The Instigator
UnhookedSchnook
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Brendan_Liam
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

God probably exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 807 times Debate No: 78726
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

UnhookedSchnook

Con

Preface

This debate is about god, obviously. We, as said later in this statement, are using the definitions provided by credible sources (more specific later). This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.

Full Topic

God probably exists.

Terms

All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Dictionary.

God - the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe
probably - 'is likely to happen or be true'
Exist - 'have objective reality or being'

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
9. The BOP is shared
10. The first round is for acceptance only
11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Structure

R1. Acceptance
R2. Pro's Case, Con's Case
R3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
R4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case
R5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both Summarize

Brendan_Liam

Pro

the burden of proof is clearly mine...

sure seems like an awful lot of rules... I might have to complain a bit... but okay, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
UnhookedSchnook

Con

Quick Intro:

I will split my argument up into two main sections. The first section being ‘why is there religion?’ and the second, ‘why is atheism more probable than god?’.

So, why is there religion?

Part 1:

Many people, rightly so, ask themselves “What created the physical processes that allow life to exist? How were matter and energy created?" The answer to both of these claims are, we do not yet know. Now, when someone does not know the answer to something they care about they will search for the answer. However, we human beings are not currently developed enough to be able to answer this question. We must not come up with an instinctual response and say, ‘oh, a greater power must have done it’. No matter how much you believe that it does not make it true.

Side Note… I always wanted to ask someone who believes in religion, what created god, why was he around at the time of creation?

Part 2:

It was also created to keep the masses happy and provide the monarchy with greater power. For all those people that lived long ago and had a very low quality of life what is the point of living it, why not overthrow the monarchy and live a better life? Well because the bible would forbid that, what a coincidence. For example look at the ‘divine right of kings’, it was created by a king and it basically says that the monarchy is the closest person to god, a sin against a king/queen is a sin against god.

Transition:

Taking this into account we see that religion was created to sooth the mind of the many lower class citizens. At the moment neither atheism nor religion can be proved, so it seems smartest to take the most probable explanation.

Why is atheism more probable than god? / Why is god less probable than atheism?:

Part 1:

Despite the endless facts and proof that is provided to us many still believe in a religion. Have you ever prayed? If not try this prayer, I have not yet seen it work and maybe there is a reason for that…

“Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

Will it work? No, of course not. But strangely enough passage after passage Jesus says praying will work, so in this instance, and every instance, why doesn’t it?

Part 2:

Think about DNA for a second… No one encodes DNA, instead it was encoded by a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Millions of scientists have proved that this is true, furthermore, look at this letter that thousands of clergy men signed to show that they believe in this scientific evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org...). The odds of DNA forming are very high if you consider the huge number of evolutionary reiterations possible under huge number of environmental stressors. We were not created in god’s image by god, we were created as living creatures by the formation of DNA.

Part 3:

We know that there are many different religions to choose from and we also know that in multiple ‘bibles’ we are told that it is a sin to believe in a different god. It is also seen that Christianity and many other religions have derived from pagan gods. Does that not make pagan gods more likely to be true than the Christianity god (as there has been less room for human error when it comes to numerous interpretations)?( https://en.wikipedia.org...)


Christianity: 2.1 billion

Islam: 1.3 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

Buddhism: 376 million

African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

Sikhism: 23 million

Juche: 19 million

Spiritism: 15 million

Judaism: 14 million

Baha'i: 7 million

Jainism: 4.2 million

Shinto: 4 million

Cao Dai: 4 million

Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million

Tenrikyo: 2 million

Neo-Paganism: 1 million

Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

Rastafarianism: 600 thousand

Scientology: 500 thousand

(Encyclopedia Britannica)

Part 4:

Many people believe that religion is great for society. Look at the social dysfunction that religion causes. Whether it be the cause of 7% of the world’s major wars (http://www.catholic.com...) or the many people that die each year because they refuse lifesaving medical treatment. Sure it does collect money for the needy and provide a set of moral values. However, look how much money the Catholic Church is worth, those magnificent buildings don’t build themselves. Also, other than those people who are completely insane, who does not have any moral values, read the bible and then become valued contributors to society. Finally, the USA is one of the greatest believers in religion, but, for a first world country, they have one of the greatest problems with issues such as:homicide, juvenile, early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion (the bible condones most if not all).

(http://a-a-ah.ru...)

For the record:

I have numerous pieces of evidence but have only gone into these few. I will also briefly touch on this one to conclude as I like how the bible contains numerous pieces of hypocrisy. ‘Thou shall not kill’ said by the lord almighty in one of his ten commandments. But what about these parts of the bible: Deut 21:18-21, Leviticus 20:13, Exodus 35:2 ect…

Also, on another side note, I would appreciate if my opponent would not use items from his key as I find that it confuses the argument.

Bibliography:

Divine right of kings: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Have a look at this: http://www.dailysquib.co.uk...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

http://www.religioustolerance.org...

http://www.quora.com...

Brendan_Liam

Pro

Thank you Con, glad to be here among you and Jesus.

I will simply approach this like a Civil Lawsuit: I will make several arguments and see which one/s can make headway against Mr. Con. They are in no particular order and frankly I haven't given the matter much thought until today.

1/ Religion has been around for about 40,000 years of human history so 1/5 to perhaps as much as 1/2 of our history. Monotheism or single-god theism (sorry Catholics, scram!) is a relatively recent advent. By a simple argument of entropy, I would say that via evolution, religion itself is a higher function that other animals show no signs of possessing. This at the very least means it is a unique quality of people. That said, again via entropy it appears religion has moved from Animism (not to suggest it doesn't still exist) all the way to Monotheism. This cannot be argued in reverse as atheist religions such as animism predated even polytheist religions.
It seems like probable that we are moving backward religiously than forward. ALL other animals are atheists... but ONLY people show signs of theism. We came FROM atheism, both as a race AND as individual babies. Atheism is the LACK OF god faith-it must be instructed.

So who is more advanced? The dog? The babbling baby? Or the upstanding, evolved THEIST! The simple fact that we move TOWARD monotheism in our religious advancement, is indicative that we are on a path to a probable "God."

