Trump is batshit insane, you don't need a Reagan repeat in a time like this. He was on the birther wagon then claimed personal responsibility for the re-releasing of the birth certificate so Americans would pay attention to something more important like I don't know.... the budget proposals. He frequently overstates his wealth and said that he exaggerated his wealth by 2 or 3 billion dollars. Organizations frequently estimate his wealth much lower than he says it really is and he is politically retarded. I don't like Obama but you can't do that to your country, might as well throw Palin in there.

I'm not really against it, but no politician is going to pass any sort of law that would make them submit to such a test. It's not in their best interest. Also sociopaths and pathological lyers can pass lie detectors, I would think politicians have some experience when i comes to lying.

Like Miss Maudie Atkinson from To Kill a Mockingbird once said, "There are just some kind of men who - who're so busy worrying about the next world they've never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results."

-

We get to not waste our only life on this planet concerned with a fictitious afterlife.

Your god is a fake god. I will not go to hell if i dont believe in him. I belive in a God that can take the human soul away at any moment

-

Do you see how your statements and arguments have nothing to them? You have no substance to justify your position above theirs, and they have none to justify theirs above

In which post did you mention this? The one that I just responded to?

If you are going to elude to me in another post then at least address me directly.

but I think that it is self explanatory why Christians are more deserving of their place in heaven as opposed to Muslims, Jews, atheists etc simply for the fact that they actually believe in Christ for starters.

And they think they are better than you because they believe in their prophets, can't you see your reasoning is the same but you just change the names and perspectives.

So what many including yourself have implied here in this debate about Christians getting to heaven whilst being an absolute pig, their faith is actually dead.

How do you get into heaven if your faith is dead?

You speak as though all atheists are kind, loving people living on a bunch of morals - that is absolute and utter bullshit.

Never did I claim anything about the morality of other atheists, nor the morality of all Christians. I never claimed all atheists are of superior moral standing, the only thing you can ever know about an atheist by them identifying themselves as an atheist is that they do not believe in a god.

Firstly, may I just state that many are not brought up "right" to "answer the God question".

First off that's not what I said, I said " but they were brought up to believe the "right" answer to the god question." By that right answer I mean that for example you, the right answer to the god question is to follow Jesus and believe in your god. If you are muslim the right answer is to believe in Allah and follow Muhammad.

.

Actually they are, faith has a huge amount to do with geography. If you are born in the middle east, chances are you will be muslim, if you are born in Israel, chances are you will be Jewish, and if you are born in the US then chances are you will be christian. Now obviously there is still variation among individuals but for the overwhelming majority where you are born i a major determinant in what you will grow up to believe.

No, I don’t have to do that. If I want those to share my faith, then shoving reasons down their throat on why to share my faith is never the right way to go about it.

Actually if you are going to assert that all other atheists and people of other religions are going to hell you are going to have to give damn good proof as to why your belief is more legitimate than theirs given the exact same claims.

On the other hand, is this an indirect way of you seeking to know more about my faith?

no.

What claim did I originally make that you are referring to here? Specify which so that I can know what exactly you are asking.

The claim that you will go to heaven for having faith in your god, or hell for lack of it while those of other religions will go to hell for believing in their god?

We are equal human beings and both adults therefore I think we can find the goodness in us to respect each other for our differences.

reasonable enough.

Saying that, you have asked a fair few questions about my faith asking me to specify why it is the one true faith so is this a quiz of some kind or are you genuinely interested?

Its not a quiz but i genuinely want to know why you think your faith is the true one while all others are false. They all make equal claims that they are true, they all have holy books "legitimizing" their faith and make promises of heaven and hell for those who believe or do not. Many people around the world have the exact same beliefs as you but for their God and they see you the way you see me or other non believers of your faith.

Billie, you have yet to address any of the points I brought up about what makes your religion any more entitled to heaven than Islam etc, or what determines belief and why you should reward that.

Furthermore, for atheists to be claiming their destination to be heaven, they are contradicting their own non-belief system and in process are letting the world know that they believe in heaven/hell

The creator of the debate does not literally believe in hell, they are saying that based on values found in the bible that god supposedly values like compassion and helping others that atheists would get into heaven. Its called reading between the lines and clearly you are not capable of it

Lastly, to Nautilus, stop complaining about how its "unfair" that your brother gets to go to heaven

I never said it was unfair, I asked you that if you are to claim your God is all loving and all powerful, why does he reward evil, if everything about a person says they are living their lives as a terrible person but they were brought up to believe the "right" answer to the god question. So according to you, let me get this straight, it is better to believe in god than to be a good person, just getting this straight. Hitler believed in God, so does that mean he goes to heaven?

it is very clear what you have to do in order to get to heaven and God asks very little of you and for you to not even do that much puts you in the wrong and makes you very undeserving of an eternity with Him.

The muslim religion also asks this of me, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism etc all ask this of me. You have yet to address that your religion is any more true than the other. They all claim that their god is true and requires belief for reward or to avoid punishment, what makes your claim any different than theirs. As far as I'm concerned I have seen no evidence to make any of these other religions more or less legitimate, i will not believe in your invisible friend anymore than I will believe in their invisible friends.

Screw her, she gets no say in who I chose to love .

It also says in the Qur'an that if you believe that Muhammad is Lord you are saved. If you dont then you are not saved. Muslims that believe in Allah will go to heaven if they belive but ppl who dont know Allah and never knew him will not go to Heaven they will go to Hell. Heaven was made for people who believed in Allah.

.

.

Note that I'm not actually muslim, but muslims around the world would make the exact same argument as you from their point of view, what makes your side any more valid than theirs?

I am an atheist and I consider myself to be a very good person, I am nice, I don't discriminate, I help those who are less fortunate and I often will give to charity or volunteer. Now my brother is a complete asshole who would laugh at a homeless person to the street, he is totally self centered and is just a complete douche bag, however he happens to be christian. So you are telling me that if the christian God exists, he would send me to roast for eternity in unending torture and suffering simply because I require evidence as a prerequisite for belief, while my brother is rewarded for his earthly life with eternal bliss and happiness. What kind of a God would do that? What kind of an all loving, perfect God would allow a mean spirited and selfish asshole to go to heaven simply for believing what his parents told him to believe, while I roast forever simply for giving the wrong answer to the God question.

.

.

.

And consider this, if my brother had been born the exact same person but in a muslim household, he would be muslim because he is not the type of person to question what he is brought up to believe, he would accept Muhammad as his Lord and savior and see Islam as the only route to heaven just like you see Christianity as the only way to heaven. Now God would send him to hell for being the exact same person but being brought up to believe the "wrong answer to the God question". God is now punishing people for where they are born, something they have no control over. Belief in God seems like something God wouldn't value, because things like genetics, upbringing and geography arguably have more influence belief it than a personal choice does.

Yeah pascal's wager is a terrible argument, it does not make an argument for a particular god, nor does it give good reasons for worshiping that god, just that as a gambler you should at least choose one religion on the gamble that that religion out of many turns out to be true.

Depends what you are talking about, I have not place to debate a particle physicist on the existence and behavior of sub atomic particles. I don't know where people get off thinking everyone's voice is equal and worthy in a discussion. Does a 4th grade class have an opinion on astrophysics? Possibly, but is it one worth anything, of course not.

Quoting means nothing if you don't cite who or what you are quoting.

A female president does not necessarily equal those things, for instance if Palin was elected you would probably have more war, less rights overall and definitely less charity for those downtrodden who need it.

Screw it, let them drive, makes driving more interesting. Just don't let them vote.

First off, not my GDP, I'm Canadian. Okay you said China has 500 million troops? Wtf are you smoking? China currently has about 4.6 million troops including active, reserve and paramilitary troops. While the US has about 2.5 million troops including the same categories. The population of Africa is a little over a billion, your fictitious number of troops in China isn't even half that. Just to let you know the US currently spends 4.7% of its GDP on military, while China spends about 2.5%, however these figures are irrelevant because this % would change during such a large scale theoretical war, and the number of troops would rise on both sides due to the war effort and possible inscription.

No, he rejected an idea in the name of God. Big difference

Einstein did not reject an idea, he rejected a proven and verifiable field because his beliefs contradicted that field. That is tantamount to me rejecting gravity because my beliefs contradict it. It doesn't matter if he said it in the name of God, he was still verifiably wrong.

you can be a factory worker or even a public toilets cleaner yet have an extremely high IQ yet unknown to fame. For you to not believe this then you must be rather stupid.

Yes you can be but generally smart people do work which utilizes their intelligence. I don't know why you are referring to particle physicists as if they are famous but trust me they are not. The main thing these scientists are known for is their intelligence because they research things that require an extremely high level of intelligence to remotely comprehend. If you pick up your average janitor and ask him to analyze data from the large hadron collider collisions chances are he would not be able to, because it requires years and sometimes decades of schooling, and years of experience to work at research facilities like CERN which is one of the most advanced in the world in terms of particle physics. You can say that a particle physicist is more intelligent than a garbage man because of the education and experience that job requires, you would be hard pressed to find a garbage man with a higher IQ than a particle physicist's.

Stop assuming that his belief in God had everything to do with "what he knew then as opposed to what we know now

Except it does, you have yet to address the rise in atheism, agnosticism and skepticism and the collective knowledge of mankind has increased.

Ok, so give me some information that would be likely to sway Newton's mind if he was here today so that you are not the only one "leaning towards yes".

1 - Evolution (i know you don't believe it but the overwhelming majority of scientists do, and for newton would not be a respected scientist nowadays if he rejected it)

2 - Biological functions - it is a lot easier to attribute god for creating life if you don't understand how life functions

3 - Abiogenisis - If you can get organic material to create life from inorganic material you do not need god to explain origins of life.

4 - Geology and knowledge of the history of the universe - The more you know the history of the universe the less you need god to explain it.

Please do not debate these fields individually, they are proven within the scientific community whether or not you accept them and if newton were a modern scientist he would most likely accept them. It is not so much that science persuades you that God doesn't exist, nothing can do that directly, but it takes away the neccesity of god for explanation. God becomes an unnecessary hypothesis because you realize the system operates fine without a God, if you do not understand the system as Newton did not then it becomes much easier to believe in God.

I did, I included Newton who is one of the smartest minds that ever existed here on earth and who is also well known for his devotion to God. If this isn't refuting "the smartest minds belong to atheists" then you musn't know what a refuting is.

You never refuted the statement that most of the smartest minds are atheist. All you did was point out one smart Christian, you have yet to address the fact the most of the most intelligent people are atheist, agnostic or non religious.

you were arguing that all intelligent people are atheist.

I never argued that, stop bickering about past semantics and focus on the point I am actually making.

This is irrelevant as it is not what you first stated and I am not discussing majorities and neither were you up till your retraction.

It's actually quite relevant as what I first stated was just they way I worded my argument that most smart people are atheist. It is you who cannot get past a the semantics. Notice I didn't bring up the fact that I said the greatest minds ARE atheists, not WERE atheists and demand you name great intelligent christians alive today, it's because I am actually debating arguments, not words.

For the record, you can rant on as much as you like about what Einstein rejected but you rejected something far greater and Einstein himself did not stoop that low.

Muslim's around the world would say the same thing about you for rejecting Allah. You commit the same heresy you condemn me for against all the other Gods thought up through out human history, you reject all of them, I just take it one step further.

You were discussing how Newton was a Christian and that the age he was in played a major part of it. Converted to Christianity

I see the sense in the first sentence but I don't see how the relates to conversion, maybe I'm just getting this.

As one of the most intelligent beings to ever exist, I think we can accept that this was something Einstein felt was right to do and instead of labelling him as ignorant, respect him for what he has done for the world of science.

Einstein rejected quantum mechanics because he said God did not throw dice, while quantum mechanics is proven and tested and works perfectly according to quantum mechanical theories. Although he is very credible he still rejected reality in the name of belief.

A second retraction of a statement you have made. So far, your debate is standing on one stilt that is crumpling yet further to the ground

Stop cherry picking sentences out of my arguments, I went on to say that in terms of complexity it sill takes more intelligence to comprehend and create the theories and equations used in things like quantum mechanics than it does to comprehend F=ma, that heavier things accelerate less with the same force, not hard to understand. However it does take an unbelievable amount of intelligence to be a nobel prize winning particle physicist working with the large hadron collider at CERN and know what you are doing. And the overwhelming majority of those people are atheist, hence how I can infer that most of the smartest people in the world are atheist.

As for your argument regarding time, I really don't see where you are going with that nor do I see it as relevant to your original statement since we have determined that modern times refer to the present age therefore every single year in history has been modern at that time and in 100 years from now, today will be irrelevant and out of date whereas the day in 100 years from now will be regarded as the modern time. In Newton's time, that was modern.

Semantics again, I said modern in reference to the knowledge we have now, and that the fact that Newton had no access to or understanding of what we know now is very relevant in asserting that he was Christian. If Newton knew what we knew, would he be an atheist? No way to know for sure but I am leaning towards yes because as collective understanding of the universe and collective knowledge goes up so does the percentage of scientists who are atheist. That is how it was originally relevant.

Since I have succeeded in proving your first statement wrong and further proving a second point you make to be wrong, then where is this debate really going? I got what I came for - the truth that the smartest minds in the world are not just atheist but Christian also

My first statement was amended to say that most of the smartest minds in the world are atheist, that is the point i was getting at. you latched onto specific words and waged a war of semantics when I am arguing that most of the most intelligent people are atheist. You have in no way refuted that unless you plan to convert all the people working at CERN, all the nobel prize science winners, and all the scientists at the American Academy of sciences. There are smart Christian minds, but my point is and always has been that the majority of the smartest are atheist because a better understanding of the world causes you to prize fact above fiction. When the smartest people work in field where things must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt before accepted, that tends to be reflected in their ideology and beliefs as well.

Your conclusion of how Newton was converted is one that I am sure many atheists could come up with

Newton converted? what are you talking about.

Furthermore, as for the putting down of Einstein and Newton, you did put down their acheivments labelling it as "childs play"

I already discussed this, I sayed Newton's laws of motion is child's play compared to the equations of quantum physics, which is absolutely true in terms of complexity, I am not saying that Newton's laws are false on a macroscopic scale because that would not be true. This was not an insult to Newton, I am saying there are clearly much more complicated things out there which were a lot harder to discover.

and labelling Einstein as ignorant which is something you have no right doing as a young inexperienced 17 year old (not that I am experienced either, as I am only one year ahead of this but still I do not put down intelligent men or their acheivments which have advanced our society incredibly)

My age has nothing to do with it when it comes to the statements Einstein made, my age has no bearing on that, please do not try and use that as an argument and stick to refuting the point I made as to why i claimed Einstein was willfully ignorant in the case of quantum physics. He rejected an entire scientific field because he believed God did not throw dice, that is not good science to allow belief to take precedence over facts. Now obviously I am not against Einstein overall, I just think that he made an error allowing faith to enter into a scientific opinion. I still think he is a brilliant man, I know a lot about his theories of general relativity and special relativity, I find his concepts of light, time, and the fabric of space time to be a beautiful representation of nature. I am saying he was rather unscientific about his approach to something that contradicted belief in a certain field.

I accept that there have been adavancments since their time and appreciate this but what you refuse to do is appreciate and respect how we got to where we are

I see what you are talking about how and maybe I haven't given them enough credit because to get to the stage of knowledge we are at now we have to have a foundation to build on, no matter how simplistic there must be some foundation. My personal position is that I value the end products of scientific advancements more than i value the basics that they built upon because when looking at each discovery, theory etc at face value the later is would take more intelligence and knowledge to understand, but trust me, I do see your side of the position.

Time does not have everything to do with knowledge, it relates to certain aspects of it but in no way does it have everything to do with it. The same as time has to do with belief but does not relate to all aspects.

Knowledge and belief are not the same though because beliefs do not change, If Jesus was believed to be the lord and saviour 1500 years ago you will still believe that now. However knowledge grows, that is indisputable. All the research that has been done over the years has been done to further increase the knowledge of mankind and better understand the universe in all its facets. Think of time like a person, when they are born they know very little, just what is natural to them , but to understand the world better they have to learn, they gain knowledge an store it, they can learn more through their own research of studying the findings of others. But knowledge is something that grows as scientists conduct research and studies and experiments to formulate theories and prove or falsify them in the pursuit of understanding. As our civilizations have progressed we have learned more and more about the world, simple concept, the more we learn the more our true understanding of the universe increases.

Congratulations on failing on both accounts, I am not American, nor am I jealous of the British empire, just like I would not be jealous of the Nazi regime. I don't know why criticism equates to jealousy for you but it does not, because then it would mean I am jealous of hitler, stalin, bush, the pope and kent hovind, trust me I am not jealous of any of these people.

I'm not saying Newton wasn't smart and didn't do great things, I am saying that much greater things have been done since then, however you seem to need to go back 300 years to find greatness from a christian mind. Newton did make amazing discoveries but there have been infinitely more complicated and incredible discoveries since then in all fields of science especially physics, Newton's home turf. Newton has even been disproved on the microscopic scale as Newtonian physics breaks down at the molecular level. I know some of his inventions were great but if I am looking for the smartest minds ever, I am going to look at the people who can make and operate the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and not Newton from 300 years ago whose achievements have been eclipsed by those of modern science.

nstead of trying to look for reasons why Newton didn't share your disbelief in God, why not look at how he himself explains his belief in God?

I am simply saying there is a positive correlation between the collective knowledge of mankind and the percentage of population (or scientists) who are atheist. Why would Newton not be subjected to that correlation?

Furthermore, if you are still wishing to put down the amazing acheivments of the likes of Newton, Einstein etc, then I think we'd all like to see you complete even a quarter of what they acheived.

I am not putting down their acheievements, simply saying that there are greater ones out there, that in no way denigrates the work these men did. There has been so much achieved in all fields of science by the non religious, so why do you ignore their secular achievements?

In his time, there was modern knowledge, in Jesus' time, there was modern knowledge. The term 'modern' is applicable to any age that is at present therefore whilst now we view the present age to be modern, then if we are still here in 100 years, the day in 100 years will be modern and this day now will be out of date and irrelevant. So, no, the reason you give for his devotion to God relates in no way to time but rather to the fact that he saw truth and accepted.

Stop arguing semantics, you know that by modern knowledge I mean the knowledge that we now know. Actually it does have everything to do with time, are you seriously saying that the people 300 years ago knew as much as we know know? Because if you seriously think so think I suggest you examine anything you come in contact with everyday and see how it is possible due to scientific advancement. It's a lot easier to accept a myth when you have no knowledge, facts or theories that would contradict it. There is a reason people hundreds and thousands of years ago thought there were gods who caused rain and thunder and plants to grow, maybe they thought there was one for all of it, but that doesn't change the fact that they were idiots because that isn't how nature works. They knew nothing about the natural world but we do now, and you are completely wrong to say that knowledge has nothing to do with belief, because do you know why these beliefs in a rain god, earthquake god, etc are no longer viable, because they stand in contradiction of proven things like evaporation and plate tectonics. Time has everything to do with belief, because time has everything to do with knowledge.

They did control arguably one of the most brutal empires in human existence with some of the most blood of their colonized and oppressed on their hands. They may not be known for massacres against their own people the empire they controlled is known for that against those they colonized.

However, I did notice that you speak of Newton's work as "childs play" so for that I think you should pull your head out of your ass.

Please provide works of Newton to back that up. Sure he has great pioneering work but the great advancements came after his death.you could make the argument that it is harder to do the pioneering but if you look at Schroedinger equations, and look at Newton's laws of motion there is absolutely no comparison. And Newton invented Calculus (Same time as Liebniz) to obtain things like instantaneous acceleration but the advancements in mathematics since then still trump his work. I never said Newton's work alone was child play, I said compared to Schroedinger's equations it was child play, look them up right now... then look at the magnificent equation of Newton's second law of motion, F=ma. yeah, Newton got outdone by an atheist in terms of complexity. If anything you need to pull your head out your ass and do the research, let alone read the sentence before making such statements to me.

You actually are trying to explain why Isaac Newton was so devoted to God? Some nerve you have there - as an atheist,

I am hypothesizing that Newton was likely religious because he lived in a time without much scientific collective knowledge. The reason we have so many atheists now is because there is that collective knowledge which has been built upon as a foundation for civilization. Even you have to admit that having no access to any modern knowledge or discovery gives Newton a higher chance that he would have been Christian.

You have yet to retract or fail to respond so I am assuming you are stubborn and wish to discuss matters outside of your statement such as Newton's faith and/or statistics through the ages. Not a wise move as those with middle to high IQ's (in fact, anyone with an IQ) can suss your motives and determine your line of thought at the snap of one's finger. Lets state for the record:

Your statement: "the smartest minds are atheist"

My statement: "false, Issac Newton - one of the smartest that ever lived - Christian"

Do you believe that Newton does not qualify for the list of smartest minds that ever lived? Give a simple yes or no answer similar to your original simple - and ignorant - statement" - reposted as requested. This is my post from above.

I already addressed this is my previous reply.

Can you repost this in your next response, or edit it in, so we don't have two debates going at the same time

Yes I will say that i should amend my statement to say that not every single of the smartest minds is atheist as my previous statement may have implied. But the point I am getting at is the overwhelming majority of the smartest people alive are atheist, those who work at research facilities like CERN, those who win Nobel prizes in the fields of physics, chemistry, etc, and 99% of the scientists at the American Academy of Sciences are atheist. I am going to say that if Issac Newton lived in our time and possessed the knowledge of our day that he would be an atheist, the thing is that he lived in a very religious time with little to no scientific advancement (thanks dark ages). But considering what Issac Newton did, gravity and F=MA, that is absolutely child's play considering things like Schroedinger's equations in modern day quantum physics. Most of the smartest minds around are here now and are smart because they can build on the collective knowledge of mankind, hence why MOST of the smartest minds now are atheist, that is the point I have been getting at with all my current and previous statement