The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Wynton99
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Which is more moral? Man or YOUR god of the bible or torah? Take a morality test to find out its man

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,008 times Debate No: 116731
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Here is a test for YOUR morality to see where YOU stand with YOUR god with how he believes from what is stated directly from the bible and or torah. It is a simple "yes" or "no" response. Its only a couple of things. There are many more questions that could have easily been asked that have been left out that will be addressed should this debate get into further rounds if this debate lasts that long.

* Do you think you should be put to death just because you blaspheme? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."
* Do you think you should die if you work on the sabbath? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Exodus 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.", Numbers 15: 32-36 " And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." Notice jesus worked on the sabbath, he was not put to death. Strange? That supposed "law" that christians use is in ill effect and does not work.
* Do you think you should die for merely cursing at your parents? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death., 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."
* Do you think you should die if you commit adultery? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. 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."
* Do you think you should die if you are a homosexual? Y___? N____? Your god thinks so. Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
* Do you think you should die if you worship other gods? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 "9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." AND 17: 2-5 "2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

These plus many more completely absurd examples show how completely inane and insane this biblical god is, as well as completely immoral. Yet no one can even prove he even exists. Wow even worse is how many of the examples that are listed above are taken directly from the 10 commandments THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD FOLLOW? What's worse is this so-called god would never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.

Simply put, if you answer "yes" to ---any--- of the questions, it means you are totally bankrupt, corrupt, and immoral, just like your unproved god clearly is in your shallow mind and you need not respond as everybody who is sensible and intelligent knows where you stand as every single response absolutely requires a "no" response, no exceptions, none.

So if you have responded with a "no" response to all of the questions, congratulations, this means you are moral and sane and not bullied by a horrific god that you cannot even prove even exists. So then the next question needs to be asked is where do you think you stand with YOUR god? Then the next question needs to be asked, which is the most important one of all "why do you believe?" With the follow up question "why 'should' you believe since your god is in no possible way moral?"

dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Wynton99

Con

Before I begin I just want to say that I think this is an interesting topic to argue, and I am looking forward to the debate. I just want to extend a bit of cordiality to Backwardseden. Thank you for the opportunity to debate, and hopefully some truth in unearthed here.

The framework of my argument will be the following: An individual may possess objective morals through his or her religion, while society, which will always be home to people who do not share that religion, cannot hold objective moral truths.

1)Penalties for sins outlined by the bible
a.The context of the verse nullifies the question: The verse in Leviticus which condemns blasphemy is from the Old Testament of the Bible. The Old Testament outlines the covenant that the Christian God held with humanity before the resurrection. This was overwritten by the new testament, which basically installs grace as a tenant of Christianity. The Christian definition of grace states that God"s son took the penalties outlined in the old testament, and there for any condemnation and its penalty was removed. This means that blasphemy, as well as any form of sin, cannot be condemned by man, and for believers will not be condemned by God. Thus, the answer to the question proposed is no.
b.Point A extends to the questions on working on the Sabbath, cursing at one"s parents, committing adultery, being homosexual, and idolatry. It is worth noting that homosexuality is a contentious point for Christians, as many see it as a deal breaker. However, this is not the case because whether you use the Pope"s statement that it is fine to be part of the LGBTQ, or whether you follow the traditional view that it falls into the category of idolatry. The fact is that the Bible and more specifically the New Testament makes no distinction that there is any special penalty for homosexuality, or being any part of the LGBTQ, as the aforementioned definition of grace supersedes any opinion that a given church may hold. Following this, no human following Christianity can possibly rule on any of these issues on God"s behalf. Additionally, whether or not these are sins in the first place, is a moral issue, one which society can never take an absolute stance on, thus showing that man is incapable of being moral by definition.
c.A belief of Christianity is that non-believers should not, and cannot be held to the beliefs of Christianity, because justice belongs to God. This means that the question that any action should be taken on behalf of the Christian God by any person can be answered with the simple truth no person can deliver justice on God"s behalf. Thus, the answer is no.
d.Concluding that man is not moral compared to God for this contention: First, man as a whole (society) being unable to establish 100% objective moral truth due to inevitably differing beliefs, cannot be more moral than a being who is defined as the origin of all moral truth. Secondly, man is unable to deliver justice on Gods behalf, as man's justice is never 100% correct, and therefore, man cannot be more moral than God.

2)On the conclusion of Moral Bankruptcy
a.I am a Christian, and I have answered no to every single question, based not on my own morals, but morals which I take from Christianity. Because of this, I conclude that I am not more moral than my God.
b.While some Christians may answer yes to these, such answers would not be founded on the Moral truths given by
God, and so they would be making such condemnations based on the morals of man. By the logic of the assertion made by my opponent in his conclusion, this would make man morally bankrupt and corrupt. While God"s morals may define these issues as sin, he doesn't condemn or levy any penalty to anyone while on earth, because of grace. No matter what people say about God punishing evil deeds on earth, that fact is that a core Christian belief " Grace " dictates that judgment is reserved for the afterlife. Finally, for believers, no condemnation is levied for any of these issues because of the resurrection. The final conclusion of this contention is that man is less moral than the Christian God.

Conclusion: Since man has no objective morality on its own, and God by definition has a single moral code which no man can use to condemn another man, and since I have answered "no" to all my opponents question as per the rules defined by my opponent, It must be concluded for this first round that the my God (the Christian God) is indeed more Moral than Man.

One anecdote for the road: Members of the LGBTQ have died at the hands of man, but God died for the life of both.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Seasoned beatings. Ohhh whoopps, sorry I meant to say greetings. Yeah that"s it. And how are you drooling today? Oh whooopppsssw sorry. Jeez I don"t know how I can possibly keep making these deliberate miss=steaks. Its all sarcasm. So let"s see what you got and hopefully its intelligent and not yet another typical yeast infection as usual from the typical person who pretends that he/ she is a christian because in reality there is no such a thing.

"An individual may possess objective morals through his or her religion, while society, which will always be home to people who do not share that religion, cannot hold objective moral truths." Wow. What a supermassive hypocritical contradiction. So then that means that in no possible way can you follow YOUR god because according to YOUR god in YOUR bible that"s exactly what society MUST do or its death.

Oh and btw, I"m not going to follow your rules by any means. You will follow mine. The debate was quite clear in its understanding.

1)Penalties for sins outlined by the bible

"a.The context of the verse nullifies the question: The verse in Leviticus which condemns blasphemy is from the Old Testament of the Bible. The Old Testament outlines the covenant that the Christian God held with humanity before the resurrection." 100% false. Show me anywhere in YOUR bible in which YOUR god gives permission to change HIS laws. Screw christ. I didn"t mention christ. You did. He was a false prophet who broke YOUR god"s laws (such as working on the sabbath which required the death penalty which was proved in RD1 in which NOBODY can escape) and lied about him (more about that one later). And"
Pay attention closely:
*Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."
*Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
*2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
*Psalm 19:7 "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple."
*Psalm 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
* James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
In other words god"s word is PERFECT. It cannot be changed by anyone or anything. Christ, being the lowly drab that he supposedly was in which like god who in which nobody can even prove has ever existed could---not---change---god"s---laws---because---god"s---word---is---PERFECT---and---cannot---be---changed not for any reason, not ever. Got it?

Also what YOU are saying is that YOUR god changed from being this absolute bastard and s.o.b. Who killed for absolutely no reason at all 2,821,364 in his bible which included children, babies still suckling on their mothers nipples, pregnant women which would obviously be abortions in which you christians are so against but that would be a super massive hypocritical contradiction, this supposed god loved his genocides, raped women, freely admitting to being evil, having anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy etc etc etc Oh jealousy. From a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. And then this god of YOUR neatly passed down those emotions to man so in turn man could learn to hate with at least 1 billion dead all in the supposed "good" name of YOUR god in which you cannot even prove exists. Great going god. Great going you for believing in this atrocity. Keep up the good work. And SHEBANG with a POOF from being totally evil and hateful in the OT, this god of YOURS suddenly changed to being kind, caring, considerate, loving in YOUR bible in the NT? WRONG!!!!!!!The NT is far worse than the OT. You"ve got the conception of hell, crucifixions, that suffering is somehow a "good" thing (oh please try teaching that to a child as daddy is bashing their faces in while sticking his you know what inside of them for 15 years),

John 5: 16-18 "16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."
I get it indeed. YOUR christ is 17 stating that YOUR god is going to work on the sabbath. THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT YOUR GOD WOULD ---EVER--- WORK ON THE SABBATH. Not for any reason. Not ever. So YOUR jesus lied about his god. Either that or that verse is a misprint in which YOUR bible is supposed to be perfect thus showing to be YOUR christ to be imperfect also in lying. And then even worse is verse 18. Who in the f--k is this christ figure to place himself as an equal with god? Did his "father" ever grant that? No he did not. Wow what a stench of an ego in which YOUR bible is entirely about... the superior ego god complex and nothing but.

Oh and oh yeah because of glaring errors like these + a good thousand or more supermassive hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies in YOUR bible which proves it to be unreadable, there"s a 0% chance that YOUR god would EVER choose text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.

Great family value statements "abandon your families, give away ALL your possessions, follow me:" Sorry. You are NOT a christian in any way possible, and neither is anyone else except for maybe 1,000 on this planet who are completely insane.
Give up your family in which you have not done and only someone completely insane would make that demand. Great morals - right?
Matthew 10: 35-37 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

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

Matthew 19: 28-29 "28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give up ALL OF YOUR POSSESSIONS in which you have not done and only someone completely insane would make that demand. Again great morals. Wow.
Luke 14:33 "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

Luke 18:22 "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

Matthew 19: 28-29 (yeah its worth repeating)"28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

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

Matthew 13: 22 "22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful."

b.Now I don"t care what YOUR NT says. Its false because your christ is false. Thus your religion is false. I care about what YOU think because YOUR bible did state death to homosexuals by YOUR god as well as cursing at your parents, blaspheme, working on the sabbath etc etc etc. What do YOU think? Not what does YOUR bible think! You by no means follow your bible and its rules.

C.Wow. Any belief by christianity is that if one does not believe in chirst, its an automatic trip to hell no matter what. More power for me and the billions of others to not believe. More power for your toxic mind to believe without a single shred of evidence.

D. I"m not even going to bother. Its simple. Man, by far, is more moral than YOUR immoral god. Man doesn"t as a whole kill for no reason. god does.

2)On the conclusion of Moral Bankruptcy
"a.I am a Christian," WRONG! "and I have answered no to every single question, based not on my own morals, but morals which I take from Christianity." Oh OK - right. Sure. Anything you say.

Here"s the thing about you" you think that YOUR NT is all fun and games and is all squeaky clean and filled with wholesome goodness. Well as proven above, its not. And as will be proven in the next RD its not even moreso as I'm out of space, but there's a new survey for the NT. It aint pretty.
Wynton99

Con

Lets make a note for the voters: Backwardseden's childish fumbling of insults and ad hominems, as well as wild accusation of personal immorality contrasted by a complete lack of understanding of the Bible clearly demonstrate the weakness of his arguments. Additionally, his poor organization should be an indicator of his scattered thought process. I have clearly won round one. With that in mind, let's look the arguments.

1) My opponent has stated that my framework: "An individual may possess objective morals through his or her religion, while society cannot hold objective moral truths." Is a hypocritical contradiction due to it preventing one from following their own God. This shows me that he mistakes the beliefs of an individual with the ability to tolerate the beliefs of his or her neighbor. To that end, it is perfectly reasonable to be a Christian and accept everyone else is free to follow whatever religion they chose. And that truth means that inevitably, everyone in society has a slightly different set of moral codes. This is a basic concept.

2) My opponent claims that I have redefined the rules of the debate. I have not, but in fact humored the archaic format that he has presented. I say archaic because his argument is less of an argument than a ridiculously narrow-minded word salad of assertions that runs into a conclusion based on a total lack of knowledge of the Bible. I should add that since the resolution is whether or not man or God is more moral, his arguments related to the ethics of those morals are irrelevant, and not much more than the ravings of someone who doesn't understand their own arguments.

3) My opponent asks for proof that the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant and meaning that man is no longer beholden to the law for salvation. To this I simply point to the verse ROMANS 6:14: "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace". Which supports in entirety my claim. My opponent then sites several verses explaining the sanctity of Gods word, which does nothing to prove that the old and new testament contradict each other in any way, but rather point out that God simply speaks the truth. The Old and New Testament are like the signing and fulfilling of a contract. The old testament gives the law, and the new testament fulfills it with the distinction that man broke the law, and Christ took the penalty. My opponent states that since Gods word is perfect, why would he change it? The simple answer is that he didn't; he gave man a covenant, and when man broke the covenant, God fulfilled it in man's place.

4) Backwardseden then goes on a tirade about God turning on his decisions which again, is a misunderstanding. That God had wrath against those who disobeyed in the Old Testament, doesn't prove a lack of morality, unless Backwardseden can prove that people are completely blameless. He also blocks the validity of Christ taking on flesh, which whether you believe it or not, is irrelevant to this debate. I should note that my opponents arguments are so full of rabbit trails and non-sequiturs, not to mention ad hominems that I can hardly follow it. Let the vote reflect this.

5) On the arguments that the calling of Christians to give away their possessions to follow Christ is in someway immoral, would suggest that man should have no higher calling than to pursue wealth and comfort.

6) On the misinterpretation of Matthew 19.28: This verse states that putting anything above God, even family, is a form of idolatry. My opponent reads it in a way that suggests that God is against the concept of family when in reality family is one of the most important parts of being a Christian. It is even widely held that marriage is a Christian institution.

7) On the misinterpretation of Luke 12.51: This verse explains that Christs death would cause division and persecution (a prophecy) as a result of people's unwillingness to accept it. He says "division not peace" because people thought that Christ was coming as a warrior to free them from the Romans, when in fact he was here for a higher purpose. My opponent reads a cherry-picked part of the prophecy and plays it off as the words of a villain.

8) My opponent lists several other verses without a word of explanation - most likely copy and pasted in haphazardly. I cannot touch on all of these without writing a book, so I will simply note that the lack of any argument offers no support to his assertions.

9) On the claim that any dis-belief at all is a trip to Hell: This is a non-sequitur. None of my opponents claims even remotely reach this conclusion. Additionally, it is not true. For Christians, doctrine comes second to salvation. It may seem odd, but even a murderer can get to heaven by uttering one sentence ("I accept Crist as my Lord and Savior"), having never believed a word of the Bible.

10) On the claim that Gods morals are somehow immoral. The entire framework of this debate is that morals cannot be agreed upon by everyone on earth, so this assertion is based on a personal opinion, which is irrelevant to this debate.

11) On moral bankruptcy. Calling me immoral achieves nothing.

12) My opponents conclusion is not even a conclusion but rather an insult toward me, and in no way constitutes a coherent argument.

Conclusion) Not only have I addressed and crushed every single point made by Backwardseden, but he dropped half of my arguments from round one, and then filled round two with a word salad of non-sequiturs and wild accusations that equate to total gibberish. I have already won this debate. To link it all together, my opponent bases his ideas of morality on whatever opinion comforts his delicate sense of moral superiority. Never mind whether Christianity is legitimate or not, this fact could extend to any religion. Backwardseden makes wild claims of God's evil doing based on misread cherry-picked sentences from the Bible - a classic technique. I on the other hand have proven that society cannot be more moral than God based on the fact that for a society: morals are relative, while for God: morals are founded on the fulfillment of the Old and New Testament. Because of this you must vote for the Con side of the resolution.

By the way, the insults at the beginning like "seasons beatings" and "how are you drooling" are hilariously bad. Work on your material friend.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

OKEE DUKEE here"s how I run things" if there is the slightest hint of you inventing excuses from something in which you clearly know nothing about, especially when its the subject in which you claim to professing you have knowledge upon, namely this one, and you really don"t, and yet you pretend that you do by coming up with invented excuses and or flat out lying, I will insult you with my brand of insults that are original, funny, stupid, deranged and walls to the ball insane, unless those excuses are so far fetched that they are clearly pulled off from your groin to be a groin pull from the gold-i-lox area to keep scientists looking for other planets, then all bets are truly off and I may end the debate right then and there because I DO KNOW my stuff, whereas most don"t. And you don"t with your invented excuses in which you strayed from the subject.

OK let"s get right into it as I did not have space from the last RD to fire it up. But this RD I do since you think your NT is better than the OT (sorry, its far far worse)

Oh and btw, sorry, there"s almost no voters on these subject who really gives a damn to even care. So your lame a$$ preschool gesture to get others to side with your stupid little battery powered easy bake oven in an attempt to both bake and fry water does indeed fall flat on your splattered cabbage batbrain.

Suppose you "think" and "dream" that you are a christian? Here"s a few questions of YOUR NT...
What do you think about slavery? Slavery, owning people as property was ---never--- repealed by your god or christ anywhere in YOUR horrific bible. Do you think that slavery is a good thing? Y____? N____? Why? Why Not? MT 18:25, EPH 6: 5-8, COL 3: 22-24, TIT 2: 9-10, 1 PET 2: 18-21 as examples.

Do you think "hell" is a good thing? Y____? N____? Why? Why Not? And
Specifically that people should suffer eternal torment and go to hell simply for not believing in christ Y____? N____? Why? Why Not?
Specifically that if someone rapes, beats and tortures 6 five year old girls and then finds christ this person will have a spot saved in heaven Y____? N____? Why? Why Not?

I asked you before "Do you think you should die for merely cursing at your parents? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. 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."

Do you think suffering, pain and torture is a good thing? Y____? N____? Why? Why Not?
Specifically do you think that christ"s suffering was a good thing and him being tortured on the cross? Y____? N____? Why? Why Not?
Specifically what can children learn from suffering? If you"ve answered "nothing" you"ve answered correctly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now getting back to the OT here"s some stuff that got left out"
* Do you believe that its perfectly OK for your god to hate on children and babies for no reason at all and in some cases murder them? Y____? N____? Why? Wny not? LM4: 9-11, MT 10:37, MT 2:16, JG 21:10, 2 SAM 12:11-14 which is truly sick and disgusting, DT 2:34, NU 31: 17-18, LV 26: 21-22, 1 SAM 15:3, HS 13:16, 2 KS 15:16, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, EX 12: 29-30, IS 13: 15-18, MT 2:16, (EX 21:17, LV 20:9, MK 7:10, MT 15:4, MT 10:21), JG 11: 30-33, PS 137: 8-9, 2 KS 6: 28-29, DT 21: 18-21, DT 32:25, DT 2: 32-34, DT 3: 3-6, JG 19: 24-29, EX 12:29, 2 HS 2: 23-24, LV 26:29, JM 11: 22-23, JM 19: 7-9, JM 51: 22-26, 2 KS 8: 9-15,LM 2: 20-22, RV 2: 18-23 (btw with this one some of them are from your lovely NT so you have no excuses)
* Do you believe that its perfectly OK for YOUR god to hate on women? Y____? N____? Why? Why Not? LM 4 9-11 sick and disgusting, HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, JD 21:10, 2 SAM 12 11-14 sick and disgusting, DT 2:34, NU 31 17:18, LV 26 21:22, 1 SAM 15:3, HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, DT 2 32-34, 2 KS 8: 9-15, 2 KS 15:16 sick and disgusting, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, 2 KS 6: 28-29 sick and disgusting, JD 19: 24-29, LM 2 20-22 sick and disgusting, 1 COR 14:34,1 TY 2:12 (yes, some are from the NT so once again you have no excuses)
* Do you believe that its OK for your god to love rape? Y____? N____? Why? Why Not? NU 31: 17-18, 2 SAM 12: 11-18 sick and disgusting, JD 19:24-29, JD 21: 10-24, DT 20: 10-14, DT 22: 28-29, DT 21: 10-14, JD 5:30, EX 21 7-11, ZE 14: 1-2
* Do you believe that its pe-re-fe-ct-ly OK for YOUR god to commit abortions? Y____? N____? Why? Why Not? So that means YOU as a supposed christian (tee hee) do not follow YOUR god which is extremely hypocritical and contradictory from his bible HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, 2 KS 8: 9-15 sick and disgusting, 2 HS 15:16 sick and disgusting, HS 9: 11-16, and perhaps the biggest acts of abortions were committed in the great flood according to this so-called god of the bible in the great flood (which never happened btw) so who knows how many pregnant mothers died there in his bible?
* Do you believe that YOUR god was just with his many genocides for no reason at all as NOBODY HAD TO DIE in which many of them killed innocent babies, children and pregnant mothers? Y____? N____? Why? Why Not? Indeed god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan, all serial killers, all rapists, all tortures, all pedophiles, all sadomasochists etc etc etc combined. After all god knowingly created them which means that he is ultimately responsible for them. Its either that or god is not a god and lets them off the hook with nothing but a tap on the shoulder for their horrific, disgusting, repugnant crimes and simply god---does---not---care. Now here's some examples of god"s sickened, diseased, abominable atrocities for absolutely no reason at all... the great flood according to the bible (which never happened btw) so who knows what the body count was there? 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, 2 KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!, 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813, 2 CHR 14: 9-14 1,000,000!!! etc Yeah god is really so moral huh? Nope.

Again all of the questions are required to be answered by a "no" response. So if you have responded with a "no" response to all of the questions, congratulations, this means you are moral and sane and not bullied by a horrific god that you cannot even prove even exists. So then the next question needs to be asked is where do you think you stand with YOUR god? Then the next question needs to be asked, which is the most important one of all "why do you believe?" With the follow up question "why 'should' you believe since your god is in no possible way moral?"

Since you have reached this far with answering "no" to all of the questions, then it is also quite simple, and it means that you disobey the direct rules, laws and actions of your god.

1. Boring. Has nothing to do with the conversation. Instant detete.
2. "My opponent claims that I have redefined the rules of the debate." Absolutely you have when you arrogantly brought in "the law" which doesn"t exist. And you decided to also insert "christ", a false prophet as proved unto you, in which had ab-so-lu-te-ly nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. To help you out with that here"s a video for you to watch which knows one helluva lot better than you"
http://www.youtube.com... - Atheist Debates "But that"s the old Testament"

Ah yes, my lack of the knowledge of the bible and yet I will ---always--- know more about your god - in which you cannot even prove even exists - the bible - in which your god would --- never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible, and religion than your yodeling grunge brain ---ever--- will.

3. "My opponent asks for proof that the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant. Oh no. I didn"t ask for proof of it. I proved you wrong that it doesn"t exist.
I"ve been doing this for 43+ years and have talked to probably 22,000 on this and wow what an excuse you came up with.Again, god's law was "perfect" and cannot be changed and he did not change ANY of his laws from the OT so they still stand firm and tall. Just because you know absolutely nothing about your god, religion, and bible doesn't mean the world doesn't. Oh and oh yeah, you go right ahead and tell every---single---jew on this planet that they are wrong with their beliefs you complete arrogant a$$. GET UP AND DO IT RIGHT NOW!!!!!!! Here"s another video for you to watch since you think you are MR. god"s gift to invented excuses. But nah I know you better than you know you. Since you think you know everything that there is to know about everything, you will not watch it in case that you will be proven wrong because you are a super big He-Man who is The Power attacking a roll of t.p. with a bunch of smiley faces on it. Oh please.
http://www.youtube.com... - top 10 reasons why the bible is repulsive

Now since you clearly had to invent YOUR own excuses, and yeah flat out lie from something is which you clearly know absolutely nothing about, and you know it, especially to someone that knows better, and I do now better, a lot better, this debate is now over. I ---never--- deal with that crap from anyone. See, I can back up what I say with something called ---evidence---. And you have nothing but invented excuses. Bye.
Wynton99

Con

So now Backwardseden has both dropped every single talking point of the last round, but also decided to derail the rest of the debate with 3 pages of nonsense. Incredibly, he has graduated from non-sequiturs to run-on sentences and completely pointless fragments of isolated rhetoric like "sick and disgusting" without any indication as to what he is referring to, or how it even remotely helps his arguments.

I will add the Backwardseden says that "(he) runs things here", but he has already lost by his own rules, and has resorted copy-pasting blocks of Bible verse indexes all over the page without a single explanation of how they link to resolution. Additionally, his conclusion is more profanity and anti-semitism than argument.

First, let us look at all of Backwardsedens nonsensical, and pointless questions, which I would answer a simple "no" to, if they weren"t completely loaded:

1) "Is it ok for Jesus to hate children?" Where are you getting your information from " Reddit? I can"t imagine why anyone would think that someone who was crucified for his followers could be accused of hating children, but I"ll humor you and address your collage of Bible verses. Deuteronomy 2:34 states that an invading army left no survivors, which doesn"t even fit the context of the contention. In Numbers 31:17 God commands the Israelites to basically completely destroy a city of wicked people. Backwardseden seems to love to point out the fact that God had wrath in the Old Testament making him immoral, but for this to stand Backwardseden must prove that the people of the Old Testament were not wicked. Even if you want to argue having wrath towards a completely moral-less people in the time before Grace and the New Testament was immoral, Backwardseden is too late to the scene to prove the ethics.

2) "Is it ok for Jesus to hate woman?" Once again, Backwardseden provides not a shred of explanation as to why he would believe this, so I can"t even fathom giving him credit for this. Once again let"s look at some of his verses: Lamentations 4:9 is a poem someone in the Bible wrote about being a warrior and not wanting to starve, which is the most unrelated thing imaginable to the contention. Deuteronomy 2:32 is also about battle, and half the other verses he lists are the same type of thing. The fact is, Backwardseden is grabbing at straws. He doesn"t make a single complete argument, or even a complete thought once in the first 30 lines of this round. I could pass up on this round entirely, and my previous argument would still stand.

3) "Is it ok for God to love rape?" Just like the last two, Backwarseden lists 30 verses, without one word supporting this twisted, and frankly disturbing claim. I won"t even recognize it as a complete thought.

4) "Is it ok for God to commit abortions?" Still not backing up a single word of this. Here are some verses Backwardseden lists: HS 15:16. The is one book with an "H" and an "S" which is Hebrews, and it doesn"t even have 15 chapters. Two thirds of the verses listed are like this. Backwardseden hasn"t even read the nonsense that he is copy-pasting all over the page.

5) "Was God Just in his many genocides?" If he is referring to the great flood, then once again the burden falls on him to prove the ethics of this, because I could simply point out that the people of Earth were so wicked, that they did all the things you list above on a daily basis. And if we are counting actions of wickedness here as the bar for morality despite that fact that I have ALREADY PROVEN that humanity"s morals are relative, then I would point out the every day people kill thousands of other people and commit huge atrocities. Would Backwardseden be the one to levy judgment? No, because he can"t even wrap his mind around the resolution of the debate. He then lists verses Exodus 32:27 followed by what I assume are numbers of deaths in wars, some in the thousands. To this, I would simply mention that those were battles and that in this century alone, humanity has made those numbers look like child"s play. To prove that God"s wrath is unjustifiable, Backwardseden should have been debating ethics last round, but he gave up challenging my framework, that the morals he is arguing are relative.

6) On my argument being boring: I"m sorry that you have zero debate skills friend.

7) On the redefinition of debate rules: I have followed Backwardsedens rules and absolutely crushed his arguments. He then tells me to watch a video! This is a debate, not a Ted talk.

8) On Proof that the Old Cov is fulfilled by the New Cov: Whilst not completing a single thought, Backwardseden lets loose a stream of anti-semitism, profanity, and complete nonsense. The proof still stands.

9) On the invention of excuse: This doesn"t even make sense.

Conclusion) Backwardseden has filled this debate with unrelated and unfounded rabbit trails and side tangents, stopping every few sentences to make a wild accusation that has no substance. *He didn"t make a SINGLE full contention this entire round, and has made a total of two even remotely complete contentions this entire debate, both of which had nothing to do with his own resolution.*
In my arguments, I successfully upheld my framework that any single set of morals must come from a person"s religion and by association God, and that a society"s morals cannot be concrete but that they are relative, and change with the beliefs of its members. Because of this, the resolution has been negated, and my argument that Man cannot be more moral than God stands.

Ending statements: I just want to say I'm disappointed that this debate because so brutal. I began by extending cordiality to Backwardseden who received me with insults and profanity. I was hoping to unearth some truth here, but I ended up having to pone a noob.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
I believe CON won this debate.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
I believe CON won this debate.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
In my opinion, Wynton99 absolutely won this debate. While Backwardseden's reasoning was scattered and full of Ad hominems, Wynton99's was logically sound. Backwardseden focused on attacking the person themselves rather than their argument. Because I cannot vote yet, I am putting my opinion here. It is an outright win for Wynton 99. If I could vote, I would award 7 points to con.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Are you capable of having ANY genuine friends whatsoever and actually having a life without being so egotistical without having to having to take a nosebleed yourself along the way as you paint smiley faces on black holes to mark your way up the board with some phallic chess pieces mated so you won't be so drab and boring while flashing your neon jammies at a Katy Perry concert?

You really expect me to take an egotistical jerk like you seriously, thinks he god's gift to molten lava during a gamma ray burst? One that clearly does not know his bible AT ALL, flatly invents excuses for it, AND YOU KNOW IT, and would do ANYTHING in order to remain king of the atom bomb, but in reality is only his puff of smoke? Perhaps if you had said something with thinking, reasoning, rationalizing, using common sense and using logic in which you and your unprooved god are totally incapable of, then the debate may have been totally different.

One last thing... I use videos, quotes, articles, links, whatevers to support what I state. That's why I am so knowledgeable on YOUR religion, bible (in which in no possible way would YOUR god ---ever--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible), (film, and music in comparison to you, in which are loves of mine - as well as my friends an loved ones). What do you use? Your brain? Oh I get it, so when you are asked something and where you got your information from, you are 100% NOT able to dig it up. You dug that s--t up from your lard omelette beef garlic onion beer belly deodorant brain yesterday in a meager attempt to impress me. It didn't work. You actually think I should have paid attention to you? Not on YOUR life bub. But continued success at being an egotist. See where it gets you. I can only hope that reality doesn't bite down hard, super hard on you as you have no idea nor concept as to what true suffering is and then I could tell you about me. Your worthless christ had it easy. Take care.
Posted by Wynton99 3 years ago
Wynton99
Are you even capable of a rational thought? Realize that you're such an incompetent debater that you tried to slip a you-tube video in there.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Awe does the poor spotted testicle stain remover from his yodeling Buddhist monk frown that causes him to sleep during a nuclear war not like being ravaged and savaged at his leash not like it when the videos happen to be right and his miserable excuses made up from the top of his beady little head who happens to be wrong on every single occasion and in which absolutely nobody of merit will agree with, tickle tickle poo poo, not like it when the picture he posed for frown south towards his you know where areas so he gets the bends as the dryer lint clangs his clock? Darn it. As stated Rugby squirter, I can back up what I say with ---evidence---. Oh I get it also, so everything you know was self taught which includes how to burp a slurpee, how to drive a wrecked runny babbit, how to pose for you fav jesus jujitsu mag, Well congrants on that. So tell me how did you learn to interpret your bible on your own maestro? And since you learned to interpret your bible on your own, which came first - genesis or god or gee you don't know now do you because you can't interpret worth a f--k.
I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say.
Posted by Wynton99 3 years ago
Wynton99
Dude how are you going to post videos as your own arguments ;D This is debate son.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Jacksonmiles - I'm arguing that supposing that god exists, he's completely bankrupt and immoral in which nobody should believe in, in which nobody can prove that this god exists in the first place, and then suppose you believe, out of my own selfish curiosity why do you believe in a supposed god who is completely bankrupt and immoral? Its a super massive hypocritical contradiction in which the bible is filled with them along with inconsistencies (a good thousand or so) in which makes the bible truly unreadable, thus its god cannot possibly exist to not have foreseen these and fixed them. Now as far as "expanding" the survey, not a problem! That's for later rounds should any debate get that far such as slavery, rape, abortion, why does god in the bible hate especially children and women etc etc etc. I did think about asking "do you believe the the holy books are gods laws?" But then that would not be the same ball of wax by any means and would be treading on different grounds and would require a completely different headline from "Which is more moral? Man or god?" I also have done several debates on "do you believe the holy books are gods laws?" and the thing is, is that its truly shocking at how many who claim of themselves to be christians (in reality there is no such a thing as being a christian - Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?) really have 0% of an idea what being a christian is. They guess. So they have absolutely no idea, none, as to what the holy books or gods laws are. But they sure know the fear this crappy sponge god imposes if they don't believe that they will go to "hell" and all of its concocted mumbo jumbo.
Posted by Jacksonmiles 3 years ago
Jacksonmiles
I could argue and win I think but I am confused as to what your arguing. People who worship the One God are evil? Brilliant work on the survey btw, I think you should really look into expanding on it. But have the biblical references only pop up after they answer with a harsh buzzer noise and a little devilmoji and make sure to ask the first question, do you believe the the holy books are gods laws?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@What50 - Sure. As you don't believe in your god unless you are as point blank completely bankrupt and as immoral as your god in which you cannot even prove even exists.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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