The Instigator
dwarfer
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Most religious bigotry and dogma has a real world sociological or biological origin.

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 5 votes the winner is...
dwarfer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 437 times Debate No: 56953
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

dwarfer

Pro

I contest that the vast majority of prescriptions in any religious text did not stem from a divine source but rather real world problems at the time of it's writing, either a real problem or one perceived by it's human writer. These books were the earliest forms of law, created for a mix of noble and selfish reasons by the pen holders.
Truth_seeker

Con

The Biblical text is divine in origin, but that it did not come from humans because it includes a progressive knowledge of God from Gen. to Rev. How is it that the prophecies in the Bible come true far later than it's time? For example, how is it that Psalm 22:16 "My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs; an evil gang closes in on me. They have pierced my hands and feet" would later speak of Jesus being crucified when Roman crosses didn't exist yet?

Pro hasn't given proof to back his claims.
Debate Round No. 1
dwarfer

Pro

I said prescriptions, not predictions. Rules such as the dietary rules in Leviticus were clearly included to stop people getting ill eating tainted pork and sea food. The anti-gay passages were clearly an attempt to maximize the reproduction potential of adherents, see also "be fruitful and multiply". but seeing as you quoted a "prediction" that is an ambiguous phrase that occurs in some translations. The JPS says that it's lions at his hands and feet digging/biting. Also Psalm 22 has a UNICORN!
Truth_seeker

Con

Pro vaguely references the Bible and has no sources to back up his claims.

In my opinion, you are going on a rant...
Debate Round No. 2
dwarfer

Pro

I'm vague and ranting?

your 1st round was a mile off topic (I think because you took prescription to mean prediction) and you accused me of having lack of proof, when your only proof of biblical prediction is other parts of the bible. and as for sources,it's kinda hard to quote and cite sources in 500 characters. as for Leviticus, As you already quoted the bible, I assumed you had enough knowledge to know the laws it contains. Leviticus 11:4 - no pork , 11:12 - no shellfish 18:22 - no gay sex
Truth_seeker

Con

My opponent claims that "Most religious bigotry and dogma has a real world sociological or biological origin", but has failed to back it up with sociological and biological evidence given by experts, therefore he failed to defend his position.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
Just to simplify things, could we possibly focus just on Christianity?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
dwarferTruth_seekerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough choice. Con seemed to be rather snarky. Abbreviated words at times. Offered better/more reliable sources, and ad very compelling arguments.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
dwarferTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither terribly strong, but Pro never met his burden of proof and explained how he arrived at his claim. And interesting question, and one worthy of examination, but it requires the outlay taking a reader from point A to point B to a conclusion. That is lacking entirely for Pro.
Vote Placed by Manastacious 2 years ago
Manastacious
dwarferTruth_seekerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Poor all around. Tied S/G: Pro has more S/G violations than Con--enough to warrant a vote against Pro. Sources: Tied. Both make references to the Bible providing specific passages. Clear enough to me. Argument: I have to give this to Pro. He is the only that provides reasoning to support the claim. Con really makes no effort to argue (directly or indirectly) the position. Vote goes Pro.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dwarferTruth_seekerTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con off topic. Unfulfilled BOP.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
dwarferTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: 500 character limit debate... Within such tight confines, Pro did not (and I suspect could not) meet their BoP. Key problem is I saw no point in this debate that rose above assertions. Arguments likely would have gone to con, if not for dropping every point in R2. As is, I suggest a rematch.