#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Perhaps the Greatest Anti-theism video of all time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb52b6MZmZ0&safe=active
This video reminded me why i became an outspoken atheist in the first place and gave me a renewed goal. tell me what you all think.
yes-why
Side Score: 30
|
 |
no-why
Side Score: 36
|
|
1
point
Beautiful video. Thanks for posting. I see his point, but I still watched Jesus Camp when it came out. I think it's good for spreading awareness. Anyway, he's right. It's just that what he has to say might come across as harsh, but if you watch his video to the end, you realize that the poster does have a good heart and doesn't hate anybody. Side: yes-why
|
This is intolerant bullshit I grew up Catholic and I had a completely normal childhood and I was NEVER told to kill or even harm anyone. I was a happy child and I'm a happy person now and guess what I'm religious. You atheists need to learn to except that some people don't believe like you and we have a right to. And by the way I don't know where the ignorant halfwit who made this video got his info but Christianity dose not encourage violence, or human sacrifice, or any of that other bull shit he spewed. What a bigot. Side: no-why
0
points
I don't see any evidence of violence at any level coming from the evangelical extreme side of Christianity either. I also find it interesting that while trying to insinuate that Christians were raising a "youth army" he showed pictures of Muslim children what a dumb ass. Side: no-why
1
point
I don't see any evidence of violence at any level coming from the evangelical extreme side of Christianity either Really?! Watch Jesus Camp. They literally teach the kids that they need to die for Christ. That they need to fight the holy war. I am not making this up. This video is an analysis of that movie so you kinda need to get an idea of the movie or watch it to understand this better. Also, they CAN'T perform violent acts because they 1) don't have an available target (ie they're all overseas) and 2) they are a vast minority. If these extremists were a larger percentage of the US they would be shipping kids out to fight and kill and die. That is not an exaggeration. They literally say in the movie that they see the Muslims and what they teach their kids in jihadi camps and they need to do the same to fight them. also find it interesting that while trying to insinuate that Christians were raising a "youth army" he showed pictures of Muslim children what a dumb ass. The subject changes throughout the video switching from JUST the evangelicals at Jesus camp AND religion in general. In this part of the vid he was talking about the later to emphasize the point of what they're trying to make and connected it with other religions and conflicts with kids. You're the dumbass for not recognizing this. Side: yes-why
This guy is going out of his way to draw connections that don't exists. "Holy war" in the Christian sense is a metaphor referring to a spiritual war for people's souls. Die for Christ refers to the willingness to stand up against persecution a common theme in Christianity because of the persecution early Christians faced from the Romans. Side: no-why
1
point
Um, no. YOU'RE the one making tr stretch here. Sure, those terms may have different meanings in tame, neutered religion like what you practice. But again, were not talking about the average Christian person. We're talking about extremist evangelicals and the like. "Holy war" according to the people in Jesus camp is quite clearly a LITERAL war against other religions and atheism for Christ/Christianity. The people in Jesus camp are nutjobs who actually think there is a war going on that needs to be fought. Again, "die for Christ" literally means physically die for him. Watch jesus camp, the lady who runs it refers to the jihadist Muslims who train kids to literally kill themselves or die for their god and wants Christians to do the same. To physically die in all literal sense of the word, for their god. It's fucked up and I'm not making it up. Side: yes-why
The people in the movie are probably acting out of th fear that Christianity will become a target of persecution and violence. And with Christianity being blamed by atheists for everything from the holocaust to the unfortunate misshape whith the native Americans. I can't say their fear is totally baseless. I was just thinking today,about how Christians are seeing the beginning of society's dissinfranchisment whith the religion and them its a scary thought. How long ago was the movie made? Side: no-why
1
point
Could be. Or they're just insane literalists. Islamists don't act out because of fear. They do it out of insanity and anger and their beliefs dictate it. This is a mixture of that and the fear you said. Um...no atheist I've ever heard blamed Christianity for the holocaust. In fact I often hear the exact opposite that it was ATHEISTS fault. No. It wasn't either. It was an insane man with a regime and alot of resources. Okay the native Americans it was because of religion. They were "savages" and we converted of slaughtered them all in Christs name. That is true. The movie was maaaaaade...2008? That's a guess. It was only a few short years ago. Side: yes-why
Well I've heard many atheists like endhipocracy blame Christianity for the holocaust and many other things. And most native Americans died off from diseases that the Europeans unwittingly brought with them. And many extremist Islamic groups draw recruits by spreading the rumor that the West is trying to destroy Islam as well as radicalizing people. Violence and extremism are often reactions to some preserved threat. Side: no-why
1
point
Well catholecism in particular plaid a big part I the holocaust. Hitler allied himself with the church and the church supported him and then passed that message on to the believers to support him. Also, hitler believed he was doing gods work and passed that I to his followers. Religion was used to control people for that case. The native Americans were mainly killed by disease that is correct. So whereas the majority were not killed by religious means, many of those left over were hunted down by the puritans and other religious. You are also correct when they say that the west is threatening Islam but that is not always the case. There is also those who just want the infadels dead period and just pass that on to people. But no matter what the leaders say to the people, it's still using religion as a tool. Using the beliefs of people to control them for a cause even if the religion itself doesn't demand it (but often it does). Side: yes-why
The church supported hitler that's true but they didn't know about the holocaust it was a well kept state secret. The church actually had nothing to do with the holocaust in any tangible way. Much of the conflict between the settlers and natives stemmed from the fact that both the natives and settlers occupied the same land and neither wanted to move it was a territorial dispute. And yes some Muslim radicals just want to kill infidels that's true but what I said was the way they draw most recruits is by framing their cause as a war to defend Islam. Side: no-why
Hah, hardly... This video was nothing but another angry and frustrated individual about the extremist christians (groups of people) whom use christianity as a means of forceful, misinformed, and overall overly aggressive and closed-minded-ness, to press their beliefs onto other people, namely in this case "the children"... Okay, so let's all agree that it is obvious that parents teach their children their views on how the world is around them and their beliefs; no one is void of this, it even happens to people whom grow up without parents; adopted, parents die in accident then are raised by X, Y, Z; the so-called "indoctrination" is inevitable to the human being. Let us also emphasize that the significance of not being able to control where, how, why, when we are born, leaving us vulnerable for memories to be instilled into us. And further, when the child grows up to adolescence, they change their views, the adapt, they compromise, and when they become adults within adulthood, they do the same thing, humans change, adapt and so on; there is constant influence continuously throughout our daily lives. And so, I digress. There are people, like in the video, whom become so focused on a particular method of teaching, aka christianity, that they become obsessed with the fact and notion that christians whom are extremists, that is, those christians whom have utilized their beliefs to be a part of wars, rape, adultery, hypocrisy, anything negative [ECT], create this idea that "religion is nothing more than a brainwashing technique for control, for the 'betterment' of 'nothing', and so we do not want to teach children in public schools the filth that is brought with this religion, christianity." Does that pretty much sum it up? I know so. And so further, because the extremist christians are doing what they do, they wash out the genuine christian, the christian whom does not rape, does not steal, does not cheat, is not a hypocrite. And so, then it becomes a person, like in the video, not bashing christianity, or it's beliefs as a whole, it questions and examines those that use christianity as a way of negativity, as a way to harm, to cheat, to steal, making the belief system look as if it's an unnecessary crime to mankind. AHA! yet we're all human, correct? And humans make mistakes all of the time, we call that "human error". Finally, it's quite frustrating to establish these realities, that there are people whom make other people look bad, with or without even knowing how or why they're doing what they're doing. And so in short, this video is just another pissed off atheist, agnostic, whatever, whom is bashing christianity as if it's the most evil thing that could ever happen to people in America, or other Judaism believing people, and its future Side: no-why
I don't know. Most atheists I know are spectacular people and I love them dearly. Most anti-theists I know are socially inept and pedophile apologists like Dawkins, mass-murder apologists like Hitchens, or just plane whacked conspiracy theorists like Sam Harris (n.b. claims to be a credible scientist, believes in reincarnation). Side: no-why
-1
points
Care to back any of those whacked statements about Dawkins and Hitchens? I mean, yeah, Hitchens was a little over the top even for me but his arguments are still valid and Dawkins is completely sane and reasonable and brilliant. You're basing these opinions off of nothing! Side: yes-why
Apparently Dawkins is of the opinion that being sexually abused as a child isn't particularly damaging; but being raised Catholic is significantly more damaging for a child. And the evidence he presents for this pedophic apologetic argument is....none whatsoever. Hitchens thoughts on bombing the shit out of Muslim children (I believe he prefered to use the term "cull") became quite famous for a while; but was of course censured in the right-wing atheist media. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2007/ Side: no-why
Apparently Dawkins is of the opinion that being sexually abused as a child isn't particularly damaging; but being raised Catholic is significantly more damaging for a child. And the evidence he presents for this pedophic apologetic argument is....none whatsoever. Daily mails a right-wing propaganda fest, most likely quote- mining him. Can't argue about Hitchens but thats one guy. Side: yes-why
1
point
1
point
1
point
God is proved by Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics states that before the universe, there were quantum fluctuations occurring all over the place. The Big Bang was most likely a massive quantum fluctuation that became self-sustaining, but to become self-sustaining external forces would have to aid it so that it could become powerful enough. Since no other matter existed, God is the only explanation. A quantum fluctuation expands quickly if it becomes self-sustaining, and since time was not invented yet it probably seemed like a huge very fast explosion. There is more but that is all for now. Side: no-why
0
points
That is completely wrong in every way. This argument is absurd. God is proved by Quantum Mechanics God hasn't been proven by anything ever let alone quantum physics which if anything disproves him. Quantum Mechanics states that before the universe, there were quantum fluctuations occurring all over the place Quantum mechanics is a field of science. It can't say anything. It in of itself isn't a theory. And what you stated is just one theory and its really rediculous as there is still large discrepancy as to whether there was a "before the universe" or if it has always existed. Before you can say what was before the Big Bang you need to prove there WAS a before the Big Bang. Which nobody has. Where the hell did you get your info from? The Big Bang was most likely a massive quantum fluctuation that became self-sustaining, It was a rapid expansion of space-time. You're just throwing out it words to sound sciency. And again, where are you getting this info? but to become self-sustaining external forces would have to aid it so that it could become powerful enough Um. No. Within that point of singularity there was plenty of energy released to become self sustaining as you put it. There's no evidence that another otherworldly power was needed. You just pulled that out of your ass. Since no other matter existed, God is the only explanation We've already established that it WASN'T necessary for an other worldly force to assist the Big Bang. Also, if there WAS another source needed to power it who says it wasn't another natural force? You jump right to the god conclusion based on absolutely nothing. You need to prove that it IS god first which nobody has ever done ever. Also, right now you're supporting the Big Bang. Saying god made it happen. If the Big Bang happened, biblical genisis is 100% false. Which means god didn't create us in any way and that our universe and planet evolved by purely natural means. So if he didn't make anything he becomes a pointless god to worship. And it also makes him not the god of the bible, but some deistic clockmaker god. Either way, you're false. . A quantum fluctuation expands quickly if it becomes self-sustaining, and since time was not invented yet it probably seemed like a huge very fast explosion. There is more but that is all for now. What the fuck are you talking about? Time wasn't invented yet? Time has always existed! Nobody invented it! Time is just what we humans call th progression of, we'll, time! That's how we express it. The Big Bang couldntve even happened without time passing so how could time have been made after? That's completely illogical and wrong. Secondly, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was a rapid expansion of space time and such. I'm not an expert, but I know it fairly well. And your explaination is totally crazy, wrong and flawed on multiple levels and fails ultimately to prove its conclusion of god existing. No, don't add anymore I've heard enough. Side: yes-why
1
point
First of all of course there was a period before the big bang. You clearly have no understanding of Quantum Mechanics to talk so lightly of it and not actually disprove my original theory using actual scientific fact. And most importantly, since quantum fluctuations were the only thing there, besides God, what else could have given it the required amount of energy to become self-sustaining? You are backing your arguments up with opinion, and that is useless in this debate. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Pascal's Wager, but if you are not please look it up and rethink your beliefs. Time, you moron, began when we were created. Who was there back then to keep track of time? That's what I thought, nobody. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of MATTER, not time. How can time expand? By the way, the Bible was written by man. It could be incorrect on multiple levels. I go with what I can make sense of for the most part, and that is why I have made this theory. I don't know how you cannot believe in God, because his existence is absolutely necessary. If women give birth to man then where did the first man come from? How did that man create the first woman? Just a helpful little hint, back up your arguments with actual fact next time instead of just throwing out personal opinion. Sure my opinion is that God exists, but at least I can prove that using the very thing you people use to try to prove him wrong. Side: no-why
-1
points
First of all of course there was a period before the big bang There is large discrepancy on this. The big bang only refers to our universe and nothing more, only what we can observe. We cant observe what came before so we can only vaguely theorize at best. You clearly have no understanding of Quantum Mechanics to talk so lightly of it and not actually disprove my original theory using actual scientific fact I only have layman's knowledge of it. im no quantum physicist, but neither are you. I can only pass on what science has discovered thus far. Oh, and you should know science doesnt declare facts. only theories and laws. And most importantly, since quantum fluctuations were the only thing there, besides God, what else could have given it the required amount of energy to become self-sustaining? "Besides god" what a stupid add on. Why the fuck should we just blindly assume an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being was there before the big bang? That is an evidence-less wild guess. The theory states that the big bang in and of itself generated enough energy to become self sustaining. The way ive read it, scientists dont even think there was a need for anything else. BUT- if there WAS something else needed to catalyze the big bang, IT WASNT A SPACE WIZARD. Gaps in science are filled with more science, that is, conclusions based on evidence found through observing and testing hypothesis. God is not a testable hypothesis and is a non answer to any question whos answer box he's put in. You are backing your arguments up with opinion, and that is useless in this debate. No, im backing it up with what i know about the big bang and what i know about god. and i beg to differ, opinion and analysis is very usefull in debate. if youre just a monotone fact dispenser that isnt effective. You need to analyze the facts and talk about what those facts mean. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Pascal's Wager, but if you are not please look it up and rethink your beliefs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA And there goes the last shred of respect for you. I mean, i could respect that you actually looked up the big bang and whatnot, but you just blew that shit when you dared to quote that failure of an argument. Pascals wager fails so hard not even the most avid apologists will use it. 1) its a false dichotomy 2) it doesnt acknowledge any other religions or deities 3) It assumes belief is a switch you can turn on and off, which it isnt 4) it assumes god is and idiot who cant see right through someone covering their ass 5) it assumes believing has no down side and disbelieving has no upsides which isnt true 6) It assumes the will of god which nobody can know, god's will isnt stagnant And much more. Youre a moron and i hope you never bring that piss poor excuse for an argument again and relocate it firmly back in your tailpipe where it originated. Time, you moron, began when we were created. Who the fuck was there back then to keep track of time? Time existed long before we were created: ie: there were billions of years (unit of time) before earth's creation. Time is just what we humans call it to rationalize it in our minds. It existed before us, also, i was mainly refering to space-time which is somewhat different. That's what I thought, nobody time still exists without people to keep track of it. Time still progressed before humans existed... also im surprised you didnt immediatly jump to the conclusion that god kept track of it. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of MATTER, not time. Not JUST matter. Gravitational forces, matter, and space time. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ By the way, the Bible was written by man. It could be incorrect on multiple levels The bible being the only place that knowledge of a god originated from. If there was no bible, there would be no "god did it theory" because nobody would believe in him. Also, i see you bring up the bible specifically so i can assume youre attrubuting the christian god to this and not some deist clockmaker character or any other religion. That being said, if it is flawed on multiple levels (which it is) why attribute it's god to something not even mentioned in the bible? You cant just make shit up. The bible says we were made in genesis THAT WAY. Not in the big bang. so if genesis didnt happen then he didnt make humans which means he doesnt answer prayers and probably non of the other stories in the bible are true so why attribute him to the big bang? By rationalizing the christian god with the big bang, you effectively make him a pointless god and remove all point in worshipping him. If you want to believe this divine being theory then that's fine, still just a wild guess, but fine. What you cant do is state some supreme being caused the big bang and then try to connect it with the god of the bible in any way because you stripped that god of the basis for belief in him. I go with what I can make sense of for the most part, and that is why I have made this theory. good, you acknowledge it is just a theory in the normal sense, that is, just a wild guess with or without evidence (without in this case). As opposed to scientific theories which are detailed explainations of events supported by hard evidence. Thank you. And also thanks for clarifying that you just flat out made it up. I don't know how you cannot believe in God, because his existence is absolutely necessary. No it's not. Right now we dont know if some other source of energy was needed to fuel the big bang or what came before it but we can say with all honesty that it was not a conscious all powerfull ju-ju of the sky. Theres no evidence and no reason to believe that it is. What IS reasonable is to assume that if such fuel was needed that it resulted NATURALLY and that we can discover and verify it using the scientific method or conclude that it wasnt necessary, as well as determining what came before the big bang as also natural because that is consistent with every other thing we have ever discovered. If women give birth to man then where did the first man come from? How did that man create the first woman? What a fucking stupid argument. Do you know anything about abiogenesis or evolution? Asexual reproducting cells evolved to form the different genders because that is more ideal for passing on genes than asexual reproduction. Then evolution goes on from there with the two genders up to us. Just a helpful little hint, back up your arguments with actual fact next time instead of just throwing out personal opinion. I just did. happy? And i think you should practice what you preach. i have seen no factual argument for why this god is necessary nor how he exists opposed to what scientists are theorizing today. Sure my opinion is that God exists, but at least I can prove that using the very thing you people use to try to prove him wrong. Prove? No. You did nothing but make shaky stupid appeals to ignorance. The big bang proves the christian god is non existent because it strips away and shreds of the bibles legitimacy including all of genesis thus making god pointless. It also emphasizes how flawed it is so why should we believe ANY of it including Jesus and heaven and hell which also impacts your intellectually reprehensible appeal to pascals wager. Your arguments are shit. Piss off Side: yes-why
1
point
I would most like to point out that the big bang was an expansion of MATTER. Time is not a physical thing. You disproved yourself; you said that time existed before the universe, so how could it have suddenly exploded and only THEN existed? You bring up another great point about gravity. Where on earth that that force come from? There is no generator in the center of every mass. Every object for some inexplicable reason has a gravitational attraction, but where does that come from? Please answer me that. Science does in fact declare fact. Science declares that horses normally give birth, as do most mammals, unlike birds and reptiles that lay eggs. Much of science is indeed theory, I will give you that. Most importantly, of course there was a need for something to ignite the big bang. NOTHING else that was actually PHYSICAL is proposed to have existed before the big bang. TIME was invented by humans. Yes there was a system of events that happened in a specific order, but nothing existed then that could calculate it. God wouldn't need to keep track of it. I believe that God created us using this series of events, starting with the big bang, and continuing with evolution to create us. For your information I am Catholic, but exercise the ability to decide on my own exact details of our creation and our creator, a.k.a. the version I think makes the most sense. Think about your last comment in your previous dispute. Where did sentient life come from? How did we humans achieve the ability of free will and choice? No other creature we know of has free will. You are exercising your free will by not believing in God. A squirrel will go for a pile of acorns or other food rather that scurry into your outstretched fingers because his mind is limited to "hungry", "thirsty", etc. Side: no-why
0
points
You have got to be kidding me. Your pathetic attempts to counter my argument again make you look like a huge dumbass. I would most like to point out that the big bang was an expansion of MATTER. Time is not a physical thing you can fuck around with. You disproved yourself; you said that time existed before the universe, so how the hell could it have suddenly exploded and only THEN existed? I see we still have no idea what space-time is so i see no point in arguing this. Einstein hypothesized that space and time were one and the same and served as the fabric of the universe.- Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/74015/what-causes-gravity/#ixzz2U4uKjIF2 You bring up another great point about gravity. Where on earth that that force come from? There is no generator in the center of every mass. Every object for some inexplicable reason has a gravitational attraction, but where does that come from? Please answer me that. See the same link above. Particles created after the big bang pulled on eachother but so minutely that it took billions of years to form larger masses like planets and stars. Also, im assuming you thought i couldnt explain that, and i wonder, if i wasnt able to, would that have been used as another appeal to ignorance argument for god's necessity? Science does in fact declare fact. Science declares that horses normally give birth, as do most mammals, unlike birds and reptiles that lay eggs. http://brainatthedoor.blogspot.com/2009/ It is not a scientific fact that horses give birth, its just a fact. More accurately, its common sense. And saying a horse gives birth doesnt explain WHY it gives birth or HOW. Those two questions are answered by, oh, surprise surprise, scientific theories and laws. Much of science is indeed theory, I will give you that. It's all theory. If something isnt then it isnt covered within the scope of science, ie: it wasnt discovered using scientific means. Most importantly, of course there was a need for something to ignite the big bang. NOTHING else that was actually PHYSICAL is proposed to have existed before the big bang. And it is only rational to assume that what caused the big bang was physical and not supernatural, and since everything phyisical was contained within the point of singularity, then this "ignition source" was within the point of singularity too. It caused it from the inside. At least, this is one scientific theory. Your "god did it" solution is not a scientific theory. TIME, my idiotic friend, was invented by humans. Yes there was a system of events that happened in a specific order, but nothing existed then that could calculate it Space-time. Watch some Doctor Who and learn about time Wow you just made yourself look like a fucking idiot. Thats like me saying "go watch spongebob and learn about marine biology". What a fucking stupid statement. If i wanted to learn about time i would read a report from a scientific magazine or report, not watch a fictional show about a time traveling brit. Both view the universe as a great big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff. Neither just go along on the course we live. Wow, just when you think the stupid meter cant be pushed any farther. I shouldnt even have to dispute this, just re-read it. I believe that God created us using this series of events, starting with the big bang, and continuing with evolution to create us. 1) that contradicts your only source for knowledge on god in a massive way which corrodes the basis of belief like acid 2) Belief doesnt determine truth. Believe what you want but it doesnt affect reality For your information I am Catholic, but exercise the ability to decide on my own exact details of our creation and our creator, a.k.a. the version I think makes the most sense. Yeah, i also exercise my ability to completely make shit up too. I wrote a fictional novel you know. No but in all seriousness how can you just pick and choose? If you do that then you are saying what you didnt pick is wrong, which would make anything based on what you didnt choose wrong as well...so it all falls apart if you stray to far from what the religious texts say. Think about your last comment in your previous dispute. Where did sentient life come from? How did we humans achieve the ability of free will and choice? You said you believe in evolution......clearly you didnt read too far into that because youd see that it accounts for this by showing the increasing size and complexity of the human brain to the point where we have developed consciousnesses more advanced than other species. No other creature we know of has free will. You are exercising your free will, in a very stupid fashion, by not believing in God. Free will is being able to do anything within the scope of what you CAN do. Animals have no restrictions. No rules. No regulations. They have full free will. For example, a fish cant fly so it cant have the free will to land....because it cant fly. Flying and all things related to flying are outside of the scope of what a fish i capable of so they dont affect free will. A fish however can swim in a loop, breathe through its gills, and any other thing a fish can possible accomplish. That is FULL free will and every animal has their own. Humans however, have free will too but we are really the only species that puts restrictions on it. For instance humans can kill and eat eachother...but we dont and have decided that we are not allowed to. Thats a restriction on free will. Also, belief and free will are not compatible because belief deals with the unconscious mind and free will deals with the conscious mind. Belief is involuntary. You believe what you believe because your unconscious mind is convinced that it is correct. To prove this, try to believe in something you know isnt true, like that today is October 12th 1954. You cant do it. Your argument is invalid. A squirrel will go for a pile of acorns or other food rather that scurry into your outstretched fingers because his mind is limited to "hungry", "thirsty", etc. But "believe in god" is not an impulse. Hungry and thirsty are determined by the same part of the brain as hunger and thirst. Those are attributed to the impulse control center, the hypothalmus. Belief deals with the unconscious mind which is shaped by the conscious mind. For instance, the fact that i believe santa isnt real didnt just flip in my unconscious from hot to cold on its own, it was because i consciously weighed the evidence which then caused my unconscious mind to change. Also, a squirrel wont scurry into your hand because it doesnt have the same capacity for conscious thought as we do. It cant weigh the options. We can. And i have. And it has caused me to conclude with two things: 1) you're an idiot 2) god is almost certainly not real And i thought you'd find this interesting: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ I have a lot more but I'm going to wait and see what sort of shit you have to say about what I have mentioned so far. Yeah it must be exhausting putting that greatly underused lump of gray matter to use in forming such poorly formed arguments. Please, if you have more (which i doubt) save it. I really have better things to do than argue with a dolt who, after three rebuttals now, still only has one core argument: "i don't know, therfore god". Oh and on a side note, please respond to my arguments in the format I, and everyone else on the side uses. Its much easier to read than the, much like your head, block of text in which i cant look back at what i said previously to verify that you're rebutting it well, and/or are purposely avoiding handling certain points i bring up. Side: yes-why
1
point
First of all, the way a horse gives birth is not a theory. We have been able to witness thousands if not millions of horse births, and we know for scientific FACT the way they do it. We don't theorize that they push the baby out. We KNOW they do. That is a FACT. It gives birth in order to keep its species going, which is another FACT. That's what every animal tries to do. Humans keep going and constructing and inventing in order to keep surviving. On to gravity. You fail to answer my question. WHERE does it come from? WHY did those particles pull on each other? WHAT was pulling them? Magnetism is another magnetic force, but we can prove that it is physical in that we know about the magnetic fields and WHERE THE ELECTRONS COME FROM. Einstein hypothesized that space and time were one and the same and served as the fabric of the universe? Okay... I understand that. What I'M saying is that he mentions time because he knew about it from human's invention of it. In our linear viewpoint of the timeline of the universe, we use our own made up units of time measurement (aka minutes, seconds, etc.). Einstein was also, notice the word, HYPOTHESIZING. You mention that it is rational to assume that what caused the big bang was physical and not supernatural. To OUR point of view, God would of course seem supernatural. Or maybe to people like you. To people like me who actually acknowledge God's existence, we see Him as natural, because to him everything He can do is natural. There is no such thing as "supernatural", okay? It is what people call things they can't manage to explain with physics or modern science. If you showed someone from the 1500s a smartphone, they would call it supernatural because with their knowledge of science it doesn't and cannot make sense. That's the problem with society. People can't accept things they can't explain. If you gave people the information of science as we know it, with CPUs, processors, electricity, batteries, etc, and how it all works together, the person would immediately understand the smartphone and it would eventually become natural to them. It is almost as if they died and went to heaven, where they saw God and finally understood his existence, and came to accept it as normal. Honestly? We know Santa isn't real because we can analyze the facts we have before us. Where are you facts that state that God isn't real? HERE IS WHAT I GET FROM YOUR ARGUMENT: "The concept of God is stupid and doesn't make sense to me." The squirrel I mentioned does not have the ability to analyze facts because its brain is far less evolved than ours. It doesn't have the ability to make choices as we can. Humans have always needed some sort of leader to function. Is that not clear through history? All throughout history humans have elected leaders to guide them and keep order, and they do this because it is in their nature. Why could it be in their nature? Maybe because it is also in our nature to become violent and fight among each other without leadership. Humans used to kill each other horribly before they learned how to successfully elect leaders. God gave us this countering ability to elect proper leaders so that we could learn to control our violence towards other humans and live under a peaceful ruler. Proof of this argument is seen everywhere, from hockey games where people become violent over rivaling teams, to wars. If a group of humans were stranded on an island, one would noticeably rise above the others and everyone else would listen to them. Normally it is the one with the most sense. God created so much universe to test us. He wanted to see if we could remain loyal to Him no matter what we came across. That is why he created all of these possible discoveries, and the vast reaches of the oceans, lands, and especially space. Humans will continue to explore because that is one of the most prominent instincts we have. God gave us that and so much to explore to see that even if we came across something that tested our belief in Him, such as your viewpoint of everything, we could still know that He still exists and is right there with us. You are one of many now who have failed His test. Side: no-why
1
point
First off, thank you for not listening to a single word i said pertaining to HOW id like you to rebut my arguments, AND for not listening to my advice to shut up and piss off. Also, i see you just went right into disputing (or trying vainly to) my last response, to which you had said that you had more to add. I see no new content pertaining to that said argument, so youve proven my hypothesis that you probably DIDNT have anything more to add. First of all, you idiot, the way a horse gives birth is not a theory. Come on. You have got to be a total dumbass! We have been able to witness thousands if not millions of horse births, and we know for scientific FACT the way they do it.\ You really must not like reading. I gave you a source that explains why scientific fact doesnt exist. The fact that horses give birth is just a fact, not a scientific fact. For something to be scientific, it has to be studied under and concluded AFTER going through the scientific process. Horses giving birth, or anything giving birth for that matter, was an established fact before the scientific method ever existed and we didnt need science to prove whether they give birth or not. Saying that "horses give birth" is insinuating that it answered the scientific question of: "do horses give birth?" which is a retarded question with a one word common sense answer: Yes. No scientific analysis needed. HOWEVER, when you ask the questions: WHY do horses give birth the way they do? Or HOW does horse conception work? THAT is when it requires scientific investigation, and the results of these scientific investigations are SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AND LAWS. Get that through your thick skull you braindead twit. It gives birth in order to keep its species going, which is another FACT. That answer doesnt go with the question "DO horses give birth?" It goes with "WHY do horses give birth?" which as i said above results in a theory. Scientific theories by definition are explainations of WHY things happen. So youre wrong, it isnt a fact. IT actually goes into the theory of evolution and natural selection, and that area of science which is entirely THEORY. Also, fuck you for questioning how and what I can believe in. That's what you've been doing this entire time! You've insulted my atheistic standpoint and perspective multiple times! So fuck YOU. If you cant take it, dont dish it out. How dare you come here and accuse me of straying from what I believe in when all I am doing is trying to PROVE that what I believe in is correct? Oh I CAME HERE? Look at the debate asshole! YOU RESPONDED TO ME FIRST! Are you fucking blind or just retarded? And i never accused you of straying from what you believe in, that doesnt make sense. i was pointing out that your position is one that cannot be backed by your religion to any large degree because youve chopped a large chunk out of it. I was using Doctor Who as a connection. No, you were using it as a source of information by telling me to get information from it. A connection would be like: "hey time is like ....................... kinda like in Doctor Who" that's a connection. It is also FAR more accurate on its information on time than Spongebob is on marine biology. "timey wimey stuff" yeah, really fuckin accurate. Also, the spongebob comment was a joke. Kinda like your arguments. On to gravity. You fail to answer my question. WHERE does it come from? WHY did those particles pull on each other? WHAT was pulling them? Magnetism is another magnetic force, but we can prove that it is physical in that we know about the magnetic fields and WHERE THE ELECTRONS COME FROM. Again, did you even read the source i gave? It answered most, if not all of these questions far better than i could. Einstein hypothesized that space and time were one and the same and served as the fabric of the universe? Okay... I understand that. What I'M saying is that he mentions time because he knew about it from human's invention of it. If only in the sense that the word Time T-I-M-E exists and describes what it does. Though i assure you Einstein got a little deeper into its relevance to his theory than that. In our linear viewpoint of the timeline of the universe, we use our own made up units of time measurement (aka minutes, seconds, etc.). Einstein was also, notice the word, HYPOTHESIZING. Again, spacetime is deeper than just the basic units and understanding of it. Do i fully get it? No, im no quantum mechanic. Also, his hypothesis was then tested, and concluded to be valid and incorporated into the entire big bang theory. You mention that it is rational to assume that what caused the big bang was physical and not supernatural. You do realize how stupid that is? It is rational to assume that because we have absolutely no reason to ever even consider that a supernatural cause is possible because we have no evidence that anything supernatural has ever existed and the very nature of the supernatural is illogcal. To OUR point of view, God would of course seem supernatural. or maybe to people like you who elses point of view fucking matters? Its ours, or gods. Ours defines god as supernatural. His would define him as natural. Yet we dont know his point of view, we cant see it or ask for it or verify it so all we have is ours and thats the only one that matters to us To people like me who actually acknowledge God's existence, we see Him as natural, because to him everything He can do is natural. Acknowledge God's existence? No. How about evidence-lessly assert his existence on the basis of sheer faith? Yeah thats more accurate. You THINK you see him as natural when we have no way of ever knowing that. And of fucking course everything he does would be natural to him! Its his own perception! Holy shit youre an idiot. That point of view means jack shit to us! There is no such thing as "supernatural", okay? It is what people call things they can't manage to explain with physics or modern science. People like you. su·per·nat·u·ral [soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity. 3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed. 4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult. noun 5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order. 6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings. 7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs. That just fucking disputed half of what you said and supports my position. No, it is not what is unexplainable by modern science or physics, it is what is unexplainable by natural law. And anything outside of natural law is illogical and has no reason to be accepted on the basis of NOTHING. If we put a claim through the process of the scientific method incorporating attempts to explain it naturally and it comes out the other side with a biq question mark, that means it is beyond natural law and has no way of being tested or verified so as far as science and common sense are concerned there is no reason to believe that such a thing has any presence in reality. If you showed someone from the 1500s a smartphone, they would call it supernatural because with their knowledge of science it doesn't and cannot make sense. They would call it supernatural but it wouldnt be correct. Supernatural means that it is outside of natural law. Well, the phone is physically existent, so it is within natural law. What your asserting is NOT physical, or tangible, or seen, or has supplied any reason to even be considered and thus it remains supernatural. Supernatural doesnt mean "something that doesnt make sense". A better word would be stupid. Or Consigliereiffic. I just made that one up, i like it better. People can't accept things they can't explain. All of that "seeing is believing" bullshit. Wow, how stupid of us. To not blindly accept things without at least giving them some thought first. If you gave people the information of science as we know it, with CPUs, processors, electricity, batteries, etc, and how it all works together, the person would immediately understand the smartphone and it would eventually become natural to them. No, it was natural to begin with. It would just become normal to them. Or understandable. It didnt shift from supernatural to natural. Also, science doesnt claim that things it cant explain are supernatural. We cant explain what causes the HIV virus to mutate and evolve so quickly, but that doesnt mean that it's supernatural. We know there's an explaination, and that it will be a natural one. The same goes when questioning the universe. It is almost as if they died and went to heaven, where they saw God and finally understood his existence, and came to accept it as normal. And until that happens he will continue to be an untestable, baseless figment as far as logic, reason, rationality, and science are concerned. Also, even IF i or any other person goes to heaven, that also doesnt automatically make him natural. Me being in heaven and seeing him would still be defined as a supernatural thing. It would be defying natural law even if it was happening. So sure, it would become REAL to me, but it would still be supernatural by definition and unusefull and untestable to anyone still on Earth. Honestly? We know Santa isn't real because we can analyze the facts we have before us. We assume God isnt real for the same reasons. And that the big bang didnt need a god for the same reasons. Where are you facts that state that God isn't real? A statement that he is positively nonexistent doesnt exist because since he is supernatural he is unable to be verified or tested in any way to answer that question.What we DO have is suggestive evidence that, when accumulated in large amounts, can be used to make claims with ALMOST certainty. We have all of scientific theory to explain why God isnt necessary and science and other sources have disputed the bible as not being a trustworthy source for facts. This, as well as the fact that God is supernatural, has led us to the position that he isnt a worthy hypothesis and probably doesnt exist. And it has led us atheists to be convinced that he doesnt exist. HERE IS WHAT I GET FROM YOUR ARGUMENT: "The concept of God is stupid and doesn't make sense to me." Well what you got from me was completely wrong, allow me to correct: "The concept of God has no evidence supporting it and such evidence is impossible to collect and conflicts with a large amount of scientific theory, therfore I have deemed it unreasonable to accept, and therfore dont believe" The squirrel I mentioned does not have the ability to analyze facts because its brain is far less evolved than ours. It doesn't have the ability to make choices as we can. Exactly, but free will isnt based solely on conscious decision making. Free will is the squirrel being able to do everything within the scope of what it is capable of doing. so this didnt dispute free will because the squirrel couldve gotten food or water, or scurried into your hand. it wasnt restricted from doing that, it just wouldnt do it I would like to introduce another argument since you aren't busy enough bullshitting your way through my other ones I WOULD be busy if they were sound arguments. Fortunately for my schedule, they are sloppily formed and easy to tear apart. Humans have always needed some sort of leader to function. Is that not clear through history? All throughout history humans have elected leaders to guide them and keep order, and they do this because it is in their nature. 1) No, we dont NEED a leader. Just as we dont NEED cars. We have them because they're usefull. 2) it is not our inherent nature to elect leaders. There are plenty of social settings in which a leader doesnt exist. Also, a large majority of historical leaders aquired power by force. Barely any are ever elected by the people. Your argument is off to a shitty start Why could it be in their nature? Maybe because it is also in our nature to become violent and fight among each other without leadership. 1) it isnt our nature 2) violence isnt a direct result of a lack of a leader. it has many other factors that contribute to it. Mostly its disputes over land and resources Humans used to kill each other horribly before they learned how to successfully elect leaders. There have been monarchs that have presided in times of peace that were not elected. And elected leaders dont automatically cease killing. Ie: president obama, were still at war with afghanistan and the US crime rate is fairly high. Maybe this isnt because our leadership has something to do with it, but because of other factors like oil... God gave us this countering ability to elect proper leaders so that we could learn to control our violence towards other humans and live under a peaceful ruler. Where the fuck did that come from? That was totally made up. And have i got an ass kicking for you: Ever hear of the tower of babel? WELL, in the bible (you know, that really important source for knowledge of god) theres a story where large groups of humans were coming together to build a tower to the heavens, however, God thwarted this by creating all the languages of the world and sticking them in the peoples heads so they couldnt understand eachother and this scattered them all over the face of the earth. This shows that God had no intentions of unifying the people (who at the time all spoke one language apparently) under a leader. He had no election in mind. Instead, he made it impossible for them to do so and then scattered them everywhere which he knew would lead to eventual monarchies and land disputes in the future. Your argument is a wild guess, inconsistent with what the bible shows about the intentions of god, and with logic. Leaders dont equal peace. Proof of this argument is seen everywhere, from hockey games where people become violent over rivaling teams, to wars. If a group of humans were stranded on an island, one would noticeably rise above the others and everyone else would listen to them. Normally it is the one with the most sense What the fuck? Wars and violent rival teams DISPUTE that! Wars happen under leaders! That literally contradicted your whole argument. And if humans were stranded on an island it is just as possible that there would not be a leader than there being one. It all depends on the personalities of the people there. Humans are not sheep with all the same minds. Were all unique. So if they all had passive personalities and were all sensible people they would probably just all work together. However, if a leader DID arise it would probably be because they'd be the strongest of physique and will with a domineering personality. and moreover, he wouldnt be elected necessarily so this example doesnt even follow your argument. You literally made all of that up. It is based on nothing scientific or even reasonable. God created so much universe to test us Why? Why test us? If he's omniscient he should already know the outcomes for all of us before he makes us, yet he acts like its our faults. This theory of "god's tests" makes no sense even within your own religion. He wanted to see if we could remain loyal to Him no matter what we came across. That is why he created all of these possible discoveries, and the vast reaches of the oceans, lands, and especially space. Humans will continue to explore because that is one of the most prominent instincts we have. God gave us that and so much to explore to see that even if we came across something that tested our belief in Him, such as your viewpoint of everything, we could still know that He still exists and is right there with us. So lemme get this straight. One day God decided to make the universe and he knew that it would one day have humans exist within it and that he would particularly like this species. SO, he of course demanded that they worship and recognize him or they'd be punished. And he knew that they would love to explore his creation and would have a naturally skeptical nature, so what does he do? He decides hes gonna fuck with em. He makes everything to be not only complex, but completely indicative of his ABSENCE to test whether theyll be able to repress the common sense and skepticism he GAVE them. And not only that, but those who GIVE in to logic and reason get PUNISHED for not seeing how quite obviously real he is despite his astounding lack of evidence he gave them. What a fucking moronic douchebag. So instead of coming to the conclusion that: since everything we have discovered thus far is completely consistent with certain natural laws, then we can assume the origin of life and the universe is just as so with no need for supernatural assistance or causation. You instead have came to the conclusion that: everything we have discovered thus far is completely consistent with natural laws because it was all part of tests by an omniscient god (who should already know the outcomes to such tests) to see if we'd remain faithfull, this, combined with the lack of understanding about the origin of the universe and life leads us to the indisputable fact of God's existence. That is completely unwarranted and the most retarded backwards logic i have ever seen. There is absolutely no reason to ever believe such things are true beyond stubbornness, ignorance, and sheer blind faith or wishfull thinking. You are one of many now who have failed His test. His test most certainly doesnt exist and is the equivalent of this: As part of a devious plan, a teacher teaches a classroom of students that the sky is blue because of magical pixie dust and really convinces them it is so using psudeo scientific explainations. The students then are told to research the causes of the sky's color on sciencemagazine.org (or whatever science site). The kids learn online that the sky is blue because of molecules in the air scattering the blue light, which contradicts the teachers lesson. The students then do a lab to test for air particles, and the results of the lab further convince them that the teacher must be wrong. After all of this, the teacher gives the students a test with only one question: Why is the sky blue? Now the teacher has seen the confusion of the kids faces during their research and lab, and has heard the banter between them and has good knowledge on who was convinced to reject her lesson and who wont. After the quiz is taken back, 90% of the class gave a scientific explaination for the skys color that they learned through research. Only two kids, who played games during the research portion instead of reading, wrote that it was pixie dust. The teacher then hands two pieces of candy to these kids, and at the dismay of the rest, goes around smacking their wrists with a ruler demanding to know why they dared question her lesson content. Your god is the teacher with the devious plan to test the children and punish them in such a way. It makes no sense whatsoever You are on a trip to hell Well hold on there, have you proven hell exists? Even if by some sheer miracle you were able to prove that god created the universe with the big bang, where does hell come into place? When did he make that? You completely disreguarded Genesis in the bible which is the only place it comes from. What you did, as so many others do, is make the attempted rationalized argument for god using "science". And THEN what you do is expect people to not realize the non sequitur of making the jump to christianity. So you have literally zero evidence for hell nor any reason to assume such a place exists because theres nothing to use in science to prove it and you hacked genesis out of the bible with your main argument! You are up shit creek without a paddle with this argument. Not to mention the fact that if you sincerely believe that the simple fact of not believing in god sincerely warrants eternal suffering then youre a morally bankrupt fucktard. because everything God put on this earth and in this universe got into your head and tricked you. You have failed, I am sorry for you. Oh how silly and how WRONG of me to not blindly accept things without ample evidence for them in the face of such a large amount of evidence for natural causation! Oh woe is me! That is beyond retarded. Lets track that logic. Im getting sent to hell by god because god tricked me. ARE YOU SERIOUS? Just get the fuck out of here. In all my years, never have i heard such a moronic collection of keyboard diarrhea. Dont reply anymore. Youre only making yourself look stupider and stupider and you allow me to poke more holes in your entire belief set which, im surprised hadnt detered you from responding to me the first time. Unless you wanna start making sense, quoting honest sources, or just stop stating intellectually reprehensible arguments from ignorance, PISS OFF Side: yes-why
1
point
Yeah, now I'm sure of it. Your entire arguments have consisted of you simply calling me retarded or trying to degrade me. It's pretty funny and sad that that is the only way you can attempt a "successful" argument. You are very immature for debating this way, and you are breaking the rules of this website by attacking another with insults. You STILL HAVE NOT PROVEN TO ME HOW GOD CAN NOT EXIST. So until you can, guess what? He exists. By the way, I was the one to comment on your video. Then you felt the need to retaliate and be a total ass. Side: no-why
1
point
Guys come on. You must not be so thick as to think you will actually change my mind. I for one know I won't be able to change yours. But I have presented by argument, so agree or disagree with it. I know what AveSantana thinks and you Nox0, but others might be interested and want to add to it. You people spend your lives trying to ruin other religions and disprove what others believe in. Why do you do that? If you do you can almost certainly expect retaliation from those who believe. Side: no-why
1
point
By that logic the scientists who discovered that germs were responsible for disease and NOT curses from gods were attacking those religions? Thats moronic. You have presented your arguments and i have destroyed them! I doubt that ANYBODY who doesnt already believe in god would be interested in or stupid enough to find your arguments convincing. I spend my life looking for and advocating the TRUTH. I dont care if it conflicts with your myths, the truth is the truth and people deserve to know it. And you also assume im afraid of retaliation, not in the slightest because i have the confidence that i have the answers for every question they have and every argument you they will make, and i have the balls to take whatever insults they dish out because they will ultimately be unjustifiable. Side: yes-why
1
point
Yeah, now I'm sure of it. Your entire arguments have consisted of you simply calling me retarded or trying to degrade me. That is not the way to argue topics like this. You are very immature for debating this way, and you are breaking the rules of this website by attacking another with insults. 1) You do exactly the same 2) They're not ad hominem attacks, they're descriptive of your shit for brains arguments 3) They're fully justified You STILL HAVE NOT PROVEN TO ME HOW GOD CAN NOT EXIST I dont fucking have to! The burden of proof is on you to prove that he MUST exist! I never said god 100% doesnt exist and cant exist. Sure, theres a possibility that a deity exists who is completely undetectable and contradicts the very nature of the universe that we observe and the means through which it was created and is attributed to a religion that contradicts itself and is filled with false claims based on zero evidence. Sure, theres a chance youre right, but i have absolutely no reason to even consider it a legitimate, serious possibility because 1) you havent demonstrated ANY piece of evidence that i couldnt easily dispute 2) there is no evidence to suggest that you are correct So until you can, guess what? He exists You are completely fucktarded. You just demonstrated that with that completely asenine statement. "innocent until proven guilty" the burden of proof. God is assumed non-existent as far as logic is concerned until THEISTS prove or even get one shred of good evidence for his existence. Not the other way around. By your logic, i can say that there is an invisible magical pony who flies around granting wishes and if you dont make a wish he'll cut your dick off and that pony would be real until people prove it isnt. But you CANT prove it to not be real because it has no evidence to observe. By the way, I was the one to comment on your video. Then you felt the need to retaliate and be a total ass. So me disputing you in an argument means im an ass? Ok i guess that means that every person you will ever argue with is an ass. I also see that instead of giving a rebuttal to my last argument you instead decided to complain and give up. Thus supporting my hypothesis that you have nothing left. Not that there was anything to begin with Side: yes-why
1
point
1
point
YOU CAN'T. I have never stated that i have proved that he doesnt or cant exist. I have already told you he CAN exist and MIGHT exist, HOWEVER based on all of the evidence we have collected about the universe and the lack of evidence we have collected that suggests any divine presence, that possibility is infintessimally small. So small that it is not even worth delving into, let alone promoting as truth. What your asking is a pointless question. He is, by definition, supernatural. That being said you cannot prove him or disprove him. We can only guess at best based on the evidence that supports one side or another and so far the "disprove" side has a fuckton more evidence than the "prove" side. It might make sense to you, but to anyone who actually knows what theyre talking about and understands how logical reasoning works sees that its an asinine position to have. You're claiming knowledge you cant possibly know based on zero evidence. That, my friend, doesnt make sense. I can see why it makes sense. Its such a simple thing to claim. God did it. Just by saying that you can have the feeling like you know the answer, like its so clear. Well the world isnt that cut and dry. Things are far more complex than that. And in the end, YOU have not proven that he IS or MUST be real! Which, based on the burden of proof, you have been required to do ever since you claimed god's existence. i dont have to prove my rejection of your claim, but my rebuttals to your arguments served that purpose nicely. Side: yes-why
1
point
I am saying that he is supernatural, but thank you for admitting that he CAN exist. You are admitting that there is the need for a "higher power" to be in charge. I HAVE been proving his existence all along, you for some reason have just dedicated your life to ruining other people's for so long you can't admit there is a God. Side: no-why
1
point
I am saying that he is supernatural Supernatural = illogical, stupid, unnecessary, evidenceless, mythological..... but thank you for admitting that he CAN exist You're welcome, but you know what also CAN exist? Fairies. And dragons, and Nessie, and bigfoot, and chupacabra, and zeus, and athena, and horus and.... You are admitting that there is the need for a "higher power" to be in charge. WTF? You pulled THAT out of your ass too? DAMN that thing has some high capacity. Probably from getting cornholed by your own arguments all the time. Admitting a higher power CAN exist absolutely does NOT mean i admit that one NEEDS to exist. I HAVE been proving his existence all along Nah, more like vainly attempting to. But i applaud your effort you for some reason have just dedicated your life to ruining other people's for so long you can't admit there is a God. Oh yeah that's totally the reason. You got me skippy. Guess ill be off to church now. You're a dumbass. I have dedicated myself to TRUTH. You think i go around challenging christians on the street? NO! In fact, online is the ONLY place ive ever debated religion. If people are gonna give me shitty arguments then im going to dispute them in full and not hold back for any reason. And how is advocating truth, logic, reason, science and free thought "ruining" peoples lives? My life has only gotten better after i became an atheist. I'm happier, less stressed, have free sundays, and much more. Under christianity there's constant pressure to do all of this shit for some figment you cant see, hear, or detect in any way, and if you fuck it up you roast for eternity. It's awful. In conclusion, you've been reduced to making PURE ad hominem attacks that you cant even base off of something i said. The debate is over. Piss off Side: yes-why
1
point
Supernatural means "inexplicable by modern science", which is God. Religion is supposed to make you stressed. You want to be able to do right. If you give up on religion of course you will feel "free" because you don't feel like you have to answer to God. By leaving the religion you have lost and so, as you seem to understand, you will roast for eternity. Side: no-why
1
point
You are an idiot. Have fun in hell where you will rot for eternity What a useless ad hominem on someone who doesn't even believe in hell to begin with. Fucking idiot. I do have a few things to say though: 1) If YOU, not your religion, if YOU sincerely believe in your heart and mind that a person deserves to BURN AND ROT in eternal hellfire and be tortured by demons for ETERNITY with no chance of redemption for the sole crime of not accepting your beliefs then you are a fucked up, insane, malevolent immoral, backwards, psychotic NEANDERTHAL. Because that's the stage in human evolution you best resemble both intellectually and morally. 2) hypothetically: if its Satans goal to guide people away from god then why does it make sense that they're punished by him for listening? Odds are IF satan exists, he's probably more chill than your nazi fascist God. And hell, for that matter, is probably more free and enjoyable. 3) hypothetically: have fun in heaven where it will be impossible to do 90% of the things you enjoy doing, were you will be stripped of all your individuality and become one of the mindless masses who constantly bow and chant at the feet of your cosmic overlord FOREVER knowing all the while that many of your friends and family members are burning below you because of the guy your ass kissing. That sounds like a worse kind of hell than I can imagine. I'd rather be in hell and still be who I am, and stand for my sense of moral justice in defiance to that evomaniacal, twisted, evil, moronic, bully you call a god. Fuck him and fuck you. (Hypothetically) Supernatural means "inexplicable by modern science", which is God. Good job you defined a word! That definition isn't very complete but itl do. This definition still doesn't change the fact that the supernatural is ultimately irrational and illogical with no verifiable evidence for it. In fact, it supports that. So sure, go ahead and say god is supernatural; you're just supporting my argument. Not able to be scientifically tested = illogical and unreasonable = nonexistent until proven otherwise. And thus I disbelieve. You are too stupid to explain him with science so you reverted to claiming He doesn't exist. And you're too fucking stupid to explain him AT ALL! You just defined god above as out of sciences reach so how are scientists stupid? You just made no fucking sense. Also, seeing as he is out of sciences testability and hasn't been even remotely close to verified using ANY other means, the only RATIONAL stance to have is that he DOESN'T exist. It doesn't make us stupid, it makes us logical, critical thinkers who aren't so willing or STUPID to take Bronze Age texts and here say as legitimate fact at face value. Also, fuck you for insulting the men and women of science. They're stupid because they can't prove the existence of your invisible space wizard? They're smarter than you'll ever be and you should be thanking them for their tireless efforts to make your cushy life as easy as possible! Your car: science. Your medicine: science. Your food, water, shelter, septic, entertainment: science science science. It has given you everything. Proven to you everything you've learned from the water cycle to chemistry and you accept it but as soon as science reaches religions doorstep you slam the door in its face and recede back into the basement of your idiotic beliefs, hiding from all common sense, evidence, and rationality. Grow up. Religion is supposed to make you stressed. You want to be able to do right. If you give up on religion of course you will feel "free" because you don't feel like you have to answer to God. And it feels fucking amazing. If you only knew the weight that is lifted off you when you finally come to terms with disbelief you'd drop religion like a sack of potatoes. Now I'm not saying that's the reason why I disbelieve, in fact that has nothing to do with it, the stress relief comes afterwards. That will come back around and bite you in the ass later though, because those who don't believe go to hell. Don't believe in hell so that was pointless. Hell is a stupid obvious scare tactic to keep people from asking questions and its apparently particularly affective on you. I for one have no reason to believe such a place exists not that any god does and should it exist then we've been over the point that id rather to there with my humanity intact then become a drone in heaven. The only scare tactics I need are my own sense of consequences for my actions. My morality is governed by just pure human decency and compassion for others. And you know, if you or your god don't like that then you can fuck right off. You have fucked up by becoming an atheist I fucked up when belief isn't a conscious decision and (according to God's plan and his omniscience) is something HE planned/caused? Okay. Keep telling yourself that makes sense. You failed God's test Gods test rewards blind faith and punishes rational decision making. Either your God is a fucking asshole or he isn't real. I think the latter is obvious. If you feel like you've aced some divine accuplacer by abandoning all critical thinking skills and plugging your ears and saying "lalalalala!!!" To all the mountains of evidence that scream to persuade you then good for you chap. by leaving the religion you have lost and so, as you seem to understand, you will roast for eternity What about people who were never IN the religion? They deserve to burn for being born in the wrong place? And had you ever considered for 2 fucking seconds that your religion (or all religions) could be WRONG? You might have yourself convinced you KNOW. But you don't really know. Nobody knows. And you certainly don't know more than the Wiccan, the Muslim, the Taoist, the Buddhist, the Rastafarian or the scientist/atheist. The only difference within all these is the scientist doesnt pretend to know. Christianity might have billions of followers, but within this matter there is no strength in numbers. In conclusion, this debate is over. I destroyed any legitimate and semi legitimate augment you presented up until now where you have resorted to PURE speculation and ad hominem arguments. If you've no more keyboard diarrhea to spout would you kindly PISS THE FUCK OFF. And have a nice day Side: yes-why
1
point
Don't listen to this guy. He's one of those ignorant Christians who doesn't think rationally or logically. He gives Christians a bad name. I disagree when you say that our god is an asshole but as far as that goes I agree with you. This guy just doesn't have an open mind. Side: yes-why
1
point
Well damn I figured that out day one debating this schmuck. I'm tryin to end it but he keeps coming back for more! Endurance, ill give him that. Its fine that you disagree, but 1 question. Do YOU have an open mind to the idea that your god COULD in fact be an asshole? Side: yes-why
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
"...where it will be impossible to do 90% of the things you enjoy doing, were you will be stripped of all your individuality and become one of the mindless masses who constantly bow and chant at the feet of your cosmic overlord FOREVER knowing all the while that many of your friends and family members are burning below you because of the guy your ass kissing." Well that just proves how much of a stereotypical view of religion you have. You do realize that you would never be chanting and bowing? You'd just love Him. That's how it works. Also I believe that only those who were truly awful and horrible people go to hell. Everyone else goes to a "purgatory" like place where they continue to do better until they can finally get into heaven. If I went to heaven and my friends and family were making their way up I would gladly watch them and await their arrival and then it would be a happy occasion. No suffering unless someone actually deserved it. I think you should calm down. You are clearly starting to become angry and insulting because you are realizing that you are wrong. I HAVE though about this logically and critically. A lot actually. And I'm 15 and you are... what? 45-50? It's sad that I can come to a better and more peaceful conclusion than you. I BELIEVE that we began by act of God who used quantum mechanics and the big bang to create our universe and our existence. I believe that He has done this to put us to the test to see who will remain loyal to Him and who will fall to Satan. I believe that we were all His angels, and He is testing all of them to see which side they will choose. I believe that God has put so much in the world we live in so that no matter what comes our way we will always return to Him. I believe that people only go to hell if they really truly deserved it. I believe that everyone else, depending on severity of sin, must make their way to heaven and repent their sins, as is only fair, and when they arrive it will be a joyous occasion. That is how it works. THAT is what I believe. Summed up into a nice little package for you to understand and read at your leisure. Is there really anything wrong with that? Please be honest. Side: no-why
1
point
Well that just proves how much of a stereotypical view of religion you have. You do realize that you would never be chanting and bowing? You'd just love Him. That's how it works. So i have a stereotypical view that is wrong but you know EXACTLY that it indeed exists, and exactly what will occur there? Wow. And so theres no free will to decide to not love him? Because ive already come to the conclusion that i could never love someone so vile. Also I believe that only those who were truly awful and horrible people go to hell. Everyone else goes to a "purgatory" like place where they continue to do better until they can finally get into heaven Again, wow you know so much unknowable, non-biblical, untestable information! i should totally take your word for it. Nowhere does it say that theres a purgatory... And isnt Earth the ONE chance you get? It pretty much IS purgatory. And how can you NOT "do better" (as in, attain a faith in god) when you die, see God and find out where and why youre going to purgatory? You wouldve just been given absolute proof... If I went to heaven and my friends and family were making their way up I would gladly watch them and await their arrival and then it would be a happy occasion. And if they dont? Even if i didnt know anybody in hell i would STILL be unable to be happy knowing what theyre going through as i sit cozy in heaven. And tell me, what crime physically possible by any person deserves ETERNAL hell, torment, suffering, pain, ect? It isnt even possible to deserve that. Not even hitler deserves that. Hell is pointless. There's no way to get out, no way to earn your way up to heaven. And theres no corrections in it! You never find out WHY youre there and youre there forever. at least our jail and justice system corrects actions. Hell should be for lengths of time. i agree hitler and other murderers deserve it for years, maybe even decades. but forever? no. BUT, hitler isnt in hell. He was a christian and had faith in god, the 1 thing required for admittance. Gee, now id feel safe in heaven. I think you should calm down. You are clearly starting to become angry and insulting because you are realizing that you are wrong. PLEASE. you were cussing ME out just the same AND were about to throw in the towel a while ago so dont even pull that on me you hypocrite. Youre simply witnessing what happens when someone who has already won the debate is still having to address and destroy the worst arguments ever persistently. I HAVE though about this logically and critically. A lot actually apparently not because your arguments and stance look like swiss cheese ive blasted through them so many times. And I'm 15 and you are... what? 45-50? 16. close though It's sad that I can come to a better and more peaceful conclusion than you, someone "more mentally mature". Look at our first responses to eachother and youll see i was peacefull as ever. Its only when i have to keep addressing nonesense that it gets a little irritating. Youre not even arguing a point anymore. I put that in quotes because you show a lot of immature behavior by swearing and whining so much about my arguments. Because they suck. I havent had to think, or research, or plan out any of my responses. i just think and type then done. theyre so easy to smack down but you keep getting up. admirable. but anoyying I BELIEVE that we began by act of God who used quantum mechanics and the big bang to create our universe and our existence. I believe that He has done this to put us to the test to see who will remain loyal to Him and who will fall to Satan. I believe that we were all His angels, and He is testing all of them to see which side they will choose. I believe that God has put so much in the world we live in so that no matter what comes our way we will always return to Him. I believe that people only go to hell if they really truly deserved it. I believe that everyone else, depending on severity of sin, must make their way to heaven and repent their sins, as is only fair, and when they arrive it will be a joyous occasion. That is how it works 1) What you believe to be true does not affect, or determine what IS true. 2) If you believe that dont assert it as complete truth. 3) Its 99.99% probably wrong 4) It has no basis in science or scripture THAT is what I believe see above Summed up into a nice little package for you to understand and read at your leisure. Is there really anything wrong with that? Please be honest. Yes actually. i could care less that you wanna live in this fantasy world and cover it up by painting it with "science". what i do care about is that you then assert it as truth. I also cant just sit there with it glaring at me all the while knowing full well that its absolutely false. So this debate is over. i made all my rebuttals if you wanna understand and read them at your leisure. IM CONVINCED that we began as a result of entirely natural processes first with quantum mechanics (whether theyre the big bang or otherwise) that created our universe. Im convinced that abiogenesis (or a process similar to it) took place 4.5 billion years or so ago and then resulted in evolution over that time which resulted in us, homo sapien sapiens with all of our intellectual ability. Im convinced that morality is subjective and has evolved as time has passed. Im convinced that the purpose of life is to live it. And im convinced that when we die, consciousness ends and we mentally cease to exist. Side: yes-why
1
point
1
point
Convinced? You're convinced? Yes So you don't believe in anything, you're just convinced of other people's arguments When talking about science it is more acceptable to say that "im convinced this is factual" or "i accept X theory" instead of using the word belief. Its just not an accurate term and is often associated with a sort of religious outlook. But if you wanna say i believe in evolution go ahead, i dont care. and whoever's you see first you think is true? No. Whichever is supported by the evidence i deem to be accurate. The evidence is what convices me, not the people telling me the info. I was taught creationism before anything and when i studied evolution i was convinced that it wasnt true That's what I pull from that. Well youre way off Have fun living in your parent's cellar typing away all of your problems Im 17 so im glad i live with my parents. Though i have a room upstairs not in the cellar. And youre the only one who seems to be having a problem here. I'd prefer to do something with my life. Because an atheist who accepts evolution cant possibly do anything with their life. Get over yourself I have said what I believe in Without supporting it. made my closing statements, farewell. You might wanna work on your closing statements for next time. Those were closing complaints. bye bye Side: yes-why
1
point
I have certainly proved myself. Look at other arguments I've done concerning the number 42. Also, we've been over this before, evolution is how God created our race. The bible's translation from Hebrew contains a few issues. The Hebrew word "Yom" (used in the "God created the universe in six days (six 'Yoms')" part) does not really mean "day". It also means year, decade, era, time, period, etc. Six "Yoms" could mean any given amount of time, not six consecutive 24 hour days. It is most likely over this period He used evolution to create us. Side: no-why
1
point
I have certainly proved myself. Look at other arguments I've done concerning the number 42. Also, we've been over this before, evolution is how God created our race. The bible's translation from Hebrew contains a few issues. The Hebrew word "Yom" (used in the "God created the universe in six days (six 'Yoms')" part) does not really mean "day". It also means year, decade, era, time, period, etc. Six "Yoms" could mean any given amount of time, not six consecutive 24 hour days. It is most likely over this period He used evolution to create us. Which requires that you make an assumption based on another assumption that you have faith in. Science takes what we have and makes no assumptions. it only declares what is known to be true. Evolution happens. End of story. You instead take this fact and then wrap it up in religious bullshit that you cannot prove. Have fun not being able to support anything you believe. Side: yes-why
1
point
1
point
1
point
First off, thank you for not listening to a single word i said pertaining to HOW id like you to rebut my arguments, AND for not listening to my advice to shut up and piss off. I think it's so funny how you seem to think you run the whole show. "HOW id like you to rebut my arguments"? As if I should listen to you. Why on earth would I do that? "AND for not listening to my advice to shut up and off."; really? Again, not going to listen. You don't run the show, dude. Stop trying to. Side: no-why
|
