The Instigator
disputation
Pro (for)
Losing
37 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

Religion cannot be a valid argument in debates.

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: 2/1/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,185 times Debate No: 2347
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (22)

 

disputation

Pro

I am not saying that religion is a bad thing. On the contrary, it has inspired millions in both good and bad ways. But we're not here to argue about religion's effects. We're here to argue if you can or can't make a position based on blind faith. I'm taking for granted in this debate that in religion there is always some blind faith (Even scientists do not have all of the answers).

The reasons that faith cannot be argued are:

1) You will never, NEVER be able to persuade someone running on blind faith.

2) Complete blind faith allows no questions to be asked, and therefore there is always only one widely accepted opinion in a religion.

3)There are so many different, diverse religions that to use a religious argument would be rude unless you were two people of the same faith, and in that case, you begin to argue your religion more than the actual debate.

I look forward to debating this. Good luck to the contender!
Kleptin

Con

Atheist here.

Or rather, an Agnostic.

I've come to the conclusion that Religion cannot be disproved on the grounds that it and logic branch off at the same root. Having been an atheist and a very ardent critic of Religion and people who try to validate it, I've come upon something very peculiar.

What we know as logic and reasoning is also the byproduct of blind faith. It's just that this type of faith is so rooted in our consciousness that we tend not to question it, or find the act of questioning it absurd, ridiculous.

Thus, blind faith in general is not only valid in debates. It is vital. We all have to take certain things as axioms in order to structure an argument. This is no different from religion.
Debate Round No. 1
disputation

Pro

I agree with you up until the point where you begin to state that logic and reasoning is a by-product of blind faith.

A very quick search on Dictionary.com leads me to a definition for blind faith: "belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination."
I believe that the lack of perception eliminates logic from blind faith.

A more in depth search in Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition produces two seperate but enlightening definitions.

Blind: "not able or willing to notice, understand or judge."
Faith: "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence."
And not requiring proof or evidence obliterates reasoning in blind faith.

The only other point that I disagree with you is in the last paragraph. You compare the maxims of religion to the opinions and morals of everyday society. But unlike maxims, opinions are subject to change, often when new information is produced or even if one enters a debate. One should keep an open mind while rebutting, the very principle of which goes against religion and blind faith.
Kleptin

Con

"A very quick search on Dictionary.com leads me to a definition for blind faith: "belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination."
I believe that the lack of perception eliminates logic from blind faith."

I'm sure that since you've said you agree to some extent, you know how my argument is going to play out. But I'll explain in depth for those who are watching the debate.

The definition you provided would eliminate logic from blind faith, if one word was omitted. The definition states "belief without TRUE understanding..."

I'm sure you can say that logic develops from perception, but can you argue that what we perceive in and of itself is true? Various philosophers have positions saying that what we perceive is but an illusion. In fact, that's the basis of the movie "The Matrix". Thus, this supports and heavily strengthens my point that logic is also supported by blind faith.

You will forgive me for not responding to the latter set of definitions because it is a set of two separate definitions. Joining them together in a phrase changes the definition, I'm sure you understand.

"The only other point that I disagree with you is in the last paragraph. You compare the maxims of religion to the opinions and morals of everyday society. But unlike maxims, opinions are subject to change, often when new information is produced or even if one enters a debate. One should keep an open mind while rebutting, the very principle of which goes against religion and blind faith."

The fact that a principle does not change does not mean it is correct. "Maxims" are simply unchanging principles that we designate as undeniably true. They are subject to change just as the opinions you describe, it's just that the "new information" has not yet arrived. How would your ideas change if you regained consciousness and found yourself plugged to a giant computer in a post apocalyptic world, discovering that the life you were leading was just a lie?

The ideas we base logic on are just the strongest, most POSSIBLE ones to act as foundation, because they are readily available. The concept of contradiction itself was based on perception through a pair of eyes and a brain, and it is probably not wise to suggest these biological tools are unerring.

No matter how you look at it, the foundations of logical proof are STILL notions we take to be true in and of themselves. This is blind faith.
Debate Round No. 2
disputation

Pro

disputation forfeited this round.
Kleptin

Con

My opponent did not respond...so I'll just restate my main point.

My opponent argues that blind faith should not be allowed in debate. I have shown that blind faith, the assumption of certain, unquestionable premises, is key to all types of thinking. Thus, it is a key part of all debate, everything is built from blind faith.

My opponent failed to disprove this in his last response because he misread the dictionary definition and it ended up in my favor.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ristaag 9 years ago
Ristaag
"Religion? Even religion that has been proved correct?"

You can't prove a religion correct. Religion implies faith, and you can't PROVE faith without nullifying the fact of it being faith as opposed to scientific fact.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Read the ---- debate before you vote purely on the title people. I support Pro's position too but that doesn't mean his argument's better x.x
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
Religion? Even religion that has been proved correct?
Posted by disputation 9 years ago
disputation
Actually, drumbum, if you read my third reason, it states that when you start bringing religion into play like a religious debate, you begin to argue your religion more than the actual debate.

And that gets nowhere because you can't argue religion, my whole point of debate.

If you wish to argue your point further, please read my entire opening argument and then accept the challenge.
Posted by drumbum565 9 years ago
drumbum565
on politics yes but what about a religious debate, for instance, should christians accept homosexuals, then that is a religious debate then religion should be used. you need to narrow down the topic.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I agree. I do take the role of a theist in debates, just for the challenge, but honestly do it out of boredom. Theism is just circular logic and you can't effectively battle it or be properly judged by theists when it is the subject matter.
Posted by biggiiboy 9 years ago
biggiiboy
WOOO!O!!!!!! I completely agree. This website is for the use of debating and opinion, not religion (unless that is the topic of debate.)

Hehe Jziggy is a three-year-old....THREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
disputationKleptinTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
disputationKleptinTied
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 SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
disputationKleptinTied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
disputationKleptinTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
disputationKleptinTied
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 Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
disputationKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
disputationKleptinTied
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 mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
disputationKleptinTied
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 Kals 9 years ago
Kals
disputationKleptinTied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
disputationKleptinTied
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