God is a harmful concept to human advancement.
The debate will be structured thusly:
Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments and/or rebuttals
Round 3: Issuing direct questions for your opponent to answer, (no answers)
Round 4: Responses and closing remarks,
I am a theist which does adhear to the christian variant of God (from which I will probably argue from), I will accept. State your case.
Religion, in all its forms has limited human understanding and dignity since its inception. As it has always been an aspect of the human psyche it is rather easy to assume one of the two conclusions:
1: God is trying desperately to communicate with us
2: Humans crave the idea of god to fill in gaps in their understanding.
I obviously believe the latter. I think that god was invented by people. Thus I believe that the concept of a god is false, and thus, a hindrance in the pursuit of truth. Morality does not need God, and humans do not need God for morality.
Indeed the concept of God is rather contagious, or rather, hereditary. It is very easy to assume what religion an Arab would follow, or a south-american for instance. This, I believe is proof that the likelihood of religion being the path to human apex to be rather slim.
Now to God him/her-self
God as in the bible (as you are a christian, I will entertain your view for the purpose of clarity), is quite obviously violent, capricious, and jealous, and far from loving, as many christians claim. Please illuminate if I'm wrong but does condemning people to eternal punishment for simply thinking differently to a divine tyrant seem just and understanding? Does the endorsement of slavery and genocide? Does asking one of your loyal followers to take his only son for a brisk stroll and then kill him just to say "oh no that's okay, you don't need to do that, I knew you would have done it just because I asked" regardless of the emotional torture he caused? Does watching the days before recorded history where people were dying horrible deaths from their teeth; primitive and undeveloped as they are just to intervene after tens of thousands of years?
I would say to you and anybody, that this is an authority that should be defied, as it is akin to "Big Brother" who is always watching you and punishes people for thought-crime, and limits human development and understanding as religion has always done.
Science and religion and always at odds also, and not only that, but religion has always limited scientific progression and human advancement. Examples include, religious fanatics fighting the abolition of slavery, women's rights, democracy, freedom of speech, expression and sexuality. Religion has also perverted many excellent moral principles over time, for example, it was once said that to kill a Muslim was "The Key to St Peters door". Not to mention that religion has been used as a medium for political corruption.
Today, religion has caused millions of deaths in Africa and South-America due to the prohibition of contraception. Abortion has been dismissed as amoral when many people believe that it is good for society and for the standards of human welfare.
Many religions treat women as second-class citizens, and particularly in the Jewish faith where menstrual blood (which was supposedly a part of gods design) was viewed with fear and paranoia. Many christian traditions indeed in north America still mutilate the genitals of infant boys in a way designed to repress sexual stimulation, on the behest of a book that has undergone two thousand years of inter-lingual distortion and change. This is simply a ludicrous approach to life and causes irreversible harm to even infants.
Also, religion, even in the more liberal spheres limits philosophical thought in that philosophy (like science) is based on reason and logic, whereas religion is based on faith, and please do not even bother to say that logic is also faith based, this statement is not just pedantic, but blatantly untrue as logic is based on conclusions to fit evidence, whereas faith at every turn finds evidence to fit already decided upon conclusions.
I think I illustrated a fair few points here, and I would be adamant that you would need to disprove them in the course of your argument. But please feel free to make you own case as you see fit.
still got 831 characters left and I'm not sure what to do with them. I hope you don't have this problem, and also if you wish to alter the structure of the debate, please feel free to make a suggestion, I will be back tommorow
I’m not going to be able to respond to every detail of pro, because I’m cramped on characters.
It’s difficult for atheists to modify.
It’s far more difficult for atheist to see a reason to modify themselves because they don’t believe they did wrong when they should. Morality to them is whatever they decide it to be, and is based on their own individual opinion, not something external.
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—
Theist do provide hope for Objective Morality.
It is rare to see atheists have any reason to submit to morality that disagrees with theirs. Seriously, being atheist is doing what is right in your own eyes. Have you ever seen an atheist sacred book of factual morality? Nope, doesn’t exist. Because that’s the point, a consistent framework of morality is not with them. Morality may exist with them, but it’s inconsistent. Morality to them is doing “whatever I think is right.” This philosophy works great, until you turn into a serial killer like Dahmer. Then you realize how much it’s important that morality is not always decided by yourself.
I’m not saying atheist are evil (some are), if they’re raised with good morality then yes they can be good. But when they go bad, then it’s difficult to cure them till you curb this philosophy.
Pro says that you don’t need God for morality. But I disagree. With atheism morality is an illusion, theism it isn’t. So for consistent morality to exist, God’s needed, otherwise it doesn’t really exist.
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its
Religion, in all its forms has limited human understanding
Hell is just simply a godless place, if you don’t want God, seems logical to send you there.
Also, where is it mandated by God to kill Muslims?
God as in the bible (…), is quite obviously violent, capricious, and jealous,
True, He hates wickedidness. There is nothing evil in his jealousy. He's loving, as he sent Jesus, a loving person who healed the sick and raised the dead, and taught people to love their neighbors as much as themselves. A hateful God would not have sent Jesus.
Today, religion has caused millions of deaths in Africa and South-
Can you tell me how abortion contributes to advancing humanity? Seems more like killing off potential humans to me. I do have a 100% guaranteed birth control plan, quit having unnecessary sex.
Science and religion and always at odds also, and not only that, but religion has
I’m not sure what you mean by limiting scientific progression. You do know that some of the greatest scientist were “religious fanatics” (Isaac Newton) Most Nobel Prize winners were Jewish. And probably a lot of earlier scientist were religious (No way to prove, but atheism is way bigger today than it was a century ago) I do lean towards the belief that there are far fewer secular scientist that has contributed to science then religious ones in the past. Also I have not observed Theism limiting any scientific progression on any empirical science. I have seen theist criticize science, but I have no idea what you mean by limiting “scientific progression”.
Slavery being immoral is an opinion. If someone wants to be a slave, I say let them be. What makes slavery seem immoral is when you get a bad master.
Democracy is just being plane biased. There is nothing wrong with a monarchy, theocracy or a republic. Also, can you show me where God restricts freedom of speech?
Also, religion, even in the more liberal spheres limits philosophical thought in that
Incorrect. Science is based off of reasoning, not logic, for it possess contradiction. e.g. classical mechanics does contradict special relativity in absolute time and space. So science is reasonable but also can be erroneous. Also faith is believing in the evidence, not the conclusion.
“Many religions treat women as second-class citizens, and particularly in the Jewish faith where
I don’t see how not touching a woman for seven days when they have a bleeding discharge is bad (lev 15:19). And BTW I’m circumcised, and I’m fine with it, supposedly it lowers HIV infection.
Pro makes the wrong case.
Pro is making a case for religion altogether, but not theism specifically (God) The thing is theism is a component of religion but not religion itself. You can test this out by observing religion that lacks a belief in God, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. The topic states “God is a harmful concept to human advancement.” Not “Religion is a harmful concept to human advancement.”
Why is having a morality given to you (by a flawed book for example) any better than witnessing the world and how best to treat others by experience of reality and application of logic.
I ask you, what is the difference between a atheist who, as you put it, "does what is right in their own eyes" and a theist willing to believe in a flawed book that is "right in their own eyes"?
And also, how is it in any way proper to assert that inconsistent multiple different moralities are bad, where one whole inconsistent morality that can be interpreted in many ways is any different?
his is perhaps a rhetorical question, thus I apologize:
But how can you say that hell is simply a place without god when it is described in the sacred text of Christianity, thusly
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur" Revelations 21:8
Would a non-hateful god send Jesus to the world but allow with crossed arms unimaginable suffering for tens of thousands of years before that. Do you mean to tell me that your loving god watched this with indifference? Is genocide loving (flood)? is emotional torture loving (Issac) Is saying that Gods jealousy is okay but that of people is a sin, even when that emotional response would have had to have been included in gods design for humans, really true?
How can you tell people to stop having sex when god supposedly gave us our libidos, and then told us not to use them, does that sound loving? To me it sounds rather cruel. Like waving meant in front if a starving dog.
Was Galileo not tortured for his scientific ideas until he recanted? Is this not hindering to Science
7 (Just a clarification you could respond to)
I think you know very well that when I say God endorsed slavery in the bible, I think we both know it was not mutually consensual.
"Faith is believing in evidence, not the conclusion"
When I say that there is a ghost in the house, and you hear a noise, many people assume it is the ghost. Is not the same true of religion, is it not? You hear about god as a child, and then you develop your own evidence for it, Not (I must stress not) the other way around.
9- "Science is based off reasoning, not logic"
Reason is by definition; "the power to think, understand and draw conclusions LOGICALLY" - Oxford English dictionary
Why do you believe in God?- Did someone else tell you about god? Are many people about you Christian? Is it possible there is a pattern here? What religion do you think an Arab would have, or a South-American I ask you. (?)
Do you agree with the following statement and why?:
Religion always seems to try to prove itself right, but science tries to prove itself wrong, as if something is true, it can take it.
Why do you think god ordered his people to circumcise infant boys?- is this loving, taking a choice away from them?
Why does a loving God allow injustice in the world?
A} He can't
B} He doesn't want to
C} He does't care
D} He wants us to solve it ourselves (despite seeing that this does not happen and causes great suffering)
13 (I'll make this one ominously appropriate)
Does the placebo effect have any effect on the religious?
Can you think of any morally good thing that a theist can do that an atheist cannot?
Can you think of a morally evil thing that a theist could do that an atheist could not?
Why would a Loving god create so many homosexuals just to forbid them from heaven?
Why did god create psychopaths despite stating that humans are made in Gods image?
Why are there no women disciples?
Why are there so many different versions of Christianity? Surely they can't all be correct no?
How do people come to believe in false religions? Which you must think exist, as it comes with the territory, does it not?
I'm not going to lie, I really wanted to make it to twenty, though I completely understand if you can't challenge all of them in round 4 (round 3 should really be questions for me)
NOTE TO VOTERS
Please do not penalize either debater for failing to answer some of the questions. as it takes rather more words to respond than to ask.
To my opponent;
And I have much respect for your eloquence, 'tis refreshing
Buddhism does not acknowledge a God. Brenham is not a God, it’s more of an energy. Calling Brenham religious is like calling evolution a religion… Wait... huh??? Yeah.
And a spiritual world does not mean that a God resides there, it’s more like an alternate dimension. I think Jainism do believe in a spiritual world, but deny a higher spiritual being.
The book is not flawed. If it is put inside a book and given to a religion, you can observe and test the morality out with the religious followers who practice the morality. The morality in the bible is workable, and has served the religion well for thousands of years.
Keep in mind, it’s perfectly logical to rape someone. If you’re in the mood to have sex, there’s plenty of women around. For a rapist does what is right in his own eyes. If morality is subjective, then all evil can be right and all good can be wrong… So the question is how workable a morality is.
Because a theist morality has the capacity to withstand change. It can be written in stone, such as the ten commandments.
Can you give me an example?
Because I think the burning sulfur is their own immorality. Jesus is notorious for using non-literal language. (Matt 16:6) Granted this is my own interpretation. Not everyone would agree with me.
Yes, Yes, & yes. Truth hurts sometimes. And the Isaac example was a test for Abrahams loyalty to God, Isaac didn’t die.
But God hasn’t forbidden sex. Its alright to have sex with the wife you love. Gays can enjoy strait sex too.
I typically lean toward the Galileo torture account a myth, I think the account was more about science vs science, like what the church should accept as science.
Some slaves did like their master enough that they wanted to serve them forever (Deut 15:16-17) Also, slaves could run away, and you weren’t allowed to return him to his master. (Deut 23:15-16) Also Christians are technically slaves because they serve a master without pay, and many do want to be a Christian. I find no evil if you wish to serve a master.
See Page 172: http://bit.ly...
You do know you hear evidence for evolution as a child, and you have to be taught it for you don’t naturally know it. A child does not look at fossils and immediately think “hey they evolved!” you have to be taught its conclusions. Your reasoning is flawed because you also accept evolution conclusion, despite it not being empirical Science (no one has observed one life-form evolve into a higher life-form). Everything can be explained away from a common creator as opposed to a common ancestor.
Oh, then it is neither reasonable nor logical, because it contradicts. Is this logical? 2+2=5? No because it contradicts. Likewise, science does technically contradict. Though not to say all science is bad, some is.
Yep. Another person told me.
I agree with the religion part. But you’re distinguishing science and religion as different. They have been known to mix, such as creationism and ID. To me science is just religion dressed in a lab coat. You might say religion isn’t science, but it’s all subjective.
Well if HIV infection decrease is true, then perhaps because of that. And I don’t think a whole lot of boys think about it much, honestly I think my penis is sexier than an uncircumcised. Are you circumcised?
E} We don’t want him. We just want to do what we want to do and reject him. Some fools do hate him and would prefer an unjust judge, it’s stupid.
Not sure. Prayer supposedly helps, but it’s difficult to prove.
“Love the lord your God”, for this is right to love your maker. For if God did exist, then this is impossible for an atheist.
Belief in God. It’s an abomination to an atheist.
He didn’t create homosexuals. Gays created themselves. They don’t have to be gay you know, they can go straight whenever they feel like it.
He didn’t. He created man, and man ruined themselves.
If you are a Christian and a woman, you are logically a disciple.
Various disagreements on various topics. But I don’t think a little bit of different faith means that your unsaved, for Abraham the father of Jews, lacked the new testament (his faith was a different color), but I believe he was saved. All servants have a little bit different perception of their master, it doesn’t mean the master can’t exist. Also a master has been known to give a little bit different instructions to his servants for different functions, one to sow another to reap.
Because people disagree with each other, and they wish to serve another Lord then mine. For if a man wishes to serve another master, should he be denied?
Mr.Lyster forfeited this round.
Opponent Forfeit. Vot for me!