All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Archeological evidence combined with research on cultures from around the globe shows a general trend that can be traced by time, technology, and size of population. It is likely that the earliest human societies had no gods and were purely animist (believing everything had a persona or magical powers). With a few exceptions, animism today tends to be found primarily in small, isolated societies with very low technology. Polytheism seems to have been almost universal among growing civilizations around the world until the Abrahamic religions slowly began overtaking the old ways in popularity. Monotheism has been the leader for some time now, and monotheistic societies tended to be more technologically sophisticated than their polytheistic neighbors for centuries. Now atheism is gradually gaining in popularity globally, and we are now more populous and more technologically advanced than we have ever been.
Is all of this a coincidence, or has the human spiritual condition gradully evolved over time and in response to our knowledge of the world around us and increasing size of population? Do the number of supernatural entities we believe in (everything being supernatural, to everything being controlled by a finite pantheon, to everything being controlled by one god, to none) instinctively decrease as our understanding of science increases and our globalism increases? Will there come a time when the majority of the world is atheist? Or is there some better explanation for the spiritual trends seen in history?
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.
"Technically atheists just lack a belief in god, they don't necessarily believe in the non-existence of god." Qoute from a debate here.
The trouble is that atheist don't just use this meaning, they act upon it. They attack God and religion, making atheism a religion. They don't lack a belief, they just have a different one.
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.
Regardless of whether they fancy themselves religious or secular, people in general cetainly are inclined to point the finger at others as opposed to themselves. Each group considers the other to be more susceptible to profound folly, while (mistakenly imo) thinking themselves somehow immune.
Everyone prides themselves in their ability to criticize others, while the tradition of self-criticism and collective self-criticism are woefully neglected.
That's one of the things I like about Jesus. He was openly critical of the very tradition he was part of. I'm Christian in that sense at least.