Are atheists right?
Debate Rounds (3)
The bible is a very old book that has been left unchanged throughout the centuries. There is no denying that it is the best selling book in the whole world. From archeological discoveries to history, repeatedly it is shown that everything in the bible is true and accurate. Take the game of "telephone" for example, people going around in a circle can't even state the same message they began with, without messing it up. Yet the bible has stayed the same. It's message is still the same from hundreds to thousands of years ago. The literary consistency of the bible is amazing.
"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." -Isaiah 40:8
This was written more than a thousand years ago. How did they know that even today, the word of God would still be the same?
Archeological discoveries also prove that the bible is true. The Dead Sea scrolls match what is written in the Old Testament. The jewish historian Josephus even wrote about some things that happened in the New Testament. Then there's the fact of eye witness accounts. Some books of the bible were written by people who had seen what had happened. People died for the bible. Thousands died for believing in God, do you really think they were dying for something that they weren't sure was true? Even today people are risking their lives to believe. The bible has changed the world globally. What other book has gotten people arguing about ethics, laws, medical practices, etc, of today? The bible changes lives.
"For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." -Hebrews 4:12
And this is the bible and God we are talking about. Can any other book read people's minds? I have proven that the historical accounts of the bible are true from the fact of its literary consistency to the fact that others who are non-Christians accounted things that happened in the New Testament. Even before that, about 300 prophecies stretching over many decades were made about what happened in the New Testament and each and every one of them were fulfilled. No other book can predict the future as accurate as the bible can.
The burden of proof is still upon the instigators shoulders. If the instigator cannot prove that atheism is true then con wins.
-The Bible is a very old book, it has not changed.
-Other old texts describe the same points as those in the Bible.
-There are eyewitnesses to the events in the Bible.
-Many died for God.
As an atheist, I will state the best possible explanations for these.
-The Bible has not changed because it said it wouldn't. Meaning that it didn't change because its "fans," as I will call them for now, didn't want it to. Christians follow the Bible; hence, if it says it will not change, don't change it.
-It is true that many other stories are similar to those in the Bible. However, they are almost all much older than the bible; how are you so sure these stories weren't just shared and passed down by people? Visit here: https://danielmiessler.com...
-You claim that there are eyewitnesses, but fail to produce evidence that they were telling the truth.
-Many are willing to die for their religion, no matter what it is. They all think the same thing: "My religion is the truth." They are all sure that their god or gods exist, but they still cannot provide good evidence.
Then he goes on to say that all the stories in the bible are fake. So you seriously believe in Hercules and Dionysus. You seriously believe that back a couple hundred years before Jesus time there were hydras running all over the world? You seriously believe that Dionysus became a god because he created alcohol? My opponent basically just backed up his point with the points of other beliefs which proved that he believes in gods otherwise all his points are false. Either way, he is either not an atheist or all his points are against him. Again my opponent gives points that don't even back up his cause.
Then my opponent says that everyone's willing to die for their religion. Really, because Jews in world war 2 tried to pretend they weren't Jews. In fact some of them tried to act like Gentiles to not be caught by the Nazis. So how likely is it that people all around the world believe in a random person who ran around claiming he was god and was willing to die a very painful death just so that he could be remembered as a god? How come other people haven't done that in the last two thousand years? I mean, look at the bible. If what atheist say is true, why haven't others ran around claiming to be a god? Maybe, its because he was actually God and Jesus. Maybe people believe in him because he can actually create miracles.
I have refuted my opponents points and my opponent still hasn't provided proof as to why there is no gods. My challenge to my opponent is to say why god doesn't exist. Otherwise the burden or proof which the instigator is obligated to provide will not shift to the shoulders of con. Therefore if it doesn't shift con wins.
I never said I believe in the Bible. I said I was summing up your arguments so that I could argue against them.
I do not believe in Greek mythology. The point of that site was to show you that the Bible's stories are based off other stories that were previously told. I never said those stories were true.
When I said people are willing to die for God, I was restating what you had said in your previous post. So then you argue against that, which means you are arguing against your own argument.
Actually, many people have claimed to be Jesus. Ann Lee, during the 18th century, was believed to be a female incarnation of Jesus Christ. John Nichols Tom claimed to be Jesus in the 19th century. So did Arnold Potter. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
Once again, it is not my job to prove there is no God. It's yours to prove that there is. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Then my opponent claims that I was arguing against my points and basically also claims that all he did was restate my points. That means that he, who is an atheist used a point that should have been for non-atheist. So that must mean you are not a true atheist.
Then my opponent falls right into my next trap. You probably had to go looking on the Internet to find those names didn't you. And does anybody have a bible of the life story of Ann Lee? Does anybody worship Ann Lee? You counteract my points by bringing up points of other gods when in fact what you're suppose to be doing is trying to explain why there isn't a god.
Then my opponent basically claims that atheists have no evidence that god doesn't exist which is true. The burden of proof has not shifted therefore pro has lost. I challenged my opponent to tell me why god doesn't exist and he had one round to do it and failed to come up with points as to why he doesn't exist. Therefore my opponent isn't a true atheist. You would think that if you believed that there was no god you would have an adamant reason. Therefore my opponent is obviously not a true atheist. Then again, ignorance is blissful.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by evanjfarrar 7 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: There are no arguments that appear to be convincing. Con makes a baseless argument ad populum, inferring that because of the Bible's popularity, it must be legitimate. This fails to convince. Pro throws his BoP out of the window, and therefore also fails to convince, providing no serious arguments, but only elaborative explanations to prove nothing. Because of Pro's failure to live up to this expectation, I reward conduct to Con and no points for arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.