CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS Aveskde

Reward Points:1935
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
90%
Arguments:3216
Debates:15
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

The question asked if Islam and democracy can coexist. Your own example of Turkey shows that yes they can coexist.

Just barely. Islamists make every effort to turn Turkey into an Islamic theocracy. It's amazing they're still secular.

The majority of muslims live outside of the arab world. Turkey, a secular nation with a muslim majority proves that those two can coexist. Another example of such a country is Albania.

No, it proves that Islamists just take time to undermine a secular democracy. Turkey may fall under the spell of Islam in the future, a concerted effort is being made against it.

2 points

Some interesting problems for cosmologic Big Bang theorists.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=exoplanets-cast-doubt

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/index.html

Did you read through the astrophysics section of that research library? How about the astrophysics and cosmology section of any scientific publication (No, Scientific American isn't primary literature). I ask because you seem to have no idea how tied into science Big Bang Theory is. When a news release says that astronomical theories are being changed, it does not mean that Big Bang Theory is being abandoned. It means that we are changing our understanding of theories relating to it. Your second link looks like quackery, and I can say this because any science publication I read on the topic of astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics regularly shows research utilising Big Bang Theory in its framework or underlying its research. For something so wrong it seems to enjoy wide circulation amongst the qualified experts.

Anyway, I'm leaving the site today. Just wanted to tie up this loose end.

2 points

I dont see how this scripture realtes to anything regarding that.

On a spherical Earth no tree or mountain could be tall or high enough for what was described. A sphere prevents the bottom half from seeing that tree, or the mountain from seeing the bottom portion's civilisations. A flat Earth, however would permit what happened in the bible.

Well, I'm leaving the site today. It was nice talking with you these months.

2 points

My point is I dont fear death. I never said anything that suggests that i fear it. Why? Because Jesus christ conquered death.

This sounds like you fear death and simply displaced that fear with a religious belief. A person who does not fear death would accept their mortality and not pretend to be immortal.

Give me an example, anywhere in the biblie that says anything about human sacrifice and we will discuss from their.

Jesus Christ was a human sacrifice.

Why dont we take this a step at a time shall we? Because of atheists have a problem with the word of God, get specific, not arrogant and diss the whole thing.

I've made numerous posts in the last few days which had nitpicks of biblical verses. Maybe you not see them?

1 Chronicles 16:30

tremble before him, all the earth.

The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.

Psalm 93:1

The Lord is king, he is robed in majesty;

the Lord is robed, he is girded with strength.

He has established the world; it shall never be moved;

Psalm 96:10

Say among the nations, ‘The Lord is king!

The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.

He will judge the peoples with equity.’

Psalm 104:5

You set the earth on its foundations,

so that it shall never be shaken.

Isaiah 40:21-22

Have you not known? Have you not heard?

Has it not been told you from the beginning?

Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,

and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;

who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,

and spreads them like a tent to live in;

Daniel 4:10-11

Upon my bed this is what I saw;

there was a tree at the centre of the earth,

and its height was great.

The tree grew great and strong,

its top reached to heaven,

and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the

kingdoms of the world and their splendour;

Revelation 1:7

Look! He is coming with the clouds;

every eye will see him,

even those who pierced him;

and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail.

So it is to be. Amen.

These verses imply a fixed (geocentric), flat Earth.

Billions of people diied not knowing the truth? What is truth, surely you born out of your own choice would gladly tell me what truth is.

The truth is that we evolved from simpler organisms, over billions of years, on a planet that formed from the remains of dead stars and exploding stars, and our universe has no apparent design or purpose.

There is nothing pure about it? hahahah wow. How insulting. The word of God is in me. So you are pretty much saying that I am based of torture, lies and human sacrifice.

Human and animal sacrifice, holy war, and superstitions are not pure. Sorry that the truth is so unappealing. It rarely is, why do you think everyone wants to live a lie?

Have you ever read the biblie?

Yes. I've looked throughout it. I've even looked at multiple translations in good faith.

You will find that it is full of love and truth, which is identical to the identity of Jesus.

Not really. The love it has isn't of divine magnitude and the hatred it has is just as petty as any human.

Emotional trap? Tell me what exactly are you trying to save me from?

I'm just telling you what I learned the hard way. I know you can't accept what I say though. When I was your age I was adamantly opposed to people like me. I even felt I successfully battled all those "wrong" atheists, and came out the victor. I guess if anything I wish I could tell myself those many years ago that I was mistaken.

No dont go towards the light! Stay here with me in the darkness while you still can!

It's actually the other way around. Your beliefs are the darkness, designed to keep you from seeing the light of reality.

Sounds like something is speaking in your heart, the devil really is the father of lies. He will do anything and I mean anything to keep you away from what kills him. Life. Pls open up your heart! If you keep closing it then how will you know the truth?

Tell me something: do you really believe that in our world darkness, light, goodness and evil are open about what they are? In other words do you just believe that your "light" is illuminating because it wouldn't lie to you? The first thing we have to learn about life is that nothing is ever what it appears to be, least of all ideologies and beliefs.

You believe in something evil that masquerades as goodness and light, versus what it considers evil and darkness (which happens to be enlightenment and decency). You're turned around by culture, by tradition, by authority.

I had to learn the hard way. I am now truly open-minded.

1 point

Just because the man is Catholic doesn't mean he was killed for it. He criticized a political policy put in place not because of religion but rather as a political move to exercise greater control over the people. The political view was criticized and threatened so they killed him.

He was killed for blasphemy. The assassins stated that outright. Blasphemy is a religious crime, it has no other purpose.

Shahbaz Bhatti (9 September 1968 – 2 March 2011)[1] was a Pakistani politician and elected member of the National Assembly from 2008.[2] He was the first Federal Minister for Minorities[1] from 2008 until his assassination on 2 March 2011 in Islamabad.[3] Bhatti, a Roman Catholic, was an outspoken critic of Pakistan's blasphemy laws and the only Christian in the Cabinet.[4] Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility for his killing and called him a blasphemer of Muhammad.[5]

1 point

the imaginations of ancient peoples. Also, you are wrong about the sun orbiting the Earth, in that it is clearly implied in the bible, with verses repeatedly insisting that the Earth does not move, and that the sun moves.

Remember that this is a very old text. Heliocentricism was barely conceived of just 2000 or so years ago. The bible is between 2000 and 3000 years old. We didn't have a mathematical model of Heliocentric theory until about 500 years ago.

Why would you expect such old texts to predict something barely conceived of then? If you are reading texts of a culture in a period when it was believed that the sun orbited the Earth, why would you impose your knowledge onto it?

SHow me the verses

1 Chronicles 16:30

tremble before him, all the earth.

The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.

Psalm 93:1

The Lord is king, he is robed in majesty;

the Lord is robed, he is girded with strength.

He has established the world; it shall never be moved;

Psalm 96:10

Say among the nations, ‘The Lord is king!

The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.

He will judge the peoples with equity.’

Psalm 104:5

You set the earth on its foundations,

so that it shall never be shaken.

1 point

You have not shown me an error. You can't prove your origin theory and your frustration proves an admittance of that fact.

If you bothered to read them, you would understand that your knowledge of scientific nomenclature is wrong.

If you want me to go point by point to show you the error of these theories then bring them up to me. If not then they are far too long to get into here. Challenge me with a point if you have one. If not then your argument has the same perceived substance as mine.

I perceive that you are wasting time. You have no convincing argument against these theories, and that is why your lack of argument has been one focused on instilling doubt rather than presenting a solid case for yourself. It is also why you still make no argument.

It is through faith that I claim this position.

So you believe it just because you want to. No reasoning, no knowledge, just the need to believe something happens to be wrong.

I believe in God and what He has revealed to us.

You believe in a god and what some authors claim he revealed.

I believe in His supernatural being.

So you believe in magic.

I believe this in faith and I don't hide that fact.

Of course you do. When pressed you will say that you believe as you do because there is evidence of it. But that is a lie. When you believe because of faith, there is no evidence, just blind belief.

If you refuse to even consider that existence then that is your choice.

I don't dispute that you have faith.

This doesn't change the fact that thousands of people claim to have witnessed the accounts in the Bible.

Those are biblical accounts. Not extrabiblical ones. To use an analogy, I can claim that hundreds of people saw Harry Potter use his magic, it's all in the book. Indeed his classmates, his friends, relatives, etc. have all witnessed his incredible feats. How can you deny his magic as fact? There are hundreds of witnesses.

You say it can't verify itself, but where else should it be recorded.

Outside of the bible. If we saw an encyclopedia which mentioned Harry Potter in a nonfiction account, that may warrant research. If we saw newspapers reporting on magic used by the young Wizard, that would raise some eyebrows.

What counts as strong evidence however is not testimony. Physical evidence, mechanisms that could explain testimony, etc.

The Bible is the compilation of 66 books written from the first one (Genesis) over four thousand years in the past. What other religious text has lasted as long and followed so fervently?

Seriously? Bhagavad Gītā (भगवद् गीता) is between 2000 to 5000 years old depending on scholarly method of ascertaining age. Analects (論語) were written around 2500 years ago. Veda (वेद) were assembled around 3000 years ago. Upanishad (उपनिषद्) is almost 3000 years old. The Old Testament (תּוֹרָה, נְבִיאִים, כְּתוּבִים) is as much as 3000 years old.

You ignore it because you refuse to believe, and trust me that doesn't make you right.

I don't believe it because I require evidence and reason. It isn't enough for someone to insist that I believe "just because" (which is what faith is). Look at the position you are in. Don't you feel awful that you just have to accept something as true because an authority told you so? How strange that must be, to be forced to admit that you must take your beliefs on faith, because you have nothing better to convince you. How difficult it must be when pressed, because your position is indefensible. You have NO defense, you just believe.

Then to tell me I refuse to accept your beliefs, like that is some flaw on my part. How strange is that? Did you know that I am the President of Nigeria? Why don't you believe me? It just takes a little faith.

You can't disprove the accounts in the Bible,

You can't disprove that I am the president of Nigeria. You can't disprove that there are reptilian alien hybrids in Washington, who camouflage themselves and conspire to enslave us. How many things that can't be disproven do you not believe?

you have thousands of witnesses who saw the accounts.

In Martian Chronicles there were millions of witnesses who saw the ruins of Martian Civilisation. How can you deny the testimony of these witnesses in Martian Chronicles?

The miracles were special instances so of course they don't follow natural science.

If they don't follow the laws of the universe then that should tell you they are impossible. Impossible things do not happen, by definition. In other words, every time the bible proclaims a miracle, you know it just lied to you. Because miracles fundamentally cannot happen.

To assume they would be restrained by those laws is ignorance.

It's called using reason, and not being gullible. Of course, if you can prove that the laws of the universe can be abrogated at will, then you have a Nobel prize awaiting you.

And there is the evidence. Here are a few about Jesus.

I saw nothing supernatural there. Jesus appeared to some people after his death? This has happened to hysterical or otherwise deluded people before. It's not magic, but a combination of suggestibility, delusion, and wishful thinking.

An eclipse happened? Or it didn't. If it did happen, Jesus was not crucified in Passover, and eclipses are natural things. If it didn't happen, the historians were mistaken because a solar eclipse couldn't occur during Passover.

You're making huge claims about the world and universe, so you are required to furnish proof of biblical claims, like physical proof of a flood, that life was created from nothing, that men can be raised from the dead, etc. I'm not asking for denialism, or falsified evidence which permeates creationism.

I didn't mean testify in the literal sense. How do we learn about the universe, through observing it. How do we understand fossils, by studying the fossils. The only assumptions you make about fossils is by what you observe about them.

Right. So what's the problem?

But if that original dense matter/energy undertook rapid expulsion, and we see that the universe is still expanding in all directions. Gravity alone would not draw that matter to other matter. We are not at critical mass even today. So how do you suppose that matter would be able to attract to one another? If space itself was under going rapid expulsion?

Because in our universe there is no objective reference frame. While space expands, everything isn't expanding from some point, it is all relative to points within itself. This causes the effect that there is perceptibly no expansion of space. It is like the speed of Earth. The Earth travels at around 30km/s, and I've seen figures for the Sun traveling around the Milky way at around 200+km/s. Why aren't you traveling at this speed when you stand still? It has to do with reference frames.

Gravity doesn't hold the universe in place today. That is why dark matter/energy was hypothesized. If Gravity was powerful enough to suspend the expanding space then we would never had expanded in the first place. We would still be constrained to that primordial matter/energy composite. You see then the problem with your theory?

I see that you have some misunderstandings. Gravity isn't supposed to suspend expanding space, as that doesn't even make sense, since it only acts on matter, not space. Dark matter was hypothesized to account for some specific errors in measurement when observing the mass and gravity interactions of distant celestial bodies. For an inexplicable reason, certain bodies behave more massively than they are. It was hypothesized that matter must exist which doesn't absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation. This is dark matter.

All of the ways of determining distance require mass and the speed of light. That mass is directly related by the luminosity of the star in question. Lensing has not been fully understood yet. That lensing would directly affect the luminosity of the celestial body. Because at such immense distances the bending of light between it and that dark matter could be very significant. If it takes a twin Quasar (the most energetic phenomenon known today) to discover this, then what other instances has this effected our astrometry. Can you say for certain?

On these matters I trust the experts, because they make a living examining these methods and know them better than I do. I examined those methods and they looked systematic and reliable, because each method has a specific purpose and range of expected use.

In other words, if you have these big questions, ask an expert, because he is paid for a living to ask those very questions and more than likely already has at some point before improving methodology.

The operational physics absolutely, although that changes especially near black holes. There is far too many unknowns in the universe to believe it is completely symmetrical.

That is only if black holes can be maintained in physics. Loop-Quantum Gravity seems to suggest that there aren't singularities as was thought under General Relativity.

We observe a minute fraction of time within that stars evolution to make such claims as millions if not billions of years. Perhaps the fact that it is observable within the few decades we have had the technology shows just how rapid a stars life cycle can be.

There is an uncountable number of stars in the universe, even of galaxies. We can make these observations because we have a huge display of all kinds of stars before us.

A beneficial mutation is not evolution.

Yes it is. When it passes onto the population, that is evolution.

How do you think we got corn? Beneficial mutations to a simple grass.

It is damage in the DNA that causes bacteria to lose a venerability to certain threats.

It is a mutation that may confer an altered metabolism, which is a step towards totally new metabolic processes. We saw this with the long-term E. coli experiments.

This does not create new genetic material that is capable of going from ape to man. Or even to change the basic genetics of the test subject.

This is just a point of dogma which you memorised to keep you ignorant. Novel mutations change metabolism, if these are beneficial they are preserved and passed on. Causing evolution. Given thousands, or millions of years, or even billions, you have bacteria that become protozoa, plants, and animals. You have bacteria that evolve the ability to use citrate. You have grasses and weeds that become Corn and Rye. Millions of iterations of small steps causes a bacteria to turn into an amoeba. Millions more cause it to turn into a multicellular animal.

I believe in a supernatural transcendent God.

You believe in magic.

You believe nothing created something. And then you restrain yourselves to natural laws and fail right out the gate because of the origin theory.

I believe in using reason, which gives us many insights to answer the big questions, which you continue to deny because of your faith in magic.

1 point

Well let's see you make a hypothesis to test your theory. This is a basic part of the scientific method. Where is the misunderstanding?

I gave you these links earlier to explain your error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxaM0P8Fyu4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Your assumptions are not provable. We all assume before we actually know. To be able to know you must be able to prove by factual evidence. Not assumptuous evidence.

Again, I'm waiting for an actual argument instead of your assertion that the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are wrong.

Why can't it? Like I said before we study the universe to verify what the universe is doing. We compare what is in the Bible but not only the books in them also extrabiblical references as well. Your logic is we can't use fossils to explain fossils.

You can't because it's circular. Your argument for god becomes "God exists because the bible says god exist and we can trust the bible because it says it is god's word."

You need extrabiblical evidence and material.

On those other subjects, fossils do not claims about themselves, and the universe doesn't proclaim anything. You are confusing investigation of a subject with using that subject to verify itself.

Even in your own theory (Big Bang) we shouldn't see any proximity of matter in the universe. Especially if space itself is constantly expanding. If the universe has been expanding since 15 billion years, then why are we seeing gravitational collisions between galaxies. If that first rapid expanse occurred how would matter ever had combined with other matter.

Gravity draws matter together. If it didn't exist, then your prediction would be correct.

Well these distances rely on the red shift to figure its recessional velocity. Knowing its recessional velocity we can determine its distance from us. The problem this poses is the amount of unseen matter in the universe (secular theory). There is no way to accurately detect gravitational lensing on average stars outside our own galaxy. We only recently discovered this problem with the double Quasar. Which is a very luminous and extremely high energy event. Other stellar occurrences would be extremely difficult to observe as most of what is known is simply their composition. There is just too many stars to individually monitor for repeated occurrences. And as the distance increases so would the chance for interference. Not to mention gravity stretching the light from all of the dark matter we can't detect. You see then how the variables need to be accounted for?

That is why we have many different methods to measure distance, and each one has its prescribed limitations and variables accounted for. Your claim only works if we assume we have just one tool in our kit, which is simplistic and doesn't account for modern knowledge.

You can't impose that when you have one example to go on. And the one example is not an observable event. This isn't operational science but purely theoretical.

Symmetry supersedes those scientific laws that you are so enamoured by. It is derived from math and explains, essentially, that physics must operate the same everywhere in the universe, and at any time. It also explains the conservation laws.

As for your other objections:

http://www.space.com/11083-hubble-photo-dying-star-toxic-gas.html

http://astroblog.cosmobc.com/2011/02/24/astronomy-picture-of-the-week-supernova- bubble-resembling-holiday-ornament/

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100626.html

We see dying stars, newly born stars, indeed all sorts of phenomena just by observing space. That is how we learn about stellar evolution, and how we test those theories.

I have heard of it, but I have never seen it.

Try looking at the Hubble telescope photos some day. There are many examples of stars forming, of nebulae condensing, etc.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-astro-nebula.html

I will stop you there, it is not new matter. The same electrons, protons, and neutrons are recycled to make different particles. They can't defy the law of conservation of mass and energy.

My language was not precise: They break down matter and form new kinds of matter with it.

Only the made up instances of quantum occurrences. When their research doesn't coincide with the supported model then they are completely ignored. Evolutionists themselves hinder scientific progress because they limit their ideas to such exorbitant amount of time.

Biologists use a theory that has been refined for over a century. The claims it makes exist because of the evidence leading to those conclusions. You should know better, but instead you deny a fundamental piece of science because you have faith in something written by men over two thousand years ago. Have some context for your bold claims.

The simple fact is that we have observed animals and bacteria evolve. We have observed new mutations that benefit populations. What haven't we observed? God. Magic. Prayer working. A flat Earth (biblical claim). A fixed Earth (biblical claim). People walking on water. Animals popping into existence from nothing (creationism).

You have no place to criticise biology and science when your beliefs are absurd and laughable.

My explanation is the account in scripture. I believe God a supernatural being created all that is in the universe. You believe that matter/energy came into existence...? That's right through nothing!! That or you are stupid enough to believe it always existed and violate both laws of thermodynamics. Especially because ever trade off with energy always loses an amount.

You believe in a text written over two thousand years ago, by man. You believe that text's claim that it is inspired by a god which it claims exists. That is the truth of the matter. You have not established that god exists, or that the text is correct. You have only your belief in it. Belief that flies in the face of modern evidence and methodology. You believe in a document that explains how to sacrifice animals to appease a god. That claims men can live in the belly of a giant fish. That says that women came from a rib (actually the baculum). That says magic words can create things from nothing.

Then you have the gall to talk about my assumptions as if I am the one making absurd claims that defy nature and reality. That is known as projection. My claims are not absurd, neither are my assumptions, but you are projecting your absurdity onto me as a defense mechanism. Learn your place. You have no business calling other people stupid or absurd when you believe in talking snakes and literal hocus pocus.

The facts are that I gave you two possible answers being investigated which describe how our universe may have come into being. This is a very recondite subject, well beyond your education, and one of the few subjects that I have difficulty understanding, which is saying something because I am hardly ever challenged. That you dismiss it out of hand without bothering to learn about it, says volumes of your ignorance and arrogance.

It is the inspired word of God. That is a fact you have no proof to dispute. Tell me what do you think the Bible says about the universe. Quote some scripture.

No. It claims to be the inspired word of an assumed god. See the difference? Harry Potter claims to be an account of a young wizard in Hogwarts. Martian Chronicles claims to be an account of our exploration and conquest of Mars. You made a puerile mistake in confusing a claim with a fact.

Of course I can't dispute that claim, it is an unfalsifiable one. Remember what I told you about science (aka knowledge) and falsifiability? What, don't tell me you automatically believed it because it cannot be proven false? That's funny. I cannot prove or dispute the claim that leprechauns exist. Do you believe in them? How about fairies? Monsters under the bed?

Jeremiah 10:12

12 It is he who made the earth by his power,

who established the world by his wisdom,

and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.

Yeah, so? It's talking about the firmament. In biblical cosmology the Earth is surrounded by the universe which is a dome-like structure of firmament. Oh, also the Earth is flat and fixed. The dome has windows which let in water. Read Psalm, Job, 1 Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew and Revelation. I believe even Genesis mentions the windows of heaven.

You mean like science fiction? Terraforming and Martians.

Martian Chronicles is a book I read, used to illustrate the point about believing silly things in books. Like gods.

2 points

If that's the case, then you should read those three articles. They are attempts to figure out the nature of the Big Bang before it formed our universe.

2 points

As stated, I am talking about "the existence of God(s)".

The debate description merely gets specific ON SOME POINTS that will be brought up during debate.

Even so, it all doesn't matter. Unless you understand a religion up to a point where others will believe that YOU believe in it (when describing it), you will not be able to debunk a religion.

Right, but don't you think that when discussing god you should frame it within the debate topic?

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Are we wired to see god in disasters due to cultural superstition?
Winning Position: It's Preposterous
Winning Position: Heterogeneous
Tied Positions: Government Regulation vs. Abolish Government Intervention
Winning Position: lack of common sense
Tied Positions: Because it is already a friend vs. we are terrified

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Fellow
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Religion: Other
Via IM: im[email protected]

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here