frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Should a majority religion force the entire country to follow their rules?

Debate Information

I believe in a secular government when it comes to religion. I don't think it is fair that everyone should be forced to follow rules of one religion when it is first and foremost, a belief.

People should be allowed to follow any religion they want, but I think logic, facts, and evidence from the real world make more reasonable and fair laws.

For example, murder being illegal, should be viewed as punishment for the unlawful killing of a citizen, and not because god said it was wrong. Is this fair?
TKDB
  1. Live Poll

    Should a government make laws out of a majority religion?

    7 votes
    1. The country should be forced to follow a majority religion
        0.00%
    2. The government should be secular when making laws
      100.00%
why so serious?
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    When you ask a question like "Should X force Y to do Z?", then the answer is always "No", regardless of what X, Y and Z are. Now, if someone has forced someone to do something, then a proper forceful response may be warranted - but by default, no, everyone should be left to their own devices.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    I want to be clear about something. i do not think Christians have the right to force others, to be Christian, however, atheist or whoever, do not have the right to force Christians to go against their beliefs. Everyone should be civil, and agree to disagree. I do not fully support a theocracy, nor do I support secular, totalitarianism. Extremes, in regards to politics, and religion, create a human rights crisis, even for Christians. I hope that helps.
    AlofRIsmoothieTKDB
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    If we look at countries, and even just demographics within a given state or territory, we will find that the more secular the state, the lower the violent crime rates and higher the standard of living. That is to say, religiosity compared to crime, happiness, or life expectancy correlate negatively.

    This suggests, that secular nations end up being more stable and promotes overall well being. Therefore, unless you want life to suck for everyone, we should make laws not based on a majority religion.


    AlofRIGnosticChristianPlaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    If we look at countries, and even just demographics within a given state or territory, we will find that the more secular the state, the lower the violent crime rates and higher the standard of living. That is to say, religiosity compared to crime, happiness, or life expectancy correlate negatively.

    This suggests, that secular nations end up being more stable and promotes overall well being. Therefore, unless you want life to suck for everyone, we should make laws not based on a majority religion.
    I respect and share some of your opinions, but not this. Isn't China mostly secular, and they are murdering Christians?
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought China and Vietnam are the exceptions.

    Also by technicality, China isn't secular, they are state atheist.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought China and Vietnam are the exceptions.

    Also by technicality, China isn't secular, they are state atheist.
    So what? I just proved that extremism, is not just religious, but also, secular. Both Christians, and secular people, have been forcing their beliefs on each other. I think everyone should be free to express their opinion, on God and religion, without, losing their liberty, or security.
    ZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @smoothie

    Where is your Real World evidence, to support your claims?

    Do you have any evidence, where any citizen, has filed a Restraining Order against any Religion for it forcing anyone to do anything according to any Religion?

    Maybe for Religion stalking any citizen?

    Or for any Religion to tell any citizen, to commit any crimes? 

    Do you have any evidence, where any Religious building has been protested, because the Religion was forcing citizens, to do this or that?

    "I believe in a secular government when it comes to religion. I don't think it is fair that everyone should be forced to follow rules of one religion when it is first and foremost, a belief.

    People should be allowed to follow any religion they want, but I think logic, facts, and evidence from the real world make more reasonable and fair laws.

    For example, murder being illegal, should be viewed as punishment for the unlawful killing of a citizen, and not because god said it was wrong. Is this fair?"
    YeshuaBoughtsmoothiePlaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    Also, studies indicate secular nations have a very sharp decline in reproduction, technological, and academic development.

    This suggests as secular nations continue to develop, although crime will drop, it will push the human race to the brink of extinction.

    Happy_killbot please correct me if I am wrong, but studies can draw wrong conclusions at times.

    Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority.
    They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness.
    The majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights.

    I personally feel the balance is needed.

    Because in countries with little to no religion, communism develops.
    This is where people make decisions on what they feel is best for you despite your input or rights.

    PlaffelvohfensmoothieHappy_Killbot
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    Reproduction rates are irrelevant: we no longer live in the Medieval world, where numbers allowed a nation to start pillaging nearby nations. Nowadays, a nation with 5 million people, declining by 1% each year, can be far more successful, than a nation with 1.5 billion people, growing by 5% each year.

    Technological and academic development actually strongly anti-correlate with religiousness of the society. The biggest technological and scientific leap humanity has ever had was during the acceptance of the Enlightenment doctrine, which explicitly denounced the concept of "sacred" in favor of the concept of objective truth.

    Religion and communism are moral siblings: both advocate for the people bowing down to a central doctrine. They only happen to rarely come together because they compete with each other for people's minds - it is much like USSR and Nazi Germany competing with each other, while both being similarly destructive systems.

    What makes societies thrive and economies tick is people's respect for individual liberties. And that is strongly antagonistic to all religions I know of.
    Happy_KillbotsmoothiePlaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought ; China and Vietnam are very authoritarian, which is why they have such high crime rates.

    Secular does not mean atheist, it means agnostic if anything. It just means you don't consider religion when making choices in the context of politics.

    When you say: " think everyone should be free to express their opinion, on God and religion, without, losing their liberty, or security." This is secular, so long as you accept people's right to be free to express their opinion on A lack of god and religion without losing liberty or security.

    Do you understand now?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Sand "Also, studies indicate secular nations have a very sharp decline in reproduction, technological, and academic development."

    Only in reproduction, but this has been attributed to women's rights, and given resource constraints is probably a good thing. In the case of academia and technology, the opposite is true. Less religious nations tend to be the most technologically developed.

    "This suggests as secular nations continue to develop, although crime will drop, it will push the human race to the brink of extinction."

    No, It just means population will level off to loss rates. For everyone dying, 1 will be born.

    "Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority.
    They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness.
    The majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights."

    They are not in the US and the overwhelming majority of developed countries. The opposite is true, yet again and the data proves it.

    "Because in countries with little to no religion, communism develops.
    This is where people make decisions on what they feel is best for you despite your input or rights."

    This slippery slope fallacy is simply not the case.
    Plaffelvohfensmoothie
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought ; China and Vietnam are very authoritarian, which is why they have such high crime rates.

    Secular does not mean atheist, it means agnostic if anything. It just means you don't consider religion when making choices in the context of politics.

