The Christian god is not real. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Christian god is not real.
in Religion

There is no Christian god and I'll explain why I think so now. According to the bible god is all loving but this isn't true, if god is all loving why would he allow us to suffer and why would he allow us to have pain, why would he not stop us murdering each other and stealing. Why would he allow disease to exist, if he is all knowing and all powerful why can't he just stop the things I just listed. Why did he harden the Pharos heart and then punish him for saying no when Moses asked for the slaves to be freed, does that sound like the actions of an all loving, just father. Also why did he not make us perfect, take the seven deadly sins: pride, gluttony, lust, sloth, wrath, envy and greed. Why would he punish us for having these sins and also give us access to them, an example would be say you leave food in front of a homeless man and then scolding him for eating some of it. Why would he make people homosexual if it isn't such a bad thing and should be punished. Christianity has caused hundred and if not thousands of deaths, take the crusade for example, why would he sit back and allow that to happen.
Zombieguy1987SilverishGoldNova
  1. Live Poll

    is the Christan god real.

    16 votes
    1. Yes
      37.50%
    2. No
      62.50%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited January 21
    Believing in God is voluntary.
    Zombieguy1987SilverishGoldNovaAlofRIPolaris95
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited January 20
    Any lady, man, or child, can believe in the Christian god if they choose to.

    And man, since the day man discovered, that once man picked up a club, and assaulted another human being with it, and hurt, maimed, or killed another human being with whatever objects, that man, and not religion in general, has killed more human beings, than any religion has.

    Humanity has been on this planet for how long, roughly 200,000 years?

    And religion in general has existed on this same planet, for how long now, 5,200 years?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion

    Some excerpts from the webpage:

    "The concept of "religion" was formed in the 16th and 17th centuries,[3][4] despite the fact that ancient sacred texts like the Bible, the Quran, and others did not have a word or even a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these sacred texts were written.[5][6]

    The word "religion" as used in the 21st century does not have an obvious pre-colonial translation into non-European languages. The anthropologist Daniel Dubuisson writes that "what the West and the history of religions in its wake have objectified under the name 'religion' is ... something quite unique, which could be appropriate only to itself and its own history".[7] The history of other cultures' interaction with the "religious" category is therefore their interaction with an idea that first developed in Europeunder the influence of Christianity. "


    So it would appear that humanity in general has been on this planet, for a whole lot longer, than Religion has?

    So wouldn't it suggest that man, and not religion, is more responsible, for causing more deaths to humanity in general, and not religion in general? 

    Zombieguy1987Polaris95
  • TKDB said:

    First of all, you wouldn't happen to be @TTKDB would you?

    Any lady, man, or child, can believe in the Christian god if they choose to.

    Doesn't mean God exists

    And man, since the day man discovered, that once man picked up a club, and assaulted another human being with it, and hurt, maimed, or killed another human being with whatever objects, that man, and not religion in general, has killed more human beings, than any religion has.

    Ugh, This argument again...

    Humanity has been on this planet for how long, roughly 200,000 years?

    And religion in general has existed on this same planet, for how long now, 5,200 years?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion

    Some excerpts from the webpage:

    "The concept of "religion" was formed in the 16th and 17th centuries,[3][4] despite the fact that ancient sacred texts like the Bible, the Quran, and others did not have a word or even a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these sacred texts were written.[5][6]

    The word "religion" as used in the 21st century does not have an obvious pre-colonial translation into non-European languages. The anthropologist Daniel Dubuisson writes that "what the West and the history of religions in its wake have objectified under the name 'religion' is ... something quite unique, which could be appropriate only to itself and its own history".[7] The history of other cultures' interaction with the "religious" category is therefore their interaction with an idea that first developed in Europeunder the influence of Christianity. "


    So it would appear that humanity in general has been on this planet, for a whole lot longer, than Religion has?

    So wouldn't it suggest that man, and not religion, is more responsible, for causing more deaths to humanity in general, and not religion in general? 


  • @TKDB

    People created religion, and religion led to some pretty terrible historical events. So yes, it is the people who are responsible for these events - but not in the way you are implying.

    In general, with every religion the process goes like this:
    1. People try to understand how the world works in the lack of information and knowledge. Simultaneously, they want to have a feeling of stability, of protection; they want to know that there are higher forces up there watching out for them - since, again, due to the lack of knowledge about the world, they are scared of it, and they need something/someone to find comfort behind.
    This desire lays down on the local superstitions and folklore, and eventually gives birth to religion.
    2. Ambitious people see the power the religion holds over people. They use the religion to control the people by claiming religious authority. Here church gains a lot of power and merges with the government, or even becomes a government in itself.
    3. The church feeds people with the narrative that makes them hate someone, and uses that hate to send those people to war, or to make them wage an internal war on the opposition.

    Separation of church from state is merely the first step on the way of healing from the millennia of religious totalitarianism. Eventually, I believe, all religions will die out as serious systems of beliefs, remaining merely as historical artifacts. People will have no reason to believe in "gods" when technology rids us of a lot of dangers and nobody will have to fear the unknown. "Gods" are needed when people are desperate and need something to cling to and to hide behind; "gods" are not needed when everyone is doing great and there is nothing to hide from.

    Gods are also not needed when one prefers cold logic to artificial warm feelings. That also will happen: our society as a whole is becoming more and more logical, as computers with strict binary logic are invading more and more areas of our lives. Eventually we likely will merge with computers, and then primal superstitions will die out permanently, as there will be no place for them in our digital minds.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRISilverishGoldNovaPolaris95
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited January 21
    @MayCaesar

    What legitimate news media outlet sources can you provide that can be used by you, to cooberate your claims?

    "Ambitious people see the power the religion holds over people. They use the religion to control the people by claiming religious authority. Here church gains a lot of power and merges with the government, or even becomes a government in itself."

    "The church feeds people with the narrative that makes them hate someone, and uses that hate to send those people to war, or to make them wage an internal war on the opposition."

    "Separation of church from state is merely the first step on the way of healing from the millennia of religious totalitarianism. Eventually, I believe, all religions will die out as serious systems of beliefs, remaining merely as historical artifacts. People will have no reason to believe in "gods" when technology rids us of a lot of dangers and nobody will have to fear the unknown. "Gods" are needed when people are desperate and need something to cling to and to hide behind; "gods" are not needed when everyone is doing great and there is nothing to hide from."

    "Gods are also not needed when one prefers cold logic to artificial warm feelings. That also will happen: our society as a whole is becoming more and more logical, as computers with strict binary logic are invading more and more areas of our lives. Eventually we likely will merge with computers, and then primal superstitions will die out permanently, as there will be no place for them in our digital minds."

    Show anyone, where: ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, WHRO, MSNBC, or even FOX news, have or has done news stories that can legitimize your claims? 


    Zombieguy1987
  • AmpersandAmpersand 706 Pts
    edited January 21
    @TKDB

    You seem to be making an argument unrelated to this debate.

    This is about whether Jehovah is real, not how many deaths religion has caused nor if people have the right to believe in a god.
    Zombieguy1987Polaris95
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited January 21
    @Ampersand

    "This is about whether Jehovah is real, not how many deaths religion has caused nor if people have the right to believe in a god."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

    "Jehovah (/dʒɪˈhoʊvə/ ji-HOH-və) is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה‬, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה‬ (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible[1] and one of the seven names of God in Judaism.

    The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[2] The derived forms Iehouah and Jehovahfirst appeared in the 16th century. "

     It would appear that Jehovah, Yahweh, and Jesus, are maybe, all one in the same?


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#7_names


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

    Zombieguy1987Ampersand
  • TKDB said:
    @Ampersand

    "This is about whether Jehovah is real, not how many deaths religion has caused nor if people have the right to believe in a god."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

    "Jehovah (/dʒɪˈhoʊvə/ ji-HOH-və) is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה‬, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה‬ (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible[1] and one of the seven names of God in Judaism.

    The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[2] The derived forms Iehouah and Jehovahfirst appeared in the 16th century. "

     It would appear that Jehovah, Yahweh, and Jesus, are maybe, all one in the same?


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#7_names


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

    I think you've missed the point.

    Neither the amount of people killed by religion nor the historical etymology and religious cross-pollination of deities tells us whether Jehova (or Yahweh or Jesus) is real. This debate is about whether the Christian is real. All your points so far have been irrelevant in terms of the subject under discussion.
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    @Ampersand

    Are you anti religious oriented? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    @Ampersand

    Are you anti religious oriented? 
    No, I believe right to religion is a basic human right that should be supported.

    I also believe, yet again, that whether or not I am "anti religious orientated" has nothing to do with whether the Christian god exists.

    If you don't want to argue this debate topic, why not create your own debate that you do want to argue as a seperate topic?
    Zombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenDylan
  • Correct. The existence of a god cannot be proven nor disproven.
    Zombieguy1987Debater48
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • edited January 23


    Christianity in a nutshell.

    As a bonus


    Zombieguy1987AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer come here actively, and many of the things that I may have posted in the past (Such as belief in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    @Ampersand

    Are you anti religious oriented? 
    "No, I believe right to religion is a basic human right that should be supported.

    I also believe, yet again, that whether or not I am "anti religious orientated" has nothing to do with whether the Christian god exists.

    If you don't want to argue this debate topic, why not create your own debate that you do want to argue as a seperate topic?"

    Are you the author of this forum?

    The Christian God, exists if the religious individuals choose to believe in God.

    I stated that before on some of the other religion forums on this website.

    The below forum title, was written by an atheist, and where my education on the anti religious began.

    (There is no God, Here's why?)

    Looks kind of similar to this set of words, doesn't it? 

    "There is no Christian god and I'll explain why I think so now."

    So, how do you want to argue? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • AlofRIAlofRI 353 Pts
    "The Christian God exists if the religious individuals choose to believe in God." That about says it all. God lives in the mind of the individual … only. It matters little which god you choose to "believe" exists. They are all figments of man's imagination.
    Some NEED to believe, and that's OK by me. Please, keep it to yourself. Some try to USE that belief to control others, some use it to justify the killing of others.
     Some use it because they can't face the thought of death. That's OK, too.
    As long as it is kept within the mind that needs it, it doesn't harm anyone else. It's when they try to spread their thoughts around that it becomes a problem. Believe what YOU want, let others believe what THEY want. We will all face our own consequences for that, if any. I also think that, as we learn, religions will look more and more like what they are, figments of man's imagination, often used to control others.
    Zombieguy1987Dylan
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    @AlofRI

    Do you have religious buildings in your neighborhood?

    And if so, do they bother your eyes, or make your vehicle tremble, at the very site of that religious building? 

    "The Christian God exists if the religious individuals choose to believe in God." That about says it all. God lives in the mind of the individual … only. It matters little which god you choose to "believe" exists. They are all figments of man's imagination."

    Are you asking baiting questions, as debate bait, to have your way with a religion, in a debate forum over religion? 

    "Some NEED to believe, and that's OK by me. Please, keep it to yourself. Some try to USE that belief to control others, some use it to justify the killing of others.
     Some use it because they can't face the thought of death. That's OK, too.
    As long as it is kept within the mind that needs it, it doesn't harm anyone else. It's when they try to spread their thoughts around that it becomes a problem. Believe what YOU want, let others believe what THEY want. We will all face our own consequences for that, if any. I also think that, as we learn, religions will look more and more like what they are, figments of man's imagination, often used to control others."

    What matter of a thought process is being used to control you?

    Are you maybe trying to use your own narratives, to maybe control the debate over the conversation in this forum? 



    Zombieguy1987
  • AlofRIAlofRI 353 Pts
    @TKDB ; First answer - yes.  Second answer, NO.
    Third: I didn't ask any questions. 
    fourth: The "matter" I used for the thoughts was my OWN grey matter, absolutely NO controlling matter.
    I did use my own narratives, no controlling narratives, and only stated MY "opinion", that in no way, asserts control over any other conversation in this forum. I DID say that I have NO objection to anyone's belief of ANY religion …. or none. I just don't like it when somebody "does", and insists that other people are wrong. That has often led to war, beheading, burning at the stake, imprisonment and other expressions of hatred that the world does not need.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Hello everyone. Anyways to the people saying that man was killing well before religion, yes I'm aware but still thousands were murdered in the name of god. What would you do if you had two sons and they both picked up blades and attacked each other in your name, being a normal person you would stop them but God, who is meant to be all powerful, all knowing, all living watches this happen. Also I believe anyone has the right to believe in religion.
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    @ZlatanIbrahimovic

    "Anyways to the people saying that man was killing well before religion, yes I'm aware but still thousands were murdered in the name of god. What would you do if you had two sons and they both picked up blades and attacked each other in your name, being a normal person you would stop them but God, who is meant to be all powerful, all knowing, all living watches this happen. Also I believe anyone has the right to believe in religion."

    Why dont you take your above questions, and ask a police officer, why people kill people like they do day after day, and ask the police officer, if he views an offender or a criminal murdering innocent people as a problem that GOD is responsible for, or if an offender or a criminal are responsible for their illegal actions? 

    Or call this mental health telephone number: 1-877-616-6957
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2266 Pts
    edited January 25
    @TKDB

    God is not a subject to the US law, so it would be a strange question, at best.
    Similarly, if a shark attacks and eats you alive, it will not be found having committed illegal actions, as sharks are not subjects to the law.

    That said, if a mad scientist assembles a swarm of small robot killers and unleashes them on the world, the scientist will definitely be found responsible for the killings.
    Similarly, I would assume, the one who allegedly created humans and unleashed the criminals among them on the world should be found responsible for the crimes.

    The only problem is, just as one human can only be judged by other humans - one god can only be judged by other gods. The police officer is not a god, is he?
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    "God is not a subject to the US law,"

    No, but God is being subjected to the anti religion mindsets, apparently being  perpetrated by dome of the anti religion mindsetting individuals?

    Some men, and some women, and some teenagers have killed people, and because this is the internet, some mindfully judge God, on the internet, because their anti religious views wouldn't be taken seriously by some in a Real Life courtroom that exists in the real world?

     "So it would be a strange question, at best."

    You're right, because some of the questions, asked by some on the internet, are fittingly asked, because this is the internet verses real life.

    "Similarly, if a shark attacks and eats you alive, it will not be found having committed illegal actions, as sharks are not subjects to the law."

    And what does a shark attack have to do with people killing people? 

    Are you comparing, the notion of blaming God, for a man, woman, or a teenager, in the killing of another person?


    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    @ZlatanIbrahimovic

    "Anyways to the people saying that man was killing well before religion, yes I'm aware but still thousands were murdered in the name of god. What would you do if you had two sons and they both picked up blades and attacked each other in your name, being a normal person you would stop them but God, who is meant to be all powerful, all knowing, all living watches this happen. Also I believe anyone has the right to believe in religion."

    Why dont you take your above questions, and ask a police officer, why people kill people like they do day after day, and ask the police officer, if he views an offender or a criminal murdering innocent people as a problem that GOD is responsible for, or if an offender or a criminal are responsible for their illegal actions? 

    @MayCaesar already explained this flawed logic in another debate ALREADY! You seem to ignore that every single time!

    Or call this mental health telephone number: 1-877-616-6957

  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987 ;

    "God is not a subject to the US law,"

    No, but God is being subjected to the anti religion mindsets, apparently being  perpetrated by dome of the anti religion mindsetting individuals?

    Some men, and some women, and some teenagers have killed people, and because this is the internet, some mindfully judge God, on the internet, because their anti religious views wouldn't be taken seriously by some in a Real Life courtroom that exists in the real world?

     "So it would be a strange question, at best."

    You're right, because some of the questions, asked by some on the internet, are fittingly asked, because this is the internet verses real life.

    "Similarly, if a shark attacks and eats you alive, it will not be found having committed illegal actions, as sharks are not subjects to the law."

    And what does a shark attack have to do with people killing people? 

    Are you comparing, the notion of blaming God, for a man, woman, or a teenager, in the killing of another person? 

    @Zombieguy1987, can you address the above questions?
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987 ;

    "God is not a subject to the US law,"

    No, but God is being subjected to the anti religion mindsets, apparently being  perpetrated by dome of the anti religion mindsetting individuals?

    Some men, and some women, and some teenagers have killed people, and because this is the internet, some mindfully judge God, on the internet, because their anti religious views wouldn't be taken seriously by some in a Real Life courtroom that exists in the real world?

     "So it would be a strange question, at best."

    You're right, because some of the questions, asked by some on the internet, are fittingly asked, because this is the internet verses real life.

    "Similarly, if a shark attacks and eats you alive, it will not be found having committed illegal actions, as sharks are not subjects to the law."

    And what does a shark attack have to do with people killing people? 

    Are you comparing, the notion of blaming God, for a man, woman, or a teenager, in the killing of another person? 

    @Zombieguy1987, can you address the above questions?

    Irrelevant.

  • @TKDB

    I do not think you understand the objection.

    Suppose a slave in the 18th century was to complain about being mistreated by his white mister. He would go to the local courthouse and try to file a lawsuit - yet at the house, at best, he would be told that slaves are not allowed to file lawsuits, and at worst, arrested and jailed for fleeing his plantation.

    The slave cannot possibly hold his master accountable. Does it mean that his master cannot be guilty? Obviously not, and to claim otherwise would be to get the logical chain backwards.

    A human cannot hold a god legally accountable, by the very definition of the word "god". Does not mean, however, that the "god", assuming he exists, cannot be guilty.

    If you still do not see it, then consider a real example of Stalin's Soviet Union. Stalin was guilty of millions of death, yet how do you think an attempt of a Soviet Citizen to sue him would have gone?

    Christian god is a pathological criminal, and just because you cannot prove it in the court, does not mean it is not true.
    Of course, Christian god also does not exist, as does any other god - but that is beside the point.
    Zombieguy1987
  • God loves us bt we sinned but he died for us so we can go to heaven
    Zombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenDylan
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @calebsica

    Hows what  you said in any way , shape or form prove he’s real?
    Zombieguy1987
  • Could you please rephrase the question? I don't understand it.
    Thanks
    Sica
    Dee said:
    @calebsica

    Hows what  you said in any way , shape or form prove he’s real
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @calebsica

    No problem , I’m asking how your statement proves the Christian god is real?

  • God is not a physical being so you can't find an earthly thing that is God. The Original person that created the debate said " there is no Christian God and I'll explain why I think so now. According to the bible god is all loving but this isn't true, if God is all loving why would he allow us to suffer and why would he allow us to have pain, why would he not stop us murdering each other and stealing." T

    So in the statement I wrote 
    God loves us but we sinned but he died for us so we can go to heaven
    I was explaining why God allows us to sin is because of free will, which is the long, still debated topic of do we have free will. That is why I wrote it and the statement was not trying to prove that God is real but to answer the question, Why does God allow sin in the world. Now I will start proving that he is real. First, most people know that Jesus lived. There is historical evidence for that. you can look it up but even non-Christians and atheists know that he lived. The Empty tomb. Also, lots of historians know that the tomb was empty because there is evidence for it. The evidence was mainly eyewitness accounts that were not believers.

    Thanks, I look forward to your response.



  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    edited March 6


    Thank you for answering

    You say .....Now I will start proving that he is real. First, most people know that Jesus lived.

    My reply ....As an Atheist I agree with reputable Historians on this 

    You say ......There is historical evidence for that. you can look it up but even non-Christians and atheists know that he lived.

    My reply ....Yes 

     You say ....The Empty tomb.

    My reply ....What about it?

    You say ....

    Also, lots of historians know that the tomb was empty because there is evidence for it.

    My reply ....Reputable Historians accept that a wandering preacher named Jesus did exist , not one reputable Historian believes in a miracle working resurrected Jesus 

    You say ......The evidence was mainly eyewitness accounts that were not believers.

    My reply .....Muslims say Muhammad did miracles why are your claims to be taken any more seriously than theirs?

    You say ....Thanks, I look forward to your response.

    My reply ....You’re welcome. And I yours 
  • Thanks for responding! I am going to take the comments one at a time. First I am glad we agree that Jesus lived. The next main thing did he rise from the dead? The first thing I am going to address is you said:

    " .Reputable Historians accept that a wandering preacher named Jesus did exist, not one reputable Historian believes in a miracle-working resurrected Jesus"
    I have a question for you, Are you talking about modern day historians or writers back when Jesus lived. I need to understand a little more about what you are saying about historians. 
    Who chooses which historian is reputable? 
    Thanks,
    Sica
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @calebsica

    Hi again.

    You ask .....

    I have a question for you, Are you talking about modern day historians or writers back when Jesus lived. I need to understand a little more about what you are saying about historians. 

    When I say reputable, that would mean one who’s held in high esteem in academia and amongst scholars for the quality of his/her work 

    You say .......Who chooses which historian is reputable? 

    No no one chooses , the quality of his /her work will speak for itself 

    You say ...Thanks,
    Sica 

    You’re most welcome and thank you 

  • Could you please name every reputable historian in the world?
    Your statement of refutable historians " .Reputable Historians accept that a wandering preacher named Jesus did exist , not one reputable Historian believes in a miracle-working resurrected Jesus" assumes you have read things that every historian wrote about Jesus. What I am saying is that you, and correct me if I am wrong, know some Reputable historians that say Jesus was not the son of God and did not rise from the dead. But you need to know a little about every refutable historian to make the statement that I put in quotes. 
     Thanks
    Sica
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    edited March 7
    You say .....Could you please name every reputable historian in the world 

    My reply .....Ok that’s the game you want to play how childish ,how very dishonest of you.  Reputable Historians references those with a reputation in such a field that’s it , your little sideshow is childish 

    I never said  every reputable Historian in the world , so why are you lying?  If you wish to continue withdraw that remark and we can them resume depending on your reply.


    Here is what you originally stated in your own words “ There is historical evidence for that. you can look it up but even non-Christians and atheists know that he lived. The Empty tomb. Also, lots of historians know that the tomb was empty because there is evidence for it. The evidence was mainly eyewitness accounts that were not believers.


    My reply ...The empty tomb ??? Who are these “lots of historians? Where is the evidence? Eyewitness accounts? Nonsense , Muslims say they have eyewitnesses accounts of events regarding Muhammad and miracles are they true also? Is every claim made about miracles in every religion then true because an eyewitness says so? If not why not?


  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    @calebsica 

    My reply .....Ok that’s the game you want to play how childish ,how very dishonest of you.  Reputable Historians references those with a reputation in such a field that’s it , your little sideshow is childish

    Watch out calebsica, dee will later claim you insulted him.
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @et

    Ha , ha , why will I claim that?

    Since my very first encounter with you on here instead of even attempting to debate you just go all rabid from your very first remarks and your the same with everyone who doesn’t agree with you , no doubt you will say it’s the other way around.

    What do you expect people put up with it?   My rules of play are simple I will play fair if others do also the minute one throws a punch you’re going to get two back that’s the way
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @ethang5

    >Ha , ha , why will I claim that?

    Because that is what you do. You've already started calling Calebsica childish and dishonest.

    >Since my very first encounter with you on here instead of even attempting to debate you just go all rabid from your very first remarks and your the same with everyone who doesn’t agree with you , no doubt you will say it’s the other way around.

    I would. You were rude and insulting right off the bat with your offensive gifs, but atheists never see their insults.

    Just like here now, my POV has evidence for it. Had I not pointed it out, you would not remember you first insulted Calebsica. Go back over your first post to me. You started it.

    >What do you expect people put up with it?   My rules of play are simple I will play fair if others do also the minute one throws a punch you’re going to get two back that’s the way

    I can take it. But making fake quotes is not throwing a punch, it's not fighting fair. I can take the brawling, I just think I can include substance in the brawl too.

    And really, saying false things like KKK meetings aren't punches, that's small time school yard stuff.

    Calebsica did not deserve to be called dishonest. He is right, you aren't only one with experts on your side.
  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    @Dee

    Thanks @Deedee for admitting you were needlessly rude to Calebsica.

    Now, reposting the entire post of others as your post is a violation of the COC. You wouldn't want Aaron to have to  contact you would you?

    You probably should apologize to Calebsica. That would just be the civil thing to do.

    As always I'm here for you. No childish behavior will drive me away. Make your posts count. Just posting rubbish is pointless.


  • "My reply ....Reputable Historians accept that a wandering preacher named Jesus did exist , not one reputable Historian believes in a miracle working resurrected Jesus " You did say that but it was in a early response.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding.


  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @calebsica

    Its all good , as I’ve said before I believe a wandering rabbi named Jesus lived and preached but was a mere mortal like you or I , I’ve yet to see one bit of convincing evidence for a miracle working Jesus or a god 

    No need to be sorry at all things get misunderstood all the time on sites such as these have a lovely weekend 
    Zombieguy1987
  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    Lol,

    He's so nice now. Wonder how long before we become indoctrinated sheeple again?

    Call me the troll whisperer, changing moron trolls into polite friendly posters.

    And no punctuation, just like you know who.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Jesus has done so much for me personally, and He loves YOU.
    Zombieguy1987
  • ethang5Zombieguy1987
  • More evidence that Jesus is the Son of God is the changed lives.
    ethang5Zombieguy1987
  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    @calebsica

    They just deny that lives are changed. They think all Christians are faking.

    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    the gospels are anonymous and don't show up in history until 160ad@Dee
  • SandSand 100 Pts
    When you look at your history ..did you notice ..as i did...that your ancestors are anonymous??.....and why do they not appear until you research them until 2019ad??
    ethang5
  • SandSand 100 Pts
    The names of the disciples are in the Bible. These are the eyewitnesses.

    Read your Bible.....

    Mark 3:16-18, "And Simon he surnamed Peter; And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite," - KJV


    @mickyg
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    who wrote mark stupid?

    and prove it

    @Sand
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch