The Instigator
Jedd
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Does religion require dismissal of reason and critical thinking?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,735 times Debate No: 86964
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (172)
Votes (3)

 

Jedd

Pro

Dismissal: the act of treating something as unworthy of serious consideration; rejection.
Reason and critical thinking: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic, the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

Round 1-4: Unrestricted
Round 5: No new arguments

Pro argues that religion requires dismissal of reason and critical thinking, Con argues that religion does not require dismissal of reason and critical thinking.

Burden of proof is shared.

-No trolls.
-This debate is only open to theists.
___________________________________________________________________

People say religion and reason can coexist peacefully. I agree on the total opposite. Religion requires people to believe in something fully without any evidence, doubt or question. Reasoning is the complete opposite of that.

There is one thing that religion thrives on: faith. There is never anything to prove holy texts are true. If you question them, they'll say it's God's word. There is nothing as evidence to suggest the existence of God, yet religion requires one to believe anyway. Is this not just blind faith? Is this not ignoring reason?

I look forward to an interesting debate.
ssadi

Con

I accept.

I thank the Instigator, called as Pro from now on, for instigating this interesting debate. I hope it will be fruitful.

Since the claim is done by Pro, then it is better for them to start first. In addition, even though Pro has stated that there are no restrictions for round 1-4, in order to make the debate fair for both sides, I will not post my arguments in the first round.. so that we will both have equal rounds to present our arguments and provide rebuttals for our opponent's arguments.


NOTE on BOP

Pro

The topic is not about a particular religion, but it is about religion in general. Therefore, Pro has to show that there is no religion in the world that does not "require dismissal of reason and critical thinking". Showing that a particular religion requires dismissal of reason and critical thinking doesn't mean that another religion doesn't require it. This is why Pro has to prove their claim for every religion in the world. Otherwise, they wouldn't have completed their BOP.

Con

"Con argues that religion does not require dismissal of reason and critical thinking." In other words, it is enough for Con to show that there exists at least one religion that does not require dismissal of reason and critical thinking. In addition, it is not necessary for Con to show that religion requires reason and critical thinking, they only have to show that it does not require dismissal of them. Therefore, if Con proves this for a single religion, then it would mean that they have completed their BOP.

This is what Pro's statements about BOP mean.


I will wait for Pro to post their opening arguments for round 2 and wish them best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Jedd

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting!

Well, I have already started, if it wasn't noticed.

"People say religion and reason can coexist peacefully. I agree on the total opposite. Religion requires people to believe in something fully without any evidence, doubt or question. Reasoning is the complete opposite of that.

There is one thing that religion thrives on: faith. There is never anything to prove holy texts are true. If you question them, they'll say it's God's word. There is nothing as evidence to suggest the existence of God, yet religion requires one to believe anyway. Is this not just blind faith? Is this not ignoring reason?"

I'll say that's one dirty uppercut you're trying to execute there, bending the burden of proof. That was cold, mate, that was cold. That was not what my statements about the BOP mean at all. No, I didn't say "all religions require a dismissal of reason and critical thinking," neither did I imply that only a particular religion requires it. Therefore, as per rules, burden of proof is still evenly shared, meaning that Con can point out that some religions do not require a dismissal of reason and critical thinking, I can point out that some do too, and those points are equally valid.

In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God. http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Just take Christianity as an example, the world's largest religion. Would you ignore the scientific evidence that the Earth is 4 billion years old and just believe an ancient text written by ancient men stating that a 6000 year old Earth is true? Would you believe that two of every species in the world fit in an ark? Would you believe in talking snakes? Of course you wouldn't, 21st century intellectuals like you and me are far too smart for that. That is, if you question the authenticity of these outrageous claims, called critical thinking. Now, do you believe that an intelligent creator that is invisible and has no evidence to suggest its existence however, is true? Remember there is not one shred of evidence for this. It's simple as that: Religious claims need faith, meaning believing without evidence. Critical thinking stands in direct contradiction to that.

Good luck to Con, their arguments are patiently awaited.



ssadi

Con

I thank Pro for posting their arguments for R2.


INTRODUCTION


A religion is simply what is established by a scripture and/or sayings of a prophet or one who is the founder of that religion.

Therefore, to claim that religion does or does not do something one has to show that it is the case according to the scripture and/or sayings of the prophet or the founder of that religion. This is obviously the case in our debate.


NOTE 1

In definition of “reason and critical thinking”, given by Pro in R1, nothing is stated about the accuracy of reason and critical thinking.

A reason can be true or false and one can come to a wrong conclusion even by critical thinking as well as to a true conclusion. For example in science, some of preceding scientists used reasons and critical thinking in building their theories which were found to be wrong by succeeding scientists who also used reasons and critical thinking (e.g., atomic theory[1]). And it is also possible that the theories of succeeding scientists also were wrong[2]. But this never means that reason and critical thinking doesn’t exist in science. Even if those reasons and critical thinking are correct or not is a different topic.

Therefore, we have to show whether there is reason and critical thinking in religion or not, regardless of the accuracy and correctness of those reasons and critical thinking. Their accuracy and correctness is out of scope of our discussion and cannot be evidence for or against the resolution.


NOTE 2

The word “religion” in resolution means “religion as a whole”. Therefore, saying that religion requires something means that religion as a whole requires something.


BOP

I think it is important to understand truly the BOP first. You are the Instigator and arguing for the resolution. As a Con I will argue against the resolution. There are two cases for Con, 1-Con only refutes Pro’s arguments (this is the case where BOP is on Pro) and 2-Con not only refutes Pro’s arguments but also provides arguments to show that the opposite is true (BOP is shared).


RESOLUTION

Does religion require dismissal of reason and critical thinking?

Since the word “religion” in resolution generalizes all religions, then the resolution should be as follows:

Do all religions require dismissal of reason and critical thinking?


“Affirmative/Pro. The side that “affirms” the resolution.”

&

“Negative/Con. The side that “negates” the resolution.”[3]


=> BOP:

Pro: All religions require dismissal of reasoning and critical thinking.

Con: All religions don’t require dismissal of reasoning and critical thinking.

Let me now give some arguments to show that religion doesn’t require dismissal of reason and critical thinking.



1. LOGICAL NONSENSE


This argument aims to show how nonsensical it is to argue that religion requires dismissal of reason and critical thinking.



1.1. Recall NOTE 1


Let me ask a question: “How did religions emerge?”

In all major religions, there is a person or people (called as prophets in Abrahamic religions) who started a religion. The question here is “How could they convince people?” In any time and place a new thing is not easily welcomed, unless it was convincing enough for those people.

Just imagine a person comes and tells you to believe in something that doesn’t make sense to you, would you just accept it? That is nonsense. You would obviously ask for evidence. If the evidence is not provided, then you will not accept it.

Since about 84% of the population of the world affiliates to one of the 5 major religions (as of 2012)[4], it is then obvious that these religions provided evidence and reasons for those people (true or wrong) and at least some of them have done their critical thinking (accurately or not). This must be the case. To argue against it on have to show that all of 84% of world’s population is so arrogant and ignorant that they accept anything those religions tell them without any reasoning and/or critical thinking and those religions didn’t provide any reason or evidence for them to think critically about before accepting them (true or wrong).

Since it is impossible and nonsensical to claim such a thing, then it is nonsensical to claim that religion requires dismissal of reason and critical thinking.


1.2. Recall NOTE 2

A religion is not only composed of things to believe. There are also orders and prohibitions in almost all religions. To follow a religion it is not enough to believe in things that are required by religion, but it is also required to follow orders and prohibitions of that religion. Some of the most common orders in religions are give charity, help the poor, feed hungry people, be good to your neighbors, be trustworthy, respect others, respect older ones, show mercy and be good to younger ones, etc. etc. And some of the most common prohibitions are don’t lie, don’t harm others, don’t steal, don’t kill innocent people, don’t be bad to your neighbors, etc. etc.

It is completely nonsensical to claim that a religion as a whole requires dismissal of reason and critical thinking when following the orders and prohibitions like abovementioned ones is a part and a requirement of it (i.e. of religion).

=> Since it is nonsense, then its negation, i.e., “Religion doesn’t require dismissal of reason and critical thinking” is more reasonable and makes more sense!


2. PROOF BY CONTRADICTION


Let S1, S2, and S3 be 3 statements as follows:


S1: “All religions don’t require dismissal of reason and critical thinking”

S2: “All religions do require dismissal of reason and critical thinking”

S3: “There exists a religion that doesn’t require dismissal of reason and critical thinking.”


I have to show that S1 is true. To show it using the method of Contradiction[5][6][7][8], let’s assume the negation, S2, is true i.e., S1 is false.


According to method of Contradiction, if S2 is false then it contradicts our assumption that S1 is false. Therefore, S1 must be true. Similarly, if S3 is true then it contradicts S2, therefore S2 must be false. (We apply the method of Contradiction twice). Let’s put these into premises.


1: Suppose that S2 is true.

2: S3 is true.

3: S2 is false (follows from 2 by Contradiction).

4: S1 is true (follows from 3 by Contradiction).


Therefore, if S3 is true, then S1 is true.


As a Muslim, now I will show that S3 is true for Islam. If I successfully show that S3 is true, then it will be proven that S1 is true.


2.1. SANITY IN ISLAM

"[The] orders and prohibitions of Islam are valid for people who have reached the age of puberty and who are sane and do not hold responsible people who are not sane…”[9] This obviously proves that according to Islam being able to reason and thinking properly is a MUST/REQUIREMENT for responsibility for orders and prohibitions, even for belief. This obviously proves that Islam doesn’t require dismissal of reasoning and critical thinking.

This clearly proves S3.


=> S3 is true => S2 is false ==> S1 is true!


I was planning to bring 2 more sub arguments for my 2nd argument, but due to character limit I will introduce them in succeeding rounds.



CONCLUSION

I provided two arguments that 1-showed how the affirmation of the resolution is nonsensical and the negation of it is true. Although my arguments already refute Pro’s arguments in round 2, I will provide point-to-point rebuttals in next round to make it crystal clear.

I look forward to Pro’s arguments for round 3 and wish them best of luck.

Debate Round No. 2
Jedd

Pro

Round 3 has finally started. Thanks to Con for posting those arguments.

Note 1
'But this never means that reason and critical thinking doesn’t exist in science'
It doesn't, agreed. Science is all about questioning everything we know of.

'accuracy and correctness is out of scope of our discussion and cannot be evidence for or against the resolution.'
Agreed. Critical thinking is about questioning, not about whether it's the right answers.


Note 2
'religion requires something means that religion as a whole requires something.'
Agreed.


BOP
'There are two cases for Con, 1-Con only refutes Pro’s arguments (this is the case where BOP is on Pro) and 2-Con not only refutes Pro’s arguments but also provides arguments to show that the opposite is true (BOP is shared).'
True. That's what I said in Round 1, this and the 'all religion or only one religion' thing.


Resolution

'Since the word “religion” in resolution generalizes all religions, then the resolution should be as follows:

Do all religions require dismissal of reason and critical thinking?'

No it most certainly shouldn't be. I have already clarified this in Round 1. It's neither all religions nor one particular religion.


=> BOP
'Pro: All religions require dismissal of reasoning and critical thinking.

Con: All religions don’t require dismissal of reasoning and critical thinking.'

Incorrect.I have already clarified this in Round 1. It's neither all religions nor one particular religion.


Logical Nonsense

'The question here is “How could they convince people?” In any time and place a new thing is not easily welcomed, unless it was convincing enough for those people.
Since about 84% of the population of the world affiliates to one of the 5 major religions (as of 2012)[4], it is then obvious that these religions provided evidence and reasons for those people (true or wrong) and at least some of them have done their critical thinking (accurately or not).'

Not at all. Islam, for example, spread through military actions, gaining acceptance through tolerance and egalitarianism.

http://people.opposingviews.com...

While Christianity combined its promise of a general resurrection of the dead with the traditional Greek belief that true immortality depended on the survival of the body, with Christianity adding practical explanations of how this was going to actually happen at the end of the world. For Mosheim the rapid progression of Christianity was explained by two factors: translations of the New Testament and the Apologies composed in defence of Christianity.

But my point is, neither of these great growths of religion was by evidence. None, actually. What they did provide was comfort (and war, in Islam). They provided what people craved, such as the unbiased egalitarianism and tolerance and the promise that you are loved by a higher being and the assurance of immortality if you believed in their religion. But what is comforting is very different from what is true. People, in those times, didn't know much about science and how the universe works, so they were more susceptible to supernatural claims, and hey, who doesn't want an eternal place at Heaven? So no matter how little evidence there were for these claims, people ditched their doubts and believed in those because the claims were comforting or accepting,even if they couldn't be sure if it was true. This is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

'To argue against it on have to show that all of 84% of world’s population is so arrogant and ignorant that they accept anything those religions tell them without any reasoning and/or critical thinking and those religions didn’t provide any reason or evidence for them to think critically about before accepting them (true or wrong).'

No, that's just your perception. The arrogant and ignorant part, anyway, I don't think anyone is arrogant nor ignorant. But yes, I do think they believe without any reasoning or critical thinking and there was absolutely no evidence to back those claims. They believed either because the claims made by religion were comforting, they were indoctrinated with it, incentives (Heaven), or the penalty for apostasy. Again, if people thought critically, they would have noticed the complete lack of evidence for any of those claims, but religion needs them to believe in it nevertheless, hence it's called faith, a belief with a complete lack of evidence, the opposite of critical thinking.


Recall Note 2
'A religion is not only composed of things to believe. There are also orders and prohibitions in almost all religions'
True. But if you don't believe in Allah or the words of the Quran, would you still be able to stay in Islam?


Proof by contradiction
'
1: Suppose that S2 is true.

2: S3 is true.

3: S2 is false (follows from 2 by Contradiction).

4: S1 is true (follows from 3 by Contradiction).'


What? First of all, I have already clarified this in Round 1. It's neither all religions nor one particular religion. But what are trying to say? If S2 is true then S3 would have been false! Have you checked these? The errors, along with the 'neither all religions nor one particular religion' have already deemed this argument invalid. If it was an argument at all.


Sanity in Islam

'"[The] orders and prohibitions of Islam are valid for people who have reached the age of puberty and who are sane and do not hold responsible people who are not sane…”[9] This obviously proves that according to Islam being able to reason and thinking properly is a MUST/REQUIREMENT for responsibility for orders and prohibitions, even for belief.'

You have used a pro-Islamic website for this claim. Anyone could've claimed the opposite and have equal creditibility. Using this simple claim that anybody could have raised to demonstrate your point shows how desperate the need for arguments are.

Now, let me first ask you. Do you believe that Muhammad flew to the moon on a winged horse with a female face? How about Him splitting the moon in half?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 227 hadith
“I was brought by the Buraq, which is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place its hoof at a distance equal to the range of vision.”

https://en.wikipedia.org...

No? But "The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters." Qur'an : Chapter 2, Verse 147. And the Quran is Allah's word, so don't you doubt it!

If everyone in Islam is capable, willing or allowed to think critically and doubt the claims (death for apostasy, Hell awaits) there would be no more Islam now.

How about for Christianity, 2 of every species fitting in an ark? Talking snakes and virginal birth?

My point, religion is not flexible, whether how absurd the claims are. You either have to believe something you yourself think ridiculous or religion has no place for you. Deities, Heaven, demons, flying horses, talking snakes...all of these - all of religion have no evidence whatsoever but you just have to believe in it without any question or doubt. This is the exact opposit of critical thinking and reason!

The sad thing is, children are indoctrinated with these ridiculous claims in religion. Not knowing anything, they are already raised to not question anything about these faiths, even with the sheer lack of evidence.

We have a privilege of living in this wonderful world for a few decades. What makes us feel alive is finding things out, searching for answers on how we came to be. And children are quite strong in this field, questioning everything- their urge to learn, their urge to understand, their curiosity. The problem with religion is it takes every one of this away from them. Indoctrinated children are not allowed and fear to question their religious views, with the ridiculous claims saying 'I have all the answers and I'm never wrong'. It's Depressing.

Due to the character limit our arguments will continue in the next round.

I look forward to Con’s arguments for round 3 and wish them best of luck.







-
ssadi

Con

I would like to thank Pro for posting their arguments.



I. ON PRO’S ARGUMENTS IN R2


Here I will try to provide rebuttals to Pro’s arguments in R2.


1) Pro starts by quoting what they wrote in R1. They mainly make 3 claims without backing them up with evidence:


1.1. “Religion requires people to believe in something fully without any evidence, doubt or question.”

1.2. “There are never anything to prove holy texts are true.”

1.3. “There is nothing as evidence to suggest the existence of God, yet religion requires one to believe anyway.”


Well, these are bare claims that Pro has first to prove. Would it be considered as evidence because Pro said so? I don’t think so.



2) BOP


Pro argues that “religion” in resolution shouldn’t be considered as a generalization to all religions, claiming that they didn’t say or imply anything like that. They suggest that it should be considered as “some religions”.


It is unacceptable because of the reasons below.

Firstly, Pro didn’t give any specific information what they meant by “religion” and we know that it normally means any religion, unless specified otherwise.

Secondly, note that we can substitute the word “religion” with name of any religion out there and it wouldn’t contradict any information provided by Pro in round 1. This clearly proves that it implies any religion or all religions.

Thirdly, what would “some religions” mean when there are thousands of them out there? Which ones in particular? No such information is provided by Pro in R1.

Fourthly, Pro’s objection brings restriction to the meaning of the word “religion” in resolution, which was not mentioned in R1 before I accepted the debate.

=> Because of these reasons, the word “religion” should be considered as any religion or a generalization for all religions as it normally implies.



3) Pro’s source


Pro quotes a source which mainly talks about a paper published in Science by Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan. Then Pro gives Christianity as an example after that quotation and finishes their arguments with followings (i.e., direct quotations).


3.1. “Remember there is not one shred of evidence for this (e.g., existence of God).”

This is not an argument, but a bare claim that Pro has first to prove. And it is logical fallacy to say that “there is no evidence” because one doesn’t know of any (argument from ignorance fallacy)[1] or nobody has provided one (argument from silence fallacy)[2].


3.2. “It's simple as that: Religious claims need faith, meaning believing without evidence."

Non-sequitur!

This conclusion follows neither from afore-mentioned paper nor from Pro’s logically fallacious bare claims.


3.3. Let’s see what Pro’s sources actually say.


a) Pro’s Source: “In addition, these findings do not say anything about the inherent value or truth of religious beliefs—they simply speak to the psychology of when and why we are prone to believe.”[3]

Completely contrary to what Pro claims!


b) Paper discussed in Pro’s source:Combined, these studies indicate that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief.”[4]

This quotation from the paper clearly means that the study doesn’t claim that critical thinking cannot coexist peacefully. Pro’s claim is a logical fallacy that “occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause (i.e., critical thinking) of an outcome (i.e., disbelief) when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.”[5]


Ignorance can be another factor. Critical thinking ignorance can give completely different and opposite results than with knowledge.


3.4. Pro:Critical thinking stands in direct contradiction to that.”

Non-sequitur!

Pro claims that there are things in religion that cannot be true. Even if they were right, which first needs to be proved by Pro, the above conclusion wouldn’t follow. Actually Pro agrees to this in R3 by saying: “Agreed. Critical thinking is about questioning, not about whether it's the right answers.


3.5. Shortly, if an idea, opinion or belief is wrong, it doesn’t follow that the owner of that idea, opinion or belief hasn’t done critical thinking and reasoning on them. Furthermore, none of these says anything about what religion says about reason and critical thinking (refer to NOTE 2 in my arguments in R2).



4) CONCLUSION I


To sum up, Pro’s arguments are bare assertions, logically fallacious and irrelevant to their sources. Furthermore, Pro tries to show, using bare assertions, that religion requires believing in things that cannot be true. But they agreed in R3 that “Critical thinking is … not about whether it's the right answers.


These mean that Pro hasn’t provided any standing argument that met their BOP.



II. ON PRO’S REBUTTALS IN R3


1) Pro agreed with my Notes 1 & 2.


2) Pro objects about my interpretation for resolution and BOP.

Pro: “I have already clarified this in Round 1. It's neither all religions nor one particular religion.”


2.1. No such clarification is present in their post in R1. Their objection in R2 (if that is what Pro is talking about) is not a clarification, but a restriction to the word “religion in resolution. It is unacceptable, since it was brought in R2, after I accepted the debate and posted my arguments in R1.


2.2. Detailed explanation for why we should consider it as “any religion” or “all religions” is given under “BOP” above (R3).


3) Pro argues against my argument of “Logical Nonsense” providing no acceptable evidence.

Pro: “Not at all. Islam, for example, spread through military actions, gaining acceptance through tolerance and egalitarianism.”


3.1.
Non-sequitur! Islam didn’t emerge with an army, but with a single person, prophet of Islam Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Even his uncle Abulahab was against him? How did he convince people to become Muslims?


3.2.
Arguing that since there is tolerance and egalitarianism in Islam and since these are good, then this is through what it spread is again a logical fallacy called as “single cause fallacy”5.


3.3.
Pro:“But my point is, neither of these great growths of religion was by evidence. None, actually.”

This is just an opinion, you have to prove it. Providing a source which makes bare assertions, not citing even a single source, yet reliable, from history, doesn’t prove anything.


3.4.
The source provided by Pro doesn’t say anything about whether Islam provided any evidence or not.. It merely discusses some of the reasons such as tolerance and egalitarianism (see 3.2.)


The rest of Pro’s arguments under “Logical Nonsense” are just their own opinions, similar to those discussed above. Therefore, I will wait until they provide some evidences. Since they agreed to Note 2, then they have to provide evidences by giving reference to religious sources to confirm that it is really what religion says. They haven’t provided any such references until the discussion of Sanity in Islam, which will be discussed later.


4) Recall Note 2

Pro:“True. But if you don't believe in Allah or the words of the Quran, would you still be able to stay in Islam?”


Firstly, if I didn’t believe why would I want to stay? Secondly, I have evidences that prove that God exists[6] and Qur’an is His word[7]. Whether they are true or wrong is out of our discussion, as we agreed (Note 1). Thirdly, what is your point?



5) Contradiction


Pro:
If S2 is true then S3 would have been false! Have you checked these?”

I proved that S3 is true, so there is no way that S2 was true. This result was gained by contradiction.

And please make sure you have properly understood how Proof by contradiction works.

I already reached the maximum character limit allowed for a round.. I will discuss the rest in next round.

Good luck to Pro!

Debate Round No. 3
Jedd

Pro

Rarely do we have a debate as thrilling and exciting as this. Thanks Con.

Rebuttals & Points

Con stated that I have made claims without evidence.
There is no evidence that:

1) Religion requires people to believe in something fully without any evidence, doubt or question.

You can't doubt the existence of Allah. You can't doubt the Quran. You have to believe in whatever outrageous claims (without evidence) it has without ques
tion. Tell me otherwise.

2) Holy texts are not true
Muhammad flying to the moon is real then? It is plain obvious. Just give me a few verses that are actually true. Can you?

3) Religion requires one to believe in God without evidence.
I'd be happy if it didn't.

These claims have Con himself as the evidence as well as billions of others, plus it's plain obvious.


Con concludes that the word "religion" should be considered any religion or a generalization of all religions.
Con had insisted that the word would mean each and every religion for me, but only one religion for him in the past rounds. 'A generalization of all religions' would be most suitable here. Thank goodness we came to an agreement over the resolution.


3-3.2 Con says
because I cannot prove that God doesn't exist, the logical fallacy and the fact that my source didn't mention this makes my arguments that religious claims require faith false.
Con: Hey, Allah exists.
Atheist: What? I need evidence, or not he doesn't exist.
Con: No, you made the claim that Allah doesn't exist, therefore you should provide evidence that he doesn't exist. Because of this logical fallacy and that your source doesn't state it, religious claims do not need belief without evidence.
Atheist: Huh?


3.3 a) My sources say nothing about the value or truth of religious claims, so that contradicts my argument that God doesn't exist. b) Con states that the scientific paper indicate analyctic processing helps promoste religious belief.
a) In what way the two connected?
b) I searched far and wide for that quote you gave, Combined, these studies indicate that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief.” Having read the article a few times, I used Ctrl+F. There was no such statement. This is the second time you are playing dirty. The closest thing I found was 'Gervais and Norenzayan point out that analytic thinking is just one reason out of many why people may or may not hold religious beliefs.' Other than that, the whole article is about how analatycal thinking reduced religious beliefs. I recommend fellow debators here to read that awesome article. Then I found out that your link led to a different website than my source. Nonetheless, the article's title was 'Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief'.


3.4 Con states I claim there are things in religion that cannot be true. So 'critical thinking stands in direct contradiction to that' wouldn't follow.
Correct. Critical thinking is about doubting, reason and using the analytic mind, not about truth. Faith, the opposite of critical thinking, is about blindly believing anything.


3.5 Con states that even if a claim believed is wrong, it doesn't mean that the person believing that hasn't done critical thinking.
I agree completely. In this case the claim is about religious beliefs. The person definitely has done his part of critical thinking, it's human nature to question and ask for evidence as you've said in Round 2. If he already uses his critical thinking to judge the truth of these religious claims and he knows it's all nonsense, why does he still want to believe in those religious claims? Why does everyone still believe in those outrageous claims? Because religion needs them to. Even though everyone used critical thinking and knows those claims are false, religion needs them to believe nevertheless. This is how it requires dismissal of critical thinking.


4 Con states my arguments are opinions, logically fallacious and irrelevant to their sources, and I have no evidence.
I really wish it could just be my opinions that you cannot doubt the Quran or Allah. Unfortunately it is true that these unnecessarily limit human reason. Religion definitely needs believing in nonsense alright, but that's not the point. It's that you have to believe in those nonsense without any question or doubt. Stay on topic.


II. 2 All religions, one religion or some religions?
I apologize, I meant Round 2. Regardless, to clarify one last time, the title (not Round 2) says 'Does religion require...' and not 'Do all religions' or 'Does a religion'. So it's still 'a generalization of all religions', as finally understood.


II. 3 Con states that I did not provide evidence for the rebuttal of 'Logical Nonsense'.
On account of those claims, I did provide a link for you. When Muhammad died in A.D. 632 his father-in-law Abu Bakr became “caliph,” which means “successor.” Abu Bakr began the Riddah Wars, to keep breakaway tribes in the Islamic fold. The next caliph, Umar, extended military actions to Syria and Palestine. By 650, Muslims conquered Egypt and North Africa. Less than 40 years later, they besieged Constantinople, and in 711 they pushed into Spain and India. You bring the 'single cause fallacy' up when I have cited several causes. I have also already said that the 2 religions provide comfort and promise of immortality among the people, it has nothing to do with evidence of Allah promoting Islam, neither did evidence of God convince the pre-Christians. The source I provided did not state whether Islam provided evidence that Allah exists because there is none. If you don't agree, present the evidence.


II. 4 Con says that belief in Allah and the words of the Quran to stay in Islam, and he has evidence that a deity exists
Con: 'A religion is not only composed of things to believe. There are also orders and prohibitions in almost all religions'
Pro: 'True. But if you don't believe in Allah or the words of the Quran, would you still be able to stay in Islam?'
Con: 'What is your point?'
My point is obvious. We are talking about beliefs of religion, orders and prohibitions are not relevant. And please present your evidence for a deity here. I will not waste time or characters refuting 3 debates simultaneously.


II. 5 Con: I proved that S3 is true (there is a religion that there exists a religion that doesn’t require dismissal of reason)...
No you haven't. The topic is pretty much the same - 'A generalization of all religions' (Con's BOP stated) require a dismissal of critical thinking, so I'll go no further down the S2 S3 S1. How haven't you proved that will be discussed later.


Conclusion
Whatever Con points out that I have no evidence is already either supported or plain obvious. Links provided have already supported my claims, Con just ignores them or says its not relevant. How Islam gained popularity through force and acceptance is an example. What's plain obvious is religion requires people
to believe in something fully without any evidence, doubt or question. Is there any evidence that Muhammad flew to the moon on a winged horse? No. But in II. 4 Con confirms he believes it, and it's the word of his God Allah. No evidence but hard belief, that's faith, the opposite of critical thinking.

The sheer amount that Con uses 'fallacies' to try to discredit my points are just hilarious. No rebuttals? Use these rhetorical statements to prove them wrong.

Con also resorted to foul play, attempting to shift the burden of proof stubbornly, saying I have the burden of all religions while he only has the burden of just one when the title supposes neither; and quoting false claims in an attempt to discredit my sources. He introduced one more article for it, which was also contradictary of his quote.

The fact that Con can't refute that he has to believe in winged horses and underage marriage to be true and good to stay in his religion proves my point. Even though his reason and mind says otherwise, religion just ditches it all and demands blind faith.


Good luck to Con for Round 4.
ssadi

Con

I thank Pro for posting their arguments in R4.

BOP

Pro (R4): Con had insisted that the word would mean each and every religion for me, but only one religion for him in the past rounds.{1} 'A generalization of all religions' would be most suitable here.{2}

{2} Pro accepts the word “religion” to most suitably mean “a generalization of all religions”.

{1} That is not correct. I didn’t say that about the meaning of the word religion, but about what to do to fulfill our BOPs.

I wrote in R2:

“Since the word “religion” in resolution generalizes all religions, then the resolution should be as follows:

Do all religions require dismissal of reason and critical thinking?

There are two types of generalizations in logic; 1-universal generalization2 and 2-existential generalization[1].[2]

Universal generalization

What this rule says is that if P(c)(i.e., a property P of c) holds for any arbitrary element c of the universe, then we can conclude that x P(x) (i.e., property P holds for all/any x).

If, however, c is supposed to represent some specific element of the universe that has the property P, then one can not generalize it to all the elements.”[3]

The resolution is “Do, in general, all religions require dismissal of reason and critical thinking (property P)?”

Pro has to affirm and Con has to negate this resolution.

According to rule of universal generalization explained above, Pro has to show that property P holds for any arbitrary religion (i.e., all religions) in the world in order to be able to say that property P is general to all religions in the world. If their arguments hold only for some specific religions, then it cannot be generalized to all religions. Therefore, in this case Pro wouldn’t have fulfilled their BOP.

According to rule of universal generalization explained above, if I (as Con) show that there exists some (at least 1) religions that don’t require property P, then it would mean that the generalization that all religions require property P is false, i.e., it is negated. In other words, not all religions require property P, therefore the answer to the resolution is no, hence the resolution is negated.

So, if I show that Islam, for example, doesn’t require property P, then the resolution will be negated, i.e., not all religions require dismissal of reason and critical thinking.

NOTE: It seems that Pro is unaware of principles of logic, that is why I tried once more to explain the BOP..

Islam not only allows reasoning and thinking, it also encourages Muslims to reason and think deeply and gives great value to it.[4]

“Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding (Or: for ones endowed with intellects).” (Qur’an, 3:190)

This verse clearly tells us that we have to think and reason those signs.

“[And] who created seven heavens in layers. You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency. So return [your] vision [to the sky]; do you see any breaks? Then return [your] vision twice again. [Your] vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued.” (Qur’an, 67:3-4)

These verses clearly show that according to Qur’an we have to think about and reason for who, for example, created heavens etc. And we have to repeatedly make critical thinking if we find any breaks..

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

One hour of tafakkur is sometimes better than one year of (nafilah) praying[5][6][7]

A “nafilah prayer” is an extra prayer (which is not obligatory, doing it is good and not doing it is not bad) in addition to obligatory prayers. And the key point here is the word tafakkur (Arabic: تفكر) which means contemplation, meditation etc.[8]

These clearly show that Islam doesn’t require dismissal of reason and critical thinking, on the contrary Islam encourages reasoning and critical thinking. Therefore, the answer to the question “Do, in general, religions require dismissal of reason and critical thinking?” is No!




CONCLUSION

I showed that the answer to resolution is No, i.e., I negated the resolution.

I will provide rebuttals in R5. Good luck to Pro!



[2] Def. 4 & 5 under British Dictionary in http://dictionary.reference.com...

[5] Suyuti, Jamiu’s-Saghir, 2/127

[6] Ajluni, I/310

Debate Round No. 4
Jedd

Pro

Greetings. Thou shalt be thanked for your arguments posteth! (I suck at medieval English)

BOP
Sigh. The all religions or only one thing. One last time, the title did not say 'does a religion' nor did it say 'do all religions'. It is somewhere in between, kind of abstract. But whatever, we have spent the whole debate dealing with this problem. Ugh, this isn't even related to the debate much.

Fine. Fine! Since Con is only focused on defending Islam I'll put my arguments about Christianity away and focus on Islam too.

Praying stuff that is totally not related to this debate
Yeah. I don't care how you pray, it's irrelevant to this debate.

Two verses in the Quran conclude Islam does not require dismissal of reason and critical thinking.
I'd say that's irony right there.

Someone with true critical thinking would not in any way just base off the whole argument on 2 verses just because it says so. Equivalent of believing the position of the planets and the alignment of stars will influence your daily life just because the horoscope says so, just because the Quran says that you should have critical thinking doesn't mean Islam wants people to have critical thinking.

To put it even clearer, this is what Con is saying. "Hey, I'm a pro with reasoning. A fortune cookie told me that I'm a serious critical thinker."

These verses clearly show that according to Qur’an we have to think about and reason for who, for example, created heavens etc. And we have to repeatedly make critical thinking if we find any breaks..
Break no. 1: There is no evidence for a heaven.
Break no. 2: There is no evidence for a deity creating heaven.
Break no. 3: There is no evidence that the Quran is historically or scientifically true or accurate.

Critical thinking for no.1: Maybe I have been lied to. A place of eternal bliss if you do believe in a deity does sound a tad far-fetched. I should consider if there is probably no heaven at all.
Critical thinking for no.2: Maybe I have been lied to. Science is beginning to understand more and more of our natural world with independent evidence and logical explanations, and there is no evidence for a deity whatsoever. I should consider if there is probably no deity at all.
Critical thinking for no.3: Maybe I have been lied to. All my life people have been telling me the Quran is infallible, and if I don't believe in it I would have to leave Islam and burn in hell. Well flying horses does sound false to me. I should consider if the Quran is really a book of fact at all.

Religious faith for no. 1: I have read so in the Quran that there is a heaven and the Quran is never wrong, no exceptions. So that concludes that there is a heaven.
Religious faith for no. 2: I have read so in the Quran and have been brought up by the idea of a deity all my life. I have been to mosques and there are lots of people believing in the deity. So the claim must be true, no exceptions.
Religious faith for no. 3: People have told me the Quran is true all my life. So it must be true, plus, its the word of Allah. No exceptions.

In this case, the religious version of critical thinking always revolves back to blind faith in a deity. "So return [your] vision [to the sky]; do you see any breaks? Then return [your] vision twice again. [Your] vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued.” I would like to confirm with Con. Does 'returning one's vision to the sky' mean to pressure those who start to doubt Islam, finally coming to critical thinking, does it mean to frighten them that they would incur the wrath of an all-powerful being? And then those "breaks" probably meaning doubts, would be again and again returned to the sky, asking again and again "Do you really want to betray Allah? Do you really want to incur His wrath?" And when your "vision is returned humbled and fatigued", would that mean the doubter has had enough fear and stress that they just chose to put their faith in religion?


I really hope not.


I hope that it means for the doubter to question their beliefs, whether indoctrinated or not, and question their authenticity, their sources, their everything. Do you see any breaks? No evidence of a deity, and never will there be any, if you choose to escape the clutches of religion. Return your vision again. What is the evidence of the two sides? Weigh them up. Negate fear, others' naggings, negate everything that people said. One side will reign supreme with evidence and logic. Your vision will return to you humbled and fatigued. You realize that you don't want to believe in others' cheap talk and what others tell you to believe anymore. You step up for your own thoughts. One side is clearly nagging for you to please believe in it, with no evidence to support it. The other doesn't care whether you believe it or not, it stays there, with its logical and demonstratable examples. You finally decide, based on your own reason and critical thinking, having questioned both sides and determined which the more credible.


I really hope it's like that. Is it? If it is, there would be no religion.

Because religion requires complete loyalty for your beliefs.
There is one thing that religion thrives on: faith. There is never anything to prove holy texts are true. If you question them, they'll say it's God's word. There is nothing as evidence to suggest the existence of God, yet religion requires one to believe anyway.

Because religion requires a complete prohibition of analytical thinking.
David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God.

Because religion needs complete dismissal of reason.
My point, religion is not flexible, whether how absurd the claims are. You either have to believe something you yourself think ridiculous or religion has no place for you. Deities, Heaven, demons, flying horses, talking snakes...all of these - all of religion have no evidence whatsoever but you just have to believe in it without any question or doubt.

Because religios holy texts are claimed infallible but it's obviously otherwise.
Muhammad flying to the moon is real then? It is plain obvious. Just give me a few verses that are actually true. Can you?

Because even if a the person believing it knows full well the ridiculous claim is wrong, he still has to believe in it.
The person definitely has done his part of critical thinking, it's human nature to question and ask for evidence as you've said in Round 2. If he already uses his critical thinking to judge the truth of these religious claims and he knows it's all nonsense, why does he still want to believe in those religious claims? Why does everyone still believe in those outrageous claims? Because religion needs them to. Even though everyone used critical thinking and knows those claims are false, religion needs them to believe nevertheless.


Thanks to any potential voters for reading the debate. My turn ends here. Good luck to Con for the wrap-up too. As my last chance to say this, it was a thrilling debate and it was an honour to have debated with you.








ssadi

Con

I would like to thank Pro for posting their arguments in R5.



PRO’S ACCUSATIONS


Pro accused me for playing dirty twice; 1-bending the BOP & 2-citing a wrong link for Pro’s source. I strongly reject both.



1. Bending the BOP

Pro finally agreed that the word religion most suitably means “a generalization of all religions”. Then I proved in R4 that it literally means “all religions” using reliable sources (Refs. 1-3 in R4).

Therefore, I wasn’t playing dirty, but Pro was using semantics.


2. Giving wrong link


Pro doesn’t know what their source talks about. I explicitly stated “b) Paper discussed in Pro’s source:”before giving that quotation & then gave the link to that paper.


My Ref.4 in R3 was actually hyperlinked by the word paper in “a recent paper published in Science” in Pro’s source, if Pro but checked before making such a big accusation.



REBUTTALS



Note

A rebuttal to an argument doesn’t have to prove the opposite is true, but it is enough to show that the argument doesn’t support the claim made.


I wrote in R2 that to claim that something is the case in a religion one has to prove it using that religion’s holy scripture or the prophet’s/founder’s sayings, because those are what establishes a religion. Pro didn’t say anything for/against it.


On my “Sanity in Islam” argument Pro objected in R3 that I provided a pro-Islam source to support it. That must be the case if we are talking about what Islam says on the subject, isn’t it?


Almost none of Pro’s arguments were directly from any religious sources to show what that religion really said on reason & critical thinking. They only provided 1 Hadith (i.e., saying of prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) as an argument for Islam in R3.


1) Pro claimed that it was God’s word. Actually it wasn’t God’s word, but prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh).

2) Pro claimed that according to that Hadith prophet Muhammad went to the moon. That is also not true, such a thing is neither mentioned in that Hadith nor in the Wikipedia source they provided.

3) Pro claimed that the Hadith cannot be true, but Pro has first to prove that it cannot be true. Instead they just made bare assertions that it cannot be true. They also asked splitting of the moon & flying horses.

4) For example, some of Einstein’s hypotheses seemed illogical & ridiculous until recently, even to Einstein himself. One was what Einstein called as “spooky action at a distance” which was recently proven to be real.[1]


My point is that, if something seems illogical or ridiculous, it doesn’t follow that it is wrong. To claim something is wrong, one has to prove it first, which Pro didn’t.



The majority of Pro’s claims were that certain things in religion are impossible to be true. Let me provide a general rebuttal to all of such claims of Pro.


1) If God exists and if He is the creator and the ruler of the universe[2] (accuracy of evidences is out of our discussion, as Pro agreed to my Note 1 in R3), then nothing is impossible for Him to do. Therefore, Pro’s claims that what religious sources say cannot be true are just bare assertions[3].

2) Pro claims that the flying horses cannot exist, where according to evolution there were flying dinosaurs. So, why flying dinosaurs can exist & flying horses cannot? Because we don’t have any evidence that they did? Well, that is a logical fallacy.[4]



Pro claims that my fallacy-objections were to discredit their arguments. Actually they were not to discredit them, but to show that they are not credible.



Paper in Pro’s source


After citing their source in R2, Pro claimed that the reason for disbelief is that the religion is wrong. However, their source explicitly stated that the findings “do not say anything about the inherent value or truth of religious beliefs”, which clearly refutes Pro’s claims.[5]



But what does their source really talk about?


The original paper states that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief”(Ref.4 in R3). Let’s see what other factors can be.



1) “Extreme views of any sort, whether religious or the opposite, that are the real enemy of analytical thinking.”[5]

2) Stress during the experiment.

3) No information is given about the level of knowledge about their religions of participants, which can be another factor.

4) It is known that usually (not always) females think more intuitively than males do. So another factor can be the majority of participants being females (about 70%).[6]

5) Only 37.2% of participants were Christians & only about 2.8% were Muslims on average over 5 studies & all participants (except Study 4) were University of British Columbia undergraduates only.[6] How can one make a generalization for all religions from this study?

6) For further reasons & details visit Ref.[5].


Therefore, it cannot be claimed from Pro’s source that analytical thinking is against any religion.



Pro provided another source[7] & claimed that the reasons why Islam was spread were military actions, tolerance, and egalitarianism.


1) Islam was spread by war implies it was spread by force. Pro also says that there was tolerance and egalitarianism in Islam for people of other religions etc. So, did Muslims force others to accept Islam or showed tolerance?

2) Pro claims that Islam gave freedom to others for their religions (i.e., tolerance), therefore they chose Islam. If others were free in their religions or beliefs etc., then why would they choose Islam?

3) I argued that Pro’s “military actions” argument fails since religions didn’t emerge with armies, but with a single person. Pro left this untouched.



Pro also claims that religion gives people comfort and hope & that is why people accept it. I argue that it is not true & my evidence is Pro. They make this claim, yet they themselves don’t accept such a religion, hence contradict with their own argument.



Pro also claims that people accepted religions because of their ignorance in science. That doesn’t answer why people today, even scientists, are becoming religious.



Here is my favorite argument of Pro in R5:

“Why does everyone still believe in those outrageous claims? Because religion needs them to{1}. Even though everyone used critical thinking and knows those claims are false{2}, religion needs them to believe nevertheless.{3}



{1} Is it a joke?

{2} Now this is completely against what Pro argued in previous rounds. They argued that one can only accept a religion when s/he dismisses reason & critical thinking implying that they didn’t.

{3} What a strong evidence, I don’t know how to argue against it (!).



Pro rhetorically asks only 2 verses? Actually, there are many such verses, I only gave two of them. What Qur’an and prophet Muhammad (pbuh) say are what Islam really says. So, those are not just 2 verses, but what Islam says in general.



Correction for R4: “And we have to repeatedly make critical thinking to see if we find any breaks.”



Furthermore, I provided an academic paper (Ref.[4] in R4) that discusses the conceptual Islamic critical thinking in details which was just ignored by Pro.



I don't think there is any serious counter/argument else in Pro's final post.



CONCLUSION


I showed that none of Pro’s arguments or claims about any religion, yet all or some, sufficiently meets their BOP on any level.



I also showed that there is at least one religion (e.g., Islam) which doesn’t require dismissal of reason and critical thinking, hence I negated the resolution (i.e., not all religions...).



Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 5
172 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Peepette// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains their decision within the context of the given arguments. While there may be some biases employed in how the debate is perceived, they're not immediately obvious upon reading the RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
RFD (part 3)

Sources:

I'm not usually someone to vote sources points to anyone in most debates unless one side gives no sources at all, however, Pro did not cite a sufficient number of sources to verify his number of claims. I usually go by the rule that there should be a minimum of 1 source for each argument, and that unless rebuttals made are logic based refutations (such as pointing out any fallacies or weak logic) or involve information previously cited then a source must be cited in rebuttals. Pro does cite a source in his first round but failed to cite much of his claims afterwards. For example in his round 4 rebuttals, Pro takes a historical example (an information based argument) citing the war conduct of Caliph Umar during the Riddah wars, but fails to give any sources to that rebuttal. While that example wasn't the basis for my source vote, it was an example of the lack of citations made in Pro's arguments.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
RFD (Part 2)

Burdens/ Semantics:

In Round 1, Pro establishes the rule that the burden of proof was equally shared. Con in the same round refutes that the burden of was in fact on Pro. Pro argues that Con has fallaciously tried to shift the burden of proof in the debate. However, shifting the burden of proof only becomes fallacious if the side shifting said proof is obligated to have the burdens they are shifting. Given that Pro instigated the debate, and asserted a positive claim (x is y) then the burden of proof is supposed to be on him. The burdens do not become shared unless both sides are proposing a model (x policy is better than y policy for example), however, given that such a rule is not seen in the resolution nor the acceptance round, the Burden of Proof then has to be on Pro. Hence, Con is fully justified in pointing out that the burden of proof was primarily on Pro. Even if Con instigated the same topic, the BoP would still be on Pro, because Con cannot be expected to prove a negative. The primary reason why I had gone so close to voting this a tie was that Con's arguments were not structured to prove that he was right, but was simply structured to prove that Pro was wrong, Given that the burdens on Pro made it so that his arguments had to be *more* convincing, I instead voted for Con, as Pro's arguments were not more convincing than Con's.

In part 3, I'll be reviewing sources.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
RFD (part 1)

I was about to post my RFD at the same time as my vote, but I submitted my vote first and accidentally deleted my whole RFD , so apologies if this RFD is briefer than intended. I'll try my best to keep my biases out of voting.

Conduct: Neither side had engaged in forfeiture nor misconduct great enough to warrant any loss of points, so conduct remains a tie.

Arguments (part 1): I was very close to making this point a tie, as neither side gave a sufficient level of evidence to objectively convince me to vote for them. The arguments made by Pro were based largely on generalizations and bare assertions, for example, when he argues that since religions generally survive off faith, that it is inherently irrational, or that faith has to go into complete conflict with critical thinking. In the acceptance round Pro did not specify what religion would be topic of the debate, therefore Con's rebuttal that Pro was to generalize about religion all together is valid, taking that position then, Pro is expected to prove that religion in general is based off the same level of faith as Christianity (the example Pro used in his first round). However, Pro fails to do that, he failed to prove why faith alone was incompatible with critical thinking and how faith is inherent in all religions. Since Pro fails to meet that burden, my vote in that section goes to Con.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
So, you concluded that I was playing semantics? Prove it then with facts.. not just your opinion please..
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
About semantics, I stated in the first round that the word "religion" should mean "all religions", since it is normally understood as such and there is nothing stated in round 1 of the instigator.. Pro argued against it. Then finally they agreed that the word "religion" most suitably would mean "a generalization of all religions" in round 4, which literally means "all religions", as I have proved it..

So, that means that I proved that I wasn't playing semantics and kritiks, but it was Pro that was arguing against it and then finally agreed to it. It was Pro that claimed that it should not be "all religions" but "a generalization of all religions" which automatically means "common to all religions", hence Pro has to prove their claim for all religions..
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Dear Peepette, your vote is almost completely based on your own opinion.. For example, like Pro, you are also saying that the existence of God cannot be proved. This is a claim and you have to prove it first. There I gave a link where there is an argument that proves the existence of God (true or wrong).. You are just saying that there is no reasoning and no critical thinking in that argument? That must be your own opinion, isn't it? But you are just claiming it. Furthermore, I specifically showed that Pro didn't prove their claim for any specific religion, yet all religions. I also showed how Pro's sources don't support their claims, quoting their sources..

I pointed out how one can reason and think critically and come to conclusion that those things pointed out by Pro can be true... If by faith-based you mean belief without evidence, then you have to prove it first, and that is the topic of this debate.. But Pro haven't shown any ARGUMENT that proves that all religions require belief without evidence, did they? Point out one!!!

I also showed that saying that something seems as myth to me, then it is wrong is logically fallacious. Therefore, no further rebuttal is required, since logically fallacious itself means that the argument is wrong or doesn't support the claim. Take "Spooky action at a distance" example I provided, nobody could believe that it was true, even Einstein himself. But later it was found out that it was true. Critical thinking and reasoning led scientists to see that something once assumed to be myth was real.

So, your RFD is really opinion based and is very poor..
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
PRO states BoP is shared at the onset; arguments will be based on this. PRO contends belief in religion is devoid of critical thinking due to doubt and questioning is not allowed. Whereas CON states that 84% of the population can"t be wrong and orders of religion, "do no harm to others" ect, are not lacking in reason or critical thinking; PRO concedes to this point.

It is agreed by both critical thinking is about questioning, not about whether it's the right answers. PRO points to the belief in religious myths as lacking in reasoning; to question would result in ousting. CON rebuts just because someone opts to continue to believe in myths does not mean critical thinking didn't occur. A point I could not buy into, as PRO points out, religion is faith based and doubt get you gone. It follows one must believe to remain in a religion, therefore critical thought is counterproductive to being a member of a religion.

On whether god or Allah exists does not have any pertinence in the exchange since neither side can prove or disprove existence; and due the constructs of religious beliefs being generalized.

In the final round CON states Islam encourages reasoning and think deeply and gives great value to; although this is stated in a specific religious text, the point it is contentious within the premise of "all" religious doctrines. Con attempts to sway that this exception proves that critical thinking does exist in this particular religion therefore negates PROs contention; didn't buy it due to PROs mythology and ramifications for non-believing points made earlier.

CON spends an inordinate amount of energy on semantics and pulls a kritik that accomplished little to further his position. PRO wins debate. S&G tied both exhibited command of the English language. Conduct tied, for such a touchy topic both behaved admirably. Sources tied, although CON used more resources, PROs sources were equally pertinent to his points.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Stonehe4rt// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: From the top: Pro repeatedly accused of Con of trying to switch the BoP to him, this is a lie, Con stated that BoP is shared. Con offered many facts and proof that met his own BoP while Pro only stated that he disagrees. So conduct to Con due to Pro lying about Con trying to push BoP onto others. Arguements: Con met his BoP with facts and logic. While Pro repeatedly expressed he disagreed but did not have fact to support his claims. He literally was ALL opinions. He did not offer proof of his claim of no evidence of God, heaven or the like. He simply claimed it. So obviously Con wins with Conduct and Convincing Arguement.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Perceived lies are not a basis for awarding conduct unless they're egregiously employed (i.e. using a lot of clearly awful sources). While you do have some discretion in deciding conduct, this point should really only be allocated on the basis of personal attacks or derailing the debate rather than accusations alone. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter cannot merely cite problems with Con's arguments, as he must explain either why Con carried the BoP here or why Pro's arguments warranted his receipt of those points.
************************************************************************
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
I am just writing these, because I don't want that your whole vote was removed for lack of explanation of sources.. In addition, that would be a minus for your voting reliability...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
JeddssadiTied
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: Pro made way too many unsupported assertions in this debate. For example, he said that religion requires people to believe in something fully without any evidence, doubt or question, he said that there are never anything to prove holy texts are true and he said that there is nothing as evidence to suggest the existence of God, yet religion requires one to believe anyway. Con pointed this our and said that "to claim something is wrong, one has to prove it first, which Pro didn?t." While Pro might have had some good claims, they were not well supported. In fact, the three I mentioned were just bare assertions. While it might be true that holy texts are false, this needs to proven of all religions in order to show that religion dismisses critical thinking. And the main religion these two talked about was Islam. So basically, Pro had some decent arguments but Con was the one who did not make bare assertions.
Vote Placed by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
JeddssadiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I was leaning very close to a tie, RFD in the comments.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
JeddssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments