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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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.
The reason atheists claim there is no God.
"Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking." Einstein
Atheists don't think any more because they rely on everybody else to think for them. Find an atheists that doesn't quote scientific journals or what Google has to say.
"Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking." Einstein
His quote perfectly describes Christians reading the Bible. Not your finest quote mining.
Neither side exercise their thinking. Look at me, I don't read anything and my brain is fit as a fiddle. I mean, who else can come up with the crap I come up with ;)
No where did I say that a religious person couldn't read. I just pointed out that atheists continue to look to others for their answers. For once I'd like to see an atheists that has an answer that is their own.
I just pointed out that atheists continue to look to others for their answers. For once I'd like to see an atheists that has an answer that is their own.
Says the guy whose primary method of debate is to quote famous people...
Says the guy whose primary method of debate is to quote famous people...
I don't quote famous people, I quote people that time has shown that they possessed intelligence. I have never quoted the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, or any other person that is only deemed as famous.
You're still quoting. Often out of context, either in regards to their original statement or in the context of the debate you are participating in. It's kind of sad really. You clearly quote them in the hopes that some of their intelligence will get attributed to you, but your less than stellar usage of such quotes often just makes you look more foolish.
You're still quoting. Often out of context, either in regards to their original statement or in the context of the debate you are participating in. It's kind of sad really. You clearly quote them in the hopes that some of their intelligence will get attributed to you, but your less than stellar usage of such quotes often just makes you look more foolish.
Yes, you pegged me correctly as somebody wishing to be attributed for something that somebody else said. This is the reason I use quotation marks and cite the author.
Now about using something out of context; "All is fair in love and war." (Miguel de Cervantes)
The earliest known attribution to the comparison of Love and War comes from John Lylyl. Although it is true that de Cervantes made in similar statement in Don Quixote, Francis Edward Smedley was the first to use that quote in that form in "Frank Farleigh".
I haven't seen a single atheist explain why God doesn't exist. What I have seen is every atheists tell me why somebody else believes God doesn't exist. This because every atheist cities a book (scientific journal) or web page. Do the research, experiments yourself or you are just replace one book (the Bible) with another.
You are mistaken. You have heard plenty of original arguments.
You would be replacing one book for a massive collection of books with actual data and verifiable results. That is a huge step up and your objection is unjustified.
You are mistaken. You have heard plenty of original arguments.
If you call copy and pasting original, I'd have to agree with you.
You would be replacing one book for a massive collection of books with actual data and verifiable results. That is a huge step up and your objection is unjustified.
The Bible contains 66 books. How books have you read to confirm your non-beliefs?
If you call copy and pasting original, I'd have to agree with you.
Your idea of copy paste is way more generous than anybody else. If someone talks about a topic you consider it copy and paste if anyone else ever talked about that topic. That isn't copying.
The Bible contains 66 books. How books have you read to confirm your non-beliefs?
That's your argument? More books sort of contradicts the whole point of your debate. What is the threshold? Is 66 the number? If I have read 66 books I have enough information? What about 65? Plus, it is still books I would use to confirm my beliefs. It is funny how you are forced to call it non-beliefs to lie to yourself that you are right.
That's your argument? More books sort of contradicts the whole point of your debate. What is the threshold? Is 66 the number? If I have read 66 books I have enough information? What about 65? Plus, it is still books I would use to confirm my beliefs. It is funny how you are forced to call it non-beliefs to lie to yourself that you are right.
You keep telling me about all these sources and you said the Bible is just one, I'm merely pointing out that it is not one book. You keep claiming more is better. Your words, not mine.
It doesn't contradict the point of the debate, because I didn't argue that more is better. You did. I just pointed this out.
I was poking funny of atheists with the non-belief line. Learn the English language, things aren't also meant literal.
People who are real spiritualists believe in a driving force in the universe, not a magical guy upstairs. The Bible doesn't have to be taken literally.
Atheists don't think any more because they rely on everybody else to think for them. Find an atheists that doesn't quote scientific journals or what Google has to say.
Yeah, those darn Atheists are so dumb for quoting from the massive number of scientific journals and all of Google. They would be much smarter if they picked a single well aged book to quote from.
Yes, to those incapable of thinking on there own. I'm sorry that you have trouble understanding the English language and therefore, when you do a Google search can't find the answer to my post. When arguing about whether something is alive or dead, Schrodinger's cat is a valid response.
Just like every theist-atheist debate- the theist answers a question to which the atheist answers Annoyed, the theist rephrases his question to suit him, and the atheist still answers. Show me a debate where the atheist is on the defense..!
I am annoyed by the two sides you put into the argument. Obviously "not false" means either true or somewhat true, which I don't agree with. I find it extremely ignorant, of what others have to say, of you, to really only include one side of the argument: your own. You'll still know what we have to say since we have freedom of speech, but the small things that ignorant people do are very annoying.
True or not false, thats intelectually honest. So, wait, if im not able to describe something perfectly in my own words like, say, quantum mechanics, i shouldnt quote someone who does i should just try to bs my way through it or go practice quantum mechanics in a lab? Also the vast vast vast majority of atheist dont claim there is no god, we just lack belief in one. I find it quite ironic that you dis atheists for being the ones to quote scholarly sources and research actual evidence based things instead of letting one book from 2000 years ago rule our minds in every way.
True or not false, thats intellectually honest. So, wait, if im not able to describe something perfectly in my own words like, say, quantum mechanics, i shouldnt quote someone who does i should just try to bs my way through it or go practice quantum mechanics in a lab? Also the vast vast vast majority of atheist dont claim there is no god, we just lack belief in one. I find it quite ironic that you dis atheists for being the ones to quote scholarly sources and research actual evidence based things instead of letting one book from 2000 years ago rule our minds in every way.
What one should do is to say they are not well enough informed and have no experience in quantum mechanics to talk intelligently about it and so I re-frame from doing so instead of pretending to know something about quantum mechanics.
There is an old saying that states, "An empty wagon rattles."
Or I could go read up on it and cite my source for the other person to look at too. Sure I'd still be restricted to only layman's discussion of the topic but at least I don't have to abandon conversation. I'm still failing to see where citing sources and researching topics is somehow intellectually dishonest.
Or I could go read up on it and cite my source for the other person to look at too. Sure I'd still be restricted to only layman's discussion of the topic but at least I don't have to abandon conversation. I'm still failing to see where citing sources and researching topics is somehow intellectually dishonest.
Say I'm disarming a nuclear bomb and I get hold of you. You tell me how to disarm it from a Google search, citing that you got the information from Wikipedia. Still don't have a problem with pretending to know something about a topic you know nothing about. You may not have a problem with me being dead, but I'm guess since the bomb was in New York; The others that died with me might not be too happy.
We all know it wouldn't be his fault. He would tell you he googled the answer and you will ignore him thinking you are smarter for not trusting books. You will cut the blue wire when he tells you it is the red wire. And you won't be around for us to rub it in that you were wrong.
We all know it wouldn't be his fault. He would tell you he go ogled the answer and you will ignore him thinking you are smarter for not trusting books. You will cut the blue wire when he tells you it is the red wire. And you won't be around for us to rub it in that you were wrong.
At least now we all know that you're gullible enough to trust everything somebody else says. I have some ocean front property in Arizona that I'm willing to sell you.
That has nothing to do with being gullible. If I am sitting at a bomb and the guy over the phone tells me what wire to cut, I have no other information to go off of. So, can you explain how blowing yourself up was the correct option?
That has nothing to do with being gullible. If I am sitting at a bomb and the guy over the phone tells me what wire to cut, I have no other information to go off of. So, can you explain how blowing yourself up was the correct option?
Sorry, but I'm going to side with intuition and not some random web-site. The difference between you and me is that I have a mind of my own and I'm not afraid to use. You really should try it some time.
You don't know me and hence therefore you don't know what I'm capable of. Your lack of experiences and absence of balls don't make you an authority as to whether I may or may not have made the correct decision in my example. Continue to do as the majority does and that sheep you call others will be a fleece upon you.
We already established you blew up because you cut the wrong wire. You made the wrong decision. I just want to know how you can defend cutting the wrong wire.
We already established you blew up because you cut the wrong wire. You made the wrong decision. I just want to know how you can defend cutting the wrong wire.
I'm still here. How old are you? Contact me when you're 50, then you can tell me how the world really works. Till then, young lad please continue to text while driving.
I'm still here. How old are you? Contact me when you're 50, then you can tell me how the world really works.
wait... wait... wait. wait. wait a second here...
let me get this straight. You are more wise than he... because you think its better to disarm a bomb by guesswork in contrast to relying on the most reliable information possible... and you are lecturing him on naivety? Okay???
"relying on intuition" for disarming a bomb opposed to other information out there, sounds like something a young whippersnapper would do to be honest...
let me get this straight. You are more wise than he... because you think its better to disarm a bomb by guesswork in contrast to relying on the most reliable information possible... and you are lecturing him on naivety? Okay???
"relying on intuition" for disarming a bomb opposed to other information out there, sounds like something a young whippersnapper would do to be honest...
Since when has the information on the internet been reliable?
How do know that the website with the information to disarm the bomb wasn't put there by the terrorist themselves?
Only somebody young wouldn't question the information.
Since when has the information on the internet been reliable?
I'm not saying information on the internet is necessarily reliable, but researching via internet is probably more reliable than guess work when it comes to disarming a bomb... I don't know how to wrap my mind around how you think contrary.
How do know that the website with the information to disarm the bomb wasn't put there by the terrorist themselves?
Ok, first of all, again I'm not saying that information on the internet isn't necessarily reliable, but i'd rather take my chances at finding a reliable source online to how to disarm a bomb, than just doing random shit with it and hoping I don't blow us up... the latter there seems ten folds more naive... I am sorry, but if I agreed with you, we'd both be idiots...
Only somebody young wouldn't question the information.
I would question the information, it's just that, I'd rather work off the most reliable information via internet then guesswork. Only somebody young and stupid, would literally think it would be better to disarm a gun based off of guesswork, than to actually try to do some sort of research...
I'm not saying information on the internet is necessarily reliable, but researching via internet is probably more reliable than guess work when it comes to disarming a bomb... I don't know how to wrap my mind around how you think contrary.
Who said anything about guess work? I'm talking about intuition. Intuition is simply the collection of previous experiences. Even-though I have never disarmed a bomb, I am mechanically inclined and have knowledge of electronics. The trouble with people is they project their lack of experience, knowledge, and wisdom on to every one else. Even lies have some truth in them and that's how one should look at all information, especially when it is found on-line.
Only somebody young and stupid, would literally think it would be better to disarm a gun (changed to bomb) based off of guesswork, than to actually try to do some sort of research...
The clock is ticking. You have 3 minutes to disarm the bomb. Go ahead and write your thesis.
Who said anything about guess work? I'm talking about intuition. Intuition is simply the collection of previous experiences.
How do you tell the difference? Intuition isn't just previous experiences, previous UNCONCIOUS experiences... perhaps, but no... previous experience is wisdom and hands on learning. Intuition is usually knowing something, without knowing how you know it.
Even-though I have never disarmed a bomb, I am mechanically inclined and have knowledge of electronics. The trouble with people is they project their lack of experience, knowledge, and wisdom on to every one else.
That information was never provided... So of course I haven't calculated that, why would I just assume that you had that sort of knowledge? however, still, you would probably be even better off relying on that AND trying to do some research... no reason you can't have both.
Even lies have some truth in them and that's how one should look at all information, especially when it is found on-line.
I do think, people should be sceptical when researching online, as the internet is probably FULL of misinformation, however, if you are good at weeding out misinformation from information, and knowing where to find the most reliable data... You are probably are better off researching as well.
The clock is ticking. You have 3 minutes to disarm the bomb. Go ahead and write your thesis.
You never provided the amount of time that we would have, so again there is no way I can incorporate that information, and with no reason to think that you have any education relevant to this, I would think you would be better off doing research... I assumed your hypothetical applied to everyone in general not just you, otherwise it loses it's point.
How do you tell the difference? Intuition isn't just previous experiences, previous UNCONCIOUS experiences... perhaps, but no... previous experience is wisdom and hands on learning. Intuition is usually knowing something, without knowing how you know it.
"In more-recent psychology, intuition can encompass the ability to know valid solutions to problems and decision making. For example, the recognition primed decision (RPD) model explains how people can make relatively fast decisions without having to compare options. Gary Klein found that under time pressure, high stakes, and changing parameters, experts used their base of experience to identify similar situations and intuitively choose feasible solutions. Thus, the RPD model is a blend of intuition and analysis. The intuition is the pattern-matching process that quickly suggests feasible courses of action. The analysis is the mental simulation, a conscious and deliberate review of the courses of action."
Source:Klein, Gary. Intuition At Work. Random House, NY, NY. January, 2003.
That information was never provided... So of course I haven't calculated that, why would I just assume that you had that sort of knowledge? however, still, you would probably be even better off relying on that AND trying to do some research... no reason you can't have both
I never said that any information should be discarded. I just stated that information may or may not be accurate and one shouldn't worship it.
You never provided the amount of time that we would have, so again there is no way I can incorporate that information, and with no reason to think that you have any education relevant to this, I would think you would be better off doing research... I assumed your hypothetical applied to everyone in general not just you, otherwise it loses it's point.
If the amount of time was unknown; Does this mean you can act as if there is no priority to disarm it?
So your argument is that google/wikipedia can never contain accurate information, that one shouldnt even bother TRYING to look up information and instead accept that they dont know and work from pure ignorance or give up, and that atheists only look stuff up on google/wikipedia instead of actual scientific sources on the internet?
So your argument is that Google/wikipedia can never contain accurate information, that one shouldnt even bother TRYING to look up information and instead accept that they dont know and work from pure ignorance or give up, and that atheists only look stuff up on Google/wikipedia instead of actual scientific sources on the internet?
Information on the Internet may or may not be true and so one has to take this into consideration. With this be the case one will never be an expert from what they learn on the Internet. One should only use Google,etc. has a broad generality made up from popular opinion and not cold hard facts.
“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” Mark Twain
You do realize google doesnt actually say anything right? Its a search engine to find other websites. So if i type in "evidence for evolution" and it shoots me to something like pbs.org, or biology.gov those are scholarly sites that are permissible even for citations on grad school papers. Thats the kind of stuff that i use and that i find most others use too.
You do realize google doesnt actually say anything right? Its a search engine to find other websites. So if i type in "evidence for evolution" and it shoots me to something like pbs.org, or biology.gov those are scholarly sites that are permissible even for citations on grad school papers. Thats the kind of stuff that i use and that i find most others use too.
And when it shoots you to the "Church of the non-believers" you quit there. Let's face it. You don't look for facts, just those sites that you already agree with what you believe.
What if I only believe trusted scientific and scholarly sources for my scientific information? Church of non believers..really? How about creationists getting all of their info from answersingenesis.org?
Right, and that's the type of belief that leads me to believe 95% of the population is stupid, relative to basic rules of rationality and logic. It's that simple. Want proof? I read the first three chapters of a logic book. Now, obviously I can safely say I don't know shit about logic. But I can also safely say that if you read any basic logic book, and you analyze how a lot of these beliefs are thought out, you'll realize that most people who believe in this shit are morons.
Well, the right answer is ONE BOOK doesn't make someone a moron, right or wrong.
What makes someone a moron is IQ, EQ, Wisdom, etc. Who cares about one book? I mean really? I'll bet I can score higher on an IQ test than at least 10% of those people, and more realistically 75% of those people.
And according to that logic, either way it's not 100%. Has anyone ever met a devout Christian who has failed at math? How about one that aced all of their math classes? I'm sure someone on Earth has?
So no, I'm not a moron. Forget stupidity. If I'm smarter than ONE devout Christian, and not all of them, then either side is smarter.
Plus, Stephen Hawking is atheist. You should hear HIS opinion on god. At the same time, so a lot of stupid muggers are atheists. Which person will burn in hell? Who is the ideal atheist, Stephen Hawking or a mugger?
Funny. When I search "is there a God" on Google I get a lot of christian websites. I suppose they have finally figured out that a computer isn't a ungodly window into hell but rather quite a useful tool.
Most atheist wouldn't claim there is no God, that's the first thing.
Second thing, if not having imagination makes you be right, then what's the problem?
And last but not least, I'm an atheist, I don't claim there's not a God, I do NOT believe there is one, I would describe myself and many other atheists I know as very imaginative, I , and most if not all atheist, hate taking what others think as reference without actual reasoning, and in fact the fields of arts, and all that has to do with being creative are the ones that fascinate me the most.
What about the atheists that write those scientific journals, or who contribute the answers to Google, for other atheists to use, do they count as people who thought for themselves.
Also you said "The reason atheists claim there is no God" I have to say this is a generalization on atheists, and it's actually not a true thought about atheists as a whole. I'm an atheists, I however don't claim there is no God, I just don't believe him. I'm making no claims.
What about the atheists that write those scientific journals, or who contribute the answers to Google, for other atheists to use, do they count as people who thought for themselves.
There is no need to point out flaws with his arguments. He doesn't really read them.
Also you said "The reason atheists claim there is no God" I have to say this is a generalization on atheists, and it's actually not a true thought about atheists as a whole. I'm an atheists, I however don't claim there is no God, I just don't believe him. I'm making no claims.
Yeah, that's the kind of arguments he makes. Get used to it.
Let me point out just how you debate and you'll find out that you're not the great debater that you think you are.
If I say blue, you say red. Then what follows you telling everybody how great you think red is. There is no evidence or any proof to back up your statement, just you boosting red is better. The next thing that happens is that those with as few of brains as you have up-vote you stating red is better.
It could be that the answer is always red and you keep picking blue because you are dumb.
Then what follows you telling everybody how great you think red is. There is no evidence or any proof to back up your statement, just you boosting red is better. The next thing that happens is that those with as few of brains as you have up-vote you stating red is better.
Oh boy. This is so backwards it is insane. Please stop projecting on me.
I like how you just proved you are wrong in this debate though. If I never provide information to back up my ideas, than your whole concept of Atheists always quoting stuff gets thrown out the window. ;)
I said you put no thought into this debate and you confirmed you put no thought into this debate. So, just in these sets of arguments I have been right 1 out of 1 time. And this makes you wrong about me never being right, so you are 0 out of 1. I hope I have explained in terms that you can understand.
I said you put no thought into this debate and you confirmed you put no thought into this debate. So, just in these sets of arguments I have been right 1 out of 1 time. And this makes you wrong about me never being right, so you are 0 out of 1. I hope I have explained in terms that you can understand.
Do you really think that somebody can put no thought into something that one writes? I win because you just claimed the impossible. Your evidence for this is that you think this and that I said an impossibility. Fail, Fail.
Did I express an opinion? According to the definition of thought, I put thought into this debate. Now if you're smarter than all the rest of the people in the world and know what thought is better than all of them.........that's a different story.
So you are either wrong or everybody else is. My guess is that very thing in which you worship (the internet, scientific journals, popular opinion) can't be wrong, so you must be.
I said halves. That's the plural of half. Everything can be divided into two parts. Each of those parts is one half. You demonstrated that you satisfied one half of one of the possible definitions. You don't know how definitions work.
As much as I HATE to side with TheWayItIs, the definition posted was an or statement; this means that either one works, rather than both being required. The term used when both are required is 'and.' This holds true both in conversational speech and boolean logic.
I have to acknowledge that there is some form of thought process on his end- the quality is extremely poor and results in fundamentally flawed conclusions almost every time, but a low-level, flawed thought process, founded on questionable premises and drawing non-sequitur conclusions is still a thought process.
I was referring to the part after the word produced. He satisfies the part after produced only if you are right about there being some form of thought process. But, as I pointed out before breathing doesn't require a thought process, so you have no evidence that his posting requires a thought process.
Now now, lets not get ahead of ourselves. Breathing doesn't require a thought process because it is handled by the autonomic nervous system. But actually writing any word requires conscious effort on the part of the writer, as well as thought at some level.
It's true that we don't have evidence that his posting requires a thought process- it's possible that he's a bot or something. But if we can assume it is a person, however unintelligent, generating those posts, it does involve some measure of thought.
A penny is close to nothing, but it's still not nothing.
But actually writing any word requires conscious effort on the part of the writer, as well as thought at some level.
I have evidence that this is not true. See this debate.
It's true that we don't have evidence that his posting requires a thought process- it's possible that he's a bot or something. But if we can assume it is a person, however unintelligent, generating those posts, it does involve some measure of thought.
There is no reason to believe that given the quality of his posts.
A penny is close to nothing, but it's still not nothing.
I have evidence that this is not true. See this debate.
Unless you have evidence that he's a bot, then this debate does prove that he is undertaking some form of thought process. Certainly a very poor, rudimentary one, but a process nonetheless.
There is no reason to believe that given the quality of his posts.
Claiming he has no thoughts does him too much credit. Having no thoughts, and making no posts whatsoever would be preferable to what he has to say. No, I think he needs to be called out for how supremely dysfunctional his thought processes are :P
Unless you have evidence that he's a bot, then this debate does prove that he is undertaking some form of thought process. Certainly a very poor, rudimentary one, but a process nonetheless.
"You don't know me and hence therefore you don't know what I'm capable of." Thewayitis
You don't know for sure that he can't post without thinking.
Claiming he has no thoughts does him too much credit. Having no thoughts, and making no posts whatsoever would be preferable to what he has to say. No, I think he needs to be called out for how supremely dysfunctional his thought processes are :P
Stick to making fun of him, it is more productive.
Let's talk about this differently. He demonstrated he was right because he satisfied only half the definition, correct. You were forced to fill in the other half of his argument. So, he is still wrong.
We haven't seen ourselves born from our parents.But we believe
because we believe the principle"everything has a creator".it could be a table,a chair or a rocket.Similarly we have also created by someone. And we have named it as GOD,like right brothers the god of airplane invention.
Convenient isn't it... God is the swiss army knife of knowledge. Anything you don't understand, anything good that happens, anything thats wonderful, anything that warms your heart.
The basis of a principle is a fundamental truth or rule. A belief in religion requires a gap between what is supported by evidence and what assumptions the belief relies on.
Whilst I cannot remember my own birth, I can only assume I came from my parents rather than the family cat. Indeed my lineage is based on evidence supporting my suspicion the lady and man that brought me up were indeed my parents, but you never know.
There are simple logical arguments for why pretty much any established religion is bogus nonsense. You don't need all that fancy learnin' and stuff to get to that conclusion.
Case example #1: no witnessed miracles or supernatural events. Still waiting for those random events in nature that breaks all known rules. Basically, if God did ANYTHING then we would be able to observe the breakage of cause and effect as we know it to be.
All the other observable stuff, we collectively put together as part of science. God has no place is the physical sciences, because it literally does no exist. It does exist as part of psychology, though.
Yeah because doing extensive research written by people with PhD's in astrophysics and astronomy is not as good of an idea as making up stuff in your head.
Oh wait a second, don't you get your religion from books too? And don't you blindly follow those books written by people who aren't you? And don't you act how those books tell you to act? Oh I get it now. If an Atheist cites documents written by people who have studied that subject for decades, it's useless and silly. But if a Christian cites a book crammed with metaphors and fairy tales, it's understandable and reasonable. Thanks for clearing that up.
Back when i was an Atheist (just don't care for labels), I became one from reading the bible and finding problems within it. Plus I wanted to know the devil's side of the story. Since I was coming to my own conclusions on things, there were things I was embarrassingly wrong about and other that were good. I was about 19 years old and at that time I've ever heard of Atheism. So there was no one challenging my beliefs but me.
I use to come up with crazy theories (and I still do) like [the reason babies have a hard time learning how to walk, is because they are not use to the earth's rotation yet. Babies that can stand seem to fall in a way that a kid does after spinning around, maybe the babies mind sees the world spinning like if you were on laughing gas and the room begins to spin.] as you can tell, this was an insane ideal.
Even though you said Atheist, I do agree that people don't think that much, some just use regurgitated information for the sake of being "right" or seeming smarter. Which leads to little to no new ideals on a subject. By the way like how both answer chooses are "True" lol
So quoting sources that have shown to be accurate and informative, and crediting them with information you have obtained is wrong? I guess learning is bad, and that you should never learn things from other people ever... now don't mind me as I lock myself into a cave and isolate myself from all of humanity so that I can figure everything out on my own...
So quoting sources that have shown to be accurate and informative, and crediting them with information you have obtained is wrong? I guess learning is bad, and that you should never learn things from other people ever... now don't mind me as I lock myself into a cave and isolate myself from all of humanity so that I can figure everything out on my own...
Saying that the Bible (a collection of 66 books) is just one book isn't good enough but an article in a journal is accurate, nothing like ignoring the facts.
Saying that the Bible (a collection of 66 books) is just one book isn't good enough but an article in a journal is accurate, nothing like ignoring the facts.
There is a huge difference between citing an ancient text with nothing to back it up but popular opinion... and citing an article backed by scientific study and investigation. The scientific article at least references empirical evidence, the best the bible would have are philosophical arguments which I would be more than willing to evaluate any brought up here.
There is a huge difference between citing an ancient text with nothing to back it up but popular opinion...
The man Jesus never lived, there are no Pharaohs, the Dead Sea doesn't exist, there isn't a city named Jerusalem, Jews don't exist. Just wondering if you believe there is a Colosseum in Rome?
Those things are empirical in the field of history, however, the claim of god's existence does not have any empirical evidence to back it up. We can rely on documentation of things, but there is a huge difference in relying on documentation of a man named Jesus, and a higher power in the universe... One is an ordinary claim that we know is not all that improbable, people with names have existed for centuries, and people named Jesus (a handful of them) have existed in the past. Higher powers, and gods, that's a different story, an extra-ordinary claim.