The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Yozavad
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 98191
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

I will take the atheist evolution point of view, my opponent the Christian creationism side.

Definition of Creationism via wikipedia.


"Creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. Creation science refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States.[1]

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[4] The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the emerging science of evolution.[5]

Creationists base their beliefs on a literal reading of religious texts, including the biblical Genesis creation myth and Islamic mythology from the Quran.[6][7][8] For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.[9] Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[8] Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include creation science,[10] flood geology,[11] and intelligent design,[12][13] as well as subsets of pseudoarchaeology,[14][15] pseudohistory, and even pseudolinguistics.[16]"


Structure
R1 Acceptance & definitions
R2 Arguments
R3 Rebuttals
R4 Defense

Burden of proof
Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am the instigator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.

Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.

Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.

Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.

Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round three in response to my opponents round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.

Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.

My opponent must take a literal Christian approach to creationism. This is because, I don't want to have to hit a moving target between different versions of creationism, Islam, metaphorical Christian, Hindu, and deism.

Previous debate [1], feel free to use it for reference and to anticpate my argument.

Sources.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org...
1. http://www.debate.org...
Yozavad

Con

Hello Stupidape. I'll kick off this shindig with some definitions.

Abiogenesis: The origin of life from nonliving matter.

Speciation: when a critter evolves into a different sort of critter.

Macroevolution: major evolutionary transition complex enough to trigger speciation among a set of critters.

Microevolution: minor evolutionary transition among a set of critters, especially over a short period.

Interpretation: the act of explaining the meaning of something.

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Hopefully we can experience empathy, otherwise it's just kill the time vs kill the time.

Oops, I almost forgot to state my position. Yep, I believe in creationism.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

R2 Arguments

The Round one definitions seem satisfactory.

On one side we have the rational atheistic evolution. Which promotes via empirical evidence how we came to be through a series of natural processes. Our universe came from another universe, the multi-verse theory, then a big bang occurred, the big bang theory, the Earth gradually formed via rotations, the theory of gravity.

Next, the first lifeforms emerged abiogenesis, theory of abiogenesis. Which then evolved into more and more complex lifeforms eventually evolving homo sapiens. This is Darwin's theory of evolution. This is all rational and backed up by empirical evidence, although we cannot replicate such events like the big bang, we can use computer models. Finally, a scientific hypothesis is considered true, until proven false.

All these above theories are therefore considered true, until proven false. This is the nature of science.

On the other side, we have Christian creationism, a faith based approach which relies solely upon Christian religious doctrine. Doctrine that claims God is good, geocentric, flat, young Earth. Filled with many unrepeatable and unobservable events like a man walking on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead, Jonah surviving three days and nights within the belly of a great fish, Noah surviving a year with a very large boat built by amateurs with lots of animals on board.

Not only that, but a character who claims to be the one and only benevolent God who breaks his own rules and performs many immoral deeds. The worst in my opinion is eternal damnation, punishing finite crimes with infinite punishment. There is many others including promoting slavery.


""20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [2]

"“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;” " [3]"


The genocides of the Old Testament. [4] This includes the drowning of almost every human and animal on the Earth. The incest within the Bible. [5][6]

If this wasn't enough the Bible has plenty of contradictions and translations. [7][8]

How can we trust this source that has been translated so many times and contains so many contradictions? That promotes immoral behavior and impossible events. A character who breaks his own rules. That promotes ideas that are scientifically garbage, pseudoscience. The answer is we can't.

I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that literal Christian creationism is false. That the Earth cannot be flat, because it is spherical in shape. The theory of gravity wouldn't allow for a flat Earth. The rotations would smooth out the Earth into a sphere. That's why all the other planets are spherical in shape. There are many photographs of Earth. [9]

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. We can tell this due to radioactive decay dating techniques. [10]

"Age of moon rocks 4.5 billion19
Age of meteorites 4.5 billion24
Accumulation of space dust on the moon (at the measured rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year) 4.5 billion25
Age of earth rocks 4.2 billion17
Relaxation times of star clusters 4 billion26
Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon 4 billion27
Length of days of coral fossils 370 million28" [10]

There are galaxies far away that require 13.3 billions of light years to travel. The universe must be at least 13.3 billion years old. [11]

Then, there is the enormous amount of fossil evidence. [12]

In sharp contrast my opponent stands by a series of books that claims that God sent two female bears to kill 42 children. That is both bizarre and immoral.


"Elisha Mocked
23Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" 24When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25He went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.…" [13]


Finally, I will back up evolution to head off my opponent's most common approaches. Is evolution testable and observable? Yes, evolution can be observed via natural selection. [14] Evolution can also be observed in the lab. The most notable is drug resistant pathogens becoming dominant via natural selection.[15]

Evolution can be tested


"With respect to the fossil record, evolutionary hypotheses are routinely tested as new fossil data are collected and matching that data against hypotheses about evolutionary relationships." [16]

"But decades ago, theorists also proposed that a new species could evolve without any such changes, but instead simply as a result of large DNA strands' moving from one chromosome to another within a genome, a change known as a chromosomal rearrangement.While the theory sounded promising, since such rearrangements can be quite common, it eventually waned in popularity, in part because scientists had no way of testing it.Now in a slick feat of molecular maneuvering, a team of researchers has reorganized huge portions of one yeast species' chromosomes, rendering its chromosomal map identical to that of a closely related species, just as it was once, in the distant past. " [16]


There is multiple ways to observe and test evolution both in the field and in the laboratory.


I look forward to your response, thank you for debating.

Sources.
2. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
3. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
4. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
5. http://listverse.com...
6. http://www.holybooks.info...
7. https://www.britannica.com...
8. http://infidels.org...
9. https://duckduckgo.com...
10. http://godandscience.org...
11. http://www.space.com...
12. http://atheism.about.com...
13. http://biblehub.com...
14. http://atheism.about.com...
15. http://listverse.com...
16. http://www2.ljworld.com...
Yozavad

Con

Stupidape: "My opponent must take a literal Christian approach to creationism. This is because, I don't want to have to hit a moving target...." I am not a Christian. I'm Jewish. Though I believe I'll be a suitable punching bag. :)
I believe in God, the Torah, and creationism. I reject abiogenesis, speciation, and macroevolution.

I believe empathy proves creationism and disproves evolution. I also believe Science is a rookie subjugated by its own interpretations.

Empathy Argument:
Predation, breeding quarrels, territorial disputes, suffering, disease, and environmental changes. All of this is governed by the Darwinian principle, "survival of the fittest." Evolution doesn't have an umpire, yet we constantly see various species saying, "to hell with darwinian principles." We hear it by their actions.
I saw a guerrilla documentary. The cameramen came across some guerrillas attempting to rescue a dog. Poachers had placed some wiretraps in the area, and an unlucky dog stepped in it. The cameramen were amazed at how the guerrillas were trying to free the horrified dog's paw from the clutches of the wiretrap. The guerrillas were unsuccessful. A cameraman freed the dog after they left.
Abiogenesis didn't give them guerrillas empathy. Abiogenesis has no traits to pass along to us.
Evolution? Nope. Evolution is as hard as nails. That dog's existence would not benefit the guerillas.

I've also seen apes do morbid things. I've seen bonobos raping their young.
http://www.skepticink.com...
(Couldn't find the videos, but found this)

I've seen a chimp torture a frog to death.

Entertainment by cruelty. Evolution doesn't care.
Empathy is hard to find. We all live in a broken world, and empathy is the first step in fixing it.
That's the heart of Judaism.

I'm a vegetarian. It saddens me the way animals are treated. Evolution doesn't care.
Our ever growing cravings for meat have created concentration camps for animals.
The Torah has something to say about animals. Deuteronomy 25:4 " don't muzzle the ox who threshes grain." The ox is allowed to stop turning the millstone and eat the grain.
Deuteronomy 22:10 " do not plow with an ox and a donkey harnessed together." The uneven strengths would hurt both animals. Evolution doesn't care. Animals should not be forced to eat what they'd never eat. Nor should they be forced to bare undue burdens.
Factory farms feed cattle poultry litter. Poultry litter is the agriculture industry"s term for the detritus that gets scooped off the floors of chicken cages and broiler houses. It"s mainly a combination of feces, feathers, and uneaten chicken feed, but in addition, a typical sample of poultry litter might also contain antibiotics, heavy metals, disease-causing bacteria, and even bits of dead rodents, according to Consumers Union.
Our factory farms (concentration camps) are exceedingly efficient. Lots of mouths to feed, and they get the job done. It's efficient for mankind to do this. Billions of people want beef. Ole MacDonald's farm can't meet our demands. But it makes this teary-eyed Jew saddened beyond remedy. Evolution doesn't care. It's survival of the fittest. We've conquered the cow. Glory to us! Abiogenesis gave us no conscience. Screw the cows.
Well, God cares. He gave us a conscience. He's even giving animals a conscience.
Yesterday I stumped my toe on the coffee table, and Opie (my chiwawa) came running. He licked my toe. He was very concerned about me. Evolution is not concerned about my toe.

Scientific Interpretations:
"Evolution is the best explanation based on our interpretation of the evidence."____Richard
Dawkins
Scientists are not part of a conspiracy theory. They're not holding evolution in one hand and flipping God off with the other. Many Scientists are religious. It must annoy them when someone like me insists that they're wrong. When my mechanic tells me, my truck needs a new starter, I don't reject his diagnosis. I accept it on authority. I'm not a mechanic.
When it comes to abiogenesis, speciation, evolution in general, I will not\never accept it on authority. There's too much at stake. If they're right, it doesn't matter how we treat animals, or each other. All that matters is efficiency. It's survival of the fittest. Can my violence defeat your violence. Sure, we can be good for goodness sake, but what about those brains that don't acknowledge such sentiments?
There's been many books written about the gaps of evolution. Those things that don't fit. Many internet sites are devoted to this as well. This subject doesn't need my two cents' worth thrown in as well. I do believe it's plausible that scientists may discover something that discounts Darwin's theory. Until then, I'm not a scientist. I'll leave that to others.

Question: Stupidape, I assume you're not a Vulcan. Other than, "give me the facts only" world view, why do you WANT "atheistic evolution" to be true?
As a vegetarian, I appreciate that you're a vegan. Evolution doesn't care what you eat. Predation is the god of evolution. However, there's a God who put empathy in your soul, and allows you to tweak your conscience in accordance with your world view.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

R3 Rebuttals


"Stupidape: "My opponent must take a literal Christian approach to creationism. This is because, I don't want to have to hit a moving target...." I am not a Christian. I'm Jewish. Though I believe I'll be a suitable punching bag. :)
I believe in God, the Torah, and creationism. I reject abiogenesis, speciation, and macroevolution." Yozavad

It is not what you believe, but what you debate. So long as your willing to debate Christian creationism, you could be Muslim for all I care.


"I believe empathy proves creationism and disproves evolution. I also believe Science is a rookie subjugated by its own interpretations." Yozavad


Science is a skeptical point of view aimed to eliminate as much bias as possible via the scientific method. Any bias comes from humans.

"Empathy Argument:
Predation, breeding quarrels, territorial disputes, suffering, disease, and environmental changes. All of this is governed by the Darwinian principle, "survival of the fittest." Evolution doesn't have an umpire, yet we constantly see various species saying, "to hell with darwinian principles." We hear it by their actions.
I saw a guerrilla documentary. The cameramen came across some guerrillas attempting to rescue a dog. Poachers had placed some wiretraps in the area, and an unlucky dog stepped in it. The cameramen were amazed at how the guerrillas were trying to free the horrified dog's paw from the clutches of the wiretrap. The guerrillas were unsuccessful. A cameraman freed the dog after they left.
Abiogenesis didn't give them guerrillas empathy. Abiogenesis has no traits to pass along to us.
Evolution? Nope. Evolution is as hard as nails. That dog's existence would not benefit the guerillas." Yozavad


I assume you mean gorillas as in hairy apes as opposed to Vietnam guerrilla warfare. Empathy is useful and seen in many other species other than humans.


"Empathy also plays a role in cooperation. One needs to pay close attention to the activities and goals of others to cooperate effectively. A lioness needs to notice quickly when other lionesses go into hunting mode, so that she can join them and contribute to the pride’s success. A male chimpanzee needs to pay attention to his buddy’s rivalries and skirmishes with others so that he can help out whenever needed, thus ensuring the political success of their partnership. Effective cooperation requires being exquisitely in tune with the emotional states and goals of others." [17]


As you can see empathy does serve a purpose.

Empathy is found in chickens

"Chickens are capable of feeling empathy, scientists believe
Domestic chickens display signs of empathy, the ability to 'feel another's pain' that is at the heart of compassion, a study has found. " [18]

"They freed cagemates even when social contact was prevented. When liberating a cagemate was pitted against chocolate contained within a second restrainer, rats opened both restrainers and typically shared the chocolate. Thus, rats behave pro-socially in response to a conspecific’s distress, providing strong evidence for biological roots of empathically motivated helping behavior." [19]

That being said, evolution is the answer to how empathy evolved in humans. As to the most primitive organism that possess empathy, I would guess a multi-cell organism. Meaning abiogenesis was not responsible for empathy but evolution was.

As for the gorillas not benefiting from the dog's existence, that is difficult to determine. The food chain is elaborate and perhaps the gorillas do benefit from the dog. One example would be if the dog hunted and killed diseased gorillas reinforcing survival of the fittest. Then, more food would be available for the healthy gorillas.

As for the violent acts which animals perform, this too is reinforcement for evolution. These actions are done for a purpose. For example, having a high sex drive would increase likely hood of reproduction. The downside would be the event you mentioned, the higher chance of reproduction must outweigh the downside.

Chimpanzees are hunters, what you see is torture, I see as imagination, the Chimp, like a cat toying with a mouse, is using his/her imagination to help hunt and thus survive to reproduce, reinforcing evolution.

There are plenty of Bible versus that have been use to promote animal cruelty. Animals not having souls, but humans having sous. God giving man dominion over animals.

"For centuries, religion played no small part in the needless suffering of animals. In the work of religious scholars and philosophers – most memorably, that of Descartes – human kind was taught to believe that animals were nothing more than soulless automaton; renewable resources with which we can do what we wish. Indeed we refer to this kind of opinion today as ‘Cartesian’, and thus we embed it with an air of intellectual vigour which science tells us it does not deserve. In truth the view is nothing more than religious nonsense which, like the creation story, science has now disproved. It was simply Descartes who was best known for arguing it, hence ‘Cartesian’. [20]


"There's too much at stake. If they're right, it doesn't matter how we treat animals, or each other." Yozavad

Evolution provides empathy and there are plenty of moral developed in the realm of philosophy that do no require religion. Codes of law often are secular in nature, yet provide a moral code. A double standard is philosophical moral concept. By recognizing double standards against animals we can treat animals with greater respect and equality.

" All that matters is efficiency. It's survival of the fittest." Yozavad

Morals and empathy are part of survival of the fittest. A Chimpanzee with no morals nor empathy will become a social outcast and be naturally selected out. That chimpanzee will not reproduce nor will his/her genes be passed on.

"I do believe it's plausible that scientists may discover something that discounts Darwin's theory. " Yozavad

If Darwin's theory is falsified, it will be by another scientific theory.

"Question: Stupidape, I assume you're not a Vulcan. Other than, "give me the facts only" world view, why do you WANT "atheistic evolution" to be true?" Yozavad

First, I don't think it is a matter of what I want. I seek the truth and I think atheism and evolution are true and God and creationism are false constructs. Second, I think religion is responsible for many immoral deeds.

I think religion is responsible for at least in part:
A. The WWII 3rd Reich holocaust of millions of Jews
B. Much suffering to animals
C. Overpopulation
D. Devaluing of the environment and science
E. Countless atrocities including human sacrifices
F. Finally, I think there is a good chance that religion will cause a premature end of the world in one of three ways:


a. Running out of resources due to overpopulation and devaluing of science.
b. World War III nuclear apocalypse over religious grounds
c. Neglecting global climate change until we reach a Venus scenario.

This is why it is my opinion that religion is immoral and must be resisted at every turn.

Thanks for debating.

Sources.
17. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...
18. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
19. http://science.sciencemag.org...
20. https://richarddawkins.net...















Yozavad

Con

Can I blame guerrillas on my spellchecker? :)

OK, you mentioned some harsh Torah verses.
"20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [2]

If a man beat his slave to death he was subject to punishment. Either through the court or street justice by the family members.
If the slave survived a couple of days the master was not punished. It's assumed he didn't intend to murder him. These rules made sense to a society that condoned slavery.
We no longer belong to that world. I believe God wrote the Torah to have meaning to primitive man as well as modern man. I assume God would know we'd smarten up and reject slavery.
Harsh verses in the Torah are like speed bumps. They slow you down and make you think.
If a person embraced all the harsh verses in the Torah, I would stay far away from that miserable son of a b****. Jews criticized the Torah way before atheists did.

I noticed in one of your debates you said, "God intended for us to be herbivores."
I don't know if you lost your faith or not. Maybe your debate was a satire. God will eventually have us all be herbivores, as prophecied by Isaiah chapter 11. Evolution will never do this.

"I'm a million different people from one day to the next. I can break my mold. No! No! No! No! No!...No.....No....No"____Richard Ashcroft
The desire to break our mold is from God. Evolution doesn't care.
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

R4 Defense


"If a man beat his slave to death he was subject to punishment. Either through the court or street justice by the family members.
If the slave survived a couple of days the master was not punished. It's assumed he didn't intend to murder him. These rules made sense to a society that condoned slavery.
We no longer belong to that world. I believe God wrote the Torah to have meaning to primitive man as well as modern man. I assume God would know we'd smarten up and reject slavery." Yozavad


Yes, but by that notion we could go much further. God would assume we'd smarten up and reject flat Earth, Young Earth creationism, geocentric, the Old Testament, creationism, and finally religion all together. This also doesn't adequately explain why God would tolerate slavery in the first place. I would think if God really did write the ten commandments that "thou shalt not have slaves" would have made the list.

I can only conclude that neither the God of the Old testament nor New testament existed nor exists. The reason being is God is supposed to be the ultimate moral authority. The ultimate moral authority would never tolerate slavery. Therefore, the Christian God cannot exist.


"If a person embraced all the harsh verses in the Torah, I would stay far away from that miserable son of a b****. " Yozavad


I couldn't agree more.


"I noticed in one of your debates you said, "God intended for us to be herbivores."
I don't know if you lost your faith or not. Maybe your debate was a satire. God will eventually have us all be herbivores, as prophecied by Isaiah chapter 11. Evolution will never do this." Yozavad


I don't remember when that debate was. Yes, I did lose my faith, partly due to Christians thinking factory farming was tolerable. The cognitive dissonance was already high in me when I found Richard Dawkin's videos.

I disagree about evolution. Scientific scholarly peer reviewed articles have shown the health benefits of vegetarian and vegan diets. [21]

"Cytotoxic activity, which is expressed as lytic units, was significantly higher in vegetarians than in their omnivorous controls by a factor of 2. The total number of white blood cells, lymphocytes, and other subpopulations did not differ between vegetarians and nonvegetarians. The enhanced natural cytotoxicity may be one of the factors contributing to the lower cancer risk shown by vegetarians." [21]


It may take awhile, but evolution does allow for people that make stupid mistakes to win the Darwin award. [22] Meanwhile, people that are healthier are more likely to live and reproduce. It may take one million years or so, but I think evolution would allow for meat eaters to be selected out eventually.

Sources.
21 .https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
22. http://www.darwinawards.com...


Yozavad

Con

Christopher Hitchens in his debate with Tony Blair said, " I believe in the numinous."
I will never doubt the spirituality of Hitchens. He was a unique man. He was obsessed with all the bad stuff in the world. His numinous was pointing out the hypocrisy of religion.
His humorous condemnation of religion was\is enlightening to watch. Yes, an atheist can live a spiritual life.
Since you HAD faith in God, why not show empathy towards religious folk. I used to be an atheist and have great empathy for atheists. I'm not interested in drawing lines in the sand.
I just wish there was more understanding.
You said, "God is supposed to be the ultimate moral authority." Love your neighbor as yourself is the ultimate moral authority, Leviticus 19:17,18.
"That which is done out of love is beyond good and evil."-------- Friedrich Nietzsche
But the consequences of love will always be open to interpretation.

I noticed you haven't accepted my friend request. :(
Anyways, hopefully I showed you another side of religious folk.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
Stupidape: "you took an unexpected route to debate, give me time 2-48 hours to process your round two argument."

Stupidape:" as for seeing another side of religious folk no I haven't seen another side, your arguments were similar to a Christian I debated earlier."

Farewell.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"I noticed you haven't accepted my friend request. :(
Anyways, hopefully I showed you another side of religious folk."

Lol, I haven't accepted anyone's friend request. I don't understand the point of friends. There is no logical reason I can think of to have friends on debate.org.

As for seeing another side of religious folk no I haven't seen another side, your arguments were similar to a Christian I debated earlier.
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
I hope you find what you're looking for. I doubt debating theists is the epicenter of your heart. I assume your agenda will betray you one day. :)
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
I think by making this debate I am not ignoring God.

"You can love God or hate Him, but ignoring Him is just rude."
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
Bro, I used to be an atheist. I F***ing hated Judaism. I was ashamed and disgusted with it.
I know the atheist arguments all to well. I lived it, breathed it, felt it. When somebody tried to outwit me, or pull a trick with strategic discourse, I fought back ferociously. When my mother died, I drank a 12 pack of Coors listening to bitter sweet symphony. I put my kippah on and went back to God. Eventually I returned to my precious atheism. Not long ago I listened to the song again while heavily intoxicated, and dug my great grandfather's Torah out of my closet. I returned to God. I don't have a hell to threaten you with. Judaism doesn't believe in a hell. Some ultra-orthodox Jews believe in hell, but only for 11 months. Anything beyond that is considered a "mockery of misery." I'm not saying God will solve any problems. You can love God or hate Him, but ignoring Him is just rude. I hope you find some sort of Numinous. The go it alone, loneranger approach will ultimately disappoint you.
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
The song is dedicated to Syd Barret, and was based on a poem that Roger Waters wrote about Syd Barrett"s fall from reality. It was said that Syd"s friends would lace his coffee with LSD, which eventually lead to his mental breakdown.

Judaism is not my LSD.
The poet in me assumes too much from people.
Sorry about my vague reference
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
I don't get the Pink Floyd reference.

http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com...
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
Maybe you'll process that we're not "two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl."
I noticed you had hundreds of debates with christians. I'm sure I am unexpected.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
You took an unexpected route to debate, give me time 2-48 hours to process your round two argument.
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
Stupidape, I'm not a Christian but, we (Jews, christians, Muslims) get tossed into the same bowl of jellybeans. I figured I'd never see an "atheist evolution vs Judaism creationism" debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.