• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your religious denomination?

What is your religion?

  • Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or other)

    Votes: 39 34.5%
  • Agnostic

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Atheist

    Votes: 33 29.2%
  • Muslim (Sunni, Shi'a, Sufi, or other)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Buddhist

    Votes: 4 3.5%
  • Hindu

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jewish

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • Eastern Philosophy (Confucian, Taoist, Shinto, etc.)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Polytheist/Neo-pagan

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 13 11.5%

  • Total voters
    113
I'm an atheist. Let me be super clear on what I mean when I say that.

What I mean is that I don't have a belief in any deity. It does not mean I am making a positive claim that no deity exists.

I simply have no reason to believe in any of the deities humanity currently has on offer, or any theoretical situation that may accommodate a deity that has as of yet been presented to me.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” supposedly a Mahatma Gandhi quote.
 
Atheist I guess. Was a Christian, didn't work out, and I just don't see religion ever being a primary aspect of my life again. I'll leave religion to the theists and theologists.
 
I've been an atheist my whole life. I'll leave it at that.
 
I'm a closet Otherkin. I'm one of those who believe they have something other than a human soul. Such as my name I chose implies. So this means my spirituality will be a bit odd even for those who are not traditional or who consider themselves neo-pagan.
 
You lump Darwin with Einstein, and they are not the same. Einstein wrote down the rules of physics, the special and general theories of relativity, and he PROVED them beyond a shadow of a doubt. Newton wrote down his attempt at the rules of physics and they worked for everything that was provable when he wrote them. Einstein went much farther and his extensions were definitively PROVEN.


Theory Of Relativity

That degree of precision would me needed to control a nuclear reaction and make one splitting of the atom into a bomb vs. another splitting of the atom into an electric generating facility.

Darwin wrote down his theory and it has never been proven. Darwin certainly never set out to prove god does not exist, and he did not prove that.

You must differentiate between what is proven and what is theory.

As you point out, the origin of life has not been explained at all. Scientists are working on it, but don't have it yet and they may never get there.

First in science a Theory is considered proven and considered fact. The Theory of Evolution has been proved in many fields of Science such as molecular biology, immunology, demonstrated with single celled organisms and the adaptations they make, through computer simulations, though studies in micro evolution that occur in nature. For all intents and purposes wherever it has been proven it is considered fact.

Second in no case can it be said that a theory is proven beyond a shadow of doubt since Science is not a religion and only the mad are ever absolutely certain. But scientist can be virtually certain that Relativity is true except in areas where Quantum Gravity would need to explain what is going on. Likewise the Theory of Evolution is true except in areas where a shift from one state (non living or chaotic) to a quite different state (living or ordered) occurs.
 
Well, that depends. I've seen many people come and go out of church (and have known or know some personally as well) who seem to be under the mistaken impression that if they attend mass, then they have earned the keys to Heaven. However, it seems that outside of the church setting, they are kind of a-holes.

That is the problem when you have people who use works righteous doctrine they do not feel they have to atone and act as bastards also. Some of the worst things were committed in human history were by those who were certain they were right and certain they would be well rewarded after they die.
 
No, I believe that Universal Morality is the embracing of our instincts and nature AGAINST the capability to deny/overcome it. It is my view that we are here to prove the capability of our Souls to do what we Should rather than what we Can. To fight against the intellectual urge to be more than we are supposed to be; and rather to live life as it Should be lived rather than how it Can be lived.

By an large humans of the world are living your way and the end result will be the extinction of the human race. We have reached the limit from what some of our basic instincts will allow when we developed civilization and if we are to survive we must change these instincts so that we can live with one another and not get in each others way demanding that all must live one particular way. That in a crisis we do not rely on the instinct to follow one charismatic leader that promises deliverance if we were to grant him the power to do what was "necessary" instead of using reason and planing to avoid and to determine what to do if such a crisis were to happen if not avoidable. And in general that we should not defer to some authority like government or any other such organization and pretend that somehow the members of such are not subject to delusions and conflicts of interest like any other human on this world. The reason that I identify with the libertarian point of view is I do not trust my fellow man and I do not disclude any in a position of power or influence.
 
That is the problem when you have people who use works righteous doctrine they do not feel they have to atone and act as bastards also. Some of the worst things were committed in human history were by those who were certain they were right and certain they would be well rewarded after they die.

You have no idea! They would throw their trash on the ground, flip people off, cut people off. :roll:

One time, one of them was blocking my driveway, and when I told him to move it, he actually flipped me off! Real God-like, right? ;)
 
Well, that depends. I've seen many people come and go out of church (and have known or know some personally as well) who seem to be under the mistaken impression that if they attend mass, then they have earned the keys to Heaven. However, it seems that outside of the church setting, they are kind of a-holes.

Same with Muslims in Mosques here. Just because they go to Friday prayers they think they could be terrible people and care less. What? They think they have done their dues, earned heaven, now they plunge into insulting, ignorant, opinions and beliefs, the future is assured.

Sometimes the more one wears Islamic symbols (i.e., Arab symbols like: beard, clothing, hat, etc) the worse the person hiding behind the religion is. Hence double the reason to keep away from them. Psychoanalytic Freudian reaction formation comes to mind.

Not all are like that of course.
 
First in science a Theory is considered proven and considered fact. The Theory of Evolution has been proved in many fields of Science such as molecular biology, immunology, demonstrated with single celled organisms and the adaptations they make, through computer simulations, though studies in micro evolution that occur in nature. For all intents and purposes wherever it has been proven it is considered fact.

Second in no case can it be said that a theory is proven beyond a shadow of doubt since Science is not a religion and only the mad are ever absolutely certain. But scientist can be virtually certain that Relativity is true except in areas where Quantum Gravity would need to explain what is going on. Likewise the Theory of Evolution is true except in areas where a shift from one state (non living or chaotic) to a quite different state (living or ordered) occurs.

You have not read the thread. The question is not "did living organisms change from very simple ones to more complex ones", the question is WHY did that series of changes occur? Was it just a series of accidents, or was an intellect guiding the process. In the physical world, I have never seen "nature" (or an accident if you will) create a little red wagon, or a model T, or a 787; intellect and a plan is required for these inanimate objects to be built. Why would it be different in the world of animate world? We can't explain how life is created from inanimate objects, but we believe life could progress and accidentally build a human being which is infinitely more complex than a 787, without a plan and without an intellect? That is what does not make sense to me. That leaves open the possibility of god, which the atheist seeks to deny.
 
Same with Muslims in Mosques here. Just because they go to Friday prayers they think they could be terrible people and care less. What? They think they have done their dues, earned heaven, now they plunge into insulting, ignorant, opinions and beliefs, the future is assured.

Sometimes the more one wears Islamic symbols (i.e., Arab symbols like: beard, clothing, hat, etc) the worse the person hiding behind the religion is. Hence double the reason to keep away from them. Psychoanalytic Freudian reaction formation comes to mind.

Not all are like that of course.

Yes, they think because they go to church they get an automatic pass. I disagree. I think it is MUCH more important to do unto others. That, to me, is the most meaningful of ALL the commandments.
 
Yes, they think because they go to church they get an automatic pass. I disagree. I think it is MUCH more important to do unto others. That, to me, is the most meaningful of ALL the commandments.

The "Do unto others" commandment can also be viewed differently (i.e., non religiously) though the function is the same. I think whatever you do you seem to attract either according issues with the person or according people overall. But this is due to similarities attract phenomenon. Thus choosing to speak as adults you will either attract the adult facets of the person, or (if it is hopeless) will attract other adults in the area to communicate in that manner with you because then you are similar.

Similarities unlike magnets attract in people.
 
The "Do unto others" commandment can also be viewed differently (i.e., non religiously) though the function is the same. I think whatever you do you seem to attract either according issues with the person or according people overall. But this is due to similarities attract phenomenon. Thus choosing to speak as adults you will either attract the adult facets of the person, or (if it is hopeless) will attract other adults in the area to communicate in that manner with you.

Of course! :) I think the original intent of the commandments was to act as "laws" for people to follow, since there was no possible way to police all people back then. I imagine that murder, rape and plunder were very common occurrences, so they "scared" people into behaving themselves.
 
Of course! :) I think the original intent of the commandments was to act as "laws" for people to follow, since there was no possible way to police all people back then. I imagine that murder, rape and plunder were very common occurrences, so they "scared" people into behaving themselves.

Or this phenomenon of similarity was around long before that and people started attending to it and feel safe that others will as well by making them "laws" for the not as enlightened people.
 
Or this phenomenon of similarity was around long before that and people started attending to it and feel safe that others will as well by making them "laws" for the not as enlightened people.

I'm sure SOME people behaved. I'm sure there were MANY more who were out for themselves because they could be with no real consequences. I'm sure the chances of getting caught after committing a crime back in the BC period were pretty small. People and times were really quite brutal back then. I really do think of the Bible as a set of laws and regulations with a little "fear factor" thrown in so people would take them seriously and think twice before acting.
 
I'm sure SOME people behaved. I'm sure there were MANY more who were out for themselves because they could be with no real consequences. I'm sure the chances of getting caught after committing a crime back in the BC period were pretty small. People and times were really quite brutal back then. I really do think of the Bible as a set of laws and regulations with a little "fear factor" thrown in so people would take them seriously and think twice before acting.

The Roman empire brought religion to us in A.C. Was ok, but did not stretch to cover politics and people who would use religion to achieve political gains. So religion is ok for promoting similar attraction phenomenon with its "commandments" but it is weak to political exploitation.
 
I'm a Theist, I'm convinced that there is some sort of "God". I think the wisdom of many different religions ring true, but no one has anything close to getting it right. My conclusion so far is that Buddhism makes the most sense of them all, but by no means am I a Buddhist. I guess you can call me a deist.

So I chose other, because I'm not technically an agnostic I'm a Theist.
 
Do you mind summarizing?

What aspect of my statement do you disagree with?

It seems the federal court system of the United States have concluded atheism is in fact a religion and as such atheists First Amendment rights against "prohibiting the free exercise thereof (their religion)" is federally protected under the US Constitution.
 
It seems the federal court system of the United States have concluded atheism is in fact a religion and as such atheists First Amendment rights against "prohibiting the free exercise thereof (their religion)" is federally protected under the US Constitution.

That is an innacurate description. From your link:

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky

Equivalent does not mean it is a religion, but in this case what it means is that it is treated as a religion for purposes of the first amendment.
 
You lump Darwin with Einstein, and they are not the same. Einstein wrote down the rules of physics, the special and general theories of relativity, and he PROVED them beyond a shadow of a doubt. Newton wrote down his attempt at the rules of physics and they worked for everything that was provable when he wrote them. Einstein went much farther and his extensions were definitively PROVEN.
Theory Of Relativity
That degree of precision would me needed to control a nuclear reaction and make one splitting of the atom into a bomb vs. another splitting of the atom into an electric generating facility.[b
Darwin wrote down his theory and it has never been proven. Darwin certainly never set out to prove god does not exist, and he did not prove that.
You must differentiate between what is proven and what is theory.
As you point out, the origin of life has not been explained at all. Scientists are working on it, but don't have it yet and they may never get there.
False.
Wrong Premises Galore.
Theories are Not proven.
They are confirmed in part or whole and then generally accepted or generally not.
There is still criticism of some generally accepted theories.

Evolution has been documented and Confirmed for 150 Years.
Any number of new sciences or contradictory discoveries Could have rendered it wrong.
They, of course, haven't, but have only confirmed it.
ie, Carbon Dating (1949) could have blown it but confirmed it - as does even more recent DNA regression analysis, etc.
If Any of Millions of fossils were found in the wrong strata could have also blown it, but of course, hasn't.

People object to the FACT of Evolution, usually because of Religious indoctrination, coupled with [stunningly] poor education which allows it, or is ignored to accommodate the fallacy.
Most common is to try and exploit/abuse/Misuse the word 'theory'.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.er.

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy."
[........]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a Law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."
Original link expired, can now be found:
15 Answers
Shame on America! And 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense | Yoism
When it comes to Evolution, Darwinism wins easily over 'Intelligent Design' theory
 
Last edited:
That is an innacurate description. From your link:



Equivalent does not mean it is a religion, but in this case what it means is that it is treated as a religion for purposes of the first amendment.
If you look up the definition of religion atheist does fall in the realm of at least one of it's definitions.

Why do you even care? It's just a word meant to describe things and a broad definition of the word includes Atheism.

If you want to argue that your emotional response forbids atheism to be related to anything like religion, than that's alright I guess.
 
I'm Roman Catholic. A traditional Roman Catholic at that. While it's not a different religion, it sure is different in practice. I'm not a fan of expressive worship as typified by Methodists and Baptists. Give me the solemnity and ritual.
 
Back
Top Bottom