The Instigator
Dishoungh
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
SkepticalStardust
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

It is unjust to prove or disprove someone's religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
SkepticalStardust
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,656 times Debate No: 51230
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Dishoungh

Pro

You know the drill. First round is acceptance. It is completely unnecessary to go in people's faces and prove your religion in rude way. It's also unnecessary to disprove someone's religion and try to prove yours is more "logical."
SkepticalStardust

Con

I accept this debate. I'll be arguing that it isn't unjust to prove/disprove someone's religion.
Debate Round No. 1
Dishoungh

Pro

(Disclaimer: It's okay to challenge other people's religion to respectively share and learn ideals with one another. The thing I'm talking about is people who rudely diminishes other people's religion and try so hard to prove that their beliefs are "better" than everyone else's. There is no such thing as religion better than the other. Unless if it's a ridiculous belief like if Unicorns created the universe or something. But, even then, we don't know. Ridiculous or not, we don't know. Religion is for us to figure out. Plus, this time I will take this debate seriously because, really, this debate needs to be discussed for the people. Even though I suck at debate and I suck at Literacy, I will try my best to stay on topic and be unbiased.)

I hope Con and I will treat each other with respect. We will not belittle each other's religious beliefs and we won't belittle other's. The point of this debate is to not flame each other. Let's begin.

Reasons why it's completely unnecessary to discourteously challenge other religions to prove/disprove them:

#1: It's their opinion and beliefs
It's their religion. So, what ever they believe in, that was their choice to believe in that belief. It's not your business or concern of what religion other people believe in. Okay, the bible states that you should transcend the Christian beliefs to other people. I understand. I understand it if you're doing it in a way that doesn't show you're subsiding them. I will transcend the Christ way, but I will only do it to those who don't know what to believe in and in a respectful way. But, just because it's your opinion doesn't mean you should go out and belittle their opinions. That's not an opinion. That's just disparage.

#2: It starts so much controversy
I don't just mean controversy as like people just gather around in a group and argue back and forth. No, not just that controversy. WAR controversy too. Yes, Religion can start a bunch of mess worldwide. Part of the reason why there is an Al-Qaeda is because of Religion. The Al-Qaeda is a religious motivated group even though they have some political goals. Fighting over religion causes most of the world's problems.
- http://www.majorreligions.com... (" It is manifested in greater religious piety and community feeling, and in a growing adoption of Islamic culture: dress, terminology, separation of the sexes, and values by Muslims. The Islamist movement, or Islamism, is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system; therefore, modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.")
- http://www.theguardian.com... ("Yet it's true, religion has been a major feature in some historical conflicts and the most recent wave of modern terrorism." "Religion has been implicated in all sorts of conflict and violence throughout human history.") *This source isn't that much of a source because it is more of a forum, but these people sound like they know what they're talking about. So, I don't care if you take this as a source or not because I'll still have plenty of sources.*
- http://www.bethinking.org... ("So, does religion cause war? Sadly, it does. But does Jesus Christ, and do those who submit themselves wholeheartedly to Him and His teaching? No.")
- http://www.beyondintractability.org... ("All of these instances derive from a lack of respect for other faiths.")

#3: No evidence as to why
I'm not saying this to diminish everyone's beliefs. It sickens me when people try to disprove Christianity or some other religion and then they have no proof as to why think that way. Sure, other religions have no proof, but it's RELIGION. Religion is a series of BELIEFS. Meaning, it's OPINIONATED. Sure, the bible said this and the bible said that, but you can't use your own religion as proof to disprove other beliefs that has nothing to do with yours. That's inapplicable. For instance, this Christian guy *(Remember: I'm a Christian too. I have nothing against Christianity. The only thing that I'm against is how they force you to believe in what they want you to believe in. This is the 50% reason why I wanted to start this debate. Now, Christianity in a PHYSCHOLOGICAL standpoint makes sense. But, in my opinion, when it tries to be physical, it doesn't make sense. For instance, supernatural activity like walking on water. That's kind of unrealistic because if Jesus could walk on water. Shouldn't we or something else be able to walk on water too? I know that Jesus is God's son and if he's God's son, then he should have some powers or something, but still. All of these supernatural activities that you see in the bible doesn't happen now. I do believe in some miracles like healings, but I don't believe Jesus walked on water even though I do believe in Jesus himself.)* is walking around and some Hindu started talking about his beliefs for some reason. Then the Christian comes out and says, "That's stupid. The bible said this. The bible said that." I mean, using your own religious beliefs to disprove others is so irrelevant. That's being biased. How does he know if all of that is true? He has no idea if what he just said was true or not. He has no clue. Religion is a big mystery. Everyone has different answers to this big mystery which goes into #4.

#4. Everyone has their different interpretations of religion.
2 Christians can interpret very differently even though they believe in the same thing. I'm not the typical Christian who believes everything I see in bible. Again, not disparaging here. But, still, just because you believe in something and you think it makes sense doesn't mean the person next you should believe in that too. He/She can if he/she wants to, but forcing him/her to believe in yours is fallacious. What happened to the First Amendment? Freedom of Religion. Where's that at? I don't see it.

That's all I have. I wish my opponent good luck and I hope I can do better with this debate than my previous ones. I'll say this one last time, the focus point of this debate is to share ideals and learn from them, not to derogate them.

- http://en.wikipedia.org...
SkepticalStardust

Con

I thank Pro for his arguments and I'll be rebutting them in the next round.

1) Religion claims answers and truth.
A) Religion claims to be true. For the religious, the truth of their religion is arguably the most important aspect of it. If you take truth away from religion, then you're left with mythical stories. It makes sense that the religious would claim that their beliefs are true, since believing in something you don't believe to be true makes no sense. This takes me to "B".
B) Truth is objective. While your understanding of a truth can differ from mine, an objective truth does exist. To truly believe you know the truth on matters of religion and not share that truth is selfish. If there is no true religion, then there are billions of brainwashed people in need of help. If a religion is true, then that's arguably the biggest discovery of humanity, which takes me to "C".
C) Religious truth should be shared. If my accepted understanding of the world is going to sentence me to an eternity of hell, then I'd like to know. Likewise, If I'm spending my life believing a lie, then I'd like to know. By not challenging other's religious beliefs, with all religions and the lack of any religion considered, you're necessarily doing one or both of two things. You're either denying truth to the brainwashed and/or you're denying salvation to the damned.

2) Religion has real consequences.
A) Religion sometimes impedes progress. Religion has, at times, stood in the way of scientific advancement. One well known, recent example of this is the religious objection to stem cell research. Stem cell research has the potential to positively impact diseases and afflictions including stroke, respiratory disease, diabetes , neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, and some birth defects. In cases like this, disproving aspects of one's religion, if not the entire thing, releases science from religious chains.
B) Religion can be used to justify racism. Senator Theodore Bilbo, who claims that racism is a sincerely held religious belief, is one reason religion should not be exempt from direct challenge. Another example is the Appleby Baptist Church in Nacogdoches, Texas arguing for a biblical precedent for strict racial segregation. I find it hard to believe that anyone would wish to respect these religious beliefs.
C) Religion can be used to justify intolerance. Religious views on same-sex marriage, transgender operations, other religions, etc. emotionally hurt and sometimes limit the rights of others. Arguing against and trying to disprove aspects or all of a religion that wishes to limit other's rights can be arguing for equality.
D) Religion often claims the possibility of eternal damnation. If eternal damnation truly exists for an existing religion, then, for its members, not proving the religion to others is akin to not telling the majority of the world that the water they're drinking is actually cyanide.

3) It's acceptable to criticize beliefs, with the exception of religion.
A) Why should it be acceptable to criticize political beliefs, but not religion? Some people's political beliefs are just as strong as religious beliefs. However, it's not considered unjust to change someone's mind or prove someone wrong politically. There's no reason for the fine-to-disprove and not-fine-to-disprove difference between politics and religion.
B) Why should it be acceptable to criticize a cult's beliefs, but not the beliefs of a religion? Cult members tend to be considered crazy, while religious people have faith. It's generally considered fine to tell a cult member they're wrong, but wrong to say the same thing to a religious person. This leads me to "C".
C) Why should it be acceptable to criticize the beliefs of crazy people, but not the beliefs of religion? As Robert M. Pirsig said, "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called a Religion." What one person considers "crazy", another could consider "religion", and vice versa. To say a religious person's beliefs deserve more respect than a crazy person's beliefs of equal conviction because it has a larger following is absurd.

4) At what point is it no longer unjust to attempt to disprove someone's religion?
A) Is it when they're the Westboro Baptist Church? Is it when people are having their hearts ripped out for sacrifice? Is it unjust to convince someone their religion is wrong when their religion requires them to kill children? Is it unjust because their faith is strong and important to them? There comes a point when respecting someone's religious beliefs no longer comes first. This point simply comes sooner for some than others. However, whether you consider it to be immediately or later, the point when it isn't unjust to disprove someone's religion does exist.

I look forward to seeing your rebuttal and continued arguments. Good luck.

http://stemcell.ny.gov...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.alternet.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Dishoungh

Pro

(Disclaimer: Round 3 and 4 will be Rebuttals. If you have more reasons, you are free to state them in the next round. Sorry for the annoying disclaimers. But, at least, I'm doing this to inform you guys of what's going on. Also, I'm trying to be a little comical........and I'm bored again. Seriously, what's with me being bored? At least, be thankful that I'm doing this. Man, I'm way off topic.)

I thank Con for his reasonable and civil argument. Therefore,we shall now start the rebuttals. Anyway, let's begin with the rebuttals

REBUTTALS

1A.

What you've stated is true, but I don't see what was the point of the elaboration. How could you believe in something you don't believe in? That completely contradicts itself. Plus, that has nothing to do with people pointlessly debating on Religion. Now, I wouldn't mind if you prove your belief to everyone if it was TRUE and it has been proven. But, no religion has been proven true yet. We're still wondering around about our existence. They're just a series of traditions, beliefs, and claims. I'm trying my best to rebut while maintaining logical sense.

My main rebut here is nobody can debate on religion if they don't KNOW if their religion is true or not and/or if can be PROVEN or not. That's the main thing here. Nobody knows what's true or what's false.

1B.

Yes, I understand. People are looking for the truth. I absolutely understand that. But, like I said, nobody knows what's true and what's false yet. Some people don't even bother. They just believe in something and not think about it and that's fine. That's why I people are free to believe in what they want to believe in. Each member in every religious activity have their own motivations to seek for truth. For instance, a stranger might not base his/her beliefs off of logic and reason like I do. I believe in Christianity, but I only believe in it REALISTICALLY. Since, the truth hasn't been discovered yet, so what's the point of proving/disproving religion then? That's basically just blurting about beliefs, not facts. That's the point of I'm trying to make here.

1C.

Religious ideals should be shared. That's what I said in Round 2. "It's okay to challenge other people's religion to respectively share and learn ideals with one another." You don't know if you're living a lie. So how would you know that you are in the first place?

2A. Now, science and religion are kind of different from each other. I keep seeing that Science disproves God, but they don't know about Science in general. In general, Science is the extent of OUR UNDERSTANDING. That means what we know of in this Universe is science. We don't know if there are things out there beyond our understandings. That's my counter of the whole Science disproves Religion debate. We don't know if there are Aliens that exist yet. We don't know if in places, beyond Earth, you can probably do/see some crazy stuff. Okay, let's imagine a planet that can sustain life that we know of. We launch a Space Shuttle over there and this astronaut goes around. We would have no idea of what's on that planet. It's kind of the same thing for Religion almost.

2B.

Okay, first of all, it's apparent that Bilbo doesn't know what a religion is. A religion is "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe." Basically, it's beliefs of our existence. Religion is not a belief of superiority or inferiority of other races. That's racism. The only reasons he probably stated that is so he could abuse the fact that you can believe in whatever you want and take it in an unnecessary sense. Second of all, nobody respects racism. It's a thing that a majority of us disagrees on.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2C.

Again, that is not related to religion in general. You're talking about "religious" views on opinion that's not "religious." Yeah, same sex marriage, transgender operations, etc are opinions. But, there's a difference between a religious opinion and a personal opinion. The ones you're talking about are PERSONAL opinions. Being gay has nothing to do with why we exist. It relates to your personal choice and likings.

3A.

There's a difference between politics and religion. Politics directly and sometimes indirectly affects people. Religion doesn't affect anybody else other than yourself at all. It's your choice of what you believe and what you believe in doesn't affect the people around you. It is just to change someone's mind politically if it's for the greater good of the people. You can't change someone's mind religiously. Like I said in my first debate and this applies to my other rebuts, even though if you try to disprove a religious belief, YOU STILL HAVE NO CLUE IF WHAT YOU JUST SAID WAS TRUE. So, what's the point of debating about the disproof of religion, if all you're blurting out is "possibilities." It's a "possibility" that there's a heaven. It's a possibility that there's a hell. There's a "possibility" that there are Gods/Goddesses. It's a "possibility" that there is not a God. Every thing that we're talking about is a possibility. Maybe, I'm wrong and there is not a God. Maybe, everyone is wrong, there is a God and all of that stuff they believed in was false. It's all "maybe." There's no proof. There's no proof to disprove. You see where I'm going? That's why they call them "BELIEFS." Like I said, beliefs are opinionated.

3B.

That shouldn't be acceptable to criticize a cult's beliefs. Small or big. It doesn't matter. It's their choice and their opinion of what they should believe in. I would like to see someone criticize someone's belief using facts. The only time that it should be acceptable to disprove religion is if you KNOW IT'S TRUE.

3C.

I mean, if the beliefs of "crazy people" to be someone's interpretation of why we exist then it's kind of a religion. It's not an official religion. But, remember, the definition of Religion are beliefs of our existence and the Universe. If these "crazy people" are explanations of those 2 things, then it's a religion. I'm kind of struggling of what you're arguing about. I don't mean to insult you, but I mean, you're talking about crazy people. What does that have to with the issue of Religious Derogation? What does being crazy have to do with what you believe in? Plus, this contradicts itself again. Well, you don't contradict it. It's the "people" who consider what's fine and what's not. They contradict it. It's hard to explain, but how can it be acceptable to disprove a cult and not be acceptable to disprove religion itself? What? A cult is a small religious group. Emphasis on "Religious."

4A.
Like I said before, it is okay to disprove someone's religion when you know it's true. That's my main rebut. People who try to disprove religion have no earthly idea if their claims are true. If their religious beliefs are true, then it proves itself. Why would someone's religion require you to kill children? That in itself is unjust. That's not a religion. To kill people is not a religion.

I struggled really hard to rebut on your arguments not because I didn't know what you were talking about. I tried to make logical sense because this topic is really controversial and it's kind of hard to debate on. At least, for me it is. I think my rebuts make sense. I just don't know if they make sense to you and everyone else. My head is hurting right now because I couldn't figure how to combat your arguments without not maintaining sense and it was so hard to explain myself. I'm going to go relax now so I go watch some Naruto. I'm burned out.
SkepticalStardust

Con

"#1: It's their opinion and beliefs
It's their religion. So, what ever they believe in, that was their choice to believe in that belief. It's not your business or concern of what religion other people believe in. Okay, the bible states that you should transcend the Christian beliefs to other people. I understand. I understand it if you're doing it in a way that doesn't show you're subsiding them. I will transcend the Christ way, but I will only do it to those who don't know what to believe in and in a respectful way. But, just because it's your opinion doesn't mean you should go out and belittle their opinions. That's not an opinion. That's just disparage."

You say other's religions are none of my concern, but they are my concern when other's religious beliefs effect my life. With politicians basing their political decisions on their religion, people teaching their children their religion before their children are able to think for themselves, tax exempt status for religious institutions, etc., there's plenty of reason for other's religious beliefs to be my concern. What happens when a religion tells its followers to forcefully convert new members? Is it unjust for them to convert others forcefully? If yes, then we should stop them, but would telling them that their religion is unjust or wrong be unjust? If both are unjust, then we have to allow one of the options. Even the lack of a choice in this scenario is allowing the first option. If you argue that both options are unjust, then it's impossible to be just. If you argue that either are not unjust, then you abandon your argument. It isn't, however, possible to be unjust in a situation that leaves two unjust options. In that case, choosing the least unjust option would be the just thing to do. This means that, in this case, it is just to either allow the religious members to forcefully convert others or it's just to stop them from practicing their religion.

"#2: It starts so much controversy
I don't just mean controversy as like people just gather around in a group and argue back and forth. No, not just that controversy. WAR controversy too. Yes, Religion can start a bunch of mess worldwide. Part of the reason why there is an Al-Qaeda is because of Religion. The Al-Qaeda is a religious motivated group even though they have some political goals. Fighting over religion causes most of the world's problems.
- http://www.majorreligions.com...... (" It is manifested in greater religious piety and community feeling, and in a growing adoption of Islamic culture: dress, terminology, separation of the sexes, and values by Muslims. The Islamist movement, or Islamism, is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system; therefore, modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.")
- http://www.theguardian.com...... ("Yet it's true, religion has been a major feature in some historical conflicts and the most recent wave of modern terrorism." "Religion has been implicated in all sorts of conflict and violence throughout human history.") *This source isn't that much of a source because it is more of a forum, but these people sound like they know what they're talking about. So, I don't care if you take this as a source or not because I'll still have plenty of sources.*
- http://www.bethinking.org...... ("So, does religion cause war? Sadly, it does. But does Jesus Christ, and do those who submit themselves wholeheartedly to Him and His teaching? No.")
- http://www.beyondintractability.org...... ("All of these instances derive from a lack of respect for other faiths.")"

You quote "[do] Jesus Christ, and do those who submit themselves wholeheartedly to Him and His teaching [cause war]? No.", but you also say "Christians can interpret very differently even though they believe in the same thing". It's possible for a Christian to interpret the bible in any way. To say an interpretation is wrong is unjust by your standards. You also quote "So, does religion cause war? Sadly, it does". Religion, at times, but not always, starts war on its own. Islam calls for violent punishments for a variety of religious offenses. It's not just their opinion; it's their religion. To allow them to behead someone who leaves Islam, which the Quran tells them to do, is unjust. To tell them that their religion is wrong is, even if I were to consider that wrong, the least unjust of the two options. As I've said before, choosing the least unjust of two options is just. However, it's not unjust to tell anyone who thinks that way that they're wrong. Religion can and has caused wars without controversy caused from religious criticism.

"#3: No evidence as to why
I'm not saying this to diminish everyone's beliefs. It sickens me when people try to disprove Christianity or some other religion and then they have no proof as to why think that way. Sure, other religions have no proof, but it's RELIGION. Religion is a series of BELIEFS. Meaning, it's OPINIONATED. Sure, the bible said this and the bible said that, but you can't use your own religion as proof to disprove other beliefs that has nothing to do with yours. That's inapplicable. For instance, this Christian guy *(Remember: I'm a Christian too. I have nothing against Christianity. The only thing that I'm against is how they force you to believe in what they want you to believe in. This is the 50% reason why I wanted to start this debate. Now, Christianity in a PHYSCHOLOGICAL standpoint makes sense. But, in my opinion, when it tries to be physical, it doesn't make sense. For instance, supernatural activity like walking on water. That's kind of unrealistic because if Jesus could walk on water. Shouldn't we or something else be able to walk on water too? I know that Jesus is God's son and if he's God's son, then he should have some powers or something, but still. All of these supernatural activities that you see in the bible doesn't happen now. I do believe in some miracles like healings, but I don't believe Jesus walked on water even though I do believe in Jesus himself.)* is walking around and some Hindu started talking about his beliefs for some reason. Then the Christian comes out and says, "That's stupid. The bible said this. The bible said that." I mean, using your own religious beliefs to disprove others is so irrelevant. That's being biased. How does he know if all of that is true? He has no idea if what he just said was true or not. He has no clue. Religion is a big mystery. Everyone has different answers to this big mystery which goes into #4."

Lack of gnosticism isn't a reason to abandon the pursuit of shared truth. When someone's religious beliefs contradict understood science, there's noting unjust about informing that someone. It's necessary to inform certain people with more vigor than others. If other's are, as sometimes happens, ensuring the scientific ignorance of their children, then it isn't that one person's delusion. Innocent children are in danger of brainwashing and the matter requires more forceful attention if polite attempts yield no results.

"#4. Everyone has their different interpretations of religion.
2 Christians can interpret very differently even though they believe in the same thing. I'm not the typical Christian who believes everything I see in bible. Again, not disparaging here. But, still, just because you believe in something and you think it makes sense doesn't mean the person next you should believe in that too. He/She can if he/she wants to, but forcing him/her to believe in yours is fallacious. What happened to the First Amendment? Freedom of Religion. Where's that at? I don't see it."

Different interpretations of religion are no reason to call it unjust to disprove/prove a religion. The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone from other's opinions and freedom of religion doesn't either. To silence arguments because they may offend others or change their minds on religious matters is what's truly unjust.

Sorry that it took so long for me to respond. I've been busy with finals all week and just realized my time to post was about to run out. I had to type this up quickly and don't have time to proofread it before posting. I apologize for any grammatical errors or similar things.
Debate Round No. 3
Dishoungh

Pro

"You say other's religions are none of my concern, but they are my concern when other's religious beliefs effect my life. With politicians basing their political decisions on their religion, people teaching their children their religion before their children are able to think for themselves, tax exempt status for religious institutions, etc., there's plenty of reason for other's religious beliefs to be my concern. What happens when a religion tells its followers to forcefully convert new members? Is it unjust for them to convert others forcefully? If yes, then we should stop them, but would telling them that their religion is unjust or wrong be unjust? If both are unjust, then we have to allow one of the options. Even the lack of a choice in this scenario is allowing the first option. If you argue that both options are unjust, then it's impossible to be just. If you argue that either are not unjust, then you abandon your argument. It isn't, however, possible to be unjust in a situation that leaves two unjust options. In that case, choosing the least unjust option would be the just thing to do. This means that, in this case, it is just to either allow the religious members to forcefully convert others or it's just to stop them from practicing their religion."

That statement of it doesn't concern you was wrong and I concede that one. Like I said, explaining my rebuts is hard because there are exceptions to the exceptions TO THE EXCEPTIONS. It's a very complicated ideal of mine and I'm trying to verbalize it to where it makes sense. If they want to believe in that particular religion, then let them be. It's unjust to forcefully believe in something someone else told you to believe in. It's like a woman or man depending who you are. I'm not going to force her to love me. It's her choice to love me or not and it's my choice to love her or not. I wouldn't necessarily call their religion unjust. That's your misconception. THE ACTION THEY'RE DOING is unjust. No religions are unjust. That's the misconception that you've obtained. It's the actions themselves that are unjust. Attacking someone's religion to force them to believe in something else is wrongful.

