GODS EXSISTENCE

"You did exactly what Christopher hitchens did avoid the point and so has everyone else who dosent belive in God that i have debated." How did I avoid the point? I answered your question; just because I didn't do it in two sentences doesn't make ilegimitate or wrong. It sounds like all you're doing is trying to discredit me. "It is improbable to get everyone on the same page but thats why we have to have a base for what is rite and what is wrong for the past for today and for the future otherwise the world would be toatal chaos." But your assertion was that without God we wouldn't even have a base, but I say we would. And don't cite Hitler because there will always be people who are going to break even the soundest moral code the society has. Religion did not decide morals; people did and put them to religion because its an easy way to get people to obey. In different societies and relgions, most of which developed independently of one another, the "big" morals you could say like murder and theft being wrong are the same. The fact that people developed about the same ethics on their own points to these being innate; humans did not need to be told by a diety what their values were. Atheists and agnostics haven't abandoned these either; niehter of those condone violence, stealing ect. as a group. As for individual people, like I said before, there are always those who break morals and I could find you relgious people who do the same. "So OBVIOUSLY there has been nations that have condoned murder." I rebutted this in the first round but obviously didn't explain it right. Let me try again: The nations you mentioned did kill people; in fact there hasn't been a society that didn't. BUT random murder by anyone, anyplace, anytime has never been condoned. For example, Aztecs committed human sacrifice, but a person of the street couldn't go up to their neighbor and rip their heart out. All these people made mistakes but at the same time kept some moral grounding. This related back to my point above about morality being innate and independent from a diety. The Spanish Inquistion was just another example of this. "QUIT POINTING OUT PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT GOD AND MABY POINT OUT SOMETHING WRONG THAT THE CHRIDTIAN GOD DID IF YOU CAN EVEN FIND ANY FAULT WITH HIM." I thought we were debating his existence? You claim he must because otherwise we wouldn't have morals, but I'm claiming that people had the morals before they had God, and that those are independent from religion. But to answer that directly, yes, I can find fault with some of things the Bible has God doing. He killed the first born sons of the Egyptians, stranded the Jews in a desert for years, turned Lot's wife into salt and other things. And before you say that all these people had turned against him and deserved it, isn't he supposed to be all merciful? "Here we go again blaiming people who represent God and not GOD HIMSELF CLASSIC ATHEIST WAY TO DEBATE (AVOIDING THE POINT). Ok first of all if you new any thing about the church back then you would know that it was run by a bunch of poloticians that didnt care about God all they care about is power. and i am ashamed of the church for that. But what you are saying is crazy just because the bible dosent mention jenacide dosent mean its ok to go murder a different race then you just because your racist. The Bible says dont murder so i dont murder that includes all whether its because im racist. Our constitution dosent mention jenocide eather does that mean you can go out and kill people because you racist. No. The constitution also says we cant murder and that meane under no sercom stances unless self defense or capital punishment.The Bible and the Constitution assume that people are smart enough to figure this out. " No, no, no! Once again, you're misunderstnading what I said completely! The point, once again, is that humans have developed morals on their own and don't need to be told. You said it yourself: we're smart enough to figure it out! At this point I'm not sure if you're actually reading what I'm writing here. "as soon as some one as asks you do you belive in God and you say no you SPIT IN HIS FACE" Saying I don't believe and saying that I hate are two different things. Don't put word in my mouth. "You no what you are doin here you are admitting that there is a rite and a wrong which is CLEARLY admitting that there is a God if you read anything that I wrote." For my rebuttal, re-read everything I've written thus far, as this is the main argument of the debate "So you basically accept the part of Christianity that you like (crawling on Gods lap) and then some one asks you if you are a beliver in Jesus and you say no." NO! How many times do I have to type that word? Some parts of Christianity coincide with my beliefs, and some don't. You think that not believing in God means doing the opposite of what the Bible says but it doesn't; it just means not beliving that there is a supreme being who dictated all of this stuff. "PLEASE DO THIS: tell me why you belive what you belive" I'm actually not an atheist, I'm an agnositc. I don't follow any relgion but I believe that there's not sufficent evidence to disprove God's existence. Likewise I believe that it can't be proved, and that your argument in particular doesn't work at all "And you cant say i cant prove there is no God because you wouldnt belive something that rediculouse without any proof tell me facts not opinions. I should be able to get facts from you because beliving that ther is no God is all about facts and not about faith." The facts are that you can't prove it. I relaize that this isn't a reason to disbelieve, but this has been my opinion all along, I'm sorry for not clairifying sooner. My real problem is with your particular argument. As I explain below, my belief is that you can't prove God's existence at all "dont just correct me in your next argument are debate is about the exsistence of God not about correcting what im saying please tell me" Okay. You cite evidence that you believe proves God exists. I believe those to be untrue, so I correct them in order to prove you wrong. My point in this debate isn't that God doesn't exist, but that your argument is wrong and proves nothing. You say that God created morality and therefore must exist, but I say that God didn't create morality and therefore doesn't have to exist.