Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Tied
1 Points
The Contender
MrMaestro
Con (against)
Tied
1 Points

Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists and the bible is fraudulent

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 727 times Debate No: 120915
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Believe in yourself and not the corrupted totally insane bumbling babbling baby brained big black blank booby prize bible looking over your shoulder with every move you make with something as ludicrous as "sin". You are far too good for that! And regardless no supposed god would ever, Not for any reason be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible!

Now you go right ahead and prove that sin exists in this world because it doesn't. How can it when you cannot prove that the prime motivator god exists? Without a proven god, There's no sin. How can there be? Sorry, Sin is gone and nonexistent. Here's another thought. . . This unproven "god" is supposed to be about love, Kindness, Care, Peace, Harmony, Etc etc etc and yet what is preached in the bible other than faith is pretty much entirely on "sin" and if you are a bad and naughty person you are going to go to a demonized hell. Go figure. How hypocritical and contradictory indeed deliberately designed to scare people from getting a good nights sleep. Well you know what? People that don't believe in that crap, Including myself who chugalugs some ooga booga medicines to help me doze off from monotones of every other daily pressures, We sleep just fine and don't worry about a mythical hell.

Here's something else and ah yes, With the jaws wide open for a camera shot. . .
Sin IS contradictory and hypocritical in your fraudulent and fake bible. Thus sin does---not---exist.
Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, Because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God. . (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, And he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, Then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, And the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

Matt Dillahunty "What is sin and why should I care about it? I understand why I should live an ethical life and treating people in certain ways, We have secular foundations for moral systems. But sin from the christian perspective is a crime against god or god"s nature itself - right? If god makes the rules and you violate it, That"s a sin. Well what if god makes a rule that you should kill your child, Does that make it good? Caller " Yeah that"s where I do things that are not aligned in what the bible says. " Matt "Yeah. But are they good things? Do you have good reasons to have that the things you are doing are not immoral? Like do you have an example? Like don"t confess to a crime or anything. For example, The bible is opposed to homosexuality. Do you think there"s something immoral about those who are homosexuals? " Caller "Uh there"s none that I can think of. " Matt "Yeah me neither. And so if the bible"s opposed to it add the bible is the word of god, And the Koran is opposed to it as well and the Koran is supposed to be the word of god as well, And there are two holy books and let them argue over who god is and what god thinks and until they can come up with a sound secular justification for homosexuality being immoral then I don"t need to pay their views any money because its just an opinion at that point. "

Jenn Peeples "christianity, At least some flavors of it, Would brand me as a sinner because I"m gay. And that would be the same as if I were raping children. And that"s appalling! So yeah, I don"t buy this "we"re all sinners" crap. We"re all human. And we have human responsibilities to each other. "

Again, You are far far far too good to even worry about something as cheap and as mundane as "sinning". Live out your lives in peace and prosperity and toss the ridiculous tinsel mind idea of sinning down the silly hillbilly drain. You are better than sinning. Sinning does---not---exist without a god.
Regardless, This so-called god of the bible has these admitted human baggage emotions of evil, Anger, Wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury, Jealousy. Really? Those are emotions any god would "need", "require", And they are a "necessity" for any supposed god to have? Even worse is this superior ego god complex in which this bible is entirely about and nothing else, Neatly passed down those emotions so in turn man could learn to hate with at least 1 billion dead on the battlefields alone all in the supposed "good" name of this god. Great going god. Great going for those that worship this storybook character. Keep up the good work!

One last thing for you to ponder on for this debate and RD: There's never been an era of peace for more than oh say 50 years since this storybook god's inception, Not at anyplace, Not at any time, Not during any time. Now doesn't that tell you something? This storybook god is not about peace, Harmony, Love, Kindness, Care etc etc etc at all. According to the fictitious bible, If people were to have actually read the damn thing, This superior ego god complex is about chaos, Suffering especially among children, Pain and conflict. After all, If there was peace, Harmony, Kindness, Care, Love etc, This printed gibberish nothingness storybook character would be out of a job. Just as the writers knew this flubber flypaper to be. Yeah, They knew better. A lot better. So they built in a fried eggsalad failsafe.

One other stipulation/ Rule:
dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
MrMaestro

Con

Wow, And I thought Christians were preachy! Cool it man the debate hasn't event started yet.


"Sin does not exist"

I propose that the concept of "sin" exists regardless of whether or not god exists. Here is my rationale:

Imagine two universes called:

Universe (A)thiest
Universe (B)eleiver

Universe A is an atheist universe. There is no divine presence, But primitive humans invented the idea of gods and sin anyway. The result: Exactly what we see now. No change. This is exactly what we would expect.

Universe B is a universe where God exists. People align there beliefs with their religion, And invent the concept of sin. The result: Exactly what we see now. No change. This is exactly what we would expect.


In both universes humans invent the concept of Sin. Both Christians and atheists agree that the universe would look exactly like it does today if their argument were true. Therefore it makes no difference whether or not god exists; the concept of sin would have been invented and believed either way.

The concept of sin exists independently from God, And therefore your premise is faulty.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Here's another way of looking at it. . .
Do you think that Buddhists, Hindu's, Native American Indian Tribes before the white man christian brethren sweaty pig nearly wiped them out, Gaia Mother Earth, The Inca, The Aborigines etc etc etc do you think they practiced or taught/ teach "sin"? How can they when they don't even know what "sin" is?

Religion is usually invented to explain the unexplained, But not always. Then from there you have power and then comes fear and then comes control. Its usually in that order, But not always. You would certainly have to invent some type of a deity along the way. This way you can have power. And of course its probably going to go to your head. Since this is true, Corruption lays in wait. This is where the sinning bit starts to come alive. So really, Where, How and why was it invented? You've got to have a god in order for sinning to take place.
MrMaestro

Con

My opponenet has gracefully danced around my argument without answering it directly. I'll repeat my argument so he can try again.

Either there is a God and the concept of sin exists, Or there is not a god, And the concept of sin still exists. The concept of Sin exists regardless of God, refuting your claim that sin does not exist because God does not exist. The premise of your assumption is faulty.

You claimed that not-abrahamic religions don't teach sin. That's true. Most of them teach Karma though - with a similar ideology to prevent bad behavior. How on earth does that relate to what I said?

You also implied that religion was most likely created by powerful ancestors in order to control the population. Again, I recognize and have internalized your point, But it does nothing to defend your premise.

---
Just for good measure, I'll rephrase my argument based on these two assumptions:
  1. You don't beleive in God
  2. The concept of sin exists in your universe
So we see that "sin" arose in an athiest universe without God. Therefore, "sin" can exist without god. Therefore, You can't claim that Sin only exists if God exists.

I tell you what. I know you are dying to break out that bible smacking stick of yours. Defend your premise and we can open up the debate to discussions of things like scripture and God.

Best of luck!
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Oh please. You didn't attack one god damned thing in RD 1. All you did was invent your own argument which doesn't work. So you know what? I decided to add a few things in RD 2. You know what? I'm going to add one more thing in RD3. If you don't like it, That's tough because your argument is bonkers and doesn't prove anything because its an invented excuse.

Oh darn. I found it without too much trouble. Tracie Harris and Jenn Peeples, They do know one helluva lot better than you. Sorry.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=1UtgI3qvwz0&t=2929s - The phone call starts at the 44:30 mark. But if you wish to cut to the chase, You can jump right into it at the 48:30 mark.

You cannot have sin without a god. And since no god has ever been demonstrated, There's no sin. Its really not that hard to understand rather than all the fiberoptics you are inventing.

"You also implied that religion was most likely created by powerful ancestors in order to control the population. Again, I recognize and have internalized your point, But it does nothing to defend your premise. " Oh absolutely it does. Christianity invented this god and this god does not exist. No one has ever demonstrated, Tested and then asserted and then once that's done declared that this god exists. They also invented this supposed sin that goes along with it. And since this invented god does not exist, This invented sin does not exist also. The two go hand in hand. Did you know that 2 + 2 = 4? Or not?

"You don't beleive in God
The concept of sin exists in your universe

Well gee, Religion has been around since the first neanderthals could create fire. And you have no idea, None, As to what I 100% know and can prove. But strange, You have yet to prove anything.

So evil and sin are two different things. That's step 1.
Step 2 is you cannot have sin without a god.
Step 3 is since no god has been demonstrated, Tested or asserted and then declared, There is no sin, But there is evil.
MrMaestro

Con

"your argument is bonkers and doesn't prove anything because its an invented excuse"
This is a debate not a YouTube fight. You're supposed to explain WHY it's bonkers. What specifically is incorrect about it?

"You cannot have sin without a god. And since no god has ever been demonstrated, There's no sin. Its really not that hard to understand rather than all the fiberoptics you are inventing. "
Yes I understand your position - it's stated in the title. Do you understand my position?

"So evil and sin are two different things. That's step 1.
Step 2 is you cannot have sin without a god.
Step 3 is since no god has been demonstrated, Tested or asserted and then declared, There is no sin, But there is evil. "
So. . . Your argument is exactly the same but now you're making an exception for "evil". Got it.

---

Alright you wanna play hardball, I'm game. I can tell you're well versed in religious debates, But how good are you at philosophy?

Argument 2: I posit that any abstract concept which has a tangible and measurable impact on society is real.

Society is built on abstract concepts. Abstraction is what separates us from the beasts. Other examples of abstract concepts:
  • Math
  • Game Theory
  • Atheism
  • e = mc^2
  • Beauty
  • Philosophy
  • Morality
Would you claim that these concepts also don't exist?