"You quote "[do] Jesus Christ, and do those who submit themselves wholeheartedly to Him and His teaching [cause war]? No.", but you also say "Christians can interpret very differently even though they believe in the same thing". It's possible for a Christian to interpret the bible in any way. To say an interpretation is wrong is unjust by your standards. You also quote "So, does religion cause war? Sadly, it does". Religion, at times, but not always, starts war on its own. Islam calls for violent punishments for a variety of religious offenses. It's not just their opinion; it's their religion. To allow them to behead someone who leaves Islam, which the Quran tells them to do, is unjust. To tell them that their religion is wrong is, even if I were to consider that wrong, the least unjust of the two options. As I've said before, choosing the least unjust of two options is just. However, it's not unjust to tell anyone who thinks that way that they're wrong. Religion can and has caused wars without controversy caused from religious criticism."

Like I said, there are exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions. If there are religions as a belief of evil, then I will not hesitate to challenge that belief. Didn't I say that it's okay to challenge beliefs to share ideals? I'm not going to force anybody to abandon their beliefs and transfer to something else. As a matter a fact, you don't have to. You can believe what you want to while believing in other things. You don't have to be stuck with ONE religion. Like I said, it's the actions that are unjust. I don't want to force them to completely change their ways, but I won't stand here and watch the innocent perish. Yes, some Christian was beheaded because he didn't believe in the Islamic ways. An innocent man/woman died because some Muslims forced him into believing in their beliefs. This is the thing I'm talking about. This is what this whole thing is talking about. I know you're not trying to defend this because you've basically said that is unjust. It is unjust. It's all about differentiating right from wrong. Using your actions and ideals as a force for good or a force for evil.

"Lack of gnosticism isn't a reason to abandon the pursuit of shared truth. When someone's religious beliefs contradict understood science, there's noting unjust about informing that someone. It's necessary to inform certain people with more vigor than others. If other's are, as sometimes happens, ensuring the scientific ignorance of their children, then it isn't that one person's delusion. Innocent children are in danger of brainwashing and the matter requires more forceful attention if polite attempts yield no results."

It is necessary to inform certain people with more validity if only if the belief you're disproving is unjust and it's for the greater good of the people to prove yours is right. But, I can't say any religions are invalid. For example, that thing you were talking about Muslims beheading people. If something was proven that it's wrong to behead people religiously, then they're wrong. It's for the greater good for the people, and our statement has been proven. That is just. What you said about children being brainwashed makes me think of free thinking.

"Different interpretations of religion are no reason to call it unjust to disprove/prove a religion. The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone from other's opinions and freedom of religion doesn't either. To silence arguments because they may offend others or change their minds on religious matters is what's truly unjust."

Actually, it is kind of. People have different answer to these big questions that we don't know yet: How did we get here? What happened? What are we supposed to do? What happens if we die? It is unjust for someone to rudely disparage your innocently claimed beliefs. It is not unjust to silence arguments. How is that truly unjust? I'm supposed to stand here and watch Christians beheaded? War break out because of some religious reasons? THAT'S UNJUST! To silence arguments attacking someone's opinion is like stopping a bully almost. Are you going to stand there and watch your friend get bullied or are you going to protect him as a friend?
SkepticalStardust

Con

You said, "I wouldn't mind if you prove your belief to everyone if it was TRUE and it has been proven." You've admitted that it's not unjust to prove your belief to someone if your belief has been proven. You've admitted that, at least in this example, it's not unjust to prove/disprove someone's religion. There have been countless religions throughout human history that contradict what is already known about our universe. You also said, "I mean, if the beliefs of "crazy people" to be someone's interpretation of why we exist then it's kind of a religion." There are plenty of crazy people who believe things that contradict reality. You claim that their beliefs are a kind of religion, which means that it's just to disprove their religion.

You say, "nobody knows what's true and what's false yet". I disagree. There are things we can know for sure. If someone claims that their god created the universe 6,000 years ago and we have evidence to support a universe drastically older, then we know, beyond reasonable doubt, that their god didn't create the universe 6,000 years ago. Whether you agree with an "old universe" or not, if it is true that there is evidence that contradicts a religious claim, then the religious claim is false.

You said, "It's okay to challenge other people's religion to respectively share and learn ideals with one another." What if you disprove their religion while respectively challenging them? You're disproving their religion either way. One doesn't challenge another's religious beliefs without either trying to persuade them out of their beliefs or trying to prove their own. This is another exception that you accept. You agree that, when challenging other's religions to respectively share and learn ideals, it's not unjust to prove/disprove someone's religion.

