Revelations is not a book of prophecy.

Yes, thank you for the mutual respect. I appreciate it. First of all, you said that I am not addressing an important point of your argument. Could you please point out what I am not addressing? I'm sorry if I didn't address something, so let's fix it asap. :) 1. My opponent says that general statements have often been credible. Fair enough. However, the example you gave about the economist actually proves a point I will make right now. With the economist, he bases his predictions on facts and economic patterns. If the economy is at the highest ever in the history of the country, chances are that it will drop a little bit soon. We know this due to history and patterns. The economist can research these patterns and make a judgment on them. His judgments are usually accepted by people because we know that his predictions are realistic and based on actual reasons why he made that prediction. Revelations, on the other hand, makes claims that defy the laws of physics, have no backing or patterns to observe, and are completely based on some guy named John's writings which he says were inspired by God. A God which no one has ever seen or been able to verify. The economist used facts and reason to make his statements. Revelations does not. My opponent went on to say that I trivialize truth to push my own agenda. Well, I don't believe I am running away from truth. I am merely trying to bring it out. I want to express my reasons for not believing Revelations is a book of prophecy. And I want to know what truth there is behind his reasons. I don't feel I am altering truth in any way. If so, please show me where I did this. My opponent said, "what other sources of divine prophecy are there? Assuming that Christianity is the one true religion and that all the others are made up, why would made up ones claim any sort of authority of prophecy?" Well, God doesn't even have any evidence backing himself, so that means there's no evidence of anything being divine. Different religions CLAIM that their deity is divine, but I have yet to see evidence supporting any of the thousands of religions' claims of divinity. And why would we assume that Christianity is the one true religion? What is different between the Christian religion and the belief of a flying spaghetti monster? They are both claims with no evidence supporting, so what makes Christianity so divine? And these so called "made up" religions my opponent mentioned claim authority because they believe that they are the true religion, just like Christianity thinks they are the true religion. My opponent wants me to provide the names of these religions who don't base their religion on Jesus like the Christians and an overview of their prophecies. Hindus (which believe in many Gods) are awaiting the coming of the Kalki Avatar at the end of this present age, Kalki Yuga (Dark or Iron Age). Here are two of their prophecies: 1. People will have their minds weighed down with constant anxiety and fear. This will be due to devastating famines and heavy taxation. The land will not grow food-crops, and the people will always be in fear of impending droughts. 2. mortal beings will become dull-witted, unlucky, voracious, destitute of wealth yet voloptuous, and women, wanton and unchaste. http://www.bci.org... So, my point: Hinduism (a big religion in some parts of the world such as India) don't base their religion off of Jesus and still have prophecies. I'm assuming you don't believe in Hinduism. So, what ties all this together? All of these religions are based off their own version of prophecies and Gods. No religion has provided adequate evidence, so I see no reason to believe that ANY, including Revelations, are divine prophecies. My opponent says, "If we have the audacity to doubt and to truly seek answers and evidence God will provide it – and he has been for me to this day". What evidence? And where, when, what, and how has God provided it? Why would he provide some with evidence and others no evidence? If you really believe he has provided you some, please share. Now I will address the long paragraph my opponent posted on balance of emotion and intellect. He says that in general, atheists seem to lack the emotion side because they might have been hurt early in life. Well, not in my case. I live in a Christian family, go to a Catholic school, and have been very fortunate through my life. I am not emotionally lacking. And my opponent says that in general, atheists deny God because they use their intellect more than emotions, and that your emotions is what you need for faith. Well, even emotions have to have a reason. If you love your spouse, I would hope you have a logical reason. (Pretty, successful, family oriented, kind, all, etc.) If someone has an emotion, and can't give a reason behind it, then it's pretty meaningless. We have to use intellect over emotions. That is what creates a civilized society. My opponent went on to say, "My hypothesis of atheists (and I must say I've debated and talked to a handful of them at length on these matters) is that many of them appear intelligent and to have intelligent reasons for their unbelief – but the truth is that they, like all human beings, are both rational and emotional; the clincher is that they have probably overemphasized their rational side while neglecting their emotional side. That is my general take on atheism." Well, if your take on emotion is: 6000 years ago, an invisible deity created people, put them in a garden with a tree he didn't want them to eat from, then got angered when they ate the apple after being convinced by a talking snake which the deity also allowed in the garden, which caused all of us to sin, then ya, I would say I am proud that I lack emotion if that is your view on it. Not to mention all of the other things that God did like flooding the Earth, asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, destroying cities, threatening people to eternal damnation in hell, and saying that gays and non-believers should be put to death by stone. If that is what "emotion" is, then I prefer intelligence over emotion every day. My opponent says "However, my opponent has confused this with our present day context for the story." Could you please tell me how I have confused the context? Here is Revelations 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. So, this is basically saying non-believers will not share in the tree of life. It doesn't matter whether you lived a life of kindness and care for others and the planet, if you didn't believe this fairy tale, you won't share in the tree of life. Revelations 20: 13-15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. One, it mentions Hades, who, if I recall, is a Greek God mentioned in mythology. The word myth is very appropriate. Two, it says that you will be judged by what you do, and if you aren't accepted, there is a place of fire where you will go for eternity. Is this prophecy? I think not. It sounds like mythology. My closing statement: None of this "prophecy" sounds logical, pleasant, or practical. There is still no evidence to support it, so I see no reason to accept this as prophecy. And since I don't accept it, it says I will not share from the tree of life, whatever that means. I now turn it over to my opponent. :)