The Instigator
PlethorA
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
calebblader
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Non-Existence of God or a Moral Modern Religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 35635
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

PlethorA

Pro

My position is no to convert the reader to atheism, I find it a moral obligation to the bettering of society, a challenge and ode to some of my inspirational figures.

I don"t believe that religion is moral or ethical. I certainly don"t believe that any of its explanations about the origins of our species, the cosmos, or its ultimate destiny are true either; in fact, I think that most of these have been conclusively and utterly discredited. You hear it very often said by people of a vague faith that "it may not be the case that religion is metaphysically true, its figures and stories may be legendary or dwell on the edge of myth " prehistoric. Its truth claims may be laughable and we have better explanations for the origins, both of the cosmos and our species, so much better that had they been available to begin with religion wouldn't"t have been able to take root." Nobody in society would now revert back to the stage when we didn"t have any real philosophy compared to having mythology, when we thought we lived on a flat planet or when we thought our planet was circulated by the sun " when we didn"t know there were micro organisms as part of creation, that they were more powerful than us and had dominion over humans. We wouldn"t have taken up Theism if we knew now what we did then.
Science cannot disprove the existence of god because it"s an unfalsifiable argument but an argument"s validity is often succeeded by its falsifiability, a good argument will be falsifiable and thus we ask whether the evidence portrayed leaves with a likely or unlikely conclusion " in this case, unlikely. Occam"s razor trims the arguments which are backed simply by adding alternate ad-hoc hypothesis (hypothesis which are added in order to keep the argument from being falsified). We see this many times in religion, when the earth was proved to be older than 6000 years old, religious thinkers added more hypothesis (actually they just admitted it was wrong, just like many fundamental statements in the bible but I accept that there isn"t just the fundamental viewpoint in interpreting the bible).When evolution was explained religion had, for the best part of the 19th/20th century, simply refuted the fact that evolution was true until the evidence was simply too great so they added the ultimate hypothesis " as if proving the biggest genesis lie wasn"t enough " no, it was all a part of gods "intelligent design", this is a clear example of ad-hoc hypothesis. Religion will claim that the fundamental constants in the universe are so finely tuned that if they were different by one million trillionths then the universe wouldn"t be able to conceive of matter and thus there must be an intelligent creator behind it that explains why our universe is hospitable, because god had us in mind. Here"s the sad part, no, he didn"t have us in mind, as proved before. He doesn"t have 99.5% of other species in mind as they"re too, extinct " very intelligent design so far. Or, perhaps, when Andromeda galaxy collides with the Milky Way, we will see how intelligent the design really is. There are thousands of flaws with the human body, why for example do we have adrenal glands too big and our cerebral cortex too small? The Anthropic principle states that the universe exists because we can observe and test it " simply, that it"s no coincidence that we live in a universe that can sustain life because otherwise I wouldn"t be here writing this, astronomers wouldn"t be observing the sky and the crusades wouldn"t have happened. Another plausible theory, explained by string theory, is the multiverse " a plethora of universes that all have different universal constants, and thus we live in one obviously that has the correct constants otherwise we wouldn't be here.

With our basic morality " knowing right from wrong - I must refute the claims religion makes that our foundations come from a celestial being and are derived from clerics " along with authoritarian figures " how is this the modesty, in which religion claims, when only few can hear the voice of god. It makes me wonder, what is it like to lie to children for a living? To tell them they have an authority that they must hold compulsory love, and also be terrified at the same time? To tell children that they don"t have an intrinsic value of what"s right and wrong " of course they do. Theists claim that without a god, humans wouldn"t have a base foundation for our morality, or of what we should or shouldn"t do. Supposedly they"re given to us from biblical scriptures but I find that demeaning to human society and it"s the very ideology which I feel compelled to undermine. I sincerely hope one doesn"t derive fundamental morality form a book made by Iron Age peasants who " in the Ten Commandments " stated "Thou shalt no covet thy neighbour"s house, wife, maidservant, ox or a$$" where women are considered an equivalent to donkeys and also convicts against thinking.

I don"t believe that religion is true, moral or ethical and I certainly don"t believe that any of its explanations about the origins of our species or the cosmos or its ultimate destiny are true either as I believe that these claims have been conclusively and utterly discredited. So I"m left with a question, is it moral to believe that your sins and mine can be forgiven by the punishment of another person " is it ethical or moral to believe that? I say that the doctrine of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice " Jesus " is utterly immoral. It suggests that - Maybe if I really loved you, I could serve your prison sentence although I can"t take away your responsibilities, what you"ve done, can"t say you didn"t do it or ultimately wash it clean. The original name for this was called "Scapegoating", and it comes from Middle Eastern Palestine where the sins of a tribe would be piled on a goat and sent to die of thirst and the tribe would be forgiven " the positively immoral doctrine that abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend. Further, I"m told that I must have a share in this human sacrifice even though it happened long before I was born. I had no say in it or wasn"t consulted it was happening " in fact I would have tried my best to stop the public torture and execution of an eccentric preacher.

The evidence in the universe leads to other likely rational explanations compared to the wishful, irrational, delusional myths of modern religion. There is no reason to believe in the totalitarian beliefs of religion; it"s the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority that can convict you of thought crime whilst you"re asleep. Who must subject you to a total surveillance around the clock, every waking second of your life, and not only that, before you"re born, and better still " after you die, for an eternity! It"s literally a celestial North Korea, who wants this to be true, who but a slave to blind faith. North Korea has a dead president for its state; Kim Jong-Un is only head of the party not of the military or government state, which belongs to his dead grandfather, Kim Il-Sung. It"s a necrocracy, a fanatocracy, it"s one short of a trinity, it is the most revolting, disgusting and heartless tyranny the human species has ever evolved.

But at least I can die and leave North Korea.
calebblader

Con

are u dumb he is real I bet everyone agrees with me
Debate Round No. 1
PlethorA

Pro

PlethorA forfeited this round.
calebblader

Con

calebblader forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
PlethorA

Pro

PlethorA forfeited this round.
calebblader

Con

calebblader forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PlethorA

Pro

PlethorA forfeited this round.
calebblader

Con

calebblader forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
PlethorA

Pro

PlethorA forfeited this round.
calebblader

Con

calebblader forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by PlethorA 4 years ago
PlethorA
@reddebater

Pro - god doesn't exist, religion is immoral
Posted by RedDebater 4 years ago
RedDebater
What exactly is the Pro and Con's stance in this debate? I'm interested as well, but I'm a bit confused as to what you're arguing. Your opening is simply an intellectual rant against religion.
Posted by radicalpotato 4 years ago
radicalpotato
I've never actually been involved in a debate on this site, but I'd be interested in accepting. Are you looking for a more experienced debater, or would you be willing to admit my acceptance?
Posted by PlethorA 4 years ago
PlethorA
@Devil - what resolution?

@luisthe Just because we don't know doesn't mean that answering it with a bigger mystery is a good qualification for an answer, 'god' doesn't have any explanatory power.

@Mikal Not worried about objective morality - everyone that I have debated against accepts evolution - if you don't I'm not sure what reason or evidence I'm going to be able to provide to claim against people who don't value reason and evidence in the first place, creationists.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
What is the resolution.
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 4 years ago
Luisthebraziliancowboy
Another argument that will arise is the fact that science does not have a widely-accepted, truly-plausible reason for the creation of the universe.
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
I am entirely atheist, and was almost going to play advocate but I will let someone who is a true con have it.

The biggest challenge you will run into is the morality argument, and theistic evolution. A lot of Christians are starting to accept evolution and other facts, and just molding their belief to fit science. It makes it impossible to debate in some cases.
No votes have been placed for this debate.