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.
There is no proof in atheism. Evolution is fake. Just think about it. If a fish jumped out of the water and on land he would flopped around for a while before flopping back into the water. However evolution says that if fish do that for thousands of years they will begin to grow lunges. There is one problem. When the fish starts to grow lunges he would be worse off in the water. He would not breath as well in the water and be eaten by a predator. That is why there is a fish called the coelacanth. This fish is so old its in the fossil records. It's species is estimated to be 400 million years old and it has changed 0% in that time. Why? Because God created everything in 7 days and it is meant to stay the same.
Have you seriously never heard of amphibians? Beings equipped to extract oxygen from both the atmosphere and water? Are you completely unaware of the rich and diverse ecologies that exist at shorelines? Places where water is only a few feet deep and exposure to both water and atmosphere is common? Places where amphibious animals can escape predators by temporarily moving onto the land or into dry caves? There is no need for fish flopping about in these scenarios. Simply amphibians developing rudimentary lungs and strong flippers to pull them onto land for brief times. Millions of years later, you get full-time land dwellers. Not too hard to figure out, man.
This actually saddens me to an extent (Not your argument, but the one you responded to). Many people at my church say the same exact thing. Evolution can't be proven or evolution is a lie. I still don't see how both can't coexist, but growing up around mainly religious minded people has shown me that it's hard to show someone something that potentially disagrees with their faith.
I know what you mean. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the concept and use of mythology in literature. "Myth" is too often used as a dirty word, when it is actually an art form that is geared at cutting through traditional limited thought to ultimate reality.
There are no major scientists in the world today who reject the theory of evolution. In fact, the greatest Christian scientist alive today is Francis Collins, whom states that evolution is just as factual as the theory of gravitation. Speaking against evolution, as though it contradicts Christianity, is in the end like doing to Christianity what Hitler did to the Jews. There is too much evidence for evolution right now, and from too many fields of science.
We can't interpret the creation accounts in the Old Testament as literal-historical, and there is nothing wrong with this. In fact reading it mythically is found to be much more powerful. The earliest church father outside the New Testament (St. Origen) didn't preach a literal interpretation. If you have ever read the works of Emanuel Swedenborg, I highly recommend him.
no that was Jean-Baptist Lamarck's theory of evolution, which most of all but you know to be wrong. what most people call evolution is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is what those who believe in evolution believe in. look up charles darwin's theory of evolution, im afraid you have proven yourself ignorant.
The smartest minds in our world are atheists, they are the scientist making the world a better place unlike any god is doing.
Faith is believing in something without evidence or question. Science is about asking questions and seeking evidence. If everyone just attributed everything to god we would have no need to discover things for ourselves and would be blinded by faith.
We shouldn’t be trusting a book written over 2 thousand years ago by a bunch of unknown Jewish authors in extinct languages with no evidence what so ever and a tone of contradictions over modern scientific evidence and research
If you got sick would you
a) Pray to your god to get better
b) b) Take Medicine created by Science to treat your illness. You can only pic one.
And your point was.................... what again.
Faith is belief without evidence. TRUE again, soooooooooooo......... what?
Virtually all major religions were founded in the distant past. Whats wrong with the distant past. Is that not when some of the greatest thinkers were alive?
If you get sick, is it not reasonable to do the things that you think will help you recover?
Your argument is not exactly clear. Care to try again?
The smartest minds in our world are atheists, they are the scientist making the world a better place unlike any god is doing.
Scientist making the world a better place? It was those scientist that created the atomic bomb and clearly those people killed are in a better place. God didn't do this.
Theism can be oriented on research. That stupid run up between religion and science was with catholic authority, not religion. And as for socialism, Jesus was preaching that stuff 2,000 years ago.
I have been thinking about this and reading all the posts. I began to think how the world will be filled with the same arrogance. I don't think it would really change. It would be same people now, only fighting for different reasons. Just because someone is a atheist doesn't mean they automatically become hyper-intelligent or anyway more superior than our fellow man. What I am trying to say is humanity doesn't change. So it doesn't really matter what the world is.
The smartest minds in our world are atheists, they are the scientist making the world a better place unlike any god is doing.
Faith is believing in something without evidence or question. Science is about asking questions and seeking evidence. If everyone just attributed everything to god we would have no need to discover things for ourselves and would be blinded by faith.
We shouldn’t be trusting a book written over 2 thousand years ago by a bunch of unknown Jewish authors in extinct languages with no evidence what so ever and a tone of contradictions over modern scientific evidence and research
If you got sick would you
a) Pray to your god to get better
b) b) Take Medicine created by Science to treat your illness. You can only pic one.
Religious teachings contradict scientific evidence.
The smartest minds in our world are atheists, they are the scientist making the world a better place unlike any god is doing.
Faith is believing in something without evidence or question. Science is about asking questions and seeking evidence. If everyone just attributed everything to god we would have no need to discover things for ourselves and would be blinded by faith.
Religious teachings contradict scientific evidence.
Most religions say God created the world. Science theorizes that the world was created by an unknown force. Could that force be God? A lot of scientist lean toward being a pantheist, naming the universe as God. Dark matter and energy that exist in the universe is the god scientist worships. Replacing one god with another doesn't eliminate God.
Faith is believing in something without evidence or question. Science is about asking questions and seeking evidence. If everyone just attributed everything to god we would have no need to discover things for ourselves and would be blinded by faith.
Any part of science in which you have not personally partaken in but believe, requires faith of equal or greater value than any theist. Talk about blind faith.
You clearly have no understanding of science what so ever
Science can explain everything with evidence to support it
And there is not evidence at all for creationism or the existence of god
Scientistic use logic, research, evidence, and findings to prove their theory
And guess what.. NOBODY HAS DISPROVED THEM
The bible is just a bunch of myths and stories and alto of it is completely impossible.
Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?
Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong. Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is only 6 thousand years old?
It is a known fact the aboriginal people have occupied the land of Australia for at least 40,000 years. How is this possible when according to the bible they could not of even been here for 4 thousand years ? Pretty sure the aboriginal culture alone disproves the whole book of genesis.
The largest wooden boat ever built by the best shipwrights around the world suck and it was not even close to the size of noahs arch. Wood actually bands and shifts in the water which is why there is a size limit to wooden boats so it’s impossible to make a boat that big let alone a family to do it.
And what does the Bible saying how old the earth is have anything to do with how the earth was formed?
Only a complete idiot would take the words of any man literally, this also goes for all those crazy theories that exist in the scientific world. According to your line of thinking, the atomic bomb must never have existed because the blast was larger than what was calculated. Scientist lied and so the bomb cannot exist. See how crazy it is to focus on the completely irrelevant.
And guess what.. NOBODY HAS DISPROVED THEM
This can also be applied to the existence of God; Nobody has disproved the existence of God. Please try to be constant in your line of thinking or not thinking as the case maybe.
And what does the Bible saying how old the earth is have anything to do with how the earth was formed?
There is the fact that certain things are possible within a certain timeframe, but not a significantly longer or shorter one.
Only a complete idiot would take the words of any man literally, this also goes for all those crazy theories that exist in the scientific world.
This should go equally to the many men who passed down the words of the bible via oral tradition, and the many men who were involved in recording the individual books that make up the bible, and the men involved in determining which were compiled into what is now called the bible and what was not, and the men involved in translating/transliterating the bible between various languages, and the men interpreting these translated/transliterated passages.
According to your line of thinking, the atomic bomb must never have existed because the blast was larger than what was calculated. Scientist lied and so the bomb cannot exist.
Science did not take all variables into account and adjusted upon the availability of new information. Christianity does this far less frequently, and when it does it's only a minority who form a new denomination.
This can also be applied to the existence of God; Nobody has disproved the existence of God. Please try to be constant in your line of thinking or not thinking as the case maybe.
You DO understand he is intentionally invoking that and emphasizing it with all caps because it's a common argument that Christians make, "You can't disprove God," right?
The world should be free to choose what they believe in. Most thinking people understand that the moral values derived from Christianity has done nothing but good for America. An amoral nation has no road map to teach it's children. Their moral values change and drift with every decade as we are seeing in America where it is now fashionable to live together with no commitment to their relationship nor commitment for their kids.
We are seeing the results as they separate Christianity from our public square. Rampant broken homes, fewer and fewer parents home with the kids, rampant divorce, huge increases in Gangs and now we even see some teens joining terrorist groups. The evidence is in, a nation that fears and separates the very mention of God or moral values in public is a dying nation.
First, starting any argument with "thinking people agree with me that x" is a very weak base plate. Second, what do you mean by an "amoral nation"? It could be argued that every nation is amoral, and that the nation's inhabitants are where the morality exists. Third, America also now values fighting racial discrimination, increased freedom of speech and expression, decreased sexism, etc. Are those not valuable moral steps to you? Fourth, the Constitution is what separates Christianity from the public square, via the Establishment Clause. Can you provide any evidence that doing so has caused ANY of the things you have listed? Or how about addressing that while that has happened, violent crime is decreasing every single year? Is that also because we are separating Christianity from the public square? Sounds like "the evidence is in" as you say.
You have the nerve to speak of freedom of speech and expression? Do you have a clue how Liberals have censored our freedom of speech and expression when it comes to expressing our heritage and faith in public?
The lie of Separation of church and state is an example why free speech only applies when it is agreed upon by Liberals. When the speech goes against a humanist ideology, they come up with lies by twisting what the constitution says to justify their bigotry and censorship.
The Constitution says that Congress shall pass no law infringing on our religious freedom of expression. It says that Government shall not make any law "ESTABLISHING" a religion.
A community's freedom to choose or not to choose a simple school prayer is NOT establishing a religion. For those on the Left to imply this is pathetic. Look at history if there is any question. Decades after the Constitution was written, we even had schools being required to have Christian school teachers because they could be more trusted with the children. What Liberals have done to the Constitution is traitorous. No child is forced to pray and no school is forced to have prayers. I believe in school choice but Democrats want all our children corralled into their schools where they can indoctrinate the kids with their political correct religion.
Can you provide SPECIFIC examples of how liberals have done what you have said?
Can you also explain how "humanist ideology" is a religion? Or how it is bigotry, or censorship for that matter?
Do you want me to provide precedent after precedent after precedent from liberal AND conservative justices through out our judicial system that provide context for the Establishment Clause meaning more than you think it does, dating back over a hundred years?
And yes, forcing a captive audience attending a public institution to be listen to and be a part of a religious practice HAS been ruled to be an establishment of religion. Not sure why you want to force kids to be a part of your religious exorcises, but it is unconstitutional, according to both liberal and conservative judges. Pointing to the founding years is a little absurd, because back then due process and equal protections didn't apply to women or african americans, so I'm not sure that is the historical context you'd like it to be.
Oddly enough, Democrats in this instance DON'T want the children to be controlled by anything, while you are trying to force kids to be subjected to your religion. Do you not see the irony or the hypocrisy in that?
I came to a heightened conclusion when I actually had a debate about NOT being theistic. The truth is that Theism is actually a way to inspire many to continue on with their daily struggles. I am actually an athiest, but I understand the loss of this certain belief. Imagine if you experienced a life threatening struggle. Who or what would you trust in to make things right. Although this would not change anything as far as your future is concerned but could you imagine if you didn't have something to hope for? It is up to you what you believe and how you believe, and I have gotten along fine without religion... but it makes you wonder, who do you turn to when the journey looks impossible and you need to feel encouraged. I hope this helps.
Remember the whole ""Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword", and " "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".
Without God there is no objective morality. That means people like Donald Trump can do whatever they want and get away with it.
"We're all dust," right? Just follow the logical conclusion.
For those atheists who want to point out the crusades, for every single historical action you can suggest there are 10,000 acts of kindness that spring from religiosity. Plus the crusades and such had political motives, duh!
Your belief in god does not create a purely objective morality, since the existence of multiple religions and therefore gods creates multiple "objective moralities", which of course makes them subjective.
Studies in comparative religion have shown that polytheists are secretly monotheist, and that monotheists are secretly polytheists. For example the first sentence in the Bible actually reads, "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth." And if you study some of the scholars of hinduism like Swami Prabhavananda or Vivekananda, many that I have read swear that hinduism is actually a monotheist religion, but that the multiplicity are simply personifications of the same God. From my studies, I'm not convinced that the main religions differ all so greatly on their various morals. Where they do differ can be explained in it's historical context.
Could you provide some of these studies, as they do not make much sense to me.
As for Hinduism, are you sure you are not mistaking the pluralism of Hinduism's Vishnu (who himself has many avatars) with the plurality of their other gods? Or are you implying that Vishnu's avatars AND all the other gods are all supposed to be one? Because I have seen little to no theological evidence for that.
Could you provide some of these studies, as they do not make much sense to me….are you sure you are not mistaking the pluralism of Hinduism's Vishnu (who himself has many avatars) with the plurality of their other gods?
Ah, but there you are missing a LOT from Hinduism. Yes, there is one supreme, all pervasive god, which is known by different names depending on the sect (Vishnu, Siva, Shakti) who created many gods. But there is also ONE sect, one that is not reflective of all of the other sects, who believe that every god is an aspect of the same god. Those are the Smartas, and that is the theology you are referring to. Do not mistake the Smartas with all Hinduism, however.
Keeping it vague is really helping your case because the moment you become specific I can actually respond.
You said they still differ, and that is all that matters.
Being a bully isn't going to help your theory that atheism is better for the world.
Not a bully, factual. The guy said there are different moralities. Your response was that people who believe in one god also believe in many, and those that believe in many also believe in one. It seriously didn't have anything to do with different moralities, therefore worthless.
You said they still differ, and that is all that matters.
Still you haven't been specific about how they differ ethically. I have already pointed out that morality is contextual. Read more carefully please.
Not a bully, factual.
There is no negation. Flat out calling somebodies post worthless is bullying. Careful with those harsh words. Once again it isn't helping your argument that atheism is better for the world.
The guy said there are different moralities. Your response was that people who believe in one god also believe in many, and those that believe in many also believe in one.
Listen up! He was the first to bring up the concept of polytheism as a problem, and I simply addressed that as a side note. I addressed the morality issue by saying that they don't differ that much, and where they do differ it is contextual. Do I need to go back and pull that up?
Objective morality that is contextual is known as subjective.
I agree and don't see any problem with this statement.
Flat out calling a worthless set of statements worthless is not bullying.
It can be considered bullying given the context and manner in which it is presented.
It is only harsh if you make it harsh
If I was in a discussion with someone and the second sentence that they said was "Now what you just did was worthless!" I would consider that bullying, especially if I hadn't done anything wrong or didn't provoke anything. It's all about context and what is considered socially acceptable behavior.
Being a crybaby doesn't promote Theism
This is exactly what I am talking about in the last point. It's not the second sentence, but it is definitely a type of verbal bullying.
No, he brought up multiple interpretations of god(s)
The plural form makes it polytheism.
So, you agree that morality is subjective.
Yes, in some instances morality is subjective. It's not a black and white thing.
I agree and don't see any problem with this statement.
So, there is no objective morality, which means that there is no point to Theism.
It can be considered bullying given the context and manner in which it is presented.
Fair enough, but this isn't one of those cases.
If I was in a discussion with someone and the second sentence that they said was "Now what you just did was worthless!" I would consider that bullying, especially if I hadn't done anything wrong or didn't provoke anything. It's all about context and what is considered socially acceptable behavior.
You just proved me right. It is your fault for thinking it is harsh.
This is exactly what I am talking about in the last point. It's not the second sentence, but it is definitely a type of verbal bullying.
You are trying to silence me as well, I consider what you are doing as bullying as well.
No, he brought up multiple interpretations of god(s)
The plural form makes it polytheism.
That doesn't mean disproving polytheism means you have eliminated his point. Polytheism is only a part of what he is talking about.
3) He said that believing in God has lead to multiple ideas of moralities. Not belief in multiple gods. He is saying that different religions have different views on gods, not that a belief in one god is different than a belief in multiple gods, so you didn't actually respond to his argument, thus worthless.
No, he brought up the concept of multiple "gods" and linked that in with religions:
Your belief in god does not create a purely objective morality, since the existence of multiple religions and therefore gods creates multiple "objective moralities", which of course makes them subjective.
He used the term "multiple...gods" and linked that with "multiple moralities". My argument is that if polytheists are secretly monotheists it settles the confusion of having "multiple objective moralities" because they are all possibly worshiping the same God.
No, he brought up the concept of multiple "gods" and linked that in with religions
What he is talking about is Yahweh, God, and Allah. The same god, but different interpretations based on what religion you are, not the same religion believing in more than one god. Your argument doesn't address the problem of different sets of gods. Your idea is that there are different sets of gods. So, different groups worship different sets of gods. Some simplify it to one god, some expand to multiple gods, but the overall godliness is what matters. The problem though is that is not what he was bringing up. The fact that there are different sets of gods that have different moralities means that morality is not objective. The fact that you are completely ignoring the morality aspect shows you have gone off topic.
Just because you changed the subject and he didn't catch it doesn't mean I am wrong. What you wrote was interesting, and even I would like to know more about that concept, but all you did was catch his interest, not address his argument.
There is no proof in atheism. Evolution is fake. Just think about it. If a fish jumped out of the water and on land he would flopped around for a while before flopping back into the water. However evolution says that if fish do that for thousands of years they will begin to grow lunges. There is one problem. When the fish starts to grow lunges he would be worse off in the water. He would not breath as well in the water and be eaten by a predator. That is why there is a fish called the coelacanth. This fish is so old its in the fossil records. It's species is estimated to be 400 million years old and it has changed 0% in that time. Why? Because God created everything in 7 days and it is meant to stay the same.
Zachattack, why do you think that the overwhelming majority of scientists recognize evolution? Do you think they are all wrong, and you know something they don't? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, you know exceptionally little about evolution?
There are no major scientists in the world today who reject the theory of evolution. In fact, the greatest Christian scientist alive today is Francis Collins, whom states that evolution is just as factual as the theory of gravitation. Speaking against evolution, as though it contradicts Christianity, is in the end like doing to Christianity what Hitler did to the Jews. There is too much evidence for evolution right now, and from too many fields of science.
We can't interpret the creation accounts in the Old Testament as literal-historical, and there is nothing wrong with this. In fact reading it mythically is found to be much more powerful. The earliest church father outside the New Testament (St. Origen) didn't preach a literal interpretation. If you have ever read the works of Emanuel Swedenborg, I highly recommend him.
