The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Religion is illogical

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,981 times Debate No: 28205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)




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.;
Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.;

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.
Debate Round No. 1


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.
Debate Round No. 2


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.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CelticStar 3 years ago
It probably seems that way because emotion is tied in heavily with religion. As far as I seen, science hasn't explained emotions, why we have them,etc. I doubt it could explain it. They are two different things.
Posted by fulltimestudent 3 years ago
Faith is believing in what u know aint so
Posted by digiss 3 years ago
I would vote con if your argument was stronger but I believe we are supposed to vote based on the presented arguments for which neither was convincing to me. I do like this site!
Posted by rosstheboss 3 years ago
btw I don't know where this talk of atheists claiming we know there isn't a god came from. Most atheists, myself included claim that there is no reason to believe in god. Atheism isn't a belief. Its a lack of belief.
Posted by rosstheboss 3 years ago
must is a strong word ;)
Posted by RationalMadman 3 years ago
I know digiss u must vote con!
Posted by digiss 3 years ago
Religion is logical in that:
1) We exist.
2) Stating we know 100% why we exist would be logically inaccurate.
3) Not knowing why we exist there is at least a chance we were created by a higher being.
4) It would be illogical to not recognize the higher being could exist.
5) Recognizing a higher being could exist at least one logical action would be to worship this being.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago

- Normally I criticize a Firstguy who styles himself "Con." But, in this case, Firstguy wanted Secondguy to argue first. Firstguy therefore should have styled himself "Con." And Firstguy shouldn't have argued last, since Secondguy argued first. So there should have been a rule that Secondguy would not argue in the final round. None of this affects my vote. It's just advice for future debates.

- The challenge was for Secondguy to prove god exists. More precisely, he has to prove that there is one rational religion. Secondguy made the claim that there is a rational religion, but then he didn't support the claim. He didn't try to prove it. Or maybe he thought saying that religions seek happiness is support. As in,

P1: Seeking happiness is logical.
P2: Religions seek happiness.
C: Therefore, religion is a logical way of seeking happiness.

Some logician can name the particular fallacy, but that's clearly not a valid argument. It doesn't show that religion is a logical way of seeking happiness.

In the next round, Secondguy tried to reverse the burden of proof: "[I]t remains unclear to me" that non-religion is logical. "It remains unclear to me" is not a strong argument. It's not an argument at all.

In the final round, Firstguy introduced rebuttal arguments, inviting Secondguy to raise certain issues. Secondguy properly dismissed them as not relevant to anything he'd said. But then he spent the rest of the post responding to them anyway. Never raised a significant attempt to meet his burden of proof.
Posted by RationalMadman 3 years ago
dude that red cross sh*t was nonsense.
Posted by rosstheboss 3 years ago
To your last argument saying I was refuting stuff you didn't even say; your ENTIRE second last round was about morals and demanding proof from me that there coud be morals without god. To quote you directly, you said "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." I was providing proof to rebut that ridiculous challenge
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.