http://www.debate.com/rss/debates/Religion.xml This RSS feed lists the newest debates in the Religion category on Debate.com. en-us 2008-08-08T13:58:28-08:00 2008-08-08T13:58:28-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/People-are-idiots-if-they-argue-against-Religion./1/ "People that point fingers at religions for being bad (not the FOLLOWERS of the religions, but the religions themselves) are idiots." - PublicForumG-d This rather offensive comment made by PublicForumG-d is a notion I disagree with. My resolution in this debate is that if someone argues against religion that fact does not make them an idiot. A difference should be made between religion and religious followers. --- as an irrelevent side note --- I personally believe that religious followers, even terrorists, are not evil themselves but made that way by their religion.---- BUT TO BE CLEAR THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS DEBATE. id·i·ot http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiots 1. A foolish or stupid person. 2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offe http://www.debate.com/debates/People-are-idiots-if-they-argue-against-Religion./1/comments/ 2008-08-08T08:53:50-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/According-to-the-Bible-people-who-work-on-the-Sabbath-should-be-put-to-Death-Lord-have-Mercy/1/ Pretty simply, Exodus 31:14; 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36 Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Numbers 15: 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said unto Moses http://www.debate.com/debates/According-to-the-Bible-people-who-work-on-the-Sabbath-should-be-put-to-Death-Lord-have-Mercy/1/comments/ 2008-08-07T12:13:37-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/In-Favor-of-The-End-of-Faith./1/ I am in favor of putting an end to the act of believing something is true without using the best evidence/reasoning available. The following speech is by sam harris http://longnow.chubbo.net/salt-0200512-harris/salt-0200512-harris.mp3 I ask my opponent (and anyone voting) to listen to this speech (((thoroughly)))! It's 1 hour and 20 mins long... so my opponent should have the time to spend doing this. I will argue in defense of any proposition put forth by this speech so long as it supports my first statement: "I am in favor of putting an end to the act of believing something is true without using the best evidence/reasoning available." I will let my opponent pick it apart and present their argument first. http://www.debate.com/debates/In-Favor-of-The-End-of-Faith./1/comments/ 2008-08-08T09:50:43-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Paedophile-priests-should-be-exposed-not-literally-obviously-that-s-already-a-big-problem/1/ As most people know, many Catholic priests are paedophiles. Despite the Church's attempts to hush the whole thing up, some kiddy-fiddling clergymen have been caught out and publicly shamed. However, my suspicion is that most consecrated choirboy cuddling goes unreported and, because the priests know that the Church won't punish them (unless they are actually arrested), these corrupt Catholic clerics continue their perverted practices with impunity. The only way the Catholic Church can begin to restore it's shattered reputation is to form squads of ecumenical investigators with the power to mount wholesale surveillance operations on suspected or known offenders and make random raids on all parochial houses. I therefore affirm that the Catholic Church should be pro-active in bringing these sacrosanct sex-pests to justice. http://www.debate.com/debates/Paedophile-priests-should-be-exposed-not-literally-obviously-that-s-already-a-big-problem/1/comments/ 2008-08-05T22:21:24-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/ISLAM-IS-THE-WORLDS-MAIN-THREAT/1/ From Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. Islam: A 100% System of Life Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Mus http://www.debate.com/debates/ISLAM-IS-THE-WORLDS-MAIN-THREAT/1/comments/ 2008-08-06T14:48:01-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Agnostics-Should-Be-Atheists-By-Default/1/ The most intellectually honest standpoint for anyone to have is skepticism. This is, perhaps, because the ungrounded assumption of the existence or truth of anything is the basis of all intellectual dishonesty. Therefore, when there is no proof of the existence of something, every scholarly principle forces the observer to assume that it does not exist. Agnostics do not believe that God exists, nor do they believe that he doesn't. They are uncertain, and many do not believe in much of the "proof" that he does exist. This is more or less the definition of agnosticism. Many of them believe this to be the intellectually honest route. What I contend is that because of their lack of proof and ostensible uncertainty, the true intellectually honest stance for them to take would be atheism. http://www.debate.com/debates/Agnostics-Should-Be-Atheists-By-Default/1/comments/ 2008-08-07T19:21:52-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/The-most-important-question-about-God-is-not-whether-he-exists-but-whether-he-cares/1/ I have found so often when the existence of God is challenged the most frequent objection to his existence is that there is suffering in the world, or a close relative died suddenly and therefore God cannot exist because if He did he wouldn't allow this suffering to continue. What does is matter to an atheist if God exists but has no interaction here on earth? Or if God exists and has no capability to intervene on mankinds behalf? It is the same as whether or not Pluto exists. It may matter to some people but at the end of the day, whether or not Pluto exists has no effect whatsoever on my life. Let the debate begin! http://www.debate.com/debates/The-most-important-question-about-God-is-not-whether-he-exists-but-whether-he-cares/1/comments/ 2008-08-07T21:32:22-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Employers-should-not-be-legally-obliged-to-accommodate-their-employees-religious-beliefs./1/ There have been a number of instances recently where Christian employees wishing to adhere to their faith in the workplace have taken their employers to court over and duly won their respective cases. For example, a devout Christian working as a registrar refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies as she considered them to be contrary to her religious beliefs. Her successful legal action has set the precedent that religious beliefs supersede the rights of lesbians and gays in the workplace. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm It is clearly wrong for employers to discriminate against people from certain ethnic backgrounds because nobody chooses to be born into any particular ethnic group, so a company would not be allowed to advertise a job as follows: "Wanted – junior sub-atomic particle physicist to work in nuclear research facility. No experience necessary as full training will be given. Shetland Islanders, Inuits and Icelanders need not ap http://www.debate.com/debates/Employers-should-not-be-legally-obliged-to-accommodate-their-employees-religious-beliefs./1/comments/ 2008-08-08T03:00:13-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/According-to-the-Bible-Homosexuality-is-a-Sin./1/ Hello I Am Always Right, and thank you for accepting my debate challenge. I have debated this topic before, twice actually, but when a Christian comes along claiming that homosexuality is not a sin, I simply cannot pass up the opportunity for debate :) This is a topic that I have spent a decent amount of time looking into, and a topic that I feel very strongly about. With that, let the debate begin! I, as PRO, am affirming that: "According to the Bible, Homosexuality is a Sin." I will stick mainly to scripture. It is the backbone of my life, and will therefore be the backbone of my arguments. ------------------------------------------ You said in your comments earlier that you believe homosexuality is wrong for christians. You also say it is a right for non-christians to be homosexual, and you will defend homosexuality for non-christians. I say that God speaks out blatently against homosexuality, and that He says in no uncertain terms that it is a blatent sin. T http://www.debate.com/debates/According-to-the-Bible-Homosexuality-is-a-Sin./1/comments/ 2008-08-05T17:53:33-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/The-fact-that-the-word-Islam-means-Peace-should-not-be-used-in-defense-of-Islam./1/ My point is very simple and i want to keep this short. The word Islam means peace but this fact is unimportant when debating the moral standards of Islam. Just because the name of an organization/religion/movement is something does not mean that the organization/religion/movement abides by that thing. For example lets suppose that a band of murders called themselves "Los Amantes de la Gente" Suppose this band has killed more than 500 people and are now at court on trail. Are we to believe that they shouldn't be convicted simply because their name means the lovers of the people? You may think their names sounds far fetched but consider the fact that The Nazi Party actually stood for The National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was supposedly a party for the people. Just to hammer the nail in the whole. Imagine someone with the name Dietfried. (yes its a real name, http://www.behindthename.com/name/dietfried) murders hundreds of people. Would any lawyer even think to tr http://www.debate.com/debates/The-fact-that-the-word-Islam-means-Peace-should-not-be-used-in-defense-of-Islam./1/comments/ 2008-08-06T15:35:14-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Free-Will-cannot-exist-as-defined-by-Christians.-Especially-as-relating-to-the-Garden-of-Eden./1/ I contend that the use of 'free will' to excuse God of his behavior towards a majority of humanity is built on a false premise. Christians claim that humans are innately evil based on the introduction of sin through the actions of Adam and Eve. They utilize this claim to excuse God of his plans to destroy sinful humans and submit them to hell, and call it free will. For this debate I would like to make the following assumptions: 1. God Exists 2. Hell Exists 3. The Bible provides an accurate depiction of the Garden of Eden and the introduction of sin. I contend that free will cannot exist as promoted by the introduction of sin, listed in Genesis, and that God himself is culpable as a result. It will be beneficial for this debate for Con to initially define his/her definition and utility of free will as it relates to humans and God. There are varying applications of free will doctrine, and it will be helpful to discover which flavor we are dealing with right from the s http://www.debate.com/debates/Free-Will-cannot-exist-as-defined-by-Christians.-Especially-as-relating-to-the-Garden-of-Eden./1/comments/ 2008-08-08T01:02:12-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Religion-is-at-best-useless/1/ At best, I argue, religion is useless. I challenge the responder to name me an ethical action that only a person of faith could do, and not an atheist. I also wish for everyone to consider an evil action performed, that only a person of faith would do, and not an atheist. I argue the second takes much less time than the first. Morality stems not from religion but from human nature, and religion borrows these moral rules, and is, at best, useless. That is on the moral issue, on to the intellectual issue... ... Nothing. Science has superseded all claims made by any religion about the cosmos, the earth, or reality. The one thing I can think of on the con side, is to say that it gives consolation regarding life after death. All I will say is that those who give you false consolation are false friends, I do not regard a placebo effect as useful, nor should anyone who is has the intellect to realize the feebleness in wish-thinking. http://www.debate.com/debates/Religion-is-at-best-useless/1/comments/ 2008-08-02T18:58:33-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Monotheism-Reduces-to-Monism./1/ I will be arguing for a somewhat unintuitive proposition and b/c of this i am positive that many people will vote against me without fully reading my arguments. I ask anyone voting to please read the debate carefully. There are two ways of persuading an individual; -Emotive Cajoling -Logical Reasoning (since this topic has elicited confusion on this site in the past i will provide this link to clarify the meaning of Logic. http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php) Emotive Cajoling is an ineffective method for discerning truth and I ask my opponent to refrain from using it. Obviously most arguments people make are interlaced with both types of persuasion. Please be conscience of this fact. Now to address the topic. There are many kinds of monotheism. I am concerned only with Omniscient Monotheism. The claim that there is a God/Being who knows everything. All other attributes about this God are irrelevant. There are many kinds of Monism as well. Most notably the http://www.debate.com/debates/Monotheism-Reduces-to-Monism./1/comments/ 2008-08-06T20:39:09-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Jesus-should-not-be-worshiped-as-God-or-anthing-above-the-average-man./1/ First off allow me to state that I am a muslim. Though many of my beliefs are have roots in my religion this one does not. I am commenly considered to be a rational, relatively intellegant human being, just like most other people. As such I strongly disagree with the way he is viewed in many christian related faiths. Just so you know, I'm not going to use bible or quran verses a million times [like some before me] to help back my arguments, a few here and there will do nicely. Nor am I going to try and shove my beliefs down my opponants throat. This is going to be a simple debate, that is argued through a logical POV. Now, LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!!! [lol] I'm not christian, but much of my family is and as a result I catch myself attending church with them sometimes. When I do, I tend to find myself very, uncomfortable and confused, because I'll often hear some church gooer scream something like "PRAISE JESUS!", or "PRAISE THE LORD!" I hear this far too often, to the point where I ask m http://www.debate.com/debates/Jesus-should-not-be-worshiped-as-God-or-anthing-above-the-average-man./1/comments/ 2008-08-07T01:24:05-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/The-Bible-was-not-meant-to-be-literally-interpreted./1/ This debate isn't whether we should interpret parts of the Bible literally, there is no "grey area here". It's either to be 100% literally interpreted, or otherwise. ---- ==Pre-modern era Throughout most of the Christian era, Bible reading and Bible interpretation were confined to religious professionals. Until the fifteenth century, the Bible was available only in Latin. Even when the Bible was translated into other languages, the scarcity and high cost of Bibles kept them out of the hands of ordinary people. Availability of Bibles was also restricted by church officials.(SRC1) During this era, the Bible was interpreted according to church beliefs and traditions. There was little or no attempt made to determine the original meanings of the Scripture. Difficult passages "were interpreted as having a figurative meaning, so that they convey, through a kind of code, deeper truths about God, the spiritual life, or the church."(SRC2) ==Sixteenth to eighteenth centuries Gal http://www.debate.com/debates/The-Bible-was-not-meant-to-be-literally-interpreted./1/comments/ 2008-08-04T08:31:41-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/The-Christian-flavor-of-God-is-immoral/1/ I argue that the God presented to humanity by a majority of Christians is immoral. For this argument 2 points must be assumed. 1. God exists 2. Hell exists I argue that the omniscient creator of all things cannot coexist with Hell and be considered Loving, Just or Moral. http://www.debate.com/debates/The-Christian-flavor-of-God-is-immoral/1/comments/ 2008-08-02T08:09:27-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/catholic-principles-democrat-or-republican/1/ ** introduction/disclaimer ** if the catholic church absolutely had to side with a political party (democrat or republican), which one do you think it should choose, not based on scripture, but based on the religion's VALUES? i acknowledge that you can't have one without the other. the holy bible is where we read, learn and how we pass on catholic beliefs. however for the purpose of this debate, i ask that my opponent (who will argue on behalf of republicans, even if he/she is not republican) please not say "god does not believe in gay marriage, because corinthians 6:9 speaks against it" or something similar. rather i intend for this debate to be more about the discussion of ideals and values and morality regarding catholic teachings in general more than about quotes from the bible. of course biblical reference is necessary, however, i am asking more for a general interpretation of values than specific quotes for or against. i hope whomever becomes my opponent understands my request http://www.debate.com/debates/catholic-principles-democrat-or-republican/1/comments/ 2008-08-06T12:00:00-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/The-logical-conclusion-of-the-Bible-s-free-will-is-that-man-can-live-sinlessly./1/ I would like to ask first that my opponent would be a Christian who believes in free will. My reason for arguing isn't necessarily because I believe I'm right. But I am a Christian who believes in free will and I believe that there may be something to this argument. So let us begin. If there is in fact free will then it logically follows that man can live sinlessly. I'm not saying that man can be sinless, but they can make the choice to live without sin. In the book of Matthew, Christ says "Be perfect therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect." Why would Christ give a commandment that is impossible to follow. I believe that He doesn't. But that it can in fact be followed. My reasoning behind this is as follows. 1. Man has ultimate free will...or the ability to choose. 2. When being tempted, we choose to sin or not to sin. 3. The Bible says that when we are tempted, we will not be tempted beyond what we can resist. 4. Therefore it is possible to live without sin. http://www.debate.com/debates/The-logical-conclusion-of-the-Bible-s-free-will-is-that-man-can-live-sinlessly./1/comments/ 2008-07-30T23:23:14-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/Faith-is-irrational/1/ I define faith as belief without evidence. We should not believe things on insufficient evidence. If you here of a surgery that has only worked twice out of 500, you would opt for a better surgery. To teach faith is to teach the opposite of critical thinking. Not to mention that the claims of faith are usually the most radical of all; not only knowing the existence of god, but knowing its mind, knowing the origins of all things AND, as no scientist will ever say, with 100% certainty. http://www.debate.com/debates/Faith-is-irrational/1/comments/ 2008-07-29T13:37:29-08:00 http://www.debate.com/debates/You-cannot-soundly-derive-morality-from-god-./1/ I would like to start by saying this is my first debate, so I'm test driving this site. I'd like to keep this one short and sweet, straight to the point. Either god decides what is right and wrong, or he has no say in it. 1. If you say he goes decide what is right and wrong, then what is right and wrong has no worth at all, for he could say to wreck cars on Tuesdays and we would consider that as morally sound. If god picks what is right, then what is right is 100% arbitrary. 2. If he doesn't get a say, then why use him as a useless intermediate? Either a moral rule is intrinsically sound, or it isn't. This is a philosophical argument to show morality doesn't come from the divine, the examples in human biology and human evolution are much more numerous. http://www.debate.com/debates/You-cannot-soundly-derive-morality-from-god-./1/comments/ 2008-07-26T20:56:32-08:00