The Instigator
Atheist73
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sengejuri
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does God Exist? Part 3

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 585 times Debate No: 53170
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Atheist73

Con

Hello :)
I'm sorry it took me a while to start part 3. It would be nice if you would continue the conversation with me, click decline if you do not wish to.
If you do want to, I would like you, in this round, to explain why god DOES exist, just like I explained why he DOESN'T in first part.

Because morality was a very big issue in part 2, I would also like to talk about that topic.
The bible is full of stories that present false morals, which I VERY much hope you can agree, I gave a few examples in part 1. These morals are extremely wrong. According to the bible a man can marry two women, which of course in our modern society it is not allowed. Do you really think this is the way we should live?
People can be immoral AND religious. That's why there are christian (and other religions) hate groups, and there ARE people who do BAD things (raping for example) and they are often not atheist, therefore - believe in God. that proves religion and faith and God have nothing to do with morals.
The 'Everyone's-a-sinner-only-Christians-go-to-heaven-regardless-of-their-sins' to me is the ultimate proof for why religion has nothing to do with morals. According to that, you can be a KKK member, or you (for example), which I hope you are are not a lawless criminal (? :) both deserve to go to heaven. And that also means a Buddhist, who is just like you except his religious point of view, goes to hell, and also a raper, killer, thief of a religion who is not christian should also go to hell. That actually says: Good=Bad, which I can't accept. That puts the belief issue the thing that matters the most to god, not our morals, and how we choose good or bad. To me, this is WRONG.
If God exists and he has his own morals, then why do his morals don't make sense to me - and a lot of other people? And then, he judges me for not believing he exists ?
He's actually judging HIMSELF!
There is no point in hell (other than scare people into religion). I think you made a comparison between hell and prison, and i would like to tell you this:
Prison has a very clear purpose:
-to remove dangerous people from society to protect it
-to make people stop breaking the law by Rehabilitation.
-warning for other potential criminals
but hell, has absolutely NO purpose!
Think about the start of this idea - heaven and hell according to Christianity. Doesn't it look like the perfect way to get people to believe in your religion?

I would like you to answer those questions if you can.

Waiting for your positive/negative response.
sengejuri

Pro

Hello again! I’m happy to continue our conversation. You bring up some good points, I will try to answer your questions. After that, I will ask you a few follow up questions if you don’t mind.

Morality
You asked about a man marrying two women. Yes, that is allowed in the Old Testament (to a certain extent). Many scholars believe this was allowed under ancient Hebrew law to help population growth. Men can reproduce their entire lives, while women can only bear children for a few dozen years. Having multiple wives ensures a faster rate of reproduction. However, when reading the Bible in its full context, this seems to only be a specific law for that time. In the New Testament, when rapid population growth was less important, we see Scripture once again commanding a man to only marry one woman (1 Timothy 3:2, 12). This is consistent with Jesus’ teaching when He said that we are now under a New Covenant, which explains the difference between Old and New Testament laws.

I agree that there are lots of examples of bad things in the Bible, but that does not mean God approves of them. The Bible never claims that everything in it is supposed to be seen as a good action. Sometimes the Bible gives us examples of what NOT to do. However, there are also lots of great lessons in the Bible. It teaches us to love our neighbors, help the poor, be humble, and avoid murder. I hope we can both agree these are good things.

You bring up some interesting terms I would like to ask you about. You repeatedly label the Bible stories as morally “wrong” and talk about choices being “good” or “bad.” But without definitions of wrong, good, and bad, these labels have no meaning. What is your definition of Good? What is your definition of Bad? What makes your definitions of these terms more correct than mine? You must be able to answer these questions before you can start calling things in the Bible “Good” and “Bad.”

You asked me if I really think this is how we should live. My answer is yes, I am a Christian and so I believe we should live according to the Bible. The Bible teaches in 2 Peter that we should live with goodness, knowledge, self-control, endurance, brotherly affection, and love, and I absolutely agree those are good things. How do you think we should live according to your worldview?

I 100% agree with you that people can be immoral and religious. I consider MYSELF one of those people because I am religious but I still make mistakes. I do not believe that being religious automatically makes you are a moral person. In fact, Christianity teaches the exact opposite. I believe I am a naturally IMMORAL person in need of a savior, I am religious because I realize that I continually fall short of God’s standards. Religious people doing bad things does not prove that God has nothing to do with morals. That is like saying a loyal citizen who gets a speeding ticket proves the government has nothing to do with laws. Just because people break the law does not mean that law is any less true. God does not automatically MAKE people good. He simply DEFINES what is good, and it is up to each person to decide whether or not to follow it.

For your example with the KKK member and the Buddhist (I am neither, by the way :), it sounds like you are trying to separate “good people” from “bad people.” Once again, I would ask you to define those terms if you can. Sure, it’s easy to define when you use extreme examples like the KKK or Buddhist monks. But most people are not at the extremes, they are somewhere in the middle. How do you define that for the majority of us who are in the middle? How “good” do you need to act to be a “good person?” Where do you draw the line?

The whole faith and actions idea does not mean you can say “ok, I’m a Christian, so now I get to act however I want and I’ll go to heaven!” In fact, the Bible addresses this very issue. In Romans 6:1, Paul writes “should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more grace? Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it?” True faith is all that matters, but true faith leads to a changed heart. A changed heart does not go on raping, killing, and joining the KKK. True faith, according to the Book of Galatians, leads to actions of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Can you be good without God? Yes, but without God then what makes your moral code more than just a personal preference? What makes it true? Why does it matter if we both just die anyway?

Hell
Why is it a bad thing if people are scared of hell? Fear is not necessarily a bad thing. Fear is an instinct that helps us protect ourselves. This is why we are naturally afraid of doing painful or dangerous things. If hell is a real place, then we should be scared of it! Even if hell is fake, is it a bad thing that the idea of it scares people from raping, cheating, and stealing? If hell, real or fake, scares people from doing bad things, then it serves EXACTLY the same purpose you say prison does. It protects society, it helps people stop breaking laws, and it scares other potential criminals. Ultimately though, the purpose of hell is not to scare people. It is to hold people accountable for the choices we make in life. I’d like to end this point by saying people always want to focus on the negative part of this story. Yes, there is hell, but the amazingly positive side is that God is freely and openly offering everyone salvation to heaven if we simply accept the invitation!

In our last discussion you said “not knowing is also an answer.” I would suggest that not knowing is a response, but not an answer. If a teacher asks me a question in class and I say “I don’t know,” I responded to the teacher, but I did not answer him. I’m not saying I know all the answers either, but I hope we can both agree that claiming “I don’t know” is not an effective argument.

I hope I have addressed all your questions from this round. Here is a brief list of why I believe God does exist:

Morality – there is no objective definition of good and bad without a higher power.

Origins – science still cannot answer how everything came to exist.

Meaning of Life – if we are all just blobs of muscle and bone, then there is no higher purpose to life. We simply trick ourselves into believing there is by making up our own meaning.

Spread of Christianity – Christianity was not created from legends and myths. It was created from historical, recorded events by real people. A man named Jesus really lived. People were eyewitnesses to him performing great miracles. People saw him die and rise. A rebel religion that started with only 12 people rapidly grew into a faith followed by billions. It could have been wiped out many times early on, but it only grew more when governments tried to suppress it. This isn’t just some bed time story like Santa Clause, there is something really powerful about this idea that deserves our attention.

That is why I believe.
Debate Round No. 1
Atheist73

Con

1) ONE MAN MANY WIVES- You stated that the law which allows a man to have many wives was to increase reproduction. I don't think that makes it OK. Back then, women were treated like an object, and fathers did sell their daughters. I think we can both agree this is immoral. I think this had a lot to do with it too.
This is absurd - do you think it's moral to allow men to have two or more wives just because the population needs growing (which is an opinion - the population back then didn't really NEED growing so vastly). You know what ? If the population needs growing, why not make women have as much children as they can, starting from age 14? I don't think it is moral to ignore women rights so the population will grow faster.

2) GOOD AND BAD DEFINITIONS - Why can god say what's good and bad, and I can't say what's good and bad? You know what, you're right, our morals aren't the same, but I think it's shaping better and better through history, and I also think there are many issues that we can argue about and that's fine, and when we can - we should all let people choose for themselves.
I don't really like how you present this - we both have pretty much the same morals, I think. I HOPE you think that having many women as wives is immoral. Your statements actually say that because I don't believe in a high authority I can't judge the bible (because for you good and bad is meaningless without God) which is actually a loop, which I find wrong. Just like God, to you, has his morals, I have my own morals - I think that if we would ignore our own morals and follow whatever the bible says this would not be a world where I could live in. If God exists, why don't his morals match up with mine ? Is his goal blind obedient people?
And also - you say who am I to judge who has the best morals? There are other theological religions who have different morals than Christianity, and they also believe in God, or a different God. WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG ?

3) A WORLD WE SHOULD LIVE IN - you're missing my point. Would you like to like in the bible world where daughters were OWNED by their fathers? Would you like to live in a world where rapists were by law FORCED TO MARRY their victims ?
a world where having WAR PRISONERS as SLAVES is OK? I wouldn't.

3) GOOD PERSON BAD PERSON - I think the majority of the middle doesn't HAVE to classify into good and bad, it's neither. It doesn't really matter, too. Read again my argument, please, and answer again. I was giving a very harsh example just to make my point clearer.

4) GOOD WITHOUT GOD - 'A changed heart does not go on raping, killing, and joining the KKK. True faith, according to the Book of Galatians, leads to actions of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.' I disagree. You don't need to have a changed heart for all of that. I consider myself just like that, +-, just like you. As I stated before, your morality comes just like mine did, you just THINK it comes from the bible. Because I have almost 0% knowledge of the new testament (unlike the old one), I can't give you an example, but you know what - what if God made up all those rules just to test who follows his conscious and who just does what he says ? Think about the Nazi party! Back then, there were so many crazy racist rules. A man could say: they're the government, they know what they're doing, so I will follow these rules, or he can question them and reach his own conclusion.

5) HELL- I said 'fear people INTO A RELIGION.' so rewrite your whole paragraph there... it's really funny that according to Christianity the only thing that can get you to heaven is your faith, so actually - I can be a good person regardless of my theological belief, so fearing hell has nothing to do with raping, murmuring etc. people do that god and godless.

'...but the amazingly positive side is that God is freely and openly offering everyone salvation to heaven if we simply accept the invitation.' Even if I wanted to, I couldn't believe in God. There's no proof. It doesn't make sense to me. I could go to church and pray and do all that - but if God really wants me to truly believe in him, he has to give me proof. It's not a matter of choice to me. What if I said that according to a (made up) religion you must believe in a God named Bella to go to heaven and if not you will be thrown into hell, where you'll suffer for eternity in a pond of fire? There is no proof to Bella, you just couldn't believe it even if you wanted to, right?

And let me add that the people who believe in hell are the ones who are NOT going to it, right? to me it seems like a long time ago, when Christianity rose, it was easy to give hope and make the people more united with their faith if they said: you will be rewarded, THEM JEWS, MUSLIMS, ATHEISTS ETC WHO ARE WRONG, will SUFFER in HELL.
NO - THE FACT THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD DOESN'T MAKE THEM BETTER -' It protects society, it helps people stop breaking laws, and it scares other potential criminals' - you can be good without God, and you actually said it yourself before, in the last argument. and it's not like Christianity vanished crime from earth, so apparently that didn't work.

6) THE 'I DON'T KNOW' ANSWER - I think I wrote this before, but again:
Ancient Egypt. Everyone around you believe in the mighty lord Ra. You don't. It doesn't make sense to you. You have a discussion with a religious ancient Egyptian who is a big fan of Ra.
'If Ra doesn't exist, how were the universe created?' said the Ra fan.
In that time, you can't possibly be even close the 'correct answer' so the 'right' thing to say is: I don't know. It's not nearly close to when a teacher asks you a question and you don't know the answer. When a teacher asks you a question, is because she knows you know/you're supposed to know the answer. It's more like going to a 3rd grader asking him about string theory. He can't know the answer, therefore 'I don't know' is the best answer he can give. He can simply make up that string theory is a theory that says a rope can read your thoughts. That to me, is religion. 'We don't know the answer but we really want to, so let's make something up.'

WHY GOD EXISTS:
1-3: see 6 and 2.
according to that you can believe in just every religion, because all religions give answers to those questions. So why aren't you a Buddhist? Jewish? Muslim? Hindu? etc.

4-
*Christianity is a missionary religion. Both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions, which is logical, because these are the two most common religions on earth (31%, 23%) further more, only 392 years after the birth of Jesus, the roman empire made Christianity the ONLY religion allowed. They BANNED ALL OTHER RELIGIONS. It's no wonder Christianity became so popular. It was the only choice. If back then you wanted to be accepted in society and not be hunted by the government, you had to become Christian. At one time, many people believed in Zeus, Odin etc. Doesn't make it true. Truth is not a democracy.
You say: 'It could have been wiped out many times early on, but it only grew more when governments tried to suppress it' - well so did other religions, and you can say that Judaism is the right religion because the fact that Hitler didn't kill all Jews is proof that it is true, and also - the Jewish people were for much longer than Christians hunted by other religions, but they didn't give up their faith, so what? Doesn't make it true.

'Christianity was not created from legends and myths. It was created from historical, recorded events by real people. A man named Jesus really lived. People were eyewitnesses to him performing great miracles. People saw him die and rise.'
ummm No. Where is your proof to that? People claim that they were eyewitnesses to him performing great miracles. People have claimed to see him die and rise. So what? People also claim that they saw and spoke to aliens, doesn't make it true. You have claims like that in every religion. I can claim to you right now that yesterday when I went to the supermarket, I saw the flying spaghetti monster. SO WHAT IF I CLAIM THAT?
Even if Jesus did exist (and he probably did) there is no evidence that he spoke to God, that he preformed miracles, that he rose from the dead etc. In the Nordic mythology, many of the stories also have characters of people who really did exist (Nordic kings), but it doesn't prove Odin is real.

According to your arguments, you could just as easily could have been a Muslim, for example. Why do you Christianity is right and Islam is wrong, if your arguments can easily be said on the Islam religion? (which is of course an example to show my point). I want in the next entry for you to try to 'convince' me to be a Christian. I think that will be interesting.

And another thing - before I became atheist, I checked out the whole concept of God and I also learned a little about each religion, and my conclusion was that all of it was, in pretty words, incorrect. Have you checked other religions before you became a religious Christian?

Thank you for your fast respond.
sengejuri

Pro


Thanks for your response. You brought up a lot of good issues. I hope I will have room to address them all.


I wish to start by respectfully pointing out that you did not answer my questions. I have done my best to directly answer your questions with what I believe. You seem to be avoiding giving direct answers to my questions. I am very curious and I would really like to hear your direct answers:


1. What is your definition of good?


2. What is your definition of evil?


3. How do you know your definitions are true?


4. How should people live according to your worldview?


It will be very hard to continue this discussion unless I know some of your beliefs.


I will answer your questions, but first I’d like to ask you about a few contradictions I saw in your last argument. You wrote about moral truth that, “we should all let people choose for themselves.” But later on you wrote, “Truth is not a democracy.” So which one is it? I agree that truth is not a democracy – that is the entire point of my argument. This brings us back to my original question. If truth is objective, like your second statement suggests, then who defines that objectivity if there is no higher authority?


For the good person/bad person argument, you say you were trying to make your point clearer, but then you say “it doesn’t really matter.” So if the point doesn’t really matter, why try to make it in the first place? Again, it seems like you’re trying to avoid directly answering my questions. You keep claiming that you are a good person and I am a good person and other people can be good people, but when I asked you to explain that you said “it doesn’t really matter.” That is very confusing.


Your example for the “I don’t know” answer supports agnosticism, not atheism. Agnosticism views reality as unknown or unknowable – like you claim string theory is unknowable to a 3rd grader. I agree that it is ok to say “I don’t know,” but my point is that does not make a very effective or convincing argument.


Finally, you said you have almost 0% knowledge of the New Testament. That is confusing because it means you are arguing against something that you know nothing about (because Christianity is based heavily on the New Testament). Please don’t project beliefs on me if you don’t really know what I believe. Christians do not hold to the Old Testament Law about marrying multiple women and eating shellfish. We follow the New Testament teachings of Jesus. You ask why God’s morals don’t match up with yours. The New Testament teaches that God’s morals are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Do these morals not match up with yours?


Ok, now to your questions.


Morality


I cannot continue our discussion about morality until I know your answers to the four questions I asked you earlier. There is still a deeper point to my arguments that you are missing. I am probably explaining it poorly, so I will try again:


Yes, you can be “good” without God. I never claimed that you need God to behave well, or that religion makes you a “good” person. You can decide to act however you want. My point is this – without God, the way you decide to act is simply your personal preference and opinion. There is no longer an objective definition of “good” and “bad.” You admit this yourself when you wrote about the Nazis that a man can question things “and reach his own conclusion.” That is the very definition of subjectivity. You incorrectly assume that everyone will naturally reach the same "good" conclusion if they really think hard. You have questioned things and reached the conclusion that it is bad to steal, kill, and rape. Other people (called criminals) reach the conclusion that it is ok to steal, kill, and rape. Without a higher power, people “choose for themselves” and “reach their own conclusion” just like you said. That is not objective morality, that is personal preference.


I 100% agree with you that believing in God does not make you a better person. It makes you a forgiven person. You're right, Christianity has not vanished crime from earth. Neither has any other philosophy, moral code, or law system - including atheism. Christianity is not trying to vanish crime from earth, it's trying to offer forgiveness for those crimes.


Proof of God


You talked about needing proof to believe. To this I ask you what solid proof you see in atheism? You already said that you don’t know how atheism/evolution proves some of the things we discussed.


You talked about Bella, Ra, and Odin. For this argument to work, you must assume that all ideas about God are equally likely to be true. That is a false assumption. Think of it this way: The concept of the Judeo/Christian God is about as old as Ra. So we have two belief systems that are roughly the same age. Over time, no one believes in Ra anymore, but billions of people still believe in the Judeo/Christian God. If you explained the stories of Ra, Odin, Bella, and Yahweh to each person in the world and asked them which one was likely true, virtually no one would choose Ra, Odin, or Bella. Billions would choose Yahweh. If each story was equally likely to be true, we would logically expect equal numbers of people to choose each one. We must conclude then, that there is something about the Judeo/Christian God that is more believable. No one would agree to die for your belief that you saw a flying spaghetti monster at the supermarket. Thousands (maybe millions) of people have died for refusing to recant their belief in God. Not every idea about God is equally likely to be true.


Historical Evidence


I don’t have much more room to get into this, but your history is a bit inaccurate. The truth is actually the opposite of what you said - if you wanted to be accepted by Roman society and not be hunted by the government, you had to REJECT Christianity. According to Roman historian Dr. Joseph Hughes, “The bigger the threat to Roman security and stability, the more Christians were persecuted. Christians were official scapegoats for whatever problems remained. Christians who did not burn incense before the emperor’s statue, or swear oaths against the Christian faith, were executed.”


Rome did not ban all other religions. The law you are referring to is the Edict of Milan. According to Dr. Hughes, “Contrary to popular belief, the emperor Constantine the Great, 306-337 AD, did not make Christianity the state religion of Rome. [The Edict of Milan] decree made Christianity one of the empire’s officially tolerated religions, and it officially permitted Christians to serve in public life [1].” So, we clearly see that the Romans simply said Christianity was one of many acceptable religions, they did not force people to follow it.


You are right, people claiming things does not necessarily make them true. However, our knowledge of human history before the invention of cameras relies on people’s written accounts of what happened. We accept these written accounts of historical events as reasonably accurate as long as there is evidence to suggest they really happened. Christianity is no different. Jesus is thought to have died around 30 AD. The Gospel of Mark was probably written around 68-73 AD. This means Mark’s account was only 40-50 years removed from the events of Jesus’ life. Surely witnesses of everything were still around 40 years later when Mark was written. Such witnesses would only have been as old as our parents and grandparents are compared to us. Also, Peter addresses a group of these very witnesses In Acts 10: “We ourselves are witnesses of everything He [Jesus] did in both the Judean country and in Jerusalem.”


There were thousands of eyewitnesses to Jesus' life an ministry. To name a few: the crowds he preached and healed in front of, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who presided over the trial and sentencing of Jesus. In Matthew 27 and John 19, he hands Jesus over to the crowd for sentencing. This entire crowd of people were also eyewitnesses. There is also Simon of Cyrene, who was made to carry Jesus’ cross (Mark 15:21). There are the soldiers who gambled for his clothes and pounded the nails (Mark 15:24). There are the soldiers who speared his side, (John 19:31-37). The Roman officer who confirmed to Pilate Jesus was dead (Mark 15:45). The local people who watched him die and helped bury his body (Mark 15:46). The list goes on and on. Thousands of people from all walks of life witnessed the life of a man named Jesus. If it all never actually happened, it would only have taken a single credible person to come forward and say “that’s not what happened” and the game would be over. When I said it would have been easy to destroy Christianity early on, I did not mean killing all the Christians (although they certainly tried that). I meant that all they had to do was either produce Jesus’ body or get one of the thousands of eyewitness to come forward and say it was all fake. This never happened.


There are also a few references to Jesus’ life and death outside the Bible. The Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus on two separate occasions. In his book The Antiquities, Josephus wrote a passage about, “a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ. . .” Josephus mentions in a second passage called the Testimonium Flavianum, that “About this time there lived Jesus . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified.” Here we see, plainly written in secular history, a man named Jesus was condemned to be crucified. In another account, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote as he described early Christians: “[Christ] from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one on our procurators, Pontius Pilate. . .”


I’m sorry but I have no more room to write.


[1] Dr. Joseph Hughes, Lecture on Roman Government, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down



Debate Round No. 2
Atheist73

Con

I want to start by saying two things:
*As an atheist I believe that I don't know everything. I want to clear out that being an atheist doesn't mean you believe in evolution or the big bang theory etc, but simply being an atheist means you don't believe in the supernatural, aka god.
*Because yesterday was the annual holocaust memorial day, I didn't have much time for writing this entry, so it will be shorter than usual, and may lack details due to lack of time. My apologies.

Now, to your questions:
1) GOOD AND EVIL - you have to be more specific. Good as an action? Evil as a person? Are you talking about law? morality? I'm working on that question for over 15 minutes, but I just don't understand what exactly do you want me to answer. I'm really not trying to avoid this question, but I think it will be helpful if you answer these two questions so I can see what you're meaning.

2) Answer 1. But how do YOU know your definitions are true? You know just as good as me.

3) This is a very critical answer. I don't think all people are the same, so I don't have a 'master plan' of how society should be. This has nothing to do with God, too. We could have been having a debate just on that even if I was Christian and you an atheist.
I haven't really given it much thought. If you would answer it yourself it would help me understand, it's not a very specific question.

Please don't look at it as an attempt of avoiding giving answers. This is really not my target here, and the questions I wrote are the honest answers I can give you.

How did you reach the conclusion that 'truth is not a democracy' and 'we should try, as much as we can, to give people the choice of choosing for themselves.'? And please don't rephrase my sentence, and take it out of context. I'm saying here that the fact that many people believe in something doesn't make it true. I think it is very wrong to have a master plan, as I phrased it before, of how people should live. I think that, for example, if a person chooses to have a homosexual relationship with another homosexual person which is accepted by them both, who am I to say this is wrong ? for example. This is what I've meant. I don't think we should let people do whatever they want, that will lead to a lawless anarchy, but when it comes to things like homosexuality, for example, we shouldn't judge and we shouldn't enforce our lifestyle on other people. I hope you understood my point this time.

I'm not saying I don't know if God exists, I'm saying I don't know what is the origin of space and time. There is a big difference. There is no proof God exists, it doesn't make sense for me that he exists, I see religion as very immoral, and I see it as very easy and very understandable why someone would create a God, therefore I am sure God doesn't exist as I'm sure I'm not floating around in the room because of gravity.
Have you read the book, or have seen the movie ' the wave ' ? If you didn't, it's highly recommended. My point is that adding a God to the plot can be almost unnoticeable, and you can easily imagine that addition in the plot without changing the message and every other aspect.

Well, I have meant that I haven't read the new testament, therefore I can't quote or bring examples from it. I do know about Christianity though (history, basic beliefs, old testament) and I think it's enough for this debate. Let me remind you that this debate is about god and religion, and not if Christianity is or is not the 'right religion'.
Now to the second part of your argument, I do agree with all the things you wrote (love, joy, kindness etc) but you're taking it too literal. This is nice, but you need to look at these aspects of Christianity too:

*Christianity says that we are all sinners, meaning sin is a natural thing - just like walking, talking and breathing, yet 'sin' is a bad thing. We can both agree walking, talking and breathing isn't 'bad' or 'good', it's a fact, it's just is. If God punishes for sin, why can't he punish for breathing or acting human?
*According to Christianity Jesus 'died for humanity's sins'. If the Christian God exists, then he actually PUNISHED his son for:

A) something that others' did. If this is something moral, then a child can be punished for what his father did. That's exactly the same thing. That 'morality' DOESN'T match up with mine.

B) something natural. I just said why I think this makes no sense.

C) Something he has no control of. I don't think there is need of a further explanation.

There are more, but I do not have enough time, so I have to move on..

Morality

No, I don't think everyone reaches the same conclusion, I think the most do. That's why raping, for example, is illegal (I use the raping example because it is very unequivocal, of course). I really don't want to get into philosophy and I don't have enough time too, but as an atheist I accept that many times there is no justice in the world, but we should try our best to do as much justice we can. I think morality has a lot to do with reason. Our goal is to have a better society. Raping does not make the society better. I think if you do something that hurts the other, except for a few exceptions (survival for example), your action is wrong. I know you're going to drag me again into philosophy, so I just want you to do this:
Think about your morality. Now take God out of the picture. Did it change?

Forgiveness ? Well,
it's not like in every other religion you get executed for stealing an apple from the grocery. That's also a problem with Christianity. You said so yourself - every crime is equal to another. I don't think a man who raped his daughter is equivalent to a man who stole an apple from the grocery.

Atheism is not a religion!! I don't need to 'believe' in atheism. I need to disbelieve in theism. And like I said in the beginning, I am sure God doesn't exist, but I don't know for sure how the universe began, that's not the same thing. It's not like there are only two answers.
I see you're always trying to prove that atheism can't explain this, and can't explain that, but it doesn't have to. It's not a religion.
Let me explain it this way:
You draw a square on a canvas, and say it's a triangle. I say it's not a triangle, because it has 4 sides, but I can't calculate the length of the sides, because I don't have a ruler. You can't take that, and say that because I can't calculate the length of the sides this is a triangle. It's not exactly equivalent but I think it's very close and I think it presents my point very well.

Historical evidence

I'm reaching my deadline so I have to hurry, so I'm sorry if this will be unclear:
I was talking about the holy roman empire. Yes, Christianity had a few threats, but so did every other religion. Let's take Judaism, for example, the religion I know best. The Jewish people have been hunted for thousands of years, much more than Christianity. I just want to prove to you that a religion we both agree is 'untrue' kept itself alive even with all the threats. Look at the holocaust! 6 Million people were killed, and the survivors went through such a horrible experience, and yet most of them didn't lose their faith.

So why don't you believe the eyewitnesses of Islam? In every religion, in every holy books, are 'eyewitnesses'. If what you said was truth, why aren't all people Christian? If there is such a solid proof that Jesus preformed miracles, are we all, people who are not Christians, just rejecting evidence? I don't think so.
I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist. There was probably a man named Jesus, it's written in many places, and you are right, it was MUCH harder for Christianity to grow if they made up their leader, But....
You have to remember that Muslims, for example, believe in the night journey of Muhammad. There is just as much evidence for that as to the miracles preformed by Jesus.

Christianity is a missionary religion, and I think that's the main reason that so many people believe in it.
I want to add that your reasons for the proof of God are, to my opinion, very weak, because there are 'proofs' like that in just every religion you look in. It would be helpful if you could provide more reasons that support your belief.
I want to ask you some very clear short questions, I hope you answer them:

*Why do you think your morality is the 'right' one, as you stated in your entry? You have just as much proof as every religion.

*You said that Christianity exists for many many years, and if it wasn't true, it would have disappeared. Christianity is about as old as Islam. Buddhism is 500-600 years OLDER than Christianity, and many many people still believe in that religion today. How do you explain that?

*According to Christianity, hell is for non-Christians, and is supposed to be a very evil place, to make people suffer, which I also find immoral. Why would God make a man who lived as a good person and never harmed a human being suffer? What is the purpose of that? It actually reminds me a lot of the holocaust. People were punished suffering and death just because of their religion. It didn't matter what they did. God is a Nazi according to religion, Christianity included. Christianity is indeed, very moral (sarcasm).

Waiting for your response :)
sengejuri

Pro


Thanks for your response, I appreciate you answering some of those questions, it was very helpful.


I need to begin with a few things. I am not purposely trying to drag you into philosophy, and I’m sorry if you feel that way. However, I hope we can agree that philosophy is a big part of any discussion about god, good, evil, and morality. According to the dictionary, philosophy literally means “the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life.” These are exactly the things we are discussing, so it is impossible to avoid philosophy.


I am going to use some more quotes from what you wrote. I do not want you to feel like I am taking you out of context. I simply do this to help you see exactly which parts of your argument I am responding to. If I misquote you or misunderstand what you wrote, please correct me. I will highlight any quotes I use from you in BOLD.


I would like to clear up one thing. You wrote, “Let me remind you that this debate is about god and religion, and not if Christianity is or is not the 'right religion.’” However, you keep asking me questions specifically about Christianity and comparing it to Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. I am happy to talk about either, I just need clarification from you if you want to talk about god in general or specifically Christianity?


You wrote, “you're always trying to prove that atheism can't explain this, and can't explain that, but it doesn't have to. It's not a religion.” Just because atheism is not a religion does not mean it doesn’t have to explain things. I agree that atheism is not an organized religion, but I think we can both agree that it is a worldview. A worldview must offer an explanation for how things work, and every person on earth (whether they admit it or not) has one. It answers questions about origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. I am asking you these questions because I am trying to understand your worldview. If you believe that you have no way to calculate the answers, like you said in your square/triangle example, then that is the worldview of Agnosticism, not Atheism. May I suggest that perhaps you are more of an Agnostic?


I only say this because what you wrote is not a very strong defense of atheism. Let me demonstrate: As far as I can tell, you summarized your defense of atheism by writing, “There is no proof God exists, it doesn't make sense for me that he exists, I see religion as very immoral, and I see it as very easy and very understandable why someone would create a God, therefore I am sure God doesn't exist as I'm sure I'm not floating around in the room because of gravity.” I can say the exact same thing to defend my view by simply changing a few words: “There is no proof atheism is true, it doesn’t make sense for me that god doesn’t exist, I see atheism as very immoral, and I see it as very easy and very understandable why someone would reject god, therefore I am sure atheism isn’t true as I’m sure I’m not floating around in the room because of gravity.” If I wrote that, would you think it was a good argument? Of course not, because it is only a statement of opinion about how I personally feel. I would like to hear you support your worldview with more than just your personal opinion.


Ok, on to answering questions.


Good and Evil – This is definitely a hard question to answer, which is why I asked it :) I mean it in terms of morality and actions. What makes an act “good?” What makes an act “evil?” How many “bad” things does a person need to do to become a “bad” person? How many mistakes can you make and still be a “good” person?


Knowing definitions are true – I believe in God, so I believe he gets to define truth. If God is real, as I believe he is, then he would logically have the authority to define universal moral law. Without a god, that authority must come from someone/something else.


I know talking about definitions is frustrating, but I am so focused on this because the content of our arguments depends on the meanings of our words. For example, you say certain things are “wrong.” That means nothing unless we can define what “wrong” is. Wrong according to who - You? Saddam Hussein? American law? Russian law? Universal truth? You said we should try to “do as much justice as we can.” What is justice? Are we talking American justice or Egyptian justice? Who decides what is just? You said “Our goal is to have a better society.” What is “better?” Who decides what makes a society better – You? Me? George Bush? Barack Obama? Hitler? This is why definitions are important.


From what I can tell, you seem to embrace moral subjectivity. You say, “I think it is very wrong to have a master plan, as I phrased it before, of how people should live . . . who am I to say this is wrong? . . . we shouldn't judge and we shouldn't enforce our lifestyle on other people . . . I think if you do something that hurts the other, except for a few exceptions (survival for example), your action is wrong.” This essentially admits that morals are subjective. That is a valid stance to have, but there are several problems with it. First, it is a problem to admit your inability to say something is right or wrong. You apply this to homosexuality in your example, but if it is actually true then it also must apply to everything else. You must also say, “who am I to say lying, cheating, murder, suicide bombing, racism, and so on, is wrong?” You say we shouldn’t judge or force our lifestyle on other people – so then can we not judge the lifestyle of a polygamist, or a racist, or an alcoholic? Should we not impose our lifestyle on Al-Qaeda or the Taliban? This is not philosophy, it is logic: If A, then B.


You suggest an action is wrong if it hurts someone. Is that the only measure of right and wrong? What about actions that don’t hurt people – like lying, cheating, manipulation, gossip, selfishness, arrogance – are these things not wrong then?


The central problem with believing morals are subjective is that morals then become a mere personal opinion. When you say, “who am I to say this is wrong?” and there is no “master plan of how people should live” you open a dangerous door. The logical conclusion of that stance is that if we should not judge the moral decisions of homosexuals then we should not judge the moral decisions of the Nazis either. If you say that yes we can judge the decisions of the Nazis, then you are now appealing to some objective concept of right and wrong that all people are subject to (a master plan), which you have failed to define or explain. Once again, this is not philosophy, it is logic.


I am focusing on this so much because I believe morality and subjectivity are some of the hardest problems for the atheist worldview to explain. As C.S. Lewis wrote: if we reduce morality to a social consensus, then by what measure do we judge one culture as better than another?


My point in listing all the historical and eyewitness evidence was not to prove that Christianity is truer than Islam or Judaism. My point was to show that it is wrong to say all ideas about god are equally likely to be true. Unlike the flying spaghetti monster or Bella, thousands of people have actually been recorded in history as witnessing God and have died for their beliefs in Him. We should probably take a claim like that a little more seriously than pink unicorns on Mars. If we can both agree that saying a flying spaghetti monster exists is not the same as claiming God exists, then we can get into the differences between Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.


I will answer your questions about Christianity if you want me to, but I am unsure if you want to just talk about God in general or specifically Christianity.


Debate Round No. 3
Atheist73

Con

Hello again,
thank you for your quick reply, but I think you skipped a lot of my arguments.

*I agree, but defining the meaning of words is a nearly impossible.

*I said that we are talking in God in general, yes, and not whether Christianity is the right religion. One of the parts of this discussion is about Christianity, and I think my basic knowledge of Christianity is enough for debating this topic. I only said that because every time I popped up a quote from the old testament, you said it's not valid because it's not from the new one, so I said that I haven't read the new testament so I can't quote from it. That's all. I think we should leave this aside, for it is tedious and unimportant.

*No, Atheism doesn't have to supply an explanation to 'HOW THINGS WORK', 'It answers questions about origin, meaning, morality, and destiny' That's religion. Atheism says that there is no God. Period. That's what separates atheism from religion. Not all atheists have the same worldview. We agree on just one single thing, most of us also agree on things that come from this idea, but not all of us.
My triangle example comes from the same place as the ancient Egypt example. It doesn't support Agnosticism. My point was, that we don't know everything. I don't know what was the origin of the universe, for example, but yet I do know that God doesn't exist, and there is no contradiction. That's it.
And a tip - never call an atheist an agnostic.

*No, you actually can't. You can't say that 'there is no proof in atheism'. Because Atheism is a rejection of belief, you can't say 'it has no proof'. Nobody ever became atheist because he read a book and says:' well, atheists define morality better, so I want to be an atheist.' it's never ever that. It comes from rejection. Think of it that way: pretend God doesn't exist. Can you bring proof now to Atheism?
You see atheism as very immoral ? I would LOVE an example of why you think atheism is immoral.
Why do you think it's understandable why somebody will choose to reject God ? Many atheists live 'in the closet' for years, because their family is religious, their surrounding is religious, because it is uncommon, because they're afraid to be different, because they're afraid that people will look at them differently. PLEASE DON'T OVERLOOK THESE POINTS!

knowing definitions are true - it's just a circle. You believe that you are right because your belief tells you you are right. I think you can understand the problem here. You're saying that I don't know if my morality and definitions are true, but you know just as good as me. How do you know that the morality your God taught you is the right one, and the morality another God taught another person is wrong ?

I have never said that morality isn't subjective.
About homosexuality:
When two guys engage in a sexual relationship in their home, while they don't hurt each other or anybody else, there is no need of judging them. You are saying very dangerous things. I think our jobs comes only when those actions apply to us. I think it's just fine to lie to your friends that you're busy instead of saying you don't want to meet with them today, because the result is that you don't hurt them. In this case, it depends on the relationship of course, but I think we can both agree there's a difference between this lying, and lying to your friend that John took his cellphone, because the result is that you hurt both the friend and John. See my point?
Murder hurts another person.

Suicide hurts yourself. I don't think we should judge people who take their own lives, especially in cases where they do it to prevent pain and suffering, but we should try to prevent self murder because in many cases it comes from social issues, and it is from our duty to try and save those people, because they will probably regret it.
racism and bombing hurts the other.

We should judge the lifestyle of a polygamist, just because almost if not all cases like this go pretty much hand in hand with a violation of women rights. I don't think there is a single woman who wants to live in this sort of lifestyle, and these women are used, it hurts women.

A racist supports racism, which hurts other people. I think if a man chooses to get drunk in his own home, while he's not driving or being a threat to other people, then why should I care? We should warn them that drinking too much causes health problems and sometimes death, but I don't think banning alcohol is the solution, if that's what you're suggesting :)
Al Qaeda and the Taliban HURT other people, that's why it's our business. If this is your logic, I can understand now why you believe in God.

Gossip DOES hurt other people! Cheating and lying also! (in general), selfishness, I don't think is 'wrong'. Certain things that selfish people do are wrong, and that character isn't very likable, but it itself is not wrong.
We should judge the Nazis because they hurt other people.

I appreciate it that you're focusing on morality, but you're making wrong conclusions.

My point was that your first 3 reasons for belief can be found in every religion, and only the 4th applies to Christianity, the religion you chose. You are not saying, and I quote:
'My point in listing all the historical and eyewitness evidence was not to prove that Christianity is truer than Islam or Judaism', so actually all the reasons for belief you gave me don't explain why you chose Christianity and not Islam or Judaism. Please provide better reasons.

As I explained earlier, I would VERY much like you to answer all my questions, so I will copy them to here again:

*Why do you think your morality is the 'right' one, as you stated in your entry? You have just as much proof as every religion.

*You said that Christianity exists for many many years, and if it wasn't true, it would have disappeared. Christianity is about as old as Islam. Buddhism is 500-600 years OLDER than Christianity, and many many people still believe in that religion today. How do you explain that?

*According to Christianity, hell is for non-Christians, and is supposed to be a very evil place, to make people suffer, which I also find immoral. Why would God make a man who lived as a good person and never harmed a human being suffer? What is the purpose of that? It actually reminds me a lot of the holocaust. People were punished suffering and death just because of their religion. It didn't matter what they did. God is a Nazi according to religion, Christianity included. Christianity is indeed, very moral (sarcasm).

* There's a problem with Christianity. You said so yourself - every crime is equal to another. I don't think a man who raped his daughter is equivalent to a man who stole an apple from the grocery. Please also explain why we should forgive, for example, a man who raped his daughter.

*Christianity says that we are all sinners, meaning sin is a natural thing - just like walking, talking and breathing, yet 'sin' is a bad thing. We can both agree walking, talking and breathing isn't 'bad' or 'good', it's a fact, it's just is. If God punishes for sin, why can't he punish for breathing or acting human?

*According to Christianity Jesus 'died for humanity's sins'. If the Christian God exists, then he actually PUNISHED his son for:
A) something that others' did. If this is something moral, then a child can be punished for what his father did. That's exactly the same thing. That 'morality' DOESN'T match up with mine.
B) something natural. I just said why I think this makes no sense.
C) Something he has no control of. I don't think there is need of a further explanation.

PLEASE ANSWER EVERYTHING.
Thank you again, waiting for your respond entry.
sengejuri

Pro


Wow, good job on a fast response.


* “Atheism doesn't have to supply an explanation to 'HOW THINGS WORK.” It always surprises me when Atheists claim they don’t have to explain anything, because that is simply not true. I think it is very interesting that you are demanding (in all capital letters) that I answer every one of your questions. Yet you STILL have not answered my questions from the beginning of this debate. How do you define good and evil? What answers does atheism provide for life’s deepest questions? Instead, you just avoid them by saying, “defining the meaning of these words is nearly impossible” (which is not true, every worldview claims to have some kind of definition for these concepts.) If you wish, I will not bring these questions up again because it is becoming tedious and wasting time. However, I will leave it at this – if your worldview (and yes, atheism is a worldview) cannot give you satisfying or tangible definitions of good, evil, meaning, and morality, then I would strongly encourage you to really examine these concepts. They are some of the most important questions for our entire existence, and it’s not acceptable to simply shrug and say “I don’t know.”


Denial of a belief is not helpful unless you can offer an alternate explanation from your denial. Think of this example: Bob is murdered. Many people believe John is the murderer. Yet after the police investigate, they say “we don’t believe John is the murderer. In fact, we believe murder did not happen at all.” However, the police cannot just stop there by saying it was not murder. They must continue investigating and offer an alternate explanation for how Bob died.


Yes, atheism’s primary claim is there is no god, but it is not immune to the questions that follow such a claim. If the atheist’s response is simply “I don’t know and I don’t have to answer anyway,” then that is neither intellectually satisfying nor convincing.


When I wrote, “There is no proof atheism is true, it doesn’t make sense for me that god doesn’t exist, I see atheism as very immoral, and I see it as very easy and very understandable why someone would reject god...” I did not write this as a serious claim or argument. I was simply mirroring what you wrote to demonstrate how it was just your opinion, not a strong or convincing argument. However, I will still respond to your objections.


* “You can't say that 'there is no proof in atheism'. Because Atheism is a rejection of belief, you can't say 'it has no proof'.” Once again, you cannot claim you don’t need to prove anything just because you reject a belief. You are the instigator of this debate, you are making the claim “God Does Not Exist.” Logically, the instigator who makes a claim has burden of proof, so you actually DO have to show proof. Once again, think of police or scientists. They cannot just reject a hypothesis, they must also give an alternate one.


* Examples of immoral atheism – I do not think atheism is IMMORAL, I think it is AMORAL - it cannot define morality. Atheism cannot provide objective, authoritative definitions of right, wrong, good, and evil, which is very dangerous. According to atheism, if there is no god and we all just evolved by natural chance, then there is not true good or evil. There is only DNA, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. This is summed up perfectly by the Atheist writer Richard Dawkins: “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” No justice, no reason, just chance and luck. We are dancing slaves of DNA. What if my DNA predisposes me to murder, or to crave power or pleasure? There are plenty of examples of immoral atheist leaders in history. But the point is not that atheists can be immoral, because Christians can be too. The point is that if there is a god, then there is an objective morality that all people are held accountable to - a “master plan” as you call it. If there is no god, there is no source of objective morality.


* “Why do you think it's understandable why somebody will choose to reject God?” I can see why people want to believe they control their own lives. Also, it is easy to misunderstand what God is all about. Those are just my opinions. Many theists also live ‘in the closet’ for years, especially in countries where there is persecution.


* “You believe that you are right because your belief tells you you are right.” You are correct, I should explain this more. However, you are justifying your own beliefs with the exact same reasoning. In your Egyptian example, if things don’t make sense to you then you should reject that belief. So you believe you are right because your senses tell you you are right. Have your senses ever been wrong before?


I believe my definitions are true because I assume that a universal moral law exists. I believe human nature proves this. The fact that we condemn the Nazis even though the Nazis thought they were right proves that we have some concept of universal behavior that all people around the world should follow. If we have a universal moral law, then there must be a universal law giver. Atheism believes the universal moral law sprung from nothing, in which case it has no concrete authority. I believe the universal moral law came from an authoritative law giver, god. The fact that we all mostly believe moral law has authority is proof enough for me that my definitions are most likely true. In any case, you still have not given any definitions of your own or reasons why they might be true.


You suggest that things are wrong if they hurt people. This is a good starting point but it’s not enough to explain morality. You say if people do things in their own home without hurting anyone, then it’s ok. So what if a racist keeps his thoughts to himself and never hurts anyone or says bad things to them. Is his racism now acceptable? You assume all polygamist women are forced into it. This is not true. Some women voluntarily enter it and see no problems or rights violations in it. There is an ABC News documentary on the subject if you don’t believe me. So is polygamy still wrong for people who volunteer for it? (I 100% think that polygamy is bad by the way, I’m just saying, not all people do).


With gossip, cheating, and lying, you are suggesting emotional or mental hurt is bad too. If every action that causes someone emotional, mental, or physical pain is wrong, then the list of those actions would be almost endless. What if telling the truth will cause someone else pain? What if helping one person hurts another? You said we can impose our ideas on the Taliban because they hurt people. Americans, Russians, Egyptians, Koreans, Chinese hurt people too. Every society hurts people, and every society has different ideas about how to fix it. Who is right? According to Richard Dawkins, people who get hurt are just unlucky anyways, so why does it even matter?


I will briefly answer your questions about Christianity if you want.


* “Why do you think your morality is the 'right' one?” Already covered. A universal moral law must have a moral law giver, and the Christian god makes more sense to me than any other religions.


* “You said that Christianity exists for many years, and if it wasn't true, it would have disappeared.I did not mean this to be an argument for Christianity being truer than Buddhism or Islam. It is an argument for why Christianity is a more realistic belief than Bella, Ra, Odin, or the flying spaghetti monster.


* “Why would God make a man who lived as a good person and never harmed a human being suffer?” Once again, I ask if you can give a definition of what makes someone a “good person” so I can better understand your question. Christianity teaches that no one is a good person. We have all hurt people, let people down, and fallen short in one way or another. That is why Christianity is all about saving and forgiveness.


* “I don't think a man who raped his daughter is equivalent to a man who stole an apple from the grocery.” I hope you are starting to see that all your questions assume definitions that you have not provided. This question assumes that rape is intrinsically worse than stealing. Why? What makes it worse? If it’s because an apple is a very small thing, then what if I stole the grocer’s car, or all his money? How small does something have to be before it’s ok? Is it because rape hurts someone? What if I stole something that hurt the grocer mentally, emotionally, and/or physically, or hurt his family’s welfare? You are assuming a line that makes one thing worse than another, but you cannot define what that line is. It makes more sense to me to say that sin is sin, it’s all bad and it all requires forgiveness.


* “Christianity says that we are all sinners, meaning sin is a natural thing - just like walking, talking and breathing . . . If God punishes for sin, why can't he punish for breathing or acting human?” We do not choose to breathe. We do choose to sin. That’s the difference. We have all at times chosen to lie, gossip, let people down, hurt others, judge others, break promises, and sometimes worse. If you can name one person in human history who never chose to do something bad, then I will admit I am wrong on this point.


* If God exists, it means he punished Jesus for something other people did. You are exactly right. That is what is so beautiful in my opinion. We believe Jesus was not just a man, he was God. That means God punished himself for something we did in order to save us. There is no greater love than that. It’s not like a child being punished for their father. It’s like someone diving in front of a bullet - giving up their own life to save someone else.


I hope I was able to respond to everything.


Debate Round No. 4
Atheist73

Con

* Like you said, I thought about all the things you wrote, and these are my conclusions:
An action is good when:
-It does good for you, and doesn't affect others, or affects neutrally.
-If does good for you AND for others
-When you do something good for others, but you do not gain anything from it, except happiness that you did a good thing.
This is not extremely clear, but I think you can understand my point.
To define what action is bad (I prefer not to use the word evil), just replace 'good' with 'bad' in the three situations.

'Denial of a belief is not helpful unless you can offer an alternate explanation from your denial.' - I disagree. If many people think Bob killed himself, but the policemen find evidence that he was murdered, if the policemen won't find out who killed Bob or how or when etc, it's not valid to say he wasn't murdered at all, but because it IS important to answer those questions, I have tried my best to do that. I think we are doing pretty good in our moral and meaning discussion, though we strongly disagree on many things.

Remember the Bella god? Then if someone puts this claim on the table, I think it's his responsibility to prove why it does exist. You don't have to present arguments why Bella doesn't exist.. You gave me very unconvincing arguments on why you believe in God. To use the Bob example, it's like you say: well, it's easier for me to accept that Bob killed himself because it makes sense to me that Bob was a suicidal person, so Bob killed himself. It's ridiculous.

I know. I gave many reasons along this debate to support my claim. You gave none, when you said it, so I was just saying it's not valid.

Atheism is a rejection of belief. You can say I see proof in Theism. Even my arguments on why God doesn't exist, rely on religious claims. There is a difference between not seeing proof in something, between seeing proof in something that contradicts something else. I even explained it to you: Nobody ever became atheist because he read a book and says:' well, atheists define morality better, so I want to be an atheist.' it's never ever that. It comes from rejection. Think of it that way: pretend God doesn't exist. Can you bring proof now to Atheism?
And scientists don't always have to give an alternative hypothesis if they reject the current one. If they see something doesn't make sense, or contradicts itself, it doesn't magically make them find the 'right' hypothesis. They usually do, but if they don't it doesn't make the hypothesis they rejected right.
Actually, in police, they do it all the time. They can find a man murdered, and based on information they have they can reject the fact that the man was murdered in a gang rival. If they don't find why, it doesn't mean he might have been murdered in a gang rival.

Well, let's start that there is a big difference between immoral and amoral. Now you reject DNA ? :) Just kidding, of course. DNA can't force you to do things. I didn't really understand what you wrote, an example would be nice. These atheist immoral people weren't immoral BECAUSE they were atheists, but because of other non related reasons, unlike some theists, who I find immoral BECAUSE of that very reason (the KKK example), I think we finished this topic.

'I can see why people want to believe they control their own lives' - oh, so God controls, to your opinion all of our lives? If God controls everyone's life, then why do babies sometimes die at birth? Why are there tornadoes? Accidents? Or is God just a sadistic evil person ?

Not exactly. Even if Gravity doesn't make sense to someone, there is just enough proof for him to 'have' to 'accept' it.

The problem with racism is the actions. It's the laws. It's the hate speeches. If a man hates black people and thinks they're lesser then he is, it MUST reflect in his behavior, unless he doesn't really think that. A man like that can't help a black man who needs help, can't be friends with them, etc.

I said that MOST polygamist women are women who are forced into it. Because polygamous relationships are not normal in our society, we still have to figure out about this topic. I will watch the ABC documentary, to learn more. We need to see, in every case, why do these women want to be in that sort of relationship (I assume we're taking about one man many women relationship), and more. If those women do find charm in that kind of relationship,what can I tell you? I think it's very much not for me, but maybe it is for them, and we should respect that.

Yes, you are right, and in these many cases there isn't good or bad.
'Americans, Russians, Egyptians, Koreans, Chinese hurt people too. Every society hurts people, and every society has different ideas about how to fix it'- you are being very general. If you will bring me an example I could answer.

CHRISTIANITY QUESTIONS

*'the Christian god makes more sense to me than any other religions.' - Have you studied various religions before you reached your conclusion?

*"You said that Christianity exists for many years, and if it wasn't true, it would have disappeared." I did not mean this to be an argument for Christianity being truer than Buddhism or Islam. It is an argument for why Christianity is a more realistic belief than Bella, Ra, Odin, or the flying spaghetti monster.' It's great that you didn't mean it, but that's exactly what you said! This argument states that a religion which isn't true, disappears It's wrong.

*A man who is good, is simply a man who doesn't mean to hurt anyone. My point is, that according to Christianity, God separates Christians from everybody else, and rewards them for picking right the God that makes sense to them the most (your words), and makes the other suffer. To me it looks a lot like the Nazi ideology.

*You actually think raping your daughter is equivalent to stealing an apple ?? A girl who is raped by her father is hurt MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE than a store owner you just stole an apple from. If we're all sinners, and sin is sin, then why do you get locked up in jail for killing, and nothing when you lie to your friend ? According to your point of view, it doesn't matter how much we sin, or how we sin. God doesn't even care about morals, he just gave them as a proposal, but said; hey, I know none of you will be able to follow all my rules.
If a teacher gives a test with a few questions you can't possibly answer, then the grade is meaningless, isn't it?

*Well, technically, a man can lock himself in the room, and do nothing except clap his hands and avoid human contact, for the rest of his life. He would NEVER sin! Is this what god wants? And actually, you can choose not to breath, but then you'll die. Can God punish people for talking? We choose to talk.

*If God punished himself, then he did something wrong. So God isn't perfect.. right?

another arguments:

*Can a baby sin? From which age can you sin according to Christianity?

*If we are all sinners and all sins are the same, then why don't we all have the same lives? To my understanding, if something good happens, its because of God, so why does God choose to randomly do good things (bring money, health etc) to one person and do bad things for another person (death, sickness, loss)?

*There is a great quote, I don't remember who's, that says: 'When I was a kid, I wanted a bicycle, so I prayed and prayed every night, but I never got a bicycle, and then I realized God doesn't work like that, so I stole a bicycle and then prayed to God so he will forgive me.' - According to Christianity a person can sin and do horrible things, but it is OK and forgiven if he
believes in God. You said it is easy to misunderstand God. So what if someone misunderstands God and does horrible things, but still believes in him and think he's doing fine? Is he worthy of heaven, too?

*If God loves us so much, why doesn't he show himself up, to save everyone from hell?

I have only a few minutes to turn in my entry, so it is not edited. I'm sorry if there are mistakes and unclear sentences.
sengejuri

Pro


Thanks for your response. Since this is the last round, I hope you won't mind if I take my final response in a different direction. I read through all your recent responses and questions, and I would be happy to keep discussing them. However, I believe we are still too far apart on this issue and giving Christian-specific responses would not be constructive at this point. So, I have decided to focus more on the idea of god in general for my response.


I wish to end simply with a few final thoughts that are the biggest reasons I personally cannot accept atheism:


Origins: Atheism teaches that everything came from nothing. Out of nothing, the Big Bang exploded for unknown reasons to produce everything we see today. It makes no sense how something can be produced from nothing. Also, atheism teaches that life came from non-life. There is no evidence to suggest that this can actually happen. I believe it makes more sense that there must have been some kind of conscious power or being who set all these things in motion for a purpose.


Meaning: If god does not exist, life has no meaning or purpose. Science can never answer what the point of life is, it can only conclude that we are just products of random chance and natural selection. We all die, and most of us are forgotten within four generations. Most of us do not even know our great-great grandparent's names, let alone anything about their lives. Everything we accomplish, no matter how impressive, eventually fades away and is forgotten. That is a very depressing reality if death truly is the end.


If there is no god, the universe simply exists as a result of randomness and chance. It is all a big accident with no intentional purpose. Since a godless universe has no purpose, we are forced to make up our own purposes. You can say your purpose is to help others or seek happiness or raise a family or whatever, but those are just things you made up yourself - they are not true, ultimate meaning. They are just goals we choose to invent to distract and entertain ourselves until we die. When we honestly consider these things, they do not sit well. We have a natural sense that life must have meaning, that there is a purpose to our lives. I consider this as evidence that there must be something more to all of this.


Morality: I thank you for providing a definition of good and bad. However, I would point out that you used the word "good" to define itself: "An action is good when it does good for you and others." A word cannot define itself, it's like saying "something is tall when it is tall." Even so, now that you have offered a definition, we run into a much harder question - what makes the definition you provided better than someone else's? If there is no god, then there is no such thing as objective morality. We simply make up codes of behavior that make sense to us and that other people in our group agree with. When we encounter different groups with codes of conduct that we don't like, we fight them. The stronger group wins and gets to impose its code of conduct on the losers. And on and on it goes. You may say that you believe hurting people is bad. Stalin would say he believes hurting people is good as long as it makes him more powerful. If morality is not objective, then these are both equally valid personal opinions. There is no higher authority to decide who is right or wrong. In a subjective world, you cannot say that Stalin's morals are wrong because you are then appealing to an objective sense of right and wrong that doesn't exist. A completely subjective world is a very, very scary thought. Atheism cannot explain how objective morality can exist if there is no god. Until it can, I will never be able to accept atheism.


To conclude, I would like to bring up a point you wrote about in your very first entry in part one - that religious people waste their lives. This concept is called Pascal's Wager. I think we can both agree that someone is not wasting their lives if they find happiness, fulfillment, and purpose. Let's assume that a religious person finds great happiness, fulfillment, and purpose from their belief in god. Now let's assume atheism is true and there is no god. When that religious person dies, nothing happens. Has that religious person then wasted their life? No. They experienced great joy and fulfillment while they were alive, and nothing happened when they died. There is no penalty or punishment for believers in the end even if religion turns out to be false.


Now consider an atheist who also finds joy and happiness in life, but rejects belief in god. Let's assume this time that god exists. When the atheist person dies, there is likely to be some kind of punishment or judgment (depending on which religion you consider). There is potentially a huge penalty or punishment if religion turns out to be true.


The point is this: Atheists and Believers can both experience joy and happiness in this life. If god is fake then nothing happens when we die and it doesn't matter what we believed because the end is the same for everyone. If god is real though, and something does happen after we die, then the atheist has risked everything on a temporary existence.


Origin, meaning, and morality - these are the deepest questions of the human heart. I would encourage everyone to really think about these three things and consider if atheism can offer satisfying explanations for them. As for me, I believe the only satisfying way to explain these concepts is through an all powerful and all loving god.


I thank you for this great discussion and wish you the best in the future.


Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by witheringtrees 2 years ago
witheringtrees
Wow! That last comment sengejury made about how atheists risked it all if god is real, but christians risked nothing if he is fake . . . That was amazing. You have great insight.
Posted by Atheist73 2 years ago
Atheist73
Hi sengejury,
I just noticed it was the last round, so I just want to leave a video of 78 questions for Christians, don't answer them in your entry if you don't want to, but just think about it.

https://www.youtube.com...

I had a great debate,
Thank you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.