The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Typhlochactas
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points

Atheism is for morons

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
Typhlochactas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,501 times Debate No: 30083
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (12)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

ateisn is for morons

How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?

Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?

Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?

In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?

If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?

From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?

If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?

Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.

If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?

If you are a professed Atheist, I ask you the question: Do you believe in aliens? Could not God be an alien? Yes, He most certainly is an alien. The dictionary defines the word "alien" as: "coming from or existing outside the earth or its atmosphere." God is not of this world. The Bible teaches that God created the universe, which means that His presence transcends this universe.

It is contradictory for any Atheist to profess a belief in the existence of alien life (or at least the possibility thereof); while simultaneously denying the existence of God. If you believe that aliens may exist, then you certainly must concede that one of those aliens may be God.

Some people believe that the Pyramids of Egypt were built by aliens; but the Bible teaches that slave Israelites built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses for Pharaoh (Exodus 1:11). Evidence shows that it was mankind, and not aliens, that built the Pyramids of Egypt.

Perhaps you do not believe in alien life at all; but that would be speculation at best, because neither you nor anyone else can make such a claim with any confidence. How do you know that there is no alien life?

So whether an Atheist believes in alien life or not is irrelevant to the fact that no one can say with any certainty that God does not exist. This logical reasoning proves that there is no such thing as a TRUE Atheist, only those who choose to reside in their ignorance of something they do not know for certain. Any honest person must admit that there could be a God.

The fact that Atheists refuse to even consider the possibility that God exists is self-incriminating evidence against them, because they are willingly ignorant of the possibility that alien life may exist in the universe or beyond.

Clearly, Atheists are biased against the Truth of God"s Word, without any logical reason or justification for their prejudice. Logic dictates that alien life certainly may exist, and that means God.

Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?

Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in their view of the Bible?

How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?

How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?

Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?

If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by suddenly "realizing" that he/she is "God" therefore isn't God?

How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?

How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?

How come the more atheist you are the more likely you are to commit sucide?

So You Don't Believe in God?

I want you to think about a few things.

Where did the universe come from?

Do you really believe you came from stardust?

If so, where did the original matter or energy come from?

There is no logical scientific answer!

The only truly logical answer is God!

Science has proven that you can neither create nor destroy energy or matter.

You can transform something from one state to another; but you cannot create nor destroy it.

God is the only answer that makes perfect sense.

Only God!

Where did the universe begin?

It is impossible for something not to have a beginning?

So where did the universe all start?

What existed before that?

These thoughts should scar you friend!

There is no explanation!

Only God!

Where did life begin?

How can nothing become something?

How can lifeless material bring forth life?

How can life become man?

How can nothing take on intelligence?

How can nothing evolve and reproduce?

Where did man's spirit come from?

Why don't animals have a moral conscience?

It is all utterly impossible according to every known scientific fact.

Only God!

How big is the universe?

Where does it end?

If it is ever expanding, then what's beyond it's outer limits?

Think about this real good friend, because it proves God's existence!

It is a scientific fact that the universe MUST have an end to it.

If so, what is beyond the end?

There must be an end to the universe!

This should scar you very much!

If the universe has no boundaries, then where does it end?

If the universe expands outward forever, what is beyond it reaches?

There is no logical scientific answer friend!

Only God!

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water" (2nd Peter 3:5).

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).

"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (John 1:10).

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16,17).

"...seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things" (Acts 17:25).

"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon" (Isaiah 55:7).

Whether there is a God or not " both possibilities are frightening!

Won't you say "yes" to Jesus Christ as your Savior?

THE LAST HOPE"It is well-known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There simply is no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today.

"It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work upon.""*E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (1970), p. 103.

"The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.""*T. Dobzansky in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.

Yet they have not been able to provide proof that mutations produce evolution.

"The complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.""*Julian Huxley

Evolution cant explain black people having dark kids in america

Kalam proves god
Typhlochactas

Con

1: Life could exist without many of the forces we have in the universe. Gravity is not needed for life, as microscopic organisms have been subject to zero-gravity experiments and found they continue as normal. Gravity is a thousand billion billion times weaker than EM force. It's simply irrelevant. A paper titled 'A Universe Without Weak Interactions' has shown that a universe without weak-force would be very similar to our own. Half of the forces in the universe are not needed for life, which should lead us to doubt the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

[1]
[2] http://arxiv.org...

