- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
One cannot disprove a god in the same way that one cannot disprove a tiny invisible teapot orbiting Saturn. But simply being unable to disprove something does not mean that the likelihood of the thing existing are 50/50. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you can claim God exists without proving it, I can deny his existence just as easily. The onus is on the believers to provide the proof.
And in the case of the biblical God (with a capital G), it can and has been conclusively disproven. Muslims, Jews, and Christians just prefer to ignore the proof.
Whenever a theist tries to use gaps in our knowledge to prove God, I simply ask what their great-great-great grandfather's name was.
Of course they say they don't know, to which I reply something like this, "Was his name God? Of course not. He did exist, you are proof of that, and he must have had a name. So you know there is an answer to the question, you just don't know it right now. You could do do some research or talk to your relatives to try to find the answer, but quite possibly you will never know. Science is always trying to further our understanding of the universe and they discover and learn more about it everyday. But some things may be lost to the mysteries of time, like your ancestor's name. You see, sometimes we don't know the answer to a question, and it's OK to admit that. What's not OK is to assume that 'God' is an acceptable fill-in-the-blank answer for anything you can't explain."
There is no evidence to support the biblical God, or Jesus. None, zero.
Why do good things happen to bad people, and vice versa? Why does a coin sometimes land on heads, and sometimes on tails? Random chance. Add to that the fact that bad people are more willing to step on others to get ahead and it's simply no wonder why bad people often seem to get a better deal.
Why does the bible contradict itself? Why does God's behavior seem erratic? Because it's a collection of stories written by many authors over hundreds of years. When the writer wants God to be merciful, God is merciful. When the writer hates women, God hates women. An perfect being would not contradict itself, wouldn't create a flawed suffering, wouldn't be vain, selfish, or stupid. But people are all of those things, and people created God in their image.
Why don't the historical parts of the bible match up with the historical texts of the nations mentioned? Because it's simply a story. Nobody wrote about Jesus' miracles because he never performed any. Nobody wrote about the exodus because there wasn't one. Note that I am talking about independent, corroborative evidence, not the writings of the bible itself. I'm sure you understand how the bible is no more evidence for God's existence than The Sorcerer's Stone is evidence for Harry Potter's existence.
Julius Caesar lived around the same time as Jesus. Hundreds of separate people wrote about him, his family, and his actions in diaries and personal letters and official government documents such as census and military records. The nations he waged war with have records of those wars and describe him. Paintings and statues from the time period depicting him clearly show the same man. He had descendants, his family was well documented. There is no evidence of a historical Jesus. None at all.
It's perfectly natural to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex who is of apparent child bearing age. This judgement is based on development of secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts, hips, and buttocks, and some women will reach this stage earlier than others.
This attraction is healthy and natural. Most of those who are attracted to pubescent children are also attracted to adults of the opposite sex. This is not pedophilia. Pedophiles are primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children who have not even begun to develop their secondary sexual characteristics.
It is an involuntary attraction, like homosexuality. It is not a conscious choice and pedophiles should not be persecuted simply for their sexual orientation. Approximately 3-9% of the population is affected, meaning that pedophiles possibly outnumber homosexuals. However, unlike homosexuals, pedophiles must suppress their sexual urges as young children cannot consent to sexual activity.
There is a lot of embarassing content on the internet that people didn't consent to being published, all of it is legal to possess. Even rape videos, torture, animal cruelty, beastiality, etc. While they are illegal to produce because that requires a victim, they are all legal to possess, because there is no harm in simply watching. Why the exception for child pornography? It's thought crime. They know the action is harmless, but the thoughts make them uncomfortable. The fact that pornographic drawings and stories which involve no real children are also illegal demonstrates that it is not about protecting children, but punishing impure thoughts.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement