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

Nothing in the universe deserves to be worshipped

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Thelettuce has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 399 times Debate No: 100216
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




This is a simple argument against all organized religions fundamental belief. The belief that something exists that deserves every humans respect and worship. Even without evidence these religions claim there is a being above humans that we should submit to and be judged by. This is a flawed system that causes humans to second guess their own intuition and often misguides them by offering up moral codes created by other humans as a means of control. Simply stated: Humans are equal to all other species in the universe as is all other species in the universe are equal to humans, therefore no one species is above the other in deserving worship or respect as a living creature.

Second statement: A "god" entity is supposedly omnipotent and all powerful yet it seems they require worship and fellowship. This need contradicts being a god as a true god would have no wants or needs. Therefor there is no god.


So how was life created again? I don't suppose it just happened out of nowhere. One minute there's dead, lifeless rock, or some other abiotic thing sitting there and BAM its alive, just like that. I also suppose you believe the whole universe just started from nothing when there was nothing before that, and then nothing happened to nothing to form something, perfect scientific sense. I don't see how the universe, much less INTELLIGENT LIFE was formed without the direct intervention of God. I agree that no animal or any organism should be worshipped, I do believe that humans deserve more respect than other animals, because it is the only intelligent and self-conscious being, as I believe, created by God in his own image, and to God we owe all praise and worship. Who says a God would have no wants, needs it would not, but of course the Creator would want us to have faith and trust in Him, and not go against him. I'm sure if God wanted, he could destroy the whole earth right now, as was the parable of Noah's Ark, but He gave us free will to choose, and Adam and Eve chose sin, from the Tree of Knowledge. But through Baptism we are reunited with him. Earth is like a test for humans, the good will go to Heaven and live forever with Jesus, the evil will go to Hell and burn with Satan. Purgatory will prepare those just not ready to go to Heaven. These are my beliefs which I hold true, and before stating anymore I would like to hear your counter-argument.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Trump27 2 years ago
so the debate timed out and it gave me a tie unbelievable
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Everything that exist deserves to die..
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
*programmed not prgramed
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
(Part 2)

Moral Argument Continued. And you may not have noticed this, but by saying that "there is no moral standard," you have created a delimma for yourself. In an amoral universe, the phrase, "someone should do/believe something" is completely meaningless, as no standard exists to determine if someone really should do/believe something. You also say, "any morality code we apply to this world is entirely man made and can sometimes function for the good or bad." But how can we determine if a man-made code works for the good or bad if there is no standard to compare it to? So either objective morals exist, which means that God exists. Or objective morals don't exist which means your debate over whether we should worship God is moot.

At long last, the worship argument. You are mistaken to suggest that Adam and Eve were unintelligent before they sinned. If you're referring to them not having free will before their fall, then you are wrong. The argument goes that because they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that they were necessarily prgramed to do good, which is false. They knew of right and wrong, as evidenced by Genesis chapter 3, verses 2 and 3. They merely hadn't experienced it. So I think a more accurate question to ask would be, "If God had his way, would there still be a perfect world and would man still be sinless?" The answer to that question, is "possibly but not plausibly." And the reason that I say that is because I believe God wants 2 things: That we worship him. And that we do it willingly. He could have made us mindlessly worship Him. But I would dare to say that He valued sincere relationships with His subjects rather than mindless worship. So, He gave us free will. Now I suppose that we could have continued to be innocent, but it is improbable (as demonstrated by the fact the we sin today).

I look forward to your response :)
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
(Part 1)


Thanks for your response. Most debaters ignore the comments on their debates. Would you mind explaining on what grounds you reject my "God exists sans the universe" hypothesis. I believe that God exists much in the same way that logical laws exist. They don't depend on time, space, or matter, yet they exist. It is in this sense that I believe that God exists, thus making it possible for God to exist sans the universe.

I completely understand your fear that worshiping something places it on a higher pedestal than one's self. But I don't think this merits a lack of belief. I would love for humanity to have all the answers to everything. And I by no means want to insult you, but I think it would be a bit egotistical to suggest that humans do have all the answers (or the capacity to gain them all on our own).

Concerning my Moral argument, I think this is where you and I are going to disagree most. I'm going to attempt to explain why, if there is an objective moral standard, then it has to come from some force that transcends the universe. And the reason is very simple: if objective moral standards exist, then we have moral obligations to uphold those standards. But I can't have an obligation to a non-personal thing (I have no obligation from my car to give money to the poor). Thus, if objective moral standards exist, a personal and transcendent being has to exist. I will be posting another comment that finishes my response to your comment momentarily.
Posted by threadandneedle 2 years ago
God is GREAT believe in Him.
Posted by Thelettuce 2 years ago

I appreciate your response and the time you took reading my thought. To address you first point, I understand how you could attack my "within" the universe statement the way you did, but I cannot agree with your god outside the universe hypothesis. This just seems to me like confusion on context, I should have stated "Nothing that ever was or ever will be should be worshiped by any other thing". The reason behind this being the second you worship you are lowering yourself to whatever is being worshiped. This is my main fear when it comes to religion because it implies that humans do not have all the answers and we never will. I believe in humanities ability to self regulate much more than I would trust an outside force acting on humans to do. Worshiping is kind of like giving up in my opinion, its implying we need outside help and nothing is really our fault (failures or achievements).

As far as the moral code argument goes I completely agree with what you said about an objective moral standard, but this does not necessarily imply some intelligent outside force is imposing those standards. What I would argue is that there is no moral standard at all, that is an illusion created by man. Nature is unbiased and cannot be good or evil, the same is true for us...any morality code we apply to this world is entirely man made and can sometimes function for the good or bad.

Finally for the worship argument. I ask you to answer this simple question : "If god had his way, would we still be in the garden of Eden walking around as unintelligent naked beings?". Its the first chapter in the bible and people do not realize that it implies our all powerful super nice omnipotent god really just wanted us as worship cows for him to farm for eternity.

PS: I respect your opinion and would never ask for anything less then for you to speak your mind.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
I agree with the resolution that nothing *in* the universe should be worshiped. But then you go and argue that God shouldn't be worshiped. This does nothing to support the resolution as God, being the creator of the universe, does not reside within it. Then you claim that "these religions" (presumably all of them) have no evidence for a God (which I would be happy to debate). And then you say that religion often causes people to second guess their intuition (as if that's a bad thing), but intuition isn't always correct. Now I agree that many religions cause people to adhere to moral standards created by other people. But I find it surprising that you would take issue with this. Because if people having different moral standards is flawed, then that suggests that there is an objective moral standard. And if there is an objective moral standard, then there must be an author of that standard (i.e. a God).

Concerning your second statement, God doesn't really require our worship. To paraphrase Frank Turek, any worship or praise that we give is for our benefit, not God's.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.