God Exists Only in the Minds of His Followers

I have concluded that my opponent is not an atheist, but either an atheist new to devil's advocacy, or a disguised theist. This is irrelevant to the argument, but I felt like saying it. Final Arguments: 1. God Does not Exist 1.1 Descartes You said "True," not "That might be true." Ignoring this, you asserted that neither you nor I have any knowledge of perfection. If this is true, then you have just as little right to assert that what you say about God is true as I do, 1.2 Lewis "...looks like somebody just conceded the existence of souls!" This statement was, for lack of a better word, stupid. I said that logic does not require any one specific "type" of universe or existence in which to function. If our we, along with our minds, were placed in another universe, we would understand reality as it is in that universe. Logic stems from intelligence and adheres to the existence it finds itself in, as far as we can tell in our existence. 1.3 Pascal My opponent rather covertly conceded that Pascal's wager could not only be applied to any God of any religion, but that any random imagining could have equal claim to this argument. Bob the overweight alien demands your allegiance, OR ELSE. 1.4 Kant "...both believers and disbelievers can be logical." When did I say believers couldn't be logical? If I really believed that, would i be debateing you? What I said is that those counted among the most rational tend to lean towards disbelief. I am not asserting this as a causation, but a reasonable correlation in the intensity of its contrast. you give no evidence that logic is a gift, but I have evidence that it could be genetic[1]. 2. Bible is inaccurate 2.1 Inaccuracy 2.1.1 Noah's Flood "Of course the secular scientists won't tell you the evidence for a great flood because they're secular." Of course not! Because if they're secular, they won't distort, misrepresent, or fabricate facts to support their rediculous Biblical cast! And, for the fun of it, a new point I forgot to brought up: Inbreeding[2]! How exactly would Noah and his immediate family escape the devastating effects of incestuous intercourse, and repopulate the entire planet, with all its different races, in a matter of 4,000 years? Simple, really: He didn't. 2.1.2 Adam and Eve "Thus I win the point." Forgot about the last round, eh? Alright then. I did not commit an ad populum fallacy, I was showing that the acceptance of evolution as a science is overwhelming. These are the people that actually test this stuff, and a staggering majority of them conclude that it is scientifically accurate. Also, that, "within the level of variability" thing gets on my nerves. Things evolve and change species. It's been scientifically verified, and has yet to be disproven. Get over it. (Also, my argument of inbreeding carries over to Adam and Eve, who had only two sons, one of whom killed the other) 2.1.3 Age of the Earth "...winning lotto numbers..." aren't important. The age of existence is, and yet was neglected to be defined in the Bible. The Earth is over 4 billion years old, and the Bible doesn;t even make an allusion to this fact. 2.1.4 "Perfect" Bible I just realized you'd stopped arguing this point. How sneaky of you. 2.2 Historical 2.2.1 Second-Hand accounts! You conceded that any of your cited documents were indeed likely to be second/third-hand accounts. The Bible is not a citable source because it concerns religion, is unverifiable, and has made many disproved claims. 2.2.2 Israel Narrative Just because part of the Bible can be verified does not mean we should blindly accept that the whole thing must therefore be perfectly true. The fact that it got SOMETHING right isn't a very strong argument. 2.3 Sceintifically 2.3.1 Big Bang The difference being Genesis posits an unprovable God, while the theory posits a scientifically viable lack of space-time prior to the Big Bang 2.3.2 Like a Tent "I'm not the one making the unconfirmed hypothesis..." So... it's been scientifically proven that the Universe is like a tent? No... no it hasn't. 2.3.3 Space Vacuum =/= Perfect Vacuum, and therefore Vacuum =/= Nothingness. You are just imposing facts into the off-shaped molds of these obscure Bible quotes, 2.3.4 Air's Weight I'm saying that air having weight ISN'T an axiom! It had to be tested to be confirmed! Things aren't axioms JUST because they're in the Bible. 2.3.5 Stars "But how else could the scripture possibly be interpreted?" You haven't read the whole thing, have you? I thought not. 2.3.6 Splendorous! "A mirror image of beauty is still beautiful." Not only is beauty subjective, but reflecting something beautiful wouldn't automatically warrant calling the mirror beautiful. 2.3.7 Ocean Springs Yup, it's cherrypicked, intentfully interpreted poetry. 2.3.8 Dinosaurs You cite no Bible verses speaking of dragons, and dinosaurs are not dragons. You also didn't explain how the meteor killed ONLY the dinosaurs. 2.3.9 "Creation Science" (Neanderthals) "Read the science before you come to rash conclusions..." I smell a hypocrite! You cited CREATION.COM! How could a website get any more biased toward creationism than that?! 3. Morality 3.1 Okay to kill kids? I honestly can't believe you're debating this. Why don't you go live in an Islamo-fascist country under sharia law, and see if you still think child murder can be justified?Even if the murdering scumbag does call himself God, he's still a murdering scumbag. 3.2 Okay to kill cursers? "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death..." And you don't think they could've added, "...by God" to make sure nobody started slaughtering people? This is confirmation bias, and the Bible is in fact supporting the massacre of rebellious, angst-filled kids. 3.3 Okay to force marriage? "...then why do[es] even the council of Jewish rabbis I cited...disagree with you?" Because they don't want to look bad. 3.4 Ok to insult God? "God will give all just retribution who insult him." That's it. You're not an atheist, you liar. Those children weren't even isulting God. They were making fun of an insecure bald guy with anger management problems. 3.5 Slavery Don't even try to justify the following passages. I promise you that you will make a fool of yourself if you do. "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."(Leviticus 25:44-46) Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these? "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21) New-Testament Slavery "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5) 4. IPU Praise be to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Source(s): [1] -http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] -http://en.wikipedia.org...