• 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
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
But it is a belief. One can argue a faith.. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear this argument. Just how does being unconvinced by poor cases for gods result in a faith based belief? My lack of belief in every god i've heard of is based on reason and logic; The case made for said gods were unreasonable and were based on various logical fallacies.

Atheism is not a thing at all, its like being a non-astrologer or an a-unicornist. Is you lack of belief in bigfoot a faith based belief?
 
Last edited:
I'm not really religious. I used to care a lot about it, but not really anymore. I think there are far more important issues in life. However, I do have membership with a few different religious organizations:

Church of Satan
Temple of the Vampire
Ordo Antichristianus Illuminati
Partridge Family Temple
 
Lachean said:
I don't fear the end times of your book. These wars and economic troubles are caused by MAN, they aren't the will of any deity.
Click to expand...

you almost have to be blind to not see that it is all coming true
 
75Greeno said:
you almost have to be blind to not see that it is all coming true
Click to expand...

Many cultures and religions have end times prophecies. What makes Christian's take on it somehow more believable?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Many cultures and religions have end times prophecies. What makes Christian's take on it somehow more believable?
Click to expand...

the bible is flawless in its proficys and flow no conflicts like in other religon
 
75Greeno said:
the bible is flawless in its proficys and flow no conflicts like in other religon
Click to expand...

Flawless? :lol:
Do you have proof for this assertion, and I'm not talking about a religious propaganda website.

Nostradamus was pretty damned flawless. Why don't you believe his prophecies? Or the Mayans for that matter?
 
Last edited:
75Greeno said:
the bible is flawless in its proficys and flow no conflicts like in other religon
Click to expand...

You're just proving you've never read the Bible, anyone who was actually familiar with what the Bible said would know that's absolutely not so.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Flawless? :lol:
Do you have proof for this assertion, and I'm not talking about a religious propaganda website.

Nostradamus was pretty damned flawless. Why don't you believe his prophecies? Or the Mayans for that matter?
Click to expand...

As an Agonostic,,,you scare me Pat. :mrgreen: Not with your "Prognostic" capabilities mind you. But with your anal retentive belief in a 14th century man.

Telling you, your Future.:lol: Take your time...tell me why I should too.:3oops:
 
Last edited:
Realist1 said:
As an Agonostic,,,you scare me Pat. :mrgreen: Not with your "Prognostic" capabilities mind you. But with your anal rentive belief in a 14th century man.

Telling you your Future.:lol: Take your time...tell me why I should too.:3oops:
Click to expand...

Uh....where did I imply that? I was merely it bringing up as a point.

I've already stated my personal religious choices a few posts back.
 
Realist1 said:
As an Agonostic,,,you scare me Pat. :mrgreen: Not with your "Prognostic" capabilities mind you. But with your anal retentive belief in a 14th century man.

Telling you, your Future.:lol: Take your time...tell me why I should too.:3oops:
Click to expand...

FAIL-cat-I-sense-fail.jpg
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Uh....where did I imply that? I was merely it bringing up as a point.

I've already stated my personal religious choices a few posts back.
Click to expand...

I'll back off,,, As you please.:)
 
EgoffTib said:
I was trying to explain this to someone the other day and was having a hard time getting through to them. Can you elaborate a little more so that I may hopefully go back to this individual and make them understand where I'm coming from?
Click to expand...

I've been keeping a file full of arguments and their rebuttals for the occasion. A lot of the arguments made by theists i hear over and over again therefore having a quick reference of well written responses is useful. That is, its much easier not to have to re-invent the wheel. This happens to be one of them. Its not mine, I found it rather well written by another on a different forum.

Argument: Atheists and theists both have faith.

Response: I suggest that with your use of word 'faith' you believe you level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith. This claim commits an equivocation fallacy with the term "faith." The only sort of "faith" which might be common among atheists is that of mere confidence based upon and limited by repeatable, objective experiences. This is the sort of faith which can apply to the "faith" that your brakes will work, or the "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow. This "faith" is only as strong as the evidence or reason allows and it is defeatable given new evidence or arguments. The faith you claim - religious faith in the existence of a god - is a very different matter - something Paul clearly recognized when he defined faith as the "...assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebr. 11:1) This is not the sort of faith used by those who think that the brakes on their car will work: this is the sort of faith used by those who believe without sound empirical evidence. The fact that atheists might have the former kind of faith and the fact that theists have the latter kind of faith does not mean that atheists and theists are operating or thinking the same way. It does not mean that we are forming and evaluating beliefs in a similar manner.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
I've been keeping a file full of arguments and their rebuttals for the occasion. A lot of the arguments made by theists i hear over and over again therefore having a quick reference of well written responses is useful. That is, its much easier not to have to re-invent the wheel. This happens to be one of them. Its not mine, I found it rather well written by another on a different forum.

Argument: Atheists and theists both have faith.

Response: I suggest that with your use of word 'faith' you believe you level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith. This claim commits an equivocation fallacy with the term "faith." The only sort of "faith" which might be common among atheists is that of mere confidence based upon and limited by repeatable, objective experiences. This is the sort of faith which can apply to the "faith" that your brakes will work, or the "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow. This "faith" is only as strong as the evidence or reason allows and it is defeatable given new evidence or arguments. The faith you claim - religious faith in the existence of a god - is a very different matter - something Paul clearly recognized when he defined faith as the "...assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebr. 11:1) This is not the sort of faith used by those who think that the brakes on their car will work: this is the sort of faith used by those who believe without sound empirical evidence. The fact that atheists might have the former kind of faith and the fact that theists have the latter kind of faith does not mean that atheists and theists are operating or thinking the same way. It does not mean that we are forming and evaluating beliefs in a similar manner.
Click to expand...

Myself personally, I don't want any of the "gods" now presented, past, present, or future. I'm a Man that knows I'm going to Live, and Die. During a "Normal Life Span of a Human Being".

As WE all will. What happens after,,,I've not a clue. I don't know...

I do know I don't care a bit for the present day 'Religions" I've been exposed to. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Realist1 said:
Myself personally, I don't want any of the "gods" now presented, past, present, or future.
Click to expand...
Realist1 said:
I do know I don't care a bit for the present day 'Religions" I've been exposed to. :lol:
Click to expand...
Want has nothing to do with it. Wanting something doesn't make it true or false.

A wise man once said "The unexamined life isn't worth living." You'll have to decide for yourself whether that is true or not.
 
scourge99 said:
Want has nothing to do with it. Wanting something doesn't make it true or false.

A wise man once said "The unexamined life isn't worth living." You'll have to decide for yourself whether that is true or not.
Click to expand...

The "Unexamined Life, never Lived', Basically means, a pointless Life. :) That's how I see it.

Peace
 
scourge99 said:
A wise man once said "The unexamined life isn't worth living." You'll have to decide for yourself whether that is true or not.
Click to expand...

Excellent advice, of course, but a related idea is just as important:

The untested belief isn't worth holding.

Too bad most theists have no clue what they even believe, much less whether or not any of it is actually true.
 
Realist1 said:
I've times I've had "questions" about you too Ego. :) We'll see about you too.:)

It all depends on the topic, and response.

Take care.
Click to expand...
If you have questions, pose them and I'll gladly clear anything up.
 
scourge99 said:
I've been keeping a file full of arguments and their rebuttals for the occasion. A lot of the arguments made by theists i hear over and over again therefore having a quick reference of well written responses is useful. That is, its much easier not to have to re-invent the wheel. This happens to be one of them. Its not mine, I found it rather well written by another on a different forum.

Argument: Atheists and theists both have faith.

Response: I suggest that with your use of word 'faith' you believe you level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith. This claim commits an equivocation fallacy with the term "faith." The only sort of "faith" which might be common among atheists is that of mere confidence based upon and limited by repeatable, objective experiences. This is the sort of faith which can apply to the "faith" that your brakes will work, or the "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow. This "faith" is only as strong as the evidence or reason allows and it is defeatable given new evidence or arguments. The faith you claim - religious faith in the existence of a god - is a very different matter - something Paul clearly recognized when he defined faith as the "...assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebr. 11:1) This is not the sort of faith used by those who think that the brakes on their car will work: this is the sort of faith used by those who believe without sound empirical evidence. The fact that atheists might have the former kind of faith and the fact that theists have the latter kind of faith does not mean that atheists and theists are operating or thinking the same way. It does not mean that we are forming and evaluating beliefs in a similar manner.
Click to expand...

That is not faith, that is belief based on evidence and the fact that we can change our beliefs when faced with new evidence makes us rational.

To call belief based on evidence, faith rather than reason is to utterly misunderstand the term. Faith is belief without evidence. You would call the reason to trust in science, evidence, reason and logic a faith, and then dare to accuse us of equivocating? :rofl:spin:

If my belief that the sun will rise again tomorrow is a "faith," then EVERYTHING that can be known is. All you're doing is trying to paint atheists as faith based, and failing at it.

It takes no faith to be unconvinced by logically fallacious arguments for the supernatural.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
That is not faith, that is belief based on evidence and the fact that we can change our beliefs when faced with new evidence makes us rational.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I said minus your claim that you are unequivocally more rational.

Lachean said:
To call belief based on evidence, faith rather than reason is to utterly misunderstand the term.
Click to expand...
I agree and why I said its an equivocation fallacy.

Lachean said:
Faith is belief without evidence.
Click to expand...
Depends on whose definition you use. Every theist seems to have a different definition for faith.

Lachean said:
You would call the reason to trust in science, evidence, reason and logic a faith, and then dare to accuse us of equivocating? :rofl:spin:
Click to expand...
you need to re-read what I posted. You don't seem to understand I'm in 100% agreement with you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom