The Instigator
Claudz1267
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

It is wrong to debate about God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 826 times Debate No: 18200
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Claudz1267

Pro

Hey! This is my first debate here, so don't slash me up if I don't fully understand this website. There will be four rounds. In the first round, my opponent and I will make our stance, briefy outline our arguments and define any definitions.

I have given you up to 8000 characters, but please remember this is a debate, not a rant.

My argument is that it is both wrong and insulting to debate about God. If you believe in God, you believe in him, and if you don't , you don't. It is wrong, as if you DON'T believe in God, rational arguments won't bring you over, not really. Religion is something of the heart and soul, not your mind.

By God, I am referring to the Christian God, and omnipotent, omnipresent and ever-loving deity who sent his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross to pay for our sins.

I'm an Anglican, so I have no knowledge of the religious customs of different Christian sects, such as Greek Orthodox.

I think that's all, so I'll end here. Good luck!
socialpinko

Con

I'll agree with the definition of God which my opponent used. How specifically God is defined will not necessarily affect my case. However my opponent did neglect to define a key term, 'wrong'. I will define it as what is not in accordance with what is morally right. My argument will be that the act of argumentation can never be intrinsically right or wrong in and of itself. Being in accordance with the non-aggression principle and not initiation force or aggression against anyone, arguing over the existence or non-existence of any deity does not by itself harm another and therefore cannot be wrong or punishable. This sums up my basic stance and seeing as I have defined all that I think needs to be defined, I will toss the debate back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Claudz1267

Pro

Sorry for not defining wrong, but we'll use your definition. That's when I really meant anyway. I have a few points, so I'll use headings to make it clearer for the audience and my opponent.

Rational Arguments Won't Convert You
I would like to point out the philosophy of Soren Kiekregaard here. He maintains that religion is a matter of 'passion not reason'. Even if you try to prove God using rational arguments, this has nothing to do with believing in God (if God could be conclusively proved, everyone would 'believe' in Him). One must make a leap of faith, without knowing for sure that you are doing what is right.

Rational Argurments Will Shake Your Belief
Rational arguments can actaully shake your faith in the Almighty. Simple questions such as 'Why does God allow suffering?' can deeply disturb Christians who can't find the answers. The truth of the matter is, the Bible and other religious text don't hold the nanswer to every question. And sometimes the answers of different people aren't acceptable to you. And only the true belivers can walk through the pearly gates - so disturbing somebody's faith is (possibly not intentionally) ia a very morally wrong thing to do.

It is Disrespectful
It is highly disrespectful for people to dissect God. God is beyond any of our comprehension, so mere humans cannot even come CLOSE to understanding Him. But people still try to, and then create completely false versions of God. For example, it is horrid to attack somebody else's interests (such as insulting Harry Potter). The same thing applies with God. If you don't believe, fine - but don't start flaming God because you can.

Ending Comments
Thanks for joining this debate! Also some extra things:
- Please don't use the Bible for this debate (we are arguing over whether we should debate God, not whether He exists)
- There is no need for sources.
- And a max of six points (I don't want a ramble here)

Right back at you.
socialpinko

Con

Response to my opponent's contentions

Contention: Rational arguments won't convert you


My opponent never brought any proof to back up this assertion. I however can show that people have been converted both to and from different religions through rational thinking, notably C.S. Lewis(from atheism to Christianity) who was partially influenced by the apologetics of G.K. Chesterton. Among others were Francis Collins(from atheism to Christianity) and Alister McGrath(from atheism to Christianity), both of whom along with Lewis converted to Christianity from atheism due to either empirical or rational arguments for God's exisence and specifically the validity of the Christian faith. While faith is usually important to the religious, it is not the only way to convert to a different religion. Many have examined available evidence and determined it to favor the theistic conception of the world. Lewis, Collins, and McGrath are only a few examples.

Contention: Rational arguments will shake your belief

In this contention, my opponent argues that theists should close their eyes and cover their ears to reason because of the possibiliy that they will lose their faith. However this argument ignores all of the people who have been converted to theism through reason. Some people cannot make themselves accept things on faith and so utilizing reason gives them the chance to convert. I am not making the argument that everyone should be forced to consider rationally the arguments for and against theism, only that it is not wrong to do so.

Also, being autonomous agents, it is competely within our power to decide whether or not to accept theism. When one engages in argumentation, they are not forcing anyone to agree with them, but presenting their own opinions or criticisms. Argumentation is inherently a non-aggressive process, agressive being used in the libertarian meaning of not infringing on another's rights. If someone fears that their beliefs will be shaken by argumentation, they are completely free to refrain from doing so.

Contention: It is disrespectful

Again, this presupposes God's existence which we had never established. My oppnonent framed this as a debate about general theistic belief, not belief in a specific God. Also, being disrespectful does not make something wrong. Many find it disrespectful to dissect political beliefs but most realize that it is necessary for progress. If we were all to remain silent about current issues, nothing would get done. The same applies to belief in a deity. If no one were pemitted to debate it's existence, people who hold it's existence as a problem to be visited rationally would not be converted or have the opportunity to debate it for themselves. Also, my opponent neglects the rationally minded Christians who debate on Christianity all the time, namely William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel who are not offended by argumentation but embrace it.

I will not bring a positive case, in that my point has been well covered in my responses to my opponent's case, that argumentation and debate do not infringe on another's rights and that due to the non-aggressive nature of debate, anyone is free to walk away and refrain from debating at any time.
Debate Round No. 2
Claudz1267

Pro

Claudz1267 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend refutations. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Claudz1267

Pro

Claudz1267 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Just as it was getting interesting. Vote Con because Pro never responded to my rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by internet.debater 5 years ago
internet.debater
This is seriously a stupid topic. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but it's "wrong" to debate God? What god? Of what religion? Within Christianity there are thousands of sects and great variances in the definition/image/understanding of god. Wrong according to who? The 10 Commandments say not to use the Lords name in vain, not to refrain from discussing him or religion at all.
Posted by Crede 5 years ago
Crede
Well questioning the reality of the God is I think every Theist's duty. It should shake your beliefs so you can search out an answer. If you truely believe it's true, than you can take comfort that you will just be investigating to learn what already is true to you. As it being unable to convert non-believers into believing is also false. I've seen numerous debates on rational arguments for God's existence and the outcome led many people who were previously Agnostic, or Atheist to confess in the reality of God.
Posted by Claudz1267 5 years ago
Claudz1267
Wait - what?
Posted by debate250 5 years ago
debate250
However, isn't this debate in itself a debate about God as a debate about whether it's right to debate about God is a debate about God or could easily lead to a debate about God?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
Claudz1267socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Claudz1267socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Claud's forfeit left Socialpinko having the last word on the arguments, which he destroyed in his rebuttals.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
Claudz1267socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to social for Claudz forfeiting and arguments to social for very obvious reasons.