The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
The Contender
creationtruth
Con (against)

The utter silliness of god, the bible and why you should not believe in god

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
creationtruth has forfeited round #3.
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: 5/1/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 523 times Debate No: 102333
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

2 Tiimothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

Welcome welcome welcome to the silliness absurdities in god and the bible and why you should not believe in god for obvious reasons:

Rules for this debate:
1. I will not stand for those who are unintelligent nor those who are uneducated and yet you try to pretend that you are...
2. Especially if you try to pretend you know what they are squawking about when you really don"t.
3. If #"s1 and 2 occur, I will either ignore you or I will slam you with original insults of mine that will show you to be the reareth endeth that you truly are.

Why would I do this?
1. When you come on in here and pretend that you actually know what you are talking about and you claim to have a knowledge upon subject(s) and you really don"t, then you absolutely deserve to be slammed to the cow chirp granny fart mundane club of pouring gasoline all over yourself and then running into a burning collapsing building that you truly are.

Ok ready - set - GO!!!
* This to me is the biggest laugh in the bible. Reading it its truly hilarious. In no way would any supreme deity -ever- concoct this obvious man made, and what MAN would think this trash heap up, law up, put it into effect and expect anybody to believe it AND expect everybody to follow it? I really like the use of a bird for solutions. Does anybody buy this dippy cabbage batbrain obnoxious stuff gunk? Well yeah. If you are uneducated and unintelligent and you believe in god.
Leviticus 14:33-57 "And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 34 When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession; 35 And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house: 36 Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house: 37 And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall; 38 Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days: 39And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house; 40 Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city: 41 And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place: 42 And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house. 43 And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered; 44 Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house: it is unclean. 45 And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the morter of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place. 46 Moreover he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up shall be unclean until the even. 47 And he that lieth in the house shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes. 48 And if the priest shall come in, and look upon it, and, behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered: then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed. 49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 50 And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: 51 And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times: 52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet: 53 But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean. 54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, 55 And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house, 56 And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot: 57 To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy." Yep. People"s limbs falling off while they are waiting for a bird to do unto them magical prowess is such a stroke of utter hypnotic comedic failure that is god and the bible. Only a completely insane man or woman could have made that one up. Yes, without a doubt god and the bible are clearly man made.

* This is how the bible and god investigates a murder. Yes with great envy, this is how our court system should absolutely 100% work in this country! Why not? Thankfully we have intelligence, dignity and integrity, unlike god and the bible. Great going with all your smarts and brain activity god. Keep it going! This is a true joke unto itself and why god and the bible cannot possibly be taken seriously....
Deuteronomy 21: 1-9 "If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: 2 Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3 And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; 4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: 5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: 6 And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: 7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. 8 Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. 9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD." Indeed so this is how according to the laws of the bible that how to investigate a murder should that place? Well appoint me as a judge so I can insanely let everybody go!!!

* Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Um yeah um OK um duh um hmmm um doy, well that"s physically impossible and could -never- happen. Duh. Regardless, its a pretty sick verse. But what can one expect emanating from the sickest book ever written?

* Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants ofthe mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." Wow. god must be that weak. Since this mighty god has no power against the weak chariots of iron, one has to wonder if he has the power to defeat a gamma ray burst should one come this way? Clearly a misprint in the bible, or god is man made.

* Here's a thinking, rationalizing, reasoning, common sense, logical question(s) (there are too many to count) in which religion, god and the bible has none:
Why was god such an idiot? Why would god have only sent one jesus? Clearly more than one jesus was needed, required and was necessary to have carried out god"s word to have provided peace, love, care and kindness. But let"s be honest here, that"s not what god wanted, otherwise he would have sent more than one jesus. He would have sent hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands even millions.They could have all spoken in the same tongue that god would have wanted them to have spoken in. OR HERE"S THE KICKER, HE COULD HAVE DONE IT HIMSELF!!!! But its clear that god didn"t want any of this. god instead wants turmoil and hate, not peace by any means. Its what keeps god in office and gives him a job. After all what happens if the world happens to live in peace? god would have nothing to do. No one to b**ch at. No one to rule. No one to murder. No one to make war with. For all of those who have answered "Only one jesus was needed", well you"ve just answered your own question with an answer. And your precious jesus, in which there is absolutely no proof for him having ever existed in the first place as well as god, is why there is so much hatred in this world.

* Summary:
The bible is littered with rules and regulations that no god/ supreme deity would -ever- put into play and much less expect people to believe, much less live by them. Yet the bible is supposed to be perfect in every way. So is god. Clearly both are not. Since this is true, god, the bible and christianity should not in any way be worshiped, idolized, bowed down to nor yielded to.
creationtruth

Con


Preface

Greetings. It is apparent, by my opponents foul and bombastic language, that this will not be a very pleasant debate for anyone to read. However my aim here is to address the glaring failures in any attempt at logic and reasoning, and the egregious misconstruction of the Bible resultant no doubt from Pro's blatant ignorance of scripture. While I cannot in all honesty say that I expect to have an informative exchange, as that would imply relevant information going both ways, I will say that I look forward to an interesting debate and I hope my opponent will, for the sake of the prospective reader, attempt to show a glimmer of amicability in his following arguments.


Introduction

This debate concerns the issue of why or why not one should believe in the God of the Bible. Since Pro has not given any qualifications on what should constitute a superior argument for "why" one should accept the veracity of the God of the Bible, I posit that a scientific argument followed by a corroboration of scripture is a superior argument than that of perceived "silliness" in scripture. I will begin by arguing for the existence of God and follow up with scriptures which testify to the veracity of the biblical God of creation. After presenting my argument I will address Pro's fallacious claims.



Argument From Genetic Information

DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information. To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. . . an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as 'universal information' (UI) [1].

Gitt-universal-information

In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are cosyntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code. Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. Note that this argument is not based upon the inability for naturalistic/statistical processes alone to account for the formation of genetic information, but rather my case is built upon what we do know about genetic code and function. Therefore this is not a god-of-the-gaps argument, as the claim is based on observation. Note also that this is
not an argument from perceived complexity but from specified universal information. To refute my case is actually quite a simple task; one must only need demonstrate a single case where universal information, of the type seen in genetic code, is derived entirely from purely material sources. Based on observational science, universal information always comes from an intelligent mind, thus God most certainly exists per the UI found in living organism's genomes.


Argument From Scripture

God has providentially inspired and preserved His written words for us for the purpose of learning of Him and His will for us in our respective dispensations (biblical time-periods). In His word, the Bible, we find many attestations to its veracity concerning the existence of the God of creation. Below I will quote the verses and explain why they demonstrate corroboration with the real world. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Here we see that God has made Himself known to all via His creation. Thus we are able to see in many different ways, such as with genetic information, that God indeed exists. As such, scriptures which speak to truths otherwise unknown to men at the time they were written provide corroborating evidence to God's existence.

Cosmogony: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Many philosophers of times past believed that the universe was eternal whereas it seemed illogical to believe that space-time had a ex nihilo beginning. Subsequent scientific discoveries that the universe indeed had a definite beginning in space-time. The laws of physics demand it.

Biology: "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:25). While men since the days of Aristotle and possibly before to the times of the ancient Egyptians postulated various ideas of spontaneous generation and evolution through various modes of transmutation, the Bible all along has claimed that creatures were created as original "kinds" or types and that these types only produce after their own kind. Although many today still accept an updated version of evolution from a primordial state of lifeless matter, biology and its sub-fields have rigorously demonstrated that organisms cannot change beyond the genetic bounds of their kind.

Anthropology: "And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. . ." (Acts 17:26). Philosophers and scientists have long speculated that different races of people shared different ancestral origins. Even today some believe that there are fundamental differences in the ancestry of the various races of men. The Bible though has maintained that all men are the offspring of Adam and Eve and are thus of one blood. Genetics has conclusively shown that there is indeed one race: the human race.

Geology: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Genesis 7:19). Since the early 1800s geologists have surmised that Earth's sedimentary layers were evidence of successive epochs which spanned millenia into the past. More recent discoveries have revealed that the vast majority of sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly under catastrophic hydrologic conditions consistent with the biblical account of the global flood.



Response to Pro's Claims

Pro reacts to Leviticus 14:33-57 saying, "
In no way would any supreme deity -ever- concoct this obvious man made. . .Only a completely insane man or woman could have made that one up. Yes, without a doubt god and the bible are clearly man made." His argument seems to be that because this passage makes no sense to him, therefore God and His word are manmade. This is hardly an even half-way intelligent argument. I assume that Pro's contention lies with the efficacy of the sacrificial bird's blood's cleansing power. Firstly it should be understood that animals were often sacrificed at the command of God during the dispensation of the Mosaic law for the covering of sin and cleansing of people. Now no Bible believer would ever argue that there is some special property to be found in an animals blood to be able to provide such blessings. Clearly these animals typified Christ and His sacrificial blood which was shed to both atone for sin and cleanse the sinner of the ultimate sickness, namely death. Isaiah summed this up well, ". . .he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5). God granted the miraculous power of the bird's blood to cleanse the people because of their obedience toward Him. It was God who wrought the healing and not the properties of the bird's blood. Regardless, failure to understand a command of God in no way negates His existence.


Concerning Deuteronomy 21: 1-9 , Pro erroneously claims that, "
Indeed so this is how according to the laws of the bible that how to investigate a murder should that place." Unfortunately Pro's failure in reading comprehension led him to such a misconstruction of scripture. Firstly, nothing in the passage says that an investigation was not to be conducted, rather it says that if no perpetrator is conclusively found to be the culprit of said murder, than the priests were to follow God's prescribed method of handling such a situation. This was God's way for Israel to settle any dispute on a mysterious crime of murder where no perpetrator can be rightfully blamed. They understood very well that vengeance is the Lord's and all justice lies with God alone: "To me belongeth vengeance and recompence. . ." (Deuteronomy 32:35). God will judge the murderer for His crime.


I am running out of space so I will continue my rebuttal of Pro's "arguments" in the following round. Thus far I have argued from science and scripture that the God of the Bible should (a subjective term though it may be) be believed in rather than not. My opponent has utterly failed to support his case in any rational sense. His quibbles about certain passages which he fails to comprehend due to his egregious ignorance of scripture cannot possibly constitute any substantive argument against the God of the Bible or the veracity of His word for that matter.

On to Pro. . .



References

[1] - http://creation.com...
[2] - King James Bible
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Seasoned beatings. Oh sorry. Greetings. Will you never forgoveth me? Obliviously my opponent completely ignored the first few verses stated in the bible. So round one immediately went to me because of god"s clear imperfections.

Moroving on, its fun to insult if the person shows no intelligence and has no grey matter to spew from his cabbage batbrain. It lightens the mood also and makes for a more interesting read also rather that the drab and droll drip dry drool that my opponent has presented this gathering of onlookers with.
Ignorance of scripture? Oh my son of weighty wheat fields to be mined, I"ve been doing this for, 40 years, studied the bible for 40 years, its translations and language, have talked with at least 25,000 people. So what exactly is my humble big black blank hole in the universe with a bullet at number 0 on the charts, oh where do you rank?
Here"s the thing" there"s no thinking, reasoning, rationalizing, common sense, nor logic within god, the bible nor religion because none of it is required. So it is your ignorance of scripture (which will later be proven that he is completely stagnant and ignorant), text, the worst form of communication in which absolutely no supreme deity would ---EVER--- communicate in.

Oh and btw, your table, in which is completely worthless and shows nothing shall be ignored. Its all for show. Big deal.

My eager youngun states that this debate "concerns", um no this debate is an entanglement, a Scrooge, a hilarity into why no one should believe in god. Jeez my one arm bandido I guess is required to have everything spilled out for his eyes glued shut that a soiled preschooler could figure out. The why no one should believe is as plain and rhubarb peanut butter dunked in beer" the bible and god are supposed to be perfect. They are not. Period. No one should give over their hearts, their souls, to the silliness of the bible (as proved in argument #1 and more will be proved in argument #2) and the egotistical childish baby god in which both are imperfect. If I who is obliviously a lot snorter than my opponent, am going to bow down to anything, no matter what it is, it better damn-well-be-perfect.

So my opponents pasties is not about the "why" because there is no why as the bible does not demonstrate a why, in fact all it does is demonstrate a "why not".

"biblical God of creation." Exactly what is that?

Your argument from genetic information has 0 to do with this debate so it shall be ignored completely. I didn"t mention anything about DNA, living cells, digital codes or whatevers. I stuck to the bible specifically.

Now if you want to get into it, evolution is proven fact. It can be proven in a few short sentences, websites, TV shows in which you cannot refute and no one can. Perhaps if there is room in this debate we will get to it, but not now.

We might get to your "Biology" if there"s room. But you are 100% wrong and PBS"s Nova knows one helluva lot better than you. In other words, you can"t just say something, expect others to believe it without a shred of proof as you have thus far done.
You don"t even have proof for your god and the burden of proof is always upon you, not on a nook and cranny from a big blank blak book that with your religion is fading and failing each day by day and rightly so because of the evil and hate and utter silliness that your god represents.

If you really want to get into the hate of god, that a losing cause, well but then again you believe in all that hatred don"t you sparky, all those genocides, all that hatred especially geared towards children, all that anger, that wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil all in which your god has claimed he has had. And the blinker that flashes ever so wonderfully on any bacon splatter, jealousy. Ah yes, jealousy from a supreme deity. Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. And even worse is this maggoty god of yours neatly passed down those emotions down to man so in turn man could learn to hate with at least 1 billion bodies neatly stacked high on top of each other ever since your man made god"s inception. Now that"s silly.

Now we get to the silliness of god in which in now way would he ever invent these stupid little rules, put them into effect, and expect others to follow them:
No they make no sense to my opponent all he is doing is inventing excuses. OK so a bird has a "cleansing power". My opponent is now required to prove this from his bible chapters and verses only please in which my opponent 100% perfectly knows he cannot do. (Isaiah 53:5). Um duh um doy um huh? what? ummm huh? Nope. Try harder. It doesn"t even come close. I mean do you invent excuses like this all the time in order to gain your childish egotistical attention that like your god, you need and require? Oh but wait, you have no proof that your god exists. So what"s your excuse? "God granted the miraculous power of the bird's blood to cleanse the people"" Really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? What grade of snot meat sow graduation party have you graduated from in order to prove this? Um no child born from a volcano, YOU don"t understand.

Its so easy to see why you have failed in so many of your debates. Its because you bring in arguments that have 0 to do with the debates AND you invent excuses that fly in from nowhere. Do you even read you sub-atomic warped bible?

Tell yah what with the Deuteronomy 21 1 - 9, rather than you improvising and you not know AT ALL what you are squawking about, why don"t you go online to this youtube site which is a lot of fun and points out to the entire silliness of the thing and they know one helluva lot better than you, obviously" Oh and btw, this guy has done a few videos to point out the absolute silliness of your god and his stupid little laws, rules and regulations that NOBODY including you can follow.
https://www.youtube.com...

More silliness to prove how silly it is to believe in god according to god"
https://infidels.org...
GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

GE 3:14-16 God curses the serpent, Eve, and Adam for what they have done. (Note: This is inconsistent with God's omniscience; God should have known full well, ahead of time, what the outcome would be. Since God created the three as well as the Tree of Knowledge, he is ultimately responsible for the Fall.) DAMN FRICKEN RIGHT!!!

GE 7:19-20 The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains.(Note: This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this water gone?)

LE 11:20-21 There are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go around on all fours. (Note: There are no birds that go around on four legs, and all insects have six or eight legs.)

2CH 13:17 500,000 Israelites are slain in a single battle. (Note: This is more than were lost in any single battle of World War II, and even exceeds the number of deaths that resulted from the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.)

Matt Dillahunty "Why is it that the Gideons are putting bible"s around in every hotel rooms when modern people cannot possibly reach the proper conclusions and cannot understand it? Why is it that you have to become an expert in dead languages and archeology in order to have any rational foundation to believe this? Because it doesn"t make sense with the model. Let"s imagine for a moment that I"m god and that I made the colossal list of errors that lead me to the point where I decided that the best solution to have a portion of me come down and take human form and be tortured and and be killed to serve as a substitute for other animal slaughter to make up for sins and then I spend a portion of a weekend dead and then I get to come back with me and be with me forever. Let"s set aside that makes any sense. If it did in fact happen and if it were IMPORTANT and it were the most IMPORTANT thing people could possibly question, if it were the most important thing people could EVER understand properly, WHY would I EVER allow all the originals to go away, no eyewitnesses, no authorship, no way to verify this information, no bible 2.0, no bible 3.0, and why doesn"t god show up and say "hang on a minute this is important, here"s what actually happened." None of that makes any sense. And whether or not there was a real person behind this one has to wonder if this makes any sense at all. Only an idiot, an idiot, would proceed with the most important question and not give sufficient evidence for it. And allow this issue to be debated for millennia and allow it to divide families and homes. This is a question of truth. In much the same way people are dismissive about conversation this past week "oh its just politics" no its not politics, it values, its about what kind of world you want to live in. Dismissing it as politics "well it doesn"t really matter what we know what jesus said." YES IT DOES!!! And the modern churches belf on what Paul said anyway.

Rules for round 2:
* DO NOT ATTEMPT IN ANY WAY TO INVENT EXCUSES. That"s a deal breaker. If you are going to state something, then you need to prove it chapters and verses only please.
* Do not automatically assume that I believe in your god and that he exists.
* The burden of proof to prove your god is always upon you. No exceptions. None.

I am proving how silly and stupid it is to believe in god. You help me do it!
creationtruth

Con

Response to Pro's (Round 1) Claims Continued

Concerning Matthew 19:12 Pro writes, ". . .well that"s physically impossible and could -never- happen. Duh. Regardless, its a pretty sick verse." I assume my opponent is referring to the eunuchs "which were so born from their mother's womb" as being "physically impossible." The word being used here does not necessarily mean one who is born castrated although that is a possibility. Eunuch: "a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man" [1]. A physical deformity or other cause of impotence from birth can constitute a"so born" eunuch. In regards to Pro's contention that it's a "pretty sick verse," I would again point out that a eunuch can simply be a celibate, unmarried man, not necessarily someone who has mutalated himself. The context of the passage is marriage, though I doubt my learned opponent took that into account before responding to it with such malcontent and ignorance.


Pro argues that Judges 1:19 shows that, "god must be that weak. . .Clearly a misprint in the bible, or god is man made." The verse is no misprint; unfortunately my opponent demonstrates his exegetical failures once again by taking a passage out of context. When it says that God "could not" drive out the people, it is not to be taken as God was impotent in His ability to do so, rather, God was unable through Israel to do so. While God has incredible power, power to create stars like VY Canis Majoris with His words alone, He was working through the children of Israel to provide them with the land promised to them via His covenant with Abraham. The people were not driven out precisely because of the rebellious attitude of the children of Israel. They chose to keep from driving out all the heathen peoples and thus God was unable to fulfill His end. Throughout Judges 1 we find that the children of Israel failed to keep God's command to drive out all the inhabitants and thus in Judges 2:1-3 we read, "And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: whereby have ye done this?
Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you." He could not drive out the people because of Israel's failure to keep His command and for no other reason.


Pro speciously asks, "Why would god have only sent one jesus?" The simple biblical answer is: only one Jesus was necessary because of who He is and the work He accomplished on the cross. I am not quite sure what Pro is getting at by asking this question or how it pertains to the subject at hand. Pro claims that, "Clearly more than one jesus was needed, required and was necessary to have carried out god"s word to have provided peace, love, care and kindness." According to scripture, my opponent's statement is unequivocally false: ". . .we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:10-14).


Pro erroneously claims, concerning God and Christ's death on the cross, "HERE"S THE KICKER, HE COULD HAVE DONE IT HIMSELF!" Once again my opponent demonstrates that his knowledge of scripture is bereft of any real substance. Multiple passages inform us that this Christ who dies on the cross for the sins of the world is in fact the Creator Himself. Perhaps the ultimate revelation of Jesus Christ is that He is God in the flesh. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16).


Pro argues, "And your precious jesus, in which there is absolutely no proof for him having ever existed in the first place as well as god, is why there is so much hatred in this world." First of all, how does a non-existent person cause anything? Second, I have already provided evidence for God, His word, and by extension Jesus Christ. As for as historical evidence for Christ's existence, it might behoove my opponent to do even a cursory search online for such evidence as it is abundant. Found this in less than a minute (which I have never read before): http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...


Pro concludes by saying, "The bible is littered with rules and regulations that no god/ supreme deity would -ever- put into play and much less expect people to believe, much less live by them. Yet the bible is supposed to be perfect in every way. So is god. Clearly both are not. Since this is true, god, the bible and christianity should not in any way be worshiped, idolized, bowed down to nor yielded to." How would Pro know what a god or supreme deity would do? His argument is untenable and arbitrary. Since Pro thinks certain of God's commands in scripture are "silly" he therefore claims that the Bible is not perfect. By what standard and definition of perfection is he arguing from I wonder? Surely not a subjective one which he himself has made up? Hmm. In any case, Pro in Round 1 has failed to, in any sense of the word, support his case.



Response to Pro's Round 2 Claims

Pro curiously claims, ". . .my opponent completely ignored the first few verses stated in the bible. So round one immediately went to me because of god"s clear imperfections." Unfortunately my opponent failed to demonstrate any objective standard of perfection, much less was he able to show in any way that God and His word are imperfect and therefore untrustworthy.


In an attempt to bolster his prowess in biblical exegesis, Pro argues, "Ignorance of scripture? Oh my son of weighty wheat fields to be mined, I"ve been doing this for, 40 years, studied the bible for 40 years, its translations and language, have talked with at least 25,000 people." Amazingly Pro fails to realize that there are plenty of logical people who may read this debate and find his statement lacking in any swaying power as any person can study something for many years and yet be profoundly ignorant of that which he has studied, as has been demonstrated thus far in this debate. Appeals to authority don't go over very well with prospective readers, especially when that appeal is to one's self.


Pro astoundingly asks, "'biblical God of creation.' Exactly what is that?" I would have thought Pro would understand what I meant as this God is the very thing He is arguing against. How is it that one is able to rationally argue against something he does not comprehend?


Pro claims, "Your argument from genetic information has 0 to do with this debate so it shall be ignored completely. I didn"t mention anything about DNA, living cells, digital codes or whatevers. I stuck to the bible specifically." Well the relevance of my argument is to be determined by the reader. Pro failed to specify that this debate should only be argued from scripture alone, rather he attempted to make a case that God should not be believed on the basis of perceived silliness in the Bible. I chose to make a counter argument from scientific evidence which I believe is a stronger case than the one made by my opponent. Just as imagine a person would argue against me if I had chosen to argue from scripture alone for the existence of God; certainly they would be inclined to make a counter argument from scientific evidence.


Pro blunderously says, ". . .evolution is proven fact. It can be proven in a few short sentences, websites, TV shows in which you cannot refute and no one can." If such were the case, evolution would be an unscientific theory as no one would be able to refute it. A foundational tenant of the scientific method is the falsifiability of hypotheses and theories.


Pro argues, ". . .you are 100% wrong and PBS"s Nova knows one helluva lot better than you. In other words, you can"t just say something, expect others to believe it without a shred of proof as you have thus far done." Pro's seeming appeal to authority fails to constitute a substantive counter argument against my claim. Unfortunately my opponent is incorrect in his insinuation that my argument is invalid if extensive support is not provided. Any claim left uncontested stands as a viable argument. If I said God exists because of genetics and provided no explanation or support, and my opponent failed to contest it, my argument would yet stand, however the reader would likely determine it a very weak argument. However for the sake of the reader, here is a simple defense of my argument: natural selection, a primary mechanism for evolution, works against the claims of evolutionary theory as selection only works to eliminate genetic information, not add to it. "But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created" [1]. Thus organisms are bereft of any evolutionary mechanism to allow the surpassing of the phenotypic bounds set by their genomes.


Once again I am running out of space. Thus far Pro's vitriol rhetoric has failed to support his case. My arguments stand uncontested. I will continue responding to Pro's claims in the following round.



References

[1] - http://creation.com...
[2] - King James Bible
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

OK if you are going to continue to be a total frickin fallacies moron without the ability to debate as thus far as I have discovered here as is true with all christians because they somehow have their head in the sand with goose eggs turned to stone from their bottoms up, then I am just not even going to bother with you. Remember my first few sentences before you rambunctiously emprawled yourself into this debate? Recall it if you would be so kind. And if I find that you do not use intelligence and make things up to make your measly ratteth a$$eth look high in the sky like a virgin trophy, I will most certainly end our excursions. I have better things to do than to debate with someone who has to flatly lie and invent excuses in order to maintain his little charade to keep his barn door open.

Thankfully I do not even need to go beyond that because how how ignorant you are with the first verse"
Matthew 19:12 IS physically impossible. You didn"t even look it up you dimwitted dullard snot meat sow. Now how can a castrated person, that being of a eunuch/ a male be born from their mother"s womb? No need to even bother with even trying to actually get into trying to make an attempt into what on earth how you are trying to defend yourself in for which there is absolutely no defense because that verse is so sick and disgusting. You lose. NEXT:

OK then Judges 1:19 is not a misprint. So god does not have power over chariots of Iron. That means that god is not a god and there are somethings in his bible that he is powerless against. That also proves that this god, who is obviously man made, because of this verse and many other verses, it proves this god to be imperfect. Oh I didn't even bother to read what you scrolled down because after your first sentence on this verse, you neatly proved yourself wrong. NEXT

Now I"ve really got to read your stupidity here" Why would god only send one jesus? if you answer stupidly and ignorantly I will absolutely end this debate and I will have obviously won this debate because I do not debate with losers who clearly do not know what they are squawking about. Oh and btw, who cares what the bible says? Its an obvious incorrect text. All---of---it. Why? Because no supreme deity such as your obvious man made god would ever rely on text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication.
Now who cares what the bible says in regards to whether or not your god sent only one christ" it does not match any reasoning, thinking, rationalizing, common sense, nor logical human being. That"s because your god, religion, nor bible requires a single ounce of it.
Naturally when I posted the reasoning for why it was absolutely required that this obvious man made god should have spitted out more than one jesus, rather than having the world suffer in turmoil because of it, he totally ignored logical thinking, reasoning, rationalizing, and common sense in which he has none.

"Pro erroneously claims, concerning God and Christ's death on the cross, "HERE"S THE KICKER, HE COULD HAVE DONE IT HIMSELF!"" Wow well god could have done it himself. OK then according to my opponent then god is not god. Simple. God lacks the power to do things himself such as come on down and save--the--world! No he requires henchmen to do it for him. Or is that the truth of it? Nope. Because in the OT how many times, let me repeat that, how many times did god come on down and do things himself such as massive genocides as an example you total fricken prick who knows absolutely nothing about his god nor bible? So he just contradicted himself in a major way.
Now do you want me to list the massive genocides and murders that your obvious man made god committed in your horrific bible committed HIMSELF? Oh but wait, my opponent cannot even prove his god exists.
Once again my idiot opponent who knows nothing about his god bible and religion only show up with lack-there-of-silliness to prove himself to be high strung on cheesewhiz origamis bathroom figurines.

Now lets have some fun "Multiple passages inform us that this Christ who dies on the cross for the sins of the world"" Really? According to what imbecile? Him? How would he know? What grade of concrete leather priests bunched up in tourister luggage electoral college has he graduated from in order to make this assumption? Here"s what his bible stated about sin: Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

""First of all, how does a non-existent person cause anything?" Well That has got to be one of the dumbest questions of all time. You probably don"t even know that the earth orbits the sun. How many characters in The Big Red Book and in the Big Blue Book cause one heckuva lot? It starts your entire raising of the ability to read. How many Shakespearean characters causes something? Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet etc etc etc. See, you do not have the ability whatsoever to rationalize, think, reason, use common sense nor use logic. Hey you"ve got everything for you in your little black book. Right? And YOU CANNOT venture outside of it.

Absolutely not have you provided evidence for god. Nobody, not one person has. Not ever. If so it would be the biggest wind bag thing in history. Your god would be plastered all over the news, all over every single TV station, on every single itty bitty bit of information bit that the internet provides, in other words - every single media outlet ever dreampt. So why hasn"t this happened? Its not happened because your god does not exist. There"s not been one whiff of him. Not one sighting. Not one wind blowing in the wind. Not one little squashed eggshell of proof of him since his man made invention. And why should there be? Especially since he truly hates children? He hates gays, women, causes known genocides for absolutely no reason at all, hates raped women etc etc. Hey well wow that's virtually half the planet.

All you have is something as ridiculous as faith. And faith is ---never--- proof of anything. All you have is your little blank black book filled with books, chapters and verses. Now you go right ahead and you prove god physicality out of those books, chapters and verses. Oh whatsamatter sparky, you can't do it? Why not? Its because your god does not exist.

Wow you must think you are smarter than creationists. Sure you do. So you unlike they, you would put god on trial again. Is that your story? They won't. Do you know why they won't? Its because they have no proof for god's existence and they know it. All they have is faith based oriented. And faith is never proof. There's nothing tangible about your god. Nothing distinguishable about your god from air. So you go right ahead and you put your god on trial again and then you see how far it gets you since you think you have proof for your god's existence.

Since you had to flatly lie and thus invent excuses in order to clearly gain attention, and since I am clearly several hundred pay grades above you, I'm not going to bother with you nor with this debate anymore. I simply do not have the time nor the effort to deal with someone who clearly does not know his bible but has to invent excuses and lie in order to maintain his stature as a structure above anyone who he believes is easy bait. Well he got caught with a stinger in a gelatin mold of spears and is really not intelligent at all, nor is he edumacated. My time with my opponent is done. Thanx.

Matt Dillahunty "Why is it that the Gideons are putting bible"s around in every hotel rooms when modern people cannot possibly reach the proper conclusions and cannot understand it? Why is it that you have to become an expert in dead languages and archeology in order to have any rational foundation to believe this? Because it doesn"t make sense with the model. Let"s imagine for a moment that I"m god and that I made the colossal list of errors that lead me to the point where I decided that the best solution to have a portion of me come down and take human form and be tortured and and be killed to serve as a substitute for other animal slaughter to make up for sins and then I spend a portion of a weekend dead and then I get to come back with me and be with me forever. Let"s set aside that makes any sense. If it did in fact happen and if it were IMPORTANT and it were the most IMPORTANT thing people could possibly question, if it were the most important thing people could EVER understand properly, WHY would I EVER allow all the originals to go away, no eyewitnesses, no authorship, no way to verify this information, no bible 2.0, no bible 3.0, and why doesn"t god show up and say "hang on a minute this is important, here"s what actually happened." None of that makes any sense. And whether or not there was a real person behind this one has to wonder if this makes any sense at all. Only an idiot, an idiot, would proceed with the most important question and not give sufficient evidence for it. And allow this issue to be debated for millennia and allow it to divide families and homes. This is a question of truth. In much the same way people are dismissive about conversation this past week "oh its just politics" no its not politics, it values, its about what kind of world you want to live in. Dismissing it as politics "well it doesn"t really matter what we know what jesus said." YES IT DOES!!! And the modern churches belf on what Paul said anyway.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Debating_Horse 8 months ago
Debating_Horse
good job backwardseden! :D
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
kenballer --- sorry that I did not realize you had posted here earlier. I do not know why I am not getting comments via my email anymore. So I didn't know you had posted.
So in answer to your question is absolutely not. And the reasoning, common sense, rationalizing, and logical, thinking behind that is, in which case there is none behind religion, god and the bible, is there's far too much hatred within god, religion and the bible. I am also in no way completely self centered nor egotistical as the god of the bible and so does your comment insist. Its not my salvation that matters, its the salvation of children and those that are completely innocent and have done nothing wrong. I mean come on here, your god truly hates children. I cannot respect that. So the answer to your question is no. So why would anyone ---want--- to pursue a "relationship" with a god of pure hate in order to obtain salvation? Especially when there are hundreds of thousands of better ways to achieve it?
Posted by shannon83 1 year ago
shannon83
@kenballer - that is an interesting question. If science did show that i would be interested and want to learn more. Though pursuing something that supposedly cleaned the earth with a flood and then had mass genocide committed in its name because the people would not worship it seems far fetched. If it could be proven to be real and the Bible be proven as it is to be false then i would be interested in pursuing it. I wonder what backwardseden says.
Posted by shannon83 1 year ago
shannon83
@kenballer - that is an interesting question. If science did show that i would be interested and want to learn more. Though pursuing something that supposedly cleaned the earth with a flood and then had mass genocide committed in its name because the people would not worship it seems far fetched. If it could be proven to be real and the Bible be proven as it is to be false then i would be interested in pursuing it. I wonder what backwardseden says.
Posted by shannon83 1 year ago
shannon83
@kenballer - that is an interesting question. If science did show that i would be interested and want to learn more. Though pursuing something that supposedly cleaned the earth with a flood and then had mass genocide committed in its name because the people would not worship it seems far fetched. If it could be proven to be real and the Bible be proven as it is to be false then i would be interested in pursuing it. I wonder what backwardseden says.
Posted by kenballer 1 year ago
kenballer
"backwardseden"

If the scientific evidence showed that the Judeo-Christian God existed, would you pursue a relationship with him to obtain salvation?
Posted by kenballer 1 year ago
kenballer
"backwardseden"

If the scientific evidence showed that the Judeo-Christian God existed, would you pursue a relationship with him to obtain salvation?
This debate has 4 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.