The Instigator
BryanMullins
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
64bithuman
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

God Is Not Dead, He Still exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
64bithuman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 749 times Debate No: 76082
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

BryanMullins

Pro

Earlier this year, the Christian film "God's Not Dead," was released. It was an indictment of academia, liberalism, and some business people, but as the Ebola crisis unfolded in West Africa and in nearby Atlanta, maybe those who attack Christianity aren't who we think they are.

In the film "God's Not Dead," a Philosophy professor debates a Christian student on whether or not God exists. That's probably not an unrealistic event on college campuses, but the movie has the professor force all students to sign a document that says "God does not exist" to get a passing grade.

As television screens are crammed with commercials for the Blu-Ray version of this film, which is about to be released, we're facing the Ebola crisis. Two Americans who went over to Africa to try and fight the disease became infected themselves. They've come to America to get the top notch treatment, and our prayers are with them.

It's a story worthy of a movie like "Apollo 13." You've got two Christian doctors who were going to Liberia to help those less fortunate, working for Rev. Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse. Graham is, of course, the son of Rev. Billy Graham. You have the military at Dobbins Air Force Base, helping bring them to America, and those at Emory in Atlanta working around the clock to help save these Christian evangelizing health care workers.

Of course, there are legitimate concerns about the safety of the caregivers and the potential release of this disease, which is dangerous, but not as easily spread as plagues in a late night SciFi channel horror film. But the care, the technology, and the can-do attitude of the missionaries, military and medical professionals have much of the world looking at us and saying "Ain't that America."

And then... in walked Ann Coulter. You can read her column here. I had to read it to believe it.

She accuses Dr. Brantly of being a Christian narcissist, wasting two million dollars of Samaritan Purse's money, preferring the "disease-ridden cesspools" of Africa to working in America. She slams him for not working in America, either in a poor Texas county or trying to convert Hollywood directors to Christianity, attacking him for risking making his wife a widow and his kids fatherless. She even makes a snarky comment about this being an expensive example of Obamacare, demonstrating the true goal of throwing these Christians under the bus.

Why did Paul leave the lands near Israel to spread the word of God to those heathens in Greece? Why did Francis Xavier leave Europe to tell the good news to India, Japan and Taiwan? Why did Charles Borremeo risk his life to cure the sick? All could have focused on healthy believers at home. Instead, all three, and millions of other Christians, gave their lives to give everyone in the world a chance to learn God's message (and yes, I learned about them folks in college). That's probably because Jesus said in the Gospel of Mark (second chapter, verse 17) "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

I wonder how people all across America, who take Christian mission trips in Central America, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, feel when they read this column, which basically claims that all they help they provide is worthless?

By risking their lives in the service of humanity, these brave missionaries will win more respect, and even Christian converts, than they would if they wrote a series of snarky and xenophobic columns and books. They, and others, are the real ones who prove that "God's Not Dead."

The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).
64bithuman

Con

Having just realized that Pro only gave 5 mins to respond I am put in a bit of a stressful position.


Acting on the assumption that the phrase ‘God is dead’ means that he never existed.


God doesn’t exist.



There is no good thing a Christian can do that an Atheist cannot do, and that is not proof of his existence. Even if Christian charities are doing plenty of great things all across the world, in no way does that prove the Christian god exists.


Instead focus on the lack of proof.


Praying does nothing.


Evil exists.



Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 64bithuman 2 years ago
64bithuman
I'm gonna start a full length debate. I thought I had longer so I didn't start on it right away...then I look at the timer and I've got three mins. So it's not ideal.
Posted by SocialPsyche 2 years ago
SocialPsyche
@Cericus
Considering he only had 5 minutes...what do you expect?
Posted by Cericus 2 years ago
Cericus
64 bit, that reply just
saddens me...
Posted by SocialPsyche 2 years ago
SocialPsyche
The philosophy of "God is dead" was originally created by Friedrich Nietzsche, and it essentially means that as we progress scientifically and culturally, we no longer have a need for a god or gods to explain the world or universe in which we live.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
You have voided your ability to refute anything your opponent posts, meaning this should either be in the opinion section or (as previously noted) the forums.
Posted by n7 2 years ago
n7
The statement "God is dead" has nothing to do with God's existence. It was a cultural claim.
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
This should be a forum post.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
what is the debate here????
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
BryanMullins64bithumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's plague
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
BryanMullins64bithumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct for plagiarism, as shown by lee001
Vote Placed by SocialPsyche 2 years ago
SocialPsyche
BryanMullins64bithumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: As Lee001 said, Pro copy/pasted their entire argument. Also, Con was only given 5 minutes to post an argument while Pro, who set up the debate, could use as much time as they want to make an opening statement.
Vote Placed by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
BryanMullins64bithumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because Pro plagiarized his whole argument from this site: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/evidence-that-gods-not-de_b_5666999.html