Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
internetdude
Pro (for)
The Contender
Speedrace
Con (against)

The existence of a caring and active God is unlikely

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
internetdude 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: 3/24/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 120993
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

internetdude

Pro

The existence of a caring God such as the one described in the bible or the religious texts of Islam is unlikely due to a mix of philosophical and scientific facts that exist in stark contradiction to the things which must be true in order for an active God to exist and to have created the universe. I'm namely referring to the Christian God because, As someone who has grown up in a Christian household, I know more about Christianity than any other religion. That's not to say that the only thing to exist is that which we can naturally experience, Because I find it impossible to completely rule out the supernatural completely, But I would like to open up a fruitful discussion about the theistic meta-narrative.
Speedrace

Con

I accept. I am arguing for the Christian God because, Like you, I am most familiar with Him.

Order

How can order come from disorder? If we look at the universe, We can clearly see patterns in everything. All planets and stars are spherical in shape, Gravity works the same everywhere, And light always travels the same speed (in each medium). The question then comes to this: how could all of this result from an explosion? Have you ever seen the wind blow a sand dune into a castle? Or a bomb explode a building into a car? No, You haven't, Because it's simply never going to happen. So we must ask ourselves, Is it really possible that we're here by chance, Or were we created by some greater force?

Testimony

In my opinion, Testimony is the most convincing argument for the existence of God. I don't mean just the people dancing in church (not to discredit them), But the atheists and agnostics and the people subscribed to other religions who, For some reason or another, Switched to Christianity, Sometimes through divine revelation. I mean the people in India who are getting dreams from Jesus himself, And the sick whose tumors "magically" disappear. There are thousands, If not millions, Of testimonies, So why are we ignoring them? One person could be lying, Sure, And another, Why not, But millions? That is not even remotely possible.

I will add more arguments later on, But I leave the floor to you now.
Debate Round No. 1
internetdude

Pro

I'm going to take your argument of wind blowing a sand dune into a castle and reformat it into something that is addressed by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. This argument takes many forms, But Dawkins refers to it as the Boeing 747 argument. Essentially, If there is a watch, There must be a watchmaker, And if there is an ordered universe, There must be some kind of creator. How could a Boeing 747 be assembled from a bunch of pieces of scrap metal in a junkyard being blown about by a cyclone? Well Dawkins actually shows that this argument can be turned on it's head, And here's why:
just briefly imagine the set of things which must be true in order for God to exist. You can't, Can you? That's because there are many places in the bible which state that God is so infinitely complex that a mortal man cannot begin to comprehend the complexity. Now let's compare this to the complexity of the first living organism ever to exist according to evolutionists: the amoeba, Or whatever simpler organism that existed beforehand.
Essentially, Using the reformatted Boeing 747 argument, We're essentially putting the spontaneous existence of the most simple biological organism possible (which eventually branched off into further life) toe to toe with the existence of the most complex being imaginable.
Additionally, The theory of evolution isn't one of "random assembly, " in the way that a Boeing 747 would be randomly assembled by a cyclone. Essentially, If xyz doesn't work, An organism avoids xyz, And thus evolves. There is evidence of this happening all across the world which we call micro-evolution, And macro-evolution is essentially just an uncountable number of micro-evolutions strung together.
Let's take the metaphor of a guitar player. Many see evolution as some random person picking up a guitar and immediately popping out a sick jam with no prior experience. The more accurate view of this, However, Is a random person picking up a guitar, Not being able to play at first, And eventually accumulating some level of skill through trial and error. Let's contrast this to the theistic meta-narrative. If we looked at this with the metaphor of a guitar player, It's not someone picking up a guitar and popping out a sick jam without any prior experience, Either. Instead, It can be represented by the idea of someone having held the guitar for all of eternity, Having never began, And being able to play a guitar riff that is so complex that people can't even understand the chords. The fact stands that the things which must be true for a simple organism to branch out into a more complex organism are significantly less convoluted than the things which must be true for an infinitely complex being to have the ability to essentially speak something into existence.
To summarize, Simple versus complex.
As for the issue of testimony, I believe that it is very easy for large masses of people to be deluded about something. Take the mass hysteria in France in 1518 in which 400 separate people, For no apparent reason, With no apparent connection to one another, Literally danced in the streets until they died (https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Dancing_plague_of_1518). There is no natural explanation for this mass hysteria, But you don't see people taking on a supernatural explanation either. It is entirely possible for large masses of people to experience, Or claim to experience, Things that are completely untrue and believe they experienced those things in earnest. This does not mean they legitimately happened. Were I to concede your point, However, I feel that it would be a pretty big jump in logic to conclude that, Since a large amount of people have claimed to experience God, There is an infinitely complex designer of the universe who brought man into existence from the dust for no apparent reason. I also have more to say, But I'll bring it up later and give the floor back to you :)
Speedrace

Con

"if there is an ordered universe, There must be some kind of creator"

I never said there must be, But it is certainly likely.

"Essentially, Using the reformatted Boeing 747 argument, We're essentially putting the spontaneous existence of the most simple biological organism possible (which eventually branched off into further life) toe to toe with the existence of the most complex being imaginable. "

How is this a rebuttal?

"The theory of evolution isn't one of "random assembly, " in the way that a Boeing 747 would be randomly assembled by a cyclone. "

I never said that it was a random assembly, I was talking about the universe, Not human life.

"Let's take the metaphor of a guitar player. Many see evolution as some random person picking up a guitar and immediately popping out a sick jam with no prior experience. "

I never mentioned evolution.

"The fact stands that the things which must be true for a simple organism to branch out into a more complex organism are significantly less convoluted than the things which must be true for an infinitely complex being to have the ability to essentially speak something into existence. "

Just because you can comprehend evolution more than you can comprehend a God doesn't rule out the existence of a God.

"As for the issue of testimony, I believe that it is very easy for large masses of people to be deluded about something. Take the mass hysteria in France in 1518 in which 400 separate people, For no apparent reason, With no apparent connection to one another, Literally danced in the streets until they died (https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Dancing_plague_of_1518). There is no natural explanation for this mass hysteria, But you don't see people taking on a supernatural explanation either. "

First of all, 400 people is nowhere near 2 billion. Second, Most theories, As mentioned in that Wikipedia source, Point to a psychoactive chemical or something else that caused this. Are you going to tell me that 80% of the world has taken a psychoactive drug next?

"It is entirely possible for large masses of people to experience, Or claim to experience, Things that are completely untrue and believe they experienced those things in earnest. This does not mean they legitimately happened. "

Ok then, Can you please name another event with millions of people claiming they saw something, But it turned out not to be true? Preferably one that is not related to religion to increase its credibility.

"Were I to concede your point, However, I feel that it would be a pretty big jump in logic to conclude that, Since a large amount of people have claimed to experience God, There is an infinitely complex designer of the universe who brought man into existence from the dust for no apparent reason. "

Why is that a large jump in logic? It would explain the complexity of the universe completely, And millions of testimonies is definitely a reason to consider it.

Now, I will introduce some new points.

The Argument of the First Cause

This argument says that everything has a cause, Because it cannot cause itself unless it existed prior to itself. However, This leads us to infinite regress, Which suggests that there is one cause that exists without a cause that causes other things. We see that cause as God.

The Argument from Degree

Essentially, This argument says that we know that there are things of degree, Like a good singer and a bad singer, And values such as these are universal. If that is the case, There must be something, Or someone, That is unchanging and represents goodness in a manner to which all other things are compared to it. We understand that someone as God.

The Argument from Final Cause or Ends

Essentially, This argument shows that non-intelligent objects act with predictable behavior, But if this was caused by chance, Then their behavior must be set. However, Non-intelligent objects cannot set their own behavior because they are non-intelligent, Meaning that an intelligent being must have set their behavior. We know that being as God.

I turn the floor over to you! :)
Debate Round No. 2
internetdude

Pro

Occam'z Razor:
I don't think I made my point very clear when I talked about the Boeing 747 argument, So I'd like to put it in terms of Occam's Razor. You likely already know what this is, But it's essentially a rule of logic that, When trying to decide what is the truth, The option requiring the fewest assumptions must be true. We use this way of thinking in almost every area of life. Let's take aliens visiting earth and abducting cows as a quick example. The amount of assumptions that must be made in order to believe that aliens are coming to earth and abducting cows on a wide scale is enormous, Whereas the alternative requires you to assume a very small amount of things. I think we can both agree that Occam's razor is a very useful tool in debate and in academic thought as a whole. You yourself used it when referring to the testimony of people claiming to have had religious experiences (i. E it requires fewer assumptions to believe that these people were all telling the truth as opposed to the required assumptions necessary to believe that they were not telling the truth). Now let's apply this to the comparison of life coming about naturally versus life coming about via intelligent design. It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that there aren't any assumptions or extrapolations which must be made to believe that life came about naturally, But we can categorically work through these assumptions and analyze just how reasonable these assumptions are. But when you try to consider the number of assumptions which must be made in order to believe in an active and caring God, It's impossible to even begin to break down the magnitude of them. The number of assumptions which must be made to believe in something that is infinitely complex and infinitely unfathomable is itself infinite. So if you believe in Occam's Razor, If you believe that that which requires the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true, Then the natural conclusion is that human life coming about naturally is much more likely. The reason for this is because you are comparing something with finite assumptions (naturally occurring life) to something which requires infinite assumptions (life via intelligent design). So you see there really isn't any way of stepping around this. You are comparing the probability of something that is infinitely complex to the probability of something existing which has finite and totally comprehensible complexity.
Laws of The Universe:
I do admit that you were not at first talking about evolution, But I couldn't help but take on your claim of "how can order come from chaos. " I assume you mean "how can there be set rules to the code of the universe which fostered sentient life? " (please correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption). Have you considered the possibility that the current laws of the universe seem to be friendly to sentient life solely due to sentient life revolving around these laws of the universe? Let's take a common intelligent design argument which is the "goldilocks" argument. Basically, The fact that the earth is the perfect distance from the sun indicates some form of intelligent design. I think there's a major flaw to this argument, And also a major flaw to the over all argument regarding the order of the universe, Which is essentially assuming that if the sun were closer to or further from the earth, Or if gravity were just a little bit stronger, Then life itself would not exist because of just how sensitive life is. Unfortunately, There is no alternative universe which we can observe to test this hypothesis, So let's look at the next best thing: currently existing life. Take starfish living near the bottom of mile long oceanic trenches, Which, According to David Attenborough in Blue Planet II, Reach levels of pressure equivalent to multiple jet planes stacked on top of each other. Another example of this is microbes living in extreme volcanic temperatures, And even thriving in micro-gravity (https://cosmosmagazine. Com/space/microbes-in-space-concerns-raised-about-bacteria-in-the-iss). This indicates that life is anything but fragile, And indicates further that we require the "laws" of the universe to be the way that they are because obtaining sentience in a way that is incompatible with the laws of the universe is impossible. You see, When there are certain requirements for thriving in a given environment, There is only one path to thriving in that environment, Which is adaptation.
Your argument from first cause:
I find your argument from first cause very stimulating and I've actually spent a lot of time pondering this issue. Here is the conclusion that I've reached: the fact of anything existing at all, No matter the meta-narrative you believe in, Is incompatible with the law of cause and effect. I'm guessing you already know what the law of cause and effect is, But let me rehash it just to make sure we're on the same page: the law of cause and effect states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Everything that exists must have had something which set it in motion. Every output has a corresponding input. But there's a major problem with this. Everything that exists can be traced back to whatever preceded it, And if you keep tracing back this chain of causes and effects you eventually get to the ultimate meta-narrative, Which is what so many people disagree on. But here's the problem: the universe being set in motion defies the law of cause and effect. Let's take the existence of God, For example. He is an effect without a cause, A reaction without an action, An output with no input. He exists without being set in motion, And this goes directly against the law of cause and effect. Now let's take the big bang. It is also a reaction with no action, An output with no input, And etc. And really when you get right down to it these two general narratives are the only possible ways to think about the universe coming into existence. Either the thing which set the universe in motion existed for all eternity, Or it existed spontaneously out of nothing. Either way it is a cause without an effect. So the fact that anything exists at all is extremely puzzling, And any theory at all about how the universe came to be falls prey to this unavoidable paradox. But the fact remains that one theory, The theory of life coming about naturally, Requires the assumption that something came about spontaneously from nothing, Whereas the theory of intelligent design requires the assumption that not only did something exist for all of eternity without being set into motion, But that something (god) made everything that currently exists out of nothing. So either way something comes from nothing, But in the latter case something comes from nothing at the hands of an infinitely complex being.
Your Argument of Degree:
I feel like this argument sort of falls flat because there isn't really an objective and universal standard for beauty or goodness. You used the example of singing and I find a few flaws with this. First of all, You can't really claim that God can be used as an objective standard of good solely because there is a standard for a good and bad singer, Because neither you nor I have ever heard God sing. Additionally, Different people find different singing voices attractive. Some people really like Mongolian throat singing, But I personally do not. Some people think that Jackson Pollock's work is "good" and "inspired, " but I think it's not. Different people enjoy different things at different levels, And really what is "good" can essentially just be broken down to mean what is the most enjoyable, Which does not require some supernatural explanation to rationalize.
Chaos out of Order:
Now I think your question of "how can order come from chaos? " Can actually be asked in reverse: "how can chaos come from order? " According to the entirety of the bible, God is the ultimate being with absolutely no imperfections, And He created all things with the intention of order and goodness. And at first this took place with Adam and Eve living together in harmony with all the animals of the Garden of Eden. How then did absolute chaos result from this? I suspect your response would be because God gave man free choice to do with it what he will, But this ignores the fact that God has 100% control over all things, Or else the bible's claim that God is omnipotent is a bold-faced lie. He is, According to the bible, The sole proprietor of the universe, And had complete say over the nature of mankind. If you program a computer, And the computer malfunctions, You don't blame the computer, You blame yourself. Or, Since intelligent design theorists love to use the analogy of a clock and a clock-maker so much, If a clock malfunctions, You don't blame the clock, But instead you blame the clock-maker. Humans cannot predetermine their own virtue or venom. I never made a conscious decision about how much to care about other people, Or how sad I would be when I learn of horrendous acts committed by horrendous people. And those horrendous people never tweaked how horrendous they should be. The difference between the level of control a sociopath has over their personality disorder is comparable to how much control a generally immoral person has over their immorality. This is also true for Adam. He never decided in the womb how moral or immoral he would be, Or whether he would have a proclivity to disobey. This decision is completely in the hands of God.
Note: I hope you don't mind that I essentially stole your idea of splitting up my arguments into different tidbits.
I have some more things to say but I'm running out of room to say it so back to you my guy
Speedrace

Con

"Note: I hope you don't mind that I essentially stole your idea of splitting up my arguments into different tidbits.
I have some more things to say but I'm running out of room to say it so back to you my guy"

Haha, I don't mind at all, But I do wish that you would neaten up your writing a bit.

"I think we can both agree that Occam's razor is a very useful tool in debate and in academic thought as a whole. "

I agree, But it shows that something is more likely to be true, Not simply true period.

"It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that there aren't any assumptions or extrapolations which must be made to believe that life came about naturally, But we can categorically work through these assumptions and analyze just how reasonable these assumptions are. But when you try to consider the number of assumptions which must be made in order to believe in an active and caring God, It's impossible to even begin to break down the magnitude of them. The number of assumptions which must be made to believe in something that is infinitely complex and infinitely unfathomable is itself infinite. "

I disagree with your logic here. You are essentially saying that not only do we have to assume the existence of God, But we have to assume everything about his nature. However, The only assumptions necessary are simply that he exists, Is self-sustaining, Omnipotent, And omniscient. By your logic, Evolution has an infinite amount of assumptions because we must assume everything about it, including things as insignificant as the position of certain atoms or particles. I hope you see what I'm saying here.

"I do admit that you were not at first talking about evolution, But I couldn't help but take on your claim of "how can order come from chaos. " I assume you mean "how can there be set rules to the code of the universe which fostered sentient life? " (please correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption). "

What I was trying to say was "how can multiple patterns emerge from an explosion? " For example, All planets are spherical in shape, But how can such a pattern emerge from a cacophony of particles bouncing around endlessly?

"Let's take a common intelligent design argument which is the "goldilocks" argument. Basically, The fact that the earth is the perfect distance from the sun indicates some form of intelligent design. "I think there's a major flaw to this argument, And also a major flaw to the over all argument regarding the order of the universe, Which is essentially assuming that if the sun were closer to or further from the earth, Or if gravity were just a little bit stronger, Then life itself would not exist because of just how sensitive life is. "

I agree that that is a flaw. However, I would reword it to be that the fact that the hundreds of variables necessary for a planet to be able to create life makes the possibility of intelligent design likely. For example, Did you know that the position of our Sun and solar system within the spirals of the Milky Way Galaxy is important to life? There are hundreds more as well (I suggest that you look them up, They're very interesting).

"But here's the problem: the universe being set in motion defies the law of cause and effect. Let's take the existence of God, For example. He is an effect without a cause, A reaction without an action, An output with no input. He exists without being set in motion, And this goes directly against the law of cause and effect. Now let's take the big bang. It is also a reaction with no action, An output with no input, And etc. And really when you get right down to it these two general narratives are the only possible ways to think about the universe coming into existence. Either the thing which set the universe in motion existed for all eternity, Or it existed spontaneously out of nothing. Either way it is a cause without an effect. So the fact that anything exists at all is extremely puzzling, And any theory at all about how the universe came to be falls prey to this unavoidable paradox. "

This is true, But wouldn't you agree that an omnipotent (and self-sustaining) God would be more likely? An intelligent being which sustains his own existence seems to make much more since than a random explosion that came from nowhere.

"The theory of life coming about naturally, Requires the assumption that something came about spontaneously from nothing, Whereas the theory of intelligent design requires the assumption that not only did something exist for all of eternity without being set into motion, But that something (god) made everything that currently exists out of nothing. So either way something comes from nothing, But in the latter case something comes from nothing at the hands of an infinitely complex being. "

Again, If we make the assumption that God is omnipotent, Wouldn't it make more sense for him to be able to create something out of nothing than something coming out of nothing for no apparent reason?

"I feel like this argument sort of falls flat because there isn't really an objective and universal standard for beauty or goodness. You used the example of singing and I find a few flaws with this. First of all, You can't really claim that God can be used as an objective standard of good solely because there is a standard for a good and bad singer, Because neither you nor I have ever heard God sing. "

Haha, I don't mean that God sets the standard individually sets what good or bad is for each thing, But I mean that if he created us, We then have an inherent knowledge of what is good or bad. For example, A cute dog vs. An ugly cat. 99% of the time, Someone's going to describe the dog as cute and it becomes more "lovable" because of that.

"Additionally, Different people find different singing voices attractive. Some people really like Mongolian throat singing, But I personally do not. Some people think that Jackson Pollock's work is "good" and "inspired, " but I think it's not. Different people enjoy different things at different levels, And really what is "good" can essentially just be broken down to mean what is the most enjoyable, Which does not require some supernatural explanation to rationalize. "

Allow me to clarify. I mean things within certain genres. For example, I myself am tone deaf, So if I were to be compared to Ariana Grande, A VERY large majority would say she has a better voice than I do. That doesn't mean that everyone has to like her music, I'm simply saying that we know something good from something bad (or not as good) inherently, Which makes more sense from the perspective that a God who creates us gives us the knowledge to know the difference between the two.

"Can actually be asked in reverse: "how can chaos come from order? " According to the entirety of the bible, God is the ultimate being with absolutely no imperfections, And He created all things with the intention of order and goodness. And at first this took place with Adam and Eve living together in harmony with all the animals of the Garden of Eden. How then did absolute chaos result from this? I suspect your response would be because God gave man free choice to do with it what he will, But this ignores the fact that God has 100% control over all things, Or else the bible's claim that God is omnipotent is a bold-faced lie. "

You are right, My response is that God gave man free will. This doesn't ignore God's omnipotence, It simply means that he chooses not to control the free will of the people he creates. In fact, He's promised not to quite a few times in the Bible.

"If you program a computer, And the computer malfunctions, You don't blame the computer, You blame yourself. "

This example is not comparable because computers do not have free will. God created Adam and Eve knowing full well that they would sin. He gave them a choice to deviate from His plan. Computers don't have a choice, They do entirely what you tell them to do, And whether you make a mistake in the code is your fault.

"This is also true for Adam. He never decided in the womb how moral or immoral he would be, Or whether he would have a proclivity to disobey. This decision is completely in the hands of God. "

Everyone has the proclivity to disobey. Adam simply chose to in the moment, But the way he was born does not make him make that choice.


Lastly, I will add my final point. I won't add any after this so that you don't have a LOT of stuff to respond to.

The Age of The Universe

It is frequently said that the universe is abotu 14 billion years old by scientists. However, Numerous scientific facts refute this. For example, Did you know that the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth? Scientists can actually calculate the rate at which it moves. One person decided to reverse the formula and found out that, If the moon had started out literally touching the Earth, The maximum possible age of the Earth would be 1. 6 billion years! Remember, This is the maximum value, because the moon probably didn't start touching the earth, So it fits the Christian view, Not the evolutionary one.

Another is the presence of blue stars in the sky. Scientists know that blue stars can only exist for millions of years, Yet they claim that the universe has been around for billions. In case you'll say that they were simply created, They are made of gas, And since gas expands to fill it's container, And space has no boundaries, It is impossible for them to be formed. However, They are still shining in the sky, So that fits the Christian worldview, Not the evolutionary one.

There are others, But I'll let you respond now.

Also, I'd like to thank you for being respectful and intellectually honest, You've been a great person to debate so far. :)
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
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
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Speedrace,

YOUR QUOTE: "The maximum possible age of the Earth would be 1. 6 billion years! "

Oh, Oh, Houston, We have a problem. With the comical Christian faith that you have swallowed, Then since man is approximately 6000 years old (Luke 3:23-38), And doing the simple math, Then your brutal serial killer Yahweh god was just sitting around for one billion five hundred ninety nine million nine hundred ninety-four thousand earth years in doing nothing, And then he decided to create man in two contradicting Genesis chapters? ! Huh?

Atheists, Quit laughing! Then the pseudo-christians wonder why they are made the fools that they are in the 21st century. Go figure.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Wanna have it again and just copy and paste what we've already put?
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
That's happened to me multiple times, I don't blame you at all :/

If it doesn't submit, It means you need to remove any links, And also anything that is repeating (like if you have a lot of 0's in a row) or if you have a lot of stuff in caps, Support never responds to anything though lol

That's sad, This was a good debate :'(
Posted by internetdude 3 years ago
internetdude
Hello all, I'm not really expecting anyone to buy this because it's exactly what a loser of a debate would say, But the reason that my round of the debate was forfeited was because the website would not allow me to post my argument. I posted it multiple times, And each time I refreshed the page and it was gone. Also, I contacted support and did not get a response. I find this pretty disappointing because I had actually written a full length response and found the debate pretty stimulating, But I'm more so posting this for closure more than anything
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
@internetdude Id be happy to debate with you about christian doctrines or theology if you are willing! You seem stable and grounded and consistent in your approach and representation. Just send an invite anytime! :D
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Speedrace,

Once again you slap your Christian god right in the face! Your Bronze and Iron Age god concept of the drastic Christian faith is named YAHWEH. When will you pseudo-christians start showing respect to him, And remember, The term "God" is a title, Whereas his name is Yahweh, Get it?

You act as though your Christian god Yahweh is the only one that existed within the pagan Bronze and Iron Age, NOT!
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Internetdude,

YOUR QUOTE: " "". . The Crucifixion overrules Old Testament law. "

No it does not, Because Jesus truly never really died as defined by the word. For a true sacrifice, You remain DEAD, So the term "Jesus died for you sins, " is sophomoric and meaningless! Furthermore, Since you seem to know the bible, Jesus" Sermon on the Mount specifically proclaimed that the Old Testament is to be followed at all times.

Using your bible passage herewith: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, Because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, Then to the Gentile. " is blatantly contradicted by Jesus" final instructions to his disciples couldn"t be any more specific about discarding the Gentiles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, And commanded them, Saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, And into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, Preach, Saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, Cleanse the lepers, Raise the dead, Cast out devils: freely ye have received, Freely give. " (Matthew 10:5)

Who does the inept pseudo-christian believe over the other, The mythical Jesus, Or the false self-appointed apostle Paul? 2+2=4. As explicitly shown within the pagan bible, Jesus was against the Gentiles and anyone that was not a Jew, Period.

Barring the myriad of biblical contradictions, And comical metaphorical references, The archaic Bronze and Iron Age Christianity can NEVER be formatted into 21st century academia, Other than to use it as part of our primitive beginnings.
Posted by internetdude 3 years ago
internetdude
Also in response to your comment about the new and Old Testament. Yes I agree that the God of the bible is not a changing one, But it is undeniable that if you look at the bible in it's entirety the Crucifixion overrules Old Testament law. If we're quoting scripture here Romans 1:16 reads "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, Because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, Then to the Gentile. " Which essentially means, Yes Jews are God's chosen people, But Gentiles are not ruled out. There are numerous scriptures talking about this and Paul, A messianic Jew, Says in Romans 11:13, "I am saying all this especially for you Gentiles. God has appointed me as the apostle to the Gentiles. I stress this. " The entire New Testament is very heavy on "circumcision of the heart" and of course I do believe that this is extremely hypocritical (this is one of many contradictions in the bible, Another one being God says do not murder and then immediately tells his people to ravage a city full of men women and children. This happens and it's a major contradiction, Which parallels the major contradiction of Gentiles being allowed into the faith. Yes it is a contradiction, But it is still explicitly stated). I don't think that Christianity can be formatted to modern philosophy or academia in any way, But it's sort of a straw-man argument to say that white people can't be christians, Because that isn't really going to stop any white people from being christians even if it's true.
Posted by internetdude 3 years ago
internetdude
21stCenturyIconoclast,

your quote: "It is hard for me to have a respectful conversation with a pseudo-christian in the 21st century because of what I have experienced throughout my life relating to their horrific Christianity. "
Trust me, I am well aware of the wrongdoings of Christians. Let me quickly relate my experience just to add a bit of context: for the first seventeen years of my life I had been under the delusion that the Judeo-Christian God exists and that it was my duty to serve him and honor the teachings of the bible. In the past year I have become disillusioned to this fact, Yet I am still forced by my parents to attend an evangelical Christian school where homosexuality is shunned and sometimes even mocked, Which is especially pertinent to me as a bisexual. I have spent literally my entire life saturated with the indoctrination of Judeo-Christian theology and rhetoric, So I am well aware and equipped to discuss these issues. What I mean when I say "mutually respectful" is this: it is impossible to have a fruitful discussion if there is any venom whatsoever involved. Anger is the ultimate end to a fruitful discussion. The thing that brought me out of Christianity was not enraged atheists, But thorough study and contemplation, As well as discussion, Not argument. I am not saying that your outrage is misplaced, As I myself am often unutterably enraged by the hatred and venom poured out on me from the Christian community, But what I want is to have an intellectually stimulating conversation in this area that involves both parties growing and learning. Debate has largely grown to represent who can "own" the other party "Ben Shapiro" style but I think dealing in these absolutes can be very harmful. I think something that is generally unhelpful, However, Is calling Christians lunatics, Because many Christians are entrapped by their beliefs. What I needed when I was balls deep in propaganda was not to be called a maniac.
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Internetdude,

YOUR QUOTE: "And I think it's more important that everyone have a mutually respectful and intelligent discussion about this topic that relies on specific evidence as opposed to mockery and "who can yell the loudest. "

On my previous post below, It is hard for me to have a respectful conversation with a pseudo-christian in the 21st century because of what I have experienced throughout my life relating to their horrific Christianity and what it has done to family and friends. Whether you accept this premise or not, I really don't care, It is the blatant outcome that they are made the delusional fools that they are is more important.

Read my bio page, Where I do not hold their hands, Nor placate to the pseudo-christians damaging beliefs anymore. I will call them out for what they are and represent it in no uncertain terms, Period.
(Besides, My MO of operation gives them an insidious way out to RUN AWAY from my discussions, And using the excuse of not being respectful to their serial killing primitive belief)
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.