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

Foolishness in the bible that no god would ever put into effect thus proving that god is false

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,611 times Debate No: 103181
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (45)
Votes (0)




Introduction to utterly prove god’s foolishness:
No god nor any supreme deity would ever communicate in text form the worst form of communication possible so that man could get it wrong. And for there to be no updates in at least 2,000 years, how is anyone expected to get it right? Then with the over 38,000 denominations of christianity, how is anyone supposed to get it right? Then with the countless translations of languages of the bible how is anyone supposed to get it right? Then with the countless translations of the bible that has been passed down from generation to generation, how is anyone supposed to get it right? Then how do you trace the bible’s correct contents back to the one exact bible so that the exact translation is supposed to be correct so that all on this planet get it right? In other words there are millions of translations out there in which nobody gets right. Not one person. Not you, not me, not the pope, not any minister, not any priest, not any pastor, nobody.

Faith is foolishness:
Why would god with his blubbering heart attack superior monstrosity ego complex ever ever ever ever ever knowingly want to use faith as a way of communication and or to get to know him better? Doesn’t that sound awfully silly? And then this faith, well this god only used it upon an extremely limited amount of people and then he expected those extremely amount of people to spread his word. Again, silly. That’s because memory from someone is always unreliable and cannot be trusted nor counted upon. Not ever for reliance,dependence and confidence.
Try this famous experiment… get a group of 8 or 9 at a circular table. Whisper into the first person’s ear something like 5 sentences of “See Spot run. See Spot in the middle of the road. Splat see no more Spot. Wow is the sun shiny and bright today. I think its going to snow all week.” And then that person whispers those sentences into the next person and so on. Of course you can make up your own. By the time it gets back to you, those sentences are so screwed up that all they are, are complete gibberish. So there’s no way the apostles got it right at the time of jesus (in which there’s no proof for him ever existing btw. Now I’m not saying he didn’t. I’m saying there’s no proof. And there isn’t) so you do not have it right.
And ah yes, those lovely translations in which are so much fun and are true abominations that change god’s verses and what he has said. What gives anyone the right to do that? But ah yes, the bible has been changed oh how many times over the generations to suit man’s wants needs and desires.
And I betcha any amount of wealth and or money and or dreams that you can think of that within 20 years or less, the christian bible will be changed to at the very least to allow it to be have a few verses on being gay friendly.

“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.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

Faith the #1 thing preached in the bible

Why? You'd figure that it would be love, kindness, care for each other. Something in mold with those lines. Nope. Its faith. And that's how you kill god. Don't---give---him---any---of---your---faith. After all he doesn't deserve it.
Then what about those who haven't heard of god who live in some far off land? What about if you are a child? god doesn't reveal himself to anyone unless you pray to him first. But how would you know to pray to this underachiever unless instructed? After all everybody is born as an atheist. And what if you don't know how to pray?
Oh I get it. god reveals himself to a severely limited bunched up group of prophets in which he lies to and decieves.EZ 14:9

“Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn’t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can’t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, judaism, any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth your’re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence?” Matt Dillahunty

In taking the pro side to this, simply put, god is a fool and the bible proves it.

Your job in taking the con would be to prove otherwise according to the bible. Outside sources that stray from the bible other than biblical verses and context will not be accepted.

“Faith is the reason people give when they don’t have evidence.” Matt Dillahunty So it will be your job to come up with that evidence to prove god. Obviously faith is not an answer and it will not work here.

So let’s get right to it! Here’s some verses from the bible that no god/ supreme deity would ever put into effect and or play, thus proving god to be ungodly, unholy, false and untrue and simply proves that god according to the bible is man made.

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

Matthew 10:37 “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.”Um no you fricken moron I’m going to LOVE my family and LOVE my friends before the weakling and the absolute sickened coughed upped disease that you clearly are from the big bang and beyond. Yeah and you think there's NOT hate in the bible? Of course there is. Utter foolishness in the bible or god is man made.

2 Samuel 23:8 “These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spearagainst eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.” How was this done exactly? he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time? So the bible invents excuses as usual or blatantly lies. Its not a surprise because that’s what it is good for.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 “And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:” What is the “lord” going to use? Mouthwash?

Leviticus 18:23 “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” Yeah I get it for women… this has also happened in your life. Like how many women back then would have ever had these thoughts? Were they really that bored with their husbands and or life that they would have? Clearly this verse once again is man made. No supreme deity would have ever thunk this one up.

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.” So god decieves us all by giving us statutes that were not good and judgements whereby they should not live. Wow. So how is anyone supposed to know how to follow you oh dear grey bearded one god who is not one? So so so foolish. Indeed clearly man made. Its either that or this is a misprint or god is magnificently stupid and foolish.

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

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


I would like to thank my opponent for starting the Debate. I look forward to a civil exchange since there is no disclaimer on this debate to suggest we will insult each other. My opponent raised many issues that will require lengthy discussions and since this is limited by the number of characters that can be used I will try to summarize my rebuttals.

Rebuttal: The Bible changed too much, how do we know it can be trusted.

Please consider the following verse found in John 3:16 and take note of the dates. The dates mentioned is important to determine whether the Bible changed in such a way not to know what it said before as my opponent claims.

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 230) - In His address to Nicodemus He says: "So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." ANF Vol. 01 P616

Novatian (a.d. 210"280.)..even as God also says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that every one that believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,"

1611 KJV " For God so loued "e world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

1977 NASB - For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

2009 HCSB - For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

Looks to me the meaning is the same over almost 2000 years.

My opponent cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible but uses verses from it below to try and prove it is not reliable. How does He know the verses He quotes are correct to use it truthfully and so to discredit God? His premise is flawed to say the least and cast doubt on every argument he makes that is based on some particular scripture.

My opponent argues that the various translations is supposed to cast doubt on the Word of God but in fact the opposite is true. The translation of the Bible into many different languages actually guarded that the Bible could be corrupted. When local corruption was done on the text it could be identified because of the vast amount of materials that was known universally. The KJV translators realized this and also mention it in their preface: "If any doubt hereof, he may be satisfied by examples enough, if enough will serve the turn. First, St. Jerome saith, Multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, docet falsa esse quae addita sunt, etc.; i.e., "The Scripture being translated before in the languages of many nations, doth show that those things that were added (by Lucian and Hesychius) are false" [S. Hieron. praef. in 4. Evangel.]. So St. Jerome in that place."

My opponent likes to use the "telephone game" as an example of how things may be distorted. The fact is, as everyone knows, if you play the game with people who are PAYING ATTENTION then you are likely to convey the correct message. The example is not so good because half way bad is not all the way bad.

My opponent seems to think that cellphones, email, and the internet was available to Israel and the early believers and should have used it rather than scrolls or books that were current in their day. This reasoning is also shown to be incorrect based on the scripture quoted above and taking note of the meaning that did not change over 2000 years.

#1 " Why would you not believe something based on faith. If your spouse or child tell you they love you do you not believe and accept it by faith? Science cannot prove that they are truthful or not. You cannot either. Your acceptance or rejection is based on faith. We have faith in a truthful testimony. That is not the same as how you paint the picture. The Big bang, dark matter are faith based. No scientist has ever observed it. The definition of faith in the Bible is "believing in things as if they exist but cannot see" (my paraphrase).

Perhaps my opponent can define a Eunuch and explain why he says it can never happen so I can properly rebut his claim.

Matthew 10:37 Love " You claim it is sick to ask someone to love you more than their father or mother but then you say you love your family more. You apply the same bias you argue against. Secondly, it does not say you should STOP loving your mother or father or family. You seem to confuse the concept reasoned for. Tell me something, if you, your mother and wife are drowning in the sea and you can choose to save only one, who will it be? Does it mean you did not love yourself or the others when you choose one above the rest?

2 Samuel 23:8 "One time" I went to a Church camp that lasted a week and had a great time. This is obviously not a literal "one time" as in at the exact same time concept. You should read the context, the people are honored over their lifetime and not a single event.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 My opponent fail to distinguish between figure of speech which is common in the Bible. If I say: you look like a pig. Does that mean you are a pig?

Leviticus 18:23 Bestiality is real even today. Most countries outlaw it and it is therefore not out in the open. Go to Thailand, you will be amazed what you find there, not to mention porn on the internet. You seem to live in an isolated perfect world where these things are not happening, unfortunately it is not true.

Ezekiel 20:25-26 There is a principle in the Bible whereby God stops reasoning with people because they continually reject him. In that respect He gives them over to their desires and cannot repent. It is the same as saying: "you got what you deserved" which is common place even today. Try finding that verse in the NT. You do realize that the NT replaced the OT. That is why it is both called Testaments. I would have liked to address this point at length but cannot due to the restrictions of the debate.

Judges 1:19 If you tell people to build a house and they try to build it using one screw driver and mud, does that mean you are a fool? Obviously not. The same applies to your example.

Jesus Christ came to earth and was shown to be the Son of God. His life, miracles and legacy is well attested to by various Christian and non-Christian sources. The very word "Christ" designates the Messiah of the OT and when studying the term Christ in the OT it is clear that Christ was said to be God. Therefore, there is historical evidence for the existence of God who came to earth and made know his will to mankind. That makes sense to me that a loving Creator would do something like that. The limitations of science are evident in that it cannot conclusively prove or disprove historical evidence. Try doing an experiment to determine who your ancestor was 100 generations ago. It is a fact accepted that I must have had an ancestor because I am here today. Having said that and believing that based on logic, not material evidence, I must admit that I do not know what my ancestor looked like; I never met him and know absolutely nothing about him. I bet it is the same with just about everyone reading this right now.

Pro ma provide what he thinks is evidence but it is not so convincing. Sadly all proof he presents quoting a scripture will be doubtful because he has already stated the Bible cannot be from God and therefore everything He quotes is a possible misrepresentation.
Debate Round No. 1


Let’s save all the pleasantries for later with all the thank your for joining my debate because I know my opponent all too well that he is extremely uneducated and unintelligent and cannot stay on track with the subject matter at hand. If he does this as he has proven himself to do this in 3 completely different debates, yes count em, that’s 3, I will simply ignore his topics and insult him galore as he rightly deserves.

“Rebuttal: The Bible changed too much, how do we know it can be trusted.”“Please consider…” We don’t have to consider anything. Here’s something I just found. 6:30
“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.” Amon 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 in the book? I’m here to correct it.” Matt Dillahunty

Once again NO GOD and or supreme deity would ever communicate in TEXT. the wort form of communication possible. So all of those verses you tossed at me have been neatly discarded. Now you pay attention to the video above. It will enlighten you. And if it doesn’t, then wow are you so ridiculously brainwashed that hope is beyond you.

“My opponent cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible but uses verses from it below to try and prove it is not reliable.” Duh because once again no supreme deity would ever use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.

Here’s a thought. Oh wait. I just had a thought. By gum god can communicate through thoughts or by talking to people. But alas god must not be a god if he cannot do something as stifling as that.

“How does He know the verses He quotes are correct to use it truthfully and so to discredit God? His premise is
flawed to say the least and cast doubt on every argument he makes that is based on some particular scripture.” Um no sacred moo juice you missed the point as always. No supreme deity would ever put those things/ has/ rules/ regulations or whatever you wish to call them into effect/ play. It has nothing to do with interpretation no matter how many battle weary interpretations you seek and or rummage through. Got it? And for you to completely miss that point it only show just how =uneducated and unintelligent you truly are.Oh well um gee pay attention to the very title of this debate!!!!!!!!!! And you wonder why other debaters are SCREAMING at you.

“My opponent argues that the various translations is supposed to cast doubt on the Word of God but in fact the opposite is true.” Once again no god would ---ever--- communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible. And its not the word of god now is it since it is in text form. Duh. Because no god would be stupid enough to put it in text form.

“The translation of the Bible into many different languages actually guarded that the Bible could be corrupted.” No WAS and IS corrupted.

Do you even know what the KJV was? No obviously not. Try inventing better excuses and lies please to cover for your sorry lard womb bottom. Its was a translation, an upgrade if you will from the Bishops bible. The Bishop's version of the bible,which is what the KJV is based on and everybody who reads the bible here in this country is the bible based on except for a select few, the word "tyrant" was translated into "king". And it was done so 400 times!!! What? Now what on earth does "tyrant" and "king" have to do with each other or anything in comparison? That’s just one word. And one word of clear and blatant misinterpretation becomes two words and two words becomes four and four becomes eight and eight becomes sixteen all the way up to countless hundreds and obviously thousands. Nobody, noone, no preacher, no pastor, no minister, no priest, not the pope, not you or me interprets the bible correctly. And thus its messages becomes garbled gibberish truly horrific nonsense. That’s just one example of easy misinterpretation as far as the bible is concerned. Would you like others? Nah. I didn’t think so. Oh yeah I can produce them.

My opponent pays the idiots game of hide-and-go-seek just like his god because he has to invent excuses from something in which clearly he known nothing about and pretends he does for shock value in order to remain afloat in a sea of ragweed.

#1 Why would you have something based on faith? Notice how my opponent dances around the question and cannot answer it? No christian can. And it also screams of gullibility. There’s absolutely no proof of anything with faith. Science has proof. A good scientist will always seek an answer, then look for a flaw. Then once he’s found that flaw will look to solve that flaw. Then once that flaw is answered will seek someone else to look at that answer to once again see if there is a flaw. What do religious people like you do? Nothing. You accept things on pure blind faith with absolutely nothing but pure gullibility to go on. People who are intelligence and reasonable, and can think and use common sense and use logic always have something that is tangible, something that they can look at, otherwise its just a theory. And sorry, evolution is proven fact.

“Perhaps my opponent can define a Eunuch and explain why he says it can never happen so I can properly rebut his claim.” Why don’t you look it up rather than asking stupid questions?

“You claim it is sick to ask someone to love you more than their father or mother” No that’s not what I said. Learn to read please. Since you didn’t read what I had you say, you can go back and check up on what I said and then get back to me in the next round should you choose to do so. But I gotta say the way you are going, I may put a freeze on you the way you previous opponent did to you because I am just way way way too intelligent and educated for you. Who knows?

2 Samuel 23:8 What on earth does your miserable excuse have to do with the actual verse? NOTHING!!!!!!!!! There’s absolutely no way on this earth that you have any genuine friends or loved ones. No way.2 Thessalonians 2:8 Inventing excuses again as usual. If god didn't say it or mean it, then it shouldn't be in the bible now should it? Duh.

Leviticus 18:23 Bestiality is real even today you total sick and disgusting diseased coughed upped pervert. OK that’s it we’re done. Bestiality is NOT real even today. Have an argument with someone else who gives a s--T. Your god must be so fond of bestiality that he lovingly made it a law and neatly kept it in his bible like the true scum that he is. I love it how christians try to defend something that is completely indefensible. And there's no defense for your actions. None.

You are a true one helluva loser. And will always be a loser. You’ve been turned away completely by at least 3 debaters who truly think you are a total d--k. You flat out invent excuses, you know it, in order to make your sickened hateful god who has to use text, the worst form of communication possible, which proves he’s in no way a god as the video proves.

You don’t know your bible at all, can I get and a-men, and that after looking at your idiotic round 1 shows so blatantly clear with your invented excuses. But as I’ve stated, I’ve been doing this for 40+ years and have talked with roughly 25,000. And idiots like you are so amazingly transparent and easily see through. Maybe when you grow up beyond the fertilization of your embryo and cut the crapola and start telling the truth and stop all of your untruths and deceit and utter entanglements of excuses and prefabricated lies, but then again your bible is filled with them, then you might be able to have some genuine, and the key word is genuine - those that will go out of their way way wayyyyyy to help you out in time of dire need, friends and loved ones. Until ten, you’ve got nothin.

Oh and lastly, I normally somewhat proofread nearly all of hat I compose and produce. Not here for obvious reasons. I simply don't care especially after your bestiality comment which is one for the record books and you in any way, shape or frorm trying to defend it. There's 0 defense for it. None.


Well it seems civil lasted only one round. My opponent says that God would not use writing to communicate to humans but fail to provide us with an explanation of what would have been a reliable way to do it. His claim excludes a vital alternative that he fails to identify. Strange that Backwards would talk about straying from the path if he cannot direct you to it.

My illustrious opponent makes the strangest claims and it is difficult to answer him logically. Why should there be only one version (although I think he confuses version with translation) of the Bible if there are many different languages? Are people not allowed to translate it and read it in their own language? England had many different colonies they governed and the King"s decrees where issued in the language of the colony so that the people could understand it. Should it not be likewise with the word of God? The only thing worse than answering this backwards type of thinking is to actually think that God would give a book in only one language to communicate to all people and fails to realize that everyone else who speak a different language will not be able understand it.

My opponent claims to be intelligent and educated but cannot read something and distinguish between figurative and literal genre? What"s wrong with God talking to people? Nothing, it happened but the testimony and the law is what the Christians used to stay on the right track. The two had to agree to prevent perversion. You argue against something that you present as an alternative but is actually found to be that way in the Bible? If Amon Ra (what the hell? An atheist with the name of a god?), Matt Dillahunty and you don"t know that is to be found in the Bible then it says volumes of how little you actually know about it.

You say the Bible is unreliable as your basic premise but then quote it as a reliable source. If you cannot understand what is wrong with that then you probably also do not believe that bestiality exist even today. 10 Grossest Bestiality Cases in Arizona - This is unfortunately typical of what is expected of you as was pointed out in the comments section showing that you claim "God hates" but also God does not exist?

Backwards states: "No supreme deity would ever put those things/ has/ rules/ regulations or whatever you wish to call them into effect/ play." Just about every supreme authority here on earth stipulates regulations to guide people. Why on earth would God not do the same? You have a very strange idea of what a God should be. A God that gives no guidance is your idea of what he should be?

Although my opponent states about the bible: "No WAS and IS corrupted." He fails to provide evidence that the true word was not preserved. The quote shows that the people could distinguish between what was and was not corrupted. His argument is circular at best. My opponent failed to debunk the verses I quoted in support of my argument that the Bible"s meaning remained the same over the centuries.

The aim of the KJV was to make the previous one better and translate from the Hebrew and Greek directly. Read the preface, but then again claiming you know everything it seems you missed that sentence somehow or else you probably would not make these puerile statements.

"Science has proof." He says. Ok, using science, show me what love is. Not the effects of love. Put something on the table that is proved to be love by science. Until then it is quite useless to even try and explain it to you. Your basic premise is false.

I base my faith on historical proof. Although I was not there and did not observe it myself I therefore call it faith. The testimonies handed down were truthful and there is no reason to doubt it. The early Christians died for their faith; they did not receive money or fame for testifying but paid with their lives for what they believed. There was no incentive for them to lie.

"Perhaps my opponent can define a Eunuch and explain why he says it can never happen so I can properly rebut his claim." He answers "Why don"t you look it up rather than asking stupid questions?" Are you aware that some babies are born without genitalia? They are eunuchs from birth oh "educated beyond common sense" one. Your ignorance should not be confused with the meaning of the word. Man Born With No Genitals Has Gender Confirmed 25 Years Later -

I was trying to be kind and give you a chance to clarify yourself instead of calling you stupid. I am not saying you are stupid; I"m just giving an example of what I could have done.

You identified Jesus as "sickened" because of what he said. Therefore by association that which he said falls in the same category and therefore you called what He said also sick. Something I would have thought an educated person like you would understand.

2 Samuel 23:8 - You asked how it was done, I replied probably over time by inference. Again something an educated man like you should have no problem to understand. I thought you miss read the verse to make the ridiculous claim hinted at that he killed them all in one stroke. Perhaps you should proof read your answers. Just following your train of thought of course and no he was not Bruce Lee, I think you have them confused.

You are to kind. D-k is short for Dansk right? Spoken by the Danish but unfortunately I"m not from Denmark although I like the country.

Doing this for 40+ years and speaking to 25000 people? That"s also known as the fallacy of Appeal to accomplishment. I am not trying to bore an educated man like yourself, you probably already knew that.

Since you brought the little children into the debate again, I ask you one more time: In the absence of God why do children still suffer?
Debate Round No. 2


I didn’t read ---any--- of what you stated for your round II and I’m not going to. I am way way way too good for you. And I will not sink to your level. Neither will nearly 100% of this planet’s population. You have got to be one of the sorest losers out there that I have ever encountered, if not the sorest that doesn’t know how to take “no” for an answer. 3 debates. 3 complete failures on your part. You are also an expressively dismal child going round and round in preschool desperately seeking negative attention because after all getting negative attention is better than getting no attention at all..

Look at it this way… If you were to squeal your beasteality ideals to anyone, especially to little children in which your arrogant bible is supposed to be geared towards and you were to flaunt it to them, do you really think you’d stand a ghost of a chance in this country’s penal system? Regardless for you to defend it in any fricken way, it only shows just how diseased your teeny bopper coughed upped sickened diseased mind truly is.
Oh and oh yeah, no GOD/ SUPREME DEITY would EVER make a stupid little law in regards to it and print it in his stupid little book in which there should be no book in the first place because this god of yours can do something like talk to people or think thoughts to people so his messages don’t get lost through misconstrued garbled text and translations and copies upon copies and dead languages with no source to trace them back to their originals. Ah yes, but this god of yours uses text, proving he is not a god at---fricken---all. But you are far too stupid and ignorant to figure that out.

We’re done. You lose as always (for a 3rd time at least since I've seen you and that's bad enough). Bye. (Be lucky that I haven’t reported you)



If one takes away the insults (which I don"t mind), the baseless assumptions, the "psychological evaluations" that is not required by the debate and actually count only the things applicable it amounts to one or two sentences at most. A lot of smoke and no fire.

Backwards cannot state what the reliable method is God is supposed to use to transmit what He wants to say. Actually he alluded to speaking to someone but oral transmission was also shown to be unreliable by him using the "telephone game". So written texts, according to him, are also unreliable and yet he criticizes God for not using a reliable method. According to him just about every method is unreliable but expect God to use a "reliable" method. Now the dictionary defines that as hypocrisy, not me. He fails to make sense of his argument because he cannot identify THE reliable method he alludes must exist.

He failed to debunk the scriptures quoted to prove his assertion that the Bible was changed so we cannot know its meaning anymore.

He failed to answer the question: In the absence of God who is responsible for the ongoing suffering of children.

He has not shown how the Bible can be a reliable source to quote to substantiate his position while his basic premise is it is unreliable.

Numb nuts claimed to know the purpose why the KJV was made, but in fact he did not. The preface specifies why it was done.

My opponent denies that bestiality exists although the law courts sentence people to jail for engaging in it.

My opponent does not understand that some babies get born without genitalia and that that qualifies them as eunuchs. According to him it is impossible.

My opponent blames God for the failure of man (Judges example) which is just plain illogical.

My opponent somehow thinks that an original is needed for the Bible when it is not. An exact copy is just as good as the original.

My opponent fail to show that the uncorrupted text could not have been handed down through the ages.

My opponent failed to provide scientific proof for love when he claimed science has proof.

My opponent claimed I cannot read when I stated he thought it was sick to ask someone to love him more than others. This in spite the fact that he based his insult on what the person said.

My opponent says I lost already although the debate is not finished yet. Is he a prophet now? Does he have supernatural insight into the future?

He lied saying he did not read anything I wrote in the previous round but then rebut what was mentioned about a supreme being.

I hope you did not spent to much time on this ingenious debate of yours that you advertised in the comments section of another debate on this site. Frankly, I do not think my opponent will finish this debate, although I humbly admit I can be wrong in saying that. He did say we are done in the last round but being the liar he is, who knows.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MrDelaney 2 years ago
Honestly, you don't come across as anything but civil and polite.
And if English is not your first language then you have done a wonderful job of learning it.

No worries at all.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
Please don't take anything as criticism or in a negative way. My first language is not English so perhaps I sometimes come over a bit crude but not intentionally. Thanks for the discussion, i feel the same way.
Posted by MrDelaney 2 years ago
I can't think of a more fitting time to concern ourselves with semantics than when discussing the meaning of a term.

Apologies if you find it frustrating, but thank you regardless for the conversation.
While I imagine it was frustrating for both of us, it did force me to crystalize a few things in my own mind.
So for that, I sincerely thank you.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
@MrDelaney Agreed, we will end here because we are going in circles again. Don"t take this wrong but you are engaging in semantics. Read the statements we made:

(You) Unfalsifiable = (Me) does not require falsification " It means the same thing
(You) Self evident = (Me) does not require proof " It means the same thing

I have also made it clear that illusion was a funny observation and not relevant to the discussion and that I do not agree with what the article suggested.

The rest of what you state is what I have also said:

(You) "Other beliefs are contingent upon our basic beliefs."
(Me) I have clearly stated that the basic belief becomes the OBJECT of another"s belief.

Where we do disagree is this if applied GENERALLY:

(You) "The basic beliefs are not contingent on anything outside of themselves for justification."
(Me) I agreed to that application to a person but this is not true of everything that exists. A rock cannot determine its own existence but I can determine that it exists by observation. The list goes on and on how this can be applied.
Posted by MrDelaney 2 years ago

This is my last ditch effort, and for clarity I am only going to respond to the first thing you wrote:

"A basic belief in the PHILOSOPHICAL context you refer to is a belief that does not require proof, or as we discussed further, falsification."

Not quite.
A basic belief is one that is unfalsifiable and literally self-evident (it serves as the evidence for itself) in that any attempt to disprove it serves to prove it's very existence.

Once again - your consciousness cannot possibly be an illusion because you must use your consciousness to even entertain that thought. We have used the term existence for that as well, and it still fits. You cannot question your own existence without proving your own existence. So in this context, our consciousness/existence can be used to mean the same thing.

The foundational laws of logic (identity/excluded middle/non-contradition) are basic beliefs in that they any attempt to disprove them requires their use.

These are the things all other beliefs are based upon.
They serve as the foundation for knowledge.

Other beliefs are contingent upon our basic beliefs.
The basic beliefs are not contingent on anything outside of themselves for justification.

Hopefully that makes sense.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
@MrDelaney The discussion came about because I said the Jews have always held the basic belief that God exist. This statement is not false because of epistemology. If someone asks: what does he believe? It is quite reasonable to say; well his basic belief is that dogs are man"s best friend. In a philosophical manner that might not be entirely true but it is a truthful representation within what language and common sense allows. "Basic" and "belief" does not have an exclusive application that can only be done in one way. Further more, the wiki article you directed me to also state: "Beliefs that derive from one or more basic beliefs, and therefore depend on the basic beliefs for their validity." Therefore transference of the object of belief I argue for do not contradict this statement.

I made a remark regarding Descartes, saying it was funny that the means to transmit and argument "COULD" be an illusion. If "any" sensory experience "could be" as opposed to "might be" then you cannot trust anything anymore. In that case here is not absolute which is also funny because I can ask, is there absolutely no absolutes? Yes it is irrelevant and it was never intended to be relevant based on my remark. The remark accredited to Descartes might suggest consciousness could be an illusion, I do not hold that belief and it should be clear because I argue constantly for truthfulness. Truth is an absolute.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
@MrDelaney A basic belief in the PHILOSOPHICAL context you refer to is a belief that does not require proof, or as we discussed further, falsification. If you agree with this then that should clear up once and for all whether I misunderstand what you mean by basic belief. We agreed that existence is a basic belief.

In the beginning of this discussion we talked about it in generalized fashion but I ended up applying it specifically to a person who has consciousness. I have mentioned before that a basic belief can be established by observance. You countered saying a person with consciousness can determine his own and not necessarily by another. I agreed to that application to a person but this is not true of everything that exists. A rock cannot determine its own existence but I can determine that it exists by observation. The list goes on and on how this can be applied. Logic cannot determine its own existence it is done by observation and experience by different individuals, yet it is a basic belief.

However, I have tried to show that basic beliefs can be limited to a time frame, and can be transferred as a belief to someone else and that its application can change. I does not change the basic premise of the belief held. This does not mean that by transference that the established existence of one person is physically transferred to another as you would seem to suggest it means. I have clearly stated that the basic belief becomes the OBJECT of another"s belief. This is not an unreasonable premise because it is logical that a basic belief can become the OBJECT for faith and belief by another.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
"Jodorowsky's Dune" yeah it is a great film. Imagine of that sucker had been made. I mean wow. Jodorowsky also did some of the strangest and hard to take films of all time back in his heyday namely El Topo, Santa Sangre and the Holy Mountain which I saw way back when. If you like strange stuff, totally gone then this is it. Now word has it with his most recent films Endless Poetry and Dance of Reality that he's calmed down by quite a bit. I haven't seen either.
Here's one of his shorts "The Severed Heads from 1957 which is still wayyyyyy ahead of its time

Here's a film of his called "Tusk". I haven't seen it.

He also did one helluva lot of comics and my fav comic of all time he did with the legendary Mobius called The Incal which to me is beyond genius. I really hope they make it into a film before I die. They tried and did a trailer, but it never got beyond that.

And wow I just found a short film by his son Aden and its pretty strange. Almost as strange as daddy.
- The Voice Thief

My fav filmmaker is Akira Kurosawa and my fav film is Ran. Well you can look at my profile, hey we may be able to strike up a film conversation if you like...
Posted by MrDelaney 2 years ago
I haven't seen any of Jodorowsky's work.
Pretty much everything I know about him is from the doc "Jodorowsky's Dune"
(which is great, by they way).
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
I don't know how much you are into film but if you are and I don't know if you are into him... Alejandro Jodorowsky has just released a new film entitled "Endless Poetry". It looks stunning.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.