The Instigator
Mr0strich8020
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Valar_Dohaeris
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Christianity is an Unreasonable Belief System

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 5 votes the winner is...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 839 times Debate No: 68119
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Mr0strich8020

Pro

To believe in something as grand as "God" without evidence is incredibly foolish. To devote one's entire life to the understanding of this invisible creature, is absolutely crazy. Before science was our primary source of understanding, we were limited to our imaginations. We thought up in our minds, a story which attempted to explain what our purpose was. This story is the story of how God created me, you and everything we can perceive. Now, given the time period, this belief actually made sense, however, why in this day and age, do people still cling to this fairy tale? Science contradicts many of the primary teachings of Christianity, yet Christians believe that their local preacher who can "Hear the word of God" is a more reliable source than the Hubble Space Telescope. As someone who doesn't follow a particular belief system, when I look at all the world's religions, I ask the question "Which one is right?". When all the 4,200 religions out there insist that they are the only religion that is correct, ask yourself "Am I really foolish enough to try and pick one of these? And then go about my life making absolutely sure that everything I do is in accordance with a book?"
Debate Round No. 1
Mr0strich8020

Pro

bdfgbdfsngdsvxzc xbdrfsvzbc
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

Christianity itself is a reasonable system. We can see in his first round that my adversary is referring to the belief in a deity is a bad thing, I think there are net benefits for believing in a God. He's just stating that because that religion is false believing in it is bad. Which is not necessarily true

Believing in God does quite a bit of good for the world.

1) Community

first church acts as a community for people who share similar beliefs. A place where you can go to gather and have fellowship with other members, is a great outreach tool for meeting new friends and networking.

2) It acts a crutch

A majority of times people have it tough in life. Religion is something for them to fall back on and trust in. Even though it is not true, they think it is true. Them having faith that a God can kill them, actually invokes miracles sometimes. Have you ever heard the saying you can will things into existence. If you are sick , and your health relies on your mental function believing in a God and believing you can get better often has positive effects on health.

3) Good in the world

It also does a great deal of good in the world. Such as charity and out reach programs that help people learn and foster. Donating food, toys, and money the sick is something you also see from Christians.

=conclusion=

While my adversary asserts that believing it is irrational because God does not exist, and devoting your life to it is a bad thing, I tend to disagree. People that believe in God often do great deeds in his name. There are positive benefits that make it rational to believe in, and make it acceptable for people to believe whether God is false or not.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr0strich8020

Pro

When judging a belief system such as Christianity, one must examine both the good as well as the bad and then determine which outweighs the other. My adversary claims that one of the benefits of Christianity is the community, and the friendship the church helps to facilitate. While I agree that Churches advocate friendship and unity among other people of faith, they tend to secularize themselves from people who do not share the same faith. For example, a pious Christian who meets an atheist, might have quite a hard time treating him with much kindness and respect. So essentially, what is happening here, is that religion is uniting those who are religious and distancing those who aren't. There isn't much benefit here in my opinion.

I agree that good can indeed come from the belief in God. For example, religion provides emotional relief when the thought of death arises, or when one is feeling lonely, however these benefits are insignificant when we consider the negative effect of Christianity. For centuries Christians have used God not as a reason to better the world but have used him as an excuse to slaughter thousands of people. We can see this countless times throughout history, during the crusades, Europe's reformation, and many wars. While these examples of violence happened much more frequently in the past, countless wars are still being fought because of religion. The violence that is a result of religion, is not going away. One of the many examples of Christianity being the foundation of violent acts is Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny, was the belief that it was the American settlers' destiny to conquer America, and kill thousands of Native Americans in doing so. The primary motivation for this violence was God. It was the belief that it was what God wanted them to do. Imagine how it would sound if American settlers said "Hey, lets kill a bunch of Natives and then take their land." It probably wouldn't fly. They instead said something more along the lines of "God said that killing Native American's and taking their land is our destiny" In this case, most people (being that most were of the Christian faith) went right along. So overall, what I am saying is that people have, for centuries used God to justify what they want to do in the first place, wether it be good or bad.

If we can agree that God is not real, and God is not guiding people, saying that God wants me to rob a grocery store must mean that I actually want to rob a grocery store. On the contrary, those who claim that God wants them to give money to charity, actually wanted to give money to charity from the beginning and they would be just as willing to do so if they were not religious. Ultimately, their faith is not what drives them to do good deeds, it is their own "DESIRE" to do good deeds. This desire is not subject to a belief in God it is subject to the individual.
God simply gives them the needed justification when an action is negative.

To conclude, for the reasons stated above, the presence of Christianity and many other religions for that mater, is harmful; as the bad outweighs the good.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

This is not a factor or debate about which harms weigh the most, its a debate about what is reasonable.

reasonable - as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

All the reasons i mentioned affirm that Christianity is a reasonable faith. Comparing harms does not make it non reasonable, as there are justified reasons for believing in it. We can negate his entire last round as it is a non sequitur.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr0strich8020

Pro

"This is not a factor or debate about which harms weigh the most, its a debate about what is reasonable."

This sentence doesn't make much sense at all and I wish my adversary would take more time to edit his statements so that what he says is understandable. I think what he is saying is that this is not a debate about what negative aspects of Christianity are the most negative. To this I would say he is right; that isn't what we're are supposed to be debating about... that is why we are not debating about that. Heres a summary of what i said in my last post:
Im arguing against Christianity. To support that Christianity is harmful I gave multiple examples of violent acts committed in God's name.

That is what that last round was about. It was in no way a non sequitur. I do not think my he took the time to read what I was saying in the last round. I was saying that when judging a religion we must look at the bad and the good. Then I went on to say that there is more bad than good. Millions of people have died as a result of Christianity. For this reason, Christianity is negative. Even when we consider the good that it may bring, the good is almost irrelevant when we compare it to the bad. This sounds like a pretty valid argument to me. I started my last post by first refuting some of the points my adversary made, then I went on to make some points of my own. These points are the ones I have mentioned above.

"its a debate about what is reasonable."

You are right. We are assessing whether or not it is a reasonable religion. In all my arguments I have done just that. In my post that you called a "non sequitur" I stated that because Christianity has in fact been the cause of death and violence, it is an "unreasonable" religion.

I think that my adversary's misunderstanding should not be penalized in any way (if it even can be) because the round the he has wasted should be penalty enough.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

My contender lacks a fundamental misunderstanding of what this debate entails. I send you back to his quote

" When judging a belief system such as Christianity, one must examine both the good as well as the bad and then determine which outweighs the other "

He starts trying to do a comparative debate about whether the harms outweigh the goods, which is not the purpose of this debate. I have to show that its is rational for people to believe in. I gave a good many reasons and gains, as to why people would believe in a God , and why it would be reasonable or logical for them to do so. Citing harms that *may* come from others does not mean that applies across the board objectively. There are reasons people believe in God, and even if he does not exist it is reasonable to believe in him, because of the positive impacts religion can have on people.

He spent the entire round trying to gauge the good vs the bad, when that was not the purpose. By showing that it is bad, he is not showing that it is not reasonable. If someone shot my family, it would be reasonable for me to kill them in return. It may not be lawful, and it may not be the right choice. We can logically assert it is reasonable given the consequences. What is reasonable is not always right or wrong, it's what is logical in some situations. If you are starving and you need to steal money, it may be considered wrong but it is reasonable.

The same can be applied here. Believing in a God for the gains it gives you, is reasonable. Thus negating the affirmed.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mr0strich8020 2 years ago
Mr0strich8020
It is almost obvious that the 1 person who voted is my opponent's alternate account.
Posted by Mr0strich8020 2 years ago
Mr0strich8020
Thank you. This happens to be my first debate online so I thank you guys for your advice. You make so good points and I will be sure to remember them next time. And Network, when I said that science contradicts the primary teachings I may have misspoke to some degree. I understand that the primary teachings usually refer to the existence of God and resurrection etc. I simply meant that there are countless examples of religious claims being refuted by scientific findings. For example, carbon dating proves that the earth is billions of years old, when the bible claims it is only six thousand. Scientific research supports the theory of evolution, yet Christianity insists that we were created. Evidence for the big bang complicates the story of creation because it occurred billions of years ago and happened at random. The list goes on but those are just a few examples.
Posted by Network 2 years ago
Network
Pro claims science contradicts many of the primary teachings of Christianity. To my knowledge, only one principle has been contradicted, which is the Creation of the world, and its status as a primary teaching of Christianity is contestable. Pro has to cite at least two others to prove his claim.

Science could not and did not contradict either the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus, so these two do not count, either.
Posted by Asburnu 2 years ago
Asburnu
Keyboard Spaz is ranting. Possibly mistaking "Debate" for "Opinions" or "Forum". Your assertion is a good one, now back it up with premises based on factual evidence and clearly define ALL your pertinent terms, including "unreasonable", which is subjective.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
rubikx............... perhaps its the, impossible act of joinng without accepting that makes the first round acceptence seem a bit unnessecary, just perhaps...
Posted by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
"bdfgbdfsngdsvxzc xbdrfsvzbc"
the debate should just end here. Unless you passed out, fell on the keyboard, and then accidentally submitted it, you should just not post it.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
Mr0strich8020Valar_DohaerisTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: pro wasted a good round of the debate, which is bad conduct. Pro also wasted time explaining the cost/benefits of christianity rather than why its unreasonable. I ended up having to vote con.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Mr0strich8020Valar_DohaerisTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not show that Christianity is an unreasonable belief system. Pro spends the whole debate showing that everything that is bad is unreasonable while Con shows that bad action sometimes is reasonable and good act at the most of the time is reasonable. Conduct to Con due to what has Pro done in his second round.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Mr0strich8020Valar_DohaerisTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: CON essentially refutes his own case. The debate is over whether or not belief is reasonable, but he forms his case around how religion is a good force for the world. When PRO refutes his arguments, be back peddles and says the debate is not about benefits... but about whether or not something is reasonable. This essentially means he drops PRO's rebuttals, conceding his case as bunk. PRO begins essentially with a simple premise: it is silly to worship a God which you do not have any proof of existing. CON does not respond to this. He drops the argument. Therefore, I am forced--sorry Valar--that PRO wins this debate.
Vote Placed by Reeseroni 2 years ago
Reeseroni
Mr0strich8020Valar_DohaerisTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Pro's arguments are not as strong as con's
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Mr0strich8020Valar_DohaerisTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro trolled in round two, so conduct to Con. Pro also tried to change the resolution from the reasonable question to one of harm once he began to lose on arguments, so arguments to Con.