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

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 103725
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

passwordstipulationssuck

Pro

#1 round one is just for acceptance and stating your position
#2 no ad hominems.
#3 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply
#4 no new arguments in final rebuttals.

I apologize for forfeiting my last debate, I got busy with some stuff for band. But that's all over now and I'll definitely have time.
backwardseden

Con

I’m going to use a debate that I composed a few weeks or so ago. Its irrefutable.

I will also be adding a few things that were not on the original debate that was never gotten to.
OK Ready?

;- "Christianity Debunked Using Science and History" Richard Carrier so right off the bat christianity is exposed and unmasked for what it is, a worthless pile of junk, and atheism by default, common sense, reason, logic, and rationalizing is thus proved.

It is always up to theists to prove that THEIR god exists. No exceptions. None.

Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery a fake and a fraud. Indeed it is always up to theists to prove their god. No exceptions. None. How can you prove something that is unproved? How can you prove something that is unknown? How can you prove something that has never been seen by anyone - ever? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence? Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they that makes those outrageous and absurd claims. And we sit around and laugh with glee and the mint cookies on the shelves.

There’s absolutely no evidence for their god. None. There’s no tests that can prove their god. None. There’s nothing that can demonstrate their god. None. If there was, those who could prove this cherry picker god would be the only quadrillionaires on the planet. Their god would be the only god worshiped on the planet.

So how do you even know that this god even exists? Through faith? What? What kind of god, especially the god according to the bible with his truly bloated superior ego complex would ever NOT show himself and present evidence instead of leaving his so-called creation of man to rely on faith? Also if this god is truly a god, he would not rely on faith and he could simply come on down here and---talk---to---us. Now that’s evidence. The bible which is in TEXT form, which is clearly not evidence, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none. So this bible is essentially a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything.

If this god of theists is a true god he can simply come on down here and talk to us rather than using faith or text. Talking to man is evidence in which there is none to be proved.. So until this so called god of theirs presents any kind of evidence, he’s a sham, a fake and a fable unless you belong to the club of the truly gullible as many that are religious do rather than being shown something that is tangible in which there’s no proof that this god of theirs has ever done. That shows that those who worship this god with their gullibility, generally have a true lack of intelligence and education. .

Matt Dillahunty “The question is ill formed. The question is ‘what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true’? Atheism is the position of NOT accepting the theological explanation. It is NOT accepting the god hypothesis. It is in fact the null hypothesis. It cannot be proven to be true. It is the default position. And christianity and Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam they have all failed to meet their burden of proof. Its not up to me to prove they are any gods anymore than it is up to me to prove that that there isn’t bigfoot or fairies or UFO’s. The default position, the null hypothesis is that these things aren’t true. And we wait and we reserve belief until they are demonstrated to be true. Does that make sense?
Caller “Does that mean atheism is not a worldview?”
Matt “ That’s correct. Atheism isn’t a worldview. It doesn't have any pennants or dogma, no books, no authorities. It is a SINGLE position on a SINGLE question on the existence of gods. Now there is a world view that many atheists share. Most of us, at least with the ACA, are skeptics, that informs our worldview. Its my atheism as a direct product of skepticism. Many of us are secular humanists which tells us a little bit more about our moral outlook on life and other things. There’s many many many labels that would fit. There are a number of secular worldviews that are consistent with atheism. Just saying you are an atheist alone doesn’t say anything at all about somebody’s worldview. By the way most Buddhists are atheists. They don’t believe in a god. But they believe in any number of, in some cases, supernatural things that I don’t accept, some of them don’t accept that either, so yeah atheism is not a worldview. It can certainly be a part of a worldview. But its not a worldview in that broad sense.”


In closing for this round... if you have the slightest whimsical doubts within your beliefs in this god in which you cannot prove even exists, then you are an atheist.


So your job as Pro is to prove that the god according to the bible exists. Then again, why would you want to?



Rules I go by...No creationist will be accepted. Why? Because there’s not one creationist that will dare put his god on trial again. After all, the creationist is not stupid. He 100% knows that he will flat out lose every---single---time---he---tries. Why? Because all he has to go on is faith. All the creationist has is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved.

You've read my debates... If you pretend that you have knowledge upon something in which you know nothing about and you thus invent excuses, and its so easy to spot, I will either walk away or I will insult, degrade, and dehumanize you. That's something you will learn in college should you ever get that far. You need to provide actual evidence. I'm not gullible. I'm not stupid. I've seen pet pony tricks from across the world. All debaters, every one of them here on this site has failed to bring up any worthwhile debate against what I have stated simply because they do not know how to say "I don't know". Are you willing to say that? If not, then this debate is not for you.
Debate Round No. 1
passwordstipulationssuck

Pro

I would again like to apologize for forfeiting last time. shameful.

To begin I will make my own case then refute my opponents argumentation.

the existence of the earth defies probability. Years ago, famed astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there are two necessary criterion for a planet to support life: the right kind of star and the planet must be the right distance from that star. That meant that there should have been an innumerable amount of life supporting planets in the observable universe. Therefore, scientists were optimistic when they launched the S.E.T.I program (search for extra terrestrial intelligence) equipped with a vast array of satellites in order to pick up anything that resembled an encoded signal. Over the years the silence from the universe was deafening. It was then that they realized that the early estimations were no longer tenable. Today, the number of stipulations for a planet to support life have risen to 200+ all of which must be met perfectly or else the whole thing falls apart. Mathematicians have come to the conclusion that the earth is a 1 in 700 quintillion oddity. At what point do we recognize that it requires far MORE faith to assume that it all "just happened" than to believe that an intelligent force ensured that all of these criteria were met? However, the fine tuning required for the earth to exist is nothing compared to the requirements for the Universe to exist at all. Scientists now know that the four fundamental forces: the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces needed to be determined within one millionth of a second after the creation of the universe ( be it by the Big Bang, God, whatever) and any slight modification of the values of the forces would have resulted in the Universes non-existence. for example, if the ratio between the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force were altered by the tiniest most inconceivable fraction stars could not form and the universe would not exist.

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content" where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity." Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI), design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, the more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won"t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design.

I will now move on to address my opponents case. "atheism by default, common sense, reason, logic, and rationalizing is thus proved." I have already provided Large quantities of scientific evidence. You will note that I have only made secular scientific arguments throughout the debate. I have in no one been irrational.

2. "How can you prove something that is unproved?" the same way you "prove" anything else. (although nothing in science is ever truly "proven" even the most basic things like gravity) you provide supporting evidence.

3. "it is they that makes those outrageous and absurd claims." I would redirect you to the 1 in 700 quintillion chance of the earth existing randomly, and ask who's making absurd claims.

4. "There"s absolutely no evidence for their god. None" I think I've provided a fair bit of evidence.

5. This is where I might have to get a bit theistic on you. The generally accepted reason that God does not explicitly make himself known is that he wants us to choose him. the freedom to choose has always been integral to the Christian faith.

6. "The Bible which is in TEXT form, which is clearly not evidence, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none. So this Bible is essentially a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything." A. text is not the worst form of communication available. given that it was written thousands of years ago it was probably the best mode of communication. B. when you translate something it does inherently lose some of its meaning, however, you can always go back to the original Hebrew and Greek which was taken directly from the ancient texts.

7. this section contains nothing but ad hominem fallacies and restated arguments.

8. this is mostly an appeal to authority fallacy but I can state that making atheism the "default position" leads to some nasty stuff. Judeo-Christian values and alignment have created the greatest civilizations in the history of the world. Everything else, Especially atheism tends to go horribly wrong. IE Mao's China, The Soviet Union, North Korea among others. there has never been a successful state that adopted atheism as official.

9. I would suggest that if my opponent believes it necessary to insult, degrade, and dehumanize his opponents then civilization is not for him and he's better off with our savage ancestors.
backwardseden

Con


“To begin I will make my own case then refute my opponents argumentation.” Well that you didn’t because what you did do is copy and paste your information from somewhere in order for you to make a case and you know it. And for you to sit there and try to pretend that what you composed it all out of your bionic babbling baby brained reject is a joke. And its so obvious. The way you present yourself is like a burnt out christmas tree on crack is so obvious. You did invent excuses, something I told you NOT to do unless you wanted to be insulted and or I would walk away. Either way, it looks like I will do both because of your first paragraph.
So you have one shot and one shot only, exactly where did you get your information from? I want to look it up and see exactly how much B.S. it is. Because the numbers you’ve presented are so far off its completely laughable. After all, how can they possibly be true from nothing that has been found?
Oh and btw, YOUR god is 0% because after all, if there is only supposed to be “one”, in which your bible doesn’t claim that at all, in which your god is absolutely unproved in the first place, then he’s 0%. So Its takes A LOT more faith to believe in your god.

Richard Dawkins is a 100% evolutionist. That’s his conclusion. Fred Hoyle is an atheist. Stephen C. Meyer notes believes in intelligent design which you could call it for what it is… creationism so he’s tossed out. Great wonderful. How does ANY of your first 3 paragraphs prove YOUR god? Dawkins and Hoyle reject YOUR god.

1. “I have already provided Large quantities of scientific evidence.” Oh no you most certainly haven’t because you completely ignored the video before it "Christianity Debunked Using Science and History" Richard Carrier. Now pay attention to what was stated… “atheism by default” because Richard Carrier did in fact prove his case. You’ve only strengthened the case for atheism and your god not existing by mentioning hard core atheists such as Richard Dawkins.

2. Well see, had you bothered to read the entire line of questioning, in which clearly you did not, its all clumped together.

3. “I would redirect you to the 1 in 700 quintillion chance of the earth existing randomly,” And who made that claim?

4. "There"s absolutely no evidence for their god. None" I think I've provided a fair bit of evidence. Absolutely not have you because if you had, then you’d be the only quadrillionaire on the planet and your god would be the only one worshiped. Period. And you wonder why I shouldn’t insult you? Try harder.

5. “ the freedom to choose has always been integral to the Christian faith.” Absolutely 100% false. You show me anywhere in your bible where it states something, anything to the nth degree like “I the lard thy god grants man free will/ the ability to choose.” In fact there 0% of anything like that in his bible, which is laughably the only thing you have to go on in which no god would EVER use, a printed text, so you get get it wrong as you have clearly done right here. Oh and oh yeah. I haven’t even gotten into the free will issue. IF you believe in YOUR god in absolutely no way do you have free will. NONE.

6. "The Bible which is in TEXT form, which is clearly not evidence, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none. So this Bible is essentially a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything." A. Oh absolutely to YOUR god text is the worst form of communication possible.But there you go again, flat out inventing excuses. B. THERE’S ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR ANYONE TO HAVE TRANSLATED ANYTHING IN TEXT FORM ------------ EVER. But then again Aron Ra’s quote drifted right by you and or you CLEARLY didn’t read it. .



Conclusion
Look, if I am going to present you with actual evidence, and you are not even going to pay any attention to it, in other words to slaughter you, then what’s the point? Because you have not read the evidence, I am ending this round. So if you wish this debate to continue, then you are required to examine the evidence that is put forth to you and not skip over it and do the best you can with it. And for god's sake don't invent excuses. Also you have a way out... you say "I don't know" to something in which you don't know rather than B.S.ing me as you know you have done.



Debate Round No. 2
passwordstipulationssuck

Pro

I will first defend my own case then move on to attack my opponents.

1. First he says that I just copy paste my information, (while his own case has been copy-pasted word for word I might add) And While I do research, I do cite my sources. I cited several scientists and studies throughout my case.

2. I did not invent excuses. My argumentation was completely secular and devoid of emotional appeals or appeals to ignorance (unlike my opponent) with the exception of the time when the answer required that I explain a long held Christian belief in the freedom of choice.

3. If you believe that my numbers are B.S. as you say, perhaps you would like to provide evidence to refute them? Simply saying something is wrong and then not going forward to refute it is simply pointless.

4. "Oh, and btw, YOUR god is 0% because after all, if there is only supposed to be "one", in which your bible doesn"t claim that at all, in which your god is absolutely unproven in the first place, then he"s 0%. So Its takes A LOT more faith to believe in your god." I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. this is completely incomprehensible. If you're trying to say that the Bible doesn't say that there's only one god then you're simply mistaken.

5. he states that Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist. I don't contest this. He states that Fred Hoyle is an atheist. I don't contest this. and he states that Steven C. Meyer believes in intelligent design. I don't contest this. The point of that argument was to point out that even people who normally contest the existence of a god are forced to admit the evidence that the universe does give the appearance of having been designed by an intelligent force.

6. Again, you fail to make even a feeble attempt at actually doing research and refuting my claims. your appeal to authority has no pull here. I did watch the video then I went on to gather my own contrary evidence.

7."Well see, had you bothered to read the entire line of questioning, in which clearly you did not, its all clumped together." I'm not certain what part of my argument this pertains to.

8. Finally, a valid criticism. the person who made that claim was Astrophysicist Erik Zackrisson from Uppsala University in Sweden.

9. " Absolutely not have you because if you had, then you"d be the only quadrillionaire on the planet and your god would be the only one worshiped. Period. And you wonder why I shouldn"t insult you? Try harder." this isn't even an argument. There's nothing to say here.

10. My opponent makes the claim that Christianity does not believe in free will and requests that I point out a verse in the bible that suggests that free will exists. I will provide several. 2 peter 3:9 "the Lord is not slow in keeping his promise as some understand slowness. He is instead patient with you not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance." This verse illustrates that God has given us the choice to come to repentance rather than forcing us to. Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. John 7:17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." of course we know they did eat so this indicates that they did have the capacity to choose. I think that's plenty.

11. He once again states that text is the worst form of communication. I'm not just going to restate my argument as he does so I'll move on to the next part. He states that there's no reason for anyone to translate anything in text form. Unless someone who doesn't speak Greek or Hebrew wants to read it. For the same reason that we translated Plato's Republic from Greek. More people wanted to read it. so it was translated into their language. The claim that there is no reason to translate anything is absurd.

12. His conclusion is ludicrous seeing as I have addressed every single point he's made, I have not invented a single excuse, and I have provided a far larger quantity of evidence than he has (most of which he hasn't even made an attempt to refute. my card on physics and biology goes unaddressed as does most of my science.)

I would request that the rest of this debate remain civil.
backwardseden

Con

1. Really? Where did you cite any of your so-called sources?. “I cited several scientists and studies throughout my case.” Oh no you most certainly did not. Please try again. Posting a scientist is not citing him/ her.

2. Do you REALLY want to get into “freedom of choice”?

3. “If you believe that my numbers…” OK great, they are YOUR numbers. Where’d you get them from? Did you do a magic trick and pull them from your hat? Its not up to me to refute what you say. Its up to me to question what you say. Wow you must think that the entire world is gullible and stupid. NEWSFLASH sport: I don’t fall for cheap parlor tricks. I’m one helluva lot smarter than you and you cannot pull a super cheap menagerie of swollen blistered tongues on me. If you cannot provide proper evidence, that one is one you. So the numbers you posted are false, fake and fraudulent. You got caught red handed. You flat out lied. You know it.I really should end our debates right now because of it. If you do it again, you can count on it that I will. I’m far far far too good for that bombastic herd of zit cream that you use for your cannonball shattered glass windshield wipers you have drooling over your eyes. And you wonder why I insult you? I keep hoping for an intelligent debate. Clearly that’s NOT going to happen from you.So let's see how much of a further grave digger you are...

4. It doesn’t make sense because you have the edumacation and the cabbage batbrain of a high schooler. “If you're trying to say that the Bible doesn't say that there's only one god then you're simply mistaken.” Let’s put it this way…
Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 11:7 “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Who is this “”us”? Who is this “our”? Could very well be more than one god with the “us” and “our”. So quite the contrary. I’m not mistaken at all. And there’s no way that you can definitively interpret those verses any other way. See that’s why no god would ---ever--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody, including yourself could get it wrong rather than providing actual evidence.The bible is rock solid proof of 0 evidence.

5. “he states…” Who is “he”? “The point of that argument was to point out that even people who normally contest the existence of a god are forced to admit the evidence that the universe does give the appearance of having been designed by an intelligent force.” Um no. Granted, I don’t know that much about the other two and couldn’t care less, but that’s besides the point, but Dawkins would NEVER state that. He’d state like any and every good scientist would until there is definitive proof “I don’t know”. See that’s the problem with you christians. The words “I don’t know” are terrorists bile chalk words to you because after all, you think you know it all to everything. After all you have your little blank black book that has the answers to everything and unlocks the secrets of the universe with the cure for cancer that YOUR god gave unto man. And yet you don’t even have a single shred of proof that your god even exists. Wow. Imagine that with your little glass slipper that fits on the wrong foot.

6. OK we’re done. What did I state about lying and that I would not deal with it? Since you insist on flatly lying and not admitting that you are guilty about it and lying is clearly part of your horse meat stable diet, this will be my last spheel to you. If you lie to others the way you lie to me, you ain’t gonna get through life, not ever.
At the time of your first round you stated “atheism by default, common sense, reason, logic, and rationalizing is thus proved." I have already provided Large quantities of scientific evidence. You will note that I have only made secular scientific arguments throughout the debate. I have in no one been irrational.” Before that statement of yours, christianity was previously debunked by Richard Carrier. So no you didn’t previously have a look at the video and you know it. Try lying to someone else who doesn’t know any better, k?
Debate Round No. 3
passwordstipulationssuck

Pro

1. My opponent states that writing about what a scientist says is not citing a scientist. Yes it is. Ad Interim, you have yet to cite a single thing.

2. When I say that they are "my" numbers it means that they are the numbers that I have cited. Question all you want but you are showing your inability to do even a modicum of research to refute my claims and instead simply hurl insults. Simply pathetic.

3 "if you cannot cite proper evidence that is one for you" Meanwhile my evidence is entirely valid AND the only evidence presented in this debate thus far.

4. Once again you state that the numbers I posted are "fake and fraudulent" and that i got "caught red handed" yet, you have failed to actually refute me. Logically, if my numbers were fake and fraudulent, a simple google search would be able to expose me. you seem incapable of doing even that.

5 what does genesis 1:26 have to do with free will? absolutely nothing. Did you even read it? that verse exemplifies the care that God took in our creation. It does not regard free will. Next, my opponent cites genesis 11:7 and the Tower of Babel. If anything this verse provides greater support to my argument because it shows that we had the ability to go against what God would have for us. If we didn't the whole business with the tower would never have happened.

6 He asks about the "us" and "our" this is actually a deep theological discussion that regards what Christians call the Holy Trinity. you can do some research on it if you want but given what I've seen so far I don't think research is your strong point.

7 I'm not getting into the "text is a terrible form of communication" thing again. It's just a stupid argument on your part.

8 Richard Dawkins said this: "it"s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe."

9. His next and final point is just restated arguments that I've already addressed as well as more insults.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
@asta - sorry I was not aware that you posted me. Here's the thing... we both know that god does not exist. It is the mere belief in this printed text god that creates all this anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy etc. That's exactly what is in print and people believe it. People believe that just because they have this unproved "almighty god" with them that they can do anything that they want because they have this almighty power. Well look at the consequences with at least 1 billion dead all in this supposed god's "good" name. And it will continue in a very big way if the book of revelation is played out.
Just to do something in space would be a + but I do think the probe going to Europa is a miss-steak. The real best probe is to get one to Both of Saturn's moons Enceladus AND Titan at the same time. What's really curious and interesting and perhaps prophetic is that nothing from any religion, especially christianity and judaism not one prophesy has ever come true/ been proven true as of yet. But Carl Sagan who died in 1996 predicted that Titan would have lakes of liquid methane. He was proven right in 2005 when Cassini arrived. Now how could he have known that when virtually NOTHING was known of the moon? He also predicted dust devils would be on Mars. Again nothing was known of the planet until after his death.
Well maybe things will change in a big way for the space program when the James Webb telescope gets going in 2020. There's gotta be life elsewhere. Chris Hadfield "Given an unlimited number of planets and an unlimited amount of time, its a little bit delusional to think that this place is the ONLY place that life could have EVER evolved."
Posted by judaism 6 months ago
judaism
Funny! backwardseden brings up Hitler for his AGENDA. I proved to him Hitler wan's religious (as in being Christian, he was more like an occults), nevertheless, he refused to acknowledge all the work I did. Here's the paper if anyone's interested:

https://docs.google.com...
Posted by judaism 6 months ago
judaism
My friends, that's the great beauty with Judaism! unlike the other world faiths, G-d won't send you to hell if you forget to worship Him. It's one of the 13 Middot. He won't punish us for things we didn't know. A person from North Korea, for instance, who never heard of the G-d of Israel has every right to Gan Eden (the Jewish heaven) as any other person. In fact, G-d rather have a righteous Gentile in heaven than a wicked Jew. He loves all people, and He chose us to be a light to the nations. In other words, we're here for you, and don't listen to what anybody else says, because this is the Jewish concept.
Posted by asta 6 months ago
asta
P.S. passwordstipulationssuck is my friend. Try not to be too mean too him. College will be rough for me because although I'm an atheist, I am very conservative in general. I'm pro life, pro individual defense, I don't like the current tax system. I support immigration restrictions, I love America. I am an atheist conservative.
Posted by asta 6 months ago
asta
You believe that God doesn't exist.
You believe he is an evil dictator that created terrible people and exists as an evil dictator.

Which one is it?

Also, I would rather spend money on colonizing the moon then going to Neptune with no intention to colonize the planet just to see life.
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
Hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies of 1,000 or more google "contradictions in the bible" and look for "Bible Inconsistencies - Bible Contradictions - Secular Web" because for some odd reason when the link is copied and pasted, it doesn't come up here. But it a meal stacker. Or for a much better result, if you want a 61 page document google "dossier of reason". This fricken thing has ev-er-yt-hi-ng. The problem of salvation and faith, The problem of morality, the bible is immoral and gives specific points where its immoral and then some in which it completely is, the problem of god's origin, the problem of historical jesus, the problem of the bible (how the bible is full of errors in nearly every possible way), and of course it gets into contradictions and internal errors in the bible + a whole lot more. Its a great document.
Neptune I like it with winds if whipping 600 to 1500mph and that great dark spot. And Triton traveling backwards and spewing volcanic ice. Gotta send a probe there to see if there's life. Its unlike any other anywhere.
As far as me being mean, WRONG. If someone doesn't know what they are talking about, especially for a subject that they claim to having knowledge upon and they really don't and yet they pretend they do, and since they don't and they thus invent excuses for it as clearly, without question as cabbage batbrains like passwordstipulationssuck has done all---the---time then he rightly deserves to be insulted, degraded, dehumanized and belittled. This is something you will learn in college should you get that far and I hope you do. But I use my own brand of insults that are amazingly original, comedic, satiric, and designed to say to the opponent "Yeah I'm a total fire ants nests in the you know where area in order to gain acceptance for something in which I should have never done to try to bluff my way onto center stage." Gtg please always tc and have fun.
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
@asta - I just did a debate taken from this page http://churchandstate.org.uk... - "The Problem With Faith: 11 Ways Religion Is Destroying Humanity" One of the 11 problems is The superiority complex. Read it if you wish, or visit my debate @ http://www.debate.org... but please DO NOT accept the debate! I'd like a theist to accept the debate.
god, in which no one can even prove even exists, thankfully, is far worse than murderous, he hates children, has freely admitted to anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, jealousy. WHAT? from a supposed supreme deity? Jealousy? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. And even worse is this supposed god neatly passed down those baggage emotions so in turn man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going those who worship him with at least 1 billion dead all in the supposed "good" name of god on the battlefields alone. And the thing that christians don't get is that their almighty creator could have created universal peace, happiness, kindness, care, love, harmony etc etc etc AND KEPT IT. But nah he had to bring in all this hate and evil when hate and evil is NOT a need, a requirement nor a necessity. Only in god's turgid world it is. Heaven and hell as you have ever so graciously and correctly mentioned. Here's the thing which is how nearly all religions work and the christian religion is no different... first you have power and then you have fear and then you have control. Aka as you have stated our friend in N. Korea + Hitler, Hong Xiuquan, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot every serial killer, torturer, pedophile, rapist, sodomizer etc etc etc after all god created them and if god is god he must have known who they would turn out to be. And since he is their creator, then he is ultimately responsible for them. So he is worse than them.
Posted by asta 6 months ago
asta
P.S. If your rude to Christians and if you say things that don't make sense, they may think your immoral and a troll.
Posted by asta 6 months ago
asta
+backwardseden

"Christians do what ---they--- want, how ---they--- want and they really don't give a damn about anybody else except for themselves." The reason why people are Christians are because they want to go to heaven for an eternity and they are extremely afraid of hell. While God is murderous, Christians are prohibited by God from saying that because then God claims to burn them in hell forever. Christians claim to believe in God. I believe that Kim Jun Un exists, even though I hate him.

God is like Kim Jun Un, he's extremely tyrannical, but you don't see many North Koreans openly preaching against him because they are afraid of him. After all, God wants us to fear him and love him.

"hypocritical contradictions, at least 1,000" I don't have 1,000 contradictions of the bible. I have a spreadsheet that contains about 100 and I am an atheist solely because of the contradictions.

P.S. Why is your profile page Neptune?
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
@asta Sure most christians tend to be pro life. But that's a major hypocritical contradiction. After all their god committed many genocides, one of them being the great flood that virtually wiped out all life, and most certainly all pregnant mothers in which god thus committed abortions. Christians do what ---they--- want, how ---they--- want and they really don't give a damn about anybody else except for themselves. But that's what their god wants in their bible which is filled with hypocritical contradictions, at least 1,000, thus making it unreadable. And if god is god he would have foreseen all of these contradictions, especially through his superior ego complex, in which the bible is entirely based and nothing else, and not used text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.
Btw, wow how could I have missed this? China is the only developed country in the world, according to pew, where christianity is on the rise. Now that's from an article of theirs from a while back so things could have changed since then (2015).
Now you are right that many atheists are moral. In fact most are. That's because there's no special book/ guidelines for atheists on how to behave. Christians and those who are religious have that one nailed down with all the sick and disgusting perversity in the world.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.