The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

What is the worst thing about the god according to the bible?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 105156
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)




What is the worst thing about the god according to the bible?
(not in order of importance)

* That this god character knowingly lies?
* That this god character is a contradictory hypocrite?
* That this god character hates children and kills them and knowingly causes their pain and suffering for no reason at all?
* That this god character knowingly has caused numerous massive genocides/ wars for no reason at all?
* That this god character hates women for no reason at all?
* That this god character hates gays for no reason at all?
* That this god character knowingly invents laws, rules and regulations that if not followed,in which many of them are impossible to follow, are punishable by death?
* That with this god's laws, rules and regulations... some of them were so stupid and ridiculous that no genuine god would have ever dreamt them up.
* That this god character invented evil and hate?
* That this god character does not allow free will of any kind unless it favors evil and hate?
* That this god character is knowingly jealous?
* That this god character has anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury issues?
* That this god character would be stupid enough to choose text as a form of communication?
* That this god character would choose faith as the number 1 thing preached in the bible?
* That this god character invented abortion?
* That this god character endorses slavery?
* That this god character is essentially not happy?
* That there are many things that this god character invented that didn’t happen such as the great flood and Noah’s ark? And that ALL SO-CALLED miracles for the past 200 years have been debunked?
* That this god character is a bigot?
* That this god character is a racist?
* That this god character is not perfect?
* That this god character could have, but never did, bring in an era of peace, kindness and love?
* That this god character is completely immoral and bankrupt and corrupt?
* That none of god’s/ the bible’s prophecies have come true? because...
* That there is no proof for this god character and it is always up to theists to prove that this god character exists. No exceptions. None.

Yes, I’m sure I missed a lot. But that’s OK as there's far too many faults within the unbelieved god according to the bible.

All of the above are proved in the bible except when common sense, thinking, rationalizing, reasoning and using logic requires the questioning of them not to be. Of course that is only true IF you can reason, think, rationalize, use common sense and use logic in which god, the bible and religion completely lacks.

Pick 4 from the above list and this debate will go forth. It will be up to you to prove that the 4 you pick from the list are false.

If you pretend you have some insight for the subjects in which this debate is based upon and you really don’t, and you thus invent excuses and or flat out lie in order for your diapers to be wrung dry of cottage cheese mold because nothing else will as so many christians do rather than saying the words “I don’t know”, I will turn on your upside down magnifying glass as the sun burns bright and I can thus properly insult you and deservedly so.

No creationist will be accepted. Why? Because there’s not one creationist that will dare put his god on trial again. After all, the creationist is not stupid. He 100% knows that he will flat out lose every---single---time---he---tries. Why? Because all he has to go on is faith. All the creationist has is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved.

dsjpk5 will not be permitted to vote in the voting process


Since you leave yourself open for you to prove definitively that what your contentions are, you cannot backtrack on any of your, "for no reason at all," or use opinion as a basis for proof unless that opinion is substantiated with reliable scholarly sources.

I'll use the following 4 definitive statements by you, per your rules, to let you prove what you say is true.

1) That this god character knowingly lies

2) hates gays for no reason at all

3) is completely immoral and bankrupt and corrupt

4) invented abortion

OK, let's see your proof from the bible backs up your contentions. For you to use your personal opinion to demand proof that God has done & continues to do what you say, must have some biblical sourcing. Let's see it please. I cannot see any of that in the bible whatsoever.

1) where is it shown God lies? W/o some proof from the bible, you have failed here.

2) God hates the sin not the sinner.

3) God gave His only Son as a sacrifice for our salvation, shows He's not COMPLETELY immoral & corrupt.

4) Very puzzling accusation out of no where. Failed to show any semblance of truth to argue.

Let's not forget that you have made some serious accusations that seem to be personal opinion that require proof on your part to substantiate biblically.
Debate Round No. 1


Can’t read can yah? Nope. Such is the typical inkblot christian. The RULES are very explicit in their terms. “It will be up to you to prove that the 4 you pick from the list are false.” You did not do as such, which means that you do not know your god, bible and religion all that well at all. Its not that surprising. Period.
Here’s a couple of flat out lies and or supermassive hypocritical contradictions…
Ezekiel 20:25-26 “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.”

Ezekiel 14:9 “And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.”

1 Kings 22:23 “Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.”

All of those,if not flat out lying, then what are they, especially the third one in which point blank it is? Here’s some more and they are taken from The Secular Web…

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.
NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.

GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God.
JG 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.

GE 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
GA 6:15 It is of no consequence.

All of those are LIES from your contradictory hypocritical god in which you cannot refute nor dance circles around as you a truly pathetic christian would naturally try to do. Oh there’s plenty more.

2. Has nothing whatsoever to do with your pickpocket ideal. Afterall, if YOUR god hates sin, in which does not exist according to your bible because its a supermassive hypocritical contradiction, so it cancels itself out, then YOUR god would simply hate everybody. And EVERYBODY would be forever doomed to an exquisite hell. So you are still required to prove why your god hates gays. Read verses
Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
And Romans 1: 26-32. “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
There’s no “WHY”.

3. What a true idiotic answer. First of all completely false and wrong. Buddhists know and understand in the “end” of suffering. You idiot christians believe in the “beginning” of suffering. Gee I just cannot possibly imagine which one I will choose? Wow. Oh and btw to state that your christ would honestly do something as vile as…
Matthew 10: 35-37 “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Luke 12 51-53 “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Luke 14:26 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
Are all truly sick, disgusting, perverse, untruths, frail, fragile, livid, shadowless, blank, and is useless to anyone who is sane and is intelligent and has an education.
Now you fully support this supposed “jesus”. And don’t you dare deny it you fricken scum of the toillet pocket universe, so why haven’t you followed those verses and given into your christ’s valued ORDERS? Whatsamatter? Oh I get it… when fully tested, you DO NOT in any way believe in YOUR holy savior. DUH. That’s because he’s NOT IN ANY WAY filled with any kind of TRUTH AND YOU FRICKEN KNOW IT.

Here's something for you... - Richard Carrier debunking christianity - Kris 12:30

“4) Very puzzling accusation out of nowhere. Failed to show any semblance of truth to argue.” That’s because you are not intelligent nor edumacated enough to know your god, religion and bible all that well. In fact, its so clear that you have not read it when you try to pretend that you have. But then again no “god” especially the supposed god according to the bible, in which you genius christians cannot even prove even exists, would NEVER use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody can get it wrong with translations upon translations translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies with absolutely no way possible to trace it back to the original. So 0% of those who are religious and believe in YOUR god interpret correctly.

Let’s not forget anything because you mistakenly believe that I cannot prove that what I state is not true and is thus false aka you MUST be a fundamentalist and cannot stomach any truths in YOUR bible to be pointed out to you and thus be false in which case everything listed in RD1 is truth and can very easily be pointed out as truth. And its not very hard to do as such. Darn it.


I can read the rules just fine. Your use if, "All of the above are proved in the bible except when common sense, thinking, rationalizing, reasoning and using logic requires the questioning of them not to be," leaves too much room for interpretation, which your apparent bias makes me wonder about your where you've come up with your accusations. Your continued use of attempts to insult me break ever debate protocol, unless that's your mode of intimidation. Well, won't work here. Maybe something in your childhood drives you to act tough behind your computer screen. Also, your claims that I know very little re the bible is just .... well, must be another attempt if intimidation. It seems as though you have never had any higher education re debate protocol if this is the manner in which you carry yourself.

That said, I'll start with your last response of 4) to me. I never addressed, "... would NEVER use text as a form of communication ..." Instead of you acting in such a childish manner, maybe you should have read what my 4) was regarding, because you surely missed on that one.

Let's go to the 1st point of God being liar. He eternal God is holy (Isaiah 6:3). His holiness makes it impossible for Him to lie, for by "holy" is meant that God is absolute, transcendent purity. He does not conform to the standard; He is the standard. As Tozer has said, "He is absolutely holy with an infinite, incomprehensible fullness of purity that is incapable of being other than it is" Since God is holy, all His other characteristics or attributes are also holy. Thus, when God speaks, He will not and cannot lie. He never deceives; neither does He distort or misrepresent what He says or does. Lying is against His nature.

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived."The exact sense of the original is, "If a prophet be persuaded and speak a word, I the LORD have persuaded that prophet." The thought is thus in close connection with what precedes; in Ezekiel 14:3-4; Ezekiel 14:7, the Lord has refused to allow an answer through the prophet to the hypocritical enquirer; but if the prophet, by giving the desired answer, allows himself to become a partaker of the sin which God abhors, then God will treat him according to that general method of dealing with sin which is here described. He "persuades" the prophet in the same sense in which He hardened Pharaoh"s heart, by making such persuasion the natural consequence of the immutable moral laws which He has ordained.

1 Kings 22:23. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put, Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put, &. " It is frequent in the Holy Scriptures to call that the Lord"s doing which he only permits to be done; because he has the supreme direction of all things, and governs the event. Wicked devices proceed from wicked men and wicked spirits: but, that they prevail and take effect, is owing to the hand of God directing and ordering when and where they shall light, and what shall be the issue of them. Hath put a lying spirit into the mouth, &c. " Hath permitted a lying spirit to influence these men. Hath spoken evil concerning thee "
Hath decreed that thou shall perish in this war. It may not be amiss to observe here, that "the evil being, named Satan, was little known to the Jewish people till their captivity; and then this history was taught openly as a security against the doctrine of the two principles. The Jewish lawgiver, where he so frequently enumerates and warns the Israelites of the snares and temptations which would draw them to transgress the law of God, never mentions this capital enemy of heaven. (Elliot's & Beeson's commentary).

GE 2:17 The phrase "you shall surely die" can be literally translated from the Hebrew biblical text as "dying you shall die." In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of "you shall surely die"). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. The scholarly reference work by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O"Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), gives many Biblical examples of this,1 and they say that "the precise nuance of intensification [of the verbal meaning] must be discovered from the broader context."2 Clearly in the context of Genesis 3, Adam and Eve died spiritually instantly "they were separated from God and hid themselves. Their relationship with God was broken. But in Romans 5:12 we see in context that Paul is clearly speaking of physical death (Jesus" physical death, verses 8"10, and other men"s physical death, in verse 14). We also find the same comparison of physical death and physical resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:20"22. So both spiritual death and physical death are the consequences of Adam"s fall.

So, from all this we conclude that the construction "dying you shall die" and obey me" in Genesis 2:17 do not require us to conclude that God was warning that "the very day you eat from the tree is the exact same day that you will die physically." The Hebrew wording of Genesis 2:17 allows for a time lapse between the instantaneous spiritual death on that sad day of disobedience and the later physical death (which certainly did happen, just as God said, but for Adam it was 930 years later). As Scripture consistently teaches, both kinds of death (spiritual and physical) are the consequence of Adam"s rebellion.

You look at only the words written and not the previous or post verses for a literal meaning only, which so your lack of biblical knowledge. I could give the same type of scholarly reference to all of your 2) answers, but they all would reveal your obvious lack of biblical study re them.

3) Ummmm, just because you say something & give no semblance of reliable source to back up what you say here, doesn't give it credence by any measure. Quite the opposite according to debating protocol. All you give is your personal opinion & never say if you have any credentials re training or expertise in biblical studies. BTW, an expert in debating protocol, Dr. Bo PhD, addresses your use of ad hominem attacks, such as, "What a true idiotic answer," with the following explanation. "What bothers me is that people refuse to engage in an intelligent discussion, they refuse my reasonably constructed arguments, and they try to dismiss them with ad hominem."
What follows is your opinion, not any sort of expert explanation why you call me names or your addressing my 3).

Once again, you show your lack of biblical understanding using the literal only sense of the verse. A little on your consistent error here. Throughout the NT Jesus/God pretty much uses parables to teach right? Even the Apostles didn't understand what he was trying to say when He taught that way. Go to Matthew 13:1-23 for the explanation so maybe you won't make the same mistake as you've been making for each & every one of your "points" here. This goes for the OT also since Jesus is God & the bible is inspired by Him, He wanted the same study of scripture rather than just the simple written word to be discussed to be understood, rather than just repeated as in rote.

Your use of Luke 12:51-53 (Oh BTW, true biblical referenced uses colons to separate the chapter from the verses. You seem not to do that even though expect me to believe you know the bible, when you do not even use elementary expression this way. Anyway, very common mistake from literal interpretations as you seem to be.
As a result of His visit to the earth, some children would be set against parents and a man"s enemies might be those within his own household. This is because many who choose to follow Christ are hated by their family members. This may be part of the cost of discipleship, for love of family should not be greater than love for the Lord. A true disciple must take up his cross and follow Jesus (Matthew 16:24). He must be willing to face not only family hatred, but also death, like a criminal carrying his cross to his own execution. True followers of Christ must be willing to give up, even to the point of "hating" all that is in our lives, even our own families, if we are to be worthy of Him (Matthew 10:37"39). In so doing, we find our lives in return for having given them up to Jesus Christ.
All of your examples are explained this way.

Then you tell me, "Now you fully support this supposed "Jesus". And don"t you dare deny it you...." (Here I have to ask you if you are this bold when you step from behind your computer screen? Surely you do not know me well enough to classify me as such. Is this how you think debating is supposed to go? Call people names, give absolutely no reason for what you say is true other than your own opinion, & even with that, you give absolutely no reliable backup sources for what you say is the "interpretation" of the bible?!? have to wonder if everything you have read in your lifetime, you have read it in a literal only manner? Have you ever had a higher education instructor give you an assignment to assess a literary work & you went only as far as the literal words re your conclusions as far as what the work is regarding? Because that's what you are doing here, & are besides your insults, with using a literal only interpretation of the bible.

So, maybe you can go back & address my TRUE 4), rather than whatever you had done, & show some debating protocol, rather than your seemingly 5th grade schoolyard bullying attempts to guide this debate in your manner of arguing, rather than true debate. Please try again, for I will not hold the past against you ..... another Jesus thing I suppose.
Debate Round No. 2


Um no you cannot read the rules just fine. There’s no room for interpretation because you do not have the ability to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, nor use logic.
Did you manage to see today’s/ yesterday’s Dr. Phil where the dad wanted to perform an exorcism on his son? What a truly wondrous religion your christianity is of evil forces in which YOUR god has freely admitted that he is EVIL. But nah you are totally incapable of taking YOUR god at his word, just like all christians are, just like you cannot take your god at his word when he tells you he lies to his prophets. But then again you cannot even prove your god even exists. Be that as it may since you think you know ---everything--- let’s have an atomic blast full of barrell full of monkeys fun.

Apparent bias? Wow. I was born jewish. Take one lucky guess at how I luckily became an atheist? Take one lucky guess at how you are brainwashed?

“makes me wonder about your where you've come up with your accusations.” They are NOT my accusations. They are common knowledge IF you would have bothered to have studied any atheist handbook or talked with anybody who is against your hateful religion, or anybody who has written book(s) on the subjects. Its not hard to prove either. And you’d know that if you were to know ANYTHING AT ALL about your god. Study up! Or you know what? Do some online studies. Its---not---that---hard! And what do you expect from a super violent sick book where its god hates children?

Richard Dawkins isn’t wrong… “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror.” who knows one helluva lot better than you who clearly has to improvise his bible and doesn’t know jack frost from reality in order to save face and wow is it so obvious. And I am going to call you on your obvious bluffs. OK ready? BOY?

You didn’t come up with #4 in RD1 so don’t try to pretend that you did. Problem solved. You broke the rules right there. The debate is rightly mine. But like I said I’m going to have fun. If you have problems with communicating with others, that’s not my problem, that’s yours entirely. Oh gee, your bible, your god in which no god especially your god would ever communicate in text form to begin with.

“Let's go to the 1st point of God being liar. He eternal God is holy (Isaiah 6:3).?” Yeah. So. That has NOTHING to do with lying. Try harder. “His holiness makes it impossible for Him to lie, for by "holy" is meant that God is absolute, transcendent purity.” It most certainly does not AND nobody on this planet of merit who knows anything at all about YOUR god will agree with you. Nice try. Now where did you dig up YOUR information from? Because its clearly YOURS and you fricken know it you arrogant prick. NEXT! I’m not even going to bother reading the rest of what you have to say about YOUR god and lying. Holy has NOTHING to do with lying. Sheesh. If you try to pull that kind of crap on me again it will be 3 strikes and you are out and this debate will be over and you will lose. Got it? That’s strike 1.

“because he has the supreme direction of all things, and governs the event.” Nice of me to read that! Because then that means that you nor anybody that believes in your holy travesty has any, 0, zip, nada free will. Would you care to reword, and or bite your tongue on that one? See, I have the intelligence and the education, and so do billions of others to not believe in YOUR god, therefore we most certainly do have free will. You don’t. You proved it. Don’t you dare even think, oh but wait, you can’t think, I forgot, snake your way around it.

Oh darn. I accidentally read another thingy you said (I mean by now you must certainly and fully understand that you are a laughing stock and there’s no way that I nor anybody can possibly take you seriously) shall and so shall everybody else who reads your bible take 1 Kings 22:23 at its word and not misinterpret it the way you blatantly do and thus invent excuses to save your sorry reareth endenth in which NOBODY will agree with you who has any merit.
AND you have the gall and the nerve to IN THE VERY SAME PARAGRAPH you simpleton dolt, to mention satan, like its his fault, oh but wait, in a previous paragraph you stated “because he has the supreme direction of all things, and governs the event” So here YOUR god is NOT IN CONTROL OF satan. Streeeeiiikkkeeeee twwwwwoooooo. My this is fun. You are your own worst enemy who is forced fed his own words of his own stupid little blank black book.

Moving on shall we?

Oh this is going to be even more fun. I just love how you truly invent excuses upon excuses.
Since you don’t know what is says nor how to interpret simpleton English language and other biblical scholars do…
genesis 17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Now did Adam take a bite from the tree of knowledge? Y____? N____? Well by golly gosh darned gee whiz bag, oh sorry, bang he most certainly did.
And yet…
genesis 5:5 “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.”
So YOUR god/ bible flat out lied and is a super major massive hypocritical con-tree-dick-ion.
Oh and btw, you can invent all the hysterical addons in which have nothing to do with each other because they are from completely different time periods and completely different authors, like thousands of years apart, or who knows, so they have NOTHING to do with each other, and you can bring in all the cheez-whiz creationists you want who every---single---creationist---worthless---and---null---and---void. All---of---them. No---exceptions. None. Why? Well at least they are not as stupid as you. They have the intelligence and the guts and the glory and the edumacation and the knowhow to NOT put your god on trial again. Why? Because they, all---of---them 100% know that they will all lose. Why? Because they all know that all they have to go on is their precious little faith. And they know that faith is NOT evidence of any kind. As they know that faith CAN NOT be proved. Evidence is YOUR god coming on down here, rather than playing his stupid little parlor games of hide-and-go-seek and actually talking to man and fixing things. STRIIIIKKKKEEEEEEEEE THHHHrRReeeeeeeeee. Boooommmm bbbannngggg done.

This debate is now over since you thought you had ALL OF THE ANSWERS, but in fact got you buhootey whipped. I may have been more lenient had you not been so cocky and sure of yourself and NOT invented so many excuses in which are excuses and you fricken know it.

And as suggested, rather than being completely bigoted, look up a lot of the stuff of What is the worst thing about the god according to the bible? As stated in RD1 rather than being completely blindsided in RD2 as you were by someone who obviously knows a lot more about your god, bible and religion than you ---ever--- will. Oh its there in YOUR bible.


In a debate, if an opponent questions what the other person states, they must give reliable evidence for their claim, or lose that part of the argument. Let's see, your opening line of round 3 states an opinion without any logical or reliable data, so therefore, either prove your statement, or acquiesce.

(From this point on, I have labeled your paragraphs at the beginning of each of my lines of response so as you are able to reference them easily).

2nd - Dr. Phil is not a biblical scholar or even attests to have a good understanding about the bible. Therefore, your 2nd paragraph is worthless. This does not reflect anything God instructs us to do. Your reasoning goes from Dr. Phil to proving God exists, to a ridiculous monkey comparison. All without any reliable sourcing.

Your 3rd paragraph has nothing to do with the debate.

4th - "Common knowledge" must be universally accepted by everyone to be thought of as such. You want to use a a small biased group ("atheists" to define what you want to use as "common knowledge." Not acceptable as common knowledge.

5th - R. Dawkins is not a biblical scholar, & quite biased against God. To be able to use a source in your argument, you must use a RELIABLE & PEER ACCEPTED source.
the rest of what you have stated here, is your own personal opinion without reliable backup of any kind, so naturally cannot be used to bolster your side of this argument.

6th - Please refer to round with my, "4) invented abortion." You never addressed that & now accuse me of never having a number 4. I'll let you answer that now. You say again again something about "text." What's up with that?

7th - You initially used thee bible as an integral aspect of your argument. That opened the door for me to use the bible as a reference for anything I wish .... as long as it's in the bible. Therefore I used something by Isaiah to prove God cannot lie.
Your, "... AND nobody on this planet of merit who knows anything at all about YOUR god will agree with you." Unless you can prove that, I'll say you have just lied.
BTW, you don't make up the rules of debate protocol. If you call this debate over, it'll be because you have acquiesced to me.

8th - I never brought up "free will." Your wrong interpretation of things, including this, takes you in directions that have nothing to do with this debate. This only shows your lack of biblical knowledge. If you contend you are still correct, please explain & use reliable scholarly sources to bolster your contention.

9th - Your, ,... in which NOBODY will agree with you who has any merit." You again use false generalizations, unless you can prove this, which you seem to be judge & jury of who "has any merit." Please explain & give credentials regarding your expertise here.
Then you once again attempt to use grade-school intimidation tactics. I must ask to what avail? Does this help you bolster your side? Quite the contrary. It shows you have lost any path with attempting to prove what you have originally stated, & not have resorted only to ad hominem attacks.
Also, Satan does have dominion over the earth. It states that many times in the bible. Please refer to, Ephesians 2:2, John 12:31, 2 Corinthians 4:4 to show this.
But to say God doesn't have control of Satan is a misnomer. This is seen in the beginning of Job where Satan asks God to take His protection from Job so Satan can test him. It also is shown when Jesus tells Satan to be gone when when Jeus was doing His 40 day fasting thing. Satan immediately left. & there's more.

11th - I answered this in round 2. If you want to refute biblical scholars, then that's your prerogative. You give no argument to my previous answer than calling me names. that's not how debates are handled. One must address the specifics & pick apart either the source or what is stated. You do neither. It stands.
Then you go ff on another "faith" tangent. This has nothing to do with this debate. I'll ignore it.

Your references to baseball shows your lack of knowledge there also. When someone has 3 strikes, it means they lost their chance at bat. Just because you claim things, doesn't mean it is true. I have refuted all of your strikes.

12th - You can claim anything you want, but your lack of debate protocol & substance shows you were vastly unprepared for the answers I have given you. I have not given any excuses as you claim. BTW, please show some of what you claim are "excuses."

13th - I have to laugh regarding your last paragraph. I'm still waiting for any semblance of biblical knowledge from you. As I have stated before, just because you say things, it doesn't give credence to what you say. One must use reliable sources & when challenged on things, they must answer them directly, which you have done neither. All it has been from you is personal attacks, & opinions from you & R. Dawkins. Neither considered valid sources in this argument the way they have been used.

You have asked me to prove any four of your initial accusations of God are false, and I have done so using the bible, which you originally introduced as your main reference material, and biblical scholars that have interpreted verses that I have used in my arguments.

You have refused to reference my original 4) regarding your abortion claim also.

Your use of insults & schoolyard bully tactics may work somewhere else, but not here. Your strength comes from you being behind your computer screen, surely not your argument skills, or subject knowledge.

You want to use a literal only interpretation regarding the bible. It, like any great literal work, the bible has hidden meanings. Jesus/God used parables to hid what He was saying most of the time so people would discuss what He said further & ask questions, etc. Since the bible has been inspired by Jesus/God, one can see that much of the bible must be studied to be understood, not just to have a literal word for word interpretation as you contend here. Check Matthew 13 for an explanation of Jesus to His apostles regarding why He used this means of teaching.
Debate Round No. 3


Oh goodie guess what hand grenade weight loss program dropped in? I warned you I would absolutely destroy you should you decide to take this wonderful lovely debate in which there’s no possible way that you have any knowledge upon, that your muffler would be autotuned and be bled out and wrung dry upon any 2,000,000 degree sunblock day in the shade.
We are going to concentrate on your one idiotic ideal in which only morons like you pathetically agree on, which is very few christians, not many, which the glaring error in your stupid little mummified ideal of “This goes for the OT also since Jesus is God & the bible is inspired by Him”. Well sorry Susie chapstick, your jesus, in which you cannot even prove ever existed, just like you cannot even prove your god exists, IS NOT GOD. YOUR bible is proof of that. Now let’s get started. And we will b jumping around a bit.
There are 26 references in YOUR bible pointing out to the fact that YOUR jesus is the SON of god, thus making them 2, can you count that high? Yes 2 separate entities.

How does every christian disobey jesus? Well that is if they are sane unlike you?
Oh and btw, just a little bit of food for thought, EVERY single christian disobeys jesus, no exceptions. None. You do. So let’s mention those verses first with a followup video to utterly show you how christianity is insanity. Or do you not have ---any--- genuine friends and loved ones as soooooo many here on clearly don’t? Yeah, you are a dumpster diving friendless, loveless egotist, just as your bible perfectly describes...
Matthew 10: 35-37 “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Luke 12 51-53 “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Luke 14:26 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

Matthew 19:21 “21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”

Matthew 19:21 “21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” NIV (Now have you given up all of your possessions to follow your lard and become perfect in which in no way is your christ (more on that later), No? Then with an uproarious big laugh, you have 0% of the pot. - Why does every intelligent christian disobey jesus?

And the supermassive major hypocritical contradiction is…
Matthew 22: 38-39 “This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”
And when you contradict yourself, there shows no intelligence, no education, no perception, no understanding. So your christ, in any way should---not---be---followed. Regardless, love your neighbor as yourself is a pretty damn good line. One of very few in your bible.

Proving jesus IS NOT god.
Here are a few of those verses in which you cannot in any way refute disproving jesus as god from your bible. So my suggestion is for you to lay down on your pin cushion and not even try. Wow do I love your snot nosed arrogance within your cowbore noose entanglement.
Matthew 3:17 “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
1 John 4:10 “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
Mark 5:7 “And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.”

Luke 8:28 “And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.” (yeah your idiot bible has a nasty habit of repeating itself from character to character)

Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Romans 1:4 “And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:”

1 John 5:9 “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.”

1 John 5:10 “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.”
Wow. So you just got caught with your hands in your pockets scrubbing at your you know where areas for your brains for an edumacation in which you think you have in which you obviously don’t. Your god and jesus are 2 separate entities ACCORDING TO ---YOUR--- bible. Snivel snivel. Too bad that you don’t like it. Deal with it.

Want more proof? OK. NP. This come from The Atheist Republic in which gives you 0 outs.

Matthew 7: 15-20 “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”
The saying is plain as day: a good tree would not produce bad fruits, only good fruits. I'm not making this up, that's what Matthew states unequivocally. But how can this be possible? How can even the best and most righteous person never produce bad fruits? They can't, because human nature is such that we will make mistakes, or worse, do something bad deliberately. But Jesus, who is said to be the infallible almighty God of the Bible, says that it IS possible to produce ONLY good fruit. Read the passage again (v. 18) "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit" and likewise " a bad tree cannot bear good fruit."
And yet Jesus said that evil must happen, but woe unto him through which it is done. Evil will happen, it's inevitable, so how come Jesus also said that a good tree CANNOT bear bad fruit, when we all know that this is not true. All of us have produced good fruit and bad fruit, therefore I can only come to the conclusion that Jesus was not infallible, not God, but a fanatical fundamentalist who thought he was appointed of God to teach the people of Israel. He was wrong, just all all the Christian churches are wrong, especially that church which claims infallibility, which is considered a heresy by the other Christian churches.

Here's something else to ponder (that leaves you out Steve): Jesus promised he would return within one generation, the generation of his immediate followers. He was dead wrong (pun intended) and is therefore a false prophet, condemned by his very own words that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit.

Got it poor boy McCoy? Your precious jesus, is a FALSE PROPHET. And even more on your false prophet is he broke many of your god’s laws such as working on the sabbath which was punishable by death. Your stoned christ did NOT have permission from YOUR god to break ANY of his laws, thus proving him to be a false prophet.

Oh boy we as smokin your nun’s pep rally now. Ready for more doddie tasty sugar and beef jerky treats? Sure. Why not? After all you set yourself up for de-feat. In RD2 you also basically said that YOUR god was perfect. WRONG. After all your god had to create the great flood (which never happened btw), to destroy man, only to recreate him. That’s imperfection. And YOUR god also created man with all of his broken bones, his diseases, his nosebleeds, his abilities to murder and rape and torture and mutilate each other, his wars, his infections… oh but wait, those are YOUR god’s doing. That’s imperfection.
Here’s a cute little verse…
Judges 1:19 “The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.” Yep that certainly is imperfection at its finest. Hasn’t your scribes who wrote your holy of holiest books ever heard of “editing”? Especially that one. Oh there’s a few more idiocies that no god would ever say and or be a part of in your bible.

But you know what? EVEN BETTER, since you clearly don’t know, at all what you are squawking about, and your homogenized shakes milk for a syrupy crunchy breakfast garlic onion beer deodorant treat brain……………. I’m glad that you think that christ is a god because that means that there are 2 god’s. So indeed according to you, your entire religion is completely false. So its not at all “The Lord our God is one Lord:” Its “The Lord our God is two Lords:”

Again, you know what’s REALLY funny? You cannot even prove that your precious jesus has ---ever--- existed. You most certainly cannot prove that your evil, hateful god who hates children exists.

Yep. So what if I was totally off the subject here. I gave my opponent not to crawl back with his cow chirp mooing ideals that are clearly goofed and defective. Its better than he being a troll.



I'll respond with paragraph numbers to make it easier for you.

2nd - As with the other "proof" you have provided throughout this so called debate, you have relied on the bible as your only source other than your own personal opinion, which you have not validated with any reliable backup data when asked. You cannot have it both ways. If the bible is reliable enough for you to use as your "proof," I am able to use it as a reliable source for many claims, including Jesus is God. I'll name a few verses that state just that. John 1:1, John 10:30 "I and the Father are one," Colossians 2:9, 2 Peter 1:1. There are at least 50 verses that indicate Jesus is indeed God.
(See what I am referring to regarding backing up what is said, that you have never done with any source in this entire debate.
I thought I would address only one of your deflective claims in your last response to so you what you have failed to o as a requirement when someone is asked to prove their point.

The rest of your round 4 response has nothing to do with this debate, so I will ignore your insults & deflections.

I have answered you regarding paragraphs 4 through 8 in the 2nd round in which you gave no direct response indicating your acquiescence regarding your assertions of Jesus' actions.

9th - Your source of the YouTube video is from a Marshall Brain, who has earned a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a M.S. degree in Computer Science from North Carolina State University. Using a source that has no expertise in the subject matter does not qualify as a reliable peer reviewed source. BTW, it also has nothing to do with this debate.

10th - through the 3rd last paragraph has nothing to do with this debate of the 4 issues I have disproved using valid sources, so I will ignore them. If you care to continue those arguments, then let's have a go at it on the "Forum" portion of this site.

Your conclusion ..... of what? Certainly nothing to do with this debate. But, as I stated above, we can continue ....

Throughout this debate, I have asked Pro to provide any type of reliable source or backup details for the claims he has made ..... well, other than than the multitude of childish insults & attempts at intimidation, and have received nothing in response. I have asked specific questions and asked for pro to provide sources for claims he has made because they seem to be to outlandish and untrue. I have received nothing regarding my queries.

My experience with debates has not prepared me for the absolute lack of argumentative protocol pro has used throughout this, "debate." Pro's lack of regard for argumentative substance has shown his/her lack of preparedness to make pro's case. It has seemed to me, that pro just wanted to make several biased statements regarding his/her negative personal opinion of the bible & Jesus. There was no reliable substantive material regarding pro's OP whatsoever. Once again, if asked for sources or to expound upon something, either silence, or mocking would ensue with his/her following response.

Pro's rule of, "Pick 4 from the above list and this debate will go forth. It will be up to you to prove that the 4 you pick from the list are false," was not followed by him/her. Pro never addressed my #4 choice even though I had reminded pro in all of the subsequent rounds. Pro attempted to convince the readers that I had not followed the rules, I still have no idea what he's referring to here. In my first round, I had picked my four I was going to disprove, & succinctly answered them with the intention of him showing his hand .... so to speak, which pro had done the following round. Pro had used bible verses for all of his/her backup as a true source. That left the door open for me to use the bible as a true source for some of my responses to use as proof pro was using certain verses out of context, or without previous or post verses that explain the true meaning of his hand picked verses.

Pro's main theme of his argument was that the verses he/she used in an attempt to prove his OP, was that there is no other meaning possible than the actual literal word the verses contain, even though many pre & post verses explain the contextual meaning differently than pro had maintained. I had also used biblical scholarly interpretations, with naming the sources, to further explain the verses in question. Pro had not argued their validity with any other response than his/her own personal opinion. I had reminded pro multiple times that there was a need to use proper sourcing when questioned about what pro stated, but pro kept silent regarding sourcing protocol. It seemed as though pro wanted us to believe his unsubstantiated personal opinion is an accepted method of a valid backup for pro's claims, which of course, they are not.

Pro's attempts to deflect from the debate theme were many, and pro acknowledged some of them. Many he/she did not. It seems as pro used deflection, because pro simply had no valid argument or debate protocol left in his/her arsenal regarding the debate subject matter.

Pro asked for proof regarding the four statements pro had made from his/her list were false, and I supplied that with valid sources and verses from the bible. The same reliable source pro had use to gather his/her material to make his/her case. I also used other sources that were named and explanations regarding how those explanations applied and proved pro's statements were false ...... just as pro had asked in pro's OP. Pro failed to refute any of these explanations. He would only, and continually, provide deflection, intimidation and amateurish tactics regarding anything I had stated here. Never does pro break down any of my proof and material to show it does not refute his four (really three, because pro never addressed the fourth one I had chosen) statements regarding God.

Hopefully, pro takes away from this debate that he/she should use some decorum and debate protocol to be considered a serious debating contender. Schoolyard tactics .... are for the schoolyard, not a debate forum. And just because one states something is true, they must show it is true if asked, as pro failed as many times as I had asked.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
And who cares and the question is, is WHY? With all of that hate and pure evil that YOUR god knowingly spews? And if you do not know that, then you have NOT read YOUR bible. So don"t you dare try to tell me or anyone else that you have.
No I use intelligent, educated, thinking, rationalizing, reasoning, common sense, logical in which you and your god, religion and bible does not have, sources which is Matt Dillahunty. And you don"t even know who who he is. You use""" who exactly? Biased creationist religious fodder which does not count because they are useless because they are forced to be glued to faith in the end and nothing but. But first they must also believe in hate, evil, anger, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy etc etc etc that YOUR god has freely admitted to. Oh I use other sources as well. Darn it. You are truly paltry, void and pathetic.
"Ya see, in a debate, one must look for truth,..." Wow. You actually said something intelligent. What"s your morbid occasion? But we both know that faith is NOT based on truth. Faith, like your bible also is NOT truth. Faith like YOUR bible is NOT evidence.
Oh please. Of course you have tried to convert me into your ideals and sorry a$$ religion. And for you to flatly deny it, you are filled with manure spread sextillions miles long.

Good. No more comments from you. But I know after you reading these posts that you will itch to comment. So let"s see if you can keep your word.

I"m so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
which shows either god does not exist or doesn"t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?" Matt Dillahunty

"If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We"d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor." Christopher Hitchens

Yeah its obvious that you haven"t read YOUR bible AT ALL --- FOR WHAT IT IS" BIG DIFFERENCE. "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror." Richard Dawkins

Bias? YOUR god is entirely bias and nothing but. Is he doesn"t like something, he kills it or he has someone or groups of people kill it. Are you fricken serious? Is it any blunder why you have no friends or loved ones with all of your invented excuses? Nope.

"not that I haven't read the bible, & still do, many, many times .... & studied it with many outside scholars influence re hidden meanings, just as other literary works that have hidden meanings."
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
Its a one way street and you lose.
"If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors" how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can"t distinguish between the law of Israel and god"s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take figuratively. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn"t make any sense. It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well." Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn"t be written at all. What"s wrong with your god comin" down and talking to people? "Hey you know some of that stuff that"s in the book? I"m here to correct it." Matt Dillahunty

"We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there"s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that"s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
Ezekiel 14:9, 1 Kings 22:23, Genesis 2:17 VS Genesis 5:5 are solid proof of that which proves that you in fact do invent excuses and that you just lied to me and DO NOT in any way know what you are squawking about.

"Your latest accusation bears no reliable data to back up what you claim"" And what accusation would that be? I mean all of them are correct. Now how can you open my eyes when everything you say is based on faith? Your fraudulent credentials are based on YOUR god where everything is based on faith. That"s not evidence. Faith is not truth of any kind. Faith is based on ---everything---. Believing in a rock is faith. Believing in a yodeling Buddhist monk is faith.
Then you mention "hidden meanings". OK. Well then so that would mean that to nearly 100% of all that read the bible according to YOU that they do not understand YOUR bible. Do try harder rather than inventing yet more excuses. See, unlike YOU who invents excuses that NOBODY of merit believes, I take YOUR bible at its word whereas YOU are totally incapable of it. I mean jeez so according to you, you find hidden meaning in what YOUR god says instead of taking him at his word. So that means that since you cannot take YOUR god at his word, such as him hating children and being evil, having anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy - WHAT? Jealousy from a so-called supreme deity? (which that right there proves that this god of YOURS is NOT omnipotent NOR perfect in any way) And even worse is this god of YOURS neatly passed down all of those wondrous emotions according to you - to man. Great going god. Great going you the tre idiots for believing in him. Keep up the good work!!!
"pre & post verses related to your cherry picked verses" Awe poor wittle poo poo got his fweewings hurt? Too bad.
The bible is NOT evidence of any kind. YOUR pathetic god would never communicate in text form - the worst form of communication possible. There is no such a thing as a two way street.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
So those "biblical scholars" that you refer to are completely and utterly worthless with ---everything--- that they have to say because they will ---never--- put their god on trial again. They are NOT that stupid. And they are most certainly A LOT smarter and A LOT more intelligent and they know A LOT more about YOUR/ THEIR god than YOU ---EVER--- will. In other words, they cannot stand by their product, their god. All creationists/ biblical scholars, no exceptions, none, are complete frauds and fraudulent and cannot be taken at their word at anything. Its like a surgeon operating on you without going through any kind of college and having a totem pole as his credentials. Or a murderer defending you for running a red light. Apples and oranges. Nothing at what creationists/ biblical scholars say, since they cannot stand behind their product can be trusted. Not ever. And besides, there's 0% proof that god even exists. So creationism lacks complete and utter failure, god, because there is no evidence for faith and faith cannot be tested, and faith is not evidence, nor is the bible evidence. All the bible is, is a little blank black book filled with misinterpreted words by everybody, no exceptions, none because god would not use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible - a double standard.
And just for fun here's a cute little pun which happens to be true... "Creationists do not try to prove the truth of creationism. They spend their time arguing against evolution." Matt Dillahunty
"& your means of a reliable source, the bible, to backup everything I had stated." Yeah. I used YOUR bible to prove YOU false at everything.

"Yes, there are many times I do not know answers & duly admit them." No you don"t. You invent excuses.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
@rextr05 - Yes you used biblical scholars. Wow. That traps you into one small little box from which you cannot escape because biblical scholars, all of them, no exceptions, none, are all worthless and useless.
"As I told you previously, the "debate" we participated in, had nothing to do with proving anything re Jesus." Um I really DON"T CARE what you state or believe because yeah it does ESPECIALLY, especially, especially when you state something totally ignorant and completely untrue that NOBODY of merit and ONLY christians in extremely small packs agree upon that YOUR jesus IS god. So YOU needed to ab-so-lu-te-ly be corrected upon that in which I most certainly did by YOUR bible alone. Too bad that YOU do not like it. Deal with with it.

So Grreeaattt! You show me what I cannot back up. This will be a whole lot of fun. But then again you had your chance to do that in the actual debate, but failed miserably and I turned you into a "Rose Garden of Sores" Bauhaus, And you just cannot stomach your fluid to lose.

You used the bible as a source? And what is your source that you interpreted correctly? RD2 you presented NOTHING except for your own truly pathetic interpretations which were clearly flat out guesses and EXCUSES in order to cover for your your sorry miserable a$$ from something in which you clearly know nothing about and you fricken know it. And you expect me to honestly debate with you?
"I had used biblical scholars"" Well they do not work. Not ever. Lets call them creationists because that"s exactly who they are. No difference. If you go into and punch in "creationist" it turns into"
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
Posted by rextr05 3 months ago
Your, "Then you CLEARLY have NOT read YOUR bible AT ALL," only states that I do not agree with your interpretations & bias, not that I haven't read the bible, & still do, many, many times .... & studied it with many outside scholars influence re hidden meanings, just as other literary works that have hidden meanings.

You use biased resources, such as Matt Dillahunty, the past president of atheists of Austin. Ya see, in a debate, one must look for truth, not just someone that will agree with our point of view, as you continually do.

You've done it once again with your use of, " ... you trying to convert me into YOURS and only YOURS ideal of religion." I have never attempted to convert you re anything. Your continued accusations can be viewed as lies. Why do you continue doing such an obvious mistake?

This back & forth is redundant & useless with you. Post as you wish, I'll leave you to your own demise w/o any more comments from me.
Posted by rextr05 3 months ago
Backwards, your, "... you cannot even prove ..." As I told you previously, the "debate" we participated in, had nothing to do with proving anything re Jesus. It is you that claim things that you cannot backup. I had used biblical scholars & your means of a reliable source, the bible, to backup everything I had stated.
Yes, there are many times I do not know answers & duly admit them. Your latest accusation bears no reliable data to back up what you claim ..... as with all of your claims in the debate. I thought my last comment to you in this 'comment' section would have opened your eyes to your failings in this respect. Apparently not.

You used the bible as your means of 'proof' to accuse God of all sorts of things w/o taking in consideration of hidden meanings & pre & post verses related to your cherry picked verses.

Your comment of, "Your bible is NOT evidence of any kind ..." Well, that states that all of your verses that you had used for a means of your OP is the same, "Your bible is NOT evidence of any kind." Can't have it both ways man. That in & of itself dismisses all of your accusations re God in this debate.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
Believe me, I have opened my eyes... I don't believe in hate, evil, suffering, pain, deliberate genocide for absolutely no reason, war, devastation, bloodshed, killing, etc etc etc whereas you do. You are forced into it whether you like it or not. That's because you believe in YOUR god who in now possible way believes in peace, harmony, love, kindness, care for each other etc. because if he did, it would have already happened. Nah this god of yours believes in hate, and evil (he's freely admitted to the evil part), has partaken in hate, killing, deliberate genocide for no reason at all, hates gays for no reason at all, hates children for no reason at all, hates women for absolutely no reason at all, ensues slavery because he obviously loves it, loves raped women, etc etc etc Oh but wait, you don't know any of that? Then you CLEARLY have NOT read YOUR bible AT ALL. So stop pretending that you have.

"This is not just a matter of opinion. This is an entire branch of philosophy of epistemology about how we go about determining whether or not a ---claim--- is reasonably and rationally justified. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is a god is an extraordinary claim which requires more than just pointing to an old book. That is simply NOT rational to the claim. Sorry. Its not just an opinion. There"s more to life than that." Matt Dillahunty

Open my eyes? WHAT? Why don't YOU open YOURS? I've been doing this for 42+ years and have talked with roughly 25,000 you miserable self righteous s.o.b who truly knows absolutely NOTHING about his god, bible and religion because he cannot prove anything about his god. After all, once again, you cannot even prove your god exists. Pathetic. I don't give into hate nor evil, nor your pathetic attacks and you trying to convert me into YOURS and only YOURS ideal of religion. And again I still cannot even pity you that you have no genuine friends or loved ones. A HUGE red flag. Bye.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
@rextr05 - EVERYTHING about you when you say it, you think IS automatically true. NO EXCEPTIONS. NONE. And the thing about it is you cannot even prove a word of it because you cannot prove your god nor christ even exists. Here's the thing about atheists and all good scientists of merit we say "I don't know" all the time. You christians can never say that because those are terrorists words to you because you think YOUR god is perfect in which I showed you, sorry he ain't. Back to the lab you go. I can admit when I am wrong and infallible. You can't. Now repeat after me when you do not know something, rather than inventing excuses you say "I don't know". Got it?
A valid source for what? Where have I NOT presented a valid source? And you have NOT presented ANY VALID SOURCES ---EVER---. So shut your rotted apple contradictory hypocritical lockjaw yap. Your entire religion AS PROVED by YOUR OWN BIBLE IN WHICH YOU CANNOT TAKE IT AT ITS OWN WORD because YOU and ONLY YOU (no one else of merit will agree with you, and as stated creationists DO NOT MATTER NOR DO THEY COUNT, NOT EVER) is its own worst enemy and turns in on itself. But then again, you have a true serious problem... YOUR god would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication so everybody, including you, does get it wrong with translation after translation after translation after copies after copies upon dead languages after dead langues with no way to trace it back to its original. And even if you could, that interpretation, so ---EVERYBODY--- would be able to understand it would be fouled up. Sorry. Your bible is NOT evidence of any kind as you try to imply. So that's most certainly NOT an opinion. You CANNOT take words from a little blank black book and suddenly make them true and automatically leap from pages like Pinocchio no matter how hard YOU try. Now that's an opinion. That's a fairy tale.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KZC 3 months ago
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: The tiebreaker for this debate was the conduct and arguments of the two debaters. Con has better conduct than Pro. Pro's incorporates name-calling and personal opinions. The debate should be conducted in a formal, logical manner, which Pro fails to abide by. Additionally, Pro lacks the knowledge behind analyzing literary texts. Pro fails to acknowledge the context of around particular verses in the Bible. Additionally, Pro's arguments are either not supported by the Bible, which Pro had set up the debate as, or uses illegitimate, non-reliable sources. Thus, Con wins the debate.