• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists...

Noodlegawd said:
Isn't the Devil also the Deceiver? Giving you a book to live your life by, that is potentially contrary to what God actually wants you to figure out on your own, seems pretty evil to me.
Click to expand...

no he showed up as the snake back in the day. Eve just didn't know any better, but Adam did.

the devil doesn't need books, he tells us to 'do our own thing'. that's his book.

so we know that is wrong.

.
 
watsup said:
Good things can’t happen without believing in imaginary entities?
Click to expand...

Good things can have multiple sources….I in no way restricted that possibility….
 
Metanoia said:
Is there a point in speaking about God and/or Satan if you believe both to be non-existent ? To even speak of them suggests less than certainty in your beliefs…..evangelists perceiving this possibility might become interested in dialogue with you…..
Click to expand...

Yes, there's a point: to debate the claim that there is evidence that one exists. You can't discuss the existence of something, for or against, without mentioning it.

The only thing that suggests is that some people believe in it, and some other people are interested in convincing them otherwise or, in some cases, ridiculing them for it.

I speak about a lot of things I know not to exist: Gandalf, White Walkers, unicorns, dragons, true altruism.....
 
watsup said:
You do know that this is a myth, right?
Click to expand...

oh no, very true story back in Genesis.

Ken Ham has more details if i can find them.


Was Satan the Actual Serpent in the Garden?​


We read in Genesis 3 that there was a real serpent and it received a real physical curse to crawl on its belly and eat dust for the duration of its life (Genesis 3:14). Satan is not a physical being, although he can operate in the physical realm (Job 1–2). He is a spiritual being that operates in the spiritual realm as evidenced in many passages that detail his spiritual attributes, such as 1 Peter 5:8; Matthew 16:23; Acts 5:3; and Ephesians 6:12.


Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have. (Luke 24:39)
Click to expand...

The Bible seems to portray Satan and his angels as disembodied spirits. So then, how can both Satan and a real serpent be the culprit? From other passages we find an important principle. Satan and demons can enter into people and animals and influence them. For example, Judas was entered by Satan in Luke 22:3; Peter was influenced by Satan1 (Matthew 16:23); and the swine were entered by Legion, which consisted of many demons (Mark 5, Matthew 8).


God sometimes speaks both to the person and to the one influencing that person—Satan.
Click to expand...

Although such things may escape us, God easily sees when Satan is influencing someone and will often speak directly to Satan. Beginning in Ezekiel 28:11, for example, God is speaking to Satan who was influencing the King of Tyre. In the sections prior to this, the Word of the Lord was said to Tyre itself (Ezekiel 27:2), then to the ruler of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2), and now a lament (expression of grief or mourning for past events) beginning in Ezekiel 28:11 to the King of Tyre. This one specifically was directed to the one influencing the King of Tyre—Satan—since the person, the King of Tyre, was never a model of perfection, nor was he on the mount of God, nor was he in the Garden of Eden, nor was he perfect in his ways from the day he was created, till iniquity was found in him (v. 15). https://answersingenesis.org/angels-and-demons/satan/was-satan-the-actual-serpent-in-the-garden/



1726165072775.gif
 
Napoleon said:
The fact is that the existence of a thing is not dependent on your belief in it. Get over it.
Click to expand...
That simply affirms what i said. The fact is the existence of a thing is dependent on the objective evidence or proof demonstrating a thing's existence. Belief is irrelevant.
 
Gordy327 said:
That simply affirms what i said. The fact is the existence of a thing is dependent on the objective evidence or proof demonstrating a thing's existence. Belief is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Thank you for affirming that your belief is irrelevant. The existence of a thing is not dependent on third party perceptions of evidence or proof either. Existence is independent of your ability to perceive it. Humans are not that important.
 
Napoleon said:
Thank you for affirming that your belief is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I made no mention of my beliefs.
Napoleon said:
The existence of thing is not dependent on third party perceptions of evidence or proof either. Existence is independent of your ability to perceive it.
Click to expand...
The existence of a thing is not dependent or based on one's belief, bias, or wishful thinking. Objective evidence/proof is the best basis to establish the existence of a thing with veracity.
 
Gordy327 said:
I made no mention of my beliefs.
Click to expand...
You made no qualifiers in your assertion that “belief is irrelevant.”
Gordy327 said:
The existence of a thing is not dependent or based on one's belief, bias, or wishful thinking. Objective evidence/proof is the best basis to establish the existence of a thing with veracity.
Click to expand...
The existence of a thing is not dependent on your affirmation of its existence. You aren’t that important. A thing exists whether you have objective evidence/proof for it or not.
 
Gordy327 said:
That simply affirms what i said. The fact is the existence of a thing is dependent on the objective evidence or proof demonstrating a thing's existence. Belief is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Not true objectively. Things we cannot “yet” prove would still be “things” whether or not they could yet be proven. By your logic the electron was at one time the smallest particle, but we now no it’s not.
 
Napoleon said:
You made no qualifiers in your assertion that “belief is irrelevant.”
Click to expand...
Belief is just wishful thinking. Belief does not establish or validate the existence of something. Therefore it's irrelevant.
Napoleon said:
The existence of a thing is not dependent on your affirmation of its existence. You aren’t that important. A thing exists whether you have objective evidence/proof for it or not.
Click to expand...
It's not about me. It's about the objective evidence/proof. Unless there is evidence or proof of something, one cannot claim something exists with any validity.
 
Gordy327 said:
Belief is just wishful thinking. Belief does not establish or validate the existence of something. Therefore it's irrelevant.

It's not about me. It's about the objective evidence/proof. Unless there is evidence or proof of something, one cannot claim something exists with any validity.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. It is not about objective evidence or proof. Things can and do exist in the absence of your perceptions of evidence or proof. Your belief that a thing cannot exist without that is pure hubris and another iteration of humanity at the center of the cosmos. And per your own standard, entirely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom