The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love

Well, That's quite a lot of you seeming to be offended and claims to not hold a positions in this debate. You don't claim Pro as your argument? I win by default because I have no opponent. Matt Dillahunty didn't join this debate as the Pro position. Richard Dawkins didn't join this debate as the Pro position. I wonder, If there is no one on the Pro side of this debate then why am I not victorious by default? I suppose I am! If you claim to be on the Pro side then you are the only individual on the Pro side of this debate in this point of time. You don't get bailouts and I will address the quotes you wish to use as argument, Sure. So if you decide to take responsibility for your position and the arguments that you are putting forth instead of claiming to be a bystander in this debate and acting as though you get to virtually chip in, But not take any burden with regards to the topic then we can have an actual debate. I will still carry through as my purpose is to propose the topic as false and yours is simply to propose it as true, Which as I will elucidate, Is impossible. My round two argument: I will respond to quotes used by Pro. I will also address the few reproaches provided by Pro. I will provide more reasons why Pro cannot prove the topic as true. "Why would you believe anything on faith? " -Matt Dillahunty ---Great question. Why do you deny god? In faith that he/she/it doesn't exist. A confidence in the negative (ie belief that god does not exist). "Every religion has some sort of faith. " -Matt Dillahunty ---Yes, Even atheism. "Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence. " -Matt Dillahunty ---Just like somehow Pro has faith that they can be victorious ;) "Faith can be very very dangerous. " -Richard Dawkins ---Exactly. Is NOT dangerous, But CAN be. Are guns dangerous? Is water dangerous? A rock, Is that dangerous? They can be. Faith, Just like a gun, Requires a dangerous individual to wield it in order for it to become dangerous. "We"ll stick to the standards that disproves the god of the bible. " -Pro ---Ineffective to the topic, So null and void. "Belief that is not based on proof" "Belief in anything, As a code of ethics, Standards of merit, Etc. " Law of noncontradiction: Contradictory propositions cannot both be true, E. G. The two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. ---Are you to say that faith is simultaneously a belief in anything and at the same time it is not based on truth? I have faith that humans born male have a 'Y' chromosome. This is because it's universally true. "The bible HATES sexual passion or desire" ---That's interesting. I did not know that. Too bad it's not the topic of this debate. Null and void. "So you did accuse me of something. " Accuse: to charge with a crime or claim that someone has done something wrong. ---You are simply [supposed to be] defending your position. I have exemplified the falsehoods in your statements, But I have not said that you are immoral or committing a crime for speaking your beliefs. I stated: "It clearly doesn't account for all religions" Pro's response: "Well it doesn't make any attempt to and it knows it. " then said, "If your point were in any way true, Which is an impossibility then every single religion would be represented, Which is an impossibility because nobody knows how many religions exist. " ---Pro concedes the argument by declaring every religion impossible to represent, Therefore refuting the blanket statement: "Religion Is Destroying Humanity. " "Actually no. Many religions practice what is stated in the article. " ---Many? Out of all that are so impossible to represent? This argument is unwarranted. I stand by my claim of there being few religions out of "nobody knows how many" religions prescribed with such dogmas. It still doesn't negate the fact that the dogmas are exactly what the article adheres to. I stated: "It has it's own contradiction of claiming the good of religion is the only thing paid attention to and yet only calls out the evil" Pro's response: "Really? I"m not aware of any good the article wrote on as far as religion is concerned. " ---Precisely. I stated: "I don't think I need to go too deep into love being a worth debate topic" Pro's response: "Sure you do, That"s the very title of the debate "the illusion of love" That"s exactly what religion presents. " ---It is so plain that I felt it was unnecessary to discuss. Nevertheless, I did and I will. Love is an overwhelming emotion or feeling. A doctor and their team at Rutgers have determined that the chemicals released with love can be put into three different categories: lust, Attraction, And attachment. [1] Various chemicals range from testosterone and serotonin to oxytocin and dopamine. If you declare these chemicals as nonexistent then you are denying science, Truth, And factual evidence. If you declare love is not of these chemicals then you are not talking about a strong passionate feeling perfectly evident in these studies, You are describing something I'm unaware of. Love is not an illusion, It is the reaction we feel at the release of many chemicals during many different situations. I stated: "has exclusivity to certain religions, If not, Only one religion. It may be Christianity or Catholicism, I'm not sure honestly. " Pro's response: "Right, You are not sure. Since you are not sure, Then why should I continue with this debate? You do realize 100% by you stating that, That"s debate ending trademarks thus declaring you the automatic loser - correct? " ---I was hoping you'd bite on this:) No. That is not correct. Saying that I'm not even sure what religion your argument is exclusive to doesn't warrant any affect to the topic. You should continue the debate because we're understanding so much about the other person and I think you could learn a lot from this. "You do understand that Buddhism is not a religion. Let"s see if you know why this is true? " ---Buddhism is a systems set of beliefs that many people practice; a religion. That second part isn't supposed to have a question mark at the end, Rather it should be a period. Let's see if you know why this is true. "OK if you mention me again, I will end this. Jeez. " ---You've practically conceded by now. How am I supposed to address the person posed as Pro to this argument without mentioning them again? Do you attempt to deter me from doing so by claiming you will forfeit in my favor? That's like saying to a basketball player, "If you continue to dunk on my head, Then I will quit and you will be the winner. ". I'm okay with this proposition. I stated: "It's a safe bet for Pro to hold this position" Pro's response: "OK we"re done. If you want this debate to continue, You are now required to rephrase your ideals. If you do not wish to, Bye. " ---I haven't portrayed my ideals anywhere in my arguments. All I've done is refute your statements and reproach your responses. Anyways, Let's give context to why I said it was a "safe bet". I did so to showcase that dogmas---of whatever religion being specified in the article you shared---are particularly evil. Which I agreed! I was simply outlining this by saying it was a safe stance on this particular religion to be strictly adherent to those dogmas. It doesn't confirm any of the statements you declare true. Pro has refuted strawmen arguments to claim deity or god as existing or attempting to use bible as a source of reference for my arguments. [2] I don't believe Pro had an opportunity from the gate to defend their position because they simply didn't select a debate topic that they could hold as undeniably true. In fact, It can only be undeniably false. There is nothing wrong with faith or having confident belief in something or someone, So long as you don't act on it. Religion doesn't destroy humanity. It's a system set of beliefs and that alone does not affect anyone in any way. Tribalism that may occur during actions taken is a possible destruction of humanity, But even that isn't certain. Love is as much an illusion as the chemical released in the brain from drug addicts overdosing on heroin. As a universal truth, Love exists in many different chemical forms that are released in our brain and cause all sorts of sensations. To refute this, Is to deny neuroscience. Again, I exemplify the falsehoods that Pro claim to confirm as undeniably true. Just as a side note, It is not necessary for me to praise the biblical god of any religion or any of it's writings for me to refute your claims nor is it necessary for me to condemn them. You have strayed the topic to instigate a position that is unrelated to the dogmas of specific religions. As I have mentioned before, You are in no position to confirm these statements as true and nearly any claim you piggybank off of the article you first provided doesn't hold any water to the debate topic. Like I said this topic isn't over the controversial Christian god that you may be arguing against. If you wanted it to be, You should have made the position that way. Please keep this debate going, I have much more to say! [1] http://sitn. Hms. Harvard. Edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/ [2] "We"ll stick to the standards that disproves the god of the bible", "the bible HATES sexual passion or desire"