The Instigator
blond_guy
Con (against)
Losing
94 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Pro (for)
Winning
119 Points

Religion (in general)

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 7/6/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,327 times Debate No: 4605
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (53)

 

blond_guy

Con

I believe in freedom of religion. However, I wish religion had never existed. Religion has been a very negative influence over all, but people fail to see what religion really did to us. Read the argument and don't let your religious belief influence your vote.

1) Prosecution and Religious Wars.

A lot of people have been persecuted for their religious belief, millions died this way, and no matter how you color it, that has a negative outcome on the world.

The Crusades destroyed historical evidence, killed people, and increased tension between religions.

The religious wars in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims, and also Muslims and Muslims, have not only caused death and terror, but are destructive to the whole world.

2) The "truth" to it.

I gave negatives, and there are many more. But the point is that the destruction caused by religion is far greater than its positive influence. Religion was a way to answer questions we didn't have the answer to. And how did we get those answers? By making things up. That was very destructive to science. E.g.: Galileo was forced to deny that the earth revolves around the sun, and for many years the world was lied to by the Church. That is now happening with the theory of evolution and the big bang.

My question to you religious people is:
Can't you just hand down onto the next generations moral values alone? Do you really have to justify moral values with lies such as "If you are evil, you go to hell"?
Nobody evens believes half of the stuff religion consisted of a couple hundred years ago, however many remain religious and believing other things religion has taught them. Such as "The Earth was created in 7 days" and so on...
We should just throw out religion as a whole and keep only the moral values it taught us. And don't get me wrong, it taught us great things.
InquireTruth

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for beginning this debate, and I hope all exchanges are wholesome and enlightening.

For the sake of clarity, it seems proper to very briefly sum up my opponent's thesis. Essentially my opponent purports that religion's net sum of good is far outweighed by its net sum of evil. In fewer words, religion has done more harm than good.

Let us assume that my opponent does not have a faulty premise and that religion does indeed use intolerance, not the other way around (intolerance sometimes uses religion). Let us assume that a person's religion can be blamed for the atrocities done, and not the person of the religion.

"A lot of people have been persecuted for their religious belief, millions died this way, and no matter how you color it, that has a negative outcome on the world."

I find it somewhat amusing that my opponent can somehow blame the persecution of the religious faithful on religion. Had they not been religious nobody would want to kill them. That seems to be a secular problem to me. It is like blaming the child who was raped – had they only not existed the problem would have never occurred.

Not only have Christians operated under the mandate of Jesus Christ to heal the sick and feed the hungry since the Crucifixion, but to this day, relief work around the world is dominated by Christians. The fact that the name "Red Cross" is synonymous with disaster relief is not exactly a coincidence. So the same people you hold responsible for major atrocities are ironically the same people bound to mitigate them.

Also, It was the Bible-believing Christians in England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — not the nonreligious of the day — who tackled the illiteracy problem, adult education, abolition of slavery, prison reform, and treatment for alcoholics. Also, the YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association) was formed in 1844, the YWCA a decade later, and the Salvation Army launched its multinational welfare organization based on Christian ethics and precepts (six years after the release of Darwin's Origin of Species if that informs).

"The Crusades destroyed historical evidence, killed people, and increased tension between religions."
"The religious wars in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims, and also Muslims and Muslims, have not only caused death and terror, but are destructive to the whole world."

It should be understood that out of the 1,763 wars chronicled in the encyclopedia, only 123 of them could in some way be tied to religion. That is only 6.98% of all the wars recorded. It should also be noted that 66 of the 123 wars were waged by Islamic-regimes. In light of such evidence - the fact that a specific religion is currently sparking a great deal of conflict around the globe - one cannot reasonably use this to indict all religious faith, especially when one considers that removing that single religion from the equation means that all of the other religious faiths combined only account for 3.23 percent of humanity's wars.

If my opponents premise is correct, and it's the religion that is responsible and not the person of the religion, then logically a similar case can be made against science. The five major religions have been around a collective 11,600 years and have over 4 billion adherents – that was approximately 72% of the world's population in 2007. The world has not once been in danger of destruction. But in 350 years science has been around (dating from Galileo), the world has been in danger of overpopulation, global warming, atom-shattering bombs, designer diseases, radioactive waste in large quantities and etc. In 3% the time of religion, science has managed to create numerous threats to the continued existence of the human race. Among other things, the earth's most barbaric and brutal atrocities were not committed hundreds and thousands of years ago, but within our own time, by secularist – Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and etc.

You will find there are no Skeptics' or rationalists' hospitals, charities, or aged-care homes, no evolutionists' orphanages, welfare agencies, or relief agencies, or any other life-improving institutions such as those founded and funded by Christians who have followed Jesus' teachings.

Also, it is the I.D. proponents that are marginalized and persecuted for their theories, not the evolutionists (as is documented in the new documentary by Ben Stein, EXPELLED. And if one does not think there is valid criticism of evolution (macro) then he or she does not read much. Even a game designer known as Vox Day poked holes in the anomalies of evolution in a debate with an avid evolutionist: http://trueanomaly.blogspot.com...

Here is what must be shown before the premise is accurate:
1.It is the religion that is responsible and not the person of the religion.
2.The net sum of bad must outweigh the net sum of good
3. That all religions should be held responsible for the actions of another religion.

As an ending note, even the most vitriolic atheists or "anti-theists" (i.e. Christopher Hitchens) believe that religion was at least necessary for the evolution of morality.
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Con

<>

First of all, those persecuted choose to be of that religion, while a child does not choose to exist. Also, the benefits of having children exist outnumber the benefits of having religion.
Do not forget however, that religious people are persecuted by religious people. The Romans persecuted Christians because they believed strongly in their own pagan religion. Had none of them had a religion, there would not be so many millions of deaths.

<>

So they feed the hungry, and heal the sick... Great!
However, priests rape our children today.
There have been far more deaths caused by Christianity than poor that have been fed because of Christianity. Think about the Crusades, and think about Hitler, who was influenced by Martin Luther to kill millions of Jews. People are hostile to the fact that their religion has blood on their hands so they deny it. But the fact remains so.

<>

That is a lot of death... I don't think the word "only" is appropriate.

<>

Still a lot of death. But remember this is about religion, not YOUR religion.

<>

Really? So Christianity, Islam and so forth... Those aren't major? I have a hard time imagining Christianity being older than Christ himself. Or Islam older than Muhammad.

On your point about the dangers of science:

1) Here's where it gets interesting... Religion influences people to think a certain way. However, in science, it is the people that influence science. Therefore, the fault is in the individual that uses science to do bad things.

2) Science has helped us much much much more than religion! You can't deny it. Today if you're sick you have a hospital. On the contrary of religion, science actually helps the sick. Read some of the writings of Hippocrates. He was the first to discover that blessings don't help the sick, and that sicknesses are not cured or inflicted by the gods (Greeks were polytheistic). Everything we use to save people's lives we owe to science.
Before science was around, the survival rate was very low.
And hospitals are nothing compared with all the other benefits we get from science.

3) It's funny you mention overpopulation. Because although science created that problem, religion isn't of much help either. Many religions prohibit gay marriage. Homosexuals could fix the problem of overpopulation if they could all just come out the closet and not be forced to be married to women (and procreate). To be continued if anybody wishes to discuss gay marriage.

<>

As I said, where do you get these hospitals? How do you keep orphans in clean clothes? Do you wash them with buckets of water you get from a river? No. Plumbing. Without science, those institutions couldn't be 10% as effective as they are.
And as I said before, there are the pros and cons. You gave me some pros, but they are still greatly outweighed by the cons.

< 1. It is the religion that is responsible and not the person of the religion.
2. The net sum of bad must outweigh the net sum of good
3. That all religions should be held responsible for the actions of another religion.>>

1. Yes it is religion. Religion influences the person. If it wasn't for religion, a terrorist in the Middle East wouldn't blow himself up in the marketplace. He would know that after death he won't have 72 virgin brides and won't go to paradise. It's not the he's evil, It's that religion makes him think that blowing himself up is the right thing to do.
2. Millions and millions of deaths were caused by religion. I take death seriously. There is no way i can measure the pros and cons, because there is no unit of measurement. That is up to every individual to decide.
3. They don't, but they all did their share of destruction except for maybe Hinduism. Including self-destruction.

Thank you for this debate. I will be looking forward to your response.
InquireTruth

Pro

My opponent in the entirety of his response oversimplifies the nuances of every situation he presented in order to better fit his unbalanced ideology. His convoluted and contradictory casuistry of Christianity is to be regarded has dishonest debating.

Let me explain.
"First of all, those persecuted choose to be of that religion, while a child does not choose to exist."

It is really foolish for one to even try to argue this point. But my opponent will not go silently into the night, so the point must be made even clearer. Let me create a few other scenarios that will fit your scrupulous criteria:

-It is like a woman who CHOSE to wear a miniskirt being blamed for her being raped. The rapists actions are indeed her fault, had she not chose to dress promiscuous, he would not have been provoked.

-It is like the school being blamed for gunman's actions, had the school never chose to convene that day the school would not have been attacked.

-It is the existence of cars that is to be blamed for all the car accidents, or better yet, the creators of those cars – had they never been created, millions of lives would have been saved.

I would hate to sound like an NRA spokesmen but it seems my opponent needs to be reminded: It is not guns that kill people, people kill people. It is dishonest to condemn the religion for the actions of a person in which the religion does not even condone. You can not blame Christianity for murder – it does not condone murder nor can it murder.

"Had none of them had a religion, there would not be so many millions of deaths."

Even if religion could be blamed for atrocities my opponent has either a basic ignorance with math, history, or both, as it seems he has embraced the popular urban legend that religion has killed more people than anything else. The largest top three examples are considered to be the Crusades of the middle Ages (as my opponent suggests), The Spanish Inquisition, and the burning of witches. The estimated body count for the Crusades ranges from 58,000 to 133,000. Over the 300 years the Spanish inquisition existed, 31,912 people were killed. Now to be generous in my estimates, the highest estimate for the killing of witches is 100,000. This brings the total body count for the most atrocious religious acts up to 264,000 – far from millions.

The first question is, are these killings consistent with the teachings of the religion thought to be responsible for them? Even an elementary understanding of the teachings of Christ reveal that such atrocity is in contradiction with his teachings. It is unfair logic to assume that because Mel Gibson says he is Catholic, and he yells drunken anti-Semitic remarks, that therefore Catholics are anti-Semites. It is the person, not the religion.

"Think about Hitler, who was influenced by Martin Luther to kill millions of Jews."

Testimony to my opponent's dishonesty is the abovementioned quote. As any basic history book would confirm, all of Adolf Hitler's supposedly Christian comments were rendered before he took office. He was man who knew how to manipulate. For the judges consideration I will render just a few quotes made by Hitler after he took office:

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...."
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together...."
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity...."
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Now let us follow my opponents reasoning to its logical conclusion. If religion is to take responsibility for all the atrocities supposedly done in its name, then atheism should appropriately follow suit. As I am sure my opponent already knows, one of the main tenants of the communist manifesto was to create a "religious free utopia." That is, since religion is the opiate of the masses, it should be gotten rid of. According to University of Hawaii political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel, the total number killed in all of human history is estimated to be about 284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during the past 100 years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far, atheistic Communism with a total of 110,000,000 … over 1/3 of all people ever killed!

By my opponent's logic, it is not religion that ought to seize, but rather atheism. Take note also, that if we add just two more regimes where religion was strongly discouraged, the body count rises approximately 31 million more (with Nazi Germany and Nationalist China).

"So they feed the hungry, and heal the sick... Great! However, priests rape our children today. There have been far more deaths caused by Christianity than poor that have been fed because of Christianity."

Christianity cannot be blamed for the actions of the priest! As it stands, there is absolutely no religious doctrine that supports or condones the molestation and/or sodomy of children. Also my opponent simply does not understand the amount that Christians has done for the world. While my opponent merely looks at numbers (inaccurately mind you), I look at suffering. An unquantifiable mass of individuals have been eased of suffering, fed, clothed, taught and redeemed from the claws of prostitution and servitude all in the name of Christianity. We are not talking about hundreds, or thousands, but millions of individuals who have not only been saved from death, but spared from suffering.

"Still a lot of death. But remember this is about religion, not YOUR religion."

Actually it does not really matter what religion I defend, considering my opponent has given absolutely not evidence as to why it would be necessary to indict all religions for the actions of one. As has been shown, Christianity has done far more good than bad, so it would be unjust to wish for its demise. Christianity does not influence violence; it influences neighborly love, caring for widows, feeding the hungry, and clothing to poor.

"That is a lot of death... I don't think the word "only" is appropriate."

Not when one is reminded that atheist regimes have killed more people during peacetime than all the recorded wars combined. By your logic of course.

"Really? So Christianity, Islam and so forth... Those aren't major? I have a hard time imagining Christianity being older than Christ himself. Or Islam older than Muhammad."

That is why I said COLLECTIVE. My opponent simply misunderstood – his point may be disregarded.

"Here's where it gets interesting... Religion influences people to think a certain way. However, in science, it is the people that influence science. Therefore, the fault is in the individual that uses science to do bad things."

Actually religion can be used in much the same way. Science on the other hand, if studied objectivity does not work as my opponent assumes. Scientists follow where the evidence leads, it is they who are influenced by science.

"As I said, where do you get these hospitals? How do you keep orphans in clean clothes? Do you wash them with buckets of water you get from a river? No. Plumbing. Without science, those institutions couldn't be 10% as effective as they are. And as I said before, there are the pros and cons. You gave me some pros, but they are still greatly outweighed by the cons."

My opponent confuses technology with science and assumes that only skeptics and rationalist participate in those fields. In reality, the advancement of technology is largely indebted to Christians. Also, my Christian uncle is a plumber.

Out of space
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Con

<>

If women were raped because (and only because) they wore mini skirts, as often as people were killed because of religion, than I would be against mini skirts also.

<>

Consider the number of times that has happened, compared to how many people benefit from the existence of school. A few shootings shouldn't make us want school to never have existed. However, all the deaths religion has caused does make me wish religion had never existed.

<>

The people who died were, for the most part, people who decided to be irresponsible in the way they drive. So the argument you used before that stated one religion should not be punished for the actions of other religions actually applies in this situation. Also, cars are a great benefit to society, more than religion. You'd be amazed if you found out how many people were fed or treated due to the invention of cars. Think of ambulances and trucks on the road all day transporting food.

Those scenarios and your opening comment were so ridiculous, I forget I'm on a debating website.

<>

Islam many times condones murder. Also, I blame Christianity for putting so many people in danger and killing so many people by making them believe a fake story that will make them be persecuted.

<>

What is this comment about? Are you so frustrated that you have to resort to insults? Or are you just hostile towards ideas that aren't yours? Please stop wasting my time with these comments, for no one wants to read them.

"far from millions."

That's because you focused on only three. What about the ones killed by the Romans at the time Christianity emerged? What about the people being killed everyday in the Middle East? What about the Palestinian-Israeli war that has been going on for decades? Stop being so biased...

<>

All the deaths I mentioned were caused by religion. Mel Gibson's remarks had nothing to do with his faith. However the murder going on in the Middle East right now... Can you say that has nothing to do with their faith?
All the deaths I have mentioned are caused by people, who were influenced to kill by religion.

<<"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....">>

True statement, Adolf Hitler was a brilliant man.

<>

A lot of victims were religious and killed for their faith, I blame some of those deaths on religion also.

<>

It very much can! If Christianity hadn't set the rule to the priests that they can't engage in sexual activity ever in their life, they wouldn't be so eager that they decided to take on children, who are very easily influenced.

<>

Humans are naturally, for the most part, good. If religion hadn't influenced them to help others, simple moral values would. And I would prefer to have simple moral values rather than religion, which is moral values plus a bunch of lies told by schizophrenic prophets who say they have seen things that we know today are impossible. Like when Constantine was pressured to become a Christian and after deciding to be one, claimed he had seen the Christian God. Or when the "Virgin Mary" told the obviously fake story that God had given her the baby, and she is in fact a virgin.

<>

Because I believe in freedom of religion, therefore we can't just choose which ones to keep.

<>

I do not wish for its demise, I just wish it had never existed.

<>

They are influenced by evidence, not science. By your logic, Einstein should be blamed for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No! Evil people use science in an evil way, good people use science in a good way.

<>

Technology is brought on by science.

science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Phenomena such as the metal used for the pipes your uncle uses. And the electricity used to shock a person back to life, etcetera...
Science leads to technology.
InquireTruth

Pro

As it stands, here in the final round, my opponent has left too many questions unanswered.

1.He gives no reason as to why it is necessary to indict all religions for the actions of one - especially if the existence of just one of those religions is shown to be of more help than harm.
2.He has not put forth any reasonable evidence as to how religion has done more harm than good.

My opponent simply will not drop the ridiculous notion that religion is responsible for its own persecution. I can create a million scenarios to express the lunacy of his logic. I just ask the judges to consider the logic. Nobody can express unique views, or hold diverse beliefs under the logical thumb of my opponent – for if that unique action, lifestyle, or belief leads to your persecution or systematic destruction; it is indeed your fault for not conforming to the specific epistemology of my opponent. The sadistic persecutor is not at blame for his murderous rampage, but the ones being persecuted – that ladies and gents, is balderdash.

"However, all the deaths religion has caused does make me wish religion had never existed."

This still remains an unsubstantiated claim. My opponent has not shown how religion has caused death. Especially when such death is not condoned by any religious doctrine. The person is to be held responsible.

"Consider the number of times that has happened, compared to how many people benefit from the existence of school. A few shootings shouldn't make us want school to never have existed."

My opponent conveniently avoids the point. The point was not the amount of time such shootings occurred, but that by his logic it is the school that is to be held responsible. The actions of the shooter(s), by his reasoning, are the fault of the school.

"You'd be amazed if you found out how many people were fed or treated due to the invention of cars. Think of ambulances and trucks on the road all day transporting food."

Well if your reasoning is to be followed, the millions of deaths caused by cars are not to be overlooked. From my vantage point it seems the harm far outweighs the benefits. It is also humorous that you can somehow see the overarching benefit of cars, but not the monumental benefit religion has been in the perseveration of human life via morals.

"Islam many times condones murder. Also, I blame Christianity for putting so many people in danger and killing so many people by making them believe a fake story that will make them be persecuted."

My opponent is dishonest again, he does not show any of these "times" that Islam condones murder. And he again blames Christianity for its own persecution. If a "fake" story inspires people to be better, live more moral lives, and help the suffering world, why care? In fact, why do you think it is justified to persecute those who disagree with you?

"That's because you focused on only three. What about the ones killed by the Romans at the time Christianity emerged? What about the people being killed everyday in the Middle East? What about the Palestinian-Israeli war that has been going on for decades? Stop being so biased..."

Actually, all that considered, we have still yet to reach even one million. My opponent says a number and just assumes we ought to believe it.

"A lot of victims were religious and killed for their faith, I blame some of those deaths on religion also."

O my. My opponent has outdone himself. He is actually blaming the systematic destruction of the Jews on the Jews. My opponent is blaming the systematic targeting of religious intuitions on the religions.

"They are influenced by evidence, not science. By your logic, Einstein should be blamed for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No! Evil people use science in an evil way, good people use science in a good way."

Actually, that would be by your logic. BUT PLEASE TAKE NOTE, you have said something intelligent. EVIL PEOPLE USE SCIENCE IN AN EVIL WAY. Simply profound. Evil people sometimes use religion an in evil way – even if the religion itself is in contradiction with the actions done in its name.

"Technology is brought on by science."

Open a book, and read about it. Technology is completely separate from science. And most often technology is not brought about by science, not until more recently.

I see no point in going on, my points were not refuted in response 2.

My opponent has not confronted these issues:
(a)How do we indict all religions for the actions of one?
(b)How do we blame religion for actions that are contradictory to that religion?
(c)Christianity is responsible for the overwhelming majority of relief agencies, adoption programs, drug help, disaster relief, homeless shelters, hospitals, foster homes, and Christians habitually donate more to charities than any other people group.
(d)By my opponent's logic, it would be atheistic communism that is responsible for the overwhelming majority of human casualties. Atheists have killed more people during peacetime than all the wars in the encyclopedia combined.
(e)If atheism has caused so much atrocity, why is my opponent not arguing that he wishes it never existed – as it is now abundantly clear that the harm caused by atheism far outweighs its benefits?
(f)Religion, specifically Christianity, influences neighborly love, care for the homeless, and relief for the suffering. It does not condone atrocity. What in this religion do you indict has harmful?
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
blond_guy, you are absolutely right. InquireTruth, you are absolutely wrong. Even if more people voted for InquireTruth, that does not mean his side is the actual truth. It solely means that the majority currently leans toward his side. What we all need to realize is that blond_guy is right, before it's too late. Religion has caused enough death, destruction, war, and restriction to the freedom of the people. If it isn't stopped soon, things like the Holy Wars in the Middle East could easily put all of humanity in jeopardy.
Posted by Dr_Harvey 8 years ago
Dr_Harvey
LDT, The argument you are making carries with it the same problem Marx' argument for communism does. Atheist's might feed a man yet they deny that a humans needs go beyond that which is physical. An argument that most sociologist have proven is false. I would say that faith based intiatives do a better job of wholistically addressing the issue of hunger, poverty, or social justice in general. Take such humanitarian efforts such as micro-credits (small loans to impoverished peoples) missionary schools, (schools in which children are taught reading and writing). All of these are initiatives started from faith movements. That is because faith movements in most cases believe that people are body soul and spirit. When religious groups reach out they reach out for the purpose of addressing an initial need but ultimately an equally as pressing need, which is the need for a healthy spirituality. You can say that atheists don't try and convert people yet the truth of the matter is that atheists are just as militant, if not more, in their defense and desire to spread their atheistic beliefs. You really have to ask yourself if humankind's only needs are physical and psychological. I would argue that their are needs within every human that are metaphysical or beyond our own comprehension. Ultimately. you are right in that you do not need to be religious to help people but I would say that it is often religion which compels people to serve the needs of humanity. Also, your argument lacks any credibility because you have not demonstrated that the nature of atheism is non-reecruiting, that is that they do not try and convert people to their belief system. Go and visit Atheist.org, the web-site for American Atheist, and tell me if you can honestly say that they are not trying to persuade people to their point of view. Everyone has an agenda in some form, whats yours?
Posted by LDT 8 years ago
LDT
blond_guy, I feel bad that most of the people on this site are religious, hence no matter how much better the non-religious side is, the religious will get the vote.

Now, as for Inquire, as soon as you said think of all the relief in the world that is done by christians, etc. I can tell you are the kind who completely forgets the FACT, that you do NOT need religion to do this, atheists do the same, and the FACT that atheist ones don't try to convert the population they go to half the time they are there.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"If someone is cursing at a strapped gangster in a club while he's drunk, and pushes him against the wall, it's his fault that he gets shot."

Even your analogy and your explanation of it, is faulty. First, you never explain when this formula is applicable - for I gave you 3 analogies that fit your criteria, and you simply disregarded. Second, in this analogy and by your logic, it is nobodies fault but rather the fault of the alcohol. Because remember, you were not blaming the person of the religion, but rather the religion itself.
Lastly, even if you were correct about your own analogy, it is still wrong, it does not matter how many profanities are slinged up in the face of the strappin' rappiin' rapper, he is not justified in murdering the man - nor can the blame be put elsewhere.

"Inquiretruth, by saying "Also, Gahbage, you made a "rebuttal" that my opponent had actually never made", it's just misleading. It's not as if you'd be convinced if i had actually stated that."

I wouldn't be convinced is correct - but that was not the problem. The problem is people voting based on the argument they're making, and not the argument that was presented. It is tantamount to just voting for the side you agree with based on the title.

"I know I was correct"
Even the most militant atheists are oblivious to the extent of their own faith.
Posted by blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
I agree with josh and dr harvey. And I'd like to thank gahbage for making some really great arguments supporting my point. However, whether I took the time to make my point clear enough or not, I know I was correct.
Inquiretruth, by saying "Also, Gahbage, you made a "rebuttal" that my opponent had actually never made", it's just misleading. It's not as if you'd be convinced if i had actually stated that.
The problem is that you, and the majority of people are religious, and they are sensitive about it.
To me, Christianity, or any religion for that matter is already ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous. But like Hitler said, I'll just wait 'till everyone realizes it and let Christianity die "a natural death".
Posted by blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
<<HE blames rape on the one being raped. He blames school shootings on the school and not the shooter.>>

No I don't... You like these hypothetical situations so I'll give you one where this applies.
If someone is cursing at a strapped gangster in a club while he's drunk, and pushes him against the wall, it's his fault that he gets shot.
Back in the day, being Christian meant "Your beliefs are stupid! My beliefs are correct."
And that's an understatement, because the Bible just told them "When you die, you're going to burn in "hell" because your beliefs are ridiculous, and mine are correct.
Posted by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
Same here, it was a great debate.
In the end i had to vote Pro.

Pro had clarity, poise and insightfulness. Con was very repetitive.
Posted by Dr_Harvey 8 years ago
Dr_Harvey
Great debate. I appreciated both side. Inquire truth came out on top in that his argument was clear and concise. It modeled really what a strong defense of his position should be.
Posted by believer_720 8 years ago
believer_720
I voted for Pro.
I'm not going to lie, my religion had a small impact on my voting, but not enough to be very significant.
I mostly voted for Pro because his argument seemed to make more sense. People have free will, regardless of their religion. The people are to blame, not their beliefs.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
And he still never addressed the fact that even if his logic were true, which it is not, religion has saved more lives than it has taken. It has improved more lives than it has ruined. It has eased more suffering than it has caused. Modern education is what it is because of religion. These benefits far outweigh the harm – if indeed one can blame harm on religion.
53 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by OedipusTex 6 years ago
OedipusTex
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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 Awed 7 years ago
Awed
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by SemperFi2MyGuy 7 years ago
SemperFi2MyGuy
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by PwnzorDebaterLyncher 7 years ago
PwnzorDebaterLyncher
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Gmoney 7 years ago
Gmoney
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by girlforgod21 7 years ago
girlforgod21
blond_guyInquireTruthTied
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