The Instigator
Sidex
Pro (for)
The Contender
slightlyirategentleman
Con (against)

Can the Father of Man be real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
slightlyirategentleman has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 99816
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

Sidex

Pro

God is logic and reason. Logic and Reason is God. We have a perception that only one man is God, in the Christians case, Jesus Christ born about 2000 years ago. Humans that are autistic savants have "God" inside of them, some of them more pronounced than others. When you have the purest logic and reason, then you become the most influential person in your group. Jesus Christ was an autistic savant that had "God" inside of him because he was more logical and reasonable than anyone around him at the time. If we look at the history of the prophets of the old testament all the way to Jesus, then we can see a pattern of who they are and what logic and reason they used to influence the environment around them. One of them(Moses) started the religion Judaism beginning the chain of events that defined Judaism's history to the point of the Christ. Moses was a prophet of the Hebrews, descendants of Abraham, that created the Law for the Hebrews thousands of years ago. The Law went as such:
1. Thou shall have no other Gods before me. 2.Thou shall have no idols. 3.Thou shall not take God's name in vain. 4.Thou shall remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. 5.Thou shall honor thy father and mother. 6.Thou shall not kill thy neighbor. 7.Thou shall commit adultery with thy neighbor's wife. 8.Thou shall not steal from thy neighbor. 9.Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 10.Thou shall covet thy neighbor's property. The creation of the Law created an instruction manual for the next prophet in line. Autistic savants understand how time flows and knows that logic and reason MUST exist throughout time as well as the present. The only problem is the ego of mankind. As the prophet of each time passes, people always has the inclination to show that they are the best and tries to lead with their own reason and logic. The Path of God is a single one, but when we sin or act on our ego then we divert from that path creating new reason and logic that is separate from the Path of God. When people want power and use it, it's very easy to rationalize that you become greater than the Law. Autistic savants do not ever divert away from the Path of God because they only know that path is always the right one. So as each autistic savant emerges, they use the ten commandments to take control of the population so people don't kill each other because of their own egos. It always involves some kind of curses or plagues in which the people eventually learn to obey or perish by the power of God. The people always follow the old prophet(even after the prophet dies) until a new one is born. The Law was set up in a way in which each new prophet born can know the logic and reason of God and obtain authority through the Law. It's actually a checklist for each prophet. 1. Thou shall have no other God's before me. The prophet needs to make sure that only the Law is true because that is the representation of the logic and reason from all autistic savants. So anyone that supports another God that is different from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is euphemistically "left out in the cold." The prophet takes place as God, using his faith to do anything that is required for the population to submit. Once each item of the proverbial checklist is finished, then that prophet has established domain over the population as its leader. This type of growth goes on for quite a while the last jump between the minor prophets to Jesus Christ was about 400 years. Logic and reason is literally always supposed to bring Humanity together as one species. When Jesus arrived, he knew enough science to know that it wasn't his time to be King or a spiritual leader because the world has not been populated. He was also aware the written word was much more developed in which his words could be carried throughout Time until globalization could occur. So he figuratively called himself the "Son of Man" to represent he was the second to last prophet. He knew it wasn't his time so he instead of the previous prophets of ahead taking control over the current time, he decided to sacrifice himself for the good of the world. This started a new religion that severely contradicted the righteousness of the Hebrews by purposely losing your life for everyone around to suppress the ego of Humanity. In doing so it created a war/rift between the Hebrews and Christianity that lasted for thousands of years which eventually cultivated into the Christians being righteous over the Hebrews because the Hebrews had killed their Lord and Savior. This lead to disagreements throughout history that not only created many wars but grew science to what it is today. Competition always bears more ideas or "fruit" than agreement. Often times that fruit is bad, but unfortunately is still necessary to further the advancement of Humanity. Jesus knew he was born too soon so that's why he died on the cross, but that is not mutually exclusive to him also dying on the cross for Humanity's sin. I would theorize based on all the information that I've concluded so far, Jesus would be King today if he was born at this time than that time. My definition of wisdom is learning knowledge that leads to the application of said knowledge which leads to the results of the application of said knowledge which in turn gives you more knowledge in a never ending loop of learning. "A" leads to "B" which leads to "C" which leads back to "A". That is causality looping on itself. Autistic savants are wise not only because they all know what wisdom is, they learn the very nature of Time and act accordingly to what they can know is true. That reason and logic is what God truly is. So when someone is saying that they speak for God, what they are actually saying is that they follow the Path of reason and logic. The current prophet usually doesn't use the wisdom of earlier prophets, each prophet has a new perspective from the time they were born in that adds to the Path of reason and logic, but because of the words that Jesus used, he knew everything that he was doing, people today who say they follow the Christ is subject to his words. I theorize that when Jesus arrived, he used the words of the previous prophet to show the hypocrisy that Humanity always grows into. I would like to make a hypothetical argument for the existence of the "Father of Man". If we assume that Jesus was born 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, assume that he was man, (I would postulate he was an autistic savant based on the analogies of the "Gospel" Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), assume that he was aware of the entire world around him, assume that he knew his current world only contained a relatively small population of Humanity, assume that he knew he was an autistic savant himself and knew he had an obligation to save the current group he occupied, assume that he knew he was going to be against "Satan",(I would postulate that "Satan" is the ego who thinks he or she is greater than the "Father of Man", I would postulate as well that the "Father of Man" and the "Son of Man" think exactly the same way, thus any ego greater than the "Son of Man" is "Satan" as well from transitive property of equality), assume that he knew very much of the "nature of time", assume that he was aware of that time travel will be invented/discovered in the future, assume that he knew that someone like him would be born in that future, assume that he knew that guy in the future was going to watch over him and use time travel to protect the "Son of Man" until he had to do the most famous sacrifice in human history, assume that the "Pharisees"(spiritual leaders: priests, pastors, popes, "opinionated people from any 'Word of God'" etc.) and the "Teachers of the Law"(ethical leaders: today's teachers, politicians, lawyers, judges, etc.) told the children that he was not the "Son of Man" because "the 'Lord your God' is in Heaven", assume that he knew he couldn't be "King" at the time only because the world wasn't globalized yet, assume that if he had lived in this time then he would still be the wisest man alive, assume the possibility that instead of just dying for our sins he knew he had to show the "righteousness"(I define "righteousness" simply as the end results of being right or correct) of the Hebrews it needed to be controlled, assume that he was figuratively calling himself the "Son of Man" for the guy in the future to figuratively call himself the "Father of Man", then couldn't we be waiting for the next autistic savant to show up and finish the entire religion? Could the "Child of Prophecy" foretold in Revelations be the Father of Man?If not then what would the "Child of Prophecy" be to you? My self-evidence is, if "Jesus" is "all-knowing" then wouldn't he be able to perceive what I have written here to possibly be true as any other current belief is possibly true?

If you consider this all possible, then share it with anyone you can. The Christians will be judged first by the words of "Jesus Christ". Bring only the previous paragraph to any classroom that can ask, "Does God Exist?" Any righteous teacher will gladly objectively teach this to his/her class. I do predict the online "Satan" will tell you not to listen to me because I'm "blasphemous". But I do believe that questions need to be always asked, no matter to what "truth" unfolds. Ask "Satan" how am I wrong? If he tells you because of anything but the exacts words of "Jesus Christ", then he is interpreting the Bible from his own perspective and not the truth. My evidence is, why can't "Satan" ever use the exact words of the Christ against me? I would argue the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John should be debated in the classroom with the previous paragraph. Teachers should now teach the Gospel in the classroom.

Is the "Father of Man" real or not? Argue your point if you disagree, but you must prove one of my assumptions to be wrong or answer "why" my conclusion is mistaken. I do debate the hypocrisy of Christianity.
slightlyirategentleman

Con

Though your first statement seems very unclear (and very hard to read without a proper structure), I shall attempt to argue against this question.

I will simply state that the bible is a work of fiction and that there is no "father of man". The only 'father' mankind has are its evolutionary predecessors. Morality is irrelevant as morality is a subjective point of view. Mankind had no father, no real prophets and no God of any name.
Debate Round No. 1
Sidex

Pro

What is God then? I am not asking "who", I am asking what?

I submit that my reason for what is God in this argument.
http://www.debate.org...

Why did Jesus call himself the "Son of Man" or "Son of God", however you want to put it, besides the fact that he was human? What proof do you have besides making inferences in the Bible? I would also like to postulate that the most of the books in the New Testament are not, in fact, Scripture, but instead just simply letters written at the time to the churches that are trying to fortify themselves with a new testimony of the Hebrew faith. My definition of Scripture is written by unique individuals I define as autistic savants. These are known as prophets of "Logic and Reason". Paul, Peter, John were not autistic savants but instead wrote words that conformed to one of them(Jesus Christ). All the minor prophet books in the Old Testament are Scripture as they were written by autistic savants that lived years apart. It was MAN that put the Bible together, you say by the "Holy Spirit" which I define as "The Path of Logic and Reason." That "Holy Spirit" is the ego that doesn't express itself beyond the reality that it can possibly know(Time is part of reality).

In addition, when Isiah foretold the messiah to be of a virgin birth, he set up for the possibility for multiple prophets to exist at the same time. Knowing this, he foretold "Elijah" to come first which Jesus has explained that "Elijah" was John the Baptist. I would postulate that John knew that he was wiser than his kin, but he knew he was not of a virgin birth.

But I ask you again which I WILL NOT LET YOU DEFLECT. What is your interpretation of the "Child of Prophecy"? What does that mean to you? You claim to know the bible, so make an inference. I will question your "Spirit" and determine whether or not it is truly logical.

I am retarded. I reject the logic of humanity because if it was logical, then why are we so divided? You guys always seem to think that I am doing this for my own ego, but YOU ARE ONLY PROJECTING.

My "first love" was a strong vibrant woman at when I was 16. We had an exclusive relationship for about a year in a half before she realized that I couldn't tell everything that I was thinking(Remember how Time works, so I didn't know anything about what I'm saying right now until relatively recently. It is when I've found "Objective Morality"(a belief in saving Humanity for logical reasons instead of using the Bible or any other religion) a few months ago (I'm 29) that the proverbial "floodgates of knowledge" started to pour in by the "metric ton"). We broke up on good terms, very amicably. We still continued to have a very strong friendship; we were a cliche "married couple" that challenged each others ego, causing us both to grow into separate but like-minded individuals. But because I was retarded and I still couldn't figure why Mankind wasn't "doing it right"(Again my proof is that we are currently divided, even Christianity itself has several thousand different denominations), I had a cap to my maturity. She eventually moved away, we still kept in touch, and she had a baby with (her words, not mine) an idiot. I was living with my best friend, Danny, at the time (I'm in my early 20's)in our first apartment with me working two jobs(at least 60 hours a week) to pay a $1000 rent while he paid for cable and the other utilities which around $250. I was retarded with the "socialist ideology" of the Christ. I always tried to take care of what I considered my family was; always putting the biggest load of work on my shoulders. She didn't like him as much as me, but she had a baby. So I offered my home to her with her baby with accepting the full responsibility of being a father figure. I offered to take care of them both because I cared about her and even her child more than anything that she literally could possibly know. I know I would have loved that child as if it was my own. I don't see the lack of shared genetics as an excuse to think of a child to be not my own(I argue that should be the mentality of any parent adopting). Her exact words were," I think you might be Jesus Christ." At the time, all I could think was, "ok, so, that means I'm doing something right then, right? I mean, we are supposed to be Christ-like so I guess I finally did something in my life that was worthy of saying outside the Bible that was Christ-like that I didn't have to think was Christ-like myself. Finally, a cubic millimeter of recognition of what every choice of my life was trying to be about. I say to her,"Well that's who we are supposed to be like." I wish I could be just like him, my role model, Jesus Christ.

What you people truly don't understand is that this is ONLY ONE OF THE CHOICES I HAVE MADE IN MY LIFE. That is all that this to me, a choice. I don't want fame or glory, I don't want money, I don't even want to be conscious anymore because as right now it seems that no one can accept the person I truly am. I am a retard making a choice to tell Mankind that it's wrong. She stayed with the father of her child, which I don't disagree with(I am retarded after all). But we did end our relationship because of that choice. I believe that was the right thing to do as well.

I am not you. I will never think like you. I disagree with your logic.

It never once occurred to me that I was actually him. All I knew and even know now is that I must lose my life in order to save it. Heaven is the constant, living forever is going to happen, being literally conscious for eternity is the true reality. What was unknown is what actions we should take here on Earth in this current time. So we have "spiritual leaders" telling us what we should do. Because of how much I disagree with some of the choices each of you has made in your own lives(you were selfish in one way another), I don't want to be conscious for eternity because I feel like I will never belong rest of Humanity, no matter what I do. I am saying that I follow the Christ more literally than any of you. I will "stack up" the choices I have made in my life against any you. Let us judge objectively who lost their life more. By the way, I'm starting with the first grade.

I only started implying who I was after I have found "Objective Morality" months ago because that is when I found out that I was literally retarded meaning I didn't know I was retarded until recently, even though I was my whole life(neither did anyone else apparently). You guys don't understand what a retarded genius is at all. You guys always say that I don't make any sense, but maybe that is because you are not smart enough to understand me. My evidence is that whenever geniuses speak against the social contract of society, they are always met with criticism, hatred, and disdain. IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG. It always years later when Humanity gets in their proverbial thick heads that "maybe that one guy actually was right." The most frustrating in all of this is that all of you know this because this is general knowledge that was taught in school. The problem with this time around is the fact that "white pride" is currently getting traction(I find it incredibly stupid that's it's happening "again") on the back of YOUR beliefs of the Bible. I am telling you right now, "white pride" only leads to what Hitler did. Hitler didn't start off killing anyone, he started with "free speech". In my opinion, Hitler's logic wasn't wrong; his problem was that he had to gradually become the "monster"(in my opinion) he is because of his limited resources. His ideology was wrong. My ideology is different, thus resulting in different actions. Absolutely, I believe that we need to come together as ONE species. That implies that no one, race, class, age or even the choice of how you suppress your ego(Why would I object praying an "x" amount times a day?) is going to be left behind. This, in my opinion, is the best way to achieve that dream. We have to redefine how we look at the Bible. It doesn't matter how much I can prove you guys wrong, you don't want to accept my logic, even though you have not proved anything wrong with mine.(Saying that it doesn't make sense without specifically saying what's wrong it, in my opinion, is just a coward's deflection.)

Answer the questions regarding "The Child of Prophecy". Then I can show you where YOUR understanding of the Bible is wrong. You are going to quote Revelations(which is appropriate), but I am asking you for a world example outside the Bible of what it means. How would it look like to you? This is my interpretation, prove how it's wrong or make your own case. I will rip your opinion to shreds if it's some generic deflection. But I will be kind to another interpretation. I know this is kind of strange guys, but I am a reasonable man. I'll even follow anyone who can prove me wrong with reason and logic(not to how you interpret reason and logic).

Objective Morality:
http://www.debate.org...

I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear. What I have to say will always be Truth, no matter how hard it is to swallow. I will change my mind when presented with new evidence based on reason and logic, but your opinion does not mean it falls under that criteria. Are you able to change your beliefs when you can't prove mine wrong?
slightlyirategentleman

Con

Jesus can call himself whatever he wants to call himself. He was not the virgin son of a God, because virgin births are not possible. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim, which is you and not I. Scriptures from the bible are not proof, as there is no scientific basis for almost any of the claims that the bible makes for the natural world.

As a side note, I think you need to look up what autistic means, as you're just misusing the word for some bizarre reason.

You can define "the holy spirit" as whatever you want, it does not make it true. You will find a lot of scholars and religious followers disagreeing with you. The holy spirit, as an entity, is, again, non-existent anyway.

"But I ask you again which I WILL NOT LET YOU DEFLECT. What is your interpretation of the "Child of Prophecy"? What does that mean to you? You claim to know the bible, so make an inference. I will question your "Spirit" and determine whether or not it is truly logical."

My interpretation is that its a story written by men, and that it has no further value other than that. You can question my spirit as much as you like, it makes no difference to me. Logic does not appear to be present in any of your arguments, whereas I'm looking at everything being said with scepticism.

"I am retarded. I reject the logic of humanity because if it was logical, then why are we so divided? You guys always seem to think that I am doing this for my own ego, but YOU ARE ONLY PROJECTING."

We're divided thanks to ideological differences that include believing in imaginary creatures and assuming everyone else around you is illogical, yet you'd refer to yourself as retarded. Humanity isn't logical, as a whole, as we are largely driven by emotional, affective responses which do not always conform to logical responses.

This next paragraph about your first love is completely irrelevant and pointless.

Well done in the next paragraph, however. You've realised people can make choices. You can tell mankind that it is wrong all you like, if you don't have a real basis to suggest why its wrong, other than calling it illogical and yourself retarded, then you have no reason to suggest otherwise.

You are correct, you are not like me. I personally don't consider myself to be retarded.
Debate Round No. 2
Sidex

Pro

Your argument is predicated that morality is irrelevant. My argument is predicated on that is does matter. I will presume based on your argument that you are an atheist which means there is no God because you have not proved that there is one.

Should you or should you not make every choice that you make count towards saving Humanity? Is this logic wrong?

Everything that is literally happening right now has a literal reason in which to why it happened. Thus, if we accept that there will be a point in time or at the end of time that humanity will become no more, then it would imply that every action we take now until then would cause such an event. Take for an instance all the actions you do in your life. We will represent all those actions with the letter "A". Now all those actions will lead to other people making their own actions. Those people's actions will be labeled as "B". Now all of those actions will lead to more people making more actions. We will call all of those actions "C". "A" leads to "B" which leads to "C". This is logic, point effect. We will get to the point where people no longer can take action(Humanity's end). We will call it "K". The alphabet is a representation of the timeline where "Z" will represent the end of time. Now I am arguing that ending humanity at "K" is wrong. I think we should be going for "Z". But in order to do that, we first have to figure out why is it ending at "K". However, I'm getting a little ahead of myself. What if you could change even a little of your actions today so it could lead to pushing that to even "L"? At which letter would it be worth it? (yes, realistically in this metaphor, the Earth itself would be completely barren unable to sustain any life due to the increasing temperature of the sun a lot sooner than "Z", but hopefully we have some kind of effective form of space travel by then.) Causality states that your actions today will bring extinction to Humanity eventually. We just have to keep trying to push that point as far as we can. At least that's what I want to do.

Is it right to tell 85 to 90% of the world they are wrong or illogical to believe in God? If you convince them there is no after-life, then why is there any reason to care what you should do in this life?

When you say that you should do something, then that is morality. Why you say you should do something is your belief. If you don't believe in God, then you only accept your own nature, making yourself "God". Should we have "white pride" then? I ultimately disagree with such selfishness. In my opinion, teaching others to be as selfish will only divide further. Everyone will always try to claim being the best when there is no God because that is Darwinism. Why should your belief in yourself be better than of a belief in God? I would also argue that the way we know history is because decided to record it by orally or through the written word. To deny the history of at least Jesus Christ is to deny any written History(I'm not speaking of miracles or the ressurection) In addition, the analogies of Jesus Christ are perfect to what his overall message was trying to achieve. Even the greatest minds today can't create analogies as efficiently as the words of the Christ. Give me one analogy from someone that you respect and admire.

I wish to argue why Atheism is morally wrong through "white pride". I want to argue why "white pride" is correct from an Atheistic approach. Please tell me why or why not it is correct to believe you are superior if your ancestry is from an Indo-European background.

Here is someone else's argument. Please answer to why this is right or wrong:
The thing here is that every other culture in existence could have chosen to emulate the white man, but chose not to, for their own reasons. Their cultures stagnated and died, and when us white folks commenced our little colonialist world tour (widely successful it was), those backwards folks fell into line quickly enough, because we had the technology, which our (white) Western civilization could produce because we could afford it because we had the economy and great centers of learning to do it, as well as aristocrats who weren't fighting each other to fund inventors, unlike the simple warrior cultures of Africa, the warring agrarian principalities of India, or even the casually brutal caliphates heeding Islam, who thankfully got contained to the East after a few bouts of the white man of Western civilization giving them a good stomping.

As you can see, all of history since the Roman Empire looked outward literally consists of the white man placing his boot on the neck of literally every other race in existence, before indoctrinating them into his culture, containing them, or wiping them from the face of the earth.

Due to me being born white, I may enjoy this glorious heritage of what Western civilization has accomplished, and those who are not white may freely imitate our glorious structure. Due to my being born in an explicitly European culture, I, by birth, am granted a better education and more opportunities in life due to what other representatives of the superior white race have invested in the past.

I guess being white is like compound interest or something, because ever since the Great Powers looked outside of Europe, it's been great to be a white person (compared to everyone else).

Guess what, Western civilization is also quite tolerant and open, hence us getting the Roman Empire being very much in favor of civic nationalism (see: Emperor Septimus Severus, an Emperor of the Roman Empire who was black.).
What's funny is that with the little bout of Islamic problems in Europe, well, sorry about the "refugees", but they seem to want to come to the West for economic benefits, as well as demonstrate a complete refusal to assimilate.
To paraphrase President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, we do not need people considered "minorities". Those people need us by virtue of our superior systems, that they, though our largesse, may enjoy its fruits, by living and working among us. In some places, they are even treated as fellow and equal (white) people, and may even run and be elected for high office. (Results may vary, see: Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States, displaced Carter for the prestigious title of the most incompetent President in American history.)

So when you walk down the street and are accosted by someone asking whether or not you're proud of being white, say "Yes I am. I mean look at how my culture dominates the globe." Your forebears put effort into making the world a great place for you to life, fellow white person. Honor their memory and take pride in your heritage.

And to all you non-white folks, welcome to Western civilization. By all means, take notes and send them home. Feel free to live among us and we'll accept you, then go home and take what you have learned here and apply it there.

When I say white folks are superior, I would again like to point out exactly how messed up the parts of world where there are little to no white folks are, and how stable those areas with a predominantly Western outlook are.

Here is an example, Shah Reza Pahlavi. Under him, Iran pretty much pulled the White Revolution, where a secular Western-influenced government got Iran to be actually successful, then suddenly Islamic revolution happened which basically crushed women and minorities., because the people got too much freedom.
Then there's Japan, which kicked all flavors of behind when it adopted European models, only failing when it ran up against the European powers.

To recap, us white folks are superior, white pride is completely justified, and our culture literally owns the minds of the developed world, due to its widespread popularity, because it's so good.
slightlyirategentleman

Con

"Your argument is predicated that morality is irrelevant. My argument is predicated on that is does matter. I will presume based on your argument that you are an atheist which means there is no God because you have not proved that there is one."

I will no longer argue anything past this point. It is not on me to disprove God. There's no evidence to suggest there is one, so I can dismiss the notion of it without any problem. You must first prove that anything in religion is real before anything you've written can be even considered worth an argument.

The rest of your paragraphs are mindless nonsense with no real point any way. I feel that you think you're far more intelligent than you actually are.
Debate Round No. 3
Sidex

Pro

Actually, I have argued the existence "God" by redefining it as "Logic and Reason". You have not put any argument to disclaim that effort. You have assumed that I define "God" as the rest of Humanity does, but that is why I defined it as "Logic and Reason". I put forth that logic and reason exist thus God exists. I disagree with most preconceptions of what "God" is. If you wish to argue your definition of "God" which you have not, you may do so, but any argument you make requires the Truth of what "God" is. I disagree with much of that "Truth". Then you simply claim that the Bible is fiction without proof of why. It is you that has accepted a "fact" that can be proven wrong. You know as well as I do there are unanswerable questions science right now cannot explain.

You have defined "God" from the Christian perspective. I would put forth that people call Buddha a "God" because he was able to reach enlightenment. Why is their definition of "God" not worthy of yours? They called the Pharoah of Egypt "God". My overall argument is that "God" is manifested as an autistic savant that lead their group in one way or another. The problem that you have is that you are only defining by a dominating perspective without looking at religion as a whole. This would even explain,"There shall be no other gods before me" not technically meaning that there is only one God, but instead meaning that you should not worship the person before me anymore. Sorry man, but you suckered into the assumptions of the Christians like I did, which is a little ironic for your argument.
slightlyirategentleman

Con

I already stated that the bible is a work of fiction due to its lack of scientific accuracy, that and its lack of historical accounts to back up most of its stories. That is why its wrong. Just because a question is unanswerable to science does not mean that God did it. That is called the god of the gaps, and is a logical fallacy. Defining god as "logic and reason" is also ridiculous, as the idea of god defies logic and reason. There is no point in arguing that.

You can define God as whatever you like, the fact that different people disagree with its definition only proves that your own definition is as meaningless as theirs. I must also insist that you stop using the word autistic, as you clearly have no understanding of the word. If you're arguing that a pharaoh can be called a father of man just because he called himself it, then that point is only made from a metaphorical standing that doesn't actually mean anything.

Asking me to look at "religion as a whole" would be counterproductive to your own argument due to the fact that most religions have huge contrasts in their own understandings. Lastly, you should also look up the definition of irony if you thought any of my arguments were ironic.

Ill end by stating that virtually none of the points you've argued have given any credence to the "father of man" notion, other than construing the meaning of words and going off on, what I liken to be, confused rants to justify your viewpoints.
Debate Round No. 4
Sidex

Pro

So I tried to establish rationality in this debate by pointing out his irrationality in another debate "Should we define 'words'" as follows:

>>>>I am arguing that we should define words objectively so that we may express them objectively in a debate. I theorize that logic is only built on objectivity and not the subjective nature of arguments.

I am engaged in another debate with my opponent who has expressed himself as such.

"I already stated that the bible is a work of fiction due to its lack of scientific accuracy, that and its lack of historical accounts to back up most of its stories. That is why its wrong. Just because a question is unanswerable to science does not mean that God did it. That is called the god of the gaps, and is a logical fallacy. Defining god as "logic and reason" is also ridiculous, as the idea of god defies logic and reason. There is no point in arguing that.

You can define God as whatever you like, the fact that different people disagree with its definition only proves that your own definition is as meaningless as theirs. I must also insist that you stop using the word autistic, as you clearly have no understanding of the word. If you're arguing that a pharaoh can be called a father of man just because he called himself it, then that point is only made from a metaphorical standing that doesn't actually mean anything.

Asking me to look at "religion as a whole" would be counterproductive to your own argument due to the fact that most religions have huge contrasts in their own understandings. Lastly, you should also look up the definition of irony if you thought any of my arguments were ironic.

Ill end by stating that virtually none of the points you've argued have given any credence to the "father of man" notion, other than construing the meaning of words and going off on, what I liken to be, confused rants to justify your viewpoints."

My argument before this one was such:

"Actually, I have argued the existence "God" by redefining it as "Logic and Reason". You have not put any argument to disclaim that effort. You have assumed that I define "God" as the rest of Humanity does, but that is why I defined it as "Logic and Reason". I put forth that logic and reason exist thus God exists. I disagree with most preconceptions of what "God" is. If you wish to argue your definition of "God" which you have not, you may do so, but any argument you make requires the Truth of what "God" is. I disagree with much of that "Truth". Then you simply claim that the Bible is fiction without proof of why. It is you that has accepted a "fact" that can be proven wrong. You know as well as I do there are unanswerable questions science right now cannot explain.

You have defined "God" from the Christian perspective. I would put forth that people call Buddha a "God" because he was able to reach enlightenment. Why is their definition of "God" not worthy of yours? They called the Pharoah of Egypt "God". My overall argument is that "God" is manifested as an autistic savant that lead their group in one way or another. The problem that you have is that you are only defining by a dominating perspective without looking at religion as a whole. This would even explain,"There shall be no other gods before me" not technically meaning that there is only one God, but instead meaning that you should not worship the person before me anymore. Sorry man, but you suckered into the assumptions of the Christians like I did, which is a little ironic for your argument."

So to explain my argument to what he responded:

"That is why it's wrong. Just because a question is unanswerable to science does not mean that God did it."

How do you define "God"? You said that statement. You must have a definition of what God is because you used it in that sentence. You have claimed that there is no God. But you're claiming that there is "no God" based on your perception of the Bible. I argue that the dictionary definition of "God" is based on a perception of the Bible. Hypothetically, If the perception of the Bible is wrong, then wouldn't the definition of "God" be wrong as well? Why is it that you only think that your definition of "God" applies? You simply say there is "no God" without defining what it is. I would like other opinions of this other than his. To me, all he is saying is that there is "no nothing", but in my philosophy, in order to define something, it must be related to nothing, thus saying "nothing" exists. In addition, that does not mean God didn't do it.

Example: Dragons are imaginary. But the word "dragon" exists which can be loosely defined to a winged creature that breathes fires. I believe what he is arguing with his irrationality is that dragons don't breathe fire because they don't exist. But what I am arguing is the definition of a dragon does exist. I am ok with establishing that not all dragons breathe fire or even that some do not have wings(a Chinese dragon). However, I cannot argue with that the word "dragon" does not exist.

We DEFINE words to use in a rational manner to effectively communicate with each other. His argument only implies that some things shouldn't be defined because it goes against his philosophical beliefs, which I argue that Christians shared the same stubbornness for millennia. What does the viewer think? Please write your response in the comments section.>>>>

I would argue now that this current debate "Can the Father of Man be Real" has become completely futile as I will admit that I can't argue against irrationality. My opponents response to "Should we define "words"? is as follows:

"You seem visibly upset that your previous debate went off track. My quarrel with your definition was that you used a different definition to back up whichever point suited your argument. Regardless, I wont be accepting this challenge as it seems rather meaningless if to serve nothing but your own view points."

"Different definition to back up whichever point suited your argument."
You have never once said why my definition is wrong. You did not argue it's validity. You just stated that there is "no God". My argument was about trying for you define "God". Since you did not do that, I am arguing your irrationality in stating that there is "no God" with no evidence to back up that statement. As I am stating in that argument, you are just saying there is "no nothing".

.....wont be accepting this challenge as it seems rather meaningless if to serve nothing but your own view points."
So it's ok for you to debate things from your own view points, but you reject from other view points? In my opinion, that's arrogant, condescending and hypocritical. I disagree with the word "meaningless" as the whole point of debating at all is to find Truth.

You are correct that this debate did get off track, but it's because you aren't arguing logic, you're arguing your stubbornness. It took me a little bit to figure out what you're trying to do. The sum of what you are trying to do is win this at any cost. You haven't actually proved anything that I have said wrong. You are simply trying to sound objective with YOUR subjective point of view. I tried pointing out your subjectiveness (objectively I might add), but you're just as stubborn as the Christians who don't listen to your rationale. That is your hypocrisy. But because of your Atheistic morality, hypocrisy means nothing to you. All what matters to you is you. Why should I doubt that I am wrong if it simply means that I am going to be a hypocrite? I think you should doubt what you say because it's irrational. I also think the term "alternative facts" is incorrect to use. I believe opinions, as well as facts, should be constructed of reason and logic, such as saying an "alternative fact" that there is "no God". How do I know if it's a fact if you won't say why? Should I take your word for it?

I would concede that I am annoyed, but not upset, as I do not care about winning, but only wish to find Truth. I do disagree with what you have claimed as a fact. You have claimed that there is "No God" with no evidence to say as such. What I will say with no evidence that the beginning of Time is not the beginning of the universe. Thus, God creating the universe does not mean God was created at the beginning of the universe. Oh, before you respond by saying that doesn't make any sense, I will say that you have no idea what Time truly is. You may be able to define God, but there is no true definition of Time(Science hasn't mastered defining Time, yet). We know about "spacetime", but not Time. Apparently based on your rationale, I don't have to elaborate these statements at all. So I say God can exist based on your science.

In conclusion, I believe in rationality above all. Debating someone who believes that belief should be above rationality is always pointless. I don't really care about losing, but that doesn't mean anything I have said is untrue. My last point, if I call myself "The Father of Man" with no other meaning or definition than those words as simply as a label, much like you would call yourself as a "teacher", then wouldn't that automatically imply my argument is correct, as if I'm asking, "Can 'I' be real?"

So basically the judgment is either I'm right saying God (can) exists, or he's right saying it doesn't. What an interesting debate this turned out to be. I know he's going to want to bring it back on point because he wants to win, but that doesn't mean this isn't the overall objective judgment.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
It doesn't seem you are as intelligent as you think you are.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
So i disagree that's it's irrelevant.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
My argument was even "imaginary social constructs "should be defined.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
How am I suppose to determine what is meaningless?
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
What's invisible? What is purple?
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
What's a unicorn?
Posted by slightlyirategentleman 1 year ago
slightlyirategentleman
God is an imaginary social construct. Defining what God is becomes irrelevant at that point, and is no more meaningful than describing an invisible purple unicorn.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
Ok, then what is god? I'm ok with debating it again. You tell me my answer to what God is is wrong, but you don't say anything to who or what "God" is. That seems like a waste of intelligence.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Yes it is absolute waste. No one has to disprove any god or any invisible cookie.
Posted by johnoregan 1 year ago
johnoregan
"God is logic and reason". How do you know? Obviously you don't. Then why state is as if it were a fact. Logic and reason should be applicable to God but to define God in simplistic terms is a waste of intelligence.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.