The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kukithan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

acting is the problem of the existence of religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 10/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 316 times Debate No: 80589
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

to be, or to not act, that is the answer
Kukithan

Con

Even though I may die of frustration, we will debate. If you are saying that religion is wrong because of free will, think of this. God created free will because he didn't want slaves. He wants people to love Him on their own terms. Having morals does not make us slaves. You are the slave. You are imprisoned by your sin. Satan has you right where he wants you. You are the zombie, chasing after pleasures and running away from true life.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

theists and atheists have no free will, they have no ability to think

only the agnostic sees they are both wrong, while they are unable to

belief is immoral

morality is knowledge, opposite


satan=disbeliever
disbeliever=believer=theist
Kukithan

Con

Unbeliever doesn't equal believer, but yes, sometimes Satan equals theist. Morality is not knowledge, but those with TRUE knowledge have morality. Second, how can we be void of free will when we are capable of making more serious choices than one without belief? We know the true consequences of our actions, and we are able to reject sin more often than not.
I find it odd that you preach against religion and the like, when you seem to worship knowledge as divine. I also don't understand how you can consider Satan wrong and yet have one of the most occult symbols as your profile picture. I think you are a Gnostic, not an agnostic. If I am being presumptuous, tell me, but how can you have a "religion" and preach against religion?
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

unbeliever based on belief to the contrary is atheism, is thesim

knowledge is not true, morality is logical, is knowledge, truth

you dont make your choices, you follow a book

i dont have religion, the all seeing eye pyramid capstone reflection flying at the top of a pyramid represents me

i know god is false, my position is different


Kukithan

Con

Question: is this a serious debate? Anyway, what would you lose by believing in God? We do not follow a book, we follow the book. You are using flawed logic. Besides, I think Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle proved that logic isn't always absolute.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

my soul

logic has no flaws

no causeless effects exist, reality is flawless
Kukithan

Con

What exactly does that mean? Your arguments aren't exactly arguments, and I can't debate someone who speaks in riddles. Aristotle said that heavy things fall faster, based on logic, but he was proved wrong. Logic is not infallible, and you have no grounds for argument.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

no it was based on his reasoning
Kukithan

Con

Logic IS reasoning.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by InsaneSanity 1 year ago
InsaneSanity
Sorry if this seems like spam, but it's late at night and I am having a hard time thinking. I just realized that whether vi_spex's account is active or not, that was incredibly out of line (what I said). Sorry about that, I am just a bit annoyed at the dead debates I've seen. I didn't express it the right way. :(
Posted by InsaneSanity 1 year ago
InsaneSanity
Oh what I think that my iPad must have glitched before, it now says that vi_spex is on right now...
Posted by InsaneSanity 1 year ago
InsaneSanity
Vi_spex strikes again with confusing non-arguments! I cannot express how glad I am that that account is no longer active, I ended up having one debate with (him? her? neither?) about existence and it was crap.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Classic vi_spex, I see. Against a theist no less. Good game, but vi_spex needs to work on clarifying his points. Vagueness isn't a valid argument. Con successfully refuted all of Pro's arguments. I'd say Con wins. (yet again)
No votes have been placed for this debate.