if religion was that important, then how are atheists just fine without it? we still have morals and values and ethics.

Not according to the laws of God. But I bet those laws are just silly and oppressive to mankind, ya?

i'm sorry, but do you imply that atheists don't have morals and values?

Not necessarily.

^ What you implying then?

Atheists and Religious people have two different standards of "moral behavior".

I'm atheist and I value dick.

I think that is determined on an individual basis, not a religious basis. If it's determined by religion then it would be fair to say that only people of religion X are murderers... but we all know that isn't true. Atheists and Christians can have the same moral behavior.

I agree. That there's individual basis but also there's religious basis based on the laws of God.

But let me give you an example and by no means do I claim that atheists/non-religious people are all the same.

1. Religious people (God fearing people) believe that pre-marital sex is wrong. Because there's the possibility of getting pregnant, also diseases, and could harm one emotionally/psychologically.

Non-religious people (believe that God could exist, but does not belong to any group who teaches about God or they simply do not believe in a God) would say that it's perfectly fine and even healthy to have sex even pre-maritally. And would even use examples to back their claim.

2. Religious people believe that taking drugs is immoral because of the case of addiction and clouding the mind/judgment.

Non-religious people believe that it's fine to do drugs as long as they're responsible. And in fact a lot of cases use marijuana as in example.

3. Religious people say that a woman should be fully clothed so that men do not get sexual temptations when they interact or simply by gazing at the woman.

Non-religious people believe that women have the right to dress how ever they feel, because they have the freedom and the rights to do so, plus it's the best way to attract men.

blah blah, all this crap just means, "IM GENERALIZING." Religious people have a certain belief system and non-religious people believe another certain set of rules. Its as simple as that. You seem to imply atheists and religious people are opposites, they aren't, they are simply different.

Uh... thanks for summarizing what I was implying.

And no where did I generalize... especially when I made it clear that not all Atheist/Non-religious people are the same.

Comprehension skills, do you need it?



Start here: http://parenting.ivillage.com/gs/gslearning/0,,44x7,00.html

So if I told you that I do not believe in religion and I condemn recreational drug use, that would be a fallacy? Because for me to say I condemn recreational drug use there would have to be some religion in my life. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

He did say that not all atheists/non-religious people are alike.

That said, I agree with Kevin. What's the point of even making the argument if everyone is different? It's not adding to the discussion whatsoever. You ARE generalizing, and while sometimes that is helpful, it totally works against you in this case.

yeah you made it clear that non atheist's beliefs are different from atheists, but you forgot a big thing you f*ck-tart. Atheists can live their way life exactly like a christian except without the belief in God.

was that easy enough to understand?


too hard to understand?

No. Because there's also non-believers who say that drugs are in fact bad while other non-believers say it's fine. But religious people (who are truly religious not just labeled some religion because of their family) will always condemn or frown upon drug use.



But let me give you an example and by no means do I claim that atheists/non-religious people are all the same.


1. Take hand

2. Face the palm of hand towards face

3. Shove palm of hand hard into your face

4. Profit:





This is amazing.

Kevin understands what you're saying, without you being clear in what you're saying. You shouldn't be patronizing him for that, you should be thanking him.

The reason I asked you that is because you said:
When what you meant was: Some non-religious people believe that it's fine to do drugs, while others do not.

Right, that's why I clarified that "not all non-religious people are the same". Eh... I have a headache from this. But hopefully now you understand.

I'd choose religion over science any day. Science nowadays is just plain out frightening, what with all the "the world is ending in 2012" talk. But science and religion has clashed numerous times and peeled apart dripping with mediocrity. I mean, isn't religion based upon science? And vice versa?

I myself am a Buddhist (forgive me for saying this, but I used to be Catholic and I couldn't stand it) so I don't worry about the whole "God is going to destroy the world" bit. I mean, that's based on the Catholic religion. It's like, for each religion, there's a different world. Who says Catholocism is the main and almighty religion that everyone must follow? Yes, there's an entity up there, but it doesn't mean it's Jesus Christ. It could be anything - it's all about what you believe in. It could be a slice of Swiss cheese for some people and a red apple for others.

But what I don't like is that people act like Catholocism and Christianity are the only "real" religions, and the others out there are just made up nonsense. All these science "theories" are based on the latter religions, are they not?

Like I said before, it's like there's a different world for each religion. People are saying God is going to destroy the world - okay, so Catholics and Christians and whatnot are going to have their world destroyed. So we Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, and etc. are going to remain alive?

I'm still frightened that the entity up there might be the God we all know from Christianity and if the world will be destroyed or not, but in all honesty, despite my fear, I can't say I believe any of it.

science doesn't claim the world is going to end in 2012. science is not based upon religion because one requires evidence and the other doesn't. from your first few sentences alone it's completely clear you have no idea at all what you're talking about. at least no clue what science is.



oh yeah, and i don't believe anyone would actually choose religion over science. they obviously are forgetting how f*cking easy their life is now thanks to science. wish we could stick some people back in time before a lot of science, like medicine for example, and see how many people value religion over science then.

I don't know what you've been sleeping under for the past month, but scientists have scratched together a theory that the world was going to end in 2012. Google it. Don't belittle me or try to catch me in ignorance; I know damn well what I'm talking about.

Not to mention that I wasn't referring to technological science. If that wasn't clear to you, then you must be blind. Forgive me for being so bland.

calm down young one.

source it then, real credible scientists.


i'm blind because i didn't know that you were excluding technology from science? what are you talking about? do you think that i should be able to read your mind? what kind of science are you talking about? you said that you would choose religion over science. you didn't say " i would choose religion over *insert specific science here*. that's your fault that you weren't specific whatsoever.

Forgive me for not being crystal clear. I mean science as of the religious state, involving entities and Gods and all that.

i disagreed with you, that happens in debate, toughen up.

there is no science of the religious state. there is no REAL science that includes gods.

Well whatever you call what those "scientists" are practicing.

science is observation, research, hypothesizing, testing, speculating, and possibly generating a theory. but a science theory is never a 'true fact'. after all, it's a theory for a reason. and people don't do science to proof a theory, they do it to disproof it. and the more failed tries to disproof a theory, the more reliable the theory is. science is a way to rationalize the physical world, withdrawing from miracles. you cannot just look at a plant, and when asked why it's green, say that it's because God or some intelligence wanted it to be that way. In science, we attempt to find out why it is the way it is, because we won't just accept an answer like "it's just how it is".

edited.

which ones? what are you talking about and why are you being so vague?

There's you're answer, brooklyneast05.

where's my answer? doughnut didn't dispute anything i've said. pretty sure me and her on the same side and have the same beliefs for the most part.

Science is observation, research, hypothesizing, testing, speculating, and possibly generating a theory.

So when I referred to science, it was general science. I'm sorry if I'm confusing you.

i wouldn't say that i believe in all scientific knowledge, it's just that it's much more reliable to me than what religion provides. if i had learned the law of gravity, i can create tests everyday to test it out and the results would likely show me that yes indeed the law of gravity holds true. however, if someone religious told me they were saved from some life threatening experience solely because of their religious faith, i'm pretty sure they're unable to test that experience again and again and see whether the outcome would be the same.

i hope i'm clear.

yes you are confusing me because you're extremely vague in this debate so far. either way, you can't separate out sciences because they all fall under the scientific method. so you can't say that you prefer religion over science, but only a certain kind of science. that doesn't really make any sense to me.

i still stand by the fact that no one, or at least the majority of people here, would not actually choose religion over science. like i said, let's stick you back in time a bit without the comforts that science has brought you today and most people will be begging to be back. we can thank science, or the scientific method, for our medicine, ect. you can't go and say "well not that kind of science, only other kinds". no, that's science and if you prefer that then you prefer science.

i agree with jc with most parts. because of numerous research and testings done, we now have vaccination for the deadliest and simplest diseases. when babies are born they're immediately injected with a few vaccines. imagine, 1.5 centuries ago, a normal family living in a farm will give birth to 8 or so kids, because they know that only a fraction of those will be able to live without dying from these diseases. now sure, they could and couldn't have been religous people, but did that save their kids? probably not.

I can and did - yes, I'm thankful for science and whatnot, but I can't help but point out that when you refer to science other than mixing with religion, I think you're mixing it up with technology, excluding medicine from the list.

But I must point out that you seem ignorant to my opinion; I can't help but feel like you're trying to tell me my opinion is incorrect.

But then again, I think I'm missing the point of this debate - we're debating what's more important and necessary, are we not?

can you give me an example where religion is more valued than science.
by the way, technology is science. you surely can't create the TVs we have know if it weren't for the quantum theory.

i am trying to tell you your opinion is incorrect. you're in the debate forum. if you don't want your opinion to be criticized then get out of the debate forum because that's the whole point. if i'm ignorant to your opinion, it's becuase you're doing a poor job at expressing it.


i'm mixing science up with technology? explain further, i don't understand what you mean.

No, as a matter of fact, I can't. And I'm ashamed to say that in all this, I've mistaken the point of this debate - we're debating over which is more important. And in that case, I must change my answer to science. Religion can't get us nearly as far as science has brought us.



No one's opinion is ever wrong. If someone says "I like blue better than orange" you can't tell them they're wrong, can you? No. That was a completely ignorant thing to say, don't you think?

you're example sucks. whether or not someone likes blue better than orange is based purely on sentiment & taste.
however, whether or not the scientific community supports the idea that 2012 will be the "end of the world" is a matter of fact. in which case, if your "opinion" is that "science supports the end of the world in 2012" than you are not just f*cking wrong... you're also f*cking stupid.

not all propositions are a matter of mere opinion.

^ nate pretty much summed up anything i was going to say in reply to you writetheeulogy. you can have opinions on things that are a matter of opinion all you want, but this isn't a matter of opinion. it's either true or false. i'm not "ignorant" for saying your opinion is wrong, you're the "ignorant" one for holding the opinion.

There's no need to be rude. As a staff member, one would think you'd try to heed to the rules set upon you in the debate forum as I've been doing.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and no one's opinion is ever wrong, I don't care what anyone says. You can't tell someone their opinion is wrong. Maybe opinions don't cut it here, but in a general sense, opinions can't be incorrect.

And since this isn't going anywhere other than down the drain in forms of going off-topic and bashing other members, I'll leave the thread.

He isn't staff. And LOL at "You can't tell someone their opinion is wrong." So Hitler's opinion that the jews should be murdered was ok? So slavery was ok? Because those were opinions... that's terrible reasoning.

Nate's not staff and even if he was, he'd be a douche anyway. So just forget about it.


Yeah everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that by NO MEANS makes their opinion correct. "I think that the world is flat." That's an opinion right? A very wrong one. Not even based on morals or whatever, just the plain fact that, well. The world's not flat. That's not just an opinion anymore - it's ignorance.

Then there's an opinion that is morally wrong like the ones pointed out by Dee.

lol@"I'll leave the thread". It's just debate-speak for, "I've been out-debated and now I look like an ignorant idiot, so I'm just going to admit defeat". It's okay, don't feel too bad. We see it a lot here.

That's not what I'm referring to - opinions such as "I think blue is an awesome color" for example, opinions not based on facts or fiction. Saying you think the world is flat isn't an opinion since it's based upon the fact that the world isn't flat. You're right, that is ignorance.

But what's also ignorance, if not arrogance, is failure to heed to the rules of the Debate thread, rules that seem to be more forgotten than enforced. I'm not leaving permanently, just until people learn how not to bash others and can debate logically and without name calling and belittling, and if that'll never happen, then so be it.

I would just like to go back correct something here.

Science, at least credible/mainstream science, has not predicted that 2012 is the end of the world. Actually, it was religion that predicted that 2012 is the end of the world.

1) Mayans - the Mayans' calendar ends in 2012. This calendar has many interlocking parts that can create more extensive cycles. Mayan historians and other scholars note that the cycle abruptly ends on December 21, 2012. Most don't argue that it's the end of the world. They aren't sure why the Mayans decided to end it there but most agree that it might signify great change in the world because the Mayans worked extensively based on the constellations and other stuff.

2) Some Bible/Torah code readers think that there are hints that destruction is cyclic. Through some weird study of the texts, they "realized" that from the last major destruction, they can cycle it to around 2012. This is when Armageddon is suppose to happen.

in soccer... if you kick a ball five feet left of the goalposts... you can't just move the posts in order to claim victory.



so... you're saying that insofar as everyone is rude & mean to you here that you'll never come back?! awesome!

you are a f*cking moron who is so clearly ignorant that it pains me to have to point out something so terribly obvious. you are not a buddhist. paramore sucks ass. you have no idea what science is. religion is the opiate of the masses & as much as you want to believe that you're not like everyone else... you are.

But science is based on fact. Purely fact. If we are going to talk about the credibility of either science or religion, we have to look at FACTS. You're talking about this like this is a different kind of opinion. It's not a matter of preference if we're dealing with opinions in a debate forum. We're not in the Lounge here. We're not talking about what your favourite colour is. We're talking about opinions that need to be backed up with evidence and facts. And so, in the debate forum, opinions CAN be wrong. Maybe you have convinced yourself that this delusional way of thinking is correct as well.

As far as I can tell, we are all debating logically, and I honestly don't see the wrong in calling someone ignorant every once in a while if they truly are being ignorant. If I call you a dumbass bitch out of nowhere and without any sort of meaning to my post, then yeah, that's bashing. And I've already come to grips with the fact that Nate will never be warned for being a douche because most of the time, he's right.

lol wtf

to be fair, though, paramore does suck