The Instigator
Mason0612
Con (against)
Winning
163 Points
The Contender
ChuckHenryII
Pro (for)
Losing
92 Points

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 12,787 times Debate No: 12603
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (68)
Votes (45)

 

Mason0612

Con

Well, where do I begin.......

I was born a catholic but when I was 14, I looked at the world, and noticed something is lacking in the credibility of religion. I am 16 now, and still attend a catholic school, but I am now an atheist. Here are some of the many things that I see about religion and God.

1. Scientific evidence has disproved many biblical claims such as the earth being 6000 years old, when it's actually more then 4 billion. We know this due to carbon dating and radioactive dating.

2. The Bible contradicts itself. It says God is loving, but he doesn't even follow his own rules. It says he flooded the Earth, and the bible also says that gays and non-believers should be put to death by stone.

3. People say, "God loves everyone." Really? I am half black, and I can assure you my ancestors didn't appreciate God sitting back and letting them be sold into slavery, beaten, whipped, and killed. I'm sure many Indians didn't like how God let them be violently pushed off their land. And I'm pretty sure my grandma didn't appreciate her parents being killed while she was 7 years old. Ya, that doesn't sound like a loving God to me. These are only 3 of millions of examples of bad events in world and personal history.

4. Then believers say, "God does care, but he gave us free will." This statement contradicts itself. If he gave free will and doesn't intervene, that means he doesn't care. If a teenager is drunk and his parents let him drive and don't do anything to intervene, then they don't care...... it's as simple as that. Personally, I don't feel that an all knowing and powerful God who lets children starve around the world, war, famine, disease, poverty, racism, etc to happen loves anyone. So, let's say there is a God. Then if there is, I think it's fair to say that he doesn't care.

5. Which brings me to point 5. If God is all knowing, he would have known the Holocaust would happen, and he would know the name of my next girlfriend, for example. Well.... that's impossible even for "God" because I haven't even decided yet!

6. "you have to have faith!" I hate this argument because it proves that they have no evidence to turn to. Faith, beliefs, and ideas require a reason and some proof. Besides, we are born into different families, so we didn't choose our faith at first, it was forced. If you were born in India, you would most likely be Hindu. If you were born in the USA, you are most likely going to be Christian.

7. "You can't disprove God." well one, that statement doesn't PROVE religion either, so it's irrelevant. Two, you cannot disprove that there are unicorns on Jupiter..... You can't disprove something. If you are the one making a claim (religion/God) then you are responsible for proof, not the non-believers.

8. "Well, more people are believers, so that must mean something." No, all the Bible is old fashioned society that lacked modern science. Everyone back then made up stories to make sense of the world. Look at the Greeks with Zeus, Aphrodite, etc which were "Gods" that explained why things happened in nature and life. Also, religion uses scare tactics. They say if you don't believe or follow God, you will burn in hell for eternity. Tell this to any kid and see whether he chooses to believe. I bet he will. Also, would rather go along with science or go along thinking that you live forever in a happy place with all your family and everything is pleasant. Heck, I don't blame someone for being scared of death. We all should be to an extent. It's part of human nature to want to live as long as possible, but I consider myself a teenager of reason, and not just follow a religion because it makes me feel like I have an eternal soul.

Religion has also been the cause of most violence in the world. It all comes down to people think their God is right and someone elses is wrong. Neither of which have any evidence to support their religion. I do have to give credit to religion in one way though. Religious people are GENERALLY good moral law abiding people, they donate, and live to help others. (for the most part) However, this whole nonsense in the Bible about a talking snake, an incompetent lazy God, and eternal salvation is not necessary for morals. People should live to do the best they can for the world as a whole, and leave the fairy tales to the kindegarden book collections.

If you want to debate me on this, feel free to do so, but please provide facts behind your opinion on this topic. Thank you
ChuckHenryII

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for this debate chance and would like to clarify that, since I am pro, I will be defending my belief for a God. I am a Christian and have gone through a lot of what my opponent has said about facing science except, instead of turning from, I was strengthened in my religion due to the overwhelming amount of proof and evidence against evolution and for a God, but that will be another debate.

1. My opponent mentions radiometric dating for the use of disproving a young world. This is a weak argument because the radiometric dating processes have been proven faulty and inaccurate (besides the fact that you have to put how old the rock is supposed to be on the sheet you send the rock with when you send it to be tested). (http://www.bible.ca...)

2. How does god not following rules make him unloving? That's not a contradiction. Besides, God is like a parent, hince the name Father. A parent can make a rule that the child has to be in bed by eight o' clock, however the parent doesn't have to abide by this rule themselves because this rule wasn't meant for them and doesn't pertain to them. Also, God flooded the earth to rid it of evil, and throughout your case you're asking why he doesn't get rid of evil. MAKE UP YOUR MIND! Do you want evil or not, and if not then stop complaining when he does get rid of evil!

3. Are you saying that God caused the slave owners to beat your ancestors? Or that He killed her parents? Plus, the slaves were some of the most religious people in the world! Even when they were being constantly beat!

4. First off, who said God doesn't intervene? Secondly, you mention that you think God performs evil through disease, war, and disaster. This is impossible. Disease and war are not moral agents and therefore cannot be morally evil. This concept is explained in the book If God Is Good by Randy Alcorn.

5. You mention about god knowing everything. (this is also the basis for predestination but that debate is also for another day). Anyway, there is a vast difference between KNOWING and CONTROLLING. And, by the way, God does know everything, including your next girlfriend.

6. What does necessary faith in God have to do with what religion (if any) you're born into? This argument makes no sense and serves no purpose in this debate.

7. Saying that you can't disprove anything is the EXACT same thing as saying that you can't prove anything. Besides the fact that disprove means to PROVE to be wrong, saying you can't disprove unicorns on Jupiter is the same thing as saying you can't prove there aren't unicorns on Jupiter. If my opponent's theory is correct, meaning that you cannot prove nor disprove anything, then why are we participating in this debate? If he is correct, then there is no point debating, and, at the very least, requiring nonexistent proof to defend our positions.

8. First of all, there were just as many non-believers back then as there are now and that number of non-believers hasn't changed due to new science. In fact, all but one of the apostles died in persecution due to the teaching of Christianity in non Cristian societies. Second, you extremely over exaggerated when you said religion uses scare tactics. In this argument you completely ignore the whole religion and focus on the fiber of consequences. You have to look at the whole picture. Also you say you would rather follow science rather than religion but give no reasons why you make this choice. Plus, why not follow religion. What is so terribly evil about it? Religion will only be a good thing for you and if there turns out to be no God (which there is), then what is the harm done? You lived a great life and probably helped a lot of people with theirs along the way.

You end by saying that religion has been the cause for most violence in the world AND that they help clean up most of the violence in the world. Again, MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

I can go on but I think this is all that is necessary for the first round. I would like to thank my opponent again for this opportunity and I now turn it over to con.
Debate Round No. 1
Mason0612

Con

You said, "I was strengthened in my religion due to the overwhelming amount of proof and evidence against evolution and for a God." Well, if there was more evidence of God than evolution, most atheists would believe in him. However, there is actually more proof of evolution than God, which I will go into later in my argument. That is why it is called "faith". If there was definitive evidence, it wouldn't be faith. Now I know that evolution is not a proven fat, but the evidence for it outweighs it more than the evidence for God. I do not believe 100% that there is no God. Science does not claim to know everything. If the science we have today can't answer something, we conduct experiments and gather facts to find the answer. Scientists make judgments based on observation and data, not a "holy" book with no factual support.

1. In 1907, the American chemist Bertram Boltwood demonstrated that he could determine the age of a rock containing uranium-238 and thereby proved to the scientific community that radioactive dating was a reliable method. Uranium-238, whose half-life is 4.5 billion years, transmutes into lead-206, a stable end-product. Boltwood explained that by studying a rock containing uranium-238, one can determine the age of the rock by measuring the remaining amount of uranium-238 and the relative amount of lead-206. The more lead the rock contains, the older it is. For more info, here is a link to the source used: http://science.jrank.org...

Just because science cannot definitively prove evolution and radioactive dating 100% yet, that doesn't give any credibility to God or religion. If science can't prove something 100%, that doesn't mean religion is right. Science uses radioactive dating, fossil remains, and natural selection to disprove a young world. Religion does not have much proof of a young world, so their best rebuttal is attacking science instead of finding their own evidence.

2. God is most certainly not like a parent. Parents are not all knowing, all powerful, and all perfect. Sure, certain things that God supposedly did are parent like, but that doesn't make him a parent. You say, "God flooded the Earth to rid evil." Okay, I guess Humpty Dumpty fell, the big bad wolf blew the houses down, and the boy cried wolf. These are just stories, not credible sources for an argument. I'm sorry, but you can't use the bible as proof for itself. But for the sake of this point, I'll say God exists. I don't want evil to exist, but it does due to human nature and upbringing. If he flooded the Earth to rid evil and start it over again, why is there evil now? Seems like he's incompetent if he floods the Earth to rid evil, yet evil still exists. I thought he was all powerful and all knowing. Maybe I'm missing something...... And why would he get rid of some evil and not other evil? Is he lazy? Does he not care? Also, there is no evidence of a "God" flooding the Earth and putting 2 of every animal on an arc. That arc would have to be pretty big, seeing that there are thousands upon thousands of species. Some people say to this, "Well, it's just symbolism." If it's all just symbolism, it didn't happen. You have to provide evidence of why you believe in the flood, I don't have to provide evidence on why I don't believe. It's simple, there is no evidence, so I give it no credibility. Seems sensible to me.

3. No, I am not saying God caused them to be put into slavery, mostly because I don't even believe there is a God at all. Both theists and atheists agree that we have the ability to make choices.(free will) I'm not saying God caused them into slavery, but he definitely sat back and did nothing. If an all powerful and all loving being can't even stop events as horrific as slavery, then I am not impressed. Same goes for my grandma's parents. No, I don't think God killed them, but he didn't do anything to stop it. You can't argue that seeing that they're dead and no force intervened. Now, you can debate the reason on why he didn't do anything, but even then, it doesn't make him a loving God. I know slaves were religious. But why do you think that is? Let's see. 1, they were probably raised that way. 2, science back then wasn't near at the level it is now. 3, if you were a slave, you probably would want to hope for something better in the future. A belief in God and afterlife probably kept many of them going in life. If you were a slave, the last thing you would think of is that you only had one life, and it was being completely taken away. I don't blame them at all for having a religion. However, it doesn't make their religion true.

4. What do mean who said God doesn't intervene? My question to you is why do you think he does? You are the one making a claim, hence it is your duty to provide evidence. War, disease, famine, poverty, hunger, and corruption are not caused by God. On the other side, joy, happiness, and success are not caused by him either. If I get a raise at a job, it wasn't God, it was me working hard. If someone gets cured from an illness, it wasn't God, it was a biological occurrence in the body that allowed the person to heal. Until there is evidence shown of this "intervention of God" there is no reason to give the notion any credibility. And once I again, I never mentioned that he preforms evil. I said he lets it happen. Also, that book "if God is Good?" would be like, "Do faries exist?" Sure God could be good, he could be bad, there also could be no God. That is why I prefer facts, reason, logic, and evidence.

5. Okay, if God is all knowing and future events are going to happen as he sees, then why pray? Why pray for something when God already knows every single thing about to take place and it's going to happen regardless? So much for the "divine plan". He knows my next girlfriend? Really? Where is your proof or logic in this? Oh, that's right, there is no proof because I don't even know yet! It's in my hands, so I will be the one to change the outcome, not God.

6. What do you mean being born into a religion had no purpose in the debate? Yes it does. If you were raised in a Hindu household, you would not be here debating with me and you'd be worshiping the many Hindu Gods. If you were born into a cannibalistic society, you would be a cannibal. If you born into a liberally minded household, you'd be a liberal. Sure, you could change as you got older, that's what I did. I was born a catholic and I go to a catholic high school now. I remember believing in God. But when I think back, I didn't have a reason other than the fact I was born into it. We are all born by accidence into a certain family and lifestyle. If you were born into Christianity for example, remained a Christian through adulthood, then you can't truly defend it because the whole reason you are Christian is just by accident, not evidence or reason. So yes, this is a relevant topic point and has purpose.

7. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that unicorns don't exist somewhere in the universe. We know there aren't any through logic and reason. But you can't provide evidence disproving unicorns. A debate is where two opinions on a topic are being expressed by contenders. Their opinions are backed by facts which explain why they have that opinion. Every opinion has to have a fact supporting it, otherwise it's meaningless.

8. I never said it was evil. Religion has done some great things and some bad thing, just like all of us. A life of religion can be very great for the person and world, but it doesn't make it true, which is what I am getting at. And I didn't say they cleaned the most violence, I said religion has helped in many ways and hurt in many ways. Yes, if it turns out that there is a God, that would be great. But I have to go with what I know, and I don't know of a God. Thank you very much again for the debate. I am not trying to make your religion seem evil, so if it comes off that w
ChuckHenryII

Pro

Just for the record, there is an abundance of evidence for God and against evolution(I will give some in my following arguments), but the reason that you haven't heard this or this information is not widely known is because it CONTRADICTS POPULAR BELIEF. Let me put it this way, if I said that I saw a leprechaun in my backyard I would probably be regarded as insane. Why? Because I am CONTRADICTING THE POPULAR BELIEF that leprechauns don't exist. The same concept applies when a Christian proclaims a God, and they are usually considered uneducated and ill-informed people because they CONTRADICT THE POPULAR BELIEF of evolution without a God. You also state that "If the science we have today can't answer something, we conduct experiments and gather facts to find the answer." I find this interesting because if science can't answer something, how are you going to use science to answer something that science can't answer? Also, I don't mean to be rude but if you "do not believe 100% that there is no God," you sound more agnostic than atheist.

1. Radiometric dating IS flawed and here I'll try to explain one reason: In the lead-uranium systems, that my opponent mentioned for a ratio, both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks, and lead volatilizes and escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures. It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206 first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time. Furthermore, there is still disagreement of 15 percent between the two preferred values for the U-238 decay constant. It is also known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry. This concept is explained at http://www.bible.ca....

2. The Bible is most definitely a reliable recourse and for some reason it isn't regarded as one. The Bible is made up of ancient texts and artifacts that are proved to come from that time. The Bible is just as much a reliable resource as the pyramids of Egypt are. They are both ancient artifacts telling of the history of the people who made them. If you don't believe the Bible is legitimate then you shouldn't believe the pyramids are either. You state that "you can't use the Bible as proof for itself." Okay then, you can't use science as proof for itself either. You also question the flood asking why He got rid of some evil and left some. You say, "Does he not care?" He definitely cares. The problem is that he cares too much! In the Bible, it states that Noah was the only righteous person on the earth at that time, his family was still evil. God then cared too much for Noah and allowed for him to take his family with him on the ark, leaving evil in the world. P.S. I'm going to leave the problem of evil for last and address it as a whole.

3. My question is why was it so bad for the slaves to believe in God because you seem to believe it is horrible to be religious. Like I said earlier, I'll save evil for last.

4. If you are religious you DO believe God heals people, or at the very least helps in the healing, and we DO believe God intervenes, but as an atheist you probably think otherwise. Also the title of the book isn't a question in itself or a statement, but instead it's the first half of the same thing you keep asking: If God is good, then why is there evil, suffering, etc.

5. We pray in hopes that he INTERVENES, which is what we just discussed, and again you probably don't understand this because you are atheist and don't believe He intervenes. Also, God is all knowing and we humans aren't, so while you don't know your next girlfriend(since you're not all knowing), God still does because he IS all knowing.

6. Being born into religion doesn't have anything to do with this debate because, you said it yourself, you have the choice when you get older. You ultimately decide if you agree with your family. This doesn't prove that God does or doesn't exist and so it has no place in this debate.

7. I'm pretty sure that I can prove to you that I don't have a million dollars, but just like the above point I don't believe this point is serving any purpose in this debate.

8. Again I don't think agreeing that religion is helpful is a benificial point for either side of this debate and I think we should disregard this point from now on.

I will now confront the problem of evil, for the debate's sake, and I will present the religious view on this matter:

What *COULD* (emphasis on *could* because that is all that is needed to defeat the logical problem of evil) this morally sufficient reason for God allowing evil be? Free will. And thanks to Alvin Plantinga there is a nice exposition of this defense.

It goes that free will is a good of the highest order and God, being good, decided to bestow his creations with free will. But, the thing is, free will necessitates that choice is possible; not only that but choice between genuine alternatives - good and evil.

This means that God values free will (because it is an extremely powerful good) in moral agents so much that he is willing to allow the existence of evil because it is an unfortunate consequence of non omni-benevolent creatures endowed with free will.

This also means that an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God couldn't have been truly good if he didn't create his creations with anything less than the capacity to choose evil because the free will that they will sometimes use to choose evil actions is a greater good than the evil they might do. And more importantly, in the context of this debate, it means that God can exist with evil.

I now turn the debate over to con.
Debate Round No. 2
Mason0612

Con

In America, Christianity is not contrary to the popular belief, it is the popular belief. You said, "I find this interesting because if science can't answer something, how are you going to use science to answer something that science can't answer?" Science is evidence. Science uses evidence. If you don't know something in science, then it is totally possible to use other science to test it. If we don't test beliefs with science, then what else are we going to use? myths? religion? And by me saying that I can't say 100% that there is no God, that doesn't mean I'm not atheist. Dictionary.com:

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Yes, I do deny God. Yes, I believe that there is no God. I can't say that there isn't 100%. You can't say that there is 100%. I believe what I can see experience. I can't see God, so I don't believe. But regardless of whether you think I'm agnostic or atheist, it still doesn't give any leeway to the possibility of God.

1. Yes, radiometric dating has flaws. I agree with that. But that's not that only one they use. There's cross dating absolute dating, potassium argon dating, etc, etc. They are used for rough estimates, estimates that are all well over the biblical 6000 year estimate.

2. Why is your bible any more credible than a satanist bible? or a children book in a library? I believe in the pyramids because they are there. I can go and see them. I don't believe in God because he is not there. I can't go and see him. Yes, science can prove itself. Long ago, it was widely accepted by everyone, even scientists, that the world was flat. We used science to disprove this. And no, God does not care. I could mention all of the evil that goes on in the world that God does nothing about, but I wouldn't have enough space. When I read the Old Testament, I find that God destroyed cities, asked Abraham to sacrifice his son in order to "test his faith", said gays and non believers should be put to death by stone, and sends people to eternal damnation in hell just because they don't believe.

3. I never said it was horrible to be religious and I never said it was bad that slaves believed in God. I said, "If you were a slave, the last thing you would think of is that you only had one life, and it was being completely taken away. I don't blame them at all for having a religion. However, it doesn't make their religion true." Please don't change my words. I hope I have not changed any of yours, and if so, please tell me. When I quote you, I copy and paste what you said, not change your statement.

4. Yes, I don't believe God intervenes because I have not seen it. Every event in my life has been that way due to my efforts, other people's influence, and nature. I do not believe that God intervened in any healings or charity work. I don't believe he intervened in the Holocaust, world hunger, war, disease, and torture. If someone is cured of sickness, I believe it is selfish to say it was God because the person is basically saying God intervened for me, but not everyone else. He didn't intervene for those poor kids dying of hunger, so why would he intervene for their sickness? Seems selfish to me to say that God is the reason for your success or fortunes.

5. Why would you pray to hope he intervenes when he already has a plan for you? Wouldn't it be easier to kick back and just let God's plan play out for you? And yes, I understand to a certain point, since I was a Christian at one time. If he has a plan for everyone, is all knowing, and intervenes, then that means that he knows babies will be aborted each day, it was his plan, and he intervenes. I am against abortion, and I would say many of my views are similar to Christians, but I do not believe in God. God is not good or evil. People are good or evil. We are the ones who make our choices, and evil exists because of us, not God. Conversely, we make choices, and good exists because of us, not God.

6. Yes, you have the choice when you get older. But I would bet all of my money that if you were born in India, you would not have converted to Christianity, you'd be Hindu, so yes, people are born into a religion by accident. It is very hard to break away from a lifestyle that everyone around you is forcing. I was a Christian, but I didn't change randomly, I research atheism and other religions. Had I not been exposed to the internet and outside sources, I would probably still be a Christian.

7. Yes, but you can see your bank account, however, you can't see God.

8. You keep dismissing my points of argument as "no purpose for the debate and we should disregard them." I don't feel this way about your arguments. I may not agree with them, but I am not telling you that they have no purpose and should be left out. Instead of trying to dismiss my arguments, try actually showing some valid argument points of evidence for God. If I chose not to use them, it still wouldn't help explain whether God exists.

Yes, free will might be the cause of evil, but you just proved my point that humans are evil or good, not God.

Yes, free will does necessitate that the choice is possible. Still doesn't give evidence for God.

You said God allows evil through free will. Okay, but that still gives no reason to believe that there is a God. We have free will because we have a brain that has evolved over time through natural selection and genetic variation, thus giving us the ability to discern good and evil, something animals don't have.

You said, "This also means that an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God couldn't have been truly good if he didn't create his creations with anything less than the capacity to choose evil because the free will that they will sometimes use to choose evil actions is a greater good than the evil they might do. And more importantly, in the context of this debate, it means that God can exist with evil." I had a hard time following this, so forgive me if I misinterpret something that you meant. Yes, God "can" exist with free will. Science has shown why we have free will. Religious people have not shown evidence of God.

Religion is like football. Everyone wants to believe their home team is special, but the fact is they only think so because they were born there. (http://www.thinkatheist.com...)

Leviticus 20:27
"A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "

Genesis 19:24-26
Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he
overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land. But
Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

What is so holy or truthful about this bible? Sure, I agree, there are points in the bible that teach morals, but why think of this book as anything other than a book where we can get some morals from? There is no historical evidence of God, just like there is no historical evidence of any other forms of Deity. However, we do have evidence of the big bang, which makes it more credible than God. Galaxies are moving away from each other in every direction just like particles in an explosion do. The galaxies and matter in space that are farther away from us are moving faster, much like particles in an explosion that are farther away from the center are moving faster. Now, a typical argument I hear for this is, "God could have created the big bang." This is just another statement by someone who has no evidence for his own point, so he uses the God excuse. Not all theists are like that, but many are. Other than personal claims, and writings, what evidence is there to back God?

Thank you again for taking this debate. I now turn it over to pro.
ChuckHenryII

Pro

You state,"In America, Christianity is not contrary to the popular belief, it is the popular belief." I still defend my claim that Christianity is contrary to popular belief. Popular is defined at dictionary.com as "adapted to the ordinary intelligence or taste," and as one of the examples it puts "popular lectures on science." This is pretty clear that Christianity isn't the popular belief today. Besides, a band isn't popular because it has the most members.

1. I could spend all day and address all the flaws in the various dating techniques, because they all have flaws believe it or not, but I'm limited on characters. You also state,"They are used for rough estimates...that are all well over the biblical 6000 year estimate." This is true, but consider this: When you take one of the more/most 'accurate' methods of dating, lets say carbon dating, although you don't get 6000 years, you still don't get anywhere near even a billion years, and most of the time, you can't get into the hundred millions!

2. You say,"I believe in the pyramids because they are there. I can go and see them." Well, if you wanted, while you where over in that part of the world, you can go see the original texts and manuscripts of he bible. You can go look at the very piece of parchment that John wrote his epistles on. So saying that you can go see the pyramids is not a valid reason for believing they are there or exist.
***Again I will save the problem of evil for last***

3. The original third point was of the problem of evil and I don't know how we got this far off track. Anyways this will be my lat argument like I said before.

4. Like I said before, you have to believe in a god before you believe he intervenes, but here is an account anyways from a Christian viewpoint. this is a true story by the way: Mary, who did not know Christ at the time, was dying of cancer. She asked my wife why, if a loving God existed, he had let her life fall apart. Nanci (his wife) shared with Mary an analogy of a three-year-old boy who swallows poison. The father calls poison control, and they say,"Get him to the hospital, and whatever you do, don't let him fall asleep. If he falls asleep, he'll die." It's a cold winter night and his father puts the boy in the front seat and rolls all the windows down. The boys head starts to drop. His father slaps him in the face. The boy cries. His head starts to nod again. The father slaps him again and again, all the way to the hospital. Can the child understand why his father is slapping his face? Of course not. His father, through tears, says,"I love you son." But if this is love, the boy doesn't want anymore of it. **Even though the child doesn't understand, the father is acting in his son's best interests. The father is doing good. What the child considers cruelty is actually kindness. *Is it possible that God shows his love or us in the midst of human suffering and, like that three-year-old, we sometimes don't understand? Nanci's story touched Mary and during her illness she came to faith in Christ. A short time later she died. We look forward to seeing her in Heaven and hearing her tell of Gods beautiful love, INCLUDING USING HER ILLNESS TO DRAW HER TO HIM. -- from If God Is Good by Randy Alcorn
(If Mary never obtained cancer, she would have never converted)

5. There is a difference between KNOWING what's going to happen and CONTROLLING or CAUSING what's going to happen. While he does intervene in small ways from time to time, he won't put the food in your mouth. You also say,"God is not good or evil." God IS good. In fact, he is infinitely, or all, good. Actually evil exist because God cares to much for us and privileged us with free will.

6. Yes, you would start out to be Hindu if you were born in India, but as you got older, since we have free will, you could convert to whatever you wanted. I guarantee you that Siddhartha Gautama wasn't born into Buddhism because he founded the religion himself.

7. & 8. I am dismissing these points because they serve no purpose whatsoever in this debate. It's just like debating whether unicorns exist in a political debate. You don't see congress arguing over unicorns, do you? Why not? Because it is irrelevant. So if we're debating a point that doesn't help express either sides opinion, then it is pointless and needs to be removed from the debate.

You state,"Yes, free will does necessitate that the choice is possible. Still doesn't give evidence for God." But it does explain how God CAN exist with the presence of evil, which is what a lot of your attacks focus on. This refutation also carries on to you next point.

You also say,"Religious people have not shown evidence of God." Evidence against evolution is evidence for God because God is the only alternative to evolution. So, even though you might not see it that way, religious people do show evidence for God by refutation of evolution.

I have already refuted this claim.

All these scriptures you are rehearsing from the Bible are very true and present a decent argument. The only problem is that the Christian faith is centered on the NEW testament and all of the verses you stated are from the OLD testament of the Bible. Lets take the ten commandments as an example. They say that we should remember the Sabbath day. If you haven't noticed, Christians, or at least my religion, don't recognize the Sabbath as a holy day anymore, and we also don't use the old testament practice of slaying and burning animals for sacrifice. Now this does not mean that the old testament never happened or that we shouldn't study and learn from it, it just means that it contains some old practices that we don't use anymore. Let me put this in a non-Christian way to accommodate. Remember old societies when, if you committed a crime, they would either kill you or seriously injure you? (that's how Jesus died) Now look at today's society where most people frown on the death penalty and murderers just move homes, so to speak, for manslaughter. The old techniques are often disregarded. And, just for the record, I don't believe God created the big bang.

I now turn again to the con.
Debate Round No. 3
Mason0612

Con

You say that a band isn't popular because it has the most members. This is true. However, the followers of Christianity would be the fans, not the band members. The band members represent Jesus, God, and the faith. The fans represent the believers. Since America is over 80% Christian, and it is the largest religion in the world, it would be the popular belief.

1. Yes, there are some flaws in the dating techniques, which is why science uses more than one. There's cross dating, absolute dating, potassium argon dating, radiometric dating etc, etc. However, there are more flaws in the bible and the notion of a God existing, which I have mentioned and will mention further in this round.

2. Ok, thank you for providing the information on texts and manuscripts. However, I do not believe that some writings give credibility to the faith. Writings don't mean much if we can't see or experience what they are talking about. Sure, they wrote about God, but there is nothing we can see or experience of God. "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike" -Delos B. McKown

4. In that story you posted, you are right about the boy not understanding his fathers love. You said, "Is it possible that God shows his love or us in the midst of human suffering and, like that three-year-old, we sometimes don't understand?" Let me use an example I have already posted. The Holocaust was the mass genocide of Jews during World War 2 in Europe. The Nazis did not do this out of love. The father in your story slapped the kid out of love. God was in neither of these two events. If he was, then please explain to me how God showed his love while millions of Jews lost families, were tortured, and murdered. Did he love them so much that he wanted to find a quick way to get them into heaven with him?

5. Since you're a Christian, you definitely believe that God was always around, no one created him. If he has always existed, then he is not good or evil, he just exists. Good and evil would have been qualities created by him, not created for him. You said, "While he does intervene in small ways from time to time, he won't put the food in your mouth." How has he intervened and what sources and accounts are there for these interventions?

6. Yes, you COULD convert, but honestly, what are the chances? If someone is born into a city where it was 90% Christian, went to a Christian school, and all of their authority figures had indoctrinated them into the faith, it would be almost impossible to convert unless they exposed themselves to other faiths and sources. Would you consider converting to Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, or Satanism? Probably not, since you weren't brought up into those religions/beliefs. You then said, "I guarantee you that Siddhartha Gautama wasn't born into Buddhism because he founded the religion himself." He didn't "found" the religion, he made it up. Unless he had some overwhelming evidence supporting his new created ideology, then there is no reason to accept it. Also, the fact that ONE man founded it makes it very unreliable.

7&8. Yes, if Congress debated about unicorns, it would be irrelevant. Unicorns only exist in books and writings. God only exists in a book and writings as well.

You said, "Evidence against evolution is evidence for God because God is the only alternative to evolution." No, it's not the only alternative. The flying spaghetti monster could have created us as we are. I wrote that in a book and many of my friends were witnesses to the monster. But why does no one believe my book? I wrote it down, there were witnesses, and I was "inspired" by the flying spaghetti monster. Apostles wrote text down, people witnessed it and witnessed Jesus, and the writers were "inspired" by God.

You mentioned that the Old Testament contains old practices and are not widely used today. You also said that Christianity is centered around the New Testament. Fair enough, I will get more of my excerpts from the New Testament from now on in the debate. However, if the Old Testament contains old practices that are cruel and illogical, then the bible is not absolute truth, maybe just partial truth.

Matthew 10:34-36 (New Testament)

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

Well, isn't this just a lovely piece of scripture. God is going to turn us against ourselves, divide our families, and rule with a sword, instead of bringing peace to an already evil filled world. No joke, this is actually a verse in the bible, which is claimed by many Christians to be absolute truth.

Deuteronomy 20:13-16 (Old Testament)

"When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."

This one speaks for itself. Just another passage showing an unjust and violent God who states, "do not leave alive anything that breathes."

Here are a few atheist quotes that don't necessarily disprove God, but they present excellent points of thought.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -Stephen Roberts

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd." – Sam Harris

Also, here is one belief of God that disturbs me. It is said that he gave us free will, created us, and loves us. It is also said that in order to get to heaven, you need believe in God. Well, I don't believe, so am I not going to be let into heaven? After all, he does love me unconditionally right? Plus, he created me, and I had no say in being created. I was born not by my own choice. The human brain is also set up in a way that gives us the ability to make choices. My existence was not under my control. The way my brain and body are set up are not under my control either. So why am I not worthy of heaven and why am I sinner? It was God's fault for my existence, his fault for giving me the ability to make choices, and his fault for putting me in an environment that caused me to not believe, so he can't blame me for not believing. This whole scenario is the biggest contradiction and flaw I find in a God.

Also, what was the purpose in God creating different races of people? Science tells us why this is. Due to different climates and environments, skin color and genes were changed. (example: Darker skinned people come from hot climates due to years of ancestors being exposed to different levels of heat.) I'm pretty sure religion doesn't address why we have different races.

I now turn it over to pro. Thank you again pro for the debate.
ChuckHenryII

Pro

If Christianity IS the popular belief, then why doesn't the science books speak of creation, and why do they ONLY speak of evolution? If your theory is correct then, since 80% percent of America is Christian, shouldn't they speak of, or at least mention, the popular belief? Something doesn't add up.

1. Since you just carried over your argument from the last round, instead of refuting mine, then I have no choice but to do the same. (please refer to my argument for this point in the last round) You also state,"However, there are more flaws in the bible and the notion of a God existing..." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it you who mentioned in this very round that evidence against evolution isn't evidence for God? If we say that, then we also have to say that evidence against God isn't evidence against evolution. Besides, there's always the alternative of Pastafarianism right?

2. You state,"Writings don't mean much if we can't see or experience what they are talking about." Well, I seem to believe this also. I use the science books of evolution as the "writings". No one that I know of has SEEN evolution happen, but there seems to be quite a faith for it.

4. I do believe that God played some kind of role or used the Holocaust somehow for a greater good. Also I just want to clear up the fact that I am not all-knowing and that you are asking me to read the mind of an all-knowing God, so my answers might not be right on the spot, or even come close to the spot. Aside from that I will share another true story told by a man who suffered the Gulag, the Soviet Union's forced labor camp system, which was like the concentration camps of the Holocaust in many respects. This is Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his book "The Gulag Archipelago": "It was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually, it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states,nor between classes, nor between political parties ether-but right through every human heart-and through all human hearts... I nourished my soul there, and I say without hesitation: "Bless you, prison, for having been in my life" " I think this goes to show that goodness flourishes even where it seems it could not. This also supports my belief that God did work a greater good in the Holocaust, and that he works in VERY mysterious ways.

5. You stated that,"If he has always existed, then he is not good or evil..." Well, that's not what God himself thinks: "Good and upright is the LORD; therefore he instructs sinners in his ways."(Psalm 25:8); "You are good and what you do is good; teach me your decrees."(Psalm 119:68);"Give thanks to the LORD almighty, for the LORD is good; his love endures forever."(Jeremiah 33:11);"The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust him."(Nahum 1:7);"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus asked a rich young man. "There is only One [God] who is good."(Matthew 19:17) There are countless verses at proclaim and state God's goodness, and I think I will chose to believe God himself rather than a human's flawed interpretation of him.

6. "Yes, you COULD convert, but honestly, what are the chances? If someone is born into a city where it was 90% Christian, went to a Christian school, and all of their authority figures had indoctrinated them into the faith, it would be almost impossible to convert unless they exposed themselves to other faiths and sources." Hmm. Didn't you convert under these circumstances? Plus you WILL be exposed to these things sooner or later in your life. A great example is the science books teaching the evolution theory as fact. Some time in your life you will have to face this. You also state,"He didn't "found" the religion, he made it up. Unless he had some overwhelming evidence supporting his new created ideology, then there is no reason to accept it." Found according to dictionary.com is defined: "to bring into being, set up, or establish." I'm pretty sure it's safe to say he founded (brought into being) the Buddhist religion. And, obviously, there is some reason to believe it because it is currently the FOURTH LARGEST RELIGION IN THE WORLD.

7. & 8. This is only an opinion, not a fact. He only doesn't exist in books and writings to non believers.

Like I said before, if evidence against evolution isn't evidence for God, then evidence against God isn't evidence for evolution. There is always the alternative of Pastafarianism.

You state,"However, if the Old Testament contains old practices that are cruel and illogical, then the bible is not absolute truth, maybe just partial truth." Where in the world did I say Old Testament practices were illogical or untrue? Wasn't it you who said earlier,"Please don't change my words. I hope I have not changed any of yours, and if so, please tell me. When I quote you, I copy and paste what you said, not change your statement." Well, I'm telling you now.

Matthew 10:34-36: If you continue to read, you see that God is speaking figuratively because He is talking about how you should love Him more than anything on earth, including your father and mother or your family. Most parents tend to get upset when their children don't love them, or they might get jealous of God at the least.

Deuteronomy 20:13-16: Again, if you continue to read you will see that the people are going into battle against these evil cities. Again, you complain when he doesn't get rid of evil and then complain still when he does get rid of it.

While I don't much like the presentation of these quotes, because I can sit here and state quotes from Christians but choose not to because I find it irrelevant, I will comment on the one concerning the hair dryer. People don't think prayer, or talking to God, is insane because the Bible tells us to do it that way, not through a hair dryer.

Sorry but since you don't believe you ARE NOT going to Heaven unless you change. He does love his creations but the Bible mentions of one unforgivable sin and that is to totally reject God. How are you supposed to be forgiven by a god of whom you don't believe? You mention God "putting you in an environment that causes you not to believe". First of all, you CHOOSE not to believe. That's just like someone saying that the guy who sold them the drugs made them take the drugs. Secondly, the Bible tells us that it isn't going to be easy. That's why "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."(Matthew 19:24)

I now turn the debate over to the con for the final time.
Debate Round No. 4
Mason0612

Con

Science books don't speak of creationism because creationism is just a story, not science. They speak of evolution because they have found evidence supporting evolution and none supporting creationism.

1. I don't think I said that evidence against evolution wasn't evidence for God. I said, "No, it's not the only alternative." Evidence against something doesn't necessarily prove something else.

2. Science books aren't just sourceless writings. The information in them comes from evidence. Fossils, dating rocks, comparisons of DNA are just a few ways that scientists found the information. No, we didn't SEE evolution happen, but we can see the evidence. You have never seen God, but you believe in him. The reason that there is faith in science is because the information science gives us has multiple accounts of backing, sources, and evidence. You said, "I use the science books of evolution as the "writings". No one that I know of has SEEN evolution happen, but there seems to be quite a faith for it." Well, I never saw my grandparents get married, but I know they did due to records, pictures, and witnesses. Same with science, I can't see some of it, but if there's substantial evidence, I believe it. I'm sure we both believe in gravity.

4. You said that you believe God used the Holocaust for a greater good. Well, I don't see it. Hitler rose to power, and convinced people that the mass genocide of Jews was for the good of the country. We know this for a fact. However, there is no evidence that a supernatural force had any part in it. The Nazis were evil men, and did evil things. Simple as that. There was no link or evidence of a divine presence anywhere in the Holocaust. You then said, "Also I just want to clear up the fact that I am not all-knowing and that you are asking me to read the mind of an all-knowing God, so my answers might not be right on the spot, or even come close to the spot." Well, if you can't read his mind, then why do you think he used the Holocaust for a greater good?

5. The passages you listed are just unbacked writings. Someone CLAIMED that God said those things. People have claimed to have seen ghosts, but just because they THINK they saw one, it doesn't make it true. You then said, "I will chose to believe God himself rather than a human's flawed interpretation of him." So, my interpretation is flawed, but the notion of an all powerful and all knowing entity who has always existed isn't? You seem to have a lot of confidence in something that's invisible. Why do you believe in the Christian God? Why don't you believe in Alla or Zeus? There's writings on those Gods. What makes you so sure that one religion is right over another?

6. Yes, I did convert under those circumstances, but as I said, you could convert if you were exposed to outside sources. Plus, I never heard of any science books that claimed evolution was fact. All the ones I have used and read say, "The theory of evolution." If there are some out there that claim evolution as fact, then that is a scientific disgrace.

You then said, "And, obviously, there is some reason to believe it because it is currently the FOURTH LARGEST RELIGION IN THE WORLD."

Just because it is large and many people believe in it, that doesn't make it true at all. People and scientists long ago were certain that the Earth was flat. Most Americans accepted the act of slavery in the late 1700's. Most people used to think that the sun revolves around the Earth.

When religions started, not much was known about the world scientifically. Religion was a way to make sense of the world and how it worked. Since there was not much scientific knowledge of the world, religion was hard to refute. There is a huge religion vs science debate going on in the world today. 200 years ago, it would not have been going on. Now that we have scientific evidence that is starting to disprove old religious claims one by one, we see a huge backlash and resistance from religious people. Also, it is in our human nature to want to survive and live as long as possible. The IDEA of an afterlife seems appealing to most people, and since there wasn't much scientific knowledge in the world to counter religion, it thrived. Even atheists would love it if humans lived forever in some spiritual form. But death is a part of life. When we get old and body systems shut down, we die. No good scientist, biologist, or expert in anatomy has ever found a "soul" in the body. People want to believe in something greater and want to live forever. The idea of dying and ceasing to exist goes against human nature.

7&8. All we have as "evidence" for God is books and writings. Plus, when parents indoctrinate their kids into believing this, it sticks into their minds as truth. If you asked these kids why they believed, they couldn't give any logical reason. The only reason is because their parents told them it was true.

You said, "Like I said before, if evidence against evolution isn't evidence for God, then evidence against God isn't evidence for evolution."

I agree with this, which is why I mentioned the dating methods, fossil remains, and DNA comparisons in genes between species.

You said, "Where in the world did I say Old Testament practices were illogical or untrue?"

You didn't. I was referencing the Old Testament, not something you said. Sacrificing animals at the alter, pouring animal blood on the doors are a few of these illogical practices.

You said, "He is talking about how you should love Him more than anything on earth, including your father and mother or your family."

Well, if I saw the Christian God, and had a reason to think that the Christian God was right over all the others, and he was my creator, then I would love him more than anything. However, he is invisible, there is no reason to assume he is the true God over the others, and he has never talked to me, intervened in my life, or shown himself. So, I chose to love my family over him. Just like I love my family over Humptey Dumptey, Pinocchio, the flying spaghetti monster, Alla, and Zeus. Maybe it's just me, but I hold my family to a higher regard than something that is invisible and impossible to experience.

You said, "Again, you complain when he doesn't get rid of evil and then complain still when he does get rid of it."

No I don't. I complain that he wants us to believe, but there is no reason why we should. I could believe in a different God, and still be a good and moral person, so why believe the Christian God? Plus, his bible contradicts itself, he fails to show himself to the world, and he has a place in hell waiting for those who believe in a different faith. Like I said before, I believe people are good and people are evil. If a kid were to stand up for a friend to a bully, that is not God taking care of evil. It is a good kid who has heart and wants to help his friend. If a country were to invade another country that was killing their own people unjustly, and they brought the government to justice, that is not God. That is humans looking to better humanity.

You said, "Sorry but since you don't believe you ARE NOT going to Heaven unless you change."

Just a loving Christian statement. Tell this to a 7 year old Hindu kid. This is exactly the kind of statement which shows why religion is more of a problem in the world than good. People think that their way is the right way, and too bad for all other faiths. Well, you aren't going to "heaven" unless you worship "Alla" or one of the many other "Gods". We're both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. So, you have a one in a million chance that your view on how to get to heaven is the right one, so most likely, you would be going to another religion's hell. This statement also doesn't give a reason or evidence to believe in God, just a scare tactic.

I now end my last round in the debate. Good luck with your last round pro. I now turn it over.
ChuckHenryII

Pro

"Science books don't speak of creationism because creationism is just a story, not science. They speak of evolution because they have found evidence supporting evolution and none supporting creationism." First, a lot of people would also agree that evolution is just a story. The first sentence is just an opinion. Second, yes there is evidence for evolution (if you consider picking how old you want your rock to be evidence), but there is also evidence for creation and the only reason that this information is not widely known is because it is covered up because it contradicts popular belief like we mentioned earlier.

1. "I don't think I said that evidence against evolution wasn't evidence for God. I said, "No, it's not the only alternative."" It's the same thing dude. Think about it.

2. "Science books aren't just sourceless writings. The information in them comes from evidence. Fossils, dating rocks, comparisons of DNA are just a few ways that scientists found the information." Like I said before, there are scientifically proven flaws in all the 'evidence' you just mentioned. And again, there is evidence for creation too. "Well, I never saw my grandparents get married, but I know they did due to records, pictures, and witnesses. Same with science, I can't see some of it, but if there's substantial evidence, I believe it." I agree with this completely, except I believe that God created everything instead of evolution.

4. "You said that you believe God used the Holocaust for a greater good. Well, I don't see it." And you're not supposed to because you are not all-knowing. "The Nazis were evil men, and did evil things." Yes, we already discussed man's evil through free will. "Well, if you can't read his mind, then why do you think he used the Holocaust for a greater good?" The key word here is THINK. I said I THINK he used the Holocaust for a greater good, I DIDN'T say I KNOW he did. That's why I mentioned that I might not even be close as to why God let the Holocaust happen. I speculated. That's what the theories of the early stages of evolution, and the world for that matter, are said by scientist to be based on, right? Speculation.

5. Hey, you're the one who started to attack my view on God. I defended my view on God with things my view on God believed he said. I never said you had to believe he said anything, I was just defending my beliefs. "The passages you listed are just unbacked writings. Someone CLAIMED that God said those things. People have claimed to have seen ghosts, but just because they THINK they saw one, it doesn't make it true." Someone CLAIMED that a cell decided one day that it wanted to fly and so, eventually, it evolved into a bird. People have claimed to have evidence for evolution, but just because they THINK they do , doesn't make it true. "So, my interpretation is flawed, but the notion of an all powerful and all knowing entity who has always existed isn't?" Where did you get that from? We were talking about YOUR interpretation, from an atheist standpoint, about MY God. Like I said, I was just defending my beliefs, no need to get offensive over it. "You seem to have a lot of confidence in something that's invisible." So do you, since you state you have never SEEN evolution, yet you defend it and believe in it so much. "Why do you believe in the Christian God? Why don't you believe in Alla or Zeus?" I believe in the Christian God because I have researched other religions, including atheism, and have found the Christian view to be the most reasonable and logical choice.

6. "Yes, I did convert under those circumstances, but as I said, you could convert if you were exposed to outside sources." Agreed. "Plus, I never heard of any science books that claimed evolution was fact." Just because they don't CLAIM evolution to be fact, doesn't mean that they don't CONSIDER it fact.

"Just because it is large and many people believe in it, that doesn't make it true at all." I agree completely, but I wasn't saying the religion was legitimate, I was refuting your claim that there was no reason to accept it just because ONE man founded it or because it had no proof. Like I said,"...obviously, there is SOME reason to believe it because it is currently the FOURTH LARGEST RELIGION IN THE WORLD."

These are all claims that have already been made, and refuted, in previous rounds. Such as the Idea that there wasn't much resistance to religion when it stared or even "200 years ago". We already discussed this in point 8 of round 1. Plus, on top of that, a lot of your arguments are self-contradictory. Such as: "Now that we have scientific evidence...we see a huge backlash and resistance from religious people." Yet two sentences earlier you state,"There is a huge religion vs science debate going on in the world today." So let me get this straight, there's a HUGE BACKLASH in resistance from religious people but there is a HUGE religion vs science debate going on. Seems like a spike in resistance to me, or no change in resistance at the least. "The IDEA of an afterlife seems appealing to most people..." I thought you said it was a scare tactic? Again, another contradicting statement.

7.&8. "All we have as "evidence" for God is books and writings." All we have as 'evidence' for evolution is books and writings. And don't mention fossils and dating again because these are either faulty or are just as much proof for creation. "Plus, when parents indoctrinate their kids into believing this..." Again, being born into religion is something we have already discussed.

"You said, "Like I said before, if evidence against evolution isn't evidence for God, then evidence against God isn't evidence for evolution." I agree with this, which is why I mentioned the dating methods, fossil remains, and DNA comparisons in genes between species." In case you haven't realized this yet, the dating methods, fossil remains, etc. are all evidence against God. You've been using the dating methods as evidence against God this whole debate!

"You said, "He is talking about how you should love Him more than anything on earth, including your father and mother or your family." Well, if I saw the Christian God, and had a reason to think that the Christian God was right over all the others, and he was my creator, then I would love him more than anything. However, he is invisible, there is no reason to assume he is the true God over the others, and he has never talked to me, intervened in my life, or shown himself. So, I chose to love my family over him." *** Once again, I never said YOU should love him over your family. I was simply refuting your misinterpretation of scripture and showing how your argument was flawed.

"Plus, his bible contradicts itself" Hey, I was just saying the same thing about you! "If a country were to invade another country that was killing their own people unjustly, and they brought the government to justice, that is not God. That is humans looking to better humanity." Yet again you bring up an argument already discussed. And once again, I don't expect you to believe that was God since you are an atheist.

"Tell this to a 7 year old Hindu kid." This would have the effectiveness of me telling that to a 7 year old atheist. Since our beliefs have nothing in common, this wouldn't effect him whatsoever. "This statement also doesn't give a reason or evidence to believe in God, just a scare tactic." But I thought you said earlier that prolonged life is a good thing that makes people feel good?

This concludes my last round of debating and I now leave it to the readers. I ask you to vote on this debate in a non-biased fashion and hope you enjoy reading it. I also hope that I helped express a bit of the Christian viewpoint on the issues discussed. Last, but not least, I thank my opponent for the debate opportunity and wish him the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 5
68 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZachZimmey 6 months ago
ZachZimmey
Oops. First point I had (Who I agreed with before the debate) I chose pro. Figured I should make that a little clearer. Thanks.
Posted by ZachZimmey 6 months ago
ZachZimmey
-Who I agreed with before the debate: I am a Christian, so obviously I would agree with the person with similar views as mine.

-Who had better spelling and grammar: Points go to pro, because Con did not punctuate in a number of areas where he should have, and he failed to complete his argument in round two.

-Who had more convincing arguments- Points go to Con. Pro failed to give any real arguments for The existence of God other than trying to refute what Con already stated (I believe this is a section in the DDO Voting Guide with the offensive and defensive arguments).

Thank you for giving me this chance to regain my voting rights.
Posted by Thatguy1994 5 years ago
Thatguy1994
I would just like to say that within the last month it has been discovered that carbon dating is not accurate due to radiation from shifts in the earth and climate changes.
Posted by quantummechanics97 5 years ago
quantummechanics97
Wow i completly agree with you, Con. I'm 14 and i go to a catholic school. i lost my faith cuz the sexual abuse of my mom by a priest got me thinking.
Posted by wiseovvl 5 years ago
wiseovvl
I give My Votes to Pro.
Posted by wiseovvl 5 years ago
wiseovvl
Therefore you have to keep open-minded so that you can easily accept the truth when it is presented to you. Right now you're eyes are clouded with your own earthly mentality, and you cannot accept that God exists. You deny God, day after day after day. your worthless opinion that "god is lazy and incompetent and that his judgement is weak" is neither valid nor logical. All your assumption are erroneous, and therefore you have lost this debate. You failed to come up with any valid solid contentions, and have many missing links of logic in your debate so far.
Posted by wiseovvl 5 years ago
wiseovvl
You also talk about how Religion contributes to violence in this world. Well
a. That doesn't prove God doesn't exist
b. Violence is inevitable;e in this World
So don't blame religion that humans are naturally sinful and violent.
You imply that the stories in the Bible are like fairy tales? You talk like a true atheist Moron.
You have to take in consideration that in the beginning of the world, The very fabrics, and nature of the World as we know, was very differnt.
When God created this World, it was perfect in the beginning. Animals, Man, insects, Climate, Weather all happened in this world Happily, and Nothing happened. Lions didn't eat lambs, Mosquitos didn't bite humans, Disease didn't exist, There were no natural disasters. Everything coexisted perfecty. Adam and Eve were both pure. They knew no evil. They stood next to each other naked, and did not know it was shameful. They could talk to all the animals of the world, and ruled over all life on EArth. God made man in his image, and designed them to rule of this world.
Now the part that isn't clearly described in the bible is HOw EVIL ENTERED THIS WORLD. SATAN, ANGELS, HELL are all not mentioned much in the bible, probably because it does not pertain to how one person receives salvation. But somehow evil entered this world, and poisoned everything.
Adam ate the apple. the first sin was comitted, and from then on, the World transformed into the real world, which is where we live in today. There is constant rape, murder, genocide, disease, sickness, tragedy, and war. Hurricanes destroy this, diseases wipes that. The whole world has become corrupted, so God in the first time, god sent tthe flood. I believe it killed not only evil humans, but giants that were said to live at that time. this flood could've also killed the dinosaurs, i dunno. w/e happened The flood help humans a little in living in a more suitable world. Anyways, my point is that we probably know 0.0000000001% of what this world is like.
Posted by wiseovvl 5 years ago
wiseovvl
Your 8th Contention was just a waste of time to read, because it doesn't even pertain to the biblical God we are talking about. God is not used to explain anything in this world, like the Greek mythologies were. God was just god, the only thing people back then thought he was was a creator. His stories don't explain any mysteries people might have had back then.
And yes, the high quantity of people choosing to be Christian DOES mean something, to a certain extent. It can mean that the religion is just socially acceptable, but i think that the true reason why it so popular among even celebrities is that God is real, and that You get a response, being Christian make miracles work. And your reference to fear is totally irrelevant, Little kids stay little for a very short period of time, Don't try to imply that FEAR will work when you try to convert full grown man and women, cuz IT DOESN'T. And Again, YOU ARE proof Fear doesn't work in contributing a person's belief in a religion.
Posted by wiseovvl 5 years ago
wiseovvl
7. You are saying Pro needs proof to win this round, but the fact that this issue is being debated, is proof that proof pointing towards God exists. If there were absolutely 0 evidence, then religion all over the world would not exist. It is the CON's job to explain why the proof is not valid. One example of God's intervention on this Earth is the Holy Bible, of course. Its writers have all been reported by scholars to be truly inspired to write the bible for a reason impossible to generate by earthly reasons. First of all we can conclude the bible's records speak the truth, because all of its historical content correlates with history textbooks today. Plus we already know that scribes long ago, wrote exactly what they saw, and nothing more. They have no reason to lie. The Apostoles all died preaching about Jesus, and we know they spoke the truth also. Because we know people will die for what they believe in, but NO ONE would die for something they knew to be false.
Posted by wiseovvl 5 years ago
wiseovvl
5. My fourth response covers this.
6. You are assuming that kids automatically accept a religion, if they are born into it, however you are an example of a contradiction. there are 3 results of religion being introduced to a person, He rejects it, He Pretends to Accept it, and He accepts it. i am making this statistic up in my head, but i'm taking a guess that atleast 80% of all Americans who claim to be Christian are not really Christian, and i think i heard that another 40% % of those who call themselves Christians do not even attend church. So your assumption that religion is forced unto a person. AND, NO! People believe that there is God, based on supernatural occurances, and spiritual experiences. God is a divine being, and his existance cannot be physically proved by man, with just measily pictures, videos, paper, or other measuring tools. That is like telling a person that there isn't gravity because there is no proof. But everyone know it exists cuz we can FEEL it. Same with the existance of God.
45 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by apologia101 5 years ago
apologia101
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
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 
Vote Placed by wiseovvl 5 years ago
wiseovvl
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
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 
Vote Placed by dylonx5 5 years ago
dylonx5
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Vote Placed by Andromeda 5 years ago
Andromeda
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Palin2012 5 years ago
Palin2012
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
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 
Vote Placed by Klpainter 5 years ago
Klpainter
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
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:61 
Vote Placed by narcissus 6 years ago
narcissus
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by frodo1995 6 years ago
frodo1995
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
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 
Vote Placed by mrsmooth27 6 years ago
mrsmooth27
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Zenrix 6 years ago
Zenrix
Mason0612ChuckHenryIITied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50