The Instigator
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Fenderchic
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

In defence of Atheism, Prove me wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Fenderchic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,639 times Debate No: 61265
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (41)
Votes (1)

 

GoOrDin

Pro

As a theist, A Christian, I have the universal cosmos on my side to defend this argument. As a Christian, I can not only quote the Quran but also Muslims in saying, that the Holy Quran supports me in my faith without contradictions. Hinduism, which via Sanskrit is argued to be Monotheist in nature, Supports all my claims. the Mythology of Europe, supports my claims, as well as all worldly philosophies.

As a Christian I rely heavily on sciences and logic to defend my case. And There is no evidence to suggest I am in any way wrong about my Religion or faith.

Philosophically I am sound, with a Corner stone as my foundation with which I may crush my opponents.

I suggest you work in teams to mass your arguments.
I am pleased to have this opportunity.
Please bring the Atheists A game. As I am not a shark.
Fenderchic

Con

To begin, I will introduce myself and my beliefs. I am Fenderchic, a 16 year old, former Catholic who debating on the side of Christianity for the past 4 years. I believe that a God COULD exist but that currently there isn't enough proof leaning towards a God whereas science has shown the possibilities that the universe could exist without a God. One major argument that an atheist had presented me with prior to my becoming of an atheist was "If God doesn't need a creator, why would the universe?" After reading the Bible, sections from the Qu'ran, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Mortality by Christopher Hitchens, and watching some online debates, I concluded that the universe could indeed have formed simply on its own.
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Pro

Freddy my man. Unless your a Chick, FenderChick. I presume you're Russian. Xopowo!

seeing as the debate has come to a stand still. Let me intrigue you first. And let this round be a forfeit of debate in favor of inspiration.

In a recent topic, whilst talking about Quantum mechanics, I stated, I am a "Notionist". It is a new theology I came too. perhaps an old theology lost to time, which stand to only support Christianity and can in no way conflict with it.

Notionism: Is the idea, all things, everything, including even those things that do not or could not exist, exist without manifestation as notionable content. Even the un-notionable content, can be notioned to exist. This is Notionism.

So.

Everything that can be imagined is a notion. Unlike the manifested world inside time, which needs an origin to exist, Notions do not need an origin, as they are non-manifest.
Accordingly, the wildest dreams exist. factually notions. Fractal universes, of infinite quantities. for second per second, ever single cell can b the only cell in that reality to be variable to another, and even the impossible can be notioned to take place second per second in any but not al notions, even time travel - unvailing an infinite cosmos of Notions.
This, all exists outside of Time, where God is. And he has experienced it all, and is all knowing of all things.

Because there is the notion of a universe without God, or lesser "Gods", only the Notion, of A Universal-Notionverse God who is self considerate! can truly be deemed God. A God who is not self considerate has the weakness of Being subjected to the will of the considerate, and inevitably, only the Loving God can win, whom cares about himselfmost, meaning also every contributing portion of his notionverse (those within, whom are himself as well). All other notions fall subject to his power.

I the Christian, Worship this God, who gave us the Only Manifest world, as the God Father of All things, The Omnipotent God. For this is an omnipotent being. His glory is such that, He is in fact un-notionable, and can not be perceived, for in the cosmos of notions, the unfathomable notions exist, and so, you can not begin to interpret his Mighty Awesomeness.
so even fathomable, you fathom the True HIM not.

Because he cannot be perceived, God, this God, the only true one worthy of the word God, with a capital "G" { As that indicates his ultimate superiority in any true method of using the word. ] must do one thing, and only one thing, in the manifest. For everything else is in vain.
He must create an acknowledgeable image for himself. That Image is our Lord, The savior of our existence, Jesus Christ, His first born son, the Wisdom of God, His first act of long ago.
Jesus, our God, instilled with the power of his father, and all, and only the attributes the omnipotent decided for him to have, created life, loves it and keeps it. As an absolutely perfect form.

Jesus would not be subject to a multiverse of Notions involving sin. He is youthful and graciously kind, innocent, and blissfully unaware of the darkness to which he had not come. For he is the accumulation of all Notions perfection, that the
Self considerate Loving Omnipotent Father can rejoice in his excellence as the God of all Godlihood.

This is Notionism, and I find it bets describes my faith as a Christian.
It logically is only in support of Christianity, and I can easily debate such a thing, because as I have said, The most self considerate God wins. In the fathomable notion that the most Powerful God exists as, every variation of self consideracy.

Cheers, Bless you,
and Amen.
May this be uplifting to all. As It does not change reality, but opens your eyes tot he potential of Gods grace,
if you first,
"hate what God hates" ~ which is the beginning of wisdom ~ "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom" provebs.
in which case you will be filled with enlightenment and clear vision and thinking. A prosperous aspect to partake.

:) gracious me, I almost slipped away..
Fenderchic

Con

Before I begin, I"d like to apologize for some words which are repeated to a painful extent, but the argument presented necessitates it.

I'll try to address this in segments.

"Freddy my man. Unless your a Chick, FenderChick. I presume you're Russian. Xopowo!"

It"s Fenderchic, and okay.

"seeing as the debate has come to a stand still. Let me intrigue you first. And let this round be a forfeit of debate in favor of inspiration."

I"m lost, what do you mean a standstill? We just exchanged introductions, we haven"t even begun yet. Also, are you inviting me to forfeit on the first point of the debate?

"In a recent topic, whilst talking about Quantum mechanics, I stated, I am a "Notionist". It is a new theology I came too. perhaps an old theology lost to time, which stand to only support Christianity and can in no way conflict with it.
Notionism: Is the idea, all things, everything, including even those things that do not or could not exist, exist without manifestation as notionable content. Even the un-notionable content, can be notioned to exist. This is Notionism."

You seem to be suggesting that anything that can be conceived of exists in a very limited capacity as something-that-could-be-conceived-of. I would say that anything that can be conceived of has the property of "conceivable", but does not actually exist until that point. Additionally, you say that "un-notionable" content can be notioned to exist, which appears to be a plain contradiction. What is it you mean by "un-notionable"? I"m going to need you to clarify your terms a little more, the current phrasing just sounds nonsensical.

"Everything that can be imagined is a notion. Unlike the manifested world inside time, which needs an origin to exist, Notions do not need an origin, as they are non-manifest. Accordingly, the wildest dreams exist."

You"re going to try to confuse concepts here. Notions, as in our conceptions or beliefs about something, have an origin, which is with the person harboring them. Notions in this sense exist as a product of the mind, and do not exist in any meaningful capacity beyond us. In the other sense you"re going to try to use, you refer to the actual content of all possible notions, and say that because it could possibly be conceived of, it should be considered a notion in the first sense, that is, you"re trying to say that something possible is equivalent to something that actually exists. What"s really critical here is that you take it a step further, and rather than just saying that notions no one has exist, you"ve put forward that the content of all possible notions exists in a real sense in a "Notionverse", you later call it, which is "outside of Time". The wildest dreams exist as wild dreams, the content of these dreams is not actually manifested "outside of Time" in any capacity as far as we know, and you haven"t begun to provide any reason to think they might be.

"Fractal universes, of infinite quantities. for second per second, ever single cell can b the only cell in that reality to be variable to another, and even the impossible can be notioned to take place second per second in any but not al notions, even time travel - unvailing an infinite cosmos of Notions."

This is unintelligible, but it seems to be you expounding on the point I just addressed and isn"t actually important for any resolution of your claim.

"This, all exists outside of Time, where God is. And he has experienced it all, and is all knowing of all things."

I"m not convinced that anything exists outside of time. Please demonstrate that this is possible and explain how you know that your god does exist in this state, and is still able to influence our universe.

"Because there is the notion of a universe without God, or lesser "Gods", only the Notion, of A Universal-Notionverse God who is self considerate! can truly be deemed God. A God who is not self considerate has the weakness of Being subjected to the will of the considerate, and inevitably, only the Loving God can win, whom cares about himselfmost, meaning also every contributing portion of his notionverse (those within, whom are himself as well). All other notions fall subject to his power."

At first glance, it doesn"t appear that you know what considerate means, but it"s hard to tell. It doesn"t follow that a deity that isn"t considerate is subjected to the will of the considerate ones, and I don"t know why that would matter anyway. This is the oddest attempt to define your god into existence I"ve ever seen, you"ve set up a scenario where only the most self-considerate(?) god can come out on top, but is also having this battle with other, less self-considerate gods in a realm of possible notions that exists outside of time, and by being the only one left standing in this "Notionverse", he can then rule the other deities out of existence by being the strongest concept. Your god is of course the most self-considerate, so he must be the one that exists.

Is that right? Am I following this correctly? This is like nothing I"ve ever seen, I don"t know what"s going on, but I"ll keep trying to make sense out of this.

If I"ve understood you correctly, I conceive of a god that eats other gods. A hungry notion-Kratos. In fact, he prefers only the most self-considerate ones, and starting with the gods that are simply defined this way and can"t defy this nature, he eats all the other ones until only he"s left. This works, right? Because I can arbitrarily define him as the victor in this imaginary struggle between possible concepts? I wouldn"t need to conceive of it anyway, because it was possible that I could, so it"s always existed in your "Notionverse". Therefore, my god ate yours before I even saw your post, and you"ve been arguing for the wrong god your entire life.

"I the Christian, Worship this God, who gave us the Only Manifest world, as the God Father of All things, The Omnipotent God. For this is an omnipotent being. His glory is such that, He is in fact un-notionable, and can not be perceived, for in the cosmos of notions, the unfathomable notions exist, and so, you can not begin to interpret his Mighty Awesomeness.
so even fathomable, you fathom the True HIM not."

I define my notion-Kratos as so glorious you can"t conceive of him. He can not be perceived in any sense, and yet exists, for in the Notionverse, all impossible concepts which are somehow still possible exist, and so, you can not begin to interpret his Mighty Libido.

It"s funny that you included that segment about not being able to fathom the entirety of this being, I was going to say that whatever you"re worshipping isn"t actually the god you think it is because of the "True HIM" being outside of the limits of your imagination. Your image of God is a hollow, even insulting failure to depict the true glory of the one you claim to praise; why you"d bother going on with what may as well be blasphemy in worshipping this lesser notion is beyond me.

"Because he cannot be perceived, God, this God, the only true one worthy of the word God, with a capital "G" { As that indicates his ultimate superiority in any true method of using the word. ] must do one thing, and only one thing, in the manifest. For everything else is in vain."

You"re devolving into meaningless religious prattle that has no significance for anyone outside of your religion (and probably your head), and it appears you cut a good chunk out of some other point you were trying to make. Moving on.

"He must create an acknowledgeable image for himself. That Image is our Lord, The savior of our existence, Jesus Christ, His first born son, the Wisdom of God, His first act of long ago.
Jesus, our God, instilled with the power of his father, and all, and only the attributes the omnipotent decided for him to have, created life, loves it and keeps it. As an absolutely perfect form."

Ah, I see, this is how you get away with praising your God without comprehending him. I don"t think that"s what most Christians would say Jesus" purpose was, but I"ll leave that aside and maintain that the stories about Jesus, his divinity, and even his existence are not givens. Please convince me that Jesus was a thing before talking about what he was for.

"Jesus would not be subject to a multiverse of Notions involving sin. He is youthful and graciously kind, innocent, and blissfully unaware of the darkness to which he had not come. For he is the accumulation of all Notions perfection, that the
Self considerate Loving Omnipotent Father can rejoice in his excellence as the God of all Godlihood"

is this even real what am i reading

"This is Notionism, and I find it bets describes my faith as a Christian.
It logically is only in support of Christianity, and I can easily debate such a thing, because as I have said, The most self considerate God wins. In the fathomable notion that the most Powerful God exists as, every variation of self consideracy."

Well, no, it isn"t. Even if I granted every premise of your argument, I would disagree that it leads to your god. I think. I"m still a little confused about the "most self-considerate" thing, but I can conceive of any number of gods that have and exhibit your god"s traits to an equal or greater degree, so it doesn"t really matter what that"s supposed to mean.

Please don"t make me type "notion" in any of the following rounds, it"s giving me a headache.
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Pro

All right, I will get right down to it.

First: You failed to read the entire article before responding. Your method of considering the debate before responding makes you a heckler, and you founded no response on my argument: Because my argument must be received as a whole before not after dissecting it.
= so read this full argument before replying!!

Second: I linked in our conversation the contents of my argument I had hoped you would first discuss them with me. You did not read it I presume, as you did not reply ~ and so while I waited for that, I posted this in the time of staleness as an interest point, which stood apart from our debate. It was not factually apart of our debate, it was a fun fact about my faith, so you can understand me. I tried to clarify that. but because you ignored our relationship status int he conversation section, I guess as a new member I misinterpreted how the respect between personalities is received here.

Because you did not understand a few facts I will review, sneakily avoiding your detested word of choice.:

The Considerate God: Is a beautiful concept you neglected to perceive. I understand this as being you had not read my debate, but immediately dissected it before even considering what i was even saying.

If, God was a notion, God {by definition, being the full accumulation of knowledge and power of All eternity (I call that, the notionverse (and see it as I explained), but exists as what all religious people have faith in regardless of it's name.)] would be the most self-considerate form. As each idea exists in every manner of variation, then When you choose a more powerful greater "God" to be this deity, the slight variation of 100% equal proportions, but being self-considerate, Yells at it's opponent, "I am you! But I care enough about em to say I am better!" and a greater opponent would arise, and he would yell, "I am you! but I am better!" His opponent would have no defense, because he doesn't care about himself enough to stand against this self-endearing equal. and in all logic, he would say, You are greater. For even this greater God would say tot he lesser, Yet I worship a more Grand God of even greater more self considerate proportions!.

As a Christian I believe in Greek Mythology. It is a Monotheist religion, and is the credible reason for the greek empires success. Chaos is this God of the Notionverse. He is Awe inspiring. Kronos, is the God of which you speak! and he is undone and belittled by Chaos himself, who is the credible creator of all the Titans. And so, this debate has been won in my favor by an empire of Philosophical genius's time and time again. But this was not my debate; it was but my teething!

To be Outside of Time: such as a wild dream, or a notion, or anything that exists outside of Time. The full content of the "subject entity" is complete from beginning to end, without actually progressing: All progression has already been rounded off and accumulated - the fractal-essence of possibilities (every possible thing, is considered in every variable idea of that "Subject"). Outside of Time, is thus, unchanging, complete, what it is, without possible growth and development. !00% considerate of all potential variation.

Because God of the Notionverse, exists outside Time, to create time is a trifling affair. Why suffer all the consequences of a real world, when you know all the outcomes. It would not be self-considerate to belittle one time, by pressing another can be better, or that there is another which is worse. God, who abstracted all perfection from the Multi-verse of conceivable ideas, Gave the one Real Time, to his One perfect Son, Jesus our Creator. The perfect ideal form of the Multiverse God.

This is Notionism, and it stands firm as a great philosophy. but this was not my debate!

If you read my articles by now which I had linked in our conversation board,
-Math defines atheism as being a existence without free-will which still brought to attention, the existence of this God.
- if you have not looked intot he geology of the planet to see for yourself the miraculous evidence and proof that the world had expanded from within itself: I encourage you to before you respond!

And so.

I stipulate apart from debate that you can attack me briefly after such a response: I do not believe in gravitational pull.
=I believe that water as an entity clings to itself int he least amount of volume possible, and is wrapped about the earth holding us down. The energies cycling between earth and the universe, between More-ning and Even-ning, balancing the total capacity of energy on the planet, creates a vortex which the moon rests in. The moons effects on the tides is thus governed by the light it provides tot he tides, swelling the ocean with heat. I believe strongly, after close and obsessive evaluation, that the galaxy is a map of creation via this method of following creation whilst regarding modern sciences factual results. and Gravitational pull, is not observed in the Galaxy, as it is neither observed on Earth according to the answer to any alternative modern theory. The observations are aparant and obvious facts, butt he theory, and thus word definition of Gravity are false in my understanding.

THE DEBATE:

Because my religion brings me utmost satisfaction: Rejoicing in Gods laws of conduct
- not promoting adultery, which provokes rape and abduction, and neglectful boyfriends and various other things

- not promoting murder, or theft, or dishonoring your parents, who might be you one day,
in the condition that to honor your parents doesn't mean to believe them or listen to them at all times, but to be truly considerate of their efforts, hardships and influences on your life and your in theirs.

-to not blasphemy by using the lords name in vain, which is not to say wisdom is foolishness or foolishness is wisdom, that one would mislead someone into conflict or strife and guilt. This causes people to misunderstand and avoid faith when avoiding faith promotes adultery, leading to political injustice, and abusive relationships, and false religions which lead to greater confusion

- believing in no other God, which would be less satisfying and in promotion of misconduct, for This God loves all conduct that leads to a greater more enjoyable end of ends.

Because of this, I am feverish in debating my point that history and science and logic are in defense of my side of the argument.

The greeks were monotheist: Chaos created all things without the help of another. all other deities created and established nothing, but may have been the natural components of creation for other things, as earth and water make mud, which is plant-life and creatures, which are not described in creation of mythologies.
~
This chaos is imperceivable as Christ said, I cannot be known by none but my Father, and Only my Father can be known by me.
~
Krishna is this Chaos also, divided into percievable aspects of his personality, who ahve no authority apart from him, but are acknowledged becasue his folowers know and respect that they cannot pray to the perfect form of God, but must look to the facts they do know, : Shiva: God can destroy all things: Genesh: God brings fortune and sends away misfortune to his followers. As Sanskrit says int he Words of Krishna himself, "You cannot pray to another God, for by praying to any other, You only pray to me." as he was speaking to his cherished and beloved servant, Arjuna, his chastiest warrior.

Because no other theory is logical. I presume I win. As you can present nothing but to invoke doubt in me as your stated stand int he argument as having no knowledge or understanding beyond that of an adolescent. There is no room for doubt. But because you may still doubt, I cannot win this debate until I have filled you with the enrichment of faith, and a desire to seek a true delight in your faith.

Without God, there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are subjective opinionated statements thus, that are of imaginary origins. How can one believe that is true? But an atheist cannot deny it non the less, that is the factual reality of atheism. Rape, may be abhorred now, but in centuries ago, so many people pillaged villages, was it truly wrong? The answer is yes via Religion, and No via atheism. For it brought delight to the majority, and since those who did not approve were soon dead or the MINORITY, their opinions are then voided via atheism.

Testosterone causes Menopause. The failed development or function of ovaries. The Jews, strained the hormone rich blood out of the animals they ate, because, for unknown reasons it was deemed unholy to eat. Animal hormones cause mental and physical dis-functions as well. { off the record [*I presume this blood-sausage thing is the reason behind poor british dental*]} "Men-Oh - pause, don't dot hat it is bad for womans health" is a modern conspiracy hidden by immoral atheist scientists who think they are the cool kids in class for supporting all the big dudes, are more well suited for the quote " Men, oh, pause, she doesn't need to know that."

Despite adultery leads to women having no homes, are homes a man doesn't help pay for, or children who do not respect then, even women promote this. When in reality, a lazy, unself-considerate man who is not fit and respectful, and productive, partakes in adultery even during marriage. Because marriage is not about sex, it is about loyal devotion and loving support.

Only religion ever supports this. Those atheist claiming they do, are driven mostly by fear, and largely found all their morals on the well-being and security of a nation governed by a law given by the religion institution.

Faith is a delight. Because you are not jealous at any time. You do not desire things that have negative effects on others. You do not desire the things God knows will have a negative effect on you. This is a perfect perspective of Reality: it is not limiting.

Amen
Fenderchic

Con

Oh dear, this is a long one. Let’s get going. Quotations in the section are abbreviated to accommodate the character limit.



“All right...replying!!”


To start, you’re saying that responding to your post, tackling each… ah, “resolution” of your claim in the order you’ve presented it makes me a heckler. I’m going to start posting definitions for you, but I’ll still hold off on criticism regarding your grammar, as that would take too long and it doesn’t inhibit the conversation too terribly.


These are from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, for reference.


-heck·le verb \he-kəl\ : to interrupt (someone, such as a speaker or performer) by shouting annoying or rude comments or questions-


I can see how this might’ve seemed appropriate to you, but this is a text format. Anyone reading through this (including myself) has read your post in its entirety directly before my response, and is free to go back and do so any time. Replying to your points individually is not interrupting or any kind of harassment, I’m sorry. Also, being that my “method of considering the debate before responding” is offensive to you, I believe I have a better insight into the nature of your posts here; myself and the few people I’ve shown my response to for criticism/suggestions regarding editing have been somewhat mystified to this point.



“Second:... here.”


Well, what you’ve done is linked me to two other unfinished debates on this site that are at most progressed to round two, and have little to nothing to do with what you’re proposing here. One is between creation and evolution, where the instigator is trying to defend creation and you outright say you don’t believe in evolution after agreeing to represent the opposing viewpoint, so that’s worthless. In the other, you seem to be taking an entirely different stance that, again, has nothing to do with what you’ve put forward so far. For example, the word “notion” doesn’t appear once.


You go on to say that (I think, hard to interpret) your last post, which you used to fill up a round of the debate, was just a fun fact about what you believe and wasn’t actually an argument for your particular brand of theism. If you present something in the format of an argument in a debate forum, I’ll respond to it like it’s an argument. Please do not waste our time.



“Because..choice.:”


Sneakily? One person I had look over this thought that, after using Google translate, you might be using a thesaurus to find bigger words to use, and seeing as I can’t imagine anyone actually trying to talk like this, I think they may have been on to something. Also, you don’t avoid it. I was actually gonna say thanks until I read three sentences ahead.



“The Considerate.. saying.”


I responded to everything you said, I even broke it up into chunks to make sure there wasn’t anything that slipped my mind. Believe me, as best a human being can, I understood what you were saying.



“If, God,... proportions!.”


Sorry, I came up with another god. Spode, my deity, is defined as being greater and more powerful than all other conceivable gods. Very simply, Spode > YourThing. No matter how much you build yours up, mine usurps it and is stronger for all the power you tried to outfit yours with, simply due to his nature. This includes any and all variations. Also, how notion-Kratos and Spode deal with each other and their variations is up for you to explain.



“As a... teething!”


You are a troll. I’m going to continue responding to you as if you actually believe this because it will entertain the internet, but, for reference, I know you’re a troll.


Kratos is not Kronos. Kratos tore the Stone of Olympus out of Kronos, smashed a long, sharp segment of his harness through his chin, and stabbed him in the forehead with the Blade of Olympus to have him topple to his death. As a Christian believer of Greek Mythology, you should be familiar with the Sony Revised Edition. Now, since the rest of this segment is you trying to say that Greek philosophers supported whatever it is you’re trying to convince me of, I’m just gonna move on to the next bit.



“To be... variation.”


-time noun \tīm\ a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continuesb : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future-


So we know what time is, right? Outside of time means no events, no action, absolutely nothing happens, theoretically. You still haven’t shown that anything does or even can exist outside of time, or provided a mechanism by which something outside of time could influence a universe that is subject to time. I wouldn’t think a being outside of time could do anything, because absolutely nothing at all happens as a rule, but that’s just me.


-con·sid·er·ate adjective \kən-si-d(ə-)rət\ : thinking about the rights and feelings of other people : showing kindness toward other people: marked by or given to careful consideration-


Again, this is just close enough to what I think you mean that a thesaurus could have suggested it, but it’s still off. Not one person I’ve shown this to has gone without commenting on your use of considerate and self-considerate. Since I’m pretty sure I know what you mean, I won’t keep harping on the point. You don’t seem to be acknowledging any of the issues I had in my last reply with the concepts you’re bringing out again, so I’ll keep skipping ahead.



“Because... God.”


This means nothing. I’m not going to stare at this for an hour or so like I did yesterday trying to figure out what’s going on in your head, instead I’m just gonna relent and stop pretending that even you have this straight.



“This is Notionism, and it stands firm as a great philosophy. but this was not my debate!”


No.




“If...God.”


Math is a system for understanding and relating quantities to each other. It says nothing about lack of belief in a god. Why is free-will involved? What are you talking about?



“- if...respond!”


Read a book!



“And so.”


*Cracks knuckles*



“I...understanding.”


There is no country, no province, no social construct anywhere on this planet so exceptionally designed that it would be able to successfully accommodate your insanity within itself. There is no way you would still be alive, you surely would have choked to death while sucking your thumb or reverted into a cheeto by now. The utter impossibility of your existence is sufficient to confirm for anyone reading this that they are a brain in a vat living out a simulation, and this is perhaps the only flaw in the façade. If you give me your address, I will send you a plaque to hang above your computer that says “I validate Solipsism”.


Then again, NephilimFree is real, so you might be too. I’m afraid I still can’t give a straight-faced response to this part though, there’s simply nowhere to begin. Please go to school.



“THE DEBATE:”


At last.



“Because... things”


I’m pretty sure the debate isn’t about whether or not adultery should be promoted. It also needs to be said that everything you listed after that has nothing to do with adultery. Seriously.



“- not... theirs.”


Who are you talking to? You remember which debate of yours this is, right?



“-to...confusion”


To clear up some confusion, I am an atheist. I do not believe your god is a thing. You are trying to convince me it is, I think. Until you convince me, I don’t have much of a problem “using the lord’s name in vain”, god damn it.



“- believing...ends.”


I’ve got some more satisfying gods, I’ve even got more satisfying demigods and envoys of gods. Ask me about Jonathan Measley or Swaghetto some time.



“Because...argument.”


No one’s arguing with your motivation.



“The...mythologies.”


This is just factually wrong. I don’t need to convince anyone reading of this, right? Right.



“This...me.”


Mhm.



“Krishna...warrior.”


I’m not as familiar with Hinduism, so while I assume you’re misrepresenting at least one aspect of this due to your abysmal track record (probably the same way you do the Greek pantheon), I won’t insist that you are.



“Because... faith.”


Hmm, here’s the nice thing about communication. I can read and understand the conclusions of someone who works in any given field, who in turn is aware of the data, theories, and conclusions of all others in his field who came before him, or who are working alongside him today. In this way, I can draw from the total accumulated knowledge of humanity, from people who know, for example, how the tides work, or what classical civilizations believed. My being an adolescent doesn’t bar me from this knowledge, so bite me.


As for filling me with the enrichment of faith… I suppose I should wish you luck. You have two responses left.



“Without...atheism.”


Right and wrong are determined by me, as it’s determined by everyone for themselves. Independently of your god, I can judge actions to be either harmful or beneficial, and use that to make up my mind about whether or not it’s moral or immoral. Judging any action your god takes to be immoral demonstrates pretty conclusively that morality does not come from your god.



“Testosterone... that." “


-I’m just gonna let this sit here and be in view of the public.



“Despite...support.”


This too.



“Only...institution.”


I don’t promote adultery, and it’s definitely not because I’m afraid of something. Do you interact with other people?



“Faith... limiting.”


You must be unfamiliar with the history of religion on this planet. I’ll let you read up on that.



“Amen”


-Indeed. Halfway. To summarize to this point, you have created an unreasonable fantasy in order to define your god into existence, and then use this extraordinarily vague definition to say that all religions are worshipping this god so you can take anything from any holy text and put it forward as evidence. You come back a step and say without any justification that this nebulous god of everything is the closest to what the Christians believe exists, and turn this from the weirdest argument for general theism into one of the stranger ones for Christianity in particular. This can only get better.

Debate Round No. 3
GoOrDin

Pro

Right on. I enjoyed that. Thank you.
but I remain curious if you actually read the argument prior to the last, before posting. Because you actually responded as though you were typing up your rebutal as you read it. You never clarified this. Or said it was not true that you had been typing as you read it. Being the Heckling, interrupting before acknowledging the direction of the debate.

However,
my portion of the debate is not to convince you of anything. I only need to be self sufficient, as is the apparent qualities required of evolution. I am in no way trying to convince you of anything.

The links I linked you to, regarding creation, I clearly indicated I wanted you to read my comments, not my debate. And my other debate, with a similar title to this one, Was to clarify, Creation is factually scientifically sound, and the available resources are out there for you to actually do the work yourself.

As you had ignored my comments in this debate's Comment Section, you seemed to have skipped, thrice now, that My "Notionalism" - post, was clearly provided to be, and was indicated to be, not apart of my actual debate. And I did not format it as a debate either, nor is it even possible to argue with it, as I had suggested.

To explain. Being that all notions are outside time, Nothing actually does occur. The are simple existent in the unmanifest nature of: Everything that has capacity to be imaginable, whether imaginable or not, exists as that unmanifest characteristic of itself. Everything.
And outside time, where God is unchanging, as he never changes, nothing occurs.

Saying, "God damn it." also, is not actually using the Lord's name in vain. That can be a very accurate manner of using the Title of God in direct association with condemning something. There is no vanity in saying, "God damn it." if someone were to rush off with a nuclear bomb after you struggle endlessly to defend it, and you are deep down int eh subconscious parts of your mind screaming, "Damned be that that bomb explodes!" (as in, "do not let it occur God, it is beyond my capacities now.")
Vanity is saying, "Jesus wants you to have sex with that old man." perhaps when talking to a Muslim girl wed to a 50 year old man. Or Allah*. This is vanity, because now the name of God is being misconstrewed with blasphemous heresy which makes God look like he is the evil character in this situation.
Or if an atheist says, "God said to kill people." referring to the genocide of the People previously inhabiting the promised lands, without considering that in Gods wisdom ~ (whether he is real or not, because when reading all the texts of the scriptures as a book, you must at least acknowledge temporarily to get an insight into his character, that he is all knowing and wise, and is declaring such a thing for a just reason. ) ~ he knew that if these people were to be given the chance to become a great nation it would be a horrible nation filled with the worst slavery, rape, and unjust people who would ravish the world.
It is in vain to bring up God, and spite not only His Wisdom, but Wisdom itself (the same thing) for the sake of simply making the image of God appear negative to others {even if that is not the intent}.

Again, I did not say that, Atheist or Adulterers promote rape and abduction, although many secretly do, I do not associate this quality to others. But Atheism and Adultery do. Quite factually. As no unfaithful man or sinner represents any religion or faith in God, only atheists do this.
Via indicating through words and actions others with less moralities are strengthened in their ambitions to do whatever they want without moral restraint. Rape and abduction are incurred via jealousy of to adulterers. Abusive boyfriends/husbands/people are typically the result of unprepared parents, foolishly unparented friends, a government being grosely ruled by an immoral careless Atheist regime .
And as none of this is a direct assault on any individual, all atheism does is promote bad things.

Kratos vs this Other god:
As Kratos is the eater of Gods, and your other deity the most benevolent thing.
(forgive me I had wrote Kronos by accident)
As neither have physical forms to combat eachother, but it is a war of conflicts in metaphorical philosophies and physics,
Kratos being a construct lawlessness, speaking a foolishness that has his chin impailed, and his authority stopped outright,
and This being of Benevolence serving only to strengthen him. They stand both the lesser. For to imbue foolishness with foolishness is to it's own dismay, and to increase the authority of Destruction with foolishness is self condemning.
(as Kratos, tries to usurper intelligence with might*. The entity, but not living being of strength cannot overcome Insight or wisdom**) For to give Only strength to an entity of Timeless origins, unchanging in nature, Strength does not manifest Glory and authority. *Spode, without the characteristics of being completely aware of all things untimeless, cannot be God, and as strength is not a manifest quality required to rule Heaven, he would loose even to Kratos, who as a Titan is not a god, is infact an essence of reality, not a being.*

So.
We have a comment section. if you had been confused about anything, we should have discussed it. As arguing that I have not provided sufficient evidence or facts, or sensible content, was without grounds - in likeness to a discussion revolving around, the potential for the light reflecting off the moon to be the cause of all effects credited tot he gravitation pull of the moon on the tides - One should first take the moment to review the available resources before disputing no credible evidence or points of have been established.

And As I stand that,

-atheism, is the idea God is not real, meaning math is the controlling condition of all things: Free will cannot exist because everything is predispositioned. That cannot stand as an argument in court, the insane asylum, or if someone were to steal your child, or kick your shins. Thus, indicating atheism is not a dependable premise.

-Creation. light = time (energy=movement of matter [measurable difference in a period an event occurs]). Sky and liquid water are the same molecular compound. The earth is proven via geological formation, to have expanded form within itself when energy first entered it. Plants came accordingly when energies could not re-enter the pre-energized waters after exiting the earth, being very plausible. Stars thus follow as the sun accumulates itself int eh vaccume of space, forging the moon, distancing the sun from earth, then the Mercury and venus planets, followed by Mars and it's moons, The astroid belt, and Jupiter and beyond, until after the Oort cloud it creates a new star and goes forth. All Because Earth was a perfect condition for the self aware universe to ignite the first mote of exponentially expanding energies of Light..
Thus with faith this is accurate to an iota, We can have faith that the fifth day was all egg baring creatures, which would hatch on the next, when Man who received this message was fashioned from the earthly and watery molecules of Mud, as there was yet plants to eat. {explaining Adams exhaustion at the end of the day, when he fell into a deep sleep because The Lord God, who is the wisdom of the universe, dictated it should be so.}

-Morals are founded on religious practice. Review this yourself with simple consideration of human behavior, readily taking into consideration Christianities role in your own life. Having given law to the Wild west, and the natives of South America before us. Those morals many speak of innately come from all people, in reality only come from upbringing, and factually ...

people crap int eh water supply and say, "where else am I to go?". Yet they disregard they chose to pay to live in a city. They chose to have no where else to go. Even int he desert of Arizona and Mexico, it goes in the water. God did not only clearly indicate, bury outside the encampment, (where a dog can dig ti up and lick your kid, or people quickly disregard respectful adherence to what it means to Love God, and drop it lazily without burying it, or one might try the same location to bury it), but it is also writing, "Who to those who build their house beside another mans house, or their farm field beside another mans farm field, so that there is not more room left int he land for the travelers to live amongst them, so that there is less than an efa of wheat on their land, and that they are made to live alone in the land." {family and spouses being of the same flesh.} Proverbs** This is a clear indicator of the same wisdom God's faithful servant Abraham, {he who's origins are in likeness to the hindu nations} had when he told Lot, "There is to many people among us. Chose which side of the River shall be yours. The east or west.", closely followed by the the smallest recounted naturally occurring deaths of any man, Joseph, the Man who lived in the great Egyptian city.

God's wisdom is reoccurring and eternal. It is apparent in every day life. Though there are those who say, "morals can be found in anyone", how quickly people turn from them. As for when "supposedly" God commanded the one-million Israelites who crossed the desert to Go desolate the peoples inhabiting the promised land. How quickly they turned from him, complained and rejected him. How much not greater the treacherous rebellion of those people within the promised land should he have beseached them ~ this would have been the true wrath of God!

So. my philosophy is Grand. The God we have, Is, as he is in fact the accumulation of all things, and nothing more. As all things cannot be seen or known, he is these also. And because he is all things - *that is what he is* /all things are in him, and he is in all things - this God, my God, The God, ALL THINGS factually are. And the universe in it's construct is perfect in itself.
Fenderchic

Con

“Right on. I enjoyed that. Thank you.”

Whatever works for ya.


“but... debate.”

I did clarify it, I said everyone here (including myself) has read your post in its entirety directly before my response.


“However... anything.”

Is that right? Well, I’ll bear that in mind. Actually, let me get a sticky note…


“The... yourself.”

Or you could post an argument here. Once? Please? I didn’t get that creation was factually scientifically sound from that, if you’d like to push for that, please do so here, in your remaining round. I’m fairly certain that linking me to the comments section of other debates you’ve had as a substitute for actually engaging me isn’t how this is supposed to work.


“As... suggested.”

Covered this previously, moving on to keep the character limit.


“To... Everything.”

I haven’t agreed that this is the case; I even disputed part of this in my first real response. If you’re going to maintain that this isn’t relevant to the argument you’re trying to make, please stop bringing it up.


“And... occurs.”

The only thing you’ve been doing here is making assertions and using sophomoric word games as justification, if even that. I haven’t asked for evidence once, because what you’re proposing is so far gone I doubt you could find anything to even submit in the place of evidence.

Apparently our topic is creationism, so you could offer something in support of that. You could try, I mean. Creation isn’t accepted by any legitimate scientific body anywhere, and is routinely refuted by a few for the sake of the general public.


“Saying... intent}.”

You typed all of this out in response to a bit of transparent bait put in as an afterthought. I am an atheist. I do not believe in any god or gods. I do not care what the true meaning of “taking the lord’s name in vain” is.


“Again,... this.”

Hey erre’body! The Christians are slap-fighting about who’s a True Christian! Let’s watch!


“Via... regime .”

The only thing in here you haven’t brought up before is that we have an Atheist regime ruling this country.


“And... things.”

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It says nothing about, and has no bearing on, any other aspect of your character. I sincerely don’t know how you’ve gotten to this point of thinking all of these various ills of society stem from a lack of belief.


“Kratos... being.*”

Kratos ASCII art takes up too much space, too bad.

“So... established.”

If you’re going to come on here and suggest absurdities that aren’t accepted by anyone who isn’t trolling for attention, I’m going to give them a brief response, have a laugh, and move on. You’re out of your mind if you think I’m going to waste more time than I already am writing up these responses in the comments section with you trying to convince me that gravity isn’t a thing and light is responsible for the tides.


“And... premise.”

No, atheism is the lack of belief in any god(s). You get the difference between saying “Your god does not exist” and “I don’t believe your claim that a god exists”, right? Also:

-pre·dis·pose verb \G6;prē-di-G2;sp!3;z\ : to cause (someone) to be more likely to behave in a particular way or to be affected by a particular condition-

It’s a thesaurus, it has to be. After running your post through Google translate into another language and then back into English, you swap out as many words as you can with the longest synonym you can find, conjugate it incorrectly, and use it in a context that makes it look so awkward that everyone reading your submission comments on it.


“-Creation... Light..”

-light noun \G2;līt\: the form of energy that makes it possible to see things : the brightness produced by the sun, by fire, a lamp, etc.-

-time noun \tīm\ a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continuesb : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future-

You see how these are not the same thing, right? That’s the second instance of me having to post “time” for you.


“Thus... so.}”

Believing something on faith means nothing. I can have faith that anything will happen, did happen, is true, etc. It doesn’t count for anything.


“-Morals... factually ...”

Mhm, before the various conquests in their regions by invading Christians destroyed their civilizations, natives unfamiliar with your religion spent their entire lives screwing each other over and had no concept of equality, empathy, or good will.

The Christians also had no infighting, no conflict, greeted neighboring civilizations with bouquets and chocolates, and in general just enjoyed one big golden age throughout most of their history, until atheists and False Christians (which now appears to be all of them) came into the mix, ruining everything for all time.


“people... city.”

What is this? Why?


“God's... God!”

What are you trying to say? Please get someone to proofread these for you and make them intelligible.


“So... itself.”

New god, this one is defined as your god but also distinct from it. Enjoy.


I now have a small staff on retainer to help me interpret these, but most have now handed in their resignation. You’ve got one post to get the rest of them to quit.

Debate Round No. 4
GoOrDin

Pro

None of my claims were disproven as no contrary information was provided.
Fenderchic

Con

Fenderchic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
I am curious how you feel Fenderchic.
and I am sincerely remorseful over the first round. However linking content is a viable and fair way to make an argument. especially when it is consisting of science.

I was about to say I can forfeit for you if you like, as I was difficult to understand. But, as I look now, you're winning by 2 points. :) we all win.

however. Creation is a scientific fact** and God told us to remove the hormone rich blood from animals, which evidently causes menopause and other health defects.
Posted by Fenderchic 2 years ago
Fenderchic
people please vote soon
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
@Uniscious actually know it does not
The debate is not structured around the content of my arguments,
it is centered around demonstrating that I have not provided evidence to support myself.
I have not provided statements that can be negated, and as such no evidence to suggest I was wrong was provided, only skeptical responses that illustrated my opponent was unversed and unscholarly in the topics generated.
Although much of the theme is spiritual and religious, both these themes fall under the category of philosophy anyways. However, the way I presented my arguments indeed requires this debate to stay in the philosophy section.
Prove me wrong.
Posted by Uniscious 2 years ago
Uniscious
This belongs in religion not philosophy.

Thank you.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
ps. light is in fact energy.
via light all measure of time is measured.
*the light of the sun warms the world*.
and thus, factually, Light, being energy (proven by the sun) is thus the measure of time because Time is governed by the moving of matter.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
I am going to take my time with this one. Make it extra legible, and as short as possible. And in 24 hours you can have your final say.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
@LeRoy, the key note here was, As many copies as He WANTED too. Using logic, you can easily determine that only one copy is even considerably a positive choice. your not much of a ... You are, but are not called, Jesus eh.. You should learn some before you spray some.

:D I didn't notice that when I wrote my name!! XD amazing! my real name is awesome enough. Gord, looks like God, rhyms with Lord, but as Saul became Solomon, and Babel Became Babylon, I am Gordon. Gordon
thanks. My other name on a recent forum was Goardon. so I changed it up a little. I luv my name. ahaha. so col. ty LeRoy. I like how you notice things I don't.

U are so senseless. atheism is bad, but atheists don't have to be. that does make sense. atheism promotes lack of morality, an atheist doesn't have to do that. But atheism always will.

I can't believe you can't understand simple ideas when written in english!! XD

If you can prove God did not not exist you proved God existed... So you can prove God exists* but you can also just simply prove he exists.

You all know creation is fact now. thank you. *sigh*
Posted by Fenderchic 2 years ago
Fenderchic
I am currently finishing my response for round three, I am thankful for your input but I will not be backing down.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
For GoOrDin:
Stop sending out Crazy, Lying, Stupid, Gibberish, already!

If God exists & is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, & All-Powerful
he could obviously create as many copies of himself as he wanted to,
so your statement that only 1 God can exist has to be considered False.
Your statement that God is the multiverse +1 is Gibberish.

ONCE AGAIN-
STOP CALLING ME JESUS-
THAT WASN'T, & ISN'T, MY NAME!
Scientists believe that matter/ energy can be
neither created nor destroyed.
so there wasn't any "Creation" in that sense.
I already told you who/ what I am.
If you're so stupid that you can't understand simple ideas in simple English,
you really shouldn't be on DDO!
English was developed AFTER Christianity.
Insisting that atheism is bad but atheists aren't doesn't make sense.

For Fenderchic:
I'd recommend that you don't get involved with the Nutcase.
Notice that if you take the 3 capitalized letters in GoOrDin you get GOD?
I'd forget about notionism, if I were you.

For ThisIsWater & Fenderchic:
I'd strongly recommend that you go back & study my previous posts,
on this Debate & on my Debate titled
" "Yahweh" was an Extraterrestrial ... " , etc.
Atheism doesn't make sense.
It's apparently Impossible to prove that God exists,
but it's very easy to prove that God cannot not exist.
If God didn't exist, nobody & nothing else would either.
"Yahweh" couldn't have gone by the English names God or Yahweh.
He apparently stated that his personal name is Hebrew, & pronounced "Yahweh" .
(Why would a real God claim that his name was Hebrew & pronounced "Yahweh" ? )
For more information about atheism & Christianity, etc. , check me out .
Christ/ VAJRASATTVA, etc.
Posted by ThisIsWater 2 years ago
ThisIsWater
Most kings don't go by "King", they would be called "King Henry" or whatever their first name is. God, according to the Bible and most of its followers, goes by the name God. His name is Yahweh. God is a nickname. Nicknames are still proper nouns. King may not be The King's name, but it's still a nickname, which would be capitalized as "The King."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
GoOrDinFenderchicTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't make heads or tails this debate. What's being argued? It seems that the topic presses Pro into the role of defending atheism, but his first round post puts him on the defensive against atheist claims. Then, Pro shifts to an argument on notionism and discusses the concept of a "considerate god," and from there the debate devolves so far into individual responses that I'm not even sure how it relates to anything. I'm left completely confounded by this debate, and I can't figure out what it was meant to be from the start, or even what each side wants it to be partway through. Pro seems to want to defend his views on god, but I have no clue how you defeat someone else's religious beliefs, nor do I know what portion of those beliefs needed to be "disproved" (if that's even possible) by Con in order to win. So here's what I'm doing: I'm affording Pro a conduct point due to Con's last round forfeit, and affording arguments to Con because Pro so thoroughly confounds the debate.