CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS DeaconFred

Reward Points:11
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
86%
Arguments:9
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
9 most recent arguments.
1 point

Okay cowboy, here’s a few facts for you: Daniel did not write the book of Daniel; King Solomon did not write the book of Ecclesiastes; Peter did not write 1 and 2 Peter, Paul did not write Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, and Colossians.

Each of these books is classified a forgery by most textual critics because they claim to be written by a famous, well-known, or authoritative person who did not in fact write them. The technical term for this type of writing is called pseudepigraphy (literally, “written under a false name”).

There is a mountain of evidence supporting this claim. If you are interested, you should consider reading Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

Moreover, the Gospels have been heavily edited by scribes over the years. For example, the last 12 verses of Mark Chapter 16 do not appear in the earliest manuscripts that are on record. The last 12 verses were added by a scribe perhaps to clarify the abrupt ending of the original version of Mark.

Is the bible factual evidence? Perhaps it contains some facts, but it is highly suspect.

1 point

I believe it is a valid argument and it's been explored many times.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

-- David Hume

1 point

The Creation Vs Evolution is not a battle between believers and non-believers. It is a battle between the religious community and science. As long as Christians continue to introduce legislation to undermine the teaching of evolution, science will and should continue to fight back. Moreover, the religious community is putting pressure on school boards to teach creationism in school. Here are a couple of examples.

Recently, there were two anti-evolution bills introduced in New Hampshire (House Bill 1148 and 1457). House Bill 1457 states the following: “[r]equire science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes."

Moreover, the superintendent of the school system in Hart County, Kentucky, is complaining about the emphasis on evolution in the state's new end-of-course test for biology, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader (December 13, 2011). In a November 21, 2011, letter to state education commissioner Terry Holliday and the state board of education, Ricky D. Line expressed "deep concern about the increased emphasis on the evolution content required in the new End-of-Course Blueprint ... I find the increase is substantial and alarming." He continued, "I have a very difficult time believing that we have come to a point in education that we are teaching evolution, not the theory of evolution, as a factual occurrence, while totally omitting the creation story by a God who is bigger than all of us. I do not believe in macroevolution, and I do believe in creation by our God." Line oversees six schools with about 2200 students.

We must not give into the ignorance of these extremists who want to teach our children about creationism in a science classroom. Creationism is NOT science; it’s not even a well-founded theory. Its foundation is based on the use of miracles and the suspension of reality. I've said this before, but I believe that teaching our children something we know is false is tantamount to the abuse of young people.

Steven Jay Gould said it best…

“Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?”

5 points

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming there hardly needs to be a debate. I would suggest you read The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution By Richard Dawkins.

1 point

According to the Center for Disease Control, there are an estimated 46.6 million Americans who spoke cigarettes. Also, according to the CDD “443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness…”

Despite these staggering figures I think it would be a big mistake to make smoking illegal.

Criminalizing smoking would be an exercise in futility. We need only look at two examples to understand this fact: the national ban on the sale and transportation of alcohol (1920 to 1933) and the “war” on drugs that we’ve been fighting for too many years.

This country needs a national campaign to end smoking voluntarily.

1. Increase the cost per pack by $2.00 to help pay for the campaign. Based on the sale of 5 million packs a day, this should raise about $3.65 Billion.

2. Make the cigarette manufactures pay for the $96B in medical costs that are directly attributed to smoking. In addition, they should be made to pay for the $97B in lost productivity due to smoking.

That’s my two cents!

5 points

Teaching children an idea that we know is untrue (i.e. creationism, Intelligent Design, Flat Earth Theory, etc.) is tantamount to an abuse of young people.

Creationism is founded on the principles of supernatural events and no evidence exists to support it. NONE.

1 point

First of all, my response was joke to poke fun at your silly “assertion”. It’s silly, because it attempts to shift the burden of proof to those who say “there is no evidence that god exists”. I think Dan Barker summed it up best like this…

Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

1 point

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Douglas Adams

2 points

Let's work through this Argument from Faith Equivalency shall we?

1. You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, don't you?

2. See! Atheists have faith too!

3. Therefore, belief in science is just another faith.

4. Just like I have faith in God and Jesus.

5. Therefore, God exists.

Yep, makes sense to me!

DeaconFred has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Education: High School

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here