The Instigator
64bithuman
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
DarthKiwifruit
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The belief in the Judeo/Christian god 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 4 votes the winner is...
64bithuman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 475 times Debate No: 78851
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

64bithuman

Pro

By agreeing to this debate, you must agree to follow my rules and my layout:

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Arguments

Rounds 3-5: Rebut.

The debate topic is well defined in the title: Is the belief in the Judeo/Christian god logical?

I'll be argueing that the belief is illogical.


Logic: The quality of being justifiable by reason.
DarthKiwifruit

Con

Right, so the affirming hasn't really said an awful lot in round one. I'll assume, though, that I'm expected to simply say that, yes, I accept the affirming terms.

So, yes, I accept the affirming terms, and look forward to the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
64bithuman

Pro


Thanks Con.



Round 1 is acceptance, so yes, it was just to accept the debate.



C1: There is zero tangible proof for his existence


The most obvious proof against the existence of a god is that there is simply no proof for one. Never in the history of mankind has there been definitive proof for any kind of god. There is not one shred of physical evidence. God has never interceded in any kind of disaster, no matter how terrible or unjust, he has never revealed himself to any modern man, he never answers prayers, and he has never specified which one of the millions upon millions of proposed gods he actually is.


When I talk to Christians about this point I get very similar answers. “God exists in my heart, god exists because of the wonderful creation he made, god exists because somehow, I just know he does.” These kinds of answers don’t prove anything except the delusion that religion causes. If you were to talk to a devout Muslim he would claim all the same points and would be just as passionate and unshakable. The point then stands: If all monotheistic religions use the same kinds of evidences, how can only one be the true, revealed word of god? It’s far more plausible that none of them have it right.


I’ll be using Occam’s razor all throughout this debate; and I’ll begin using it right here:


Which is more likely, that you’ve got it right and all the other religious people have it wrong, or that perhaps they’ve all got it wrong?


Another defence that is fallacious is the claim that if you can’t disapprove something it therefore must exist - Hitchens’s Razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”


I’m sure that Con, like myself, isn’t troubled in the least over the existence of leprechauns. Groups of scholars won’t get together and argue that they do or do not exist, there are no leprechaun apologists, and there are no churches to leprechauns (that I know of). We aren’t troubled by it because we know that they don’t exist. Sure we can’t prove they don’t exist, but we can operate under the assumption that they do not exist, and the world as we know it will go on just fine. The same rule and thought process can be applied to god. The model for our existence exists just fine without a god. The old joke goes:


"What does an insomniac agnostic dyslectic do late at night?"


Answer: Lie awake wondering about the existence of dog.



C2: The Bible is a deeply imperfect book


The other claim that religious people use is that somehow god exists because he has revealed himself through scripture. That’s just a ridiculous notion: the bible is deeply flawed and contradictory. Putting aside that fact that every religion uses the so-called proof of revealed scripture (as I have already pointed out, they are either right individually, or all wrong), this point is so easy to defeat. Take for example, the Old Testament god compared to the New Testament god.


The OT god is vile and brutal and utterly merciless. Take the infamous Numbers 31, in which the Lord says, "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." The bible makes it clear that every man has already been killed in battle. That means that god just ordered every male child to be killed. That's evil, but not quite as evil as then ordering every virgin female child to spared, and to be spared "for yourselves".


If you want to argue that these Bronze Age warriors were saving the virgin girls to educate them in biblical teaching, that's your burden. Verse 32-35, "The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man." These kinds of verses aren't spoken about very often in church, and you can see why. Verse 38-40, continuing with the list of plunder: "36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the Lord was 72; 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the Lord was 61; 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32."


Again, if you want to argue that 'tribute for the lord' means that these prisoners became priests, that's your burden. It seems to me that the Lord just condoned rape, genocide, human sacrifice, and war for resources - as long as it's 'the will of god'.


Suddenly, in the NT, god loves us all very much and sends his son to die for us. It’s quite a turnaround. It’s explained routinely rather poorly by this whole New Covenant – Old Covenant nonsense. It’s funny, because Jesus never mentions that. In fact, he says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” in Matthew 5:17. That’s pretty clear.


We are all implicated in god’s illogical scheme – which he set in motion. God made the fabled tree in the Garden of Eden knowing we’d eat from it. When Adam and Eve inevitably do eat from the tree, they are swiftly punished. Even though I had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Christ or the Garden of Eden - I am implicated. I'm born in sin and I need a savior. We are held to impossible standards, any sin, to use an Orwellian term, even thoughtcrime; even thinking about murdering somebody is the same as committing murder. What is the cure? God will send his son at an exact point in time in an exact place. He’ll wait thousands of years and drop his son in an illiterate desert before mass communication and before reliable written history.


Then Jesus will be violently murdered, and then we’ll all be saved. No – sorry, some of us will be saved - billions of Muslims, Atheists, etc. will be damned still. To top it off, god pulls a fast one – Jesus didn’t actually die, he’s supposedly raised from death. How much sense does that really make? Which is more likely, that god devised a bizarre and difficult plan to damn the world and then save the world by torture of his son and then still let some people still be damned for eternity…or…that the bible is manmade and reflects the iron age thoughts of those who made it?



C3: History and science disapprove god



Science and historical evidences have been stacking the odds against god for years and years. There was no worldwide flood, there was no Garden of Eden, even the Catholic Church agrees: we descended from ape-like ancestors through Darwinian evolution – something the bible doesn’t mention.


Professor Ze'ev Herzog, an archeologist, has said, “This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom...... Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.


The evidence for Jesus is vague. There are no eyewitness accounts, which, if you believe the bible is very difficult to believe. There are no records of earthquakes and the dead rising from their graves - you’d think there would be plenty of evidence on that if it really did happen. The closest books of the bible written to the events of Jesus are Paul’s epistles, written largely without mentioning the physical works of Jesus, and often describing Jesus as ‘Heavenly’. Josephus and Tacitus are among the few scholars around during that time who mention a Jesus, and they were both born after Jesus was dead. Both accounts are controversial, not bulletproof in the least.



Sources



http://www.infidels.org...


http://www.truthbeknown.com...


http://www.umsl.edu...


https://www.washingtonpost.com...



DarthKiwifruit

Con

DarthKiwifruit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
64bithuman

Pro

Con has forfeited the round, so nothing to refute.

My points carry on.
DarthKiwifruit

Con

DarthKiwifruit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
64bithuman

Pro

It appears that my opponent has left the building, so rather than waste this empty space with nothing, here's a good limerick:

"There's a train at four-four," I said to Miss Jenny,
"Four tickets I'll take, have you any?"
"Not four for four-four," replied Miss Jenny,
"For four for four-four is too many."
DarthKiwifruit

Con

DarthKiwifruit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
64bithuman

Pro

64bithuman forfeited this round.
DarthKiwifruit

Con

DarthKiwifruit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: lannan13// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (Sources, Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture

[*Reason for non-removal*] Con forfeited every round besides the acceptance round and presented no arguments. We don't moderate these "fully forfeited" debates except in exceptional circumstances like voters voting the side that did the forfeiting.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Illegalcombatant// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits

[*Reason for non-removal*] Con forfeited every round besides the acceptance round and presented no arguments. We don't moderate these "fully forfeited" debates except in exceptional circumstances like voters voting the side that did the forfeiting.
******************************************************************************
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Tough 1 year ago
Tough
64bithumanDarthKiwifruitTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiting 3/5 rounds is worse conduct than forfeiting 1/5 rounds of a debate.
Vote Placed by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
64bithumanDarthKiwifruitTied
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: Forfeits
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
64bithumanDarthKiwifruitTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
64bithumanDarthKiwifruitTied
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 forfeited losing conduct, although Pro did forfeit once I believe it was because there was nothing to argue. Con had no arguments whatsoever, therefore Pro is awarded argument points by default.