Religion is illogical
Debate Rounds (3)
All positive claims in their simplest form, require proof. If I claimed that elephants lived on Mars, i would have to provide the proof, not the skeptic. Therefore proof has to be provided by theists that there is a god, rather than proof from the atheist that there isn't.This is why I call upon my opponent to provide me indisputable evidence that there is a god. Your move.
Religion: a particular system of faith and worship. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
There definitely are religions with a sense of clear, sound reasoning based on a way of life that is best for both society and individual emotional/spiritual fullfillment. There isn't one religion on Earth which isn't based around making members feel a part of a great force of something supposedly 'morally superior' to others and this is merely to make people happy (which is actually why the human race began inventing language, to help people feel fulfilled and valuable).
Religion =/= Illogical BECAUSE we always seek happiness.
Do you not agree happiness can be obtained without worship of a deity? First I suppose we have to look at what about religion makes people happy. Perhaps people like it when they are with other people moving towards a common goal. Surely you can see that one can get that same feeling by being in a book club. The difference between religion and a book club is that a book club has a has a legitimate goal; to further ones knowledge and intelligence. You still haven't provided me any evidence that there is a god, and therefore I will presume you don't have any. Surely you can see that having faith in some old man in the clouds, without any proof that he exists is illogical.
You equally have no proof that we can exist as a wlel-corordinated society without religion or LAW based on morals of SOME KIND!
Thus, it is natural to assume you have a BoP to prove morality and harmony can be achieved without fear of hell or eternal punishment of some kind.
Additionally, it remains unclear to me how one can achieve true happiness and the feeling of working towards a goal of ANY kind without faith in SOME FORM OF higher power watching over them.
Morals evolved in humans to further the chance of that humans DNA being passed on to the next generation.
One of the arguments that creationists often resort to is: If morals developed through evolution, why do we help people we aren't even related to? The answer to this is actually quite simple. If you help someone, you expect something back. You may not know it, but if you give someone food, you want something in return.
But why do we have organizations like the Red Cross? They don't expect anything back when they help out after an earthquake. The reason for this is because humans' DNA to eachother is more than 99% alike. This means that if thay save people in an earthquake 99% of their DNA is passed down.
Good debate Con. It's been a pleasure.
You can't raise new points in last round?... (DNA morality nonsense)
My opponent's entire pair of rebuttals were to arguments I hadn't even mentioned the ENTIRE debate? It is almost as if he were rebutting 'himself as con' so to say...
In regard to the DNA theory, I severely doubt this. Given the option, any sane human wold rip the heart out of another man's child in order to save their own.
Far more relevant is YOUR DNA being passed on being the source of an atheist's morality (even Richard Dawkins struggled with this issue). This would be a very chaotic society, where only the most brutal and disorderly survived.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.