We are thee most sinful generation since the great flood.
Debate Rounds (5)
1st round : Acceptance
I accept, and I will be playing Devil's Advocate.
There was a great flood about 6000-6200, my calculations are 6,124 years after Adam descended from the garden.
My calculations are scoffed at by some Christians only believing the earth is 6000 years old, those are the silly ones you laugh at all the time. My former calculations have the Earth at 12,250-12,500 years old. But this is starting after Adam and Eve sinned, how long could they have lived in the garden? 10,000,000, 10,000,000,000 years? Nobody knows not me the christian nor you the atheist.
I am a personal believer of evolution and and support science all most all the time. God first did make light, then water, and vegetation, then sea life and air life, then beast and man. Seems like science doesn't it? Light from the older stars, water first to support life, vegetation and non animalea species. Then made sea life, fish were first if you know anything about Darwinism. Air life was around in the time of the dinosaurs. Then beast of the earth you mammals and stuff and of course us last and according to science we were basically the last species to be born (Homo-sapiens)
Well now let me start. God flooded us because we behaved in such a sinful way that the only thing a loving God can do is kill us all by drowning. God acted out of anger and regretted after words making the rainbow covenant with Noah. Now the time before Adam and Noah are 6124 years, it took God 6124 years to burst when only family on earth was religious God-fearing people. Now he promised never to flood it again and we have been past the flood for about 6,000 yrs. Our generation our current earths population must be worst than ever because you must assume that each generation has gotten more sinful.
I'll leave my 2nd round at that I want to know what you want to say, again thanks for accepting.
Sorry for not acting in accordance of your rules in the first round. Thanks for continuing on in the debate despite this.
I am taking the position of devil's advocate in supporting the position that we aren't the most sinful generation since the Great Flood with the background of a Christian that believes in a world flood event. However, I don't see that I necessarily have to agree with the specifics you laid out for such event. A popular young Earth/Great Flood advocate website, Answers in Genesis, says the flood likely took place in circa 2350 , or merely 4,300 years in the past. If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, this appears to be a problem with your time line, but some creationists say the Earth could be as many as 10,000 years so I will accept this. I do not know the exact importance of this issue on our debate, but at the very least it is settled.
Now, this doesn't really fit the persona I have equipped to complete this debate, but evolution is incompatible with Biblical creation. Certainly not with a young Earth. Unless you are trying to distinguish micro evolution from macro evolution (there is no distinction, the only difference is time). One of the tenants of evolution is a shared ancestor, if my understanding is correct.
Next you try to apply Biblical creation to a scientific understanding of how the Earth formed, which you have to understand also doesn't fit. First off, your order of creation is wrong. First came a formless Earth with water on it. THEN came light, and then came night. This is scientifically incorrect, as there was yet no Sun and thus no Earth is possible. You say light could indicate "light from other stars". The light from the closest star to us would take 4.4 years to reach us, tens of thousands for some of the others, millions for good few.. If you take "first day" in a metaphorical sense, which is odd if you also accept the flood, maybe "day" doesn't really mean 24 hours. Besides, stars don't come until the fourth day. So the Biblical Creation doesn't map to science that accurately, and even more important doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand. [By the way, fish weren't first. It was likely a single celled organism, if Evolution (not Darwinism) is correct. A lot of this paragraph is scientifically inaccurate, but this is about sin and not science.]
Okay, so now we are on to the real, actual debate. "God flooded us because we behaved in such a sinful way that the only thing a loving God can do is kill us all by drowning." Since I am a Christian for sake of debate, I won't gripe you on the obvious contradiction of an all loving God that kills every single being, not just human, on the planet. My main reason for highlighting this quote is to bring a more important issue to light. Most of this round has nothing to do with our generation being more sinful than any other since the Flood event.
So really, the only argument in favor of your position is that one must assume each generation has gotten more sinful. You don't back this up, nor do you offer any link or evidence as to why one has to assume this. You know the saying, what is submitted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I am afraid that this is the course of action I must take without speculating on the reason you believe this.
I may be wrong, but I think the majority of the Burden of Proof is on you for making the claim that we are the definite most sinful generation since the Great Flood, but I will defend the idea that we aren't the most sinful anyway.
To begin, there is a major problem before this debate can actually happen: What is sin? Sure, we have a working definition of "a transgression against divine law", but this only asks more questions than it answers. There are around 30,000 denominations of Christianity in the world today, and there isn't a universal agreement on really any issue. Is being gay a sin? Is having an abortion a sin? Is praying in public a sin? Does the Bible support slavery? Really, most any position can be justified somewhere in the Holy Book.
However, not all is lost for the second round. I am sure we can both agree that murder is wrong, and the Bible backs this up. Look at the ten commandments if you need this to be confirmed. Here is the national murder rate from 1970-2011.
As you can see, we have become less likely to murder people as past generations, making us at least not the most sinful.
Thank you for participating in this debate, and sorry once more for not participating in the rules listed in the first round.
To my own accord I took the number of years X and the age when given birth to each 1st child Y, I subtracted the respective and then took the age of that 1st child Z to then minus from the age of Father Q.
X - Y = A Z - A = B Q - B = # of years past since father was born to first sons death
I simply did calculator math and logic with the whole Enoch departure and the flood at the end. I strongly have moral belief in my math because it seems like it would take about 6,000 years to blow up. The people were not God fearing and probably molested with poverty, cannibalism and wars, let alone murder and rape. You give the chart about the murder rate depleting but you are an agnostic sir, murder is not even that bad of a sin in Gods eyes he supported war and destruction of hundred of thousands of men.
Here is why we are thee most sinful generation:
The amount of people praying per day has gone down.
We have the access to porn.
The amount of non-believers have increased.
Most of Chinese population is atheist or agnostic.
The use of lust has risen.
The music and television have gone towards a more sexual context.
The use of swearing has risen.
The use of power and greed has risen.
Suicide rates at also very high.
*all these answers are one google search away and yeah they're worth a google.
Remember mid-evil Europe? They had executions, genocides, and wars wage on with Christianity. But they were also very religious because they risked the lives fighting for it, they openly let the church run things because they knew their rewards are in the afterlife. Nobles would have mini confession areas next to their bed so very fist thing you wake up and pray. We have become very non-religious in the West. Middle East has always been religious and still clearly is cough cough ISIS. The west has become scientific and get an Agnostic feel to the masses. Not all Christians are truly followers of Christ. We have possibly a huge war about to rage upon the Earth and the hottest trend in high school is Spandex and blow jobs for cheeseburgers. We have removed God out of society and you guys would say "oh yeah they are finally waking up!" But I say "No, you have fallen asleep."
So may I ask a question? Are you a Christian? Many of the things you say seem to be from the perspective of someone who is at the very least agnostic, though you also make claims of being a believer in a somewhat literal Biblical history.
You give a formula with some variables on why each generation is more sinful than the last, but you don't go past that. You don't plug in information, you expect the formula to sit there and be some rock hard evidence that you are right. If you could do the mat for me on your next round, I'd appreciate it.
Next, you mention that it seems like it would take about 6,000 years to blow up. I am assuming you mean for humanity's holiness level to collapse into utter sin. You don't really say why other than "it seems like", and even if it did take 6,000 years for the last collapse of humanity because of being sinful, only 4,300 years have past since the flood. Check the Answers In Genesis website I had from the last round. You go on to list why the people during the flood were so sinful, although you don't seem to be all too sure of what they did besides not worship the Big G. Maybe they molested, were poor, ate people (where do you get this one from?), fought some wars, murdered, and raped, but maybe they didn't? In fact, I would like for you to point me towards a generation that didn't have a number of those things (except maybe the cannibalism). Your next sentence seems to be in contradiction to what you just said. The people that were flooded murdered people and that is why they were drowned! Except for the fact that apparently "murder is not even that bad". Well, the people were flooded because they had wars... Except God supported wars. Oops. There is also the false equivalency of saying that murder isn't that bad because God supported wars. While war may not be the optimal situation, I think we can all agree that soldiers are not murderers.
#1: Many of the colonists in early America didn't even go to church. There had to be a religious movement in the early days of America for people to reconnect with God.
#2: The last generation also had access to porn.
#3: I can't dispute number three, but still you guys have 78.4% of the population.
#4: I'm not sure what number four means in accordance to sin but okay.
#5: Saying the use of lust has risen is very vague and not helpful for conversation. What does this mean? More people masturbate? More people want to have sex?
#6: Every generation has tried to push the envelope to mess with the generation before.
#7: Like dropping an f-bomb or using God's name in vain? Swearing, in a sinful context, is vague and also not helpful.
#8: What? Do you have any examples for the class?
#9: While suicide rates are rising, they are not the highest they have ever been. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 1984-1989 had a higher suicide rate than 2011, which was 12.3. This is a sad trend to see, but if you look closely, we aren't the worst generation for it.
*My job isn't to come up with sources for you. If you didn't find this information out of the whims of your imagination, then put a source.
So what I get from your last paragraph was "Well the medieval times were kind of really terrible to live in with a lot of murders and wars God may or may not be okay with, but at least they let the church rule them." You round up this statement of questionable moral status with a huge no-true-Scotsman fallacy and an attempt to scare us out of a separation of church and state. If you want to debate the separation of church and state then I would be interested in that topic, but we are talking about the sinful nature of this generation.
One of the questions I asked in the second round is "What is sin?" Apparently this question is unimportant to you, but I think it needs an answer. When using a book that can be used to justify most positions, you must explain why your justification is the most legit one.
Thanks, and I await your response.
CountCheechula forfeited this round.
Extension of arguments.
CountCheechula forfeited this round.
YaHey forfeited this round.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: FF and con had superior arguments anyways
Vote Placed by patrick967 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Sin doesn't exist.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Apart from Pro forfeiting Con had a better argument, rates of crime in this generation are well below that of previous generations, those that were counted or reported anyway, since more crimes are reported these times than any generation before us in the past. Part of the reduction in crime statistics is due to the introduction of legal abortions, meaning much less angry, unwanted children reaching the troublesome ages of between 18 and 25. More crime is reported, yet less is shown, this means society is doing very well less evil per capita if you believe evil exists, which I don't.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Basically FF. Pro listed Pro's beliefs, Con showed sin to be decreasing.
Vote Placed by LordEnglish 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: There wasn't really much of a debate here? Pro mostly just listed off their beliefs, while Con actually tried to make an argument and refuted Pro's topic.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.