Thank you for the welcome, I look forward to debating with you.. Now this is where you're wrong. ^_^
Religion is worship of a deity. Atheism is defined as rejecting worship of a deity. Atheism is not a religion.
Buddhist do not worship a diety either. If you read in my post, Buddha is not considered a diety. Yet people consider buddhism a religion when all it is is a common practice of beliefs, just like atheism. Atheism believes such things as that government and religion should be seperate.
Autocracy, rigid social hierarchies, slavery and slave trade, preindustrial squalor, colonial atrocities, innumerable scientific misconceptions, and plenty of other super awesome things also existed in the seventeenth century. I might also say that Christians were thought to be total clown heads and were crucified and fed to the lions in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. That doesn't make those actions correct.
If you are saying those actions were 'incorrect' as a person looking at them from the present. What's to say that, theoretically, a person from the future wouldn't look back at what you are saying now is incorrect too? Time has nothing to do if an action is correct or not. Popular belief does that. Even then, popular belief doesn't make something right or wrong either. In reality, there cannot be a human made right or wrong, because humans are ignorant and flawed. That's why only God's definition is acceptable. That is one reason why religion is very well needed in the lives of people, including government.
Lol, no.
That, hands down, is the worst counter-arguement I have ever seen. If it is a crime to discriminate against someone for race, it should be a crime to discriminate against anything, including religion.
You're right. Benjamin Franklin, Steven Pinker, Julius Axelrod, William Bateson, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Jay Gould, Julian Huxley, Ivan Pavlov, Carl Sagan, Joseph Weber, James D. Watson—those guys have done nothing other than offend religious beliefs all around the world.
You have a point in that they accomplished something, there is no denying that. Hell, even I can pull out some great Christians who contributed to humanity. Naming popular people doesn't help your arguement at all. Also, you've named a lot of, to my knowledge, dead people. I believe you said a comment disreguarding the past.. yet you argue with the past. I find that to be a hypocritical arguement. To clear things up, my statement was directed to the average modern day atheists.
Christians have waged holy wars, orchestrated lynchings, resisted scientific and social progress, etc. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is also the top charity organization in the world. Don't generalize.
Don't generalize? Is that a joke. That is what a majority of atheists do. They general all religions by grouping together and then blame them all for one's mistake. Besides, what I said was not a generalization, 'I've seen atheists' was not written as 'All atheists.' I did not say every atheist does that, however there are a hand full that do. I am simply turning the tables on how atheists commonly argue against religion and redirecting it to atheism to mabye open their eyes in that most of atheist arguements are horribly composed.
There's nothing hateful about not believing in God.
There is, however, hatefulness in how most atheist slander and disrespect religion.
How many atheists were involved in that? What percentage of the global population of atheists do they make up? Crusades, religion's vital role in modern terrorism, mumble, mumble, mumble.
If you do your research, around 80% of Sweden is atheist. Crusades were Catholics, not all religions. "Don't generalize."
That may or may not be true. Regardless, I challenge you to visit the Vatican, look at the gilded churches, shrines, etc., and ask yourself whether or not all the money spent on pretty buildings like that might've been better off going to feed some starving African villages.
1) Starving children in Africa was not a trendy issue back when most of those buildings were made. Now if that were a proper arguement which addressed the present church with the present issues instead of the past churche with the present issues. Then I would tell you that there are plenty of mission trips to Africa as well as around the world that feed those kids, build them shelter and churches (for the people,) give them clean water and clothing.
2) Look at all the money the government takes from people just to go to war and hurt people when it could be used to 'feed some starving African villages.' Corruption (which is what I believe you were aiming at with the arguement, disreguard this if I am wrong) is everywhere, not just the Catholic church. When you give an decietful and untrustworthy person power, they will abuse it.
3) To say that spending money on a church is a waste of money (if you implying that) is an insult. It just goes to show the discrimination atheists display. You can build a skyscrapper in New York which costs more than churches, that isn't a problem. When you make a church for worship, then the problem begins?
4) I honestly don't blame people for wanting a nice church to worship in. Churches are for the public. I believe they should be nice and should be a tribute to God. If you were of a faith, would you not want to worship in a nice looking place instead of a torn down shack? I'd say making nice looking churches isn't selfish at all, the church should be able to treat itself to be more appealing for the people who follow it.
Show Posts
