The Correct Bible Translation - 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!

DebateIsland.com is a globally leading online debate platform that is transforming the online debating experience. DebateIsland enables anyone to civilly debate online, casually or formally, with five fun debating formats: Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas. With DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use, online debate website, users can debate politics, debate science, debate technology, debate news, and just about anything else in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free while improving your debating skills with the help of Artifical Intelligence on DebateIsland.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

The Correct Bible Translation

Debate Information

It has been suggested that atheists should start a Bible study discussion.
After all, we should have a better understanding of what we are debating and make informed responsible posts.
What better way to start than the very beginning of the Bible. Let's start from the beginning, Shall we?

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

The original untranslated Masoretic text reads: "Bereshitt bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz".
Alarm bells start ringing straight away so far as the King James translation goes.
My translation reads something completely different:
"A bullshite guy called Elohim walked into a bar, asked for some hash and ended up getting arrested".

Surely, Do we not have a completely different story unfolding here?
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • jayjay 2 Pts   -  
    And where did you get that translation from???
  • RickeyDRickeyD 718 Pts   -   edited November 6
    The NASB is a wonderful word for word translation, especially with Hebrew and Greek study aids...you should try it...you might escape death in Hell.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @jay
    And where did you get that translation from???

    From the Bible. And I don't mean to be facetious either.
    There is always a moral behind my humorous posts. I am illustrating the fact that theists translate passages to suit their own self-serving needs. What's more, they also cherry-pick which passages they choose to translate.
  • maxxmaxx 393 Pts   -   edited November 6
    The earliest compiled bible is called the codex vaticanus,  written in the 4th century; rather it is the oldest preserved copy. I think it is online for reading if one is interested.  However the first book translated into englis i believe is the tydale bible in which i know you can read online.@Swolliw
  • Starlord616Starlord616 209 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:
    The NASB is a wonderful word for word translation, especially with Hebrew and Greek study aids...you should try it...you might escape death in Hell.

    is that the one who use to incorrectly condemn homosexuals?
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  
    The problem with Bible translation is the language is not Greek, but Koine Greek.
    So translating the Bible into another language is difficult.
    Accurate, unbiased translations are based on:
    #1 Linguistic Content
    #2 Literary Content
    #3 historical and cultural environment

    These three bases are used for making and assessing translations because people presume certain things about how the Bible was written.
    The majority of people cannot tell which translation is good and what is not.
    Their opinions are based not on the accuracy of translating Greek words into English words, but on the agreement of the final product with their own beliefs about what the bible must say.
    This is why when there is a disagreement it is best to dig and study very deeply to not prove your point but to find historic truth.
    There are a lot of ideas and assumptions about God that people want to place into the Bible.
    There is nothing wrong if someone wants to believe these ideas as long as they understand that these ideas do not have support in the text.

    These ideas can make others reject the Bible and discredit valuable historic data.
    This is why it is important to admit certain viewpoints are personal and not directly reflected in the Bible.
    It is also important to be humble and reasonable about philosophical and scientific concepts as they both are needed in conjunction with theoretical thought to get a true picture of reality.
    maxx
  • maxxmaxx 393 Pts   -  
    What sand says is correct. As well and especially in the old testament, each book can be slightly different in dialect with certain words having a bit different meaning that the same words in another book.@Swolliw
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    It has been suggested that atheists should start a Bible study discussion.
    After all, we should have a better understanding of what we are debating and make informed responsible posts.
    What better way to start than the very beginning of the Bible. Let's start from the beginning, Shall we?

    Genesis 1:1
    "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"


    Hi.

    In a sense, given that we create all our gods and notions of reality in our minds, that statement is completely true.

    We can only know what our minds know.

    We, when reading scriptures have to see ourselves as children of god, that are in Socrates' cave, with enlightenment being how we leave the cave.

    Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

    Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

    John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

    Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.


    Regards
    DL
        
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:
    The NASB is a wonderful word for word translation, especially with Hebrew and Greek study aids...you should try it...you might escape death in Hell.

    Does that include all the lies that Christians say about a supernatural realm that they cannot even show as existing?

    Regards
    DL
  • maxxmaxx 393 Pts   -  
    you yourself do not know where everything came from. No one actually knows@GnosticChristian
    GnosticChristian
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    you yourself do not know where everything came from. No one actually knows@GnosticChristian

    So, why do Christians make up fanciful, incredulous stories as to how we got here, then shove their whacky ideas down everybody's throats, especially, naive, gullible nitwits?
    GnosticChristian
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @maxx you yourself do not know where everything came from. No one actually knows@GnosticChristianSo, why do Christians make up fanciful, incredulous stories as to how we got here, then shove their whacky ideas down everybody's throats, especially, naive, gullible nitwits?@GnosticChristian
    GnosticChristian
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian
    We can only know what our minds know.

    Yes, and if we deliberately feed our minds with only what we want to know and filter out what we don't want to know, we become ignorant and arrogant. A common example of this is theism.
    GnosticChristian
  • maxxmaxx 393 Pts   -   edited November 8
    I did not state that. I said just the opposite. People only believe in what they are taught, including yourself. How many experiments have you done to validate what you believe that you know and were taught? one becomes stagnant in their beliefs and become sheep. One only believes in what the general public believes and that is no different than what religious people do. Yet you say evidence. Dont point out the evidence that others have for you are only saying this is what others have taught me. Very few people can break out of the mode of thinking that they grew up with. The science community used to believe that the earth was the center  of the universe among other things that are noot considered true today. What we believe now may eventually be proven wrong tomorrow, so do not be so dogmatic in your views that you lose sight of new ways of thinking.@Swolliw
    Sand
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    you yourself do not know where everything came from. No one actually knows@GnosticChristian
    I agree, and that is why I call out the lying theists who say some genocidal prick, Yahweh, created us.

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @maxx
    you yourself do not know where everything came from. No one actually knows@GnosticChristian

    So, why do Christians make up fanciful, incredulous stories as to how we got here, then shove their whacky ideas down everybody's throats, especially, naive, gullible nitwits?
    Indoctrination, brain washing and a traditional adherence to and adoration of a genocidal satanic Yahweh.

    Your last is on the mark, unfortunately.

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @GnosticChristian
    We can only know what our minds know.

    Yes, and if we deliberately feed our minds with only what we want to know and filter out what we don't want to know, we become ignorant and arrogant. A common example of this is theism.
    What bothers me more is the poor morals that Christians end with when they try to follow a genocidal and infanticidal god and his homophobic and misogynous religion.

    When immoral thinking people like Christians, who no longer care of how they are seen by moral people, I think their end is near.

    Regards
    DL


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    I did not state that. I said just the opposite. People only believe in what they are taught, including yourself. How many experiments have you done to validate what you believe that you know and were taught? 
    How many experiments have theists done to make their case of a god being real?

    None, and that may be why so many theists have settled for a satanic Yahweh as their god.

    Do you think morality to be important and what do you think of the morals of adoring a genocidal god like Yahweh?

    Regards
    DL
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian
    When immoral thinking people like Christians, who no longer care of how they are seen by moral people, I think their end is near.

    ........At least, the end of their faith is near. They have well and truly lost their standing and influence in modern society and their rapidly dwindling numbers are weakening their foundations by the minute.
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @GnosticChristian
    When immoral thinking people like Christians, who no longer care of how they are seen by moral people, I think their end is near.

    ........At least, the end of their faith is near. They have well and truly lost their standing and influence in modern society and their rapidly dwindling numbers are weakening their foundations by the minute.
    Let us pray for a quick death for Christianity.

    Regards
    DL
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian
    Let us pray for a quick death for Christianity.
    Regards
    DL

    Amen......thank God I'm an atheist.
    GnosticChristian
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    >>>>>I agree, and that is why I call out the lying theists who say some genocidal prick, Yahweh, created us.<<<<<
    Why do you feel genocide is wrong if there is no God?

    GnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian It's unwise to say Christians will crumble soon, where as it implies religion will fall. Look around you. Billions of "brainwashed" followers praising Yahweh and I'm one of them. It's my sworn duty to defend against any ill-mannered talk thrown at our family and my life. So don't be careless about what you speak, no matter where you preach.

    @Swolliw My faith is strong willed and so are my brothers and sisters. We got the greatest nations built on that principle which was past down by generations of perseverance and trust in ourselves. Let me question everything and everyone and my loyalty will still be with God, because God is a part of me, and I stay true to me. So talk about the death, loss, and lies we done. I ain't perfect, you aren't either, toss the stone to your next man and your next. Walk the divine path of God himself if your worthy enough. Come on, go and tell all the powers you hold to become our new savior. Save us from ourselves or are you not up for the change. Laugh from the corner of our eyes as we keep fulfilling our purpose of living. Talk to a wall for us and hope it breaks.

    What does being sour online to a couple of close comrades do for your mission. If you really want the heads of theists, go out and take off each one. Then you can speak about your atheist beliefs with the most respect and pride. Other than that, you'll be falling through cloudy grey skies in a uncharted world. I guess your guys theory was right. Religion does create bloodshed. So let the mental genocide begin.

    May God bless you, -MQ
    GnosticChristian
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Highestintheroom
    What does being sour online to a couple of close comrades do for your mission. If you really want the heads of theists, go out and take off each one. Then you can speak about your atheist beliefs with the most respect and pride. Other than that, you'll be falling through cloudy grey skies in a uncharted world. I guess your guys theory was right. Religion does create bloodshed. So let the mental genocide begin. 
    @Swolliw does not want to kill theists, he just wants to help them understand how their belief is unfounded and illogical.
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    I agree that is Swolliw goal.
    But theist's are more logical than the evolution of the species theory.
    GnosticChristian
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Sand said:

    I agree that is Swolliw goal.
    But theist's are more logical than the evolution of the species theory.
    I disagree, and I'd love to have a debate with you about this separately. Would you be interested in a formal debate?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @Highestintheroom
    What does being sour online to a couple of close comrades do for your mission.

    Exposing the anger, hatred, doom, gloom, guilt, and fear of others is not being sour.........
    death, loss, and lies we done....... 
    If you really want the heads of theists, go out and take off each one.......
     
    Religion does create bloodshed. So let the mental genocide begin.
    .

    You need psychiatric help.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @GnosticChristian
    Let us pray for a quick death for Christianity.
    Regards
    DL

    Amen......thank God I'm an atheist.
    Yes, but what kind of atheist?

    Would/do you promote the atheist churches that, to me, the more intelligent and astute atheists are starting up?

    If so, why? If not, why not?

    Regards
    DL

  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    Sand said:

    >>>>>I agree, and that is why I call out the lying theists who say some genocidal prick, Yahweh, created us.<<<<<
    Why do you feel genocide is wrong if there is no God?

    Be there a god or not, most people have as their first moral tenet, some kind of reciprocity rule. Do unto others what you would like, or do not do what you do not want done to you.

    That was Jesus' best rule.

    I would not like to have genocide done on me or mine, and if some genocidal prick does not have that universal moral tenet, then he is not worthy as his morals are inferior.

    Regards
    DL 
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian It's unwise to say Christians will crumble soon, where as it implies religion will fall. Look around you. Billions of "brainwashed" followers praising Yahweh and I'm one of them. It's my sworn duty to defend against any ill-mannered talk thrown at our family and my life. So don't be careless about what you speak, no matter where you preach.

    Wise has nothing to do with truth.

    Have you not seen all the churches that are closed and for sale world wide?

    Tell us why you praise a genocidal and infanticidal god and his homophobic and misogynous religions.

    The wise and moral who condemn that prick of a god to hell, where he belongs, want to know why you are so unwise and immoral.

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    Sand said:

    I agree that is Swolliw goal.
    But theist's are more logical than the evolution of the species theory.
    Two things for you buddy.

    Are you respecting logic and reason?

    That is not the Christian way.

    Martin Luther.

    "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

    “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”


    On evolution and theists.



    Regards
    DL
  • Starlord616Starlord616 209 Pts   -  
    Despite the fact the bible includes text which reads;

    Revelation 22:18-19 ESV
    I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

    people have been adding, subtracting and editing parts of the bible forever. this destroys the viability of the text and directly hurts groups of people such as homosexuals (the bible has only referred to homosexuality as a crime within the beginning of the last 2 centuries).
    GnosticChristian
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    Sure.

    But we also can debate here.

    Theist's conclusion is that life was created by a living eternal being.
    The evolution from one species to another has several flaws.

    #1 The number of species needed to reach humans.
    Scientists estimate there are 1 Trillion species on the earth today.
    We are not talking about the loose term of species that evolutionist like to play with, we are talking about sexual incompatibility.
    Scientists acknowledge that 99% of the species have gone extinct.
    That means over 100 Trillion species have existed on earth.
    This is an average of over 22,000 species evolving per year, 1834 per month, 61 per day, 2.5 per hour.

    Here is the problem scientists have a segregated groups of animals they have been trying to evolve for over 100 years now, with no success.
    Yet this was supposedly happened 2.5 per hour in the past.

    Take it from another approach, if it takes 1 million years for one major change.
    That means you have 4500 iterations to make changes.
    Do you believe we can make a 100 Trillion species in 4500 interations?
    That would be 22 billion simultanious major changes.
    So that is with the assumption that all 22 billion lifeforms were here at the start of the earth, just to make it where we are now.

    #2 Evolution fossil record 99% disappeared
    If I told you we have evidence that a man killed another man.
    You asked what evidence, I said we have 1% of his finger print in the house.
    In your mind would that be enough proof?
    How are we coming to a conclusion of evidence when we are missing 99% of it?
    That evidence could mean anything!
    Variety of species could mean anything also.

    #3 The impossiblity of sex chromosomes
    Same species can always go backward and reproduce with their offspring.
    When a species cannot mate with ancestors sexually it is considered a "new" species.
    But evolutionists have a problem because we have 1 Trillion species without the ability to mate with suppositly ancestors.
    So the theory (belief) is that every species got into a segregated group and did the opposite of what life does now.
    It magically produced (they use the word "evolved") offspring that had a different number of sex chromosomes forward without the ability to go backward (which is impossible).

    #4 Why do we have apes?
    One of the biggest questions creationists always ask and are never addressed.
    If apes evolved into men, then why do we have apes?
    If you have two groups of apes billions of years go by and one group evolves in to men.
    Why didn't the other group evolve?
    You mean they stayed apes!
    Why does one group turn into men but the other group does nothing?
    This happens over and over again.
    A million years chicken turns into a sparrow, million years sparrow turns into crow, million years crow turns into eagle, million years eagle turns into ostrich.
    For four of those million years a group of chicken stays chicken, a group stays eagle, a group stays sparrow, so on and so on.
    Why are only certain groups changing?

    #5 Survival of the fittest, then why aren't the fitless dead?
    You talk with evolutionists they talk about "survival of the fittest", then chickens, turkeys, and pigs should all be dead.
    Dinosaurs should be the most dominate species to survive.
    Some claim they ran out of food.
    But if they ran out of food that means the chicken should all be eaten!
    But noooo, the chicken out lasts the Tyrannosaurus Rex!
    Some say a catastrophic event killed the dinosaurs.
    But we are back to the formula, the chicken out lasts the Tyrannosaurus Rex!
    I heard of tough meat but this is rediculous.

    I understand that scientists pit these two animals in different eras.
    But the philosophy is the same.
    The stronger the animal the more of them we should have.
    Lions, tigers, and bears should be dominating dolcile animals.

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Sand said:
    Why do we have apes?
    One of the biggest questions creationists always ask and are never addressed.
    If apes evolved into men, then why do we have apes?
    If you have two groups of apes billions of years go by and one group evolves in to men.
    Why didn't the other group evolve?
    You mean they stayed apes!
    Why does one group turn into men but the other group does nothing?
    This happens over and over again.
    A million years chicken turns into a sparrow, million years sparrow turns into crow, million years crow turns into eagle, million years eagle turns into ostrich.
    For four of those million years a group of chicken stays chicken, a group stays eagle, a group stays sparrow, so on and so on.
    Why are only certain groups changing?
    I'd like to address this first. We did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Apes are very good at surviving in their environment, we are very good at surviving in ours. Therefore there are both humans and apes.
    Sand said:
    #1 The number of species needed to reach humans.
    Scientists estimate there are 1 Trillion species on the earth today.
    We are not talking about the loose term of species that evolutionist like to play with, we are talking about sexual incompatibility.
    Scientists acknowledge that 99% of the species have gone extinct.
    That means over 100 Trillion species have existed on earth.
    This is an average of over 22,000 species evolving per year, 1834 per month, 61 per day, 2.5 per hour. 
    You are assuming that only one species can be evolving at a time, which is obviously false. Multiple species can evolve at the same time.
    Sand said:
    #5 Survival of the fittest, then why aren't the fitless dead?
    You talk with evolutionists they talk about "survival of the fittest", then chickens, turkeys, and pigs should all be dead.
    Dinosaurs should be the most dominate species to survive.
    Some claim they ran out of food.
    But if they ran out of food that means the chicken should all be eaten!
    But noooo, the chicken out lasts the Tyrannosaurus Rex!
    Some say a catastrophic event killed the dinosaurs.
    But we are back to the formula, the chicken out lasts the Tyrannosaurus Rex!
    I heard of tough meat but this is rediculous.

    I understand that scientists pit these two animals in different eras.
    But the philosophy is the same.
    The stronger the animal the more of them we should have.
    Lions, tigers, and bears should be dominating dolcile animals.

    When we say 'fit' we are talking about best able to survive in their environment. Lions, tigers and bears are adapted to hunt, while prey are adapted to escape lions, tigers and bears.
    Sand said:
    #3 The impossiblity of sex chromosomes
    Same species can always go backward and reproduce with their offspring.
    When a species cannot mate with ancestors sexually it is considered a "new" species.
    But evolutionists have a problem because we have 1 Trillion species without the ability to mate with suppositly ancestors.
    So the theory (belief) is that every species got into a segregated group and did the opposite of what life does now.
    It magically produced (they use the word "evolved") offspring that had a different number of sex chromosomes forward without the ability to go backward (which is impossible).
    No, because things change gradually. Species will always be able to mate with their parents (although there may be genetic problems). The change between parents and children is so different that they could theoretically mate. But things change over time, and once they have changed enough, mating cannot occur.

    Finally, I'd be interested to hear your evidence for your claim about the fossil record.
    Please debate an all these points, and I look forward to the following round.
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -   edited November 13


    >>>>>I'd like to address this first. We did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Apes are very good at surviving in their environment, we are very good at surviving in ours. Therefore there are both humans and apes.<<<<<
    A common ancestor that is part of the 99% missing.
    Then the fossil record should show a gradual change of trillions of animals dying every 70 years.
    The fossil record is against evolution.


    Scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils.
    The fossil record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.


    >>>>>You are assuming that only one species can be evolving at a time, which is obviously false. Multiple species can evolve at the same time.<<<<<
    That is why I explained the iteration approach.
    Based on the number of species, we should be able to document a species unable to mate with their ancestors, yet we do not see it.


    >>>>>No, because things change gradually. Species will always be able to mate with their parents (although there may be genetic problems). The change between parents and children is so different that they could theoretically mate. But things change over time, and once they have changed enough, mating cannot occur.<<<<<
    Science has proven that concept false.
    Here is the study:

    "Yet, in the absence of the generation of new genes and novel gene reaction chains with entirely new functions, mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."

    Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers.
    The characteristics of an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.
    It cannot go outside of the boundaries, as Dr. Loennig and the fossil record proves.


    >>>>>Please debate an all these points, and I look forward to the following round.<<<<<
    It is a pleasure debating an intellectual person like yourself.

  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    Why would that person's morals be inferior?
    With "survival of the fittest", being his ultimate goal, he may consider murder or genocide to be superior.
    His motto may be "do unto others before they can do it to you".
    Why would that thinking be inferior?

    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    Sand said:

    Why would that person's morals be inferior?
    With "survival of the fittest", being his ultimate goal, he may consider murder or genocide to be superior.
    His motto may be "do unto others before they can do it to you".
    Why would that thinking be inferior?

    It is un-natural.

    We are tribal by nature and tribal members killing each other is antithetical to a tribal nature and our own instincts.

    The fittest makes friends in tribes. He does not kill or soon be killed.

    The fittest create the most secure society for the many. That is why modern people have given up many freedoms. For security.

    Regards
    DL
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -   edited November 14

    An Atheist imports a moral law into a frame where there is no moral law.
    An Atheist says, "There is no God, meaning there is no standard of rightness anywhere, but this is my personal rightness."
    So when someone else comes along that has the thinking of Hitler or Stalling and they say,
    "Hey if there is no standard of rightness anywhere then I can do whatever I want, including killing you for any reason I deem fit."
    You recognize that thinking is 'un-natural' that somethings are wrong independent of a person's opinion.
    Theists and Atheists can tell that there are 'natural' and 'un-natural' laws for a human, this is evidence of God.
    I am not saying that a person needs God to know what right and wrong is.

    I am saying:
    A person can know what a book says and deny there is an author.
    But there would be no book if there was no author.
    An Atheist can know what the right and wrong thing to do and deny there is a God
    But there would be no right and wrong thing to do if there is no God

    Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 179 Pts   -  
    Sand said:

    An Atheist imports a moral law into a frame where there is no moral law.
    An Atheist says, "There is no God, meaning there is no standard of rightness anywhere, but this is my personal rightness."
    So when someone else comes along that has the thinking of Hitler or Stalling and they say,
    "Hey if there is no standard of rightness anywhere then I can do whatever I want, including killing you for any reason I deem fit."
    You recognize that thinking is 'un-natural' that somethings are wrong independent of a person's opinion.
    Theists and Atheists can tell that there are 'natural' and 'un-natural' laws for a human, this is evidence of God.
    I am not saying that a person needs God to know what right and wrong is.

    I am saying:
    A person can know what a book says and deny there is an author.
    But there would be no book if there was no author.
    An Atheist can know what the right and wrong thing to do and deny there is a God
    But there would be no right and wrong thing to do if there is no God

    Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.
    God is irrelevant to human morals.

    The laws in heaven cannot be the same as the laws here.

    As to atheists and their better than theistic morals, religions should learn from those who do not venerate a genocidal moral monster as a god.

    Regards
    DL

    Swolliw
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    >>>>>God is irrelevant to human morals.<<<<<

    You say this but your statements prove otherwise.



    >>>>>The laws in heaven cannot be the same as the laws here.<<<<<

    Who claims they are the same? What are the laws of heaven?



    >>>>>As to atheists and they're better than theistic morals, religions should learn from those who do not venerate a genocidal moral monster as a god.<<<<<
    As mentioned, in order for theistic morals to be better then it proves God's existence.
    In order for you to say moral is better than another moral it proves there are objective morals.
    And to make a statement as a 'moral monster' is evidence that morals are not subjective.

    Regardless of how you feel about God, your words provide facts about his existence.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Sand said:
    Based on the number of species, we should be able to document a species unable to mate with their ancestors, yet we do not see it.
    Yes, we do. We would be unable to mate with our ancestors, the homininae which we are related to. Cross-breeding between species and within the species itself created this effect.
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -   edited November 17
    >>>>>Yes, we do. We would be unable to mate with our ancestors, the homininae which we are related to. Cross-breeding between species and within the species itself created this effect.<<<<<<

    This is the formula:
    Small changes + Time = Large Changes

    Stochastic processes argues against this formula.
    This is a common misunderstanding. The principle according to which all possible states of the system will eventually be achieved assumes that the pathway to those states exists.

    Think about this analogy. Suppose you have two islands, with impassable waters in between. You start off on one of the islands in a car that can drive on the surface of the island but cannot drive into the water. Now let the time run infinitely. No matter what you do, you will never get to the second island, even though the rules do not in principle prohibit the car from being driven there.

    Just because a species can grow longer hair, change behavior, and or change eye color, doesn't mean that it can change heart valves, skeleton structure, organ function, and gain cognitive ability.

    Just because an animal can evolve, the assumption is a pathway to the state of species will present itself and will eventually through time be achieved.

    That is why that ongoing 100+ year study was very important!

    Notice the quotes "concluded ‘that species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change’"
    "properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed."

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Sand said:
    This is the formula:
    Small changes + Time = Large Changes
    Not necessarily. The formula is like this:
    Small changes x Large Number = Large Changes
    A large number of small changes will inevitably add up to large changes.
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    Until we document the years it takes, we cannot assert that it is true until we have proof.


  • mickygmickyg 141 Pts   -  
    you posted>>>>Just because a species can grow longer hair, change behavior, and or change eye color, doesn't mean that it can change heart valves, skeleton structure, organ function, and gain cognitive ability.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    WE HAVE EVOLUTION within humans happening now.
    CHRISTIANS UNIVERSALLY lack self awareness.
    ANYONE who tries to defend the nonsense of the trinity is is doing a polka during a ballet
    ALSO ANYTIME YOU WANT T EXPLAIN HOW GOD SAID HE DOES NOT KNOW WHEN THE END WOULD COME can still be a god.
    SHOW US MORTY!!
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Until we document the years it takes, we cannot assert that it is true until we have proof.

    We can assert such is true since such documentation has been done, long ago.
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    Then provide the experiment and the scientist's name who documented the evolution from one species to another.
    Because I can provide an experiment and the scientist's name who documented it did not happen.

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    Sand said:
    Until we document the years it takes, we cannot assert that it is true until we have proof.
    We do have proof - just look at how the amoeba which existed near the start of life on Earth evolved into the wide range of creatures that exist today.
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    Looking for the experiment and the name of the scientist, not an example that we have to discern what really is happening.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Sand said:
    Looking for the experiment and the name of the scientist, not an example that we have to discern what really is happening.
    No - my point is that simple organisms such as amoeba evolved over time into the wide range of animals that exist nowadays. I fail to see how the name of the scientist is relevant.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2020 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch