- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Cool you seem to be great at finding faults. Ok then lets see your first counterargument is that i should just say there is no god if i cant explain it. Well yes Being a human like you I can only prove the existence of god through many evidences. Also being a muslim i know that the Quran didnot just fall into existence. As we believe the Quran are the words of God. Yet look around you except for athiest every religion has a god. Because all of us believe one thing there must be a creator or else who could have created the earth itself the seas the sky itself!The creatures that scientists have shown to have lived before even mankind like dinosaurs those didnot just pop into existence.They were created by God.Lets see your next problem.ah! so you think if theres no God we would be moral and correct.Can you say me nowadays how many people are good and honest. its a very rare number. That is because most of us are moving away from the path that God has enligthened us with through many prophets.There is murder,treachery,betrayal and all other new kind of activities that have developed. Do you think if god havent intervened our lives through the teaching of prophets we would still be the same today. And the last one I wanted to say about one incident . It happened recently where a man died and couldnot be buried because there was a snake with him although the people were sure there was none at first. At last they had to tug the snake out to bury him. when the people were quiestioned they had no answer. strange even and about unexplained things by scientist you see to say that scientist understand everything that is happening in the universe.
And there are christians, who do meet the goals they've set and I too can point to countless examples. Consequently, there are countless christians who cannot live up the moral duties that are expected of them for one reason or another. Yet in either case, we must distinguish a philosophy from its adherents and judge the philosophy on its own merits.
In the same way, I can't sweepingly condemn feminism simply by pointing at the likes of FEMEN, Chanty Binx and other rabid man-hating women. Why? Because there are respectable feminists with legitimate views as well, not to mention that feminism is a distinct abstract view that needs independent investigation.
Teenage pregnancy and the spread of STD-s is the direct outcome of the liberalisation of sexual norms. The more marital institutions have weakened, the more promiscuity has risen and with it all the ills that come from people having sex everywhere. So while it's commendable that teen pregnancy and the spread of STD-s are lowering in some areas, it can be argued that these problems were caused by the weakening of christianity and of its institutions (such as marriage) in the first place.
Teen drug use - again, depending where you look. What about non-teen drug use?
Obesity - certainly, low-quality food plays a part here. However, there are also no limits in a secular consumerist society, how a person should control their appetite. Especially when you have rabid social justice warriors calling an end to fat shaming in the name of a more diverse and egalitarian society.
All while society becomes more secular (aka less Christian).
The onus is also on you to demonstrate, why these problems are lessening because of secularism, and not because of mere rising living standards.
There is nothing wrong with having sex when you want. There's something called a condom. You might have heard of it. Use it as any sensible person would and pregnancy and STDs are not a concern.
This is factually incorrect, since there are STD-s that a condom does not protect you against. STD-s that spread merely by skin-to-skin contact (such as syphilis, genital herpes, HPV) aren't prevented by condoms. Condoms can also break, so there is no 100% guarantee of safety. You also assume that people actually will consistently use condoms, which is also patently false.
You can't link obesity to secularism as you get fat Christians.
I linked obesity to consumerism, which is certainly more of a secular value than a religious value. Fat christians simply tell us that not everyone is willing or capable to maintain control over their desires - merely being a christian in no way makes you immune to vices. Whether individual christians can actually live a virtuous life has absolutely no bearing on what values christianity actually espouses.
Also Christian ways of disciplining yourself is gouging your eye out to prevent lust. How is that a good idea? Christianity just says to suppress these emotions not tackle them or try and pacify them through a proper method.
It says that there are good, moral ways to quench these desires - if one desires sex, he should seek in the context of marriage. It's not just suppressing them, it's also about finding the right outlet.
I agree with the side that you're on, but just so you aware, the science you are quoting is not fully accurate. If you want to look at this article: http://io9.com/5915339/
By the way, this is the 5th time I've sent you this link and you have yet to respond to it.