2: There's nothing about my world view that makes it hard to act consistently with it. Like everyone, I do things I later acknowledge to be wrong, but there's nothing inherent to my world view that makes it impossible to live by.

3: I don't believe that Jesus was lying. It's possible that he sincerely believed he was god, yet was misinformed.

4: This is an argument from popularity. The fact that many people call the Bible good is not a reason to take its claims seriously.

5: Our moral senses come from the natural, not the supernatural. Modern day science shows this to be true. It's also dubious to talk about a 'universal' moral sense. Was Gaddafi a part of our universal moral sense?

6: It's an arrangement of molecules, but it's capable of a wide range of experience in comparison to another arrangement of molecules, such as rocks.

7: The apostles did not die for a lie. There is no reason to believe in such a thing.

[1] http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...

8: I don't believe in UFO sightings or any of that, but I do believe in the extreme probability of life existing on other planets.

One can believe in aliens while disagreeing with types of aliens. I believe, at a minimum, that life exists on other planets. It could be an advanced civilization, or bacteria. This does not stop me from withholding belief in some type of creator alien, as you suggest.

9: I cannot say with certainty that god does not exist. It is meaningless to deal with issues in a possible/impossible way. Rather, I believe we should look at them in terms of probable/improbable .

10: I'm not going to accept a person's faith to be true simply because they're smart in other fields. Pro's logic would have us believe that alchemy is true because Newton, a great scientist, believed it to be true.

11: In the same way it's arrogant to believe that the Salem Witch Trials were in error.

12: Irreducible complexity isn't true.

13: The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems.

14: Yes, my present world view gives me meaning and purpose.

15: Perhaps that would be true. It's also irrelevant.

16: I ignore eyewitness accounts because eyewitness accounts do not prove something true.

17: Pro presents no reason to believe in the empty tomb.

18: You're not more likely to kill yourself as an atheist. Even if it was the case, it would not matter to the existence of god.

19: I don't know where the universe came from.

20: I believe we are made of star dust.

21: Matter cannot be created or destroyed. From this, Pro's question makes itself look ridiculous. If matter did come to exist, then asking me about what matter came from is a pointless and malformed question.

Concluding Statement
Pro provides arguments for the existence of god, as well as a bunch of red herrings and ultimately pointless observations. Sadly, even if we accept his arguments, it does not prove the resolution. He still has not proven, or tried to prove, that atheists are morons. Just that atheism is false. Ergo, the resolution has not been upheld.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

1. Weak force is needed for water. There is 40 constants that need to be tuned

2. You dont know that.

3. Then he would've been a lunatic. He wasnt

4. it's a good reason

5. You haven't proved that

6. Nope

7. So you admit they died for truth. You conceded 7 point win for me

8. Already answered in opening statement

11. Yes

12. Is true

13. You claim that the second law only applies to closed systems or isolated systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University (now Sanford) states:

" there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. " There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [1]

16. So if i see you,that's no proof you exist

17. All historians agree the tomb was empty

18. It shows God did put it inside atheists.

19. He gives a bunch of I dunnos. That's not an answer!

He hasnt proved atheism is for smart people like me

1. John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

1: Perhaps weak force is needed for water to exist. The important part is that water is not needed for life. Scientists have already found life living in anoxic conditions, which means that no dissolved oxygen exists.

[1] http://phys.org...

2: I don't know that? Obviously my world view is not impossibly to live by if I'm living by it right now. And so what if I can't live by my world view? What relevance would that have to the resolution at all?

3: No, being wrong does not make you a lunatic. That is the assumption of the trillema. He can believe himself to be the son of god without being insane.

4: It's not a good reason. It's a logical fallacy called an argument from popularity.

5: There was no supernatural entity that 'inserted' morality into us, as other primates show a general intolerance towards murder and other immoral acts. I think that Sam Harris, philosopher and neuroscientist, wrote well on this point.

'What if mice show greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice over unfamiliar ones (They do)? What if monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage mate from receiving painful shocks (They will)? What if chimps have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food awards (They have)? What if dogs do too (Ditto)? Wouldn't these be precisely the findings one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution?'

[1] Harris, Sam. "Religion." The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values I. N.p.: Free, 2010. 170-71. Print.

6: I provided an argument for why we should care about other people if they're just molecules. Pro's response was a mere 'nope'. I extend this point.

7: Pro will have to forgive my slip of the tongue. What I meant to say was that the 'die for a lie' argument is false, and I posted a link to a New Testament scholar and theologian who debunked the argument as lacking any basis in scripture. This remains unrefuted at this point.

8: Pro does not answer my points here. He simply refers to me his opening statement, without quoting the relevant parts.

9: Pro skips this point.

10: Pro skips this point.

11: Pro's response to this is simply to say 'yes'. I have no idea why he said this, because I didn't even ask a question. I'll just extend this point as well.

12: Pro asserted irreducible complexity. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him. Yet, he has not proved it to be true. This point remains on my side.

13: Entropy is increasing, but only in the universe, not nessecarily on our planet.

14: Pro skips this point.

15: Pro skips this point.

16: No. Claiming you saw someone does not mean they exist. You are not making an accurate paradoy of my argument.

17: No, that's simply not true.

18: It shows absolutely nothing. You have not proved atheists are more likely to kill themselves, and you have not proved that this matters to the resolution.

19: I don't have to give an explanation of why the universe same to exist. It's an open question, and there is no actual answer to it. I won't take Pro's position and claim to know things I absolutely cannot know.

20: This point is ignored.

Pro skilled 5 out of 20 points. Many times, he simply gave one word responses to my points. This should be noted when it is time to vote on conduct.

Vale.
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
True Teleport:
Though it would be reasonably obvious to assume that those who can see through the deception that is superstition are more likely to be of higher intelligence than those who cannot.

Thats a rational cosideration!

Aye M8! :-D-&
Posted by giraffelover 4 years ago
giraffelover
I don't think atheism is for morons, though I'm sure there are morons on BOTH sides of the debate. There are also bright people on both sides of the debate.
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
BTW: On Young Earth Creationists like Anti-Atheist.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

Enjoy this series of dockos M8z! :-D- Our whole community enjoyed them!
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
Religion is nothing more than superstition.
Atheists are simply folks who are not superstitious.

So simple isn't it!

If it was a choice of stupidity between people being superstitious and people not being superstitious.
Any rational person would have to chose those that are not superstitious as being the less stupid of the two.

Aye M8z! :-D&
Posted by ahoffman 4 years ago
ahoffman
I just wanted to say I agree with the con in the sense that atheism not for morons (although there are morons on both sides of this argument). In response to some of the earlier comments i thought some of you would like some info. I am a former atheist who did not beleive in any god or creation of the universe. It is real. I promise you that I was frightened when he spoke to me. Its ok that you are probably snickering to yourselfs right now. I would have been snicking with you a few years ago. The fact is that god did speak to me. He proved it by pulling me out of some seriously harmful behavior. When I say "pulled me out" i mean i was kicking and screaming. I am now going to school to be a pastor. My tesimony is one of radical tranformation and I would not have it any other way. It is a choice and I know God is calling you too. Will you stop and listen or will you keep pretending? God gives you this choice but he wont force you. Don't waste your time attacking me about this because i wont come back to this site to read it. You have heard. My job is done.
Posted by Teleport 4 years ago
Teleport
you can't generalize an entire group of people no matter what their beliefs.. 30 kids in a class means on average 5 smart 5 dumb and 20 in the middle regardless of beliefs, the debate itself is moronic!
Posted by realrod 4 years ago
realrod
Don't write too much...make it short......how can you expect someone to read 100 pages of your debate?
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
I will say that I think a lot of mainstream Christians (in particular) actively choose not to challenge their faith. That's the one area that I will agree it does come down to choice. But for a lot of Christians, they actually do believe they have evidence, so it's not really as you describe it. They argue that God talks to them and they see evidence of God in their lives...

...I totally agree that it's a delusion, but I don't think you say a schizophrenic chooses to be schizophrenic. A delusional persons doesn't choose to be delusional, they have no other choice (if the conditions are right--i.e. they were indoctrinated to believe).

I completely agree with you that it seems obvious that religion is a delusion seeing as how there is a complete absence of evidence. But somehow Christians and atheists live in the same world and come to drastically different conclusions. I think Christians somewhat understand the way an atheist thinks (i.e. lack of evidence), but, as an atheist, I have no clue how one of these devout Christians think--it literally boggles my mind how they are able to believe in something for no apparent reason (other than the obvious indoctrination).

It's somewhat interesting to me the view a lot of atheists have. They seem to think that humans are somehow supernatural beings that can choose what they do. In reality, humans are animals and like animals, can be easily herded.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Atheism and religion are both choices. Just because someone is brainwashed and incapable of choosing logic, reason and evidence, doesnt mean you dont have a choice to open your mind :)

The bible cannot be believed by a thinking man, there is no gray area here. You could win 1000 Nobel Prizes, and you are less of a thinker than a non believer if you suckle knowledge from a plagarized book of filth. Period

Some people are just not strong or educated enough to choose logic, reason and evidence when it comes to the universe and life, human shortcomings from religious brainwashing does Not mean a thinking person suffers from similar shortcomings because they refuse to accept the all the stars were created by a slave supporting sexist.

Nobody chooses to believe water is more of a liquid than a rock. Its what happens when your friends are logic, reason and evidence.

Ignorance in todays informational world is in fact a choice.

Being incapable of believing anything without evidence, is like being incapable of believing 9, is a 4 digit number, incapable is a poor choice of word to use when referring to logic.

Only religious people have incapabilities when it comes to evidence :)

brainwashed and delusional are everyday adjectives for religion, genius and briliant minded are adjectives for science

It doesnt matter how many flat earthers there are, this planet is a sphere.

It doesnt matter how many delusional religious people there are, evolution is to rotation of the earth, like the gods in books are to santa.

religion is a human weakness, demanding evidence is a human strength. Claiming that those who demand evidence have some sort of incapability for such demands is an attempt at redefining absurd :)

Being an Intellectual Advocate in 2013, is like being in a car with a bunch of intoxicated people and nobody will give you the keys :)

Get out your hair splitters and fancy truth twisting machines all you want, delusion is delusion :)
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Wait, if anti-atheist is a hardcore Christian, why does he support a group of people that mass-murdered?
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 4 years ago
ModusTollens
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro listed off a ton of points, many of which were irrelevant, and then claimed victory if Con said one of them was true but irrelevant.
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The use of Pascal's Wager proves Pro is the Moron
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering qopel and a multitude of rationalised votes and votebombs
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con, since Pro called atheists 'morons'. Spelling and Grammar to Con, Pro once spelt 'atheism' 'ateisn'. More convincing arguments to con, he answered all of Pro's arguments whilst Pro dropped some points, and more reliable sources to Con since while they both used reliable sources, Con used more sources and more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter tyler.schillim vb
Vote Placed by tyler.schillim 4 years ago
tyler.schillim
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Atheism is for the foolish, don't be judging` by calling them morons, they will face their judgement sooner or later. And con, how do you even begin to think we are created from star dust? Everything around is the proof that a God is real.
Vote Placed by BornOKTheFirstTime 4 years ago
BornOKTheFirstTime
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm an atheist and Pro has not convinced me that I am a moron.
Vote Placed by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost hands down in this debate Con provides a more compelling argument with more reliable resources.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: +1 morgan's explanation of her vote. This was a simple one.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
Anti-atheistTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Con because Pro has more typos. Arguments to Con because even though pro rebutted in the second round, he avoids actually debating and just says, "No, that isn't true" without any proof. Sources to Conh because he clearly outnumbers pro on sources, and pro only provides one source, probably to make it seem like he has some sources even though he really doesn't back up his answers and does not need sources.