The Instigator
fuckinghostile
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Its funny how the knowledge of god is that of the people of his time itnit?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,296 times Debate No: 27013
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

fuckinghostile

Pro

I really don't think I have much to f*cking say at all except read the bible dude. Read how god made the rain, we now know its condensation. Read how the sun revolves around the earth. Thank christ for science. Just use the internet. Look up christian attrocities and you'll fine some interesting sites. Look up bible contradictions. Its all here, just use google FFS and all you need is in your eyes. How the f*ck can you still believe and have faith in an obviously dead religion? I really f*cking hate christians so much!!!!
RationalMadman

Con

I shall pose as con on three areas of debate.

1) I do not think that the stated resolution is 'funny' as my opponent claims it to be.
2) I do not think that the knowledge of god is that of the people of his time
3) I do not think god owns a time, hence using the phrase 'his time' would be incorrect

I see in the round one debate of pro that he thinks that because water vapour condenses into liquid this negates God having made water, it doesn't and additionally is irrelevant to the resolution. Additionally, he thanks Christ for science, unfortunately it is a well renowned fact that Christ did not invent science. He states that all you need is your eyes to understand bible contradictions and Christian atrocities, but you need a brain too at the very least. He then questions how one could still believe and have faith in an obviously dead religion. Firstly, Christianity is not a dead religion and secondly the answer is by emotional seeking for a meaning of life.
Debate Round No. 1
fuckinghostile

Pro

Haha, you want to play semantics? I refuse.

1) All christianity is funny in the fact that it has been around for ovver 2000 years and not one single person has yet to prove the existance of god.
2) It does have a time since christianity stole the beliefs of pagans and used them for their own. If you seek the knowledge then just look it up, its everywhere.
3) So according to christianity god created the earth around 6000 years ago and they believe this despit massive amounts of several fossils and evidence proving otherwise. So what did he do for the rest of his "time"? Sitting around staring blankly into the void occasionally picking his nose and scratching his @ss every million years?

To believe in god is a complete fallacy and yes it is slowly dying with the invention of the internet and the evidence the brought forth. I'm sure most of the believers were taught (indoctrinated) as a kid to believe in god. Well I'm sure the Hitler youth thought the jews were really deserving of genocide too. Makes total sense now.
RationalMadman

Con

I was under the impression that semantic play only refers to play to things other than the resolution itself. You specifically stated it was 'funny' yet did not sufficiently justify it being humorous in any form or shape that knowledge of god is that of people of his time.

Christianity did not 'steal' the beliefs of pagans and use them for their own. They edited previous religions to the word of what we presume is Jesus' speeches to his disciples.

Your justification for God owning time is that the Christian god is supposed to start the Earth 6,000 years ago. Well, considering you are almost definitely not 6000 years old, how can you, with your subjective constraints to knowledge know objectively that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago by God and how can you assert that god owns time to term is 'his time'...

If you ever saw the film 'The Boy in Striped Pyjamas' (British spelling of Pajamas) you'd see that a child of a German soldier indeed hated what was done to the Jews so your statement that the Hitler youth agreed with Hitler is atrociously undefended and unjustifiable, let alone invalid considering that they were born into the war and saw the horror from the start of their life.

To believe in god is not a complete fallacy. As an agnostic (slightly atheist tending) I do not at all understand this concept that many Gnostic atheists have of God being impossible and that to believe in God to be a fallacy in any way whatsoever.

You failed to even explain what on Earth the resolution, ending in the most incomprehensible word of the debate; "itnit" even meant and failed to fix the three errors I pointed out in it. You also were very rude in regards to the being that is suggested to have created you. Please, as much as I don't care for manners when it comes to beliefs, learn to be a decent person and at least stop persecuting others whom are most certainly of no threat to yourself nor others for having a simple belief. This wasn't a debate against militant Christianity but against the faith altogether, and that is unforgivable and a fallacy to the open-minded culture on which this world prides itself in the 21st century.

For the sake of open-mindedness, vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I have reported your comments. Enjoy your ban from this site.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I have reported your comments. Enjoy your ban from this site.
Posted by fuckinghostile 4 years ago
fuckinghostile
No, I refuse to follow or abstain by your beliefs and if I had a choice would murder all believers. Believe me, but I don't have the backing or tools. I plan on this, we'll see a new era.
Posted by fuckinghostile 4 years ago
fuckinghostile
Wow I just want to pummel you to death. People like you and your snake tongues make perfect politicians. You're exactly what I want to quell the world of.
Posted by fuckinghostile 4 years ago
fuckinghostile
Wow I just want to pummel you to death. People like you and your snake tongues make perfect politicians. You're exactly what I want to quell the world of.
Posted by fuckinghostile 4 years ago
fuckinghostile
You're kind is slowly converting every day. Maybe when if I create a dedicated christian removal terrorist cell we can teach you a lesson.
Posted by Nidhogg 4 years ago
Nidhogg
Wow, atheists are getting worse at debating every day.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
fuckinghostileRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct-Profanity, hostility and general disrespect on the part of Pro; patience and reasoning on the side of Con Grammar-It was terrible "watnit"? Arguments-Con actually made arguments that weren't unsubstantiated vitriole No sources either way. What a troll
Vote Placed by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
fuckinghostileRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for saying "I f*cking hate Christians so much." Arguments for Con, as Pro did not prove his resolution.
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
fuckinghostileRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's hostility. Spelling and grammar due to difficulty understanding what Pro means, as well as his overusage of profane language. Sources to Con because, although neither provided sources, Pro made a lot of assertions without backing them up, putting the burden on the reader to essentially "Google it" and construct his argument for him (which also is part of the loss in conduct). Arguments to Con because as Instigator and Pro, he had the burden of proof and failed to actually make any arguments.
Vote Placed by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Jessalyn
fuckinghostileRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used excessive profanity, was hostile toward his opponent, and lacked the ability to clearly explain his point. Con remained calm/professional, and did a better job explaining his points than Pro. It's an obvious win.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
fuckinghostileRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won because Pro failed to say anything that was funny.
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
fuckinghostileRationalMadmanTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Horrible argument from Pro.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
fuckinghostileRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost conduct and all my respect when he said he ffing "hates Christians so much". He also shouldn't assert such bold claims when he's so terrible at debating. Con picked at pros poorly worded resolution and reasoning winning himself the debate. Pro also made a lot of claims that should have been sourced.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
fuckinghostileRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't prove the resolution was 'funny'