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.
What must I do to feel welcomed here?
I feel like I am unwelcomed because of the people who are saying negative things about me. If you say in this debate to change my beliefs that's not going to happen.
Well if it's your belief that you are unwelcome here, but to alleviate this feeling we can't change your beliefs, I don't know what you expect us to do.
If you're really looking for a metaphorical pat on the head, perhaps you should go back to your spotlight debate and read the multitude of posts from people saying they enjoy your presence here, for one reason or another, and just ignore the people (like me) who are criticizing you.
However, if you are as unreceptive and opposed to criticism as you have repeatedly shown yourself to be, perhaps a debate site isn't the best way for you to spend your time, after all.
Honestly Srom, you don't take advice, as Chad said, so this is useless. You don't seem to have any logical thought in your mind, and it has NOTHING to do with your choice of religion, and it's more irritating that you blame people's opinion of you on your beliefs.
I could care less what your religion is, but I'd appreciate it if you were more logical. For example, realize what arguments are useful or useless against your opponent in a debate.
That's a good start, and if you do argue in a religious debate find NEW things to debate with since the old ones don't work. For example, you know using the bible in an argument won't get you far since the majority of people don't find the bible a reliable source. If you're trying to convince them that you're side of the debate is right, then don't use something other discredit.
And another thing, find a debate topic that interests you, not religion for the first one, and research it a LOT. Not just your side of the argument, both sides, then make a debate about it.
No one here hates you or thinks you will suffer in hell for a simple belief. No one wants you dead or thinks you are worthless.
All we want it a fun debate, and perhaps a bit of rage, but only for fun.
Taking this stuff too seriously is bad, I think.
You should NEVER change your beliefs to fit in, but you SHOULD change your beliefs if you are searching for truth.
What I believed ten years ago is MUCH different from what I believe now.
If you do not change your beliefs simply from learning, then you are being willfully ignorant.
You have seen a lot of posts on here why your god isn't real, and why it is real.
You need to look at this and think about whether or not you are supporting the truth, or if you are only supporting what you think is true.
There is only one truth in this world, for the issues you have trouble about don't go both ways.
Why do you think a person becomes atheist?
In the search for truth, you can't become mad at people who have different opinions. Instead, you must simply prove them wrong and prove yourself right.
As long as they do not beat your arguments, you are correct.
However, it is the opposite. You have been shown many times to be incorrect, but instead of learning, you take it personally and think they are attacking you, when you are SO much more than your religion or beliefs.
What would the world be like if there was no god?
What would happen if you were wrong? What in your life would change?
Welcomed? Boy, you expect too much, this stuff is anonymous people don't care about you or anyone else for that matter.
In my opinion everyone is welcome, and I mean everyone even pedophiles and racists etc, the more opinions we have stirs the pot and that can only be a good thing.
If you are unwilling to change your beliefs, you are intellectually dishonest with yourself, and there is quite literally no point in debating. I like to debate because it refines my opinions on things by forcing me to constantly modify my beliefs to suit facts. You seem to just want to tell people what you believe and expect them to accept it simply because you said it.
Dude, Srom. I'm your ally. I asked you for help in a debate yesterday. If that don't make you feel welcome, then I don't know what will. So don't be so depressed buddy.
I know your my ally its other people who don't like me. I trust you and all of my friends here its just the other people.
Thanks I will try not to be depressed. Also the debate you just mentioned for you to help I can't because I don't know very much about that topic and I haven't studied it much.
30 pages. You think that's enough to describe the history of the universe and how life formed?
No, it's not.
You know how long a book about the Big Bang is?
AT LEAST FIVE TIMES LONGER. At least the book I just read is. However, this book was mainly non-technical and avoided most of the mathematics behind it, only explaining more simple concepts.
Because these concepts can be explained, rather than simply "BELIEVE THIS BOOK", I have a good reason to accept it as true.
If a person wants to understand the universe, the best thing to do is buy a telescope and look at stars, and realize how far they are away. There are no lies repeatable, testable observation. If you know the speed of light, you already know the universe is far older than 6000 years old.
How would light from the Andromeda Galaxy reach us? It's waaaay too far away.
It would take at least 2,538,000 years for the light from a single star there to reach Earth, based on the tested speed of light. LIGHT IS FAST.
Because light from those stars HAS reached Earth, we now know the universe is at least 2,538,000 years old.
However, we can see farther than that.
All this means is that Creationism is wrong.
But don't trust me.
Buy a nice telescope for like $200-300 and look up on a clear night. Maybe drive out of a city first though...
If you want to know the truth, you can't just think of clever arguments and logic. You need real evidence.
30 pages. You think that's enough to describe the history of the universe and how life formed?"
Well, considering God created everything in seven days, I suppose 30 pages is more than sufficient.
And another thing. Evolution is still an unproven theory. What you don't understand is you believe in evolution by faith just as much as a Christian believes in God.
You do not want evolution to be true. It's not even a matter of evidence or logic.
You don't care if it's true, and you don't want it to be true. It would offend you if it was, wouldn't it?
It'd shatter your worldview and force you to realize your god isn't real.
I'm not going to explain this shit to you on a debate that isn't about evolution, but if you want to know about evolution, why not google it and look at some good information on it, check out some debates here on it, or go to a biology professor and ask him about it.
If you don't care about it either way, then quit your insane rambling.
"You do not want evolution to be true. It's not even a matter of evidence or logic.
You don't care if it's true, and you don't want it to be true. It would offend you if it was, wouldn't it?"
You do not want Creationism to be true. It's not even a matter of evidence or logic. You don't care if it's true, and you don't want it to be true. It would offend you if it was, wouldn't it? It'd shatter your world view and force you to realize you are held accountable to a higher deity.
REMEMBER: And argument works both ways.
"I'm not going to explain this shit to you on a debate that isn't about evolution."
Ex-fucking-actly! I was just giving Srom (a fellow Christian) some advice you dipstick! Thank you for butting in and now butting out. Geez....
You see, you were never atheist. You might give that "I used to be a weak Christian, but now I am Born Again" thing, and try to pass that off as atheism, but no. That is not atheism.
I was always a very devout Christian. Even as a teen, I was rebellious in many ways, but ALWAYS faithful to my god.
That was perhaps the most rebellious bit. All these people who call themselves Christians around me, but none of them are acting as the Bible commands. They seemed fake, but I knew I was real.
I know what it's like to believe in religion. From psychic stuff to wiccan magic, I have seen it all.
-
Yet, I am atheist today. You have never been atheist or skeptical as I have been. You have not seen the secular, scientific side of things from their side. Research and passion and dedication towards finding things out about the universe. That is what I have now.
What I believed before was nothing but lies, and I can clearly see that now, talking to Srom and reading his insane arguments and weak defenses.
I have seen BOTH sides, and I have a much clearer picture than you, I'm afraid. You have seen only one.
There is no more debate. Christianity is false, and its destruction of society, oppression of people and the damage and pain it causes people make it truly a crime against nature to support it.
I was raised Catholic, but rejected that because I felt the Bible itself was more important than the rituals and blood drinking.
I felt Jesus was to be obeyed and respected, not the establishment of the church. It was some form of protestantism, I think, but I had no protestant friends, so I didn't really know. I had seen the other Christians around me acting like bullies and idiots, using God's name in vain, which even now I look down on Christians who disrespect their own faith in such a way. If a Christian cannot live by the rules that he chooses to live by, I cannot consider that person a true Christian. However, eventually I realized the supernatural wasn't real. It was very slow, but at the end, I was down to a philosophy of "Peace, love and Jesus", where I no longer accepted any sort of god, because there was no evidence, but I was still considering myself a friend to Jesus' message.
But even that I rejected, when I saw what was within the Bible with clearer eyes.
Slavery, commandments to KILL others, and the most violent and insane tales I could imagine. From genocide to wiping out all life on earth, save a few people and animals, the stories were brutal and horrible and unrealistic.
If those stories were not real, then there was no original sin in Eden, there was no god, and Jesus had proclaimed himself a god.
I do not consider that a virtue, and completely dumped Christianity a few days later, around age 17.
There is no reason to believe in Christianity, for it is simply not true according to the evidence that is within the real universe. The Bible is a book, but I do not simply trust books that sound clever, from religion to science to the internet, I will look for real evidence.
Evidence points to many things that are true, and certainly can tell me that Christianity is not.
Religion as a whole is invented by mankind, written to explain what was once unexplainable.
Science is a recent invention, and has advanced society very quickly.
Adults who are 50+ years old can just barely use computers. This shows how quickly science and research can advance us.
Then I look at things like that movie that made Muslims go crazy and kill people, and see how easily religion can set us back. From Galileo to the evolution issue, religion lies over and over and over, slaughtering all who try to reveal it for what it is.
If slaughter is illegal, then it moves onto other methods of conversion.
Religion cannot be trusted, and when closely examined, to see if it IS true, despite how people act, the evidence does not match up. Christianity and all religion is simply not true.
A person who is insane never considers himself to be insane. So my question is, how do we know that you are not the one who is insane?
The consensus on this site is that Mackindale is very much sane. I literally vaporized your arguments on the evolution debate, to which you didn't respond to.
You have provided me a link to a lot of good theory, but you still haven't provided me with any irrefutable proof that evolution is true.
Depends what your definition is of irrefutable proof. Mountains of evidence from independent fields of science that all point to the same theory and in most cases strengthen it, along with absolutely zero evidence that would suggest evolution is false, is proof for me. That might not be proof for you.
How can you criticize Christians for being "blind believers" when evolution is still an unproven theory, and you have to accept it by faith?
You're merely begging the question. You pre suppose the condition that evolution is still an unproven theory, when this is far from the truth. Evolution has been proven over and over and over for roughly 150 years since the day it was published. Not a single study has cast the theory of evolution into doubt, virtually every single study has confirmed the theory of evolution or expanded our understanding of it.
So to answer your question, evolutionists can criticize Christians for being blind believers because they literally have no evidence for the existence of God. Evolutionists can believe the theory of evolution because it is a justified belief based on facts, evidence, and a workable theory. Our belief is justified, where as Christian beliefs are not, for they lack all three.
In regards to your last statement to the question...
Although I do believe in evolution myself, I also comprehend that evolution is in fact a theory, and a pretty good one at that. However, it is not any more or less true than the "theory of god, or gods". Religious people have theories that this universe was "created, or began at some point" via god, or gods, from above; obviously we're here because something began, there is evidence for that. My point is that, could it be possible that both are true?
Do you know what a scientific theory is? Then you would realize that the statement:
However, it is not any more or less true than the "theory of god, or gods"
is very much nonsensical.
Definition of Scientific Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Definition of Theory in everyday use: mere conjecture, speculation, or opinion.
As you can see, you cannot elevate "theory of god" to "theory of evolution" at least in scientific terms. One is based on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through experiments and observation, as well as having a well thought out explanation for the described phenomena.
Theory of God has little to no science behind is. Theory of Evolution does.
Could it be possible that both are true? In a very absolute sense, yes. Based on our current knowledge, God's existence is hideously unlikely.
And yes Theory of God does have science behind it; our human minds conceive those thought of god, or gods, at early and ongoing ages; mankind has believed in something similar since mankind, our species, has been existent.
What....? So because mankind has believe in something like God since it has existed, that is somehow science? No. This is completely false. You have no clue what you're talking about.
What is science? We can start with the scientific method for one which you completely ignored. Please tell me how belief in god incorporates the scientific method, and then tell me how it qualifies as a scientific theory.
If you can provide adequate responses to those questions, then I will cede that the Theory of God is indeed a scientific theory.
And to answer your first statement, you do not understand what a scientific theory is. Explain how the theory of god fits into the definition for scientific theory.
Scientific theory, or the scientific community has long sought the "truth", via facts (things, objects, ideals, whatever that can be seen with the human eye) of testing over and over again, thus resulting in "facts" of these so called "truths". Further, this desire for these truths resides in the concept that "what I can see, is truth", or "what I can test, is true", ect.
IMO, Mankind's human eye, or conscious, has easily seen mankind's consciousness believe in god, or gods, since the existence of mankind. Therefore, religion, or the belief in god, or gods, is as much a scientific fact as any other "scientific truth" out there.
Mankind believing in a god, or gods, is as much relevant in inevitable as mankind pursuing truths, such as gravity, or that the earth is round, or what/if space and time exist, ect.
Belief in god or gods is a scientific fact. But believe in gods has no bearing on whether or not these beings are real or not.
Theory of God is not a scientific fact. It is not even a theory in the scientific sense.
Mankind believing in god is not inevitable. People born in secular households tend to not be religious, whereas people in religious households tend to be religious due to brainwashing by their parents.
To summarize, the "theory of god" is not in any way scientific. Gravitational theory, theory of evolution, big bang theory, all of those are scientific theories that have a body of facts to support them, as well as having explanations that can make predictions in what we should see in the world.
So then what is the point you are trying to make? I know that other people believe in gods. That doesn't mean they are real. It just means that they are delusional.
Also, the purpose of the down vote button is not to down vote anybody who disagrees with you. The purpose of the down vote button is to down vote arguments that fundamentally do not make sense, are illogical, or nonsensical.
Explain to me how my argument is any of the three things I just listed.
Exactly, so don't down vote his arguments (but for a different reason). If you and your allies team up and spam down vote him so much it's like -5, then I (or anyone else for that matter) can't read his arguments. I personally only downvote an argument that is +2 or more, but never less than -1.
I rarely down vote arguments. You can check my points history if you don't believe me. You however have down voted my arguments that only have 1 point. So now you're lying...
I personally only downvote an argument that is +2 or more, but never less than -1.
This is a retarded way to down vote arguments. You want to down vote someone for having a good argument simply because you're jealous of how many points they have? If you're going to have this mentality, please grow up. Do not down vote simply because you're jealous of how many points they have. Down vote them if their argument fundamentally does not make sense, it is illogical, or if they're fabricating information.
"You down voted one of my argument on this debate."
That wasn't me!!!!
"You down voted Nummi into negative 1. Here"
I supported his debate, why would I downvote???
"You also down voted BenWalters. Hos post also has zero points now."
Yeah, that was me all right. I admit to that. But he called me racist in that post, but don't worry about that; we have that settled now.
"This is a retarded way to down vote arguments. You want to down vote someone for having a good argument simply because you're jealous of how many points they have? If you're going to have this mentality, please grow up. Do not down vote simply because you're jealous of how many points they have. Down vote them if their argument fundamentally does not make sense, it is illogical, or if they're fabricating information."
Eh, I just don't want the post to "magically" disappear, so I make sure it has sufficient points before downvoting. UNLIKE YOU!!! In THIS debate, you helped spam down vote a post I had made that showed that the Russians used nukes FOUR times to stop oil spills. Guess you couldn't provide a rebuttal, so you down voted, and now the argument is disappeared. Real mature.
Yes it was. I can see it on your points right now. If you click the persons points next to their name, it shows you everything they spent or gained points on. When I look at your points, I see a negative one next to where it says "down voted argument" and when i click the link it direct me to my post.
I supported his debate, why would I downvote???
It says you down voted on your points history on your profile...
Eh, I just don't want the post to "magically" disappear, so I make sure it has sufficient points before downvoting. UNLIKE YOU!!! In THIS debate, you helped spam down vote a post I had made that showed that the Russians used nukes FOUR times to stop oil spills. Guess you couldn't provide a rebuttal, so you down voted, and now the argument is disappeared. Real mature.
I didn't spam down vote any posts from anybody. That would be censorship if anything, I oppose that in every form. You can click my points history, I didn't down vote anyones argument.
And actually, I've responded to every single post of yours on that debate and I cannot find a single post where you mentioned the Russians using nukes four times to stop oil spills. I've refuted every one of your arguments on that page. Down voting an argument doesn't make it disappear. I don't know why you're accusing me of something when I didn't down vote it, please go check for yourself. Click the points next to my name to see what I spend my points on. While you're at it, check your points as well so you can see where you down voted me.
Another tip, if you reply to an argument with a clarify, it says "new argument activity" but it doesn't link to it. Which is why sometimes I (and I imagine other people) don't respond to it, because I cannot find it. I have to search through my recent responses to find it. I dont' know why create debate does that.
I don't know for certain if down voting an argument enough times deletes it entirely. I have never conspired with any of my allies to down vote an argument into oblivion. I down vote rarely, and never by request or suggestion. I down vote independently and rarely as evidenced by my point history.
Ah, I see. Well sorry for all of this confusion. I have changed my password into something more than just password101. And yes, sadly, that was my password. But not any longer. Thank you for helping me to clear this up.
But on a side note, like Youtube, Yahoo!, and other such websites, I do think down voting an argument enough makes it disappear; or at least censored. And since no permalink is added to an argument with the "Clarify" option, I can see how it can disappear without any trace.
Care to point me in the direction of your rebuttal regarding the russians using 4 nukes to seal oil wells? Because I have heard of the russians doing such a thing, but I do not see how that adds credibility to your argument.
HA HA HA! I wasn't necessarily trying to add credibility to my argument, I was merely showing that it has been done before, so I hit the "Clarify" button. LOL. That explains a lot.
But back to the subject, my original source was the Associated Press. I do not have time for archive searching at the moment, so on a quick Google search, here is a news website that also quotes it:
"I literally vaporized your arguments on the evolution debate, to which you didn't respond to."
I'm working some heavy overtime this week (12 hours/day shifts), give me a break.
"Depends what your definition is of irrefutable proof. Mountains of evidence from independent fields of science that all point to the same theory and in most cases strengthen it, along with absolutely zero evidence that would suggest evolution is false, is proof for me. That might not be proof for you."
Yeah from people biased for evolution.
"You pre suppose the condition that evolution is still an unproven theory"
You are pre-supposing that creationism is untrue. I don't think you realize you are still in the same boat here buddy.
"no evidence for the existence of God. "
Really? Have you not seen the stars in the sky, the birds in the air, the intricate workings of our own bodies? That's evidence for a God if I ever did see one, but we can argue this in our other debate. I have about four hours free tomorrow, so you can get the reply you have been waiting for from point one. I just hate jumping from debate to debate, though.
I'm working some heavy overtime this week (12 hours/day shifts), give me a break.
Fair enough. I'll wait a few more days.
Yeah from people biased for evolution.
It doesn't matter what links I post to you, or how reputable their source is, you will never consider any organization that supports evolution as credible. Is the NYTimes credible? What about CNN? Or what about the National Center for Science Education? It doesn't matter who I reference, you'll consider them all biased. That's your problem.
You are pre-supposing that creationism is untrue. I don't think you realize you are still in the same boat here buddy.
No, evolution has already met its burden of proof many times in its 150 year history. Creationism has never once met its burden of proof. I do not consider it untrue, I consider it a mere conjecture or speculation with little to no evidence to back itself up. So we are not in the same boat at all. What evidence is there to suggest that an intelligent designer of some sort created all life along with the rest of the universe?
Really? Have you not seen the stars in the sky, the birds in the air, the intricate workings of our own bodies?
This is not proof or evidence of god. We have explanations for how these things came to be what they are today. None of those explanations need a god. If anything, you're just so amazed at the beauty of the world and the universe, that you simply can't imagine any other way it could be the way it is other than by some intelligent designer. And that is a logical fallacy, argument from incredulity. Because you can't think of any other way for it to have happened, it had to be God or something equivalent.
Did you know that the Theory of Gravity is an unproven theory?
But seriously, you can't talk. You can't say we were zapped into existence. Are you mental?
Because surely, our remnants of tails, third eyelids, and our shrinking pinky toes evolved. You can see it yourself, no? In every new generation, the pinky toe is getting a little smaller every time, due to its lack of evolutionary need.
Why is evolution so pushed down by people who think we were zapped into existence?!
Natural selection would have to favor those without pinky toes in order for pinky toes to disappear. In what way does having a pinky toe make a person more likely to die, less likely to reproduce, or less fit for survival? As far as I am aware, pinky toes do not cause any of those three things. Therefore, they should stay as they do not inhibit survival in any way.
Or the absence of pinky toes would have to be somehow superior to the presence of pinky toes. Would the absence of pinky toes increase the ability to reproduce? Would it make you less likely to die? Would it increase your ability to survive? I think the answer to these questions is a resounding no.
In summary, I don't think there are any evolutionary pressures in favor of or against the presence of pinky toes. So they will likely remain as they are.
And by the way, please do not feed him garbage from that website. You're only poisoning his mind with a false understanding of science. And I would suggest you stay away from that website too.
He is a Christian dipstick. I'm pretty sure he knows that I'm not poisoning his mind. And if you looked at his post below, he already knows about and uses Answers in Genisis. Geez, and you call us irrational....
Then now is a good time to stop using that site. It only poisons people's minds with a false understanding of science. The science that answersingenesis preaches will not cause any break throughs, any innovations, any discoveries, it won't cause any progress at all.
Only real science can do that. And AnswersInGenesis does not provide that.
How can you trust these people? How do you not realize your religion is a conspiracy?
A plot that is set up to make you believe without question? Not only that, but it makes you convert other people too.
What sort of belief system is that? Can you really trust these people? Why can't they show it to you?
Why do I keep saying to you "Test it yourself."? Is it because what I am saying is real? If I was wrong, would I want you to test it?
That would make me look like a fool if I told you to test something that was clearly wrong.
But I'm not wrong, am I?
You already know that there are no gods. You've seen the evidence and logic behind this.
I've told you to look for yourself.
But this GeneralLee? He tells you to not look, but to obey. Obey what these websites tell you. Don't look for yourself, don't open your eyes to nature and the universe.
Keep them down at ancient books of rules and magic and gods.
Close your mind to truth.
That is what he is saying to you. Can you trust him?
Stop telling me what to do ok let me think for myself. You don't need to think for me. Of course I can trust GeneralLee he is my ally and friend as well and also my friend from Ohio also gave me that site long before he said it on here so I know all of the things the website says on there is true because of the evidence.
You can trust GeneralLee? Why? Because he has the same opinion as you?
Is that the only reason? Have you read what he's written? He's insane.
He's violent and corrupted. Do you want to be that way too? Are you ok with believing in lies and then joining with those sorts of people? If you are ok with that, then go ahead, but I cannot join you.
I want truth and peace for this earth. I am tired of oppression and violence.
Knowing who to trust in these hard times is difficult, but can you trust your own beliefs? Why?
How do you trust your allies? And why? Because they have the same opinion as you?
Is that the only reason? Have you read what some of your allies have written? They're insane!
They are violent and corrupted. Do you want to be that way too? Are you OK with believeing in lies and then joining with those sorts of people? If you are OK with that, then go ahead, but understand we cannot join you.
I want truth and peace for this earth. I am tired of oppression and violence. Knowing who to trust in these hard times is difficult, but can you trust your own beliefs? Why?
I think you keep forgetting that an argument works both ways. And another question, "What is Truth?"
Obviously you and I hardly agree on any subject, but I don't understand all the harassment you get.
My only advice is to try and be more welcoming or open to new ideas or accepting you're wrong. If you are this way, then try to express it more in how you get your message across. This will encourage a healthy debate. :)
