CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Spread of Islam will destroy Atheism by force
The future of Atheism as Islam spreads-
-Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh refers to increased attacks since 2013 on a number of secularist and atheist writers, bloggers, and publishers in Bangladesh and foreigners, and religious minorities such as Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and Shias. These attacks have been largely blamed by extremist groups such as Ansarullah Bangla Team and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
The Bangladeshi government was criticized for its responses to the attacks, which included charging and jailing some of the secularist bloggers for allegedly defaming religious groups – a strategy seen as pandering to hard line elements within Bangladesh's majority Muslim population (about 89% of the population)
Scientifically what excon has stated is perfectly true.
However, the factual accuracy of his viewpoint is partially weakened by the continuing illogical human need for a higher, all powerful entity which controls everything.
Most people either refuse to, or simply cannot take full responsibility for their own lives so it suits such people to place their fortune or misfortune in the hands of some mythical, unseen, unheard divine creature who will forgive their sins and look after them if they spend sufficient time and energy enthusiastically praising him/her through daily worship and personal sacrifice.
The frightening feature about this flaw in the human psyche' is that regardless of what science proves beyond a doubt there will always be those who will require 'a God'.
Not actually. We know God is there. We also know it all goes down around Syria in the end. We didn't just pull the name "Armageddon" from out of nowhere.
While Christianity diminishes Islam increases, so the logical conclusion to reach is that if current trends continue unabated Muslims will outnumber both Christians and atheists at some point in the future.
Islamic Sharia Law will prevail and the surviving generations of what will have become the defunct Christian religion will be second class citizens in their own country.
It is only a matter of time before what some would consider to be an outrageous scenario comes to pass.
Muslims are here, their numbers are increasing by continuing immigration and their high birth rate.
While Christianity diminishes Islam increases, so the logical conclusion to reach is that if current trends continue unabated Muslims will outnumber both Christians and atheists at some point in the future.
Islamic Sharia Law will prevail and the surviving generations of what by then will have become the defunct Christian religion will be second class citizens in their own country.
It is only a matter of time before what some would consider to be an outrageous scenario comes to pass.
Muslims are here, their numbers are increasing by continuing immigration and their high birth rate.
Not like Christianity;- 'Love God or have white hot pokers shoved up your ass in hell for eternity''. I LOVE HIM, I LOVE HIM, PRAISE BE TO THE LORD, HALLELUJAH BROTHER HALLELUJAH.
You've created a false assessment by using Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost (works of fiction) as references for hot pokers that are never mentioned in the actual Bible.
Islam vs Atheism is like housecats vs outdoor cats. You bring the outdoor cat into the house, it will bully, kill, steal, bite,whatever it has to do, because that's all it knows. It will kill every indoor cat if it feels it must in order to survive.
What do the indoor cats do? At first they are confused. They are used to living in relative peace amongst each other in a civil habitat. Thus they run and hide from the outdoor cat or get killed or beaten.
Liberal Atheists don't understand the mentality of the outdoor cat. That's why the West is being bitten, attacked and killed by it.
Conservatives are like the owner that tries to keep the outdoor cat out of the house, while leftist Atheists keep letting the outdoor cat back into the house, confused that it keeps trying to kill them.
Not actually. Islam is spreading at an unpresidented rate and is fixing to become the largest religion in the world and it's beginning to go worldwide. Atheism will be killed off before it even makes any dent in Islamic thought or culture. (You'll be overwhelmed by numbers alone. It's happening in Europe.)
Of those converting to Islam, 67% came from Protestant churches, 10% from catholic, 5% other religion, and 15% with no religion (and only about 25% of those unaffiliated with religion consider themselves atheist). If Islam was really set to destroy atheism, those numbers should be reversed.
Not really. Atheism has only been allowed to grow in Christianized areas. Once Islam gains more numbers and political clout, Atheism will be killed off. Nothing coexists with Islam once it gains much control in a region. And Muslims breed like rabbits. Europeans are breeding less. Islam is breeding more. The numbers are against you. And with the Liberal love affair with Islam, even those not in their ranks yet are helping their cause and opposes and muzzles anyone who opposes Islam.
If, that is, you have monitored terrorism recruitment propaganda like I have. Islamic State is dying, and they have prepared a legacy which can cause a resurrection of Islamic terrorism. In such a case, the last thing you want is people, especially those prone to such stuff (which can actually be a pretty big number), associating with them.
