The Instigator
TheFurryOat
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Siege
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Pure religion contradicts rights.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 641 times Debate No: 35242
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

TheFurryOat

Pro

Religion, in this case, the belief of God, requires abstainment from personal choices, as such it binds the world-view of any who practice, the choice of religion also negates the choice of rights, because of this religion is inconsistent with humanistic values and in turn proves plainly what was already known.

Definitions:

God: The set that contains the beliefs and is implied by beliefs.
As in: Abrahamic God has as elements Christianity, Islamic religion, and Judaism.

Religion: The system containing a belief that proves another belief, has a belief containing every other belief, a belief that is unique and contains only itself and the total set of beliefs have a finite cardinality.


Rights: Replace and identify with objective morals.

I await your response.
Siege

Con

I accept. State your case.
Debate Round No. 1
TheFurryOat

Pro

TheFurryOat forfeited this round.
Siege

Con

I'll forfeit to allow my opponent to state his case.
Debate Round No. 2
TheFurryOat

Pro

I have set the round limit too low to properly allow any room for actual debating, I apologize and hope that, once again, we can debate this. Seige, I apologize and say that I really really really really want to debate you on this topic.(really do in fact) I ask for one more debate on this, this time I will set my alarm clock so I don't miss my rounds.

My argument in a nutshell is that because rules are defined as belonging to a form of government opposite of anarchy, they must be restrictive. Because of this, any rule that prohibits a person from choosing a reaction outside of a set of rules is considered to be breaking those rules. Rules set up a system that within in it contains how a situation should be seen.

If we look at the Greeks, we see a leniency towards pedophilia, it was the law that if a man slept with a male prostitute who had gone beyond puberty, then he and the prostitute would be sent to trial for violating the rules. Anyone male not having surpassed puberty was legally allowed to sell their body for the highest bidder[1]. Though these were looked down upon in ancient Greece, they were not uncommon, nor unheard of. I mention this example to show the shifting rules across the globe. It is my hope in this debate to first establish that rules present boundaries, that religion presents boundaries, that religion gives rules, and because boundaries are restrictive on anyone wanting to go outside of them, prevents action. It is not my goal to say that religion is against choice, only that religion may detour choice.

I ask that may opponent accept my apology for my lack of punctuality in presenting my arguments and in turn, accept a debate in the future on this subject. Thank you.



[1] http://www.topix.com...
Siege

Con

Siege forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
I am sorry for missing the second round, I will work to be more punctual.
No votes have been placed for this debate.