Islam should be BANNED!
Debate Rounds (1)
People say Islam is not a 'religion of peace' because it promotes war and the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was actually *gasp* a ...
CHILD RAPIST!!!!! :(
Well. I certainly hate child rapists. Then again, great men such as Gandhi, Columbus, Michael Jackson, and our dear grandfather of over 50% of the world's population Genghis Khan, (we love you grandpa) have ALL been called child rapists. Most of the greek gods were rapists, how old exactly was Mary, mother of Jesus? 14? But Christians certainly don't consider God to be a 'Child Rapists.'
people are moral agents, vi_spex., Still. there is so much we cannot choose; how smart we are, what word-view was pushed on us by religious parents, (or an atheist academic and scientific elite)
Before you say we should "Ban Islam" or any religion for that matter, which is blatant ethnocentrism,, consider cultural relativism, and why people act the way they do?
I don't think you are evil, vi_spex... and I respect your opinion... I am curious however, how did you come to have your beliefs? Was it a particular book, relative, friend, or series of classes? Was it a traumatic life event such as rape or death? Epistemologicaly how did you come to believe what you believe.
The History of the U.S. is deeply rooted in enlightenment principles and humanism that 'came from' (so to speak) protestant Christianity, and so our nation's ideology carries with it pseudo-christian moralist baggage. The current dominant ideology stems from liberalism, a sophistic (https://en.wikipedia.org...) philosophy that champions moral relativism and moral agency, also enlightenment principles.
Iv'e been reading Soren Kierkegaard, and it's quite interesting. It is easy to fall into lockstep with the dominant Ideology of the time, and align oneself with the prevailing volksgeist, (especially if it is quite persuasive!) A belief that is held because it is commonly held by one's culture is not Islam, neither is it Atheism, nor Christianity, or anything really but secular 'Paganism'! Most atrocities in the past have been committed when the dominant ideology commands undue obedience from it's constituents, and it is AUTHORITY that is suspect, religious or otherwise. It has little to do with the tenants of the religion or worldview itself, simply how its used as a tool to manipulate the masses.
So much of what we believe is a result of where and when we live... Imagine if you were born into a Hindu, or Muslim family... you would likely remain loyal to that worldview. Likewise, imagine you were a Roman, raised Pagan, and Christianity was now becoming the Dominant Ideology instead of a persecuted minority. Soon, you would put on a "Christian Hat", stop burning Christians, and start burning witches!
Dogma is Dogma is Dogma, no matter whom is pressing their worldview onto whom. Those with power tend to prey upon the most vulnerable members of society. People say "Take the Red Pill," but, that still involves accepting a belief system that is not really yours, and learning to believe things that are tainted with cultural baggage.
i dont care what the christian book says, it isnt forced on people with death threats, so people can pick and choose
islam is the most pure evil one can imagine.. a more evil being then a muslim can not exist :)
religion is evil.. i am not religious
its simple, islam is terrorism.. you dont argue for it you talk about other non sense based on your lack of understanding of islam
muslims follow the koarn.. terrorism
your brain is incapable of handling truth.. that is all i get from your utter drivel
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mharman 3 weeks ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not do anything to defend Islam. Rather, he decided to insult other religions instead. Con did nothing to defend Muhammad in the child rape case, he instead listed other rape cases (Mary, mother of Jesus, is NOT a rape case), while Pro did slam him on that one. In conclusion, con was supposed to defend Islam, but all he did was insult other religions, which means conduct to pro; meanwhile, pro was supposed to attack Islam, and that's exactly what he did, so he gets arguments. Pro had no capitalization whatsoever, which annoyed me though, so con get S&G. Con used sources, while pro did not; con get Sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.