I'm not exactly sure what is meant by this debate, but there definitely was slavery in the bible and it wasn't a metaphor. But yes, the beginning of slavery was more like indentured servants than Early American Slavery of African Americans. I'm not gonna say it was always a justified thing in the bible, but it definitely existed. This birgit person is a moron.

I understand that there are already millions of minors that drink, but if you allow 18 year olds to drink it makes liquor more readily available to even younger kids. Just because someone breaks a law doesn't mean the law is a bad one. The fact of the matter is that studies show liquor has adverse effects on minor's minds and making it legal for 18 year olds would be stupid to the highest degree. The fact of the matter is that by lowering the drinking age MORE kids under 21 would be drinking and damaging their minds.

Exactly. As an atheist you essentially have to BELIEVE in science. You have to have faith in the fact that science can explain it you just haven't figured out how it does yet. The fact that atheists cannot disprove God means they are essentially taking it on faith that there is no God.

If you don't have faith in a God or in science, you are agnostic, not an atheist. Just to clarify I am not claiming that I can prove God exists or doesn't exist. At this point in time no one can.

While atheism is the lack of a belief in a God it is based on the belief that the universe is an explainable place without God. But there are gaping holes in atheists explanation of how we came to be. In general theism is a way to explain why the universe is the way it is (or why we exist), which atheism also does, they just say it was a chance occurrence rather than by design. Whether or not you think so, as an atheist you have faith in the fact that anything you can't "explain" with science is something that was not done by design.

I find the statement "a few shots" to be, at the best, a major understatement. You honestly believe that minors will have the self control to stop at a "few shots". There are plenty of adults who don't have that much self control.

So 21 year old's don't have enough self control to stop from giving liquor to highschoolers. imagine if you gave a bunch of high schoolers the ability to legally buy and drink alcohol, who would they give it to? As much as the law is broken, its still breaking a law so it still limits the number of kids who drink, albeit not as completely as one would hope.

My point about the advancement of the technological age is that people always have to "believe" in something. Even atheism is a belief that the universe works according to a set of laws. The discovery of these "laws" is what has led to the advent of atheism. I admit in olden times people really only had Theism to believe in.

On the issue of providing sources and statistics that back your argument. Our whole debate on whether or not the decline of poverty or the advent of technology is pointless if Atheism is, in fact, not growing.

I agree that this is a fairly pointless debate seeing as it is such a black and white question. The question essentially has a yes/no answer that could have been discovered with a little bit of research. The points that are debatable are the gray areas, or "why" questions. If this person had actually wished to create a real debate they should have discovered if atheism is declining or increasing and then asked "Why is Atheism on the Decline/Incline?". The way you worded your first statement indeed made it seem as if you were saying all Christians were weak minded, which IS a generalization.

Your lack of grammar and spelling throughout that whole argument kind of makes me highly doubt whatever point you were trying to make. :3

Backing your arguments with actual facts is useless? I was saying that if you looked at the statistics and the correlation actually supported your thesis I would argue it has less to do with poverty and more to do with scientific advancements in the same period of time. Your statement "Theism comes with the weak minded" is essentially calling me weak minded which I of course take offense to. Wouldn't you be offended if I called you weak minded? (which I did) When you make base generalizations saying correlating theism and stupidity a lot of people will take offense.

Your argument makes you seem weak minded. You didn't check the statistics? And even if statistics did support your hypothesis I would argue that it has less to do with the decline of extreme poverty and more with the rise of the information age. But thank you for contributing a worthless comment that does nothing but attempt to insult Theists in a "clever" way. You sir, are brilliant.