The Instigator
o0jeannie0o
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Religion, Opponent chooses topic and states their side. Atheists or Christians welcome.

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 1 vote the winner is...
o0jeannie0o
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 647 times Debate No: 65920
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

o0jeannie0o

Con

First round is to state topic (religion based), what side you are on, and make your first arguments.

Formal grammar and spelling does not matter as long as its literate and adds something to the argument. 5000 characters, 24H, must be about religion.

For Christians:
Bible is not a credible source for reasoning your argument. There is no "because the bible said it that's why". Quoting the bible is acceptable.

For Atheists:
No arguments aimed specifically at Christianity such as: "your bible isn't moral". I am a wiccan and I probably agree with you.

For voters
Forfeits can be counted as loss of conduct points, Try to be lenient with spelling and grammar.

Example of the first round as people apparently think this is too confusing:

(topic) There is no proof for god. (By an atheist opponent)

(arguments)
- Most people believe in a man made religion,
- God has never shown himself
-No physical evidence
-Etc

It would be my job to argue these points.
Mike_10-4

Pro

I claim to be on the Christian side. I believe in God. I'm not religious, too much man-made ritual stuff. I believe God created the universe and everything in it. I will prove physical evidence of morality, the thread that runs through the tapestry of all Godliest beliefs, throughout the ages, and in all cultures according to recorded history. For not one historical culture was found to be atheistic.

Since I believe God created the Cosmos and everything in it, which includes the Laws of Nature. Therefore, the Laws of Nature is the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting.

For atheists and those of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.).

My connection with God is morality. Morality is an outgrowth of Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, Morality is part of the physical Laws of God's Nature, not man-made.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com...

Thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy flow. Constructal Law deals with patterns and systems generated by this energy flow as a function of optimization relative to resistance, in the evolution of biology, physics, technology and social organization. At the biological level once alive, “Life,” must have the freedom (“Liberty” or optimization relative to resistance), in “the pursuit (energy flow) of ” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Thomas Jefferson's discovery, which he declared “self-evident” and used the labeled Unalienable Rights representing a polished version of this biological energy flow in the following celebrated statement, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights in group formation. The binary values of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights of the members within the group. Goodwill promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

The empirical evidence of the diversity of language and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates the universality of morality in group formation.

Morality simply refers to the binary state of Right or Wrong. These states generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the spectrum of life in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-specie relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.

Another empirical data point is relative to the US Constitution being the first configuration of government, in recorded history, with the sole purpose to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government; no more, no less. The state governments did all the rest. As a result, the US changed the world like no other social system in recorded history in a short 200 year period, by the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example when our Unalienable Rights are free to flow with minimal resistance (Constructal Law) within the awesome machinery of God's Nature.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg3Xzh2cXD8

Debate Round No. 1
o0jeannie0o

Con

Well, I wasn’t expecting such a formal opponent, in fact its a bit hard for me to understand. If I understand my opponent correctly they are attempting to say that belief of god and morality are connected. He states that morality must be connected to religion because moral traditions are passed down and all societies started out religious societies as well as morals being passed down through use of scientific laws

Morals are passed down with religious tradition.
We abandon religious morals in the place of new ones each day. Most people do not think being homosexual is an abomination let alone think you can sell your daughter for a goat. That being said every religion is different but there are a few things that have changed in all. Around the time of the bible other religions where sprouting yet none saw women as people.

Example of changes:

The bible said:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13 http://biblehub.com...

Today: "There is no contradiction between being Christian and being gay,"
http://www.christianpost.com...

OR:"The ridiculousness of using Leviticus to condemn ANYTHING is simply in looking at what in the world the Book of Leviticus condemns" http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Thermodynamics , constructional law, and life are proof of moral connections
I believe you are stating that since you believe in god, and you can see connections between these laws, leading up to morality, you can find morality Godly. (assuming your statement actually makes sense)
Thing is God did not make the law of thermodynamics if you don’t accept that god created the universe. The law of thermodynamics along with the rest of your statement rely on the perspective that god either made the universe in 7 days or caused the big bang creating all the laws. If you don’t believe that god did either of theses things, and cant prove that he did, then your conclusion is a moot point.

Animals have morality because of feedback

Id like to quote my opponent:

“Morality simply refers to the binary state of Right or Wrong. These states generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the spectrum of life in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-specie relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.”

I believe that saying animals have the moral stance of right and wrong is disproving the “religion made morals” bulk of your argument. You see animals do not have religion. Never have you seen an animal take part in prayer, ritual sacrifice, or any other traditions. If animals have the ability to determine “morals” through the use of positive or negative feedback why cant humans? We are highly intelligent especially compared to a school of fish.

Because America!

Your last point and Source is a video of Bono speaking of faith building the idea of America. Bono is the Irish (!!) philanthropic singer of U2. Not only is Bono not an expert on this “idea” but the idea is group of people. A group of people isn’t an idea nor does it make up all of America. America is made up of many people and many ideas (some of which are not religious at all yet somehow have morals). Its founded by a realization of freedom and religious acceptance. This doesn’t prove anything other then people have morals which is not in question.

http://www.imdb.com...

Mike_10-4

Pro

Well, I wasn't expecting such a formal opponent, in fact its a bit hard for me to understand.”

Thank you Con for those kind words, where I regret to say I failed in conveying my argument relative to Con's response. Many confuse morality as being some form of religious values, where morality is the instrument---a Law in Nature, which is responsible for creating all sets of values.

Morality is not a “religion,” it is simply a binary state of positive-feedback (moral) or negative-feedback (immoral) relative to another's Unalienable Rights. In a group, morality is the agent, the genesis, the cause, during the evolution of traditions, beliefs, language, etc, the norms of society that defines a group and keeps a group together.

Here is a simple example of a group of two, that is, my pet dog and I. When I come home from work my pet dog is happy to see me by the wag of his tail, a lick on the cheek, etc. That was a moral event, we both experienced positive-feedback. On the other hand, locking my dog in a car on a hot summer day with the windows shut, is an immoral event, for my pet will experience negative-feedback in the final moments of his life. As a result, the group of two has died. If I was successful by sharing this example, both Con and the ones who review this debate, will also sense the moral result of positive- and negative-feedback. Morality is part of the foundation in communicating feelings, for we are alone in sharing our experience in completeness.

In the dog example, there was no reference to religion or any bible stuff. My efforts are focus on reading God's handwriting, not man's scripture. God's handwriting is, the Laws of Nature because I believe God created everything, and the scientific method is a way to come to understand God's handwriting. My argument has nothing to do with religion or the bible. My belief is a very simple concept.

Of course Con will demand a proof of a God. To me God is just a feeling like love is a feeling, a positive-feedback feeling that is real to me when working with the Laws of Nature. When we discover and morally follow the Laws of Nature, God's handwriting, amazing things happen relative to technology, food production, medicine, etc. For example, the way I believe, the “invisible hand” in this short YouTube video, is the hand of God.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE

From that video, there are no human “masterminds,” just the “invisible hand” of God's handwriting via the moral spontaneous efforts of individuals, naturally organize into a complex order of economic activities. These activities, improve the standard of living, guided by morality, on the road to utopia.

In our modern age, the scientific method has become inseparable from human endeavor. Since Morality is an outgrowth of Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics, it should be a subject of study in a science class. Bringing the subject of morality into a classroom, will help improve the moral fabric, keeping a society civil. Today, morality is the issue relative to the civil state of affairs across the human family's social spectrum. I feel the scientific approach to morality, may yield the best chance of reducing or eliminating war during the social evolution of humanity. For the Laws of Nature---God's handwriting are omnipotent, for both animate and inanimate are confined within the matrix of these Laws, there are no exceptions.

As we used the Laws of Nature to go to the moon, it is time for humanity to use these Laws to crawl its way out of social darkness.
Debate Round No. 2
o0jeannie0o

Con

“Morality is not a “religion", it is simply a binary state of positive-feedback”

I agree and was with you up to the god part. (Yes you do need to prove that he “started this system”.) You say “gods handwriting” consists of the laws of nature. Why? Because you think so? Isnt it possible that this system started with something else other then god. Either a push we haven’t thought of or something science simply hasn’t found out yet. Why is this proof of god? Just because things are connected does not prove god's (or his handwriting's) existence.

using the logic of: "just because things have connections makes them come from some divine source" is absurd. For example: I am an animal. My dog is an animal. Animals are hard to make. They must come from the same factory. That sounds silly. Just because something is complex or difficult does not mean it is form a divine source. It just makes it cool.

The Invisible hand. (video source)

I enjoyed your video, but not for this debate. The Invisible hand metaphor is used in business and economics not religion. It is a simple business model of trading goods and services for other goods and services. Creating a pencil is not and end result, it is a middle. Every product, and person has a life cycle, things decay and are used up again this is not proof of god or his handwriting. It is proof of the nitrogen cycle and the intelligence of people. Passing a huge, impressive cycle like this off as the work of god is belittling the work of humans.

This model is not showing humans mortality, nor is it the road to utopia as you suggested. No one works or preforms these tasks because they should (or because of god), it has nothing to do with your morality argument. People work to survive. It is simple.

Further into your statement you say:

“ From that video, there are no human “masterminds,” just the “invisible hand” of God's handwriting via the moral spontaneous efforts of individuals, naturally organize into a complex order of economic activities. These activities, improve the standard of living, guided by morality, on the road to utopia.”

The video does state there are no masterminds. The thing is they are referring back to Adams economic philosophy and are clearly meaning “it is not government controlled” or it is not “monopolized” because it takes too much sources, from around the planet, to be fully monopolized. It is possible to monopolize these sources if someone where to rule the world, but they don’t, so they cant.

Adam Smith, creator of the invisible hand philosophy, an economics man. Religion insparation was never known, http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk...

Morality is science and students would benefit from it.
Psychology is considered a science and morality is a subject of psychology. Schools tend to teach it as a separate subject because it is a huge subject to learn and many people who are interested in physics are not particularly interested in people. Within the school system there is a variety of social sciences that are available to study. This adds nothing to the topic of religion.

In conclusion
In essence, for your argument to continue you must prove to me that gods handwriting (and therefore god) exists without restating that there are laws the universe follows. These laws are not proof of god and simply because you get the feeling he exists does not mean I do.
Mike_10-4

Pro

In Round 1, Con defined the following “arguments:”
“- Most people believe in a man made religion,
- God has never shown himself
- No physical evidence
- Etc

Most people believe in a man-made religion.” Again, as I [Pro] stated in Round 1, throughout recorded history, empirically, not one culture was found to be atheistic.

God has never shown himself.” Can one prove this event "never" happen? The answer is no. How does one know that God is a male, relative to the argument's reference of the term, “himself ?”

No physical evidence.” There is physical evidence found in the order and symmetry throughout the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God---the “invisible hand.” Not only did these Laws create life and humanity, their discovery, and moral application of these Laws, is food for the human imagination improving the standard of living on the road to utopia.

Etc.” The existence of God is simple, it is the event before the Big Bang. That event did happen. That is the definition of the God I found to be true via the handwriting of God---the Laws of Nature. That event made those Laws a reality. If I may, I'll describe this as my religion. To elaborate, “a man-made religion” for I am a man and my definition of God as the event before the Big Bang, where my religion is the ritual defined and excepted by the scientific community, that is, the scientific method. In my reality, that is my definition of God; hence, the proof of God.

For Con to argue otherwise, will most likely be based on man's written scriptures about God throughout the Dark Ages. It seems Con is trapped in past legends, where I [Pro], was trying to elevate this debate to the concept of God being the event that proceeded the Big Bang resulting in the handwriting of God---the Laws of Nature. This is proper for the debate, because Con did not define the term(s) of God. Therefore, the scope and concept of God transcends the human experience, for it is the event-identity before the Big Bang. An event that actually happened, for we are here; thank God!

As Albert Einstein once said, “When the solution is simple, God is answering.”
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
Debate Round No. 3
o0jeannie0o

Con

My opponent did not even read the first round.

Well this debate was clearly not a debate at all! My opponent has failed to even read the title of the debate. (this explains why I had NO idea what you where talking about)

I DID NOT define any of those arguments you had the intent of proving wrong (and no you still didn't).

The title of the debate was: "Religion, Opponent chooses topic and states their side. Atheists or Christians welcome." You (my opponent) DID NOT pick the topic as was the main idea. Instead you used my clearly stated example* (of what my opponent was expected to do during the first round) as the topic. In fact my first sentence was: "First round is to state topic (religion based), what side you are on, and make your first arguments."


* My example:

"example of the first round as people apparently think this is too confusing:


(topic) There is no proof for god. (By an atheist opponent)

(arguments)
- Most people believe in a man made religion,
- God has never shown himself
-No physical evidence
-Etc

It would be my job to argue these points."




My opponent still did not prove his points.

My opponent did not prove the points:

Why are the laws of nature obviously the handwriting of god? You keep saying that its "My definition of god" or "Since I believe God created the Cosmos and everything in it" and most recently "My connection with God is morality" . Your "beliefs" are meaningless to me. You could believe that you have a pet dragon. Without proof I do not believe that you have a pet dragon. I do not have any reason to believe in your god.

The simple fact that morality is your connection with god isn't an argument to any of my examples "I" outlined:

You did the work of recapping "my arguments" from the example:

"Most people believe in a man-made religion,
“God has never shown himself,

No physical evidence,
etc"

To that you essentially said "well how do you know" and skipped right to "etc".

A debater should know that an argument cannot be taken seriously if there are three topics and "etc". This should have made it clear that what you read was an example and not the actual debate.

I am sure I still made it clear in my arguments that people having morals isn't divine in any way no mater how many scientific links you throw in the middle of it.

"my definition of God is the event before the Big Bang"... "This is proper for the debate, because Con did not define the term(s) of God."

First off, Your definition of god is not proper for this debate as I did define the terms for god as implied. It was said that either a Christian or an atheist would take up this debate as said in my title, therefore it would be No god or the Christian god I would be dealing with. Not made up big bang god.

As for your definition of god, unfortunately that isn't what the event before the big bang is called nor is it what the definition of god is. There are many theories on what happened before the big bang. None of them include the universe is god. In fact its possible that nothing came before the big bang and nothing caused it. In that sense your god is nothing.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Definition of god:
God ɡäd/noun
noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods
1.
  1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
  2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Its up to the voters now. Hopefully they will see that the first round, the few rules or even the title where not read or followed. (In a world where they where followed I believe I still refuted your points.)

Ta Ta for now!





Mike_10-4

Pro

As predicted, Con is trapped in past legends of what a God is supposed to be.

I [Pro] had two choices to enter this debate, Christian or Atheist. I selected Christian, for the one thing I have in common with Christians is, the understanding that God created the universe. I shared my reality in the perception of God being the event-identity before the Big Bang. Con has a problem with my reality and seems to be in distressed over it. And in saying that, I'm sorry to upset Con's god-philosophy.

This is what debates are all about, the exchange of ideas in the evolution of knowledge.

In closing, I look forward in meeting Con again on the debating floor, and wish Con a long and healthy “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the Moralpursuit of Happiness.”
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
Just because you said you pick the Christian side does not make you a Christian. In fact your definition of god puts you against Christianity you didn't even use the Christians ideas of god to be on their side.

I asked to debate a Christian or atheist, you are neither.

I asked for the opponent to pick a religion based topic you did not.

I asked for proof, You gave none.
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
ooohhh blade,,, i have some ideas
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
I would try first come first serve guys
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
No holy text is a reliable source as a moral compass would be my argument.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
You'd seriously be willing to debate against someone who proposes the resolution: God doesn't exist? I'd be Pro on that and you'd have to prove God's existence. You down for that? It'd be a pretty huge burden on your part to provide the proof.
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
yes
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
Its not supposed to be specific. The opponent chooses the topic; it just has to be about religion. he can choose anything just by accepting, stating his narrowed down topic, what side he stands on, and his main arguments.

For example

There is no proof for god. (By an atheist opponent)
- Most people believe in a man made religion,
- God has never shown himself
-No physical evidence
-Etc
It would be my job to argue his points.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
This debate is confusing. . .

We get to choice what side, and you are arguing against whatever the opponent choices?
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
I don't get this debate, there is no specific resoultion
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by IvenMartin 2 years ago
IvenMartin
o0jeannie0oMike_10-4Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were irrelevant.