The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Amphibian
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

A man should be a god's best friend

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 946 times Debate No: 6893
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Con

A dog is a man's best friend. That's true, and not surprising if you think about it. After all, you provide him with food, shelter and entertainment in the form of toys and walkies - you even stroke him! In short, you give him everything he needs to make his life happy and complete. In return for your munificence, your pet is only too happy to show his gratitude by barking at intruders, bringing your slippers and fetching the newspapers.

Of course, your dog doesn't know that it takes money to buy his food, to pay the mortgage on the house and to put fuel in the car. Neither does he understand that you are actually driving the car to the park rather than, say, the funny little metal house on wheels being blown there by some divine wind.

In short, he can't make full sense of his world: all he knows is that it is a bountiful one and that you are his all-providing master. In light of this, he is astute enough to realise that it is in his own best interest to obey your commands without question and to devote his full loyalty to you. In short, to your dog, you are a god and he worships you.

It was similar with primitive man. He didn't know anything about astrophysics, plate tectonics or biochemistry, all he knew was that he was born into a world abundant with fruit to gather and animals to hunt; the sun kept him warm and the rivers and lakes provided him with water to drink.

But where did these gifts come from? And what had man done to deserve them? Having no knowledge of science, he couldn't explain. Therefore, in order to reconcile himself with his existence on Earth, he worshipped those things that provided the bounty: the sun; the mother earth; the rivers and lakes; certain animals and so on. Indeed, such proto-religions still exist today in such places as Brazil, sub-Saharan Africa and Borneo.

As man developed and became more sophisticated so did these archaic religions, evolving into the faiths we are familiar with today. However, today, man's understanding of the world around him, although far from complete, is now advanced enough to make a mockery of these religions. Even the Catholic Church, with it's hundreds of millions of followers, conceded this week that Darwin was right with his theory of evolution and the Bible was wrong with it's cock and bull story about Adam's spare rib* - just as they admitted Galileo was right when he proved that the Earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way round as the Church had previously taught.

As the teachings of all the major world religions are now being exposed as having no more validity than myths and fairy tales and man continues to develop his understanding of the world around him, it is becoming increasingly clear that faith in religious deities is as haplessly misguided as a dog's absolute faith in its owner as an all-powerful, all-providing being.

Thank you.

* http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
Amphibian

Pro

Thank you for debating this topic.
While we as mere mortals cannot know the intentions of an unseen or misunderstood master, we have little option but to put our trust in such a being if he or she exists. Your analogy of a dog and its master is quite correct, if I had a dog that did what I told it too, was loyal and reliable, I would subsequently reward the dog. If it was distrusting and suspicious of me, and lashed out when I approached it I would respond accordingly. I have only my own experience to go on and would rather have a positive relationship with a divine ruler than a negative one.
As for the argument you made about us starting out as cavemen with no knowledge of science or the world around us. Isn't it true that we still don't know the origins of not only the world but the matter it is formed from. There is no explanation for our very existence or for the existence of anything else. Science still does not provide all the answers. God simply abides on a different plane, until we reach that level of understanding ourselves, we cannot understand all of the laws that are followed.
We are the dogs, we take everything for granted and think God is just our pal. This relationship is clearly one sided and the enlightened individual, or dog in this case, would express gratitude rather than rebellion if they understood the situation.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Con

I would first of all like to thank my opponent for taking the time to respond to this debating challenge and for posting such interesting counter arguments.

I would also like to thank my opponent for his kind understanding of my comparison of the roles of man and god and dog and man, but, that said, my pet and master analogy is only useful to a point.

A dog can see, smell and interact in real time with his master but man cannot do that with a god (assuming such things as deities exist). Furthermore, there are so many gods to choose from and which god you end up worshiping much depends on where and when (in terms of human chronology) you were born and raised. That's why there aren't many Jews in Afghanistan today and why there were no Muslims in ancient Rome.

You would think, given the violence and persecution that exists between supporters of rival religions, that the real god would step forward and prove to mankind that He was the one and only genuine article and that all the others are false idols. Since He hasn't yet done so, one can only conclude that either He doesn't care enough about man to make the effort or, more plausibly, there is no such thing as "god".

Whilst I agree with my opponent that science cannot explain everything, I don't agree that we should kow-tow to an unproven deity just on the off-chance that He may exist. You may donate a sizable sum to the an evangelical Christian church led by a pastor who drives a gold-plated Porsche and whose wife wears diamond-encrusted washing-up gloves and uses Louis Vitton tampons only to discover, when you die, that the afterlife is run by a bloke called Allah and He takes a very dim view of people that spent their time on Earth drinking beer and eating bacon sandwiches!

No, until a deity manifests itself clearly to us, we should not be subservient to it. In other words, when Janice Joplin gets her Merc, then - and only then - should we think about fetching God's slippers!

Thank you.
Amphibian

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his response. I was raised as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly called Mormons. People of that faith believe that life is a test of faith and devotion. When a person takes a leap of faith, such as paying a tithe to church, they show their willingness to do as God wills. The validity of faith is something that non believers have tried and tested for years. The primary source for faith is feeling and the expression of these feelings through things like music, literature, and art. When I see a beautiful painting that has no intrinsic value and yet is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, I don't see a medium of trade. I see in that painting someone trying to express a feeling that is not biological or scientific but spiritual in nature.

What would the purpose of a God who simply gave away Mercedes. You might as well worship Oprah. Wealth is not synonymous with happiness and the gifts God grants us are rarely material. Those who dedicate themselves to attaining things both eternal and spiritual can gain satisfaction on earth and in the afterlife. We have no need to doubt the value of serving a higher purpose when the rewards are immediate even to those still living. A person can live full life believing that they are doing good by by God. I am happy with my beliefs whether they are true or not. Of course it is always a possibility that a devout Christian will pass away only to find himself in a place ruled by a God or by Gods who he has never even heard of. So what should he have done, believed nothing?
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
The dog paradigm is far better fit to the socialist ideal than the religious ideal. Religion is voluntary and mostly deals with ethereal matters unrelated to putting food on the table and such. But if you surrender your free will to government, it will promise to love you and care for you and provide you with absolutely unlimited bounty. All you have to do is love government in return and fetch the paper when you are told to.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonAmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
brian_egglestonAmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
brian_egglestonAmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03