- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Communities
- 8.3K All Communities
- 255 Technology
- 1.9K Politics
- 679 United States
- 592 Global
- 65 Immigration
- 1.9K Religion
- 231 TV SHOWS
- 60 Movies
- 80 History
- 44 Work Place
- 476 Philosophy
- 412 Science
- 62 Earth Science
- 9 Books
- 101 Economy
- 34 Investments
- 14 Europe
- 10 Tea
- 7 Coffee
- 59 Sports
- 42 Products
- 283 News
- 13 Airplanes
- 33 Cars
- 851 General
- 9 Mafia Games
- 24 Art And Design
- 20 Space
- 50 Military
- 3 Premium Member
DEBATE NEWS BREAKING NEWS
Oregon using Medicaid funds for climate-change-related health challenges
Oregon is helping Medicaid patients cope with soaring heat, smoky skies and other effects of climate...
In this Debate
I am an igtheist, with a positive atheist stance toward the Abrahamic gods.
Debate Information
I stand as an igtheist due to the vast discrepancies in what the term "god" even means. Each definition put forth has either been illogical (such as claiming love is god), paradoxical (such as a god being both completely omniscient yet granting free will), or inconsistent with reality (such as a god living atop a mountain as a physical being). However, I've found the Abrahamic gods, which I am most familiar with, to be all of the above, and so hold a concrete stance of they do not exist, at least as traditionally depicted.
I'm here as a relatively fresh apostate Christian. If needed, I was raised and taught in both a Pentecostal and Southern Baptist church and household. I would prefer a definition to work with from any counters, but if one is not given, or a quality not otherwise defined, my understanding of any god claim will default to the traditional Christian god, i.e. the Tri-Omni Triune God of Father/Son/Spirit independent of Quranic or post-biblical Judaic writings.
My reasons for asking this is a personal matter. So, as it were, please persuade me.
I'm here as a relatively fresh apostate Christian. If needed, I was raised and taught in both a Pentecostal and Southern Baptist church and household. I would prefer a definition to work with from any counters, but if one is not given, or a quality not otherwise defined, my understanding of any god claim will default to the traditional Christian god, i.e. the Tri-Omni Triune God of Father/Son/Spirit independent of Quranic or post-biblical Judaic writings.
My reasons for asking this is a personal matter. So, as it were, please persuade me.
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Have you ever put thought to why there are vast discrepancies?
If you really dig deep it’s because no one knows really what God means and there are more than 10000 different versions of God and all there followers swear blue and black that there particular God is the only and right God. So given that 9999 Gods are wrong then chances are all of them are wrong.
So the thing to do is give up your security blanket and get rid of your spiritual feelings and leave all that God rubbish behind you. Then take life and enjoy it for what it is and not the way some deluded jerk head tells you. You’ll be much better off for it.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Free will is an essential component to most Christian thought though. Without free-will there is no such thing as love. Compelled love is not true love. True love must be an act of the volition of someone. Love is viewed as a attribute of God. It is not the only one, so it would be wrong to claim that God is only love and nothing else. God is also just, which is not the opposite of love, but does mean that people are rewarded or punished based on their personal behavior and actions.
Christianity is uniquely based in a historical event- The death and resurrection of Christ. If it is true, then Christianity must be assumed to be true. And if it is false, then Christianity must be assumed false. I've made a lot of arguments for God and Christianity before. You can see them here:
Arguments for God: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/168735/#Comment_168735
Historical reliability of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus - https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/168747/#Comment_168747
Historical evidence from non-Christian sources for the Historical Jesus - https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/168747/#Comment_168747
Eye witness records to Jesus - https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/168747/#Comment_168747
Evidence we can learn about Jesus from his enemies - https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/169412/#Comment_169412
Hope this helps.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
@InterstellarFairyjust_sayin
The concept of free will is limited by the construct realm which we live in. I will to be younger and travel to mars and build a mansion but the reality of my existence prohibits that. So free will is squashed. We all live by the confines of reality. Albeit I can eat a hot dog and get a hair cut if that's my will.
