The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
M0nK3Y
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

If the idea of God is rational, then the idea of Cybertron is rational

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
lord_megatron
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 453 times Debate No: 92053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

If the idea of God is rational or likely, as the universe needs a creator, then the idea of Cybertron isn't irrational either. A world 100000 light years away, their space bridges broken and ravaged by war.
M0nK3Y

Con

God isn't rational, and neither is Cybertron.

If God is stupidly thought as rational, then it's stupider to think Cybertron is rational.

Cybertron is more irrational if based on the stupid assumption that "God is rational".

In a case where God is thought as rational, Cybertron is still an irrational idea if you don't have evidence for Cybertron's existence!

You can't justify flying faeries with God.

To conclude, "if the idea of God is rational, then the idea of Cybertron is rational", is an improper statement. They aren't mutually exclusive; God and Cybertron must be proven to be rational - because one is rational it doesn't make the other rational.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

I said IF god is rational, meaning if someone takes the current evidence and explanation for God as logical and feasible, then the possibility of cybertron can't be ruled out as well. I could easily say Cybertron is 93929773994 light years away and their space bridges are currently broken as they are in the war period so they have not made contact. That way, neither we can get evidence for it, but we can't get evidence against it either. Same is with God. I say he is in heaven which is accessible by death, you can't bring evidence for it, but can't get evidence against it.
M0nK3Y

Con

If God is logical, it doesn't make Cybertron logical.

A man in stupor may as well think that Cybertron is logical,, is still promotion of stupidity.

It's a case of two wrongs don't make a right.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

No, my argument is basically x=2 then x/2= 1. After all, someone who believes in an imaginary being with unlimited powers in an alternate universe only accessible by death, then it shouldn't be hard to believe that there is a planet that hosts sentient robots in our own universe just a few light years away. As con failed to give any significant rebuttal, vote for pro.
M0nK3Y

Con

If we're being immature, Pro is correct. It does justify a belief in Cybertron...

If we're being mature, Pro is incorrect. It doesn't justify a belief in Cybertron [in reference to my Round 1 and Round 2 arguments].
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
Na, the vote is fine. So long as I win MUHAHAHHA
Posted by M0nK3Y 1 year ago
M0nK3Y
Ok.

Don't worry.

I just thought your vote reason was a bit strange...
Posted by dtien400 1 year ago
dtien400
@M

I've done some Googling. New Atheism seems...radical but complex. I do share some beliefs with them, but my beliefs are much less extreme and less radicalized than theirs. I do think religion can be (not always is) harmful, that religion has contributed to (not caused) many horrible things, that secular government is key (but that there are much more important things a government can be than be secular), and that religion and science cannot coexist indefinitely (but that religious people people certainly can be and often are educated about science).

I don't particularly like religion. I wouldn't say I hate it. However, I think many atheists are too quick to blame all of the world's problems on religion. I think religion is a mirror - take a first-world country with little poverty, good education, political stability, and a secure economy, and you have a country with mostly kind, amazing religious people (like my loving family). Take a third-world country with rampant poverty and disease, political insecurity, poor education, and an unstable economy, and you have a country where religious people often are bigoted, hateful, and oppressive.

Would that make me a New Atheist?
Posted by dtien400 1 year ago
dtien400
@M0nK3Y

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say to me in that second comment. I'm an atheist. Staunch but not quite militant. I'm not sure what a 'New Atheist' is.
Posted by dtien400 1 year ago
dtien400
@M0nK3Y

Indeed. The word "immature" has several definitions.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I wasn't able to figure out which one you were using. :(
Both the second 'Simple Definition' in my link and the 2a 'Full Definition' in my link could've been what you meant. Even if I did know what definition you were using, it wouldn't have changed my vote though. Sorry.
Posted by M0nK3Y 1 year ago
M0nK3Y
If God is thought to exist, then so is the fact that everyone else is stupid for not believing in God?

How mystifying can you get?!

dtien400, are you a New Atheist?
Posted by M0nK3Y 1 year ago
M0nK3Y
Mystifying? Lol.
Posted by dtien400 1 year ago
dtien400
Great debate guys. This was interesting to read.
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
Of course the idea of God is irrational, that is nothing to debate then!
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
Of course the idea of God is irrational, that is nothing to debate then!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtien400 1 year ago
dtien400
lord_megatronM0nK3YTied
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: Conduct is tied - Con's mature vs immature statement wasn't exactly very sportsmanlike, but wasn't out of line either. Spelling and grammar is tied - both had problems. Sources are tied - none were used. Arguments go to Pro. Pro had his opening stance; Con rebutted by saying there could be evidence for God but not for Cybertron, or vice versa; Pro rebutted by saying there is no evidence for or against the two, which means currently if you believe in one, that line of thinking should lead you to believe in the other; Con didn't properly rebut; Pro repeated his point; Con didn't properly rebut. In fact Con's last argument was mystifying, as it wasn't made clear what definition of "immature" he was using. Either way, simply dismissing your opponent's claim and referencing your already-debunked arguments doesn't constitute as a rebuttal; it behooves one to elaborate on one's points and understand which ones are no longer relevant. Pro wins.