The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Alphamus
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Ask why religion causes so many problems

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Alphamus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 105660
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Taken from http://godisimaginary.com...

If God were to exist, wouldn't you expect there to be a huge benefit to those who follow and obey him? Why, instead, do we see the opposite?

For example, there is growing evidence that the delusion of religion causes significant social dysfunction. Statistical research is revealing the problems that go with religion. For example, a recent article in the Journal of Religion and Society points out that religion is correlated to the significant social difficulties that we can see in America:

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a shining city on the hill to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.
The prevailing view is that religion is harmless even if it is delusional. That turns out not to be the case. America is the most religious country of those studied in the developed world. America also has the biggest problems in terms of things like homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion.
This article by Sam Harris puts it this way:

"While most Americans believe that getting rid of religion is an impossible goal, much of the developed world has already accomplished it. Any account of a “god gene” that causes the majority of Americans to helplessly organize their lives around ancient works of religious fiction must explain why so many inhabitants of other First World societies apparently lack such a gene. The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality--belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health.

Countries with high levels of atheism also are the most charitable in terms of giving foreign aid to the developing world. The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is also belied by other indices of charity. Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle."

In other words, religion is harmful, not helpful. The reason is because God is imaginary and religious delusion is hurting all of us.

RULES:
Prove that religion (god) is inspiring, does NOT cause problems, and offers hope (not a fake hope which is a HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE)


dsjpk5 will not be allowed to participate in the voting process.
Alphamus

Con

I will both debunk most of Pro's arguments and assert the opposite.

**Debunking Pro's arguments

"Taken from http://godisimaginary.com...... "

Source provided by Pro has logical errors in citation, and has clear bias. Information subsequently mentioned to be of questionable value. This alone should undermine this entire debate.

"If God were to exist, wouldn't you expect there to be a huge benefit to those who follow and obey him? Why, instead, do we see the opposite?"

Theoretically, any deity assumed to exist is just assumed to have created the world, or is interactive with humans. Neither of these imply there would be a huge benefit, although obviously most of mankind assumes there is. Second: you do not see the opposite currently happening, as religion has bettered morality, become an integral part of culture, improves self-esteem, prevents suicide through faith dynamics, etc. No sources provided since Pro hasn't provided any sources yet either for his incorrect assertion.

"For example, there is growing evidence that the delusion of religion causes significant social dysfunction. Statistical research is revealing the problems that go with religion. For example, a recent article in the Journal of Religion and Society points out that religion is correlated to the significant social difficulties that we can see in America:"

Specific source not cited but assuming we take that as true - it is overwhelmed by stronger claims from more reputable, peer-reviewed sites claiming the opposite.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... -> review study of ALL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE published, indicates positive correlation between religious beliefs and mental health, social order

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... -> review study again, proving the same thing but also citing social organization as being improved from religious beliefs

More sources can be provided, citing the same thing if asked for. Point being: the vast majority of scientific literature agrees that religion has a positive effect on mental health and social function. This directly contradicts Pro's assertion. My guess is that Pro scavenged the Internet for some source (scientific or not) to support his/her own backward assertions.

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a shining city on the hill to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health."

Disagree with all above statements. Half of Pro's arguments here are non-sequitur and strongly imply mindless copying from another source. Even the studies that Pro will try to scavenge will likely be of weak reasoning and incorrect statistics. However:

1. Robert A. Hummer, Christopher G. Ellison, Richard G. Rogers, Benjamin E. Moulton, and Ron R. Romero, "Religious Involvement and Adult Mortality in the United States: Review and Perspective," Southern Medical Journal 97, no. 12 (December 2004): 1224-1225. -> proves religion leads to less homicide, higher mental health

2. David Lester, "Religiosity and Personal Violence: A Regional Analysis of Suicide and Homicide Rates," The Journal of Social Psychology 127, no. 6 (December 1987): 685-686 -> decrease in suicide rates and homicides

3. Byron R. Johnson, David B. Larson, Spencer De Li, and Sung Joon Jang, "Escaping from the Crime of Inner Cities: Church Attendance and Religious Salience Among Disadvantaged Youth," Justice Quarterly 17, no. 2 (June 2000): 377-339. -> notes inner city, at risk youth less likely to use drugs and be violent once exposed to religious attendance

The sources are endless, but I will stop here for brevity - and until Pro says something substantial to back up his/her poorly argued claims.

"The prevailing view is that religion is harmless even if it is delusional. That turns out not to be the case. America is the most religious country of those studied in the developed world. America also has the biggest problems in terms of things like homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion.
This article by Sam Harris puts it this way:"

Massive errors in logic all along the paragraph. Assertions like homicide/juvenile/early adult morality/etc. all flat out wrong. Again, Pro's mindless copying from his first site signal these errors.

I could go on, debunking all of Pro's arguments. Nothing of his/her's has any scientific substantiation, seems to be all from one highly biased source, and he/her seems to have taken up the mantle of an arbiter of reason, a stereotypical atheist predisposed to his/her own beliefs without regard for the truth.

Most of his/her claims have been debunked, I have stronger citations, and my reasoning is more accurate.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

There"s no way that I have bias considering the fact that believing in god, in which no one can prove he even exists, is extreme bias because after all the the only source for god is a little blank black book. And no god of the bible would use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible.

Also extreme bias come from the bible in Deuteronomy 13 especially 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 which says the same thing. "2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the un, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, ehold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die." So if I or anyone else is not to believe in YOUR god we are all to be stoned to death which is the most biased thing perhaps ever stated.

"Theoretically, any deity assumed to exist is just assumed to have created the world, or is interactive with humans. Neither of these imply there would be a huge benefit," Oh 100% false and totally opinionated on truly shakey unsubstantiated ground with nothing but tears to sway an empty crowd. So what con is saying is that this god of his is to be completely bankrupt and create, pain, suffering, be completely pig-headed and immoral and allow torturing especially to children in which this god of his knowingly hates. Now this god of his could have easily started out with peace, kindness, care for each other, love, etc. Nah. He chose hate, Your god has freely admitted to having anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy. Jealousy? What from a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. Even worse is this supposed god of yours passed down those emotions so man could in turn learn to hate with all the baggage that comes along with it that these emotions clearly are that this god drags around with him. Hey god, dump those emotions and how"s about thinking about peace, kindness, love, caring for each other, harmony etc? Nah. So don"t talk to me or anyone about your god"s "implications" because if god is god then he from the start or even now end all the horrific stains of disease, famine, suffering, pain etc. Nah this god of yours loves it that way - even though once again you cannot even prove he exists. Not only that since this god of YOURS has these emotions it clearly means that he is imperfect. Now who in their right stale mind would ---ever--- want to bow down to an inferior supreme deity bile god such as the one you picked from your closet because what else could it be?
Strange isn"t it that in comparison that the Inca, many of the native American Indian tribes until your white man greasy sweaty racist pig christian wiped them out, the aborigines, Hindu"s, Gaia Mother Earth, Buddhists etc etc etc they do not practice nor preach nor go to war over their religions, not anywhere close to the evils nor hate that the christians do. Now why is that? And yet according to your god worshiping other gods is considered to be the most evil thing there is, and you should be stoned to death for it. So you follow your lord"s orders and you come on down here and stone me to death. Whatsamatter? You are not going to follow your god"s orders? Why? Why not?

"Second: you do not see the opposite currently happening, as religion has bettered morality," Absolutely 100% false. Google "Atheism VS god which is more peaceful" and you will get about 4,820,000 results. And god is the most immoral figure in history. And christ is the most fought over figure in history. And the bible delivers a message of false hope because for a third time, there"s no proof for god even existing. And what educated or intelligent person would ---ever--- want to believe in god or christ anyway?
https://www.youtube.com... - Why does every intelligent christian disobey christ?
https://www.youtube.com... - Top 10 reasons why the bible is repulsive
https://www.youtube.com... - Proving that god"s plan is impossible
https://www.youtube.com... - Lawrence Krauss How to develop your critical thinking skills
https://www.youtube.com... - Why Religion is Outdated in the 21st Century - Lawrence Krauss
https://www.youtube.com... - Richard Carrier debunking christianity
https://www.youtube.com... - Christopher Hitchens The 10 Commandments
https://www.youtube.com... - Christopher Hitchens - The True Core of the jesus Myth
https://www.youtube.com... - Summarizing that god is evil
https://www.youtube.com... - God: Merciful? Maniac? Mass-Murderer?

You also have no free will if you believe in your god. None.
https://www.youtube.com... - An All Knowing god versus Free Will: The Greatest Religious Contradiction
https://www.youtube.com... - Free Will With god
https://www.youtube.com... - How god Favors Evil
https://www.youtube.com... - Does god allow Free Will?

And I have so much more. I haven"t even gotten started. So who should and or ---ever--- want to believe in god?

Really? According to what? You how would you know that" "improves self-esteem," That"s a false sense of self worth. do I have to mention for a FORTH time god is unproved? Really? According to what does god and christ prevents suicide? Um wellll not exactly, only through utter fakery and fear and there"s really no testing or demonstration to see if it even works but regardless Matt Dillahunty is 100% correct here and naturally you cannot provide any sources because its a load of B.S. and you know it" One more of those and this debate ends.
"If you found out today that I went to hell, would you be sad? Yes. And if there"s no sadness in heaven does that mean that when you get to heaven that you stop caring about me, does that mean, would that still be you? Would there ever be a you that doesn"t care about me? Yeah see "that I"m not a theologian" is an admission of defeat. Because what they are doing is saying "I believe something but I really don"t understand it and I"m not really comfortable with it and I don"t need to be an expert in it" even though if this were true it could be the single most important thing anybody could understand. Because all of the life becomes ---nothing--- if you were to spend an eternity somewhere. That would have to be the most important thing. There"s reasons why churches, catholic churches have declared suicide to be a mortal sin is because they recognize the doctrines they are teaching, the natural progression, if there was no prohibition would be for people to kill themselves right now. "I walked out of the confessional. I"m right with god. Let me just off myself right now because that"s just going to get me there." So they have to put a prohibition in ah that suicide is going to send you straight to hell. Cause if you kill yourself you cannot keep donating to the church." Matt Dillahunty .

"For example, there is growing evidence that the delusion"" that word of delusion was a link that obviously didn"t work in RD1, so here it is now" http://godisimaginary.com...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...... -> "review study of ALL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE" Well no its not. Not even close. Did you even read it? And a lot of it was correlated with mental ill-health.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...... -> "The relationship between religiosity and mental health has been a perennial source of controversy." Gee I cannot possibly understand what that means. You are not doing so well.

"Point being: the vast majority of scientific literature agrees that religion has a positive effect on mental health and social function." Well that"s an impossibility considering the fact that not one god from any religion has yet to be proved. You seem to forget that there are no tests, no demonstrations for any god.

Another thing you can do is google "atheists helps mortality".
See here"s the problem that you have is your one sided on tracked bible. And that"s not good for anybody. .

OK you named 3. But what are their backgrounds to pull something together like that? And I pointed out several ways to debunk christianity so it leaves you blank. You cannot debunk atheism because after all there's no book on atheism.

Something else for tag not one war that has been fought for the mere sake of atheism where religious wars are fought in the name of religion all the time.

Yes sources are endless, so are mine. But its not by any means a standoff/ stalemate. Because since religion is all based on faith. Faith is not evidence nor truth of any kind"
"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
Alphamus

Con

*Sighs*

"There's no way that I have bias considering the fact that believing in god, in which no one can prove he even exists, is extreme bias because after all the the only source for god is a little blank black book. And no god of the bible would use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible."

Incorrect. Not just your debate history, but your hilariously aggressive demeanor, poor choice of sources, and basis of all your evidence on merely disproving God's existence instead of the point of the debate - which is to see if there's any positive or negative benefit/disadvantage from religion. "Little blank black book" is humorous, so I will ignore this. There is no evidence that text is the worst form of communication. You have also confounded with "God" with the "Christian" God. Overall, you don't seem to be taking any of this seriously.

The Deuteronomy 13 quote is irrelevant to our argument - but I suspect you put it in simply because I pointed out your own bias. Whereas I had a purpose to bring up your bias, you seem to just reiterate what I said in the hopes of outing me as a "hypocritical" thinker. But just for entertainment: the quote that you posted has no implications of "bias" - and I'm not even Christian! To an atheist, I'm sure it seems frightening, as it depicts violence for apostasy and non-belief - but really it just lays down a set of moral rules and a punishment to follow. This isn't illogical or unjustified - it's descriptive. Bias is not used in this context - they are used for evaluating evidence and making conclusions. Saying something is "biased" because it asserts its own truth is overly focused on semantics and incorrect.

Afterwards, when you quote my own lines back at me:

"Oh 100% false and totally opinionated on truly shakey unsubstantiated ground with nothing but tears to sway an empty crowd."

Not at all. Several peer-reviewed sources indicate this:

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

All of these point a common conception of God as close to what I have described.

"So what con is saying is that this god of his is to be completely bankrupt and create, pain, suffering, be completely pig-headed and immoral and allow torturing especially to children in which this god of his knowingly hates. Now this god of his could have easily started out with peace, kindness, care for each other, love, etc..."

I left out the rest of that rant. Again, most of it is broad claims made by Pro without any backup. There are some heartfelt argument sure, but nothing really of substance. You are simply reiterating claims made by ignorant atheists who see religion through a biased lens. And as usual, this has no relevance to our argument.

"in comparison that the Inca, many of the native American Indian tribes until your white man greasy sweaty racist pig christian wiped them out, the aborigines, Hindu"s, Gaia Mother Earth, Buddhists etc etc etc they do not practice nor preach nor go to war over their religions, not anywhere close to the evils nor hate that the christians do."

This is both historically wrong and somewhat funny. "White man greasy sweaty racist pig christian?" Come on voters... this vote should be a no-brainer!

Later, when I say that religion has better morality - Pro finally gets down to actually trying to contradict what I'm saying. He responds that what I said about religion bettering morality as:

"Absolutely 100% false. Google "Atheism VS god which is more peaceful" and you will get about 4,820,000 results. And god is the most immoral figure in history. And christ is the most fought over figure in history. And the bible delivers a message of false hope because for a third time, there"s no proof for god even existing. And what educated or intelligent person would ---ever--- want to believe in god or christ anyway?"

1. No, not 100% false at all.
2. That many results on Google simply indicate vast interest in the topic, not evil/immorality
3. Same reasoning can be used for your useless "Christ is foughtover" mention
4. Saying there's no proof for God existing is not just wrong, but also irrelevant to the debate
5. The majority of people who study religion believe in God. The majority of scientists either believe in God or are at least agnostic. Of the highest IQ scorers in the world, most believe in God. In any part of the world (aside from America), increased education leads to increased belief in God.
Granted, the plurality (among American scientists) is still atheism - but this has been explained countless times as simply selection bias rather than expert knowledge leading to non-belief. And this trend will likely change as theists grow in numbers.

You quoting YouTube videos is hilarious. Although it's good that you moved from no sources to some sources, understand that I can't take them too seriously due to the lack of consistent quality among YouTube videos. Some may be good, some may be horrible - and considering your own bias, I doubt the sources' quality. And again, like with any argument I have made - I CAN FIND SOURCES JUST LIKE YOURS PROVING THE EXACT OPPOSITE. In the future, do not waste time grabbing videos off YouTube.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......... -> "review study of ALL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE" Well no its not. Not even close. Did you even read it? And a lot of it was correlated with mental ill-health.

*Sigh*. Look up what a review study is. It is a review study. Review studies go over all possible scientific literature. Most of the literature indicated positive correlations with mental health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......... -> "The relationship between religiosity and mental health has been a perennial source of controversy." Gee I cannot possibly understand what that means. You are not doing so well.

Yes, congrats - you read the title. If you read further, they clearly state it has positive effects on mental health.

"Because since religion is all based on faith. Faith is not evidence nor truth of any kind""

AGAIN, IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE - so I'm not sure why I'm responding to this. And faith is based on evidence, or else people wouldn't have a reason to believe. There are countless ontological proofs, cosmological arguments, mathematical answers, science studies on the effect of prayer, etc... to prove that there exists solid evidence of God likely existing.
The rest of your irrelevant ranting is equal parts hilarious and ignorant. Aside from quoting celebrity atheists at me, you haven't brought up a single shred of evidence/reasoning either RELEVANT to our debate, or TRUE even when I parse through your babbling nonsense, no offense. :)

Overall?

1. WE ARE NOT DEBATING GOD'S EXISTENCE. Even though you've proven you cannot defend that.
2. PLEASE STICK TO YOUR OWN RULES AND FOLLOW THE STRUCTURE OF THIS DEBATE, STOP IRRELEVANTLY COPY AND PASTING
3. If you are not indeed a troll, I thank you anyways. You give me great practice to sharpen my debating skills. :)
4. I wonder if I send a friend request to you, would you friend me back? :p (jk)
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Well sorry, my sources outdo yours by far and you just cannot stand to be proven wrong, false, insignificant, like the small little scruff that you are. And I"m going to do it again here. Oh darn did I strike a nerve? Apparently so because of your severe lack and edumacation and intelligence on the subject and wow does it show.
Also its apparent that you have not even looked at any of the videos in RD1 which pulverized you. So until you do and make comments on every---single---one---of---them, because you are a spoiled little brat and you expect me to pay attention to your smoggy granny fart brain, I will ignore everything you have to say. If you don"t like it, tough, deal with it. My sources are far better than yours proving how hateful and unreasonable YOUR christian religion is. Oh and deny your christian religion all you want, its a joke.

Well let"s see what I said here because you didn"t pay attention to what I said more-on. Since you a blatant christian, who can"t read as the typical christian can"t, its insult time and you deserve it. Now here"s what I said and I"m going to slam it down your throat in which you will not be able refute toot toot your little horn that is your slaughtered kittens bark meow mix. Now here"s what I said. "And no god of the bible would use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible." I did not say anything like your jesus jujitsu humdrum snuggles pouting pitiful panty party "There is no evidence that text is the worst form of communication." Totally 100% different snookums. Regardless your god would not use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. But then again you are far far far too stupid and pathetically ignorant to figure out the why as to WHY this is true. LeT"s give you 3 quotes from renowned people who do indeed-i-do know that they are talking about, unlike you and they also know a lot more about your god, religion and bible than you ---ever--- will and so do I"
"If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors" how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can"t distinguish between the law of Israel and god"s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take figuratively. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn"t make any sense. It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well." Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn"t be written at all. What"s wrong with your god comin" down and talking to people? "Hey you know some of that stuff that"s in the book? I"m here to correct it." Matt Dillahunty

"We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there"s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that"s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn"t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?" Matt Dillahunty

"If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We"d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor." Christopher Hitchens

Oh yeah your god if remotely intelligent (NOT) would never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible with copies upon copies upon copies and translations upon translations upon translations so everybody can get it wrong with absolutely no possible way to trace it back to the original. And even if you could who is going to translate it so that ALL WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT? There"s no possible way that anyone interprets the bible correctly. Its just too bad that your minced mutton moron mechanical mind has just been handed his hand gift wrapped to him on a package of spam and moldy cheese. Darn it. Now don"t respond, you"ve been eaten alive by your own spit, you cannot refute the past 4 paragraphs. You bore me. Yawn.

Your"re right I don"t take you seriously because you hand me a load of unproved, unchecked, hooded bile without any common frame of reference. And you expect me to take you seriously?

The Deuteronomy 13 and 17: 2-5 proving how hateful your god truly is (would you like a lot lot lot more? Really its no problem to prove how your god truly hates children?) quote is quite accurate and fit the bill perfectly to show how bias your god is when you flat out ignorantly called me bias you ignorant hairy armpit of smoke stacks. Oh yes, you are hypocritical and so is your god. Want proof?

OK the studies. For 1. I do not understand all the combo"s of the letters IPT), CRT etc etc etc but when I read the $1 Supporting information and $1 data well um no. and then 236 adults is nowhere near enough to do any kind of true study"
2. Is a load of bull because christ is not the true messiah and in no way have you or the the study proved this.
3. Is also a load of bull because if in any way true A LOT more would jump on their side. So why hasn"t that happened? Oh and btw, who"s to say ots "god"? Could be something completely different. Totally phony and ridiculous.

"So what con is saying is that this god of his is to be completely bankrupt and create, pain, suffering, be completely pig-headed and immoral and allow torturing especially to children in which this god of his knowingly hates. Now this god of his could have easily started out with peace, kindness, care for each other, love, etc..."
Well then you haven"t read your bible. Simple. Do you think that the OT was filled with everlasting joy, love and kindness, care for each other, peace, harmony? Well then you show that to me in YOUR OT.
So here"s some verses where your god hates children to close out the RD"

2 Samuel 12:11-14 11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. From evilbible.com [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

Deuteronomy 2:34 "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:"

Numbers 31:17-18 "17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Leviticus 26:21-22 "And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. 22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate." Rob you of your children?

1 Samuel 15:3 "3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling , ox and sheep, camel and a$$."

Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." Wow. Such a nice gentle caring god. This book should clearly be read to children - correct?

There's 5 of these at least. Due to lack of space I can only put in two and I'd be willing to bet you think you should be put to death because you curse at your parents - right?
* Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
* Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."
Alphamus

Con

All right, let's get this out of the way. I made a mistake taking this debate seriously, hopefully some rational voter will come by end this fiasco soon.

But onto the ignorance:

"Well sorry, my sources outdo yours by far and you just cannot stand to be proven wrong, false, insignificant, like the small little scruff that you are. And I"m going to do it again here. Oh darn did I strike a nerve? Apparently so because of your severe lack and edumacation and intelligence on the subject and wow does it show."

**Nope, your sources are lower quality than mine. Youtube videos vs peer reviewed science? Tsk tsk...
The rest is a funny personal insult so I'll give that to you. Also: "edumacation"?? I know me bringing this up is petty but come on. ;)

"its apparent that you have not even looked at any of the videos in RD1 which pulverized you. So until you do and make comments on every---single---one---of---them, because you are a spoiled little brat and you expect me to pay attention to your smoggy granny fart brain, I will ignore everything you have to say. If you don"t like it, tough, deal with it. My sources are far better than yours proving how hateful and unreasonable YOUR christian religion is. Oh and deny your christian religion all you want, its a joke"

**LOL. I looked at some videos, then delivered my conclusion of how some are good quality, some are worse - etc. Inconsistency is my issue with youtube videos, not in general. Then, parsing past the personal insults... dude/dudette, I'm not Christian, lol. I'm theist, but not Christian. Swing and a miss!

" little horn that is your slaughtered kittens bark meow mix."

WTF LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I'm trying to get the best bits in here guys, here's another good one...

"Darn it. Now don"t respond, you"ve been eaten alive by your own spit, you cannot refute the past 4 paragraphs. You bore me. Yawn."

Colorful choice of words. Oh another one:

"here's 5 of these at least. Due to lack of space I can only put in two and I'd be willing to bet you think you should be put to death because you curse at your parents - right?
* Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
* Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

I'm no bible expert (again, not being Christian) - but doesn't cursing mean the metaphorical way? As in to "curse a lineage" - not literally swear at someone, lol. Hopefully some rational voters outside can back me up on this. So let's get down to my original assertions:

1. You continue to use personal attacks and provide nothing other than random, meaningless, irrelevant (to our debate) quotes and denounce my scientific approach as logically irrational, except you base this claim on nothing at all.

2. STICK TO THE TOPIC OF YOUR DEBATE. WE ARE ARGUING IF RELIGION CAUSES PROBLEMS OR NOT, NOT WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT, despite your clear lack of evidence for the latter. I want to get back to the professionalism I asserted in my first RD.

3. PLEASE GIVE ME SOMETHING TO REFUTE, other than random quotations and simple denials of my evidences without proof. Your irrationality may be agreeable to some debaters, but it is frustrating to debate - sort of like playing chess with a pigeon.

4. If anyone reading this thinks I'm crazy for debating someone as illogical and hilarious as "Pro", understand that this is my first debate. I did not do research into my rival, and thought he would be an actual, rational individual instead of some random internet troll. The only reason I'm continuing is so I make sure I don't automatically lose this debate. As soon as this debate is done, I will attempt my best to avoid all future contact with him/her.

5. Just for the LOLZ:

BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT WAHAH FFHBFHBF WBOO BOO WEESNAW DINOSAUR EVOLUTION DAWKINS DU HUR DU HUR RATIONAL KITTEN JUMPING OVER A FLYING RHINO BUTTOCK BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT WAHAH FFHBFHBF WBOO BOO WEESNAW DINOSAUR EVOLUTION DAWKINS DU HUR DU HUR RATIONAL KITTEN JUMPING OVER A FLYING RHINO BUTTOCK BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT WAHAH FFHBFHBF WBOO BOO WEESNAW DINOSAUR EVOLUTION DAWKINS DU HUR DU HUR RATIONAL KITTEN JUMPING OVER A FLYING RHINO BUTTOCK BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT WAHAH FFHBFHBF WBOO BOO WEESNAW DINOSAUR EVOLUTION DAWKINS DU HUR DU HUR RATIONAL KITTEN JUMPING OVER A FLYING RHINO BUTTOCK
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Nope my sources outdo yours. By far. I presented you with valid videos that proves that religion (god) is not inspiring, causes multiple problems, and does not offer hope. So you can sit by in your twinkled jammies with all of your miss-steaks and to take to debate serious with all of your fwuffy panned-cakes dry and juicy with your rhubarb garlic onion beer belly deodorant ready and prime for action all you want.

Refute the videos dimwitted dullard snot meat sow as I told you to do in the previous round in which stand tall because you can't, you know it, they are ultimately correct. I've stuck to the subject.

And you stupidly and arrogantly wanted to get into it that text is according to YOUR god a valid form of communication in which I cut open your wrists with the tampons that you eloquently use in which your god would NEVER use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. So refute it lumber jacka$$. I've stuck to the subject except when your ignorance and arrogance has sidetracked from it.

RD2 I gave you a link for the finish to delusion so here"s once again "Understanding religious delusion" http://godisimaginary.com... - in which you screamingly asked for.

Yeah you neatly avoid the other verses and go straight to the bottom verses so you must think that there"s something truly disgusting and perverse, not quite right and terribly wrong that once again religion (god) is not inspiring, causes multiple problems, and does not offer hope.

"I'm no bible expert (again, not being Christian) - but doesn't cursing mean the metaphorical way?" How would you know? You are so right, you are not a bible expert. Neither is any christian. See that"s the problem in you flat out guessing just as all christians do, no exceptions, none. Did you read Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 where you must be put to death if you don"t believe in god and believe in other gods? What about if you are gay in Leviticus 20:13 and you should be put to death because you lie down with another man? What about if you work on the sabbath you must be put to death Exodus 31:15. If you commit adultery you must be put to death Leviticus 20:10. Oh yeah your happy go little bible is filled with gems like that. Oh but wait those are perfectly OK to you. religion (god) is not inspiring, causes multiple problems, and does not offer hope. Sheesh. You can't be well liked in preschool.

I"m done for this round because you are so amazingly stupid and ignorant and you know NOTHING about your god and bible. YOU FIGURE IT OUT IF you want this debate to continue.
Alphamus

Con

Feeling good, so I'll take you seriously for a moment.

1. Your videos are NOT VALID, They represent the musings of a rambling, incoherent "atheist" desperately unaware of how to acquire proper evidences. YouTube videos as citation is ridiculously poor judgement and the videos that I watched are full of the same logical errors that you spit out in your often hilariously stupid articulations. And like I've said a thousand times before, STAY ON TOPIC.
2. Refuting the videos? Let's start off with the first three shall we?

*"Why does every intelligent Christian disobey Jesus?" - errors in reasoning at points 1:33, 2:59, 1:47, etc. all passages taken from Bible implied to point out contradictions whereas no contradictions can be found when context is taken into account. Video relies heavily on pathos and has low reasoning capability.
*"Top 10 Reasons why the Bible is Repulsive" - simply tries to find contradictions between Testaments/Commands which again rely on context. Reasons 3/7/9 are purely emotional appeals.
*"Proving Gods plan is impossible" - most idiotic reason/video you have quoted so far. has zero relevance to topic, misrepresents the Old Testament, fails to present adequate passage construction, etc.

Can you see the theme here? Need I go beyond three? You have chosen pathetic sources to back up any of your equally idiotic claims. Compare me, who provided clear citations from scientific journals - to you, who's representing an entire community of trolls. Your quotage of the Bible verses is a waste of time because, as I have said - THEY HOLD ZERO RELEVANCE TO OUR DEBATE. Your logic is simply inferior.

Also you blisteringly perverse moron, I am not a Christian. Simply a theist. Your moronically aggressive, unprofessional debating is proof of how pathetic the atheist community has become. I will restate what I've said again, just to make sure I get the vote.

1. STAY ON TOPIC, YOU MORON.
2. PROPERLY ARGUE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, FOOL.
3. ACTUALLY REFUTE WHAT I'M SAYING, WANKA,
4. I cannot exit a debate, and give you the chance to score your first no contest victory among your stellar track record of losing nearly every debate you've ever started. You're an embarrassment to this site and to good debaters out there. Fix your logical reasoning and repent to the Lord. ;)
Debate Round No. 4
backwardseden

Pro

"1. Your videos are NOT VALID" I didn't read anything else beyond that because that only proves that you are NOT VALID. You didn't pay attention to the rules as ALL videos perfectly intertwine within them slaughterhouse nose ahchoo! RD1 in which your beady little smoggy eyes were so miserably focused on was just an example of religion (god) not being inspiring, does cause problems, and offers no hope. Duh. And you just like nearly every christian has proved butter lumps to skate upon with your beady scrotum soda bald head. This debate is now over. You lose. You like nearly every christian I've debated here obviously has no genuine friends. What do I mean by genuine? Those that would go way way wayyyyyyy out of their way to help you out in time of dire need and NEVER ask you a single question. For that I cannot even pity you. But you did it to yourself. You flat out deserve it. At the rate you are going, you will die alone. That is a huge giant red flag. And if you really wanna beat me and win, so what, you cannot get to me which is your main squatting puff of smoke goal. Sorry scummy. I'm far too good for that. AND I'm far too good for you. Bye.
Alphamus

Con

Finally time to end this. Won't ever be debating someone like you again.

"I didn't read anything else beyond that"

What a surprise.

"because that only proves that you are NOT VALID."

LOL.

"You didn't pay attention to the rules as ALL videos perfectly intertwine"

No they don't. Almost all of them were irrelevant to our debate. Most tried to disprove God's existence, and a small minority actually related.

"within them slaughterhouse nose ahchoo! RD1 in which your beady little smoggy eyes were so miserably focused on"

What?

" was just an example of religion (god) not being inspiring, does cause problems, and offers no hope. Duh."

Restating your argument, over and over again. How convincing. (Irony)

" And you just like nearly every christian has proved butter lumps to skate upon with your beady scrotum soda bald head. "

WTF "soda bald head"? And like I've said before, I'm not Christian.

"This debate is now over. You lose."

It IS over. Any rational person would vote for me over your garbage of arguments.

"You like nearly every christian I've debated here obviously has no genuine friends."

LOL.

"What do I mean by genuine?"

Who gives a flying f*ck what you mean?

"AND I'm far too good for you. Bye."

Sounds like you're asking me to ask you out. No thanks, you're not my type ;)

To everyone who might vote on this, here's why I feel I deserve to have a win:

1. Before we both descended into personal arguments, I was being respectful and polite while he/she was already in an aggressive, biased viewpoint.

2. My line of reasoning was better, with more accurate sources from peer-reviewed science - not random YouTube nonsense like Pro did.

3. My conduct - up till we both devolved into maniacs - was more respectful, I feel, overall.

Hence, I believe I deserve the vote. Thank you for anyone who actually watched this nonsense - and what a terrible way to start my first debate on this site. :)
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Topaet 1 month ago
Topaet
Both debaters had terrible conduct, Con was, as he pointed out "3. My conduct - up till we both devolved into maniacs - was more respectful, I feel, overall.", more respectful at the start of the debate but as the debate got on, both debaters started insulting each other (e.g. Pro: "...because you are a spoiled little brat and you expect me to pay attention to your smoggy granny fart brain, I will ignore everything you have to say.", Con: "1. STAY ON TOPIC, YOU MORON.
2. PROPERLY ARGUE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, FOOL.
3. ACTUALLY REFUTE WHAT I'M SAYING, WANKA,").
Con capitalized many sentences, was quite cocky (e.g. "Your logic is simply inferior.") and started preaching (e.g. "repent to the Lord. ;)", BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT). Conduct: Pro
Posted by Topaet 1 month ago
Topaet
I did like Con's scientific literature sources but I can't award him any points since he stopped providing any sources after round 2 and felt like he didn't have to since Pro didn't provide any sources for some of his claims either (quote from Con: "No sources provided since Pro hasn't provided any sources yet either for his incorrect assertion.") Sources = tied
Con was able to refute some of Pro's arguments (e.g. religion leads to higher rates of homicide) while providing evidence while Pro simply used "arguments" like "Absolutely 100% false Google "Atheism VS god which is more peaceful" and you will get about 4,820,000 results." Which can only hardly be called an actual argument. Arguments = Con
Reading Con's arguments was a bit more annoying as he was preaching, spamming and randomly capitalizing whole sentences and paragraphs after round 2 (e.g. "BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT WAHAH FFHBFHBF WBOO BOO WEESNAW DINOSAUR EVOLUTION DAWKINS DU HUR DU HUR RATIONAL KITTEN JUMPING OVER A FLYING RHINO BUTTOCK BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT WAHAH FFHBFHBF WBOO BOO WEESNAW DINOSAUR EVOLUTION DAWKINS DU HUR DU HUR RATIONAL KITTEN JUMPING OVER A FLYING RHINO BUTTOCK BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT WAHAH FFHBFHBF WBOO BOO WEESNAW DINOSAUR EVOLUTION DAWKINS DU HUR DU HUR RATIONAL KITTEN JUMPING OVER A FLYING RHINO BUTTOCK BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT BELIEVE IN GOD AND REPENT WAHAH FFHBFHBF WBOO BOO WEESNAW DINOSAUR EVOLUTION DAWKINS DU HUR DU HUR RATIONAL KITTEN JUMPING OVER A FLYING RHINO BUTTOCK") Spelling and Grammar = Pro
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@Alphamus - Praise je-sus my only masseuse. I think? Oh s--t jungle bells. On the first day of my new religion my true god gave to me... jeeesus and I could go out and do some Arabic grunge yodeling.

But seriously if watch Starblazers on youtube.
And if you get Netflix watch Voltron.
Please tc and have fun.
Posted by Alphamus 1 month ago
Alphamus
@backwardseden

nice to know you've converted to christinanity! I'll be seeing you on sunday church brother
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@Alphamus - No, really, seriously Transformers: The Movie the greatest film of all time? Well since you think it is, not only does that show within your character as to that you know 0 about film making, what makes a great film, and why a film is great, but Transformers: The Movie with a bloated Orson Wells final performance?
The christian debating genius who presents garbage for evidence, and it was garbage after I had the chance to read it all, did you read it? It was a fun little scant.
Now if you like Transformers: The Movie some super easy recommendations are Starblazers which is available on youtube which is from the 70's but a series that went on for 3 years which was super genius for the time. Yes the quality isn't that great on youtube, but oh well, the stories are. And if you like now-a-days and have Netflix, none better than Voltron.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@Alphamus - I AM HEALED praise the lard of genuine cat and moose of me painting smiley faces on t.p. or black holes for a living. I can't decide which one. Perhaps in my crystal ball of wet nursery rhymes of yodeling grunge country opera at a nun's pep rally while I get my concrete parachuting class together and make sure I take my battery powered easy bake oven for fond-due pick-nick as I invite some fire ants to nest at my pecker be born again to get a new high.
Posted by Alphamus 1 month ago
Alphamus
@backwardseden

Just heard from Jennie that you're converting? Is that true? You're a believer now? :)
peace man, after this debate finishes I'm never talking to someone like you again, LOL
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@Alphamus - Awe wittle booby prize lost in his imaginary nymph slutty god beneath his you know where areas so he can pretend he has glue for his con-dumb as a heat insulated con-dumb to outwit the cops on a drug smuggling sting because instead its his newly founded religion, he burps when the door bell rings and out pops his new messiah. Shebang!
Posted by Alphamus 1 month ago
Alphamus
@backwardseden
lol shutup dawkins wannabe come back when you learn some science du hur du hur
(im writing like you, gettit? :0 )
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
And would you ever even think about letting your guard down for oh that wunderkind in S Korea? Get real.
Peace and love IS NOT a christian ideal alone you know but I in being an atheist and billions of others who do not believe in your god, and those who even have the slightest doubts about your god, they are atheists, well they also have peace and love. Your god does not. The entire OT and NT fine me just a few verses where YOUR god is actually "happy". Your"d be hard pressed to do it.

Negative. OK here"s the thing about negative" Take a monster who rapes, beats, kills 6 five year old girls. What do you do with him? Oh but wait according to your sad pathetic miserable religion, you forgive the bastard and if he finds jesus, he is allowed to go to heaven. But me for doing nothing wrong and most certainly not finding jesus for obvious reasons because I am not going to give up my family nor my possessions nor give love to my enemies I am not going to get to heaven. And heaven is a myth, just like god and jesus btw, Regardless, you execute the person who has tortured and killed the girls. No questions asked. So why should god get a get out of jail free card? Um n o, this god knowingly created the maggot and yet he"s treated with all the love, kindness and care in the world from just about everybody. Well not from those who are sane. You do not forgive god who constantly and knowingly creates these maggots. Makes sense?

Not only that but evil is not a necessity. Evil is not a requirement. Evil is not a need. But only according to your god it is. Buddhism, Hinduism, the aborigines, nearly all native American Indian tribes until your white sweaty greasy pig christian brethren wiped them out, the Inca, Gaia Mother Earth etc etc etc they do not anywhere close believe, practice, nor teach, nor get into wars, nor believe in the evil and hate that your god does. Its not even a close call.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Topaet 1 month ago
Topaet
backwardsedenAlphamusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Rfd in comments.