DEBATE: Thunderf00t VS. Gman! Atheist VS. Creationist! (DP)

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

Too much euphoria in this thread.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Back on topic? :O

 

Well that's my queue to leave, peace! May Allah be with you!

[Brinolovania]

Nooooooo, don't get back on topic D:

 

I was enjoying watching an actually intelligent internet religion debate.

[Aix]

God damn you sound pretentious.  Don't analyze the English language if you're going to immediately say we're not here to analyze the English language.   But yes, I did notice all of that.
 
No one is telling you to believe anything, but you are telling people not believe things.

I am going to give up trying to be civil here.

Do you not realize the meaning of the sentence "but we're not here to do X" simply means that this topic is derailing and what came before was simply an attempt to resolve things? So you admit to very blatant and intentional hypocrisy in criticizing my use of the language by using the very language you are criticizing?

Are you honestly fucking telling me not to state my opinion in a fucking debate? Did you even read the title? Yes, the big word in capital letters "DEBATE" most probably refers to the debate in the video, but with a debate in the background, what commentators do is comment their own opinion.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Also just to clarify the part about aggressively promoting a belief or lack-thereof yadaydayada is mainly referring to the guy in the video, as we're getting back on topic.  

Just have to say, isn't all of this on topic, since the topic is an Atheism VS. Creationism debate?

 

By the way. Atheism VS Creationism debates can annoy me because they sometimes imply that if you aren't an Atheist you don't believe in Evolution. (I know it's not necessarily the case here but just something I noticed I thought I'd bring up.)

[Thar]

God is a resource. :P[/size]

Yes, but I never said I'd use every resource I see.

[Just Crouton]

God is a resource. :P

 

Or, you can just ask for help from someone who does exist. :P

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

They won't always be there.

[Just Crouton]

They won't always be there.

 

God is never there.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

That's because you never let Him in your house, I can trade sassy one-liners all day. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

That's because you never let Him in your house, I can trade sassy one-liners all day.

I thought that was vampires?

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Aix]

Gentle reminder that this is the General section and not Misc. Keep spam to a minimum please.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I thought that was vampires?

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

I try to get my eight cups of Jesus blood per day in. ;)

[Tentacruel]

Wait, if this thread is actually meant to be a debate in itself, allow me to respond accordingly.  

 

 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

This is the best thread YCM's had in years.

[Madsen]

If everyone involved is a willing participant in the argument/discussion/debate, then presumably they all think there's a point. I don't see why it should be universally considered a pointless endeavour if it's about religion. 

 

But it is a pointless endeavor. The basis of the argument is that one person believes something that the other doesn't, and as such any point brought up simply clogs up the debate with "Well I don't consider that to be true."

There's no point in such a debate if you can't both have common ground upon which to build and branch off of. This topic is one that ends with "I don't agree with that/I don't believe that." because just as I can't convince a religious person to stop believing something they possibly base a major part of their life on, they can't convince me to start believing that. The argument one can make always come back to something the other side won't accept.

 

 

Basically your question is the same as this quote by Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

I will admit it's a logical issue, if you believe in an all knowing, all powerful, and benevolent God. Which is why I believe the world was started by a God, who created the science that created us. And that we are judged in the end, but other than that, we're left to our own devices.

 

This is a bit of a wonky description, falling somewhere between forms of Deism and Agnosticism, and this is where atheists would point out that coming to this conclusion basically poses another logical fault: that a God created a world and simply abandoned it. There comes another fault of these beliefs: their logical conclusion is that since there is a World and Universe, something must've created it, some kind of Divine. But what really 'made' this divine? The belief that something must've created our surroundings leads to the belief that logically that being had to have been made by something which leads us to an infinite illogical loop. This is a result of the fact that most deists are people who were raised in religious households but logically came to the conclusion that what they were born into is illogical yet their basic belief stays with them through that logic.

 

Sigh, I'm doing what I argued is a pointless task. /abandon thread

[ＳＯＮ ＧＯＫＵ]

How could God make the Earth in six days if the Earth and Sun hadn't properly been made yet? "Days" did not exist, the earth wasn't rotating, therefore there is no measure of time on earth at this point. He put a tree he wanted neither Adam or Eve to eat from in the middle of Eden. As a punishment to the Snake that did it, he took away it's legs, even though that made it an even better hunter and could camouflage better in the long run.

 

God was a dick.

 

[Tourmaline]

You know that even people with strong scientific beliefs are considered religious, right? Atheism is not the opposite of religion.

[Ren✧]

I feel like I am going to regret getting involved here, but what the Hell? 

 

Let me start by saying that what I say may or may not reflect my personal beliefs. This is largely because I have not figured out for myself what I hold to be true and what I think is a product of extreme optimism. With that brief disclaimer out of the way, I suppose I should just jump right into the debate. 

 

 

You know that even people with strong scientific beliefs are considered religious, right? Atheism is not the opposite of religion.

 

Uh-hu...So I took the liberty of finding a few definitions for you. 

 

A simplistic definition of atheism is: a lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

 

That right there tells me that atheism is in fact the opposite of religion for religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

 

For further proof of this, you can look to synonyms of atheism: irreligion, put simply, means the absence of religion. 

 

When dealing with a noun, which religion is, there is truly no opposite. Opposites, I believe, are exclusive to adjectives and possibly adverbs. So the closest thing you can get to an opposite of a noun would be the absence of that noun. Therefore, atheism would have to be the opposite of religion.

 

So, no, I do not believe that people with strong scientific beliefs, basing this argument on the assumption that you mean they reject all forms of religion, are considered religious. 

[Kyng]

I'm curious as to why people are so bothered about what other people believe in?

Why are Atheists persistent on goading religious believers, and vice versa?

If it doesn't hurt anybody, and it wouldn't affect them in any way, shape or form, why bother even caring?

Live and let live, honestly.

[Thar]

I'm curious as to why people are so bothered about what other people believe in?

Why are Atheists persistent on goading religious believers, and vice versa?

 

I think it's more towards the extremists who bash homosexuals and the like for "going against what the bible says" or some sh*t. So it's more what a percentage of what they DO than what they believe in.

[Agro]

I'm curious as to why people are so bothered about what other people believe in?

Why are Atheists persistent on goading religious believers, and vice versa?

If it doesn't hurt anybody, and it wouldn't affect them in any way, shape or form, why bother even caring?

Live and let live, honestly.

That's what most atheists think. There are just some dumb ones who don't. Same goes for religious folks. I don't wish to watch the video because I'm sure I'll be greeted to two hateful morons arguing without an ending on YouTube.
 
That being said, the argument of creationism vs evolution is opinion vs science. In the Bill Nye debate I think the best soundbite to explain the conversation was:
Question: What evidence would be needed to make you change your opinion on creationism vs evolution?
Creationist: Nothing could change my belief.
Bill Nye: Just one piece of factual evidence.
 
Basically, there's no reason to attack those who are religious for their beliefs. They're entitled to them, and many folks would agree with their beliefs if they could prove their beliefs are actually facts. That being said, on the creationism vs evolution discussion, because there hasn't been any evidence towards creationism and all the scientific evidence has supported evolution, there's a reason something evolution is what is taught in classrooms, while creationism is kept for sunday school. (also creationism is part of religion, and for that matter, the creationism in question is the following of only a few religions, so even then, it can't be allowed in public schools in the US because of the separation of church and state)
 
And keeping that all in mind, for the record:

You know that even people with strong scientific beliefs are considered religious, right? Atheism is not the opposite of religion.

Atheism is, science is not. And they are not the same thing.

This is a bit of a wonky description, falling somewhere between forms of Deism and Agnosticism, and this is where atheists would point out that coming to this conclusion basically poses another logical fault: that a God created a world and simply abandoned it. There comes another fault of these beliefs: their logical conclusion is that since there is a World and Universe, something must've created it, some kind of Divine. But what really 'made' this divine? The belief that something must've created our surroundings leads to the belief that logically that being had to have been made by something which leads us to an infinite illogical loop. This is a result of the fact that most deists are people who were raised in religious households but logically came to the conclusion that what they were born into is illogical yet their basic belief stays with them through that logic.
 
