The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
The Contender
Throwback
Con (against)

Failure to use intelligent design protocols when creating humans

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 276 times Debate No: 105447
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Taken from - https://rationalwiki.org...

* Not designing the human body the way he wants it by having all human males born circumcised like Shem.
* Physical birth defects.
* Making our adrenal glands too big.
* Aging, which is quite literally caused by a biological error in cells.
* Placement of the male external genitalia in a rather easy to attack position (unless it was deliberate to allow women easy retaliation).
* And on the subject of genitalia… why are the same members that are used for body waste excretion also used for what is widely considered to be one of the most fun and interesting activities that humans can engage in? And why is a man's G spot in his anus if anal sex is forbidden by God?
* Having the prostate wrap around the urethra like a donut, so when it becomes enlarged (which happens to most men as they get older) it blocks the flow of urine.
* Not being able to correctly calculate the number of teeth necessary to fill the average adult human mouth.
* Use of a particularly inefficient system when making the vertebrate eye.
* Error in testosterone management system which consequently makes many men go bald.[8]
* Giving humans appendixes, which occasionally swell up and try to kill their owners and don't really need to be there because we don't eat grass. Why don't they all just leave our bodies and go and live in the backs of books?
* The provision of a really bad, sometimes lethal, system of giving birth. (Though it may not have been so bad at first — He deliberately made it more painful to cruelly punish all women for the original sin thing.)
* Failure to provide a system to synthesize vitamin C (or the failure in design that humans need vitamin C to begin with).
* Drinking and laughing at the same time — makes the drink come out of the person's nose. Or potentially choke the victim of such a lousy design.
* Human back — seems to cause a disproportionate number of problems which is usually followed by Vicodin addiction.
* Spinal cord injuries being (at this point) unfixable
* Auto-immune disorders — because we all know we are our own worst enemy.
* The inability to operate at anything like an adequate efficiency without regular and lengthy periods of sleep.
* Hangnails
* Referred painWikipedia's W.svg — You might actually be having a potentially fatal heart attack. Unfortunately your body is telling you have pain in your shoulder, neck or left arm.
* Cancer.
* Oncogenes — genes that exist solely to give us cancer.
* Memory — or, why you imagine you remember exactly where you were on 9/11, but know you can't remember where you laid down your keys five minutes ago?
* The ulnar nerve — a.k.a., "funny bone" — is located on the outside of the elbow joint. Thanks to this placement, if you bang your elbow against a hard surface, you will feel like you were stabbed in the elbow. Bang this nerve hard enough and you may lose the use of your fingers.
* Humans will pass out at 12 Gs, and will die at 18 Gs. Cockroaches can survive 120 Gs! How come those creepy crawlers are harder to kill than us!
* And while we're at it, why can't we rotate our heads more than 180°? An owl can twist its head almost 360°! It's not like an owl needs to back up a car or keep track of high-spirited children!
* Other primates have nostrils that face forward, making it impossible for them to swim face down. Human nostrils point down, so we can swim. So why don't we come with a persistent and innate ability to swim rather than just a primitive reflex that we quickly lose? Or at least tread water? Does God like to see His children drown?
* Intoxicants: Pleasurable (good); addictive, DTs, can diminish your inhibitions to the point you might harm yourself and/or others, potentially harmful to your health, possibly lethal (bad). So, (a) why create them in the first place; and (b) why make them so pleasurable and addictive?
And what the hell is up with OCD, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dyslexia, aphasia,Wikipedia's W.svg depression, anxiety etc.?
* Homosexuality (if you view it from a fundamentalist viewpoint). If it's so wrong, why does the almighty allow it to exist?
* Giving Humans the same passage to swallow food and breathe, a major choking hazard.
* Creating psychopaths, which is pointless because you can only get into Heaven by loving God, so why would he create people who are incapable of love? And who are at a very high risk factor of making life quite miserable for other people? Is he just a sadist?
* Fetuses can get cancer
* Allergies (like rhinitis) from mundane things like peanuts, grass, dust, pollen, fur, feathers, and many, many more. Sometimes, they get so bad, they interfere with sleeping and use up plenty of tissue wads in the process.

So obviously god according to the bible, or according to ANYTHING actually, is NOT perfect as the bible implies that its god is. So why would any idiot throw away all evidence, common sense, reasoning, thinking, rationalizing, logic and believe in imperfection that this god clearly is and not the perfection that he is supposed to be? I mean a huge strike 3 is that no one can even prove that this god of hate and terror, and that's according to the bible, can even prove the he even exists!!!


RULES:
So it will be up to you that this god according to the bible IS somehow PERFECT and should be idolized and worshiped.



dsjpk5 - will not be allowed to partake in the voting process.
Throwback

Con

I thank the instigator for posting this debate. I look forward to a civilized, enlightened discussion and a lively debate.
I will demonstrate that the imperfections with which mankind is afflicted is not evidence of a lack of intelligent design by the Creator. Also, I will address his final line of Round #1, where Pro appears to set parameters for the burden of proof and the attendant requirements for fulfillment. I will operate under the assumption the assertion I must prove God should be idolized was a poor choice of words and nothing more, as this would imply I must show the necessity of worshiping what I believe to be a false God. I believe the word, taken in context, is merely redundant and ought to read "So it will be up to you that this god according to the bible IS somehow PERFECT and should be worshiped and worshiped." Reading it in the only way that makes sense contextually, it is clear the word "idolized" was not intended by Pro.
Pro opens with a long list of human imperfections and failings taken from rationalwiki. The list presumes to demonstrate by their existence the mistakes made by God.
Rebuttal: Rather than taking these items individually I will address them for the most part, with a general reply, as most of them are erroneous for the same reasons; a list of one or two of these perceived mistakes by God would have been just as effective as a list of 4,000 would. The number makes no difference, as He either makes mistakes, or He does not.
These imperfections in man do not in any way indicate a lack of intelligent design. Pro seems to see himself, as do those who made the list, as the arbiters of how God should have designed man, and what imperfections, if any, ought to be allowed in that design.
I answer that, even in the highest forms of art produced by man, the most appealing are often those with imperfections, even intentional ones. Examples include wabi sabi (1), and the art of deliberate imperfection (2) just to name two thoughts which demonstrate the beauty of the flawed. Everyone has also heard tragic stories of priceless antiques which were restored by their owner to increase the value, only to find by so doing they have brought the value down to a fraction of its imperfect state (3). Many of the most celebrated singers are technically flawed, but this lends to their appeal. Cindy Crawford, one of the most successful models of all time (4), has a glaring imperfection in the form of a facial mole-a humanizing and endearing imperfection. We see vast mountain ranges and are taken in with their beauty, despite, perhaps because of, the beauty emanating from the numerous flaws which they contain.
If we also consider that God, Who even Pro suggests is perfect if He exists, has no one within Himself who can be the object of His supreme benevolence and mercy, we see the wisdom of His design of intentionally imperfect beings. He has provided a means for us to witness and acknowledge all of His perfections in action as he acts on imperfect men.
If Pro had desired to argue that God did not create man with lasting perfection, I would agree. The fact man has been demonstrated by Pro to have been made imperfect in no way takes away from God"s intelligent design. Had he made us perfect, we would not be capable of faults. From the very beginning, His intelligent design for man was to make him capable of faults. The beauty of this intelligent design lies in the ability of imperfect man to win the war against his lower nature by acts of will, with the help of prayer and grace. God in His mercy has made us capable of earning a victory over evil. If we were not required to engage in battle against evil being perfection from the moment of creation, we could not be rewarded for a victory. The is no victory without at least some possibility of defeat. There is no valor displayed in vanquishing an impotent enemy. Man is given by God free will so that he may be the subject of God"s mercy in rewarding the victory, or His justice in rewarding the defeat.
Pro takes to himself a place above the God he denounces in listing these imperfections of humanity. Two of Christ"s apostles once asked Him to allow them to destroy those whom they thought had offended Him by calling down fire from Heaven. "And it came to pass, when the days of his assumption were accomplishing, that he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him. And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are." Luke Ch. 9, 51-55 (5) Similarly Pro makes himself more than he is, he does not know of what spirit he ought to be.
If we needed proof of God"s intelligent design in making man imperfect, Pro has provided it. As this imperfect, wonderful design which provides each of us the opportunity for great victories seems more beneficial to us than a perfect design by which we could not strive to overcome, we have in it one more reason to worship this perfect God.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu...
http://antiques.lovetoknow.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://drbo.org...
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro


Let’s see if the sociopath psychopath Con who has no genuine friends or loved one which are all in itself phenomenally SCREAMING red flags, can hang out WITHOUT inventing excuses and or flat out lying during this debate? He also has a 15% appalling rating on The Big Issues showing on his profile thus 85% against which is also appalling and thus stands that his character is most certainly ‘unstable’ is a great word, suspect, dubious, and erratic. No one really wants to hang around with this guy. He’s NOT fooling anyone when he states he’s looking forward to a “civilized, enlightened discussion and a lively debate” except for maybe himself. Should he invent excuses, and or flat out lie as is what sociopath and psychopaths do to maintain their superhero status within themselves, its strike 3 and he’s out, and its no problem for me to concede this debate. Big whoop. I certainly DO NOT WANT to hang out with an A+ pus loser like him.
But let’s all hope that he is not all filled with gibberish and invented concoctions and lame excuses!!! We shall see. After all, he has to turn around his god’s imperfections of man which are imperfections - an impossibility. After all, his god HAD to create man only to destroy him, only to recreate him. That’s imperfection right there. So let’s see what our humble doodle noodle “thinks” he has to say?


“So it will be up to you that this god according to the bible IS somehow PERFECT and should be worshiped and worshiped." Nope. That’s not what I said. What I said is to be taken in perfect context. Just because he does not understand simpleton English language, that’s not my problem, that’s his. “So it will be up to you that this god according to the bible IS somehow PERFECT and should be idolized and worshiped.” That’s what I said. That’s strike 1 for flat out misinterpreting and falsely putting words into my mouth. If he cannot interpret me, there’s 0% of a chance that he can interpret his bible and god with any context and clarity and regardless at any rate his god would never choose text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. Talk about taking things out of context.


“Pro opens with a long list of human imperfections and failings taken from rationalwiki.” Oh really? According to what? Him? How would he know? What grade of monumental feeding grounds that he clearly knows NOTHING about except for the lacerations on his tongue so we can end this debate right now and thus prove that our superhero oh great genuine friendless and loveless one who plays with his uterus with bifocals, obviously, so I shall pick a few up to strike 10 and then call it quits and block the moron…
* Placement of the male external genitalia in a rather easy to attack position (unless it was deliberate to allow women easy retaliation). That one is pretty self explanatory. But I guess according to our superhero who has an ego, just like his non existent god who in which on no way can he possibly prove even exists, he thinks that its entirely man’s fault that man it built and or created by man this way. Wow what a true sharkbait imbecile. Strike 2.

* And on the subject of genitalia… why are the same members that are used for body waste excretion also used for what is widely considered to be one of the most fun and interesting activities that humans can engage in? And why is a man's G spot in his anus if anal sex is forbidden by God?.Yeah and this must be man’s fault also. Gee, gosh golly. Stroke, oh whoooppppsei daisy, sorry, strike 3. Normally that’d be strike three and you’d be out. But let’s have some fun with a few more.

* The provision of a really bad, sometimes lethal, system of giving birth. (Though it may not have been so bad at first — He deliberately made it more painful to cruelly punish all women for the original sin thing.) Yeah his god is so kind, gentle and loving and extra super caring when mothers go into labor making childbirth utterly pain free. His god is so very very very nurturing and cuddly and kind. Strike 4.

* Failure to provide a system to synthesize vitamin C (or the failure in design that humans need vitamin C to begin with). Oh gee gosh golly, every single man, woman and child can survive without having vitamin C. Strike 5.


* Cancer.- Oh cancer is a good one ain’t it toodles? Especially from one in which no man has yet to have found a cure. So his god is the culprit of ab-so-lu-te imperfections. PERIOD. Strike 6

* Oncogenes — genes that exist solely to give us cancer. Self explanatory. His god is imperfect. Strike 7.

* Homosexuality (if you view it from a fundamentalist viewpoint). If it's so wrong, why does the almighty allow it to exist? Yes indeed. There is no explanation for his god hating homosexuals, much less hating a lot of other things, but point taken = imperfections. Strike 8.

* Allergies (like rhinitis) from mundane things like peanuts, grass, dust, pollen, fur, feathers, and many, many more. Sometimes, they get so bad, they interfere with sleeping and use up plenty of tissue wads in the process.

My fav… * Creating psychopaths, which is pointless because you can only get into Heaven by loving God, so why would he create people who are incapable of love? And who are at a very high risk factor of making life quite miserable for other people? Is he just a sadist? God IS A SADIST!!!!!!! He hates children, hates women, hates gays, loves raped women, loves massive genocides, has freely admitted to being evil numerous times, same is true with anger, wrath, vengeance, rage fury, jealousy? Jealousy from a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear. Even worse, since our heated fanboy Pro believes in this god, he sent all those nice’n neat emotions down to man so in turn man could learn TO HATE!!!!!! Great going god. Great going Pro for believing in such a contradictory hypocritical p.o.s. Do you or anyone see that meticulous hatred coming from ANY other culture and or religion in HISTORY? Nope. Not on YOUR life. Strike 10

Conclusion
I’m ending this debate. It is so religiously clear and point blank obvious that our superhero Moby Drunk didn’t even look over the list of “Failure to use intelligent design protocols when creating humans” and have the same outcome IF he is remotely intelligent and has an edumacation, in which he clearly doesn’t, otherwise his answers and outlook would most certainly been much different.
His rigor mortis ideals of “Pro opens with a long list of human imperfections and failings taken from rationalwiki.” Well for example how is “cancer” a “human” imperfection? What an idiot. The end.
Throwback

Con

Pro in Round #2: “Let’s see if the sociopath psychopath Con who has no genuine friends or loved one which are all in itself phenomenally SCREAMING red flags, can hang out WITHOUT inventing excuses and or flat out lying during this debate? He also has a 15% appalling rating on The Big Issues showing on his profile thus 85% against which is also appalling and thus stands that his character is most certainly ‘unstable’ is a great word, suspect, dubious, and erratic.”

Con has tried to explain this to Pro in the past, but he seems either incapable or unwilling to understand what he is decrying as my 15% rating. It is simply the level of agreement between us that he or I will see when viewing each other’s profile. It’s actually a fairly simple concept and it is telling if he truly cannot grasp it. As for his repeated use of ad hominem attacks, I will let them speak for themselves, as anyone who follows his activity on this site is well aware he has a disorder where he makes for himself a reality of any and everything unkind quality he can imagine regarding an opponent. He thinks it, therefor it is-this ability to make things true by an act of will is an attribute of God alone, Who he finds appalling, yet he seeks to make of himself the same sort.

Pro: “After all, he has to turn around his god’s imperfections of man which are imperfections - an impossibility.”

This is Pro’s attempt to alter substantially the argument he posted in the debate offering. His initial claim, which we agreed to debate, was not that man was made to be imperfect. The debate topic was his proposition that intelligent design is not at work in the creation of man. These are two very different topics. I hope Pro will make an attempt to engage in the debate at hand in Round #3.

In Round #2 Pro corrected Con’s misguided assertion that Pro did not intend to misuse the word “idolize” by applying it to our relationship with God. Pro makes it clear that his untenable position is that if you accept an all powerful, all holy, Supreme Being in God, then He must be worthy of being idolized. The word does not work and shows a lack of knowledge of subtle meanings of similar words. It’s just as ridiculous as it is to say a mother who acknowledges her newborn infant loves it too much. It is not possible to worship true God too much. He cannot be given, as true God, the adoration given to Him as a false God. He cannot be idolized. It is a nonsensical statement.

Pro in round #2 goes to great lengths to repeat many of the list of imperfections of man which he enumerated in round #1. As he has mostly repeated Round #1 in this round, I will simply defer to my round #1 response for the majority of this round in the interest of brevity.

Again Con maintains, and Pro has failed to argue effectively against, the notion that the designed imperfections of man are not evidence of God failing to use intelligent design, but they are rather the exact opposite. They are evidence of His intelligent design for us. We are created for something far greater than this petty life on earth, which amounts to upwards of 100 years (if you are long lived) of misery and sorrow interspersed with moments of joy and happiness. In His mercy and goodness, he designed us for so much more in eternity. In His justice, He intelligently designed us so that by undergoing the hardships of this short life, we may earn what has been promised to those who are willing to fight the fight and win the crown. Those who are created by Him, intelligently, with physical defects even beyond the norm have reason to be even more thankful to Him if they consider what He is offering them in eternity in exchange for a few years of trial.

I look forward to Pro’s on topic Round #3 argument. I am hopeful he will refrain from again projecting onto Con the social failures which he apparently suffers, as he persistently accuses every opponent of the social failures he attributes again here to Con. They are not relevant to the debate, and their repeated use as ad hominem attacks against his opponents whom he does not know shows a level of petty cowardice that can only muster the courage to attack strangers from a safe distance. I hope he will raise the bar for the subsequent rounds.


Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Didn't read it.
I cannot take up my precious and valued time with a known sociopath psychopath supreme elite egotist, just like his god in print thinks he is and yet he cannot even prove he even exists, who has no intelligence, no edumacation, has a 0% clue as to what the topic is about and thus cannot respond properly, gets a 15% rating on his profile on The Biggest issues, and especially has no genuine friends or loved ones. If he wishes to think he wins this debate, sure, let him. He's screwed up so bad in it, I do not wish to partake in it any further. He is an insult, a disgrace, abusive to my being and intelligence in which I have and he obviously doesn’t as proved by his RD1 facade of dripping wet hanky panky. I am far far farrrrrr too good for him. Conversation over.

Throwback

Con

Pro in Round #3, argues that Con: “...has a 0% clue as to what the topic is about and thus cannot respond properly, gets a 15% rating on his profile on The Biggest issues,...”

Con had hoped that Pro had more in his arsenal than this, as it was he who instigated this debate topic. Again he shows either an inability or a lack of desire to grasp the import of the 15% on the Big Issues on my profile. I am truly flattered that Pro has taken such an interest in my profile. I only wish he understood what he was looking at. At the risk of being repetitious, let it be noted that when he sees on my profile a 15% of the Big Issues somehow means to him I do not understand the issues. To every other user on this site, I dare say without exception, the meaning of it is evident and self explanatory. If he insists on claiming it matters, when I look at my profile I get an astounding 100% on the Big Issues. Outstanding! Backwardseden I dare say is the only user who cannot understand it.

According to Pro, I have: “...no intelligence, no edumacation, has a 0% clue as to what the topic is about and thus cannot respond properly,...”

This is the second time in this debate where Pro has offered my lack of edumacation to make his case. I let that twice made claim speak to who is educated, if it is of any import. Con would like to remind Pro of the topic posted by Pro. I quote from the title of the debate: “Failure to use intelligent design protocols when creating humans”. Con has argued that God did indeed use intelligent design to create humans, while Pro went off topic to argue that humans are not created to perfection. Who doesn’t understand the topic? Intelligent design does not mean God had to create everything to be His equal. Intelligent design simply insinuates that it was intentional, with forethought and knowledge, not accidental. I have argued and demonstrated that the imperfect beings God created are more suited to give honor and glory to Him through the imperfect creations we are, having the capacity to do good or evil, and be rewarded accordingly, giving all creation a concrete example and reason to admire His mercy and benevolence as well as His justice.

In the most recent round Pro states he is “...far far farrrrr too good…” for me. I can easily stipulate he is better than I, and I congratulate him on this. It is however a very small thing to be better than I. I would hope that he and everyone else I know would have better standards for themselves and push themselves further than to think they have done anything great by being better than I. If he or anyone else sets their goals so low, they will never achieve greatness.

Again, I am hopeful that Pro can reengage in the battle which was of his making in offering this debate. If he has a valid counter to my statements, I am hopeful he will muster the strength to post them. Pointing out the obvious by saying I am not perfect will not carry his cause.

Pro, please make your case that there was no intelligent design in creating humans.


Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Throwback 1 month ago
Throwback
That comment which began, "Matt Dillahunty..." had me wide eyed momentarily. Although the content is rubbish, the language used was decidedly English. I thought old backside efen had been sandbagging with his extreme illiteracy. All is will...it was simply a copy/paste comnent.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
Oh sorry I missed your bit on Hitler, Stalin etc, well Hitler was a devout christian to begin with. And Pol Pot, Mao, Hong Xiuquan, Stalin etc etc etc NEVER MADE WAR for the mere sake of atheism which is a far cry for religion which crashes in on itself all---the---time. History MORE than proves both. Gotta go.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
Matt Dillahunty "The question is ill formed. The question is "what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true"? Atheism is the position of NOT accepting the theological explanation. It is NOT accepting the god hypothesis. It is in fact the null hypothesis. It cannot be proven to be true. It is the default position. And christianity and Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam they have all failed to meet their burden of proof. Its not up to me to prove they are any gods anymore than it is up to me to prove that that there isn"t bigfoot or fairies or UFO"s. The default position, the null hypothesis is that these things aren"t true. And we wait and we reserve belief until they are demonstrated to be true. Does that make sense?
Caller "Does that mean atheism is not a worldview?"
Matt " That"s correct. Atheism isn"t a worldview. It doesn't have any pennants or dogma, no books, no authorities. It is a SINGLE position on a SINGLE question on the existence of gods. Now there is a world view that many atheists share. Most of us, at least with the ACA, are skeptics, that informs our worldview. Its my atheism as a direct product of skepticism. Many of us are secular humanists which tells us a little bit more about our moral outlook on life and other things. There"s many many many labels that would fit. There are a number of secular worldviews that are consistent with atheism. Just saying you are an atheist alone doesn"t say anything at all about somebody"s worldview. By the way most Buddhists are atheists. They don"t believe in a god. But they believe in any number of, in some cases, supernatural things that I don"t accept, some of them don"t accept that either, so yeah atheism is not a worldview. It can certainly be a part of a worldview. But its not a worldview in that broad sense." .,

I have to go... sleep calls. Please tc and have fun. -Michael
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@CreationGuy - Yep. And that's the ultimate fault of religion. Deuteronomy 13 especially 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 shows that there can be no peace whatsoever, only hate. Have you actually read your bible where your god butchers innocent babies, children and pregnant women? Obviously not. And here's the thing that you people who believe in god seem to forget or somehow don't even think of... your god could have easily started out with peace, kindness, love, care for each other, harmony. Nah. He chose, hate, evil (in which he has freely admitted to several times, anger, wrath, genocides (several of them deliberately for no reason), bloodshed, hatred for gays, ensuing of slavery, rage, fury, jealousy. JEALOUSY? WHAT??? From a supreme deity? And even worse is this god of yours in which you cannot even prove exists, neatly passed down all those emotions, according to you, so man could learn to HATE. Great going god. Great going you for WORSHIPING this god. Sheesh. OH PLEASE Um no hardly. Try The Ancient Inuet (sp), just about all native American Indian tribes who showed fellowship towards each other, the aborigines, and on and on and on far far far before christians who have shown humanity towards their fellow man. Don't be proud of your christian brethren because being christian is a true impossibility... https://www.youtube.com... - Why does EVERY intelligent christian disobey christ? Your religion is toast as jesus himself was an arrogant selfish egotistical prick. Worldview?
"This is not just a matter of opinion. This is an entire branch of philosophy of epistemology about how we go about determining whether or not a ---claim--- is reasonably and rationally justified. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is a god is an extraordinary claim which requires more than just pointing to an old book. That is simply NOT rational to the claim. Sorry. Its not just an opinion. There"s more to life than that."
Posted by CreationGuy 1 month ago
CreationGuy
@ backwardseden

Thank you for demonstrating why both sides cannot come together and discuss things at a mutual ground...

"See, I care about peace, harmony, kindness, care for one another. You don't."

really? if i didn't have any compassion, kindness, or care for my fellow man, i wouldn't be talking with you right now....

Tell me: where were the atheists' support groups when a natural disaster struck Texas a few months ago?

The answer: nowhere to be found... it was Christians that were the first ones on the ground to help and contribute....

Don't lecture me about kindness, care, or compassion. You CANNOT Get this from an atheistic materialistic worldview. Why? There are no just things as absolutes or morality....

"Yep you are an uneducated teeny bopper for sure."

Wow... an atheist making a truth claim which cannot be given or accounted for in his worldview.....

"Oh and lastly to rub it in even deeper atheism NEVER makes war for the sake of atheism. "

apparently you never heard of Hilter, Stalin, etc...
listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/
Posted by Throwback 1 month ago
Throwback
Roflmao!!!
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
Oh gosh Throwbarf does the wittle baby get his fweeings hurt that I dumped him because he shows no intelligence? Do you want me to show you some pitiful love-i-dovy instead? Oh darn it. Atheism is by far more peaceful than your god as proved in a google search. Have a lice day. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say. And golly gosh gee, I know it just eats at you that you just can't get to me, that you can't get your fix, your one big win, in fact you haven't won one god damned thing against me and it burns you like an exploding inflamed hemorrhoid that you've got. Time for my nap.
Posted by Throwback 1 month ago
Throwback
Roflol!!!
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
Throwbarf then you on't know how to google Here's a duh example. Try "Atheism VS god which is more peaceful" more-on.
No dimwitted dullard snot meat sow, as explained in full detail and it shall be repeated because your intelligence ratio is way way way below that of an atom as compared to a gamma ray burst, "I"m ending this debate. It is so religiously clear and point blank obvious that our superhero Moby Drunk didn"t even look over the list of "Failure to use intelligent design protocols when creating humans" and have the same outcome IF he is remotely intelligent and has an edumacation, in which he clearly doesn"t, otherwise his answers and outlook would most certainly been much different.
His rigor mortis ideals of "Pro opens with a long list of human imperfections and failings taken from rationalwiki." Well for example how is "cancer" a "human" imperfection? What an idiot. The end." In other words, you made a 0% effort to even debate. And I also "I cannot take up my precious and valued time with a known sociopath psychopath supreme elite egotist, just like his god in print thinks he is and yet he cannot even prove he even exists, who has no intelligence, no edumacation, has a 0% clue as to what the topic is about and thus cannot respond properly, gets a 15% rating on his profile on The Biggest issues, and especially has no genuine friends or loved ones. If he wishes to think he wins this debate, sure, let him. He's screwed up so bad in it, I do not wish to partake in it any further. He is an insult, a disgrace, abusive to my being and intelligence in which I have and he obviously doesn"t as proved by his RD1 facade of dripping wet hanky panky. I am far far farrrrrr too good for him. Conversation over." But you being as friendless and loveless as you are with a 15% showing on you Big Issues. Sure, I'm better than a Rotten Tom-a-toes little boy that stalks me everywhere I go because it gets his ding-a-ling a mercy fling. Ta Ta.
Posted by Throwback 1 month ago
Throwback
He is gone of claiming winning a debate is irrelevant. He then proceeds to initiate a debate and demand a response. When he actually gets one, he forfeits, because instead of forfeiture resulting in a loss, as it should, he knows it will cause it to freeze the debate-his last, best line of defense. Also note, in the debate he claims the male G spot is in the rear. I will never go there. Obviously backside Eden has paid a visit.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.