The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Belief in religion and a creator are inductive arguments.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,495 times Debate No: 27487
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

frozen_eclipse

Pro

I believe religion and belief in a creator are due to inductive argumets. My case will mainly be reffutaion. There simply is no evidence that either points are factual in their entire scopes.

There are no specific rules just no semantics. All rounds can be used for whatever each of us wants to do. However no new arguments in final round.

Con has BOP.



RationalMadman

Con

Amended Resolution: Beliefs in a creator as well as religion are based on inductive arguments only

Let me define belief (as a noun) and inductive.

Belief (http://oxforddictionaries.com...): something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.

Inductive (http://oxforddictionaries.com...):characterized by the inference of general laws from particular instances.

Belief in religion and/or a creator is partially based on SOME degree of inductive argumentation. Nonetheless, the majority of belief in religion and/or a creator is very often little to do with logic of any kind to begin with.

It is often based around the human urge to feel 'right', 'moral' or more 'correct' than most in reward for an eternal existence of pure pleasure. On the other end of the scale in proving that the emotional urge for feeling 'more correct than others' being the motivation and fundamental foundation for belief in religion and/or a creator I shall suggest that religion, in its first instance, was created by Hindus who, as a strong part of their faith, believe you get reborn based on karmic debt. If you ha ea lot of karmic debt, you'll be born as a poor beggar with deformities (as was a commonplace sight in India) whilst if you were 'good' all your life and had next to no karmic debt at all, you would probably be reborn as a successful billionaire or princess. The reasoning behind their religion was to make people think they would always live on and that the physical form of themselves was a mere representation of how hard they worked beforehand to pay off karmic debt. It also was a coping mechanism for those in very dire circumstances to feel as if they were merely regretting what they did wrong before and that they truly deserved what was happening to them and that everything was fine and justified. It had nothing to do with any interpretation of general laws nor logic, it was the emotional urge to feel 'more correct than others' or to feel as if 'what is happening to me is for a far greater reason than a mere man's urge to hurt me' or even more significantly 'I am so important that every single action I do, thought I have and way of life will have a huge effect on not just me but those I compete with to exist in bliss' it is a means of competing on a far higher level than income, which made the vast population of poor people very comforted emotionally.

Buddhism is a religion without a creator. It is the only one. It is based around the philosophy that you will either die and go to Nirvana (which essentially 'nothingness' or be reborn as a very harshly treated soul (Buddhism originally began as a more severe form of Hinduism whereby the aim was to destroy yourself, since to exist is to have imperfections of some kind, whilst those who had ego or any cruel sense of nature would be punished by being on the receiving end in a later life whilst you could get eternal peace if you weren't cruel and new souls would be created to fill your place). Such a religion displays the nature of belief even more significantly because you are not reborn with privileges, your aim is merely to be humble at all times... Why? Simply because it feels good.

Emotions and feeling are the foundation of religious belief in a creator or simply in religion itself. Inductive arguments only help strengthen it.
Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I have no idea why con has tried to change my resolution. Amendment rejected.

I will also post my own definitions since I don't think my opponents are good enough for the average reader that doesn't know what the words mean.

Belief- Acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty.

http://www.bing.com...



Inductive- An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...



Deductive-A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...



My opponents entire case seems to support my proposition that religion and belief in a creator is based on inductive argumentation being the argument from probability. He admits the belief has little to do with any kind of logical facts. So that means since there are no facts there are only inferences and arguments from probability to defend the belief. I will agree to some point that humans want to feel right. However I do not agree that this is a major reason for religion and belief in god. He is absolutely correct when he states, "Emotions and feelings are the foundation of religious belief in a creator or simply in religion itself. Inductive arguments only help strengthen it." This is the absolute truth due to the fact that their are no facts in the religious argument. They are convinced due to their emotions and feelings with no logic may I remind you. Inductive arguments also does help strengthen religious beliefs simply because inductive arguments are the only arguments that support religion at all.

My opponent also seems to be narrowing the scope of this debate by limiting the religions discussed to Buddhism and Hinduism. This debate is discussing all monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs and any other religion. The main reasons people accept religion is because people believe by following religious principles they will find the highest sense of morality,comfort from a higher being,prospects for life after death, to justify the presence of evil in the world,and for comfort that there is a more peaceful existence if you do x and y how the creator tells them to. I have to ask what facts does a religious person have to belief a religion can do any of this? NONE! Therefore all of these reasons are inductive reasons to believe such things. How does a person then deduce all the thousands of religions out there and figure out witch one is the truth? I will tell you how, they can't. It's simply impossible in anyone's lifetime.

As for karma I believe karma is based on the concept of revenge. To me revenge is not a quality of a peaceful god. If I as a human being can not want revenge for a mass murder or injustice then so can a god to a higher degree. I see this religious concept as a reward for good behavior.

As for most if not all religions. Their god is portrayed as a peaceful or just god. If this is true then why does this god punish us enternaly for the sins that god gave us the inevitable ability to do? I don't think stealing a banana is justified for burning in a fiery hell or suffering eternally for something that that god did to me for its own selfish reasons. What I just said is mainly aimed at Christianity but applies to all religions.

Now all the facts I have presented supports my case that religion and belief in a creator are inductive arguments. Since this is true a pro vote is logical response to this debate.

RationalMadman

Con

I find it amusing that my opponent feels that oxforddictionaries.com was an insufficient source for definitions, considering that it is from oxford dictionaries that all English definitions evolved. I find it even more amusing that he defined a word 'deductive' which is completely irrelevant to the resolution as well as using the word 'inductive' to define the word 'inductive'. A basic theory of defining words is not to use the word when you define it. This is paradoxical.

I do, however, agree with his definitions of the two words that are actually relevant to this debate because it is simply a more complex mambo jumbo manner of expressing the oxford definitions.

I shall reinforce my arguments and leave it to my opponent to even raise his case in any form or shape. He states that con has BOP but in reality this doesn't mean pro has only the role of negation, you actually have to explain why religion is based on inductive arguments.

The assumption my opponent is making is that. Because arguments are either inductive or deductive, religion and most people's belief in it is based either on deductive arguments OR inductive. The issue here is that religion isn't anything to do with analytical mentality, it is to do with idealistic mentality, which is why converting children is far easier than that of an adult because children rely very little on logic in comparison and often a person grows up to age of 18 believing what they've been brought up to believe and only begins analysing it and questioning it in their 'logical' adulthood where one could observe that the right to consent, right to vote and right to drive all display mental maturity.

The problem with the assumption that since one can either inductively argue that a creator and/or their religion is probable or deductively argue that there is no denying a creator or their religion. Truthfully, deductive believers have existed for millenia showed by terrorism and violence outbursts regarding religion in the history of mankind since probability was not the issue, CERTAINTY that THEY WERE THE ONLY GUARANTEED RELIGION was at the heart of it. Thus, there is actually more evidence, if we base it on behaviour of religious communities, that DEDUCTIVE arguments are what religion and belief in a creator are based on.

The only reason my opponent seems to assume that belief in religion and a creator are based on inductive arguments is that there is zero proof for it. Well, there is actually zero 'guaranteed' proof for any belief at all, if this wasn't the case then no convicted criminals would later be released free on discovery that a wrong 'deductive' (now realised to be inductive) argument was in fact false and a major assumption. So yes, ALL LOGICAL BELIEFS EVER KNOWN TO MANKIND are based on inductive arguments.

HOWEVER...

If you went up to a Jehovah's Witness, Buddhist monk, Muslim Imam or even The Pope and his adherents and asked them are your beliefs in religion even logical to begin with? Are they even anything to do with probability and the analysing of evidence for and against God I can INDUCTIVELY argue that they would say "No, my belief in religion surpasses logical reasoning, without it I'd be lost." It is an entire guiding path for them in life a 'blinkering' of them as blinkers work on a horse to focus it on one path and prevent confusion. The horse rider doesn't give the horse blinkers to be cruel, they do it with the intention of focusing it on what they think is the least confusing path for whatever purpose it is walking for. People are journeying through life often lost. Relying on deductive OR inductive argumentation methods leaves them totally confused when there is literally zero proof and the concept is essentially unfalsifiable and unprovable simultaneously (as religion and a creator are). Thus, inductive argumentation is not at all what belief is based on it is merely an incessant urge to rid oneself of NEEDING ANY ARGUMENTATION METHOD at all ever. They just look at their scriptures or holy text and say ah, what a relief... I DONT HAVE TO THINK that way of life is predetermined for me woohoo! It's largely a method of laziness and search for purpose in a world of meaninglessness that drives belief in a creator and religion.

Inductive argumentation is indeed a part of belief in a creator but to say this is anywhere near significant enough to be what they are base don is a very non-inductive argumentation in itself!
Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I have never said oxford dictionary is not a sufficient source. However the definition it provided simply did not have enough information for a person ignorant of its meaning to actually learn what the definition of the word is after reading the definition you provided. Let's not assume that dictionaries offer the best definitions. Sometimes other sources may offer more clear informative definitions like in this debate.

My opponents claim of my definitions being paradoxical is absolutely ridiculous. My definition simply restated the subject and then correctly defined the term witch my opponents definitions failed to do. I introduced deductive reasoning because it is relevant to this debate. My opponent doesn't realise this apparently but he is on the con side of this resolution witch means he is arguing that belief in religion and a creator are deductive arguments. Con failed to define he terms he was arguing. So I find it to be comical that he was upset that I helped him out by defining the word his case is based on for him because he failed to do so. witch he failed to do.

con stated, "He states that con has BOP but in reality this doesn't mean pro has only the role of negation, you actually have to explain why religion is based on inductive arguments."

First, if con had a problem with having the bop why are we debating right now? He accepted the terms. Also I just posted last round. I didn't just say no, no, and no and leave it at that. I explained why and went into additional points. So this suggestion that I'm not explaining my position is invalid.

con further states, "The issue here is that religion isn't anything to do with analytical mentality, it is to do with idealistic mentality,"

I disagree with that statement. Both are involved. There are people in the world who blindly follow their faith, however there is still logic involved in why they believe in that particular faith and not others and why they are willing to defend that faith. Be the reason illogical or not that belief is still based on logic. Though a thought, action, or belief may not make any logical sense there still is a thought process involved. Especially when deciding if, " this religion is right for me or if its the truth." Every religious person at some point in their lives asks themselves that question. They cannot ignore the fact that their are millions of religions So one has to ask themselves witch one is the original. It is logic that makes the persons decision on the matter. Even when I was religious I defended it for reasons based on logic. However even then I realised those reasons were based on the principles of inductive argumentation.

Con also states, "which is why converting children is far easier than that of an adult because children rely very little on logic in comparison and often a person grows up to age of 18 believing what they've been brought up to believe and only begins analysing it and questioning it in their 'logical' adulthood where one could observe that the right to consent, right to vote and right to drive all display mental maturity. "

I do agree that children relies on less logic than an adult. However a child is still able to think logically evident by children asking questions about the religion and the god their parents try to teach them about. For instance a child might ask, " who made this god?, Is this god bad or evil?, Does this god love me?, Does this god care about children?, Why does this god allow evil in the world? If these questions are not based on logical holes in their minds(questions) then why would they not just accept what the parents are saying and not wonder about things that don't seem to make logical sense? See even a child can see that religion is based on inductive argumentation. That child may not know it but it's evident by the sequence of questions and confusion some have when being taught religious beliefs.

cons statement, "The problem with the assumption that since one can either inductively argue that a creator and/or their religion is probable or deductively argue that there is no denying a creator or their religion. etc.....

First of all there are only two ways a person can believe something. Either through deductive or inductive reasoning. There is no middle ground or any other method. Moving on, Con has made some very flawed statements. He is saying since religious people terrorize others and have violent outbursts because they were certain that they were right about their religion is evidence that religion and a belief in god is a guaranteed factual belief.

This is so flawed. First of all the fact that people are fighting over witch religion is right is evidence that not all people who believe in religion is right about their believes. It means that millions of religions are wrong and that one of them is right if one is at all. Also let me provide a syllogism to prove how absurd this logic sounds.

A. Since all of the thousands of religions believed they were right, That is guaranteed evidence that someone is right atleast.

now using that same logic in another scenario.

B. Since all idiots believe they are geniuses, that is guaranteed evidence that atleast one of them is right atleast.

I think the problem with that logic is very obviously presented here. Just because a couple argues doesn't mean one or either of them are right for what there arguing about. The fact that religions fight over who's right is not evidence that belief in religion is based on guaranteed facts.( deductive logic) What my opponents point really proves is that there is no way for any religion to know if they are guaranteed to be right about their beliefs or if their being tricked. Therefore there is no possible way that religion is based on all facts and not an argument from probability.

Con made another flawed statement, "Well, there is actually zero 'guaranteed' proof for any belief at all"

This is obviously not true. If I make the statement that Barrack Obama is the current president of the United States, it proves to be factual because this is common knowledge I the US and I can check the truth of the matter by checking the records of presidents, Therefore I am guaranteed that the statement I made is based on deductive logic.

Cons statement, "If you went up to a Jehovah's Witness, Buddhist monk, Muslim Imam or even The Pope and his adherents and asked them are your beliefs in religion even logical to begin with? Are they even anything to do with probability and the analysing of evidence for and against God I can INDUCTIVELY argue that they would say "No"

I'm glad you realize this is an inductive argument because what you stated is not guaranteed and I can prove you wrong therefore making it an inductive statement and a false generalization. First I'm an ex-Jehovah's witness. They would say their beliefs are based on logic and that their teachings are based on facts. They would say they can show viable proof that god exists but there main argument is the complexity of the earth. "It couldn't have come from nothing, someone had to create it." is what they would say. However that is an inductive argument. There is no guarantee that the earth wasn't created from nothing( Ex-Nihilio) and that an intelligent creator created earth. No one knows witch side is true therefore their argument is one from probability.( inductive argumentation) Or they would say yes, it is based on logic from god given by the bible. However even they can't prove that god spoke to the people that wrote the bible or that he even exists. They rely on a book that is not guaranteed to have come from god. Obviously this is not a proven to be factual belief but is an argument based on induction.

So as we can see I have effectively proven my position to be true. While cons position to lack support to be firm. His contentions and points stand no more.Therefore a pro ballot is a logical response to this debate.


RationalMadman

Con

Hey man I'm laying simple truth down.

Belief in religion is nothing to do with logic or argumentation of any kind NEITHER deductive nor inductive. What I meant by terrorism wasn't that it meant they were right, it meant that clearly logic was irrelevant tt hem, their belief and faith was far deeper in the realms of subconscious love and devotion as opposed to any logical means of reasoning whatsoever!

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
frozen_eclipse

Pro

Con you are attempting to tell the truth. There is a difference from actually making a true statement and attempting to. As I have proven throughout defeating cons points, religion and belief in god are based on inductive reasoning. An argument based on probability. This is true do to the fact that most if not all religions can offer no objective facts, explanations or conclusions when asked questions like, How do you know your religion is right? How do you know your god exists? Do you have substantial proof that your moral system pleases your god if he exists? Lastly how can you be sure that humans were not inspired of gods to write their canons? The facts are they can never prove their case do to lack of facts. That is all the evidence one needs to come to the conclusion that this resolution holds to be true.

Also all human beliefs have logic behind it. They are either logical or illogical but both share logic. There are reasons a person believes something. I've never met a person that believes in something for no reason.

I want to ask con what does subconscious love have to do with anything? I also ask you to prove your points and fulfill your BOP because currently the BOP has not been met.
RationalMadman

Con

You make the unjustified assumption that belief in religion is based on any 'arguments' in the first place. In fact the evidence of how strongly people believe in their religion (enough to mass murder populations of opposing faith) indicates a rather stronger basis of belief (whatever their subjective reason for belief may be) than mere inductive (probability) arguments.

You have fundamentally failed to address my point throughout and it tears your entire basis for belief in religion apart.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
frozen_eclipse

Pro

My claims are not assumptions they are facts of common sense. One cannot ignore the fact that people believe in someting for a reason right? Whatever the reason is at some point that person had to use reasoning skills to reach that conclusion. There are only two main types of arguments.Inductie areguments an deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are those that are proven to be facts. Inductive arguments have no definate facts and is questionable. Christians and other relgions when asked questions about why they believe in their religions explain their arguments and present their case of why you should believe to. The fact that their arguemtns contain no proven facts and is uncertain makes their arguments, arguments from probability. It cannot be denied that humans don't believe in things for no reason. They have arguments to defend their beliefs. These arguments may be inductive but they are still based on reason and logic.
RationalMadman

Con

Take a million theists.
Ask each why he/she believes what they do.

900,000 would reply They cannot possibly concieve or feel happy in a universe in which they don't at least have a meaning of life or reason for existing. They need to feel part of osmething, their religious family, a church or somethign of that nature. They don't care if God makes no sense they only care that it feels good.

10,000 Would say 100% god exists and all others are idiots using deduction from miracles.

the remaining 90,000 would probably have some super logical extremely unbelievably intelligently reasoned inductive arguments for god which leave 0.0000000000001% left for atheism to be true.

Get the picture?
What part don't you get?
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by IX 4 years ago
IX
@RationalMadman
Congratulations on winning this; it was an obvious choice.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
Hi buddy:

HOT SELL Pictures of your mother:====(http://www.fiowieposfnklMommyPics.com...)=====
nobody, likes you, go kill, yourself, because, the Mexican, who sells, bootleg DVDs, on a blanket, behind Walmart, has a better, buisness, model, than you.

Crappy Jeans with mysterious scent: $9
Asian Flu contaminated Baseball Cap: $12
ValueMart Sneakers with a black marker Nike swoop: $33
Wrist watch from a dead homeless guy: $13
Handbags with hidden, lightly used Heroin needle: $18
Bikini with rust colored stains: $22

Come back tomorrow for another Daily Dose of ripoffs! Bookmark this page >>
give you the unexpected harvest of unidentified blood diseases

======(http://www.notarealsite.com...)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com...)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com...)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com...)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com...)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com...)=======

Recommended dick
Name: Slim Jim

http://www.notarealsite.com...
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"This faith is indeed deductive logic, "

Perhaps I should just say this faith is NOT INDUCTIVE, and leave it at that. CON is right that there is no logic in faith.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Very interesting debate.

1) PRO needs to work on spelling and grammar. Witch =/= Which.
2) CON needs to change his avatar. The "full retard" thing simply isn't working.
3) CON argues there is no logic in reciprocity (karma, rebirth, reincarnation) ...there IS logic in reciprocity, it is not just an emotional crutch for the masses to continue their existence. Is it entirely based on logic? Hard to say, probably not.
4) CON's child argument is unconvincing, children sometimes believe because they face pressure from adults to believe. There is a logic in acquiescing in the face of coercion.
5) However, despite all of these negatives against CON, he is right in that after all the logic is deconstructed, it is a matter of faith that makes one believe. This faith is indeed deductive logic, and this faith trumps any attempt at induction. FAITH is why CON wins this debate, and the lack of FAITH is why PRO has lost his religion.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
Thanks, IX
Posted by IX 4 years ago
IX
To frozen_eclipse:

One: It is highly unlikely that Con is actually from North Korea. Goodness, use a little common sense!
Two: You failed to narrow the definition to the point where Con's points would be irrelevant. Rendering your strawman comment utterly an ad hominem attack on Con.
Three: You failed to respond to Con's case in any coherent manner.
Four: You gave BoP to Con, but then didn't even respond to his negation of the entire resolution.

Thus, there is no possible way that you could have won.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
to my opponent. Are you really from north korea? Im just asking because my family has lost relatives over there from the war and just never met another north korean.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
I cannot believe this guy is trying to strawman me. Really???
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
frozen_eclipseRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro unintentionally concedes saying "He [Con] is absolutely correct when he states, 'Emotions and feelings are the foundation of religious belief in a creator or simply in religion itself. Inductive arguments only help strengthen it.'"
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
frozen_eclipseRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
frozen_eclipseRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a plausible case that religious belief is not necessarily based on inductive arguments, rather that they fill an emotional need. Con could have made this easier for himself by writing down some deductive arguments for the existence of God, but anyhow I thought he made a case.