The Instigator
Smorfy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religion is Good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 669 times Debate No: 100768
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

Smorfy

Pro

The real stories in the bible and testaments are good, educational, and give people morals. Without God, we would be lost. Without God, we wouldn't even exist. God is god and religion is good.
Capitalistslave

Con

The bible, Quran, and many other holy books have atrocities in them, many of which are promoted by god or god condones them. You can see, for exampe, examples of this in the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Just some examples of this from the bible include:
God flooding the entire world, despite their being millions of innocent babies, animals, etc on the planet(see Genesis)
God ordering the Jews to kill every amalekite, including women and children, their animals, etc(see 1 Samuel 15:3)
God hardening pharoah's heart, and then punishing Egypt for Pharoah refusing to let the Jews go, even though God was the one responsible for Pharoah refusing(see Exodus 9:12 for hardening of his heart)

An example from the Quran:
"Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die." (2:6-7)


Debate Round No. 1
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
You're welcome to your views on this matter, Smorfy, but this is how moderation is done on the site. Voters are required to assess specific points made by both debaters because without doing so it is impossible to determine if they even read the debate, let alone are giving each side a fair shake. If you'd like, we can have a deeper conversation about why the standards are the way they are, but I'll leave that to you.
Posted by Smorfy 1 year ago
Smorfy
I don't see why his vote was removed. He didn't need to explain any more, it was self-explanatory. I did not provide any sources, while my other side did. Whether or not they were relevant and reliable, he provided sources, while I did not. He did (briefly) address the arguments in his vote too. There is no reason voting should have to have so many details. If the contenders want more details, they can contact the voter.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: hutch976// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con actually provided sources, and formulated his arguments more completely and coherently as a result. Though I disagree with both of these guys.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply point out that only one side provided sources. It must be clear that those sources were reliable, i.e. relevant to the debate. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters. Merely stating that one side was more complete and coherent as a result of their sources is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No.Religion is talk...
Posted by hutch976 1 year ago
hutch976
*has not waivered on doctrine for over 2000 years.
Posted by hutch976 1 year ago
hutch976
That's why Christ gave us a Church with binding authority on earth (Matthew 16-18), and told us to listen to the church for interpretation and the arbiter for grievances and differences (Matthew 18:17). Clearly the early church did not have an actual Bible until nearly 400 years after the church was established! That's longer than we have been a country! It was the church that chose which books to die for and which to not under the guidance of the holt spirit. And then 1500 years later came some heretics who said anyone can interpret scripture for themselves, and now we have 30000+ denominations, and as you have rightly pointed out, scripture is tough to understand in context of the whole Christian message. That's why God gave us a church. So I beg you to look at the institute Christ founded that has waivered on. I doctrine for 2000 years...the Catholic Church.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Well, I think most religions are alright morally speaking, but the actual beliefs stated in their holy books, many of them are horrendous. Most Christians, I know, don't actually believe everything in the Bible. That makes them inconsistent. Why do they accept some things written in the Bible as literal and other things as figurative? Some things can easily be said to be figurative, but a lot of things they claim are figurative when it doesn't make sense to claim them to be, and it seems they do it just for parts they don't morally agree with
Posted by hutch976 1 year ago
hutch976
Amen my friend. I am glad we can be civil and admit mistakes. Do you think maybe you misunderstand Christianity and the Bible, as well? Or that there are misguided and wrong sects of Christianity who have the wrong interpretation of the Bible? It's not always easy to understand or readily accept a passage that comes from a culture, place, language, and time vastly different than our own. And it's easy to judge from such a far removed and ill informed vantage point. One day, we might be viewed as barbaric for killing babies in their wombs, just like we look back at every society that allowed slavery as being mistaken. Including our own.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Well, it was just a mistake on my part to speak of soldiers in general to begin with. I wasn't being specific enough with what I meant. And yes, a person can commit an immoral act and not be amoral. We do err from time to time, but if a person knowingly kills an innocent civilian, this is immoral. It brings to question whether they accept morality in reality. Actions should reflect beliefs.
Posted by What50 1 year ago
What50
That is kinda true. A serial killer most of the time knows right and wrong but they still choose to do it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.