The Instigator
Sonofcharl
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
McDavid
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religions are conceptual nonsense.

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: 1/10/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 434 times Debate No: 98854
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Sonofcharl

Pro

Definitions.
CONCEPT. An abstract idea.
ABSTRACT. Existing in thought. Consider something theoretically.
NONSENSE. Spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
FANTASTIC. Imaginative or fanciful. Remote from reality.

Pro will argue that:
Religions are fantastic concepts. Born of a time when humans were ignorant of their environment and of their position in the universe.

Rules:
5 open rounds. Use your own brain power. No referencing other peoples work/theories. A maximum of 100 words per round.
McDavid

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Sonofcharl

Pro

Hi McDavid.

Long ago. When mankind first started to consciously think and not rely on instinct. They sought to rationalise the universe, their environment and their existence within.

At first. The only option was imagination/concept.

And they conceived notions of intangible deities, that existed outside of their knowledge and sensory capabilities.

Over time. The power of the human brain (organic computer) increased. Knowledge and understanding grew.

But the older deistic information was still passed on/programmed into subsequent generations.

Scientific discovery. As since proffered logical and sensible answers to the human condition.

But the old concepts still persist.
McDavid

Con

Religion is not the result of imagination. it comes from experiences with the divine. Whether it is visions of God, speaking with spirits, or reaching enlightenment through meditation; religious experience is almost universally shared among humanity. It is reality that people experience the divine.
People struggle to understand divine experiences and put them in context, leading to religion. Different religions exist, just as different theories try to explain the same phenomenon. Some of those theories will be proven wrong, but that does not mean the theories are remote from reality. Religions, based on experience, are not fantastic concepts.
Debate Round No. 2
Sonofcharl

Pro

The human brain is a very clever organic computer. Not only, can it store and retrieve information. It can also generate appropriate sensations to accompany specific information.

Divine experiences are merely, self generated physiological responses to specific situations.

Some people are more susceptible to this behaviour than others.

I would suggest that Pro and Con are at opposite ends of this spectrum.

How we behave as individuals, is largely dependant on how we're programmed/conditioned in our formative years. Though some people will always remain vulnerable to the power of suggestion.

Divine experiences, spirituality, visions. Self generated, conceptual nonsense.
McDavid

Con

Suppose you"re Mohammed, and you see a vision. You've never hallucinated before, and you"re not dehydrated. You might rationally conclude your vision was real. You might be wrong, but you"re not fantasizing or spouting nonsense. You"re reasoning based on experience.

It is not nonsensical for a person to take sensory information and conclude its real. It"s not fantasy to hypothesize about your experience and call it religion.

Many mathematicians think the Riemann Hypothesis is true. If they're wrong, was their research fantasy? If their research isn"t understood by people without experience in theoretical mathematics, is it nonsense?
Debate Round No. 3
Sonofcharl

Pro

If Mohammad consulted a doctor today. Tests would establish the cause of his hallucinations. Medical knowledge was limited in Mohammad's time.

The efferent response to sensory information, especially information induced by hallucinatory stimuli. Is nonetheless conceptual and more likely to be irrational and nonsensical.

Until proved. I think it's fair to regard hypotheses, as fantasy. Though I would suggest that mathematical hypotheses are founded on previously attested information. Whereas religious hypotheses are founded on illogical assumptions.

Illogical assumptions can be generated as responses to sensory information.

We are cold. Therefore we must pray to the god of the sun.
McDavid

Con

Pro claims Mohammad was irrational in not utilizing modern medicine to evaluate visions. Lack of information is not irrationality.

"We are cold. Therefore we pray to the sun," is a mischaracterization of the argument.

If I see something, it exists.
I have seen God,
therefore God exists.

The premises might not be true, but the argument is valid. It isn't nonsense.

Rational people disagree about how convincing evidence is. You might not be convinced by a vision, but if you believe a rational person could be convinced, please vote con.

Valid arguments with supporting evidence are not nonsense or fantasy.
Debate Round No. 4
Sonofcharl

Pro

If you've seen god, show me god.

You cannot.

As the god of your vision, was a product of your imagination. Generated from within and not, existing without.

Pro asserts that. Religious information, evolved from an archaic misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the human condition. This information has subsequently been elaborated and then passed on from generation to generation.

Con's proof of god/deities. Relies on visions/hallucinations, talking with spirits and meditation.

Pro would suggest that all of these phenomena are perfect examples and therefore explanations, of fantastic, abstract, nonsensical concepts.

If god exists, show me god.

Vote pro.
McDavid

Con

Pro is attempting to distract from the actual topic of the debate.
Questions about god's existence or my spiritual experiences are red herrings.

The question that matters is, "Can a reasonable person have spiritual experiences and conclude that some form of religion represents reality?"

Absolutely yes! Many things in the universe are not well understood, are hard to replicate, or have evidence about which many people disagree. Some hypotheses will be proven wrong, but the phenomenon itself and hypotheses about them can't be called nonsense or fantasy. Religion should not be called nonsense or fantasy either.

Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
I "like" this.. But take care.. The abstract concept of the fantastic always finds a way out into nonsense.
Definitions.
CONCEPT. An abstract idea.
ABSTRACT. Existing in thought. Consider something theoretically.
NONSENSE. Spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
FANTASTIC. Imaginative or fanciful. Remote from reality.
No votes have been placed for this debate.