to deny it takes faith.  Evolution cannot account for why our universe is orderly, predictable or measurable.  Evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why we have rational explanation.  The source of our self-awareness, the source of our consciousness, the universal sense of right and wrong...none of these things can be accounted for with any degree of rationality by Atheists and so faith steps in.
    http://strangenotions.com/do-atheists-have-faith/   ;

    Now as to the meaning of Religion.  While I admit in the past I have held strictly conservative views on the meanings of words, I concede that context is the supreme ruler of communication in that the meaning of a word can change not only over time, but by how people use them.  It's still worthwhile to respect our socially accepted meaning of a word before attempting to build a case around it.

    Religion:
    [Mass noun]
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
    1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods.

    1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship.

    1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

    To summarize, one could say that if something is Religious, then that something is concerning, related to or regarding God(s).  Atheism is a direct position against the existence of God(s).  While distinctions are firmly in place between Atheism and traditional Religious practices, the hallmarks of  Religion are observable within the Atheist community and those are:

    1. Faith based belief.
    2. Ritualistic acts
    3. Moral code with supernatural origin
    4. A worldview and organization of one's life based upon such
    5. A social group bound together by the above

    To clarify,1). Atheism is faith based as I've mentioned before, there is no proving or disproving God and therefor any belief or disbelief is faith based at some point.  2). Atheists apply the materialistic worldview to all data as a matter of rigorous practice.  3). Atheists have admitted openly to having a moral code which comes off more often than not as "I don't need God to be good" but since Morality is beyond scientific understanding...it's supernatural.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/defining-the-characteristics-of-religion-250679


    For these reasons I contend that Atheism is a Religion, a Religion unlike any other but a Religion none-the-less.
    Theism means you believe in at least one god. Atheism means you don't. There are no associated worldviews. There are no "leaders". There are no doctrines. There are no messiahs, because there are no gods. There is no faith. Even the individuals you listed don't have the same worldviews, or agree on everything. The problem is theist can't comprehend an existence without believing in their various gods.

    If you ask a bunch of people what sport they play and you get a list of basketball, football, baseball, etc, and someone says "I don't play sports" do you think that is a sport? No you don't. Atheist wouldn't even be a word if theist would stop shoving their gods down everyone's throats. I me there isn't a word for a non-sports player is there? No there isn't.



    Why is this so difficult for theists to understand, we don't want to play your game. We don't believe in santa anymore. When you understand why you don't believe in thor, you'll understand why I don't believe in your god.
  • Imbster said:
    Contradictory already @Evidence.

    @Imbster Contradictory already @Evidence.
    I've watched the video and will only say that on first thought, these are forms of anti-religious fanaticism and any fanaticism is not good for the betterment of a man or society. On second thought, this is just their pure culture.

    Wow, I thank my Lord, and you guys for responding! I just found these replies, I am truly sorry for the delay.
    To avoid fanaticism is why I chose the name "Evidence", because faith without evidence is nothing less than foolish, and in many cases can be fatal, with eternal consequences. (Jim Jones was a good example)

    Culture? Yes, I believe you are right, but could be called a religion too, looks like a Religion to me.

    Imbster - How can God be 'grieving' when He only judges according to faith? Good deeds count sends you to heaven? A belief even the bishop wouldn't agree. It's faith in Jesus' death and resurrection that sends you to heaven. Listen here historian, since you claim Catholic Religion is the richest organization then that already goes against Bible teachings. That's why when Catholics give, they act like Pharisees compare it to the woman who had little but gave all.

    Yes, the Catholic Religion is the perfect example of hypocrisy.
    Yes God judges according to your faith, but not like we've been taught, or what Dictionaries tell us the definition, this "blind faith". God does not reward ignorance. Here is a good example:

    Judges 11:30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, 31 then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”

    I'm sure you know who came out to meet him after he won the battle, right? If not, 'it was his own daughter'.
    This is a perfect example of self-righteous ignorance that billions and billions of people are suckered into, especially by a simple technique like miss-defining the word "faith".

    Jephthah murdered his daughter, his only beloved daughter, .. burnt her on an alter as he promised to the Lord.

    He never considered if God would accept such offering, nor did God ask for such an offering like He did of Abraham to test his faith. There was no communication between Jephthah and God, and even after he made that boastful promise, should he have talked to God or His Prophets, they would have called him a fool, and would have instructed him not to go through with it.

