Is an atheist a better person?

[SoylentGreen]

Red(Just a simple lesson on why taking things out of context is an unacceptable debate cheat.)

Is this another attempt to ignore the facts and continue to insist that athiest ONLY have science on their side?

Yes. I believe that Science and Religion are very much compatible.

And I respect your right to hold a personal opinion but not your attempt to insist it is true without good reason.

Please, If you find moral and ethical base in anything but religion, please share.

Already have a few times, pay attention here. There are other fields of knowledge in which the subject of morality and ethics is appropriate to discuss, science is not one of them.

Here we are at an impasse, for I know quite plainly that God is real, And that he can dwell amongst the statutes of science. If you wish to debate whether or not an atheist is a better person than someone who is religious, then we cannot advance unless we assume that God exists. Because I could just as equally assume that atheists are cruel, darwinian minded and selfish. So, in the name of debate, assume that God exists, and we may continue.

No thanks, why should i concede ground on points that are unproven?
The only real backing you have for your side of the argument is that god is real and you have yet to prove that.
Here's an idea , how about we assume that god is not real and that the basis for your morality was created by a bunch of primitive nomadics who had no real idea.

What we call this in our church is 'The great apostasy', in which space of time God withdrew his influence from the world. Nonetheless, the Catholics were not following the statutes found in their doctrine, making them apostate to their religion... Much like Neo-Conservatives.

Yea right of course you do. Once again the shifting sand syndrome.
Please please please! One day we will meet a theist who will actually own up to belonging to one the many religions that exist.

Well, ideally people would obey commandments and laws because they know it is right to do so,

Now you speak of "ideally
' whereas before you say"I would assume that someone who fears retribution for his sins would live a better life "

So which is it , the ideal that they live a better life or the fear of punishment?

Wow. I'm not even going to touch that. Give me a break.

No please do touch it.
Bush has said he is fighting a crusade. He has said that god is on his side. He has said that he talks to and asks advice from god.
And on this (apart from the oil he wants to steal from their land ) is the reason he justifies his war. Please do touch on this.

Anyways, I'm hereby destroying all your platforms when I say that I have known some very nice religionists, and some very nice atheists. I have also met very rude and boorish people of both descriptions. It depends on the person.

You destroy nothing here. I to in real life have met many religious people I respect and admire. I am not so shallow as to believe I can judge a person solely on one basis such as religious belief or sexuality.
However this is a debate site not a "Who I last met on the street site".

[Jack]

If you wish to debate whether or not an atheist is a better person than someone who is religious, then we cannot advance unless we assume that God exists.

That is completely nonsensical. No assumption of any god's existence is required to debate this topic.

[Red]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Is this another attempt to ignore the facts and continue to insist that athiest ONLY have science on their side?

Please explain to me what else someone can have on their side. Perhaps I am incompetent, but I have yet to identify a third party. Where does a third party appear in 'God' Vs 'No God'? Please, repeat to me these 'facts'.

And I respect your right to hold a personal opinion but not your attempt to insist it is true without good reason.

So you respect my opinion as long as it makes sense? So then it would be your opinion, would it not?

Already have a few times, pay attention here. There are other fields of knowledge in which the subject of morality and ethics is appropriate to discuss, science is not one of them.

Once again, I would love for you to tell me about them.

No thanks, why should i concede ground on points that are unproven? The only real backing you have for your side of the argument is that god is real and you have yet to prove that. Here's an idea , how about we assume that god is not real and that the basis for your morality was created by a bunch of primitive nomadics who had no real idea.

Ah, I see. So you are not interested in debate, but stubborn adherence to your own ideas. Thus, you are not conducive to progress, and can only be a detriment to this debate and society. From a party that wishes to bring so much up to date, you seem so hesitant to progress in the interest of debate. You will not even pretend that your God exists, and thus I cannot continue. I cannot deny God.

Yea right of course you do. Once again the shifting sand syndrome. Please please please! One day we will meet a theist who will actually own up to belonging to one the many religions that exist.

Oh, heav- Excuse me, science forbid that we might actually label periods of history!
And as for your second line, I am having trouble understanding your message. Clarify, will you?

Now you speak of "ideally ' whereas before you say"I would assume that someone who fears retribution for his sins would live a better life "' So which is it , the ideal that they live a better life or the fear of punishment?

How are ideals and assumptions contradictory? Sure, people who do things out of the kindness of their heart are purer in intent than those who do so in fear of retribution. But I find no poison in assuming the lowest common ethics, and idealizing later. Why do you?

No please do touch it. Bush has said he is fighting a crusade. He has said that god is on his side. He has said that he talks to and asks advice from god. And on this (apart from the oil he wants to steal from their land ) is the reason he justifies his war. Please do touch on this.

You don't have to tell me twice.
President Bush has said nothing of the sort. Just because he is a religious man does not mean he is fighting this war in the name of sovereign God. I would love to see the transcripts highlighted on the word 'Crusade'.
Yes, he may talk and take advice from God, but if God does not exist, then it must only be in his head, creating no link to religion of any kind. You are hypocritical in your 'shifting sands' accusations. You refuse to consider God in the interest of debate, yet you are willing to exploit His presence when it benefits you. Make up your mind.
And as for Oil, I find that hard to believe seeing as we have one of the world's largest Oil reservoir located in Alaska. Stealing Saudi oil would get him nowhere but in jail. And so far, not a barrel has crossed hands. We ship our own fuel out to the middle east.

You destroy nothing here. I to in real life have met many religious people I respect and admire. I am not so shallow as to believe I can judge a person solely on one basis such as religious belief or sexuality. However this is a debate site not a "Who I last met on the street site".

Oh, but I do. You cannot scientifically define and judge someone's heart, and as we cannot agree on matters of religion, we are at a total impasse. Consider religion in the interest of debate, or we cannot progress. Good day.

[Red]

Quote by: Jack That is completely nonsensical. No assumption of any god's existence is required to debate this topic.

Someone who believes in God must be evaluated in their intentions and understanding. If someone actually communicated with God, and God told them to do something, and they (trusting in God) did just that, then the person's heart (which defines how good of a person they are) would have been acting in loyalty, thus making them somewhat irresponsible for their actions.

So yes, it makes very much sense, and is vital to our debate.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Noticed many times and tire of the shifting sand beneath their feet. One god and so many ways to believe, what a joke.

Are you after :
- debate
or
- participants (within that debate)
???

[SoylentGreen]

This comment

RedPlease explain to me what else someone can have on their side. Perhaps I am incompetent, but I have yet to identify a third party. Where does a third party appear in 'God' Vs 'No God'? Please, repeat to me these 'facts'.

plus this comment.

Once again, I would love for you to tell me about them.

The argument here is not god vs no god , it is morality based on god or not.
In that instance there are other fields of knowledge that deal with the subject of morality. These fields are commonly grouped together under the title of Humanities and encompass ideas such as Philosophy, sociology, psychology and political studies.
Theists will falsely claim that athiests have only science to back there claim of morality. This is patently untrue, as science has nothing to do with morality.

So you respect my opinion as long as it makes sense? So then it would be your opinion, would it not?

Exactly so, should I respect an opinion that is utter nonsense?
And is it your opinion that god exists or that only he defines morality.
Or can you prove it as an undeniable fact.

Ah, I see. So you are not interested in debate, but stubborn adherence to your own ideas. Thus, you are not conducive to progress, and can only be a detriment to this debate and society. From a party that wishes to bring so much up to date, you seem so hesitant to progress in the interest of debate. You will not even pretend that your God exists, and thus I cannot continue. I cannot deny God.

Typical.
You do understand what debate is? You bring your ideas to the floor and I bring mine. We discuss them and eventually reach a point of some kind of consensus.
This however requires an open mind.
Please do attempt to show that a god exists, that it created a moral basis for us to live by or that we should even accept the basis
For my part I prefer to keep an open mind and until you or anyone can actually come up with one good solid reason for your position then I will concede the point. Something you have as yet failed to do.
You however by making the statement "God exists, and thus I cannot continue. I cannot deny God." are obviously approaching this argument with a closed mind already convinced you are right and will not be persuaded otherwise no matter what.

Oh, [s]heaven[/s] science forbid that we might actually label periods of history!

Sigh! Once again you give clear evidence of a lack of understanding of science.
History in any university will be found in the humanity department not the science department.

And as for your second line, I am having trouble understanding your message. Clarify, will you?

Simple enough , if an athiest points out any contradiction or fault in a religion the first thing theists will do is point out that that's not their particular religion Makes me wonder sometimes who actually does belong to those religions when your all so busy denying that you do .

Sure, people who do things out of the kindness of their heart are purer in intent than those who do so in fear of retribution. But I find no poison in assuming the lowest common ethics, and idealizing later. Why do you?

Fine then which is it? Fear of retribution or kindness of heart? Or is it somehow both?

President Bush has said nothing of the sort. Just because he is a religious man does not mean he is fighting this war in the name of sovereign God. I would love to see the transcripts highlighted on the word 'Crusade'.

George W. Bush - Wikiquote

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. * Remarks on the south lawn of the White House (September 16, 2001)[15]

Yes, he may talk and take advice from God, but if God does not exist, then it must only be in his head, creating no link to religion of any kind. You are hypocritical in your 'shifting sands' accusations. You refuse to consider God in the interest of debate, yet you are willing to exploit His presence when it benefits you. Make up your mind.

I have and that does not prevent me from pointing out other peoples point of view that does not reflect mine.

Oh, but I do. You cannot scientifically define and judge someone's heart,

Great one point we agree on.

Consider religion in the interest of debate, or we cannot progress.

So basically you are saying that we do this your way or it's the highway?

[freefallife]

Quote by: Red President Bush has said nothing of the sort.

You really need to do some research before making ignorant comments like this.

Here's a link for you:

Bush's use of word 'crusade' a red flag

[Red]

Quote by: SoylentGreen This comment plus this comment. The argument here is not god vs no god , it is morality based on god or not. In that instance there are other fields of knowledge that deal with the subject of morality. These fields are commonly grouped together under the title of Humanities and encompass ideas such as Philosophy, sociology, psychology and political studies. Theists will falsely claim that athiests have only science to back there claim of morality. This is patently untrue, as science has nothing to do with morality.

Alright, so now that you have answered the question, I am to understand that (according you you) morals and ethics are found in Philosophy, sociology, psychology and political studies.
Now that we can progress, I would ask you: Do you think society can form without morals and ethics?

Exactly so, should I respect an opinion that is utter nonsense? And is it your opinion that god exists or that only he defines morality. Or can you prove it as an undeniable fact.

It is utter nonsense to you, just as your evolutionist standpoint on life is to me.
God exists, and in life and in the interest of debate He defines morality.

Typical. You do understand what debate is? You bring your ideas to the floor and I bring mine. We discuss them and eventually reach a point of some kind of consensus. This however requires an open mind.

Says the man who will not consider God in the interest of debate. I am making an unusual effort to be open minded. The least you can do is reciprocate, even in the smallest amount.
[quote]
Please do attempt to show that a god exists, that it created a moral basis for us to live by or that we should even accept the basis
For my part I prefer to keep an open mind and until you or anyone can actually come up with one good solid reason for your position then I will concede the point. Something you have as yet failed to do.
You however by making the statement "God exists, and thus I cannot continue. I cannot deny God." are obviously approaching this argument with a closed mind already convinced you are right and will not be persuaded otherwise no matter what.[/b]
This is not an open mind. This is the closed mind you accuse me of. I can consider your point of view with my God. I gain nothing by abandoning Him. You however, cannot consider mine, and thus we cannot continue. This has little to do with the validity of my thoughts, but like you said, Debate is when we bring our ideas to the floor and discuss them until we reach a consensus. Your Marxist idea that I must do what you do not is counter intuitive to 'debate'.

Sigh! Once again you give clear evidence of a lack of understanding of science. History in any university will be found in the humanity department not the science department.

So you concede! Thank you.

Simple enough , if an athiest points out any contradiction or fault in a religion the first thing theists will do is point out that that's not their particular religion Makes me wonder sometimes who actually does belong to those religions when your all so busy denying that you do .

Well, I can do nothing but assure you that I am not one of which you speak.

Fine then which is it? Fear of retribution or kindness of heart? Or is it somehow both?

Kindness of the Heart.

George W. Bush - Wikiquote I have and that does not prevent me from pointing out other peoples point of view that does not reflect mine.

Point one for you.

Great one point we agree on.

Excellent.

[Jack]

Quote by: Red Someone who believes in God must be evaluated in their intentions and understanding. If someone actually communicated with God, and God told them to do something, and they (trusting in God) did just that, then the person's heart (which defines how good of a person they are) would have been acting in loyalty, thus making them somewhat irresponsible for their actions. So yes, it makes very much sense, and is vital to our debate.

I can evaluate your opinions taking into consideration your bias of belief in gods, but that does not mean that everyone in the debate must allow that gods exist. Since the existence of gods is still unproven, I would consider the claim that someone speaks with god to be a perception without substance and a poor position from which to debate morals. I don't have to share your values to understand and reply to them, any more than you have to agree with my opinions to debate me.

[Red]

Quote by: Jack I can evaluate your opinions taking into consideration your bias of belief in gods, but that does not mean that everyone in the debate must allow that gods exist. Since the existence of gods is still unproven, I would consider the claim that someone speaks with god to be a perception without substance and a poor position from which to debate morals. I don't have to share your values to understand and reply to them, any more than you have to agree with my opinions to debate me.

True, but what is happening is not debate. Your side of this argument is calling for a one sided argument, in which I am not permitted to use my beliefs in debate. As a debate is a fair and free conversation, I would conclude that I may say whatever I wish. And I do, however cutting points and dismissing challenges to your argument because 'God does not exist' is not conducive to fair debate, and thus we cannot progress until you treat my argument with the same fairness as I do yours. I have concluded (and reasoned within the bounds of science) that science and religion can harmonize, I have proven it to you (lest, you have not dismissed my reasonings) and yet you still cling to the itinerary that God does not exist, which leaves one side to the argument.

[rez]

Quote by: Red Because we are debating whether or not an atheist (who is scientifically grounded)

Why do you think that an atheist is even remotely scientifically grounded?

would be a better person than a religious man.

Sure.

I would assume that someone who fears retribution for his sins would live a better life than someone who believed that morals and ethics were a sad fantasy.

Thats a lie. You are a religious, and yet you lied. Nobody ever has said ethics and morality were a sad fantasy. Take it back you liar. Your god is very mad at you.

Because in science lies no ethics, no morals.

Evolutionary evolution and history.

It in religion where these things lie.

Religion is no different then science. The only difference is religion has yet provided one single useful piece of information on this planet. Not one single piece of information was discovered that has been previously unknown. Religion is worthless.

These things are what keep men humane.

Trying to stay alive is what keeps men humane.

Our nation's laws were founded on these very morals and ethics of which I speak, correct?

I need to start writing a list of the token ignorant things theists think.

Stuff like...Hitler was an atheist, America was founded on Christianity, microevolution is true, but macroevoltuion is false.

Obviously you never read or even studied history to know Hitler was a Catholic, you never read any letters from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and quite frankly most theists don't have a clue about basic biology.


Why even talk about the universe how it was created and the like if our opponents don't even have a clue about basic history and science?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Red Because we are debating whether or not an atheist (who is scientifically grounded) would be a better person than a religious man.

Atheism is no more scientifically grounded than theism. Belief or disbelief in God(s) is not something that can be "proven" through observation of the natural world since, by definition, god(s) is/are supernatural.

Our nation's laws were founded on these very morals and ethics of which I speak, correct?

Hmm, let me check. Maybe there is an early official writing of our government that adopts a particular position in regard to your statement...

Quote by: Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion

Gee, that seems so murky and unclear...

[Red]

Quote by: rez Why do you think that an atheist is even remotely scientifically grounded?

If they are not grounded in religion, they are grounded in science. There are only two ways that this universe could have come about, and thus two possible roots of everything. Science cannot define morals and ethics, thus it falls on religion to define them. Religion has defined them, regardless of their validity through the bible, which has existed farther back in our history than any science can prove.

Sure.

Typical.

Thats a lie. You are a religious, and yet you lied. Nobody ever has said ethics and morality were a sad fantasy. Take it back you liar. Your god is very mad at you.

In this you just accepted the existence of God. What do you have to say for yourself? You are religious (as evidenced by the fact that you accepted his existence) and yet you lied by saying that God is angry with me. What do you have to say for yourself?

Evolutionary evolution and history.

Which makes perfect sense. It seems like everything can be explained through evolution!

Religion is no different then science. The only difference is religion has yet provided one single useful piece of information on this planet. Not one single piece of information was discovered that has been previously unknown. Religion is worthless.

Religion and Science are completely different, showing that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The fact that the laws by which we live originated in the bible also disproves the statement you made about religion not contributing to society, and being worthless.

Trying to stay alive is what keeps men humane.

No, trying to stay alive is what makes people barbaric. There's actually a difference.

I need to start writing a list of the token ignorant things theists think. Stuff like...Hitler was an atheist, America was founded on Christianity, microevolution is true, but macroevoltuion is false. Obviously you never read or even studied history to know Hitler was a Catholic, you never read any letters from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and quite frankly most theists don't have a clue about basic biology.

Your definition of 'ignorant' seems to mean 'do not think as you do'. You are extremely close minded, clinging to your emotions and regurgitating pre-fabricated arguments found in pop culture. Your closed mind shows that you feel threatened by my religion, and that you are insecure in your belief of science. I however, can believe both at the same time, for I do not find them contradictory, thus I have a greater platform than you.

Why even talk about the universe how it was created and the like if our opponents don't even have a clue about basic history and science?

You mean the 'Big Bang' Theory? Yeah, key element: 'Theory'.

[Red]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Atheism is no more scientifically grounded than theism. Belief or disbelief in God(s) is not something that can be "proven" through observation of the natural world since, by definition, god(s) is/are supernatural.

Mutually understood.

Hmm, let me check. Maybe there is an early official writing of our government that adopts a particular position in regard to your statement... Gee, that seems so murky and unclear...

You mean that political loophole? Nah, Christians didn't form a Christian nation. How bizarre is that thought?

[SoylentGreen]

RedDo you think society can form without morals and ethics?

Ok I will play along with this . But note I reserve the right to elaborate once given a indication of where your headed with this.

My answer is that i think morals and ethics are important to the formation of a society.

I can consider your point of view with my God.

Sorry red but that does seem a bit contradictory. My point of view is god doesn't exist so how is possible to consider with your god that god doesn't exist

So you concede! Thank you.

What are you talking about!! I conceded nothing . All I did was point out that your statement:

Oh, [s]heaven[/s] science forbid that we might actually label periods of history!

is wrong.
science has nothing to do with history.

Well, I can do nothing but assure you that I am not one of which you speak.

I know and despair on this fact red.
In fact I would consider it a bloody miracle if any theist did actually own up.

Kindness of the Heart.

Good I have more respect for theists who answer like that than those who use the fear card.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Red If they are not grounded in religion, they are grounded in science. There are only two ways that this universe could have come about, and thus two possible roots of everything.

Logical fallacy: False Dichotomy. You cannot possibly show that in the entire UNIVERSE, something can only be scientific or religious...

You mean that political loophole? Nah, Christians didn't form a Christian nation. How bizarre is that thought?

Psst... The Founders were largely deists, not Christians.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Red Science cannot define morals and ethics, thus it falls on religion to define them. Religion has defined them, regardless of their validity through the bible, which has existed farther back in our history than any science can prove.

Umm... not really. Philosophy has always been a popular forum for discussing morality. Not to mention that not all religions require a deity. Buddhists, for example, do not believe in gods, which may be why some purists refer to Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion.

Soylent -- Thats a lie. You are a religious, and yet you lied. Nobody ever has said ethics and morality were a sad fantasy. Take it back you liar. Your god is very mad at you. Red -- In this you just accepted the existence of God. What do you have to say for yourself? You are religious (as evidenced by the fact that you accepted his existence) and yet you lied by saying that God is angry with me.

You guys gotta learn to use the little smiley faces. Red, Soylent was being facetious when he said God is mad at you. Soylent, it's possible Red was being facetious right back at you. For both of you it's you chance to say, "Yeah, that's it, I was being facetious" and get off that silly line of discussion.

Quote by: Red The fact that the laws by which we live originated in the bible also disproves the statement you made about religion not contributing to society, and being worthless.

Genocide and slavery are laws by which we live??? Because they're both condoned in the Bible, Red. On the other hand, if you take the Ten Commandments, eliminate the arbitrary fluff...

"Thou shalt have no God before me" - which God is that? The Jewish God of Moses?

"Thou shall make no graven images" - beg pardon? Depending on your definition, I make graven images for a living.

"Thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain." - G'dammit, why the hell not?

"Thou shall keep the Sabbath holy." - Which Sabbath? Jewish Saturday, Christian Sunday, Moslem Friday?

...you'll find that every religion on Earth teaches pretty much the same morals... don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, don't commit adultery, obey your parents, etc. etc.

Ever wonder why it is that every religion on earth teaches a variation of the Golden Rule?

Perhaps humans instinctively know what's right and wrong, genetically hardwired as our conscience by evolution, to be accessed by whatever ritual belief system that developed in each of our little isolated corners of the world.

.