Debate Info

Irrational devotion. Blind faith.
Debate Score:26
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Irrational devotion. (6)
 Blind faith. (17)

Debate Creator

Norwich(744) pic

Why do religious zealots expect e'one to believe their outrageous gobbledygook?

Even though science has long since debunked most, if not all of the simple, childlike stories as shown in the Scriptures there are still those who will try to convince their more intelligent fellow human beings that the passages written by 'mere mortals' some 2000 years ago should be accepted, without question, as being true.

Irrational devotion.

Side Score: 8

Blind faith.

Side Score: 18
1 point

Religion flourishes as a consequence of the mind blogging number of people who accept what they are told to be true without critically examining the basis upon which their religion is founded.

Children are subjected to brain washing sessions which consist of being taught LIES by adult teachers they've been told to trust.

This practice of forced indoctrination which amounts to CHILD ABUSE calls for the complete ban of so called religious Instruction in schools and/or institutions which are responsible for the education and attitudinal development of children who are too young to make mature decisions on such matters as religion and political ideologies.

Side: Irrational devotion.
Dr_Batman(385) Disputed
1 point

You are the irrational hypocrite as I suspected all along. Thus you are blindly ignorant and you have lost all arguments. You have no foundation whatsoever. You are angry because I am more knowledgeable than you are. Attempt any insults and you will receive nothing in return because those insults reflect just who you really are.

Side: Blind faith.

A lot of people agree with you and think religion is child abuse. Just look up Religious trauma syndrome.

Supporting Evidence: Religious trauma syndrome. (
Side: Blind faith.
1 point

Irrational, meaningless ranting won't mask the awful truth of how you lot cruelly and fiendishly fill children's heads full of the hocus pocus about the existence of one or more of the man made Gods.

Where was your God, or any God for that matter as 6,000,000 Jews were tortured and gassed to death in Germany's concentration camps?

You lot don't like answering questions, because you can't.

All religious zealots get lost when they come out of their comfort zone of preaching the gobbledygook of their religions to the already converted/brainwashed.

Side: Irrational devotion.
Norwich(744) Clarified
1 point

No reply was the answer!


Side: Irrational devotion.
1 point

Why do religious zealots expect e'one to believe their outrageous gobbledygook?

They learned it from the religion of the Woke.

Side: Irrational devotion.
0 points

Religion, along with communism, is, and has been for many centuries, one of the great evils which continues to contaminate the more underdeveloped nations of our planet.

Such ignorance induced allegiance and worshipping of an imaginary entity has been directly responsible for millions of premature deaths.

For instance, instead of developing farming techniques more compatible with the predictable weather conditions and the land they're tilling the mindless peasants pray to an non-existent God to grant them a high yield crop.

Then, when the inevitable happens and their prayers and extolling fails to produce the much needed crops they point their begging bowls to the nations where science and technology takes precedence over the mumbo-jumbo of religion.

Why, oh why do some people never learn?

How many millions have to die before the religious zombies awaken to the realities of life on a harsh and unforgiving planet and realize that there is no God to pull them out of their self made quagmires of stupidity?

Side: Blind faith.
0 points

Note how ''The begging bowls'' point towards those advanced nations whose economies and fortunes are founded on science and technology, and not to some mythical creature zooming around The Heavens.

Hey, zombies wakey-wakey, eggs and bacey.

Side: Blind faith.
0 points

I will say this. It isn't blind faith as not all Christians believe that faith is it. There are tons of denominations within Christianity. Protestants are the ones who believe in "Faith Alone". Not every Christian believes this concept. But it is what it is and norwich obviously once again has proven to generalize all Christians into one, just like ignorant "sciencerules" who is weak in his knowledge of Christianity overall. Jesus told Christians to believe and to do the works of God so it isn't "Blind faith", it's called having faith to do work with a purpose. It's ironic how norwich has blind ignorance towards this topic and is no doubt trying to lure people like me into his space. The only religious zealots that exist though are Catholics and I am no Catholic nor protestant. I am a Latter-day Saint who knows, "Faith without works is dead" and therefore there is no such thing as "Blind faith" unless you are a Catholic or any protestant affiliated denomination.

Proverbs 14:15

"The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps."

Norwich has presented in believing that all Christians are "blind in faith". His arguments are invalidated.

Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” - Matthew 15:14

Norwich has misled himself into a pit because he is blindly ignorant.

Side: Blind faith.
0 points

"Having been indoctrinated as a child in the scriptures it wasn't until I was sufficiently mature to realize that the Bible was written by multiple authors all of whom were mere mortals but none of whom was God.

Why do people believe in the recorded knowledge that is some 2000 years old and written by the well meaning academics of their day who were frantically trying to find answers to the meaning of life and lived in awe at the wonderments of the twinkling stars?

Twinkle twinkle little star how I wonder what you are.

Along with volumes of irrefutable scientific knowledge we now know why stars appear to twinkle.

We know from radiometric dating that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old yet according to The Bible our planet was created 6000 years ago.

Let's look at just a few of the nonsense stories from the Scriptures.

Adam & Eve, Noah building a boat which could house and feed two of every animal in the entire world, using a boy's lunch of 5 loaves and two fishes to feed 5000 people, and God ''trying'' to kill Moses.

I could go on but The faithful with their blinkers on will be unable to reason that there is no passage in the Bible that is attributed to God.

Think what the response would be if someone behaving like Jesus was among us today."

Mature choice? Hardly. You do not understand the Gospel and what Jesus taught. For your information, He already went to prison and was not afraid. The Roman governor Pontius Pilate found no guilty treasonous crime in Jesus Christ. The Jewish authorities cried out otherwise. Yet you have this criminal named Barabbas released because the same Jewish authorities who want Jesus dead, want a known murderer to go free! Then in 1969, you have Charles Manson about to be executed but he is instead, set free! History repeats itself and all biblical prophecies are coming true. Jesus was right. God killing Moses is a lie and a twist that you put in because you have hatred for God. You're compromising your own soul and you have made your choice. I will not say that your choice is the right one because it isn't. Actions have consequences. The earth is not 4.5 billion years old. But you are indoctrinated in false science that tells you the earth has existed for billions of years? Wow, how hypocritical of you, smartass. The correct logical explanation is, IN THE FIRST 6000 YEARS, CHRISTIANITY HAS EXISTED. THE FIRST FOUR IS RECORDED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE NEW, AND THEN THE 2000 YEARS INCLUDING THE RESTORATION OF THE FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL UP TILL NOW. CREATION BEGAN IN THE YEAR 4004 B.C. until now. So biblically, approximately 4000 years have passed ever since the time of the Old Testament and the New which is B.C aka Before Christ, plus the 2000 years AFTER THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 4.5 Billion years could be the potential lifespan of the earth in total but logically, it is impossible for the earth to have been that old so far because that is, not theoretically, but absolutely in a factual manner, 6000 years in total. So again, 4000 B.C up until the death of Christ and then 2000 years after. So after Christ ascended into Heaven, the Dark Ages began for humankind which was about the 3rd Century and then the Fall of Rome etc etc etc. Attempt to insult me back and you will be refuted in an absolute manner. The earth is 6000 years old and your arguments are a load of bull. You only hate what you cannot understand. Jesus truly did feed 5000 people by the power He was given by God the Father in Heaven, the two fish and loaves of bread got duplicated in a bountiful manner. That's the power of God. Jesus spoke to the Romans and told them, "You will never believe, lest a miracle occur before your eyes."

"Let's look at just a few of the nonsense stories from the Scriptures.

Adam & Eve, Noah building a boat which could house and feed two of every animal in the entire world, using a boy's lunch of 5 loaves and two fishes to feed 5000 people, and God ''trying'' to kill Moses."

It seems you have proven Jesus right again. Your Christophobia is not tolerated and your ridiculous amount of denial has set you up for failure. Adam & Eve is the absolute true origins of the first two humans on earth. The first man; Adam and the first woman; Eve. There are only 2 genders in biology with zero evidence of a "gender spectrum". You have compromised yourself so many times, I will continue to debunk you for denying God.

Following norwich's false assumptions of the Bible because he clearly doesn't have the mind nor brain to get to know God and Jesus better, I have come to the conclusion that he is deluded and in need to professional help for the sake of his mental health.

"Let's look at just a few of the nonsense stories from the Scriptures.

Adam & Eve, Noah building a boat which could house and feed two of every animal in the entire world, using a boy's lunch of 5 loaves and two fishes to feed 5000 people, and God ''trying'' to kill Moses." - Norwich the pitiful neanderthral

Evidence that humankind(us) descended from Adam & Eve: (Number 1 false assumption debunked. Adam and Eve were real. That is an absolute objective fact.)

Proof that the Ark of Noah was real and is still at the very location described in the Bible:(Number 2 subjective opinion debunked. Norwich doesn't have any evidence to support his delusions because archeology has punched him in the face.

Indiana Jones theme plays)

Evidence of Jesus Christ's death place: (Number 3 false claim debunked because yes, Jesus was real and even some atheists such as "sciencerules" have no control over this fact. Mad? I bet you are but cry me a river and get over it because the backlash with love not hate continues.) older-than-people-thought-2017-11

Evidence of the remains of Sodom & Gomorrah plus salt (reference to Lot's wife that got changed into that): : (Lastly, you, Norwich, claim that God tried to kill Moses? Did Abraham and his family get killed amidst the chaos at Sodom & Gomorrah? Did Abraham actually go through with the sacrifice of his son, Issac? Nope. So the truth is, Moses was not killed by God at all. He protected Moses by allowing him to use the staff to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. Read Exodus again or don't, your ignorance, arrogance, hubris and exposed stubborn nature proves you more wrong than right. How does it fall on your conscience? Wait a minute, don't answer that because it is a rhetorical question. Even a baby would turn his or her face from your disgraceful comments.)

"Sciencerules" has been exposed alongside norwich as a hypocrite and a Christophobic snowflake. Both of their leftist indoctrinated subjective contradictive non factual toxic and mentally insane nonsense certifies them both to be put in a mental hospital for life.

Now, to confront your false claims of supporting the "opinion of how the earth is 4.5 Billion years old" is very "cute" in your point of view but um, it doesn't certify you as one of the fittest to survive in society. Unfortunately, because you have denied facts, we cannot debate. You have been destroyed in this debate. It is very unfortunate that both you, norwich and "sciencerules" are both intellectually inferior which proves you are no longer human right? I mean you support Darwinian evolution eh? So be it. You are both dumb neanderthrals disguised as scientists. Well here's some bad news for you both,


How old is the earth and why Creationists overall believe that the earth is approximately 6000 years old? 4004 B.C to 4 B.C points towards the time of God creating everything and everyone up until Jesus Christ saves the world from sin. Then it was "After Death" instead of "Before Christ" because Jesus is no longer here, He is up in Heaven with our Heavenly Father. So basically 36 A.D to 2022 A.D (Almost 2000 years later). In about another 14 years, it will be fully 2000 years AFTER THE DEATH OF OUR LORD & SAVIOR!

This message was intended to trace down "sciencerules" as well because yes, this message is for him too. God prevails!

Side: Blind faith.
1 point

This was way way too long to tackle. Noah's Ark is not real.

"Over the years many different sites have been identified as the place where Noah’s Ark came to rest. A number of different expeditions have laid claim to discovering physical evidence of such a vessel." David Mikkelson 2013

Like Jesus' cross there are too many claims of arks, each putting doubt on the other.

Supporting Evidence: Noah's ark has not been found. (
Side: Blind faith.
Dr_Batman(385) Disputed
1 point

You are 100% wrong because archeology disagrees with you. Your arguments are invalidated.

Side: Blind faith.
0 points

Adam and Eve have a long history of being scoffed at by skeptics. Almost from the beginning, opponents of Christianity have dismissed the opening chapters of Genesis – including the story of our first parents – as pure myth, on par with other creation myths from the Ancient Near East.

Over the past century or so, with the advent of Darwinian naturalism, these assertions have grown more insistent, buttressed with bold claims that “science has proven” Adam and Eve could not have existed.

In recent times, even believers in growing numbers have come to question the historicity of the first human couple. They’ll insist Adam and Eve weren’t real people, just metaphorical stand-ins for humanity. At most, they’ll allow that perhaps God may have plucked a pair of hominids from the evolutionary stream, named them Adam and Eve, and infused them with souls and with his image.

These efforts can stem from an earnest desire to resolve an alleged conflict between science and Scripture. Or else, they may be an attempt to avoid looking ignorant in the eyes of secular culture. Whatever their motive, they wind up undermining the actual pursuit of science, to say nothing of the Gospel narrative of Scripture.

The genre of Genesis

When approaching a text, especially one as significant as the creation account, it’s vital to get the genre right. Genesis is not a modern textbook of history or science. It was written in elevated, stylized language, the first chapter in particular built around an artful pattern of repetition. However, that first chapter isn’t Hebrew poetry per se, any more than the rest of the book is. There’s none of the two-line parallelism that’s a defining feature of Hebrew verse found in Psalms and elsewhere in Scripture. Rather the text is in the form of historical narrative, composed to recount actual occurrences, even though its style is in keeping with the literary conventions of its time.

As apologist Alisa Childers points out, “Although the story is told in a poetic way, the Genesis account mainly exhibits the characteristics of narrative prose, which describes a series of events.”

To be sure, the proper name “Adam” is also a general term for humankind, as “Eve” is for “life” and “Eden” is for “pleasure” or “delight.” Nevertheless, the text presents Adam and Eve as actual people in a specific place and time. And they do actual people things like marrying, having children, making choices, tending a garden, giving names to animals, and conversing with each other and with God.

Moreover, Adam’s genealogical record lists his exact age when his son Seth was born, the fact that he had other sons and daughters, and the exact age when he died. In fact, the entire book of Genesis is built around a series of genealogies that connect Adam to Noah, and then to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and ultimately to Moses and the people of Israel. Moses, who wrote the book, treated Adam and Eve as real historical figures, no less than anyone else in that family tree.

Blurring the Imago Dei

The first chapter of Genesis states that God created humanity, male and female, in his own image. The second chapter provides more detail, describing how God formed Adam directly from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. God then created Eve, also directly, from one of Adam’s ribs.

It’s difficult to square an honest reading of this narrative with the idea that Adam and Eve were metaphorical, or else a pair of hominids elevated to human status. The text says that when God breathed life into Adam, the man became a nephesh chaya, Hebrew for living creature. That same expression is used throughout the account to describe other living creatures, like birds and animals. So, if Adam were a divinely mutated hominid, he would have already been a nephesh chaya before God ever breathed life into him.

Beyond that, the story of Adam and Eve is essential to a proper understanding of the nature of humanity. As God’s unique image bearers, created by him for that express purpose, human beings possess a dignity and value distinct from the rest of creation. And because all people are descended from that first couple, every individual, male and female, has an equal share of that value and dignity.

If Adam and Eve were pre-existing hominids transformed by God, then humanity’s unique reflection of the Imago Dei is blurred at best and may not even be present to the same degree – or at all – in every individual. And if our first parents never existed, then any objective basis for inherent – and inherited – human worth doesn’t exist either.

Scripture after Genesis

Adam and Eve are mentioned only sporadically in the rest of Scripture after Genesis. But when they are, they’re always presented as actual historical figures. The first book of Chronicles opens with a genealogy of Israel, starting with Adam. In similar fashion, the Gospel of Luke traces the ancestry of Jesus all the way back to Adam. In the book of Acts, Paul tells the skeptical Athenians that God made all human nations from one original man. And when writing to Timothy, the Apostle again refers to Adam and Eve as historical people, as does Jude in his short letter when he quotes Enoch, a seventh generation descendent of Adam.

Jesus himself, while teaching about marriage and divorce in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, alludes to Adam and Eve as real people. Later, as recorded in Matthew and Luke, the Lord also speaks about the literal murder of Abel, Adam and Eve’s second son. And along the same lines, the writer to the Hebrews describes Abel’s sacrifice as an actual event, and places Adam’s murdered son at the head of his list of heroes of the faith.

It would be hard to deny that the authors of Scripture – and the Lord himself – read the Genesis account as historical narrative and viewed Adam and Eve as historical people. But that hasn’t stopped critics from trying. They’ll argue that these authors and their original readers knew they were talking about ancient myths to convey spiritual truth. Or else they’ll claim that the apostles and evangelists – and even Jesus – were simply wrong.

Such claims, however, don’t bear up under serious scrutiny. Reading these texts honestly and in context makes it clear that the authors intended their audience to know they were talking about real people and real events. In each case, the spiritual truth they were trying to convey falls apart unless rooted in historical fact. It’s hard to imagine a rigorous thinker like Paul or a careful historian like Luke getting their facts wrong and using myths to make their case. It’s harder still – in fact impossible – to think of Jesus, the divine author of all truth and reality, making the same mistake.

Dire Gospel implications

From a Gospel perspective, the most significant discussion about Adam and Eve outside of Genesis is found in Paul’s letters to the Roman and Corinthian churches.

In the fifth chapter of Romans, Paul presents Adam and Jesus as the two representative heads of humanity. He spells out in detail how sin and death entered the world through Adam and spread by inheritance to the entire human race. But through Jesus, who took on human nature, Adam’s fallen descendants can receive grace, righteousness and eternal life.

The Apostle reiterates and distills this core Gospel truth to the church at Corinth via a series of vivid contrasts: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. . . . Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . . Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45, 49).

There can be no doubt that Paul understood Adam to be just as real as Jesus. But if in fact Adam never existed or was just a hominid plucked from the evolutionary tree, then Paul’s entire case for the Gospel makes no sense. There’s no fall of humanity, no original sin, and no need or possibility of redemption.

Tim Keller addresses the inconsistent idea that Paul’s argument holds up even if he got his facts wrong: “[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . . . If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument – that both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’ – falls apart. You can’t say that ‘Paul was a man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.”

Old Testament scholar Richard Belcher adds: “If all human beings are not descended from Adam, there is no hope of salvation for them. Christ does not and cannot redeem what he has not assumed. What he has assumed is the human nature of those who bear the image of Adam by natural descent. If there is no redemptive history that is credible, then redemptive history is lost in any meaningful sense. Thus the historicity of Adam has implications for the Gospel.”

And theologian Richard Gaffin is quite blunt in summing up these dire Gospel implications: “The truth of the Gospel stands or falls with the historicity of Adam as the first human being from whom all other human beings descend. What Scripture affirms about creation, especially the origin of humanity, is central to its teaching about salvation.”

The frontiers of science

Naturally none of this has deterred skeptics (and sadly many believers) from assuming that “settled science” has ruled out the possibility of Adam and Eve ever existing, never mind being the progenitors of the entire human race. But science – which at its heart is about discovery and not consensus – has done nothing of the sort. In reality, these bald assertions aren’t based on objective investigation, but on materialist assumptions that dismiss out of hand any non-natural explanations for the origin of life.

Science, of course, can neither prove nor disprove whether Adam and Eve existed, nor does it need to. But studies of genetics, linguistics and the spread of pathogens at least suggest the likelihood that humanity arose relatively recently, in one location, and from a small population, perhaps even from a single pair.

From the field of population genetics, cutting-edge research published in the journal BIO-Complexity has lent strong support for the possibility that humans descend from a single couple, despite frequent claims to the contrary. The authors of the paper, biologist Ann Gauger and mathematician Ola Hössjer, used sophisticated computer modelling to trace the diverse branches of the human genetic tree back to a statistically probable point of origin. Their findings indicate that humanity could easily have originated from a single ancestral couple, as recently as the time when Neanderthals are commonly believed to have appeared on the scene.

Once again, this doesn’t prove the Genesis account, and that was never Gauger and Hössjer’s intention. What they set out to do – and accomplished brilliantly – was to show that contrary to materialist orthodoxy, Adam and Eve are indeed a scientifically feasible explanation for the origin of humanity. Both researchers were forthright about why such a study as theirs had never been pursued before.

Hössjer explained: “Well, the reason is philosophical rather than based on empirical facts. Modern science is very secular. Typically, only those hypotheses are allowed to be tested that can be framed in purely natural terms (i.e. methodological naturalism). A model with a first couple implicitly requires an Intelligent Designer or a Creator in order to answer how this first couple was generated in the first place. Modern science will therefore rule out a first couple model from the start (even if one leaves it to the reader to answer how the first couple originated), before data has been analyzed.”

Gauger was even more to the point: “First of all, who gave scientists the right to interpret Scripture? Why should they care if we believe that we came from a literal first couple? They stuck their noses in where they didn’t belong. Second, they actually didn’t test the thing they were claiming.”

Concluding thoughts

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of Adam and Eve’s non-existence have been greatly exaggerated. As one might expect, nature and Scripture are never at odds with each other. God is the author of both, so there can be no hidden secret, lurking in the natural world, waiting to come to light and prove God’s Word wrong. Of course, it’s vital to interpret both correctly, a principle worth remembering by scientists and theologians alike.

But the historicity of Adam and Eve reaches far beyond drawing proper lines between science and metaphysics. The question impacts the truth of the entire Gospel narrative of Scripture. The creation, fall, redemption and restoration of humanity, the intrinsic value of human life and salvation through Christ, the second Adam, all hinge on the literal existence of the first Adam and his wife Eve, created directly by God in his own image.

Adam and Eve may have borne the shame of plunging humanity into sin and death. However, believers need not be ashamed of the existence of our first parents in the face of skeptical opinion. Quite the contrary, a literal Adam and Eve give us a sense of grounding, humility and assurance for our faith. Their story forms the opening chapter of God’s real, historical narrative through which he’s redeeming his people as well as his entire creation.

Source: adam-and-eve-really-existed-and-why-that-matters?utm term=&utmcampaign=Focus+on+the+Family+-+Dynamic+Search+Ads+-+Canada&utm source=adwords&utmmedium=ppc&hsaver=3&hsaacc=4036375728&hsamt=&hsaad=617153507457&hsatgt=dsa-61724785219&hsanet=adwords&hsagrp=78929297489&hsakw=&hsacam=2065863790&hsasrc=g&gclid=CjwKCAjwsfuYBhAZEiwA5a6CDK3PwRpimSGCE6h VYdwuhm9XgMcHHwpFVPTqRRMi8yMZQFPJhecYxoCbWUQAvD BwE

"Sciencerules" debunked. Norwich debunked. Continued resistance will be countered by more evidence being posted against evolution.

Side: Blind faith.
1 point

All arguments I have made are absolute truths. Anything the opposition says are invalidated.

Side: Blind faith.
1 point

You keep claiming all arguments you make are absolute truths. Yet, somewhere in the world there is a Hindu right now who 100lieves. The person might even be making the exact same arguments.

If a Hindu said "All arguments I have made are absolute truths. Anything the opposition says are invalidated."

How would you respond?

Side: Irrational devotion.

Most people just believe what their parents believe. Look at Hindus for examples, most Hindus believe what their parents do. Same with Islam, Christianity, etc.

When asked about the Bible a lot of Christians have little knowledge. For example Christians confuse the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary with Jesus virgin birth. I don't even think it is faith as much as inertia.

Side: Blind faith.
Dr_Batman(385) Disputed
1 point

Most fools like you are idiots and do not understand what Christianity is. That's why your arguments are invalidated.

Side: Blind faith.
1 point

Men and women, boys & girls are the sons & daughters of God. That is an absolute objective truth. Today, we face many atrocities such as identification issues. The truth is, there are only 2 genders. There is no gender spectrum and religious zealots such as catholics are not true Christians. Therefore, "sciencerules" has zero facts and will continue to be debunked. His nonsense will be the mark of Babylonian hypocrisy all over again. He has failed to acknowledge the true beliefs behind Christianity and has chosen to follow up on false propaganda, promoting heterophobia, Christophobia and Truthphobia. It is truly a pity to have low IQ fools like him in existence. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

In other news, "Sciencerules" attempted to raid another one of Trump's properties. Bruce Wayne was luckily there to notify the police about an ongoing intruder into Trump's private property. The cops soon caught "sciencerules" red handed and that same evening, Batman paid him a visit and branded him as a criminal of society who supports corruption, hypocrisy, pedophilia and is nowhere close to being a true American Patriot.

Side: Blind faith.
0 points

Nobody possesses omniscience. There will always be gaps in knowledge. Yet, you don't have to be a climate change scientist to know that climate change is true, same with all the other scientific consensus.

An atheist doesn't need to know everything about the Bible to realize it has serious flaws. I'd worry more about the Christian's lack of knowledge of their own Bible. Can the average Christian even get close to naming all 45,000 denominations of Christianity? If they can't, the claim could be made that they don't understand what Christianity is.

"Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 5And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: 6As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: 7And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field."

Glad we got modern medicine.

Supporting Evidence: Leviticus 14 what the what (
Side: Blind faith.