The Instigator
Alias
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Spaztoid
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

If there is a "creator", he does not exist in any form detailed in religious books.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 836 times Debate No: 12722
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Alias

Pro

First off, I would like to begin by stating this is not an open invitation to argue the actual existence of a god or creator, for the purpose of this debate, rather, is to determine not the status of the existence of a divine being, but rather the status of existence of a divine being, as detailed in any of the many religious books that populate the Earth, and all nations and countries implied by that terminology.

It is my personal belief that there is no book, word-of-mouth of art in the vast plane of existence we live in that truly encapsules the concept of an actual 'creator' of the universe that we live in. Rather than being a simple statement of "this is what [I believe] the creator is," they turn out as various sets of rules and punishments for not following these rules, that just so happen to coincide with the wants and needs of the various kingly types that were around at the time.

The fact of the matter is, even if, say, The Bible was once the word of God, it has been manipulated and altered over time to fit the needs and taboos of the time - along with the interpretations (Adam and Eve was once a very literally interpreted story - now, though Christians remain a majority, people that take it literally are declared a seperate group from the average Christian.). Even die-hard Christians seem to have trouble stating we should stone homosexuals or cheaters to death (other than those that think homosexuals are a disease and need to be eliminated, but that's a whole different category of crazy we will not cover in this topic due to irrelevancy.)

By the vast number of religions and various things they attempt to get us to do, along with the lack of evidence towards any more than another, it is clear to me, at least, that no particular god, should one exist, is one we have found the truth or interpreted as of yet, but rather the current "gods" we suggest exist are simply tools to keep people in their perceived place in society.

I would like to thank the person who takes this debate in advance, and as for the viewers, I hope you enjoy.
Spaztoid

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

==--Opening Comments

For the sake of this debate, it must be assumed that a creator does in fact exist; and this debate is therefore a debate of form rather than existence.

==--Rebuttals

"It is my personal belief that there is no book, word-of-mouth of art in the vast plane of existence we live in that truly encapsules the concept of an actual 'creator' of the universe that we live in. Rather than being a simple statement of "this is what [I believe] the creator is," they turn out as various sets of rules and punishments for not following these rules, that just so happen to coincide with the wants and needs of the various kingly types that were around at the time."

My opponent opens with his position in this debate, which is the norm in a debate, then switches to a different topic altogether. He claims that religions do not state what they believe the creator to be but rather setup a body of rules. All major religious books have passages regarding the form or status of the creator. The rest of this statement about rules and punishments is simply non-topical.

"The fact of the matter is, even if, say, The Bible was once the word of God, it has been manipulated and altered over time to fit the needs and taboos of the time - along with the interpretations (Adam and Eve was once a very literally interpreted story - now, though Christians remain a majority, people that take it literally are declared a seperate group from the average Christian.). Even die-hard Christians seem to have trouble stating we should stone homosexuals or cheaters to death (other than those that think homosexuals are a disease and need to be eliminated, but that's a whole different category of crazy we will not cover in this topic due to irrelevancy.)"

My opponent then offers his analysis that one of the many religious books (though presumably his argument can be made against any of the religious tomes in existence) has been altered through time to suit modern interpretations; thus making the descriptions of the creator unreliable. There are two problems with this analysis.

First, it implies that at one point, the descriptions were accurate, meaning that my opponent would have accidentally surrendered this debate;
Second, according to the very text that he is describing, the creator watches over human kind and prevents them from perverting the meanings. To that end, modern interpretations of the Bible, or any other religious book, are still conveying their original intent.

==--Arguments

My opponent has brought forth his belief, that the creator does not exist as has been described in any of the current tomes of religion. What my opponent has yet to do is bring forth any proof to qualify his position. My opponent, in order to truly prove his position, must be able to demonstrate that the creator does not exist in any of the forms described throughout the various religious histories. Until he can do so, his arguments lack substance and are thus irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 1
Alias

Pro

Alias forfeited this round.
Spaztoid

Con

Dissapointingly, my opponent forfeited his last round. With the hope that he will return, I will not use this round to make any further arguments so that the playing field will be even when/if he returns.
Debate Round No. 2
Alias

Pro

Alias forfeited this round.
Spaztoid

Con

Well, again my opponent has forfeited his round.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
Alias

Pro

Alias forfeited this round.
Spaztoid

Con

Disappointingly, Alias has forfeited the rest of the debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Spaztoid 6 years ago
Spaztoid
Alias, are you comming back?
Posted by Alias 6 years ago
Alias
All I'm saying is that if a creator exists, he isn't of any form stated in any religious works. I.E, we do not know, and can't know.
Posted by burningpuppies101 6 years ago
burningpuppies101
um.. Alias.. i dont quite understand what the resolution is. What exactly are you advocating?
Posted by the-good-teacher 6 years ago
the-good-teacher
One of the main reasons we have so many religions relating to Christianity alone is people do not study, or do not study properly, this allows the wolves to dress in sheep's clothing and go in for the kill,
Another reason is, the bible is deliberately hid to the lost, so no matter if they did study properly, they would never be able to understand it.
If you think I'm wrong, I understand why you may think so,

2 Cor 4:3 "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost" :

I believe all seekers are lost, and the wolves of this world see them as fair game !
So they do misinterpret the bible for favour and/or gain. then of course we have the believer who is treading on the wrong path and teaches from the heart and not the scriptures,

I can understand your reply and I thank you for it,
I am now able to clearly see your point relating to the manipulation of the bible.
Posted by Alias 6 years ago
Alias
I thank you for the statement of fact, for I did not know this as one who does not follow... much of anything these days. So yes, thank you for that. However, this does not change one main thing in my argument - certainly, that the interpretation can be manipulated and changed as one needs it. Witness any new-age priest moaning and groaning about the religion, then watch a biblical literal conservative talk about it, and you'll see what I mean. People use the Bible to justify actions, and while that is not the main point, it is what I meant to support the statement.
Posted by the-good-teacher 6 years ago
the-good-teacher
Pro attacks the integrity of the bible in an attempt to prove his point,

"it has been manipulated and altered over time to fit the needs and taboos of the time - along with the interpretations"

If I make an award winning cake and some time later someone else comes along and adds or omits an ingredient, is the cake still the same award winner ?

How about if I keep the recipe for all to see, then no person can change the ingredients,and falsely claim to have the prize winning cake in their possession, therefore everyone could not only copy it correctly, but would also be in a position to Judge which is fake ?

Do we have a God who has done this very same thing with his word contained in the bible ? = the ingredients of his prize winner cannot be falsely flaunted as unreliable as we witness here.

How about if two copies are made, one for show and the other hidden, then at a later date when the authenticity of the records are brought into question the second copy comes into the public eye and validates the original ?

Well a second copy of the bible was found in the shape of the Red sea scrolls,
and they did indeed match the original records !

Only the 1611 AD King James Version and the New King James Version are translated from the correct original language manuscripts.

These two Bibles were translated from the "Textus Receptus" New Testament Greek manuscript and the "Masoretic" Hebrew Old Testament text. These two original language manuscripts are preserved, in their entirety, to this day, and must, to any serious Bible student, be the absolute and final authority for God's revelation to man in this Church age.

Ps 138:2, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name".

So Pro and people like him should take heed !
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Spaztoid 6 years ago
Spaztoid
AliasSpaztoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01