frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Is There Anything On This Planet More Intellectually Redundant Than Religion?

Debate Information

There's only one way for a person to become religious, and that's by switching off the part of their brain responsible for rational thought.
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    really? rational? how about eistein? there are lots on intelligent people who aare religious; rationality has nothing to do with it. @Nomenclature
    ZeusAres42
  • BarnardotBarnardot 530 Pts   -  
    @maxx Well that’s right because you don’t have to be Einstein to work that out and any way girlie boy Adolf is right any way because to be religious you do have to use the other part of your brain and even Jesus said that man should not put to much thought in to thinking about things so that you shouldn’t use your rationale part of your brain any way Any way if you go to a bar and pick up a chick are you going to be rational. No because your going to go with what your heart says and that’s the same about Gid because it’s nothing to do with being rational which is why you don’t use the rational part of your brain. But that doesn’t meen that religious people aren’t rational because how are you going to make a sandwich or buy stuff at the store. 
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    really? rational? how about eistein?

    Einstein wasn't religious Maxx. Not in the traditional sense. His last words on the subject were penned in a letter he wrote in 1954, one year before his death:-

    “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot
    girlie boy Adolf is right any way

    Girlie boy Adolf is happy you agree and plans to organise a full military parade to commemorate the occasion.

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    I am sure i can give you a dozen links on great scientists that believe in god.  a belief in god is not about rationality. One can be intelligent and rational and still believe in god. A belief in god is more based upon learning behaviorism. Being taught something that may be wrong does not exclude rationality. @Nomenclature
    NomenclatureEdgarPoint
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    I am sure i can give you a dozen links on great scientists that believe in god.

    I don't see how that is relevant to your initial claim. You appear to be making an argumentum ad populum, and one which doesn't even stand up to scrutiny in the first place. Scientists in particular have a much higher rate of atheism than the general public. 

    survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. 

    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/


  • BarnardotBarnardot 530 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature Well if you think about it if a scientist is religious then he is brainier than a scientist who isn't because he know all about science plus he knows all about God.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    Science and religion are the antithesis of each other. They are completely incompatible as ideological systems. In science, you conduct experiments and draw falsifiable conclusions based on the results. In religion, you begin with a non-falsifiable conclusion and interpret everything as evidence supporting that conclusion.

    The influence of religion on thought is why so many scientists end up looking for evidence to support their own biases rather than actually pursuing science. 
  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    you stated on the concept that people are not rational if they believe in god; i pointed out that they are and used scientists as an example. There are a number of doctors who are highly religious, teachers, professors, and so on.  It is not about rationality.
    When one learns a certain habit or belief, the earlier and longer that they have it; the more ingrained it becomes with-in our brain cells and memory banks, and that produces the effect that this belief is correct regardless of the proof otherwise.
    for example, i have given plenty of proof on the benefits of garlic on here as well as the medical value of hypnosis. Many on here would not accept that poo, and if i am not mistaken, you were one. If you believe in something long enough, then it becomes true in your brain. Opposing evidence will not shatter what you believe in, because what you consider true, is deeply ingrained in your thoughts It is not about rationality; it is what one learns, and how long they believed it.. @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    The poor devil's are victims of indoctrination and spend their lives caught up in their delusions .  A delusion comes under the umbrella of a  mental health condition and most Christians are only Christians for half an hour on Sunday then it's business as usual.
    Cat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @maxx
    you stated on the concept that people are not rational if they believe in god; i pointed out that they are and used scientists as an example

    I didn't mention God. I asked if anything is more intellectually redundant than religion. Religion incorporates a lot more than simply believing in God. For example, Christianity is predicated on the idea that someone called Jesus spent a lifetime on Earth performing various miracles which are outlawed by the laws of physics. 

    Firstly, you tried to use Einstein as an example of a rational religious person, and I had to explain that Einstein wasn't actually religious. 

    Then, you claimed there are religious scientists, which I agree there are, but you showed no evidence that any of those scientists are rational, and you furthermore ignored the fact that, as a group, scientists are far less religious than the general population. The fact that scientists are far less religious than the general population illustrates that the more scientifically minded (i.e. rational) a person is, the less likely they are to be religious.

    As regards the rest of your blathering, then I'll read it when you acknowledge and accept the mistakes you have already made.

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    actually einstein was religious. aside from that, how do you assume that the class of people I pointed out are not rational? as well, can you give me a scientific link that supports your claim that religious people are not rational? god and religion go hand in hand. besides that, one does not have to believe in miracles to be religious. now, since the rest of my statement, in which you call blathering, instead of just saying so; point out my errors, if you have enough psychology enough( cough cough, in which i doubt.) You see, you are a prime example of your own ridicule of others; for you put down others for not facing the truth upon somehting such as religion, yet you yourself; refuses to accept evidence of something that goes against your own beliefs. one who lives in a glass house, should not toss rocks. @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    actually einstein was religious

    Stop ignoring when your claims are disproved, Maxx. It's childish and it wastes both our time. One year before his death, Einstein made his views perfectly clear:-

    “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

    how do you assume that the class of people I pointed out are not rational? 

    If you don't understand how burden of proof works that's your own problem.

    can you give me a scientific link that supports your claim that religious people are not rational?

    If you need a link to understand that people rising from the dead and walking on water is irrational then you shouldn't even be on a debating site. You should be in school learning the basic laws of physics.

  • just_sayinjust_sayin 889 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Many great scientists were religious

    @Nomenclature said:
    There's only one way for a person to become religious, and that's by switching off the part of their brain responsible for rational thought.
    '
    There are many great scientists who were also people of faith.  Here are just a few examples:

    Johannes Kepler - famous astronomer.  He was a religious man, as evident in his writings. Kepler believed that God exists and that He had created a perfect universe and that we cannot understand it without studying it. 

    Robert Boyle - father of chemistry.  Also famous for his belief in God, which he expressed through his writings such as The Christian Virtuoso and A Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature.

    Gregor Mendel - A Roman Catholic Augustinian abbot. Founded the science of genetics; identified many of the mathematical rules of heredity; identified recessive and dominant traits.

    Blaise Pascal - Inventor of the mechanical calculator and French Catholic Theologian.

    Joseph Lister - Father of modern surgery.  

    Alessandro Volta - inventor of the electric battery the Voltaic Pile. He also discovered methane—a gas that is commonly known for its presence in natural gas reserves and is used as a fuel source. And a strong person of faith.
     
    Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek - considered the "father" of microbiology and devout Calvinist.  His religious views drove his work.

    Isaac Newton - Passionate dissenting Protestant who spent more time on Bible study than math and physics. Profoundly changed our understanding of nature with his law of universal gravitation and his laws of motion; invented calculus; built the first ever reflecting telescope; showed sunlight is made of all the colors of the rainbow.

    John Eccles - great neurophysiologist.  .Eccles was one of the three recipients of the 1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine, alongside Alan Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley, for their contributions to the synapse.  He was a devout Catholic.

    Charles Townes - A member of the United Church of Christ. Prayed daily. Wrote books linking science and religion; believed religion more important than science. Invented the laser and maser. Established that the Milky Way has a supermassive black hole at its center.

    George Washington Carver - A Protestant Evangelist and Bible class leader whose faith in Jesus was the mechanism through which he carried out his scientific work. Improved the agricultural economy of the USA by promoting nitrogen providing peanuts as an alternative crop to cotton to prevent soil depletion.

    NIH director Francis Collins, a successful gene-hunter, who helped identify genes associated with cystic fibrosis and other disorders.

    Max Plank, father of quantum modern physics and quantum physics.  In his Religion and Science (May 1937) Planck wrote: “Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.”

    Seems like some of the brightest minds of all-time would strongly disagree with you and disprove your thesis.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @just_sayin
    There are many great scientists who were also people of faith. 

    That doesn't make religion rational. 

    Here are just a few examples

    I don't need examples because your statement is irrelevant. 

    Seems like some of the brightest minds of all-time would strongly disagree with you

    Your bogus efforts to create a false association between science and religion are contrary to the facts, so thanks for illustrating my point.

    survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. 

    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

    Scientists in the United Kingdom are significantly less religious than the general population there, research finds.

    https://www.futurity.org/uk-scientists-less-religious-1937692-2/

    US scientists, however, are substantially less likely to hold belief in the supernatural (Larson and Witham 1997; Leuba 1916). Interestingly, this difference is far more evident among distinguished scientists: Larson and Witham (1998) found that 92% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a belief in God or higher power. 

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

    What about British scientists? One thousand and seventy-four Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion...  Overwhelmingly, the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity, and to consciousness after death.

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

    You have not provided an argument. Either provide one or go away.

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    just lie others on here you ignore what you can not prove.religion is much more than a belief in miracles. religion is a belief in a higher power. I have done told you to explain how a belief in religion is not rational and all you do is go back to miracles. so all you are stating is that a belief in miracles is not rational, yet offer no proof that actual beliefs in religion is not rational. As for einstein, i said he WAS religious , and never stated his views did not change.So all you have is a belief in miracles is not rational. You said religion. which is it ; miracles or religion? if it is miracles, fine, however if it is religion as a whole concept, then explain as to why. as well, i have asked you to point out my errors upon the fact that wahtever beliefs we hold, becomes entrenched and ingrained into our memory banks to the point that evidence and proof will not change it.. You failed to do so.  @Nomenclature 25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @maxx
    just lie others on here you ignore what you can not prove

    I can very easily prove that people can't rise from the dead, walk on water or part the seas with their hands. All of those things are precluded by very specific physical laws and if you believe them there's something seriously wrong with the functionality of your mind. 

    Go away Maxx. You're unintelligent, persistent and annoying.

  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @maxx

    Maxx,

    Are you pseudo-christian, or a non pseudo-christian?

    .
  • EdgarPointEdgarPoint 8 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Intelligence itself is redundant.

    @Nomenclature ;
    What is known is at best but opinionated beliefs given by any observer observing an object or an image. Based upon its motion, we create information about said object or image. For the images are just thoughts and when we have a thought about a thought, we claim it as our information. This information could exist on a wide spectrum of being either false or relatively true. What exists is truth, as what is truth is existence itself. With this understood, any new information that is placed upon any image or object about its motions are at best ones made up mind about said object or image. So we basically make up information and call that knowledge and say it's either true or false and if its commonly known and viewed similar to the first opinion, a certain amount of people can agree that it is reality to them. But it is only a reality, a dream state for which we make up as information to know and the more you know, supposedly the more intelligent you are. Funny thing is, if you have yet to understand anything I have given, we make up information to believe in as it is the truth about the truth. Truth is the truth existed before we even laid eyes upon it and gave it a name. Or a reference to the existence of said object or image. No one is smart and no one is dumb, as this is another opinion made after the matters motion here in the never-ending night sky. Example. For the sun rises and sets and this is commonly known. More knowledge about the subject would show that the Sun does not set nor does it rise. This is less commonly known of. But what we fail to understand most of the time, is that the Sun never left so it has never came back with a new day that many people believe based on the information that was made up on how to keep track of a schedule. Basically the date is not exist for it's a blue mirage that covers the never-ending night sky. And all of that which exists is a unit. And here we are speaking our verse.
    A units verse is the universe describing what other verses have given trying to claim it as ours individually and specifically. And this is coming from a member of the triple 9 society.
    John_C_87
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 695 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Redundancy is more redundant, clearly.
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @EdgarPoint
    What is known is at best but opinionated beliefs given by any observer observing an object or an image. Based upon its motion, we create information about said object or image. For the images are just thoughts and when we have a thought about a thought, we claim it as our information.

    You're only describing knowledge obtained from experience, not a priori knowledge. Confusing these two concepts is a common mistake made by people who haven't ever studied philosophy. 

    EdgarPoint
  • EdgarPointEdgarPoint 8 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
      I'm sorry, you have me misunderstood with your knowledge obtained from my motions given. Or⚜️
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 6015 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    People nowadays go to great length to come up with a clever interpretation of religion that avoids having to deal with facts. Someone like Jordan Peterson will ask a set of rhetorical questions, such as "Are there unifying principles?", "Is there a hierarchy of such principles?" and so on, and then dramatically pause and say, "Well, the highest of such principles is embodied in the concept of god". Cool, very clever, Jordan. Anything can be defended in this way. I can defend the concept of Sauron by defining it in a similar way.

    Is this what the actual religion calls god: a "highest unifying principle"? Of course not. The resurrection of Jesus is not some abstract unifying principle at play, but a very specific claim about a physical event that allegedly happwned in the real world. How about all these high philosophers grapple with that, rather than going around the circles and hiding behind the layers of abstraction?

    Religion ultimately is a fantasy roleplay taken seriously. It is as if the fans reenacting a battle scene from the Lord of the Rings genuinely thought that they are fighting the orcs in Mordor. Any moral or philosophical lessons that can be drawn from it are not its focus and are not at the core of the issue us atheists have with it (although, even on that front, the morals major religions promote are deeply abhorrent).
    Nomenclature
  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    this is a debate site mr. nom, you do not get to ask all the questions and fail to answer others. You asked about the redundancy  of religion. one has to take religion as a whole; not separate it into bits and pieces as you do. again, if you wish to take miracles out of context with religion as a whole, that is one thing; yet you can not claim the rest of religion is redundant based just upon that.@Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    this is a debate site mr. nom, you do not get to ask all the questions and fail to answer others.

    Exactly Maxx. It's a debate site, not a "I'm going to refuse to accept when anything I say is accurately refuted" site. Not a "I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and refuse to acknowledge basic facts" site. Not a "I'm going to waste everybody's time by going around in a circle" site.

    Part of debate involves the ability and willingness to accept when your argument doesn't match up to the facts, and that's an ability you lack in total and complete entirety. It renders discussion with you utterly pointless.

    Furthermore, in my debates I ask the questions and in your debates you ask the questions. It isn't a complicated concept to grasp buddy.

    one has to take religion as a whole; not separate it into bits and pieces as you do.

    My debate is about religion, not "bits of religion". Stop your silly straw man arguments and go away.

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    no, it is about bit and pieces of it; miracles to be exact. You have not stated anything else about it that is redundant. the word means no longer needed or not useful.
    Religion is a society with-in itself. As well, the social activities is a strong part of religion.So are certain morals and principles. What is no longer useful among those two things? You said religion as a whole and they are part of it. No, mr nom you are just stuck with miracles of the bible, not religion.. As normal, you will fail to address those points. @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @maxx
    no, it is about bit and pieces of it

    Stop telling me what my argument is about. I'm the one who gets to decide what my argument is about, not you.

    miracles to be exact. 

    My argument is about religion, and the title makes that perfectly clear. If even part of religion is believing in things which are physically impossible, then that makes religion irrational. Does that compute Maxx?

    Go away. You're not debating. You're trying to dictate to me what my own debate is about, which is idiotic. I literally told you in the last post to stop with the straw man arguments.

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    if it about religion then answer and address my points. You state religion is no longer useful;  to whom? Those who engage in it? what about the morals and principles, are they no longer useful? How about the social activities in religion/? How about achieving unity with others or seeking for a purpose in life; are they no longer useful? I have aske you many questions yet you failed to answer any; are you not capable of doing so?@Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    if it about religion then answer and address my points.