The bible tells us god hardened pharaohs heart and god raised Satan's pride. It also describes how god did it. He created great emotional distress in pharaoh's heart with the plagues of Egypt. And he promoted satan above all other angels signifying it by making him the most beautiful angel. God knew they could not resist temptation because he foreknew the choices they'd make before they made them. So he predestined them. Two of millions of souls he would create knowing they had no chance and would suffer the flame for ever. After all who can go against what god knows in advance? God determined their fates based on his desire, not any freedom they had to refuse god purposes. I'm sure neither one chose the eternal flame. And satan who walked with god, even had bets with god, knew god's power; and you want to say he chose his finale fate? Both of them acted the only way they could because as god even admits, he defined their realities.
Love, morals... there is no evidence these things exist only because of god.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
That is the nature of illogical things: it is impossible to embed them into a larger epistemological structure without obscuring them. It is like trying to build mathematics on the assumption that 2+2=3: it certainly is possible to work with this assumption, but the further in the logical chain you go, the more you have to rely on smoke and mirrors. The rotten core has to be hidden behind a thick wall of trickery.
Rather than trying to refine your definition of god, or look at non-Abrahamic gods as an alternative, I encourage you to study different religions of the world from the historical perspective. You will see that they all have fairly similar origin and are derived from the natural human terror of the unknown and mystification of it.
Acceptance of the unknown, of the possibility and inevitability of profound ignorance in every one of us, is a prerequisite to thinking rationally.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
The expression is used to express the idea that God revealed himself in such a way that Pharoah could not deny it was God and yet Pharoah choose to ignore that God was trying to get His attention. The expression is used elsewhere in the Bible and in Jewish history and writings. It never means that God took away someone else's ability to choose. You can think of it as God revealing himself so that the person can't deny its God and they ignore and that God removed His grace from them to let them proceed without any checks in the way they choose to go.
God knew Satan would fall before he did. But God did not make Satan fall - Satan choose his own path. Again, I repeat myself, God's foreknowledge is not causative. Now, you could argue that God has chosen Satan's punishment and that Satan can not avoid it. But the punishment is based off of Satan's own choice.
Without a belief in an objective lawgiver you can't argue that morals are nothing more than what one group or individual wants. There is no sense in which something is good or bad no matter what others think without a moral lawgiver. The existence of evil actually is an evidence that God exists. If you think there is objective evil in the world, then there must be some objective standard by which you determined something was not good but evil. For the atheist, morals are just what the dominate individual or group have determined - it is about might makes right. So, it was moral for Hitler to kill Jews by atheists view. The group in Germany determined it was just to do that to another group. You may bristle at my observation, but it is logically correct. Atheism has no basis other than what benefits an individual for morals - and what benefits one person or one group, may not benefit another person or group.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
There is nothing that can happen in the Universe tomorrow that will make me change my mind on morality of killing Jews. For someone who truly derives their morals from the Bible, however, all it takes is someone making a persuasive argument that the Bible actually encourages killing Jews.
Which is why I am calling you on your hypocrisy. What if the scenario I just proposed actually happens? Will you go on a rampage killing Jews? We both know the answer. Which means that you do not actually derive your morals from the "objective lawgiver".
There are those who do... You can see their handywork in Yemen and Syria. Not a pleasant sight.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
@just_sayin
"God as creator, must have some existence outside of space-time and therefore because He exists beyond our limited dimensions can view all points of space and time simultaneously."
I find this to be simply begging the question. God as creator MUST have said quality? I don't see how transcendence is a required property of God.
"'God's foreknowledge is not causative - just because God knows what you will do, doesn't follow that He made you do it.'"
Correct, foreknowledge wouldn't mean forcing the choice. The issue isn't that, but rather that foreknowledge means no other choice CAN be made. If God has foreknowledge that I will eat ramen for dinner tonight, then either I can't eat anything else(ie, no free will) or I can eat something else, and God has no actual foreknowledge.
"For example, how can you speak of morals or justice, if there is no free will."
That's a scaling fallacy. Morals and justice are an issue of the perceived nature of actions, while free will is an issue regarding the reality of choice. This is evident in that moral philosophy delves into the moral implications of actions both unintentional, and of nonthinking agents. While the stance on free will can influence the stance on morality, it need not. Whether or not I have free will, and I'm not convinced I do, I follow the humanist moral system because I perceive human wellbeing to be the greatest moral good, and human suffering to be the greatest moral evil. I will openly admit that I do not believe I had the free will to make that decision, but the decision was made.
"This to me is a good reason to reject atheism as it has no basis for morals and choice."
I find it irrational to reject a stance on whether or not a god exists based on whether that stance can serve as a moral or decision foundation. Whether or not it does has no bearing on the existence of God. As such, I will posit a question: Let's say free will doesn't exist, and morality is just an illusion. So what?
"Without free-will there is no such thing as love."
I disagree. Love is a physiological state well understood in how it manifests and the effects it has, within a strictly materialist stance. Adding free will as a requirement for love is baseless, in that love has been demonstrated to definitively exist, yet free will has not. The rest of this paragraph is only a rabbit hole into the moral standing of God which is one of the most disturbing issues in the Abrahamic faiths in my opinion.
"The death and resurrection of Christ. If it is true, then Christianity must be assumed to be true."
If it is true, then the death and resurrection of Yeshua is true. Nothing more than that. It would be extraordinary, but there are more steps needed to get to a God, Yeshua as the human incarnation of that God, and the other stories' historicity.
I'll address the arguments you linked summarily. "The universe had a beginning." The local presentation? Sure. The entirety of the cosmological landscape? That's gonna need some evidence. (Inb4 "infinite regression" isn't an issue. Claiming it is while claiming an eternal anything is special pleading.) "The fact there is something rather than nothing." Nothing is a philosophically absurd concept. "The complexity of the universe." Here's an analogy. If I shuffled a deck of cards and ask you what are the odds of it being in the order its in, the answer is 1:8x10^67. If I ask you what the odds of any other combination is, the answer isn't zero. It's 1:8x10^67. You just got to see the shuffle you got. It's called the Anthropic Principle, and it's a fairly entry level refutation of Fine Tuning. "The complexity of life." This paragraph was blatantly misrepresenting the fact of well known and accepted research in the field of genetics, microbiology, and abiogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiments and the Jeewanu particle synthesis are clear proof that DNA, amino acids, and single-celled organism CAN rather easily form in early earth conditions. "Consciousness." Again, this is just ignoring modern scientific understanding. Edelman, G. M. (2003). Naturalizing consciousness: a theoretical framework. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. and Baars, B. J. (1988). A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anthony C. Thiselton suggests that it is possible that 1 Corinthians was written during Paul's first (brief) stay in Ephesus, at the end of his second journey, usually dated to early AD 54. In fact, this dating is the scholarly consensus. and lastly, "we have multiple accounts by eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and events - John, Matthew, Mark, Peter and James for starters." I'm sure you're well aware that scholarly consensus also holds that nobody knows who wrote the Gospels, and that Mark seems to have been the source by which the other three appear to have been mostly copied. Not to mention the sheer rift of contradiction in the Gospels, calling into question the legitimacy of any information present within. And "eyewitnesses in the bible" are not eyewitnesses. It's the Bible claiming eyewitnesses for the events it claims. That's clear circular reasoning.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
So watch out because here it comes complete with bold capitals and expletives....just wait and see.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Speaking of make believe, the idea that you think that your mind is logical is another make believe element. Your mind is a product of nature. Nature has no direction or standards - your mind could be an evolutionary deformity, a product of the shallow end of the gene pool. While I am sure you have a set of morals, they are the product of your imperfect mind created by nature. Who is to say that your mind and morality is any better than a serial killers? Both are just products of nature. Its not that you can't say you have morals, its that in your scientism there is no objective standard of truth - you are a product of nature, which has no mind to guide it. The fact I have to explain again to you that you have no objective standard of morals if you think nature is all there is, proves your mind is more deformed than you might be able to realize.
You have no basis to say that killing the Jews is morally wrong for everyone. That's just your opinion. Who is to say that your deformed brain came to the right conclusion? You - the product of blind natural processes? LOL Your morality has no more authority than the Nazis did. There is no objective truth in scientism. Nature is all that exists and there are no morals in nature, just chemical and physical events. Again, the fact you didn't get this the first half dozen times I've mentioned it, shows that maybe your brain is more defective than you are capable of perceiving.
Without an objective lawgiver, any morals are just one individual, or one group's opinion, against another competing person or group's opinion. Only 'evolution' will determine which survives - notice I didn't say which is right, because that is a moral thing, and nature is not capable of doing morals. Nature changes, but progression is the product of an ultimate standard, which nature lacks.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
How do you define "supernatural evidence"? How does it differ from natural evidence? How is it falsified?
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
You seem like a bright person overall, so your unbelievable density on this matter is very telling.
My brain is flawed, indeed. So is yours. So are brains of those who came up with all these stories about the god. The difference is, I acknowledge that my brain is flawed and rely not just on what it thinks, but also what happens around me: experimental evidence. Ivory tower philosophers such as religionists, on the other hand, do not need evidence: "god spoke to them" or whatever, so who cares what is verifiably true and what is not?
Yeah, "that's just my opinion". 2+2=4 is also just my opinion. Opinions have logical basis behind them, however. And mine, I think, is much stronger than "the holy book says so", or "the imaginary authority says so". Your objective lawgiver is like Kim Jung Un, some entity (likely non-existent) that you let decide how you should live your life. An independent person does not need that: they can figure out how to live their life based on observations they make about the world, their actions in it and their consequences in it.
If you cannot figure out what is wrong with murder without an omniscient being explaining it to you... then I have to wonder how you manage to get out of bed every morning without breaking something.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Since you admit your brain is flawed, then how can you depend upon it for what is moral? Again, its not that you don't have morals, but as an atheist you have no objective standard for morals, you don't even know if you have a mind that is reliable enough to trust. Nor could you since it is just a result of natural blind processes. Your faith in nature seems not just unreasonable but well dumb.
You are the one who has behaved irrationally. Claiming that miracles must have a natural explanation is just special pleading based on your faith in scientism. If a guy has 2 legs, has one cut off, and then instantly 2 1/2 years later after praying has 2 legs - that's not science, the facts don't fit with that faith claim.
You think any can deduce that murder is wrong. Yet history is replete with numerous examples where the killing of innocents has been rationalized by groups and individuals. Again, when you don't have an objective source of truth, you will fall for anything - like scientism.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Nor have I "claimed that miracles must have a natural explanation".
And I do not "think any can deduce that murder is wrong".
There is very little I can say to you in response to this endless slander that will not run against my principle of saying nothing when I do not have anything positive to say to someone, unfortunately.
Your question is strange: everything is flawed, so can you not depend on anything? Your car is flawed: does it give you a pause when you get into it and start driving? My brain is certainly flawed, but so is yours, and that does not seem to prevent you from making claims about morals.
My objective standard for morals is called "logic", and I follow it to the extent to which my flawed organism is capable of it. Empirically, it seems to do a decent job most of the time, but I am open to ideas for improving my approach.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
You said that you believe only nature exists, and that everything must have a natural explanation. Isn't that exactly what @just_sayin said?
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/171282/#Comment_171282
"Supernatural" does not exist in nature by definition, so it does not exist anywhere other than in someone's mind. Similarly, a supernatural cause cannot exist, and nothing that cannot exist can cause something that does exist. Something can exist and not have a cause, but nothing that exists can have a cause that does not exist.
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/171291/#Comment_171291
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Could you elaborate how claims that "only nature exists" and "everything must have a natural explanation" are contained in these sentences?
I am quite careful about the positive claims I make. Unfortunately, my opponents do not always reciprocate it by reading them carefully.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
No one can define super natutural evidence because 1 the first thing is that there is no such thing as super natural and 2 the second thing is that there is not one zippo nil peace of evidence of any thing super natural. And 3 the third thing is that there fore there is no such thing as super natural evidence. Its just like fairys because even though the name exists there is no such thing as faries so there fore you cant define them so when you analize the hole situation you cannot really define nothing except that it is the absents of some thing and thats what air heads are all ways trying to do.
It drives them bonkers trying to define the crap that continually goes through there heads so they have to put a description to it. Then all the air heads agree on one wakko definition and it makes them feel good. like hell eloo ya.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
This is not just about believing that nature exists and I know what its like when your sitting on the fents because your stuck between 2 worlds. One is the reel world and the other is the make believe world.
The reel factual world is just like @GiantMan says. Only nature exists fact period and it does not need any explanation. The make believe world is just that. Some people believe it and there is no fact about it. It does need explanation though because it is all made up. The thing is that there are a million explanations and each explanation seems to coincidentally fit in with what beleif that person wants.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Can facts point to a supernatural cause? Yep. Let's say that there is factual evidence that includes eye witness testimony, doctor's reports, hospital records, an tribunal notes that a guy had 2 feet, and then had to have one leg amputated, and then 2 1/2 years later that same leg reappeared connected to that man one night after prayer - and all of this was documented with the eye witness testimonies recorded and the doctor's records provided, that would be evidence of a supernatural event. You'd have to make up evidence that doesn't exist to deny the account. There is 0 evidence that contradicts the eye witnesses. Everybody agreed that the guy had 2 legs, then 1, then after 2 1/2 years he had 2 legs again. There is not naturalistic explanation, and if you think there is - then provide it.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
This is quite clear because you can define supernatural evidence as that there is no such thing. End of story because nothing need no further explanation. There is no such thing as beyond reality except that there is nothing.
Natural and nature are all that is and does not include all that should be and all that could be because it is simply dum to include nothing.
And all the air heads in the world say what if what if. Well sorry num nuts but this is all there is and if you want to visit lala land in your head thats your business but I reckon its a bit rich by trying to justify your deluded mindset by saying that there is another dimension out there thats supernatural just so that you dont feel wierd about yourselves. If you cant prove some airy fairy made up phenomonen with out evidence then it can be dismissed with out evidence. And if you cant explain something then why dont you lot get off your fat aces and do some descent research and try to find out instead of making up some stup id jig saw peace to fit the puzzle.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
There's no such thing cause there isn't any! That was good. But still, I'd like to see what they come up with. LOL
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
How do you define "supernatural evidence"? How does it differ from natural evidence? How is it falsified?
@GiantMan
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
No he didn't quote verbatim. The words "by definition" and " for all intents and purposes, that does not exist." are not in his misquote. Which identify may's intended message. Not your misunderstanding. The cultist book you are referring to is not evidence, neither are 400 year old transcripts from a secretive cult. Even if there are fictitious claims of legs unburying themselves 2.5 years after being amputated and reattaching itself. Doesn't rise to the level of empirical evidence. The fact you believe it means nothing. Maybe Disney would be interested...
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Well you know what I mean which adds more gas to the fire about how dum Godists really are. Like I dont need to know science because every thing I need to know is in the Bible and the Bible is right because its the word of God which proves God exists so ha ha and la de da you cant argue with that.
And then I say in return. Yes I can. Your a complete tool.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
May doesn't believe the supernatural exists. He will only except natural explanations no matter what the evidence is.
From a purely historical perspective, the evidence for the miracle of Calanda is a treasure trove. First, it is eye witness testimony, and secondly, it is very close to the event. The fact that it is held in a tribunal where the testimony is recorded verbatim, further insures that it is not hearsay. The number of witnesses and the medical records to validate the testimony also are strong historical evidence.
You continue to engage in special pleading, claiming the evidence should not be considered valid because of the time period it occurred in and that the church was involved in recording the evidence. Even people in the 1600's could count to 2. They could tell the difference between 1 leg and 2 legs. The fact the church knew there would be skeptics and went to such lengths to validate every claim argues against your logic. Rather than weaken the evidence, their cautious approach, only makes the evidence that much more compelling.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
This is how religion survives in the modern world: it offers a very large number of these templates. Its followers have to study those templates and internalize them. What they have to not do is actively think and question anything. Hence they never develop the capacity to think to themselves, or, consequently, understand thoughts of those who do. Something that does not fall into any of their templates has to be projected onto them, kind of like a 4-dimensional object for us to visualize it has to be projected onto the 3-dimensional space. They have one "atheist" stereotype that they apply to everyone, and if someone does not match it exactly, they will after the projection.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra