The Instigator
drthrax
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
countzander
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Religion Is Man-Made.

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 2 votes the winner is...
countzander
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,107 times Debate No: 37959
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (2)

 

drthrax

Pro

I don't believe that religion is God's work,I think it is a man-made, concept to control masses.
RULES
1-Opponent must never take their scripture(Qur'an,Bible,...) as evidence for anything.
2-Opponent must use rational, and logical arguments.
3-First round is for acceptance only
4-Opponent must never use personal experince as evidence.
5-Opponent must provide evidence for every idea he/she mentions.
countzander

Con

I accept your challenge. Please provide evidence demonstrating that religion was created by humankind.
Debate Round No. 1
drthrax

Pro

We have 20 different, major religions,and each religion has different sects built into it,each claiming it holds the absolute truth concerning life and it's meaning. All these religions share a lot of common ground, which is something very normal because the ideology of doing the right thing, has be proved to inspire and give people trust, so it is not a holly, or amazing thing if you see any religion calling for peace, and for doing what is right.
Now Islam contradicts Christianity on it's most major event which is the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and vice versa. Now both Islam and Christianity contradict the whole concept of the Buddhist belief that there is no God, and so on the whole concepts contradicts each other even with smallest details .So to settle this whole thing up rationally, I only see these 3 solutions concerning religion:
1-All are true
2-Only one is true
3-No one is true
1-As said before these theories(religion) contradict each other so badly even with the smallest details, and these small details can be used as evidence, because scriptures claim that it is the word of God written in these books, and God can't be mistaken even with the smallest details,therefore we can definitely be sure to say that they are not all true.

2-Only one is true is not the case, because even if it turned out to be, that one specific religion is proved to be true, then the God this religion holds, will be considered a lame,unequal,not-fair God,because each person born with another religion will not be expected at all to switch religion, and what is considered right in a specific religion,may be wrong in the other,so God will be unfair,and I don't that the God concept will treat people unequally.

3-Well, all theories are logically not true, but this one,seem to fit to be the true one, or in other words religion is a man made phenomena in order to maintain some control over an uncontrollable society, with making them fear something that people cant find an answer to, or some other own self-advantages, or the person is psychologically ill.

History holds the biggest evidence that religion is man made, because human beings holding our physical shape,and brain inhabited the planet for 200,000 years now,I don't think God now decided to intervene, and in such a way. When religions were created,we see that societies were full of chaos,so inventing a book that will control masses, with the ultimate force of the unseen God that is always watching,seemed a very smart idea to do the job, and the complexity of these book's literature doesn't hold any suspicious thought to me, especially when it was the golden age of literature and writing at their time.
I bet that if Hamorabe who succeeded in building a code to control his society before religion,claimed that these codes are being sent from God to his society, through him,we would have a religion that is related to Hamorabe till our days, but he didn't, even though it was an easy task knowing that people were stupid 3,000 years ago.
countzander

Con

The assertion is "Religion is man-made" and so the burden of proof has fallen upon Pro, who has already provided evidence for the claim. In order to refute the assertion, it is both necessary and sufficient to demonstrate the weakness of the supporting points. However, it is not my goal to demonstrate that religion is divine in origin, only that the assertion in question is likely false.

Due to character limitations, ellipsis and brackets have been inserted where appropriate.

Now, for the points.

Point 1: We have 20 different, major religions,and each religion has different sects built into it, each claiming it holds the absolute truth concerning life and it's meaning. [...]

Rebuttal 1: First, there are not necessarily 20 different "major" religions. According to the World Factbook, published by the Central Intelligence Agency, there are not more than 13 "major" religions. However, this is a only minor point, as the number varies depending upon who is counting. (http://www.adherents.com...)
Second, it is true that many religions seem to say the same basic things, but that is only in terms of morality. The other aspects of their theologies are wildly different, as any superficial or even deeper foray into religious studies will reveal. Again, this point is minor.

Point 2: Now Islam contradicts Christianity on it's most major event which is the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and vice versa. [...]

Rebuttal 2: Christianity and Islam do contradict concerning the Crucifixion, but this does not make them mutually exclusive. There are interpretations of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, that allow for any monotheist, regardless of particular religious affiliation, to fall into the good graces of Allah, the God of Islam. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Likewise, though few in number, there are Christians who believe that the Christian religion is not the only path to salvation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
The final claim, that Buddhism teaches that there is no divine, is irrelevant, as Buddhism does not claim exclusivity with other religions. According to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama: "People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend." (http://www.zenit.org...)

---

The three solutions that Pro has set up are a sort of false trilemma. There is a fourth option. It is possible that all three of the religions are true but that people have have misinterpreted the religions as being exclusive. As Pro himself has said, morality is common ground that many religions share. If the main goal then is simply being a good person, there is no real contradiction between religions.

Point 3: [False trilemma point 1]

Rebuttal 3: In violation of rule 5, Pro has failed to provide evidence for this claim. There has been no evidence presented that either the Bible or Quran contains a claim such as "God can't be mistaken." (Buddhism is nontheistic, so its sacred works are not from any deity, meaning the nonexistent claim cannot be found. Unless Pro means to intentionally exclude Buddhism from the false trilemma.) Until evidence is presented, nullius in verba.

Furthermore, it cannot be concluded, based upon the first point in the false trilemma, that all three religions are false simply because there are alleged contradictions. Ignoring the fact that Buddhism has been excluded for some reason, it is possible that the holy books have been misinterpreted and that Islam and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Hinduism , for example, teaches that all religions lead to the truth. (http://www.religionfacts.com...) Compare with Bahá'í's similar claim: (http://en.wikipedia.org...(Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD)

Point 4: [False trilemma point 2]

Rebuttal 4: In violation of rule 4, Pro has used personal sentiment in his point. Actually, this is quite convenient for me; subjective repulsion is not an argument. There is no reason why God has to be considered fair by Pro's personal estimation. It is possible that one religion is true and that many people are just unfortunate to have been born outside that religion. (Take into consideration John Calvin's Christian theology of predestination.) Perceived fairness or unfairness is irrelevant. The truth of a claim is not contingent upon whether a person likes it.

Point 5: [False trilemma point 3]

Rebuttal 5: In violation of rule number 5, Pro has failed to provide evidence for these claims, which sound more like speculation than sound points. Nullius in verba. No evidence has been presented demonstrating that religion was created in order to control people. No evidence has been presented demonstrating that religion was created in order to scare people. No evidence has been presented that religion was founded by persons with ulterior motives. No evidence has been presented that persons of faith suffer from a psychological illness. (I apologize, for my opponent, to all members of the spiritual and religious community.)

False trilemma points 1-2 do not constitute convincing evidence for the claim "Religion is man-made." As I have shown, the points do not conclusively demonstrate that religion is man-made. False trilemma point 3 is speculation, as no evidence was presented for its claims.

---

Point 6: History holds the biggest evidence that religion is man made. [...]

Rebuttal 6: First, in repeated violation of rule 4, Pro has again inserted personal sentiment. An autonomous deity could intervene whenever it wanted; it doesn't matter whether a person thinks the timing is inappropriate. On the contrary, it could be argued that the alleged intervention was quite punctual, for humans seem to be the only animals capable of conceptualizing spirituality.
Second, Pro has committed a fallacy of assumption. (http://books.google.com...) Using the phrase, "When religion was created..." he assumes the truth of the conclusion. Or maybe the point is in reference to when humans became religious, not when they supposedly created religion. Still, the point is fallacious, for it assumes that humans became religious. Based on available evidence, we do not know when or if humans became religious, only when they began engaging in religious practices. (http://www.archaeologyuk.org...) But engaging in a religious practice is not tantamount to possessing religious belief, and the existence of religious thought would necessarily predate physical evidence of the belief. After all, in order to do something voluntarily, it is necessary to first conceptualize the action and its reasons. How much of a duration was there between religious thought and religious action? If the duration was large, if humans possessed religious ideas shortly after receiving the appropriate neurological wiring, then it is not unreasonable to say that humans have been religious since time immemorial. If there was no definite time at which humans developed religious belief, if religiosity gradually developed as a product of evolution, then there was no definite time when humans became religious. Thus, humans never intentionally created religion, just as humans never intentionally created society itself.

Hammurabi did believe that his laws were divinely inspired. [http://en.wikipedia.org... (Click go to page 27)]

Our ancestors weren't stupid. Have you seen the Pyramids at Giza???
Debate Round No. 2
drthrax

Pro

Dear Con,in a formal debate,or especially in these type type of debates,the burden of proof falls on both of us,unless your only target is to prove me wrong,with you having no point to defend,so debates as you know is the action of give, and take, and the action of presenting arguments, and ideas so that both contenders can share thoughts, and present wise ideas.
Now in this round I'm going to respond to each point you mentioned:

Point 1: We have 20 different, major religions,and each religion has different sects built into it, each claiming it holds the absolute truth concerning life and it's meaning. [...]

you commented on the number of major religions in this world,although you know it is 100% irrelevant to the point I was making in my statement,so mentioning it as a major point is lame, and useless, because you know that the point I was making in this statement has nothing to do with the number, but anyway for you to get over this point, I'm going to mention those 20 major religions so we could focus on what is really important in this debate and not deteriorate it's value
-the 20 major, different religions are(Christianity,Secular,Judaism,Islam,Buddhism,Agnostic,Atheist,Hinduism,Unitarian Universalist,Pagan,Spiritualist,Native American Religion,Baha'i,New Age,Sikhism,Scientology,Humanist,Deity (Deist),Taoist,Eckankar)

Point 2:Now Islam contradicts Christianity on it's most major event which is the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and vice versa. [...]

If Islam states that no Crucifixion occurred in history, and the Christianity state that Crucifixion happened and it is the greatest event in history, that doesn't make them mutually exclusive ?.If you want to get deeper,just to come with minor points just to say that they don't contradict each other, then I must say that, there is a Christian philosophy that considers Christianity as a polytheistic religion, so that is your contradiction right there, with the Islamic fact that state that Monotheism is the only true concept.
Concerning "Buddhism teaches that there is no divine"that you saw irrelevant,is completely relevant,because I didn't say that Buddhism considers other wrong,but I said Islam, and Christianity consider Buddhism not true because is doesn't have a divine.

Point 3: [False trilemma point 1]

If you want evidence that religion's God can't be mistaken then you lowered the quality of this debate with such sentence, and seem as if you want to speak just to sound smart,so you should focus on commenting on the major ideas in this debate.
And since Buddhism suggests that all religions lead to truth, then it holds the definition of contradiction, because they are never mutually exclusive,and the biggest evidence that you agreed that they contradict with the event of Crucifixion,so mentioning that point makes the concept wrong itself.

Now commenting on what follows,I mentioned why I think it is man made, but my opponent just stated what is wrong in my writings, mentioning small details just to stick to the rules, even though he didn't state anything, regarding why he thinks it is not man made, so following his type of logic will be a proof of knowing that if he mentions any point, the contradiction to this point will be very easy to anyone to figure.
No one said that everything is perfect, everyone should know that evidence is this debate is logic, rational thoughts, and common sense, because you know no one can ever bring evidence for the Crucifixion event, or any supernatural, historical events claimed by religions, so I challenge you to provide one evidence that religion is not man made just to prove to you how easy it is going to be for me to spot the wrong ideas in you speech.
And if my claims concerning why history is the biggest evidence why religion is man made is not logical ,so you just don't want to see the direct answer, and you see want to spoil the debate,I mean if I say I know that there is flying pigs some where in the world,and I told you to give me your proof ,that they don't exist,that would be lame,and childish, the comments your mentioning is that petty, so either you want to see what is direct or just get into loops to prove yourself right even though you still didn't mention any point yet.
countzander

Con

Dear Con,in a formal debate,or especially in these type type of debates,the burden of proof falls on both of us,unless your only target is to prove me wrong,with you having no point to defend,so debates as you know is the action of give, and take, and the action of presenting arguments, and ideas so that both contenders can share thoughts, and present wise ideas.

It seems as if Pro does not understand how a debate works. It is sufficient for one person to rebut another's assertion without providing a unique assertion of his own. The burden of proof rests upon the person making the assertion. Pro has asserted that religion is man-made and thus the burden of proof falls upon him and only him. Had I asserted, "Religion was created by God," or something to that effect, then, true, we would both share the burden of proof. Fortunately, I have made no assertion. My only responsibility then is to show why Pro is wrong and thus reaffirm the neutral position: It is not known whether religion is man-made.

If someone were to argue that he was born on Mars, it would not be necessary for his opponent to demonstrate that he was born someplace else. It would be sufficient to simply refute the pseudo-Martian's points and thus reach the conclusion that the pseudo-Martian was not born on Mars. His exact birthplace could be the subject of another debate.

Point 7: you commented on the number of major religions in this world,although you know it is 100% irrelevant to the point I was making in my statement,so mentioning it as a major point is lame, and useless, because you know that the point I was making in this statement has nothing to do with the number, but anyway for you to get over this point, I'm going to mention those 20 major religions so we could focus on what is really important in this debate and not deteriorate it's value
-the 20 major, different religions are(Christianity,Secular,Judaism,Islam,Buddhism,Agnostic,Atheist,Hinduism,Unitarian Universalist,Pagan,Spiritualist,Native American Religion,Baha'i,New Age,Sikhism,Scientology,Humanist,Deity (Deist),Taoist,Eckankar)

Rebuttal 7: (Everyone should notice that the list contains no reference to any sources external to Pro's own opinion of what a religion supposedly is. The list has been created in absence of any demonstrated rationale, a repeated violation of rule 5.) Agnosticism, atheism, "secular," humanism, and deism are not religions. The absence of religion is not religion, just as baldness is not a hair color. The New Age movement is a spiritual movement, so it's not even mutually exclusive with spiritualism. Furthermore, spiritualism is not identical to religiosity. (Hence the term "spiritual but not religious.") "Paganism" refers to all non-Abrahamic religions, usually indigenous. It is not mutually exclusive with the Native American religions. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Where is Zoroastrianism? The religion has almost three million adherents... Why is Taoism mentioned but not Confucianism or Shintoism???

The number of religions is irrelevant. The claim is that religion is man-made. Pro has failed to demonstrate how the number of religions leads credibility to his assertion. It is like saying, "There are a lot of races. Therefore, race is man-made." In absence of a given reason, number is irrelevant.

Point 7: If Islam states that no Crucifixion occurred in history, and the Christianity state that Crucifixion happened and it is the greatest event in history, that doesn't make them mutually exclusive ?.If you want to get deeper,just to come with minor points just to say that they don't contradict each other, then I must say that, there is a Christian philosophy that considers Christianity as a polytheistic religion, so that is your contradiction right there, with the Islamic fact that state that Monotheism is the only true concept.
Concerning "Buddhism teaches that there is no divine"that you saw irrelevant,is completely relevant,because I didn't say that Buddhism considers other wrong,but I said Islam, and Christianity consider Buddhism not true because is doesn't have a divine.

Rebuttal 7: Christianity has been interpreted as saying, "Believing in Jesus and being a good a person are sufficient for salvation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Islam has been interpreted as saying, "Believing in God and being a good person are sufficient for salvation." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) An individual can believe in both God and Jesus and live a good life, satisfying the soteriological requirements of both religions at the same time. Therefore, the religions are not mutually exclusive.
(It seems as if Con does not understand what mutually exclusivity is. The term means that two particular contradictory positions cannot both be true, not that the positions are in 100% agreement.) (http://www.mathsisfun.com...)

I don't see how the last statement on Buddhism has anything to do with my respective rebuttal in round 2. Con made no mention of Buddhism's nontheism in the last round; he argued only that the sacred texts contradict each other. I responded that the alleged contradictions are irrelevant because it is possible the texts have been misinterpreted. (It wasn't long ago, after all, when people thought the Bible supported racism.) In this round, Con has made the seemingly off-topic response aforementioned in point 7.

Point 8: If you want evidence that religion's God can't be mistaken then you lowered the quality of this debate with such sentence, and seem as if you want to speak just to sound smart,so you should focus on commenting on the major ideas in this debate.
And since Buddhism suggests that all religions lead to truth, then it holds the definition of contradiction, because they are never mutually exclusive,and the biggest evidence that you agreed that they contradict with the event of Crucifixion,so mentioning that point makes the concept wrong itself.

Rebuttal 8: Con has admitted to his violation of rule 5. He is unable to provide evidence is support of the claim "God cannot be mistaken." Nullius in verba.

Con does not seem to understand the difference between contradiction and mutual exclusivity. Buddhism can be true in regards to other religions. Other religions can also be true at the same time, if they have been misinterpreted relative to Buddhism's claim. Any contradictions are only alleged until reconciliation of passages is demonstrated to be impossible.

"Point" 9: Now commenting on what follows,I mentioned why I think it is man made. [...]

Rebuttal 9: The ninth point contains no argument.

Within the Royal Society in London, England, the members have a pet saying: "Nullius in verba," Lain for "On nobody's word." It is official policy within the society that, during debates, no member is allowed to share his opinion, whatever he thinks is true. Anything a member says must be verified through either experimental evidence or external citation. Con has failed to do this. By his own admission, the only evidence needed is logic and "common sense." Realize the irony. He has made statements which are explicitly false and illogical. He has claimed, among other false things, that secularism is a religion and that Hammurabi claimed no divine inspiration. He has fabricated a false trilemma; he has committed several fallacies. He has repeatedly violated the the rules of a debate that he himself started. Worse of all, he has the audacity to accuse me of not presenting an argument, in sheer ignorance of what a debate is.
Debate Round No. 3
drthrax

Pro

Opponent fails to present his case,he just rebuttals,and he do know that 4 rounds are not suppose to be just a rebuttal task.
No further debate.
countzander

Con

In summary I have rebutted and, I believe, refuted all of Pro's points. Of course, he made it easy. His two mains points are (1) that the only solution to a trilemma is that religion is man-made and (2) that history demonstrates that religion is man-made. Both points were founded upon fallacious reasoning. I refuted point one by simply demonstrating that there is a fourth option and that the trilemma is therefore false. (I also could have mentioned that "false" is not equivalent to "made up": people can be mistaken about information without fabricating it. But I digress.) Point two was more convoluted, but error by its own arms is best evinced. Many of the supporting points were asserted without supporting evidence, including logic. Those I dismissed because they violated the rules of the debate listed in round 1. Other supporting points were blatantly false; those were also dismissed. Thew one or two sounds points were rebutted.
It is important to note that Pro completely ignored my strongest arguments, such as the second paragraph in my round 2 rebuttal and my rebuttal to point 7 (second 7, forgive the numbering error) in round 3.

Finally, Pro accuses me of "not debating right." He thinks that, in a debate, it is necessary for both sides to present an argument. Well, he's right, actually. He simply fails to realize that everything I've said is an argument, an argument of refutation. (It's the purple section. http://en.wikipedia.org...) My implicit position is "It is unknown whether religion is man-made." In order to defend that claim, I simply needed to refute any claim to the contrary, which I did.
Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
I knew you didn't know what you're talking about.
Posted by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
I'll ask again.

(1) Are there any scholarly sources demonstrating that people can suffer from joint hallucinations influenced by suggestion? If so, provide them.

(2) Are there any gas leaks around Ur? Are there any hallucinogens that Abraham could have ingested?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
The Evidence is in the Bible that Abraham had visions of and spoke with God, since the only people in recent times who have the same experience are from Hallucinations, then it is quite possible that Abraham was the same. Though we cannot test people living 5000 years ago, we can deduce from symptoms.
For instance, the many descriptions Joan of Arc gave of her experience has demonstrated it very likely, over 90% likely that she was suffering hallucinations.
The likelihood for Abraham suffering a hallucination, is around 60%, since there are few accounts of his possible hallucinations apart from what is written in the Bible.
All such experiences are most likely from Hallucination, there has never been anybody found who actually talks or visualizes a real god. All are hallucinatory.

Scientifically: No God Has Been Proven To Exist.
Experiences Like Abraham's are Mainly Hallucinatory, The Only Other Explanation Is Deliberately Deceiving People For The Purpose of Usurping.
Which is Worse:
1: Abraham The Visionary With Hallucinations.
2: Abraham The Confidence Trickster Telling Lies.
Take Your Pick?
I believe 1 is the best choice for your case.
Because 2 means you are still being Conned by this Devious Usurper.

The Assumption (yours) that Abraham saw and spoke to a real God, cannot be considered as Scientifically probable.
So you only have those two options.
Posted by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
Yes, you do need to prove Abraham suffered hallucinations. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Since you made the assertion, you need to back it up. A mere possibility is not proof. It's possible that Abraham didn't suffer a hallucination.
You say other people have already proved it, but I'm not going to take your word for it. Where are the citations?

I'll ask again.

(1) Are there any scholarly sources demonstrating that people can suffer from joint hallucinations influenced by suggestion? If so, provide them.

(2) Are there any gas leaks around Ur? Are there any hallucinogens that Abraham could have ingested?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I don't need to prove Abraham suffered hallucinations, Neurologists, Psychologists and even Anthropologists have made such analysis of the stories of Abraham.
I've even pointed to some references where they make this as a possibility.

So I've shown that it is a possibility that Abraham suffered hallucinations.
A possibility you cannot possibly deny, no matter how silly your comments get.
So far they are getting quite ridiculous.
Yes, the burden is on you to prove that the possibility that Abraham suffered hallucinations is wrong.

Something you have indeed failed to achieve.
If I was you, I'd give up while some credibility exists.
They way you are arguing, you are losing credibility rapidly!

Capiche!
Posted by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
The burden of proof rest upon you to demonstrate that Abraham suffered a hallucination, but you have failed to do this. Earlier, when asked to provide evidence, you responded, non sequitur, by saying Abraham didn't exist.

But we can go back. Answer this questions, or I will conclude that you do not know what you're talking about.

(1) Are there any scholarly sources demonstrating that people can suffer from joint hallucinations influenced by suggestion? If so, provide them.

(2) You have provided no evidence demonstrating that there were gas leaks in Mesopotamia or the Levant, around the time Abraham supposedly lived. I know there was one in Greece near the Oracle, but Abraham received his first vision at Ur, far away from Greece. Are there any gas leaks around Ur?

Unless you can answer those questions, this hallucination nonsense can be dismissed on the grounds of nonexistent evidence.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually, if we come across a stone inscription that stated that Abraham was crazy, then my case would then be supported.
But, that is also quite unlikely.
My concept (in fact the concept of some high level neurologists) that Abraham may have had hallucinations that created his concept of God, stands as Valid, until somebody can prove it isn't.
That is very scientific.
All concepts and theories are refutable, only those wishing to refute them, must supply the evidence that refutes them.
So the ball is in your court!
Supply sufficient verifiable evidence or simply Shut Up and accept the validity of my quite scientific Concept.
Aye!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I'm not saying my position is totally irrefutable!
Now you are going overboard.
I'm simply stating that current evidence cannot refute my position.
Maybe some day, evidence may arise that will defeat my position.
But, since it was so long ago, that is extremely unlikely.

I may be defeated, but, nobody has the evidence to do it at the moment.

Capiche! |':-D~
Posted by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
:/

If your position is irrefutable, then it isn't scientific. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

What part of my summary is wrong? You never even rebutted it. You just said it was wrong because I want to be right.

Go back down and read the conversation again. I asked for evidence suggesting how Abraham could have suffered a hallucination. You said Abraham didn't exist. You dropped the point. If you were right, why were you unable to provide a reason?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
The concept that Abraham's god was a product of a hallucination will always remain Valid.
Regardless of your Irrational refutations.
Nobody can prove my concept Wrong.
Many far greater thinkers and theologians have tried.
They failed.
You have no hope of proving me Wrong.
Ever
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com...
Enjoy :-D8
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by the_arbiter 3 years ago
the_arbiter
drthraxcountzanderTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't necessarily agree with either side; my opinion was unchanged. Con had better conduct since Pro violated his own rules. Con used better spelling and grammar; Pro's writing was difficult to read. Con's arguments were more convincing; Pro committed some fallacies. Pro did not use any sources.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 3 years ago
Sojourner
drthraxcountzanderTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con as Pro violated his own rules. Arguments to Con for effectively identifying and refuting the false trilemma. Sources to Con as Pro had none.