    When you say: " think everyone should be free to express their opinion, on God and religion, without, losing their liberty, or security." This is secular, so long as you accept people's right to be free to express their opinion on A lack of god and religion without losing liberty or security.

    Do you understand now?
    Repeatedly, liberal atheists have targeted Christians for discrimination and censorship, but not other faiths.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    >>>Reproduction rates are irrelevant: we no longer live in the Medieval World, where numbers allowed a nation to start pillaging nearby nations. Nowadays, a nation with 5 million people, declining by 1% each year can be far more successful, than a nation with 1.5 billion people, growing by 5% each year.<<<

    Something I would predict an atheist would say.
    Lack of concern for the future of humanity but concern only for individual happiness.


    >>>Technological and academic development actually strongly anti-correlate with religiousness of the society. The biggest technological and scientific leap humanity has ever had was during the acceptance of the Enlightenment doctrine, which explicitly denounced the concept of "sacred" in favor of the concept of objective truth.<<<

    That is interesting since religion is the financial backers of schools, colleges, and hospitals.
    If religion did not correlate to these fields with in the last 300 years, computers, cars, planes, the internet, and cell phones would not exist.


    >>>Religion and communism are moral siblings: both advocate for the people bowing down to a central doctrine. They only happen to rarely come together because they compete with each other for people's minds - it is much like USSR and Nazi Germany competing with each other, while both being similarly destructive systems.<<<

    That is also funny.
    Because the major communist countries ban religion.
    I think the majority of people would disagree with you on this one.
    Yet the most liberal countries were established by religious people.
    Compete and Control are completely different things.
    Commercials compete for your business, yet you do not compare commercials to communism.
    How is it that the religious people are simular to communism when they were the innovators of liberty?
    Religious people help establish the constitution that allows our discussion we are having now.
    If anything communism relates to nonreligion.
    I am sorry there are too many things pointing to atheism and communism be closely related, than religion.

    >>>What makes societies thrive and economies tick is people's respect for individual liberties. And that is strongly antagonistic to all religions I know of.<<<
    That is a true statement, established by religious people.
    That viewpoint was developed here through generations of schooling also established by religious people.
    Too bad you know very little about religion.

    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfensmoothie
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    I do lack concern for the future of humanity, but my argument has nothing to do with it: humanity can thrive infinitely even with very low fertility rates.

    I do not remember ever receiving funding from any religious entity, despite working at a Catholic university. All of the donors of our research group are purely secular. This seems to be the case overall: religious entities contribute only a negligible amount of resources to the scientific funds.

    Of course communist countries ban religion: they cannot allow any competition to exist. Heavily religious countries just as much ban communism; try to promote communism in Iran or Saudi Arabia, and I do not envy your fate.
    Communism and religion are siblings and rivals at the same time, same way Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were.

    "You know very little about religion" is not an argument. You cannot know what I know about religion based on a few comments I have made around here, and even if you could, it would have no impact on the validity of my argument.
    I indeed do not know as much about religion as religious people do (it would be bizarre if it were otherwise), but I know enough about the essence of religion and its history to conclude that religion and individual liberties are incompatible. Religions are heavily collectivist and put the individual behind the bigger picture (god's design). Similarly, communism puts the individual behind the commune. The difference is only the entity playing the role of the tyrant; that entity exists in either case.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought Where?

    When?

    Was it definite dismissal or simply critique?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    >>>Only in reproduction, but this has been attributed to women's rights, and given resource constraints is probably a good thing. In the case of academia and technology, the opposite is true. Less religious nations tend to be the most technologically developed.<<<

    Once again a lack of appreciation and realization of who influences what.
    Religious countries have a way stronger connection to technology.
    Without religion, science would not exist.
    "Any book on the history of inventions, such as the Guinness Book of Answers, will reveal that the vast majority of scientific inventions have originated in Europe (including Britain) and the USA since the dawn of the 17th century."
    I'm sorry but Guinness would argue against you.

    >>>No, It just means the population will level off to loss rates. For everyone dying, 1 will be born.<<<
    Tell that to the declining USA population versus China ever-growing population.

    >>>They are not in the US and the overwhelming majority of developed countries. The opposite is true, yet again and the data proves it.<<<

    I'm not sure what data you are referring to.
    Laws must not be justified by something more than the will of the majority.
    They must not rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness.
    The majority rule doesn't work if you're also considering individual rights.
    I would like to see that data!

    >>>This slippery slope fallacy is simply not the case.<<<
    I am not correlating communism to nonreligion.
    I feel balance is needed.
    Atheism has its place and should continue to grow and be apart of society.
    I think it is good to encourage freedom in any viewpoint that doesn't encroach on the rights of others.
    For those who do believe in religious thought, I feel they should have the same courtesies given.

    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    >>>I do lack concern for the future of humanity, but my argument has nothing to do with it: humanity can thrive infinitely even with very low fertility rates.<<<

    "Considering the advances in Evolutionary Studies, the continued existence of the human race is feasible only if we conform to the laws of nature, not by going against them. Today, infertility is viewed as one of most prevalent health ailments globally. Intensive research has been instrumental in understanding the vulnerability and complexity of dealing with this specific issue." - Joseph is Assistant Professor and Iyer a graduate student in the Department of Life Sciences

    I think some people are thinking differently.

    >>>I do not remember ever receiving funding from any religious entity, despite working at a Catholic university. All of the donors of our research group are purely secular. This seems to be the case overall: religious entities contribute only a negligible amount of resources to the scientific funds.<<<

    History of school
    Elementary, Middle, High School were all funded by religious organizations.
    Colleges were founded by religious organizations.
    Hospitals were founded by religious organizations.
    Religion founded science.
    Where did Leonardo Divinci get his funding from?
    Galileo Galilei
    Charles Darwin
    Isaac Newton
    Aristotle
    Albert Einstein
    Were all associated with religions, went to religious founded schools for training, and received money from religious institutes for their findings.

    >>> Of course, communist countries ban religion: they cannot allow any competition to exist. Heavily religious countries just as much ban communism; try to promote communism in Iran or Saudi Arabia, and I do not envy your fate. Communism and religion are siblings and rivals at the same time, same way Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were.<<<

    Nevertheless, you forgot to mention that the most liberal state was founded by religious people.
    Plus they based their decisions about liberty off of the Bible.
    I take it you did not read my reference before responding.
    "The philosophical ideas and religious convictions of Roger Williams, William Penn, John Leland, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other leaders were decisive in the struggle for freedom of conscience. "
    Bottom line religious convictions established liberty.

    >>>"You know very little about religion" is not an argument. You cannot know what I know about religion based on a few comments I have made around here, and even if you could, it would have no impact on the validity of my argument.<<<
    I agree with that.

    >>>I indeed do not know as much about religion as religious people do (it would be bizarre if it were otherwise), but I know enough about the essence of religion and its history to conclude that religion and individual liberties are incompatible.<<<
    I would say that is not true.
    Without Religion, you would know little to no individual liberties.
    The constitution is based on the Bible.



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    The quote you cited does not state that humanity is endangered by low fertility; it merely states that infertility is a prevalent health ailment. And to some extent it is true, not as much because infertility is bad per say, but because it usually correlates with some other psychological or physiological issues (for example, many people are infertile not because they cannot give birth to a child, but because they have difficulty communicating with others and finding a partner).

    All of the individuals you listed had far more critical views on religion than the vast majority of people living at their times. Aristotle, for example, viewed gods very philosophically, and his views were very different from those of the traditional ancient Greek religion.
    Of course people of the past associated with religion all the time; everyone did. Such was the culture. When everyone is religious, then scientists are also going to be religious. This is not an indication of anything.

    The religious state founded by the Founding Fathers was a result of them and those who followed them escaping the religious tyranny of the Europe and the British crown, and they explicitly wrote down secularism of the government into the Constitution. Of course they were religious, but their views were extremely heretical by their time's standards.

    There are plenty of countries on Earth the systems of which were not founded on religious values, and they still have plenty of individual liberties. The most obvious one is Japan, where less than 40% of the population is religious (7/8 of this number is formed by Buddhists, and Buddhism is somewhere in between religion and philosophy), and in which religious considerations are never even on the radar when it comes to politics.
    I would venture that without religion the US would be much freer than it is now. We would not, for example, have all those indecency rules, where you are not allowed to walk naked on the streets, to have sex in some states under the age of 16, to show nudity on TV in prime time in many cases and so on - all of these consequences of religious prudes pushing for restrictions.

    You do not need religion to establish the importance of individual liberties; you need merely to study a bit of history and to think about the logical consequences of giving the government or any other collectivist entity power to control the individual.
    I would even argue that if you respect individual liberties not because of their actual practical implications, but because the Bible tells you so, then you actually are just following the tide and do not understand what it is you are defending.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    >>>All of the individuals you listed had far more critical views on religion than the vast majority of people living at their times. Aristotle, for example, viewed gods very philosophically, and his views were very different from those of the traditional ancient Greek religion.
    Of course people of the past associated with religion all the time; everyone did. Such was the culture. When everyone is religious, then scientists are also going to be religious. This is not an indication of anything.<<<

    Regardless of their views on religion, you cannot dispell the fact that religion was the one who supported their claim to fame.
    The graveyard is the richest place on earth because it is there that you will find all the philosophies and studies that were never fulfilled, the books that were never written, the inventions that were never shared, the revelations that were never discovered because they did not have the financial backing needed to get off the ground.
    It is possible they may have gotten the support from somewhere else, but there are a lot of scientists who did not get support.
    So support should not be taken for granted, nor should it not be appreciated.
    Everyone wants to give the accolades to Steve Jobs genius (and rightly so), but not too many realized the support Bill Gates gave to Apple to breathe life back in the company.
    Without that support, we would probably not have the iPad.
    Everyone assumes that it will come from somewhere else, but that is why the graveyard is the richest place on earth.

    Parents are culture, should they be disregarded as useless, and only doing what they were supposed to do. Because without them providing support, encouragement, and a platform for personal development, you would not have a human race. So the ideology of Religion was to give funds to build schools, universities, hospitals before they were profit-making entities. Religion gave scientists a forum to teach their ideas, time to study, and discover.

    >>>The religious state founded by the Founding Fathers was a result of them and those who followed them escaping the religious tyranny of the Europe and the British crown, and they explicitly wrote down secularism of the government into the Constitution. Of course, they were religious, but their views were extremely heretical by their time's standards.<<<

    Yes. Religiously heretical, that was the main reason for coming to America, to establish Religious freedom. There was no doubt of the values religion presented, they wanted to build a society that allowed a more diversity of thought and development. The first thing mention in the first article of the Bill of Rights was freedom of Religion. So the Founding Fathers did not see Religion as the problem but the solution and cornerstone to build on. They were not pointing to Religion be the reason for the tyranny in Europe, otherwise, Religion would be farther down on the list.
    I think your viewpoints are biased about how you personally feel about religion.
    If everyone felt the way you paint religion, religion would have been gone a long time ago.

    >>>There are plenty of countries on Earth the systems of which were not founded on religious values, and they still have plenty of individual liberties. The most obvious one is Japan, where less than 40% of the population is religious (7/8 of this number is formed by Buddhists, and Buddhism is somewhere in between religion and philosophy), and in which religious considerations are never even on the radar when it comes to politics.<<<

    In Japan, you were governed by one person, the Emporer. Whatever he thought was law. This was similar to all the other so-called liberty countries.
    The USA was the only country that allowed human rights to supersede rulership.
    So when you speak about liberties and freedom, it is obvious you have an American silver spoon in your mouth. In other words, you are speaking from an American viewpoint.
    Rome was one of the first governments that diversified rulership.
    No one outside of the USA had more freedom. It was culture, not to say, believe, think, or do what was not allowed by the rulership.
    If you lived in Japan, you did whatever the Emporer said, there were no financial liberties, speech, thought, etc.
    It was seriously in contrast to the USA. Liberties came to Japan after USA atomic bombed them, then sent to delegates to rebuild the political infrastructure.

    >>>I would venture that without religion the US would be much freer than it is now. We would not, for example, have all those indecency rules, where you are not allowed to walk naked on the streets, to have sex in some states under the age of 16, to show nudity on TV in prime time in many cases and so on - all of these consequences of religious prudes pushing for restrictions.<<<

    This is the reason why the USA thrives. Are you saying you want to do these things?
    Or be allowed to do these things?
    Where would the thresh hold be?
    Sex with 6-year-old girls?
    Sex with babies?
    Where would the rights of others be violated?
    I am trying to help you to see that this is your viewpoint of freedom. You must take in the viewpoints of others to allow laws to put in place so as to protect people.
    Freedom can never be absolute but must be consistent with the freedom of others.


