The Instigator
iamgodsonilovemygod
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jonathonave
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

holy book truth of ahmed is true or fake ? what do you believe ?

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 1 vote the winner is...
jonathonave
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2017 Category: People
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 362 times Debate No: 100156
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

iamgodsonilovemygod

Pro

Do you believe Ahmed written holy book of truth is true or fake after listening and understanding to it from youtube. There are 12 chapters until now which tells only original truth which is of purity like ahmed and his god.

https://www.youtube.com...
jonathonave

Con

After having listened to the Holy Book Truth of Ahmed, as requested by my opponent and required by the resolution, I have ultimately reached the conclusion that this work does not establish a true system of religion.

Background: The Holy Book Truth of Ahmed and Believerism
We must begin this round by attempting to understand the nature of the religious work that we have been tasked with debating. I would urge each one of you to follow the youtube link provided by my opponent, to watch the videos which contain the Holy Book Truth of Ahmed. It is not necessary that you watch all of the videos, but I will specifically be citing the video contained at the following link.

https://www.youtube.com...

This link established that the religion established by the Holy Book Truth of Ahmed is called Believerism. Secondly, it establishes that the religion was created by the man who posted the youtube video; presumably the same man who challenged me to this debate today.

I have one very simple contention in this round in order to disprove the resolution and warrant a Contender ballot.

Contention 1: Created Religion cannot be True
A: Believerism was created in the mind of a single man
The religion that I have been asked to evaluate was created by one single man. Now, this religion establishes a god figure, and rules supposedly issued from that god figure, but no warrant is offered as to why this is legitimate. No contention is made by this man that he is a prophet, of that the god figure is speaking through him, rather he states that the religion is his, and that it is true. No logic was employed in order to affirm this resolution, it was simply stated.
B: Deities cannot be created by man
No religion that has been excepted by society as being plausible has ever created a god figure from the mind of man. In order for the religion to even be considered, that non-human god figure must have either spontaneously appeared, been created by another god figure, or have existed since the beginning of time. None of these are the case in my opponents religion.
C: Impact: Believerism cannot be a true religion
We see that the religion supported by opponent does not have its establishment rooted in any plausible origin, thus we must assume that the religion is incorrect.

In conclusion, I would request once more that you watch the youtube video my opponent provided, which I have linked to above. It establishes that the religion is created by a man, and has no legitimate origin. Thus we do not even have a plausible origin to debate the legitimacy of, and we must reject the resolution and vote for the negation of the resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
iamgodsonilovemygod

Pro

believerism religion is created by me in my country, as my country gives freedom of religion and anyone can create there own religion but under laws that does not harm anyone.

my religion is created by me of my god who is not of any religion, my religion tells history of my god the beginning and the end and through my holy book i provide my god believe which is reproduced by me.

believerism religion is one man religion of me and specially made for my family generations that comes from me that means believerism religion is not for everyone. I am just showing my believe which is reproduced by my god who is not god of any religion.

everybody have different beliefs and my beliefs are like my god who tells his beginning and end to everyone but does not shows dream or hides anything about him to prove that his believe is true.

i respect all religions of the world and there beliefs and i show my believe as gift to everyone.

i dont declare my religion is true for everyone, because my believerism religion is created by me and one man independent religion of me and for my generations.

its everyone views on my holy book to say if my holy book is true or false for them but true for me because its my believe which is reproduced by my god.

everyone can understand by listening to my believe through holy book truth and post there comments on my believe to see whether my believe looks true or false for them.

believerism religion only tells about original truth which ahmed knows.
jonathonave

Con

In order for a religion to be evaluated as true or false, that religion must be plausible.

The word "true" is hereby defined as "in accordance with fact or reality."

My opponent has contended that Believerism is true for himself and his family, but not necessarily true for everyone else. He also admits to having created believerism for himself and for his family. Now, my contention of my last speech was not responded to by my opponent. It stands as true in this round that any religion created by an individual cannot be regarded as legitimate or true, because it cannot plausibly be so. In order for a god figure to exist, that figure must come from a source capable of imbueing that figure with power. This religion does not do so, rather the god comes from a single man, and cannot legitimately have power.

My opponents religion was admitted by him as not being universally true, and this we must reject it as being implausible, and outside the arena of fact and reality.
Debate Round No. 2
iamgodsonilovemygod

Pro

different countries have different laws and where i live my country provided law to be atheist or start my own religion, so i have my own believe which does not match with any religion god believes.

i am not asking you to believe in my religion to be true but just asking you how do you think my believe is true or false for you.

any religion cannot declare that many religions are of god if they declare that many religions are of god then they have to believe in those religions and there holy books which they dont do and many religions of same god cannot tell his believers to follow something and does not follow something. One god of many religions will be same but not different with different sense for his different religions otherwise he will be businessman to get believe from humans to get property of truth so his power works on his many religions when everybody believes in him by just liking his dream which is not seen or heard to everyone.

dont you feel many religions does not have history of there god because they believe god was not born if god was not born then he is fake according to me which is not understoodable so i have my believe who tells about my beginning of god and everything original truth. Because original truth is beautiful and doesnt keep you confused and wander.

And who has right to declare any religion is right or wrong by any government law ? you can tell yourself without country or your god law that my religion according to your believe is wrong but your god didnt created my religion or my holy book and neither your country law can declare my religion or holy book to be wrong because its my believe and my country gives me right to start my own religion and follow it.

How can you say all religions in the world are of god ? do you mean one god of all religions ? or one god of your religion ?

because different religions have different gods and every god is not same for every religion and cannot be same.

do you or your country or your god believe that human sins by his own decision from his mind or its spirits of spiritual world forces them to sin by making contracts or controlling them because if human does not thinks and tells that some spirit made forced him sin or spirit made contract for him to sin then your government and your god never come to know truth. How many mistakes and sins your god has done with humans according to you ? after you come to know truth. Ask your god in whom you believe if his human does not thinks he has not sinned after sinning that some spirit made his contract to sin and some spirit forced him sin then your god punishes human. This is happening since 6.4 billion years and god of religions are happy and perfect because they are gods because of property of truth which they get from believe of humans but not because they are gods.

PLEASE I CHALLENGE YOU TO PRACTICALLY TEST WHAT BELIEVERISM RELIGION SAYS AND I SAY.

IF YOU FAIL IN TESTING AND RESEARCH THEN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.
jonathonave

Con

This debate comes down very simply to the definition of truth, and the fact that my opponent's religion does not fit it. Regardless of what is true for myself or for my opponent, we have seen very clearly from my opening arguments that believerism is not objectively true, thus there is no grounds to vote for the instigation.
Debate Round No. 3
iamgodsonilovemygod

Pro

my believerism religion is not only true for me but it says original truth of spirits and spiritual world like when sinless spirits or sinless humans or sinless gods time is changed then how they force others from whom there time is changed to sin and disturb so sins happens.

do you believe in that god or gods or holy book which has already done this since 6.4 billions years.

a sinless will never force anyone to sin even if his time is changed specially by his spirits or disturb so someone sins because of him so he is proven as true and his time is changed back again.

religion is not based on rulership, if everything is from proving truth then believerism religion and i proved original truth which is beautiful like me and my god.

PRACTICALLY TEST TO SEE IF MY HOLY BOOK TRUTH IS TRUE OR YOUR BELIEVE IS TRUE WHICH IS NOT ABLE TO SEE WHAT IS TRUTH.

No religion proves how universe was formed and what is outside universe but my religion and my holy book which is written by me for myself only and my generations is of purity which tells original truth.

You cannot ignore original truth after you come to know it. If you did not understood my holy book truth then listen and understand it very carefully with description.

If you believe in that god who is not true and evil in reality who first forces someone to sin when his time is changed and then ask them why you sin and punish them then your god is evil in reality for me but not for everyone because my believe is of purity which is beautiful like me and beautiful like my god who is not of any religion.

Keep the religions holy book besides my holy book and compare which holy book says original truth and beautiful, dont just feel the spirit because spirit is thinking for me and they get feeling and everything by getting property of truth from humans by believing in them who believes in something to be true either fake truth or original truth.

Those who is true wins in the world and there are some gods who is forced to run on understanding of humans or anyone because they dont have control on themselves if they dont run on understanding of humans or anyone when coming to know something then they loose from anyone. Judgement must be of purity but not of evil sinner purity which evil sinner got by changing time for winning property of truth so he does not become lie and does not looses property of truth.

My god is beautiful then me and i am beautiful then everyone from mind.
jonathonave

Con

My opponent would like to test the the truth of his religion, and continues to assert that I have not done so. Please refer back to the contention I made in my opening arguments. No religion that is created by a single man can be objectively true. This has never been refuted by my opponent, who continues to request that I test whether Believerism as a religion is true for me personally. This is irrelevant, because we were asked to determine whether Believerism is "true or false." Truth is an indication of universality. In order to side with my opponent's contention that Believerism is true, you must believe that it is true for everyone, and I have already proved that this cannot be the case.
Debate Round No. 4
iamgodsonilovemygod

Pro

i am not asking if my religion is true or false i asked if your believe says my religion is true or not and your believe said its not true.

But my debate was for everyone to listen and understand my believe or read my believe through my website www.believerism.com through my holy book truth written by me which i believe it to be true and of my god. I get shining in my sweating and DNA and BLOOD but i am showing myself as true for everyone but asking believe of everyone on my believe whether they believe my believe looks true for them or not because my believe is of my god only who is not of any religion and my believes does not match with any beliefs.

I added new chapter 13 in my holy book truth, the more you read and understand or listen and understand you will understand my believe which is based on original truth for me and i believe when anyone knows my believe they will be able to understand me and my god spiritual world and everything about my god and my believe to see how beautiful i am from my mind and how beautiful my papa is from my mind who is my original god.

holy book truth - chapter 13 https://www.youtube.com...

You can watch few of my special videos on my youtube channel in high quality like

30 minutes of video on my hand sweating shining https://www.youtube.com...

I think the debate is finished here because everybody will be able to understand my believe by understanding my holy book truth written by me and confirm whether my believe in my god is true for them or false like you answered.

Stay with the believe you are happy but coming to know something is having knowledge and gives anyone experience in life with which anyone are able to answer to anyone when they dont have answer on something they are asked.
jonathonave

Con

This debate is very simple.

Pro asked us to determine whether the religion he submitted was "true or fake." True was defined as "in accordance with fact or reality." Does the religion of Believerism offer a system of beliefs that are objectively true? At the end of this round, do you believe that the god figure established and the system of salvation constructed by this one man are actually legitimate? If the answer is no a Con ballot is warranted.

I will not insult your intelligence by restating the warrants for that which I have already proved in this round. No religion created by man can be accepted as true. Because of this, I ask that you reject the religion of Believerism as untrue, and vote Con.

Thank you, and thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 10 months ago
PowerPikachu21
iamgodsonilovemygodjonathonaveTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: So the resolution was "Does Con believe Believerism is true?", I guess. Con defines true as "in accordance with reality", and shows that because this religion was created by a single man, and the God had no way of coming into existence, this religion can not be truth. Pro says it's true for him, and the resolution says "What do you think", and that's what matters. Well, I think Con had a good argument, and I was never really a religious person myself. Pro also talks about creation of other religions vs his religion, and other stuff. Never actually responds to Con's arguments. Because Con showed that Believerism isn't plausible, and the actual topic of debate was never specified, I'm giving the argument points to Con. Pro rarely used capital letters, used 'there' instead of 'their' a lot, and most paragraphs were 1 or 2 sentences.. It was a bit distracting trying to read it, so I'm giving S&G points to Con. While Pro did present a YouTube video, that was what was being argued.