The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Burncastle
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Why doesn't God appeal to some people?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Burncastle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 56655
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Hi there.

Speaking in terms of the general public, I am asking why a lot of people don't accept the thought of a Creator God. Christianity is the most popular religion in America but there are a great many of determined, unashamed atheists and a lot of people who are happy to just be agnostic! But what are the REASONS people choose to be atheist or not to believe in a Creator? I think there is evidence for Creation as well as evidence for Jesus' (the Son of God) existence.

Do people want to live life fully without the thought of a God? Do they think they can live life FULLER without devoting to religion? Is it because people are mad at God? Does the general public think God is a fairytale from an ancient book? Does religion scare people away from a belief in God?

These are all related questions as to why God doesn't appeal to many people and I want someone NON-CHRISTIAN to answer them from their own perspective. Good luck to my opponent and let's get this debate rollin'!

SEE THESE SITES:
http://religions.pewforum.org...
http://carm.org...
http://christianity.net.au...
http://answers.yahoo.com...
Burncastle

Con

This is an interesting discussion to have, although I can only speak for myself and for atheists I personally know (friends and family).

The reason why most atheists "don't accept the thought of a Creator God" is because they feel like theists have not met their burden of proof. Each and every argument for the existence of a God that I have seen so far are either unsound or invalid; they are usually a mix of argument from ignorance, appeal to consequences/emotions, Pascal's wager and faith (not all at once, but you get the idea).

"a lot of people who are happy to just be agnostic" Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and I would go as far as to say that they often go hand in hand. Agnosticism addresses a question of KNOWLEDGE whereas atheism addresses a question of BELIEF. I, for instance, am an agnostic atheist; I do not KNOW whether or not there is a God but I do not BELIEVE that there is such an entity.

"But what are the REASONS people choose to be atheist or not to believe in a Creator?" Belief is the result of being convinced and as such is NOT a (conscious) choice.

"I think there is evidence for Creation as well as evidence for Jesus' (the Son of God) existence." Please, share them with me and I will gladly assess them. I personally have no problem with the idea that Jesus existed, but I do not believe that he performed any miracle (including the resurrection).

"Do people want to live life fully without the thought of a God?" I do not think I can speak for "people" in the general sense so I will speak for myself: yes, I believe that I can live a full life (I would like you to clarify the meaning of a "full life") without believing in the existence of God. Why? Because I currently do not believe in God and I feel like I am living a full life.

"Do they think they can live life FULLER without devoting to religion?" Again, I am really going to need a definition of a "full life". Are you talking about purpose? Or perhaps devotion?

"Is it because people are mad at God?" Some people ARE indeed mad at God, but these people usually believe that he exists (and are therefore not atheists). People are often mad at God because he supposedly killed (or let die) a member of their family, caused a flood, created AIDS, etc. People are mad at God for things that they perceived are done by God. Atheists obviously do not believe that God did anything since they do not believe he exists. HOWEVER, when some atheists (myself included) say that they HATE God, they are more than likely talking about the character dipicted in the Bible. I hate voldemort, though I do not believe that he exists.

"Does the general public think God is a fairytale from an ancient book?" Technically the "general public" actually believes in the existence of God; 73% of Americans are Christians (although this number is declining http://www.pewforum.org... ). But to answer your question: yes, atheists usually believe that God is a fictional character.

"Does religion scare people away from a belief in God?" That was not the case for me, but I think it is possible.


Now, let's assume that the God of the Bible revealed himself to everyone in an indisputable way, would I worship him? Well the real, non-hypocritical answer is yes, simply because I do not want to burn in Hell for all eternity. HOWEVER, I do not believe that I could ever actually convince myself that this God is good if the Bible is an actual depiction of his persona. Personally, I believe that the God of the Bible is an evil, jealous and cruel God because he advocates slavery, genocide, rape, murder, racism and other atrocities (I can give the references in the Bible in the following round if you like). I would only worship him out of fear, not out of love.

I hope that this helps you.



Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Define 'burden of proof,' please. If you are referring to Creationism, which you think has "unsound or invalid" arguments, then please consider the THOUGHT that Evolution ALSO has a horrible base on arguments as you have to ASSUME where existence came from, that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was broken, etc, and this leads me to thinking IT is an ignorant theory which requires FAITH, too.

You did not quite address me saying people are happy to "not believe that there is such an entity," so please explain why people are happy being agnostic.

"Belief is the result of being convinced and as such is NOT a (conscious) choice." The general public does not have to know all the factors of a belief in order to think that the belief is true; you do not have to be convinced in order to just think the belief's factors are true. It comes WITH a conscious choice, to believe [in a God] and for most people it comes down to a matter of common sense, when they choose if the theory/belief is right or wrong (or at least I hope they use common sense sometimes).

Miracles? Here, see this poll on DDO: http://www.debate.org...
I recommend you read the comments...and then vote on it. My proof of God is all the facts in the Bible that are true. Prophesies fulfilled in the Bible. True scientific statements made before that science was discovered. The Bible says that the Universe points to the existence of a Creator, and that has been proven right through time and explorations in space.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

My definition of a 'full life:' not wasting a minute and benefiting for each breath God has given me. For you it would obviously be 'not wasting any minute.' My opponent says, "I believe that I can live a full life...without believing in the existence of God. Why? Because I currently do not believe in God and I feel like I am living a full life." Interesting. Yet dull. If you really are a creation of God wouldn't you be disappointed when, at the end of your life, you find out you were wrong all along? Since you are so sure that your life is fine the way it is, why do you still say: "...I do not KNOW whether or not there is a God..."? That doesn't sound satisfying at all. I'm still asking why God doesn't appeal to you when you have many things to lose as an atheist. Don't ignore the evidence for a Creator.

You say "Are you talking about purpose? Or perhaps devotion?" Yes.

So do you hate God? Why?

What's the reason for being "None"? What's None's purpose? I'm gathering that you believe God doesn't appeal to some because his "journal" and 'evidence' is an ancient book...? It also seems to me that you would only worship God because of how powerful He could be (if you were convinced). Correct me if I'm wrong. Well, next round I will explain to you why the Christian God loves all and is not the reason/advocate for the evil and wrong happenings in this dark world.

I'll ask you this: why don't you like RELIGION?

Yes, please do give references in the Bible of "slavery, genocide, rape, murder, racism, and other atrocities" that I can rebut for you. :)
Burncastle

Con

Thank you for your response.

Burden of proof:"the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth."
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

And I am not referring to creationism in particular, I am referring to the claim "God does exist".

"please consider the THOUGHT that Evolution ALSO has a horrible base on arguments as you have to ASSUME where existence came from, that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was broken, etc," Evolution is supported my an enormous amount of evidence, including DNA and fossils (although DNA alone would be sufficient). The origin of life is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the theory of evolution, it only addresses how life evolves, not how it came to be. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to Earth since it is NOT a closed system. But in any case, even if we were to prove that evolution is wrong, it would not mean God exists by default. You seem to be hinting at a fallacy of false dichotomy, claiming that it is either God or evolution (and by the way, they are not mutually exclusive).

"this leads me to thinking (Evolution) is an ignorant theory which requires FAITH, too." This is not a debate about evolution, so I will simply direct you to one of my favorite explanation of evolution: (https://www.youtube.com...)

"You did not quite address me saying people are happy to "not believe that there is such an entity," so please explain why people are happy being agnostic." Are you actually telling me that you can not imagine someone being happy without believing in God? Are you implying that God is the ONLY source of happiness that there is? There are INUMERABLE things that make people happy:

- Spending time with family
- Spending time with friends
- Sports
- Video games
- Sex (obviously)
- Music (listening or composing)
- Drugs/alcohol (for some people)
- Learning new things
- Eating
- Debating (yay!)
- Reading
- Drawing
- Dreaming
- Helping others
- etc.

If God is really thing only thing that makes you happy, then I really do not know what to tell you.

"you do not have to be convinced in order to just think the belief's factors are true" As I said, you can only believe if you have been convinced that a claim is true.

"It comes WITH a conscious choice, to believe [in a God] and for most people it comes down to a matter of common sense" Common sense is also how we concluded that the Earth was flat, and yet it isn't. And once again, belief is NOT a matter of choice; you can not simply decide to believe something.

"My proof of God is all the facts in the Bible that are true" How could you possibly know that? Do you have any evidence for any of Jesus's miracles? Don't you know that the Earth is FAR OLDER than 6000 years? Do you have any evidence to support a global flood? Do you know that people don't get to live for hundreds of years? And I do not believe there has ever been a confirmed miracle.

"The Bible says that the Universe points to the existence of a Creator, and that has been proven right through time and explorations in space" Has it? The only things that we have seen in space are stars, galaxies, black holes, super novas and other astral entity, none of which correspond to a God, so how can you say that?

"My definition of a 'full life:' not wasting a minute and benefiting for each breath God has given me." If by that you mean "enjoying life", then yes I am enjoying life without believing in God.

"If you really are a creation of God wouldn't you be disappointed when, at the end of your life, you find out you were wrong all along?" It looks like I made an accurate prediction when I mentioned Pascal's wager.
My answer is: I would be surprised, and probably disappointed since I would likely be going to Hell. I could turn the question around and ask you the same thing about Islam or Hinduism.

"Since you are so sure that your life is fine the way it is, why do you still say: "...I do not KNOW whether or not there is a God..."? That doesn't sound satisfying at all." Not knowing is indeed not very satisfying, but it has the advantage of being TRUE. Believing in God just because the idea of not knowing is not satisfying is an argument from ignorance (again, an accurate prediction!).

"I'm still asking why God doesn't appeal to you when you have many things to lose as an atheist" Could you clarify "many things to lose"?

"Don't ignore the evidence for a Creator" Show me evidence and I promise I won't ignore it.

"So do you hate God? Why?" I hate the character that is described in the Bible for reasons that I will enumerate later.

"I'm gathering that you believe God doesn't appeal to some because his "journal" and 'evidence' is an ancient book...?" That is not my only reason, but it is part of it.

"It also seems to me that you would only worship God because of how powerful He could be (if you were convinced)." Only if he threatens to use his power against me, which the Christian God does.

"Well, next round I will explain to you why the Christian God loves all and is not the reason/advocate for the evil and wrong happenings in this dark world." Great, but if you're going with the free will argument, keep in mind that it does not explain cancer and natural catastrophes.

"why don't you like RELIGION?" "Religion" is far too vague for me to answer this question. Plus this is a debate about God, not religion.

Slavery in the Bible:

Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:2-11
Exodus 21:20-21
Ephesians 6:5
1 Timothy 6:1-2
Luke 12:47-48

(http://www.evilbible.com...)

Genocide in the Bible:

Deuteronomy 2:34
Deuteronomy 3:36
Deuteronomy 7:2
Joshua 10:40

(http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...)

We'll start with that.
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Let me clarify this...and, for an enlightening laugh and relief from such an issue, watch this video!

DNA and fossils also provide "overwhelming" (as Evolutionists always say) evidence for Creationism, in case you do not realize, and DNA points to a higher probability of intelligent/common design(er). There are no fossils which can be PROVEN over 6,000 years old, plus, where's the transitional fossils here?

My opponent: "The origin of life is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the theory of evolution, it only addresses how life evolves, not how it came to be." I said, by assuming Evolution you HAVE TO assume that the Big Bang happened for the origin of life.
"But in any case, even if we were to prove that evolution is wrong, it would not mean God exists by default." Since we are getting off topic and we both agree to, let's drop the Cre. versus Evo. argument.

By 'HAPPY BEING AGNOSTIC' I mean 'satisfied,' sorry for the misunderstanding. Why are people satisfied to believe "in between" all the theories and religions and not have a specific one to base their doctrinal beliefs on?

THE EARTH IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY OVER 6,000 YEARS OLD JUST BECAUSE THE MEDIA SAID SO!!

Evidence for young earth:
Oldest tree: A bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old"dated via tree rings.
Oldest reef: The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old"dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years. Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren"t there older trees or more ancient reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their "millions of years." [4]

The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist"s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels, the maximum possible age is 62 million years. [4]

Evidence for the global flood:

1. We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas. [3]
2. We find extensive fossil "graveyards" and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial. [3]
3. We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents"even between continents"and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days. [3]
4. We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any "missing" millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon"the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it. [3]
5. Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90") without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over "480 million years," while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

Evidence people COULD HAVE lived for hundreds of years:

During the 1,000 years following the Flood, the Bible records a progressive decline in the life span of the patriarchs, from Noah who lived to be 950 years old until Abraham at 175 (see figure 1 and table 2). In fact, Moses was unusually old for his time (120 years) because, when he reflected on the brevity of life, he said: "The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away" (Psalm 90:10).

Extra biblical evidence to support the long life spans of the people in Genesis is found in the Sumerian King List. This list mentions a flood and gives the length of the reigns of kings before and after a flood. There are many striking parallels between the Sumerian King List and Genesis, such as a flood event, numerical parallels between the pre-Flood biblical patriarchs and the antediluvial kings, and a substantial decrease in life span of people following the flood.2 One author on this subject concludes, "It is highly unlikely that the biblical account was derived from the Sumerian in view of the differences of the two accounts, and the obvious superiority of the Genesis record both in numerical precision, realism, completion, and moral and spiritual qualities."2 It is more likely that the Sumerian King List was composed using Genesis for numerical information. Obviously, the Book of Genesis would only be used if the person writing the list believed it to be a true historical account containing accurate information. [5]

Whether miracles exist or not can be a matter of opinion so I will not address that by typing at a screen online.

God's existence is shown in a lot of places, including nature, space, and our very human bodies. To start I'll give you these sites:
http://www.godandscience.org...
http://www.patheos.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

"I could turn the question around and ask you the same thing about Islam or Hinduism." So you are asking me what I would do at the end of my life if I figured out that Christianity after all isn't true. Well, one way to answer is to say this: Christianity is sooo much more conceivable, fulfilling, satisfying, and reliable than the those other religions you speak of. If you have any questions please address in a different debate.

"Could you clarify "many things to lose"?" Well, it would be safest (for you) to stop being stubborn and ignoring the facts, and for you to do some research on the reasons God's existence is a high probability because (as I've said before) you don't want to waste your life. There are many things in this world that make you "happy." But they are only temporary and do not give you anything in the end...this is including the list you gave me in the previous round. God, however, gives FULL LIFE through his Son's sacrifice which you can receive by accepting Him into your earthly life. Heaven is our reward...but the real reward is that you get to BE WITH GOD with no separation. That is what God intended for when he created us.

Slavery wasn't a matter of racia
l color. Slavery was a paid job,
and the Bible also talks about treating slaves kindly too.

As I have run out of charactersThank-you for accepting this debate, con!

SOURCES:
[1] http://www.icr.org...
[2] http://abcnews.go.com...
[3] http://answersingenesis.org...
[4] http://www.earthage.org...
[5] https://answersingenesis.org...-
Burncastle

Con

For some reason, my opponent decided to spend most of his last round defending creationism, which is weird since it has nothing to do with the topic of this debate.

That being said, I will now address my opponent's points about creationism, because debating this subject is also one of the many things that gives meaning to my life (in other words, I enjoy it).

'DNA and fossils also provide "overwhelming" (as Evolutionists always say) evidence for Creationism, in case you do not realize, and DNA points to a higher probability of intelligent/common design(er).' No I indeed do not realize that and your lack of supporting evidence and sources is not helping me. How could you possibly determine the 'probability' of the existence of a designer?

'There are no fossils which can be PROVEN over 6,000 years old, plus, where's the transitional fossils here?' Simply put, that is false (unless you're talking about absolute truth, which is something I found irrelevant). Although Carbon 14 dating has its limits, it can accurately date fossils up until around 60 000 years old, which is more than 6000 years (http://www.c14dating.com...). As for transitional fossils, I could technically point to any fossil, since they are ALL transitions, but what you are looking for is probably something like Tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

'I said, by assuming Evolution you HAVE TO assume that the Big Bang happened for the origin of life.' I know that this is what you said, that is why I corrected you. The theory of evolution (1859) actually PREDATES the Big Bang theory (1927), so the latter can not be necessary for the former.

'By 'HAPPY BEING AGNOSTIC' I mean 'satisfied,' sorry for the misunderstanding.' Satisfaction is an extremely vague term in which I include happiness, so my point still stands.

'THE EARTH IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY OVER 6,000 YEARS OLD JUST BECAUSE THE MEDIA SAID SO!!' Thank you for the heads up, but I am not 2 years old; I can (and have) make my own research. And by the way, you should apply that sort of skepticism to Answers in Genesis, which you used as your main source.

'Oldest tree: A bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old"dated via tree rings.' Old Tjikko is actually 9 550 years old, so your point falls (http://enjoysweden.se...). Pando is even older (around 80 000 years old). Furthermore, the are of a tree or a reef have NOTHING to do with the age of the Earth, it simply gives a minimum (not an actual answer).

'The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved (...) leave the ocean via numerous methods.' The whole 'ocean salinity' argument is pretty outdated; the salinity of the ocean is currently (and has been for a long time) regarded as being an especially poor way of determining the age of the Earth (http://thenaturalhistorian.com...).

Now on to the global flood (again, an irrelevant but interesting topic).

'We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon' Yes , and these fossils are much older than 6000 years.

'This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment' The layers in the Grand canyon have different age, all of which are much older than 6000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

'We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion(...) is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it' I am no geologist so I really do not understand what any of this means, and I would bet that you don't either. Same goes for the following point. I would suggest that you take your information from better sources than Answers in Genesis.

I really do not care about the age of some people, since there is absolutely no way we could ever tell whether any of this is true.

'Whether miracles exist or not can be a matter of opinion so I will not address that by typing at a screen online.' It is not a matter of opinion; it is a fact that miracles either occur or they do not.

'God's existence is shown in a lot of places, including nature, space, and our very human bodies. To start I'll give you these sites:' The first one is an amateur site, the second one is a spontaneous remission attributed to God and the third one is a two hour long documentary (which I have yet to watch). I hope that you are not hoping to convince anyone with these.

'So you are asking me what I would do at the end of my life if I figured out that Christianity after all isn't true. Well, one way to answer is to say this: Christianity is sooo much more conceivable, fulfilling, satisfying, and reliable than the those other religions you speak of. ' You do realize that you did not answer the question? I am asking you what you would do and your answer is that Christianity is more fulfilling and satisfying, are you kidding me?

'Well, it would be safest (for you) to stop being stubborn and ignoring the facts, and for you to do some research on the reasons God's existence is a high probability because (as I've said before) you don't want to waste your life.' Being accused of being 'stubborn' by someone who still believes the Earth is less than 10 000 years old despite all that we have learned through science is pretty ironic.

'There are many things in this world that make you "happy." But they are only temporary and do not give you anything in the end' In the end? I consider happiness to be an end, not a mean. Plus being 'temporary' does not strip anything of its value; life is temporary yet it is not worthless.

'Heaven is our reward...but the real reward is that you get to BE WITH GOD with no separation.' Well according to your book, my reward is going to be Hell. Plus I do not know if I would really like to spend eternity with a genocidal maniac (yes, I am talking about God).

'the Bible also talks about treating slaves kindly too.' I am now convinced that you have NOT read the Bible:

Exodus 21: 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

I believe I have explained in great detail why God does not appeal to some people and I therefore encourage the audience to vote Con.

Thank you for this interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I know from working in Horticulture that to find a disease resistant plant, we may sow 5 billion seeds.
Remember, every seed is different, each has a unique combination of genes, thus no two seeds are identical. That is why a rose seed will never produce the same rose that the seed came from, only cuttings can produce the same rose.
So, we expose those 5 billion seedlings with unique genetics, to the disease and maybe, if we are lucky, 2 or 3 plants may survive. Thus those plants have a genetic combination that has given them immunity to the disease and from those plants we can produce more immune plants.
After several years, most of the world's crops will consist of those resistant strains.

Same with mosquitoes and pesticide resistance, in a swamp, there would be trillions of mosquitoes being spawned, each with a unique genetic code, and it only takes a survivor to produce the next batch of pesticide immune mosquitoes.
So humans may never defeat the mosquito problem in malaria ridden regions.
The massive numbers produced by a single mosquito gives them a great chance of surviving anything humans throw at them.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The Pre-Cambrian explosion of trillions of different species of organisms was likely a product of uncontrolled genetic flaws. The offspring often would not resemble the ancestors due to faults.
The handful of survivors who all current living organisms evolved from were those few who had control over the genetics that they passed down, thus they were those with self correcting DNA, the trillions who faded away, did not.
It has always been a law of numbers.
Sometimes it takes a billion failures to produce a single success.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Self correcting DNA evolved because those that developed it survived and those that did not perished from failure in their DNA or even they changed form more quickly than they should have and thus many species developed prior to self correcting DNA, because of the faults producing large differences on phenotypes. Though there are DNA flaws that cannot be corrected and it does not defend us from chromosome duplication, which is a form of mutation which helped humans develop the improved brain function over ape relatives.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Pro's first video on DNA is a video constructed on utter Ignorance Fallacy.
From the most Ignorant group on Earth: Answers-In-Genesis.
Led by earth's biggest Ignoramus in Ken Ham.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
What's that Rule!
Oh yeah
The FSM will provide sustenance!
:-D~
Posted by spinosauruskin 2 years ago
spinosauruskin
Lmfao that was brilliant!

So you're the one who boiled the FSM?
Okay, we pastafarians have to now subjugate you and your group for a few thousand years and will only renounce our hatred when a crazy one of us commits genocide and we feel guilty, but we will then forget about the part the rest of us played in the grand scheme of things.
Nope wait, that's how Christians react. The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves to be eaten. It is only His manifestation anyway. He feels no pain unless He needed to.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ spinosauruskin, Dawn and I are more likely to want to tear a Pastafarian apart.
Dawn, get the noodles and some hot water.
I'll bring the chicken and some vegetables and we'll make some Chicken Noodle soup from the bits we tear off the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Yo Dawn,
We're not tearing anybody apart???

Hang on a sec, I have my ute out the back, what say we chain the Theist to a tree and tie his legs to the ute and see how long it takes for his legs to come off.
Oh for good measure, so the Theist feels respected, we'll nail the hands to the tree as a symbol of our recognition of Christianity.
:-D~
Posted by spinosauruskin 2 years ago
spinosauruskin
This is great! Atheists tear apart theism once again!
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 2 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Yah, this is a question and not debateish but

I feel compelled to put my thoughts here, too.

There is nothing appealing about and bunch of stories that make little or no sense
about a mean, pretend guy in the sky
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
JasperFrancisShickadanceBurncastleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not exactly sure what this debate was about, but con debated better and therefore gets the win
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
JasperFrancisShickadanceBurncastleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off ok, but digressed to attacking Evolution which has nothing to do with God, so seriously, What was the debate really about. Con pointed this out and made a more convincing argument as to why God does not appeal to some people. Con's evidence was more on topic and more rational as well.