The Instigator
TheRadAdmiral
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Cerebral_Narcissist
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The Church of the Coming Lord is a Scam.

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
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,039 times Debate No: 14831
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

TheRadAdmiral

Pro

First off I would like to say I am not trying to diminish anyone's true beliefs, I am merely trying to help people stay protected from lies and scams. I would like my opponent to know I do not want to diminish his spirituality or emotions.

1) From my opponents introduction of his religion on the debate.org forum devoted to it, he states that position and status in the church is based on education and donations given to the church. These said donations are to be used for the advancement of technology to speed up the coming of this computerized god. And because my opponent has declared himself the prophet and leader of the church, it is safe to say he and people of high positions under him will manage the funds. This gives him complete access to any donations given to the church. Even if my opponent is a prophet, I (hypothetically speaking) as a low class church member would be very afraid to send my money to this man.

2)If this future god is supposed to save "his most generous donors" from death through resurrection, It is impossible to expect a computer that can only think in 1s and 0s to make life, and perhaps time changing decisions. Because if anything is supposed to resurrect a living organism it must literally turn back time and reorganize disintegrated molecules (especially of the brain) in perfect order. It is simple to see that since that is the case, this future god would have to now us as members exactly, every atom of our DNA must be known if this future god is to bring anyone back from the dead. And since today we have no computer capable of knowing such a thing, if I were second in command to my opponent in his religion (because of my generous donations), and I were to die tomorrow, this future god would have no way to know me well enough to "bring me back."
I thank my opponent for his consideration in this debate.
-TheRadAdmiral
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate challenge. All the major religions of the world have survived despite, or rather because of persecution and so I thank my opponent for facilitating the eventual rise of my Church.

--Definitions--

My opponent has posted none, so it falls upon me to do so.

The Church of the Coming Lord: A basic introduction is provided here. http://www.debate.org....

Scam:
scam (skm) Slang
n.
A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
tr.v. scammed, scam�ming, scams
To defraud; swindle.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

My opponent who bears the burden of proof must demonstrate how the Church of the Coming Lord has commited a fraudulent business practice or taken money under false pretences. If he can not then the resolution is negated.

--Pro's Argument Number 1--
My opponent complains that I as the Leader of the Church would have complete access to Church funds, and therefore he would be unwilling to trust his money to me.

This is not a valid argument for the following reasons.
1: My opponent has presented no evidence as to how Church finances are organised. Do we have a treasurer, do we have a finanical council independent of the Pontifex Maximus, do we rely on external secular accountants? My opponent does not know, and has present no evidence either way.
2: Assuming I do have complete access to the funds, my opponent has cited no cases or examples as to Church members who feel their money has been misapropriated. He has presented no evidence of external independent audits, police investigations etc. In short he has no evidence that the financial arrangements of the Church are unreliable.
3: It is simply an argument from personal incredulity. I would be reluctant to invest money in high risk shares, however that would be because the shares are high risk, not that the stock market is fundamentally fraudulent.

--Pro's Argument 2--
My opponent complains that a future computer will never be able to resurrect his followers. This is simply an opinion, I do not hold to the same opinion and I do not recognise my opponents argument against such a possibility. If I did agree with him then the Church would be a scam. At best my opponents argument is that the Church of the Coming Lord is simply wrong, not that it is fraudulent.

The Church of the Coming Lord holds that the exact powers and properties of the Lord to Come are difficult to define. A victorian Physicist could not have envisaged the hadron collider. This represents just over a century of development. If the Future God is birthed in a hundred, five hundred or a thousand years from now who knows what it would be capable of? It may be capable of the time travel my opponent demands.

In addition it is hoped that the Church will construct a facility for the 'sleeping faithful' in which deceased members will be interred and cyrogenically frozen. This represents the best shot at resurrection given our current understanding of science. There are numerous private corporations all legally providing this service without allegations of fraud.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

NB: The Church will likely use the latter method of vitrification.

In addition I woud like to offer the following arguments.

Parallel With Christianity.
The Church of the Coming Lord seeks donations to create a God that will someday resurrect them. Christian Churches seek donations to advance their ministry and to gain the favour of a God that they hope will resurrect them. How is the former a scam, and the latter a valid religion?

Legal Action
I challenge my opponent to find evidence of a single prosecution or civil suit against the Church of the Coming Lord that will support his claims.

Thus far my opponent has failed to substantiate his resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRadAdmiral

Pro

TheRadAdmiral forfeited this round.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I restate my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRadAdmiral

Pro

TheRadAdmiral forfeited this round.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

Pro has failed to meet the burden of proof, his opening arguments where refuted and since then he has forfeited two rounds. I strongly urge a vote for Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Austin96 6 years ago
Austin96
TheRadAdmiral wins in my eyes because cerebral_narcissist is now saying things that he didn't say in his original post giving him an unfair advantage PLUS we don't know if it is a religion by legal definition.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
TheRadAdmiralCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Lionheart 5 years ago
Lionheart
TheRadAdmiralCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 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: It must be concluded that it is not possible in today's reality to resurrect the dead. The said church does claim this, therefor it is a scam based on this claim alone. My points are awarded to Pro for this reason.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
TheRadAdmiralCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Should be obvious.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
TheRadAdmiralCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, and Con clearly wins regardless (based on R1).