Debate: God Exists

[Drich]

Psychology. Weak psyches (sp?).

Let's be speculative as well as using historical evidence. The question isn't asking merely who wrote religions and what their political motives were. The question is multilayered: have they made differences in human history? Without religions, how would the world today be? What impacts, whether positive, negative or both, did they have upon today's world and the future ? So on.

This is a rather uninformed or presumptuous assumption.. It Is like an alternative to thinking...

What makes you think Religion has anything to do with God? If you are going to have a debate then you need to first establish the relationship between religion and God. What does God think of Religion, what does he think of the religious, what classifications does he place on the religious, what place in the after life can most religious expect to see??

Then if God's response even just leans towards the negative to the religious, then why use the religious to determine or argue the existence of God?


Or do you simply not know any better? If God shows any level of contempt towards "X" then how does "X" determine the existence of God?

This is why formal debate is poison in this type of discussion, because more often than not one side if not both are nearly completely ignorant of the subject matter, so all that is accomplished is just a reaffirmation of what you already think you know. Because if you locked the subject matters in formal debate to your questions concerning religion, then religion/religious become the foundation of the discussion. But what happenes like I pointed out above when your foundation can not considered to be a load bearing structure?

Then everyone becomes a fool who follows or contributes to the debate. nothing is gained, only the practice of the debate rules themselves.