The Instigator
Dmetal
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
jhate12345
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Religion has no explanatory power

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,211 times Debate No: 14634
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

Dmetal

Pro

In this debate, my opponent must be able to demonstrate that religion (any of his/her choosing, probably Christianity) does have explanatory power: that it can demonstrate why x is the case (x can any morality, any religious teaching).
If I say that humans came out of Africa about 100,000 years ago, I have to demonstrate why that is true. I would use mDNA evidence along with fossil evidence. If a religion says that man is at the center of this universe, then it has to demonstrate why that is the case. The fact that we are not even at the center of our own solar system would show this is not the case.
I am under the conclusion right now that religion has no explanatory power because I cannot possibly research every segment of every religion; therefore, the onus is on my opponent to show religion's explanatory power.
I will wait for my opponent to pick a religion.
jhate12345

Con

i wish my opponent luck and would like to say first im not to sure what im debating am i debating to say that we came from a god or what? and define explanatory power?
Debate Round No. 1
Dmetal

Pro

Explanatory power is the ability to demonstrate why a certain proposition is the way it is. If you say that you believe that we were created by God, you have to show how your religious text explains it. In other words, how did God create humans? Do not just say that he did using magic because that is not an explanation.
If you cannot demonstrate your belief, then I win because you have failed to demonstrate your religion's explanatory power. Because I am unable to, and I have been unable to, find any religion that has any sort of explanatory power, I have concluded that religion has none. It is on you to show otherwise.
You may choose any religion. You can pick any claim out of any religious book. For example, the Bible speaks of Jesus' resurrection; however, it never goes into depth in explaining how he was resurrected, only that he did. I want explanations, not hearsay. Pick wisely because your claim must have an explanation. I made this 2 rounds too, so his is my last round. Voters remember that the onus is on him (those are the rules I set down for the debate. If my opponent dos not like it, then he should not have accepted the debate). I will make any rebuttals to his argument if necessary in the comments section.
jhate12345

Con

As my opponent believes religion has no explanatory power and my belief i christian. I do believe that god our christian god created us. First i doubt anyone could make up the bible its allot and theres alot of stuff. To say we were made out of thin air is possible because everything is created, Another look are the documents of the 972 dead sea scrolls that were found in caves. These scrolls gave proof that the bible was written when it was written and thoroughly explains alot and was similar. The world is not even old enough for us to have evolved through chance. 2 years ago a missionary (someone who goes around country's preaching about god) got arrested and sent to be executed. When they loaded there guns to shoot they all jammed up wen they tried to shoot him luck? i dont think so. believe it or not how do you think some people that survive do survive? because they have faith in god. Now you cant say "oh but what about the other Christians who died" mainly because in the bible it states, "There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light." Revelation 22:5 If you read or look up the meaning in the bible it basically means your time comes when your time comes. SO god obviously plans for people to die. If you believe in the big bang theory where something just exploded thats wrong. Where did the explosion come from. And youll probably think ok where did god come from the difference is god states hes is the begging and the end the big bang theory doesn't have a bible or anything. Look at the earth it is the perfect shape and the perfect distance form the sun so we dont experience extreme heat and just different temperatures. An explosion is an explosion the chances are low it could create a perfect sphere. Another reason i look at human cells, the DNA in our cells are made so complex and similar like CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT for each cell it has billions of these letters how can an explosion or something just create something so unique for each human cell. Look at all the other god like Buddha, Zeus and more they only claimed to be gods. They never once claimed mightier than any gods or God himself. But God did say he was mightier and he was the only god. God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. This is why i believe there is a God our Lord.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Pro, you give the example "The Bible explains that Jesus was resurrected, but not how..."

Two responses:

The authors were not writing for Post-enlightenment 21st century readers who were concerned about the process... it was written for 1st century readers who were more concerned about the results than the process.

How do you explain something that defies natural science... how to use finite words to explain the process that an infinite God used to do something impossible.

Your expectation of "explanatory power" is unreasonable and nonsensical.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"And youll probably think ok where did god come from the difference is god states hes is the begging and the end the big bang theory doesn't have a bible or anything."

As sad as that is, it is an argument and the only one present.
Posted by SurvivingAMethodology 6 years ago
SurvivingAMethodology
While I do not agree with Pro, Con did not adequately present a case either.

The thing is this statement "I am under the conclusion right now that religion has no explanatory power because I cannot possibly research every segment of every religion; therefore, the onus is on my opponent to show religion's explanatory power." by Pro is pretty weak. It amounts to "I don't have time/interest level to study theology, so explain it all to me right now"

I would gladly debate this issue with Pro if he could be more specific as well as add at least one more round.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Also, why would you attempt written debate if you cannot write? I could hardly comprehend anything con was even saying due to pitiful grammar/spelling.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Wow. Why accept the debate if you don't know what they are talking about?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by jhate12345 6 years ago
jhate12345
Dmetaljhate12345Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Dmetaljhate12345Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Dmetaljhate12345Tied
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:40 
Vote Placed by SurvivingAMethodology 6 years ago
SurvivingAMethodology
Dmetaljhate12345Tied
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:40 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Dmetaljhate12345Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Dmetaljhate12345Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Dmetaljhate12345Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40