The Instigator
Shadowraith
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Is religion Fake

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,188 times Debate No: 9012
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (11)

 

Shadowraith

Pro

I want someone to challenge me and argue with me if there is a god or not.
Cody_Franklin

Con

I'm assuming that PRO is arguing that there is a God, and that I am going to have to clash with that position.

Thus, the PRO's burden is to prove, using logic and factual evidence, that there is indeed a God (and my opponent may argue for the God of his choosing, though I am assuming that he is discussing the Christian God).

And of course, my burden is thus, not to prove so much that there isn't a God, but rather to discredit the idea of absolute existence of the God which my opponent presents.

Now, in the interests of fairness, I will allow my opponent to first present his case for the existence of a God, so that we both have an equal number of posts in which to argue; thus, after my opponent presents his position, I will negate.

Good luck to my opponent in his first debate, and I look forward to a most interesting topic.
Debate Round No. 1
Shadowraith

Pro

Thanks for the good luck looks like I'm going to need it seeing as how I accidentally went pro instead of con but that just makes it more interesting for me.

Ok im not going to be just doing it on one god but rather on the range of gods Egyption, Norse, Greek and the Christion god/s are the ones im choosing for this topic

First of im going to point out that I believe that all the gods are in some way connected. Take the fact that even though the Egyptions,Greek and Norse have alot off gods and the Christions have only one but the four have something in common....They both have a 'King' god the Christions is just god, the Eyptions have Ra, the Greeks have Zeus, and the Norse have Odin and not only that they all have an 'evil' or bad gods. Christians have satan, Egyptions have Seth, the Greeks have Hades and the Norse have Loki starting to see a pattern. Also how could all these gods be told of and all these storys known of it. I meen it would be pretty hard to convince entire nations and that amount people about the religions without good reasons....like some kind of miracle

Those are my first points Good luck con
Cody_Franklin

Con

Okay, so my opponent claims that he accidentally picked the wrong side; I'll trust his word, and in the interests of fairness, I'll accept his suggestion to debate on the range of Gods.

Most of his paragraph is merely discussing the Gods of different religions.

1. My opponent's belief that all the Gods are connected doesn't support his claim that a God exists.

2. As far as his question as to how these stories of Gods came about, I can answer this by asking a different question: How do all stories come about? Where did fairy tales, and science fiction, and fantasy, and horror come from? The answer is, people came up with the stories of these Gods, and, like every other story over the history of humanity, they were put into writing and mass-distributed.

3. It's not particularly hard to convince a large group of people to believe something; just look at political campaigns during the history of the United States. And, while they may be able to convince people with 'good reasons', that doesn't necessarily mean that they are preaching the truth; in fact, these 'good reasons' may merely be for personal gain and profit.

As this is my opponent's first debate, I'll leave it there, as I'm sure my opponent has more than enough to chew on for the moment; I'll save my other arguments for Round 3, and I wish him the best of luck in his response.
Debate Round No. 2
Shadowraith

Pro

Ok I'm going to tackle this by going through your points and tackling them one at a time.
1.You are right I didn't directly go into whether or if God/s that was my bad I didn't think it though properly.
2.I can say that you make a good point about the stories but isn't it possible that all stories have a basis of truth. Take Fairy tales they talk about Dragons and unicorns and stuff like that but you look some similar books and they say they were all wiped out by man so my point for this is that cant all story's have some sort of a basis of truth to them. So why cant all the story's of the God/s have some sort of truth about them?
And lastly
3.You say that its not particularly hard to convince a large group of people of something that's very true BUT they have to give the people something to "believe" them they cant just go up to people I'm better then this guy so vote for me no one would take them seriously so the gods "prophets" would have had to off given the people something to make them believe.

I'm going to leave it there for now your turn con. Thanks for this fun debate I didn't think it would be this hard.
Cody_Franklin

Con

I suppose that I will just keep the same method of organization, and go through, point-by-point.

1. As my opponent has conceded this part of his argument, just flow it through to the Con today as my opponent agreeing that saying the Gods are related does not prove that they actually exist.

a. If an omniexcellent creator did exist, then my opponent's argument will fall anyway, due to the fact that the beliefs in all these different Gods obviously conflict, and thus, the existence of the proposed plethora of deities obviously cannot be proven.

2. A fictional story, by nature, is false; not all stories have to have a basis of truth, and it's unreasonable to believe otherwise; just because a book of fairy tales tells you that unicorns and dragons are real is hardly any reason to accept it as fact; merely because a book tells you than mankind wiped out dragons and unicorns long ago does not give it any credibility; it's merely an appeal to authority if you believe something just because 'a book said so'.

a. Asking "Why can't this be true" doesn't make your argument true; I'm not here to prove a negative; as you have made the claim that these Gods exist, it is up to you to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the fallacious logic that "because I can't be proven wrong, I'm probably right" is simply not going to cut it in this discussion, I'm afraid.

b. Just as a side-note, I don't think that comparing the existence of Gods to that of fairy tale creatures lends your argument too much weight, for future reference.

3. My opponent admits that it's very true that it's not difficult to convince a large group of people to do something or to adopt a certain mindset; in fact, this is a very common issue, prevalent in places like cults, secret societies, and even a few nations (such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Imperialist Japan); it's what we call groupthink [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. So, as we see, convincing a large group of people to believe in a God (or Gods) is not particularly difficult.

a. As far as a reason to believe, I agree that these prophets would have to offer a reason to believe; however, having a reason for a belief does not make the belief true: one reason that many people turn to religion is out of fear of death; the prospect of a pleasant afterlife for following a particular religion is obviously preferable to an eternity of nothingness; so, under the hope that they will have some fantastic afterlife to look forward to, many people are more than willing to accept religion.

b. Alternatively, some people join not so much out of a desire to go to Paradise, but rather to avoid eternal punishment; in the same way that the fear of punishment deters crime, fear of eternal suffering is more than sufficient to bring multitudes under the banner of an organized religion.

With that, I'll stand down for now, and I look forward to hearing my opponent's responses.
Debate Round No. 3
Shadowraith

Pro

Maybe the way that im going about this is all wrong maybe I shouldnt be proving that god exists but rather that if there is just one person in the world who believes in a god i mean really believes then to them god will exist.

It dosnt matter if there really is or isnt a god or if any one believes any differnt because for them god IS real and no one will ever change that for them. When the pray there imagining like there talking to a friend who will always listen wont replie but will always listen. All the stories may have been made up but look what its done its given so much comforte to so many differnt people who Do believe in him and believe hes real

So im saying that god might not be the creater of everything might not have created everything BUT he IS real to the people who believes he is...
Cody_Franklin

Con

Well folks, you've heard it yourselves: my opponent started out this debate trying to prove that God exists; he himself admits that it was probably not a wise decision to do so, and instead, he's trying to prove something completely different, and he has radically shifted his position; he's essentially debating an entirely different topic at this point, so you obviously have to give this to the Con.

But, in the interests of fairness, though I've already won, I'll take the time to refute my opponent's arguments anyway.

1. It doesn't matter if there is or is not a God.

a. Refer back to my previous statement: My opponent began the round trying to prove the existence of an entire range of Gods; then, he shifted his position to only proving the existence of a single God; now, he has shifted his position a second time, and is now trying to prove that the IDEA of a God is real; obviously, he's trying to slip out of his burden, and, if left unchecked, my opponent will eventually shift his position farther up the slippery slope until his arguments reach the point of absurdity.

2. If people believe in a God, he is real.

a. This is a case of ad populum; merely because people believe God exists doesn't mean that he automatically does; sure, the belief itself might be a real thought, but the object of that belief is not proven to be real.

b. My opponent admits, despite his last post, that these stories are probably made up. Refer back to the fact that he's shifting his position, and is repeatedly contradicting himself.

3. God has given people comfort.

a. The idea of an omniexcellent God and a pleasant afterlife is what gives people comfort; this still fails to prove that a God (or in the case you present, a multitude of Gods) exist.

4. God didn't create everything, but people believe he is real.

a. If people believe God to exist, that belief consists of god being omniexcellent, and having created the universe; your admission that he "might not be the creater" [sic] seems to defeat the argument that 'people believe in him, therefore he is real'.

I have little left to say at this point, but it's clear that you need to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
Shadowraith

Pro

lol ok ok i guess im not very good at debating ill just give up you win Con :)
Cody_Franklin

Con

With an open concession from my opponent, I agree that we need a Con vote today. :)
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Yeah, it's like, a mugger goes to the police and says, "I'm going to get this guy, at this time, at this place", and yet, the mugger still manages to mug the guy because a couple of corrupt cops showed up at the scene.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
The fact that PRO has 35 points after an open concession.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
What exactly is sad?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
This is... sad. Not that I haven't seen it before. But still...
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Again, it's because of vote-bombing; most of my debates have been cleared up; the only one still 'at-risk' is http://www.debate.org....
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Con clearly won who is voting for wraith?
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
How... is this debate so close?... I am amazed.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Well, actually, I wouldn't call myself "f'd" at all; this debate, like many others of mine, was subject to vote-bombing; so, the fact that I'm losing at the moment is quite illegitimate.
Posted by MillerLife 7 years ago
MillerLife
for some reason if u debate religion and ur a con to that ur fd so con I give u 6 points and pro I believe u have a good point with them all being connected but I also believe ur way off on that to. and people who believe in a religion ether curse it when they don't get what they want or praise it when the do. Ether way there morons. pardon my grammar.
con did stomp u
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Revised RFD - I screwed up my last one. The same reasons apply I just mixed up pro and con.

B/A : CON
Conduct : CON
S&G : CON
Arguments : CON
Sources : CON
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Gmoney 7 years ago
Gmoney
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
ShadowraithCody_FranklinTied
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