• 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!

Do you feel Christians are Discriminated against in America?

Do you feel Christians are Discriminated against in America?


  • Total voters
    73
Status
Not open for further replies.
You believe God doesn't exist. Lack of belief would be saying I don't know or not taking any stance at all. But you have taken a stance. You have stated a belief. A belief that God does not exist.

Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it any more true. It just shows that you're dishonest.
 
Until God's existence is proven, then at best it's moot, but it doesn't even reach that level of evidence.

The existence of something doesn't rely on it being proven. We got here somehow. The planets got here somewhere. The universe got here somehow. However that is, it has not been proven. But we are here, and it happened. The lack of proof of whatever ends up being right, doesn't change that the right answer is right. Hopefully that makes sense.
 
Countless people have looked at the evidence and still come to believe objectively that God exists. You came to a different conclusion. No one on Earth, no one in the history of mankind, knows the answers to questions that religion attempts to answer. You can take the smartest men of all time, give them unlimited resources, hell they can even stay at a holiday inn express, and in the end they wont come up with anything but a theory.

No, because by definition, objectivity means without human bias. Please present specific objective evidence, evidence that anyone can see without having to believe anything about it first, which proves the factual existence of your specific God. Go ahead, we'll wait... a very, very, very long time.
 
You believe God doesn't exist. Lack of belief would be saying I don't know or not taking any stance at all. But you have taken a stance. You have stated a belief. A belief that God does not exist.

Wrong, he has no reason to believe in something not known to exist. That's the literal meaning of atheist - "Lack of a belief in Gods." Your inability to conceive of nonbelief is not his problem.
 
Wrong, he has no reason to believe in something not known to exist. That's the literal meaning of atheist - "Lack of a belief in Gods." Your inability to conceive of nonbelief is not his problem.

I'll explain again. If the question is "Does God exist?" if a person answers yes or no then they do have a belief. No belief would be saying "I don't know".
 
I'll explain again. If the question is "Does God exist?" if a person answers yes or no then they do have a belief. No belief would be saying "I don't know".

c)I have no reason to seriously consider the possibility of a god.
 
How am I dishonest? You say things, but can you support anything claim? Or is this another instance of "i don't have to".

Because you keep claiming people believe things they don't believe, that is a lie. You are a liar. You continue to lie. Are you unaware of the definition of words?
 
I'll explain again. If the question is "Does God exist?" if a person answers yes or no then they do have a belief. No belief would be saying "I don't know".

That isn't their argument. Their argument is that they don't believe YOU. You are making the claim that God exists. You didn't provide evidence. Ergo they do not believe in your God. Take it one step further. They have never seen definitive evidence of God. They don't believe in God. There is evidence of evolution: that is why they believe in it.

You are wasting your time.
 
No, because by definition, objectivity means without human bias. Please present specific objective evidence, evidence that anyone can see without having to believe anything about it first, which proves the factual existence of your specific God. Go ahead, we'll wait... a very, very, very long time.

There is no ojbectivity means without human bias. This argument works on any theory that has ever existed about how the universe came to be. I could ask you the same thing about how you believe the universe came to exist. You can't prove it any more than anyone else can. I know that because if you could, you would.
 
c)I have no reason to seriously consider the possibility of a god.

Oh oh oh!!! I have a question: would you consider it insulting for me to try and show you evidence? I may turn this into a topic.
 
That isn't their argument. Their argument is that they don't believe YOU. You are making the claim that God exists. You didn't provide evidence. Ergo they do not believe in your God. Take it one step further. They have never seen definitive evidence of God. They don't believe in God. There is evidence of evolution: that is why they believe in it.

You are wasting your time.

They are not, well at least Cephus is not, claiming I don't believe in your God. He is definitively saying God does not exist and that anyone who believes differently from him is an idiot. There is a difference.
 
There is no ojbectivity means without human bias. This argument works on any theory that has ever existed about how the universe came to be. I could ask you the same thing about how you believe the universe came to exist. You can't prove it any more than anyone else can. I know that because if you could, you would.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Do you ever get tired of being so laughably wrong?
 
ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Do you ever get tired of being so laughably wrong?

You haven't proven me wrong on anything.

Posting a definition of a word is not proof of my being wrong. If so then,

gar·den
ˈɡärdn/
noun
1.
a piece of ground, often near a house, used for growing flowers, fruit, or vegetables.

There now you are wrong too.
 
They are not, well at least Cephus is not, claiming I don't believe in your God. He is definitively saying God does not exist and that anyone who believes differently from him is an idiot. There is a difference.

I've debated him MANY times. He is demanding you prove your version of God. Prove your beliefs. Like I said...that is what it will boil down to. You are wasting your time.
 
Oh oh oh!!! I have a question: would you consider it insulting for me to try and show you evidence? I may turn this into a topic.

I wouldn't be insulted at all. I'll admit to being a bit skeptical, however: I'd think that if evidence existed for God I would have heard of it by now. Then again I don't claim to keep up with all the latest scientific quarterlies.
 
I've debated him MANY times. He is demanding you prove your version of God. Prove your beliefs. Like I said...that is what it will boil down to. You are wasting your time.

He can demand all he wants. I don't pretend to be able to prove the existence of God. I don't call people idiots who don't believe what I believe. So let him demand it. I've asked him to prove his beliefs, he won't even acknowledge them or state what they are beyond his belief that there is no God. People exist. We got here somehow. God is just as viable an answer as any other.
 
And that's when the discrimination comes in because you have no evidence - zero - nada - zip - that they would impose those beliefs on the rest of us or that they would use their religious beliefs to override the Constitution.

Except for all those times that they do. Huckabee specifically is, right now, championing for states to refuse to comply with the constitutional protections of SSM, because of his religious beliefs. He is doing that right now. He is saying that his religious beliefs should trump the constitution. He is doing it today.

Yes you do believe there is no God. You cannot prove it, therefore it is a belief. It is something you believe.

In order to defend your beliefs, you reduce belief to something infantile.
 
He can demand all he wants. I don't pretend to be able to prove the existence of God. I don't call people idiots who don't believe what I believe. So let him demand it. I've asked him to prove his beliefs, he won't even acknowledge them or state what they are beyond his belief that there is no God. People exist. We got here somehow. God is just as viable an answer as any other.

And THAT is why you should understand you are wasting your time ;)
 
Do you think they are?

Speaking as an atheist who's not very fond of religion at all, yes, Christians do get discriminated against. Particularly denominations such as Jehovahs Witnesses or Mormons.

They do not get discriminated against anywhere near as much as any other religion (or non-religion), and also enjoy far more privileges than any religion (or non-religion).
 
I wouldn't be insulted at all. I'll admit to being a bit skeptical, however: I'd think that if evidence existed for God I would have heard of it by now. Then again I don't claim to keep up with all the latest scientific quarterlies.

I will offer the only evidence I have for believing their could be a God. Not that their is a God, but that their could be.

Leaving all religions out of the conversation, lets just focus on the existence of God. Not Christian, not jewish, or muslim or anything else. Just God. Not heaven or hell or afterlife or commandments, or SSM. Nothing but God as someone/thing that created the universe.

My very simple logic is based on my agreement on these 3 statements:

The universe exists.
For something to exists it must have been created.
If something was created then someone/something created it.

Since I believe that since someone/something created the universe and at its core a God is someone/something who created there universe, I believe there is a God.
 
We can certainly have a conversation about it, but whereas we can discuss specifics and present evidence, the religious can't do that, they have no evidence, they only have blind faith. They believe they're right because they get an emotional high out of believing it. They didn't objectively evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion based on research, if they did, they'd have no use for faith. As such, they have earned no respect for their critical thinking skills.

I accept that the Huckabees and Carsons of the world really do believe what they believe. I also think that what they believe is absurd and ridiculous. They cannot defend their views rationally. Until they can, why should anyone give them what they have not earned?

That is your argument as a justification for the discrimination. But unless you can show how you apply the same standard to EVERY candidate you vote for--in other words to be wrong about something or inability to prove what they think or believe is an automatic disqualification, I stand on my conviction that you are discriminating against Christians.
 
Except for all those times that they do. Huckabee specifically is, right now, championing for states to refuse to comply with the constitutional protections of SSM, because of his religious beliefs. He is doing that right now. He is saying that his religious beliefs should trump the constitution. He is doing it today.

<snip>

.

Is he? Or is he correct that the executive branch and SCOTUS overstepped their constitutional authority in imposing SSM marriage on all the states? Here we have a legitimate debate.
 
I will offer the only evidence I have for believing their could be a God. Not that their is a God, but that their could be.

Leaving all religions out of the conversation, lets just focus on the existence of God. Not Christian, not jewish, or muslim or anything else. Just God. Not heaven or hell or afterlife or commandments, or SSM. Nothing but God as someone/thing that created the universe.

My very simple logic is based on my agreement on these 3 statements:

The universe exists.
For something to exists it must have been created.
If something was created then someone/something created it.


Since I believe that since someone/something created the universe and at its core a God is someone/something who created there universe, I believe there is a God.

I've bolded the core of your argument.

This is an argument from design, and is an outmoded approach because it worked better in a time when our understanding of the universe determined that if a thing exists, then it has a creator (see Clockmaker's Analogy). However, with the advent of our understanding of evolution we discovered that life could arise and evolve without the guidance of an overt God. Basic chemistry and biology explains it and predicts it. It's why modern medicine even works. That means that whereas before we had one possible choice for the creation of the universe (god), today we have two: god and, well, hell if I know. But basically if we know that life can be created and evolve without a Designer, and were in fact even wrong about this assumption in the first place, then we have to seriously entertain the possibility that the creation of the universe came about without a Designer as well.

So it's not a guaranteed thing that if something exists then it must have been created. And it's absolutely not guaranteed that there is a "someone" in that creation. Occam's Razor, based on what we know today, would lead us to naturally conclude that some other avenue resulted in the creation of the universe.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom