Instigator / Pro
0
1465
rating
31
debates
59.68%
won
Topic
#5583

Belief in Christianity is not irrational

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!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
1,480
Contender / Con
0
1442
rating
47
debates
55.32%
won
Description

Irrational = a groundless belief with no evidence

ah. it was a good debate.

The title of this debate reminds me of a kritik I did on the rationality of belief in God. If memory serves, I argued for the less controversial figure of Santa Clause... Of course it's rational to believe in Santa, all the other kids do, your parents are telling you he's where the presents come from (and they do come... also whatever crimes you did are fine because you're still on the all-knowing nice list).

-->
@Moozer325

Would you be willing to revise your vote and re post it?

-->
@Americandebater24
@Moozer325
@Owen_T

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Moozer325// Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

This vote is only a little below the threshold, and I appreciate the thought put into it.

The core problem can be extrapolated from what is the point of the debate? You need not list every minor contention, but certainly the core one.

Sources should only be awarded if impressive enough that you'd want to talk about one or two of them (at least naming them and how they applied to part of an argument)
**************************************************

Moozer325
07.18.2024 10:47AM

Arguments:

Con missed the point of the debate. Con provided counter points that didn’t work in the context of the argument and Pro also refuted most of Con’s arguments

Sources:

Pro provided more sources, much better sources, and more sources that were directly relevant to the debate resolution.

Legibility:

Neither side had a significant lack of legibility, so it’s a tie.

Conduct:

Ideally I would award this point to Pro, but the voting guide specifically says that if you are to award a point it must be for excessive breaking of conduct, and Pro was only slightly better at conduct than Con.

-->
@Moozer325

I have several objections to your vote. First, you claim that I "missed" the point of the debate without providing any details. This is particularly troubling to me as I presented multiple arguments demonstrating why Christianity is an irrational belief, using the definition of irrationality, the subjective definition provided by Con, and by delineating the distinction between faith-based ideologies and those founded on reason. Therefore, stating that I "missed the point of the debate" is entirely unfounded since you did not offer any explanation or examples.

You also say that I made counters that didn't "work in the context of the argument." How? for example, Pro made the argument

"Now, let me ask you some questions. Where did that initial atom come from? And if there is no god, why and how did it suddenly expand into a universe? Not just a mess of scattered elements. A universe with rules, life, and probably most impressively, human intellect. How could a random atom that was just kind of existing one day independently create such an organized universe? How did DNA evolve in such a way it created conscious thought? DNA is like a language, and you need a writer for that. "So, we can see, that there is indeed evidence for the existence of God. This evidence claims that a god exists rational."

In response, I pointed out that the first law of thermodynamics disproves the notion that a deity created the universe. This rebuttal is not only contextually appropriate but also remained largely uncontested by Pro, who simply retorted, "That violates the first law of thermodynamics," without providing any sources to support their claim. Please explain how that is out of context.

And then you say that Pro refuted everything I said, which is false. For example, Pro had no answer to the first law of thermodynamics, the medical improbability of Jesus coming back to life, and he even conceded that point by agreeing it was impossible. So, again, saying that Pro refuted everything I said is false.

On the sources vote. You say that Pro provided more and better sources. Explain that to me. Pro gave a total of 15 sources. of those 15, all but 3/4 are biasedly Christian. Meanwhile, I provided a total of 11 sources. Which rage from the scientific method of understanding, the law of thermodynamics, clinical death vs actual death, incest, genetic birth defects, statistical analysis of newborn dying every year, the definition of rationality and faith etc. So, not only are my sources more diverse, but they hold more academic credibility.

Lastly, you made it blatantly obvious that you wanted to give Conduct to Pro on principle bur didn't because the rules do not allow rather than because of an actual review of our conducts. I find that very biased and unprofessional.