The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
Man-is-good
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Devil is on balance a better role model than God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+19
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 6 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,958 times Debate No: 24619
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (70)
Votes (6)

 

socialpinko

Pro

===Resolution===


This debate will be dealing with the relevant characters in the forms represented by Christianity and the Christian Bible. Whether one of the characters is a better role model will be with regards to their actions represented in the Bible. Note though that no religion will necessarily be assumed to be correct.


===Definitions===


The Devil: a fallen angel who rebelled against God. The Devil is often identified as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, whose persuasions led to the two corresponding Christian doctrines: the Original Sin and its cure, the Redemption of Jesus Christ. He is also identified as the Accuser of Job, the tempter of the Gospels, Leviathan and the dragon in the Book of Revelation[1].


God for this debate will not be defined synonymously with Jesus Christ. So God would be best defined as God the Father in Christian doctrine, as the God of the Old Testament mostly.


===Rules===


1. Drops will count as concessions.

2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.

3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.

4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.


===Sources===


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Man-is-good

Con

I accept this debate.

I will, with some trepidation, thank Socialpinko for providing this debate with me. I haven't debated too much and my skills are rough-hewed and needed to be improved.

I would like to provide some additional definitions...and modifications:

On balance: considering all aspects
Role model: a person whose behavior, example, or success is or can be emulated by others [1. http://dictionary.reference.com...]

These definitions will prove instrumental, though I provided them for extra reference.


Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

If one is to formulate coherently who is the better role model, God or the Devil, a necessary point would be which one someone should act like in order to be a 'good person'. It is the primary thesis of the Pro position that a good and well rounded person would represent Satan more so than God. Two main points will come up frequently in this debate as justification for such a position. (1) Satan took the form of a presenter of knowledge and an enemy of thought dominion and (2) Satan presents a challenge to presumed and unjustified authority and embodies the virtues of individualism. A small sub-argument in regards to murder will also be used. My inverse argument against God will be formed within my positive arguments in favor of Satan as a role model i.e. God respresents unjustified authority and thought dominion.


C1. Knowledge and Freedom From Control.


The primary grounding of this point can be found in the explanation of the fall and original sin of humanity as described in the book of Genesis in the OT of the Christian Bible. The story goes that when God presented Adam and Eve with the Garden of Eden, he did so with only one rule governing what they could do. The rule was to never eat from the 'Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil' (note that I won't make an important distinction between whether it means just knowledge in general or specifically moral knowledge as I see both as supporting my point regardless).


One day a talking serpent, who is most likely Satan[1], approaches Eve and convinces her to eat the fruit off of the forbidden tree with promises of knowledge[2]. Once Eve and then Adam take bites of the fruit their eyes are opened (Gen. 3: 7). Before this event they did not possess any real knowledge and it was only after the help of Satan that they were able to learn. Satan in this instance can be likened to Prometheus who brings fire to humanity even upon pain of punishment by the Gods (or in this case just one God).


Now it could be argued that with this, Satan also brought the terrible conditions described after the fall. Painful childbirth, laborious life, an imperfect world, and the like. But when one reads the relevant passages (Gen. 3: 14-23) one can see that the consequences of their actions were not themselves necessarily caused by merely taking a bit out of the fruit. Satan was actually "cursed" (v. 14), God said "I will put enmity..." (v.15) and "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow..." (v.16), and God positively "sent" (v. 23) them out of the Garden. These were not merely the physical consequences of eating the fruit. They were punishments imposed on the two (and Satan) for breaking the rules.


The main point here is that when we compare the actions of God and Satan in this all-important scenario, it was Satan that brought knowledge to Adam and Eve and thus to all of humanity as well. On the contrary it was God who punished this "crime" by increasing the pain exponentially of not only the two offenders, but every other person ever to be born. A common counterargument to this would probably be from the position that God was justified in punishing them for breaking the rules. Besides not refuting the actual positions that the two characters represent, this point fails even in its own right. My next point will deal with this in more detail.


C2. Individualism and Unjustified Authority.


Was God a justified authority over Adam and Eve? Conventional wisdom might answer yes. After all it was God that originally created the two in the first place right? That position would be wrong actually. The only way to actually justify God's authority is through recourse to it's power over humanity. But power and authority are two distinct concepts. I have power over a person when I put a gun to his head but that doesn't mean that my commands on them are legitimately authoritative in the least.


Authority is something that does not exist inherently. It can only be created under a voluntaryist framework of interaction. For instance, if I contract with someone for a service, they have authority to demand payment if I voluntarily receive that service. The opposite side of the coin would be some sort of non-voluntary framework. But such a framework would rely on force (remember that interaction may be composed of two types: violent or voluntary. If interaction is not voluntary it is violent and vice versa). And as the previous distinction between force and authority shows, non-voluntary modes of interaction are not sufficient to prove authority.


The way in which this plays into the resolution specifically is this: God represents an unjustified authority and a threat to individualism. Humanity had no choice in its conception and the mass of Christian doctrines on God's authority do not take choice into account. The Devil represents the antithesis of this unjustified doctrine. Satan did not force Adam or Eve to eat the fruit. He told them why it would be good for them but didn't pretend as though he had legitimate authority over anyone who hasn't contractually created such. God however merely assumed the slave-like submission of humanity to his will as an unsubstantiated presupposition. So on the one side we have God representing submission and on the other Satan, representing freedom.


Sub-contention. Comparative murder.


-One of the most widespread ethical precepts is the idea that killing another human being is wrong unless there are special mitigating circumstances involved. An obvious ethical goal for humanity then would be to minimize killing as much as possible. Described in the Christian Bible, Satan represents this virtue almost perfectly whereas God barely even acknowledges it in action even as he commands his followers to abstain. The total number of killings made by God in the Bible add up to an astounding 2,038, 344 people[3]. Compared to this, Satan's grand death toll of ten seems rather docile. But even those ten (Job's family) were only killed because of a bet with God of (meaning God was complicit in the actions). If we are to follow this rule set down by God himself[4], actually abstaining himself from the action in question would serve as a good example for us to follow. Instead, God routinely ignores his own rules while Satan abided (except for one instance in a bet with God). As far as role models go in regards to rules against murder, someone who kills millions is clearly inferior to one who killed ten.


===Sources===


[1] http://bible.cc...; (In verse 13 when God is addressing Satan he reference Satan's time in "Eden")
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com... (Genesis 3:5: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.")
[3] http://www.wired.com...
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com...;
Man-is-good

Con

Thank you, Pro.:D

1. The true reason for the fall of man lies not in the acquisition of knowledge but the supposed transition from a postulated graceful innocence (see my Argument) to a defiance, a transgression of the set limit to human enterprise by God.

A spiritual relationship was set between man and God that can be proposed across the gradient of the substantive argument; in designing man in his own likeness and image, God has certainly constructed a parallel across Him and man in spiritual terms [3, see Note], and is certainly the very basis of his inflicted power over others--the kingdoms of life (Genesis, 1: 28-29) and the earth itself, as well as supply man with his placement within Eden, making him the "Author of his bliss" [5]: God explicitly places his creation within an ideal paradise. The Book of Genesis offers the very nucleus of this happiness--the Tree of Life (Genesis, 2:9), a sign and seal to Adam that would, by personifying life at his disposal--in his grasp, assure him of the continuance of life and everlasting life and bliss there [5].

We should take note that the act (see bottom), not the acquisition of knowledge, is the chief mark and reason for such "punishments". Indeed, although God does openly recognize the acquired state of knowledge (Genesis, 1:22), it is the act of disobedience and the distortion of the spiritual relationship between man and god that is at the forefront*. It can, simply, be stated as an assumption resting within primal man that the obtained knowledge, and widened horizons of understanding, will initiate a transformation into godhood, an assumption of such seen in the very fact that Eve (Genesis, 3:6) accepted the Serpent's words of the food as ensuring wisdom, qualified as, per the serpent's words, a transition into a state similar to that of god, "knowing good and evil" (Genesis, 3:5) and...disobeyed God's command.

Eve's sin demonstrates a defiance to God, and an unwillingness to accept her place as well as accept the indebtedness of man's state to God, the placement of her kin within the paradise, and most of all to the act of creation. Knowledge was not conveyed, of good or wrong, but of the act, and its disobedience to the authority (see my case CC2): "The moral effect lay rather in the conduct of man in regard to the tree, a thing prohibited" [3, p.154]: in other words, my argument is that it lies more than simply "breaking the rules" but an enormous defiance and refusal to accept indebtedness that, in retrospect, is the true horror, not a minor trifle.

(Note that my opponent tries to suggest that God resented the revelation of knowledge, but his position cannot be held in light of a few powerful counters. One is that God, upon surveying his own creation, supposedly declared that "vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kind" were "good" (Genesis, 1:12), a range that encompasses the Tree of Conscience; thus God did not see opposition to it, and indeed, the punishments that my opponent describes are inflicted primarily on the basis of the deed [Genesis, 3:17 in particular, where he sterilizes man's ground and experience because he "llistened to..[his] wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it'].

As a result, I have at least destroyed my opponent's supposition of knowledge as a deciding factor in the narrative of the fall of man, for one part supposes an opposition to awakening, a transfiguration of being. It cannot be denied that there was an awakening (Genesis, 3:7) or a broadening of knowledge, but since knowledge can be shown secondary to the distortion of the spiritual relationship at hand that provoked the Fall.

1b. Note that my opponent has casually assumed that the Serpent in Eden was Satan. Although the definition postulated DOES state an association, associations. without evidence provided, do not stand in the context of a debate, especially when associations, by definition only mean of a correlation or connection [4], but not of sameness between two variables.;)

2. a. Case. I will argue that the framework of a social process enables authority to be a candidate, and will, in an act of creativity; it should be noted that a social process, with two parties in interaction will benefit either tangibly or intangibly, as a way of harmonization[6], can be seen as the result of the spiritual relationship (see Clarifications) between god and man that can extend more to social terms, of which authority is a construct; the parallel between god and man, and their spiritual conformity that can be tied through the similar powers of reasoning between the two that have enabled communication between the Maker and his work--a conduit, and social interaction.

There is, for such processes, a "norm of reciprocity" that there should be a balance of obligations within relationships [6]; God, as presented within the Bible, and within the spiritual relationship, is responsible for not only allowing man to enact a regent-status and sovereignty over what is, in nature, equal with him [3], and has conferred, to man, qualities that procure wisdom, intelligence, etc. And yet, it should be noted that God derives no benefit, neither from this or from the aspect of man, as the Book of Job states, "Can a wise man be of use to God? Or a wise man useful to himself?" (Job, 1: 22), and receives no benefit from such offices for such advantages rebound to the wielder, for personal and even societal reasons (in the context of human laws). (see previous counter-claim for more).

The concession of authority may represent what may be offered, and the act of doing so, unlike Pro's admission, while implying a sense of collectivism as opposed to individualistic impulse, does not necessarily imply an overwhelming subjugation of such impulses; although individualism can easily be meant as of an unrestrained liberalism, with which it has become synonymous with, Pro has not offered reasons that would show individualism would override collectivism in benefit to society (since my opponent chose to subject God to a critique based on such a framework of intercourse, it is implied that the contention here is in social realms) in the dichotomy presented.

I will be expanding the concept of reciprocity as a base for God's authority in the next few rounds.

b. I will concede of the fact of the killings, but will be extending my argument on reciprocity and perhaps other societal notions (related to it) to justify that God's authority also rests on the control of the threshold between life...and death.:) Keep in mind, voters, that I will be responding to some points later; though I fragment my case, I do wish to respond (especially to the point about God's punishments) when it is more fully developed and when I have more space. ;)

For the sources and note, see---> http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

C1. Knowledge and Freedom From Control.


The primary reasoning behind my opponent's (eloquently written) counter is that God was not punishing Adam and Eve for gaining knowledge per se. It was because they disobeyed his direct order towards them. He writes: "The true reason for the fall of man lies not in the acquisition of knowledge but the supposed transition from a postulated graceful innocence (see my Argument) to a defiance, a transgression of the set limit to human enterprise by God." A strict distinction between disobeying God and specifically how this comes to be is made in God's defense with the purpose of justifying God's actions as not necessarily antagonistic to the gaining of knowledge.


But the problem with this point is that it fails to actually get around God punishing Adam and Eve for gaining their knowledge. This can be seen from the fact that God had a rule against it in the first place. Now obviously when God created this rule he had some reason in mind. There had to have been a reason to penalize humanity for eating of it. If the reason was to simply measure the obedience of his creation then the contents of the tree's fruit it was arbitrary and knowledge needn't have been the result of eating from it. Since God could have just created a normal tree to keep Adam and Eve from eating from (in order to measure their obedience) there must be special significance in his choice to make the fruit of the tree specifically causal in giving knowledge.


My opponent's analysis only looks at the secondary reason for God punishing humanity (which is obviously because they disobeyed his rule). But what Con fails to take into account is why they disobeyed in the first place. Why did God choose to penalize the gaining of knowledge? My own analysis looks into the rule itself, what could possibly justify it, and what characteristic implications may we derive from this rule as pertaining to God. The rule is to penalize and prohibit the gaining of knowledge, God never bothers to justify the rule as it is only a command (expanded upon in C2), and there has not been any reason forwarded to suggest that this rule was created for any reason other than to keep humanity in a state of ignorance.


Satan as the Serpent in Eden.


My justification for the serpent being the Devil was clear and my opponent has yet to refute it. In the verse I provided (Ezekiel 28: 13), God says specifically that "You were in Eden, the garden of God" and in verse 14 (speaking to the same person) that "You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.". Cherub refers to a being which is necessarily supernatural and the only characters in the Garden were Adam, Eve, the Serpent (one of them is being referred to in this passage and Adam and Eve were long dead, leaving only the Serpent). Therefore one may conclude that Satan is the one being spoken to in this passage and was the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.


C2. Individualism and Unjustified Authority.


The case which Con has made based on reciprocity may be summarized as follows (I apologize in advance if I'm mistaken): authority may be created through reciprocity wherein one actor A provides benefits or acts in favor of another (actor B). If actor B who receives the benefits does not submit to obligations imposed by the actor A then there is an imbalance of obligation which fails to give repayment to actor A. The problem with this contention though is the conception of authority as contractual. Under Con's conception of authority, it is being created in a contractual manner- God creates humanity and endows it with certain favorable traits and in return humanity is supposed to owe something to God (in this case submission).


But the problem inherent in this point is that Con is using the contractual approach to arrive at a non-contractual conclusion. Under my opponent's own framework, authority may be conceived as reciprocal. Jim provides John with benefits so John repay Jim by submitting to their authority. But this reciprocal condition is only fulfilled if the two parties contract themselves to each other voluntarily. Now obviously God was a voluntary party to this contract but was humanity? Of course not. The alleged contractual act was made prior to humanity's conception in the first place! Meaning we didn't even exist to make this alleged reciprocal agreement with God.


Consider the following analogy, if I just come to your house and offer my services mowing your lawn, you are only contractually obliged to pay me if you first accept my services. If I just mow your lawn and then come and ask for payment you have no obligation to pay me. After all I'm just some weird man who's trespassing. The same applies to humanity's conception and is the reason why our facts of existence (the Earth, our traits, etc.) cannot be taken as terms in a contract. Reciprocity is the standard which my opponent has taken in his argument. He conceives of authority in much the same way I argued, that it can only be made in agreement between parties. But humanity was not a party to it's own creation, therefore the facts of existence or creation cannot be taken to defend God's authority over man.


===Sources===


[1] http://www.gotquestions.org...
Man-is-good

Con

After a discussion with my opponent, I have decided to concede the debate to Socialpinko due to a few issues at hand; I won't discuss them but will simply note that the burden I created due to poor research and understanding of the material, as well as a few unrecognized time restraints (that I had underestimated) are some of the reasons why.

I apologize greatly for letting this debate fall because of such issues but would like to see my opponent debate this again with a more competent member.:)






Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

This was certainly a stimulating debate and I thank Con for the chance to discuss this issue even if we can't finish it. That being said, Con has conceded. Therefore I urge a Pro vote.
Man-is-good

Con

Again, I'd like to thank my opponent as well as for the stimulating quality of the debate. I certainly hope that if he chooses to redo it, then good luck to him.

The debate has provoked some interesting research into a few theological concepts that unfortunately are not, in union, efficient to advance the debate.

I thank Socialpinko for understanding as well as for the brief, but anticlimatic end to the debate.:)
Debate Round No. 4
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Who is someone you love dearly.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
PettyBitch 1:7--This is what the Lord says: "Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.""

13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."

Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die."

15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah"s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

18 On the seventh day the child died. David"s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, he wouldn"t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."--2 Samuel 12:11-18

Leviticus 20:9
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

Proverbs 30:17
The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures.

Human Error 14:17--Continuing to proliferate a fairy tale in the presence of the Genie. Recommended is BBQ sauce to go with the inevitable crow eaten upon such attempts :)
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Then show me a problem with the bible. Trust me, I can prove evolution wrong ten times over.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
salamander-grimace, "And there is a divide between micro and macro evolution. Micro is taking information already there and taking it a different way. Macro is adding information, which doesn't happen"

Mainstream scientists, don't attach the same importance to macro- vs. microevolution that creationists do. The terms macro- and microevolution were coined in 1927, casting doubt in an improper way has been going on for a long time. Come on kids catch up.

Gullible Nation:

1) Believes all planets, stars and galaxies were created by a being that had a human sacrifice and resurrection in the middle east thousands of years ago.

2) Believes denying humans equal marriage rights is ok because the reason for gravity is a homphobe

3) Believes that the reason for the sub atomic world of particles and DNA was all created by a being that knows how to keep slaves and told us how in his holy book :)

4) Believes that the reason for the earths rotation, helps Ray Lewis win Superbowl but still allows birth defects :)

Mainstream scientists would rather stick to 21st Century knowledge than the words of the incas, aztecs and other outdated doctrine written by intellectually challenged humans, even if you call the writings holy :)

When you or a loved one are in the hospital, count the times a scientific advancement saves the day, and then count the times a prayer saved the day.

If the prayer score ever rises above zero, ask the doctor if you can schedule a psych appointment to deal with a possible delusion :)

WAKEUP 1:26--While your brainwashing children into believing cumulative evolution by natural selection is somehow incomplete or untrue, science will continue to use its knowledge and understanding of evolution to advance medicine and save your delusional butt in the hospital. Beliefs do Not supersede understandings. We understand water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, believing it is or isnt, wont change anything.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
salamnder-grimace, denying evolution wont make your god anymore real :)

If you need evidence of evolution, pretend you get to see jesus with each piece of evidence you find,use your jesus motivation to research the universe and life instead of creationist lies :)

ParentalChoices 1:37--As a parent you can indoctrinate your children with What to think thru religion or you can teach them how to think thru logic, facts, evidence, science, common sense, proof , reasoning, probability, thinking, intelligence, feasability, confirmation, observation, experiments, testing, wisdom, liklihood, knowledge, rationality, openning ones mind, awareness, not being a complete moron their entire life, trusting yourself, believing in yourself, and doing good because you want to be accountable to yourself, Not because a sky daddy is watching and waiting to give you a scooby snack when you die :)

CaptainObvious 11:16--DNA is talked about a lot in the bible, as a matter of fact, DNA is mentioned 3,000 times more often in the bible, than electricity, the principle causes of disease, all advanced science and complex math, cars, and airplanes combined. The math doesnt lie, 3000 x 0 = 0 :)

BigKids 4:23--Scientific discoveries and 21st century knowledge of biology, and genetics have proven beyond any doubt that the adam and eve story is completely impossible. Without the adam and eve story, there is no "original sin". Without "original sin", there is no need for a jesus to die on a cross. Without the human sacrifice of jesus, christian religion falls apart completely. The entire religion is based on and relies totally on a creation story that cannot possibly be true, all evidence clearly points to a common ancestor billions of years ago :)
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
I'm not choosing which theories or fact to listen to. There is no evidence for evolution. There are no upward evolutions or good mutations.

And there is a divide between micro and macro evolution. Micro is taking information already there and taking it a different way. Macro is adding information, which doesn't happen.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
It's nice of creationists to admit that micro-evolution occurs, but the truth is that there is no magical dividing line between micro- and macro-evolution. Biological evidence shows that changes within species are caused by the same natural forces that eventually cause differences between species, genera, families, and all the way up the line.

There is no single day in which a youth becomes an adult, but everyone knows youths do become adults. It"s just a gradual process. Looking at an individual day by day, we see the continuity. When we stand at a more distant vantage point, as when we view photos of ourselves taken years apart, we see the differences. We have no trouble identifying which stage is which, even though there never was a single calendar date at which one stage totally ended as the next totally began.

It works the same way with species. It"s good to remember that terms like "species" "youth" and "adult" "dusk" and "night" "caterpillar" and "butterfly" are words we invent to describe stages we observe. The processes that generate the stages happen regardless of what we call each stage, or whether we call them anything. Nature does what it does. We invent terms as we need them to talk about what we see.

If evolution is truly a new concept to you, you haven"t been served well by your science teachers. Fortunately, it"s never too late to learn. Let me suggest a place to begin catching up on what you missed: the FAQ page for the Department of Geology at Baylor University.

Baylor, as you know, is a baptist college in Texas. It trains geology graduates for success in many fields, including careers in the oil industry. The department offers an excellent summary of what is known about natural time scales and organic evolution. You will want to give special attention to the description of the scientific method :)

http://www.baylor.edu...

Enjoy :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Scientific Theories are Not scripture. You dont get to choose which ones you agree with, you dont get to interpret it to mean something thats "comfortable", ignorance wont stop the revolution of the earth anymore than ignorance will invalidate cumulative evolution by natural selection :)

1. The Atomic Theory
2. The Theory of Matter and Energy: Conservation of Matter and Energy
3. The Cell Theory
4. The Germ Theory
5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics
6. The Theory of Evolution
7. The Big Bang Theory
8. Chaos Theory
9. The "Gaia" Theory of a Sustainable Earth
10. The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
11. The Theory of Special Relativity which incorporates The Theory of General Relativity which incorporates Newtonian theories of motion
12. The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light
13. The Theory of Electromagnetism
14. The Theory of Radioactivity or Nuclear Theory
15. The Theory of Molecular Bonds
16. The Theory of States of Matter
17. The Theory of Thermodynamics
18. The Theory of Homeostasis within Living Organisms
19. The Constructivist Theory of Learning
20. The theories of self and development of mental processes in the brain.
21. Theory of Gravity

These and many other discoveries, make it clear the reason for gravity, evolution and everything else, is Not concerned with what people do naked, and its childish and petty, to think the reason for everything, made an appearance in the middle east for a human sacrifice and resurrection thousands of years ago :)
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
I would like to say that evolution and the big band theory has no evidence. And God is obviosly the better role model.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Religion is just a complicated and illogical way of getting answers to life and a weak way of expressing your feelings. Especially thoughts of "Im scared of death we all need to earn points for an afterlife and pay absoulutely no attention to the evidence that science has accumulated up until now in the 21st century, admonish any and all new discoveries which literally happen daily, they mean nothing. I dont care if science is responsible for curing diseases and new strains of the flu that EVOLVE from previous strains, Im not ever going to trust people that are extremely intelligent about science because religion has science in it. Not only am I going to admonish and belittle the impact of science, Im going to make a lot of noise and infect our government with doctrine which in turn denies rights to others based on ancient dogma, and commit this bigotry while hiding behind a shield of humility called religion. Grow up already, check out Sceience Daily.com and learn and gain confidence and acceptance with life and death thru new real truth everyday :)

Lets look at some more basic differences.

Cristian Leaders Institute-- "We use the term home discipleship to accent the point that when the home is strong and supported in walking with god, the church prospers". (check their website)

Science-- We use the term empirical to accent the point that when evidence is strong, and supported by years of testing, mankind prospers :)

BigKids 7:57-- Advocating intellectual honesty is expressed most vividly through science and mathematics. Science and complex math are the thorn in all fairy tales.

Awwww 10:48--Prayers are cute, however, science rolls up its sleeve and gets things done. Cute isnt the concern of intellectual honesty :)

DevientGenie 2:7--For those who are smarty pants, the Genie is not deviant, the second 'e' is testament to that fact. He is merely splashing a glass of ice water on the world :)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by ATHOS 4 years ago
ATHOS
socialpinkoMan-is-goodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded......
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
socialpinkoMan-is-goodTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con backed down
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 4 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
socialpinkoMan-is-goodTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
socialpinkoMan-is-goodTied
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: asdf
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
socialpinkoMan-is-goodTied
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: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
socialpinkoMan-is-goodTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes the debate. Furthermore, Pro's arguments were interesting as well as well structured and cogent. God is an unjustified authority who forces you to be blindly obedient, whereas the Devil represents the most enduring, beneficial, skeptical side in humans of questioning authority, of acquiring knowledge, and of individualism. God also killed millions and was complicit in the 10 murders the Devil committed. Pro responded well to Con's critiques of his arguments, and dismissed them well.