CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Well I find it comforting knowing that I am following a path set before me by The Lord it gives me a sense of prepose. I find it comforting to know my good deeds will be rewarded in heaven (that's not why I do good things but its cool that I'll get something back for it) it also takes away my fear of death. I would find life quite dull and empty without my religion.
And I have my sense of purpose. To live my life for me and those I impact. To better humanity in any way I can. To help uncover the secrets of life through science. It's a quest for knowledge. It is as far from dull as you get. Learning and discovering is always interesting and new. God gets old and remains stagnant as does all religion. No changes. No new discoveries. Blah
And your evidence for this lies in nothing but faith. Prove god exists, THEN you can talk about what he did or didn't do. Also if he loves us, why didn't he make a cure for diseases EASIER to discover and prevent millions of deaths? Or better yet, why make disease at all?
And also, why has he made so many things for us to discover that directly contradict his existence and lead us closer to the conclusion that he doesn't exist? And a similar question, why has he not made anything we could discover that would prove him?
Classic question I ask myself that often and have looked into it. I knew that everything was perfect intil Adam and Eve ate of the fruit. The reason the fruit was there was that man had choice. I dont know where evil came from, I think anything not of God is evil but I dont understand completely.
Point 1) Biblical creation is absolutely 100% FALSE. We know that the Adam and Eve story never happened for a fact based on scientific and historical proof as well as logic.
Point 2) Hypothetically if God does exist then he is omniscient (all knowing) and that he KNEW and PLANNED everything that will ever happen for the rest of eternity before he even made the earth. Therfore he KNEW that they would make the choice they did and he did nothing to stop it. This resulted in the whole sin thing which god again could have prevented but he didnt. Thus, God created evil or at the very least, planned for evil to be created based on what he created before hand.
Point 3) If God created everything, Literally. EVERYTHING, then there cant be anything not of God (at least not within our universe), and therfore God created evil because it exists.
That's your opinion I like the consistency of religion. And in my opinion the betterment of humanity is lies in salvation in The Lord rather than science.
Consistency?!? The bible has been altered HUNDREDS of times since the first drafts have been written! It contradicts itself over and over and has so many stupid questions that have no answers that shows how poorly the authors thought this gods design through! (Ie: WHY make the tree of knowledge to begin with? Why make satan? Why make hell? Why doesn't he control satan better? Ect)
And that's just how Christianity is inconsistent with itself! Religion in general is totally wack. We went from worshiping a cave bear, to pagan sacrificial gods or nature, to polytheistic groups of hundreds or more gods, to polytheistic human formed gods of a few, to monotheistic giant story books. And every cultures religion is totally different from the rest. And it has all gotten us nowhere.
Science cures diseases, saves lives every day through treatment and surgery, science develops new inventions to make life easier, science explains deeply how the world around us works. Science discovers truths and uses those truths to better humanity. That is its ultimate goal.
Religion keeps people in a Bronze Age mindset. It held back science for hundreds of years in the dark ages, no discoveries or advancements have been made through religion alone, religion has made human life worse by causing wars and spreading intolerance and death. Religion enslaves the mind and cripples free thought. It will get you nowhere.
As Jewish as Jesus was I am still a Christian. Do you know why? Because as the Bible says to be Christian is to literally be like Jesus.
He succeeded, and brought him to Antioch; and for a whole year they attended the meetings of the Church, and taught a large number of people. And it was in Antioch that the disciples first received the name of 'Christians.'
Weymouth new testament Bible
Christians in this verse is put in the quotations because for the greek equivalent there is no word. The greek equivalent means followers of Christ/Christ like. In the olden days anyone who was called this did not forfeit their Judaism, instead along with their Judaism they were identified to be little Christs or people who acted like Jesus
Oh bullocks. The Bible says to follow Jesus, not to be a Christian. You will not find one single verse that says to be a Christian. Christian is a man made label in Acts 11:26.
I will always respect religions as I believe everyone has the freedom of choice and I'm not going to turn around and say" evidence says this and that about god not existing" etc but instead I'm going to pose this in a different light. First let me state that I am an athiest for one reason and that is that I don't like the idea that someone is pulling the strings of my life and I want to believe that every decision and choice I make i do with my will rather than someone writing a book of my life for me if you get what I mean. The way that I see things is that people believe in religions because they want clarification that someone is watching over them and protecting them from the dangers that life may face. I live by a quote that my granddad once said to me " I make my own way in life that way I don't owe anybody anything other than the smile on my face" and that is why I am an athiest if you call that depressing then I must say that I am depressing :)
No plans to change it? I was of the impression that your religious beliefs (or lack) are more of a deeper realization, than that of a simple choice.
Let's say I want to be a christian, I can wear the title of christian and read the bible and such, but deep down I'd still be an atheist. I can't just choose, and like flipping a light switch, truly believe something else.
I think atheism is more like this, to use your analogy.
Some atheist go into a dark room, see no cat that may or may not be there, and say their probably isn't one there. Those would be weak atheists.
While some atheists go into a dark room, see no cat that may or may not be there, and say it there isn't a cat there. Strong atheists.
Just because I like the analogy here's another one.
Apatheists go into a dark room, there is probably no cat there or maybe there is, but apatheists don't care because that cat can't affect them, but if it does affect them they will know know and believe there is a cat there.
"Imagine a family of mice living inside a grand piano. Since they live in this location they are frequently subjected to music. They do not know where the music comes from, but they enjoy it and ponder it. They come to believe that the music is made by some unseen player of music, someone greater than themselves who can create the music in some manner that they do not understand. They believe in this player and are thankful for the music he provides.
Then one day one of the mice feels braver than usual and climbs up through the works of the piano until he comes to some wires. He discovers that these strings are vibrating and making the music. He gets excited about his discovery and with the fact that he knows something new. He runs back down and explains to them that the music is not made by some unseen player, but instead is made by the wires as they vibrate. The mice begin to abandon their belief in a player and instead take a more mechanistic view of the origin of the music. They are happy with their wisdom at having explained this mystery.
Then one day another mouse gets even braver and climbs up even higher into the workings of the piano. He goes beyond the vibrating wires, and discovers that there are hammers hitting the strings causing them to vibrate. Like the other mouse he gets excited about his discovery and his own wisdom. He too runs back down to tell the other mice about the hammers, which are responsible for the music of the vibrating strings. The mice all abandon their belief in a player as something that they no longer need to believe to understand their world. Instead they look at the music as a purely mechanistic phenomenon, which in their wisdom and knowledge they can now understand and explain.
A smart mouse would see that they are progressively uncovering more and more information and deduce it would be wise to hold off on assumptions of what is actually causing the music.
If a few mice have a "cat on piano" cult, or a "pianist" cult, along with a "music box" cult, all could be correct, but if they do not KNOW then taking a guess is as bad as lying. Best to note what you observe rather than make an unknown assumption.
"You clearly do not comprehend "testable hypothesis" or "falsifiability""
Pardon me, but I believe you've mistaken me for one of your foul, american rednecks who cannot comprehend basic scientific logic.
I am fully aware that a deity cannot be proven by empirical evidence, but likewise how would creatures in a 2 Dimensional plane be able to prove the existence of a 3rd dimension.
"You do not comprehend "delusion" or "brainwashing" either."
I've seen plenty of it, while over in your United States the majority of your population may be Christian, over here in Great Britain a high percentage of our population is atheist. I've met and seen many atheists who cannot acknowledge that Christians can be intelligent, let alone make any scientific discoveries.
I find that an ignorant character is not the cause of one's religious beliefs but rather what one is conditioned to believe.
"Stop being ignorant."
Now you're claiming I'm ignorant solely because of my religious beliefs, is that not a dangerous assumption to make?
I think you will find that you are the ignorant one here, all I did was question that some people may have had spiritual experiences with science does not account for, and you then claim that I cannot "comprehend "testable hypothesis" or "falsifiability"." or "comprehend "delusion" or "brainwashing" either."
You are ignorant of the state of the universe, ignorant of logic that leads to working solutions, ignorant of other people's ideas, ignorant that your debate has been defeated.
You cannot continue arguing this bullshit with the reasons you are using. You have been beaten completely.
Also, insulting idiots in the United States does nothing for you, I'm afraid. I've seen quite enough that the more religious a person is, in ANY country, the more ignorant, cruel and stupid that person is. Don't tell me that averages and what I see don't always apply. I know that.
However, when it comes down to it, on this sort of website, you are either the sort of person who makes an assumption without evidence, or you are not, unless you are agnostic, in which case there is really no reason to argue.
like how you say that these individuals who have spiritual experiences have untestable hypothesis. Then you say:
I've seen quite enough that the more religious a person is, in ANY country, the more ignorant, cruel and stupid that person is.
You alone have seen? How do I test this hypothesis you have presented? You've studied enough religious people to make that much of a generalization? where are your sources?
Apparently even atheists can present untestable hypthesis.
You use this website as your proof, only a fool uses fools to prove something.
A close look at this web-site and one will first notice that is a congregation of mostly atheists preaching to others about their beliefs, using a sermon of hell, fire and brimstone.
Secondly a glance at most of the atheists here and one cannot figure out why they hate God and yet claim to be one themselves. Ever seen an atheist that didn't claim to know everything? I never have and I provide this web-site as proof. Just look at what you post.
I look at who's most oppress to gay people and I find RELIGIOUS people. Not less religious people.
The more closely you follow religious books like the Bible, the more anti gay you are
Yeah and when you read the bible more you realize its strong stance against adultery, fornication, bestiality, rape, incest murder, malicious talk, envy, strife, self destruction, suicide, abortion etc. If everyone was on this page there would be a great reduction of the people in jail.
The farther you move, the more you get "Gayness is a sin, but marriage should still be allowed"
And finally you get to admittances that gayness is NOT a sin, because it does not real harm.
It does do real harm it is just that the harm it does is not of any particular interest to the current society. Fornication and adultery also does real harm but speaking to people who fornicate or commit adultery is like telling a smoker stop smoking and pointing out the repercussions of his actions. He will shrug you off and keep smoking. Same thing for those fornicators- they and the society have become exceedingly depraved and talking to them is like bouncing rocks off a brick wall.
The atheist position has no mention of sin for being gay. It is not an issue.
Same with hell.
If the website is proof every atheist has a position on hell (hell doesn't exist) and is not neutral. You also have a stance on gay marriage. If you really want to be neutral then leave this site/or avoid every topic on religion (like this one) and gay oppression. If you were neutral on the topic of hell, then you would have never been on this site engaging in religious arguments because you wouldn't care.
More religious Christians believe more strongly in hell,
less religious christians believe in a less painful "separation from god" hell,
even less religious christians seem to believe most people don't go to hell to suffer for eternity
Them believing in hell or not is not dependent on their religious potency- it is just what there religion teaches. I can use Jehovah's Witness as an example who do no believe people burn- which would be on the lowest category of religious Christian for you. JWs are very militant in what they do and more than the religious Christian who believes in eternal damnation because they go from door to door preaching there gospel.
and atheists don't believe in a hell at all.
Yeah this is you stating your position, which means it is a stance and not a non-issue.
That is my argument, that if you've used this website for awhile, you would be able to see as well.
All I see is you judging the masses with your disposition/yard stick.
I look at who's most oppress to gay people and I find RELIGIOUS people. Not less religious people.
The more closely you follow religious books like the Bible, the more anti gay you are
Yeah and when you read the bible more you realize its strong stance against adultery, fornication, bestiality, rape, incest murder, malicious talk, envy, strife, self destruction, suicide, abortion etc. If everyone was on this page there would be a great reduction of the people in jail.
The farther you move, the more you get "Gayness is a sin, but marriage should still be allowed"
And finally you get to admittances that gayness is NOT a sin, because it does not real harm.
It does do real harm it is just that the harm it does is not of any particular interest to the current society. Fornication and adultery also does real harm but speaking to people who fornicate or commit adultery is like telling a smoker stop smoking and pointing out the repercussions of his actions. He will shrug you off and keep smoking. Same thing for those fornicators- they and the society have become exceedingly depraved and talking to them is lie bouncing rocks off a brick wall.
The atheist position has no mention of sin for being gay. It is not an issue.
Same with hell.
If the website is proof every atheist has a position on hell (hell doesn't exist) and is not neutral. If you were neutral on the topic of hell, then you would have never been on this site engaging in religious arguments because you wouldn't care.
More religious Christians believe more strongly in hell,
less religious christians believe in a less painful "separation from god" hell,
even less religious christians seem to believe most people don't go to hell to suffer for eternity
Them believing in hell or not is not dependent on their religious potency- it is just what there religion teaches. I can use Jehovah's Witness as an example who do no believe people burn- which would be on the lowest category of religious Christian for you. JWs are very militant in what they do and more than the religious Christian who believes in eternal damnation because they go from door to door preaching there gospel.
and atheists don't believe in a hell at all.
Yeah this is you stating your position, which means it is a stance and not a non-issue.
That is my argument, that if you've used this website for awhile, you would be able to see as well.
All I see is you judging the masses with your disposition/yard stick.
If you've read my similar mouse analogy, you would see how foolish and ignorant it is to assume a piano player, when there are many ways of making a piano make music.
However, the universe is not a piano, it functions instead to the laws of physics, which do not lead or unlead one to a god.
Yes you are right because a piano is percussion. It will always need someone operating on it to work (not saying the universe isn't being operated on). However I can liken the universe to big ben whose after being built it 'never' stops turning and doesn't require human intervention. Or better yet a computer program, which once designed once it will follow its instructions without further prompting. The universe is the same, once designed once it never required further prompting.
For this sort of thing, you would need proof there is intervention before claiming intervention exists.
Yes I have proof. If you want proof look around you. Also, nothing man has ever built for a purpose just sprung up. We ourselves are a testimony to intelligent design. In fact to know that man designed something, all we have to do is to look for some order that isn't natural like the pyramids. The same with the universe- whether big bang or creation story an invisible hand had to be present to make the explosion of the big bang controlled, The universe works perfectly and the wonders of the basic structure of DNA is also a testimony of intelligent design.
Or a "cat" on the piano, or another method by which sound is generated.
But none the less, the universe is NOT a piano, it is a hostile place where stars a billion years old exist, where life exists, and where survival is difficult and life is hard.
I do not know why you are using this insane logic COMPLETELY devoid of evidence or a REASON to actually think there is a god, but the idea of gods are completely ludicrous. I am not sure how you cannot see that. It is not that a god CANNOT exist, it is humanity thinking a god of some sort exists, despite no proof. If there is no proof, you might as well be worshiping ANYTHING that doesn't exist and have the exact same logic behind it.
THE EXACT SAME LOGIC. Please, try it. Use your same logic to deduce that the cucumberina locatotor monster exists.
I mean, SOMETHING must have started the universe. Why not the cucumberina locatotor monster???
Seriously, you have no proof, so stop debating. Believe what you want, but when you debate on this sort of website, you cannot just say "I am right no matter what and I will continue believing it despite my arguments having been destroyed and the utter lack of evidence that I am right". You sound like a fool.
And that's exactly what you are. Clever words don't make you right.
Oh yeah because Zeus is so ridiculous right? And Horus too oh my god those egyptians were such idiots right? Beliveing that their god was born to a virgin by a greater god, who then performed miracles and had 12 desciples, who then was sacrificed, died for three days and rose on the 3rd day to fly up to their stupid fake heaven? What idiots right?
The thing is, that is the exact paraphrased story of the Egyptian God Horus. I did not make that up google it.
We cannot prove that Zeus doesn't exist. But we also can't prove that Mithra doesn't, or Athena, or Baal, or Wotan, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But why, then, doesn't anyone worship these deitys? They have the same amount of evidence as your god.
I mock your religion because its just as useless and unsupported as every other mythological god or creature ever dreamed up by humanity.
The trouble with Zeus, Athena, etc. is that there is no proof they existed, Jesus did. Historians will tell that Jesus did exist. There are several accounts that can verify this, from the persuction of Christians which started in the first century, to historical records from several of sources.
The trouble with Zeus, Athena, etc. is that there is no proof they existed
I agree. As is there no proof that God exists. In fact, not even good suggestive evidence.
Jesus did. Historians will tell that Jesus did exist.
Ooooh how about no. That is a highly controversial topic and so far most historians will agree that there is no solid evidence that he existed for sure. There are a few historians that are willing to say he existed but not all by a long shot.
And might i add that even the ones who DO say he existed will acknowledge that this does NOT mean that everything written about him in the bible is factual and that, in fact, most of it is not. They will go as far to say that there was once a MAN named Jesus who lived around the time and that is all. There is no evidence to support his claims of Godhood nor any of his miraculous actions.
This is also not proof of god being true.
And i love how your source is wikipedia. Im not saying its trash, but it isnt really solid support. A better thing to use would be an actual historians writings of some sort.
Whats that? There isnt any? Hmm...
And before you bring up the Shroud of Tourin (as all christians eventually do), i wanna point out that it is a fake. The print of the face on both folds of the shroud connect at the tip of the head. If this were a real shroud then there would be a space of separation between the tips of the craniums of both fold images where the shroud would round the head. This is just what we can observe from photos. Why nothing else? Well the church wont let ANY scientific group even touch the shroud or study it because it is so holy. Um...Cough bullshit cough. But thats just me.
In the end. Did Jesus exist? Maybe. But if he did there is no evidence that he was anything but a man.
Now i wanna breifly go into what you said at the beginning again. You see, youre as much an atheist as i am when questioning 99% of all Gods and deities throughout history. I agree that yes, there isnt any proof for Wotan and Athena and Zeus ect.
You disbelieve in them and so do i so were both atheists. I just go one god farther. And also, the reason you dont believe in greek mythology or Norse gods is the same reason i dont believe in YOUR god and religion (well one of many reasons). No evidence.
One may say that the lack of evidence to support other theories is proof that God does exist. All scientific knowledge must be able to be have falsifiability.
Ooooh how about no.
"Please list evidence that Jesus did not exist, wishful thinking does not count.
Virtually all contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[9][10] While the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity,[11][12] most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.[4][13][10] Scholars have offered various portraits of the historical Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.[14][15] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.[16]"
You see, youre as much an atheist as i am when questioning 99% of all Gods and deities throughout history.
On this point you couldn't be any more wrong. I believe God to exist, Zeus may turn out to be this god. The Jewish God, the Islamic God, the Christian God, the Catholic God, etc., maybe all the same God portrayed by man to different. Just because a culture depicts God as something different, doesn't mean that they are not referring to the same one. Example: Santa Claus, Kris Kringle, St. Nich, etc.
Country Name
Armenia Gaghant Baba
Belgium Pere Noel
Brazil Papai Noel
Bulgaria Diado Coleda
Chile Viejo Pascuero (“Old Man Christmas”)
China Shengdan Laoren
Netherlands Kerstman
Finland Joulupukki
France Pere Noel
Germany Kris Kringle or Weihnachtsmann
Greece Hagios Nikolaos
Hawaii Kanakaloka
Hong Kong Sing dan lo ian
Hungary Karácsony Apó
Italy Babbo Natale
Japan Hoteiosho (a god or priest who bears gifts) or Santa no ojisan (Uncle Santa)
Latvia Ziemmassve'tku veci'tis
Lithuania Kaledu Senis
Mexico Nino Jesus
Morocco Black Peter
Norway Julenissen (“Christmas gnome”)
Netherlands Kerstman.
Peru Papa Noel
Poland Gwiazdor (Star Man)
Russia Ded Moroz (“Grandfather Frost”)
Slovenia Bozicek
Sweden Jultomten (“Christmas brownie”)
United Kingdom Father Christmas
Wales Sion Corn (Chimney John)
Next you'll be trying to tell me Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Youve only supported my point. People can say that there is a historical Jesus but he has not been proven to be any kind of divine being or prophet as youve brought up below:
While the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity
Scholars have offered various portraits of the historical Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation
Notice the word offered in the first sentance. These are hypotheses and nothing more. All equally possible or impossible, all with no proof of being true. Also notice how "divine son of god" is not part of this list.
Thus once again supporting my stating that he was not the son of god nor has very much evidence of any kind for anything he did let alone miracles.
Christianity is the following of Christ, all I have to do is prove that Jesus lived and by definition of the word god, he can be one.
That in of itself makes sense. But i bring up that this isnt PROOF of jesus. Only that most scholars agree that a man LIKE Jesus or whom Jesus was based off of existed. You and i both know that the Jesus described in the article here is NOT the Jesus of christianity. The jesus here was a man and nothing more. The Jesus of christianity is A GOD and everything he said in the bible is god breathed and true as are all his actions. All of these are untrue and inconsistent with the Jesus described here. So yes, you are justified in being a christian and following his word, but you have to change it to following this jesus who was just a man. And you and i both know you dont pray to a man who may have been a Jewish teacher. You pray to a god. And jesus was not that.
Also, you and i both know that a whole lot more than just following jesus comes with christianity. Theres also god and the whole bible. Might i add that the article you just provided is not even close to any evidence that GOD is real.
On this point you couldn't be any more wrong. I believe God to exist, Zeus may turn out to be this god. The Jewish God, the Islamic God, the Christian God, the Catholic God, etc., maybe all the same God portrayed by man to different.
Okay now youre just trying to make it so you cant be wrong. It also contradicts when you said that there is no proof for Athena or Zeus. Now you A) just said here that there is no proof for your own god (if they are one and the same and just different names) and B) you differentiated between Athena and Zeus. Why would you do that if they are the same?
Also, they cannot be the same.
And might i add that God clearly in the bible says not to worship other gods. If they were just mans mistaking them for him with different names then God wouldnt have a problem with it. But god himself in saying not to worship other dieties makes the distinction himself that other gods are NOT him and their work is not his. Youre trying to generalize your god to be all gods that ever were just does not work.
Just because a culture diplicts God as something different, doesn't mean that they are not refering to the same one. Example: Santa Claus, Kris Kringle, St. Nich, etc.
Yes but these differences are literally just in the names. They are all at the roots about the same person at the core. However, with the different gods and deities they are all so different with so many different intricate stories and happenings and holy books and rituals that they are not even close to being one in the same.
For this to be true, God wouldve had to have been acting like a totally different person or person's for every culture on earth for different time periods. If every god that ever was is all a misrepresentation of your God of the bible then they would at least all have simiar qualities. But many of them are totally wack different in every way so much so that they couldnt possibly be about the same gods.
How? I never said that I believed the gospels or that Jesus was divine. If you believe these to be true, then that's a different story.
The Jesus of Christianity is A GOD and everything he said in the bible is god breathed and true as are all his actions.
I pointed out that he is a god. Secondly, Jesus never wrote the Bible. Other men wrote the Bible. This being said, have you ever seen man doing anything without errors? The Bible was never meant to be taken word for word, but to serve as a guideline. It contains metaphors, hypothetical examples, and the truth the best man can do.
Yes but these differences are literally just in the names. They are all at the roots about the same person at the core. However, with the different gods and deities they are all so different with so many different intricate stories and happenings and holy books and rituals that they are not even close to being one in the same.
Do all the gods mentioned have supernatural powers? Funny how they seem to be basically the same.
The existence of Jesus is believed by almost every antiquity scholar. All the others have ulterior motives for there disbelief. There are other accounts which speak of Jesus besides the Bible. That's more than I can say for Zeuss. Thallus who was used as a source. Pliny the younger is another and Suetonious. there are also four gospels which are written by four different people and to discredit all those accounts would look like you going to gret lengths just for someones non-existence
I know the answers to all the past excuses atheistists used to not beleive the bible on this page. If I say them they will just have more excuses because they dont want to believe in Christianity. For example the thought that jesus didnt give enough proof because all he did was heal sick and what not. He doesnt need to prove anything to anyone! I am just sayin, we should quit argueing over whos right and whos wrong. After all, its a survey.
I change my mind.... this has been my most successful debate ever. Let us argue for the sake of arguing because we know a true atheist minds his nearly impossible to change and the same with Christians
For the sake of arguing, we have argued. We have not changed any atheist's minds and have not been changed in are truth. Why do we argue? Because we want to know the atheist's reason. Do not intend on changing their minds but help them if they are willing. From arguing, we learn the others reasoning and no true atheist nor Christian will change their mind over some weak online statement. Though we do try very hard...
That's not the argument. If we evolved from apes, apes would not exist. The argument is we and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Come on, you have to see that the similarities in the DNA is too close for coincidence.
I have one for Christians though. If we did not evolved, why do we have so many vestigial structures in our body?
If we are made in God's image, why did God, a perfect being, have organs that are basically useless?
If you think evolution is fake check this video out. Obviously we can't make evolution happen in a second, but apparently we can make it happen in a few generations. I owe this video to JoeCavalry.
Here is a good argument, some bactira ganerations only last 20 minutes others a few days. A human generation is 20 years. 6 years too a human is 2 million years to some bacteria, sound familuer? We have seen bacteria make slight changes throughout history, but we have not seen it change into things far different from other bacteria like apes turning into humans. Bacteria has not changed in such a great way for to itself billions of years.
Do you really expect to disprove evolution in one paragraph? That will be an accomplishment.
The less complicated the subject is, the less likely it is to evolve. Animals can evolve much much faster because of sexual reproduction. There is no way to know how many more generations would be needed, maybe a million times more generations, so we could never witness it ourselves.
The logical conclution is there has to be a devine monotheistic God.
Basically anything that is actual logic. He doesn't actually give any reasons for specifically monotheistic. If you have one I'd be interested too, I don't really care where the argument comes from. I wasn't even interested in arguing against it.
Sure. I have to admit that I was brought up monotheist, but when I was 12, I starting studying comparative religion for school and for kicks. I almost became a Muslim when I was 12 and 13, a Catholic when I was 14, and I became a Christian when I was 15 I think, so many years I have studied these things, and monotheism makes the most sense to me. I also believe that there would be chaos if there were many gods. I believe that creation points to one God, not many.
The only problem I see is that it appears that you have a bias towards monotheism because those are all monotheistic. I can totally see how you get chaos from a whole bunch of super beings existing together, though.
Did you change your religion for the same reason each time?
“Shut the door, keep out the devil,” is the opening line for the Katinas 2007 Christian music hit “Shut De Do,” and it is great way to start a discussion on how to ward off the devil. The premise to the song is that the devil should not even be allowed to enter a life at all, as “he is an evil charmer.” Jesus also gave us the example of what to do to hold off Satan, as he was personally tempted just like we are. When Satan came against him in the desert, Jesus spoke the word of God back to him. The same is true for us today. If the enemy comes against us, we need to combat him with Scriptures, with an obedient and submissive life, keeping our minds focused on the Lord, and associating mostly with others who are likeminded in Christ. Here are my top seven Bible verses to ward off the devil.
Consciousness is the product of the brain which is physical, take away the brain, take away consciousness. Thus all forms of conscious pain has to be physical. If something isn't physical whatsoever in any sense, literally does not touch reality, is impossible to detect then how can we even suspect it?
The thing causing the pain might be physical but the personal, subjective experience of the pain is 100% transcendent of the body as is your consciousness.
Well technically you could be right as concsciouness is produced by the brain and essentially is the brain, therefore concsciouness could possibly transcend the body with advance enough technology, but it can't transcend the brain, unless we learned to manipulate concsciousness like data in a computer, but even if that were possible (I doubt it a little) it would always need something physical for it to be on. That is incredibly science fictional and me talking out my ass a little bit, if a scientist(s) were able to show that the consciousness could be downloaded out of the mind and into something showing evidence I'd have some certainty in that but I don't. There's no evidence of the brain being able to transcend physical reality.
Consciousness is represented by neurone brain function but just because we present it as that in physical reality doesn't mean in subjective reality that it's physical at all.
There is no subjective reality, none that we know of anyway. Subjectivity is nothing more than the opinions of people, the way feel. Subjectivity doesn't have its own plane of reality, we have no reason to think it does.
Although I haven't used the term often, I am pretty much an existential nihilist as well. I don't think there is Amy objective meaning of life at all. However your idea of a subjective reality is actually opposing to existential nihilism.
You said as an existential nihilist you disagree. I think existential nihilism holds subjectivity to have no truth value what so ever. Moral nihilists see that there are no moral truths because it is all subjective, existential nihilists hols there is no meaning of life as it is all subjective.
I denied that subjectivity had any basis in reality or its own reality, it does exist within reality but has as opinions not as realistic truths, and I could be wrong as I haven't been familiar with the terms existential/moral nihilism for very long but I am pretty certain that subjectivity has no truth value, isn't a reality or have its own reality, their just opinions, feelings, nothing more. The way you are using subjectivity doesn't make sense from an existential nihilistic point of view, if we applied existential/moral nihilisms view on subjectivity, it wouldn't make sense. You were basically saying that an opinion created us? Which opinions aren't tangible, or truthdo how could something that is not true create us?
Well I won't argue over what existential nihilists are as I'm not experienced with existential nihilism that much. However I don't think your idea of a subjective god existing on another reality holds to the view of them. Regardless you have no evidence to back this subjective realm that can apparently affect our world.
If there is no chance of physical evidence, then the God cannot affect the natural world. That means already all the world religions are out of the window.
You don't seem to be understanding what I mean. If a God can interfere with the natural world, then we should be able to detect these interferences. It is a indirect observation of a phenomena.
You would also have the problem with how can a non physical thing can affect the physical world, but that is a different question.
THAT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE USING PHYSICAL TESTING (known as scientific experimentation) to verify a NON-PHYSICAL ENTITY... WELL, WHAT A SILLY THING TO DO?!
Here is an interesting though... Have you become what you despise so much? I realize that most atheists go on about Christians being "obnoxious and in your face" and also saying "believe in God or you will roast for eternity". I agree that some are. But saying that all Christians are idiots is just as bad y'know.
no its not, because that statement of yours has no basis in psychology or the mechanisms of belief.
Compartmentalization is a readily apparent fact with most theists, they can easily refute religious beliefs which are not their own but can not apply the same methods to their own. They can not apply the same standard to their own beliefs, the standard of rationality, as such they are idiots when it comes to their religion. They are literally mentally deficient, as is proved by the observable,testable, compartmentalization so many display.
Your saying that Christians are arrogant for criticising other religions and not questioning their own, right? Do not atheist do the same thing? You are calling Christians foolish and do not question atheism.
You say Christians are close minded to other religions, I might say God is someone you can feel in a way you would not understand because you do not think he is real. As a atheist you may say " This is just in your head because you want him to be there!" You were not there and you do not understand it 100%. I might say I have felt the spirit of God and you might say " Ha, your having a Christasim!" Are you not being what you are criticising Christians of being?
Not all Christians are because they used rationality to get were they are. I question my beliefs often and dont just believe the answer I want, I do my best for the truth.
Try it, rationally show why you are a christian, and i'll rationally show why you should also be a hindu, or a morman, or a bigfootarian, or a worshiper of ra.
I have yet to be convinced but am open to hear a original argument if one exists but due to the properties of religion it is impossible to provide a rational argument that could convince me.
That said there are "religions" I follow, but to refer to them as such in this context would be sophistry at best.
That's a very gross generalization. In fact I am at liberty to argue the same point about atheists only because i have never seen an atheist that doesn't compartmentalize. In fact all atheists I have spoken to claim to a lot about Christianity but only to a piece of a piece- and then have the gall to say what the Bible teaches without one Bible verse. So I guess as far as I'm concerned all atheists compartmentalize
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
In my eyes, you have to be an idiot to believe in that.
BUT DO WE HAVE TO BE SO BLOODY AGGRESSIVE ABOUT IT?
seriously guys, respect each others beliefs, I live in a family with a devout Christian, another atheist and a Buddhist, and I never have any arguments... except then my Christian sister gets upset that were not Christian like her.
some of you atheists need to grow up! let the Christians carry on as they please, its their belief that we are wrong, we have no beliefs (sort of) so we don't need to be so critical of them.
There is nothing wrong with argumentation, nobody is getting hurt, its not done out of spite necessarily, this a debate site you expect anything else other than argumentation? In real life I ALWAYS avoid arguing religion and Theology. Regardless there is nothing wrong with arguing religion and theology as long as everyone is civil about it, and its not immature (especially on a debate site).
I don't think I meant to say it the way I did I was referring to a comment earlier. someone said they were an atheist because they were not an idiot... that's immature... though of course we should debate these things, but just saying that I am atheist because I am smarter proves nothing and does not make us look good... besides its the more intelligent looking side that wins a debate so let us atheists do our best to look intelligent.
I agree with that actually. I try to refrain from any words that can be insulting, even those that can be insulting that I think are arguably true, I try to explain without them. For example I find religion o be somewhat "delusional" being non-evidential concept I consider it somewhat fantasy, so especially when it affects someone's entire life (origin of morals, understanding the universe, etc) but rather than say delusional, I'd feel it is better to call it baseless in this society.
I'm on the atheist side because, as I have learned in recent debates, atheism hold less weight than any religion.
Atheism states : "I lack belief". Meaning you do not necessarily hold strong to the definitive statement "God does not exist" while also believing that he may not.
Where as all religions state: "(My) God exists" There is no question, and usualy to question it is wrong and sinful.
Not only am I curious by nature, but I'm rebellious and I like to learn. Any way of life that tries to inhibit that is no way of life of mine.
That's ironic. After logging off, going on an internet binge and coming to a religious site. I discovered Deism. Then I arrived back here, to see you referring me to it.
If your argument is "The lack of indisputable evidence for him" you must provide "Indisputable evidence against him"
I'm still on the atheist side but if you want to disprove religion don't try to disprove it with abstract statements about the other's lack of proof, if you as well don't have proof.
What he said. That's just an argument for why it is illogical and unreasonable to BELIEVE in him. Not an argument on his existence. Though I do have arguments for that as well
A lot agnostic atheists will still say "god is BS" or "there is no god" or god doesn't exist" but in the same way we all do that for things we lack belief in, like most of mythology. What I wander is why do you hate it when people express a belief opposing yours? There is nothing morally wrong or a reason to hate those who believe in god so what reason is there to think it is morally wrong or to hate someone who believes there is no god?
Most (gnostic, agnostic) atheists aren't like that unless you engage in discussion with them about their theological opinions, you have been exposed to a lot of that on this site, but it's a debate site do you expect anything less?
If you know anyone who is gay, black, a woman or otherwise oppressed by religion, you may begin to see a reason to oppose it.
If you have read the Bible, and you live in the USA, you would know that many things the Bible says is followed out by it's followers. Because being kind, or having empathy takes more effort than being a cruel jerk, you will see that slavery, oppression of women, and a gay marriage ban has ALWAYS been enforced by more religious people, while less religious people generally oppose it.
I was explaining how his his logic also has a giant hole. He says that theists have never said I have 100 % proof for god's existence. Yet atheist don't have 100% proof of his non existence.
He doesn't need to have proof for god(s) non-existence unless he is trying to argue in disproving god. He can argue that there is no reason to believe in god but can't argue that there is conclusive evidence god doesn't exist. His logic only has a giant hole if he claims god(s) non-existence as a fact. All he said was that no rational theist has ever said god is 100% proven, the fact that you can't disprove god doesn't change that.
It would be like if I said no rational person has ever said unicorns were ever proven, and then you told me that I can't disprove unicorns. His logic has no holes, unless he is a Gnostic atheist.
Agnostic atheists will never need proof for gods non-existence, because they don't claim that god doesn't exist. An agnostic atheists will never need to disprove god, because agnostic atheists don't claim god to not exist but that there is no reason to think god does. The burden of proof is on the theist if its between agnostic atheist and a theist.
He doesn't need to have proof for god(s) non-existence unless he is trying to argue in disproving god
I agreed to this. I only ever said that he shouldn't just exclaim that because religion doesn't have 100% evidence that it counts as proof to the latter.
He can argue that there is no reason to believe in god but can't argue that there is conclusive evidence god doesn't exist.
His opinion was never on the lack of belief it was on the lack of evidence. Claiming that there lack of evidence was his evidence.
All he said was that no rational theist has ever said god is 100% proven, the fact that you can't disprove god doesn't change that.
Mine was originally just a statement saying that if he was trying to debate a God's proof he'd need proof of his own.
It would be like if I said no rational person has ever said unicorns were ever proven, and then you told me that I can't disprove unicorns.
That'd be true. You can't disprove unicorns by saying that we don't have proof for them. It'd be different if you had said "No rational person has ever said I believe in unicorns"
Agnostic atheists will never need proof for gods non-existence, because they don't claim that god doesn't exist.
Anyone saying that 100% proof doesn't exist, must provide 100% proof of pure non existence for it to qualify validly.
The burden of proof is on the theist if its between agnostic atheist and a theist.
The burden of proof is on any side claiming that the other side needs proof.
For example If I say, "People who don't eat cheese, don't exist", and my opponent says "Their are people who don't eat cheeses". Then we are both responsible for proving the existence of either people who don't eat cheese or the lack of existence of people who don't eat cheese. If he finds even one that does, then I am incorrect, but until he does he can't say that people who don't eat cheese don't exist.
I agreed to this. I only ever said that he shouldn't just exclaim that because religion doesn't have 100% evidence that it counts as proof to the latter.
When did he say that was proof to the latter?
His opinion was never on the lack of belief it was on the lack of evidence. Claiming that there lack of evidence was his evidence.
When did he say it was evidence? That was just his reasoning of being an atheist, that was his reasoning as to why he lack belief
Mine was originally just a statement saying that if he was trying to debate a God's proof he'd need proof of his own.
He was debating there was no proof in god thus why he possesses no belief, he never implied or stated in that argument that he believed god doesn't exist.
That'd be true. You can't disprove unicorns by saying that we don't have proof for them. It'd be different if you had said "No rational person has ever said I believe in unicorns"
He didn't make that statement, he made the statement that no rational person has ever claimed there to be evidence for god. However that statement is true to that it is illogical to believe in unicorns without reason, it is by definition unreasonable. No rational person believes in unicorns because the belief has absolutely no basis or reasoning to it. It is technically irrational to believe unicorns don't exist, though I'd argue to a much lesser degree.
Anyone saying that 100% proof doesn't exist, must provide 100% proof of pure non existence for it to qualify validly.
Only if they claim that god doesn't exist as a fact. There isn't 100% proof of gods existence, but how does the reasoning go that I or anyone else must automatically state that 100% proof for the inexistence isn't there? whether or not you state anything about the evidence of inexistence doesn't change whether or not evidence is there in the first place. There is no evidence of god, that is a fact at the moment. Why when one fact is stated the other fact has to be stated? My question to this is why?
The burden of proof is on any side claiming that the other side needs proof.
No it is not, the burden of proof is on anyone making the claim. The burden of proof is on gnostic atheists and theists. Why does he have to prove gods inexistence in order to say there is no evidence of god? He is not asserting
For example If I say, "People who don't eat cheese, don't exist", and my opponent says "Their are people who don't eat cheeses".
Those are assertions though, neither can be counted as a lack of belief. you are saying "people who don't eat cheese, don't exist" not "I don't think people who eat cheese exist". "I don't think people who eat cheese exist" doesn't have the burden of proof, you can make the stance of not believing people who eat cheese illogical by showing them evidence that people eat cheese, at that point the person to remain logical has to change his stance from "I don't believe people who eat cheese exists" to "I know people who eat cheese exists" becoming an assertion but based on evidence. It can work the other way around as well, if conclusive evidence is shown that people who don't eat cheese don't exist this person has to change his stance from "I don't believe people who eat cheese exist" to "I know people who eat cheese don't exist" based on the evidence in order to remain logical. Your analogy is completely off as the agnostic atheist stance isn't show in that analogy at all, only gnostic atheists and theists. they are two different statements, one showing a lack of belief and the other asserting a belief, the burden of proof is on the one asserting a belief not on the one lacking belief. The statement "god doesn't exist" asserts a belief thus has the burden of proof, but the statement "I don't believe in god" doesn't assert a belief thus doesn't have the burden of proof, in this situations the fact that there is no evidence to disprove god is irrelevant, because he only needs to disprove god if he claims that gods inexistence is fact.
If he finds even one that does, then I am incorrect, but until he does he can't say that people who don't eat cheese don't exist.
This doesn't accurately describe the atheistic position at all though. the more accurate analogy would be:
"people who don't eat cheese exists" - theist
"people who don't eat cheese doesn't exist" - gnostic atheist
"I don't think there are people who eat cheese" - agnostic atheist
The agnostic atheist aren't totally convinced in this situation that there aren't people who don't eat cheese, they are simply unconvinced that there are in the first place. The agnostic atheist doesn't have to prove nothing because they make no assertions, they aren't stating anything as a fact. your original analogy doesn't have the equal to an agnostic atheist anywhere in there.
I guess I could be classified as an atheist. I'm on this side because religion limits freedom (not to mention how majority of religions are completely impossible).
It's funny how Christians always say "the new testament doesn't count" or "that section of the Bible is outdated." Why would you believe and live your entire life based on a book where some of it is proven false? Most Christians will admit that Adam and Eve were not real people. But they swear that Jesus was. Why is the Jesus part the only valid part? If I believed in a religion, I am sure I would believe the whole damn book that it's based on.
I know of no Christian that says something doesn't count in the Bible, it all counts. What must be taken into context is that it was written by man, when it was written, and who it was written for.
Not a single thing that counts for anything has been proven false. The authors of the Bible were not scientist, experts on the human race or even perfect. They were inspired to write about what they believed to be true in the era in which they lived. If an atheist meets God, does this mean he is a lier?
Adam represents mankind, Eve represents womankind. How are they not real people?
I suggest before you make attacks on real people, you learn more about them.
It was Gods words, written by man for man. Believe all of it, or none of it, otherwise you are confusing to a mess of people.
Just how was it God's words? Did he dictate it word for word for the authors to write? No. They were inspired to write it, because they wanted others to know what they knew. I do believe all it. How am I confusing people? Do you take everything that you read literally? Good luck with Shakespeare, Twain, Homer, etc.
The entire bible is true and I know it but, for you it is just my opion. No true Christian who knows the word of God believes what you said about some Christians and yes, if you beileve the religion you cant just cut out bits and parts you dont like. My point is made.
I am an atheist because I believe in reality, I don't believe this earth is flat, I don't believe in Adam and Eve and I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin!
Atheist. I'm not proud of it, but neither is it some sort of "shame". I don't believe in any gods or anything supernatural, because all of the evidence I have encountered "supporting" these positions has been insufficient so far.
