The Instigator
qopel
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
AlbinoBunny
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points

Are Religious people insane?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-15
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 17 votes the winner is...
AlbinoBunny
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,303 times Debate No: 30738
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (82)
Votes (17)

 

qopel

Pro

Definition of insane:
Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense
No claiming "something can't come from nothing". Nobody has ever had a "nothing" to examine, so it can't even be defined what a "nothing" is.

No claiming "everything must have a cause". Causality didn't exist until after the Bing Bang, which means the Big Bang could have happened without a cause.

No claiming the Universe came from nothing. The Universe came from a singularity, which is something. According to Professor Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, the singularity was a millionth of a billionth of a centimeter wide.

No word games. No playing with semantics.

No using wikipedia. It's a not a reliable source.

No using Creationist websites. They are proved to be complete nonsense.

No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean.

No adding new arguments as you go along. State your arguments in the first round and be prepared to defend them later. Do not try to flood the last round with new arguments that I don't get a chance to address. That's dishonest and cheating.

No using information without defining the way you interpret it. There should be no accusations about how somebody interpreted something wrong.

Religious people believe things without evidence, talk to invisible beings and expect "miracles" to happen because of it. They think a 2000 year old book has all the answers to the Universe and would rather believe snakes talk, people walk on water and people are made from sand, rather than read a science book.

Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

I will argue that anyone who really believes that as true, is in fact, insane according to the above definition.
AlbinoBunny

Con

Introduction

I’d like to thank my opponent on challenging me to my first debate. I hope I provide him with a worthy challenge.

My opponent has made the claim that religious people are insane. By making this claim he is saying that if a person is religious, they are also insane; that every religious person who has ever lived is or was insane. My opponent will need to show that this statement is true. To show that my opponent is incorrect I only need to show that one or more religious people are not insane.

Definitions

The definition of insane taken from pro:
“Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense”

Since “religious” hasn’t been defined, and can seem quite vague, I will provide a definition of “religion”, where “religious” people are people who follow a “religion”. I will try to use as concise and coherent a definition as I can.

For a belief to be classed as a religion to should meet most but not necessarily all of these conditions.

  • “Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
  • A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
  • Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
  • A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
  • Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual.
  • Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
  • A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
  • A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
  • A social group bound together by the above.” [1]

This definition covers religious beliefs such as but nowhere near limited to Buddhism, Judaism, Pantheism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Christianity and Sikhism.

Arguments

We have agreed to present arguments in the first round, but not rebuttals, so I will provide those in the next round.

So to show that a person is not insane I only need to demonstrate that they show reasoning, sound judgement or good sense. If I can show this is true for at least one religious person then pro’s claim is shown to be incorrect.

Religious people may have some irrational beliefs, but the question then becomes, does having some irrational beliefs make you insane? I don’t think it does. I’d wager that we have all believed something irrational in our lives, but because overall we show reasoning and good judgement, we are sane.

To show that all religious people who are alive and who have ever lived are insane, you will have to show that not one single person who is religious can demonstrate or have sound judgement, good sense or reasoning. To do this you would have to show that;

  • They should not be legally responsible for any contracts that they sign.
  • That they can’t offer any valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy
  • That they should not be allowed to vote.
  • And finally you will have to also show that they do not have the ability to keep themselves or others relatively safe in the world they live in.

Many great thinkers such as Socrates [2], René Descartes [3], Charles Babbage [4], Max Planck, Gregor Mendel, [6] Leanhard Euler [7] and Albert Einstein [8] were religious to varying degrees, just to name a few. Are you claiming these, plus all other religious great thinkers were insane? They have shown sound judgement, so by your definition they are not insane.

Closing statement

Pro now has the burden to show that every religious person who has ever lived is insane. I do not believe pro can meet this burden. Again I thank my opponent for providing me with this challenge.

Vote con.

Citations

1:http://goo.gl...

2:http://goo.gl...

3: http://goo.gl...

4: http://goo.gl...

5: http://goo.gl...

6: http://goo.gl...

7:http://goo.gl...

8: http://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Pro

I'd like to congratulate my opponent on his first debate. I will admit that I will probably lose,
mostly due to vote bombs, since there seems to many angry debaters here who don't like my style,
and vote with emotion, rather than with reason.

I will also add that I am very impressed with the argument my opponent has laid out.

My experience with debates is limited, but I have found out quickly that debates aren't really about truth, but about semantics, syntax, definitions, perception and other technicalities. In any case I'll continue, even though my enthusiasm
for debates has been destroyed by the experience.

It seems I now have a burden of proof.

My opponent has attempted to define "Religious". The problem I have is that
"For a belief to be classified as a religion it should meet most
but not necessarily all of these conditions."
That means if I pick a specific condition, my opponent can just blow it off because
"most" is not "all".

In order to avoid this technicality, I would like to pick one of the conditions and ask my opponent to agree
to it as always having to be a condition for religious belief.

That condition is: "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural."

If my opponent will agree to this, I will continue on with my debate.

I want to thank my worthy opponent ahead of time for his fairness and understanding.
AlbinoBunny

Con

My opponent has correctly pointed out that you need to be very precise with your meanings in debates or there"s a good chance that you will be tied up with a debate over "semantics, syntax, definitions, perception and other technicalities."

I am disheartened to hear that this has damaged his enthusiasm for debates, but can fully understand his position. From what I have observed, part of being a good debater comes from these experiences and learning how to close up these loopholes so that a debate can be made over the proper claim and not a distorted one.
Through this debate I will try to share the burden of proof, and not just claim "my opponent has to do all the leg work as he has the burden of proof". So far I have provided arguments in my favour, just as he has provided arguments in his favour. In the next few rounds we will dispute each others" arguments, and he who has the better arguments wins, each carrying the burden of proof on their shoulders.

My definition of "religious" was not very precise because such a complex thing as religion cannot be given such a definition. For the sake of this debate though, I will agree with my opponent that "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." is always a condition for religious belief.

I also want to voice the concern that with the claim you"ve made, this debate may well be decided on semantics, however hard we try to avoid this. The vagueness of the terms "religious" and "insane" will probably be the main contention of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
qopel

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for agreeing to "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural." as always a condition for religious belief.

The debate is "Are Religious people insane?"

I could just look up "insane" in the dictionary, but I want to use a more realistic approach.

Society has such an institution called an insane asylum, where people who are proved to be insane are placed.
One of the criteria for them being committed to such an institution is their inability to differentiate between reality and non-reality. For example, somebody may really believe they are Abraham Lincoln, even though in reality, they are not.
It can be proved that they are not Abraham Lincoln and the person who believes they are can be shown evidence to prove they are wrong. The insane person, will ignore or deny the evidence in favor of their belief.

Another example of somebody committed to an asylum is one who talks to imaginary things that don't exist. They may claim to hear voices and insist they are actually speaking to someone or something that can't be proved to exist.

Now, I will point out that there is, or has never been, any evidence for anything supernatural. That's not my opinion. If my opponent can find proof of something supernatural existing, I will admit I was wrong.

In any case, I want to look at some of the things a religious person is known to do:
1. Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
Since there is no scientific evidence for any Gods or supernatural beings, a religious person would have to rely of faith in order to believe it. Faith is to believe something without evidence, which is not rational.

2. The thing my opponent agreed to that all religious people do is "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural"
As I pointed out before, there has never been any scientific evidence for something supernatural to exist.
Once again, a religious person would have to rely on faith in order to believe that they are communicating with something supernatural. I will also add that most people who try to communicate with the supernatural, do so expecting some kind of reward or positive change. This type of wishful thinking has not been proved to be successful.
There have been scientific studies to confirm this.
http://web.med.harvard.edu...

I could go over the other irrational things religious people do, but I think I'll concentrate on the above two for now.

There seems to be a similarity between people committed to insane asylums and those who are religious.
Both try to communicate to things that can not be proved to exist.
Both ignore proof that their beliefs can be proved wrong.

In fact, if a religious person would substitute Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon Bonaparte or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for "God", they would most certainly be asked to at least go through a psychiatric evaluation. It is just not normal to believe in things that don't exist without evidence and attempt to communicate with them, expecting, or even claiming to get a reply.

For some reason, that I am unaware of, the word "God" makes one immune to the same standards of insanity other people are held to. This may be due to the extreme volume of insane people who claim "god" is the one they are communicating with. It would be impossible to commit that many people to asylums at once.
However, claiming that because of the high number of people who believe that there is a supernatural God they communicate with, it makes their claims true, and rational, would be a logical fallacy. An appeal to the majority, also known as an "ad populem" does not prove something to be correct.
I would therefore suggest that religion is a legal form of insanity.

If religious people, were, in fact, committed to asylums the way others with similar insane symptoms were committed, they would, in fact not be able to be legally responsible for any contracts that they sign, not be able to offer any valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy, not be allowed to vote nor have the ability to keep themselves or others relatively safe in the world they live in.

I am not just making claims from opinion. I am using logic based on facts.

I look forward to the next round.
AlbinoBunny

Con

Rebuttals

“Religious people believe things without evidence, talk to invisible beings and expect "miracles" to happen because of it. They think a 2000 year old book has all the answers to the Universe and would rather believe snakes talk, people walk on water and people are made from sand, rather than read a science book.”

This is not true for all religious people, or even most of them.


“I will argue that anyone who really believes that as true, is in fact, insane according to the above definition.”

And I will disagree with you on this according to the above definition, with the points I have previously stated.


“I could just look up "insane" in the dictionary, but I want to use a more realistic approach.”

Just reminding Pro that we have already defined “insane” as “Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense”.


“Society has such an institution called an insane asylum, where people who are proved to be insane are placed.
One of the criteria for them being committed to such an institution is their inability to differentiate between reality and non-reality. For example, somebody may really believe they are Abraham Lincoln, even though in reality, they are not.
It can be proved that they are not Abraham Lincoln and the person who believes they are can be shown evidence to prove they are wrong. The insane person, will ignore or deny the evidence in favor of their belief.”

Pro, we’ve already defined “insane”, I hope this is not you trying to redefine what we have already agreed for the term “insane” to mean.


“Another example of somebody committed to an asylum is one who talks to imaginary things that don't exist. They may claim to hear voices and insist they are actually speaking to someone or something that can't be proved to exist.”

Sometimes people hear voices, and this affects their life to such an extent that they can be defined as legally insane. As far as I am aware, this is correct.


“Now, I will point out that there is, or has never been, any evidence for anything supernatural. That's not my opinion. If my opponent can find proof of something supernatural existing, I will admit I was wrong.”

Supernatural – “attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces”. Meh, Photons appearing in two places at once and an LED with above 100% electrical efficiency? I’m willing to drop this point though.


“In any case, I want to look at some of the things a religious person is known to do:
1. Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
Since there is no scientific evidence for any Gods or supernatural beings, a religious person would have to rely of faith in order to believe it. Faith is to believe something without evidence, which is not rational.”

I agree that faith is irrational (although not quite insane).



“2. The thing my opponent agreed to that all religious people do is "Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural"
As I pointed out before, there has never been any scientific evidence for something supernatural to exist.
Once again, a religious person would have to rely on faith in order to believe that they are communicating with something supernatural. I will also add that most people who try to communicate with the supernatural, do so expecting some kind of reward or positive change. This type of wishful thinking has not been proved to be successful.
There have been scientific studies to confirm this.
http://web.med.harvard.edu...... “

I’m starting to wonder if I should pick up the point about the supernatural, even though I disagree with it myself. Other than that contention which I have decided to let go at least for this round, I agree with the above.


“I could go over the other irrational things religious people do, but I think I'll concentrate on the above two for now.”

They are irrational, but I don’t believe that they are “insane”.


“There seems to be a similarity between people committed to insane asylums and those who are religious.
Both try to communicate to things that can not be proved to exist.
Both ignore proof that their beliefs can be proved wrong.”

Not all people who are committed to insane asylums try to “communicate to things that can not (sic) be proved (sic) to exist”. They do seem quite resistant to evidence opposing their beliefs though.


“In fact, if a religious person would substitute Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon Bonaparte or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for "God", they would most certainly be asked to at least go through a psychiatric evaluation. It is just not normal to believe in things that don't exist without evidence and attempt to communicate with them, expecting, or even claiming to get a reply.”

Would they? Is this in the U.S? Are you saying that people who try to communicate with the dead are insane? Especially so if they think that they got a reply? Also please remember the definition of “insane” we are using for this debate.


“For some reason, that I am unaware of, the word "God" makes one immune to the same standards of insanity other people are held to. This may be due to the extreme volume of insane people who claim "god" is the one they are communicating with. It would be impossible to commit that many people to asylums at once.
However, claiming that because of the high number of people who believe that there is a supernatural God they communicate with, it makes their claims true, and rational, would be a logical fallacy. An appeal to the majority, also known as an "ad populem" does not prove something to be correct.
I would therefore suggest that religion is a legal form of insanity.”

There are “Standards of insanity”? As far as I can tell it’s not even a medical term in the U.S, I’m struggling to understand what standards you are referring to. I agree with you that it isn’t a practical solution to commit all religious people to mental asylums. “Argumentum ad populum” is a logical fallacy. I disagree with your claim that this makes religion a legal form of insanity. I have stated my arguments against this claim above.


“If religious people, were, in fact, committed to asylums the way others with similar insane symptoms were committed, they would, in fact not be able to be legally responsible for any contracts that they sign, not be able to offer any valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy, not be allowed to vote nor have the ability to keep themselves or others relatively safe in the world they live in.”

The symptoms may be similar, but if that’s how doctors diagnosed patients (similar symptoms), there would be a lot of misdiagnosis. If they are committed to a mental asylum this would mean that they would not be legally responsible for any contracts they sign, if. I have stated above why they are not insane (at least not insane just because they’re religious), so they don’t need to be committed because they’re religious, because they’re not insane. Even if they were committed they could offer valuable insight into science, mathematics or philosophy, if they were so inclined. I have shown that many people with religious beliefs have contributed to those fields. Also there doesn’t seem to be a link between being religious and the ability to function well and keep yourself and others around you safe.


“I am not just making claims from opinion. I am using logic based on facts.”

I cannot find a logical link from what you’ve said that makes all religious people insane from the above agreed definition of “insane”, though.


“I look forward to the next round.”

So do I.


I believe my points still stand and I have refuted enough of Pro’s points so that his case doesn’t stand.

I hope Pro keeps his enthusiasm up in the next round.

Vote Con. :)

Debate Round No. 3
qopel

Pro

OK, I'm going to try to take this with a different approach.

Since we agreed to define insane as "Not having or showing reason, not sound judgment, or good sense"
I think it will be easier if I didn't try to set the standard of insanity by somebody who is committed to an insane asylum.

So, let's look at WHY people are religious:

1. Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager suggests that believing is God would be the best action to take, since you have
nothing to lose and eternal life to gain.

So, let's put this to the test. Is this showing reason, sound judgement or good sense? No, because it's actually showing ignorance.
This type if thinking is ignoring several facts.

A. The fact that there's no evidence that can prove eternal life is possible, proves they are not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense; just wishful thinking.

B. The fact that they do actually have things to lose, such as valuable time wasted going to Church and praying. They can also lose money donating to churches. Trying to use faulty logic that you have nothing to lose by being religious is not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense.

2. Peer pressure

A person might feel like they must be religious in order to be able to socialize or function in society.
This, of course, is not true. Again, it's not showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense.

3. Indoctrination

Many people are indoctrinated at a young age to become religious. This does not involve showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense.
It's a form of brainwashing.

4. Irrational fear
Many people are religious because they have an irrational fear of death, or an irrational fear of going to hell. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense.

5. Ignorance
Some people are religious because of their ignorance of science. They believe in God because they want to believe in God, no matter what evidence is presented that may prove them wrong. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense.

6. Irrational feelings

Some people are religious, because they have a very low self esteem and feel like they are worthless without a God. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense.

7. The belief of the supernatural.

In order to have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense, you need to accept the fact that for something to be proven true, you need demonstrable evidence. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. Those who claim the supernatural is real, without demonstrable proof, can not have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense.

Because, there is no showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense, why anyone would be religious, I will claim that Religious people are, in fact, insane.
AlbinoBunny

Con

Rebuttals

1. Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager suggests that believing is God would be the best action to take, since you have
nothing to lose and eternal life to gain.

So, let's put this to the test. Is this showing reason, sound judgement or good sense? No, because it's actually showing ignorance.
This type if thinking is ignoring several facts.

A. The fact that there's no evidence that can prove eternal life is possible, proves they are not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense; just wishful thinking.

B. The fact that they do actually have things to lose, such as valuable time wasted going to Church and praying. They can also lose money donating to churches. Trying to use faulty logic that you have nothing to lose by being religious is not showing reason, sound judgement or good sense.”

They are considering the consequences of their actions, which shows reasoning.

“2. Peer pressure

A person might feel like they must be religious in order to be able to socialize or function in society.
This, of course, is not true. Again, it's not showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense.”

Being peer pressured into things because of society’s stigmas is not a sign of insanity; it shows the good sense of wanting to be accepted by a group.


3. Indoctrination

Many people are indoctrinated at a young age to become religious. This does not involve showing or having reason, sound judgement or good sense.
It's a form of brainwashing.”

When you are young you are more impressionable, but this does not mean that children are insane.


4. Irrational fear
Many people are religious because they have an irrational fear of death, or an irrational fear of going to hell. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense.”

It is in fact rational to be scared of pain and death.


5. Ignorance
Some people are religious because of their ignorance of science. They believe in God because they want to believe in God, no matter what evidence is presented that may prove them wrong. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense.”

This may be closed minded, but being closed minded does not make you insane. Being ignorant does not mean you are insane either.


6. Irrational feelings

Some people are religious, because they have a very low self esteem and feel like they are worthless without a God. This does not show reason, sound judgement or good sense.”

Turning to religion is not insanity, it is a coping mechanism.


“7. The belief of the supernatural.

In order to have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense, you need to accept the fact that for something to be proven true, you need demonstrable evidence. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. Those who claim the supernatural is real, without demonstrable proof, can not have or show reason, sound judgement or good sense.”

They are irrational about believing in something without evidence, but as my arguments showed, this is not the same as being insane.

Closing statement

Pro has argued that the above points show a person to be irrational. I have shown that some of the above points aren’t irrational, but some are. I have also shown, building on my original argument, that having something in your life which you are irrational about, does not make you insane. Just as Pro might present some irrational ideas about what makes a person insane, does not actually make Pro insane himself. Pro has yet to provide a rebuttal to my original argument.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
qopel

Pro

Pascal's Wager
"They are considering the consequences of their actions, which shows reasoning."

They are using consequences that are made up and not backed by evidence.
That's just as insane as considering the possibility of the sun exploding if I write a bad check.

Peer Pressure
"Being peer pressured into things because of society"s stigmas is not a sign of insanity;
it shows the good sense of wanting to be accepted by a group."

Giving in to peer pressure is a sign of insecurity, gullibility and insanity.
Wanting to be accepted by a group is not good sense; it's an emotional desire.
Wanting to belong to groups, like the Manson family, is not good sense. Religion is
a cult. The cult requires that you put aside sane and rational understandings of reality in favor of irrational,
unproven "facts", such as virgin births, talking snakes, walking on water and life after death.
That's insane.

indoctrination
"When you are young you are more impressionable, but this does not mean that children are insane."

True, you are not insane before you are indoctrinated, however, once you are conditioned to believe
things that are not true, you then become insane. If I took a sane child and told him he was, in fact,
Abraham Lincoln and will grow up to be the president, and that child truly believed it after years of
indoctrination, that child would be committed to an insane asylum.

Irrational fear
"It is in fact rational to be scared of pain and death."

Fear of pain and death is rational. The fear of pain and death due to something that doesn't exist is not rational.
There are people who have irrational fears based on imaginary things who are in insane asylums due to that fear.
For example, somebody may have a fear of killer spiders that are always ready to crawl on them.
This fear consumes how they live.
To live a life fearing the torture of hell and making decisions based on that consumes how they live and is insane.
Irrational fear is the reason why people seek help from metal health experts.

Ignorance
"This may be closed minded, but being closed minded does not make you insane.
Being ignorant does not mean you are insane either."

If you believe you are really Abraham Lincoln and are given evidence that proves you are not, but you IGNORE
those facts in favor of your belief, you remain insane.

True, ignorance alone isn't insanity, but used as an excuse to believe something without evidence, is insane.
Believing you are going to hell, for example and ignoring sane logic and reasoning that a hell
can't exist, in order to keep believing you are going to hell, is insane.

Irrational feelings
"Turning to religion is not insanity, it is a coping mechanism"

Coping mechanisms are not sane ways to cope with situations. They are triggered by extreme situations that
can cause insanity. During the first radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds", many believed that
we were, in fact, being invaded by Martians. The coping mechanism for some was to actually commit suicide.
Suicide is an insane act, when other options are available.

The extreme situation of being faced with eternal torture in hell, triggers the insane coping mechanism of
worshipping a "saviour".

The belief of the supernatural

"They are irrational about believing in something without evidence, but as my
arguments showed, this is not the same as being insane."

Insane is the opposite of sane. A sane person accepts rational beliefs based on demonstrable
evidence. Insane people accept irrational beliefs based on faith.

CONCLUSION
In order to be sane, you need to be able to differentiate between what is real and what is not real.
People who insist that things like angels and Gods not only exist, but can be interacted with by
prayer, are insane. It has been agreed by my opponent that a condition for being religious is,
"Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural."

This is not only believing that it's possible that the supernatural can exist (sane), it is asserting that the supernatural
DOES, in fact, exist and can be interacted with in the natural world through prayer(insane).

I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate.
Although I enjoyed it, it most likely will be my last debate here, due to the
enormous amount of vote bombs I receive from people who don't agree with
my style of debating and seem to feel somehow justified to take it upon themselves
to punish me for such style. I will not tolerate being the victim of vigilantes.
AlbinoBunny

Con

AlbinoBunny forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
82 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
It's possible.
Posted by cybertron1998 4 years ago
cybertron1998
qopel do you believe that a universe could start because of a wormhole
Posted by AlbinoBunny 4 years ago
AlbinoBunny
Did I even suggest that the "singularity " was nothing?
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Very contradicting to say nothing caused anything when Sola.Gratia said that the "God" theory had a cause.. But where did God come from then? It couldn't have come from nothing . SO who's really right? The "big bang" theory? or God?
....
Posted by Sola.Gratia 4 years ago
Sola.Gratia
Both cannot be correct.. One of us is wrong..
Posted by Sola.Gratia 4 years ago
Sola.Gratia
Very contradicting to say nothing caused anything when pro said that the "big bang" theory had a cause.. But where did the big bang come from then? It couldn't have come from nothing if say that the Christian point of view couldn't have come from nothing either?... SO who's really right? The "big bang" theory? or God?
....
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
If I forfeit I lose.If somebody else forfeits, I still lose. The voters are insane!
Posted by samurai 4 years ago
samurai
Saying someone is insane is a matter of opinion. Therefore qopel, it is your own opinion. It is also my opinion that you are a complete idiot.
Posted by giraffelover 4 years ago
giraffelover
I don't believe a rock hit it while it was solid, I think the rock hitting Venus is an argument based on a lack of evidence. Nevertheless, I believe what I think is true, and you do too.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
One thing is for sure. God didn't do it!
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Un-countering LWAV. Good RFD, or mostly good.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Roy.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Last round F.F. doesn't automatically mean loss. Pro had (a heavy) BOP, Con provided counter examples that pro did not refute. Thus Pro failed BOP. Con also wins sources. Losses conduct for F.F.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument in round 5 effectively rebutted Pro. Pro's response did not effectively address the flaws in his arguments that con had pointed out.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The definition of "insane" used for the debate is a person "lacking reason" or "having unsound judgment." If that means "ever makes an unsound judgment" then every person on earth is insane, and that's an unreasonable definition. People can make many irrational and unsound judgments without being insane. Insanity has to do with taking rash actions based upon unsound judgments; some religious people do that, but Con's counterexamples are convincing that it is not necessarily implied. Con loses conduct for the forfeit, but the counterexamples cited early in the debate were not refuted.
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF'd the last round so he loses conduct points. Other than that Con produced a solid rebuttal to Pro, while Pro failed in re-rebutting his own arguments. He failed to address all of Con's points. Con was the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- AB dropped a round. SG- AB pointed out two grammatical mistakes qopel made. Arguments- Bluntly, qopel didn't manage to make the link between irrational and insane. Furthermore, he never refuted AB's point that the mere act of having irrational beliefs doesn't make you insane, since on balance you could still be a rational person. Personally I would have liked to see AB point out that what people take as answers to prayers aren't necessarily schizophrenic-type voices, though.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 4 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe con swept this one. Sorry pro. I came into this with an open mind and chose cons arguments because they were more coherent, logical, and everyone of pros were picked apart by con. Plus Pro made remarks that didn't affect the debate( According to Professor Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, the singularity was a millionth of a billionth of a centimeter wide.) I know it is back ground info but put a link instead. It takes away from the actual debate. I thought cons grammar and spelling was good because he had better sentence structure and did not misspell words. I voted for cons conduct because he conducted himself better. I voted for cons sources because he had more reliable ones ( For those who don't know what this mean, Con had five reliable sources compared to Pros 1). I did not allow my religious ideals to affect my decision making.
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 4 years ago
Sola.Gratia
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con's views.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
qopelAlbinoBunnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for ff, but arguments were Con's as he did much more to prove that religious people are not insane. Con had better sources. I will give spelling and grammar to Con because he/she did a good job and put up a great effort.