You said, "We don't know if there are things out there beyond our understandings. That's my counter of the whole Science disproves Religion debate. We don't know if there are Aliens that exist yet. We don't know if in places, beyond Earth, you can probably do/see some crazy stuff. Okay, let's imagine a planet that can sustain life that we know of. We launch a Space Shuttle over there and this astronaut goes around. We would have no idea of what's on that planet. It's kind of the same thing for Religion almost." I agree that there are things we don't know, but it's not unjust to try to prove/disprove beliefs on these matters. If you agree that it's not unjust to prove/disprove these beliefs, but still believe that it's unjust to prove/disprove someone's religion, then you must agree that this is a false analogy. If you argue that it's unjust to prove/disprove any of these beliefs, even matters of science, like different natural laws in different places("We don't know if in places, beyond Earth, you can probably do/see some crazy stuff"), then you argue that it's unjust to prove/disprove knowable things. However, you've already said that it's just to prove/disprove other's beliefs when their beliefs are known to be true or untrue. So, if you argue that it's unjust, then you contradict yourself.

You said, "there's a difference between a religious opinion and a personal opinion. The ones you're talking about are PERSONAL opinions. Being gay has nothing to do with why we exist. It relates to your personal choice and likings.", but religion sometimes mandates certain personal opinions. When someone has a personal opinion because their religion tells them to, then it's a religious opinion.

You said, "There's a difference between politics and religion. Politics directly and sometimes indirectly affects people. Religion doesn't affect anybody else other than yourself at all.", but this isn't true. Religion sometimes dictates that its followers act in ways that affect others. Even a religion that dictates that its followers spread the word of their religion, it affects others. If a political decision must be made, and said decision applies to some aspect of the decider's religion, and the decision is made based on the decider's religion, then that religion affects everyone subject to the effects of the decision.

You said, "Why would someone's religion require you to kill children? That in itself is unjust. That's not a religion. To kill people is not a religion." The Quran requires the followers of Islam to behead those who leave the religion. The Old Testament requires stoning for countless crimes. If someone wishes to believe these things, then its part of their religion. If you say that the acts are unjust, then proving to them that it's unjust, which is disproving their religion, would be just.

You said, "Like I said before, it is okay to disprove someone's religion when you know it's true. That's my main rebut." Your main rebut is to add an exception to your argument. Your main rebut is to say that, in that situation, Con is correct.
Debate Round No. 4
Dishoungh

Pro

This is now the round of concluding statements and we can no longer rebut.

I'd prefer to have the conclusion statements to be 2-3 sentences.

My conclusion:

Although, my statements were probably weak, but I can conclude that it is not your right to attack someone's rightfully acclaimed religious beliefs unless if those beliefs do harm to others. This debate was good, and you were a tough opponent (coming from a guy who sucks at organizing thoughts). I'll give you credit, but my ideal is to differ right from wrong and to separate the innocent from the wickedness (Yeah, I got that from Noah).
SkepticalStardust

Con

I've mentioned everything from the contradictions in Pro's arguments to the benefits of disproving other's religions and the consequences of leaving religions unchallenged. I hope it's now clear to the readers that it's not unjust to prove/disprove someone's religion.

Thanks for a fun debate, Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Freedom of religion has Failed dismally.
What the world really requires is Freedom From Religion.

The community I live in has almost complete Freedom From Religion.
Twenty years ago it was a different story with mostly Christians and even a few Creationist looney tune sects prevalent. Then we copped Christians trying to proselytize us constantly, door knocking and street preaching, trying to con children into church with lollies and little story books.
There were always verbal street wars between the Christians and the Atheists and occasionally with the Muslims.

Times have changed radically, most of those churches have closed down and been sold as shop fronts and private housing, I'm considering purchasing a church to convert into a double story house at the moment as there aren't many left.
There are no street preaching evangelicals, no Creationists and practically no mention of religion by anybody, it is like Christianity has almost totally disappeared, except for Christmas and Easter times, but other times, they don't seem to exist.
The Atheists have also stopped attacking religion, as you cannot attack that which is not seen.
Thus everybody has almost total freedom from religion, the Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can all pray, chant and meditate in peace, the Atheists simply go about their normal godless lives without concern for being hounded by Christians trying to convert them as before.
So nobody really talks about religion any more and public Atheism has completely disappeared.

I attend functions where there are people from all religions and we all get along as great friends, religious differences are not even discussed, as Freedom From Religion creates better Freedom Of Religion and a much more harmonious community.

So to achieve true Freedom of Religion as we experience here, first there must be Freedom From Religion, so nobody feels Threatened by Others Proselytizing under the name of Religious Freedom as is currently in t
Posted by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
RFD #2

Con loses S&G and Conduct points due to a jumpy-personality (starts off as Mr. Niceguy and becomes more and more aggressive) and quite amateur methods for addressing his opponent"s points. It was hard to see sometimes where Con was quoting Pro and where he was making his own arguments. He seemed to fix this in Round 3 however. Pro is clearly sincere and has an opinion to voice, although he didn"t do so with force of arguments he did a better overall job of presenting than Con did.

Sources were equally poorly done by both sides :-p. Try using numerical references, and substantiate more of your points with sources (even if you just randomly google them and tag them).
Posted by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
RFD #1

A very spirited debate that centred from which Pro makes no apology of taking a subjective stance on his stands.

". Which is essentially why he lost the points for the arguments. In debates one needs to be objective when formulating their views and making their arguments. I am obviously biased towards Con"s position being an anti-theist myself but I"m pretty sure I"ve voted correctly here.
Con made a number of objective arguments on why it might be important to criticise ones religious beliefs and effectively demonstrated that the arguments by Pro to allow these forms of criticism were mostly ad hoc. One stunning argument that Pro made was his requisite for Gnosticism in order to have the right to criticise one"s religious beliefs, and seemed to contradict himself multiple times around this point.
Pro"s case is pretty much summarized that it it wrong to attack someone"s opinions, but did not attempt to substantiate this core premise. If Pro did this then he would have had a good chance of winning the debate as he"s not directly addressing the meat of his position. Con made it clear in his rebuttals that there were reasons why someone"s opinions should be open to attack, given it informs their views which have real-life impacts. Pro made the counter argument that only actions should be attacked, and not beliefs, and Con only responded with adding more content to his original rebuttal, which was enough to win this argument.
To summarise, Con is made pointed, objective arguments with better substantiation than Pro. And more importantly Con"s position was easier to understand than Pro"s. I took some thoughts from Pro"s side of the argument, and understand better now that at least a degree of sensitivity needs to be applied with addressing people"s religious beliefs (which I essentially already understand, there is a reason why I attack religion mostly on DDO instead of real life).
Posted by SkepticalStardust 3 years ago
SkepticalStardust
I wrote "finals" in my last argument, but I meant "midterms".
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I agree essentially that attacking personal beliefs is unjust, but there is a proviso, in that if their beliefs are to be out in the public arena attacking others beliefs or proselytizing and indoctrinating outsiders, they they have earned the right to be Attacked.

This includes where their beliefs are anti-knowledge and anti-reality, such as Young Earth Creationism, who attack Science and pretend that Science is an opposing religion, when it is not, They have earned the right to be Attacked and even derided in public spaces and forums.

Though Young Earth Creationism is not truly a religious belief, it is just a group of Immoral Charlatans making a grab for naive, (poorly uneducated) people's money.
Like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.
That's why they fight any attempts to bring in a National Science Curriculum, because it may reduce the average naivety of their community and thus reduce their incomes.
Posted by Dishoungh 3 years ago
Dishoungh
I'll go home and type my introductive argument later on my computer. I can't type that well with my phone.
Posted by SkepticalStardust 3 years ago
SkepticalStardust
Fair enough.
Posted by Dishoungh 3 years ago
Dishoungh
I said you know the drill. That means you know what you're doing. Why do I have to keep telling you what to when you already know what you're doing? It's pointless.
Posted by SkepticalStardust 3 years ago
SkepticalStardust
You mentioned that round 1 was acceptance, but you didn't mention the other rounds.
I suggest this:
Round1 - Acceptance
Round2 - Arguments
Round3 - Arguments and/or rebuttals
Round4 - Rebuttals
Round5 - Closing statements
It's fine with me if you prefer not to have an agenda, but I think it will make the debate run smoother.
Posted by Dishoungh 3 years ago
Dishoungh
That's why picked this topic
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
DishounghSkepticalStardustTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had many good points, but not adequately stated, even making agreement with Con's points, Con came up stronger with the fact that religion does retard progress and cause contention within societies, especially with Christians trying to spread their beliefs as they believe they should, but, this means the non-religious and other religions have to put up with constant advertising of Christianity from overbearing, overzealous and too often annoying Christians who irrationally scream persecution when people stop them Proselytizing. Freedom of religion is not helping the situation, what the world really needs is Freedom From Religion, thus a totally secular society where Religions are all treated equally, but no Proselytizing is allowed nor tolerated, from any religion or non-religion.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
DishounghSkepticalStardustTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments.