Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4146
Religion does not offer realistic anwsers to anything and it's idiotic to take sacred texts literal. Faith arises out of lack of knowledge or the need for comfort.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
In the past, many things were blamed on God, such as the growing of your crops, the weather, the meaning behind those white dots in the sky and the flu your son had contracted. and over the past few millennia we have been able to devise and provide better explanations for all these things using the scientific method.
It is logical that people demand explanations for the events that happen to them and the observations that they make. And to assume that everything happens because it is the will or plan of a being more powerful and important than you is a thought that has come up many times throughout history. and can be comforting. however, due to the discoveries and better explanations we have today for almost everything, including the many scientific theories that give us an almost complete picture of how the universe works, with only speculative open ends in the most extreme bits of astrophysics and particle physics. the need for a god is superfluous.
sacred texts were written many centuries ago by people using their best explanations and the then taken for granted cultural views on ethical behavior. but over the years many of those things have been proven wrong. and much has been modified or rewritten in the meantime. and that which has not yet been rewritten, yet proves inappropriate is ignored if favorably. Except for a few things, mainly the origin of life and the origin of the universe. and while there are plenty of credible theories about this, there remain those who argue that it is more likely that an unproven god is responsible for such phenomena. answering any questions raised by these claims such as "who then made this god?" and "how do you know that your god is able to influence matter, energy, time and natural laws?" with answers such as: "god has always been" and "god is almighty". answers that do not explain the questions asked. since these answers should clearly be beyond the knowledge of those who claim it.
faith offers an answer only to those who are not really looking for an answer or who are too lazy to find out. and those who deny contradictory contemporary evidence live in an illusion they are unwilling or unable to break simply because they are not intelligent enough to do so or because they find too much support and comfort in the fable they have been taught.
now I am aware that I come across as a bit aggressive and that I may be disrespectful to believers but I have the greatest understanding if you are a believer as this offers you comforting thoughts about life after death or losing a loved one. but when you were brought up in faith and never bothered to think if religion makes sense, and when the real truth is presented to you and you deny it. and dedicate your life to proving your myths to be true. then I can only blame lack of intelligence for this. for not understanding how the world works is not evidence for claims such as god. and not only would you have to provide evidence for the god hypothesis, you would first have to prove that current scientific theories are wrong. or you have to admit that your god is not responsible for those things and that things like life and the universe came into existence without god's help. but if there is nothing left for god to be responsible for. then why would you keep claiming that it exists.
Con
#2
BOP
Pro is required to demonstrate that religion does not offer realistic answers to anything. This will be a difficult burden as currently, there are over 4,000. Secondly, this part of the resolution "it's idiotic to take sacred texts literal," assumes that all religious people take sacred texts literally when that isn't always the case.
Pro must also prove that the only reasons contributing to faith are lack of knowledge or the need for comfort.
faith offers an answer only to those who are not really looking for an answer or who are too lazy to find out. and those who deny contradictory contemporary evidence live in an illusion they are unwilling or unable to break simply because they are not intelligent enough to do so or because they find too much support and comfort in the fable they have been taught.
This doesn't really address the resolution. Irrelevant.
now I am aware that I come across as a bit aggressive and that I may be disrespectful to believers but I have the greatest understanding if you are a believer as this offers you comforting thoughts about life after death or losing a loved one. but when you were brought up in faith and never bothered to think if religion makes sense, and when the real truth is presented to you and you deny it. and dedicate your life to proving your myths to be true. then I can only blame lack of intelligence for this. for not understanding how the world works is not evidence for claims such as god.
Pro is assuming an air of condescending superiority by choosing to believe that the only reasons people are religious is because they are unintelligent. Ironically, this statement requires faith, so consider that an inconsistency from Pro.
Furthermore, there can be more than two reasons for faith aside from lack of information or desire for comfort.
- If a person is indoctrinated at a young age when they are vulnerable, they will internalize the belief well into adulthood. Even if science likewise contradicts said belief, it isn't likely to convince them otherwise. This faith isn't a result of lack of information, but misinformation.
- Many people can be forced to adopt beliefs through conversion therapy. A gay person may go their entire life believing their impulses are unnatural because of the stigmatization that reinforces said belief. Neither deals with adopting the faith as a lack of information or a desire for comfort.
Pro has not yet fulfilled the requirements for burden of proof.
Round 2
Pro
#3
i have to admit that this is my first debate on this website and i now see that i didn't just set up unprovable positions in the title. but also that I have set up more than 1 which makes the debate very difficult. to save both of our time, I will declare you the winner and withdraw this debate. thank you for your time. Perhaps i'll retry this debate another time.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
that's a good one
I like the debate title "faith is a cope"
Here's a tool you'll find useful:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I also advise a shorter resolution along the lines of just:
"It's idiotic to take sacred religious texts literally."
Right now someone is likely to argue you have not met Burden of Proof for each and every clause in the resolution, rather than actually defending religion (which I assume to be your intent).
you're right, thank you
You probably have the sides to this inverted. As con, you are arguing against what you wrote in the title.