There is NO god. (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all)

No, this isn’t Toki Pona, and you would not call the current US president “Biden person.”

I prefer the idea being “Nitrogen monoxide god”.

A God named "NO"?

Exactly.

I feel like this debate was more about grammer and technicality rather than proving/disproving religion.

thank you😂

"If that's true, then none of oromagi's resolutions mean anything"

Well, I suppose if all words are capitalized, then it is acceptable that they all mean the same as if they were lowercase due to them being styled the same. In this case, the "NO" stand out meaning that it is a choice of wording to include the capitalized version instead of that of the lowercase.

👍``

I don't feel like voting right this moment,
Maybe won't later either,
I just wanted to post my thoughts on your round 1,
Not that my thoughts are great,
But I enjoy posting them anyhow sometimes, once thought of.

I would argue that not all Christians believe in Hell as some fire pit of eternal torment,
Nor do all Christians believe God literally resides in the Heavens/Sky.

I am unsure what you mean by the 'modern age of science,
That people were clueless as to how the world around them really worked,
Or that Humans had no knowledge about atoms,

"Democritus (/dɪˈmɒkrɪtəs/; Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning "chosen of the people"; c. 460 – c. 370 BC) was an Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher from Abdera, primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe.[1] None of his work has survived."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus

Of course Dēmókritos example can be rebutted, but Intelligence_06 takes debate another course.
. . .

The Old Testament, 'seems to me an impressive record of history, poetry, and philosophy,
I say 'seems, because I don't know that much of it.
. .
I don't think Jews look upon their religions writings the same some Christians do,
History is passed down through people, different history books exist, different science books,
But this is not to say their claims do not exist.
Even if it is not 'exact,
One person says there was a man named Dan who did this and that,
Another person says there was a man named Dann who did this and that,
We might say a man named Dan and a man named Dann could not have existed at the same time,
But 'roughly 'someone did,
If Dan/Dann had been a criminal at some crime scene,
Police would not say oh a word contradiction and ignore,
They would focus on there being a man at the crime scene, 'likely a man with a name possibly or similar to Dan/Dann.
. . . . . . . . .

"Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.[10][11]
Some scholars estimate that there are about 30 surviving independent sources written by 25 authors who attest to Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

2000 years ago, was a 'long time ago.
. . . . . . . . .

What qualifies as a miracle,
And who can say what 'happened long ago?

Take the Red Sea,
Waters may recede provided circumstance provides,
Provide a crossing,
Or return and drown an army.

Modern miracles for some people, include merely surviving a car crash,

Problem with these arguments of mine here, of course are an Atheistic bent,
One might argue an invisible gardener absurd,
Or that my arguments are the opposite of anthromorphizing,
But I'm rambling, well, I'm not a Christian.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I suppose a different argument might be an event doesn't happen for a long period of time,
So people assume it never existed to begin with.

You're telling me

One of the most genuine compliments I have received over the past year. Flattery is intended to be exhibited.

This is one of the weirdest serious debates I've read 😂

Looking at my 3rd argument now it seems a little petty, especially at the end, sorry about that.

You're not likely to get my vote for such tactics.

I simply interpret topics as strings because they are presented as so, and when the opposing side insists this string means something, I prioritize analyzing the string itself and go from there.

It was back when I actually tried taking a debating class and on the last class I tried to be a little cheeky and got labeled “off-topic”. After that, I strove to argue what the topic is and only what the topic is so that it will absolutely never be off-topic, because, well, it is the topic itself, not some vague entity the opposing side thinks the topic is above.

So far, the captalized “NO” is enough reason for me to believe that what Pro thinks Pro is trying to argue is purposefully disconnected from what Pro made the title to be, even if it is an accident. But the title is set in stone, the Rosetta Stone of the ever-growing internet, and upon acceptance the mistake is way too late for correction.

When I have even just threshold motivation, I accept every topic that is obviously exploitable. If you ask why I don’t debate such as Whiteflame, it is because he makes his arguments, well, not so easily acceptable. Still, learning how topics can be exploited just based on how they are written is in my opinion a good strategy for new users, like I did for the past years.

I view Intelligence_06 as an intelligent person,
Their arguments 'do make sense,
And it's fair for people to encourage other's to use airtight debate titles, definitions, description.

But I prefer more laid back debates myself,
Would rather point out such in the comments if it 'really needs be,
And think it more 'friendly, to debate people as they 'intended to be debated.

That last part honestly made my day, I was worried that Cons arguments made more sense to other people than they did to me.

@DavidAZ
I think myself, many later Atheists only give slight or shallow thought to religion and God in their childhood and teenage years,
Maybe even their adult years.

I also think many, (Though not all) are bitter,
Though reasons vary.

The one's who 'are bitter though,
Well, when one is angry, even less likely they 'think about the arguments given by their opponent,
Just applies to most people on any topic,
Viewing the other as the enemy, or something hateful, stupid, reduces objective consideration.
. . .

I'm not bitter about religion, then 'or now,
But I didn't think about it 'much as a kid,
Nor when I questioned it,
Nor now while I don't believe it.

@Intelligence_06
Why do you debate like this?
Azeal's meaning is clear enough to me.

Jamgiller, I do think, and know myself, that a child does regurgitate what their parents tell them. Usually the faith is not repeated when the child is rebelling against the parent(s) and their way of life. This is stemmed from a environment that is not loving and full of power or control, which is usually the case with most religious homes. The reason for this is that I believe most religious people don't really care about God as much as how the religion soothes their own conscience and guilt OR the idea of being a super-spiritual giant and being able to hear from God directly.

So if a child becomes baptized at an early age on their own will, it's usually because their parents taught them to do so, which is good, but there will become a time that the child will decide themselves if they will stay in that way of life. Since being a Christian is supposed to make people walk righteously (obviously nobody is perfect, but they should strive for it), then it should not harm others around them, including their children, but again, most people don't really care about the things of God, but rather what they can extract from God and His church.

So, Azeal, the reason I asked about your parent's treatment to you is because I have a brother who talks just like you and when we talk about religion years later, he doesn't come from rational thinking, it comes from anger and bitterness. Therefore, he will use any statement he can to justify his way of thought, regardless of how it sounds or where it comes from.

Anyways, good luck on the debate.

My family was and is VERY religious, and I chose to not be in 7th grade.

Do you think that young children from baptism to confirmation are only regurgitating what their parents tell them?

I'd like to jump in the comments here and say that if your belief in God stopped at high school, then you never thought about God at all. You only regurgitated what your parents told you. Around the age of 16 or so, a person will start to become independent and start to think for themselves. So really, if you stopped believing in God that early, then you never really thought about God and your description proves this.

I'd like to ask, how did your parents treat you? Because this is a classic example of teen rebellion to the parents and not a rational thinker.

Im interested to see how this debate goes

Doesn't matter.

Is the debate here specifically about Christianity or about God in general?

Glad to hear your story!