• 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 religion?

What is your religion?

  • Total voters
    132
Whereas I am not opposed to religion, I do not consider myself to have a religion.
 
Atheist. Belief in imaginary friends is utterly ludicrous.
 
But the belief is nothing is not ludicrous? Both are unprovable, but the existence of God is much more likely.

I know no one wanted a religious debate thread, but this guy should not be insulting all of those who have faith.
 
phattonez said:
Both are unprovable, but the existence of God is much more likely.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement. If you're going to ask is it more likely to have natural causes or magical ones, I tend to think the natural causes are more likely.
 
phattonez said:
But the belief is nothing is not ludicrous? Both are unprovable, but the existence of God is much more likely.

I know no one wanted a religious debate thread, but this guy should not be insulting all of those who have faith.
Click to expand...

I understand your complaint My guess is the poster feels the way I do which is wonder, "How could I have believed this for so long?" My horror isn't an insult to those who do believe. I don't fault anyone for believing--just myself.
 
phattonez said:
Where does matter come from?
Click to expand...

And that elevates the possibility of God...how? Considering every scientific question we have ever asked, and every scientific discovery ever made to answer those questions derive purely from nature, id say the chances of God existing is even lower now than it has ever been, and your wrong.

As i said, im Agnostic, and i believe in God, but your trying to prove God exists from nothing.
 
All that science can show are attributes of matter. We cannot even conceive of a way for science to explain the origin of matter.
 
phattonez said:
All that science can show are attributes of matter. We cannot even conceive of a way for science to explain the origin of matter.
Click to expand...

Random vacuum fluctuations can produce matter from "nothing" (it's not nothing though, it's due to the curvature of space). There are theories to show why we are matter dominated and not 50/50 matter/anti-matter as well. But there are a lot of unknowns at this point. Why does an unknown imply a god? I mean at one time it was inconceivable that the earth orbited the sun. The idea of modern medicine wasn't always known either. Did that mean that these things are rooted in gods? Or that we just didn't know at the time? Which one is more likely?
 
phattonez said:
All that science can show are attributes of matter. We cannot even conceive of a way for science to explain the origin of matter.
Click to expand...

So you've concluded that God likely exists simply because science cannot disprove something? While Science is constantly progressing and finding small puzzle pieces of evidence that will eventually, inevitably, give us the answer, yet the religious makes no progress and finds no puzzle pieces of evidence to disprove science and prove the existence of God?
 
phattonez said:
But the belief is nothing is not ludicrous? Both are unprovable, but the existence of God is much more likely.
Click to expand...

Magic man in the sky is much more likely than demonstrable reality? How did you come to that conclusion? :roll:
 
Goldwaters said:
I practice Buddhism and thats how I voted but Buddhism isn't a religion
Click to expand...

So Buddist do not follow or adhere to a set of beliefs or customs or have something one follows devoutly?
 
Cephus said:
Magic man in the sky is much more likely than demonstrable reality? How did you come to that conclusion? :roll:
Click to expand...

He came to that conclusion because its baseless and has no facts to support his claim. In other words, he is religious.
 
jamesrage said:
So Buddist do not follow or adhere to a set of beliefs or customs or have something one follows devoutly?
Click to expand...
Buddhists don't call it a religion because it's sort of more of a philosophy, if I understand it correctly.

Of course it also depends on the particular sect of Buddhism. It's about a thousand times more fractured than Christianity.
 
Coronado said:
Buddhists don't call it a religion because it's sort of more of a philosophy, if I understand it correctly.

Of course it also depends on the particular sect of Buddhism. It's about a thousand times more fractured than Christianity.
Click to expand...




Biddihists, call it neither...... just sayin..... :shrug:


:mrgreen:
 
Cephus said:
Magic man in the sky is much more likely than demonstrable reality? How did you come to that conclusion? :roll:
Click to expand...



I suppose it was far too much to ask that we have even one thread on religion, where an athiest doesn't feel compelled to talk down to and belittle the religious. :roll:
 
Goshin said:
I suppose it was far too much to ask that we have even one thread on religion, where an athiest doesn't feel compelled to talk down to and belittle the religious. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was. Never understood the motivation of evangelical atheists. At least Christians think they're trying to save your soul.
 
I was a confirmed Catholic, now I'm either a deist or an agnostic depending on what kind of mood I'm in...
 
Goshin said:
I suppose it was far too much to ask that we have even one thread on religion, where an athiest doesn't feel compelled to talk down to and belittle the religious. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's an honest question that apparently, Christians cannot provide an honest answer to. It was in response to a statement that a god is a more reasonable position than no god.

I guess it's far too much to ask that Christians actually be able to answer simple questions rationally. :roll:
 
Cephus said:
It's an honest question that apparently, Christians cannot provide an honest answer to. It was in response to a statement that a god is a more reasonable position than no god.

I guess it's far too much to ask that Christians actually be able to answer simple questions rationally. :roll:
Click to expand...

No sir, when you use phrases like "magic man in the sky", you are belittling if not outright trolling. You didn't have to phrase it that way, you chose to.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yeah, it was. Never understood the motivation of evangelical atheists. At least Christians think they're trying to save your soul.
Click to expand...

I never thought that I would thank a fascist for something.
 
Goshin said:
No sir, when you use phrases like "magic man in the sky", you are belittling if not outright trolling. You didn't have to phrase it that way, you chose to.
Click to expand...

Yup, I chose to because it's the same claim that's been made over and over and over (not in this particular thread, but in forums for years) without ever receiving a credible response, so after a long time of people making absurd claims without a shred of support, you get what the claim has coming.

Respect is earned, not simply granted on a silver platter. If religion wants respect, it needs to actually back up what it has to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom