The Instigator
jhenley9111
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Loveshismom
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

There is evidence for God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
jhenley9111
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,185 times Debate No: 49660
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (95)
Votes (7)

 

jhenley9111

Con

I would like a theist to argue his/her evidence for a god.
I would also like my opponent to argue first.
Best of luck!
Loveshismom

Pro

I accept the debate and await Con's argument. I will now provide evidence for God. His existence is evident because:

1. People have seen heaven

2. He has cured incurable diseases

3. People encounter Jesus and angels

4. He has answered prayers, etc

-http://www.godisreal.info...
Debate Round No. 1
jhenley9111

Con

"People have seen heaven"

People have also claimed to see Bigfoot. There is no evidence that proves that a person has seen heaven. There are even conflicts on how we define heaven.

"People encounter Jesus and angels"

I will point to my last comment once more.

" He has answered prayers"

There is no scientific proof that God has answered a prayer. If you have a head-ache and you took an Advil, and prayed for your pain to go away, which one relived your head-ache? And why hasn't god given an amputee a new arm? Or food for the hungry children in Africa?

Please give more evidence. Real evidence.
Loveshismom

Pro

Perhaps you did not look at my source. It provided real evidence. Also, the existence of God can coincide with science. If you do not believe that, then you are welcome to challenge me to a separate debate about it. God hasn't given the amputee a new arm because that would confuse him, even if he did believe in Him. As for he hungry

1. As for the amputee's arm, atheist or not, it would confuse him to see his arm back on his body.

2. Children in Africa? It is either punishment of their sins or intended to strengthen their faith because that is what God does. My source also said that Muslims have been having dreams of Jesus.

3. Claiming to have seen heaven, Jesus, or angels is not the same thing as claiming to see Bigfoot as you absolutely have to
be awake to see Bigfoot. Bigfoot is physical, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), so you cannot have your literal eyes open and see them.

4. "There is no evidence that people have seen heaven," yes there is, people have said they saw heaven, and there is no real reason for lying that you saw heaven. I would not lie about seeing heaven.

5. "There is no scientific proof that God has answered a prayer," sorry, but there is. God answered one of my prayers once that I can remember. One day, a family member of mine was working hard, and her back started hurting. She asked me to ask God to make her back stop hurting. I did, and shortly afterward, she was still working, and all of a sudden, her back stopped hurting, Key words: "She was still working." I asked God to heal her back, so which made the pain stop? Her posture or God?
Debate Round No. 2
jhenley9111

Con

"Perhaps you did not look at my source. It provided real evidence"

Are you kidding me? You are letting a crappy website explain yourself? I want YOUR scientific evidence.

" God hasn't given the amputee a new arm because that would confuse him"

Why would it? If wouldn't confuse me.

"It is either punishment of their sins or intended to strengthen their faith because that is what God does."

So your god thinks it's OK to punish children...That's nice...

" My source also said that Muslims have been having dreams of Jesus."

The Muslim's Jesus is named Muhammad by the way. And what does that prove? I once had a dream of a giant rubber duck from Jupiter. Maybe I should start an organisation...

"Claiming to have seen heaven, Jesus, or angels is not the same thing as claiming to see Bigfoot"

Yes it is. Both have no evidence to back them up.

How did you know that it was god that healed that lady's back? People's pain goes away out of nowhere all the time. Was it a magic man in the sky? No. You are saying god is to busy fixing people's very minor problems to do other things like stop wars or world hunger.
Loveshismom

Pro

I provided some scientific evidence for God's existence in my conversation with a user named Burncastle in the comments. If you are an atheistic amputee, and if God made your limb grow back, and you could prove to yourself that it was real, you would probably be baffled as this would imply the existence of a deity. "So your god thinks it's OK to punish children..." I did not say that it was DEFINITELY a punishment for their sins. I also stated that it could be strengthening their faith. And it IS ok to punish children if you are their parent and they sinned. In this case, you also have to punish them properly. Did your parents not punish YOU when you broke a rule? And Jesus and Muhammad are not the same entity. And there is evidence to back up a claim of seeing heaven. Your life does not change just from seeing a man in a Bigfoot costume. It does change, however, from seeing Jesus face to face or seeing heaven in general.
Debate Round No. 3
jhenley9111

Con

"I provided some scientific evidence for God's existence"

No you did not. It seems as if you don't want to provide evidence.

"If you are an atheistic amputee, and if God made your limb grow back, and you could prove to yourself that it was real, you would probably be baffled as this would imply the existence of a deity."

But it's not the same as "answered prayers"?

"I did not say that it was DEFINITELY a punishment for their sins. I also stated that it could be strengthening their faith"

So what is it?? A reward?? How can being starved til the point of death possibly strengthen someone's "faith"??

"And Jesus and Muhammad are not the same entity"

You could say that. However, they are both the son of god. So if a Muslim has a dream of the son of god he/she will say they had a dream about Muhammad.

"And there is evidence to back up a claim of seeing heaven. Your life does not change just from seeing a man in a Bigfoot costume. It does change, however, from seeing Jesus face to face or seeing heaven in general."

You have provided no evidence. If I saw god of Jesus my life would not be changed. There are to many factors that come into play. Was I just dreaming? Was I on drugs? Am I just crazy? Maybe a gullible/stupid person's life would be changed, but not mine.

sources:
Riches, John (2000). The Bible: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 7"8. ISBN 978-0-19-285343-1.
Jump up ^ Davies, Philip R. (2008). Memories of ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-664-23288-7.[dead link]
Jump up ^ "Where did the chapter and verse numbers of the Bible originate?". CA.
Jump up ^ "Best selling book of non-fiction".
Jump up ^ "The battle of the books".
Jump up ^ Ash, Russell (2001). Top 10 of Everything 2002. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 0-7894-8043-3.
^ Jump up to: a b Harper, Douglas. "bible". Online Etymology Dictionary.
Jump up ^ "The Catholic Encyclopedia". Newadvent.org. 1907. Retrieved 2010-04-23.
Jump up ^ Biblion, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, at Perseus.
^ Jump up to: a b Stagg, Frank. New Testament Theology. Nashville: Broadman, 1962. ISBN 0-8054-1613-7.
Jump up ^ "From Hebrew Bible to Christian Bible" by Mark Hamilton on PBS's site From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians.
Jump up ^ Dictionary.com etymology of the word "Bible".
Jump up ^ Bruce, Frederick (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, Illinois, U.S.: IVP Academic. p. 214. ISBN 083081258X.
Jump up ^ Riches, John (2000). The Bible: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-19-285343-1.
Jump up ^ Riches, John (2000). The Bible: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-19-285343-1.
Jump up ^ Lim, Timothy H. (2005). The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 41.
Jump up ^ Riches, John (2000). The Bible: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-19-285343-1.
^ Jump up to: a b Riches, John (2000). The Bible: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 23, 37. ISBN 978-0-19-285343-1.
Jump up ^ A 7th century fragment containing the Song of the Sea (Exodus 13:19-16:1) is one of the few surviving texts from the "silent era" of Hebrew biblical texts between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Aleppo Codex. See "Rare scroll fragment to be unveiled," Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2007.
Jump up ^ [1] The Restored New Testament: A New Translation with Commentary, Including the Gnostic Gospels Thomas, Mary, and Judas by Willis Barnstone - W. W. Norton & Company - page 647
Jump up ^ [2] The Torah: Portion by Portion By Seymour Rossel - Torah Aura Productions, 2007, p. 355
Jump up ^ Mordecai Kaplan 1934 Judaism as a Civilization MacMillan Press
Loveshismom

Pro

1. "It seems as though you don't want to provide evidence." Yes I do. I just have some things to learn. But I will give you some evidence that God is real.

1a. The Big Bang never happened. It violates the first law of thermodynamics and has other logical flaws, as shown here: http://science.howstuffworks.com...

If you are a cosmologist and look at it much more closely, you notice that it also has many other major flaws, which are pointed out here: http://bigbangneverhappened.org...

To wrap the above information above, God's existence is evidence since the Big Bang never happened.

2. "But it's not the same as 'answered prayers'?" I never said that it was.

3. "So what is it?? A reward?? How can starving to the point of death possibly strengthen someone's 'faith'?" It is not a reward. And one's religious faith, Christian or not, cannot be strengthened when everything in their life is all rainbows and unicorns. I can also come up with a realistic scenario about how starving really hard but not dying, though not by itself, can strengthen one's faith.

Scenario 1- a group of moneyless longtime Chrstians living in, say, Nova Scotia, Canada, sleep in a padded leather teepee, are starving, and have found no game or holes for hours. All progress is made at night. They hesitate to go toward anything brown for three reasons:

1. They think it could be a polar bear

2. They think it might be further away than they think

3. It may be just some rocks that look like a mountain

Eventually, one of them remembers that God will help them through their trouble. He then suggests hey ask God for help. Then God tells this to all of them:

"Kill a polar bear. I will make sure it does not kill any of you. Then remove its skeleton and use its body as a blood bag and puncture a hole in its abdomen. Then turn around until I tell you that your nose is pointed south. Start heading there, and dip your boots in the blood. Check your prints every ten footsteps, and when they start to fade, dip them in again. When the bag runs empty, I will enable you to slay another polar bear and use it the same way you used the first one. When you become hungry, I will alert you when game is nearby. If it is a predator, I will keep you safe from its mouth."

The family does what God told them, everybody survives, and they get jobs in Texas and eventually become very rich.

And so, that concludes a fictional scenario about faith in God becoming stronger.

After all, if you had been part of that scenario, would you not have a stronger faith in God than before the scenario?

4. "If a Muslim has a dream of the son of god he/she will say they had a dream about Muhammad." This is not always the case. They will more likely say it was about Jesus as shown in the videos on this page: http://www.godisreal.info...

Also, there are videos on the page about how Muslims are not the only people who have visions of Jesus.

4a. "Was I on drugs?" The Muslim in the first video was drinking a lot of alcohol during the day, but he believed in Muhammad, not Jesus.

4b. "Am I just crazy?" And his vision was of Christ, not Muhammad, and he was seeking Allah and in his dream got an "I am the One you seek" from Jesus, and since Muhammad and Jesus are different, it had nothing to do with the effects of alcohol on his psyche. They way it was affecting it was different from that. The only effect was that he was hitting his own wife.

4c. "Was I just dreaming?" As an atheist, it is most likely that you feel no need to be thinking about Jesus during your everyday life, so if you went to sleep and suddenly started having a vision of Christ, it would not be a mere dream. As Burncastle said in our conversation, "dreams are a representation of what one has seen." To further support the fact that it would not be a dream, Muslims also do not believe in Jesus and therefore feel no need to think anything about Jesus in their everyday lives, so their visions could not have been dreams. I will point again to the quote from Burncastle.

4d. "Maybe a gullible/stupid person's life would be changed, but not mine." The said Muslim was not stupid. As shown in the video about how he saw Jesus and his life was changed, he was a carpenter. And can stupid or gullible people become carpenters? No. A stupid 8-year-old might want to be a carpenter and be told that they don't need a good math grade to be a carpenter. They listen and refuse to pay attention, and then they apply for a job as a carpenter. Consequently, they are asked, "did you really think I would let you be a carpenter? You have such terrible grades! You have no shot!"

I have now shown that my argument still stands strong and will await yours.
Debate Round No. 4
jhenley9111

Con

" But I will give you some evidence that God is real."

I AM WAITING...

"The Big Bang never happened. It violates the first law of thermodynamics and has other logical flaws"

Who said we are talking about the Big Bang? The first law of thermodynamics ONLY applies to a closed environment. Earth is NOT a closed environment. I wonder if you know the second law without looking it up on the internet...

"If you are a cosmologist and look at it much more closely, you notice that it also has many other major flaws, which are pointed out here"

I want YOUR arguments. Stop being lazy and pointing me to stupid websites. I have a website for you. http://www.talkorigins.org...

" I never said that it was."

I'm saying it is.

You are saying it is ok to rely on a magical man in the sky instead of taking matters into your own hands.

Clausius, Rudolf (1850). On the Motive Power of Heat, and on the Laws which can be deduced from it for the Theory of Heat. Poggendorff's Annalen der Physik, LXXIX (Dover Reprint). ISBN 0-486-59065-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Thomson, W. (1854). Part V. Thermo-electric Currents. "On the Dynamical Theory of Heat". Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 21 (part I): 123. reprinted in Sir William Thomson, LL.D. D.C.L., F.R.S. (1882). Mathematical and Physical Papers 1. London, Cambridge: C.J. Clay, M.A. & Son, Cambridge University Press. p. 232. Hence Thermo-dynamics falls naturally into two Divisions, of which the subjects are respectively, the relation of heat to the forces acting between contiguous parts of bodies, and the relation of heat to electrical agency.
Jump up ^ Hess, H. (1840). Thermochemische Untersuchungen, Annalen der Physik und Chemie (Poggendorff, Leipzig) 126(6): 385"404.
^ Jump up to: a b c Gibbs, Willard, J. (1876). Transactions of the Connecticut Academy, III, pp. 108"248, Oct. 1875 " May 1876, and pp. 343"524, May 1877 " July 1878.
^ Jump up to: a b Duhem, P.M.M. (1886). Le Potential Thermodynamique et ses Applications, Hermann, Paris.
^ Jump up to: a b Lewis, Gilbert N.; Randall, Merle (1923). Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.
^ Jump up to: a b Guggenheim, E.A. (1933). Modern Thermodynamics by the Methods of J.W. Gibbs, Methuen, London.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Guggenheim, E.A. (1949/1967)
^ Jump up to: a b c Ilya Prigogine, I. & Defay, R., translated by D.H. Everett (1954). Chemical Thermodynamics. Longmans, Green & Co., London. Includes classical non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
Jump up ^ Enrico Fermi (1956). Thermodynamics. Courier Dover Publications. p. ix. ISBN 0-486-60361-X. OCLC 230763036 54033021.
^ Jump up to: a b c Perrot, Pierre (1998). A to Z of Thermodynamics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-856552-6. OCLC 123283342 38073404.
Jump up ^ Clark, John, O.E. (2004). The Essential Dictionary of Science. Barnes & Noble Books. ISBN 0-7607-4616-8. OCLC 58732844 63473130.
Jump up ^ Reif, F. (1965). Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, page 122.
Jump up ^ Fowler, R., Guggenheim, E.A. (1939), p. 3.
Jump up ^ Bridgman, P.W. (1943). The Nature of Thermodynamics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, p. 48.
Jump up ^ Partington, J.R. (1949), page 118.
Jump up ^ Tisza, L. (1966), p. 18.
Jump up ^ Adkins, C.J. (1968/1983), p. 4.
Jump up ^ Tisza, L. (1966), pp. 41, 109, 121, originally published as 'The thermodynamics of phase equilibrium', Annals of Physics, 13: 1"92.
^ Jump up to: a b Serrin, J. (1986). Chapter 1, 'An Outline of Thermodynamical Structure', pp. 3"32, especially p. 8, in Serrin, J. (1986).
^ Jump up to: a b Fowler, R., Guggenheim, E.A. (1939), p. 13.
Jump up ^ Tisza, L. (1966), pp. 79"80.
^ Jump up to: a b Planck, M. 1923/1926, page 5.
^ Jump up to: a b Partington, p. 121.
^ Jump up to: a b Adkins, pp. 19"20.
^ Jump up to: a b Haase, R. (1971), pages 11"16.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Balescu, R. (1975). Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics, Wiley-Interscience, New York, ISBN 0-471-04600-0.
Jump up ^ Schr"dinger, E. (1946/1967). Statistical Thermodynamics. A Course of Seminar Lectures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
Jump up ^ Partington, J.R. (1989). A Short History of Chemistry. Dover. OCLC 19353301.
Jump up ^ The Newcomen engine was improved from 1711 until Watt's work, making the efficiency comparison subject to qualification, but the increase from the Newcomen 1765 version was on the order of 100%.
Loveshismom

Pro

1. "Who says we are talking about the Big Bang?" I do not need any one to say that because since the Big Bang did not happen, my belief in God is supported, as I stated in round 4. I have plenty of logical evidence that God is real, but the only scientific evidence I have of my own is that science has been wrong about other things before (e.g. the diameter of earth, the earth being flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe), so it could still be wrong about God not being real. I will explain why this evidence technically IS scientific.

Problem- is there evidence for God?

Research- see my other arguments

Hypothesis (it is actually my honest belief)- there is probably evidence for God.

Analysis- this cannot actually be done, but my logic deems it needless. The question is: "Is there evidence for God?" It is not "Is my opponent's evidence stronger than mine?" No matter how strong your evidence against God is, it cannot simply make my evidence supporting His existence magically disappear. The same logic is applicable to evidence for or against any other belief, is it not?

Conclusion- there is probably evidence for God.

2. "You are saying it is okay to rely on a magical man in the sky instead of taking matters into your own hands." Not entirely. And God is not a "magical man in the sky." Christians are taught that magical power is satanic (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
and therefore sorcery is not to be practiced (Revelation 21:8+2 Kings 21:6+Leviticus 19:26). And trusting God is not letting Him do everything for you. It is for things that need to be done but that you cannot do yourself but and does not go beyond not being psychologically worried.
Debate Round No. 5
95 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
@jhenley "wow..." Hey, no matter how small give it your all
Posted by KaileyFox 2 years ago
KaileyFox
@Sagey:
"Well your Bigotry against Atheism is well known, since you display it constantly."
Hmm... Funny. Last time you said that and I asked you for examples, you neither provided me with examples nor did you ever respond to that comment. So, once again, I'll ask you to provide examples of my bigotry. LOL. XD~

@Yoshi:
"mostly because Sagey is not only passionate in what's true, but because Sagey is right."
You've obviously have never had an argument with him. The only thing he's passionate about is anti-theism, and no, I'm not taking this debate's comment section as evidence. Look at nearly any other opinion question about Christianity and you'll find him spewing hateful content about it. Also, what's true and right about a mutant statistic such as this: "The entire Bible is 60% nonsense"? If you think he's so true and right, tell me where the evidence for this statistic comes from. And, no, "It's Sagey's opinion" "Well, he's right!" isn't going to work. You need to show evidence for it. It's hilarious that you think someone who barely shows evidence for the "facts" he spews is right about something.

"Your* that's not even a compelling sentence."
Are you /really/ resorting to correcting my /one/ spelling error? My goodness. If we're going to play that game, then you should probably look to the person you're praising about being true and right. Capitalization in the wrong places. Grammatical errors. Not to mention, this is just a paltry way of saying, "I'm right, you're wrong." Please. If you need to correct someone's one-letter spelling error, then you're really reaching for something to argue with them about.

"How is a default picture change (or if it was changed) relevant to this conversation at all anyway?"
If you didn't see it change, then you would have no idea what I mean. So, don't worry your pretty, little head over it. This question isn't relevant to the conversation itself, is it?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LOL, Flash Player is locking up (freezing) my browser, and causing all sorts of mahem, double posts, URLs not changing when I change web pages, I fixed it once by deleting and reloading it, which lasted a week, now it's doing it again.

Flash Player in Firefox sucks big time.
I often have to uninstall it to get my browser running without stalls, but then I need to watch some vids that demand it and then I get the problem back again.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Thanks Yoshi!

@ Loveshismom: I am not saying everything I tell others is correct, if you do research you may find me wrong as I cannot cover all information on everything I have made comments about.
Many have found gems of info that proved me wrong.

My love is learning and researching, but I only have one brain which absorbs less and less each year, probably because most of the information I picked up over the years I no longer use.

It would be nice to have an erase switch, so I can take out the garbage or information that was useful for my past jobs and just fill my brain up with information that is useful for my current position and interests.

So I often miss details or the brain does not absorb those details and somebody will find them or already know them and pull me up on them.
Such as I always thought Ellen White was hit in the head at 15, when I read her biography as my eyes or brain missed the detail that she was only 9 when the accident happened so I got pulled up on my mistake.

Humans only recall a small number of details at a time, so it pays to pick the best details to recall, this comes from much practice at researching, people who simply easy answers like religions offer, either never develop or lose the ability to research properly.
Research is the key to producing a great debate on DDO.
Never believe anything people, even I, tell you, always Research Sound, Reliable Sources, such as Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.
Amen!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Thanks Yoshi!

@ Loveshismom: I am not saying everything I tell others is correct, if you do research you may find me wrong as I cannot cover all information on everything I have made comments about.
Many have found gems of info that proved me wrong.

My love is learning and researching, but I only have one brain which absorbs less and less each year, probably because most of the information I picked up over the years I no longer use.

It would be nice to have an erase switch, so I can take out the garbage or information that was useful for my past jobs and just fill my brain up with information that is useful for my current position and interests.

So I often miss details or the brain does not absorb those details and somebody will find them or already know them and pull me up on them.
Such as I always thought Ellen White was hit in the head at 15, when I read her biography as my eyes or brain missed the detail that she was only 9 when the accident happened so I got pulled up on my mistake.

Humans only recall a small number of details at a time, so it pays to pick the best details to recall, this comes from much practice at researching, people who simply easy answers like religions offer, either never develop or lose the ability to research properly.
Research is the key to producing a great debate on DDO.
Never believe anything people, even I, tell you, always Research Sound, Reliable Sources, such as Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.
Amen!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Well Yoshi, his faith seems to have degraded his scientific knowledge.
But, there is still time if he opens up his mind and does some real learning.
I've done my best to provide some educational material, that may give him ideas of how to go the right way about doing his own research.
But that takes an inquiring mind, some people just give up being inquisitive and settle for easy, convincing answers like the kinds Creationists and Jehovah Witnesses try to sell.
Once they settle for those answers, their grades and Intelligence takes a tumble down a slippery slope.

Though the Jehovah Witnesses have surprised me, the groups here were ardent Creationists a decade ago and often attacked my science, but now, their literature has become full of real science and they even teach Evolution in their literature.
A move I support strongly, so once the Jehovah Witnesses and I were enemies and locked horns regularly, but now we are on the same side and good friends.

Funny how time and education can change things around.
There's hope for Loveshismom and the Creationist states of the US yet.
If ardent Creationist groups can make a complete turnaround as the Jehovah Witnesses have, then so can Texas and Kentucky.
Posted by Yoshi 2 years ago
Yoshi
@KaileyFox

"You /sure/ need a lot of comments to back up your bigotry..."

Actually, Sagey has a lot of comments because there's so much information for you to evaluate and learn from, mostly because Sagey is not only passionate in what's true, but because Sagey is right.

It's funny how so much information and evidence Sagey can present, but never gets the same thing back.

"Also, I'm guessing you switched you photo to look like Pro's to...somehow hide behind...? Smooth move."

Your* that's not even a compelling sentence.

How is a default picture change (or if it was changed) relevant to this conversation at all anyway?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ Kailey: Well your Bigotry against Atheism is well known, since you display it constantly.

So you can hardly be considered as open minded in any way shape or form.

My bigotry is out of having to defend my science from extreme Bigots called Creationists who keep trying to pretend Science is a competing religion to Creationism when it is certainly not.

Most Scientists don't even know creationists exist, but every Creationist on the planet is attacking Science and scientists. Which is hardly fair, but since there are around a million scientists and only several thousand ardent Creationists, then most scientists would never meet a creationist.

I only got introduced and abused by them because I worked in a university laboratory and had to put up with them trying to intro their nonsense into our classes.
That is because Creationist Leaders like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham want access to children in order to indoctrinate them so the will have future sales for their stupid literature.

Creationism is never about Truth because all Creationist Leaders lie to your face.
Because they make money out of selling their lies and they want more people to sell lies to, thus they want access to schools.

No rational, educated country will ever give them such access, only dumber than dumb, US states do that.
Posted by Yoshi 2 years ago
Yoshi
@Loveshismom

"I go to an atheist school and my faith is not at all affecting my grades at all."

You mean a public school where everyone is entitled to their opinions, I'm sure your faith wouldn't affect your bad/good grades at all, but I'm sure it's affected the reality of your worldview greatly.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
I go to an atheist school and my faith is not at all affecting my grades at all.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by BananaPhilosopher 2 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
jhenley9111LoveshismomTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not overly fond of the argument style from either side, but the arguments pro used were completely nonsensical; not to mention, it wasn't con's job to argue anything. He just had to prove that pros arguments weren't valid; not all that difficult of a task, and one that he did technically accomplish, though he did it with some degree of immaturity at certain points. Insults are unnecessary in formal debate forums. That being said, pro did the same, so conduct goes to neither. Grammar was close to equal. Sources from pro were awful, nonexistent from con; again, point goes to neither.
Vote Placed by bman77 2 years ago
bman77
jhenley9111LoveshismomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro debated terribly. There is a way to debate about god, but pro missed the target. But he did have better sources though
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
jhenley9111LoveshismomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: As a theist myself, I must say that Pro did a downright terrible job. The "miracles" argument is one of the least convincing arguments for God out there because, as Con mentioned, no such happenings have ever had confirmed attributions to God. Pro tried proving those attributions through websites that were clearly biased and unreliable. Conduct wasn't great on either side. S&G tied.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
jhenley9111LoveshismomTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was hard to judge. IMPORTANT POINT: Pro's entire references section was plagiarized from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics .... And I don't even see why the first time he used it, as Thermodynamics wasn't even mentioned. For that reason I have left the arguments section empty, as it was at best, dishonest, even though I think Con won that section. Also number of slanders of Pro by Con... I wish I could deduct more than one conduct point. Sources - Plagiarism of such lost Pro any right to these points. I take Plagarism most seriously especially since I am involved in science. Therefore I have docked Con his points for these. S and G to Pro for his Semi-Intelligable last two rebuttals, but generally poorly structured from both sides. Message in the comments section if you disagree and I may adjust accordingly
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
jhenley9111LoveshismomTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, you need to explain your source, so as you have an argument. Repeatedly saying that the source is evidence, is an unfounded argument. This is what Con alludes to. Lack of evidence isn't evidence, as Con correctly argued. I had sources as tied, but Con stuffing up the formatting of the sources was quite annoying.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
jhenley9111LoveshismomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's sources were entirely irrational, trying to advertise nonsense without showing any tangible proof of anything they claim, such as miracles is absolute deception and blatant Lies. Con's sources were far more sound, Rational and informative. At least Con's sources use genuine, tangible evidence to back themselves up, Pro's do not. Also Pro's concepts are entirely reliant on anecdotal evidence which technically is no evidence for anything. Pro's arguments were entirely Fallacious, relying on Anecdotal Fallacies https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal and Hearsay Fallacies http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/53-argument-from-hearsay Which includes personal Testimonial Evidence.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
jhenley9111LoveshismomTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used a religiously biased source and then a source that did not say what he claimed it said. Pro made arguments from emotion and lacked all understanding of basic processes of empirical science, which is necessary when we speak about "evidence". Pro has no idea what scientific proof means. Con pointed out these problems and addressed all of Pro's arguments.