avatar
33 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 2 years ago

    This is not a scientifically recognized source, but if you have enough common sense, you won't need science to verify my statement.

    https://youtu.be/nfqTYeGim2E

  • 2 years ago

    Although religion has to do with behavior, it's sole aim is not control but to bring you into alignment with the creator.

    • 2 years ago

      studies show that children are pre-disposed to religion without ever actually being exposed to it...if true that would contradict the claim that religion is man-made.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter that is an insanely bogus argument. Because kids aren't introduced to something by their parents, then it isn't manmade??

        Oh, my parents didn't build or introduce me to SKYSCRAPERS, TRAINS, PLANES, OR BOATS. Guess those aren't manmade.

        Great argument.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary edited

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter dude, your argument is still bogus. Just because something is introduced or not to children doesn't mean it's not manmade.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary You're gonna have to support your assertions with something. My argument isn't bogus just because you say it is. Perhaps we aren't on the same page regarding what "man-made" means.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter human beings created religion. Being exposed or not being exposed to it at a young age does not change that.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter @rightwingviking, @dorothy8532, @arkle.. can one of you explain to this nut why his argument is completely and utterly ridiculous... please????

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter not to mention you changed your argument completely after the fact to make yourself look better. But it's still asinine.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary This is not a field I'm all that well versed in. I am an Atheist, and proud of that fact, but I'm not an expert. I'm sure someone on QallOut is better equipped to address this than me.

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle how about just the logic of his statement. That children are predisposed to it from an early age, therefore it is not manmade.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary Well yeah, that is pretty ridiculous. All the religious texts of the world? Written by people. The myths and stories? Told by people. Religion isn't like air or atoms or electrons.

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle that's all I needed. Someone else to verify the reality of that fact.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary Let me break this down for you, and you can tell me what I'm getting wrong because you are still just asserting my argument is bogus without actually pointing out any flaws in it.

        p1) religion is man-made
        p2) If religion is man-made then it is an invention of people
        p3) if it's an invention of people, then one would acquire it from other people
        p4) data shows it is not acquired from other people
        C) Therefore, it's not an invention of people and thus, not man-made

        Which premise do you disagree with? You can dispute p4. That's fine, but I'm having trouble seeing the logical flaw here. I'm guessing you would disagree with p3? Why? It sounds like you simply taking the motion for granted.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter "p4) data shows it is not acquired from other people"

        Citation needed.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter you don't have enough brain cells for this conversation. Assuming that you actually truly believe that religion is not created and sustained entirely 100% by human beings, who do you postulate created said religion..? and if you say god I'm gonna laugh you out of this debate.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter I put your most recent comment on Facebook and this is the best response I got.. have a look from a perspective other than my own..


        "the first two just say the same thing in different words.

        The third needs the word "can" inserted instead of "would," because as it stands, it's not an axiom or a given, it's just a possibility. Individuals will, at times, create their own explanations for "the way things are" because it's our nature [not acquired from anyone else, but still "man made." Even in isolation, one might expect various belief systems to arise in a person, because our brains work that way, trying to explain what we perceive.

        The fourth is just plain not supported. What data? It even sounds ridiculous on its face. Various cultures have dominant religions because people pass them on to their children, who accept the dominant religion in their culture in far greater numbers than those who split off to something else [supporting the idea that religion is based on human elements passed on from one generation to another]. So, four is just silly.

        Therefore, the final conclusion is completely unsupported.

        But you already knew that."

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary I don't have enough brain cells for this convo, and yet I'm the one actually making my own arguments instead of running to my friends for them.

        But since you don't make your own arguments, I'll guess what your argument would be if you made one. "Religion is human belief in God(s), therefore, it's man-made by definition." But that would make the motion not even debateable so it's an unreasonable premise. Would you even be able to describe what religion would look like that isn't man-made?

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary Feel free to clarify your argument. It was just a guess, but it does seem like you think it's obvious that religion is man made since it's a belief if man.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter dude. I already made my own argument, but as you couldn't understand said argument, I figured you would need to hear external sources.

        Religion is man made. That you can't, don't, or won't understand that is indicative of your psychological capacities, or lack thereof. Do you understand the definition of man made?

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary you made no arguments of your own. All your "arguments" have simply been assertions that mine are bogus or they've simply been restatements of the motion. I'll ask again, would you even be able to describe religion that's not man-made? Or is your position unfalsifiable?

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter the only other possible explanation is that it and everything else in our existence is computer programmed.. if we live in a matrix like existence.

        It's either that OR it's man made.. there really are no other alternatives.

        My argument IS that religion is man-made. Hence why I state that you don't have enough brain cells for this discussion, because you literally can't even scroll to the top of the page to SEE FOR YOURSELF what my argument is. Therefore your statement of me saying I've made "no arguments of my own" is also bogus.

        In case you don't recall. This is my thread, and I clearly state IN IT that religion is man made. If you have an alternative position as to it not being man made, it's not my responsibility to describe or offer a religion that isn't man made. That responsibility falls upon you, the naysayer who disagrees with my original statement, and therefore must explain an alternative. Otherwise you are just arguing nothing simply because you disagree with my position but cannot present an alternative.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary I don't have enough brain cells for this convo yet you don't even understand the difference between a motion and an argument (which is supposed to support the motion), and then you run off to borrow more arguments, this time from YouTube instead of your friends.

        I went ahead and reread the motion. It makes your position that much more absurd after a second reading. Ending up with religion without any outside influence is contradictory to religion being invented thousands of years ago and "designed" to control. It's a wonder you don't see that. The only other alternative is that it was an invention thousands of years ago, but you can also arrive at religion today with no knowledge if the "invention designed to control" from thousands of years ago, which would erase any significance from the motion.

        If it was an invention, it was an invention of man from every corner of the globe. Not for the purposes of control, but the purpose of making sense of the world. Religion has been used for control, but there's no evidence that it was designed for that purpose.

        But since you aren't willing to consider any alternatives then I'm wasting my time here.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter haha. Dude. You're the one that suggests it's not manmade, but don't present anything else other than attack my position and the material I present which you deem irrelevant (so basically fuck you), and then when I don't bite your bait, you tell me you're wasting your time??? Hahahahahahahahaha

        You're a fucking idiot.

        And if your argument is your "p1-p4, C" nonsense that you presented, then you clearly are dumb as rocks, because that horseshit is literally nonsensical at best and entirely illogical at worst.

        Go troll someone else motherfucker, I don't give a shit about your ignorant viewpoints in which you don't actually have anything to add, but simply disagree based on some premise of personal position that you are unwilling, unable, or incapable of explaining.

        Fuck off douchebag.

        Worthlesss piece of shit.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter "studies show children are pre-disposed to religion.." oh yeah motherfucker??? What fucking studies, you've presented nothing but an irrational, illogical personal viewpoint and given nothing of anything other than your own fucking worthless opinions. You are the epitome of a troll.

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter https://youtu.be/Y201QzDdzbg here is religion in a nut shell. (Watch it or don't, I don't give a flying fuck. But if you don't, then don't bother responding..)

      • 2 years ago

        @cotter better yet.. after the "ridiculous claim" watch this one.

        https://youtu.be/ODetOE6cbbc

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary Dude I'm the only one making arguments here. Not only have you not presented an argument of your own, but you haven't even attempted to rebut mine beyond mere assertions that they are bunk. It's as if you don't understand logical arguments. Either you contest the truth of one or more premises or you contest that they follow from each other. You've done neither, so you haven't rebutted my argument. Why are you even on Qallout? I'm having to explain to you the very basics of argumentation. Not to mention you've all but admitted that you basically have an unfalsifiable position and aren't willing to consider other explanations. And I'm the troll? You are either a troll or a poe and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

      • 2 years ago

        @vermontrevolutionary (sigh) You can't just assert an argument is illogical.You have to show it's logical flaws... (as I have done for the motion)