It really is funny how you fear Islam so much. Do you realize they only make up 0.9% of the US? Sure atheism may not be as prevalent in Islamic countries, and it's to be expected. The indoctrination into it is much more extreme as are the penalties for apostasy. Sure their numbers are expected to grow (a whopping 6% over 40 years), but still aren't close to becoming a majority in our lifetimes.
And with the Liberal love affair with Islam
A straw man. Christianity still holds it's privilege in this country and I doubt that'll change anytime soon.
Your exact argument was used in Europe. They were outbred and in cultural replacement. It only takes a small cancer to create a big cancer. That's why you get it before it spreads.
Speaking as a European, this "ISLAM HAS TAKEN OVER" rhetoric of the American right is completely false. Islam has not outbred and culturally replaced us in the slightest. Please stop reading Breitbart and think for yourself.
What's that phrase the far-right use when they're spouting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories? "Wake up, sheep?"
I don't read breitbart. I read European news sources. England is still safe on the island. We also see the jihadist attacks on Europe in your news and our own liberal press. Plus, I have friends in Sweden who reject your proposal. The 100,000 man anti Islam march in Poland didn't happen because the Polish are getting along well with Islamists. I also have read the news from Turkey. I also watch the videos of certain Europeans who show video and give opinions, from the prominant to the every day pleb.
A straw man. Christianity still holds it's privilege in this country and I doubt that'll change anytime soon.-----
It'll happen sooner than you think. And with liberal immigration policies, Hillary planned on bringing them in and in mass. A liberal will be President again. Plus Muslims have a lot more kids than traditional Americans. The Christian Right has actually been the bulwark of something you would find to be worse. And what do you think it will look like if actually elect a Muslim like say Keith Ellison to the Presidency? And if there is a giant influx of people fleeing a giant war? You could be replaced in no time. Ask Sweden. They are about to become a minority in their own country, blonde women are dying their hair black, wearing hijabs for safety and only going out with groups of men for protection.
Repeatedly I've stated I hate all religions. Look at the statistics - 77% come from some form of Christian church, and not quite 4% are atheist. Who is more likely to be needing such attire?
It doesn't matter if they are coming from a Christian church. That means they are getting bigger, you are getting less Christianized neighbors(which isn't a safe environment for Atheists) and.... some are even from your own clan. The "enlightenment" atheists talk about is moving too slowly. They'll have control before then and snuff out the "enlightenment".
It does matter. You claim atheism is failing because people are turning to Islam, but considering the majority of those turning to Islam were Christians, more atheists would slow the conversion. It's not a big leap to go from Christianity to Islam since the god belief already exists, and is even the same god. Sure about 3.75% are atheist, but not considering about 8% of atheists still believe in some type of god (clearly they don't understand the word), why is that surprising some would convert to Islam?
A video of an unknown source warning about Muslims in America. Studies show right now about 0.9% of the US population is Muslim and will rise to 2.1% by 2050. Of the current 0.9%, 86% condemn violent acts done in the name of Islam, 7% say sometimes it's justified, and just 1% state it's often justified. When it comes down to it, the fear is based on 0.0072% of our population.
Even if you can justify your fear, what should be done about it? Do we strip our citizens of their religious rights?
No. We should have let Trump have his "Muslim ban". Problem solved, but no, liberals are too busy tossing insults to protect themselves. It's some kind of anti Christian Atheistic jihad. They are about to find out what jihad is. Atheists should be conservatives (,like Christopher Hitchens and Ayasn Hirsi Ali). I don't get it.
Yes, we do both know that but needs to be an actual full ban. I'm not as nice as Trump on this issue. Of course the left will toss the bigot word around. Well? Is it okay to hate Nazism with a god? I sure as hell hope so.
I don't know what the Constution says on it. People say that and can't show you in the constitution. Nevertheless, the ban has been implemented before.
5th and 14th amendment both address this (though the 5th has no geographical requirement) that no person can be denied the right of life, liberty or property without due process. Yes, the president can implement a temporary ban, but not permanently.
And if one wanted to get clever Atheism isn't protected. Only freedom of religion. Atheism claims it isn't a religion, so technically it has no religious freedom. And Islamists would be all over that technicality.
They used to say gay marriage, tran males winning female sports and tran bathrooms was moronic. Well guess what.
Guess what? They made changes. As it stands the Constitution does not require citizens to practice a religion and unless a change is made, it will remain that way.
Your clan and my clan need to learn to pick alliances better and oppose the Mordor orcs from the Middle East.
When it comes to foreign affairs, our religious beliefs (or lack there of) are irrelevant, and in case you haven't realized by now, I'm quite conservative when it comes to these matters.
If you want to pet Islam and make excuses for it, that sounds like full snowflake to me. Ever read the Quran? They are commanded to kill everylast one of us like a mantra throughout its pages.
What are you arguing? Are you imagining I'm saying something else to which you're responding? You just can't seem to accept we actually agree on the problem of Islam. You can continue replying to the other responses of mine that you've imagined I've written, but I'm done with this debate.
Do you even know what taqiya, tawriya, kitman, or muruna are? If you do not, you need to look it up. And you need to listen to ex Muslims because they are trying to warn us as to what is going on.
How big a collection of tin foil hats do you have? Fine, I'll humor...let's fear the whole .09% of the population. You're still claiming a rise from 0.9% to 2.1% is a massive spread that will somehow destroy atheism. You're a fool to believe that.
No. They actually are killing Atheists in Europe who said what you're saying. Then there was an Islamic refugee crisis in mass. That's all it took was one event. Now it's out of Europe's control according to themselves. They are being overrun. It's an invasion using war as its excuse to infiltrate Europe's borders. Surely you've studied or seen this.
Well, become President of the United States using Taqiyya. Lead the DNC, Keith Ellison. Run the CIA, John Brennan. Be Hillary Clinton's right hand woman, Huma Abedin. Be the mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn. And commit a list of terroristic attacks in the West so vast that no one is even keeping track anymore. Apparently it can do a lot, even take over our politics and our central intelligence, just as the Quran commands them to do to destroy us fromthe inside.
3) The same people who stand up to your Christian religious right bull will stand up to anyone's religious bull. Send a Muslim into this site to tell me I'm going to hell and I'll step right up to telling them why they're idiots.
4) The day anyone religious starts to come for me and my family where we live and work will be the day I make use of my gun permit and mobilize to protect. But in the meantime life is quite normal where I am. Even after the infamous Marathon bombing, which was two rogue nut jobs (and there's countless rogue nut jobs of all types all over the world) there has been no mass hysteria against Muslims in Boston and no further major attacks up here. It simply is nowhere close to panic time, here, or in most of the USA.
It didn't have the capacity to take over. The Roman family tree was too strong to the West. That's what caused the crusades, Muslim conquests. They took everything else and weren't stopped until China to the East and Europe to the West.
Basically you admit they can, and have, been stopped in the past. And you doubt we are as strong as either of those cultures now but that is highly disputable and it's just your subjective opinion.
They've been stopped in the past, but the liberal open border mindset was nonexistant and men were trained to be fighters. Liberalism is the new variable in the equation. Past societies were united against foreign invaders. Liberals are the first society group that actually welcomes its enemies and invaders into its borders with open arms.
Border policy, open or not, really doesn't come down to conservative vs liberal mentalities. And it differs from nation to nation and you're talking about a global risk.
And modern warfare isn't hand to hand and person to person on a global scale. It doesn't matter whether the US or any other Western population is fully trained in fighting across their entire population. And even if the problem got so severe that they needed to be it would not take long for everyone to simply carry a gun.
1) That's simply a huge stereotype. Let's see a source from you with a study that all Liberals are pro-Muslim. 2) There's a difference between being tolerant of the existence of a religion and allowing that religion to do anything it wants to anyone else.
Nope. The polls don't lie. Ask a liberal. And they say most Atheists are liberals. And it sure isn't Conservatives wearing hijabs and doing the Islamic call to prayer at the Women's March.
Plenty of people in Islamic countries don't believe in God, and still go to pray three times a day because they are intimated to. Point being, it's entirely possible to live in a strictly religious country, be forced to do religious things, and yet still have -- inside -- absolutely no belief in God.
The Progressive says-"Plenty of people in Islamic countries don't believe in God, and still go to pray three times a day because they are intimated to."
That's a quote from the Bible which refutes what you just claimed. You have created a strawman version of Christianity that doesn't even exist, in order to justfy your atheism to yourself.
It's a load of bollox, is what it is. Christianity is plenty of different things to plenty of different people. The denominational paradox alone goes 99% of the way to telling us sensible folk that your religion is horse-shit. The subsequent excrement that comes out of your mouth does the rest.
I really don't care how you define it. Gehenna, the rubbish pit, a literal place of fire and torment, the underworld, purgatory, the resting place of the dead. It's all bullshit. It doesn't deserve to be treated seriously.
We need a chapter and verse to show that any of what you said is actually even in the Bible. Quoting Milton's fictional "Paradise Lost" doesn't help your argument.
Enshrined in physics is the very law to the contrary of what you are saying: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.
Energy is thus eternal. So quite obviously, there wasn't "nothing". And "nothing" did not become "something", to manifest reality. In fact, nothing itself is an impossible concept, a misnomer, a paradox. "Nothing" can't exist. "Nothing" never has existed. For something to exist, it must be existent: it must be a "thing", therefore it isn't "nothing".
I don't expect you, with the minute collection of severely dilapidated braincells that inhabit your cranium, to actually understand any of that. But that's exactly why you ought to leave the cosmology to the professionals.
In the mean time, why don't you make a genuine effort to expand your mind? Rather than ask the same questions and get answered with the same rebuttals and still refuse to acknowledge any of it, mightn't you be better served to consider the possibility that you, at this moment, simply are not knowledgable enough to understand the things you're trying to challenge? You ought to acknowledge that this makes you unqualified to comment, and you ought to set yourself the goal to comprehend the subject matter so that maybe you can begin to question it sincerely. Because quite clearly, you do not even understand the argument of the opposition. How can you possibly hope to challenge what you can't even grasp?!
Exactly. This is why the infinite regress of causality makes atheism philosophically, scientifically, and logically impossible by default.
Only if you assume the big bang needed a metaphysical cause. It doesn't. It didn't. In any case, the infinite regress of causality makes God nonsensical: who or what created God? Who or what created the creator of God? Ad infinitum.
"Oh but God doesn't need a creator". Then the argument from infinite regression of causality is utterly hopeless.
But more importantly, the laws of conservation of energy, again, state that energy can't be created or destroyed. Which means one of two things regarding this argument:
1. You won't accept the first law of thermodynamics, or
2. You think that time dimensionality is necessary for energetic potentiality.
Both are deal-breakers.
Lastly, atheism is quite clearly possible. I am an atheist. I am an atheist because I don't believe in God. Atheism is nonbelief in God. Nonbelief in God, AKA atheism, is thus, possible. Not only is it possible, but it is, right now, existent.
-----In any case, the infinite regress of causality makes God nonsensical: who or what created God? Who or what created the creator of God? Ad infinitum-----
Not actually. You need a naturalistic answer. We do not. Our answer satisfies the paradox. Yours does not.
For all we know, time, matter, and sequence are programmed or created controls over our simulated or "less real" reality. You can't make that claim. We can. Thus you are still stuck in a naturalism paradox. We are not.
Nope. You don't know what "the laws of physics" even means to the creator of our physics or if physics even exists where he is at. Or if there is even a "where He is at".
A computer programmer, is bound by the laws of physics. What part of that do you not get?
You can't compare some wishy washy metaphysical bullshit to a computer programmer bound by the laws of physics, making Sim City on a computer made of the same atomic structures that he is, bound by the same laws as he is, within the same paradigm he exists in. It's ludicrous, intelligible, puerile bullshit: the last gasp stand of an intellectual regression that masquerades as a fully functioning adult.
-----The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not abide by the laws of physics, because the Flying Spaghetti monster created the laws of physics"-----
Ancient man never mentioned the spaghetti monster nor does anyone worship it with numbers. If God exists, surely he has a few followers. Now of course, I know that you follow Richard Dawkins.
Ancient man was largely moronic, very much like you. Vox populis, vox dei is an insufficient basis for establishing fact. In Ancient Greece millions believed in Zeus. In Ancient Rome, many believed in the gods of the planets. Does that make Zeus and Jupiter real?!
Your God is of no more consequence to man than Zeus or Minerva or Shiva or Allah or the hundreds of thousands of other gods and esoteric faiths and religious movements throughout the history of man.
You know what they all have in common? Not a shred of proof that they ever existed.
The worship of demons is a claim of the Bible. The throne of Zeus in Pergamom, Turkey was called the "throne of Satan" by Christ... who had never been to Turkey. (The book of Revelation)
And all of the "ancient gods" have a common variable, that I point out on my site, which you refuse to look at (due to confirmation biases and cognitive dissonance). They all come from the same place, and I prove it on my site that... you refuse to look at...
Exactly. That's why I have dismissed the Atheist nothing monster that Atheists claim manifested reality from its magical nothingness. We don't blindly accept your myths.
-----in the mean time, why don't you make a genuine effort to expand your mind? -----
I use Atheist and scientist quotes and videos on here constantly. I can tell you exactly why Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher are committing logical fallicies.
I've also used Fredrick Hoyle, Albert Einstein, and David Berlinsky on here, none of which are or were Christians or theists. I know the leaders of your tribe's accusations and claims as well as anyone.
-----mightn't you be better served to consider the possibility that you, at this moment, simply are not knowledgable enough to understand the things you're trying to challenge-----
1)I've been debating religion and politics for twenty years. I've went through everything on atheist apologetics sites, and I can tell you why they're crap.
2)The same can be said to you. I've offered my site as proof. You've never gotten on it. It shows me if you do.
Doesn't matter how long you've been debating it. If you can't understand cosmological concepts like the conservation of energy, then you shouldn't be talking about cosmological concepts that obey the laws of conservation of energy.
It's like trying to disprove evolution without understanding what evolution entails, or trying to refute the advent of biochemical complexity without understanding basic chemistry.
If you don't understand the argument you're trying to oppose, then you might as well be pissing in the wind.
Your site isn't proof of anything. It's a bunch of nonsense.
No, it doesn't. Energy temporally carrying out work, is the same as the length of a space-time fourth vector in the time dimension. Objects can have energy in a temporal paradigm without being put into motion by an outside force. Something can harbor gravitational potential energy and not be expending it.
Stuffs always have capacity for work. Whether or not stuffs carry out that work temporally -- in the "now" -- is of no consequence to their capacity to do so.
But really, when we're talking about big bang cosmology, as a species existent in space-time and used to thinking in those terms, to demand a causal factor "before" the big bang is the same to demand time before time was a dimension, which doesn't really make sense, which is why the infinite regression of causality argument is flat out incorrect. You can't have a causal relationship as we know it without a temporal dimension. If there is no temporality, there's no chronological causality. So if you think of the big bang as the emergence not of energy, but of time, it begins to make more sense.
Energetic potential is existent regardless of the time dimension, but temporal expenditure of energy demands temporality.
"to demand a causal factor "before" the big bang is the same to demand time before time was a dimension, which doesn't really make sense, which is why the infinite regression of causality argument is flat out incorrect."-----
Not really. When I say "time", I don't mean an abstract or "scientific" definition of time. I simply mean pre history.
-----Energetic potential is existent regardless of the time dimension-----
You are guessing based on an improvable and theoretical model, just as you claim theists are doing. The fact is, no one knows how it began for sure (per Atheist scientists. Video provided if you want).
Scientific observation -- subject to scrutiny, review and improvement -- is an immeasurably better model for the proliferation of knowledge than "because some sheep herders wrote it on human skin once about five thousand years ago".
There's a place for an attack on the debater, rather than the content of the debate. If you are so arrogant that: you can't even understand basic physical laws yet espouse arguments surrounding them; you believe in fairy-tales yet belittle intelligence; you mock scientific discovery yet sacre horse-shit; you bend facts and use discredited sources; you carry moral bases manifested entirely from extinct languages in which were written didactic diatribes; you misapprehend logical rules; you don't believe in proven theories for "lack of evidence" yet postulate unfalsifiable theology, then you are by any reasonable standard an idiot.
It's a false assessment. Attacking the debator has nothing to do with the content of the debate. (Notice. I haven't done it you. I attack your claims.)
-----if you are so arrogant that: you can't even understand basic physical laws yet espouse arguments surrounding them; you believe in fairy-tales-----
You have provide theoretical claims based on no full proof evidence, thus you have provided us... mythology.
So what I got from that emotional diatribe was? You openly admit defeat and offer no arguments to back your claims nor any links or sources, but have simply thrown out baseless assertions based off of Atheistic fundamentalist dogma. Off ya go.
There is never "room for an attack on a debater". Ad hominem arguments only make you look ignorant and weak. We're still waiting for some evidence, or perhaps start out with a decent argument.
2)If goat herders(which the prophets were not), predict the future, "goat herders" is a false dichotomy and an ad hominem attack. So you have now evaded the topic by changing the topic.
You obviously don't understand what a false dichotomy is.
Nobody predicts the future. People guess, and sometimes their guesses are vaguely accurate. Tomorrow it will rain. That's me predicting the future. And there's about a 60% chance of it happening. Does that make me a prophet?
Next year America will go to war again. Next week a child will die somewhere. In fifty years the Earth will be hotter than it is now. In four months, a comet will pass in the night sky.
All extremely likely. But I'm not a prophet. You ARE a moron though.
A false dichotomy is offering two choices when others exist.
The predictions by the Bible are nothing like your claim of "predictions". It hasmany different men making claims about the end of the world that all have to actually come to manifestation at the end. They have and are.
This isn't an intellect problem. It's a heart problem. If it were an intelect problem, the highest IQs on Earth wouldn't be theists.
The most intelligent Americans are theists. Most Americans are theists. More than anything it's a culture issue. That's why smart British people are usually atheists, and smart Chinese people are usually Buddhists or Taoists. It doesn't say anything about whether God exists or not.
Charles Darwin believed in God. He set out to prove God created the animal kingdom in the Galapagos Islands. And look what he found ...
Most smart people who believe in God don't believe in God in the same sense you mean, anyway. Einstein is often quoted to have believed in God. At best, he was mildly pantheistic, believing that any "god like" quality in the universe could only be observed through scientific inquiry, a Spinoza's God, which compared to your bullshit, is no god at all. Cristopher Langan is similar. Steven Hawking is atheist. Alan Turing was an atheist. Marilyn Savant courted religion because it was pragmatic for her time: had she not been religious, she wouldn't have been accepted the same. Ramanujan was a Hindu (uh oh, Demon worshipper alert), Neil Tyson is an agnostic, Professor Brian Cox is an atheist.
And really, when you get to that level of intelligence, an IQ test is utterly meaningless. You can't quantify that level of intelligence, nor can you assert it as tantamount to authority on the existence of a god. Cristopher Langan is a genius in the arena of knowledge acquisition methodology, not cosmology. Ramanujan was a genius in the arena of advanced mathematics, not astronomy.
I'm not interested in an average of comparable smarts. (I've seen the stats) I'm interested in what the very smartest say and? They say Atheism is illogical crap. You have adhered to Atheist fundamentalist dogma.
-----Charles Darwin believed in God. He set out to prove God created the animal kingdom in the Galapagos Islands. And look what he found ...-----
He found finches who's beaks.... changed with the season...and changed back with the season. Proving? A variation within that particular species, which is not Darwinian Evolution...
Aaaaaaah... so you openly admit that the United States of America is a "Christian nation" and that you are lucky to have not been born in a "non - Christian" nation.
----which compared to your bullshit, is no god at all----
Ad hominem attacks make you look like you are in retreat and have recoiled into personal insults. Otherwise you would stay focused and maintain a logical, professional course.
Hawking is an agnostic, has a Christian wife, and has made theistic arguments before. Google it. I've listened to every word he's ever said that is on youtube.
Ad hominem attacks make you look weak. Nevertheless, the prophecies in the Bible were made by 40 different people concerning the end, all have to meet up, and at the exact same time. And... they are... and the probability of them all being right and it coming to manifestation at the same point in history is? Impossible statistically. It all ends in and near Syria according to the Bible, so put your Atheist helmet on and put in a mouthpiece, and some knee pads... and get a real haircut. You look like an idiot.
The site shows that most all of the claims about the future have come true other than its final finality. It ends around Syria after it is demolished, if you even want to know.
"I don't expect you, with the minute collection of severely dilapidated braincells that inhabit your cranium, to actually understand any of that. But that's exactly why you ought to leave the cosmology to the professionals"-----
----Because quite clearly, you do not even understand the argument of the opposition. How can you possibly hope to challenge what you can't even grasp?!-----
Prove it and show us how. Blind, baseless assertions are meaningless to me and anyone flipping through this debate.