frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





How can god possibly exist and be true with so many ridiculous absurdities in the bible?

2



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @awaketowhere
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

    Instead of presenting valid arguments or counter-arguments, the simpleton's post is simply a "yo mama" approach. What a pathetic creation you are! I've reported you a second time now, hope it does any good this time.
    You realise you're doing exactly what you're accusing him of, right? You've just called him a simpleton and a pathetic creation. Although you've also accusing him of making an ad hominem attack, you haven't actually backed this up with argument or evidence. I don't have the interest to read through his poorly formatted wall of text so you may be correct in that he's making ad hominem attacks, but if you are you've done nothing to show you're right.
    one be only read a single post to see that is true
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • awaketowhereawaketowhere 30 Pts   -  
    @AlwaysCorrect How can you always be correct when you don't even know how to use a simpleton spell check. I mean you don't even know how to spell "realise". Duh. 
  • awaketowhereawaketowhere 30 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Oh and btw, I have presented valid arguments. But because your mind is that of a oafing lumberjack trying to knock down something other than his own brown house, perhaps I should report you? 
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @awaketowhere

    I'm assuming you're from the USA and unaware that you spell words differently from most of the English-speaking world. I'm from the UK and notably we will often use an 's' where you will use a 'z'. For example "Awaketowhere had the startling realization that he didn't know what he was talking about" for US English vs "Awaketowhere had the startling realisation that he didn't know what he was talking about" for British English.

    @Erfisflat

    It's not a case of who did it first. If ad hominem attacks don't have a place in a reasoned debate, then you shouldn't be using them either.

    While he does make ad hominem attacks (as you have done too), he also makes points and presents arguments with quotes from sources. That's contrary to your claim that he did not do so.

  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @AlwaysCorrect  @awaketonowhere also said I would amount to nothing and that I have no friends, and something about being slapped by a fetus.  Great guy.  
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @AlwaysCorrect

    I was politely warned when I was disrespectful and insulted someone, it wasn't nearly as childish and disrespectful as some of the now banned user's trash. He's been warned a few times and I was just about ready to intellectually and psychologically destroy him, if i thought he could even stay focused long enough to understand it, since I've been warned not to do so, I was trying to refrain myself. It's one thing to be an atheist, another to be a belligerent douchebag. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @AlwaysCorrect

    By the way, what shape is the earth, and how do you know?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @AlwaysCorrect

    By the way, what shape is the earth, and how do you know?
    Take your time, I'm just testing a theory associated with your user name. 
    @AlwaysCorrect
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @Erfisflat My main in Smash Bros Wii U is Charizard, and I'm currently playing Pokken Tournament as Braixen, even though my username is PowerPikachu. Usernames don't have to mean something. Maybe AlwaysCorrect thought it was a fitting name to use for debating.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @PowerPikachu21  Charizard.  Pfft.  Slowbro ftw.  Snorlax close second.  Both are my patronuses.  
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat My main in Smash Bros Wii U is Charizard, and I'm currently playing Pokken Tournament as Braixen, even though my username is PowerPikachu. Usernames don't have to mean something. Maybe AlwaysCorrect thought it was a fitting name to use for debating.
    Choosing a user name after a game character is understandable, even if it isn't your "main" it's not even close to an ego trip.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • missmedicmissmedic 43 Pts   -  

    @awaketowhere

    Only people garner respect, ideas do not. So please do not ask for respect for ideas, especially bad ideas like religion.

  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence  I still have no idea what your goaal is.  I am already a firm believer and none of this is new to me.  I know religion is wrong, but a relationship with God is the only way.  I believe in just one God and not multiples, outside of the trinity which is three in one God.

    My goal is to wake up people of all religions, especially those in the Christian Religion who study the Bible and think they worship the God of the Bible, but instead worship deities, demons who reside in the supernatural realm, and ideas that make up "god" like the trinity Doctrine does, and of course idols.

    Look, who are the three "individuals" outside the Trinity Triangle? They are:

    father-god
    son-god
    spirit-god

    these three are individuals, correct? As in the father-god is NOT the sun-god who is not the spirit-god, but together they make up what?

    Look in the middle of the Trinity-explained triangle, you have the word "god", right?

    The 3 person, or personal gods make up the "idea" god. This today is what the Pope, Morgan Freeman, Billy Graham and the rest of the Christian Religions  are propagating, .. this, umm idea that: "all gods/roads/religions lead to one god".
    The Trinity was just to lead humanity away from God for the final kill, this is not even a secret anymore, the word is out; "all the world religions really worship one god", and we know who that god, that deity is, right? The god of this world, who else!?

    The Bible on the other hand reveals One Infinite God who knows everything and can do everything, including upcoming important dates. He is the One who created all things through His Son Word AKA Jesus Christ.

    Jesus admitted He does not know the Day, nor the Hour of His second coming, but only the Father knows. So obviously He is not God, unless he is a handicapped-god!? The Holy Spirit is not God either, for He too will teach us what He hears the Father say. God is not incompetent.

    Why would "religion" be wrong, .. I'm asking you? Christianity is a religion, and you say you're a Christian, no?

    A relationship with a god is one thing, billions of people are doing it, there are literally tens of thousands of gods that lead to one place, to hell. But a relationship with the One True and Only Possible Infinite and Eternal God is another story, and this is my goal to bring people to that One True and Only Possible Creator, .. the One who created us all through His Son Word AKA Jesus Christ, .. not some sun-god.
    Erfisflat
  • missmedicmissmedic 43 Pts   -  

    @Evidence

    The Christian god has to many descriptive failings, contradictions and limiting attributes to be a perfect god.

    If gods are not perfect, why worship?

    Erfisflat
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    A god does not need to be perfect to be worshiped. It would just need to show why we should worship. Like if demons tried to attack us, and a god destroyed them. I'd definitely worship then!

    But the Christian God hasn't done anything of the sort. Hasn't even given us a clue to curing any cancer!
    Erfisflat
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    @PowerPikachu21
    Still it's utterly prideful and aggressive for teachers to propagandise that the Abrahamic God is perfect and while other religions happily tell the weaknesses of their gods in folk lore or mythology. Well why worship Zeus with the amount of mythology?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    A god does not need to be perfect to be worshiped. It would just need to show why we should worship. Like if demons tried to attack us, and a god destroyed them. I'd definitely worship then!

    But the Christian God hasn't done anything of the sort. Hasn't even given us a clue to curing any cancer!
    Demons are in fact attacking us, by the time God destroys them, i think it'll be too late to worship Him.

    He also has given us the cure for cancer,  and everything else, this knowledge has been suppressed. 

    Question 6

    https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A29-30&version=KJV&interface=amp

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat  layi

    "Marijuana cures cancer but this knowledge is being supressed!"

    *Posts link to government website openly talking about the benefits of marijuana in relation to cancer*

    Lol

    The truth is marijuana is beneficial in tackling the side effects and symptoms of cancer but not actually cuing cancer.
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat  

    "Marijuana cures cancer but this knowledge is being supressed!"

    *Posts link to government website openly talking about the benefits of marijuana in relation to cancer*

    Lol

    The truth is marijuana is beneficial in tackling the side effects and symptoms of cancer but not actually cuing cancer.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  

    Antitumor activity

    • Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.
    • A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colonand may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment.
    • A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma(liver cancer) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells.
    • A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in estrogen receptor positiveand estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells. Studies in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer showed that cannabinoids may lessen the growth, number, and spread of tumors.
    • A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in human glioma cells showed that when given along with chemotherapy, CBD may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells. Studies in mouse models of cancer showed that CBD together with delta-9-THC may make chemotherapy such as temozolomide more effective.

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    If, by "tackling the side effects and symptoms of cancer" you mean killing cancer cells, we're in agreement, if not, we should add "learning to read" to your bucket list.
    @AlwaysCorrect ;
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    Why are you linking to definitions of random words rather than linking to any evidence to support your currently baseless claims?

    Were you assuming people wouldn't actually check your links and it would look like you'd provided evidence? Or just laziness?

    Even if you had bothered to link to the studies, the evidence does not support your conclusions. The studies you refer to were provided by www.cancer.gov and the assessment provided by your own source that you provided as reliable and have just now quoted again is that they do not constitute evidence to claim that cannabis cures cancer.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @AlwaysCorrect

    Random words? Please tell me you are joking. If you needed help finding where this was quoted from, you could've just asked, instead of ignorantly assuming I pulled that information from thin air. I thought "question 6" would've explained that, it's in the q&a section of this article from the National Cancer Institute not just random words.

    https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq

    And if "kills cancer cells while protecting normal cells" doesn't constitute as curing cancer, what in your opinion does?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    The same link provided in the initial post. @AlwaysCorrect
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • uzairmahmuduzairmahmud 10 Pts   -  
    Since when was Christianity the correct religion?

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    Trouble reading? I stated in my post "The studies you refer to were provided by www.cancer.gov". The issue is you've included a load of links to basic definitions which make it look like you've supported your post with evidence when of course, you have not, because you were either too lazy to remove their formatting or you wanted it to look live you had actual evidence.

    Also "curing cancer" in my opinion meets the criteria of "curing cancer". Shocking I know! As you yourself quoted and highlighted "cannabinoids may lessen the growth, number, and spread of tumors". It DOES NOT claim to stop or reverse the growth of tumours. Thanks for providing sources which back me up and show you are wrong, though it's not a very good strategy on your part and maybe one day you want to consider actually supporting your claims with evidence :)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @AlwaysCorrect blabbered:

    "because you were either too lazy to remove their formatting"

    Because I'm using my phone, and typing, let alone editing is quite bothersome. So, besides being about as irrelevant as your spelling of "cuing" 8 posts up, leaving the linked definitions, could've helped you figure out that reducing tumor size (the study did show cannabis was able to stop or slow tumor growth, and stated so a few times) is also irrelevant if the tumor is no longer cancerous.  :D 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Erfisflat

    Ah, resorting to criticising spelling, a sure sign that you don't have anything to refute the actual content of my argument. Funnily enough I was just replying to a post of yours where you made a noticeable typo (or just didn't know the person's name) but didn't bother to pick up on it because I could show how your entire argument was wrong.

    As for your claims here, wrong wrong and wrong.

    You claim the study showed cannabis did such and such. In fact what you linked to is not a study but a website that discuses studies. Two very different things.

    Secondly you try to make the claim that cannabis slows and stops tumour growth. The first half of the claim is incorrect, the website does not state that. It does state that it can slow tumour growth (though it does not know if ti can do so in humans) but that is irrelevant and an attempt by you to move the goalposts as you realise your argument is failing and you need to desperately grab onto something else to avoid conceding. Unless you actually think just slowing tumour growth is the same as curing cancer

    Doctor Erfisflat: "Good news, you're cured!"

    Cancer patient: "You mean I don't have cancer any more? That's wonderful!"

    Doctor Erfisflat: "No, you still have cancer."

    Cancer patient: "B-b-but it's benign now, so I don't have to worry, right?"

    Doctor Erfisflat: "No, it's actually still spreading and you're going to die soon."

    Cancer patient: "Jesus Christ, why would you tell me I'm cured?! That's not cured at all!"

    Doctor Erfisflat: "Hey, it's spreading somewhat slower. Don't get angry at me just because you can't understand my amazing logic for why this counts as cured. A random person on the internet with no evidence told me that this counts as you being cured so I believe them and furthermore it's simple to prove to with three simple experiments you can conduct yourself that will only cost you $50 and some magic beans!"
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @AlwaysCorrect said:

    "As for your claims here, wrong wrong and wrong."

    Kicking the stone now? You do realize that the ball is still in your court? You can't just dismiss my argument and source without some valid reason. Just because the article was about a group of studies, that doesn't make it any less valid. So that's a second fallacy  

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    The problem here is either your reading comprehension or your logic, possibly both.

    You state "You can't just dismiss my argument and source without some valid reason". However I've given a rationale for why your argument is wrong. If you disagree and don't think my reasoning is valid then defend your argument and challenge my claims, don't just whine about it. That's how debates work.

    As for the source, the source itself is okay as they go (primary sources would obviously be better) but again if you'd actually read what I'd wrote you'd see I don't have any problem with the source and the issue is your false claims that the source supports your position when it does not, with an aside calling you out on misrepresenting what the source was (I'm guessing because you haven't actually read it properly, as seems your wont). 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @AlwaysCorrect

    Yes, I accidentally posted prematurely. As I was saying, your first point, from which you are now backpedaling from, 

    "You claim the study showed cannabis did such and such. In fact what you linked to is not a study but a website that discuses studies. Two very different things."

    Is not a relevant point. It's not a point at all. It's an already known, obvious observation. A poorly executed attempt to dismiss the source. 

    Your second attempt at a rebuttal "It does state that it can slow tumour growth (though it does not know if ti can do so in humans)" is irrelevant, as you stated, while trying to pin this strawman on me. The reason humans haven't been tested (or at least
    not publicly) is because of it's ignorant classification as a schedule 1 drug. Grants and government restrictions. 


    "Unless you actually think just slowing tumour growth is the same as curing cancer"

    The conclusion of the article is that cannabis kills cancer cells while protecting normal cells, prevents cancer, has antitumor effects, and inhibits tumor growth. If that isn't the closest thing to the cure for cancer, I challenge you to find something better. 

    The last bit, the rhetorical dialogue at the end is nonsensical and even embarrassing for you.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    missmedic said:

    @Evidence

    The Christian god has to many descriptive failings, contradictions and limiting attributes to be a perfect god.

    If gods are not perfect, why worship?


    ABSOLUTELY! You hit the nail right on the head: "The Christian god has too many descriptive failings, contradictions and limiting attributes to be a perfect god.

    If gods are not perfect, why worship?" couldn't of say it better myself.

    The 'Christian god/gods' do have too many descriptive failings, contradictions and limiting attributes, and I ask every Christian to stop worshipping them, but not I, it is God Himself who commanded us to stop worshipping these weak, contradicting, made up ideas of God:

    Exodus 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying:

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    Not the Egyptian gods of wood, stone, silver and gold they took from Egypt, it was the One True Invisible God showing sings and wonders who brought Egypt to its knees by plagues is the God "I Am" who brought them out.

    “You shall have no other gods before Me.

    The Roman Trinity-gods start with three, and grew into tens of thousands, ..  assimilating the already existing gods that people worshipped, each Christian denomination having their own little version. Oh, and BYO (Bring Your Own gods too) is welcomed by this 1,700 year old Roman created Religion called "Christian" (not to be confused with those Believers who were called Christians/Goodie-two-shoes by the Gentile world). And to retain the godhood of Emperors, they assigned it to Popes.

    “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

    Just from these simple instructions, it shouldn't be hard to figure out who the One True and Only Possible Creator God is, right? Another huge mistake we make is generalizing, or tacking God to one single identity, like the "Abrahamic God", which includes Judaism, Islam and Christianity, of which not one knows or worships the God of Abraham. Not only that, they "deny" him, each of these three religions have created very different god/gods than He who is revealed in the OT, and later fully revealed in the N.T. by Jesus.

    The Jews openly deny the God of Abraham who by the way destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, all the while the Jews are the biggest supporters of homosexuality.

    Then we have the Christian religions with all their gods, then Islam, .. definitely not the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob.

  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    "How can god possibly exist and be true with so many ridiculous absurdities in the bible?"

    Simple. What if a god exists, but isn't the god of the Bible? Just because one religious text describes a particular god doesn't make it the only option. 

    Of course, I don't believe in any god, but I wanted to point out an issue with the question. It's the equivalent of asking, "how can automobiles be considered reliable if there are so many issues with the Yugo?"
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Sylynn If you don't mind me asking, what turned you atheist?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat - I spent over 30 years in Christianity. Though I was consistent with studying the Bible, I had only read through it, cover-to-cover, a few times in my life. One day I decided to make myself a better Christian and start reading the entire Bible over the course of a year and keep doing it. I also have a love for science so as I read the Bible it became difficult to make those stories fit with what we know of science. Essentially I wound up coming to the conclusion that the creation story, Adam & Eve, Noah and the flood, and the Exodus (just to name a few) were not meant to be taken literally. The issue I found is that though not everything within a book must be able literal in order for you to take it seriously, there does need to be a fair amount in there that's actually true. Let's face it, the default answer you give/get in Christianity when you start having doubts is, "you just have to have faith". The thing is, a person can believe anything based on faith - meaning it's not a reliable way of determining if something is true. At that point I realized I was no longer convinced the Bible was true and when I asked myself why I believed in a god, I couldn't find a legitimate answer. I did continue to read the Bible, but instead of reading with Christian blinders on, I read it from a critical standpoint and quickly saw just how many inaccuracies there are, and just how evil this god seems to be. It's been about 2 years since I became an atheist, and I haven't looked back.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    I would love to argue any one of the points made in the OP of this thread, however, it would be absurd, even rude I think to try to address each and every one of them in a single post.  So instead I will address for now, only the first point made in the OP.  "Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11 

    Most plants, most algae, and cyanobacteria perform photosynthesis
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=photosynthesis+and+life

    "The first photosynthetic organisms probably evolved early in the evolutionary history of life and most likely used reducing agents such as hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide, rather than water, as sources of electrons.[6] Cyanobacteria appeared later; the excess oxygen they produced contributed directly to the oxygenation of the Earth,[7] which rendered the evolution of complex life possible."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

    Okay, so lets work with what we know.  Let's assume for the moment that our current scientific knowledge with regard to evolution and biology and genetics is true.  The science, which I have shown excerpts from, declares that the first life forms were not photosynthetic organisms, that photosynthetic organisms evolved from non-photosynthetic organisms early in life's history.  If that is the case, the light from the sun would not be necessary for life forms to come into being.  Once the sun was created, it makes perfect sense that organisms might evolve to utilize the energy coming from the sun.  So why indeed would it be absurd to think that life could not originate without the sun, when in fact it is believed by science that life did not require the sun to begin its existence here on this earth, when in fact life did begin without the sun and the photosynthetic processes that we see to day?
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    @awaketowhere
    I would love to give an answer to each and every claimed absurdity listed in the OP of this thread.  But I don't see that as a viable option considering the extensive list of supposed absurdities that the OP claims invalidate the Bible.  I'd have to write an entire book to accomplish that.  Maybe I should, and perhaps one day I will.  Instead I will begin with the first supposed absurdity in the list:
    "Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11 "

    I believe if we truly desire to give a believable and convincing explanation to this question, it is important to do so by employing the current knowledge that we have, which I personally believe ought to come from the body of knowledge that we have gathered in the name of science, specifically from the fields of biology, evolution, and genetics.  Before getting into the science, lets talk for a moment about Genesis.  The Bible tells us that all of the plants, that were made on the third day of creation, derive their being, their physiology and identity from their ancestors.  After all, "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
    Here we see God letting the earth bring forth, and so it may be true that on the third day, the earth was indeed bringing forth every living plant that we see today.

    Now back to the science.
    The sciences of biology, evolution and genetics tell us that "Most plants, most algae, and cyanobacteria perform photosynthesis;"
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=photosynthesis+and+life

    Here we see the modifying term "most" plants, and "most" algae.  Of course this is an important modifier as it implies that not all plants, and not all algae require photosynthesis.  So lets continue...

    Science tells us that, "The first photosynthetic organisms probably evolved early in the evolutionary history of life and most likely used reducing agents such as hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide, rather than water, as sources of electrons.[6] Cyanobacteria appeared later; the excess oxygen they produced contributed directly to the oxygenation of the Earth,[7] which rendered the evolution of complex life possible."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

    Here we see the implication that the first photosynthetic organisms actually evolved from non-photosynthetic organisms.  We have already seen that not all plants and algae require photosynthesis, and the science here suggest that the first and earliest life forms did not employ photosynthesis at all. 

    If this is true, then why in the world is it absurd to think that every life form has it's beginnings in life forms that did not require photosynthesis, which evolved over time into organisms "after their own kind" that require photosynthesis?  It makes perfect sense that after the sun was created that early life forms not requiring photosynthesis evolved into similar organisms that do require photosynthesis, employing and utilizing the energy produced by the newly formed sun?  Because that is exactly what science claims happened, that non-photosynthetic organisms evolved into photosynthetic organisms, which in turn brought forth every single creature under creation?

    So why is it absurd to say that life began without the sun, when indeed life came forth from the earth without the need of a sun?
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason " why is it absurd to say that life began without the sun"
    It's absurd to believe the earth existed before the sun. Without stars this universe would be nothing but hydrogen and helium. It's only because of stars (more specifically the deaths of stars) that we have any elements heavier than this. 

    ErfisflatEvidence
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Sonofason " why is it absurd to say that life began without the sun"
    It's absurd to believe the earth existed before the sun. Without stars this universe would be nothing but hydrogen and helium. It's only because of stars (more specifically the deaths of stars) that we have any elements heavier than this. 

    You may be right...Please show your evidence.
    Erfisflat
  • awaketowhereawaketowhere 30 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason The problem with christians is that its not in their vocabulary to state "I don't know" whereas it is within every good and great scientist. And with that long winded speech of yours, wow you don't know. Nice guess though. 
    "The Bible tells us that all of the plants, that were made on the third day of creation, derive their being, their physiology and identity from their ancestors." No the bible doesn't tell "us" that. It might tell you that. But not us. After all, no one would agree with you except for perhaps .00001% of all christians on this planet if that and then you'd have to convince them of that. "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." All its saying to many who read it is POOF it happened.
    See that's another problem with christians is they dig into the bible and find something that clearly isn't there. Especially when no god, if god is a god would ever communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible so everybody gets it wrong with no updates in at least 2,000 years. 
    As far as the rest of your speech, plants require photosynthesis to survive. And 6,000 - 10,000 years ago they would have required the sun. If you don't like it then take it up with the creator of the idea, as well as hundreds of others online who also share the same idea also with hundreds of other absurdities that no god if god is a god would ever put into play, and thousands of contradictions thus making the bible unreadable, and not me. I got that from the Secular Web. Start with therm. They know a lot more than you. That's for sure. 
    https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html ;

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @awaketowhere

    "The problem with christians is that its not in their vocabulary to state "I don't know" whereas it is within every good and great scientist."

    I suppose you assume this guy is a scientist? 


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • awaketowhereawaketowhere 30 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Of course, though he doesn't. I can't remember what he calls himself? An astrophysicist I believe? But that's as good as a scientist as anybody is ever going to get. And one of the smarter, personable easy to understand ones also. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason The problem with christians is that its not in their vocabulary to state "I don't know" whereas it is within every good and great scientist. And with that long winded speech of yours, wow you don't know. Nice guess though. 
    "The Bible tells us that all of the plants, that were made on the third day of creation, derive their being, their physiology and identity from their ancestors." No the bible doesn't tell "us" that. It might tell you that. But not us. After all, no one would agree with you except for perhaps .00001% of all christians on this planet if that and then you'd have to convince them of that. "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." All its saying to many who read it is POOF it happened.
    See that's another problem with christians is they dig into the bible and find something that clearly isn't there. Especially when no god, if god is a god would ever communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible so everybody gets it wrong with no updates in at least 2,000 years. 
    As far as the rest of your speech, plants require photosynthesis to survive. And 6,000 - 10,000 years ago they would have required the sun. If you don't like it then take it up with the creator of the idea, as well as hundreds of others online who also share the same idea also with hundreds of other absurdities that no god if god is a god would ever put into play, and thousands of contradictions thus making the bible unreadable, and not me. I got that from the Secular Web. Start with therm. They know a lot more than you. That's for sure. 
    https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html ;

    Not once have I said that God wrote the Bible.  The Bible was written by men.

    There are no Biblical contradictions.
    Evidence
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @awaketowhere

    "The problem with christians is that its not in their vocabulary to state "I don't know" whereas it is within every good and great scientist."

    I suppose you assume this guy is a scientist? 


    I am the only scientist I know.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Sonofason " why is it absurd to say that life began without the sun"
    It's absurd to believe the earth existed before the sun. Without stars this universe would be nothing but hydrogen and helium. It's only because of stars (more specifically the deaths of stars) that we have any elements heavier than this. 

    Why would I believe this is true?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Of course, though he doesn't. I can't remember what he calls himself? An astrophysicist I believe? But that's as good as a scientist as anybody is ever going to get. And one of the smarter, personable easy to understand ones also. 
    He's an actor portaying a pseudoscientist. 


    http://m.imdb.com/name/nm1183205/


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
    @awaketowhere

    Other than alcohol and weed, there is no better way to reduce your IQ than the skeptics annotated bible, there is nothing that works as well.
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    ethang5 said:
    @awaketowhere

    Other than alcohol and weed, there is no better way to reduce your IQ than the skeptics annotated bible, there is nothing that works as well.
    wish i could remember where I read it, but the gist of it is, pick up an ant, and explain to it what you are and make it understand what you can do.  I'm sure you get the idea.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch