Maybe my reply to you,wasn't at the high intellectual level of this thread(big words and stuff) of this debate,but I'd still like your anwser.I'm sure you just missed it cause it was so short :P

@RayA75

If god does not want to intervene because he gave as a free will, as you say, believing in him provides nothing but an explanation for an event that caused existance itself to be. We don't even know yet if such an event was necessary, so there really is no point in arguing about that in the first place.

Morals change constantly, things that were taboo 50 years ago are just fine today. Saying that universal morals exist without providing proper evidence is nothing I would call scientific, I'd call it superfluous.
There are many examples for ideologies, evolution of ethics etc that support the idea that morals are very dependant on the time we live in.

There is a reason why ethics are such a highly debated subject many philosophers engage in. They help us adjust laws and whatnot to the current trends of morals and human nature in general.
You said before that you accept evolution as a fact, why would you exclude this rather small detail? It is not like you couldn't use god as explanation for the existance of morals in the first place.
You also claim that universal morals are not caused naturally. Well, before you proceed to find a supernatural cause for something I'd suggest proving its existance in the first place.



I keep my statement short because I'd prefer to discuss one thing at a time rather than many points at once.

A very important point vox is that the bible has pardoxes relating to the definition of God.In some quotes,it is clear that god is omnipotent and omniscience,while when God asks where are "Adam and eve",there is a small hint that god gave us freewill,and he might not be omniscience.So,why should I even trust the Bible as a credible source anymore?Unless,I misinterpreted the quotes...

So what i got from that was that the bible we read today is an edited version far off from the original, and that god wasn't always the character that we know him as but im only 12 so I'm probably way off i would need it in a "For Dumbies" kind of language.

No, it is not a waste of time.
Debating helps you develop your own belief while taking other's into consideration. It also helps us understand other people.
Being too lazy to do that is a shame. You benefit from it, even if you fail to persuade someone.

@Ray

Earlier in this thread you claimed that there only are ideologies that contradict our ideologies, no ideologies that would contradict our general idea of morals.

I can't say I agree.
First of all: I find many actions caused by ideological ideas very immoral. The hunting of women who are thought to be witches, for example.
They do not do it against their conscience, they really do believe that those women are evil and must be killed.

It somewhat feels like you are trying to separate ideologies and moral because they sometimes contradict each other if morals are universal. They are very interdependent. An ideology is a worldview. That includes morals and ethics.

You still have not defined what exact values of morals are universal.
If you mean things like family life, social behaviour etc in general:
We do not need something that cannot be explained, comprehended or perceived to explain why they are there. Plain and simple, why would you use goddidit as anwer when that is anything but satisfying?

So uh, when an ideology contradicts your morals, it is mistaken?
That is a very ignorant thing to say, especially if you think that values are not universal.
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” is something the bible says.
:v

If you exclude values then yes, I have to agree that all human beings who live in a social structure are forced to follow certain social norms. That is part of the human nature.

There is no such thing as a subject that is nothing but religious unless you take everything a religion says as metaphor. The existence of a transcendent being is a theory that needs to be discussed.
If you do not use god as explanation for anything scientific you can't use him as explanation for existence itself either. And if you don't use him for that believing in god is entirely unnecessary.