I repeat, If "sin" exists independently from God, Then your premise is faulty.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

"This is a debate not a YouTube fight. You're supposed to explain WHY it's bonkers. What specifically is incorrect about it? " OK we're done. Don't even bother responding. That was fully explained in RD's 1, 2, 3. And it was 100% backed upped by professionals from The Atheist Experience in RD3, Who pointed out the why' as to there is no sin without a god which was explained unto YOU in which you did not pay any attention to. If you cannot pay any attention to evidence whatsoever in which you offered no counter, In which christians can't pay any attention to ---any--- evidence whatsoever, Because their dear lard, Oh sorry lord, Cannot handle a butt greasing, That's not my problem, That's yours. If you do not understand what is being stated to you, Then you can say "I don't know" which is a proper thing to say. But to continue as you are with your ridiculous argument, It doesn't wash especially against professionals who 100% know A LOT better than you. Your arrogance shows like a burnt out blankity blank big black blank hole. Awe well gee, "You're supposed to say WHY its bonkers. What specifically is incorrect about it? " Hypocrite. Bye.
MrMaestro

Con

Aww c'mon Eden don't be mad. We were having fun! I understand you wanted to have a religious debate, Not a philosophical debate, But you need to be ready to defend your premise from all sides.

I tell you what, Let's finish this debate like gentleman. I won't attack your character, And you agree not to attack mine. We simply state our points and let the judges decide. How's that sound?

---

My opponent has focused on WHY God does not exist. I have pointed out that it doesn't matter if God exists, Because sin exists either way. My position is that Sin, As an abstract concept, Has a real and lasting impact on society, And therefore it exists whether or not God is real.

---

"it was 100% backed upped by professionals from The Atheist Experience in RD3"

I actually tried to watch this video, But the link is broken. Please reupload the link and I will watch.

Debate Round No. 4
backwardseden

Pro

Something you can trust on is that I don't get mad, Angry, Have the need for wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury and especially I don't get jealous unlike you obviously do as well as your god in which you cannot even prove exists. But yeah we were having fun especially me in degrading, Humiliating, And dehumanizing you because you do not know your subject matter at all. You guess, Just like all supposed christians. Oh don't worry your crying boo hoo hooing on your soggy shirt none, There's no such a thing as a christian. So you are out of gooey lard for any type of an argument because you cannot even prove your god even exists. Oh guess what? I didn't read past your first sentence in your most recent RD. Not needed. I've constantly added to my arguments in RD's 2 & 3 in which you have not countered. So I win this debate. Bye.
MrMaestro

Con

Sorry to hear that Eden. I'm actually athiest by the way, But I wanted to defend a theistic position for practice.

Thank you all for reading!
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
"The constitution is not supported by science, Nor is it demonstratable. It even bases itself around a concept that doesn't exist (human rights). "
Well, This is usually the problem with all morals.
Let me give the example.
You say that A(something) is wrong.
I ask why.
You say A(something) is wrong because B(reason).
Then I ask why is B a reason that makes A wrong.
You say: Because of C
I say: Why is C a reason to make B a reason that makes A wrong.
You introduce a new reason: D.
Same question, Only now with D added, Repeats again.
And this goes on to infinity.
This is the problem with all laws.

And by this, Bible and U. S. Constitution are equal in the amount of proof they have for their claims.
And when someone says that Bible cannot be proved, He probably fails to realize that not many things actually can be proved, Especially not commands and laws.

But of course, This isn't an argument that favors Bible any more than it favors millions of other texts and laws that were written. And it doesn't refute the argument that Bible is still not proved. It refutes an argument that was never even made: "Bible is a myth. Because of that, We should follow U. S. Constitution instead. " And points out to certain hypocritical views on the Bible.
Posted by MrMaestro 3 years ago
MrMaestro
If you guys are gonna hijack the comment thread you ought to vote when this debate is over. Only seems fair :)
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
@killshot Oh where do I begin! :D first off, Most of the assertions you put forth is not valid and is often due people not properly exegeting the scriptures. There are metaphors to be certain however.

The bible has the most tested background, The old testament has maintained traditional understanding throughout the thousands of copies that we have of the original manuscripts, The bible is inerrant and I want to stress these 2 things.
The bible is true
The bible helps guide people to a life of peace and greater joy.

Why wouldn't you want to at least understand what the bible has to say? What we have is an old testament thoroughly maintained through thousands of years and compared to dead sea scrolls there was 98% accuracy with only 2 textual variances and a 15% increase compared to Jeremiah as we have now.
The New testament was a document written and distributed in haste to spread the gospel of salvation while Christians were dying and fleeing from persecution. They haven't maintained an accuracy compared to the old testament, However the textual tradition remains fervent throughout the 5796? Greek manuscripts and that's not counting the 1. 3million total copies through out all translations of the original manuscript. The bible is applicable to anyone and everyone who is willing to read it and seek what God's will for their life is.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
@killshot - The constitution is not supported by science, Nor is it demonstratable. It even bases itself around a concept that doesn't exist (human rights). The purpose of religion and the constitution are the same if you're analyzing them from a secular perspective. I mean, Your entire first paragraph could be applied directly to any religion.

You're misrepresenting my parody of your argument. I never once claimed the Bible and the U. S. Constitution were analogous in every sense. It was meant to express how meaningless your own argument was since it can be applied to most compiled texts.

The assertion they are "in no way comparable, " is patently absurd. Below are a few simple commonalities

Compiled by a group of people;
Modified many times;
Not empirical;
Adapted from old ideas;
adjudicates behavior;

I could keep going, But I think this is fair enough to express the point.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@killshot - You are going to LOVE THIS!
melcharaz (the first post on this page) stated the second dumbest thing I've ever heard. It only takes a backstab to someone believing that one of the 10 commandments is overeating and obesity. "The native Americans? They worshipped God, They call him The Great Spirit, In some of their chants they say "Yahweh"" IS HE SERIOUS? Then his ignorant defense for his stupidity is (but first before you read it the simpleton moron doesn't even know how to post his links) "The American Cherokee Indians worship the Supreme Being, Ye ho waah or Yo ho wah, Which is very similar to the Hebrew name of God (Yahweh or Yahoveh).
The Cherokee Indians believe in one Supreme Being--the Creator-- and have surprising connections to Christianity.
Ancient Cherokee Indians believed before 1750 that God was going to appear on Earth as a man and they called this person by five different Old Testament (Hebrew) names for Jesus.
The Cherokees have three actual cities of refuge, They have the stories of the great flood, And many other Old Testament stories.
They also adhere to the prohibitions found within the Ten Commandments.
Cherokees keep one day without work for prayer.
http:(Slash) (slash) laetitiasmile. Blogspot. Com(Slash)2009(Slash)07(slash) cherokee-belived-in-yahweh-god-of-hebew. Html
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@killshot - Well said within limited space.
And the parasitic whore that the superior ego god complex in which the bible is entirely about who loves genocide, Himself, Rape, Slavery, Hates gays and wants to murder them all, Also wants to murder those that blaspheme, Those that curse at their parents, Those that don't worship their god, Those that are adulterers, Those that work on the sabbath etc etc etc. Wow what a great role model that this god is, In which the Constitution makes absolutely no comparison to, Not one god damned word! The two are complete opposites as we both know.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
absurd**

ran out of characters lol
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@oalks - Haha nice, But that's a bad example and there is a simple answer.

The constitution was collectively developed for the purposes of forming a nation and government. It's important to know what it says because the rules of our nation are based on it; as members of that nation, We are required to follow those rules or fall subject to their consequences. As citizens of the US country, We are born into the societal laws and regulations imposed by that document. It's different from Egyptian and Greek law to me for one simple reason - because I don't live in those nations/civilizations and I don't adhere to their laws.

That all being said, You're gravely mistaken in your comparison of the constitution and Bible. The constitution is in no way comparable to the Bible, Whether it's content or historical verification. We know who wrote the constitution, When it was written, Why it was written, All the components outlined in it, Etc. It's historical integrity has been maintained and the reason for it's inception was clear. Changing the constitution is a whole other topic that gets into the legal domain and issues that are outside the scope of this.

Now lets compare this to the Bible. The Bible is a "sub" collection of books who's authors are unknown. The author's sources are unidentifiable, And the claims made by them violate known science and contradict or are unsupported by known historicity. There are known interpolations, Transcription errors, False proclamations and missing components. It's a collection of parables, Prophecies, Stories, Metaphors and a collective amalgamation of borrowed surrounding religious ideas and rituals from numerous sources. It involves magical incantations, Resurrections and miracles; in addition, It bases it's entire doctrine around a concept that never existed in the first place (original sin & Adam/Eve).

Why should anyone take this bs seriously? How anyone can think this is somehow comparable to the US constitution, Is absu
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I think sin is addiction or bad habbits
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
@killshot - If you're going to make an argument like that, I have to ask - why should anyone care what the constitution of the United States says? It's just an old document riddled with myths, Metaphors, Contradictions and stone age ideas written by sources generations after its inception and then interpolated, Copied and destroyed as it trickled it's way through history. The amendments today were not even present at the United State's inception, And several origin concepts popular back then are not around now. It's unoriginal and no different from any other old law book. Why is this old document any different from any other old document (such as Egyptian law, Or Greek law).
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
backwardsedenMrMaestroTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro "preachy!". That's poor conduct.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenMrMaestroTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con a "hypocrite" That's poor conduct.

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