Debate.org: Religion Debates

Deism is more Reasonable than any Revealed Religion

2013-05-21T03:09:19-08:00

(Debating Period)

This will be a debate on whether or not Deism is more reasonable than the revealed religion of Con's choice.

A revealed religion is a religion founded primarily on the revelations of God to humankind. These include Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and more.

The burden of proof will be on Con, as Con will be the one attempting to prove that their religion is true, and I will be negating their claims.

I will allow Con to start off the first round with his or her points.

Rules:

-No trolling
-Only accept if you are willing to debate all the way through. I really don't want to wait 3 days for a round forfeit.

I hope for a fun and fair debate!

Agnosticism is the Correct Religious Stance

2013-05-21T01:52:50-08:00

(Voting Period)

I would argue that since we cannot logically prove or disprove the existence of God, we cannot say for certain that God exists or God does not exist. Thus both atheism and theism are false. I do however believe that one day we will be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. My opponent is welcome to take a theist position, an atheist position, or draw on arguments from both sides. Arguments from differing cultures which dictate the existence of multiple Gods are also welcome.

Rules:

My opponent:
Round 1) acceptance & arguments
2) arguments/rebuttals
3) arguments/rebuttals
4) arguments/rebuttals
5) rhetorical statement of choosing.

Me:
Round 1) terms and conditions
2) arguments/rebuttals
3) arguments/rebuttals
4) arguments/rebuttals
5) conclusion

No Plagiarism

Definitions:

Theism: Belief in the exi

Homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible

2013-05-20T23:21:49-08:00

(Debating Period) Rules: No swearing, bad attitudes, ect. Just a friendly debate, have fun:)

I call BS on Christianity

2013-05-20T22:39:32-08:00

(Debating Period) I call BS on your Christian faith, whatever you got I call BS. The idea is that I can credibly critique and provide sources that dismiss the reason you believe or even what you believe. Rules: One, you have to be stand up kind of person and not cowardly accept this challenge and then claim you are not really a Christian".do so and you forfeit. Two: This is a formal debate and not a debate aimed at making others feel good by pussyfooting around. While convincing the audience may be important to some, fact"s quote and citations will be your friend. Three: It will be "Pros"" responsibility to redirect voters from voting anything other than neutral on conduct. YES, the acceptance of the debate means you NO_ONE votes other than neutral on conduct. I used this rule recently and Christians seem to believe rules only exist for non-believers. What do I mean? I mean to say that the bible is an evil book that instructs believers to commit acts of violence against

Muslims do not hide their intensions and speak openly about radicalism and extremism

2013-05-20T21:20:42-08:00

(Debating Period) socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f132/are-most-muslims-extremists-283809/index9.html If muslims do not realize that by norms of western societies they are extremists its completely their problem. First of all, muslims came to our world and they must obey our laws and orders. Who cares about their beliefs? They consider ours as something insolent and powers that be are tied to the chariot of these muslim radicals and they do everything so these radicals could feel comfortable, but make the majority suffer. In fact authorities encourage islamization and help muslims to destroy every place they live in, or simply destroying our values substituting them with some bizarre islam stuff. Muslims do not hide their intensions and speak openly about radicalism and extremism because both became essential part of their religion. I know a couple of muslims and they told me that all methods that will help islam to conquer the world are good. And they refused to hear other op

Indigenous

2013-05-20T20:43:24-08:00

(Debating Period) I believe that Science and religion are and have been for a very long period of time in disagreement, but I am convinced that someday they will be in agreement. When science takes a step forward, religion takes a step back. The reason for my statement is because when the Christian beliefs were that the earth was flat, it was soon proved wrong by science. The exact same happened when religious people thought the sun was orbiting around the earth, which was again proved wrong by science. All those factors prove that these two ways of believing have and are in conflict over most of their argument. On the other hand, science may just simply help explore what god has made.

Ontological and teleological arguments cannot accurately tell us whether God exists

2013-05-20T20:39:36-08:00

(Debating Period)

Why this debate? Promenent theist apologists like William Lane Craig have spent tremendous amounts of effort polishing Ontological and Teleological arguments. I'd like to stop and ask the question - whether valid or not, does this type of argument reliably lead us to true conclusions and accurate knowledge in the first place?

Resolved: Ontological and teleological arguments cannot accurately inform humans as to whether God exists

First Round is for acceptance.
Second round opening statements.
Third and fourth round are for rebuttals.
No new arguments introduced in fourth round.

Parties agree to use definitions as they appear in Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Where there is

Is god`s existence worth debating with the faithful?

2013-05-20T18:02:49-08:00

(Debating Period) If one has faith, by definition he does not have to respond with reason. How shall reason respond? Is it worth fighting the the ultimate question with people who have an automatic answer? If yea then how? (Pardon for the open-ended topic). DEBATE QUESTION: what manifestations of gods can you propose? Of what manifestations of ``mind`` based on our understanding of the physical universe can you conceptualize?

A Perfect Being Can Exist

2013-05-20T15:50:45-08:00

(Voting Period)

The Rules:

No swearing.
No slander.
No insult to character.

The Debate Format:

The opponent will immediately begin with a rebuttal, and it will be counter-arguments and rebuttals from then on.

My Argument

1. A perfect being exists.
2. The perfect being has free will.

The ability to be evil or good.

3. The perfect being creates outside of itself, the universe.

Because the perfect being has free will, His creation too has the potential for free will within it.
Both the perfect being and His creation are separate entities, separate beings. Same perfection, different nature.

4. The universe is perfect, and is made up of perfect parts.

Evolution

2013-05-20T15:32:47-08:00
(Debating Period) Is Evolution right or wrong? Is God real? Did God make evolution?
I believe that God made evolution. That science is what God did, but never told about. I believe that God did not make the world in seven days.

Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1 and doesn't contradict it.

2013-05-20T10:02:59-08:00
(Debating Period)
Welcome!

I have the burden to prove two points:

1-that Genesis 2 is nothing but the continuation of the account of the creation mentioned in Genesis 1, and therefore it is not a new account of the same events.

2-That Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1 if we understand both correctly.

CON will have to prove Genesis 2 is a whole new account of the creation and therefore Genesis2 contradicts Genesis1

I will paste here the full verses of Genesis 1 and 2 that we will be using (KJV) from : http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=KJV so it i

The Moral Argument is Sound!

2013-05-19T20:09:02-08:00
(Debating Period)
I wish to engage in the topic of morality. I contend that the moral argument is sound. This moral argument is strictly for the God of Abraham and His character.

Resolution: The moral argument is sound!

In this debate Pro will assume the Burden of Proof. Pro must show the moral argument is sound. Con assumes the task of showing the moral argument as not being sound.

My moral argument is as follows:

i) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist

is Dann a tool or a moron?

2013-05-19T12:18:27-08:00
(Voting Period) Dann can learn, so he is a tool!

Jesus was Jewish

2013-05-19T00:18:39-08:00
(Debating Period) First round will be acceptance. Rules: Be civil Use sources/ logic to support your contentions Wikipedia is NOT a source Last round will be a summary of contentions and a bibliography of sources Best of luck.

Atheism Vs Christianity

2013-05-19T00:16:40-08:00
(Debating Period) Make your arguments in this round!

Is Illuminati a real organization?

2013-05-18T18:13:24-08:00
(Debating Period) I think, Illuminati is real. They're in everywhere! The world is controlling by this organization. They want to control our brains with some subliminal messages. The nuclear power, money, international companies, banks, wars (for example: September 11)....

Islam is a religion of peace

2013-05-18T15:13:09-08:00
(Voting Period) 1. Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense, and only when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively. 2. Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion. To me, mine." 3. Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist.

Coffee

2013-05-18T10:23:03-08:00
(Voting Period) Coffee, no coffee, no debate and never on a Saturday morning.

Debate votes are irrelevant.

2013-05-18T09:20:14-08:00
(Voting Period) Debate votes are irrelevant. My self-included most individuals in here are not capable of voting in accordance to the rules of debate (myself included) making their vote irrelevant. The voting section is not set up to vote in accordance to the rules and popularity is the only deciding factor.

Christian Universalism is Biblical

2013-05-18T05:20:13-08:00
(Voting Period) Christian Universalism should be an acceptable view in the church. Christian Universalism is the belief that all mankind will be saved through Jesus Christ. Christian Universalist base their belief in the salvation of all mankind based on these two Biblical statements: Statement 1---God has agape love for all mankind and desires their salvation(1Timothy 2:3-6 Arminian theology). Statement 2---God is sovereign and all powerful, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Isaiah 55:11 Calvinist theology). If God desires the salvation of all mankind(Statement 1) and God has the power through love to accomplish His desires(Statement 2), then it stands to reason that God will accomplish his desire to save all mankind. Futhermore, if Statement 1 is a true Biblical statement and Statement 2 is a true Biblical statement, why is it considered heretical for Christian Universalists to believe in both of these true Biblical statements? This is one of the many reasons

Debate.org: Religion Debates

Deism is more Reasonable than any Revealed Religion

Agnosticism is the Correct Religious Stance

Homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible

I call BS on Christianity

Muslims do not hide their intensions and speak openly about radicalism and extremism

Indigenous

Ontological and teleological arguments cannot accurately tell us whether God exists

Is god`s existence worth debating with the faithful?

A Perfect Being Can Exist

Evolution

Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1 and doesn't contradict it.

The Moral Argument is Sound!

is Dann a tool or a moron?

Jesus was Jewish

Atheism Vs Christianity

Is Illuminati a real organization?

Islam is a religion of peace

Coffee

Debate votes are irrelevant.

Christian Universalism is Biblical