2/ Free Will is an illusion as demonstrated by any simple test. Perhaps that of Sam Harris-that you cannot stop yourself from thinking for even 30 seconds. This PROVES fatalism (from the person's perspective) PROVING our own minds are not even in our control. This alone proves SOMETHING outside us, above us, beyond us-controls everything, even our personal decisions. Otherwise-one could decide right now to stop thinking for 30 seconds. OR better yet, I challenge CON to PROVE IT, by CHOOSING to be THEIST for the first half of the next round...

If he cannot, he proves through that failure that he does not, cannot rule his own life. Something else does. By definition-that thing via CON's definition MUST BE "God" as something is ruling the Universe, and we are not it, nor do we even control our own minds. That said-I've now proven half of his "God" definition, and the other half remains:

If there is indeed a ruler of the Universe, be it chance, or Yhvh or pre-determinism... one thing is clear: It is indeed ruled down to your own mind-by an unseen force. This ruler of the Universe, this power in charge of everything-not allowing us to even control our own minds... must be the only logical, so of course most PROBABLE CAUSE OF the very universe it controls, and rules down to the mind of CON himself.

3/ seeds come from their creator in every other instance. What creates an acorn? It's parent, the tree. Same with people, and zygotes... same with the Universe. So regardless of if the singularity is a seed of a different color-one thing is for sure, it follows the seed-parent model. In this instance, control and creation appear to be CON's claimed foundation for what "God" is. Works for me, so essentially "God" is a controlling, authoritarian parent... or in Con's words, that seems most "probable." Everything has a parent and to some degree the parent (at least while the seed/child is in utero, etc.) has complete control over the offspring until they COME OUT... if the parent stops giving the ingredients of life, the seed dies (stops eating, stops breathing, etc.)

That said, we MUST assume our singularity-came from something. That is, energy cannot be created or destroyed... so if we have no matter prior to the first event we're aware of-it had to come from something beyond our understanding, something with infinite energy beyond the laws of physics and this Universe. This is not a god of the gaps argument as much as a transfer of energy argument.

4/ Most gods have been scrapped, in favor an omnipotent god, like those of Abrahamics... the natural tendency toward this end in theism (toward an all powerful ruler, and therefore also with the potential for creation) is indicative again of the probability OF "God" especially by your definition which is mostly all inclusive in the first part-if this "God" is indeed all-powerful, obviously "God" is the ruler of the Universe, and even more likely it's creator.

5/ It is clear from the nature of reality, that whatever is behind the curtain is sadistic and cold... life appears to have no purpose at all, and at best it is simply to avoid suffering it appears. Only an all powerful and creating ruler could account for such a grandiose, flagrant mockery of humanity. Only a faith-based god could account for such perfect order yet chaotic evil in daily life and even at the scale of the Universe, or macroverses if you like.... (that presents more problems for me than CON I suppose-but not so much as while godS plural would exist (thus helping his argument - seemingly) it is clear he said "of the Universe" so each individual Universe would indeed still BE a monotheist version, thus CON can't get any help there either). In short, this argument essentially says there is too much order, too many patterns, yet too much antithetical chaos in addition-such a contradiction everywhere in reality suggests an equally contradictory explanation-GOD.
Debate Round No. 2
UnhookedSchnook

Con

Despite the many errors, in both punctuation and spelling, I am glad to see you made some original points. Unfortunately your points were incorrect and ill-informed, but none the less I hope you can find some mistakes I made in my arguments. Also, next time could you please fulfil your promises (you gave 7 of 5 arguments). I hope the voters do not hold your spelling and punctuation against you as I too understand what it is like to be reviewed on unedited work.



Your argument 1:


Upon my initial inspection I was pleased to see that you argued this point. I had never thought of, nor been faced with, this point. To be honest, at first, I thought it was a really good point. But when I took a closer look I saw the fundamental flaws that you presented. Firstly, humans are the most intelligent, known, life form that roams the earth. As we are intelligent beings we ask ourselves fundamental questions about our existence and how things work. For example, a long time ago, our ancestors believed that the earth was a flat plane and that you would topple off of the edge if you went too far. Before these people decided that, in their minds, it was flat they had to develop the question/idea. There was no true evidence to support these ideas (the horizon is flat). Research was done and it was finally decided, despite popular belief, that the earth had a curvature and is a sphere. However the people of the time would often refuse this idea, but over time the numbers dwindled to what should now be negligible. But I digress. As seen by this example we can see that a similar occurrence has happened with religion. We posed the question ‘Why are we here?’ and ‘ [volcano erupts] (can be substituted, like how you mentioned the gods gaps points) What did that?’. Well when there is not currently an explanation, those with faith say ‘God did it!’ and those with a scientific understanding say ‘Interesting, lets conduct research!’ Sure enough there is an answer with evidence over time. However, unlike the flat earth, religion poses that nasty factor of ‘don’t believe it, well you won’t have eternal life’ resulting in a fearful population who ‘want to save their asses’. Here is a quote directly from my argument that relates to this point.


“Part 1:


Many people, rightly so, ask themselves “What created the physical processes that allow life to exist? How were matter and energy created?" The answer to both of these claims are, we do not yet know. Now, when someone does not know the answer to something they care about they will search for the answer. However, we human beings are not currently developed enough to be able to answer this question. We must not come up with an instinctual response and say, ‘oh, a greater power must have done it’. No matter how much you believe that it does not make it true.


Side Note… I always wanted to ask someone who believes in religion, what created god, why was he around at the time of creation?


Part 2:


It was also created to keep the masses happy and provide the monarchy with greater power. For all those people that lived long ago and had a very low quality of life what is the point of living it, why not overthrow the monarchy and live a better life? Well because the bible would forbid that, what a coincidence. For example look at the ‘divine right of kings’, it was created by a king and it basically says that the monarchy is the closest person to god, a sin against a king/queen is a sin against god.”



Your Argument 2:


Why would a loving and compassionate god create a world where he controls each and every one of his citizens and make some disobey him. When I make rules I stick to them and want others to stick to them. If I could I would have everyone abide by these rules. However the loving and compassionate god wants you to believe in him, however, he controls your mind to break these rules. Why not just give everyone eternal life now instead of make us wait and endure life with these pre-conceived views he established us with? This suggests that god is much like that of the devil. We were supposedly created in his image, so, why would we liberate homosexuals, alternative religious groups, non-Christians etc. Also, if that is not enough, your “simple test” is flawed. If I follow suit and follow the thinking behind the flawed experiment, I too could create a flawed experiment that contradicts your results.


Follow the steps below:


1. Place your hand on a desk


2. Hold it still for 30 seconds


3. If your hand does not move you are not possessed with the mind control this biblical god is gifted with


4. This is evident as your brain controls your hand and your brain is not controlled by god


See, it is senseless. But with time, we will most likely find an origin to the universe and if it is not god then we can deduce he is not using mind control. As displayed by your experiment, and qualified with mine, we can deduce that neither experiment is correct, thus neither proves a point.



Your Argument 3:


This is just a matter of evolution. Have a read of this argument that is one of my fundamental points, that I elaborated on.


“Think about DNA for a second… No one encodes DNA, instead it was encoded by a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Millions of scientists have proved that this is true, furthermore, look at this letter that thousands of clergy men signed to show that they believe in this scientific evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org......). The odds of DNA forming are very high if you consider the huge number of evolutionary reiterations possible under huge number of environmental stressors. We were not created in god’s image by god, we were created as living creatures by the formation of DNA.”


We can use the principle of evolution and early earth conditions to find it is most likely the process applied over a long period of time is what would allow us to come from a simple organism to what we are today. Sure a seed came from its parent tree, but where did the first of that tree come from, and in fact the first of that organic matter to create the many variations of that tree. Surly you will not go against your claim of not using ‘god of the gaps’ to argue against this point. We are properly nourished because of the ecosystems we were established in.


Exactly, energy cannot be created NOR destroyed – as far as we know. Thus this source of creation you talk of could not possible as the deposits that the god you speak of had to be created as well.



Your Argument 4:


This statement is incorrect. No matter how many people believe in something does not make it real. Look at all of these types of Christian denominations. There are too many to write here (https://en.wikipedia.org...)(This Christian site tells us there are 30,000 to 40,000 denominations of Christianity worldwide https://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com...). This graph, and many others show that the Protestants are losing numbers, Catholics are fairly consistent and atheism is growing (http://www.pewforum.org...). Does that not disprove your argument?



Your Argument 5:


The order you talk of is concerning, I am not completely sure what you mean but if I correlate it with patterns I think I understand. Well yes, this pattern and order you talk of is called evidence. When something happens consistently it is evidence. For example Einstein in his almighty wisdom put ford the idea of relativity publicly in 1905. Few people believed him until it was proven in 1919. His equations would consistently (not once did his predictions fail) predict exactly how the system would function. This very method is what is used to correct the clocks of the satellites in earth’s orbit (they experience time slower). Lastly, you are right there is too much chaos in this oh so perfect world that god had given to us. Is it not in the devils presence that people suffer in?

Brendan_Liam

Pro

religion?
Response to Part 1:
is not an argument based in CON"s necessary position, but a preemptive DEFENSE to a "god of the gaps argument" which is only useful in the debate, if and only AFTER (by Con"s rules) I make that claim (but I couldn"t have, it"s the opening round). In short, it may be a good defense to god of the gaps-except, it"s his OPENER, you can"t attack PRO"S arguments PRIOR to them being offered as that violates his own rules. On that note, I move that this is stricken as "irrelevant" and because it does NOT move his argument forward, but attacks a windmill-it"s a Don Quixote argument, against a phantom. He"s supposed to show the improbability of GOD not the improbability of an argument nobody made "
Response to Part 2:
Here again CON is arguing about "religion" and falsely so. He means "Abrahamic Religion." Now CON did define "God" but he did NOT define "religion." And religion if we use ANY of his offered and acceptable sources, dictionaries-etc. Many religions have NO GODS, so to argue under the presumption that they do, as though Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, Legalism Sikhism, etc". don"t exist? IT is over a billion people we"re talking about here-and at least 3 of the 8 major world religions (that LACK "GOD").

Further-in the case of Abrahamic religions, no they were NOT created as you stated. By any valid claim, Christianity was invented not by Monarchs, but by an Emperor or a nobody (ie either Paul or Constantine, not a Monarch, Rome was a REPUBLIC, not a Monarchy) Joseph Atwell has very thoroughly argued that the Jesus character was invented by the Romans to get control of the Jewish god.
http://caesarsmessiahdebunked.com...

Nor does his claim, true OR false add anything to the CON side of the debateno mention of "God?" Or "probability" or "existence OF God?"

Con is talking about unrelated issues, none of which indicate a LOW probability of God. Even if a religion is created in utter duplicity-that says nothing about OTHER RELIGIONS, or OTHER gods". Even if you disprove every single "GOD" theory, it still doesn"t disprove GOD as a concept, it just proves THESE GODS (the ones you might bring up and falsify) wrong.
So not really sure what else to say on this unrelated information that is arguably false, AND outside the parameters of "God Probably does NOT exist" you never addressed that claim, much less disputed its probability here. SO this whole argument fails on its motive-which is OUTSIDE the debate topic.
Response to Transition:
Confucianism was created to address the problems OF China: Particularly social strife. The entire belief revolves around 5 relationships, one of them is the Emperor and the People. But the simple fact that there are FOUR MORE, prove it"s a religion NOT created for the purpose you claim. But one created to achieve social harmony in the most populated empire that ever was.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Why is atheism more probable than god? / Why is god less probable than atheism?:
Response to Part 1:
This arguably proves the God of the bible a liar, but that doesn"t mean he"s not god by CON"s definition". Further, maybe Jesus is fake, and Yhvh real-if that"s the case, there"s STILL a god and a reason jesus is WRONG (because he"s not god, therefore not all knowing and prone to major mistakes!). Now again, Con has said "we"re talking about Christianity" however-Con then uses a very ambiguous and general term that goes beyond not only Christianity, but THEISM itself-as many religions LACK GODS. This will not do and we cannot just magically make "religion" synonymous with "theism" much less with "Christianity." IF Con wishes to make an argument about "Christianity" then Con should define "Religion" AS Christianity or use the word that fits.. one like "Christianity." But Con did not, nor did he DEFINE "religion" so I have-again by the standards Con gave:
Religion:
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of theuniverse, especially when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritualobservances, and often containing a moral code governing theconduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreedupon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs andpractices:
a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
" from http://dictionary.reference.com...

Now I have defined it and this definition now stays, having priority-I would expect Con to adjust his arguments to mean what the words indicate. Religion is much more than Christianity or theism. And as a result, invalidates the claims carelessly made about Christianity masquerading as a representative of all "religion."

The nature of the request was clear-that if he says "theism" that"s the one he"s talking about. But religion is not synonymous with THEISM. Theism is a SUBSET of religion. And now it"s defined by me for the rest of the debate, as is custom on this site and in debate.

Now further-one may not pray to atheism itself.. but one doesn"t pray to Chrisitianity either. Many atheists ARE religious Con. This means they pray to many things, just not gods. So by Con"s argument, let"s make another prayer to all the atheist objects of worship (Statues of Buddha, mandalas, etc". anything but gods) does Con indicate these ATHEIST objects will perform better reactions to the prayers? I bet not. Which means, we"re even on that issue-because atheist sources give nothing more than theist sources, ie prayer to ANYTHING is equally worthless to prayer to GODS by Con"s reasoning. If I pray, and it"s NOT to a god, but to something atheist (lacking god, the very definition of the word, from the Greek, "atheos" or "Without God") then it should yield a better result than a prayer to God. At the very least, we see they are equally probable on this claim.
Response to Part 2:
Con said: "Think about DNA for a second" by the formation of DNA."

Actually if you keep up with Quantum Mechanics, predeterminism contradicts "natural selection" and much of evolution. It suggests that it was all programmed and all in there, from the singularity (big bang) forward-this is related to Sam Harris" argument about free will. That"s his point (and mine) that it DOESN"T EXIST, precisely because of DNA". That everything is already predisposed, predetermined" just not by a god.

But Con is again arguing the wrong points-Con has said "God" is the "creator of the Universe." So the creator, who begins it-sparking the singularity-doesn"t have to do anything after that. And even if he does nothing, he"s STILL the creator. Are you suggesting an all powerful being, the "ruler of the Universe" couldn"t program stuff to run on its own under his laws, the entropy he provided, etc"" ? You must be. But that"s invalid. Evolution doesn"t ADDRESS the singularity-it only addresses life on THIS planet" which is irrelevant to creation which happened at least 14 billion years PRIOR to this planet" Con said "Creator of the Universe" and that implies that evolution could certainly be PART OF his creation" there"s no contradiction here nor even a sliver of attack toward the PRO position here. Nobody is arguing about evolution, just the probability of god. This issue is about "probability" of GOD as (creator and ruler of universe) NOT creationism vs. evolutionism. Ie wrong argument Con.
Response to Part 3:
Again this is a strawman argument of religion. There"s only one religion with a "bible" and while they may differ across sects" that doesn"t mean other religions have "bibles." For starters, bible means "library." SOME religions have a group of books compiled to make a library or "bible." But not all, so that"s a strawman, and one that is again not helpful as he"s arguing ONE god over another". Again, many religions have ZERO gods, ZERO bibles" they may have ONE book, but a book is not a library. A bible Is a library, in this case, what 66 or 73 books? Take Zen Buddhism-they have NO DOCTRINE. It"s based on the Diamond and Heart Sutras (so 2 books, but 2 aint a library" and") but all sutras are rejected BY Zen, so they arguably have NO book, not even ONE, much less a whole bunch, a "library" or "Bible."

Further since there are (and were) numerous pagan gods". But in Chrsitianity there are 1-3 depending on your position. Jehovah"s Witnesses for example believe Jesus is NOT a god. Catholics however, from a quick look at the inside of a church, or the average Catholic"s necklace, believe in MANY gods or at least "demigods." That said, since pagans have MORE gods, under a monotheist debate, they have much MORE chance of having the WRONG one" because even if they have the right one, pagans (including you and me") have more wrong gods than a potential right one.

Further, many pagan beliefs include a God that fits your claim "Creator and Ruler of Universe." So your argument if anything only helped mine-you made it clear that you think Pagan gods are more probable than the Christian God. Further " then why"d they lose the fight? Why isn"t Mithra still worshipped? Good argument for pagan gods, but poor argument for Con"s Position"
Response to Part 4:
Strawman fallacy of religion again, a term controlled by MY (the first) definition given in the debate for that word" which includes again, Confucianism. Confucianism was designed EXACTLY FOR social function. All I see is arguments against religion in general that don"t pertain to probability of God nor to creation or ruling of the Universe.
Debate Round No. 3
UnhookedSchnook

Con

Response to Part 1:

The rules say the opening round as in the acceptance of the debate. So your point of me making defences is irrelevant. You did not answer my question. This is not a defence, just saying that we cannot fully prove either sides of the argument at the moment but atheism is more probable – sticks to the argument

Response to Part 2:

Is Christianity not an Abrahamic religion? This debate is primarily about Christianity. Also, abiding by the rules you would have looked up the definition of religion. The belief in a god. I said to define all of the words using oxford dictionary, I can’t define every word for you. Spirituality is another subject and that is generally a sort of worship but not to a god necessarily. I may have made the mistake of saying monarchy instead of emperor, however that further proves the point in this argument. Look at the first paragraph of the website you linked me too.

Caesar’s Messiah was a book published by a dot com businessman named Joseph Atwill in 2005. Last year, he released a documentary based on the book and everyone is talking about it all of a sudden, because Atwill put out the world’s most misleading press release for his film screening in London. Richard Dawkins then retweeted the press release, even though he said he didn’t endorse the theory, and now this eight-year-old theory is news again. Thank you, Richard Dawkins.

He is not professional in the subject. I too can write a book, that does not make it true. It says how misleading it is here. This is the sites first paragraph you linked me too! You are right! “Even if a religion is created in utter duplicity-that says nothing about OTHER RELIGIONS, or OTHER gods". That is right, but since this is about Christianity it seems odd you make this point, considering I just justified my point

Response to Transition:

Once again we are arguing about Christianity!!! I have given specific and significant evidence, about why Christianity was created for this purpose. Confucianism is completely different and not mentioned in my argument.

Answer too “Why is atheism more probable than god? / Why is god less probable than atheism?” Well that is what we are debating, so read my arguments. Also, please respond to my question

Response to Part 1:

Once again we are debating about Christianity! What sort of amazing leader lies consistently when it breaks his own rules Jesus is believed to have been the son of god (http://www.everystudent.com...). He had enough power to heal people, come back to life ect… since we can’t do this it seems evident that he may not be as knowledgeable as god, but more knowledgeable than us.

I don’t define every word for you, that is why the rules specify that you use the Oxford Dictionary. I don’t care what your definition is, use Oxford Dictionary like specified. If you actually read the rules I preface I did say this was about Christianity! Personally, I believe in no god nor any spiritual belief. Those other spiritual beliefs prays don’t work either as well, as you agreed. The thing is you just took a swing at air as this is about is there a god of Christianity and you said basically that no prayers work. Well if you ask me that looks like some evidence to me as if you check the passages I listed in the bible you will see it says prayers will be answered. It does not matter what other beliefs are, Christianity explicitly says lies in its holy book.


Response to Part 2:

I did not say ("Think about DNA for a second" by the formation of DNA.") That makes no sentence, I said the first part of those quotation marks. I do keep up with a lot of this sort of information. If indeed you looked at fact, instead of alternative theories you would realise that Abiogenesis and much of evolution are fact. Abiogenesis could have happened in early earth conditions and when placed side by side with evolution we can see how we have complex organisms. Also, predeterminism does not contradict natural selection and much of evolution. Even if it did, who cares predeterminsm does not even necessarily suggest we were all programed by something. Even more, predeterminism, is a theory, that means it is not necessarily true. Don’t misquote me even more! To accuse me of ("God" is the "creator of the Universe.") is incorrect. The actual quote is “the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe”. See the last bit of “and ruler of the universe”, no full stop there. Using the definitions like are required based on the rules, Oxford dictionary defines the word ruler “A person exercising government or dominion.” Well if god is doing such things he must be around to do that. I am in no sense saying that an all-powerful being could not do that, I am saying that all powerful ruler you speak of is very unlikely. Also as I stated earlier, if he were real he does not even follow his own rules

Yes you are spot on! Evolution does address life on this planet! That is its purpose. Charles Darwin worked much of his life as a biologist, and dedicated much of his life seeing how life diversified on its own. He did not intend to explain the creation of the universe. That is what the theories of everything are meant to explain. Notice I say theory, because they are still being reworked. This has to be the worst point I have ever heard (“Evolution doesn"t ADDRESS the singularity-it only addresses life on THIS planet which is irrelevant to creation which happened at least 14 billion years PRIOR to this planet".)

John 1:3 Genesis 2:7 Genesis 1:1 Colossians 2:8 Genesis 1:21 Hebrews 11:1-3 Romans 1:20-27 2 Peter 3:8 Genesis 1:26 2 Peter 3:3-6 Genesis 1:27 Job 40:15-18 Genesis 1:1-31 Romans 5:12-21 John 5:46-47 John 1:1-10 Psalm 105:1-45 2 Timothy 4:3 Romans 1:20 Romans 1:18 1 Timothy 2:13 Psalm 14:1-5 Psalm 14:1 Exodus 20:11 Genesis 2:1-25 1 John 5:19 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 Romans 1:25 Acts 17:26 John 6:44 John 1:1 Genesis 1:20 Genesis 1:11 John 8:32 Hebrews 6:1-20 2 Timothy 3:12 1 Timothy 4:1-5 1 Corinthians 15:22 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 Romans 12:2 Romans 1:25-27 John 3:12 Matthew 24:4 Matthew 19:11 Matthew 19:4-6 Amos 8:11-12 Daniel 1:17 Jeremiah 33:2-3 Isaiah 43:18-19 Ecclesiastes 8:17 Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 Proverbs 14:15 Job 38:4 1 Samuel 2:3 Genesis 9:2 Genesis 2:19 Genesis 1:28 2 Timothy 3:16 1 Timothy 6:20-21 Colossians 2:3 Ephesians 6:11-13 2 Corinthians 11:14 Acts 17:23-29 Matthew 16:21-23 Psalm 150:6 Psalm 139:13-14 Psalm 119:99 Psalm 90:2-4 Job 12:7-11 1 Chronicles :1-54 Exodus 20:1-26 Genesis 25:25 Genesis 10:1-11:32 Genesis 3:20 John 3:16 Ecclesiastes 12:12 Job 12:7-9

Well considering all of these mentions of evolution in a negative connotation this all wise god perhaps made a few mistakes in his book of truth. It seems strange that the person who is thought to have created everything does not even know what he is talking about.


Response to Part 3:

Sorry but I did not think your refutes could get even more incorrect. Firstly you say this, (There"s only one religion with a "bible" and while they may differ across sects" that doesn"t mean other religions have "bibles.") then your next line is (For starters, bible means "library." SOME religions have a group of books compiled to make a library or "bible."). This is so strange. Let me get it straight...

  1. 1. So 1 religion has a bible
  2. 2. Bible means library, defined by you
  3. 3. Some religions have “a group of books compiled to make a library or "bible."” – you
  4. 4. Thus only 1 religion has a bible, but some others have a bible

We are arguing about Christianity! Your point about other religions not have a bible or god is pointless. Don’t get ahead of yourself buddy. That is the pretty much the definition of the Christian god. Since I use the definition from a dictionary to argue against the belief in what that definition defines means nothing. Because I use a definition does not mean I believe in what it defines. They lost the war you make point of. Pfffft, the war that killed many people, that is not a commandment isn’t it? Are you claiming that god helped his believers kill many even though it broke the rule that he excludes people from heaven for.


Response to Part 4:

I don’t care what your definition is. The rules are oxford dictionaries definitions. This links back to my first points on the why god was created bit. It is saying that the world is dysfunctional and god allows that to all of his ‘children’. Do you think that religion is good for society? It inhibits knowledge, justifies inhuman actions, allows people to not abide by the law and then, kill themselves and think they are going to have a better life, holy wars… the list continues

Where is the refute for my “For the record”

KO

Brendan_Liam

Pro

///Response to Part 1:
The rules say the opening round as in the acceptance of the debate. So your point of me making defences is irrelevant. You did not answer my question. This is not a defence, just saying that we cannot fully prove either sides of the argument at the moment but atheism is more probable " sticks to the argument///

In the first round you did not argue what you were supposed to (meaning ROUND 2), you instead attacked my position-not even knowing what it was. Going on about god of the gaps, before I had a chance to say a thing. Your job was to argue YOUR SIDE, not against mine, NOT IN ROUND 2, your rules, your mistake, ironic.
///Response to Part 2:
Is Christianity not an Abrahamic religion? This debate is primarily about Christianity. Also, abiding by the rules you would have looked up the definition of religion. The belief in a god. I said to define all of the words using oxford dictionary, I can"t define every word for you. Spirituality is another subject and that is generally a sort of worship but not to a god necessarily. I may have made the mistake of saying monarchy instead of emperor, however that further proves the point in this argument. Look at the first paragraph of the website you linked me too.///

Yes it"s an Abrahamic religion. Yes, you defined god. Unfortunately you pretended god=religion=Christianity. Talk about special pleading, strawmen and fallacies of composition. What sophistry, what disingenuousness.
///"Caesar"s Messiah was a book published by a dot com businessman named Joseph Atwill in 2005. / That is right, but since this is about Christianity it seems odd you make this point, considering I just justified my point "///
No your point clearly used the word "religion." Which includes Christianity, but thousands more-your mistake, you should have said what you meant, not just redefined words with no backing to do so. Show me ONE definition of religion that says "Synonym of Christianity."
YOUR BURDEN.
///Response to Transition:
Once again we are arguing about Christianity!!! I have given specific and significant evidence, about why Christianity was created for this purpose. Confucianism is completely different and not mentioned in my argument.
Answer too "Why is atheism more probable than god? / Why is god less probable than atheism?" Well that is what we are debating, so read my arguments. Also, please respond to my question///

You mentioned religion, I proved your claim wrong USING A RELIGION. Your mistake, not mine, you can"t just infer and pretend religion means "Christianity" you could just say what you mean. But you didn"t you hoped your fallacy of composition would go unnoticed, it didn"t, your mistake. Next time say what you mean and stick to your own debate topic!
///Response to Part 1:
Once again we are debating about Christianity! "Christianity explicitly says lies in its holy book.///

No, you defined three words, none of them "religion." I stuck to your definitions, you did not. I used YOUR sources to define religion when you fumbled around and &%*%ed it up. Again, a neverending fallacy of composition is NOT ACCEPTABLE. You cannot by any arguable or logical claim pretend Christianity represents religion, yet you did repeatedly and further made really only points about RELIGION unrelated to the debate topic" Don Quixote Arguments.

//Response to Part 2:
I did not say ("Think about DNA for a second" by the formation of DNA.") That makes no sentence, I said the first part of those quotation marks. I do keep up with a lot of this sort of information. If indeed you looked at fact"Also as I stated earlier, if he were real he does not even follow his own rules//

Irrelevant, he just has to fit the definition, not your ethics lol.
Predetermined BY something, yes it does. By code, by god, who cares-it"s not the issue-free will or lack thereof is the issue.
//Yes you are spot on! Evolution does address life on this planet!....
Well considering all of these mentions of evolution in a negative connotation this all wise god perhaps made a few mistakes in his book of truth. It seems strange that the person who is thought to have created everything does not even know what he is talking about.//
This debate is not about evolution, no refutation necessary.

//Response to Part 3://

Bible means "THE BOOKS" it DOES mean library, it"s not MY claim, it"s true. To even loosely argue that other religions have a bible, the point was you"d need at least 3 books, one would expect more like a handful. And many religions as proven have NO books, so certainly no bible. It was a clear point, your sophistry is unimpressive.
//We are arguing about Christianity! Your point about other religions not have a bible or god is pointless. "///

No, when YOU bring up "religion" IN LIEU OF "Christianity" that"s YOUR mistake-you now made the point about MUCH MORE than "Christianity." If you mean Christianity, then SAY IT. Otherwise, I"ll address what you said-"RELIGION." Which unfortunately for you is hardly our debate topic, which is GOD, which is a sliver of religions, under the heading "Monotheism." May as well just claim any time the word "idea" or "belief" are used, we should psychically know which one you mean. Your topic, YOUR BURDEN to use the one you describe, not a vague one as you did-like "religion" That is also a fallacy of composition, fallacies are fallacies, you argued one long fallacy of composition.

///Response to Part 4:///

Not what I said, I said your definition was false, and only inferred, so the one that stands is the first one given-those are the rules. And your definition was false and self serving, religion is NOT CHRISTIANITY. Christianity is A Religion, big difference.

I've at least attempted to refute his arguments. Most, if not all were outside the debate as I've shown. My opponent argued FOR evolution, super... that's not the topic. My opponent argued the ETHICS OF the Christian God... that's super, also not the topic. My opponent made many impressive arguments ... for ANOTHER topic. I hope he thinks it through next time, and figures out the difference between basic stuff like "religion" and "Christianity" they are NOT synonymous no matter how big a tantrum Con throws. I followed his defintions, he had priority on 3. I used sources HE SAID were acceptable for his favorite word, which remained undefined until I gave the dictionary definition to avoid further confusion. Instead of respecting MY priority, which I had, he didn't define it, I DID, he threw another tantrum and argued them synonymous with no basis or valid backing by ANY SOURCES. That said, my opponent never put forward any argument toward the actual topic and only argued against arguments I never made. Considering he only even attempted headway at two of my 5 arguments, not even touching three of them... meanwhile he put forward ZERO arguments in favor of CON on the debate TOPIC and instead argued points irrelevant and against points PRO never made in most cases.

That said, the preponderance of evidence and points MUST BE ON MY SIDE-the only side that made any attempt toward his side of the ACTUAL DEBATE TOPIC-a topic Con himself came up with... thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
UnhookedSchnook

Con

Response Part 1:

I don’t think you understand, this is not a defensive point. I am explaining the origin of Christianity. Also, as I am in a natural position I am not obliged to present any points, however, I enjoy showing all of the inconsistencies of the bible, and ultimately Christianity.


Response to Part 2:

As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed.

Well as I am sure you will see in the next section who has been defining words.


Response to Transition:

(“You mentioned religion, I proved your claim wrong USING A RELIGION. Your mistake, not mine, you can"t just infer and pretend religion means "Christianity" you could just say what you mean. But you didn"t you hoped your fallacy of composition would go unnoticed, it didn"t, your mistake. Next time say what you mean and stick to your own debate topic!”) – Your claim in Part 4

As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed.

Response to Part 1:


I used YOUR sources to define religion when you fumbled around and &%*%ed it up. Again, a neverending fallacy of composition is NOT ACCEPTABLE. You cannot by any arguable or logical claim pretend Christianity represents religion, yet you did repeatedly and further made really only points about RELIGION unrelated to the debate topic" Don Quixote Arguments.”)”) – Your whole response to part 1

1.

(“" from http://dictionary.reference.com......)”) – Your source used for those terms, as you stated

(“All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Dictionary.”) – From the preface

If you ask me, and any competent person, they will tell you that dictionary.com is not: the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy or the Oxford Dictionary.

(“I used YOUR sources to define religion”) – Your claim in part 4

(“you fumbled around and &%*%ed it up.”) – Your claim in part 4

I appreciate that you could deduce this from your overflowing river of knowledge. If this time you did not read what I said in isolation you may be able to conceive the idea that it was not me who did such a thing J. Also on that, I am glad to that your religious beliefs equip you with such manners.

(“4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere”) – Part 4 of the rules

(“11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss”) – Part 11 of the rules

2.

(“You cannot by any arguable or logical claim pretend Christianity represents religion, yet you did repeatedly and further made really only points about RELIGION unrelated to the debate topic" Don Quixote Arguments.”) – another bit of your argument for this point

As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed.

Response to Part 2:


Well as far as you have shown, he does not fit the definition so that is a bit silly to mention.

What do you mean about this lack of free will? You were meant to be arguing against my point, my point had nothing to do with free-will. Either way, I showed you that your misleading experiment was wrong and meaningless, thus we could not tell if there was free will or not. Neither does predetermines suggest much about the Christian god.


(“Actually if you keep up with Quantum Mechanics, predeterminism contradicts "natural selection" and much of evolution. It suggests that it was all programmed and all in there, from the singularity (big bang) forward-this is related to Sam Harris" argument about free will. That"s his point (and mine) that it DOESN"T EXIST, precisely because of DNA".”) – Part 3

(“This debate is not about evolution, no refutation necessary.”) – Part 4

Once again, contradicting yourself.

Are you not going to address the point that you made about evolution does not explain the beginning of the universe? It seems to me that you had not mentioned that again… I wonder if you admit that that was wrong. PM me and let me know.

Response to Part 3:


(“bible means "library."”) – Your rebuttal

“(Bible means "THE BOOKS" it DOES mean library”) – your defence

Well that must be awkward.

(“There"s only one religion with a "bible"”) – Your rebuttal, 1st line

(“SOME religions have a group of books compiled to make a library or "bible.") – Your rebuttal 3rd line

Hmmmmm, there it is again. Well maybe if you don’t believe what I say you might believe what you said. You cannot put it on me that I am making this sort of stuff up, just look, you contradict yourself within the first 3 lines of this point!

As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed.

Response to Part 4:

As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:”. I did not do as you claimed and said “God=Religion=Christianity” but instead I read the preface and saw that it says “This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed.

///

I am glad to have had this debate with you. Unfortunately your violation of rules alone will (should) lead to my win. I appreciate your points and am honoured to have been the one who made you think of these arguments. Perhaps next debate you will change your arguments so that you have a better chance of winning. If indeed you would like me to argue against you beliefs in particular just do as I said in the preface (hope you have since read it).

This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.” – Preface

Thanks.

Brendan_Liam

Pro

Response Part 1:

YOU ARE FAILING TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF EACH ROUND THAT YOU SET OUT. YOU ALSO BEGAN THE RUDENESS. CLEARLY YOUR RULES DIDN"T APPLY TO YOU. I call fraud.

con said: ///Response to Part 2:
As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:". I did not do as you claimed and said "God=Religion=Christianity" but instead I read the preface and saw that it says "This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate." So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed.
Well as I am sure you will see in the next section who has been defining words.//

NOPE, YOU CAN"T CONTROL EVERY TERM IN THE DEBATE TO SUIT YOURSELF AS THE ROUNDS GO BY. YOU ALSO CAN"T INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO USE A FALLACY OF COMPOSITION (PRETENDING RELIGION=CHRSITIANITY WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE IT) THAT"S AN IMMEDIATE FORFEIT-A HIDDEN ADVANTAGE, SEVERAL-FOR SHAME.

Con said: ///Response to Part 1:

1.
("4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere") " Part 4 of the rules///

YOU VIOLATED THAT FIRST IN ROUND 3, YOUR BAD.

CON SAID: ///("11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss") " Part 11 of the rules///

2.THEN YOU LOSE THE DEBATE, AND CON WINS FOR POINTING OUT YOUR NON-STOP FALLACY OF COMPOSITION AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE STEPS LAID OUT FOR ROUNDS IN YOUR OWN RULES, WRITTEN BY YOU.

CON SAID: ///As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:". I did not do as you claimed and said "God=Religion=Christianity" but instead I read the preface and saw that it says "This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate." So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed.///

Nope you don"t get to use clear words like "religion" when you"re only referring to ONE RELIGION, that"s called a "fallacy of composition" also a strawman of religion. You can"t include the right to use fallacies in your rules-that proves CHEATING, nothing more eloquent. You defined THREE words, if you were going to talk about a 4th more than the other 3 combined (which you did with "religion") it would have behoved you to define that one too. You didn"t, I did, my priority-those are the rules and no matter what crazy rules you come up with THEY CANNOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO USE AN ENDLESS FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: PRETENDING "RELIGION" IS DEFINED AS "CHRISTIANTY." FAIL.

CON SAID: ///Response to Part 2:

Well as far as you have shown, he does not fit the definition so that is a bit silly to mention.

What do you mean about this lack of free will? You were meant to be arguing against my point, my point had nothing to do with free-will. Either way, I showed you that your misleading experiment was wrong and meaningless, thus we could not tell if there was free will or not. Neither does predetermines suggest much about the Christian god.///

The Christian god may be YOUR favorite, but this debate defined god, NOT AS JESUS OR JEHOVAH BUT as a creator and ruler of the universe. Quite the leap you keep making.

CON SAID:///Are you not going to address the point that you made about evolution does not explain the beginning of the universe? It seems to me that you had not mentioned that again" I wonder if you admit that that was wrong. PM me and let me know.///

Right it doesn"t. Evolution applies to planet Earth, and assumably other life-supporting planets. In the case we know, it applies to 500million years? However old the amoebas are" not to the birth of the Universe, which is 16 Billion or more years old.

CON SAID: ///Response to Part 4:
As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:". I did not do as you claimed and said "God=Religion=Christianity" but instead I read the preface and saw that it says "This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate." So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed.///

No you never said that, that"s an outright lie. I used a dictionary, and it said what it said, you can"t claim to own EVERY TERM IN THE DEBATE. What a fraud"s claim, you controlled the 3 words you defined. I defined one, and that"s too damn bad that you didn"t get there first. "We"ll be dealing with Christianity" doesn"t mean anything, and has NO TEETH. Where does it say we cannot address OTHER religions if you start talking about a broader term, like RELIGION, and over and over. What nonsense-you can"t make it up as you go. You define the terms you NEED. You hardly mentioned god, yet went on and on about a word you never addressed. I did, too bad. Live and learn.
///
I am glad to have had this debate with you. Unfortunately your violation of rules alone will (should) lead to my win. I appreciate your points and am honoured to have been the one who made you think of these arguments. Perhaps next debate you will change your arguments so that you have a better chance of winning. If indeed you would like me to argue against you beliefs in particular just do as I said in the preface (hope you have since read it).

CON SAID: ///"This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate." " Prefacel///

That doesn"t mean every word you feel like means whatever you want as we go along-only the ones YOU DEFINE. otherwise you clearly demand advantages in your rules-again, an immediate forfeit by ANY DEBATE RULES, especially terms so broad as "religion" which you selfishly claim means "christianity" what a ridiculous claim and only one self serving in nature, in addition it is an duplicitous attempt to get special rights in this debate, shameful. Religion is not Christianity, nor could that claim be used in any way except deception, your mistake.

FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, and a claim that you have a right to make up ALL DEFINTIIONS in the debate to suit your argument. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. It works how I showed you: I respect the priority of definitions, so should my opponent. You defined 3 words, you gave the method for defining others, I used it, defined ONE. Your 3 defined terms were respected and referred to throughout the debate. Mine was ignored in favor of a fallacy of composition. Get real.

You violated the rules left and right and reveal yourself as wanting a rigged game, and unable to assess your opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by splew 1 year ago
splew
I believe god exist. I just don't believe who he says he is. If he is an all loving god then why did he create evil? Does that make him just as evil as satan?
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
i agree, i apologize to my competitor, however, i do not accept sole blame.
Posted by Towarzysz 1 year ago
Towarzysz
huh, this wasn't very civil debate. Too much emotions involved.
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
Terms

All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Dictionary.

is there a problem with using these dictionaries? i am happy to change them in the future if you tell me how they are bad...
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
Bro, chill

did you read the preface?

Preface

This debate is about god, obviously. We, as said later in this statement, are using the definitions provided by credible sources (more specific later). This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate.
Posted by Brendan_Liam 1 year ago
Brendan_Liam
you play a rigged game, you insist on special rights-like a MONOPOLY on defining the terms?

GTFO
Posted by Brendan_Liam 1 year ago
Brendan_Liam
as I said, then you are insisting upon a right to use a non<x>stop fallacy.

Religion doesn't mean that. Why did you keep talking about religion, of which there are 7 other major versions of ... by any argument, when you claimed "we would talk about Christianity?"

I think I talked about it more than you did. You just talked about evolution and religion!
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
Whats wrong Brendan_Liam?

Hahahaha, i am so glad to see more of your misleading lies, incorrect quotes and lack of comprehension outside of your arguments.

If you did not figure out what i mean this time i am talking about the "religion = christianity" find where i said that please.

Also, do you actually think that you won this? I guess that is up to the voters :)
Posted by Brendan_Liam 1 year ago
Brendan_Liam
think he ever figured out he was arguing against another atheist .... who clearly knows the arguments better than mr. I need 5 advantages to win lol ya right, "religion = christianity"

tell that to 5 billion people.... talk about SPECIAL PLEADING AND FALLACIES. Please go back to jesus, we don't need such deception among us atheists...
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
@Sarra

hey, i would like to see your point... pleas could you ask it on my website.

https://sites.google.com...

if you need help wording it as a question just PM me.

Maybe just say does this not make god more probable and make your point, with references.
No votes have been placed for this debate.