The Central Principle of Christianity is IMMORAL

May Reason and Logic Win the Day in the Face of Religious Ignorance!GREETINGSThanks bigtown, I appreciate the debate and that you were open and honest about your opinions and beliefs!Thanks for seeing the conversation and debate to the end of all the rounds.I appreciate you!Final RebuttalsYou said, "You have made many assumptions about me and my personal belief.." You believe Jesus died to save mankind from sin. You agreed by accepting this debate and confirmed. You believe that humans have only been around for 6000 years. You have confirmed this.So, NO, I'm not assuming anything here. There are conclusions that are safe to draw about someone who believes these things as you do.I DID, however, give my opinion on/of your opinions - but it was stated and entitled as such - My Opinion of Your Opinions. This is more-or-less a preliminary hypothesis of how otherwise smart people believe bad ideas and why - and how they try to rationalize bad ideas. Just my opinion.You said, "I didn't buy the farm hook line and sinker as you suggest, as you have already boxed me up in your mind."Okay, are you going to change your mind about your beliefs then?! No...? so you do believe all of the things you said that you do? Yes...? well then I didn't box you up.. you have boxed yourself up! You believe all of the religious ideas that you do on your own. You have boxed yourself in!You said, "I do not follow a 'typical' Christian doctrine of traditions."I'm having a hard time seeing exactly where you differ from other American Christians in your beliefs. How exactly are you different from most other Christians..? You believe all or most of the same stuff just with added stuff.You are a typical American-brand Evangelical - Young Earth Creationist - mixed with a little bit of Sci-fi - all rolled into one. You haven't said anything to set yourself or your beliefs apart. So these aren't really assumptions. As I said to start, your comments are revealing. So I'm not assuming anything about you that you haven't already made perfectly clear.You said, "Pure logic is essentially divine. You deny the power of logic to find the truth, you deny God."I don't know about this one. Lets agree to disagree. You equate logic to being God, which is a neat idea, but what happens when it (logic itself or its use) pushes theism out of the arena of likely possibility..? To say logic and God are the same isn't wise for this reason if you ask me. Also, it "poisons the well" - which is a fallacy. Further, I accept the logical forms as I believe there is truth in the world - as I am not a relativist as previously stated. So I don't in fact reject logic to find truth - conversely I use it to help get closer to truth.You said, "I'm surprised, you as a philosopher, take such views as you do and get deceived by the world."Saying something like this after being offended that you thought that I made assumptions about you is funny!You went on to say, "I am on level 3, when you will remain on level 2 thinking if you deny the existence of God."But, again, that's not what we find.. as education increases, religiosity drops [1][2][3].You suggested to me that, "I would apply some deep thinking to that topic when you get chance."You assume I haven't given much thought to these issues for some reason.. My formal education and academic vocation is in the field of philosophy - specifically with a specialty in dealing with these concepts (Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion) - but I haven't given it much thought..?! That idea is patently ludicrous.. (makes me laugh)AND again, as education increases, religiosity declines [1][2][3].I think you have just taken the cake in assuming..!You made this even worse when you said, "You seem like the person that would engage in rape and murder if it was the norm of society.."Whoa, and I'm the one making assumptions about you..?! Wow, I think almost every reader will see this and be appalled! Yikes bigtown, besides not being true, a comment like that is rude! Very insulting!Still worse you said, "You are the ultimate hypocrite in all of this, I just hope you realise one day."Man, in my opinion, you really put your foot in your mouth in the last round.So for you to then say, "I think you are most disrespectful" ..really becomes a mute point.But no hard feelings :)StatisticsYou said, "Statistics - non sequituur here really, not the topic, as you are using it to somehow to trash Christian belief.."My use of stats was to show that religion(s), not just Christianity, doesn't automatically make people more moral, commit less violent crime, stay married, just because they are religious..etc.Again, you should have used data and/or reliable cited sources to suggest otherwise if you disagree. You didn't.IndoctrinationYou said, "..we are indoctrinated to serve the state...we don't teach children how to think.."I agree, we should teach children HOW to think - not WHAT to think..! BUT you would want them to be in a program to teach something very specific - which you admitted you feel a moral obligation about. But what you are then doing is teaching them WHAT to think rather than HOW to think..! To teach that very specific religious ideas are true is teaching them WHAT - NOT - HOW. Which I think and believe is immoral, as what you are suggesting is actually indoctrination, not critical thinking.The CRUX of the DebateYou said, "Vicarious Redemption - you make it sound like it's going on today!"So you do admit its immoral and impractical..! You wouldn't have phrased this comment this way if you didn't at least see it..! YOU SEE IT!"..blanket accusations...ignoring my actual position.."No, I'm reasoning the logic and the likelihood of any of this (religious theology) actually being true constantly and I'm basically pointing it out to people who haven't considered these religious ideas in this way.. Keep in mind, I am the architect of this debate! Do you think I created this debate for fun and didn't know what I was doing the whole time..?"You don't like Christians"I like Christians just fine - but the philosophical tragedy is when religious ideas are then used and claimed to be accurate descriptions of the world. These are religious idea that then also become testable objective ideas. We then have an obligation to ask if these ideas are actually true or not. This is the issue.As an example, Jesus' sacrifice (Vicarious Redemption) is either really a way to redeem the sins of all of mankind or its not. This is an objective statement about reality and how the world really is, not just a belief. It would be different if Christians and other religious folks used their stories and narratives only to make a better life. But this is not what happens. Religious folks claim their metaphysical religious concepts are objectively how the world actually is. So these are religious ideas but then they also cross-over into the domain of objective science also. This is the problem. The world around us doesn't support the literalism of your brand of religiosity.ConclusionI believe I have shown that the core precept of Christianity [Jesus being sacrificed for metaphysical ideas of sin] as immoral - as it is human sacrifice (Vicarious Redemption). I believe I was able to show bigtown the reason why it is immoral - though Con will more than likely disagree.Closing Statement1) Please note that Con didn't not use any cited sources.2) Please note that Con dropped the majority of the arguments and debated issues.3) Please note that Con resorted to egregious red herrings and blatant disrespectful comments.I will not try to sway the audience in my closing remarks but ask only that DDO's voting guidelines be followed.Many thanks!Cited Source References:[1] http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com...[2] http://www.provingthenegative.com...[3] http://religions.pewforum.org...Philosurfer