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.
I disagree with your assumption that atheism is the most logical and reasonable choice. Surely agnosticism, which truly is the most neutral and least presumptuous, is of greater reasonability and logicality.
The boy frees himself of an ignorant ideology and you attempt to instill another one to replace it? "The agnostic viewpoint poses as fair, impartial, and balanced. See how many fallacies you can find in it. Here are a few obvious ones: First, the agnostic allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition. He treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate—and then he regretfully says, “I don’t know,” instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Second, the onus-of-proof issue: the agnostic demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive. “It’s up to you,” he says, “to prove that the fourth moon of Jupiter did not cause your sex life and that it was not a result of your previous incarnation as the Pharaoh of Egypt.” Third, the agnostic says, “Maybe these things will one day be proved.” In other words, he asserts possibilities or hypotheses with no jot of evidential basis." (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/agnosticism.html) Pleading ignorance on the validity of mysticism is by no means a logical position. Also, you say "neutral" as if it added to the validity of your position. In a scenario where to claims that are exclusive of each other, being neutral helps and achieves nothing.
The amount of people that hold an ideal has nothing to do with the validity of that ideal. I am aware of the prerequisite for atheism, I am an gnostic atheist. And you ignored the argument entirely. The quote deals with what you just said.
I was not arguing based on the numbers, I was demonstrating that the dichotomy in the post you responded to doesn't exist (atheism vs agnosticism) and rather than confronting that false dichotomy you simply argues within it. I am not going to follow in kind and argue within the false dichotomy.
I would be more than happy to discuss gnostic vs agnostic atheism, but not in this context.
Liber is the one who presented atheism and agnosticism as two seperate things, I am aware they are connected. I am arguing for a gnostic viewpoint, I care not if Liber has a misconception about the terms. My argument is that pleading ignorance is in fact not the more rational position.
Sorry for the confusion, I hastly read so I missed the part where you specified Liber's comment. As for the argument regarding agnosticism, (http://www.atlassociety.org/atheism-agnosticism-and-arbitrary). This article represents my view for the most part.
true agnostics don't doubt the existence of god completely they just choose not to ponder it because of its overwhelming complexity. atheism outlaws belief in god. the reason why agnosticism is more logical than atheism is because atheists claim there is no god when there is no way they can "know" that. agnostics simply say its not worth the war to ponder and argue about.
You have an incredibly twisted view of the terms. Agnosticism is in fact a type of atheism. And I'm sure many agnostics would take offense at your claim that they don't ponder the subject at all.
Atheists do not outlaw belief in gods they just don;t believe in gods. They do not claim their is no god they do not see their is sufficient evidence to believe. An agnostic is a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty. I am an agnostic atheist.
There is a different term for a person who just doesn't bother to consider it: Apatheism.
I support this, I can not prove nor disprove God, a person that claims they know there's a God is just as ignorant as someone who claims that there isn't, religious and pure atheist are one in the same, both are ignorant in claims of knowing through blind faith.
Visit the the articles I presented on this debate. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of treating an unjustified assertion correctly. You don't treat unicorns that butt rape the public as possible, you dismiss it entirely until evidence that proves the position is presented.
I do dismiss it, I just admit I don't know 100%. Unicorns may exist is some form; maybe a goat with fused horns. I seriously doubt gods exist but I don't know and either are you. For all practical reasons I am sure, but as far as philosophy goes I am not 100%.
One does not "admit" the possibility of an assertion, they stick to the status quo and regard the proposition as false until the the burden of proof is met. The position shouldn't be "gravity might exist", it must be either an affirmation or a negation, as only one position is correct. Pleading ignorance grants that the burden of proof does not necessarily have to be met in order for an unjustified assertion to be considered valid.
Do visit my dispute on this claim, accepting agnosticism is definitely not the logical position. Dismiss ignorance in all forms, whether it be in unjustified claims or in the deceptive ideal of agnosticism.
Perhaps not the most, but surely a more logically consistent worldview vis-a-vis theism. Of course, we can agree to disagree about the intricate differences between agnosticism and atheism and their implications. But I would think that any of these two positions would be more logical and reasonable than theism.
I think you should choose agnosticism because I assume you did not like creationism but you assume that evolution equals atheism which is not true (just an assumption) and you can be logical and believe in God. And I agree with you many theists are just out-right stupid. But there are stupid Atheists too. If you want an example of a smart theist, try looking up Gerald Schroeder on youtube.
Atheism and agnosticism are not differing points of view they can and do coexist.
Atheism means you do not believe in gods.
Agnostic means you believe you can not know the nature of gods including their existence.
An agnostic atheist in the most rational position in my point of view. There is not enough evidence to support a rational belief in gods, but there is no way to know.
agnosticism is not necessarily distinct from atheism insofar as one can be an agnostic atheist, like me. Agnostic just means that you do not claim to have certainty about the issue - atheism and theism have to do with the belief about the assertion that there is a god i.e. they agree or disagree with the assertion.
A year ago when I joined this site I was calling myself agnostic, I have since decided there was no point in me continuing to hold that view... I simple don't believe in anything so I now consider myself atheist.
You didn't know I'm atheist? Yup! But I'm not one of those whacked out atheists... I don't push my views on others and I respect everyone's religion. XD
Thanks bro! I don't think I've ever been described as the nicest anything? LOL I just respect everyone's religious views as long as they don't attack me over my lack there of.
Also, I never got notification of your reply. I only saw it because I did get one for Nick's reply... this seems to be happening a lot more lately... very frustrating.
I think i know what you are saying, but technically not believing in anything is nihilism - Atheists believe in a lot of things, typically things like morality, and evolution, cosmology, physics. I am sure i am just being overly exact but I just wanted to make sure people dont associate Atheism with Nihilism even though Nihilists are defacto atheists since they dont believe in anything.
There are two versions of the Problem of Evil argument:
Logical Problem of Evil
1. If the Judeo-Christian God (henceforth referred to as "God") exists, he is omniscient (all-knowing and all-wise), omnipotent (all-powerful) and wholly/perfectly good.
2. If God exists and is omniscient, he knows about all evil and suffering and knows how to eliminate all evil and suffering.
3. If God exists and is omnipotent, he has the power to eliminate all evil and suffering.
4. If God exists and is wholly/perfectly good, he will want to and have an obligation to eliminate all evil and suffering.
Ergo,
5. The existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and wholly/perfectly good God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering. (i.e. Either God exists and evil and suffering doesn't or vice versa) (From (1)-(4).)
6. Evil and suffering exists.
Ergo,
7. God does not exist. (From (5) and (6).)
Evidential Problem of Evil
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without therby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Ergo,
3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
What are the implications of the Problem of Evil? If Christians want to solve the Problem of Evil, they must deny one of the three characteristics God is said to possess (i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness). If Christians want to hold that God is good, then they must necessarily assert that God is either not omniscient or not omnipotent. However, the burden of proof is still on the Christian to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is true.
I'm not going to dispute the logic of the argument, that's sound, but I will dispute the conclusions you gain from it. First of all, it's only disproving the Abrahamic God (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and others), not all God's. Second, it's an argument against a specific God, not an argument for Atheism.
First of all, it's only disproving the Abrahamic God (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and others), not all God's
I think that you'll find that this critique has been addressed in both forms of the Problem of Evil. In the Logical form, premise 1 clearly states "Judeo-Christian God". In the Evidential form, the Conclusion clearly states that the argument to dispute a omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being (i.e. the Judeo-Christian God).
it's an argument against a specific God, not an argument for Atheism.
That is disputable. Polytheism and, in fact, most monotheisms can be disposed of by arguments along the lines of reasoning of either Occam's razor or God-of-the-Gaps. Arguably, the Problem of Evil arguments are more specific and contextualised amalgamations of these two arguments for atheism.
I think that you'll find that this critique has been addressed in both forms of the Problem of Evil. In the Logical form, premise 1 clearly states "Judeo-Christian God". In the Evidential form, the Conclusion clearly states that the argument to dispute a omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being (i.e. the Judeo-Christian God).
Obviously, as I said I didn't disagree with you, but as I've previously talked to you about, I don't find it justification in itself for atheism, over agnosticism.
That is disputable. Polytheism and, in fact, most monotheisms can be disposed of by arguments along the lines of reasoning of either Occam's razor or God-of-the-Gaps. Arguably, the Problem of Evil arguments are more specific and contextualised amalgamations of these two arguments for atheism.
I didn't say there wasn't an argument, just that this wasn't it. And it disproves that there is a potential wholly good + omnipotent creator, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no creator, which is what you need to prove to prove atheism.
I don't find it justification in itself for atheism, over agnosticism.
An atheist is one who lacks a belief in a God. I think that as long as one rejects and/or successfully disputes theistic arguments, he/she can sufficiently be considered an atheist.
that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no creator, which is what you need to prove to prove atheism.
You're wrong. There can be a creator, but not an omnipotent one. For example, if you don't believe that, say, a volcano has a creator (I use this word carefully in the sense that it refers to a rational moral agent), you can hardly be considered an atheist.
An atheist is one who lacks a belief in a God. I think that as long as one rejects and/or successfully disputes theistic arguments, he/she can sufficiently be considered an atheist.
You don't even need to reject theistic arguments, you can ignore them just as many theists do to arguments they face. As long as you believe there is no God, regardless of the justification you have for your beliefs, you are an atheist. I'm talking about logical justification for being an atheist.
You're wrong. There can be a creator, but not an omnipotent one. For example, if you don't believe that, say, a volcano has a creator (I use this word carefully in the sense that it refers to a rational moral agent), you can hardly be considered an atheist.
I'll accept that I phrased that badly, but regardless, the problem of evil only disproves an omnipotent & good creator, the Jeudo-Christan God; to prove atheism, you'd have to prove that there is also not an omnipotent creator also, as you said.
As long as you believe there is no God, regardless of the justification you have for your beliefs, you are an atheist. I'm talking about logical justification for being an atheist.
Hmm... This is quite confusing. Isn't the logical justification for being an atheist just, as you rightly said, "believing that there is no God"?
I'll accept that I phrased that badly, but regardless, the problem of evil only disproves an omnipotent & good creator, the Jeudo-Christan God
I never disputed this.
to prove atheism, you'd have to prove that there is also not an omnipotent creator also, as you said.
Of course. One doesn't need to stray far from the works of great philosophers like Immanuel Kant or David Hume to do so.
Hmm... This is quite confusing. Isn't the logical justification for being an atheist just, as you rightly said, "believing that there is no God"?
That's the perquisite, the requirements for being an atheist. Anyone can have a belief, I'm talking about justifying it and explaining it. That's where I feel current arguments for atheism is lacking.
Very true, but don't discredit that there might also be a God, if you do then you will become no better then the ones that do believe there is a God with blind ignorance, me personally feel that I can't prove nor disprove God, all though I like to think there is a God, but I'll be the first to say I don't know.
First, who are you to tell someone what they're supposed to do? I don't think you have any authority or any jurisdiction over one's choice of religion, or lack of. And second, you're right. He was a Christian. I think the more appropriate attitude is not one of condemnation, but curiosity.
Obviously, those up upvoted my argument understood it perfectly. Have you ever considered that it might be you who are too uneducated and poorly versed in English to understand me?
7 points most people got what the user said, why don't you?
It's plain English.
Also you judge a person for not going on the Christian path while your own god (I assume the god of Abraham) had told those that believe in him not to judge over others?
That judgement will be from god himself?
You judge the open minded, this makes you a hypocrite.
Part of the reason why I began to question the Christian faith is the gargantuan possibility of life on other planets- completely unaware of the Christian faith.
Here are just the facts:
The Earth- It is a perfect place for life, and it is located at a perfect location from Earth to Sun called the Goldilocks Zone. Any closer to the sun and we will burn, but any further from the Sun, we would freeze- and life would not be possible. It would be tempting to assume that the Earth was placed in such a perfect distance from the Sun by Divine Intelligence in order to make our lives possible, But:
In February 2, 2011, the Keplar Space telescope was put in orbit. With this telescope, we were able to glimpse 1235 planets- 54 of which are in the habitable distance from their stars, (In the Goldilocks zone)- 5 of them, Earth-Sized.
The thing is, the Keplar telescope only surveys 1/400th of the Sky, and it only examines a tiny fraction of the millions of stars in that section of sky.
If it could see the whole sky, it would see over 400,000 planets- and that's just in the neighbor hood of our Galaxy.
The Milky Way has 400 Billion Stars.
The fastest vehicle ever built by mankind would take 4,000,000,000 years to cross it, and it would take 100,000 years to cross it with Light Speed.
There's soo much planets out there, a great number of which are possible to harbor life.
But that doesn't even scratch the surface.
There are 100 Billion Galaxies in our universe.
Each with possibly a number of intelligent life forms, and civilizations that have no idea of our existence and have no idea of Christianity, or of Jesus. They would only bother to worship only their religions, just like we humans do.
I really hope you will respect my beliefs as I will respect yours, and I am sure you already have the maturity to understand this. So are we still friends?
I suppose we can still be friends. But I will pray for you so you can realize that what you did was a poor choice. I respect your beliefs but I will still pray for you! You don't have to be an atheist. I hope you come back into the light someday and realize what you did was wrong. I don't want you to go to hell with all the nonbelievers and some of the people on here. I want you to be in Heaven rejoicing with Jesus Christ who is the Son of the Living God. That is why I stand firm in God and I will never turn my back on God. I would think about the choice you just made. Anyway I am still going to be friends with you and be nice. :)
So your saying you would rather suffer for all eternity in hell and misery then be in heaven. Wow you are going regret what you said. When you are in hell you would wish that you had another chance and believe in God. This is your only chance and you get 1 chance to live your life how Jesus wants you to. I have heard in this news that these people in Ukraine dug a hole really deep and they put a tape recorder to the deepest part and when they listened to it there were a ton of screaming that was recorded on the tape recorder and a ton of people were there to witness it. The screaming was the people in hell and they were suffering
So your saying you would rather suffer for all eternity in hell and misery then be in heaven. Wow you are going regret what you said.
Basically, this is saying, "If you succumb and conform to our warped thinking, you will enjoy great wealth and comfort. But if you disagree with us, then you're fucked."
If you think about it, this is a rather apt summary of nearly every single totalitarian and/or authoritarian regime from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung. In truth, Christianity has more in common with these mass murderers than atheism!
When you are in hell you would wish that you had another chance and believe in God.
Is there a hell? Is there even God?
I have heard in this news that these people in Ukraine dug a hole really deep and they put a tape recorder to the deepest part and when they listened to it there were a ton of screaming that was recorded on the tape recorder and a ton of people were there to witness it.
Read what Ben wrote.
Suffice to say, God is not great. And, religion poisons everything.
Suffice to say, God is not great. And, religion poisons everything.
Aah, Christopher Hitchens. The world seems like a much more boring place now that he's gone. Dawkins, Harris and Dennett are all splendid, but they just lack that witty edge that Hitchens had.
Yeah, Hitchens was both intelligent and supremely eloquent. Personally, I think that Hitchens is the only of the four who is able to wax lyrical about the role of religion in politics.
I have heard in this news that these people in Ukraine dug a hole really deep and they put a tape recorder to the deepest part and when they listened to it there were a ton of screaming that was recorded on the tape recorder and a ton of people were there to witness it. The screaming was the people in hell and they were suffering
All you have to do was google 'Ukraine dig hole hell' and it's the first link. Please research your wild claims before you assert them as facts. It's how these stories start in the first place.
I don't question God because I fear Him because He can take away my life if He wanted to but He is patient. God is loving. He loved us first so therefore Christians love Him back for what He did on the cross.
Yes. Compulsory love sounds awfully totalitarian. Even without disputing the existence of God, I think I wouldn't like to live in a divine North Korea ;)
I'm sorry, but saying I will go to hell doesn't quite fit into the "respect my beliefs," category. Sometimes we must set our beliefs aside for the sake of friendship.
Well it is true that if you don't believe in God you will go to hell. But I just want you to be in Heaven with me and not some place where you suffer for all eternity. I am sorry if what I said was really bad for you. Its just I am really disapointed with your decision that you made. Anyway it was your choice to be an atheist and I should haven't said anything. It was your choice and I respect it. I have nothing against you anymore. I apologize if I hurt you with my words. I will continue to pray for you. :)
Good news! Neither of you are going to heaven or hell! You're just going to lay lifelessly underground, while maggots fester in you, and your body decomposes! Yup, no afterlife after all!
I actually there is a soul that is living inside of you and there is evidence that there is a heaven and a hell. Many people have died and came back to life and said that they went to heaven or hell and they experienced it. I know there is a afterlife after this one. My real life begins in Heaven its called eternity.
The only proof necessary to "prove" there is a soul within in us is in the Holy Bible. You are asking a person to prove something that you will say is falsely written so before this person answers this, I am predicting what you will say - once again.
Proof? Even then, they're still probably bullshitting.
Where is your proof this person is "bullsh&#xtt;ing"?
No you don't.
Nanny, nanny, boo, boo. You must have a better argument than this. There is an afterlife and that is called Eternity.
Eternity does not begin.
What is your basis on this belief? I believe in eternal life. You are given free will by God and you can choose to either be disobedient and not believe in Him and spend eternity in Hell or you can be obedient and walk by faith in Jesus, and spend an eternity in Heaven with Him. I don't understand why atheists are so stupid as to understanding this very simple concept.
This is lousy debate etiquette. You don't reply a question with a question, unless it is overtly rhetorical and/or sarcastic. The question you have posed isn't a rhetorical one at all.
Your remark was lousy and unetiquette. I can reply with a question if I find it necessary. Rhetorical or not, my question still managed to get a response out of you. I win!!!!!
You are clearly poorly educated, unintelligent, vitriolic, strident and a narcissistic attention-seeker. The point of debate is to clearly state and justify your perspective, not to be merely provocative for the sake of being provocative. Grow up, idiot.
Weak-minded and uninspired? The proof of your accusation is? The only one employing diversionary tactics is you. All you are spouting is useless and baseless accusations and asserting without evidence. Clearly, you're a person who lacks any sort of education and culture.
I don't need proof. Why are you asking me for proof when your words are showing you are weak minded when you have to resort to calling me a name because of your frustration. Lack of control shows you that you do not operate off of inner strength. Your words are rather robotic just as those of other atheists thus they are uninspiring and rather dull. I am glad I taught you what a diversionary tactic is and if you feel I have done that to you, you need to "google" it. Clearly, I am a conservative, Christian and proud American who has common sense and not just a set of vocabulary words. I do wish you well and I will not resort to calling you a name, as you did to me. That's not my style. I must sleep now but I do look forward to an intelligent debate with you when you are ready to do so. In fact, I think I will just hop on over to your topics tomorrow and see what you are all about. Good night and God Bless.
Why are you asking me for proof when your words are showing you are weak minded when you have to resort to calling me a name because of your frustration. Lack of control shows you that you do not operate off of inner strength.
You've been on this site for less than half a day. Do not presume you know me very well.
Your words are rather robotic just as those of other atheists thus they are uninspiring and rather dull.
I'd rather be robotic and dull than be a delusional fool.
I am glad I taught you what a diversionary tactic is and if you feel I have done that to you, you need to "google" it.
I think I can safely say that I am far superior than you academically.
Clearly, I am a conservative, Christian and proud American who has common sense and not just a set of vocabulary words.
That is an oxymoron.
I do wish you well and I will not resort to calling you a name, as you did to me. That's not my style.
I couldn't care less.
I must sleep now but I do look forward to an intelligent debate with you when you are ready to do so.
Of curse you think you won. It's natural to assume that one is superior to their opponent. I mean, I think I won, because I raised several very valid points. You refused to address any of them, and claimed that everything I said was meaningless. That is not formal debate etiquette. So if it was actually possible to win a debate, I would win by default.
It is completely natural for an atheist to lose. Cursing shows lack of intelligence. There are so many other ways of expressing oneself other than resorting to such immaturity. I responsed to every response from you, little one. I give you credit though, you are persistent and I like that in a person.
It is not possible to lose a debate. One can think they won, and have overwhelming support, but that is then argumentum ad populum.
Cursing shows lack of intelligence
I disagree wholeheartedly. As I said, there is nothing more powerful than a well placed swear word to bolster an argument. If you would rather I didn't however, then it doesn't faze me.
I responsed to every response from you, little one
Yes, but you ignored every argument I made. That is not formal debate etiquette.
I give you credit though, you are persistent and I like that in a person.
Well thank you. I give you credit on the grounds that you can speak proper English, which seems to be beyond many people.
The only proof necessary to "prove" there is a soul within in us is in the Holy Bible. You are asking a person to prove something that you will say is falsely written so before this person answers this, I am predicting what you will say - once again.
OK, serious mood now. Are you that naive as to believe that the Bible is proof of what it a priori assumes? I am a unicorn. Wanna know why? I just wrote it on a sheet of paper. That is what the Bible equates to.
Where is your proof this person is "bullsh&#xtt;ing"
Well, I made a probability claim. And I would hazard a guess, seeing as there is no information available, that the majority of people who are resuscitated who go public are probably theistic. There is no reason for an atheist to claim that the reason he was saved was because of the lack of a God. Conversely, it is much more newsworthy for a theist to claim his life was saved by a God.
Nanny, nanny, boo, boo. You must have a better argument than this. There is an afterlife and that is called Eternity.
My friend, I'm not the one that has to give an argument. You need to prove that you know that there is an afterlife, which you have failed to do. I can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim, which demonstrates its weakness.
What is your basis on this belief?
A quick google search does the trick. Eternity is without beginning or end, a state of timelessness.
You are given free will by God and you can choose to either be disobedient and not believe in Him and spend eternity in Hell or you can be obedient and walk by faith in Jesus, and spend an eternity in Heaven with Him
That's not true free will, in my opinion. If there is a God, then he knows exactly what every human will do in any given situation.Giving someone a choice, where you know the outcome, and where one of the choices is blatantly not preferable.
I don't understand why atheists are so stupid as to understanding this very simple concept.
What a limp attempt at an ad hominem. Nevertheless, I shall explain why.
You are proposing a totalitarian, misogynistic, infanticidal, genocidal, homophobic, xenophobic, ostraconophobic, ambiguous, devious dictator, who claims to be omnibenevolent, to be our creator. Moreover, it is supposed to be desirable to spend eternity with this monster. Why would anyone want that?
You're weak. Thanks for giving me a huge laugh tonight though. Any person who "googles" answers to questions that pertain your final destination in life is? well, just weak. Have a good evening. Your vocabulary is rich but your words are meaningless and you have no debate, you just have bunch of garbage on the table. You know God is real so go ahead and pray and repent for denying him online. Or better yet, just "google" it, lol. Be blessed.
If we had a no soul then we wouldn't be living we wouldn't be able to exist without a soul in our bodies we wouldn't be able to do many things. If we have a soul then we can do many other things.
I have a book its called Divine Revelation of Hell and the author goes to hell with Jesus Christ to experience how it is but Jesus is with her and telling her what many people did. Like for example he said this women was in hell because you worshiped Satan rather then God and she did witchcraft and was really sinful.
As a matter of fact I do know that there is a life after this one. We as Christians who follow Jesus Christ and His ways will go to Heaven.
This is only step 1 of life once we die are real life begins in eternity where we truly ought to be. There are going to be both billions of people going to heaven and hell.
Its true that animals do have souls except that they don't go to heaven or hell when there dead there dead. That is my belief so I think they don't go anywhere when they die.
You appear to be "looking down" on me and my beliefs... please, don't. I am no better than you are better than me.
Notice that I haven't belittled your beliefs at all, but you appear to of slightly belittled me with your own beliefs.
You have been stating that Jesus, God, heaven and hell exist, and that I will end up in hell (which I find particularly offensive,) and yet I haven't even mentioned or forced upon you my belief in evolution. I just hope you have enough maturity to set these beliefs aside.
I absolutely love this phrase. Up-vote worthy. You should go trademark it ;)
By the way, I hope I'm not being patronising if I say that you sound very mature here. Nothing to do with you being an atheist. If you were a fundamentalist Christian and wrote like this, I would still have great respect for you as a person and a debater.
He's explained well why he has changed. And it's good that he is choosing to expand his mind and learn instead of just excepting things like the majority of theists choose to do.
The "grown up" thing would be to decide this for yourself and not let peer pressure persuade you one way or another. Bringing this to a form only confirms that you have more growing up to do.
In my world view, it's quite the contrary. But I understand you have a different world view, so you would disagree. So yeah.
I just see God like I see Santa... well I only see man-made Gods like I see Santa. But other Gods that don't contradict themselves could be more viable.