    >>>You do not need religion to establish the importance of individual liberties; you need merely to study a bit of history and to think about the logical consequences of giving the government or any other collectivist entity power to control the individual.<<<

    No, you do not need it. But if it wasn't for Religion you would not have the level of individual liberties you have now.
    Just like you don't need money to develop an invention, but without the money the likely hood of success is slim.
    There are very little consequences to giving the government or any other collectivist entity power to control the individuals.
    That is what is going on in China, now.
    Do the people there have liberties? Yes! But do they have freedom? No.

    >>>I would even argue that if you respect individual liberties not because of their actual practical implications, but because the Bible tells you so, then you actually are just following the tide and do not understand what it is you are defending. <<<

    People do not need complete understanding of what is at stake to follow laws and respect the rights of others.
    Whether they follow the tide or not.

    Plaffelvohfensmoothie
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Sand I really hate it when religious persons attribute science to Christians, when the reality is that they fought it up until it was normal them claimed it their own. All of the early scientists were Christians because if they were not, they would have been KILLED.

    USA and Britain are not all Christian. In fact, most scientists are atheist or agnostic.

    "Tell that to the declining USA population versus China ever-growing population."

    Statement is false. US is still growing, but birth rates have leveled off to near replacement rates, and China is only seeing slight growth.
    https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/new-estimates-show-us-population-growth-continues-to-slow.html
    http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/china-population/

    Religion and Crime Is There a Correlation Infographic
    Plaffelvohfensmoothie
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    Not if it's the United States of America. It would have to be a different country, with a different Constitution and NO actual religious freedom. If everyone has to join ONE religion … is that "freedom"?? No, it's Iran or Saudi Arabia … someplace like those.
    smoothiePlaffelvohfen
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought China and Vietnam are the exceptions.

    Also by technicality, China isn't secular, they are state atheist.
    So what? I just proved that extremism, is not just religious, but also, secular. Both Christians, and secular people, have been forcing their beliefs on each other. I think everyone should be free to express their opinion, on God and religion, without, losing their liberty, or security.

    You know I agree with you, somewhat. The problem comes when ANY group tries to DEMAND that others follow THEIR "way". When they try to make laws that others have to follow ... because "their way" says that is how it must be! Everyone should be free to express their opinion .... if asked. Not to demand a hearing whenever, wherever they want. NOT to begin a propaganda display because they think EVERYBODY should LEARN what they think they know. 
    No, keep your religion (or none), to yourself ... and leave your doors open. If someone is interested they'll walk in .... or out, as they wish.
  • smoothiesmoothie 434 Pts   -  
    @Sand I don't think laws should be made because of one religion as it violates religious freedom.

    Imagine if all pork was banned because of one religion. That doesn't make any sense because not everybody follows that religion, and outside of that religion banning pork doesn't have a reason.

    If the government used secular reasoning and evidence to make laws then there wouldn't be a problem.

    Imagine if the bible was the law, this free country wouldn't be free for very long at all, look at authoritarian countries where religion is the law, thats not us.

    I shouldn't be forced the follow laws made exclusively because of a religion, that was my point. It's not fair to other religions or athiests. Laws need secular reasoning to be fair to everybody.
    why so serious?
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    >>>I really hate it when religious persons attribute science to Christians, when the reality is that they fought it up until it was normal they claimed it their own. All of the early scientists were Christians because if they were not, they would have been KILLED.<<<

    You make it seem like they were scientists before they were Christians.
    They were Christians before they were scientists.
    They could have easily left the country, and started their scientific endeavor.
    Instead, they took funds from the Church to study their findings.
    I really hate it when persons claim they did everything themselves when they knew other people were involved in their success.

    So is it your point they were not really Christians but were only religious-affiliated.
    Got ya!

    >>>USA and Britain are not all Christian. In fact, most scientists are atheist or agnostic.<<<

    Which proves they didn't have to be Christians.

    >>>Statement is false. The US is still growing, but birth rates have leveled off to near replacement rates, and China is only seeing slight growth.<<<

    You mean overall, but why do you think it has slowed?
    Because many states have had declines.

    Phil Zuckerman's study is a little misleading because you just argued against Christians that were only religious-affiliated. 
    You cannot stand on two stones.
    Either the scientists are Christians or just affiliated, or the criminals are Christians or just affiliated.
    Because if you are saying the scientists were not really Christians, I will state that Zuckerman's study was on people that were not really Christians.
    But if you are saying the scientists were actual Christians, then I will take Zuckerman's study was on actual Christians and cause more violence.

    Let me know what you want to say.

    Here are my findings:
    Happier
    Same study different article:

    Longer Life

    Technology

    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    I believe you are mixing my words with someone else.

    >>>I don't think laws should be made because of one religion as it violates religious freedom.<<<

    Nor do I.

    >>>Imagine if all pork was banned because of one religion. That doesn't make any sense because not everybody follows that religion, and outside of that religion banning pork doesn't have a reason.<<<

    I agree.

    >>>If the government used secular reasoning and evidence to make laws then there wouldn't be a problem.<<<

    I sort of agree, but not just secular reasoning and evidence, but all lines of thought.

    >>>Imagine if the bible was the law, this free country wouldn't be free for very long at all, look at authoritarian countries where religion is the law, that's not us.<<<

    Biblical thinking is apart of the law that is the reason we have liberty.

    >>>I shouldn't be forced the follow laws made exclusively because of religion, that was my point. It's not fair to other religions or atheists. Laws need secular reasoning to be fair to everybody.<<<

    Secular is not synonymous with fairness.
    Balance is needed.

    I will use your pork illustration.
    Imagine if pork was forced on all people because of secular reasoning, it will still not be fair.
    It doesn't make any sense because not everybody is an atheist.
    To be fair religious views and secular views are needed to make correct decisions.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Sand I don't think you understand what I am saying about all early scientists being Christian because otherwise they would have been killed.

    Consider these scenarios: Two people. One is Christian the other atheist in the medieval period. Both are scientists. The church finds out about the atheist and kills him. The Christian then is the only one left to make discoveries.

    Did the church aid in the discovery? F*** no! They killed one of the Scientists!

    It is relevant they were Christians here because Roman Catholic was the dominant religion at the time, and they buried dissenters. That is what happens when religion is in bed with politics. Good people get buried because they said something that goes against whatever teachings the church says is true, which is NEVER true. 




    Zuckerman's study was based on religiosity, and it is relevant because Christianity is not. IDGAF if they are Christian, Islam, Jewish, Buhdists, Hindus, Scientologists, or kool-aid drinkers, they are all grouped under the same umbrella term "religion" and they are not secular if they are imposing their will.

    Religious people are happier because they are too to see anything wrong. They live in a dangerous delusion instead of accepting that they don't know anything. Is it worth it? No, absolutely not. Especially when that delusion has to be maintained at the expense of moral and social progress.

    Don't go around Cherry-picking the first links that pop up in google and claim that is truth, cause it's a fallacy.

    Think religion makes you happier? Only when you live in a stable country under low-stress conditions. Guess what correlates negatively with stability?

    Religious rule.

    Think religion makes you live longer? Only when advanced medicines and medical care are available. Compare life expectancy now to the very religious middle ages! Medicine does 30x more than the "3.68" years on average religion gets you.

    Think religion makes technology? Let's compare the number of religious folk in general to the number of scientists who are religious.
    Image result for how many scientists are atheists

    About half are not religious, vs. ~16% of the total population. That means that crediting technology to religion is wrong.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    AlofRI said:
    @YeshuaBought China and Vietnam are the exceptions.

    Also by technicality, China isn't secular, they are state atheist.
    So what? I just proved that extremism, is not just religious, but also, secular. Both Christians, and secular people, have been forcing their beliefs on each other. I think everyone should be free to express their opinion, on God and religion, without, losing their liberty, or security.

    You know I agree with you, somewhat. The problem comes when ANY group tries to DEMAND that others follow THEIR "way". When they try to make laws that others have to follow ... because "their way" says that is how it must be! Everyone should be free to express their opinion .... if asked. Not to demand a hearing whenever, wherever they want. NOT to begin a propaganda display because they think EVERYBODY should LEARN what they think they know. 
    No, keep your religion (or none), to yourself ... and leave your doors open. If someone is interested they'll walk in .... or out, as they wish.
    Freedom of speech, is a basic human right. if you don't like what someone says, walk away. Everyone, Christian, or otherwise, has the right to say what they believe. I agree that no one should force their beliefs on other people, but I have the same right to say what I believe, as an atheist. i notice that the atheist left, seems to focus mostly on Christians like me, when they say, "Don't push your beliefs on me", and I think that is hypocritical, because religious liberty, and free speech, are human rights. If i can't force my beliefs on you, you don't have the right to force your beliefs on me. Not all Christians, are forcing their beliefs on people, and yes, Jesus is the only Way to Heaven. I know you don't like me saying this, but since we are on a debate site, it is okay, and free speech is a right. If you want proof, i can and will get you, proof. If you tell me to leave you alone, I will. What you do with this information, is between you and Jesus. I respect everyone's right to make their own decisions, but I don't think all religions are equal, and if that makes me narrow minded, i don't care, and I guess you are calling Jesus narrow minded. 
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    smoothie said:
    @Sand I don't think laws should be made because of one religion as it violates religious freedom.

    Imagine if all pork was banned because of one religion. That doesn't make any sense because not everybody follows that religion, and outside of that religion banning pork doesn't have a reason.

    If the government used secular reasoning and evidence to make laws then there wouldn't be a problem.

    Imagine if the bible was the law, this free country wouldn't be free for very long at all, look at authoritarian countries where religion is the law, thats not us.

    I shouldn't be forced the follow laws made exclusively because of a religion, that was my point. It's not fair to other religions or athiests. Laws need secular reasoning to be fair to everybody.
    So what are liberal anti-theists doing everyday, when they target mostly Christians, in their tolerance brigade, and deny the free speech rights, of Christians?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    You could similarly say, "Scientists in Soviet Union were all communists, hence communism is what is responsible for scientific progress achieved there. Communism supported them, and this support should be taken for granted."
    You should easily see the flaw in this argument: it is confusing the cause with the effect. It is not that communism produced scientists; it is that scientists had to be communists. Science would be there both with and without communism. Communism exploited the scientific community by having them work in terrible conditions and bow to the central doctrine, and there is a good chance that, without the history of communism, science in Russia would be flourishing right now, rather than falling apart, with everyone able to do any worthwhile research fleeing the country.
    Similarly, scientists of the 17th and 18th century were fleeing Europe for North America, escaping the religious dictate and seeking opportunity to do science in peace, free from bishops telling them what to do.

    You cannot say that something is to thank for some achievements of the people, if that something was the only option realistically available to people. 500 years from now, when humans live for thousands years, they will not be saying, "Science before us only existed because people's life expectancy was very low." That would be a ridiculous argument.

    I am talking about the modern Japan, obviously, which, while having a political system similar to that in the US, does not base any of its political elements on the religious reasoning - and the emperor there does not have any power whatsoever and serves purely as a cultural symbol.
    I might be talking from the American perspective, but I have lived here merely for 20% of my entire life. I have lived in many other countries for extended periods of time, including Japan, and, trust me, the US is not the only country on the planet in which people are relatively free. It might be the freest country on the planet right now, but the difference from other free countries is not that dramatic. Chances are, if you move tomorrow to Canada, Japan or Switzerland, you will barely notice any difference in terms of what you can or cannot do.

    My viewpoint of freedom is not what you think. I am against any form of coercion. Walking around naked does not coerce anyone into anything and does not violate anyone's rights, and the only reason it is not allowed is the religious heritage and prudence.
    There are many countries that thrive that have far less prudish laws. In Spain public sex is legal, as long as nobody voices a complaint about it. In Japan, the federal age of consent is 13, exhibitionism is outlawed only in some places, and people watch the wackiest erotic shows on TV in prime-time (with no age restrictions). In some of the Canadian provinces women can legally walk around with uncovered breasts. 
    It seems to me that the US thrives not because of its relative cultural prudence (which, thankfully, is much less nowadays than it was before the sexual revolution), but despite it.

    China is not the only country on Earth with a system not grounded in religious principles. That said, even China has been experiencing an economical miracle for decades now, due to reasonable free market policies by the government, and China is officially atheist. It does not have many personal freedoms, but it does have quite a bit of economical freedoms, in some narrow aspects even surpassing those in the US (for example, their intellectual property laws are nearly non-existent, which is one of the main reasons for their recent IT boom).
    It seems that success and religiousness of a society, at the very least, do not correlate positively in any meaningful way.

    Again, in Japan only 5% of the population follow any religion that is not Buddhism (which, again, can only loosely be called religion). Are you going to say that those 5% of the population make Japan free, in spite of the 95% people allegedly leaning towards communism trying to pull it in the other direction? Please.

    If people follow the laws without understanding them, then they will just as much accept the bad laws offered by the politicians, since, again, they do not understand them. You cannot build a thriving society out of ignorant people; they have to be, to some extent, informed about the system they are living in. And religion does a very-very poor job at getting them informed.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    >>>About half are not religious, vs. ~16% of the total population. That means that crediting technology to religion is wrong. <<<
    You just did this study, just now?
    Wow!
    I don't believe we can trust it entirely because we have to check your assumptions.
    One being, those are the stats today, which says nothing for the inventions of the past.

    >>>Zuckerman's study<<<

    I agree with Zuckerman's study, but what I was saying about Zuckerman is that he did not distinguish between those who claimed to be religious and those who attend regularly.
    That would skew his numbers completely.
    So his findings of religious tie to crime would be wrong.
    If someone claims to be of religious affiliation but does not attend or practice the religion, technically they are nonreligious.
    Zuckerman took an overall number based on claimed affiliation.

    >>>Don't go around Cherry-picking the first links that pop up in google and claim that is truth, cause it's a fallacy.<<<
    The reason I knew about those studies is that I spoke about this before with @MayCeaser

    >>>Religious people are happier because they are too to see anything wrong. They live in a dangerous delusion instead of accepting that they don't know anything. Is it worth it? No, absolutely not. Especially when that delusion has to be maintained at the expense of moral and social progress.<<<

    But they are happier.
    The study said that most atheists do not deal with worry very well, whereas religious people constantly use pray as their solution to problems.
    The study suggested atheists envoke prayer as a solution to problems, not as a belief, but as a solution to anxiety.
    Doctors documented that religious people recover better from death-dealing situations, end up living longer than atheists.

    >>>I don't think you understand what I am saying about all early scientists being Christian because otherwise they would have been killed.<<<
    I completely understand.
    They could have left, called voluntary exile.
    Like I said you make it seem like Christianity was forced on them if they did not want to be a Christian then leave.
    Plain and simple.
    The reason they did not leave is that money was good!

    >>>Consider these scenarios: Two people. One is Christian the other atheist in the medieval period. Both are scientists. The church finds out about the atheist and kills him. The Christian then is the only one left to make discoveries.<<<

    Consider this scenario: A group of employees in an incubator and are paid to help develop an invention. One decides to disrespect the one financing the incubator and is surprised they fire him.

    As an atheist in a religious country, how do you think they would take you advocating atheism?
    You can leave, get a job, and advocate all you want.
    But that money was good the atheist scientist was getting, just to think and make discoveries.
    On the outside it is not easy to make a living, you got to work.
    So that atheist scientist wanted to eat his cake and have it too.
    Which shows a lack of common sense.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Sand Those statistics come from the PEW research center, which is both highly prestigious and trusted. I didn't make them up just now.

    Attending religion consistently vs. only some times really shouldn't have much of an effect, especially considering the spread is so large.

    You have to admit, that last one in particular is a real cherry pick, it isn't based on hard data.

    If our goal was to make everyone happy, then would you recommend that we white-washed everything and made sure than nobody ever had any stress? That would make people happy, and live longer too. Is it a good idea? No. I have yet to meet a single atheist who prays, which makes me think the whole study is probably bunk. Also keep in mind they were not looking at just Christians, but religious in general. Religions that practice meditation have proven benefits, but Christians don't have that practice.

    Voluntary exile doesn't solve the problem now does it? If you are tying to progress science, you need to interact with people. F*** what religion and religious leaders say. Religion leads people to wrong conclusions regularly and consistently, and who knows just how much it has slowed progress because of what it seems to believe.

    There should be no religious governments period.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillBot

    Science holds no separation commonly method that is openly shared to separate religion as a complete state. Quarantine does not count as a separation of religion as a state. The separation of religion and state or what is better know and church and state is a practice derived by a series of unions made between legal history and basic principle with people is a organized order.

    In basic scientists practice the religion of science, as a Christian practices Christianity, as a Catholic is called a Roman Catholic.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    We are not advocating atheism here, however; we are advocating secularism, which is a very different beast. I do not have anything against religious people, and even though I find their beliefs strange, I do not think less of them for having them - however, their beliefs should not be used as a reference for running scientific research, economical production, governmental activities and everything else requiring acceptance of some cold hard facts coming from the structure of the reality itself.

    Belief in god has its place in the philosophical domain, but it is useless - and even harmful, for that matter - when we talk about constructing a vehicle that does not fall apart quickly. Or when we talk about designing a society in which people can peacefully interact with each other with mutual benefit.

    I would argue that science requires atheism to truly take off, but it can flourish in a heavily religious environment as well - as long as that environment is secular, and scientists are actually allowed to freely exchange ideas and not be labelled heretics for questioning the doctrine of the church.

    As for religious people overall being happier than atheists... That depends on how you measure happiness. I would expect religious people to be more content with their lives, because they do not have to spend a lot of energy, say, looking for the purpose of their life, as they already know what it is - but happier? I do not think this is what happiness is about. To me, happiness means having your needs and desires satisfied routinely, regardless of what the society or anyone else thinks of those needs and desires - and religion has a lot of negative things to say about such interpretation of the term.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    >>>Those statistics come from the PEW research center, which is both highly prestigious and trusted. I didn't make them up just now.<<<
    Here is a less bias studies on health and religion.


    >>>Attending religion consistently vs. only some times really shouldn't have much of an effect, especially considering the spread is so large.<<<

    Some people attended religious ceremonies as a child then ceased as a teen and never returned.
    They cannot be considered religious because they do not follow the information and live their lives separate from the information.

    But that wasn't my point when I said the numbers in that study are misleading.
    It could be that religious people are the ones reporting the crimes in those states.
    Now if he said he surveyed everyone in the prison system and the majority of them claimed religious affiliation and they were known for attending regularly.
    But just to take overall numbers can be misleading.


    >>>Voluntary exile doesn't solve the problem now, does it? If you are trying to progress science, you need to interact with people. F*** what religion and religious leaders say. Religion leads people to wrong conclusions regularly and consistently, and who knows just how much it has slowed progress because of what it seems to believe.<<<

    Here is the problem, Religion at the time had the money.
    Big business was not available to provide financing to scientific studies.
    Religion was the only option.
    The people could leave, but Religion offered a sweet deal.
    You can learn, study, teach, experiment, get paid, and develop technology.

    My point was you cannot undo the past and say that Religion was not apart of anything.
    When Religion was right there financing everything.
    I'm not sure Religion is proud of that endeavor either because in a way they created their own undoing.


    Should a majority religion force the entire country to follow its rules?
    The answer is no.
    Religion has its pluses and minuses, it has its advantages and negatives.
    Religion regardless of living longer, academic, and additional advantages, says nothing about governing society.
    As long as religion is on the minds of citizens, whether majority or minority, a balanced approach should be taken.
    Nevertheless, if religious people and thought die out, then a completely secular approach would be ok.


    >>>There should be no religious government period. <<<

    That is your personal opinion, that I happen to agree with.
    Nevertheless, this doesn't change the fact that there were ones in the past and are some today.


  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    >>>We are not advocating atheism here, however; we are advocating secularism, which is a very different beast. I do not have anything against religious people, and even though I find their beliefs strange, I do not think less of them for having them - however, their beliefs should not be used as a reference for running scientific research, economical production, governmental activities and everything else requiring acceptance of some cold hard facts coming from the structure of the reality itself.<<<

    The USA already considers itself a secular country.

    >>>Belief in god has its place in the philosophical domain, but it is useless - and even harmful, for that matter - when we talk about constructing a vehicle that does not fall apart quickly. Or when we talk about designing a society in which people can peacefully interact with each other with mutual benefit.<<<

    There will never be peace when you design a society that is prejudice against people's values.
    I feel it is the same for your atheist thoughts.
    If I make laws denoting that atheism should stay in the philosophical never spoken as facts that would be prejudice against those who believe those things are true.
    So the same with religion, none of us can rewind time and get the truth, but to band a group of people large or small because of their belief is hardly freedom.

    >>>I would argue that science requires atheism to truly take off, but it can flourish in a heavily religious environment as well - as long as that environment is secular, and scientists are actually allowed to freely exchange ideas and not be labeled heretics for questioning the doctrine of the church.<<<

    Science doesn't need atheism to truly take off. Science deals with the here and now, it cannot test anything in the past or future. Atheists want atheism to be widely accepted.
    If scientists are having problems exchanging ideas then they need to change the circles of association.
    If scientists are being labeled heretics it is because their circles of association are with religious people.
    Instead of being a scientist and sticking to the here and now, they are voicing their opinions of the past.
    It is like a man going to a women's liberation meeting and stating that sexual harassment is unfair.
    There will be issues and you will be labeled.

    So the real answer is very simple, focus on the here and now.

    If atheism is truly a fact, eventually it will make itself manifest.

    >>>As for religious people overall being happier than atheists... That depends on how you measure happiness. I would expect religious people to be more content with their lives, because they do not have to spend a lot of energy, say, looking for the purpose of their life, as they already know what it is - but happier? I do not think this is what happiness is about. To me, happiness means having your needs and desires satisfied routinely, regardless of what the society or anyone else thinks of those needs and desires - and religion has a lot of negative things to say about such interpretation of the term.<<<

    I agree.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Sand You are seriously going to challenge the PEW research center with wikipedia? LOL

    Religion should never be allowed to have money and control over business, government, or the people's way of life in general.

    Theocratic regimes need to be toppled and replaced with secular ones.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    I have never advocated for atheism being prescribed in the law. I am advocating for a secular society, meaning lack of state or societal ideology, and treatment of all ideologies equally.

    I am an atheist, and I do not care too much if atheism is widely accepted or not. You are assuming too many things about us, my friend. Obviously, ideally, I would like more people to be atheists - everybody wants others to be more similar to them, it is human nature - but I would not lift a finger to try to change the number of atheists in the world.

    Science does not need atheism to take off, but atheism/agnosticism certainly helps. When science has to accept the existence of things it cannot prove, it creates a bad precedent interfering with the scientific method. Science has to be impartial to any human beliefs. People do not have to be atheists, but science has to be atheist.
    smoothie
  • @AlofRI ;

    Variety is the spice of life and I agree that to just have one meal on the menu would bore us all.

    But should we set some kind of moral limit?

    I have and fight to end Christianity and Islam.

    Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

                         

    Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

     

    Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

     

    https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

     

     

    Humanity centered religions, good? Yes.  Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

     

    Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.


  • @AlofRI ;

    Variety is the spice of life and I agree that to just have one meal on the menu would bore us all.

    But should we set some kind of moral limit?

    I have and fight to end Christianity and Islam.

    Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

                         

    Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

     

    Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

     

    https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

     

     

    Humanity centered religions, good? Yes.  Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

     

    Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.


  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    >>>When science has to accept the existence of things it cannot prove, it creates a bad precedent interfering with the scientific method. Science has to be impartial to any human beliefs. People do not have to be atheists, but science has to be atheist.<<<

    That is your opinion that science has to be atheist.
    I still believe some of the greatest scientists were religious people, and not of duress.
    Isaac Newton
    Charles Darwin
    Leonardo Da Vinci

    Just because you do not have the answers to everything does not mean you cannot go on with life.
    The beauty of life is there is so much more to learn.
    There are more areas to grow, it is an ever struggle through reason, doubt, and discovery.
    It sounds like to me that science needs to grow a little more.
    Because it takes maturity to say, "I don't know".

    Science cannot prove evolution from one species to another.
    Scientific persons point at religion and say it is unprovable, fictitious even, then science tries to replace it with another unprovable, fictitious story, saying it is more accurate.
    When science should say, "I don't know".
    That is one of the reasons Religion financed science was to find out.
    Nevertheless, none of us can undo the past and say religion did not finance universities and science.
    Is science proud of that origin story? Maybe not.
    Without religion, it is a possibility that science may never existed.
    Then again science may have come about by another means, that is something we will never know.

