The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points

Many religions detract from the beauty of our earth.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,405 times Debate No: 4049
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (15)

 

Yraelz

Pro

This one is coming from Nietzsche, it being one of his ideas that I enjoyed.

My stance: Many religions detract from the beauty of our earth.

Any religious folk out there care to defend?
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Okay, I will attempt to prove Yraelz's statement false.

First Contention: Without a religion, nothing can be proven. (As a note atheism is going to be counted as a religion for this debate, it is the belief that there is no god, so it is a belief system.) If we do not accept the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods, there will be many possibilities that would occur. One possibility is that there is some "evil deceiver" (like in Descartes' First Meditation). This evil deceiver is like the Christian God, except he is evil instead of good. Because he is a b****rd he likes to mess with our minds, you know, like randomly changing the laws of physics, logic, etc. That means, if he exists, you can't prove anything. That means that the world might not even exist, or beauty, or anything. This possibility detracts from the beauty of the earth, negating the resolution. This possibility arises because of lack of religion. Having a religion would replace that possibility, allowing the world to be definitively beautiful.

Second Contention: Beauty is subjective.
I may consider the world beautiful only if I have a religion. That doesn't really make sense, but I could do it. The very fact that beauty is "in the eye of the beholder" shows that while Yraelz can consider the Christian view of the world less beautiful than that of a nonreligious world while I think it more beautiful.

For these reasons you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

Alright, let me deal quickly with both of my opponents points.

=============
Contention 1:

My opponent states that nothing can be proven without the existence of a religion. Otherwise god could be evil and play tricks on us. This is untrue. I can at the very least prove that I exist as I think, and thereby I can also prove that I have a subjective perception, my thoughts. Thus, in my subjective perception I am allowed to view things as beautiful. In other words, my opponents second contention stating that everything is subjective actually nulls his first contention.

==============
Contention 2:

Sure, my opponent could consider the world beautiful to not exist if he didn't have a religion. This however doesn't mean that my opponent is not going to think things are prettier, better, nicer, happier etc.... . Thus my opponent will still consider some things to be beautiful if only in comparison with ugly things which he sees.

This is my point.

===============
Contention 3:

Many religions offer the idea that after we will die we will possibly go to a better place (depending on behavior). This is the key to my entire argument. At one point before religion we had 1 existence to view the world through, that being our present existence. Now that religion is here we can view the world in its present existence but many of us also believe there is something better after it. Thus, by comparison, the world is less beautiful in perspective to the afterlife.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Contention 1: This argument only works if there is logic. an evil deceiver can do anything he wants, even mess with logic, so you have these thoughts, but thay don't necessarily mean anything. Arguing otherwise is useless, as the evil deceiver could be changing logic so that it isn't true.

Contention 2: That's not necessarily true, beauty does not have to be with comparison. I don't have to think that a robin is ugly to think that a bluebird is beautiful. Beauty is not really a measure, but its an outlook. It will always be subjective.

Contention 3: The fact that there is a supposedly better afterlife doesn't mean that this life is any less beautiful. It simply means that there is something even more beautiful. My opponent's argument is like saying apple pie is not tasty because chocolate cake is better. Apple pie still has the same amount of value, but chocolate cake is even better. Also, I would contend that religion adds beauty, as it gives the world meaning. It stipulates that the world is so good, it is a divine creation. Non-religion advocates for nothing more than random chance and luck, which at least in my mind is less beautiful.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

Point 1: There is neither a way for me to prove that there is a religion or there isn't. The same holds true for my opponent. Furthermore there is no way for either of us to prove that there is an evil deceiver or not. Thus this point is absolutely moot. We currently subjectively see beauty, whether that is because of a creator or not is unprovable.

============
Point 2: Okay let us examine this situation in a hypothetical. If for instance there was a room all filled with flawless diamonds and you spent your entire life in that room they would be all that you would know. You would have no perspective to describe the diamonds from, you would have nothing to compare them to. To you, in the room, the diamonds would just be.

However if you had spent you life on earth, where there is dirt, mud, and rocks and then you came across a flawless diamond you would be able to compare it to these things and come to conclusions such as,

"It is shinier!"
"It is more geometric!"

or perhaps

"It is beautiful!"

The same is true of all human relations, we automatically compare things we see to other things that we see. Things that are out of the ordinary or that are prettier than most things we usually classify as beautiful.

Whether this human nature stems from a creator or not is of course moot considering that neither of us can prove such a point. Thus my opponent would still classify things as more or less beautiful if he did not have religion.

=============
Point 3: No, the idea that there is an afterlife does make this world less beautiful.

Let us examine the two scenarios separately:

Scenario 1: (We accept afterlife) This means we consider two planes of existence. First off we have plane A: The material plane which we live on. Secondly we have plane B: Heaven, afterlife etc....

We can thereby compare to the two and come to the conclusion that Plane B is of a greater beauty. Thus Plane B is of a lesser beauty, and also the least beautiful.

Scenario 2: (We reject afterlife) This means we consider one plane of existence. Plane A: The material plane which we live on. This means that Plane A is of the greatest beauty because it is the only plane. It is of course also of the least beauty.

Comparison: In scenario 1 Plane A is of a lesser beauty and also is the least beautiful. In scenario 2 Plane A is the most beautiful and at the same time the least beautiful. Thus in scenario 2 more beauty is attributed to Plane A.

Final analysis: Also if we look at this fundamentally as a time argument, in scenario 1 a persons time will be split between appreciating the beauty of Plane A and Plane B. In scenario 2 a persons time will simply be attributed to appreciating the beauty of Plane A. Thus in scenario 2 Plane A will have more beauty attributed to it.

Fin.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Point 1: Although if I had the time I would refute this, I don't, so I won't. Just a note though, I can still easily win.

Point 2: Yes, we compare things, but comparing things does not make the less beautiful thing worse. For example, if there was a man that was considered the smartest man alive, but then some other person takes a IQ test and is found to be smarter, that man does not become less smart, he is still insanely smart. The same goes with the diamonds, even though I see them everyday, they are still beautiful, if I saw the earth I would think it much less beautiful (If I could see that is, I think those diamonds would actually blind me) than the diamonds. Compared to the earth, diamonds are insanely beautiful, no matter how much one sees both. The beauty of one object does not detract from another's.

Point 3: Although I would see the world as the least beautiful existence, it is still beautiful. It's just like the apple pie-chocolate cake example. Just because I find out that chocolate cake tastes better does not make apple pie any less tasty. I can enjoy both, but just think one is even more beautiful.

My opponent's analysis: Although we may spend less time thinking about earth's beauty does not make it less beautiful. Just because I have never had chocolate cake does not make it less delectable. Our time spent on an object does not change its beauty.

My analysis: Well, first, my opponent ever addressed my argument that the concept that the earth is a divine creation makes it more beautiful, so that's one reason to conclude that my opponent is wrong. Also, I have shown that just because an object is not the most beautiful object in existence does not mean that it isn't beautiful.

Quod erat demonstrandum
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
Logical, what ever happened to the future debate?

LR4N6FTW4EVA, would you be interested in revisiting this topic with me? I believe I have some very well thought out positions on it.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
The future, or perhaps the past. Either or would work.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Yraelz, I'm thinking of starting a "The future doesn't exist" debate with you sometime this (or next) week. What say you?
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Entertainingly enough here is a debate where in the comment sections a debater compared our earth to heaven. http://www.debate.org...
To some extent it shows my point.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by DublB 8 years ago
DublB
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by InkSlinger4 8 years ago
InkSlinger4
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by huntertracker6 9 years ago
huntertracker6
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sillycow 9 years ago
sillycow
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SteamPunk 9 years ago
SteamPunk
YraelzLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30