The Instigator
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Zarium
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

"This" clause is perfect and revelationary.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 519 times Debate No: 88611
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

GoOrDin

Pro

I use this a lot in my spare time, I say it with mur, joy, delight, jubalie.

This clause is perfect - The behaviour is called for - and you cannot find one flaw with it:

"So many people Blackmail God,
"God, if you don't speak to me: I am going to be a womanizer(F/ enable womanizers)." +
"God, if you don't speak to me: I am going to idolize womanizers(f/sluhts)" +
"God, if you don't give me a sign: I am going to promote agents that support or cause negativity actively, subliminally and passively."

here is the kicker: God doesn't listen to people who don't hate what he hates & love what he loves. He hates people that think they're so damned smart that they can argue with logical wisdom and practical advice becasue they don't trust the source. Don't worry about the source*. Listen to the wisdom. God's judging you on your arrogance, not your ignorance.

Can you imagine how stupid that sounds, "God, if you don't make me your prophet, I am going to be a blasphemer." Especially when you are not ignorant to the negative effects of your assertions.

You are not fawcking ignorant of the fact that after thousands of years of history and billions of people on the planet right now, You are not a prophet material if YOU ARE BLACKMAILING GOD. Fawking TURDS.

I repeat, "You are not fawcking ignorant of the fact that after thousands of years of history and billions of people on the planet right now, You are not a prophet material if YOU ARE BLACKMAILING GOD. Fawking TURDS," ."

handle it.
and don't bother accepting the debate.
Zarium

Con

You said not to bother accepting this debate - But I am my own human with my own thoughts. I do as I wish.

You stated that we cannot find one flaw. Within 20 minutes I had found it.


From our definition of Blackmail, which you have meticulously calculated and used (As you assert you have made a perfect clause) - There should be no room for negotiation on what you wrote, right?

Please send me one documented case of a 'Prophet' who has received money from God, as the term 'Blackmail' indicates using terror or intimidation tactics to extort wealth from another - What wealth are they receiving?

I believe God is taking the best tactic for any potential scam attempt, as you so eloquently put it " God doesn't listen to people who don't hate what he hates & love what he loves" - He ignores them.

I suggest you take the same tactic.

I have other points I wish to discuss with you, but I will pass the baton back, to see where you take us :)
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Pro

Alrighty.

My opponent perhaps insinuated in the comments that he wanted to attack me based on the principal of my "miss-use" or poor execution of the term "blackmail"

but I think he was actually in full honesty hoping to attack this portion of the debate,

"here is the kicker: God doesn't listen to people who don't hate what he hates & love what he loves. He hates people that think they're so damned smart that they can argue with logical wisdom and practical advice because they don't trust the source. Don't worry about the source*. Listen to the wisdom. God's judging you on your arrogance, not your ignorance."

which factually is not a portion of the Clause. However, should we assume that this was not clear to my opponent let us instead evaluate it, shall we:

1.) In all religions of every ethnic group, No God, is ever described to be an entity that will ever reach out to his adversary and offer him any enlightenment, but would instead announce him Condemned by one whom upholds and exalts righteous behaviour, or by the overbearing calamity of his actions, which God does not sympathize with him for.
There is no exempt example of God's behaviour in any known scriptures.
~
And we know, that if God was read, he would have scriptures.
Therefor we could know, that this is a trait of God.

2.) Every scripture teaches that God - and he must have scriptures to be God - Hate numerous amounts of things, and everyone who participates in them, even if only as temporarily as their continued attempt to vindicate those actions. He offers them no salvation, or herald, or guidance. He says, that it is not that he does not listen, but that their mouths are dumb with the attempts of their rejection of his Ways.

3.) God says that, wisdom is clear, and that folly is equally as evident, in his religions, and says this is justification for condemnation, and that this is the reason he is not obligated to speak to them. For If God said to a woman, "do not enable a womanizer." should she ask why, God would simply say, "he is a womanizer, and it promotes the status quo of inequality and disrespect for women everywhere." But this is not enlightening, this is the very first clause he stated, she would say, "but why?" or "how?" or "why is that bad?" and God would not be appreciable enough of her insolence to respond. So he is silent in the first.

<>
4.) You have no right ever, to even for an instance, deny one iota of wisdom in any presented idea or clause, Nor do you have any right whatsoever to accept one iota of folly as wisdom in any situation - to do so is not ignorance but is insolence, arrogance or impudence - meaning you are knowingly guilty - Because, it is obvious to everyone, and affluenza does not excuse your disregard for the negativity of something whether you care or not.

You cannot under any circumstance suggest that you have enough wisdom at all to test God, doubt his ways or guidance, ask him to change, doubt his wisdom, be skeptical of his intentions, or expect him to produce knew information contrary to the Very presentable and available truths he has already provided - as perpetual elements of reality.
~ To do so, would suggest "that not even thousands of years of social sciences, indicating that 'his word' is entirely based on human enlightenment and hard learned lessons" is a less superior knowledge to your own personal undeveloped Opinions. That would be lunacy.

Blackmailing God is a clear indicator you are not Prophet material, and no such person can expect his response, Nor can they expect any form of exaltation, Nor hope to find enlightenment through that course of evaluating his Person, actions, wisdom, or this world as a whole.

so where was the flaw you aimed at tackling, so that we can really, distinguish your side of this debate as false. Even if you choose to forfeit, please explain what you had intended to provide, and indicate whether or not you still stand behind your accusations.
Zarium

Con

Okay, This will take a bit to diseminate.

Firstly, No - please do not place words in my mouth and then try and direct the debate in your sway, to areas you are familiar with.

You arrogantly stated that there was a clause which was perfect, with the word perfect meaning no better way to do so.
I found a fault with the Claus, thus proving it is imperfect.
Please acknowledge this.


The rest of your debate is a carefully constructed Strawman fallacy, which attempted to misdirect the flow of the debate, to allow you to monologue about the rightousness of yoru cause. I never aimed comments on the areas that you went too, however I am happy to respond to them.
Please disregard the whole segment of my oponent your considerations.
http://www.nizkor.org...


Now, to answer the points raised in your previous round.

You state that scripture and prophets are under debate in the topic, and how false prophets are simply gaining from their false claims.

I respond by requesting proof that these scriptures you claim yourself by, were in fact written by God.

I have a feeling that the more accurate response to my question is no, all scriptures have been written by Man, weather a scribe writing the words of another, or a prophet writing their 'divine providence'.

How can you assert that these writing are anything more than writings made by man?
Until the moment someone said it was written by God, or inspired by God - There is literally 0 proof that it actually is so - Them saying so, somehow has become proof.

I now assert that your claim at false prophets is inherently assuming that your "Correct" prophets are in fact, Correct.

You cannot prove this, apart from saying that hundreds of thousands of people have accepted this over a long period of time.
Evidence of a Monkey experiment shows that given a societial structure - the warning or instructions of your fellow citizens can carry on, until the reason why the point is being carried in the first place is lost.

(The above example is using the context of a monkey group that had a Banana at the top of a ladder, each time a monkey attempted to get the banana, the whole room was sprayed in water. Monkeys started stopping other monkeys from attempting to get the Ladder - They started replacing the monkeys, until the point that no original monkeys that had actually been sprayed with water was in the area, yet all monkeys refused to climb the ladder to get the bananas. People will accept what others have accepted, simply because enough of them have accepted it.)

Sources for the monkey experiment :
http://www.wisdompills.com...
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Funny PDF of the experiment : http://www.mannkal.org...


I think we should adhere to each prophet accordingly, Do what they say actually contain a prudent message, is this something i wish to encorporate into my life?

If yes, then do so and carry on with your life - do not devote your life to their cause, unless the cause is one you wish to do so. Following blindly will do nothing but allow the wicked and spiteful to get their sneaky hands on your valuables, which is what they want. That isn't "God" - that is man.

Just as Man wrote those scriptures. Regardless of where they claim it came from - It was man that wrote it.
That puts every prophet on par to me, regardless of how nicely they claim their cause, or their reasons to do so.
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Pro

so you came here to put on a straw man suit and hit yourself for our entire audience to see.
cheers, my opponent forfeited and then gave away his tactic,
and followed with false allegations, by hitting yourself repeatedly all through your last round,

including lies in That round, "I respond by requesting proof that these scriptures you claim yourself by, were in fact written by God."

and on a side note, the Prophets do not suggest or draw people into their cause. Only away from a petty life.
ur rambling though, because we're not discussing that. In any way shape or form.

All content reverts back to my round one Introduction, and follows with my round 2, the only on-topic content in this debate. I win.

I'll start this again tomorrow.
Zarium

Con

Arrogance is the one word I believe comes to mind when thinking of my opponent in this debate.

Arrogant in assuming he has made the 'Perfect clause", (which he has still yet to acknowledge that he is incorrect with, but lets gloss over that, shall we?).

He has then gone on a tangent with regards to where the debate was headed from my end - It is okay to divert the tangent, but not to do so by saying "I believe my opponent MENT to speak about this" and then, as you so adequately termed it in the comments "Throw me under the bus".

I responded by showing where your strawman fallacy occurred, and instead of addressing the issue, you carry on trying to insinuate that I am the one in the wrong?
Classic Trump tactic right there (ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT!)- I applaud your gumption to committing to the bit.
Most people are cowed when they are shown that their attempt at subterfuge was revealed, you took it in stride and tried to use that against me again!

1. For your claims of my false allegations to be acknowledged, you must reference them for it to be accepted. you cannot claim a blanket 'That whole round was false' - as during that round, I addressed your points and raised more from them - Thus they cannot be under the allegation of making your allegations false - I was answering them.
2. Explain why it is in fault. I provided mine, along with a link to explain why they were logical fallacies in my opinion.

As my opponent failed to utilise their final round regarding the points I raised in tangent to where they were going, they are accepted by omission.

With the above considered, I believe I have nothing new to raise.

Summary :
My opponent Claimed a perfect clause, I have proved this not to be the case, which has not been acknowledged by my opponent (Neither has it been refuted).
I proceeded to attempt to prove that his claims of prophets and 'false prophets' are purely subjective, and asked for evidence to show the rest of the population which are made 'reputable' - This again was not refuted or acknowledged.
I have shown that there is the possibility that NO prophet is reputable, and that they could ALL be using blackmail to get what they want, as none can accurately prove their words come from anywhere other than their own minds.
My opponent balked at this statement, and went into 100% defensive mode, attempting to discredit my stance to smokescreen their failure to address my points.

My opponent does not seem to recognize the Irony, balking at an impossible question, when that is exactly what I have done to initiate this argument with you.
I did that, not by creating smokescreen and mirrors (Your very definition of a false prophet), but logic, reasoning and deductive thinking - I found one irregularity, and delved into the possibilities it opened up.
My first step if i had been posed the question I posed to you, would be to find one reputable prophet, and explain why they are so reputable - from there the tangents into showing why you can be so sure is there, and you could have 'won' the debate.


Closing statement:
You have yet to show why anything you have said in this debate is valid, worth anything of note, or is credible in any way shape or form, and yet your last sentance before "I'll start this again tomorrow' is - "I win".

I think we should leave that to the Voters.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
I am not obligated to answer to "an example of God giving a prophet money.

your off the ball.

reassess the situation.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
True. But, if Jesus is thus, Just Wisdom and the elements which give it reality,
then Jesus was saying, You can always turn to wisdom.
IN any conflict. No matter how hard Goordin attacks you.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 11 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Remember not to act as a Pharisee yourself....

Also whether you believe in God or not, your still a sinner.... So am I, so is any random person you will see.

When Jesus said he was here for the sinners, he meant all of us, everyone. Even the worst of the worst. This is because all of our sins are equal.

But yeah, I do agree that God doesnt really have any need to prove himself to us.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 11 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Remember not to act as a Pharisee yourself....

Also whether you believe in God or not, your still a sinner.... So am I, so is any random person you will see.

When Jesus said he was here for the sinners, he meant all of us, everyone. Even the worst of the worst. This is because all of our sins are equal.

But yeah, I do agree that God doesnt really have any need to prove himself to us.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
Atheists aren't sick, they are arrogant. The sick are those afflicted by the bigotry of sinners who advocate sin to impressionable youth all and any sin - including the yeast of the Pharisees.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
"Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus once say that he was on earth to help sinners? Something about doctors being there for the sick, not the healthy?"

Not to speak to them. His word served to persuade nations of children from being raised sinners.
he alleviated a forthcoming ignorance, and provided knowledge and history for humanity to ensure we always had a means to acquire the truth.

* he saved the Jewish religion from being wiped-off the face of the earth, which would have resulted in a sooner secular apocalypse of tyrnical, raiding, bigots.

I can go on. He saved us from our own sins, passively without directly reaching out to us as individuals. He convinced no atheists of anything. He never tried. He said, "I am not here to talk to them. I am hear to talk to those who will listen, to save them from sin. - the kingdom of heaven is for those who are like children." - atheists advocate womanizing, and perversion and false hopes, false ego and bigotry.
Posted by TheDom275 11 months ago
TheDom275
"1.) In all religions of every ethnic group, No God, is ever described to be an entity that will ever reach out to his adversary and offer him any enlightenment, but would instead announce him Condemned by one whom upholds and exalts righteous behaviour, or by the overbearing calamity of his actions, which God does not sympathize with him for."

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus once say that he was on earth to help sinners? Something about doctors being there for the sick, not the healthy?
Posted by TheDom275 11 months ago
TheDom275
"1.) In all religions of every ethnic group, No God, is ever described to be an entity that will ever reach out to his adversary and offer him any enlightenment, but would instead announce him Condemned by one whom upholds and exalts righteous behaviour, or by the overbearing calamity of his actions, which God does not sympathize with him for."

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus once say that he was on earth to help sinners? Something about doctors being there for the sick, not the healthy?
Posted by chipmonk 11 months ago
chipmonk
@Dom. Just because it is thought of as impossible,,, doesnt stop the irrational from trying. That is Pros point. And u just convinced yourself of it. The irrationality can disqualify one from being prophet material.
Posted by GoOrDin 11 months ago
GoOrDin
"And we know, that if God was read, he would have scriptures.
Therefor we could know, that this is a trait of God." latest round. Spellign Error revision.

REAL, "if God was real"
No votes have been placed for this debate.