There are far too many biased and emotionally heated debates floating around so here is where those who wish to have an informative debate on the existence of God may discuss their vggarious evidences for and against.
Other points/rules -
-If you are presenting a point for a particular religion then note that at the begining, if not then it will be assumed to be an argument regarding God as a concept
So, christians obviously look forward to their time in heaven.
But how do they know it's real?
It's not like they can ask their deceased relatives what its like up there.
And its not like god is always telling mortal men how great it is
If you find yourself constantly entertaining idiotic notions about the nature of god, then it may be helpful to identify as athiest, at least for awhile. If you should ever form a reasonably well thought out concept of god, then you'll see no need to deny, or state that you remain unconvinced of gods existence, you would instead busy yourself with trying to make further improvements to your understanding of god. If you constantly find yourself busy attacking what you see as other people's ideas of god, it's because this is more comfortable for you than admitting your understanding of god could be improved upon.
Arguments for and against God's existence. I'd like the negative position to take on an equal burden of proof and provide arguments against God's existence, e.g. the problem of suffering, divine hiddenness, etc.
Either try to come up with your own, post someone else's, or your favorite dictionary's, then upvote the best one(s) you see posted so far...
Definitions voted highest will be edited into this debate description.
1) X) a: The human habit of forming ideological alliances with one another, regarding issues commonly accepted as being of highest importance. b: An institution,organization, or group based on such alliances
This is from another debate. I am posting it to check and see if anyone, Atheist or Theist, will disagree...
"Immature notions of god imbue individuals with a certainty where curiosity should remain. A mature notion encourages the opposite."
1. The term god refers to a worshiped being2. A being that does not exist cannot be worshiped3. Gods exist as long as worship exists
--Old debate description is below--
God is a title/label for a being or group of beings that are unwaveringly trusted.
(I would say in many cases excessively trusted)
Only beings who communicate can be trusted.
A non existent being cannot communicate.
The initially posted debate description was edited as follows :
1. "metaphor" was changed to "Title/Label"
2. "most" was changed to "unwaveringly"
Those who are openly critical of specific practices, of a specific religious sect, as a member of that sect, are the most potent activists. Non-members, who think their criticism from outside will be well understood, are deluding themselves. Then we have these idiots who think that being against religion or religious groups in general is somehow an intelligent and logically rational position.
"Pointing the finger away from oneself is the coward's favorite form of activism" ~atypican
Would you still consider yourself an atheist if we were to redefine what it means to be God?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. God is perceived to have magical like powers.
Atheism is solidly based on logic. Logic states that there's no such things as magic and that, statistically, there are other civilizations (very different from us) living on other planets (some of which may be more technologically advanced than us).
What if we are the product of one of those advanced civilizations? Would that make them Gods to us? Especially if they could wipe us off the face of the planet in a blink of an eye? Would you call them God just so that they wouldn't kill us?
Most living things strive for self survival and species survival (maybe not all species in that order, but close enough). Maybe it's not logical for an individual or a species to strive for survival (i.e., the human race ;) but for arguments sake, I'll say it is logical to pursue survival. Therefore, if an advanced civilization told us to worship it or risk extinction, it would make sense for us to comply.
So..., faced with a dilema where an advanced species told us it created us (regardless of whether it was true or not) and that we should thus worship it or perish, which would you chose? Would you still say, "I am an atheist, hear me roar! There is no God. Therefore you are not God and thus not worthy of my worship. Besides..., I have better things to do..., like posting something on CD ;)" or would you bend your knee, bow and say, "Yes my lord and master. Glory be onto you. Praise thee for thou are a true, just, and merciful ruler (even if you would use your power to destroy us for disagreeing with you ;)."
I would probably do the later but that's because I'm agnostic. So are most atheists true atheists or closet agnostics? Just asking ;)
Many of us think of a cult as a group of sex perverts or satan worshippers. Do you know where the term Cult came from? It actually comes from the word cultivate. I argue thta ALL religions are a cult and here are my definitions a "CULT" from mirriam websters online dictionary!
1. a formal religious veneration
2. a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also; it's body of adherents
3.: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
As you see only one of those definitions is of an unorthodox or nefarius religion!
The fact that one can quite literally have faith in anything is a testament to it's sheer unreliability. We can have faith in both the true and untrue. We can have faith in the possible and impossible. For things we know to be true we can empirically prove they are true, and thus there is no need to hold them on faith. Faith seems to be reserved for that which not only hasn't been proven but things which are inherently unprovable. If we hold good reason to believe a truth then there will be evidence to supports it's truth. Rather faith is a good indicator of things in which we specifically don't have good reason to believe.
I would go so far as to say that faith actually is reliable-- reliable in detecting BS in the sense that if something is believed on faith then it is most probably BS.