The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheFirstThingThatIThough
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

ALL creationists, Everyone, Are fake and fraudulent phonies, No exceptions, None

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2019 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 729 times Debate No: 123468
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (43)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

ALL creationists, Everyone, Are fake and fraudulent phonies, No exceptions, None. One has to blunder if they themselves believe what they try to shovel down other's throats? Really? Seriously?
Why do you think that creationists will not put their unproven character storybook of print only god on trial again? They are not THAT hellaciously stupid after all. AND they are probably a great deal smarter than you reading this. Creationists will not put their unproven character storybook of print only god on trial again because they know better and they know that they cannot possibly win their case because after all, All they have to go on as evidence is FAITH BASED oriented. AND they also know that "Faith is the reason people give when they don't have evidence. " Matt Dillahunty. He's right. They also know what kind of god is going to give faith instead of evidence? Well one stupid ignorant god that's for sure. So once again they will not put their unproven character storybook of print only god on trial again. They know as everybody should know faith cannot be proved. Now here's the catcher. . . Since creationists cannot and will not stand behind their product, Namely their god, And thus take responsibility for their product, This means that they cannot possibly be trusted. So how can any of these creationists, How can any of them be trusted for ---anything---? In other words, Anything any creationist has to say, Dream or think, Toss around in class, Put---on---paper, Because of this is completely invalid and worthless.

Also to prove every single creationist fake and false. . . Not one of them will submit a paper to 100 scientific communities of merit from around the world that are NOT theistic (after all we cannot be biased) before it gets laughed out of their buildings. In other words, There's no possible way these papers would ever get a passing grade from even 100 when there are millions of scientific communities of merit to choose from. In other words, Creationists are intelligent and educated enough to know better. They are NOT stupid.

"Creationists do not try to prove the truth of creationism. They spend their time arguing against evolution. " Matt Dillahunty. He's right again. Well, I take that "stupid" remark back.

dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
TheFirstThingThatIThough

Con

Okay, Hi. You have already seen one of my debates and know some of this information but I am going to restate it for anyone reading who has not seen that debate. This first section is just information about me that pertains to this debate so that you do not have to make any assumptions regarding my beliefs or life experience. I am an atheist like you, But I have not been for the vast majority of my life. I left Christianity (specifically baptist) about 2 or 3 months ago but have been a non-believer for about a year now plus a year of doubting my faith before that. I was raised in religion and as a result have many friends and family in the church still. Additionally I have some friends from other branches of Christianity including Mormonism and Catholicism. I plan to reference some of them during this debate.

Now onto the debate. The main question for this argument is all creationists are fake and fraudulent phonies, No exceptions. (I will probably narrow it down to one adjective for future use). I disagree with this statement mostly because I have been there and can attest to not faking it. Religion is a very comforting place where you are told that there is this great being out there who loves you and takes care of you. You want so desperately for that to be true that you believe it is. Not to mention some Christians can be very convincing with their reasoning and evidence. My point is that they believe it so they aren"t faking it. They genuinely believe what they are preaching, At least a large portion of them.

*WARNING if for some reason children are on this site please skip this paragraph
Part two of my argument, The Santa analogy. This doesn"t work for everything about belief and faith, But I feel it applies in this debate. When you are a child you are probably told that Santa Clause is real and he sneaks into your house to leave presents under the decorated carcass of a tree and in your socks. You believe Santa is real because people you trust tell you he"s real (parents or other trustworthy adults), You want him to be real, And the presents under your tree in the morning are the evidence. Just like a child truly believes Santa is real, Creationists truly believe some form of god is real.

Lastly I would like to discuss your argument.
"One has to blunder if they themselves believe what they try to shovel down others throats"- I think you misused the word blunder here. Blunder means to "make a stupid or careless mistake" (source google). I think you meant something along the lines of they are being clueless or unintelligent. I only bring this up to make sure I am understanding your intent because I feel like this could become a large part of the debate.
"Why do you think that creationists will not put their unproven. . . God on trial again? "- There is a number of creationists who will gladly put their god on trial and have come back to the conclusion of him being real every time. There are also creationists who don"t put their god on trial because they are not supposed to be judged according to their doctrine. Also, What do you mean by again?
"They are not THAT hellaciously stupid after all. AND they are probably a great deal smarter than you reading this"- I"m glad we are off to such a great start with this debate. I love to be told I am stupider than someone you already deem unintelligent and you said that before you even knew who was going to accept this debate. Can we please try to avoid further personal jabs in this debate. I would prefer to keep it intelligent and civil.
Then you go on a tangent about how people have to use faith as their only evidence for creation. This seems to prove more to my point that they believe it enough that they think their sheer faith is good enough evidence. If the topic of faith being used as evidence is something you would like to delve more into for this debate I"d be more than happy to discuss it, But I fear we have the same view that faith alone is not valid enough evidence to make supernatural claims. If you would like to debate it though just formulate it as a question and I"ll do my best to argue the opposite of what you say even if I don"t necessarily believe it myself (it would be a fun challenge)
"They know as everybody should know faith cannot be proved"- I agree they cannot prove their faith. They cannot prove what they have faith in is real hence the whole concept of faith and they cannot prove they have faith. This is just like how people can"t prove they are happy. You may outwardly show it, But there is no way to prove you are not faking happy. What you are trying to do is the opposite. You are trying to give evidence that they do not have faith. This is even more impossible than trying to prove one has faith. Just like with trying to prove faith you are trying to prove a feeling. As of this time there is no way to prove exactly what someone feels. Additionally you are trying to prove a negative. Just as you cannot prove God does not exist you cannot prove that someone does not have faith. You may listen to every person arguing God exists and you may think none of it is good evidence, But you cannot prove God is not in a place called heaven watching earth and doing nothing. That is why so many atheists claim that theists have the burden of proof. How are you supposed to give sufficient evidence that they don"t have faith that they are just faking it?
"creationists cannot and will not stand behind their product, Namely their god"- What creationists have you been talking to? Most creationists I have interacted with are unwavering regardless what you say and continue to stand with their god.
After that you go into how creationists cannot be trusted because they are liars. They are faking there religion so how can we trust that they are being honest in other areas. If someone is faking their belief for no good reason we have no reason to believe they would be honest about anything else. However I do not believe most creationists are faking it so I do not believe they are untrustworthy. There are also "creationists" who do not believe in creationism but fake it either for safety or out of fear. It is not always safe to reveal that you believe in evolution. There are also people like I was for awhile were they are afraid of saying that they are not creationists because they fear being judged and/or ridiculed by their family and friends. Though many of these people stop pretending eventually. I do not think that if someone falls into one of these two categories they are untrustworthy. They are simply bound into a lie by circumstance. Just to reiterate my main point of this section because it may have got lost in the crowd. I do not believe that most people are faking it, So they are not lying and are not untrustworthy.
"Not one of them will submit a paper to 100 scientific communities"- That does not prove they are faking it. Like you said "they know as everybody should know faith cannot be proved". They are aware that faith is not a reliable source in a scientific setting so it would be pointless for them to bother submitting a paper. That does not mean they do not believe it.

Thank you for reading my argument. I hope this will be an entertaining and slightly educational debate. If I misinterpreted any part of your question please let me know in your next argument so I can get my argument on track and not waist time arguing something that is irrelevant to the debate. Again, Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

you haven"t noticed. I also invent my own language, Also in case you haven"t noticed. I also DO NOT insult, Degrade, Humiliate, Dehumanize those that are intelligent and educated. I also really like the way you compose yourself. You do have a very natural talent for writing. Don"t give up on it, That is if its what you love to do.

Yes, Of course I do know that you are an atheist, Like me. Many think that atheism is a religion, Its not. Most do not know what atheism is. Here"s an exceptional video on that.
* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=7o5h0DdcyTA&t=264s - Reasons for accepting atheism B. O. P.
"Religious claims fail to meet their B. O. P. " Matt Dillahunty
"Its not that we accept atheism because you"re accepting a non belief. Or let me rephrase it. It the rejection of a belief. It means the same thing I suppose. You"re suggesting that we believe in something never indicated until indicated I can"t believe it. I mean you can make up any number of things that can come to your imagination, But when you posit them as true it is incumbent upon you to come up with a reason why we should believe that it is true. " Aron Ra

I use videos and others quotes a lot for quite a few reasons. . .
1. I have super pain in my hands and have for quite some time. The cause s a pinched nerve in my neck so typing at times is truly unbearable.
2. The videos say one helluva lot of things that I simply cannot type out.
3. The videos say a lot of things better than I can say things. Sure some say things very badly so I can naturally clean things up from there and thus not use the videos.
-----
OK onto the debate.
One of the things I learned, And was humiliated by it as was roughly 80% of the class in college, Is to look at the bottom of the debate/ page AT ALL TIMES araraggg, Trust me, Do it from now on if you don"t, It will save you a lot of grief for everything you do!

With many thank you"d I appreciate them. It shows class and style in which very few shows. So let"s now begin and see where it leads"

"Religion is a very comforting place"" OK religion I will go with but I am speaking directly about creationists which is a very big difference. Here"s what I mean"
Creationism: 1. The doctrine that matter and all things were created, Substantially as they now exist, By an omnipotent Creator, And not gradually evolved or developed. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, Especially in the first chapter of Genesis. 3. The doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
Here are a few examples - taken from The Secular Web:
GE 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven(s) and the earth. " (One might ask what "existed, " and where God dwelt, Before he created heaven and earth. Of course, If God were pure spirit the question could be considered moot, But inasmuch as the God of the Bible allegedly participated in a wrestling match, Ate solid food, Was seen face to face, Spoke with Moses, Etc. , It would seem that he possesses physical attributes, Including form. )
(Note: Some biblicists contend that biblical chronology fixes the date of creation at 4004 B. C. Thereby making the earth about six thousand years old. Some present-day creationists stubbornly adhere to a young earth timetable in spite of overwhelming evidence that the earth is actually billions of years old. )
GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, There would be no night or day. Also, Light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years. )
GE 1:12, And 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.
GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, Buckeye pod, Nightshade, Oleander. )
The thing is there is no evidence for this god. Nothing. This unproven god of the bible never described even the smallest hint of what it was and or is. It never even gave the slightest description of what it was and or is. Also, How does anyone test, Demonstrate, Assert this supposed god? Then once that proved in which case its an impossibility because nobody has ever done as such because how would you first do this in the first place, And once those are complete, How would you declare this unproven god so that everybody on the planet agrees that it is the one and true god and not a fake and forgery that somebody from the next block might disagree with because he"s read something completely different in a different text?
In other words, If this god were in the slightest bit true, It would simply talk to everybody and clear this mess up.
No amount of science can be used to prove this unproven god because no science was used in the bible to prove this god. So how can science be applied? Would someone simply guess and get it right?
Btw, Which god? There"s more than one god mentioned, By far, In the bible.
Why only one god? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Quadrillions?

These christians ---are--- faking it, They just don"t know any better from either their deniability or their gullibility or they don"t know any better and have convinced themselves without any rhyme or reason that - well have you seen George Carlin"s take on religion?
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=8r-e2NDSTuE - Religion is B. S.

But see, That"s really not creationism.

"Creationists truly believe some form of god is real. " Again, Which god? And why only one god when more, A lot more than one god is mentioned the bible?

"One has to blunder"" That"s how I talk. Its deliberate. No I didn"t misuse the word "blunder". Its simply my lingo. The sentence normally reads "One has to wonder"" Its wordplay. I do it one-hell-u-v-a-lot to keep people on their toes. It works.

I"m talking about getting a judge, A jury, That is not biased, An actual trial where NO ONE has heard of this so-called god of the bible and NO ONE knows what science and or anything from what science for what something as far as what is tangible is.
Creationists will ---never--- get a legitimate trial together because they cannot prove faith in which faith is the only evidence they have in which in not evidence. The bible most certainly is not evidence. Only someone completely moronic would put the bible on trial. Genesis right off the bat would completely fail. AGAIN.
"Also, What do you mean by again? " Their god was put on trial with the Scopes trial.
Have you ever seen a film called "Inherit the Wind"? And or read the play? If not the film is a true genuine masterpiece and one of the greatest films ever made and has been remade sooooo many times. Yeah. I"m a film buff and am also a music buff.

Here are a few things I recommend that you watch if you are interested"
The Atheist Experience - there"s a lot of great stuff on there. It comes on youtube every Sunday at 5:30pm EST. Its a call in show where theists (they take them at the head of the queue) and atheists can call in and discuss religion or other topics. There"s TONS of videos on youtube.
Talk Heathen = same thing only its on at 2:00pm Sunday"s EST
They get REALLY good hosts.

But first do you get Netflix streaming? If so I HIGHLY recommend a 10 episode series from National Geographic "One Strange Rock". This takes you to places you"ve never been. Teaches you things you"ve never known. Its from the perspective of 8 astronauts and shows the essential interconnection of mother earth and evolution.

Do you get Amazon Prime? If so I 100% recommend PBS"s Native America. It is a 4 episode masterpiece series about Native American Indians and their interconnection throughout the America"s.

Well gtg, Please always tc and haveth thee fu!
TheFirstThingThatIThough

Con

Let"s just jump straight into addressing what you said this time.

"Many think that atheism is a religion, Its not. "- I agree it is not a religion so I do not have much to say on that topic except we agree.

"I use videos and others quotes a lot for quite a few reasons. . . "- Your reasons are fair but I cannot promise that I will watch every video you share to completion, So if there is something important you would like me to get from a video please try to point it out.

"OK religion I will go with but I am speaking directly about creationists"- The reason I brought up religion is because most creationists get their doctrine from religion.

"there is no evidence for this god"- Again, We agree. You do not need to spend time in your future arguments trying to convince me of that. You cannot prove the existence of a God.

"Btw, Which god? "- I intentionally kept that vague. There are multiple religions that believe in a version of creationism (even the Norwegians did, Pretty sure Norse mythology is dead now). Since there are multiple religions with multiple versions of god/gods I didn"t want to limit it to one god. It simply doesn"t matter which god I am talking about in most situations of this debate.

"These Christians are faking it, They just don"t know any better from either their deniability or their gullibility or they don"t know any better and have convinced themselves without any rhyme or reason"- This argument is contradictory. You make the claim they are faking it, But then explain they aren"t faking it. Faking according to google means to "forge or counterfeit" or to "pretend to feel or suffer from (an emotion or illness)" If someone is gullible, Doesn"t know better, Or has convinced themselves, That means that they believe it, Even if that is from a lack of knowledge.

"The sentence normally reads "One has to wonder" It"s wordplay"- Thank you for clarifying that statement.

"I am talking about getting a judge, A jury"- Ah, I misunderstood what you were referring to. I thought you were talking about putting on trial in a casual way, Like in a conversation or debate. If we are talking about a legal trial you are right they know they can"t win because trials work by way of evidence and creationism and religion are faith based. It is the same as my argument for why they don"t turn in papers to scientific communities. They know it won"t hold up in those fields, But they still believe that it is true because of their experiences and what the Bible says. I don"t, But let"s hypothetically say I believe in ghosts. I have read books and articles by other people sharing their experiences with ghosts and when I was a kid my kitchen sink turned on despite no one touching it (the sink thing is actually a true story). I very much believe ghosts are real but I am not going to be able to prove it to a scientific community or win a trial based on the little evidence I have.

"Their god was put on trial with the Scopes trial"- Cool, That sounds very interesting.

As I explained earlier I was intentionally keeping the religion vague, But you kept specifying Christianity and Genesis. If you would like we can focus our argument specifically on creationism from Genesis. I am impartial either way.

To summarize my claim from my combined arguments
The vast majority of creationists are not faking. They believe it even if it is for reasons that you don"t think are valid. They aren"t pretending to believe it so they aren"t being fraudulent.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Le buu.
It is good that thee will watch the vidies. I appreciate that as they are evidence. I don't think, Though I am not too sure that I will present anymore for this debate. I could be wrong on that.

"The reason I brought up religion is because most creationists get their doctrine from religion. "
True, Even though many so-called christians are not religious. They do what they want, How they want, When they want to whatever suits them best and they manipulate their bible for their wants, Needs and desires. Hey Hitler was a devout christian. So was Hong Xiuquan who knew of himself to be the younger brother of christ.

"Btw, Which god? "- I intentionally kept that vague. "
Thank you. You get it. Supposed christians don't. They argue into oblivion as to why only "one" god/ creator is true when they cannot possibly prove it with any justification whatsoever.
And yes, Every single religion known has its own "creation" myth. They also have their own "heaven", An above world if you will and a "hell", A below world if you will. That's far too much of a coincidence for many religions to not be plagiarized. Christianity is no exception with some portions of its myths. One of them is the great flood that never happened.

"These Christians are faking it, They just don"t know any better from either their deniability or their gullibility or they don"t know any better and have convinced themselves without any rhyme or reason"- This argument is contradictory. You make the claim they are faking it, But then explain they aren"t faking it. Faking according to google means to "forge or counterfeit" or to "pretend to feel or suffer from (an emotion or illness)" If someone is gullible, Doesn"t know better, Or has convinced themselves, That means that they believe it, Even if that is from a lack of knowledge.
It is a contradiction. The bible is an entire contradiction. Christianity is an entire contradiction. People believe that god is love, But wait, It in its bible murders people which includes babies, Children and pregnant mothers and these supposed christians somehow try to justify it? What? So so so many more supermassive hypocritical contradictory things. Now with the argument how "These Christians are faking it" they cannot be truthful if they cannot prove their god which leads to deniability and gullibility OR they don't know any better and have convinced themselves that their whatever gods exists without any rhyme or reason. Does that make better sense?

I do apologize if I am not clear in stating what I state to you. After all our ages are very vast. So our language is naturally going to be a little, If not a lot of times off. But like I said, You have truly a remarkable gift for writing and especially getting---to---the---point, So please do not give up your writing anytime soon! Whereas with me, Even though by teachers, Several of them, Told me I have a gift for writing, But that's lyrically and in poetry, I use a lot of fluff in which is entirely my fault for debates.

Moving on. . .
Yeah there's just no possible way any creationist would dare even take the trouble, If smart, To take the time to submit a paper to 100 scientific communities from around the world of merit.

"Their god was put on trial with the Scopes trial"- Cool, That sounds very interesting.
Here's some transcripts from the trial. . .
https://history. Hanover. Edu/courses/excerpts/111scopes. Html
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=vtNdYsoool8&t=225s - A clip from "Inherit the Wind"
one of my favorite quotes from any film "An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral. "

"If you would like we can focus our argument specifically on creationism from Genesis. I am impartial either way. "
Whatever you want.

To summarize my claim from my combined arguments
"The vast majority of creationists are not faking. " Oh I think they are. Money is a very big motivation. Also wow do they invent one helluva lot of excuses that have 0% of nothing to do with their bible's.
Look at all these fake millionaires, Some who are billionaires televangelists, Who ask their congregations to pray for jet planes, That milk any audience for every cent they can get.
Then look to church services that pass around collectors plates at every single one of them.
If this god were so mighty and true, They would not require a dime.

Please always tc and haveth thee fun.
TheFirstThingThatIThough

Con

I am just going to jump straight into the response again this time and follow it up with my claim after.

The first couple sections of your response are in agreement so I don"t have much to say on them. I want to jump into it when you respond to my explanation of how your argument was a contradiction. The contradiction came from your claim that people who were gullible or are convinced of something are faking their beliefs. By definition if they are convinced they believe it. Instead of answering to the contradictory nature of your claim you went on to explain how the Bible is contradictory. Claiming that the Bible is contradictory doesn"t make your claim any less so. You tried to explain your meaning and how your claim works by saying "they cannot be truthful if they cannot prove their god which leads to deniability and gullibility OR they don"t know any better and have convinced themselves that their whatever gods exist without any rhyme or reason. " This however has no bearing on the question asked. The question is if they are faking it not if what they are saying is the truth. The truth is subjective. Obviously there are things that aren"t like 2+2=4 and whether or not there is an apple on a table, But social situations and interpretations of literature are subjective truths. They see the Bible as a reliable source and believe what it tells them. They view it as truth, But all of that is moot. Even if their beliefs are fake or are not fake that doesn"t make their belief fake. Does that make sense? There beliefs are the things that they believe, But their belief is the trust they put in those beliefs. They aren"t being frauds because they aren"t telling lies they are sharing what they deem as truth. You keep claiming that they are faking it and the last thing you"ve said is the only reasoning you"ve given for that, Money. That doesn"t hold up though in the claim that they are ALL faking it. You say they are gaining money from it but only a portion at the top, The leaders and such. Everyone else is losing money to support these foundations. An example you gave is collectors plates. The believers are losing money to that plate not gaining. There may be some "creationists" who are only saying they believe it to make money but that doesn"t discount the larger group that isn"t faking.

All your arguments have been based on the claim that their beliefs are in-factual but that doesn"t mean that they don"t have these beliefs. They are not faking and at the very least you can"t prove it. I have reason to believe they aren"t because there are people who I know to be honest that claim to have these beliefs and I have personally held these beliefs myself and I didn"t lie about havig them.

Since this is the last argument I just want to say thank you to everyone who read it. I know this debate was pretty long in comparison to some of the others on this site. I hope you enjoyed reading it and obviously I hope you vote in my favor.
Debate Round No. 3
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mk6520 2 years ago
mk6520
"Until you take the Pew Research Center test to prove how much you know about religion, In which of course you will naturally fail, You have nothing to say. "
^ this proves that you are a robot who just copies and pastes, Cause I have seen this statement before.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
@MkDick - Until you take the Pew Research Center test to prove how much you know about religion, In which of course you will naturally fail, You have nothing to say.
Posted by mk6520 2 years ago
mk6520
"Nope. Again homebody, Try selling that to 20 different churches from around a 20 mile radius and see how far you get. Gosh! You have no genuine friends or loved ones as you continue to pass on false and fraudulent information. Great! Continued success! "
Lol, You didnt even try and make a rebuttal, Instead you have probably copy and pasted one of your insults as it is getting really repetitive. Please at least listen and rebut, So you understand our side before you can make a rebuttal
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
Is it any blunder why you have no genuine friends or loved ones? Really think about it. OK I'm done. You don't want to pay any attention and only pay attention to your self righteous ego as you not only have been warned by me but by others here on DDO? Fine. Bye.
Posted by IsaiahWood 2 years ago
IsaiahWood
You prove my point again, More accusations and. . . . I just noticed something.
You literally call me names like a preschooler does, "old teeny bopper, Pea of a brain, ****tard"
"shredded sperm ounce of it. " what does that even mean?
Advice, To gain credibility, AtLEAST call people names that make sense.

Look, I cannot be arguing with you forever over nothing(because you have argued nothing, Only accusations) some i'm done on this argument, If you want to continue, Message me, Cause this is stupid, I think you lost your brain.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
This is why you are a 16 year old teeny bopper, Clearly with a severely stunted limited mind that obviously cannot think, Reason, Rationalize, Use common sense, Dream nor use logic because you and your religion, Unproven god, Bible does not require a single shredded sperm ounce of it.
Don't yah think that rather than stating "Again you just call things false with no evidence. " You could have asked "what is the evidence? " See here's your major fault and with so so so many other DDO patrons especially at the teeny bopper circuit vault area is you believe without evidence. And anyone with a pea of a brain can simply figure out that its best to first have at least a little evidence and THEN believe. Nah. Not you and your kind. You are really an insult to the human race. You just proved it.

Your unproven god should never fear scrutiny and investigation. According to you, It most certainly 100% does.
Posted by IsaiahWood 2 years ago
IsaiahWood
A picture proves the Bible wrong. . . You think that, Because some insanity just cannot be stopped. Again you just call things false with no evidence. Just making claim, After claim, After claim, Im starting to see a pattern here. All you can do is call my arguments fake, Stupid, Ignorant. That is literally your argument. If I was calling that to you argument, You could rightly call me stupid. But all you got is a website that say im wrong and accusations over nations. . . . . . . . And a picture of Heavan im Guessing, IDK lol.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
Btw, As asked before. . . What do you think the pic I have is of and where is it? And btw, It 100% proves your bible, Religion and god to be false.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
@IsaiahWood - This is why you are only 16 years old and have the cabbage batbrain the size of an atom as compared to the big bang.
"What does that have to do with the argument? "
It has plenty. If you were not so stifling ignorant and stupid you'd figure it out. Nah. He like you presents false and fake shreds of evidence to support his claims. And when given the test to prove his erroneous B. S. ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY among his church going folk, He STILL, Just like you, As I have proven unto you, But YOU CAN'T READ which is so typical and as proven by the Pew Research Center test that you do have a lesser education on your religion than atheists, AND you do on average have a lesser knowledge on average on your religion because you are a young adult, So DO NOT F--KING TELL ME I DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE you pathetic s--t, He STILL just like you will not take his and your findings to your churches because they are filled with utter B. S. And you want a genuine conversation with someone here? Grow up.
Posted by IsaiahWood 2 years ago
IsaiahWood
@Backwardsweden "Nope. Again homebody, Try selling that to 20 different churches from around a 20 mile radius and see how far you get. Gosh! You have no genuine friends or loved ones as you continue to pass on false and fraudulent information. Great! Continued success! "

What does that have to do with the argument? And why are you making stupid claims with no foundation.
"Nope" is not an argument LOL
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.