    As far as I can tell, the worlds definition of "faith" has to be one of Satan's biggest deception; "that you don't need evidence to have faith"!

    So here are billions of people piling into Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, Churches thinking they're doing God a service? Accepting anything, good or BS coming from the pulpit, and giving their money as if God was in desperate need of it, while the Ministers are laughing their rears off all the way to the bank.

    Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    Not "blind faith"

    Imbster - THAT is faith, depending on God's WILL to keep you alive and not FREE WILL for yourself hey I need money for myself. As scholars have proposed people may align their free will with God's will but even as simple as 'paper with value' alignment doesn't happen. That is what the religion proposes. Why they roll their eyes back up into their socket manifesting enjoyment? Who wouldn't enjoy the abusive thought faith in Jesus alone has saved me or my sins are too small?

    True, so the people, the seekers better have some evidence with substance that Jesus is real before they put their salvation in the hands of this Jesus their Pastor is peddling, right?

    Imbster - The history and stories there are so good in the Bible! My favourite part was when David was told to collect 200 foreskins from a certain race of people to be given to Saul to have the hand of Saul's daughter. Let's not forget that the one God appointed to guard hell and be hell's ruler could actually enter heaven and manifest to us gambling and the earliest side effects of betting. Hey what about one of the most questionable women in the Bible Esther going through perhaps the most unpolitical or royal way to become queen.

    First you have to understand who the foreskins belonged to? These were pagan gods worshipping nations cursing our Creator, they were already dead before our God, and were to be wiped off the face of the Earth just as God did to all of wicked humanity with the flood.

    What's with the story of Esther? Remember that people react according to their faith, so those with little faith may not react with the same commitment as let's say David against Goliath did. God judges according to the level of our faith, which He expects us to build on!

    But if someone did all the righteous deeds for a man who claims to be "God on Earth, the Holiest of Fathers" all their life, and even bringing others to bow down and kiss the ring on this man-gods fingers, and bows and prays before idols, then on top of that bringing in more people to pray before these idols, .. that person after giving up their spirit better expect the dreadful saying from our Lord: "Who are you? I tell you I have never known you! Take this wicked person and tie her hands and feet and cast her into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth!"

    Imbster - No it doesn't grieve him to see man torture other men but specifically it grieves him for NON-BELIEVERS of CATHOLICISM to torture other men.

    Yes, in the OT days (you really do have to take the entire Bible as a whole, not cherry pick like the religions do) In the O.T. God had His People deal mercilessly with His enemies, just as God mercilessly drowned all men, women and children in Noah's flood.
    But take heed, because now that He sent His only Beloved Son to die for us, and those who reject this awesome kind and merciful offer will be dealt with far, far, far greater cruelty than what His Children could have ever done in those O.T - B.C. days!

    Look what the catholic church offers; "Christ", and what they actually deliver: turning people to worship a man as god, and bow to idols!? Yes, they and all the denominations that bare the same name will be dealt with the harshest!

    Imbster - Ephesians 2:8-9
    For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;  it is the gift of God, not of our works, lest anyone should boast

    That's right, so we better make sure as to "who" it is we put our faith in, right? And not get all puffy in our "good works", because if it wasn't for Gods Mercy, we'd be all slaughtered like the wicked unbelievers in the O.T, so we better be really grateful, right?
    And if you ever owned a business, you would know which are your "grateful for the job" workers/servants and those who just there to pick up their checks on Friday, right?

    Imbster - "Links that debunks good people go to heaven
    http://www.allaboutgod.com/how-to-get-to-heaven.htm
    https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/becoming-a-christian/is-christ-the-only-way/dont-all-good-people-go-to-heaven
    https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-only-way.html

    Jesus is the way not your way or the amount of times you helped a woman cross the street."

    Hey Imbster, I don't think you understand how I understand the Bible, how I understand "faith", or how I "believe" in God. You are quoting answers from the Christian Religions perspective, which I can show you is NOT the Bibles perspective, in other words, it is not how God carved our road to salvation, that narrow, but straight path.
    Without evidence, Jesus could be the Mexican guy who comes and helps me clean my yard, or this guy here:


    Imbster - So you don't tell me God is grieving with the amount of sin man does because if everyone was catholic, everyone would be saved just by believing in a very important religious teaching about Jesus. Salvation isn't something to be earned in the catholic religion but is already a GIFT. I'm very sure the catholic priests who have molested children are enjoying heaven.

    Yes, you just described "blind faith" which every religion requires if you want to get into their heaven where even child molesters are having fun in.
    This is NOT how the Bible describes it, or what our Lord Jesus taught. I am religious about "evidence", not "Religion" as in organized Religion. My version and definition of "faith' is as described in Hebrews 11:1, I know who my God is, and who His Son Word is (aka Jesus Christ), I don't go from church to church following false Christ's.

    Look, about this "gift": If you were on death row, and someone bailed you out and asked only that you show repentance of your previous actions and try not to do them anymore, and to show appreciation to the One who bailed you out, wouldn't you consider it a "gift"?

    Imbster - Very selfish of God to have one unity of people believing in catholicism to enter heaven but anyway that's all that matters to his people who believe they are in the correct and true religion, entering heaven. It doesn't occur to them nor sadden them that other people of other religions don't go to heaven but give them that 'eyes back up into their socket enjoyment' that they were right and other people were crazy not to believe in Jesus as the way.

    NO organized Religion offers the God of the Bible, or His Son Jesus Christ. Now how many Bible believers/doers will enter heaven, I don't know? But I know this, that any person that worshipped a man, or a black rock as God, or spent their life bowing before idols will not enter Heaven I don't care who the person making the promise is.

    If anyone doesn't know who God is, better start looking for evidence of Him, because they will not find God by jumping from religion to religion, blindly putting their faith in the gods they are offered to accept on blind faith!

    Evidence is what we observe through scientific observation of both the visible things, and the invisible. The things we cannot see, we have to detect by other means; spiritual by spiritual and physical by physical evidence, and today there is no excuse. If you don't have evidence, solid evidence, evidence with substance, STOP. Don't just go in and think your dumb blind faith in that church Minister, no matter how good he can explain the Bible stories to you will save you. (not you personally, but generally speaking)
  • Sylynn said:
    With such a long and flawed premise, this will take some time to get through, but here we go...

    "This is indicative that being an Atheist is analogous to being a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist."
    Most religions require a belief in a god. If you do not believe in the god, you can't hold to these religions. This doesn't make atheism itself a religion though. If you believe e-sports are real sports, and I do not agree with you, that doesn't make my disagreement a sport in of itself.

    "They have their own worldview:"
    Though religions have their own worldview, not all worldviews are religions. For example, racists have a worldview that certain races of people are better than others. This doesn't make racism a religion.

    "They have their own Orthodoxy"
    No, it doesn't. Atheism is simply the opposite of theism. Theism itself doesn't have it's own orthodoxy, and neither can atheism. Atheism can do nothing but reject your orthodoxy. 

    "They have their own Apostasy"
    Until you can demonstrate atheism is a religion, no it cannot have it's own apostasy. Apostasy is the abandonment of a religious or political belief. Atheism does not fall into either, therefore cannot have it's own apostasy.

    "They have their own messiah: Charles Darwin"
    No, Darwin was nothing than a man who stumbled upon an explanation for the diversity in species.

    "Charles Darwin destroyed Theism by providing the explanation of life that doesn't require God as a cause or explanation."
    Darwinian evolution does not offer an explanation for life nor does it address a possible need for a god. It is simply a means to explain diversity. Nothing more. In fact even when I was still a Christian I could accept Darwinian evolution as it had no impact on my then beliefs.

    "They have their own preachers and evangelists"
    I believe the word you are looking for is "activist". There are countless causes around this world with people who stand up for those causes, but this doesn't make the cause a religion. 

    "They have faith: God cannot be proven or refuted, to deny it takes faith."
    False. First of all, you offer no definition for faith. The best definition I can offer is when you believe something without a valid reason. If you have evidence to support your belief, no faith is required. However, if I am not convinced such evidence exists to warrant a belief, no faith is required to not believe it. Do you have faith for all the things you don't believe?

    "Evolution cannot account for why our universe is orderly, predictable or measurable. "
    First, no evolution could not account for this as evolution is again, nothing more than a way than explaining the diversity of life on this planet. It in no way addresses anything beyond life on this planet.
    Second, you're making a false assumption that our universe is orderly. It's only predictable or measureable because we have developed the technology and understanding to be able to make such predictions or measurements.

    "Evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why we have rational explanation.  The source of our self-awareness, the source of our consciousness, the universal sense of right and wrong...none of these things can be accounted for with any degree of rationality by Atheists and so faith steps in."
    I don't see how this relates to faith. A lack of an explanation for something is not an expression of faith. However, when you use a god as an explanation and have no evidence to support your claim, faith is required. 

    You provided a valid definition to religion, but definition 1.2 does not stand on it's own. A hobby of mine is photography; particularly landscape photography. It is a pursuit and interest of mine which I do follow with great devotion, however photography isn't a religion. 

    To address your claimed hallmarks of religion

    "1. Faith based belief."
    You have not demonstrated any faith based beliefs. 
    "2. Ritualistic acts"
    You have not provided examples of such acts. Ritualism is also not synonomous with religion.
    "3. Moral code with supernatural origin"
    We make no claims of the existence of the supernatural. In fact this would go against your claim that we are materialist
    "4. A worldview and organization of one's life based upon such"
    Again, just because you have a worldview doesn't mean it's a religion
    "5. A social group bound together by the above"
    The above has not been demonstrated to be true, and outside of that, social groups are not necessarily religious. 

    "Morality is beyond scientific understanding"
    No, it's not and can in fact be explained from an evolutionary perspective. We gain our morality by determining what's in our best interests, or what's best for human flourishing. For a species to survive, we have to figure out ways of getting along. For example, drinking battery acid is objectively bad for you. If I wish to live I would want to refrain from drinking it. If I wouldn't want to drink it, it would also be wrong to force someone else to do it as it would be detrimental for humanity. It's really not that hard to figure this out.

    Who was this post directed to?
  • Evidence said:
    Sylynn said:
    With such a long and flawed premise, this will take some time to get through, but here we go...

    "This is indicative that being an Atheist is analogous to being a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist."
    Most religions require a belief in a god. If you do not believe in the god, you can't hold to these religions. This doesn't make atheism itself a religion though. If you believe e-sports are real sports, and I do not agree with you, that doesn't make my disagreement a sport in of itself.

    "They have their own worldview:"
    Though religions have their own worldview, not all worldviews are religions. For example, racists have a worldview that certain races of people are better than others. This doesn't make racism a religion.

    "They have their own Orthodoxy"
    No, it doesn't. Atheism is simply the opposite of theism. Theism itself doesn't have it's own orthodoxy, and neither can atheism. Atheism can do nothing but reject your orthodoxy. 

    "They have their own Apostasy"
    Until you can demonstrate atheism is a religion, no it cannot have it's own apostasy. Apostasy is the abandonment of a religious or political belief. Atheism does not fall into either, therefore cannot have it's own apostasy.

    "They have their own messiah: Charles Darwin"
    No, Darwin was nothing than a man who stumbled upon an explanation for the diversity in species.

    "Charles Darwin destroyed Theism by providing the explanation of life that doesn't require God as a cause or explanation."
    Darwinian evolution does not offer an explanation for life nor does it address a possible need for a god. It is simply a means to explain diversity. Nothing more. In fact even when I was still a Christian I could accept Darwinian evolution as it had no impact on my then beliefs.

    "They have their own preachers and evangelists"
    I believe the word you are looking for is "activist". There are countless causes around this world with people who stand up for those causes, but this doesn't make the cause a religion. 

    "They have faith: God cannot be proven or refuted, to deny it takes faith."
    False. First of all, you offer no definition for faith. The best definition I can offer is when you believe something without a valid reason. If you have evidence to support your belief, no faith is required. However, if I am not convinced such evidence exists to warrant a belief, no faith is required to not believe it. Do you have faith for all the things you don't believe?

    "Evolution cannot account for why our universe is orderly, predictable or measurable. "
    First, no evolution could not account for this as evolution is again, nothing more than a way than explaining the diversity of life on this planet. It in no way addresses anything beyond life on this planet.
    Second, you're making a false assumption that our universe is orderly. It's only predictable or measureable because we have developed the technology and understanding to be able to make such predictions or measurements.

    "Evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why we have rational explanation.  The source of our self-awareness, the source of our consciousness, the universal sense of right and wrong...none of these things can be accounted for with any degree of rationality by Atheists and so faith steps in."
    I don't see how this relates to faith. A lack of an explanation for something is not an expression of faith. However, when you use a god as an explanation and have no evidence to support your claim, faith is required. 

    You provided a valid definition to religion, but definition 1.2 does not stand on it's own. A hobby of mine is photography; particularly landscape photography. It is a pursuit and interest of mine which I do follow with great devotion, however photography isn't a religion. 

    To address your claimed hallmarks of religion

    "1. Faith based belief."
    You have not demonstrated any faith based beliefs. 
    "2. Ritualistic acts"
    You have not provided examples of such acts. Ritualism is also not synonomous with religion.
    "3. Moral code with supernatural origin"
    We make no claims of the existence of the supernatural. In fact this would go against your claim that we are materialist
    "4. A worldview and organization of one's life based upon such"
    Again, just because you have a worldview doesn't mean it's a religion
    "5. A social group bound together by the above"
    The above has not been demonstrated to be true, and outside of that, social groups are not necessarily religious. 

    "Morality is beyond scientific understanding"
    No, it's not and can in fact be explained from an evolutionary perspective. We gain our morality by determining what's in our best interests, or what's best for human flourishing. For a species to survive, we have to figure out ways of getting along. For example, drinking battery acid is objectively bad for you. If I wish to live I would want to refrain from drinking it. If I wouldn't want to drink it, it would also be wrong to force someone else to do it as it would be detrimental for humanity. It's really not that hard to figure this out.

    Who was this post directed to?

    Nicely said Sylynn.

    It doesn't really matter who it was directed to.
  • Fr3ak said:
    You don't seem to understand what atheism means. A atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. It is a lack of belief, it is not a religion. And even if it was, so what? What would that prove? Atheists still wouldn't believe in any kind of god, so even if you somehow managed to warp that to fit the definition of religion, so what? Exactly what would that prove, and how would that change anything?

    (Was this directed at me? If you can, please put the @ symbol before any name like this @Evidence so we could be alerted that you replied. Thanks.)

    Dear @Fr3ak

    Well, I'll answer anyways if you don't mind?

    OK, How can an atheist "not" believe in a God or gods???
    That's like saying: "I don't believe in Peter Pan!" or "I don't believe in Santa Claus" when he is literally everywhere during the Christmas holydays, he is on TV, in movies, in children's story books, especially Christian storybooks. I bet you could tell me all about Santa Claus, and even draw me a picture of him, including his little demon- helpers, his sled, .. everything. HOW can anyone have so much, and so detailed information of someone or something he/she does not believe exists? I have always been dumbfounded regarding this theist/atheist faith.

    Now I will show you something else, that an atheist is no different than a theist as far as 'faith' is concerned, here I will prove it to you:

    A theist admits he/she believes in God or gods, and can define them the SAME WAY that an atheist can, is this true or not? So what's the difference between them? Which definition of the god/gods is more or less real? The difference is that an atheist after defining the God/gods he will then say: "I don't believe in them, I don't even believe that they exist".

    Now imagine if I became a car atheist, or unbeliever (I know theist don't mean car, just trying to drive a point) and would describe a car with the same accuracy that an atheist can Santa Claus, or Odin, or Zeus, .. including drawing the car, and then tell you; I don't believe the car exists! You would say I'm crazy, right?

    We have been brainwashed by Religions, they twisted definitions to mean something that it is not.
    Definition of theism

    :  belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :  belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human  race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world 

    Look,  theism is a belief in a god or gods, specifically one that created the human race. One from the many, of which not one is our Infinite Creator, the Only Infinite Possible since there cannot be two infinites.  So you see, that the god/gods that theist believe in is as real as the ones that atheist don't believe in. Not one is our Infinite Creator described in the Bible.

    There is no definition of the god/gods under the definition "theism", it just says god or gods. So as I pointed out, they are as real as Santa Claus, or Peter Pan, made up by story tellers, one for children's stories, the others, the god/gods by Religion. 

    So you see, I'm not a theist, because I know none of the god/gods in theism is our Infinite Creator. I am an atheist not because I don't believe that the god/gods in theism exist or not, because I know they do, as I said above, made up by Religions, but I am an atheist because I KNOW that none of the gods in theism is our Creator, the one I know personally and worship.

    So atheists shouldn't say: "I don't believe that god/gods exist", .. but should say: "I don't believe that the god/gods in theism is the Creator of the heavens and the Earth and man! But when I find evidence of The Creator, that will change, because I am not an idiot who would believe in some made up gods that exist only in Religions and children's comic books and fairytales!"

    Again, the gods in theism includes all gods, Zeus, Odin and the rest of the gods so it cannot include our Creator because He is not a made up god like Zeus, or Odin, so theism does not include our real Creator.

    If Christians are theists, which they claim to be, that means the god/gods they believe in are not our Infinite Creator, but as I said, is one of the made up gods in theism, they can call it YHWH, or Jesus, or Odin, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever they want to call it, but that does not make Him real, .. just as if your son goes in his bedroom and takes a plastic toy soldier from his toy box and calls it "Daddy", does not make the plastic toy soldier you.

    This is why I'm a Believer, not a Christian theist who picked one to three gods in theism and named them Father-god, Son-god (sun-god) and Spirit-god after the names they stole from the Bible. Does anyone here understand what I'm saying here?

    Just like the Flat Earth in a globe, Satan has hidden our One and Only Creator in theism, which are gods created by Religions, which are as real as any other gods and fairytale characters like Santa Claus, Peter Pan, Thor, Spider man, Zeus etc.

    God bless you all with wisdom that comes from above, from Spirit/God through our spirit/mind, not something that we were brainwashed with over the millennia and were made to stick in our brains. We have a mind, so let's use it, for as the saying goes:

    "A Mind is a Terrible Thing To Waste!"


     

  • Vaulk said:

    I never said that Atheism and Religion are analogous, only that they are comparable in some regards.  Since I've already defined analogous then I see no reason to go further on this.  I did specifically state that Atheism and Christianity (Among a few other religions) are analogous and it remains so.  They are also mutually exclusive in that they cannot occur simultaneously (You can't be Christian AND Atheist) but this does nothing to prove that they aren't still analogous.  And as to your statement about it shooting a hole in my argument...the references to Atheism being analogous to Christianity was simply a supporting statement to show that they can be considered similar in some ways...comparable.  It wasn't my argument as a whole and doesn't represent "Pretty much all of my argument". 
    For the purposes of this discussion, "analagous" and "comparable" seem synonymous and any difference is mere nitpicking. We can also mvoe past the fact you said that atheism is analagous for religion rather than religions. For the purpose of this debate, again it seems to make no difference and is again just a semantic point unless there is something I'm missing that you'd like to clarify.

    Also if you feel that the entirety of your argument doesn't rely on the now discredited idea that mutually exclusive = analogous, quote where from the relevant section of your OP where you involved another point. Please remember that at your behest we are currently only discussing the opening argument as you still have to reply to my other points.
     I'll have to correct you here, nowhere in my post and I do mean nowhere did I state, suggest or imply directly or indirectly (And I challenge you to show otherwise) that "I want to show that Atheism qualifies as Religion by seeing if it is mutually exclusive with specific examples such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, ect".  By showing that Atheism and Christianity, Islam, Hinduism are analogous, I'm suggesting that Atheism can be considered similar to Religion by providing clarity through comparison of the things I'm standing side by side.  By showing the Christianity ect is a Worldview and Atheism is also a Worldview I'm further narrowing what they are and are not which provides a more refined understanding (Clarity) as to the two compared subjects.  You and I will have to agree to disagree that it hurts my argument.

    The only comparison you use in the argument being discussed is whether the two are mutually exclusive.

    You present this argument as "The case for the assertion that Atheism can be viewed as a Religion can be found in an answer that an Atheist might have for the question "Are you a Christian"?  SO therefore the answer to the comparison you are about to make is one that should make the case that atheism is a religion because that is specifically what you said you were doing.


    In your comparison:
    Dogs (A) (Great Dane, German Shepherd, Dalmation, poodle)
    VS
    Cats (B)
    there is still no third element.  Your example is to suggest that Dogs cannot be Cats.  Dogs and Cats were both variables (No matter how many examples of each you offered) and there are two variables to your example.

    My example:
    Types of Religions (A)  (Christianity, Islam and hinduism)
    VS
    Atheism  (B)
    Religion  (C)
    There are three variables in my comparison, types of beliefs, Atheism, and Religion as a whole.  I provided distinction between all three while also comparing a few Religious beliefs with Atheism to show a comparison.


    I made no such suggestion in my first point (The analogous elements) that Atheism might qualify as Religion.  This is unmistakable.  While the point was to offer a supporting argument, this particular support argument DOES NOT suggest that Atheism qualifies as Religion.  Instead it suggest that Atheism is "Comparable" to Religion and Religious beliefs.  The point itself does not serve and was not intended to serve as qualification for my argument.  Either you horribly misunderstood or did not read it correctly as I've double checked and found no reason to draw that conclusion.
    You are applying two different sets of logic in both example. In the examples of cats and and dogs you claim that there are only two variables, as individual examples of a variable do not count as a separate variable. In the example of atheism and religion you claim that there are three variables as individual example as individual examples of a variable do collectively count as a separate variable. 

    You are therefore being logically inconsistent and your defence does not hold. Religion and dogs are the mutually replaced variables in our two examples. You say types of religion are a different variable but not types of dog. You give no rationale for this.

    Either they do not count as a separate variable, in which case there are two variables in each example or they do in which case there are three variables in each example. Please remember that I copied your argument word for word and merely replaced the variables where they were used - cats for atheism, dogs for religion and subsets of dog such as great dane for subsets of religion such as Christianity. Therefore any argument about how the variables are used will nto apply because out of necessity they will have been applied the same in my argument as well.
  • Coveny said:
    Tell me which of the following god/gods are not real?



    They are gods, read it, all kinds of different gods, Celtic gods, male, female, .. all kinds of gods.

    Here are some instructions on how to bond with your favorite deity.



    Remember that our Creator, the one also mentioned in the Bible is not a deity, He's not any of the wood, stone, paper and plastic man-made gods that theists believe in and worship, and atheist deny they even exist, .. ok? Or Creator is the One True/Real God, and He does not mingle with the deities (demons) who reside (for the time being) in the supernatural realm.

    Here again, how to hook up with "deities" who rule from the supernatural realm:



    The Christians also worship deities, just ask ANY Christian and they will tell you: "Yes, our Christian god is a deity who resides in the supernatural realm. He is three persons in one!", .. yep, that's what they will tell you!
    This Christian Religion god/gods is like that demon whose name was "Legion" that Jesus cast out of two men, this demon was one, who was many!

    These god/gods exist, and you can even buy them on-line. How could you look up, and order gods/deities, even have all the instructions how to worship them if they were not REAL??
  • CovenyCoveny 268 Pts
    Evidence said:
    Coveny said:
    Tell me which of the following god/gods are not real?



    They are gods, read it, all kinds of different gods, Celtic gods, male, female, .. all kinds of gods.

    Here are some instructions on how to bond with your favorite deity.



    Remember that our Creator, the one also mentioned in the Bible is not a deity, He's not any of the wood, stone, paper and plastic man-made gods that theists believe in and worship, and atheist deny they even exist, .. ok? Or Creator is the One True/Real God, and He does not mingle with the deities (demons) who reside (for the time being) in the supernatural realm.

    Here again, how to hook up with "deities" who rule from the supernatural realm:



    The Christians also worship deities, just ask ANY Christian and they will tell you: "Yes, our Christian god is a deity who resides in the supernatural realm. He is three persons in one!", .. yep, that's what they will tell you!
    This Christian Religion god/gods is like that demon whose name was "Legion" that Jesus cast out of two men, this demon was one, who was many!

    These god/gods exist, and you can even buy them on-line. How could you look up, and order gods/deities, even have all the instructions how to worship them if they were not REAL??
    None of them are real.

    Your creator isn't real. (as he's one of the gods)

    It looks like this time you are playing with the words deity and supernatural realm rather than religion. Regardless of what box you put gods in I still don't believe in them.

    Your proof of their existence is that you can look them up, there are instructions about them, and you can buy figures of them? Seriously? So Cthulhu from the lovecraft books is real as well? I mean don't get me wrong, I do agree that your god(s) can equate directly to fantasy book gods, but didn't expect a theist to make that comparison. 
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