    The majority of countries see themselves as secular.
    Nevertheless, you cannot undo the past and say that religion did not have a part of putting the USA together.
    Now that religion has put countries together, we want to completely remove religion in the countries decision making?

    It is like people getting upset that Jeff Bezos is the owner of Amazon.
    Saying it should be more neutral, and he should not be involved in any decision making.

    I believe it is good there are atheistic scientists out there because it allows for a diversity of thought.
    I am also happy there is an atheist concept.
    I also enjoy your honest break down of more atheists in the world. (I wish there were more also, I think there are more to come)


  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @smoothie

    Where is your Real World evidence, to support your claims?

    Do you have any evidence, where any citizen, has filed a Restraining Order against any Religion for it forcing anyone to do anything according to any Religion?

    Maybe for Religion stalking any citizen?

    Or for any Religion to tell any citizen, to commit any crimes? 

    Do you have any evidence, where any Religious building has been protested, because the Religion was forcing citizens, to do this or that?

    "I believe in a secular government when it comes to religion. I don't think it is fair that everyone should be forced to follow rules of one religion when it is first and foremost, a belief.

    People should be allowed to follow any religion they want, but I think logic, facts, and evidence from the real world make more reasonable and fair laws.

    For example, murder being illegal, should be viewed as punishment for the unlawful killing of a citizen, and not because god said it was wrong. Is this fair?" 
    smoothie
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI ;

    Variety is the spice of life and I agree that to just have one meal on the menu would bore us all.

    But should we set some kind of moral limit?

    I have and fight to end Christianity and Islam.

    Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

                         

    Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

     

    Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

     

    https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

     

     

    Humanity centered religions, good? Yes.  Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

     

    Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.


    I am a Christian, and I have done nothing wrong, to you. You don't have the right to end my Christian, faith. Religious liberty, is a basic, human right. I am so tired of leftists, and others, targeting Christians, but giving other people, a free pass.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    Once again, people doing science can believe whatever they want - but science itself should not feature those beliefs and has to be atheist, in the sense that, in the lack of proof of god's existence, it should assume that god does not exist. This is what the scientific method demands.

    Science says, "I do not know", all the time, and has been for thousands years. Which is why it refrains from talking about things that have no indication of existing.
    Science does consider hypothetical questions, of course, and one of those questions very well could be, "Is it possible that god exists? If so, what evidence would there be?" Which is very different from saying, "I believe that god exists". Science does not deal with beliefs.

    Religion has funded science; communism has funded science; fascism has funded science; imperialism has funded science... Does not indicate in any way that, without funding from these sources, science would not exist. Science would likely exist under any circumstances, as bettering ourselves and improving our technology is our human nature.

    Jeff Bezos has created Amazon. You could say that he created it thanks to the US government, but he is the one who has created it, and hence is an owner of it. Similarly, scientists may have made a lot of their discoveries thanks to the funding from religious institutions, but they are the ones who have made those discoveries, hence credit should go to them.
    That is my point exactly: people are the ones doing science, not religion or anything else.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @smoothie ; There is no morality or understanding of right v. wrong void our Creator and the moral law infused within our inner-man at conception (Romans 2:15). As a homosexual-secularist-atheist, what "religion" are you concerned about? I reject your religion of atheism-Darwinism and its deception leading to death though you and yours impose it upon me via you defunct and illegitimate worldview that's in my face, daily. So I ask, what religion is tormenting you?


  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:
    @smoothie ; There is no morality or understanding of right v. wrong void our Creator and the moral law infused within our inner-man at conception (Romans 2:15). As a homosexual-secularist-atheist, what "religion" are you concerned about? I reject your religion of atheism-Darwinism and its deception leading to death though you and yours impose it upon me via you defunct and illegitimate worldview that's in my face, daily. So I ask, what religion is tormenting you?


    I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. 1. I affirm that morality outside the existence of a moral Law Giver, does not exist. 2. I disagree with your claim that atheism is a religion. Atheists don't really have a Holy Book, like the Bible. While we agree on some doctinal matters, we disagree on this. i really do believe Christians can be faithful to Jesus, without twisting the actual positions, that atheists hold. Some atheists have been hurt by heretical and cruel religious cults, so believers, should, respect, and pray for them. Jesus said to love your neighbor as you love yourself, and do unto others. One thing i want to make clear is that I do not agree with atheists, but i wanted to clear up the strawman fallacy you were using, when you said that atheism, was a religion. Atheism is the lack of a belief, in a Creator God, not the presence of a belief in religion. If believers want atheists to respect them, we should empathize with them.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -   edited January 2020

    1) The only morality outside of that which has been infused within our heart by our Creator is moral relativism which is demonically-based and a secularist worldview.
    2) You don't need a "Holy Book" to be a religion. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" fills this void as most every atheist is a naturalist and evolution is the most profound progenitor of atheism.
     






  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:

    1) The only morality outside of that which has been infused within our heart by our Creator is moral relativism which is demonically-based and a secularist worldview.
    2) You don't need a "Holy Book" to be a religion. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" fills this void as most every atheist is a naturalist and evolution is the most profound progenitor of atheism.
     






    Use Google. You will find that typing in "atheism defined", will reveale that atheism is the lack of a belief in a Creator God. You have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right your own facts. All you care about, is your own opinion, and you don't really care about debating. I am done with you.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    YES!!!!! Science and progress are the new religion and they are the new majority and all peoples should be forced to abide by their teachings. Next question. 
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought ; Atheism worships Nature as god and Atheism is a lie as it is a demonic religion...it does not exist in reality and if you knew the Holy Spirit you would know this as well. Every man and woman having attained an age of reason and possessing at least a modicum of wisdom and discernment intuitively knows our Creator exists via what He has made and placed before our eyes in creation; therefore, the facade of the Atheist is a lie and they are "without excuse" when they stand before Yeshua in the Judgment of the Condemned (Revelation 20:11-15).





  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:
    @YeshuaBought ; Atheism worships Nature as god and Atheism is a lie as it is a demonic religion...it does not exist in reality and if you knew the Holy Spirit you would know this as well. Every man and woman having attained an age of reason and possessing at least a modicum of wisdom and discernment intuitively knows our Creator exists via what He has made and placed before our eyes in creation; therefore, the facade of the Atheist is a lie and they are "without excuse" when they stand before Yeshua in the Judgment of the Condemned (Revelation 20:11-15).





    We are done, leave me alone, you ****ing troll.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch