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! God existsin Religion

Zombieguy1987

Please try to convince me God exists

Joeseph

Of course god exists because the Bile says so , how  else could a Donkey called Balaam talk? He could talk because the Bile says so .... Checkmate Atheist 

TTKDB

Why should someone be convinced, when someone doesn't believe in religion to begin with?

What's the point? 

George_Horse

TTKDB said:

Why should someone be convinced, when someone doesn't believe in religion to begin with?

What's the point? 

The POINT is for you to present a logical argument or reputable evidence that would show the probability of a god existing. 

randomcomment

Maybe we're bacteria on someones lawn right now.

Zombieguy1987

randomcomment said:

Maybe we're bacteria on someones lawn right now.

um... WHAT!?

anonymousdebater

@Zombieguy1987 ;

The username is randomcomment. The comment is therefore, a random comment.

Zombieguy1987

anonymousdebater said:

@Zombieguy1987 ;

The username is randomcomment. The comment is therefore, a random comment.

um... WHAT!? x2

TTKDB

@George_Horse

Believing in God, is voluntarily.

Just as not believing in God, is voluntary.

Do the church's in the various communities across the country exist? 

I'm making a point by referencing those church's.

Those church's exist, can anyone disprove that they don't exist? 

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@George_Horse

Believing in God, is voluntarily.

Just as not believing in God, is voluntary.

Do the church's in the various communities across the country exist? 

I'm making a point by referencing those church's.

Those church's exist, can anyone disprove that they don't exist? 

TTKDB irrelevent comment 7

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

Believing in God, is voluntarily.

Just as not believing in God, is voluntary.

Do the church's in the various communities across the country exist? 

I'm making a point by referencing those church's.

Those church's exist, can anyone disprove that they don't exist? 

"TTKDB irrelevent comment 7"

@Zombieguy1987:

Do you view my questions, as being pro religious, pro atheist, or societally neutral? 

Because you took a side, and viewed the questions as irrelevant?

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

"Atheist Social Justice Warrior vs Christian" 

SilverishGoldNova

Honestly, I feel like all religions excluding maybe Buddhism are just someone put a bunch of rules in a book and said "You must follow them because god said so".

SilverishGoldNova

TTKDB said:

@George_Horse

Believing in God, is voluntarily.

Not if you live in an Islamic country.

Just as not believing in God, is voluntary.

Do the church's in the various communities across the country exist? 

I'm making a point by referencing those church's.

Those church's exist, can anyone disprove that they don't exist? 

TTKDB

@SilverishGoldNova

Believing in God, is voluntarily.

"Not if you live in an Islamic country."

So in an Islamic country, believing in God is mandatory? 

What page in the Koran states that specifically? 

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@SilverishGoldNova

Believing in God, is voluntarily.

"Not if you live in an Islamic country."

So in an Islamic country, believing in God is mandatory? 

What page in the Koran states that specifically? 

It's not Koran Qu'ran 

And while the Qu'ran might not force you, the government will! This is why Church and state stay seperate 

SilverishGoldNova

@TTKDB

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-sentence-man-to-10-years-in-prison-and-2000-lashes-for-expressing-his-atheism-on-a6900056.html

Also, there are many Qur'an verses commanding Muslims to kill non-believers.

Qur'an 2:191
Qur'an 3:85
Qur'an 5:33
Qur'an 8:12
Qur'an 8:60
Qur'an 9:5
Qur'an 47:4

TTKDB

@SilverishGoldNova

And any Muslim individual can voluntarily refrain from killing anyone, if they choose not to do so?

Regardless of what the printed ink on a printed page in a book says.

"Also, there are many Qur'an verses commanding Muslims to kill non-believers."

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

"God exists 
Please try to convince me God exists."

What's easier to disprove, that you can use to make your argument with?

The physical existence of the various churches in the communities across the country that physically exist? 

If a church can be found by Google maps, or by GPS, then I guess that there existence can be physically verified, right? 

Or if God exists?

Is there a physical address for him?

But if there isn't a physical address for him, is that a satisfactory answer, or an unsatisfactory answer, being that the existence is what you're seeking, verses what's easier to prove or disprove? 

George_Horse

TTKDB said:

@George_Horse

Believing in God, is voluntarily.

Just as not believing in God, is voluntary.

Do the church's in the various communities across the country exist? 

I'm making a point by referencing those church's.

Those church's exist, can anyone disprove that they don't exist? 

1. "Believing in God, is voluntarily."

False. Belief in a deity is based on faith.

2. "Just as not believing in God, is voluntary."

THIS is also false. Atheism is not a belief, it is simply the lack of belief in a god. "Not believing" in a god is not "voluntary", but is merely logical.

3. "Do the church's in the various communities across the country exist?"

Do they actually function as places of worship? Then the answer is yes.

"I'm making a point by referencing those church's."

Ok.

4. "Those church's exist, can anyone disprove that they don't exist?"

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

"Atheist Social Justice Warrior vs Christian" 

Oh, look! Using that bias again I see @TTKDB ;

What's next? You're going to use Conservapedia as a source again?

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

Go to YouTube, contact the person who videotaped what the atheist protester said voluntarily from his own mouth, and ask them if they agree with your position that their video is biased?

In other words, prove that it's biased?

Because when some of the other atheists, make the claim that the religious parents teaching their kids about religion is equal to child abuse, that's an example of atheist bias isn't it?

SilverishGoldNova

Zombieguy1987 said:

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

"Atheist Social Justice Warrior vs Christian" 

Oh, look! Using that bias again I see @TTKDB ;

What's next? You're going to use Conservapedia as a source again?

Conservpedia... oh, such a cringey cesspool. 

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

Why is the below a fallacy?

Where is your counter argument? 


Go to YouTube, contact the person who videotaped what the atheist protester said voluntarily from his own mouth, and ask them if they agree with your position that their video is biased?

In other words, prove that it's biased?

Because when some of the other atheists, make the claim that the religious parents teaching their kids about religion is equal to child abuse, that's an example of atheist bias isn't it?  

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

https://www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/amp/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professor.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professor.html 

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

'Forcing a religion on your children is as bad as child abuse, claims atheist professor Richard Dawkins

There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,' he said.

The former Oxford professor - who has been condemned as attention-seeking and unhelpful by critics - said last December that the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priests.

Prof Dawkins' best-selling book The God Delusion argues that belief in a supernatural creator is irrational and harmful to society."

Here's my question to you and he both:

Prove that religion is harmful?

Show me one national court case where religion and man both were tried in a court of law, and were both, in the same trial found guilty of hurting someone, and was found harmful to society? 

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

'Forcing a religion on your children is as bad as child abuse, claims atheist professor Richard Dawkins

There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,' he said.

The former Oxford professor - who has been condemned as attention-seeking and unhelpful by critics - said last December that the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priests.

Prof Dawkins' best-selling book The God Delusion argues that belief in a supernatural creator is irrational and harmful to society."

Here's my question to you and he both:

Prove that religion is harmful?

Well, there's this

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=132

Oh, and that link you INGNORE ON PURPOSE!

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=awrcwoxyfsjcwyaamtkpxqt.;_ylu=x3odmtb0n2noc21lbgnvbg8dymyxbhbvcwmxbhz0awqdbhnlywnwaxzz?p=victims+of+religion&vm=r&type=xy_d15f4323&hspart=arh&hsimp=yhs-001&param1=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&param2=lgbbmqr7mqx5&ei=utf-8&fr=yhs-arh-001&vm=r

Oh, and discrimination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_discrimination

And religious wars

And Islamic Terrorist Attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Oh, and if you're not Christian, you'll never become president in the U.S

And if you're an athiest in the U.S, you might as well just stay home because no one will trust you

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/atheist-discrimination-humanist-association_n_5531296.html

https://www.alternet.org/belief/6-outrageous-incidents-discrimination-against-nonbelievers

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/atheists-discrimination_n_4413593.html

https://mic.com/articles/106156/there-s-one-group-almost-every-country-on-the-planet-discriminates-against#.uEmmlk22Z

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atheists-immoral-religious-evil-acts-christians-muslims-moral-religion-faith-a7882851.html

Show me one national court case where religion and man both were tried in a court of law, and were both, in the same trial found guilty of hurting someone, and was found harmful to society?

You still haven't learned have you? 

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

Why is the below a fallacy?

Because, you can't say "Look at this ONE video of an atheist free to speak his thoughts! This CLEARLY means that A. All atheists are jerks and B. THey're not suppressed

Where is your counter argument? 

You used a video that shows one guy being a jerk and covered it "See! This ONE atheist isn't be oppressed"! When you clearly as tryingto shame all atheists because of one guy

Go to YouTube, contact the person who videotaped what the atheist protester said voluntarily from his own mouth, and ask them if they agree with your position that their video is biased?

In other words, prove that it's biased?

why do i need to contact the person uploaded it? Of all the videos you could've used, you used a video shaming atheists

Because when some of the other atheists, make the claim that the religious parents teaching their kids about religion is equal to child abuse, that's an example of atheist bias isn't it?  

No, it's not. 

Hitting kids because a "demon" controls their soul, or faith healing instead of actually going to a doctor hasn't been only been pointed out by atheists. Anyone with more that 1 brain cell knows that this is child abuse, atheist or religous

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

Why don't you tell the truth?

Does that website know that you're in a sense promoting it on this website? 

I've been to the website, and there's nothing on it there for me.

If it's where you get your mindset, then I'm happy for you.

Is the information on that website going to better the lives of the individuals who aren't atheists? 

Is that website going to better the lives (of the parents who hurt their kids, and religion wasn't found guilty along with the parents for their crimes?)

Why don't you ask that website to answer the above question for you? 

Being that you apparently won't answer it?  

By the way I'm not off topic, you have the website being mentioned nearly every time you give a response.

You're making the website are part of the conversation by doing this: 

(Rewriting history to blame Germany because Serbia was on your side for WW1 and shame all Germans for the few radical Germans during WW2 is how WW3 will happen... When Germany has enough of it. 

The Ark couldn't survive the Great Flood. It would've capsized or been torn apart

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

Why don't you tell the truth?

Does that website know that you're in a sense promoting it on this website? 

I've been to the website, and there's nothing on it there for me.

If it's where you get your mindset, then I'm happy for you.

Is the information on that website going to better the lives of the individuals who aren't atheists? 

Is that website going to better the lives (of the parents who hurt their kids, and religion wasn't found guilty along with the parents for their crimes?)

Why don't you ask that website to answer the above question for you? 

Being that you apparently won't answer it?  

By the way I'm not off topic, you have the website being mentioned nearly every time you give a response.


Uh, yeah, you're going off topic. You've yet to make a compelling arugment for the existance of a God, but go ask questions that have nothing to do with the debate. And the signature quotes? Why is that relavent to?

You're making the website are part of the conversation by doing this: 

(Rewriting history to blame Germany because Serbia was on your side for WW1 and shame all Germans for the few radical Germans during WW2 is how WW3 will happen... When Germany has enough of it. 

The Ark couldn't survive the Great Flood. It would've capsized or been torn apart

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

You've been busy today huh? 

You have a heavy influence on this website it seems? 

TTKDB

The New Atheists

The New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century books promoting atheism. These authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books. A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views. Reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene. It is difficult to identify anything philosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments, but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work.

In spite of their different approaches and occupations (only Dennett is a professional philosopher), the New Atheists tend to share a general set of assumptions and viewpoints. These positions constitute the background theoretical framework that is known as the New Atheism. The framework has a metaphysical component, an epistemological component, and an ethical component.  Regarding the metaphysical component, the New Atheist authors share the central belief that there is no supernatural or divine reality of any kind.  The epistemological component is their common claim that religious belief is irrational. The moral component is the assumption that there is a universal and objective secular moral standard. This moral component sets them apart from other prominent historical atheists such as Nietzsche and Sartre, and it plays a pivotal role in their arguments because it is used to conclude that religion is bad in various ways, although Dennett is more reserved than the other three.

The New Atheists make substantial use of the natural sciences in both their criticisms of theistic belief and in their proposed explanations of its origin and evolution. They draw on science for recommended alternatives to religion. They believe empirical science is the only (or at least the best) basis for genuine knowledge of the world, and they insist that a belief can be epistemically justified only if it is based on adequate evidence. Their conclusion is that science fails to show that there is a God and even supports the claim that such a being probably does not exist. What science willshow about religious belief, they claim, is that this belief can be explained as a product of biological evolution. Moreover, they think that it is possible to live a satisfying non-religious life on the basis of secular morals and scientific discoveries. 

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

You've been busy today huh? 

You have a heavy influence on this website it seems? 

And you have a heavy influence of making irrelavent arguments

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

Should Dawkins maybe be someone that the rest of society, could pattern themselves after, and maybe emulate his mindset? 

Or should some maybe emulate your mindset? 

He's an atheist, do you serve him and your atheist mindset by spreading it's message on the internet?

See, I would pose the above question on a separate forum, but some sort of censorship may have that forum getting deleted wouldn't it?

(Because two forums were deleted yesterday, and if those forums weren't being discriminant to anyone, or doing harm to anyone, why would they get deleted?) 

This way you get me to argue with you from your atheist mindset don't you? 

This way you get to persecute me, just like you use technology to persecute God with right? 

Who gave any atheist the right to use technology to persecute innocent religious parents or a parent with? 

If they havent hurt their kids, who are you to lump them, and God in with the criminal parents or parent? 

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

The below doesn't apply to you?

"The New Atheists"

TTKDB

From YouTube:



Aren't there atheist videos on YouTube as well?

Yes, there are.

So if this is the case, might some maybe view, YouTube as a bias internet source by some, when religious conversations and atheist conversations are both available on YouTube? 

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

The below doesn't apply to you?

"The New Atheists"

And off topic again

N.E.X.T.!

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

From YouTube:



Aren't there atheist videos on YouTube as well?

Still doesn't mean atheists aren't suppressed around the world...

In the Middle East for example. Atheists are killed for being atheist.

Or in the U.S, where RAPISTS are more TRUSTWORTHY than atheists!

And in seven states, atheists are banned from running for public office (While it is unenforceable), there are people likehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._K._Edgerton who have threaten to sue the atheist in question if they were to be voted in like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Bothwell. In fact, it was until 1961 where a Supreme Court case called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins ;where it was determined that the seven states constitutions were overrided by the U.S constituion which banned religious tests for public office

So, your two youtube videos pale in comparison to the thousands of cases of discrimantion against atheists around the world. Oh and they're sterotyped to be communist and/or fascist because of historical incompetence

Yes, there are.

Yes, there are pro-atheist youtbue videos, but thet pale in comparison of the anti-atheist youtube videos

So if this is the case, might some maybe view, YouTube as a bias internet source by some, when religious conversations and atheist conversations are both available on YouTube? 

Youtube doesn't have an atheist bias. They has a leftist bias. There's a difference.

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

"So, your two youtube videos pale in comparison to the thousands of cases of discrimantion against atheists around the world. Oh and they're sterotyped to be communist and/or fascist because of historical incompetence."

And some of the anti religious individuals aren't maybe using the internet in a sense, maybe be discriminate towards any religion or the religious individuals who haven't done anything wrong to anyone?

Yet apparently some of the innocent religious individuals, get treated the same, in a sense like the religious individuals who have committed crimes and are in prison for their crimes? 

How might you view the above point of view?

As a fair and equal one, or maybe as an unfair and unequal point of view? 

"So, your two youtube videos pale in comparison to the thousands of cases of discrimantion against atheists around the world. Oh and they're sterotyped to be communist and/or fascist because of historical incompetence.

So if this is the case, might some maybe view, YouTube as a bias internet source by some, when religious conversations and atheist conversations are both available on YouTube? 

Youtube doesn't have an atheist bias. They has a leftist bias. There's a difference"

What websites that you can create links to, can cooberate your above statement? 

May this website, see your (website/s) reference material?

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

"So, your two youtube videos pale in comparison to the thousands of cases of discrimantion against atheists around the world. Oh and they're sterotyped to be communist and/or fascist because of historical incompetence."

And some of the anti religious individuals aren't maybe using the internet in a sense, maybe be discriminate towards any religion or the religious individuals who haven't done anything wrong to anyone?

And off topic N.E.X.T.!

Yet apparently some of the innocent religious individuals, get treated the same, in a sense like the religious individuals who have committed crimes and are in prison for their crimes? 


Off topic.. again.

How might you view the above point of view?

I view it as the fact you've yet to persuade me that God exists, and you've actually convinced that if a god did exist, he would've ased you to STOP going off topic!

As a fair and equal one, or maybe as an unfair and unequal point of view? 

"So, your two youtube videos pale in comparison to the thousands of cases of discrimantion against atheists around the world. Oh and they're sterotyped to be communist and/or fascist because of historical incompetence.

So if this is the case, might some maybe view, YouTube as a bias internet source by some, when religious conversations and atheist conversations are both available on YouTube? 

Youtube doesn't have an atheist bias. They has a leftist bias. There's a difference"

What websites that you can create links to, can cooberate your above statement? 

May this website, see your (website/s) reference material?

Zombieguy1987

SilverishGoldNova said:

Honestly, I feel like all religions excluding maybe Buddhism are just someone put a bunch of rules in a book and said "You must follow them because god said so".

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.!

TTKDB

"God exists, Please try to convince me God exists"

God exists because some believe in God.

The counter argument question is this, prove that God doesn't exist?

And can science, without a shadow of a doubt, prove that God doesn't exist? 

Can the internet itself, be used to disprove that God doesn't exist?

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

"God exists, Please try to convince me God exists"

God exists because some believe in God.

The counter argument question is this, prove that God doesn't exist? 

And can science, without a shadow of a doubt, prove that God doesn't exist? 

Yes, it can.

Can the internet itself, be used to disprove that God doesn't exist?

Yes, you can look up how science has disproven god, and why he/she doesn't exist.

But this debate is about trying convince me that he/she exists, yet you've done exact opposite

George_Horse

@Zombieguy1987

 

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

I took your argument and expanded on it.

Here's your beginning:

"God exists, Please try to convince me God exists"

And the below expanded it: 

(God exists because some believe in God.

The counter argument question is this, prove that God doesn't exist? 

And can science, without a shadow of a doubt, prove that God doesn't exist?)

"Yes, it can."

Which specific subject in science, are you referring to?

(Can the internet itself, be used to disprove that God doesn't exist?)

"Yes, you can look up how science has disproven god, and why he/she doesn't exist."

What specific science websites, can you share that states and supports your argument? 

And maybe and because, there are some on the internet who have expressed some anti religious points of view, they should be given full credit for their anti religious points of view? 

Are you asking that their anti religious points of view should be taken at face value? 

"But this debate is about trying convince me that he/she exists, yet you've done exact opposite."

Is there a religious building near you, or within the same city that you live in? 

If you see adults and kids going to, and then into the religious building, your question, without any effort, is and has been, already answered. 

YeshuaRedeemed

@George_Horse Why are you so angry?