The Instigator
Objectively_Subjective
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jt5542002
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is religion really an opinion?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 845 times Debate No: 84507
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

Objectively_Subjective

Con

Contrary to popular belief, I personally think that religion is not an opinion, yet either a fact or a fiction, and primarily for the following reason. An opinion is "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." according to the Oxford dictionary. In this sense, after eating a cone of vanilla ice cream, one could say either "this is good tasting ice cream" or "this isn't good tasting ice cream.", and both could be correct, and both would be opinions, since their statements' validity is based on their personal preference, rather than facts and data, and is a judgement. On the other hand, if someone were to say "There is an intelligent designer of earth and its species named god.", this couldn't possibly be an opinion (in my opinion), since this statement has 2 possible outcomes, either a: the person is stating a fact or b: this person is stating a falsehood, and the outcome is not decided by this person's statement, or personal beliefs. Their faith and beliefs has no sway over whether or not there is an intelligent designer named " god". For comparison, if someone were to give a 3rd grade student a university level math question, and the 3rd grade student were to give an answer, (and this is assuming the student doesn't understand the logic behind the problem and is essentially guessing) their answer is not an opinion, but either a fact or falsehood, since his statement (what he thinks the answer is) has 2 possible outcomes (it is either true or false), and his statements validity is not decided by him, in the way that the validity of the ice cream statement is entirely up to the person stating it.

I would appreciate to hear more people's thoughts on this, in an effort to expand my knowledge.
Jt5542002

Pro

Hi, I am new here. So, please forgive me for any mistakes.

I think what you are driving at, is that religion isn't opinion because it isn't based in a sense based experience. But, science does this all the time. We assume that our formula for gravity is the same formula across the universe. I mean gravity is a law now. But, we can not, or have not experienced the entire universe. So. How can we make that leap? We used what experiences we have had and drew an opinion for the things we haven't experienced based on those past, real experiences. So.. in short, your argument that religion is not opinion do to the fact that opinions can only the product of a sense based experiences, is false. It would be true however, in the case of blind faith. Or, without any thought. But. I would hope with a question as big as god, that you put more than a few minutes thought into it. Thanks. Forgive my errors please.
Debate Round No. 1
Objectively_Subjective

Con

Your relation to the gravity law makes sense, but regardless, doesn't actually say anything about my religion argument, and is a straw man attack. Whether or not we assume gravity is present throughout the universe, (and it is easily observable that it is in fact present, due to the shape of galaxies and the movement of things) does not actually change the fact that stating "there is a creator named god" is either true or false, and people's belief in him can't change whether or not he is. It is not a judgement, as the definition of opinion says, yet rather a hypothesis with 2 potential outcomes, as all other hypothesises have. Unlike opinions, which are deemed true or false based on your preference or personal judgement.
Jt5542002

Pro

Sorry for the confusion. I was under the impression that you were questioning whether or not religion qualifies as opinion. I can't seem to post defintions, but here it is; a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. (Oxford) so, regardless if you believe or understand why one believes in god, that is yours and theirs respective opinions. And neither of you need facts or additional knowledge to form said opinion. So, yes, religion is an opinion. One many say are based on facts. I can rationalize the existence of god, much like we had to rationalize the existence of gravity. Sorry for the straw man

But, if your question is truly about whether god exist or not, then I'll need you to understand the correct order to follow here. First, we establish if there is a god, then we establish the rules (religion). God doesn't need religion to exist, but religion must have god to exist.
Debate Round No. 2
Objectively_Subjective

Con

Sorry, i phrased my argument wrongly. Of course whether or not someone believes in a religion is their own choice and arguably an opinion, but what i'm trying to establish is that the religion ITSELF is not an opinion. Somewhat of a grammatical criticism, as people commonly say "religion is an opinion", while it actually classifies as a hypothesis (The religion itself, not the belief of it). What would make more sense is to say "it's their choice what they believe in" or "religious beliefs", rather than "[X] religion is their opinion", or "religious opinions". As an example, (again, using Christianity/Catholicism) the "belief" that an omnipotent and omniscient creator named "God" created the universe is a hypothesis with 2 possible outcomes, being a: a correct hypothesis or b: being an incorrect hypothesis. The outcome of the validity (which is currently impossible to see) does not depend on any judgments, as an opinion does. Believing in a god does not make him real, or or vice versa. As a final reiteration of my points, (and again, sorry for my need to rephrase) religion, by definition, is a hypothesis rather that an opinion, contrary to the constant labeling and referring to it as an opinion.

As for sources, my only source, and my only required source to make this argument, is the oxford dictionary definition of "Opinion", as seen in the previous rounds of the debate.
Jt5542002

Pro

I guess it's a matter of how much thought the individual has given to the matter. On the one hand, if they had never done any personal research or had their own thought process, then yes, they have belief. If one had studied and thought about it, they have an opinion, as an opinion doesnt necessarily need any new facts. So, I guess that's is to to each their own.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Lol your beliefs are actually very similar to mine. They just miss one piece. It's not just matter that returns to the singularity. I believe time itself starts to run backward causing everything to return to the singularity. And gravity is the cause.
Posted by Jt5542002 1 year ago
Jt5542002
What I am saying, is that yes, the singularity may have always existed. All the singularity is, is a small compact ball containing all the materials of the universe. You say the big bang created the universe. I say it was already created, it just exploded and expanded to become the universe we know today. Of course all was caused by gravity. Eventually this ever expanding universe will eventually slow down, stop, aND begin to shrink backwards. Until the materials get so tight the explode again. Like a pulse. Maybe that is the fluctuations you speak of. But. The answer does not have to be either god or fluctuations. The materials themselves may have come from a creator, the rest is just how he made them react. Science can only explain how what they see operates, not it's origins. Atleast to an extent. You are correct. And probably better made my gravity point. Many will name a list of acceptable evidence of god, but never realize that that same list of proofs can be found on a believers page. Science and religion require about the same amount of faith. It is hypocritical to deny one and accept the other on the basis of evidence.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Lol seriously? So you saying a singularity existed for an undetermined amount of time and then for some unknown reason just exploded to create the universe we know? Anyway, it's irrelevant. We discussing the age of the universe, not the age of the singularity. The universe was created at the Big Bang. Roughly 13.8 billion years ago. What caused it? Religion says a creator. Science says quantum fluctuations. Neither side has proof. Both follow a belief.
Posted by Jt5542002 1 year ago
Jt5542002
Science has proven when the big bang happened. What they haven't proved is the age of the singularity, or where it came from. And until you sail your butt to the edge of the universe and touch it for yourself, you have not proved that there is an edge or ending. That big bang, could be a spark in the greater picture. We haven't even got out of our solo system yet. Atleast not man. So, no, science has proved nothing. The ever receding whole is just a myth.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
No. Science has proof that the universe has a beginning. 13.8 billion years ago. Perhaps you should do some research before trying to look smart.
Posted by Jt5542002 1 year ago
Jt5542002
My bad. I figured it out
Posted by Jt5542002 1 year ago
Jt5542002
Someone help me please. I posted a rebuttal, but it doesn't show up and says it is still my turn?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
yet you assume out of nowhere that the universe have a beginning
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Science has no idea how the universe was created. Only untested, unprovable theories. That fact is, you also have a position on a imaginary claim. Your God is called quantum fluctuations.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
And how is your view any different?
No votes have been placed for this debate.