    If you had made any relevant points, I'd be more than happy to address them. But you haven't.

    I asked whether anything is more irrational than religion, and I offered up some of the things religious people believe as evidence that there probably isn't.

    You, on the other hand, have spent days trying to dictate to me what my own argument is about, and are now talking about the "social activities" of religion as if that is somehow relevant to how irrational it is. Neo-Nazis have social activities. Scientologists have social activities. The psychiatric wing at your local hospital has social activities. 

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    incredible. you refuse to debate your own post. it is apparent you do not know what religion is; you assume it is nothing more than miracles and a belief in a god. You are the one who stated that religion is redundant and useless, yet when i give you examples of how it is not, you refuse to debate. What a sorry excuse of a debater. You state religion as a whole is useless; one more time i give you examples as to otherwise; if you fail to debate and give me opposing reasons; then my conclusion is you have to accept my examples; but your ego refuses to acknowledge it. How is the social aspects of religion useless? what about morals and principles? What about the music that religion creates? Is that useless? How about the great art that is produced? Even a belief in a higher power gives purpose and guidance. Do you refuse to debate your own post? Give me solid reasoning as to why the parts of religion in which I have just outlined are redundant. @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    incredible. you refuse to debate your own post.

    No Maxx, I refuse to have an argument about nothing with someone who doesn't have any relevant point to make. Why don't you simply go away, like I've politely asked you to do numerous times?

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    my relevant  position is to prove you are wrong, in which i have done so. You claimed religion is useless. I have showed you plenty of examples that prove you wrong. You refuse to answer, simply because you can not; for you are wrong. go through my examples on how religion is not use less and give me a decent logical retort. Prove my position is incorrect. again, you made the claim, not I , that religion is useless, yet you refuse to debate your own post. You tell me to go away simply because you have no answers. @Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @maxx
    my relevant  position is to prove you are wrong

    Exactly my point Maxx. You don't care about the topic and are motivated only by a personal desire to feel like you've won against me somehow. It's extremely childish and a waste of both our time.

    You claimed religion is useless.

    No I didn't. I've just run a search for "useless" and found six mentions of the word in the thread, all of them yours.

    Go away Maxx. You're an absolutely pointless troll and you want to argue about nothing.

    Dee
  • BarnardotBarnardot 530 Pts   -  
    @maxx ;You tell me to go away simply because you have no answers. @Nomenclature
    Well you really nailed the nail in the head there because thats what Ive always said. he always does that when he gets nailed in to the wall and instead of fighting like a man he always turns in to a girlie boy and makes up dum excuses like run away or your dum because he knows he got beeten fare and square or he hasn't got the brains to find an answer and when he does look for answers its always on those dum Exstream sites that tell a pack of lies and the only other person Ive seen do that is that Maxx guy but hes not so much a girlie boy Adolf hes more like sticking to whats natural which is cool I suppose.
  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    well mr. nom, the word redundant, means useless and no longer needed. My examples proved you are wrong. As well, you refuse to address those examples. The next time you create a post, i suggest you do so on something you can defend, instead of not debating. It is apparent that you believe that religion is nothing more than a belief in a god, and miracles. Mr. nom, you lost this debate for you refuse to debate it. @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 889 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    Nomenclature would rather engage in personal attacks and whataboutism.  He never addresses the arguments someone makes.  Look through the various topics and his posts.  You'll find a lot of name calling, but no substantive arguments.  
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin
    He never addresses the arguments someone makes.

    Let me explain a few basic facts to you.

    Number one, I created this debate. I set the debate question.

    Number two, Maxx began arguing with a different question.

    Number three, Maxx repeatedly accused me of using a word I did not use, and he used six times.

    If Maxx doesn't understand the basic premise of debate, that is not my fault. If you want to jump on the hate train because of your own personal bias, that is not my fault either.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    well mr. nom, the word redundant, means useless and no longer needed

    The phrase I used was "intellectually redundant", so at this point I'm beginning to think the problem might be that you're too dense to understand the English language. If you don't understand plain and simple English Maxx, why are you using a debate site?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    My examples proved you are wrong.

    No Maxx, your examples prove that you are an illiterate halfwit.

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    resorting to insults because of no other recourse. what i expected from a person of your caliber. @Nomenclature
  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    intellectually useless; I.E  the art, the music and so on that religion produces ARE all part of religion. what part of art religion and poetry that is part of religion is intellectually useless?@Nomenclature
  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    you have the correct. I have asked several times to address my points. total failure.@just_sayin
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    resorting to insults because of no other recourse.

    Maxx, do you have any argument at all about why religion isn't intellectually redundant and/or irrational? Because you've spent three days in this thread making false claims, attacking the wrong question and generally making irrelevant comments. You are a complete waste of everybody else's time.

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    I just told you; apparently you missed it. why do you not first, give your definition of what religion is; for I am sure it is much more than a belief in god and miracles. @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Oh just go away you pointless troll. You're an imbecile Maxx.
  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -  
    I should report youi for the insults however a person like you apparently has no other option. I have asked many times to address my points, you refuse to. It is obvious you do not know what religion actually is.Shall i take it one step at a time so you can understand? Religious music is and has been an aspect of religion since religion began.  Do you consider such music intellectually useless? Why?













    @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    I should report youi for the insults

    Go away you absolutely pointless imbecile. You've made no effort to debate the topic. You've spent the last three days trying to forcibly change the topic. 

    First, you began by saying religion can't be irrational because Einstein was religious. That was a fallacy, since it assumes that rational people can't ever believe irrational things. Moreover, Einstein wasn't religious in the first place, which I explained to you.

    Second, you doubled down on the fallacy, and furthermore doubled down on refusing to acknowledge that Einstein wasn't religious.

    Third, you tripled down on the fallacy, and claimed you could give me the names of scientists who believe in God.

    Fourth, you accused me of saying people are not rational if they believe in God, which is not what I said. 

    Fifth, you accused me of not being able to evidence the idea that religion is irrational, which I disproved by giving several examples of religious beliefs which contradict and defy the known laws of physics.

    Sixth, instead of accepting the relevance of my examples to the argument that religion is irrational, you instead accused me of trying to separate religion into "bits and pieces".

    Seventh, you spent several more hours trying to redefine my argument without my consent. 

    Finally, you abandoned even the pretense of debate and simply accused me of ignoring your "points".

    You are an IMBECILE Maxx. I've asked you at least half a dozen times to go away and you keep coming back to write even more pointless comments.

  • maxxmaxx 1132 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    moron, einstein was religious most of his adult life; he just retracted in his latter years. I know boxes of rocks with more intelligence than you. you know nothing about religion. You can not even debate your own post properly. You have stated nothing at all in this debate except for your topic. you ARE separating religion into bits.  Music, poetry, art, the social unity, the purpose religion gives some are all part of religion, just as much as anything and has been so since the advent of religion; yet you either can not accept that, or refuse to explain how they are intellectually useless.It is obvious that you fail to understand that there are many religions, so you are not only separating christain religion into bits and pieces, but all religions.Albert Einstein on God and religion - EnlightenedCrowd @Nomenclature
    NomenclatureDeeCat
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @maxx
    I should report youi for the insults

    Then you begin your next post:-

    moron

    Then you continue to repeat the same fallacy I debunked three days ago:-

    einstein was religious most of his adult life

    Einstein was not religious (this is a false claim made by believers who take his quotes out of their original context) and if you were less of a complete and total imbecile you would understand that Einstein always agreed with the central principle of this debate (i.e. that religion is irrational), as evidenced here:-

    A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/einsteins-famous-quote-science-religion-didnt-mean-taught

    You are an imbecile Maxx. Stop talking and go away you pointless troll.

    Dee
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch