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

No god would use faith

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 103360
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Faith is the number one thing preached in the bible. Now why is this so when one would expect it to be love, kindness, care for each other etc. Its not. In fact it doesn't even come close. Its that ridiculous snot meat chew rag "faith" in which no supreme deity would ever ever ever ever ever ever have the want, the need or desire for, well that is of he is perfect. So this SCREAMS of imperfection. So what idiot would bow down to, worship or idolize imperfection? So it also proves that this god of the bible is indeed no god.
And since this god, well he's really just an immoral bully but for lingo purposes I have no problem calling this "character" a "god" as what the bible has been representing him for centuries or who knows how long, I mean there's hundreds of thousands of others of entitlements that are titled god or gods... anyway back to the script... guy has that need, that feeding frenzy for your faith, in which you give to him with extra special gullibility, because you have absolutely---no---proof---whatsoever that this god of yours even exists, it ultimately proves that your god has a superior "ego" complex. And an ego is a human quality. But then again god also has MORE human qualities such as anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, jealousy all in which he has freely admitted to and again proving that he is imperfect and this god is thus no god but is as frail and is as weak as you and me.

For this debate we will be talking explicitly and specifically about the god according to the bible. And if god is god (tee hee), he would NOT use faith. So it is us to you to prove that he would absolutely be required, out of necessity and need to use faith.

Please argue intelligently and use an education. If there is the slightest hint of you not knowing something and you try to run and excuse by me and or lying, because I am very educated on this topic especially, I will pulverize you with a barrage of well deserved insults. And hey, I would like nothing better than a GREAT INTELLIGENT EDUCATED DEBATE!!!!
SuperAwesomeMusician

Con

How great it feels to be debating with my opponent once again! After studying many of his other debates, I have gained a better understanding of how he forms his arguments. I am already used to the "insults" he thinks he has the right to use. After having debated with him, it has become clear that he provides no basis off of which to judge that someone is "uneducated", that is assuming that he is even in a position to make that judgement in the first place. It doesn't really matter though, all he does is harass people who disagree with him.

To begin, he is very unspecific and vague in the prompt and his opening points. "No God would use faith". In the context of this debate, the dictionary defines faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion". It does not make sense to say "no God would use faith", as faith is belief in God himself. What he CAN do is encourage others to have faith in him.

I will now address his arguments regarding imperfection. He does not provide evidence to back up his claim. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the prompt. We are discussing how faith relates to God, not how he may be imperfect. As my opponent states, I am supposed to prove that God needs to use faith. Again, this does not make sense. God in the Bible does not "use" faith. It is his followers that have the faith.

I wish my noticeably immature opponent the best of luck! I look forward to hearing his response, along with his cheesy insults!
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

We’re done. I’m not going to debate with you. I specifically stated in round 1 “So it is us to you to prove that he would absolutely be required, out of necessity and need to use faith.” I make the rules. You don’t. Its my fricken debate, not yours. But I guess you wish to continue to not follow simpleton instructions that a 3rd grader can as always. I also proved imperfection in your god as he has freely admitted to having which is beyond laughable such as evil, anger, wrath, rage, fury, jealousy especially which ARE human qualities especially with an EGO for crying out loud in which no GOD ever would. Apparently you wish you remain without friends and truly loveless. And the key word is "genuine". You had your chance. You blew it. Bye.
SuperAwesomeMusician

Con

My opponent needs to know that I am well aware of the rules he set in place. And I told him that there was a mistake in his views on faith. I told him that faith is not "used" by God, rather, by his followers. I am not changing any rules by saying this, nor making my own.

Again, as I said earlier, it doesn't matter whether or not my opponent feels God is perfect or not, it has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. My opponent is essentially side-tracking from this debate. We are discussing faith, not perfection. I did not blow anything, I made a clear point to my opponent that he is mistaken.

I am looking forward to continuing this discussion, as well as my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 2 months ago
backwardseden
* https://infidels. Org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions. Html - The Secular Web (Gigantic site gets into contradictions/ inconsistencies, Absurdities, Fatal flaws, Atrocities, Vulgarities from the verses of the bible with direct links to them. )
* https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1f6ZewV_Ro5HLixACGE_wgJrnlFNVKVxTfuVALqARNEs/preview? Hl=en_US&pli - Dossier of Reason (this is a PDF file and its 61 pages long but it has EVERYTHING you could possibly want. It has a lot more than just contradictions. If you want to save it, Simply copy and paste it into your google docs. Its highly recommended.
* http://www. Answering-christianity. Com/101_bible_contradictions. Htm - 101 contradictions
* https://wardoons. Wordpress. Com/debate/ - 1, 000 clear contradictions in the bible
* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=EcP7XPgr8Vs - Mr Butt Solves Bible Contradictions - What a truly great video! Yes, There"s actually one video that you are going to have to look at here!
Posted by backwardseden 2 months ago
backwardseden
https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1f6ZewV_Ro5HLixACGE_wgJrnlFNVKVxTfuVALqARNEs/preview? Hl=en_US&pli=1
Posted by backwardseden 2 months ago
backwardseden
Dossier of reason
Posted by backwardseden 2 months ago
backwardseden
* https://infidels. Org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions. Html - The Secular Web (Gigantic site gets into contradictions/ inconsistencies, Absurdities, Fatal flaws, Atrocities, Vulgarities from the verses of the bible with direct links to them. )
* http://www. Answering-christianity. Com/101_bible_contradictions. Htm - 101 contradictions
* https://wardoons. Wordpress. Com/debate/ - 1, 000 clear contradictions in the bible
* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=EcP7XPgr8Vs - Mr Butt Solves Bible Contradictions - What a truly great video! Yes, There"s actually one video that you are going to have to look at here!
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
just a human being's consciousness of the infinite.

He said that human ideas about God were no more than the projection of humanity's ideas about man onto an imaginary supernatural being.

Emile Durkheim
Emile Durkheim -1858 to 1917- a French sociologist, Thought that religion was something produced by human society, And had nothing supernatural about it.

"Religious force is nothing other than the collective and anonymous force of the clan. "
Durkheim. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life.

He believed that religion existed, But he did not agree that the reality that lay behind it was the same reality that believers thought existed.

Religion helped people to form close knit groups, In which they could find a place in society. Religious rituals created mental states in those taking part which were helpful to the group.

To put it another way; religious rituals do not do anything other than strengthen the beliefs of the group taking part and reinforce the collective consciousness.

Religion fulfilled the functions of:
* Giving a meaning and purpose to life
* Binding people together in groups
* Supporting the moral code of the group
* Supporting the social code of the group
Durkheim thought that this was enough to give people a feeling that there was something supernatural going on.

"Since it is in spiritual ways that social pressure exercises itself, It could not fail to give men the idea that outside themselves there exist one or several powers, Both moral and, At the same time, Efficacious, Upon which they depend. "
The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life

Durkheim said that religious beliefs divided experiences into the profane and the sacred - the profane were the routine experiences of everyday life, While the sacred were beyond the everyday and likely to inspire reverence.

Objects could become sacred, Not because of any inherent supernatural resonance but because the group fixed certain 'collective ideals' on an object.
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
Weakness of the proofs that God exists
There are a number of traditional arguments used to prove that God exists; however, None of them convinces atheists. Here they are:

The Argument from Design
The universe is such a beautiful and orderly thing that it must have been designed. Only God could have designed it. Therefore since the universe exists, God must exist.

An atheist might refute this by saying that, Actually, The universe is not particularly beautiful and orderly. And even if it was, Why should there be a designer? And modern science shows that most of the natural things we think of as designed are just the products of processes like evolution.

The "Ontological" Argument
We think of God as a perfect being. If God didn't exist he wouldn't be perfect. God is perfect, Therefore God exists.

Most atheists think this argument is so feeble they don't bother dealing with it.

Professional philosophers usually reject it on the grounds that existence is not a property of beings.

The First Cause Argument
Everything that happens has a cause. Therefore the universe must have had a cause. That cause must have been God. Therefore since the universe exists, God must exist in order to have caused it to exist.

An atheist might respond by asking what caused God. (And what caused the cause of God, And so on. ) The argument might proceed that if God didn't need a cause, Then maybe the universe didn't need a cause either. If God was already perfect before he created the universe, Why did he create it? How did it benefit him? Why would he bother? And if the universe was caused, Perhaps something other than God caused it?
-----
Reasons that treat God as a social function
Sociological explanations of religion
"Some people think that religions and belief in God fulfill functions in human society, Rather than being the result of God actually existing. "
Ludwig Feuerbach
Ludwig Feuerbach was a 19th century German philosopher who proposed that religion was ju
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
"If it is to be established that there is a God, Then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so.
Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic.
So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition.
It must be up to them: first, To give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', Meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, Second, To bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, In their present sense of the word 'God', There is a God. "
-----
Reasons that treat God as unnecessary
Science explains everything
Atheists argue that because everything in the universe can be explained in a satisfactory way without using God as part of the explanation, Then there is no point in saying that God exists.

Occam's Razor
The argument is based on a philosophical idea called Occam's Razor, Popularised by William of Occam in the 14th century.

In Latin it goes Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate or in English. . . "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

This is usually simplified to say that the simplest answer is the best answer.

Therefore atheists might argue that since the entire universe, And all of creation can be explained by evolution and scientific cosmology, We don't need the existence of another entity called God.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

What would William have said?
William of Occam would not have agreed; he was a Franciscan monk who never doubted the existence of God.

But in his century he wasn't breaking the rule named after him. 14th century science knew nothing about evolution or how the universe came into being. God was the only explanation available.

What William would think if he lived now is another matter. . .
-----
Arguments for God aren't convincing
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
Prove believing in the god of the bible is correct and atheism is false and incorrect and argue against the subjects presented that will be presented in further RD's.
https://www. Bbc. Co. Uk/religion/religions/atheism/beliefs/reasons_1. Shtml

One more thing. . . Atheism is NOT a religion.
Ready?

Different reasons for being an atheist
Intellectual
Most atheists would offer some of the following arguments as their reason for deciding that God doesn't exist.

Non-Intellectual
Many people are atheists because of the way they were brought up or educated, Or because they have simply adopted the beliefs of the culture in which they grew up. So someone raised in Communist China is likely to have no belief in God because the education system and culture make being an atheist the natural thing to do.

Other people are atheists because they just feel that atheism is right.

Note for philosophers
The arguments and counter-arguments are presented in this article in an extremely simplified way and are intended only as a starting point for further reading and exploration.
-----
Reasons focussing on lack of evidence
Law of probabilities
"It is wrong always, Everywhere, And for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"
W. K. Clifford -1879-

Many people are atheists because they think there is no evidence for God's existence - or at least no reliable evidence. They argue that a person should only believe in things for which they have good evidence.

A philosopher might say that they start from the presumption of atheism.

The presumption of Atheism
This is an argument about where to begin the discussion of whether or not God exists.

It says that we should assume that God does not exist, And put the onus on people who believe in God to to prove that God does exist.

The philosopher Anthony Flew who wrote an article on this said:
"If it is to be established that there is a God, Then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is i
Posted by backwardseden 5 months ago
backwardseden
See how stupid these 10 commandments just---don"t---work? 9 commandments out of 10 = kablooey! Well at least here in this country. Hey god you hair brained maggot, Lose the bloated ego. Let us all band together and permanently get rid of those ridiculous commandments that trumpet his bloated ego. They are not needed for any reason and they are absurd indeed.
Are there any commandments that are geared towards children? No there are none. There should be, Obviously. That is a gross violation and it is truly shameful especially when their voices and cries need to be heard and not shut down. Children throughout the bible do not get to say nor voice one single sentence in the bible which is the worst form of child abuse there is as they are neglected and ignored.
However there are 4 commandments out of the 10 commandments covering god"s bloated fragile frail superior ego. Now why is that? What is god afraid of that he requires 4 out of 10? I"ll tell you what he is afraid of" He is afraid of losing his grip, Power, And control that he has with his supposed chosen people. So what does this god character do? He applies fear through his commandments. And fear controls. Its that simple. In no way could these 10 commandments ever ever ever ever ever and let's say - ever - again be implied to today"s intelligent and educated congregations from around the world if they were written today ----- unless they are for those that are far too gullible and seeking an explanation for the unexplained, Just like you. So obviously, The 10 commandments weigh in with precious little credibility and with no integrity that isn"t contradictory and hypocritical that "thou shall not kill" is. None. So please do not invent the excuse that I am taking verses from your bible out of context. K? When in fact you can not read your simpleton bible at all - ever - for what they are now can you? That"s an "absolutely not" answer on all levels.
Man can and will do and has done for 2
Posted by backwardseden 5 months ago
backwardseden
** Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. "
** Mark 7:10 "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, Let him die the death:"
**Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, Saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, Let him die the death. "
*shall not commit adultery - violates the freedom of choice. Or if the other supposed "violator doesn"t let the other person know that he or she is committing adultery and or if the person does not know if the person he or she is sleeping with is committing adultery, What then? Also yet again its punishable by death. Wow such a stupid commandment.
*Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, Even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. "
*shall not covet your neighbor"s? Well, Violates the freedom of choice
* shall not steal That"s awfully vague. Shall not steal what? One sip of water? One tiny bite of meat? A nuclear bomb from Iran or N. Korea or wherever to save the world from a holocaust?
Once the 10 commandments are rightfully reset due to a thoughtful process which never happened to begin with, Obviously, And who knows how many commandments will be needed, In their place it is required to have a commandment which states something to the effect of "thou shall not rape, Beat, Torture, Nor cause harm to children. " In reality, There's no way that the 10 commandments are righteous and just with leaving that one out and thus leaving god's ridiculous blubbering ego in. That"s a duh situation.
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.