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

What kind of God to believe ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,532 times Debate No: 36776
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (66)
Votes (0)




Well , lets get straight to the point I am a person born with a defined religion and a defined God and as i started to question everything around me i came out with some conclusions that i am going to state in my middle paragraph with all evidence needed for a normal logical person to know that there is something wrong with everything.
Evolution is the most accepted theory of how every living thing in this world came to existence.Evolution based on large number of bone records and historical facts and time facts is considered worthless in the world of religion because it directly states that Adam and eve suddenly came to existence.So my first question is that i need someone to tell me how these two theories complete each other or in other words how they does not contradict each other .
religion is a theory that claims to provide a system on how to live life and, in what forms, stating that if a person does wrong he will go to hell and if he was a good person he will go to heaven .
as we all know in order to prove a theory wrong you only need to prove any branch of it wrong thus the theory as a whole will be unstable and can't be trusted.
Good, in the world we have 20 different major religions not mentioning the branches each religion make.All these religion have a lot of common ground which is something very normal because calling to do the right thing has be proven to inspire and give people trust so we should not be amazed by this .
Now Islam contradicts Christianity and vice versa and both of them contradict the whole concept of the Buddhist's state of mind importance ,and so on the whole systems contradict each other even with smallest details .So we will come out with only 3 theories with no other on what to believe concerning religion :
1-all are true
2-only one is true
3-all are wrong
1-As said before these theories(religion) contradict each other so badly even we the smallest details and these small details can be used as evidence because scriptures of books claim that it is the world of God and God can't be mistaken even with the smallest details .And for those who say that God will punish each one according to his religion i say that in this case God will be unfair because certain religion give its followers some important right that other religion strictly prohibits. So definitely we can say that not all theories are true.
2-Only one is true is not the case because even if a religion can prove everything that is written in its scripture is true and it is really true then the God this religion holds will definitely punish people holding other religions even with the smallest details and God can not blame people for not switching their religion because the original one is claiming to be the true one so the person will fall into pure contradiction with himself.
3-Well all theories are proven wrong but this one which seem to me the true one or in other words religion is a man made phenomena in order to maintain some control over an uncontrollable society with making them fear something that people cant find an answer to except to believe or some other own advantages or the person is psychologically ill

My opening statement is that i need someone to tell me where does he/she think I am wrong in order for me to get more deeply into details in explaining my theory.


I must agree with one of the commenters that your question is too vague.

However, let's take your final sentence wherein you ask for someone else to do the thinking for you.

At some point in our lives, we are children who want questions answered, usually, by adults.
At another point in our lives, we realize that we can and, maybe, will, become adults who answer questions.

Often, we, simply, give the answers that were given to us by someone else.
If all you are is an unquestioning repository of regurgitation, I ask, is there another way to use your
brain than for storage?

Now, let's take the idea of god.
1. all ideas of god were designed, originally, by brains who thought that earth is flat
2. the human brain is structured to find answers, even bad answers, so that it can go to sleep.
1 and 2 point out that religion is a pretty sad choice indeed.

3. there is only one thing that is omnipotent, sin-free, ubiquitous, all-powerful, cruel/kind, in another dimension and perfect
It is not human, vertebrate or dark matter or light.

It is MATH.

MATH is the only thing that fulfills all the requirements of being god.

If you NEEEEEEEEED a god to believe in that is human-shaped, I want to point out that such a thing
would get straight "A"s in MATH.

Do you get straight "A"s in MATH?
Debate Round No. 1


Okay maybe i didn't make my point very clear.And now that i have an theist as my opponent i have to find some debatable issues between us so here we go.
First of all i must make my point clear concerning on what side am I on and what do i believe in exactly so that we can argue towards our beliefs and slide down to some small details.
I am a person who thinks that religion is not the force from God on earth because as i said and argued before it is not possible to have an earth functioning with over 20 different major branches in religions that contradict each other so badly and have them all true that is impossible or the God of religion will then be considered non-fair , petty , non logical , and pretty non realistic and i don't think the world with all it's amazing content is as such petty and stupid as mentioned .But on the other side my mind doesn't deny that their must be some sort of power that made something from nothing , that made the earth reach this far knowing that we have high odds of getting smashed by the monstrous,non-stable outer space and by the continuous explosions that not even a triple layer of ozone can defend but though we still made it to 4.5 billion years and counting, the perfection of having all the means of life in a perfect way with sufficient resources to make human beings make it through the day is definitely something,but you got me wrong in saying if you must have a God then it's MATH, well i didn't mention any statement that will refer that i need or want a God ,and your Math isn't not enough to explain human behavior, psychology, and many other emotional sides of humans and you made math the theory that will explain everything though it's not ,so you focused on the logic, and Science and forgot dealing with a big major form which is the behavior and emotions, and also I am only saying that there must be something that made non-logical things logical and comprehensible, but if you ask me what does this great power intend to do with the universe i must say i don't know and I am sure no body knows because of the contradictions every thing have.
Well let me tell that whatever choice you make in life concerning what to believe in or what to hold as your conviction towards life and its branches, will definitely have some contradictions that will make you feel lost , now that your an atheist then as a definition you must believe that the world started by the big bang .
For now I am going to take this issue and make it our center of debate because i almost agree with the atheistic thoughts on 80 % of it's philosophy and it's logic on how to think towards life.
my question to due concerning this issue:
1-You as a person of science and facts must know that matter can be neither created nor destroyed and in all forms .
Albert Einstein the idol in the theoretical physics and science formulated that energy if used right can changed into mass or matter and vise versa . The question is how do you explain the initial energy found in the universe that changed into matter afterwards ?where does it come from ? and how does the idealistic forms of equation science has this big major contradiction of having something from nothing .


Before we go any farther, I shall stop you.
Assumption is a very poor tool in debate.

Your first sentence is ASSUMPTION
Debate Round No. 2


Dear opponent you made me laugh .... I don't know were to start from. Anyway I am going to do my best clearing things out from my side, and from yours, and I am going to burn my last round, trying to teach you some basics, since you seem new at this, so it is okay I will burn my last round just in order for you to be a better debater with someone else, because you seem to miss the point
1-you said ("Assumption is a very poor tool in debate.") which is funny from three sides
a-first side is that I actually didn't make any assumptions, my round one's writings wasn't directed to people like you, what I did in round one is that I just presented a hypothesis about something, and I said if any person seem to find a mistake, or non-logical statements in my speech, I want him to be my opponent so we can debate about the differences between us and when I saw you responding to my round 1 with ultimate off-topic issues I said let me make my self more clear because he seem to miss my point and I thought that rather then canceling my debate I should find some debatable issues between you and me because initially you wasn't the one meant in my topic and the biggest evidence is that you saw a very important reason for you to stop the debate because of my sentence .
my statement ("Okay maybe I didn't make my point very clear") which you saw an assumption that is very dangerous in your point of view, and you saw that you can't continue the debate you didn't write anything in, then I must tell you, you are far away from understanding anything from the whole point.
b-you seem to talk only about my style and my punctuation and my way of writing and my grammar and you seem to evaluate my psychology,not my writings, so I must tell you because as I said you seem new to this, Dear opponent the evaluation of me either my punctuation nor my style nor my speech is not your task at all, you as an opponent must write what you got to defend yourself or to present something, not to evaluate your opponent, because it is the job of the audience to evaluate the two sides. not you .
c-If you see that ASSUMPTIONS is a very dangerous thing in debate let me correct you by saying that our topic have no answers, or have no direct answer that can be considered as a fact in the world, so we don't have any other tool or way but to assume things and evaluate them in reality to see if they are reasonable, logical, and can be considered as a valid theory because when you debate theories , you debate assumptions, so really really I don't know what you had in mind when you said such thing and messed the whole debate.
Now what I see for this whole thing, is that from the two rounds you didn't answer anything I wanted, or asked my opponent to answer, and the biggest evidence is your response in round 2 and the comment were you mentioned ( " Are you aware that galaxies, that are bigger, swallow galaxies that are smaller?") which is something is far away from what I asked you to answer you just deviated the speech because in my point of view you have no answer to the beginning of things and you rather speak about something else to make the audience lost, rather then saying you don't know.
I asked you that the initial energy found in the universe that started everything from the very beginning where does it come from, and all I got from you is some issues about the big universe eating the small or I don't know what ...
So as a conclusion I hope you learned something new from this and I hope you study your responses more accurately.


hokay, young man.

This is what I understand from your long-winded, repeating-yourself.

1. you do not find anything valuable or logical in the manymanymany religions offered but

2. the main sticking point that you find in the questions and answers of the religious is that
something cannot be made from nothing.

Does this compile your first post?
Debate Round No. 3
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
Sagey, probably, you, already, know that Sir Conan Doyle formed Sherlock Holmes after his medical teacher.

Holmes said that the teacher taught him to look, carefully, and be rational...good stuff!

Thank you for your typing!
Posted by drthrax 3 years ago
No i think makdoom is now going to through some useless words, that we are ignorant,and that we don't know what is going to happen to us, and that all the world is wrong, but only he had the chance to know the truth, and the we will burn in hell for being rational.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Well drthrax, It's almost too obvious.
Decisions based on Faith alone are nearly always Wrong.
Decisions based on Rationally weighing up the objectives and problems are far more likely to be Right.
Society has finally found a way to eliminate Faith based decision makers by Rationality (RQ) testing.
Every community leader should have such testing made compulsory, before they are allowed to take office.
Though religious leadership is different, because they want faith based low RQ leadership, so the lower their Intelligence the more they like them.
That's the difference between running a business, country or scouting group.
That's also why Religion should not be able to have a say in Politics.
Because Brainless Faith (Ignorance) Based Concepts are very bad for running a Country.
Even Makhdoom should agree!
Because it is as obvious as water is wet.
LOL :-D~
Posted by drthrax 3 years ago
Sagey, I couldn't agree more..
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Take for Instance Ayatollah Khomeini,
He had almost no Rational Brain.
Made many dumber than dumb decisions.
His decisions may have sounded great to others without a Rational Brain or his devotee followers.
But, his decisions caused great problems for not only his country, but for Islam as well.
Much of the Western world turned against Islam because of such idiotic comments made by him and his imposing a death sentence on Salman Rushdie.
Yes, he made his country appear as a land of blithering idiots and made Islam appear as a completely intolerant, murderous belief system.
Such is what happens when you have low RQ idiots leading a country.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
The higher the Fundamentalism, the lower a person's RQ, thus the lower their Intelligence.
An extreme Fundamentalist has almost no RQ.
They are entirely Irrational.
Thus they should never be leaders nor teachers, because their thinking is very bad and they will only create problems for all those they lead.
History has proven this as being absolutely true.
Every leader should have RQ tests to show how well they Think.
The higher a person's RQ, the less mistakes they usually make.
This is why industries are now testing RQ for hiring workers, because high RQ workers make less errors of judgement.
Same goes for leaders.
If a prospective leader's RQ test is below 80%, they should not be allowed to lead, because they will make mistakes and may cause big problems for a community.
George Bush had an IQ of 120, but he had a poor RQ, which meant he made irrational decisions and those decisions have caused problems that the US is still trying to deal with now.
Obama has a much higher RQ, so he is a good, stable leader.
If Romney, (low RQ) had made President, the US could be suffering all sorts of problems because it is likely he would make silly, irrational decisions.
Extreme Fundamentalists always make dumb decisions, because they don't have a Rational Brain.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Yes drthrax, though it is not IQ that is lacking in heavily religious countries, because IQ is hereditary and cannot be reduced by belief. My family has a very high average IQ, yet that doesn't mean we are Intelligent.
A far better measure for Intellect is RQ or Rational Quotient. This is what is lacking in those heavily religious countries.
It is a measure of how Rational a person is, in what do they base their decisions on, facts or superstition.
Most religious people base a lot of their decisions on superstitions and not always on tangible evidence.
This lowers their RQ level.
So the average RQ in say California University would be over 80% or they will make over 80% of their decisions on evidence and knowledge of the rational consequences known to them.
But take that to an Islamic Fundamentalist school and they would be lucky to get an average RQ above 2o%. Because the majority of their indoctrination is to make decisions based on Allah and such decisions are really based on superstition, not rational consideration of the circumstances and data.
The most intelligent man I know of and he has his own Science show, has only an average IQ of 110.
But he is considered around the world as having a great scientific and practical mind, many thought he had an IQ equal to Einstein's, but, the secret is his training as a Doctor of medicine and his in depth interest in how everything works has given him a RQ close to 100%.
He is almost 100% rational, this makes him extremely intelligent.
I have a much higher IQ than he has, but my RQ is around 90%, so I'm not as intelligent as he is.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
now u prove ur self what u are lol.
scientist dont give judement about religion they dont have right.
they must get their asss in research for what they are being paid.
u too.
science is not here to prove or disprove the religion or any thing else and cant do.
so now u are messing up.
same advice for u too.
i have seen much things u even cant imagine.
soon u will need some thing.
Posted by drthrax 3 years ago
5 minutes ago scientists are misguided, and all their theories all crap, I see now you consider yourself a person who argue using science, man I told you go have fun in have heaven, and put me in hell slowly, I literary don't give a shi*,your countries and considered to be the worst countries on the globe, having people with an average IQ of 60, but whatever you are the chosen ones and Islam is the truth,I don't know why I'm still arguing, I rest my case,you are really the dumbest person I have ever met.Keep Up the stupidity bro, work on getting into heaven, but issues concerned with life on this planet leave it for the smart ones, it is not your task after all , go have peace be stupid, but leave us alone,go debate any stupid person in your country with your crap, and useless words, they will believe you, and you can feel smart :)
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
well u did not mention ur country.
let me see u seems to me Egyptian.
No votes have been placed for this debate.