The Instigator
MettaWorldPeace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Valar_Dohaeris
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Defend your Faith

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 2 votes the winner is...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 68373
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

MettaWorldPeace

Pro

In this debate I am asking my opponent to defend whatever Faith they believe in by writing an essay describing what and why they believe. It can be highly personal or it can be mostly factual--either way, defend it the best way you think you can. I will defend my Faith in Buddhism, why I believe in Karma and Reincarnation. So pick a tenet or two and defend why you believe them and why others should follow. The debate will be one round, I will go first--there will be 10,000 characters, so don't worry about not having enough space. Good luck and happy debating!
Debate Round No. 1
MettaWorldPeace

Pro

Buddhists believe in Karma and Reincarnation. We believe our actions cause effects in this and future lives. We also believe our present is shaped by our past. We are required to live in the present to understand our past and make a better future.

When we die, if we have not been liberated through Nirvana, we enter the form of another body. The type of body we enter is based on whether our actions have been virtuous or non-virtuous. This form will perish as well and we will be reborn again endlessly. This is known as "cyclic existence" or Samsara.

We believe all truth is Nirvana and anything else is a delusion. The three main delusions or "poisons" are greed, anger, and ignorance--represented by a bird, a snake, and a pig. These delusions feed into each other into a downward spiral we call "bad karma" and their antidotes lead to good karma.

For instance, imagine a drunk. At first he might be happy, his wife may comfort him and his family may stand beside him. But, then he says something at a dinner party that does not go over well. Then he has an altercation with his son and punches him. Then he gets jailed for a DUI and he has lost his wife, his brother doesn't visit and his sons lose respect for him. His world has fundamentally changed since he started drinking.

Now, imagine this man, or another man if you wish, has found out he is an alcoholic. Upon hearing this news he goes into recovery, and begins talking to his wife who separated from him and his children start to believe in him again and he gets a new job. His world has fundamentally changed since he renounced drinking.

These are examples of the metaphysics of good and bad karma. The interactions we have lead to the world that is produced. But, these are only first order actions of karma.

Imagine a teacher, such as on Breaking Bad, who sells drugs to kids. This teacher is creating a bad world for other people--that is he is making people around him worse. Since the world around him is getting worse, he is living in a worse world. This is also Karma because he has helped shaped the world as one with maybe graffiti and gangs and violence.

Imagine another teacher who teaches math with great proficiency. This is an indifferent action because although more students become interested in math and use it to excel in their careers, they may use it in ways that harm or help others.

But, if that same teacher taught with integrity and honesty, he would breed a climate as such, leading not only to math being more widely used, but also more widely used for good ends. These are all second degree orders of karma. I'm sure there are others, but those are the only two I'm aware of.

As far as reincarnation is concerned my case is less sound. There really is no proof of something like this. But, the only alternative is that there is nothing after death--we cease to exist. Maybe that is a form of reincarnation for certain souls. My best argument for reincarnation is a version of Descartes "Cognito ergo sum." I know I exist and for me to cease existing would require some sort of strange banishment from the universe. Either way I don't see how myself (or anyone else for that matter) could be removed from the universe. It just seems too unlikely. So my opinion on this is we must be reincarnated (if we are said to die at the end of this life).

These are my arguments for Reincarnation and for Karma. Hoped you enjoyed!
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

The faith I subscribe to is atheism. I am going to keep this short and logical. Yes before you ask this is a faith, because I have faith in the fact nothing exists. All other religions invoke a deity, and each one believes in a different God. Each one competes with each other about which is right, and all believes that their religion is correct. This is the fundamental flaw in religion. As a religious person you are disallowing 99.99 percent of other religions, so why not go one more?

Why should someone to subscribe to atheism? The answer is because it is the logical choice. Nothing in this universe requires the presence of a divine deity to function. No one can be raised from the dead or reborn. Science tells us basic facts about live that cannot be refuted. Things in this universe operate under certain laws and certain patters. Death is final, the universe can cause itself to exist or began to exist from singularity, and nothing in the universe requires the existence of a deity to function.

Almost anyone from a logical stand point would agree that there is point to over complicate things. Trying to insert a God where a God does not need to be inserted is pointless. An appeal to occam's razor would be the simplest answer. When their are competing theories (deism is not a theory as there is not facts to support it as is but...) the simplest one is usually the best. We don't need a God so the answer is there is not one. We can't be raised from the dead because science tells us this. We can't come back to life because it contradicts known laws and facts.

Over the course of the past thousand years science has evolved and told us things we never could imagine. We now know the earth is not flat but round. We know there are different galaxies in the universe, and about the big bang. Science is evolving and always changes in order to fit facts. Religion offers no such courtesy. If someone contradicts religious texts, religious people try to find a way to disprove it. Even if it is fact. That type of logic and faith is what hurts the world.

Why should you vote for atheism and not my adversaries faith. Through science we have learned and made modern medicine and helped heal people. Through science we have made cars, airplanes, trains , and space ships. Through science we have won wars, lost wars, and made weapons that cannot be contest. Through science we have learned truths about the laws, rules, and features of the universe that we had no clue about hundreds of years ago. As time goes by, the more we learn. The more we learn, the more we know that there is no need for a God. If there is no need for a God, why insert one. The most logical faith is believing that faith is not prudent. I urge everyone to believe and side with reason. Atheism is the most logical choice.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 2 years ago
MettaWorldPeace
Good debate, congratulations on your win. I hope the debate will be a win for both Buddhists and Athiests. Thank you for debating!
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 2 years ago
MettaWorldPeace
Right, I'm defending my Faith for that reason. As it is not wholly apparent it requires some sort of justification.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Faith is Unreliable & Unreasonable: Faith is Not a Source of Knowledge. Claims about faith can be used to justify and defend absolutely anything on an equal " and equally unreasonable " basis. This means that faith ultimately justifies and defends absolutely nothing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Eli01 2 years ago
Eli01
MettaWorldPeaceValar_DohaerisTied
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 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: Better arguments. Straight to the point.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
MettaWorldPeaceValar_DohaerisTied
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 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: Philosophically, I refer to myself as a buddhist. Simply because I like it, so I had to try to remove bias. (I am an atheist by the way. I simply like the ideas of buddhism, and I believe that is the only religion that teaches pretty much only good things) However, con's arguments were straight to the point and he did a big thing that pro did not do. WHY you should be that religion. Pro simply gives the major perks and teachings of buddhism, but does not state WHY.