Religion: not necessary?

I'm a member of JSA, a debate club here at my high school. I'm agnostic, myself, and when we went to Philadelphia for a debate conference I had to go to the one titled 'Does Atheism Promote Immorality?' It degenerated into a huge argument about the strict meaning of the word 'Immorality,' and what morals were. People felt that morals were actually specific to religions, and that only religious people could have them.

That's the problem, really - that people feel that if you're not a Christian, you worship the devil, eat babies, and so on. Once people realize that this is not the case, and that it is not only possible but probable that people who have shed religion will be upstanding, contributing citizens who don't eat babies at all, religion's place in society will vanish.

I'd also like to point out that, although there has been many lives ended in the name of God, I don't think there have been many ended in the name of atheism.

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

I'm a member of JSA, a debate club here at my high school. I'm agnostic, myself, and when we went to Philadelphia for a debate conference I had to go to the one titled 'Does Atheism Promote Immorality?' It degenerated into a huge argument about the strict meaning of the word 'Immorality,' and what morals were. People felt that morals were actually specific to religions, and that only religious people could have them.

That's the problem, really - that people feel that if you're not a Christian, you worship the devil, eat babies, and so on. Once people realize that this is not the case, and that it is not only possible but probable that people who have shed religion will be upstanding, contributing citizens who don't eat babies at all, religion's place in society will vanish.

I'd also like to point out that, although there has been many lives ended in the name of God, I don't think there have been many ended in the name of atheism.

YOU DON'T EAT BABIES!!! You should, they're delicious!

I'd also like to point out that, although there has been many lives ended in the name of God, I don't think there have been many ended in the name of atheism.

You're right but it's never too late to start !

Who's with me?

Just to clarify that CI, we are all born atheists, but I agree with your point.

Good clarification, EorI, they're all 'converted by fiat.'

thunder_runner, education never stops, so it's not too late for me to lead YOU to the truth

Oh and I agree with you, when I said we are all born atheists, I meant to imply that we were all born atheists. Doesn't prove anything.

No mind required at all.

Atheists have no belief in Gods.

Toasters could be considered Atheists.

Perhaps you are confusing that with some-one who has a belief that there are no Gods. Quite a different thing.

No mind required at all.

Atheists have no belief in Gods.

Toasters could be considered Atheists.

Perhaps you are confusing that with some-one who has a belief that there are no Gods. Quite a different thing.

thunder_runner, education never stops, so it's not too late for me to lead YOU to the truth

The second paragraph I agree with.

The first paragraph is 100% wrong. It is SO not splitting hairs. One requires no belief, the other requires an active belief. (Frank would have a fit if he saw what you'd just proposed)

The word atheist is literally "without theism" and the ONLY THING COMMON to ALL atheists is a lack of belief in gods.

SOME atheists actually are ALSO people who believe there are no gods (I am one of those) but we are in the minority, probably because it's an unprovable position just like theism.

that agnostics were really just athiests who were afraid of commitment.

Quote:

that agnostics were really just athiests who were afraid of commitment.

Not entirely true. The same thing could happen the other way around, but philosophically it's the truthful statement that we "don't know". If God is unknowable by the senses, that doesn't mean He does not exist and vice versa.