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.
It depends entirely on the religious beliefs of the individual with whom the Christian is debating. For instance, if a Christian is debating the topic of abortion with an atheist, then claiming that God hath declared the killing of unborn children is an abomination simply shall not work for the Christian's argument; instead, providing something secular, something to which the atheist may take, is a more logical step. However, if debating with a fellow Christian, then I would be quite surprised if no religious allusions popped their heads every now and then, and rightly so.
I am a person of faith and agree with you completely! It is just like any battle, know your opponent and fight in a language that is familiar to them (not in a negative sense here, just an analogy) that they can understand.
If it were a valid statement about truth, you wouldn't have just one source promoting it. It would be better to use a source that was peer reviewed, and current.
The Bible's best claim for veracity is itself. You can say the same thing about any other holy text, by the by.
There has never ever been a book that has stood the test of time and research for verification than the Bible.
The Bible was written by over 40 humans and over a period of 1500 years. They came from different backgrounds and locations (three different continents) and in three different languages. They wrote on different topics and still in content was unified. Not one book could stand alone without the others, they are one unit. Amazing.
If you found 10 people from around your area having similar backgrounds who all speak the same language, and have the same culture…then separated them and asked them to write their opinion on “the meaning of life”…..and you compared their writings would they all agree with each other? No. I highly doubt it. But every writer in the Bible over the period of 1500 years with different cultures and education levels, from three continents, three languages….hundreds of subjects…… were in complete agreement in what they said and what they were inspired to write. I doubt this happened by mere coincidence. For Christians it is the Word of God.
I believe it is a book that even modern science, archeology can verify. No book on earth has been studied more than the bible has.
There has never ever been a book that has stood the test of time and research for verification than the Bible.
Excluding, of course, the variant origin stories found in Genesis, the idea that the Sun revolves around Earth and that light could shine down on an Earth that predated the sun, the whole concept of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, talking snakes and donkeys, etc. Not only has research failed to verify these things, but they are impossible.
The Bible was written by over 40 humans and over a period of 1500 years. They came from different backgrounds and locations (three different continents) and in three different languages. They wrote on different topics and still in content was unified. Not one book could stand alone without the others, they are one unit.
A lot of what you say is true. However, the Bible was not put into its current form until the Council of Nicea. Several books of the Bible, including some which dispute others, were voted out. As if truth could be determined by a show of hands. And the fact is, whether or not all of these people agreed, it doesn't actually prove that they were right. And at least two of them disagreed on the order of events happening in Genesis, and a few other things, so this agreement was hardly complete.
I believe it is a book that even modern science, archeology can verify.
Then your belief is wrong. Modern science disputes MANY claims made in the Bible, while archeology only shows us that many of the desperate stories composing the OT were originated some time before the establishment of Christianity and possibly even Judaism, and were modified from their original telling to fit with the collection that became the Bible.
No book on earth has been studied more than the bible has.
True. And the Bible has repeatedly proven incorrect during these studies.
A phenomenon known as "wind setdown" could conievably part the seas, though it probably wouldn't be quite as dramatic as displayed in the movie "The Ten commandments." Geologic activity is another possible explanation, although the activity that could have pushed back the Sea has been dated to a time quite a bit after the Exodus, and the Jews involved could have been escaped slaves, but wouldn't have been following Moses. Either way, while I will grant that a few events described in the Bible may possible, quite a few are not, and quite a few descriptions of the workings of the Universe (such as the formation of the Earth) are downright wrong. Finding one or two things that are right doesn't mean that EVERYTHING in the Bible is right.
As far as God having the power to do things, well of course he could if he actually exists. He is always described as omnipotent. But, of course, he would have to be guaranteed to exist for these actions to be attributable to him. The events themselves don't serve as proof, especially if the actual occurrences can't be proven to have actually have happened, regardless of if it possible or not.
The Genesis account says nothing about the Sun revolving around the Earth:
Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
The previous poster is mentioning the tons and tons of corroborated historical evidence associated with the Bible. You are talking about assertions made in the Bible that have not yet been corroborated, however I will point out that while there are things that can't currently be corroborated there has been no historical fact in the Bible that has been refuted, at least to my knowledge so feel free to enlighten me.
In order to say that claims in the Bible are wrong you will need to specify which claim that is and why it is wrong.
First, let me say that I wasn't claiming that all of the errors that I listed were contained in the Genesis account. Looking back on my entry, I guess I can see how you could read that from it, so I apologize for the confusion. As the far as the sun and rest of the cosmos, I grant that such a perception is more due to extrapolation of what the Bible says (and the Catholic church's stance on the subject back in Galileo's time). However, the Bible does clearly state that the Earth is stationary:
Psalm 93:1 "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved."
I Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
And there are a few others if I remember correctly. Meanwhile we have a few stories here and there of the Sun and the moon briefly halting over specific geographic locations, indicating the belief that these objects moved in relation to Earth, which is exactly how it looks to observers on Earth. But the Earth does move; its orbit, orientation and axial tilt can be modified by external or internal force; and the surface and interior of the Earth are in constant motion. So no matter how you slice it, a literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and many Christians in history HAVE operated under the belief that the Earth is at least stationary, if not the literal center of the universe (although quite a few church leaders did promote that concept as well).
As far as historical context, that depends on what you are looking at. I do believe that there was at least a seed of truth in most of the Biblical events, particularly in the New Testament. But I also find it very likely that the events that were finally codified and published as the NT were a mixture of exaggeration, superstitious explanations for unusual events, and some direct propaganda made to gain followers or vilify certain nations or rulers. So some of the people mentioned in the NT really did exist, though it is difficult to say if anything said about their actions has much veracity. The communities mentioned did exist, but most of the specific events (some of which were quite epic and would have been big news throughout the region) have little to no corroboration. And the simple fact is, getting accurate historical information from that time and place is quite difficult. But ultimately, I don't think it is really that important. Even if all of the big events were corroborated, the supernatural nature of them wouldn't be. And even if some supernatural aspects could be identified, their mere presence wouldn't be enough to establish many or any of the so-called universal truths that the Bible claims.
I will make more specific claims as this conversation warrants. I made several in my previous statement and expanded upon the fallacy of Earth's stationary nature in this one. I will be happy to bring in more later if you desire.
Here is the problem with some of the translations. As you are aware, as in everything, you lose something sometimes when particular passages get translated. Also, I believe you are taking the passages out of context. It is not suggesting a geocentric universe when taken in context. If you read the whole verse, its merely suggesting, who but God could move the Earth? I believe this line has probably been used in the defense of geocentricity but that is not the intended meaning. For instance, the Earth is also rotating at a stead speed along a fixed axis which also meshes with what the gospel is saying.
Most times, some simple Google searching will reveal better answers for you.
Here is the problem with some of the translations. As you are aware, as in everything, you lose something sometimes when particular passages get translated.
True, which is one of several reasons that I think that literal interpretations of the Bible are inherently flawed. The other side of the coin is that the necessity for interpretation of the Bible ALSO makes non-literal interpretations at least potentially flawed. Either way, its veracity can easily be questioned. This isn't so bad if people treat it more as a collection of parables, teachings on esoteric wisdom, thoughts worth examining, etc. But if taken to be the absolute truth, which many Christians claim it is, than we run into various problems of veracity.
For instance, the Earth is also rotating at a stead speed along a fixed axis
Was this ever identified within the Bible?
Most times, some simple Google searching will reveal better answers for you.
I've done a fair amount of that. It isn't my only method, but sometimes it is the easiest one I have available for these online debates. It can certainly be said that this method provides just as many attacks on Biblical quotes as support for them.
True, which is one of several reasons that I think that literal interpretations of the Bible are inherently flawed. The other side of the coin is that the necessity for interpretation of the Bible ALSO makes non-literal interpretations at least potentially flawed. Either way, its veracity can easily be questioned. This isn't so bad if people treat it more as a collection of parables, teachings on esoteric wisdom, thoughts worth examining, etc. But if taken to be the absolute truth, which many Christians claim it is, than we run into various problems of veracity.
You have to use some common sense as well. The writing style of the Bible changes. Often times because there is no good way to properly describe what it is trying to impart to you. For instance, when the Bible discusses hell there is a lot of "fire" where if you were to ask most Biblical scholars they would say that there is no fire in hell. Fire is a literary device that is being used to represent judgement. Hell is merely no longer being in God's presence.
However there are situations where you can take literal interpretations of the Bible and what it says. John 6:1-5 I would say you could take as a literal interpretation, when Jesus gave 5,000 people bread and fish.
You can't just always read it one way or the other. You have to read the passages in context and compare them with other passages to get a better grasp on the true meaning. So while there are passages that you can argue weren't translated correctly, when compared with similar passages discussing similar topics the idea that it is trying to get across remains intact.
This is very bad if people treat it as a collection of parables and teachings. If you don't believe in Christianity, then your only option is to take the teachings of Jesus as that of a crazy person. He claimed to be God. He claimed divinity and taught with that authority. There is no denying him while also saying he was a great teacher.
Was this ever identified within the Bible?
I didn't say this was identified in the Bible. I would be shocked if it were. Do you think the people reading the Bible at that time could comprehend such a concept? I was merely using it to point out the fact that the verse in question could easily be reconciled with an Earth that is rotating at a steady speed along a fixed axis.
I've done a fair amount of that. It isn't my only method, but sometimes it is the easiest one I have available for these online debates. It can certainly be said that this method provides just as many attacks on Biblical quotes as support for them.
This is correct. As with searching the internet for anything, you have to stick to the more reputable ones. The best way to understand some of the perceived differences is to actually listen to what the Biblical scholars have to say. I would highly recommend Normal Giesler on the subject of Biblical inerrancy. He claims that there are absolutely no contradictions or inerrancies in the Bible and in many of his books goes through and explains why he thinks that.
Which is precisely why discussions of Heaven and Hell, or anything intrinsically reliant on the concept of an immortal soul are difficult for me to take at face value. Common sense tells me that there is little reason to believe things that are unprovable or have no quantifiable affect on the material world. I'm not saying that they definitely do not exist, but rather believing in them without proof goes against common sense. Further, common sense, combined with my knowledge of human nature, indicates that these concepts are more likely to be propagated primarily as an engine for promoting equally unprovable concepts that appeal mostly to our need for answers, and our desire to believe that death is not the end. Basically they attempt to satiate our fears, as well as to serve as a form of societal control. I believe the are other ways to achieve these affects, and that those ways should have observable, quantifiable results so that we can change our methodology if needed.
If you don't believe in Christianity, then your only option is to take the teachings of Jesus as that of a crazy person.
Which does not necessarily invalidate their usefulness or wisdom. Also, some his teachings actually predate him, such as the so-called Golden Rule.
Do you think the people reading the Bible at that time could comprehend such a concept?
Comprehend? Sure. Work the math behind it to find the proof for themselves? Probably not, but that wouldn't be necessary in this context. One thing that would really help increase the authenticity of the Bible is that if specific scientific statements were made that would not be known to the people of the time but could be verified well into the future. Things like all matter being composed of tiny bits of matter which themselves are composed by tinier particles that do not immediately appear to behave with the same set of physics that larger scale things do. Or maybe a basic description of how disease is caused by microscopic organisms, and that basic cleaning and cooking precautions can help reduce the spread of disease. Something like that. Do you have any examples I could investigate?
As with searching the internet for anything, you have to stick to the more reputable ones.
Or better yet, look for outside corroborating evidence. In many cases, this is not possible because many Christian concepts are not provable. However, when people use the Bible to support the claim that all life was created simultaneously or that the universe is only a few thousand years old, or anything related to the Ark or the Great Flood...that can be investigated, and there is so much damning evidence out there, that if the Bible is telling the truth about these things, then somebody, presumably God, mucked with the evidence to such an extent that we could call them a liar.
And Bible Scholars tend to be perfectly willing to rationalize or speculate on the contents of the Bible, but rarely are they willing to accept the possibility that it can be wrong, thus it is hard to consider them reliable.
Common sense tells me that there is little reason to believe things that are unprovable or have no quantifiable affect on the material world.
There seems to be a disconnect that I commonly notice. The amazing thing that I've come to discover is that there seems to be A LOT of corroborating evidence for Jesus and God. That being said, there is not definite proof. The thing you have to understand is that if the God of the Bible is true, then he loves you so much that he has given you the free will to choose. If there were absolute evidence, it stops being faith and becomes knowledge and in effect you no longer have the free will to choose or not choose to accept Jesus into your life. You would be compelled to whether you wanted to or not based on that knowledge.
One thing that would really help increase the authenticity of the Bible is that if specific scientific statements were made that would not be known to the people of the time but could be verified well into the future.
Again with my point above, you're not going to get that. That would destroy your free will to choose if you got absolute evidence. There seems to be this perfect balance between enough evidence that would compel you to believe but also not enough evidence to where you could ignore it if you like. Also, I don't think this information would exist in the Bible just for the fact that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. The teachings of Jesus and what it means to be a Christian really doesn't have anything to do with scientific discoveries. Its all about loving everyone around you, enemies or not, and spreading the good news that God so loved us that he sent his only son to die for us on a cross. You also have to remember that the Bible is a collection of letters and writings from Jesus' disciples. God didn't sit one person down and say, "Write these words." In the contexts of the letters that are compiled in the Bible, none of this scientific information was relevant to the message the writers were delivering at the time.
Or better yet, look for outside corroborating evidence.
From what I've seen, when you look at the historical aspects of what the Bible describes it is either true or not corroborated. I don't believe any of the historical events have been shown to be false, just unproved. Which to me is a huge deal. There is a TON of history in the Bible and I would argue that most Biblical scholars would argue that generally speaking it is a very reliable source. Peoples, nations, and ancient cities that the Bible describes show up to have actually existed over and over again. Yet there will always be something you can point to or fall back on for disbelief. "OK fine... the 5 tribes that King David fought turned out to be true... But I'm not going to believe [insert here]." This is where faith comes in. Personally, all of the evidence points to a God and creator and then you move on from there.
The thing you have to understand is that if the God of the Bible is true, then he loves you so much that he has given you the free will to choose.
And yet not the knowledge needed to actually make the choice. See, if I love someone and have information about something as important as, say, their eternal soul, I would want them to have all of the pertinent information. And if they asked for proof and it was in my power to provide such proof, I certainly would. And this is exactly what Christians themselves are often asked to do, or choose to do out of a sense of legitimate compassion. If the Christians themselves believe that informing people around the world is a good thing, if having Jesus come down can be viewed as proof, then God's rationale in this matter seems inconsistent at best.
If there were absolute evidence, it stops being faith and becomes knowledge and in effect you no longer have the free will to choose or not choose to accept Jesus into your life.
Not so. Most people who smoke know the health dangers that tobacco has. Some people stay in relationships even if the know their partner is doing things they can't tolerate. There are already some people who claim that if God does exist, than the Bible makes him out to be petty, immoral, etc. and might still reject him for those reasons, or for allowing suffering in the world, and so on. Giving someone knowledge to make a decision does not guarantee that the will make a specific decision. And yes, it would stop being faith, and I've never quite understood what an all-powerful deity would need with faith.
That would destroy your free will to choose if you got absolute evidence.
Again, no it wouldn't. It would, however, be more responsible and compassionate than the alternative.
There seems to be this perfect balance between enough evidence that would compel you to believe but also not enough evidence to where you could ignore it if you like.
Which wouldn't fly in a court of law, or a scientific experiment. Most of human progress and many of the decisions most of us make are centered around the hunt for useful information, investigative inquiry. My contention is that when we are trying to make an important decision or form an opinion on the veracity of a claim, the more room for skepticism there is in the proposal, the more skeptical you should be.
As far as the inclusion of scientific information, you are right that it might not be directly relevant to the initial audience. But it sure would go a long way in establishing credibility to people who are more naturally inclined to be skeptical.
We already talked about the inclusion of real historical elements. I already admitted that the communities, nations and some people mentioned in the Bible most likely existed. The thing is though, there are a lot of options concerning the veracity of the Bible that would lead to this fact. If it were true: of course those places would be there. If it were fiction being branded as truth, having real elements tossed in would be a good idea to make it more believable. If it were a (as I suspect to be the case) collection of misunderstandings, updates of old fables that were believed by citizenry, or exaggerations of real events: once again it make sense that some of these things would exist. Even as a bunch of parables or metaphors, the insertion of realistic elements could help drive the point home. But the real issue is that historicity alone is not the kind of extraordinary evidence that the extraordinary claims made in the Bible would require. Further, most religions can make similar claims to historicity, and a reliance of faith and so on. So standing as an outsider, seeing so many disparate groups use more or less the same reasoning to support their claims tends to highlight the weaknesses within those types of claims.
The Bible is not scientific, but you try to argue it that way. It is supernatural so your argument is somewhat dead in a religious context. As stated in an earlier post from your side of the debate, you have to speak in a language the opposing viewer understands. No one has yet to prove it wrong because you cant, it cannot be measured scientifically even though many have tried. You state that it has and I would love to see your evidence. I am a scientist and have yet to come up with any factual proof it is incorrect. Most of the OT is like a history book and should be taken in that context. Moreover, the writers did have their own views on what they witnessed as well. One final thing, all things are possible with God!
It is supernatural so your argument is somewhat dead in a religious context.
Not really. The Bible wasn't limited completely to supernatural truths as it does make truth claims about objects in the natural world. Now natural phenomena are defined as natural because they adhere to a very specific set of rules. If something breaks those rules, we could assume a supernatural cause, but if we can't measure the affects we will never be certain. However, there are a few specific topics where the evidence is so abundantly against what Bible claims or implies, that we then have to ask why God would place those pieces there in the first place. If it is to test our faith, then I would argue that it is very irresponsible to place the fate of our immortal souls in jeopardy by enticing us to use our rational problem solving abilities, abilities which God gave us and which we use for determining truth on every other level, when the real answer is apparently faith (an approach that does not typically yield truth.) Specifically, the most egregious examples of this misuse of evidence would have to be with the timing and order of events in the Genesis account, as well as the idea that all different forms of life were created in their present forms and almost simultaneously.
you have to speak in a language the opposing viewer understands.
So then all of my opponents should speak to me in scientific terms?
You state that it has and I would love to see your evidence.
I have already mentioned a few of my contentions with Bible in my earlier responses and some new ones here. Pick what you like.
Moreover, the writers did have their own views on what they witnessed as well.
Precisely. This increases the possibility that one or more could be incorrect about what they saw.
One final thing, all things are possible with God!
And yet, we have never actually seen an example of something for which all things are possible. We can't really know how such a thing could exist.
So you are asking if quoting a book written thousands of years ago (supposedly), a book that no-one knows who wrote (don't give me any bull shit tales of how John and Paul and all these other little imaginary friends wrote it), the same book revolving around an imaginary man in the sky who's existence is impossible to prove? Yeah.......I really don't think quoting the Christian Bible is really a good argument - in ANY circumstances.
pizza boy, do not be so rude and disrespectful to the beliefs of others. Moreover, why do you make statements when you obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about. You sound ignorant and do not even propose a a good argument that contributes to the conversation. If you want to argue a point, do not sound so ignorant and know some facts before coming to the table.
Clearly I do know what I'm talking about considering the "NO" side is winning and all those contributing have said the same thing I have but just in 'nicer' words. I would hardly call myself ignorant for thinking the bible is an utter pile of shit, it's called my opinion. I doubt you would believe in a magical spaghetti monster that dwells in toilets from 1AM to 2AM in the morning would you? No. No because it is your belief that that particular claim is stupid as hell. Having an opinion doesn't make me ignorant.
EDIT: I'm starting to think you have some kind of thing against me, you seem to be going out of your way to dispute all my arguments?
There is two sides, the first is for person who believe in God and keeps words from bible in the heart; the second is for member of society who just keeps traditions but does not believe bible as a serious document. it is obvious that for the first case quoting the bible is a good argument; for the second it is just words and nothing more. This is my point of view, but our society likes to use religion as the means of the influence and control.
THANK YOU! This exactly what I've been trying to say to people for years! The bible is not factual evidence! It was written stories and opinions by people. It was changed throughout the years as a political tool. It does have some good morals in it, but is far from a good argument.
It depends upon the quote and the validity of the historical argument. Non-believers get too defensive when believers quote Scriptures. Not so long ago, learned non-believers would quote Scripture too. Thomas Paine, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, are just a few of these.
No. It's not believable. People just are brought up believing what they're told, and people also seek comfort. Which is one of the only reasons I think Religion exists.
well first off i was not brought up as a christian all my life and religeon exists because of founder in judaism its abraham in islam its mohamed and in christianity its jesus
"It is as good as quoting Darwin to prove evolution. One most take these things at book value."
Actually there is a ton of evidence to back what Darwin stated, its is all around us, the evolution of species has been predicted the fossil record proves evolutino beyond any reasonable doubt. Even the rapidly evolving science of genetics has unearthed a plethora of evidence deatiling the evolutin of genes from early lifefomr to the present. No credible scientist denies evolution, the only that deny the reality of evolution are people that either don't understand science or don't want to understand science (i.e. Thiests)
Eveything Darwin predicted was prvoen correct, although his theories have been refined signifcantly the model he put forth has served as a basis by which much of the inner workings of the natural world have been elucidated.
Equating it to the bible in terms of its factual content is contemptable.
There is a ton of evidence for the evolution of like species with modifications. There is no evidence of a species becoming a completely different species, like say a fish into a mammal. In order to make these statements you have to define what you are talking about because often times "Evolution" absorbs 3 definitions. The idea that a species can evolve to be more able to live in a certain environment (microevolution). The idea that there is a common ancestor (macroevolution). And the idea that we are a result of natural processes.
There is only evidence to support the first definition and I don't think anyone would disagree with it. For definition two, would you mind providing some evidence? And for definition three you would have to provide evidence for how DNA (basically complex information) was created by natural processes.
The Bible is not a science book and shouldn't be treated as such. Evolution may well turn out to be true and would have no bearing on Christianity, the most important question in my book is how was DNA created.
"There is a ton of evidence for the evolution of like species with modifications. There is no evidence of a species becoming a completely different species, like say a fish into a mammal. In order to make these statements you have to define what you are talking about because often times "Evolution" absorbs 3 definitions. The idea that a species can evolve to be more able to live in a certain environment (microevolution). The idea that there is a common ancestor (macroevolution). And the idea that we are a result of natural processes. The natural processes of D.N.A. are explained, as we slowly evolve and are adapting, the one with the highest chance of survival leads the direction of evolution. for example dark brown butterflies are hardrer to see in the forest than a white butterfly, in fact the brown one has the same color as the tree. there are more brown ones then white ones, eventually the white die off and the brown ones takes its place.
There is only evidence to support the first definition and I don't think anyone would disagree with it. For definition two, would you mind providing some evidence? And for definition three you would have to provide evidence for how DNA (basically complex information) was created by natural processes."
macro-evolution is a product of micro-evolution, macro-evolution is really just a build of micro evolution. the evidence for micro-evolution is also evidence for macro-evolution. to say that micro-evolution happens but not macro-evolution would be like saying 2 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4 and etc... after a long period where something evolves slowly using micro evolution eventually after a certain period of time, we evolve enough to call it macro-evolution. we didn't just go from being a fish to all of a sudden breathing air and having limbs in the same amount of time it would take a species to simply become a little more aerodynamic... no after enough time over many, many generations that micro-evolution has been working its course the whole time and the species has been adapting a long time into something new.
Where is that missing link? Where are the billions and billions of fossils?
The fact is scientists have failed to locate a single missing link, NONE, they have not found ONE…….If what they say is true, there should be millions that exist. Where are they?
Evolution a fact? And why has it always been called a theory?
The definition of “religion” in Funk & Wagnall dictionary says, “A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe.”
So based on that, evolution at best is a religion based on faith.
Evolution reveals that those who believe it are truly capable of faith in the invisible. It’s blind faith….. the same as in any other religion.
"there should be millions that exist. Where are they?"
I don't recall anyone ever claiming there should be millions of missing links all over the place, and if they did im 100% certain they mean it in a way in which those links could not be easily excavated.
"Evolution a fact?"
Yes its a scientific fact that no scientist would disagree with, however a fundamentalist wackjob like you could disagree about the true colour of an orange, thats why nobody pays you any real notice within mainstream discourse, you're a black mark upon the prevaling secular soceity within the US.
"And why has it always been called a theory?"
Gravity is a theory as well but if you doubt whether that is fact try jumping off a tall building, if you have faith im sure your God will save you, and if you ecord the whole thing and he does actually coem to your rescue you'll be able to rpove all of us rational individuals wrong.
"A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe"
Wow you looked up a definition, good for you, you know beleiving that the entire universe is constructed of burnt almonds also qualifies as a "set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe"
Origin: Burnt Almonds
Purpose: Eating when you get hungry
There this has just as much validity as everything you believe, it must pain you to have to realise that ;-)
"So based on that, evolution at best is a religion based on faith"
A ha ha ha ha ha ha, i am amazed, its as if you think you arrived at that conclusion based on rational thought, and a chain of logical reasoning, what you have really done is weave a web of bullshit, and not a very good one at that, your enitre argument amounts to "im a fundamentalist wackjob so some im going to make a fool of myself by making ridiculous claims"
Evolution is based on reproducible test and obsevations, and the collation of huge amounts of data pertaining to a multitude of scientific disciplines e.g. Genetics, Molecular Biology, Anthropology, Cognitive Science, Archaeology, and Paleontology to name but a hadfull) which all piont to exactly the same phenomenon.
When a hypothesis becomes a theory in science it is rarely if ever disproven, what happens is that is becoems further and further refined in order to more accurately model reality, and observation.
"Evolution reveals that those who believe it are truly capable of faith in the invisible"
No it reveals that there are sane individuals amoing the human species capable of having confidence in a tried and tested method that ahs given birth to modern times and all accompanying technological advancement.
"It’s blind faith….. the same as in any other religion"
Have some humility for god's sake, you haev no comprhension of anything remotely scientific yet you feel supremely confident in your ability to criticise it, you people never cease to amze me.
Your argument amounts to: i don't understand science, and because it comes into comflict with my pre-existing beliefs, i thus fear it, and try to disprove as much as i can but deep down i know im figting against the tide, and people who hold my small minded views are becoming less and less"
Where are the fossils that connect us today with the first fossil evidence? We are talking about billions of fossils that should be the evidence. Where are they? They should be everywhere and they are not.
If like you say they found ONE......why only one? Did we all evolve from that ONE fossil? Where did all the fossils go?
There are scientists who reject evolution. Of course those who embrace that we were at one time monkeys swinging from trees....would discredit all of them.
The idea of God is just repulsive to you.........You at present are working on some degree (your on here all the time...don't know how you do it...but) so you are attending some liberal institution that also is hostile to God.
I was immediately suspicious of a site claming to be scientific yet at the same time saying the missing link has never been found, this creationist argument simply wouldn't be found on any reputable science site, so i did a little digging, and what do you know allaboutscience.org is a creationist website masquerading as a science site, why am i not surprised:
You have no idea what you're talking about, your posting creationist propaganda and trying to pass it off as actual scientific fact, your argunment is null and viod, and now everything you say is suspect, have a good day you fundamentalist wackjob...;-)
"If like you say they found ONE......why only one? Did we all evolve from that ONE fossil? Where did all the fossils go?"
I never asid they only found one, i posted sources detailing two missing links, im not going to waste my time trying to explain the scientific nuances of studying the fossil recordr to you cause i know id just be wasting my time and your's if you bother to read it, anyone that posts creationist propaganda as science fact cannot be reasoned with.
"The idea of God is just repulsive to you"
No its not, i believe in God, im actually a panthiest, even though i don't like ot categorise my beleif like that but panthiesm is a very broad belief system.
I beleive in God, its just my conception of what Gof is is radically different to your own. God is everything and everyone, God is the universe and the forces that shaped it, God is not one person, one place, or one thing, God is everything, both non-existence and existence, and everything that flows from it.
I agree with athiest so in a sense in am one, but their beleif system is too narrow, the only reason athiest ever ccame into being is precisely because theism came into being, long ago no religion dominated, people worshipped the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth, and they were all equally valid.
"You at present are working on some degree (your on here all the time...don't know how you do it"
I wouldn't be studying for a second masters in engineering if i couldn't work fast.
" so you are attending some liberal institution that also is hostile to God"
In as much as any University is hostile to God, this is free thinking insitution, we have Christian societies and we have an athiest society, and secular humanist society all views are accommodated, and of some student beleive they are not they can set up their own society to represent them.
Yes because it proves what is wrong like homosexuality,having sex with a animal,swearing, and all sorts of stuff that are wrong and good. If you watch Jack Van Impe presents Jack Van Impe is "The Walking Bible" he memorized all of the Bible verse and studies them before he is on a show.
There is such a thing as absolute truth. Based on your logic, if I were to say "I believe the Holocaust was justified." You would tell me that I am wrong. Why? Because you know that the Holocaust was objectively wrong. Let's stop with this moral relativism please.
I can't stand when people use the Holocaust to compare to anything going on in today's time. The Holocaust KILLED and HURT people. What does another person's sexual preference do to anyone else? It doesn't do anything, therefore I don't see why anyone else should have any say in it.
Its just an example. You say what's right for someone is right for them. If you are making that self-defeating truth claim then you have to accept it as true. I can't stand when people pretend like there are no absolute truths and then get upset when you give them one.
A terrible example. And I'm not trying to act like there aren't absolute truths, but I don't think they should be things that don't effect other people.
To be sure, those were terrible events. However I don't believe you can say that the mass propaganda on gay marriage is not effecting anyone. That being said, it is sad that gay marriage has taken on such a polarizing position. I would say it is a sin, however we all sin every day. We should not be judging these people as we are not free from sin ourselves.
That's totally irrelevant, it's affecting people only because people think think they know what's right for everyone. And the actual act of being gay does not hurt anyone.
If the Bible is true, then it is the word of God not some opinion.
Last time I checked there was no proof of the bible being 'true', quite the opposite, actually. There is much more evidence to support the argument that it isn't 'true'.
Yes because it proves what is wrong like christianity, prettending to eat the body of dead people at church, praying, and all sorts of stuff that are wrong and good. If you watch Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows he memorized all of the spells warlocks cast and studies them before he is on a show.
You see how stupid your argument sounds now to someone who doesn't believe in the bible, just as stupid as citing harry potter to one who doesn't believe in harry potter (at least I don't think you believe in harry potter, you are a little slow).
no, hes making a very valid point, the bible is just as real to an atheist as harry potter is to most sane people. it sounds rude sure, but its the truth and if hes wrong cause it "disrespects you" then you are not thinking rationally. the bible is literally mostly incredible claims with no back up, same thing with harry potter. citing a source that is incredible cannot be credited. it has no merit and thats the truth.
You didn't get what I was saying again. What I meant was that Jack Van Impe he has studied the Bible for hours and hours reading scripture and has memorized it. But before each show he goes over the Bible to see if what he is going to say to make sure he doesn't get the verse wrong. I don't watch Harry Potter because it contains witchcraft and spell and the Bible is against witchcraft and sorcery.
It is no different than if I were to study Harry Potter to make sure I got every verse right, and didn't read the Bible because it's about a vengeful evil god who created a place called Hell for eternal torment.
Both books are completely fictional and it matters not a wit how much either is studied.
If a Jewish person quoted the Torah would you convert to Judaism?
If a Muslim quoted the Koran would you become Muslim?
Why on earth would anyone be pursuaded by a quote from a book they believe to be rubbish?
Your complete inability to even begin to grasp a perspective other than your own very narrow one is so common among christians, it is one of the reasons your cult is so destructive to human kind as a whole.
It is a totalitarian mind-set and shows low intelligence.
No one would consider another religion based on a single quote from any gospel. I do enjoy your creating your own false argument and then refuting it, however. That is not what the question is asking. No one is asking, "Would you be persuaded to change your faith based on a single Bible quote?"
Do you mind explaining how Christianity is destructive to human kind as a whole? Where do you think the morals that you so cherish came from? You can make the argument that there have been terrible things done in the name of Christianity and Jesus but those people did them while defying and disrespecting what Jesus actually taught. I can also argue that there have been terrible things done in the name of secular materialism, i.e. genocide in Cambodia. Or how about eugenics in the name of Darwinism?
No one would consider another religion based on a single quote from any gospel. I do enjoy your creating your own false argument and then refuting it, however. That is not what the question is asking. No one is asking, "Would you be persuaded to change your faith based on a single Bible quote?"
Whether its to convert or to convince one someone lived inside a whale or to convince someone Africans shouldn't use condoms or convince someone abortion is evil or convincing someone its okay to discriminate against gays or to convince someone they should start a holy war with Muslims circa 1000 to 1290 approximately or to convince someone to burn witches
Quoting the bible to anyone at any time for any argument for or against anything is worthless unless both people are completely and utterly brain washed by the silliness contained therein. If both are than it is hardly a debate is it?
Do you mind explaining how Christianity is destructive to human kind as a whole?
Sure, even minus the blatant discrimination against those not exactly like them all through its short history, Muslims as mentioned in the middle ages, witches, gay people, left handed people at one point, etc. Even ignoring the violence and ignorance of the lion's share of this religion's history, in a real, general sense this religion in particular encourages stupidity. Christianity in large part, maybe not every church of it, but most want to keep its congregation stupid. Science is bs, evolution is bs, anything that takes more thought than a quote from the bible is bs. That is my primary argument against and disdain for this religion. All organized religion in fact but so many Christians are just so in your face about it without any consideration for others not Christian it may indeed seem I'm "picking" on them, but understand it is only from the perspective that everyone not Christian is "picked" on for daring believe cannibalizing weekly the son of a virgin birth might not be logical.
Where do you think the morals that you so cherish came from?
Morals should come from logic and natural human empathy. They are easy to come to for anyone with a brain, and if one does not have a brain simply inquire with someone who does. All any religion can offer outside of what we can come up with all on our own through thought, are excuses to commit immoralities in the name of a god. I see this far more often than immoralities committed in the name of an absence of a god.
You can make the argument that there have been terrible things done in the name of Christianity and Jesus but those people did them while defying and disrespecting what Jesus actually taught.
Sure, according to you. According to them it is what god wanted and they can quote the bible just as well as you. Who should I believe?
The bible can be used to mean whatever one wants, such is it written, which proves my point. Quoting it is not a good argument.
I can also argue that there have been terrible things done in the name of secular materialism, i.e. genocide in Cambodia.
All secular materialism means is materialism with no spiritual basis. A mugging is secular materialism, so is buying a new car (unless god told you to buy a new car). I don't argue that people don't need an excuse to commit atrocity, religion just gives a convenient excuse in many cases, and while the non-religious must be a particular devious sort to abandon common human empathy all together, your average Joe has no problem committing any sort of atrocity if there is a god somewhere telling them to do it because the other people are infidels or whatever.
Or how about eugenics in the name of Darwinism?
Christianity was alive and well all through WWII, if you are talking about Nazis. It did nothing to stop any of it. Your argument only has merit if say, the Nazis found god half way through and stopped, or had Christianity joined ranks to save the Jewish people and other minorities. I believe they stood happily aside throughout the majority of this in Germany and much of Europe and it was not until the Allies, all non-religious states founded with a separation of religion and government, did something about it.
So thank democratic secularism for saving the world next time you get a chance.
im sorry you feel that way but if we are to continue to debate you need to be less rude and i will try to less pushy i apologise but if stand firm in my belief and i admit that i cant prove god is real i can only show you the evidence for my beliefs
"Your complete inability to even begin to grasp a perspective other than your own very narrow one is so common among christians, it is one of the reasons your cult is so destructive to human kind as a whole.
It is a totalitarian mind-set and shows low intelligence."
The fact that he started it with "your" and follows later with "common among Christians" leads me to believe he was attacking both the individual and the religion. I've watched david since I got her. Simple fact is, he can be a dick sometimes.
I've not seen a demonstration of that person "grasping a perspective other than his own" and it is "common among christians" which is a reason christianity is overall so "destructive to human kind as a whole"
And all of that demonstrates a "totalitarian mind-set" and "shows low intelligence."
That someone is offended by the truth of a matter makes it no less true.
Some christian somewhere show me how I'm wrong about this once on this site please? All I get are more bible quotes and crying.
Or make fun of me back if you think that is what I'm doing. Apparently I have thicker skin even without an all powerful being protecting me from dicks - yawns loudly
Sorry, I just don't buy into the doctrine that I need to treat every insane opinion as if it has merit. Disdain has its uses in some situations.
So basically, what you are saying is "I call it like I see it." Which, frankly, wasn't too far off from my comment of "Simple fact is, he (you) can be a dick sometimes."
Agnostics don't believe in any set religion, but we don't dispute that there's a God. There may be one, there may not be one. Basically, we don't know.
Do you believe in the existence of a god, deity, or otherwise supernatural, all-powerful being? If so, you are a theist. If not, then you are the opposite of a theist: an atheist.
I realize that many people believe that a lack of belief (ie. agnosticism) is not the equivalent of atheism, which they view as a disbelief, rather than a lack of belief. Is this your thinking? If it is, I disagree with you for etymological reasons, but I agree philosophically.
I don't believe there is a God or that there isn't one. I don't know. I don't argue against either side there. I do argue against nearly all religion though. Religion is just something created by man to comfort themselves in my eyes. And that's fine, but it's not for me.
atheist/theist are a binary system, you either lack believe in god or you do have belief in a god
A- = not or without
theist = belief in a god
atheist = not or without a belief in a god.
agnosticism/gnosticism are a binary system, you either claim you do know, or don't know whether there is a god.
a- = not or without
gnosticism = knowledge
agnosticism = not or without knowledge
theism/atheism is about belief
agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge
they do not answer the same question.
here are the appropriate sensible labels
agnostic atheist = lacks belief in a god, is in a state of unconvinced, does not believe in a god, but doesn't necessarly believe that there is not a god/ being unconvince without reason is skepticism
gnostic atheist = does not believe in a god but knows wether or not he exists, therefore has to believe there is not a god
agnostic theist = claims to not know of gods existence but believes he exists anyways. believing without reason is faith.
gnostic theist = claims to know of gods existence and believes he does exist
you have just admitted you are an atheist, because you lack belief in a god
Homosexuality is not wrong, and there's nothing wrong with the people who practice it, don't get wrong im slightly homophobic so this is a little hypocritical e.g. i can't really be around gay people when there showing signs of affection like kissing etc.
But there is nothing wrong with, and anyone that tells you theres is is bigot, one of my best friends is gay, and hes had a very traumatic life because of it, theres nothing wrong with him, he isn't a sinner hes a human being with a particular preference, and deserves the same treatment as everyone else.
What you have to realise is that this aversion to homosexuality, and beastiality (not that im in favour of that but it certainly isn't wrong as long the animal isn't being abused) arose due to the fact that is adversely affects the propagation of the species, therefore over time people that practiced homosexualtiy or beastiality were ostracised by other members of society in attempt to stamp out anything that may hinder the propagations of the humans species, its just not smart on a genetic level, and as were controlled by our genes our genes were telling us stop thos guys from fucking each other or that animal cause were (the genes) not going to by propagated that way.
We were thus natually conditioned psychologically ver time to find the idea of sex with any aside from a human female repulsive. Do you understand? This is also how it found its way into the bible as the bible was written by primitive man.
It is wrong and its destable. You are suppose to have sex between a male and female. You can't have sex with the same gender as you. Look at the animals learn from them all of the animals are paired up with a male and female. I don't see any male and male animals or female and female animals. How are we going to survive with Homosexuals when you can't reproduce with the same gender as the person. We reproduce with a male and female.
I have no desire to participate in it but i would never try to tell others what they can and cannot do.
"You are suppose to have sex between a male and female"
How did you determine that, let me guess, the bible.
". You can't have sex with the same gender as you."
Actually you can, the mechanics work fine, Presit have been doing it to young innocent boys for decades due to surpression of the biological impulses from taking a vow of celibacy in accordance with their faith.
"Look at the animals learn from them all of the animals are paired up with a male and female."
Yes i know that how they propagate their species but animals routinely engage in homosexual acts.
"don't see any male and male animals or female and female animals"
That doesn't even make sense.
"How are we going to survive with Homosexuals when you can't reproduce with the same gender as the person"
well if everybody became homosexual over night, and were sickened by the thought of being intimate with the opposite sex then yes that would be a problem with regard to propagantion of the species, but something tells me that isn't going to happen, call it a hunch.
Let me ask you a question Do you want to go to Heaven? If you want to go to heaven then you have to get rid of homosexuality because it says in the Bible that you will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven if you be a homosexual or support it.
"Let me ask you a question Do you want to go to Heaven"
Im not quite sure what it is could you pelase explain it to me, ive never relly known what heaven is, ive heard it a lot but i an unaware of what it is.
Heaven is people who believed in Jesus Christ and have believed in Him and have followed his ways from the day they accecpted Jesus to the day they die and followed his ways. Heaven is suppose to have golden streets and you will have a mansion you will serve God everyday with your brothers and sisters in Christ
"Heaven is people who believed in Jesus Christ and have believed in Him and have followed his ways from the day they accecpted Jesus to the day they die and followed his ways."
So what you're saying is heaven exists on earth.
" Heaven is suppose to have golden streets"
How do you know this? Does it say it in the bible? But if you're dead you no longer exist in physical form right? So why would need streets at all?
"and you will have a mansion"
Again how do you know you will have a mansion, i don't think it says in the bible that evey person in heaven is bestowed with a mansion.
"you will serve God everyday "
How exactly do you serve God? If God (or more likely someone who claimed to be speaking for God who you actually beleived was channeling the holy spirit) told you to kill another human like God told Isaac to kill his son Abraham would you?
Heaven does not exist on earth its in a different dimension. I know that there will be golden streets because in the Bible John saw a vision and saw golden streets. I know we will have a mansion because God said to his disciples that I will prepare a place for you in heaven. The reason why God told Abraham to kill his son Issac was because he tested him. But before he was about to kill his son an angel came to him and told him to stop because God was testing him. Then they saw a ram and sacrificed the ram instead of his sonn.
"Heaven does not exist on earth its in a different dimension."
How do you not that?
" I know that there will be golden streets because in the Bible John saw a vision and saw golden streets."
Those visions may not have been interpreted correctly, i mean John was a man, not God, therefore being a man he is fallible and prone to human error, therefore when he said he saw "Golden Streets" he may have saw something else, like bright golden light etc.
" I know we will have a mansion because God said to his disciples that I will prepare a place for you in heaven."
Place doesn't imply mansion, he could have meant anything by that, you assumed mansion caused that what you want, desire is sinful you know.
"The reason why God told Abraham to kill his son Issac was because he tested him. But before he was about to kill his son an angel came to him and told him to stop because God was testing him. Then they saw a ram and sacrificed the ram instead of his sonn"
Ok fair enough but that is not the only instance when God told human to kill other humans, what about when God told Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan i.e.
"14.Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded." (Joshua 10:40)
"The reason why Joshua killed the people was because of ther Amorites"
Yes they were, but God ordered them to be kill, does this not go against his thou shalt not kill? Or do the ten commandments not apply to God? But if they do not apply to God why did he not kill them himself? Why did he make humans violate the commandments he laid down? He told them never to kill another and then made them kill, did he not?
He hasn't responded because he is so consumed in his own ignorance, hypocrisy and homophobia that he is unable to put together a suitable argument to go against what you are saying without making a bigger fool out of himself.
Also, nice work gary77777! For lack of a better phrase: You fucked him up :)
I don't believe this is a properly formed debate question, however if I understand the intent then I believe the answer would be "Yes." That being said if you are going to quote from the Bible, then you need to quote in context. It is very easy to mislead people if you are only giving them a partial verse. For instance, Matthew 7:1: "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Taken out of context, this is often portrayed to mean you shouldn't judge people for anything what-so-ever. If you take the next verse into context: "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
You can easily see that its purpose isn't to encourage Christians not to judge, but rather to keep their judgments fair, honest, and consistent. Jesus is speaking to the "Do as I say, not as I do" crowd.
If you are quoting the Bible in context, then it is a very useful and persuasive.
It is a good argument when trying to persuade a fellow Christian to do or not do something. If you are asking whether it's a good argument for supporting Christianity, obviously the answer is no. You can't say the Bible is true because the Bible says so.
It actually depends on the context and content of the argument. I believe regardless of your faith, you should always stand up for what you believe in, but I also believe in respecting the beliefs of others as well. I do not appreciate people who disrespect Christian beliefs and believe you should respect all religions without bias.
