My Atheist speech

[Desperado †]

Me and my friend have a lot of debates on Christianity. I am an Atheist, though don't deny God completely. He is a practicing Christian, though also believes in a lot of science. He seems to change what he is arguing about every day, but he is a nice person and our discussions are allways civil.

Anyway, in English we have to have a debate on a subject between you and a friend. So me and my friend decided to do the Existence of God to a realistic extent. It's not really a debate. It's a speach from each of us. It has to be 3 minutes long.

Here's my first draft. It's not really in much order or nothing. But I'll post it, and you can see what you think, tell me how to improve it and discuss what I am saying. Believers can say what they would disagree on with it and their evidence to why.

I'm 14, so don't judge me if its bad, but praise me if its good.

English Script – The existence of God to a realistic extent

Proposing – God does not exist to a realistic extent

This House believes, that by the evidence us humans have gathered that God probably does not exist. This House believes that God did not ‘create’ the earth. It believes that the universe was probably made by the big bang, and that the earth was definately not made in seven days. It also believes that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, and where not amongst the first lifeforms and existence is only a speck of sand compared with time and space. It also believes that Jesus Christ was not the saviour or the son of God and did not perform miracles.

Imagine the history of our earth, as a massive multi storey building, hundreds of floors high. Each floor represents a period, for example the Jurrasic Period. This building stretches far into the sky. How many storey’s of time do you think us humans have been upon this earth?
We humans, are but the scratch of paint on the surface. We are nothing compared with the history of our planet from its creation. Compared with the history of the universe, we are nothing.

How do we know this? We know this from fact. The most reasonable evidence. We use what we know from the simplest things such as 1 +1, to discover the world around us and how it works. Nothing is 100% fact. We can never proove anything for certain. Only what is most reasonable.

What is science? A subject? The opposite of religon? No. Science is the most reasonable explanation to things. Each persons personall science differs from each of us. Iwan’s science might be that God created the earth. We are all scientists, from the moment we are born we learn what we know from what we discover around us and from what others tell us.
A Christian would probablly of been taught by his parents that God made the earth. I was not. But I was not taught that he didn’t. I was left to find out for myself. And I have come up with the following, that I believe God probablly does not exist, or at least Christianity’s view of him.

Science and religon used to be the same. The Greek word Helios – the same word as Haul- meaning sun, was for the first peoples God. That seemed the most reasonable explanation. The sun gave us life.
But soon religon had a gain. It set down rules for itself, and people fought for it. Soon it began to argue with the newer ways of thinking, such as the Earth being centre of the unniverse.

You see, based on the evidence I know, I believe it is time to move on from believing in God. Some people might argue that five billion people follow a religon, and so they can’t be wrong. But nearly all the world thought the world was flat until it was proven.
For the reasons of time, I do not believe God made the earth in seven days. And I do not believe he made humans in the click of a finger days after he made the earth. We know this, because it has been proven that the earth is a lot older than it is said to be by Christians. Most christians estimate about 5000 years to 20000 years we have been on this planet. Though evidence such as fossils shows the earth has been here for billions of years.
I believe that humans evolved over millions of years. More than that, I know. The theory of evolution has evidence upon evidence. I will give you an example of evolution –
say a deadly variety of mosquitos came to Britain. There was no escape. The people with thicker skin would be more likely to survive, and have children.They would probablly mate with other people with thick skin. Gradually the people with thinner skin would die out, and we would end up with humans who nearly all have thicker skin. Evolution is why we are all diffrent, some of us black some of us white, some of us skinny some of us fat.

I do not believe in Jesus Christ. Not as Christianity describes him.

Firstly, nobody was never, ever crucified on a cross. Never. Never in the history of archiology has a skeleton upon a roman cross been found. People where only ever crucified on a T shape. Why? Well what was the point having a comfy head rest for the person you where killing. Secondly, when the Vikings invaded in the ninth century, they used to crucify Priests for fun. Lovely. But they would only get even madder, as when they crucified Priests, hammering nails through their hands, they would fall off the cross. The hands would rip. It is impossible to be crucified through the hands, which the Bible says Jesus was.
Thirdly, it is known fact that Jesus was a rebell. Most Christians agree on this. He was rebelling against the romans, and the head of a cult in Jerusalem, a bit like the Tali-ban in Afghanistan now-days. It is not written in any Jewish texts that he ever claimed to be the Son of God, or the Mesiah. This was mostly exagurated afterwards by Paul, who decided to make a religon around this Jesus Christ and strip the religon of all thing Jewish and make it suitable for the romans.
Jesus would never of been called Jesus Christ. He probablly would of been called Yashim Ben David (meaning Yashim son of David). Christ, comes from the Greek word Christ-os, meaning Mesiah. Nobody would of dared name their child Mesiah. The Jews would hate you, the romans would hate you.
As for God perhaps making the world be made how it was by dust collecting, I do not agree with. Perhaps, if there was a God, at the dawn of time, he may of made Science and Maths all fit together like a jigsaw But he would not be able to jump in and change it whenever he wants. To do this he would have to ‘change’ it, or add or take away energy. As we all know, you can’t just change the rules of Maths everyday without changing everything. And we have all learnt that energy can neither be created or destroyed.
And lastly, human supremacy. We are told that God made the human the most important lifeform on earth. Christians say that he sent flies and such as a curse for previous sins. But without all the animals and beings we have the world would not work. Each animal has its part. Without wasps that sting our woods would be filled with rotting wood which they gnaw at. Without the worms in the ground most of our soil would be almost infertile. These animals where never sent to ‘curse’ us.

And that's where I've finished to for now. It's the first draft, and is probablly a lot longer than three minuteas and not in any particullar order, but most of my ideas are in there.

[Father Jack]

I am an Atheist, though don't deny God completely.

How can you be an athiest yet not deny God? That is purely illogical since athiesm is about the complete denile of a deity. That sounds more like Deism or Agnosticism

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

How can you be an athiest yet not deny God? That is purely illogical since athiesm is about the complete denile of a deity. That sounds more like Deism or Agnosticism

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Atheism means "without God". It encompasses all positions that mean the holder has no belief in God. That can include someone who denies God's existence. Or it can include someone who, like the OP, is unconvinced by the evidence and so simply has no belief in God.

The majority of atheists (me, for example) actually fall into that second category. The idea that atheism is nothing more than the denial of God is myth spread by theists because that form of atheism is quite easy to refute, since you can't prove a negative. But it's an inaccurate definition of atheism.

Agnosticism is something else again - the idea that God is ultimately unknowable and unable to be apprehended via reason or argument. It's often misused to mean "unsure" or "sitting on the fence" which is not what its inventor, Thomas Huxley, meant when he came up with the term.

@ Caradog - Your speech is fine until you get to Jesus and then you veer off into stuff that is both irrelevant and wrong. Firstly, in such a short speech, why waste time on something as pointless as whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or a T? What's that got to do with any serious claim of Christianity? Secondly, most of the stuff that you say here is wrong anyway: (i) people were crucified on all kinds of shapes of cross, X,T, tradtional crosses or just nailed to trees. (ii) I don't know where you got the stuff about the Viking but that's complete nonsense. The idea that you can't nail someone up through their palms comes purely from modern anatomical hypothesis, not anything the Vikings found out. (iv) The Bible says nothing about Jesus being nailed through the hands anyway, just as it says nothing about the shape of this cross, not that these points are even worth mentioning in your debate anyway.

That whole section is a total waste of time.

Secondly, if Jesus was the head of anything it was a small sect of Jews within Judaism. It was not a "cult" and it sure as hell was nothing like the Taliban.

Thirdly, it was claimed that Jesus was God and there is no evidence that this was invented by Paul.

Fourthly, where did you get "Yashim" from? His Aramaic name was Yeshua and he would have been called Yeshua ben Yosef.

Finally, why bother wasting time arguing that "Christ" wouldn't have been his name? Christianity didn't and doesn't claim it was his name, so why bother pointing it out that this was a title?

The last part of your speech is riddled with errors and is extremely weak. An even slightly informed opponent would be able to rip it to pieces and leave you looking like an idiot. You need to do a lot more work on that part if you don't want to lose this debate and lose it badly.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

With the vikings bit I was trying to say it would of made them mad. I didn't mean to say they discovered it.

Okay - it's still total nonsense. There is no source anywhere that says anything about Vikings crucifying anyone, ever.

The Yashim bit I got from a book, but this book has before given me info which I have used on this forum and people have before criticisiesed to bits.

I'd suggest throwing that book away.

Thanks. I will change it and improve it.

To improve it you need to concentrate on things that are central Christianity, not stuff about the shape of the cross or what his name was. The central claim is that he was God. You would do better to point out that "Son of God" and "Son of Man" in Jesus' time simply meant either the Messiah or someone favoured by God, not that he was God. You should also point out that Jesus was just one of a number of Jewish preachers at that time who thought the world was about to end and that God was about to intervene in history. This is the "kingdom of God" he talks about all the time, which is actually best translated as the "kingship of God" (the Greek word is basilieas, which refers to the act of ruling, not a place).

Jesus was simply a preacher of his time who got turned into a God when Christianity caught on amongst non-Jews and drifted away from its Jewish roots.

But on my opponent ripping it to pieces, he probablly wont. It's not really a debate because we both write our speaches at home. He only roughly knows what I will be writting.

That's not a good enough reason to devote half your speech to stuff that's irrelevant, wrong or both.

[Desperado †]

OK. Maybe I'm an agnostic then. I don't think there is enough evidence to deny God, though i definately do not believe in one either. Does that make me semi-atheist or semi-agnostic then?

[Winter]

I hope you don't mind offending (what is likely) quite a bit of your English class.

[Desperado †]

I hope you don't mind offending (what is likely) quite a bit of your English class.

Naa. Suprisingly most of my English class is non-practicing Christian who don't care much about religon and turn off in these speaches. None of them would get cross.

The only two people who atcually care and discuss what they think about on religon is me and my friend, and hell we are the two doing the speach.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Atheism means "without God". It encompasses all positions that mean the holder has no belief in God. That can include someone who denies God's existence. Or it can include someone who, like the OP, is unconvinced by the evidence and so simply has no belief in God.

The majority of atheists (me, for example) actually fall into that second category. The idea that atheism is nothing more than the denial of God is myth spread by theists because that form of atheism is quite easy to refute, since you can't prove a negative. But it's an inaccurate definition of atheism.

Agnosticism is something else again - the idea that God is ultimately unknowable and unable to be apprehended via reason or argument. It's often misused to mean "unsure" or "sitting on the fence" which is not what its inventor, Thomas Huxley, meant when he came up with the term.

@ Caradog - Your speech is fine until you get to Jesus and then you veer off into stuff that is both irrelevant and wrong. Firstly, in such a short speech, why waste time on something as pointless as whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or a T? What's that got to do with any serious claim of Christianity? Secondly, most of the stuff that you say here is wrong anyway: (i) people were crucified on all kinds of shapes of cross, X,T, tradtional crosses or just nailed to trees. (ii) I don't know where you got the stuff about the Viking but that's complete nonsense. The idea that you can't nail someone up through their palms comes purely from modern anatomical hypothesis, not anything the Vikings found out. (iv) The Bible says nothing about Jesus being nailed through the hands anyway, just as it says nothing about the shape of this cross, not that these points are even worth mentioning in your debate anyway.

That whole section is a total waste of time.

Secondly, if Jesus was the head of anything it was a small sect of Jews within Judaism. It was not a "cult" and it sure as hell was nothing like the Taliban.

Thirdly, it was claimed that Jesus was God and there is no evidence that this was invented by Paul.

Fourthly, where did you get "Yashim" from? His Aramaic name was Yeshua and he would have been called Yeshua ben Yosef.

Finally, why bother wasting time arguing that "Christ" wouldn't have been his name? Christianity didn't and doesn't claim it was his name, so why bother pointing it out that this was a title?

The last part of your speech is riddled with errors and is extremely weak. An even slightly informed opponent would be able to rip it to pieces and leave you looking like an idiot. You need to do a lot more work on that part if you don't want to lose this debate and lose it badly.

Thanks for the info. I was tired by the second half.

With the vikings bit I was trying to say it would of made them mad. I didn't mean to say they discovered it.

The Yashim bit I got from a book, but this book has before given me info which I have used on this forum and people have before criticisiesed to bits.

Thanks. I will change it and improve it.

But on my opponent ripping it to pieces, he probablly wont. It's not really a debate because we both write our speaches at home. He only roughly knows what I will be writting.

[Theseus1234]

you, sir, have some great perspective
i wrote something like this when I was 14, and it sounds pretty similar, but I also listed all the cases where god was indifferent or absent in.
as a provocative statement to start a debate, if you believe god exists, surely he has left us for dead, otherwise, why aren't more miracles happening? if he left us for dead, why should we pray to him? fear that a infinitesimally small proportion of the enormous universe which he supposedly controls might not obey him? if there exists that fear, then why should i worship him at all if he'll smite me for believing what i want?

oh, plus rep for the truth

[Desperado †]

you, sir, have some great perspective
i wrote something like this when I was 14, and it sounds pretty similar, but I also listed all the cases where god was indifferent or absent in.
as a provocative statement to start a debate, if you believe god exists, surely he has left us for dead, otherwise, why aren't more miracles happening? if he left us for dead, why should we pray to him? fear that a infinitesimally small proportion of the enormous universe which he supposedly controls might not obey him? if there exists that fear, then why should i worship him at all if he'll smite me for believing what i want?

oh, plus rep for the truth

Thanks. I'm going to re-do it now, with the stuff Thiudareiks mentioned and that bit on the absence of God, reffering to the holocoust and stuff. Of course, that is arguable though as some Christians might say that God also gave us free will.

That's not a good enough reason to devote half your speech to stuff that's irrelevant, wrong or both.

Thats a very good point.

I have changed it and made it better. I still don't know if this is within three minutes of talking, so I might shorten it. What do you think?

English Script – The existence of God to a realistic extent

Proposing – God does not exist to a realistic extent

This House believes, that by the evidence we humans have gathered that God probably does not exist. This House believes that God did not ‘create’ the earth. It believes that the universe was probably made by the big bang, and that the earth was definitely not made in seven days. It also believes that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, and where not amongst the first life forms and our existence is only a speck of sand compared with time and space. It also believes that Jesus Christ was not the saviour or the son of God and did not perform miracles.


Imagine the history of our earth, as a massive multi storey building, hundreds of floors high. Each floor represents a period, for example the Jurassic Period. This building stretches far into the sky. How many storey’s of time do you think us humans have been upon this earth?
We humans, are but the scratch of paint on the surface. We are nothing compared with the history of our planet from its creation. Compared with the history of the universe, we are nothing, where as the bible claims we are everything – the centre of the universe, and the most important beings in it.

How do we know this? We know this from fact. The most reasonable evidence. We use what we know from the simplest things such as 1 +1, to discover the world around us and how it works. Nothing is 100% fact. We can never proove anything for certain. Only what is most reasonable.

What is science? A subject? The opposite of religion? No. Science is the most reasonable explanation to things. Each person’s personal science differs from each of us. Iwan’s science might be that God created the earth. We are all scientists; from the moment we are born we learn what we know from what we discover around us and from what others tell us.
A Christian would probably have been taught by his parents that God made the earth. I was not. But I was not taught that he didn’t. I was left to find out for myself. And I have come up with the following, that I believe God probably does not exist, or at least Christianity’s view of him.

Science and religion used to be the same. The Greek word Helios – the same word as Haul- meaning sun, was for the first peoples God. That seemed the most reasonable explanation. The sun gave us life.
But soon religion had a gain. It set down rules for itself, and people fought for it. Soon it began to argue with the newer ways of thinking, such as the Earth being centre of the universe.

You see, based on the evidence I know, I believe it is time to move on from believing in God. Some people might argue that five billion people follow a religion, and so they can’t be wrong. But nearly all the world thought the world was flat until it was proven.
For the reasons of time, I do not believe God made the earth in seven days. And I do not believe he made humans in the click of a finger days after he made the earth. We know this, because it has been proven that the earth is a lot older than it is said to be by Christians. Most Christians estimate about 5000 years to 20000 years we have been on this planet. Though evidence such as fossils shows the earth has been here for billions of years.
I believe that humans evolved over millions of years. More than that, I know. The theory of evolution has evidence upon evidence. I will give you an example of evolution –
say a deadly variety of mosquitoes came to Britain. There was no escape. The people with thicker skin would be more likely to survive, and have children. They would probably mate with other people with thick skin. Gradually the people with thinner skin would die out, and we would end up with humans who nearly all have thicker skin. Evolution is why we are all different, some of us black some of us white, some of us skinny some of us fat.
Apart from the theory, there is proof us humans evolved. We have fossils and age old skeletons, the ones older having thicker skulls and smaller brains. We have evolved to our environments, to have darker skinned people in Africa, and lighter skinned people in the colder lands.


Miracles. Some Christians might say that life is a miracle - that the world around us is. I can understand that – when you compare the amazing chance we are here, that we were all once single celled organisms which had barely any chance to survive, yet we did and here we are. You might look at the beauty of maths and science, and how everything includes it from the patterns of pine cones to the formula of pie in flowers. You might look at love, and friendship, and call those miracles.

But the Bible speaks of other miracles, miracles that defy reason and science. It speaks of hundreds of them. Jesus, and Moses, and hundreds upon hundreds of St’s performing them. In the time these miracles happened, it was easy to believe in them, or hope to. Most people never left their home town. Most women died during Childbirth. Children barely ever made it past infancy. It was a hard life, one in which you would hope for miracles and pray for them to get through each labouring day.

Not to mention they had not the technology. The average person could not read or write, or use any maths further than adding or taking away. They had no internet, no dictionary, no books. The only teachings you would get would be from the Priests who told you of these miracles. The only books you would ever know of would be books of God, bible’s and prayer books and books about prayer.

But as our civilisations progressed, the average person became more learned. We now know of Science, and math, and have cameras and photographs and technology to prove all things. Then why have no more miracles happened? Has God left us? Or where there ever any miracles such as lost hands re-appearing, people drowning and coming back to life? Then the most reasonable explanation points that these miracles never did happen. That they were but exaggerated, or made up, or mistranslated or misunderstood.

Much of the Bible was probably exaggerated, or misinterpreted.

Let us look at Noah and the great flood. That flood may well as happened. It is described in the bible as drowning the whole world. But these people had probably never travelled further than ten miles in their entire lives. Say the flood took up an area of five hundred square miles. To those people it would of seemed like the world. And the task of taking two of each animal upon a boat would not of been too mighty. How many animals live in our area? Would it be a massive task to collect two of each upon a boat? A hard one, though not impossible. So this part of the bible was probably exaggerated.

Let’s look at misinterpretations. The New Testament has been around for nearly two thousand years. The Old Testament has been around for even older. Look how much a language can change in say a generation – compare the way you speak to the way your parents speak. Imagine how much a language would of changed over thousands of years. Then look at how many times the Bible would of been translated, at different periods in History. For this reason it was believed in Medieval days that Moses had horns.

Even with today’s technology, we can rest certain that much of the Bible is not as it was originally written, and even if you are a full Christian should not be taken for certain.

And lastly, I want to look at the corruption of religions and why this makes them less trustworthy. Somebody might say, what is the problem of praying now and again for good in the world? Nothing.

But it must be remembered, that as soon as religion has a gain it will be used for evil. Look at all the people who have used religion as an excuse for war, and slaughter. Look at Medieval priests. These men had a tenth of everyone’s earnings, and simply lived in their comfy homes nice and fat whilst everyone else worked to the bone. Look at how religion has often been an excuse to down trod women – according to much of the Bible women should be put down as they are all sinners for being direct descendants of Eve who tempted Adam.

Look at how the Church’s of Medieval days all used to be full of gold, brimming with beauty and money, whilst the poor people’s had barely enough for food. Look at how people have used religion for war – from the Pope Urban II who began the crusades to Hitler who killed the Jews. England and Britain’s greatest medieval king – King Richard the Lion heart, was a Jew murderer and had holocausts in England. Nearly all wars are tied up in religion, look at the wars today – they nearly all are because of Muslim Shiites fighting Muslim Sunni’s.

See how religion has killed innocent people, time and time again, and been used by greedy men.

It is with this that I give my final question. If God, had truly loved us, to avoid these terrible things, would he not of made us all Atheists?

[dwringer]

Don't worry, hiudareiksGunthigg believes that academia represents the views of all mankind, so his academic definition of weak atheism encompasses what most of us would call agnosticism

[Scandinavisksoldat]

A bit of a generalization, don't you think? You said

Most Christians estimate about 5000 years to 20000 years we have been on this planet. Though evidence such as fossils shows the earth has been here for billions of years.
I believe that humans evolved over millions of years. More than that, I know. The theory of evolution has evidence upon evidence. I will give you an example of evolution –

but from what I observe, most Christians do not take Genesis overly literally, so of course they won't believe the earth was made in 7 days. Likewise, many Christians believe the ideas of God and evolution can be compatible, and if you, like many other Christians and atheists, ignore Genesis, or at least a part of it, then evolution does not strictly contradict God. So I'd leave that point out, as otherwise any Christian's not in line with this generalization would then disagree with that point and you would not win your audience over. Of course, with the number atheists on the rise, many people would probably let it slip. Still, if you wanted to win a debate, I'd stick with leaving that point out.

As for speech setup, It looks well enough structured, although we could use more information on the format of the speech expected. I myself am in a debate class, so my first sense would to have my speech look similar to a Lincoln-Douglas style introduction, like this one:

State resolution
Define terms pertinent to resolution
Introduction (story, quote, parable, etc.)
Core Value and Criterion
First Contention (First argument)
Second Contention (Second argument)
Third Contention (Third argument and conclusion)

Again, this style would be more adapted to a debate, but with an alteration of it, you'd have a pretty good-looking speech.

Now then, a few examples of someone might go about attacking your case... use these to edit and add to your case.

But as our civilisations progressed, the average person became more learned. We now know of Science, and math, and have cameras and photographs and technology to prove all things. Then why have no more miracles happened? Has God left us? Or where there ever any miracles such as lost hands re-appearing, people drowning and coming back to life? Then the most reasonable explanation points that these miracles never did happen. That they were but exaggerated, or made up, or mistranslated or misunderstood.

First, science and math have been around for quite a while, since the before the New Testament. Do not forget that ancient Greece provided a source of many theories and much knowledge, or that many scientific theories were based off of Aristotle, Socrates, or Plato's thinking. Furthermore, it could be said that we no longer need God's miracles. We have developed these new technologies as you said, which means it is easier to perform such tasks that once only God could do. Now perhaps God leaves us without miracles only as yet another test, to see if we are kindhearted or only in it for the money. When the day of judgement comes, he may look back and see what we did with this ability to perform modern miracles.

Much of the Bible was probably exaggerated, or misinterpreted.

Let us look at Noah and the great flood. That flood may well as happened. It is described in the bible as drowning the whole world. But these people had probably never travelled further than ten miles in their entire lives. Say the flood took up an area of five hundred square miles. To those people it would of seemed like the world. And the task of taking two of each animal upon a boat would not of been too mighty. How many animals live in our area? Would it be a massive task to collect two of each upon a boat? A hard one, though not impossible. So this part of the bible was probably exaggerated.

Let’s look at misinterpretations. The New Testament has been around for nearly two thousand years. The Old Testament has been around for even older. Look how much a language can change in say a generation – compare the way you speak to the way your parents speak. Imagine how much a language would of changed over thousands of years. Then look at how many times the Bible would of been translated, at different periods in History. For this reason it was believed in Medieval days that Moses had horns.

Even with today’s technology, we can rest certain that much of the Bible is not as it was originally written, and even if you are a full Christian should not be taken for certain.

Ah, but what is the application of this? We know that there are today many seperate bible versions, but the fact is that they are all fairly similar, and share the same basic themes and stories. So if, after 2,000 years, the bible's different versions remain closely related, then surely they have not strayed far from the original. If they aren't so changed, then it doesn't really matter that they've been altered for even a small bit, and we can still get the basic idea of what the bibles message conveys. This point is quite a bit irrelevant and unneccessary.

And lastly, I want to look at the corruption of religions and why this makes them less trustworthy. Somebody might say, what is the problem of praying now and again for good in the world? Nothing.

But it must be remembered, that as soon as religion has a gain it will be used for evil. Look at all the people who have used religion as an excuse for war, and slaughter. Look at Medieval priests. These men had a tenth of everyone’s earnings, and simply lived in their comfy homes nice and fat whilst everyone else worked to the bone. Look at how religion has often been an excuse to down trod women – according to much of the Bible women should be put down as they are all sinners for being direct descendants of Eve who tempted Adam.

Look at how the Church’s of Medieval days all used to be full of gold, brimming with beauty and money, whilst the poor people’s had barely enough for food. Look at how people have used religion for war – from the Pope Urban II who began the crusades to Hitler who killed the Jews. England and Britain’s greatest medieval king – King Richard the Lion heart, was a Jew murderer and had holocausts in England. Nearly all wars are tied up in religion, look at the wars today – they nearly all are because of Muslim Shiites fighting Muslim Sunni’s.

See how religion has killed innocent people, time and time again, and been used by greedy men.

Have you ever heard of Protestants? Of reform? You seem to, at this point, have forgotten a vast portion of Christian history and caused such a great generalization that you seem to have included all Christians as believing in the final solution. Furthermore, you did not include all that many examples of Judaism or Islam, which is vital, considering this right now only appears to attack Catholicism, and lightly, Protestantism.

[Noble Savage]

Please ,no more double/triple posting .

Ta

Noble Savage

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Don't worry, hiudareiksGunthigg believes that academia represents the views of all mankind, so his academic definition of weak atheism encompasses what most of us would call agnosticism

Yes, because what would the guy who came up with the word "Agnosticism" know about what the word means. Let's pay attention to random people on the internet instead.

Words have specific meanings pal - deal with it.

I have changed it and made it better. I still don't know if this is within three minutes of talking, so I might shorten it. What do you think?

I think you're still wasting a hell of a lot of your three minutes with stuff that's either irrelevant or plain wrong.

For the reasons of time, I do not believe God made the earth in seven days. And I do not believe he made humans in the click of a finger days after he made the earth. We know this, because it has been proven that the earth is a lot older than it is said to be by Christians. Most Christians estimate about 5000 years to 20000 years we have been on this planet. Though evidence such as fossils shows the earth has been here for billions of years.

Which is a good argument against the small minority of Christians who believe the universe was created in six days (he rested on the seventh, remember). But it's a really bad argument against all the other Christians and all the rest of the theists who don't, yet still believe in God. They could just look at your argument, shrug and say "Yes. And?"

So this part of the bible was probably exaggerated.

To which most Christians would say "Yes, probably. Big deal. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist." And all the non-Christian theists would say "You can talk about the Bible all day if you like. The Bible means nothing to me - I'm not a Christian. But I still believe in God. So waste your talk with stuff about the Bible, you aren't putting the slightest dent in my belief."

Let’s look at misinterpretations. The New Testament has been around for nearly two thousand years. The Old Testament has been around for even older. Look how much a language can change in say a generation – compare the way you speak to the way your parents speak. Imagine how much a language would of changed over thousands of years. Then look at how many times the Bible would of been translated, at different periods in History.

Leaving aside the fact you're still attacking the Bible and not arguing against the concept of God, this is largely wrong. We have early manuscripts of the Old Testament works in Hebrew and we translate them from Hebrew into English. Ditto for the early manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek. It doesn't matter how much languages change from generation to generation - we speak English and we know how to translate Hebrew and Greek into English. So our translations of the Bible are as accurate as any translation can be.

For this reason it was believed in Medieval days that Moses had horns.

No it isn't. Traditional depictions of Moses showed him with shafts of light beaming from his head and face because of a Biblical description of his face shining when he came down from Sinai. Eventually artists who weren't familiar with the Bible lost track of what these were meant to represent and they became two shafts of light coming from his head and, eventually, horns. This had nothing to do with mistranslations.

Even with today’s technology, we can rest certain that much of the Bible is not as it was originally written, and even if you are a full Christian should not be taken for certain.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually showed us how little the Biblical books being used in the First Centuries AD and BC differed from the same books today. What you say here is plain wrong. Not to mention largely irrelevant to the topic - the existence of God.

A lot of the stuff you then say about Medieval religion and priests etc are either wrong or blatant overgeneralisations (and why pick on the Medieval period, when every other period has plenty of examples of corruption and greed as well?) But more importantly, it's largely irrelevant to your topic. A theist can simply shrug and say "Yes, those guys sure were corrupt. But how does that mean that God doesn't exist?" If you're trying to argue that these corrupt men can't be trusted when it comes to what they say about God, the theist can point to the many, many thousands of good, noble, selfless, non-corrupt believers and say "But I trust these men" and your point falls flat.

Most of your talk is irrelevant to the question in hand. You need to focus on the concept of GOD. Most of your talk tackles bits around the edges of Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity, and leaves the actual issue at hand untouched.

If you gave this speech an even half-way competent opponent would totally kick your ass.

Try reading some of these arguments against the existence of God:

Arguments for Atheism

Arguments against the existence of God

The Scientific Case Against God

Refuting God

[Scandinavisksoldat]

Most of your talk is irrelevant to the question in hand. You need to focus on the concept of GOD. Most of your talk tackles bits around the edges of Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity, and leaves the actual issue at hand untouched.

If you gave this speech an even half-way competent opponent would totally kick your ass.

Agreed. You've made a good sounding speech, but you did not remember it has to also have true, good arguments to win and be persuasive. Also, try to cut down on the first person talking. Sometimes it is best to simply talk strictly in 3rd person.

[Ardruire Iacób]

Just a minor note, but the whole thing about Christ being nailed in the hands is a medieval mistake and not true in the slightest bit.

It is impossible to nail someone by their hands. The Romans would have known this. The Apostles would almost certainly have known this. Early Christian communities would have known this. Medieval and later people would not. When the Bible was being translated from Latin into the vernacular, how do we know that it was a genuine error in translation or a mistake based on the artwork which shows nails in Christ's hands?


Another thing, your spelling is awful!

[Desperado †]

Another thing, your spelling is awful!

Thanks.

I performed it today. I won by a majority of 20 to 5. Fortunately my opponents speach didn't go too well, his points where a bit confusing and missplaced apart from the whole where did the big bang come from thing.

But I knew I had won pretty much after performing my speach and everyones faces. Fortunately again, nobody in my class (even though it being top-set English) are half as clever as the people on this, so more than anything they where judging people on how they represented their facts rather than the facts themselves.

[Bond]

your teacher is letting u debate religion? wow

speech looks good, but remember u'll be in front of the class and probably get docked points for looking at a paper/flash cards

just try to remember your key points/arguments and don't worry so much about how you exactly wrote it out