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

The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2019 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 824 times Debate No: 121157
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Taken from: http://churchandstate. Org. Uk/2015/10/the-problem-with-faith-11-ways-religion-is-destroying-humanity/
The illusion of love.

Is it? There may be some parts that describe love and encourage positive relationships amongst members of the human race; but, What about all the other parts? Are we to ignore some things and only identify with the good?

Here is the problem: Many of our most revered religious texts have hundreds of verses where the deity of the story literally instructs people to abduct and rape young girls whose family members they have just murdered, Kill disobedient children, Kill disobedient women, Commit genocide and infanticide, Subdue and silence women, Commit incest, Oppress mass communities, Force marriage on rape victims, Torture people, Enslave people and loot and pillage entire societies. All by the instruction of or in the name of their god.

Here is the bigger problem: It"s one thing that these words are written, But it is a terrifying thought that many people in this world actually excuse this behavior simply because a god they worship did it or authorized it. They rationalize that this behavior is acceptable if an all knowing being approves it or that their god was punishing "sinful" people who did not agree with the same teachings they follow. This enables atrocious people to justify inhumane actions if they commit those actions in the name of their god. Many even go as far as to change the meaning of the (quite plainly written words) to mean something else than what is written outright in order to justify the action, Rather than facing the reality of what their text is actually communicating.

If a human being were to commit these same types of offenses as listed above, We would label them sadistically insane and sentence them to death; yet, Many dismiss the corrupt nature of these horrifically unethical crimes when it applies to a deity.

In their defense, Many people are raised with their religious background and taught that it is completely about love. At the same time, The religious leaders that instruct them do not even attempt to discuss the negative characteristics of their text. Often, When they do, It is glossed over and never given full thought as to the magnitude of what is being described. If we really thought about it, We would be able to draw the same conclusions for the wrongdoings of our man-made deities as we do for those human beings who choose to commit similar hideous acts.

Instead, The most horrific parts of our text are ignored " or sugar-coated " and then wrapped in an illusion and fed to the people in a mental package labeled "god is love". It is not love; and it skews our interpretation of love when we agree that sadistic and violent acts against people are justified because a god instructed those actions.

A scenario to consider: Suppose you were to have a serious conversation with a parent who told you that, Since their child did not obey, Love and trust them " they were going to take the child to the basement and burn him until he learned his lesson. Would you turn that parent in to child protective services for potential child abuse? If you heard or read that some parent had tortured their child for not behaving, What would you think of that parent. How would you feel for the child who endured that punishment? Of course you would turn the parent in; of course you would feel awful to hear about such a tragic story! You would want to protect the child because you know that no loving human being would ever do that to their child, No matter how awful they"ve behaved.

Yet, Children across the world are forced to endure hideous mental intrusions on a consistent basis in one of our world"s largest belief structures. If they do not believe in their religious deity, He will take them down to hell and torture them forever and ever. They will live in a place of fear and anguish for eternity.

If you would not threaten this to your own child as a punishment you personally would inflict upon them, Why tell them someone else will? Is it acceptable because it is not you who will do it?

Another scenario to consider: If your friend told you that she was raped and that her rapist paid her Father for the injustice and is now forcing her to marry the person who raped her, What would you tell your friend? Would you encourage her to follow through with the marriage or would you encourage her leave both the rapist and her Father behind and move on with her life? Would you help her find a safe place to go in order to flee the situation? Or, Would you encourage her to follow through with the dreadful plans? Of course you would discourage your friend from following through with such a horrible situation for her life. You would likely even encourage her to file charges against the perpetrator.

Yet, This is the exact instructions found in one of our world"s most popular holy text. One of many scriptures only recently coming to the forefront of religious debates as countless people are becoming more aware of the unethical ideas written in many of our ancient books. (See Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT 28 "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. [a] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, And he may never divorce her as long as he lives. ")

If you have to explain or justify why a horrible atrocity was committed by the deity you worship; what does love really mean to you? Love is"

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.
ModernPhilosophizer

Con

Thank you to DDO for allowing discussions like this to take place. Thank you to Pro for being involved in an intellectual discussion that invites the collision of ideas rooted in reason, Rationality, And logical discourse.

To be perfectly honest, I think the topic is too easy to be against and could have been formed in a more evenly matched way, But I will gladly take the bait.

Let me declare that I am not that religious myself. I don't preach Christianity, Nor do I preach atheism. I am religious in the sense that I have a firm belief in searching for knowledge and understanding. Before I lay out my case, I will first lay out definitions of the debate topic and then proceed to explain why I disagree with it. There are many definitions for these terms, But I will use the ones that align closest with the topic.

Faith: A system of religious belief
https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/faith

Religion: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/religion

Love: A profoundly tender, Passionate affection for another person
https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/love

Now, There's issues with Pros argument in regards to the topic:

1A) It clearly doesn't account for all religions

2A) It is strictly adherent to the dogmas in whatever few religions are prescribed

3A) It has it's own contradiction of claiming the good of religion is the only thing paid attention to and yet only calls out the evil

I will address these points, But will also lay out what I need to do in order to show the debate topic as false. All I need to do to make the topic false is simply prove one statement to be untrue. Now, In my opinion, I will make all three false by definition, But I want to expand on certain portions to give a good understanding of my argument:

1B) I will make a case for faith not having any upsetting factors and make it true that the actions based on faith can cause these problems.

2B) I will outline the real benefits the West has redeemed as part of religion and how religion itself can take any form of beliefs aforementioned in the definition.

3B) I don't think I need to go too deep into love being a worth debate topic, But if it gets to that point, Then sure; instead I shall use this point to demonstrate the value system in humans whether it be hierarchical, Dogmatic, Or even atheistic, Can still set forth a religion.

Let's begin.

1A) Pros argument has exclusivity to certain religions, If not, Only one religion. It may be Christianity or Catholicism, I'm not sure honestly. The real problem with this holding true to the topic, Is that it already allows so much room for other religion to enter the discussion. We'll take Buddhism for example. It's a self-fulfilling religion that doesn't create harm to others by any means. Does a Buddhist murder children and force rapists to marry their daughter by way of it's principles? Absolutely not. This negates all of the instigators positions. I said this in the beginning, Pro should have picked a better topic to instigate.

2A) It's a safe bet for Pro to hold this position, But as many arguing against religion have failed to do so in the past, Pro is assuming that any opposition to the argument is in full favor of dogmatic principles and once again, The debate topic doesn't say anything about dogmas. I don't deem really anything as incontrovertibly true. This doesn't mean that I ignore the vast benefit humanity has received as part of a belief in a system even though it may have done cruel, And inhumane acts in it's uprising along the way. I don't appropriate such actions, Rather I condemn them. I pose a question to Pro for fun; if there are absolutely no dogmas you are for, What is your morality based on, Basically, Why are all those killings evil to you, How do you define good and evil in which you don't believe in the existence of any system of principles in the first place, Either put forth by you or by many, Many individuals before you thousands of years ago? I rest this point knowing you cannot formulate reason and rational without first establishing values/morals and at the least, Having personal belief in those values.

3A) This isn't necessarily a point I wish to drive home, But I do want to make the claim that Pro is in contradiction within their argument saying,

Pro: "Are we to ignore some things and only identify with the good? ".

My argument: Well no. It's a bad way to argue. As you clearly go on to ignore the major civilizations brought forth by religion and the science, History, Greek philosophy, And the entire Western enlightenment give credit to belief systems based in morality and reason. Besides discussing that, Pro directs all of the attention to the evils and horrors of a specific belief system. In a crude way this should be the line of arguing that Pro doesn't stand for. Pro also lays out a specific scenario:

Pro: "If your friend told you that she was raped and that her rapist paid her Father for the injustice and is now forcing her to marry the person who raped her, What would you tell your friend? "

My argument: We should also acknowledge the source that is provided to backup such a scenario,

Pro: "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. [a] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, And he may never divorce her as long as he lives. "

My argument: I'm not even religious and I can tell that this text suggests and is the basis for marrying out of wed-lock. This was actually for the benefit of children to not grown up in single-parent households.

My turn.

1B) Faith, Is a confidence in belief. If you want a simple pragmatic example, What's 2 + 2? How do you know this answer to be true? If Pro intends to hold a strong position, They will align similarly with me, In which I say I seek knowledge and understanding. Can't go wrong, It's a safe bet, So agree with me on that. Now, This doesn't make faith itself problematic. Just because you believe 2 + 2= 4 doesn't create any problems. If you make decisions based on that, Those can be deemed problematic, But it's the action, Not the faith. Pro still raises the question of how is it problematic if you are against the very belief in any moral reasoning itself. How can there be such a thing as "problems"? I settle this point in reasoning itself being a religion. It's belief. Even animals don't openly say they are Christians, But they still show mercy, They still show beliefs in predators and feel pain and have set systems of beliefs that they learn to use as guidance in their existence.

2B) The majority of Western civilization is a bi-product of religious values and beliefs over the history of humanity. The founding fathers of the American government laid out strict rights deemed unalienable. They base them as given to the people by their "Creator". Now, Creator could mean Christian God or it could very well be that the creator is determined by the individual themselves and that's why they have the freedom of religion. No matter how you regard your creation, The fact of the matter is that you exist and in that, You are inherently provided rights. The belief comes from many different religious values. The impact from those values reached through philosophers like Plato, Astronomers like Galileo, And the age of the enlightenment. These all contribute to the vast advancements in technology we have as humanity today. Religion can take any form as it's a belief system. To claim that a belief system destroys humanity is factually incorrect. Advancements all due to belief systems are thankful to religion. Religion isn't the cause of war or destruction, Tribalism is. Tribalism is the true evil of war and war within religion. Tribalism is amongst animals as well, But it's not a belief system. It's important we understand the true nature of war before we criticize it. For the same reason you could attribute slavery to religion. It's a set of beliefs that made that occur. The civil war would be the tribalism. When different beliefs are held by different people, Tribalism, Then war is a result of that tribalism. Here, Pro should agree that religion is not excused for tribalism, But that it cannot be blamed for the war that comes from that tribalism.

3B) Many atheist claim that atheism is not a set system of beliefs, That's another debate in and of itself, But fine. I will allow it for the time being. Regardless, There are still beliefs that exist within an atheist. How is this determined? Well, As humans, It seems we put ourselves into hierarchical structures and base values and/or beliefs off of that as well. It varies form person to person and the dogmatism that comes from these set systems are also fundamental religion builders. If someone kills someone else, That person has died. It's incontrovertibly true to the killer that the person they have killed, Is dead. This is simply a formed dogma within the killer's conscience. So whatever dialect is used to formulate a set system of beliefs, Morals, And values, The truth of the matter exists. A belief system is created. Strong belief in that system is not problematic, Only the actions based on those strong beliefs can cause problems. And lastly, Love isn't an illusion, It's the affection towards something or someone. To regard chemicals being released in the brain as an illusion is to embark on the simulation theory. Which is no different than being a believer in a god or many gods. If nothing exists and reality isn't true, Then none of the topic exists, Which makes it have nothing to be in agreement for. If there's no instigator, Then there's no contender. Therefore, Again, I wipe your argument away.

Here, I have shown every statement as a falsehood.

See ya in round two.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Religion: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects + other definitions (regardless notice that word "beliefs")
1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, Nature, And purpose of the universe, Especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, Usually involving devotional and ritual observances, And often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (notice the word "beliefs")
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: (again notice that word "beliefs")
5. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. (yep there"s that word again "beliefs") There"s also that word "faith".

"Faith: A system of religious belief" + other definitions. We"ll stick to the standards that disproves the god of the bible.
2. Belief that is not based on proof: (duh and double duh)
4. Belief in anything, As a code of ethics, Standards of merit, Etc. : (duh and double duh)

"Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn"t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can"t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, The most important truth your"re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence? " Matt Dillahunty

"Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence. " Matt Dillahunty

"Faith can be very very dangerous, And deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong. " Richard Dawkins

"Faith is the great cop-out, The great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, Even perhaps because of, The lack of evidence. " Richard Dawkins

Love: A profoundly tender, Passionate affection for another person
3. Sexual passion or desire. (the bible HATES sexual passion or desire)

"Now, There's issues with Pros argument in regards to the topic:" Well see, Its not MY/ PRO"s argument now is it? So you did accuse me of something.

1A) It clearly doesn't account for all religions
Well it doesn"t make any attempt to and it knows it. So that point is null and void. If your point were in any way true, Which is an impossibility then every single religion would be represented, Which is an impossibility because nobody knows how many religions exist.

2A) It is strictly adherent to the dogmas in whatever few religions are prescribed
Actually no. Many religions practice what is stated in the article.

3A) It has it's own contradiction of claiming the good of religion is the only thing paid attention to and yet only calls out the evil
Really? I"m not aware of any good the article wrote on as far as religion is concerned.

"3B) I don't think I need to go too deep into love being a worth debate topic, " Sure you do, That"s the very title of the debate "the illusion of love" That"s exactly what religion presents.
"Or even atheistic, " By you mentioning that, You have no idea, None, As to what atheism is.

"1A) Pros argument"" There you go again. Its not MY/ Pro"s argument! Continuing "has exclusivity to certain religions, If not, Only one religion. It may be Christianity or Catholicism, I'm not sure honestly. " Right, You are not sure. Since you are not sure, Then why should I continue with this debate? You do realize 100% by you stating that, That"s debate ending trademarks thus declaring you the automatic loser - correct? "The real problem"" The real problem is you are not "sure". Continuing "We'll take Buddhism for example. " You do understand that Buddhism is not a religion. Let"s see if you know why this is true?

"Pro should have picked a better topic to instigate. " OK if you mention me again, I will end this. Jeez. I truly hate people that simply cannot do something as wide and as vast as READING. You know. Words. Sentences.

"2A) It's a safe bet for Pro to hold this position, " OK we"re done. If you want this debate to continue, You are now required to rephrase your ideals. If you do not wish to, Bye.
ModernPhilosophizer

Con

Well, That's quite a lot of you seeming to be offended and claims to not hold a positions in this debate. You don't claim Pro as your argument? I win by default because I have no opponent. Matt Dillahunty didn't join this debate as the Pro position. Richard Dawkins didn't join this debate as the Pro position. I wonder, If there is no one on the Pro side of this debate then why am I not victorious by default? I suppose I am! If you claim to be on the Pro side then you are the only individual on the Pro side of this debate in this point of time. You don't get bailouts and I will address the quotes you wish to use as argument, Sure. So if you decide to take responsibility for your position and the arguments that you are putting forth instead of claiming to be a bystander in this debate and acting as though you get to virtually chip in, But not take any burden with regards to the topic then we can have an actual debate. I will still carry through as my purpose is to propose the topic as false and yours is simply to propose it as true, Which as I will elucidate, Is impossible.

My round two argument:

I will respond to quotes used by Pro. I will also address the few reproaches provided by Pro. I will provide more reasons why Pro cannot prove the topic as true.

"Why would you believe anything on faith? " -Matt Dillahunty

---Great question. Why do you deny god? In faith that he/she/it doesn't exist. A confidence in the negative (ie belief that god does not exist).

"Every religion has some sort of faith. " -Matt Dillahunty

---Yes, Even atheism.

"Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence. " -Matt Dillahunty

---Just like somehow Pro has faith that they can be victorious ;)

"Faith can be very very dangerous. " -Richard Dawkins

---Exactly. Is NOT dangerous, But CAN be. Are guns dangerous? Is water dangerous? A rock, Is that dangerous? They can be. Faith, Just like a gun, Requires a dangerous individual to wield it in order for it to become dangerous.

"We"ll stick to the standards that disproves the god of the bible. " -Pro

---Ineffective to the topic, So null and void.

"Belief that is not based on proof"
"Belief in anything, As a code of ethics, Standards of merit, Etc. "

Law of noncontradiction:

Contradictory propositions cannot both be true, E. G. The two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

---Are you to say that faith is simultaneously a belief in anything and at the same time it is not based on truth?
I have faith that humans born male have a 'Y' chromosome. This is because it's universally true.

"The bible HATES sexual passion or desire"

---That's interesting. I did not know that. Too bad it's not the topic of this debate. Null and void.

"So you did accuse me of something. "

Accuse: to charge with a crime or claim that someone has done something wrong.

---You are simply [supposed to be] defending your position. I have exemplified the falsehoods in your statements, But I have not said that you are immoral or committing a crime for speaking your beliefs.

I stated: "It clearly doesn't account for all religions"

Pro's response: "Well it doesn't make any attempt to and it knows it. " then said,
"If your point were in any way true, Which is an impossibility then every single religion would be represented, Which is an impossibility because nobody knows how many religions exist. "

---Pro concedes the argument by declaring every religion impossible to represent, Therefore refuting the blanket statement: "Religion Is Destroying Humanity. "

"Actually no. Many religions practice what is stated in the article. "

---Many? Out of all that are so impossible to represent? This argument is unwarranted. I stand by my claim of there being few religions out of "nobody knows how many" religions prescribed with such dogmas. It still doesn't negate the fact that the dogmas are exactly what the article adheres to.

I stated: "It has it's own contradiction of claiming the good of religion is the only thing paid attention to and yet only calls out the evil"

Pro's response: "Really? I"m not aware of any good the article wrote on as far as religion is concerned. "

---Precisely.

I stated: "I don't think I need to go too deep into love being a worth debate topic"

Pro's response: "Sure you do, That"s the very title of the debate "the illusion of love" That"s exactly what religion presents. "

---It is so plain that I felt it was unnecessary to discuss. Nevertheless, I did and I will. Love is an overwhelming emotion or feeling. A doctor and their team at Rutgers have determined that the chemicals released with love can be put into three different categories: lust, Attraction, And attachment. [1] Various chemicals range from testosterone and serotonin to oxytocin and dopamine. If you declare these chemicals as nonexistent then you are denying science, Truth, And factual evidence. If you declare love is not of these chemicals then you are not talking about a strong passionate feeling perfectly evident in these studies, You are describing something I'm unaware of. Love is not an illusion, It is the reaction we feel at the release of many chemicals during many different situations.

I stated: "has exclusivity to certain religions, If not, Only one religion. It may be Christianity or Catholicism, I'm not sure honestly. "

Pro's response: "Right, You are not sure. Since you are not sure, Then why should I continue with this debate? You do realize 100% by you stating that, That"s debate ending trademarks thus declaring you the automatic loser - correct? "

---I was hoping you'd bite on this:) No. That is not correct. Saying that I'm not even sure what religion your argument is exclusive to doesn't warrant any affect to the topic. You should continue the debate because we're understanding so much about the other person and I think you could learn a lot from this.

"You do understand that Buddhism is not a religion. Let"s see if you know why this is true? "

---Buddhism is a systems set of beliefs that many people practice; a religion. That second part isn't supposed to have a question mark at the end, Rather it should be a period. Let's see if you know why this is true.

"OK if you mention me again, I will end this. Jeez. "

---You've practically conceded by now. How am I supposed to address the person posed as Pro to this argument without mentioning them again? Do you attempt to deter me from doing so by claiming you will forfeit in my favor? That's like saying to a basketball player, "If you continue to dunk on my head, Then I will quit and you will be the winner. ". I'm okay with this proposition.

I stated: "It's a safe bet for Pro to hold this position"

Pro's response: "OK we"re done. If you want this debate to continue, You are now required to rephrase your ideals. If you do not wish to, Bye. "

---I haven't portrayed my ideals anywhere in my arguments. All I've done is refute your statements and reproach your responses. Anyways, Let's give context to why I said it was a "safe bet". I did so to showcase that dogmas---of whatever religion being specified in the article you shared---are particularly evil. Which I agreed! I was simply outlining this by saying it was a safe stance on this particular religion to be strictly adherent to those dogmas. It doesn't confirm any of the statements you declare true.

Pro has refuted strawmen arguments to claim deity or god as existing or attempting to use bible as a source of reference for my arguments. [2] I don't believe Pro had an opportunity from the gate to defend their position because they simply didn't select a debate topic that they could hold as undeniably true. In fact, It can only be undeniably false. There is nothing wrong with faith or having confident belief in something or someone, So long as you don't act on it. Religion doesn't destroy humanity. It's a system set of beliefs and that alone does not affect anyone in any way. Tribalism that may occur during actions taken is a possible destruction of humanity, But even that isn't certain. Love is as much an illusion as the chemical released in the brain from drug addicts overdosing on heroin. As a universal truth, Love exists in many different chemical forms that are released in our brain and cause all sorts of sensations. To refute this, Is to deny neuroscience.

Again, I exemplify the falsehoods that Pro claim to confirm as undeniably true.

Just as a side note, It is not necessary for me to praise the biblical god of any religion or any of it's writings for me to refute your claims nor is it necessary for me to condemn them. You have strayed the topic to instigate a position that is unrelated to the dogmas of specific religions. As I have mentioned before, You are in no position to confirm these statements as true and nearly any claim you piggybank off of the article you first provided doesn't hold any water to the debate topic. Like I said this topic isn't over the controversial Christian god that you may be arguing against. If you wanted it to be, You should have made the position that way.

Please keep this debate going, I have much more to say!

[1] http://sitn. Hms. Harvard. Edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/
[2] "We"ll stick to the standards that disproves the god of the bible", "the bible HATES sexual passion or desire"
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

I"m offended by unintelligent uneducated people. You were a prime example in your first RD of simply not being able to READ which is a typical miss-steak of nearly 100% of the so-called christians here on DDO who have presented their colors in flying uterus detail before spawning their rectal thermometers at the teleprompters. And I either insult them in which they rightly deserve, Or I walk away, In which they rightly deserve. Either way, I don"t put up with it, Not for any reason, Not ever. Oh and oh yeah, Both are widely taught in college to do right.
Well um gee, Um no I don"t claim ALL of the article as being correct. You don"t know which parts. And you shouldn"t go around collecting your heebee jujubes bubblegum parade thinking that I"m going to agree with everything that the article stated because I didn"t write it.
Ah yes, There"s nobody that agrees with all of the bible. If they say so, They are liars. Because they cannot practice what it preaches. That"s a prime example of textbook inability incapability in being unable to agree with ---everything--- that one dreams, Thinks and feels if spattered down in an article like that unless its the author. .

Now we can move on to the sheltered youth that you must have been and mommy didn"t scratch behind your ears too often with a diggie, Oh sorry, Doggie pale now did she rat poison boy? "I win by default because I have no opponent. " Your opponent was the article, NOT ME in which I made perfectly clear in the previous RD. But since you clearly cannot understand that, As the first grade insult goes "Your are denser than a black hole. " Oh so very true.
Then you commit your homogenized self gloriously "Matt Dillahunty didn't join this debate as the Pro position. Richard Dawkins didn't join this debate as the Pro position. " Wowzers with the measles vaccine unavailable unto you, You really don"t know how to debate all that well now do you? Nope. Strange isn"t it that bible verses are quoted all the time in people"s debates, But not someone else"s quotes in debates with the genie-us e-u. ? Or how bout Donald Toilet Dust Trump, The worst president of all time, He"s quoted all the time. But that must be wrong around the striped zebra also in your re-chord book also. Correct neon strangler fig noodle boy? But strange, You have a gibberish sandwich time of a yodeling Buddhist monk silly pity of a time when someone uses quotes, For whatever reason, Oh you mean like to support his positioning on what he"s trying to say? Nah that"s far to much for your cabbage batbrain to absorb. Since it is along with the Chevy Chase routine of falling down too much on his golden a$$ and not being stable to recognize to debate the article and not me, Especially when I deliberately stated that the article was "taken from" right in front of your fricken face and then gave a link to the article, And you STILL could not follow it, But had to refer to "me" in me being Pro, This debate is now over. We"re done. I don"t debate with those that are uneducated or unintelligent.
ModernPhilosophizer

Con

" You were a prime example in your first RD of simply not being able to READ which is a typical miss-steak of nearly 100% of the so-called christians here on DDO who have presented their colors in flying uterus detail before spawning their rectal thermometers at the teleprompters. And I either insult them in which they rightly deserve, Or I walk away, In which they rightly deserve. Either way, I don"t put up with it, Not for any reason, Not ever. Oh and oh yeah, Both are widely taught in college to do right. "
---I'm not even a christian. I've stated this. In fact, I think I may be less religious than Pro in this regard! Pro tends to hold such strong belief against a deity that it forms the very religious aspects they argue against. For example:

Pro declares that when interacting with "so-called christians" they will "either insult them in which they rightly deserve" or "walk away, In which they rightly deserve". These are similar characteristics of many theistic religions. Some shade of self-criticism may be due in Pro's next argument.

"Well um gee, Um no I don"t claim ALL of the article as being correct. "
---Yet you only want that to represent your argument. Nothing else that you state, Do you want to be held accountable for.

"Your opponent was the article, NOT ME"
---So nothing Pro states can hold water with the topic because they are not in a position to debate. Pro is a viewer and they should simply read my arguments and wait for "the article" to post theirs if that is the case, Then place a vote based on who had the better arguments, Sources, Etc. By forfeiting this position to a source, Pro concedes any ability to make arguments.

"You really don"t know how to debate all that well now do you? "
---Looking over each round, It's easy to determine who is debating properly and is effectively the better debater, But we'll leave the overall ruling to the voters.

"Strange isn"t it that bible verses are quoted all the time in people"s debates, But not someone else"s quotes in debates with the genie-us e-u. ? "
---The only quotes I've used were provided by Pro or me quoting Pro. I have not used any verses from the bible to claim the topic as false.

"not being stable to recognize to debate the article and not me"
---Here lies the issue with Pro holding no position in this debate. Suppose I discriminate between the two and direct all arguments to the article. Suppose I claim the article is false and doesn't hold any water with the topic of debate. The article will not respond, Rather Pro will have to be a mouthpiece on it's behalf (again, Much resembling that of a christian being a mouthpiece for the bible). Pro can comment in the comment section, But since they have denied taking responsibility for the argument, They cannot make arguments on behalf of the article in a contribution to the debate. Least, The voters cannot regard Pro's arguments as contributory information because Pro has annexed themselves from that position.

"This debate is now over. We"re done. "
---Pro continues to abandon making arguments. I agree with Pro here. The debate is unproductive at this point and no new points in regard to the topic are being made or refuted.

Look, Clearly something I said struck a cord with Pro. Pro has completely disregarded the topic and began attacking personal character instead of my arguments. It's a clear victory for me. Even though I wished to combat Pro's refutes or reproaches, It seems as though this discussion is no longer productive. I will end this round in hopes that the last round will have a constructive argument for both sides and give the voter something to critically ponder over. However, It is my suspicion that without an immense deal of evidence, That Pro will be unable to make a sound argument worthy of a vote.

See ya in round four!
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ModernPhilosophizer 3 years ago
ModernPhilosophizer
This is wonderful. I will write my round 3 argument tomorrow:)
Posted by ModernPhilosophizer 3 years ago
ModernPhilosophizer
@backwardseden "see the final 4"? You have three days to respond. Take your time and rest up, I'm patient. Don't accuse you of anything? Well what is it, That you think I've accused you of? I don't think you've proposed anything immoral, I don't believe you've committed a crime, And I don't feel like I've tried to argue for that in my arguments. I simply set forth my points and attacked yours. I'm not attacking you personally. Just your ideas. That's the beauty of debate!
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@ModernPhilosophizer - Well yah caught me right as I'm going to be going to go to beddy bye. And I sleep for a good day. But hopefully I will be awake to see the final 4. You never know and then some more sleeping after that. I have exquisitely horrific sleeping habits.
Now one thing I noticed right off the splat. . . Please don't accuse me of anything, K? I specifically stated exactly where the article came from. It was written from somebody else. And it was written in 11 parts. Please tc and haveth the fun.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Oh of course the proof is on them. All the time. No exceptions. None. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. " Matt Dillahunty Their claims are extraordinary. After all there's only supposed to be "one" god, Even though that not what their fraudulent bible states. And what evidence? NONE! It doesn't exist! What god is going to provide all this hooplah with no possible way to verify anything except for only an extremely subversive stupid one. Yep supposed christians ---never--- question their god. They can't. Because if they did, They would find out how immoral he is in his bible and from there everythi ng would cascade into an obliteration of them not believing anymore - if and only if they are intelligent and educated. But I ---never--- tell someone not to believe. I just point out the 100% tragic flaws that the god of the bible has. That's a very BIG difference. And its a very big difference when supposed christians ---never--- ask us what we know to be true. And I CAN prove it. Whereas they can prove nothing.
Yeah its also a very good debate tactic to ask "why believe"? Supposed christians ---always fail at that question IF they even answer it. That's because they cannot under any circumstance answer it legitimately. Skip the "god is love" trash or that "god created all life" idiocies. I'm talking about a good honest reason as to "why believe"?
Yep and you cannot prove something that's never been seen by anyone, I agree.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
@backwardseden
That's exactly how scientific proof works.
It's not me to try to disprove Christian's claim of God. It's on them to prove it.

If we started to believe in things without proof, Then how would we decide what to believe in and what not? Seriously, How? How do you know whether something is true, If you reject proof as the basis for truth? The one way it would work is if you never question what you consider as truth. And this is exactly what Christians do. They never question their God. So they never have to answer the question like "why do you believe in God", Or "how do you know God exists". They never question, So they never have to answer, And they don't have to feel confused as to why they believe in one made up thing, While rejecting other made up things. "I believe in God. " Why? No answer. "But I don't believe in dragons or fairies. " Why not? No answer. Simple mental barricade, This is. Of course, Not all Christians are like this. But most are.

Finally, The observational proof is the only way to know that something is real, And everything else that doesn't have observational proof is considered as not real.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@SickInTheHeadz - Yep. Always always always in your arguments say something to the effect of "god does not exist". Your opponent and or whoever you are debating with MUST prove that their god(s) exists. After all why should it be the atheists positioning to prove something that never been proven? And better yet, Why should an atheist even care to prove that their god(s) even exist? Even better? Why do you think that creationists will not put their god on trial again? They are not stupid after all. They will not put their god on trial again because they know that they cannot possibly win their case because after all, All they have to go on as evidence is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved. Now here's the catcher. . . Since creationists cannot and will not stand behind their product, Namely their god, And take responsibility for their product, How can any of them be trusted for ---anything---? In other words, Anything any creationist has to say because of this is completely invalid and worthless. Makes sense?
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
Even if they followed Bible to the letter, It would still be subjective morality as the choice to follow and accept the Bible is a subjective choice, Not objective.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
Yeah I understood Tracie. God is not necessary for morality. And if someone believes he is, He has to prove God first. Because if we can't prove existence of God, It's obvious we can't prove that morality requires God.
Christians often think that their morality is somehow better because they have God. But they don't have God. They have their made up faith in which they justify their actions through their subjective understanding of the Bible. So they only pick what they think is good, And reject the rest. So it is not Christian morality. It is still a subjective morality, Like every morality is.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@SickInTheHeadz - I understand that about call in shows. Did you understand what Tracie Harris was saying though?
Btw, I agree with you. Its not about "wins". Its about what is right and what is wrong. What is just and what is unjust. But I must admit that when p. O. S's like dsjpk5 who is a knowing racist pig bigot AND makes the attempt to play god here on DDO because his life is in complete turmoil and shambles AND because he truly has no friends or loved ones which shines like a can opener breaking open his brain for a feeding frenzy to smallpox, Then it becomes an "ah ha" moment and wakes you up into the reality that there are sub-atomic particle worthless pieces of crap like him on this planet.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
InfakeWars
It's not about wins. It's about arguments that survive trials and arguments who don't survive. It is important to accept arguments that survive trial by fire and prove to be observably correct, Even if they come from a person who has lost a debate.
This debate has 0 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.