The Instigator
Diagoras
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cameronl35
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Religion must logically be rejected

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,212 times Debate No: 18756
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

Diagoras

Pro

For this debate religion shall mean a faith-based belief of creation.
cameronl35

Con

My opponent never really specified the format, so I'll just start with some definitions and wait for my opponent's contentions.
logic-the quality of being justifiable by reason
religion-the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Diagoras

Pro

Thank you for defining some words. I'll define some more.

Justifiable - Able to be shown to be right.

So for something to be logical, it must be "able to be shown to be right by reason." That means for any religion to be logical, the religion must be "able to be shown to be right by reason." I will leave it to my opponent to show that "a superhuman controlling power" or "a personal god or gods" is right. Right in this sense meaning valid or correct, not morally right.
cameronl35

Con

I would first like to address the fact that my opponent stated that religion is "faith-based". I would first like to define faith. Faith is a "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." My opponent says that in order for something to be logical, it must be able to be shown correct, or in other words proof. However proof does not lie in logic, and you can't PROVE faith by it's own definition, therefore this already should win the debate right here. Just in case any judge disagrees I will provide several logical reasons to believe in a god.

C1: The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

The first premise justifies how something can not come from nothing. If something can come into existence without a cause, then why don't we have several examples of this happening? To deny the first premise is to thus deny causal regularity.

Furthermore, the second premise is solidified on either side of this debate. If you are to argue that the universe did not began to exist, this is an extreme fallacy and will lose the debate. Lastly, since I just clarified how both premises are logically accepted statements, therefore the universe has a cause.

C2: It is more logical that something will come from something, rather than something will come from nothing. This contention is pretty self explanatory, however I will justify how unlikely our existence is to prove it is more logical that something coming from nothing. As we know, we have been unable to prove life in our solar system. I do not deny the fact that life may exist in other galaxies, but we have to look at Earth and the solar system as a perfect example. How many times has life been generated in the billions of years scientists claim the Earth has been around? Once, so far that we can prove. Therefore if you were to calculate the odds of life it would be somewhere larger than 1 in 1^300. We also must consider the fact that the Earth has been around for billions of years. The possibility of one major asteroid crash or a black hole opening is unlikely, but not unlikely enough to the extent that it won't occur in billions of billions of years. Even if an asteroid were to hit Mars, this would cause catastrophical results on Earth. Therefore our existence is EXTREMELY unlikely and thus it is only more logical to believe that a creator could have provided us with such a fine tuned life.

Conclusion: My opponent already contradicts himself to the extent that I should already have won the debate. I also provided logical reasons for a god to exist. HOWEVER, the resolution does not state that a god MUST exist, rather that it MUST logically be rejected. An agnostic standpoint of this debate can still negate the resolution. Due to the logical contentions I have proposed and my opponent's complete misunderstanding of faith, I strongly urge a con vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Diagoras

Pro

Cameron presented only the Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, this greatly falls short. All the Kalam argument does is show that the universe has a cause. The universe having a cause is a far cry from showing that religion is logical, or should be accepted.

My opponent then argues about the likelyhood of life being spontaniously created. He pulls a random number out with nothing to back it up. In fact, scientists as far back as the 50's have already been able to see the building blocks of life form in early earth conditions. http://www.chem.duke.edu...

They created many different Amino Acids in just a few short years. This seems to suggest that with the right conditions, life will spring up with very high probability, without a religious god. It seems that the odds of life forming on a planet lie almost entirely on the odds that a planet will have the right atmospheric conditions. And we already know that the odds of that are not so small given the billions of planets out there.

But none of this suggests any logical reason to believe in any religions. None of this suggests that there is an afterlife, that jesus died for your sins, or that god has the same face as Samara, or any other religion for that matter.

Still, no logically reason has been provided to accept religion, so religion must logically be rejected.
cameronl35

Con

Rebuttal:
I found it quite ironic my opponent agreed that the universe has a cause! As defined by Oxford Dictionaries a cause is a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. He has just agreed that something created us!
I am assuming my opponent believes that this cause is scientific, however this implies that there were previous determining conditions. However there was nothing prior to the universe as my opponent believes. Therefore the cause of the universe must be uncaused. The only way for the cause to have created time and matter, it must have been able to transcend time and matter. This implies that the cause must be powerful, therefore my opponent has already agreed with god's existence. Again in order to negate this resolution, I do not have to prove that religion should be accepted. The resolution clearly states: "Religion must logically be rejected". Therefore by proving that religion mustn't be logically rejected would be valid. NOT that religion must be accepted.

My likelihood of life as I stated in my own contention was not accurate, and I am aware. I did clearly state that in my contention. However, the point I was trying to get across is that the chances of life are so minuscule. Not only is it extremely unlikely that we are, but the fact that the universe is still stable and we are so finely tuned. I don't understand how the source my opponent provided at all proves that life is common. If life is so common, why do we not see life spontaneously being created anywhere in our galaxy that we can explore? Also, why hasn't the Earth or a planet in the universe been completely destroyed yet? The fact of the matter is, the universe balances on the tip of a needle. One example of a possible apocalyptic event out of the many is a possible asteroid hit. “The threat of the Earth being hit by an asteroid is increasingly being accepted as the single greatest natural disaster hazard faced by humanity.” says Nick Bailey. Now I am not promoting that an apocalyptic event will happen, but if due to the fact that the universe has been here so long and has had no extreme damage that we can tell on Earth just leaves you with the thought, why?

Again I was never proving that there is an afterlife, or Jesus died for our sins. This is a totally different argument and is irrelevant. I am arguing arguing that a "faith-based" belief in a god mustn't be logically rejected. My opponent himself provides no arguments why it must be logically rejected. He merely states that the origin is life is likely.

Conclusion:

My opponent completely agrees with the Kalam Cosmological argument, proving that there is a god. Not only did he not respond to the whole premise of a "faith=based" religion and the fact that proof does not lie in logic, he also completely dropped my second contention! His only unclear response was that life is not unlikely which does not affirm the resolution AT ALL. Again, my whole entire case still stands. My opponent dropped most of it, and agreed with some of it! All in all, my opponent provides almost no argument, sets up a debate where it's almost impossible to win because of the definition of "faith-based", and completely drops most of my arguments. Therefore I stand in negation of the resolution that states "Religion must logically be rejected." Thanks for reading this and I urge a con ballot.

http://oxforddictionaries.com...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
Regarding a report of multiple votes on this debate (and any future votes)

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate is well beyond the statute of limitations for vote moderation. We recognize that the voting period is still open, but as this debate ended over 4 years ago, it is regarded as being well beyond the SoL.
************************************************************************
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
Diagoras....
you have essentially created a one-sided topic. God's creation of the world defies all logic.
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
However diagoras, I am not a christian...
Posted by Diagoras 5 years ago
Diagoras
Look at the people voting. Except for you, they are all christians, voting for christians.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
What do you mean?
Posted by Diagoras 5 years ago
Diagoras
Not surprising, the religious circle their wagons.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Degradation argument in its simplest form will force educated judges to vote con, as you've stated the faith-based religion is logically rejected, or proof does not lie in logic.
Posted by Diagoras 5 years ago
Diagoras
obviously the definition of "faith" will be religious based. Non-religious based faith definitions would not fit.
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
Con's argument will crux on the definition of 'faith'.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
Diagorascameronl35Tied
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: con made good points, which pro did not refute. Nor did pro fulfil BoP.
Vote Placed by NewCreature 5 years ago
NewCreature
Diagorascameronl35Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not make any arguments to defend is position.
Vote Placed by Guardian 5 years ago
Guardian
Diagorascameronl35Tied
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: I believe Con put forth better arguments.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Diagorascameronl35Tied
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: Con wins this argument by pointing out that the resolution does not state that religion must be accepted. Con gave a good argument as to why it must not be rejected and Pro could not sufficiently refute it. Another way to look at it; Pros definition of "logical" combined with his resolution actually translates to "religion must be able to be shown wrong". Pro clearly never did this, thus failing to uphold his own BoP.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Diagorascameronl35Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro waits unil the last round to offer any kind of argument. and when he does he only focuses on the nature of how life started, but religion also encompasses belief in much more than just how life was created, so arguments went to con. Con also used a couple of sources whereas Pro only used one, and that told me something i already knew. Fun debate :)