Sigh, I'm doing what I argued is a pointless task. /abandon thread

you don't necessarily need to respond, but building off of this, there is a sort of humanist, perhaps selfish idea behind the thought of a god. The basic idea is that human's are somehow special enough to deserve a god to watch after them, as if in a universe of possibly infinite species, many likely sentient, we're the center of attention. Food for thought.

[Tourmaline]

I feel like I am going to regret getting involved here, but what the Hell?

Let me start by saying that what I say may or may not reflect my personal beliefs. This is largely because I have not figured out for myself what I hold to be true and what I think is a product of extreme optimism. With that brief disclaimer out of the way, I suppose I should just jump right into the debate.



Uh-hu...So I took the liberty of finding a few definitions for you.

A simplistic definition of atheism is: a lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

That right there tells me that atheism is in fact the opposite of religion for religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

For further proof of this, you can look to synonyms of atheism: irreligion, put simply, means the absence of religion.

When dealing with a noun, which religion is, there is truly no opposite. Opposites, I believe, are exclusive to adjectives and possibly adverbs. So the closest thing you can get to an opposite of a noun would be the absence of that noun. Therefore, atheism would have to be the opposite of religion.

So, no, I do not believe that people with strong scientific beliefs, basing this argument on the assumption that you mean they reject all forms of religion, are considered religious.

Religion in no way implies a supernatural entity by default and you should learn what you're talking about before speaking so assertively. A religion is more a set of beliefs, ideas and world views. Thinking it is necessarily supernatural is absolutely stupid and ignorant of the contemporary world, especially considering the dollar sign is as much a religious symbol as a cross. The thought of a necessary supernatural is like thinking "anti-semitic" only implies discrimination against Jewish people because it's just an uneducated impression.

In terms of Agro: Atheism is not irreligion, but the lack of belief in a supernatural deity/entity.

[a bad post]

Alrightie first of all I do believe we have a problem here. You do all know that each and every person on earth has a different definition of what they believe to be God, correct? Heck, even the Old Testament and New Testament differs in how they describe God. Now I myself am a practicing Orthodox Christian, and so I'm going to share with you my religions teaching of what God is:

 

God in the simplest sense is the entity which created all known and unknown life within the Universe. His nature is taught to us to be like that of a father; compassionate and patient with his children, but just as a father's patience isn't God's isn't either and He won't tolerate people infinitely going against His will, which is again taught in my religion to be the 10 Commandments. Follow them and you are golden in God's eyes, and IMO those really aren't to unreasonable. My religion also teaches that Christian or not good people as defined by the 10 Commandments will go to Heaven. Even if someone is to sin if they repent, and truly feel sorry for it, then they will be allowed into Heaven.

 

Now, first I'd like to address the big issue everyone has with God, which is that is improbable for a giant floating man in the sky to dictate the laws of the universe. And they're right, but the problem is that people think of God in secular terms, and not in spiritual terms. God is not something that humans can or ever will understand until they "meet" him in Heaven. God as I previously stated is an entity, not human, so to think of him in human terms is like comparing apples to oranges. 

 

Another thing is that people say "if God wanted people to believe in Him, then why not just show Himself". Here's another problem, that would totally undermine the concept of faith. The definition of faith is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something, so if God were to show Himself to the world, sure that would garner a lot more believers, but what the point in having faith be anyway then.

 

Finally the last big issue that people have is that "if God is perfect then why not correct humanity's mistakes for them". God gave humans free will so that they can do what they please, and for some that takes them away from the path of God. Now some people are probably thinking "why not make it so people can't make these decisions" and to this I respond "fine, but then you're telling me that you are willing to give up your free will right?" I mean really if people couldn't make bad decisions then that is not true free will. The reason God doesn't intervene is all for man's own autonomy, but if you all are perfectly good with giving up your free will then go right ahead.

 

To address the point of predetermined destiny my religion teaches that there is now such thing, yet at the same time there is. A contradictory and confusing statement, but allow me to explain. When you are presented with a choice an infinite number of possible futures stem out from that choice, and God knows them all, but not which path you will follow until you are already on it. So while destiny and fate do exist, they are not predetermined, and are changed by one's own free will.

 

I think I will wrap up my argument here, as now seems a nice time to end. Now it is time for me to rant like a bitch.

 

The Amazing Atheist and and Thunderf00t are both as ignorant as the evil Christians they preach about. Yes there are some very narrow-minded Chrisitians, but on the other end of the spectrum we have fuckers like these who are equally childish and narrow-minded and at any mention of a God possibly existing put their hands on their ears and scream lalalala and then proceed to bash and insult said people of faith.

 

Another thing is some idiots are just atheists are just atheists to show just how liberal and edgy they are, and preach about how religion has harmed them and wronged them. Yeah they can just shut their damn mouths, cause these people bring a bad name to actual and respectable atheists who actually have been wronged by narrow-minded Christians who fail to comprehend the message of God.

 

Before people start preaching about how Christians have wronged so many people please take a moment and remember how after their founding they were brutally hunted and killed by pagans and even today are oppressed by other religions. Don't believe me? Want an example. Here: the holy city of the Orthodox Church is located in Turkey a dominantly Muslim country who require the Patriarch, the leader of another religion, to be a citizen of their country. Is that good enough, yeah? Thank you. Do you see me railing on about how evil Muslims are, and how much they sicken me. No, because I don't let a few assholes ruin my perception of what is in reality a quite pleasant group of people. 

 

Finally I just want to talk about the people who call God a dick because He'll send them to Hell, because they don't believe in him. First of all I have stated earlier that my religion does not preach that, but I'm going to tell you all right now please shut the fuck up. Let's think of Heaven like a really posh club, and God like the owner. We'll think of the  10 Commandments as the club's rules of admittance and for now we'll pretend that you are God. Now a patron attempts to enter, but you that this patron doesn't follow the rules, and constantly bad mouths you are you going to let him in. To all of you saying yes please shut the hell up, no you would not, because you're just saying that right now to look so cool.

 

Thank you for your time.

[Aix]

Another thing is that people say "if God wanted people to believe in Him, then why not just show Himself". Here's another problem, that would totally undermine the concept of faith. The definition of faith is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something, so if God were to show Himself to the world, sure that would garner a lot more believers, but what the point in having faith be anyway then.

What is the point of faith in the first place? Why is faith important?

 

Finally the last big issue that people have is that "if God is perfect then why not correct humanity's mistakes for them". God gave humans free will so that they can do what they please, and for some that takes them away from the path of God.

If he really wanted to give humans free will, why does he let people be born into situations where they have very little choice or freedom in what they can do? Say you are born a slave back in time. Do you really have free will? Well, maybe you do, but it is a very limited free will. Also, you do realize that a lot of people committing crimes and doing bad things are due to their circumstances, of how they were brought up and etc. One's moral development is heavily affected by their surroundings, that's why parents discipline their children. However, if God places someone in a situation where they have no parents to discipline them, and a shit ton of bad influences, etc., doesn't he effectively screw them over? As a parent, isn't he failing to discipline his child? In this case, it's not fair. Sure you can argue the 10% chance this person will turn out well, but that is nothing compared to a child with good parents and proper upbringing who has, say, a 90% chance to be a good person.

 

To address the point of predetermined destiny my religion teaches that there is now such thing, yet at the same time there is. A contradictory and confusing statement, but allow me to explain. When you are presented with a choice an infinite number of possible futures stem out from that choice, and God knows them all, but not which path you will follow until you are already on it. So while destiny and fate do exist, they are not predetermined, and are changed by one's own free will.

Then, it is impossible for him to make definite prophecies. There are no singular forks in life where you choose which path you will follow, your choices in life can branch off at an infinite number of points. What you say implies that there is only one fork in the road. No there is a fork in the road and then immediately after that there is another fork. He knows what path you took after you took it, but he has no clue which of the infinite number of paths you will take after that.