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: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,389 times Debate No: 103725
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (45)
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
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 2 months ago
backwardseden
* Do you believe that its perfectly OK for YOUR god to hate on women and many times cause them to have abortions? Y____? N____? Why? Why Not? LM 4 9-11 sick and disgusting, HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, JD 21:10, 2 SAM 12 11-14 sick and disgusting, DT 2:34, NU 31 17:18, LV 26 21:22, 1 SAM 15:3, HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, DT 2 32-34, 2 KS 8: 9-15, 2 KS 15:16 sick and disgusting, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, 2 KS 6: 28-29 sick and disgusting, JD 19: 24-29, LM 2 20-22 sick and disgusting, 1 COR 14:34, 1 TY 2:12, 1 COR 11:5,
Posted by anc2006 3 months ago
anc2006
Hey backwardseden, This place is already trashed, So why not go to somewhere better?

https://www. Debateart. Com/
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
https://infidels. Org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions. Html - The Secular Web (Gigantic site gets into contradictions/ inconsistencies, Absurdities, Fatal flaws, Atrocities, Vulgarities from the verses of the bible with direct links to them. )
http://www. Answering-christianity. Com/101_bible_contradictions. Htm - 101 contradictions
Dossier of Reason - DDO will not take the link. However, Not all is lost. Simply google Dossier of Reason PDF and it will be the very first link. (this is a PDF file and its 61 pages long but it has EVERYTHING you could possibly want. It has a lot more than just contradictions. If you want to save it, Simply copy and paste it into your google docs. Its highly recommended. ) Also right below it is another link which is a list of Over 700 Inconsisties in the bible.
https://wardoons. Wordpress. Com/debate/ (1, 000 clear contradictions in the bible)
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=EcP7XPgr8Vs - Mr Butt Solves Bible Contradictions - What a truly great video! Yes, There"s actually one video that you are going to have to look at here!
Another link that DDO will not take but all is not lost so simply google Proof that religion is a man-made device and why it is outdated
and it thus is the second link.
Oh there's plenty more. I haven't even gotten started.
*this article mainly uses Christianity
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
10. Americans feel less warmly toward atheists than they do toward members of most major religious groups. A 2019 Pew Research Center survey asked Americans to rate groups on a "feeling thermometer" from 0 (as cold and negative as possible) to 100 (the warmest, Most positive possible rating). U. S. Adults gave atheists an average rating of 49, Identical to the rating they gave Muslims (49) and colder than the average given to Jews (63), Catholics (60) and evangelical Christians (56).
(This is ultimately sad. That's because nealy 100% of those who are religious, Namely christians in this case, Have no idea as to what an atheist is. They automatically judge without knowing. Atheists are individuals who only have one belief which is nonbelief in a god or gods. Everything else hey, We as atheists are all different as individuals. We cannot be stamped and branded into a religion as atheism is not a religion and bound by a book and cover as the bible, The quran, The torah or the book of mormon does and lives by it's rules. )

Prove that atheism is false and a bad thing.

dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
8. Atheists may not believe religious teachings, But they are quite informed about religion. In Pew Research Center"s 2019 religious knowledge survey, Atheists were among the best-performing groups, Answering an average of about 18 out of 32 fact-based questions correctly, While U. S. Adults overall got an average of roughly 14 questions right. Atheists were at least as knowledgeable as Christians on Christianity-related questions " roughly eight-in-ten in both groups, For example, Know that Easter commemorates the resurrection of Jesus " and they were also twice as likely as Americans overall to know that the U. S. Constitution says "no religious test" shall be necessary to hold public office.
(We as atheists do generally know more about religion than those who are religious. )

9. Most Americans (56%) say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral, While 42% say belief in God is necessary to have good values, According to a 2017 survey. In other wealthy countries, Smaller shares tend to say that belief in God is essential for good morals, Including just 15% in France. But in many other parts of the world, Nearly everyone says that a person must believe in God to be moral, Including 99% in Indonesia and Ghana and 98% in Pakistan, According to a 2013 Pew Research Center international survey.
(Considering that according to the bible its god is completely immoral, Such as committing horrific genocide after genocide and thus murdering babies, Children and pregnant mothers which is abortions for the mere reasoning of jealousy in which case is not a reason, Atheists as a whole are completely moral as we do not follow a completely immoral unproven god. )
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
6. Where do atheists find meaning in life? Like a majority of Americans, Most atheists mentioned "family" as a source of meaning when Pew Research Center asked an open-ended question about this in a 2017 survey. But atheists were far more likely than Christians to describe hobbies as meaningful or satisfying (26% vs. 10%). Atheists also were more likely than Americans overall to describe finances and money, Creative pursuits, Travel, And leisure activities as meaningful. Not surprisingly, Very few U. S. Atheists (4%) said they found life"s meaning in spirituality.
(Again, Isn't this absolutely wonderful? )

7. In many cases, Being an atheist isn"t just about personally rejecting religious labels and beliefs " most atheists also express negative views when asked about the role of religion in society. For example, Seven-in-ten U. S. Atheists say religion"s influence is declining in American public life, And that this is a good thing (71%), According to a 2019 survey. Fewer than one-in-five U. S. Adults overall (17%) share this view. A majority of atheists (70%) also say churches and other religious organizations do more harm than good in society, And an even larger share (93%) say religious institutions have too much influence in U. S. Politics.
(Most atheists should express negative views when asked about religion and its role in society as it offers false hope from an unproven god that is of terror and even goes as far as to hating children as the bible clearly shows plus a whole lot more. )
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
4. In the U. S. , Atheists are mostly men and are relatively young, According to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study. About seven-in-ten U. S. Atheists are men (68%). The median age for atheists is 34, Compared with 46 for all U. S. Adults. Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% vs. 66% of the general public) and highly educated: About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, Compared with 27% of the general public. Self-identified atheists also tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party and with political liberalism.

5. The vast majority of U. S. Atheists say religion is not too or not at all important in their lives (93%) and that they seldom or never pray (97%). At the same time, Many do not see a contradiction between atheism and pondering their place in the world. About a third of American atheists say they think about the meaning and purpose of life at least weekly (35%), And that they often feel a deep sense of spiritual peace and well-being (31%). In fact, The Religious Landscape Study shows that atheists are more likely than U. S. Christians to say they often feel a sense of wonder about the universe (54% vs. 45%).
(Isn't this absolutely wonderful? )
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
3. Atheists make up a larger share of the population in many European countries than they do in the U. S. In Western Europe, Where Pew Research Center surveyed 15 countries in 2017, Nearly one-in-five Belgians (19%) identify as atheists, As do 16% in Denmark, 15% in France and 14% in the Netherlands and Sweden. But the European country with perhaps the biggest share of atheists is the Czech Republic, Where a quarter of adults identify that way. In neighboring Slovakia, 15% identify as atheists, Although in the rest of Central and Eastern Europe, Atheists have a smaller presence, Despite the historical influence of the officially atheist Soviet Union. Like Americans, Europeans in many countries are more likely to say they do not believe in God than they are to identify as atheists, Including two-thirds of Czechs and at least half of Swedish (60%), Belgian (54%) and Dutch adults (53%) who say they do not believe in God. In other regions surveyed by the Center, Including Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, Atheists generally are much rarer.
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
2. The literal definition of "atheist" is "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, " according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U. S. Atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind. (Overall, 10% of American adults share this view. ) At the same time, Roughly one-in-five self-described atheists (18%) say they do believe in some kind of higher power. None of the atheists we surveyed, However, Say they believe in "God as described in the Bible. "
(Oh absolutely true and why should ---anyone--- believe in the god of the bible? Not only that but using a quote from the original Planet of the Apes film "There has to be something else out there that's better than man. Has to be. " I agree. It's not the god of the bible in which case no one has ever proved to have ever existed. )
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
1. The share of Americans who identify as atheists has increased modestly but significantly in the past decade. Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019 show that 4% of American adults say they are atheists when asked about their religious identity, Up from 2% in 2009. An additional 5% of Americans call themselves agnostics, Up from 3% a decade ago.
(Isn't this great? )
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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.