Debate God

1. The statistics show that these miracles are not due to the Christian god. They show that there are occurrences defined as 'miracles' but since Christians are no more likely than anybody else to be cured, their prayer must be falling on deaf ears. This fact alone leaves us with two options- there is a god, but he does not play a role in everyday life, or there is no god at all.
2. A placebo isn't exclusive to medicine. You can believe that god is going to cure you, and this may increase the chances that your body will cure itself. That is the definition of the placebo effect. We only define these cases as miracles because they initially appear to be miraculous in nature, even though they often explained afterwards.
3. There is a difference between Science and Religion. If science had no evidence, no proof behind it, then it would have no basis to make claims. Instead, scientific claims are all backed by many years of research.
If I were to see a scientific paper making outrageous claims with no evidence to back them up, then of course I would not read it in detail- what's the point, if I already know that the basic facts that it presents and depends upon could be wrong? The bible is just that. It makes claims (god is a pretty big claim) with no supporting evidence, besides the word of the bible itself. I don't plan on reading into the finer details unless I can first see proof that the biggest, most important details are most likely true. If they aren't, whats the point in reading it?

I liked aMoeba's numbering system, so I'll probably use it from here on out.
1. Yea, the bible probably does deal with many real people. Sorry I misinterpreted your post. Anyways, you said before that "Our specific God is the only one with archeological evidence, multiple witnesses, outside historical documents, methodology and facts supporting it." and also claimed to have evidence of Jesus being resurrected. I still want to see proof of all of your above statements. Without proof, you can't expect anybody else here to accept it as true.

2. There's a couple of reasons why I believe in things like evolution, which has little solid 'evidence' behind it. I have said many of these arguments before and I won't expand on them again- if you want to read them go back a few pages and look for yourself.
(1) It makes sense - the survival of the fittest makes sense, just as 1+1=2 does.
(2) Even if it isn't proven, it still manages to describe how animals could have changed to be what they are now perfectly, and thus should be able to continue to explain changes as time passes.
(3) There isn't any other competing scientific theory. Scientists have shown the potential to create many, many theories for how or why something occurred (or occurs), if you don't believe me, look at the number of abiogenesis theories. Since there is only 1 theory of evolution, is must have been studied, examined, and finally accepted by many other scientists. This isn't just them conforming to ideas blindly- they all have different theories when it comes to many other different concepts, so they are obviously not afraid to break from the pack.

 

1. God will save anybody. However, what god are we speaking of?

2. Then I must be mistaken.

3. The Bible is not a science book. I already knew basic facts about evolution before I had studied anything more about. That doesn't leave me the right to not look at it further and start assuming things.

 

Thanks for explaining what I said in a much more clear way.

 

I'm not saying that the bible should be a science book. I'm saying that it needs to have some kind of evidence for it to be accepted. Instead, what it is doing is asking believers to overlook the massive gaps of logic that it fails to explain.
The problem with this debate is that you believe that we should simply accept the bible as true because your own personal opinion is so. I, on the other hand, will refuse to accept anything as fact unless there is reason to. If you take a step back, look at our debate solely through the eyes of logic, you will wee that the illogical jump between the universe to god, then between god to the bible is too far to make in one bound. You can't simply believe the bible because it tells you to.

Anyways, I'm done with the mini-debate we have been having.
Really, unless somebody can show evidence of why they believe in the bible, past peer pressure and pascal's wager, I'm bored of this argument. All it has consisted of is stubbornness and repetition of a few ideas.

 

So Jesus is the magic substance that rids us of our sin... if only we believe in him. That's a lame reason to believe in something; "Believe, and your sin will vanish!" It's like pardoners selling those "Get out of Hell free" items back in the day.

And still, we are clinging to the belief that only Christianity is the correct religion. Do you believe that scholars of other religions are so daft? Wouldn't they see the "vast" stores of info Christianity has to offer?

 

1. Read below.

2. As you wish.

1. I apologize for being so curt, but nobody cares if you think its a lame reason. Are you sure its not just hard to grasp the concept of it?

2. I answered this earlier... rawr

 

Problem: Why do we repent for our sins if they are forgiven? Isn't that redundant?
EDIT: So why did Jesus sacrifice himself if we just have to pray for forgiveness anyway?

 

You don't leave something dirty just because you once cleaned it really well.

EDIT: Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Now we don't have to sacrifice an animal for forgiveness, we can just pray.

 

It's not just a lame reason, there is no reason. You believe everything you do sheerly out of stubbornness and unwillingness to change. I have reduced your arguments to the point of claiming that belief alone is evidence, which is an argument only used when all else fails.
I have shown you that there is no reason to believe in god, no evidence, no logic behind him, and that is all that I can do. Until you are willing to change and examine your own ideas, there is no point in continuing. What is the point in arguing when you have no intention to concede, even when you are proven wrong?
I'll remain in this thread to answer questions from others and help other atheists to finish debates that they may seem unable to completely win, but I will not argue when I know it is pointless.

 

1. Ignorance and bias, right there. Also, I could say the exact same thing for you guys. But I don't.

2. Reduce my arguments to whatever the hell you want. As if I care your opinion on my beliefs.

3. Sounds like you just repeated something I said to you guys earlier. Also, care to tell me why you are so right? I've read everything said in this debate, almost every single page, and nothing more than a few sentences convince me, and even those fail.

Let me put it simply; I don't care what you think about my beliefs, and i've seen so much ignorance in this thread towards me and others. I haven't yet said in this thread "EVOLUTION IS 100% FALSE WE CANT COME FROM MONKEYZ DURRR". However I've seen quite the opposite used to refute my beliefs. You even stated yourself "Bible/God is 100% false". If I said the same thing about evolution, you would think I am ignorant. Yet I tell you, and you shove it away.

Again, not to be curt, and speaking generally, i'm not going to bother speaking to the next person who gives me an ignorant claim. So if you'd like to have a decent debate, please at least make your posts respectable.

Repeating myself here. Didn't I state earlier why it is pointless to debate against someone like yourself, someone who doesn't bother reading the Bible? Why should I take time to argue with something that doesn't even know what i'm talking about. Doesn't make sense, does it? I hope you consider that.

 

2. Exactly, I can't affect your beliefs.
3. How can you possibly not be convinced? Your belief has no evidence to support it, only your own choice to believe it. Mine, on the other, hand, have evidence every step of the way.
4. I have never stated that god is 100% false, and I never would.
6. I have already explained why the bible is not evidence. It may make you believe something, but that is a personal belief and cannot be applied to others.

 

So (besides teaching), Jesus' purpose was to get rid of the "sacrifice yo animals to me" rule made by God? That's what his ordeal on the cross was about? Washing our sins away so we can pray instead of sacrifice animals?

 

2. Neither can I affect your's.

3. Its got evidence. Maybe you should open that thing called a Bible before you say there's none. You know you can't say something is absolutely wrong if you don't know what it is. And I know you've refuted that before, but I'm bringing it up again. If a friend of your's reads a cool book and tells you about the main characters, and he says "then that girl dies at the end" you can't tell him "no" because you got the basic facts from the back of the book. Point is, you didn't read it, you don't know.

4. Did your parents ever tell you to never say never?

No, and I didn't just make this. Refer to post #1034.

6. Not going to bother.

And also to go to Heaven. Jesus paved the way for the new covenant and our understanding before the end times, etc. There's one theory that believes that people who were Christian and died before Jesus' death were in a place called "Abraham's Bosom" - waiting until Jesus came. The whole significance of Jesus is to forgive our sins and let us have a new life.

 

3. Read my previous points.. We cannot just assume that the bible is the message of god. It needs evidence before it can make that claim, and it has none.
4. Read the quote again, very slowly. I already tried to clear that up before, you must have missed it.
--God is not 100% guaranteed to not exist.
--In other words, there is a slim chance that god does exist.

 

3. What i'm trying to tell you is to read it before you start jumping to a conclusion, no matter what online resources tell you. I'm afraid there's no official book on evolution, so I don't have that problem.

4. Damn, I can't believed I still missed that. My mistake.

 

I didn't get any of my bible ideas from online sources- I thought of them. Anyways, would reading the bible really have changed any of my arguments? No matter what it says, I will still know that they can only be stories until more evidence is presented.

 

How about the verse "We live by faith and not by sight." Do you need evidence for that?

You may have mis conceptualized the Bible. It does not give insight into what it says. It even says debates about the church never end. Also, if you read the New Testament, some would be surprised on how practical the morals are. That's also where most people fail; not reading it period. Not that i'm condemning you, but honestly.

 

Why are you all generalizing God from the bible, this thread is about existence of A God not just Atheist vs. Christian battle.

 

Because that's what we're debating..