The Instigator
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
53 Points
The Contender
RMK
Con (against)
Losing
41 Points

Religions are corruptions of man's interpretation of that which he does not understand...

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: 12/29/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,223 times Debate No: 1124
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (22)

 

Mangani

Pro

If we examine the historical, geopolitical, and logical aspects of religion we find that though there is logic in many fundamentals of religion- including actual science- it is at it's core the mass representation of the few manipulated by different men by different means and with different results.

There are core contradictions for which formulated answers have been long adhered to, yet the logic many times is actually more in tune with the overall doctrine. Even so, the adherents of religions often choose to collectively believe ideas, interpretations, even scientific arguments from those with obvious bias. The argument of faith is used in place of logic, even when logic can eliminate the need for faith in what just cannot be any other way.

I have heard arguments that this train of thought- that logic can prove and disprove veracity's and falsehoods in every religion- is not spiritually just because logic eliminates the need for faith, but why believe in God when you can know him? Do you believe that George Washington was the first President of the USA (in it's current state as a Republic), or do you KNOW it because there is no logic against that belief?

Though it may be impossible to actually acquire all the logic it takes to rightly interpret every aspect of our universe, it is possible to logically point out myth, truth, fact, and fiction in every religion. There is much fiction in every religion that can be assigned a motive, and a perpetrator if viewed objectively.

Ultimately I believe there is one truth, and though I can never acquire the complete knowledge of that one truth- even experts, liftime ministers, scholars, monks, etc. of specific religions never have complete knowledge of established religions- I believe it is more spiritually, emotionally and mentally beneficial for the faithful to become the knowledgeable. Otherwise we will spend the rest of eternity trading one Theocracy for another...
RMK

Con

Religion - the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

To me, your opening argument is very broad and multi-dimensional. The interpretation of the word religion can be open to a multitude of factions.

My question is this, and very simply stated, can you (or anyone) prove the existence or non-existence of a personal or worldly God?

Now, when I refer to the term religion...I will use the word "God" because all religion is based on some form of spiritual diety.

All things have a creator. The painting had an artist. The building had a contractor. The milk had the cow. The egg had the chicken. Very simple logic, but a very important ideal. Take the Earth. Was it not created? Therefore, does it not have a creator? A simple analogy: If I were to place all the pieces of a watch in a shoe box and shake it for one minute, would I open it to find a fully functioning watch? How about if I were to shake it for 1,000 years? A million years? The answer is simply no. How can one possibly think this happened with the world in which we live?

If you are disputing this issue on belief alone, how can you prove science over religion? There are many things that science has proven and been proven wrong on. There are many things that faith has proven and been proven wrong on. Take the Bible, the Old Testament was written before the Son of God every graced this Earth. During Jesus' 33 years of life on Earth, He fulfilled 332 distinct prophecies that were fortold in the Bible. The mathematical chance of that happening in the lifetime of one man?

1/840,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. (That's ninety-seven zeroes!)

What I believe governs my life. That is true for all human beings with the ability to think and process information. Human beings also have the inate ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Does this happen by chance? Believing in a God does not corrupt any faction of life. By living a life rooted in religion, I will live no longer, learn no less, and love no more than a person who does not believe. The difference then? I live for a greater good that is not of this life. If that is the case, then who are you (or anyone) to disagree when you yourself do not know the truth of what lies beyond death?

If this world was not fighting over religious dominance, it would be fighting over clean water, food, equality, etc. Religion is the poor man's way of a scapegoat.

If you believe that life is nothing more than science, then your saying and agreeing that your thoughts are not your own. With science, thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions. Therefore, how can you trust anything you think?

With religion, I live each day knowing that it is not my own. Does that mean that I will not challenge myself to do good deeds while on earth? No, in fact, it is the exact opposite. Religion is spiritual and takes on different forms in the inner workings of each individual. I also believe that we do not choose to follow God, He chooses us. Whether we listen to His call is our own undoing.

Science is "Every attempt at human progress has been an attempt to overcome what was lost in the Fall." ~Randy Alcorn~

I would rather put my faith in a greater being with religion rather than put my faith in the science of another human being.
Debate Round No. 1
Mangani

Pro

I don't understand how you intend to debate a topic and not address it. You are debating the existence of God, when I have not denied it. You are debating the superiority faith over science, when I have stated that when science proves things believed through faith you no longer believe- rather you know. So can you really formulate a rebuttal without addressing the original argument? I will entertain you nonetheless...

"Now, when I refer to the term religion...I will use the word "God" because all religion is based on some form of spiritual deity."

-I have not denied the existence of a deity, rather I argued that Religion- a codified and structured belief system with a deity or deities at the center of these beliefs- is structured by man and therefore corrupt. I argued that logic can prove many aspects of every religion, but that logic also disproves obvious falsehoods within these same religions due to corruption by man. If religion were a belief system transferred by God directly to individual, then we would all be perfect saints with all the knowledge of the universe and no need for debate.

"All things have a creator."

-This is not an affirmative statement that can be proved or disproved, nor is it a point in this topic.

"how can you prove science over religion?"

-Every religion dictates some kind of science- whether right or wrong. Science and religion are at odds now because more people have more access to more knowledge. When most religions were established, it was the clerics who were in possession of most of the world's knowledge, and in monopolizing this knowledge they manipulated theology, doctrine, and interpretations according to their own limitations. This left no room for revaluation of beliefs based on modern knowledge, and with this much of the logic behind religions has aged and as common knowledge becomes more intelligent, what was once largely believed to be fact is now attributed to faith. The founders of every religion assert that they are privy to true knowledge of science.

"Believing in a God does not corrupt any faction of life."

-You are implying through your arguments that I made statements against what you are affirming. I hope people are smart enough to see you are arguing against points I never made and ignoring those I did.

"If you believe that life is nothing more than science, then your saying and agreeing that your thoughts are not your own."

-This is again an argument against a point I never made.

"With science, thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions. Therefore, how can you trust anything you think?"

-The process by which thoughts interact with our physical being has nothing to do with my points or the topic. Science does not describe thoughts as chemical reactions, and neither have I.

"Religion is spiritual and takes on different forms in the inner workings of each individual."

-Religion is an institution. Institutions cannot be "spiritual", but they can be political. People can be spiritual. The manner in which religion affects your life has nothing to do with my argument. Something having a positive affect doesn't by proxy make it right. An example of this case would be a religion other than Christianity- in your case. Christianity teaches that all other religions are "doctrines of devils", etc. yet even you admit that "religion is spiritual and takes on different forms in the inner workings of each individual". If Christianity lacks logical flaws- as you would imply by taking on this challenge- then every other religion does... yet other religions can have as positive an affect on your life as Christianity.

"I also believe that we do not choose to follow God, He chooses us. Whether we listen to His call is our own undoing."

-Do I need to point out how these are contradictory statements???

"I would rather put my faith in a greater being with religion rather than put my faith in the science of another human being."

-Unless you disregard the bible, you are putting your "faith in the science of another human being". Solomon wrote of how science and knowledge were the basis of the fear of God... I don't know when the most revered scholar in Religion became so insignificant that modern science does not apply as knowledge of God- even if it can eventually prove his existence.
RMK

Con

I'm not sure where your going with your argument, but your whole "Round 1" focuses on the idea that logic goes further than faith. You basically repeated that thought in numerous ways. To me, fighting for logic is trying to disprove a God/religion. Your main point, like it or not, is basically saying that religion/God is bunk because of scientific/proven logic. Is it not?

"If religion were a belief system transferred by God directly to individual, then we would all be perfect saints with all the knowledge of the universe and no need for debate."

This is a false statement. Sin entered the world through man. If we were all-knowing and perfect, what would that make us? God.

""All things have a creator""
"This is not an affirmative statement that can be proved or disproved, nor is it a point in this topic"

Just like how this whole topic is not an affirmative statement that can be proved or disproved? You are only adding to the fire that you say shouldn't have even been started.

All you have done in your argument is restated my points and repeat how they have nothing to do with the topic. Once again, according to your underlying meaning of this argument, my points have everything to do with your beginning statement.

Of course science is apart of God. All things are part of God, for He created them. You say I make a contradictory statement, your whole argument has been nothing but a run-around in fancy terms.
Debate Round No. 2
Mangani

Pro

RMK I hope you realize you have yet to say anything of relevance to the topic...

"your whole "Round 1" focuses on the idea that logic goes further than faith."

-If you don't understand an argument, you say so- you don't invent your own interpretation of it. The correlation I made between faith and logic was that faith is an excuse for flawed logic. Religion teaches things that are true on top of things that aren't true. The things we are taught that are not true can for the most part be assigned a perpetrator and a motive- THIS is the premise of my argument. If you learn the perpetrator and the motive and LEARN the TRUTH behind the faith, then faith is unnecessary as it is an affirmation of truth when there is no proof. If there is proof of truth then faith is obsolete- at least with that one belief.

For example- it was once a matter of faith that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that it was flat. This was taught by the Catholic church, and Galileo was excommunicated for arguing against this matter of FAITH. Do I need to explained what has happend in the hundreds of years since this incident? Since you might misconstrue my point- it was only 360 years later, in 1992, that the Church saw fit to change its official view of Galileo. The Church no longer considers this a matter of faith, rather a matter of science.

"To me, fighting for logic is trying to disprove a God/religion."

-That is tantamount to saying it is illogical to believe in God. Again- you are pairing God with Religion which is ridiculous because you can't tell me every religion believes in the same God and in the same way.

"Your main point, like it or not, is basically saying that religion/God is bunk because of scientific/proven logic. Is it not?"

-How are you taking it upon yourself to define my main point when you don't even understand it? It is one thing to say- this is my understanding of what you are saying- but that is not what you are saying. You are adultrating my arguments to fit your agenda, and that is one of my points with religion. If you don't understand something you adultrate it to fit your agenda...

<<"If religion were a belief system transferred by God directly to individual, then we would all be perfect saints with all the knowledge of the universe and no need for debate."

This is a false statement. Sin entered the world through man. If we were all-knowing and perfect, what would that make us? God.>>

-This was a rhetorical statement, not a false one. Is God not a "saint" in sacred text descriptions of him? Is he not "perfect"? How are you taking a rhetorical statement and attacking it as if this is the premise of my argument? That statement states in other words- religion was not conveyed on man from God- rather from other men. If at some point God gave a message to man, MAN adultrated his message and as a result created hundreds of different religions to fit his own agenda.

"All you have done in your argument is restated my points and repeat how they have nothing to do with the topic."

-Really, how can I move on from "round 1" if you have yet to address the arguments made in Round 1? I restated your statements because this is a debate, and I was showing you where your arguments were not adequate against my original statements.

"You say I make a contradictory statement, your whole argument has been nothing but a run-around in fancy terms."

-Fancy terms? Look, I did not choose you to debate this topic- you chose an open debate. If you are not at the level of knowledge required to debate this topic then move on. If I say "fancy words", look them up. Don't attack my argument based on the words I use rather than the argument itself. It is much worse to attack arguments I never made- which is what you have been doing. If you had ever addressed the topic this could have been a great debate, but you never once touched on the topic- rather you formulated your own topic in your own head because that is what you were confortable arguing for. I think your manner of argument has in the very least proven how man adjusts truths to fit his own agenda, and that speaks to the topic at hand- Religions are corruptions of man's interpretation of that which he does not understand...
RMK

Con

Mangani,

Maybe there would be some direction here if your original opening had direction itself. Look at your topic of debate...one of the worst lines I have seen around these debate issues. What you opened for debate was so broad a topic that it could have been perceived by many people many different ways. Obviously, I took it the way I saw it. Your previous rebuttles have basically stated what you meant to say. How can I argue this point when you didn't even have it formulated in the first place? Have you even re-read your opening statement? There is no clear cut direction to even ponder.

Look here is the deal:

Your debate topic is the following, "Religions are corruptions of man's interpretation of that which he does not understand..."

What does he not understand?
What corruptions?
What interpretations? and of what?

You did not even touch on one of these topics from your own opening topic. How much sense does that make? All you proceeded to do was argue the fact that logic is a "smarter" choice than faith because one must choose knowledge over falsehood. You keep telling me what you meant instead of stating it in the first place. I was prying points that needed to be argued in order to even find out the direction of the intended arguement.

How can you even begin to debate that this is one clear cut idea. I am not debating other religions. I am debating the one that I know about and personally practice. Would it not be wrong for me to debate on issues that I do not know about?

I'm sorry, but it is hard to debate a topic when the author leaves room for thought and then doesn't want to think.

P.S. Your comment on the prophecies is pretty ridiculous. If what you said is true, why couldn't you read the Old Testament and perform them yourself? Because many of the prophecies that were performed were nothing that a mortal man could accomplish. If you agree with what Jesus did, then you must also agree that he was the Son of God.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
I see the pattern of deceit you enjoy spouting when you debate. Again this is an example of the way in which you twist words around to fit your own corrupted belief system. With all due respect.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
RMK, you are a funny character, but, though funny, you are just a character. If you had any logic you would understand my premise, but like the premise says- you only have a corrupt interpretation of that which you do not understand. Good luck in your future debates!
Posted by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
Like I said in the debate, your position (if you can call it that) was horribly represented and had no clear direction from the debate topic itself. I'm surprised I haven't taken the lead yet.

I feel I have to be a broken record with you.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
RMK, you did not and still don't understand my position. It is ok to admit that. I am the one presenting the premise, and I argued in favor of my premise. I am sure that if people would post why they voted how they did you will see that people who voted for me did so because they thought I won the debate, and people who voted for you did so because they agree with you. You were never in this debate topically or argumentatively. Nothing you argued for or against had anything to do with anything I said.
Posted by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
Like I said in the debate, your position (if you can call it that) was horribly represented and had no clear direction from the debate topic itself. I'm surprised I haven't taken the lead yet.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Was it really that close? I don't feel my opponent ever even addressed the issue rather was obsessed with his belief in God- something I never attacked in my arguments... o well. People will vote on how they feel in the end even if their side was debated awfully...
Posted by candice 9 years ago
candice
I agree that there are religions with no deity... this was a really good debate. Personally, I think whatever religion you are your eye's should be open to possibility and discovery! Who's to say that God is responsible a little more than the Bible says? I don't think that we were JUST formed out of clay... but I do think that we are comprised of carbon and other things found in the world.We should also all embrace exceptance... I enjoyed this debate a lot.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Lazarus, that math figure should be more like 1 in 8 billion. I did not address this in my argument because it had nothing to do with my premise, but Jesus studied Jewish texts for at least 18 years of his life (12-30yo). He had direct knowledge of every prophecy, and his fulfillment of every prophecy- as alleged in the new testament which was written after his death and by people who were TAUGHT that he fulfilled every prophecy- can be largely attributed to his direct knowledge of these prophecies. Were he not a scholar of ancient Jewish texts prior to fulfilling these prophecies and had he fulfilled them by accident- this would be a much more fantastic feat.
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
"because all religion is based on some form of spiritual diety."

Not true. I can name many that don't.
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
I'd sure like to see "con" show the math behind that probability figure - sure looks like hand-waving from here!!!!
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
ManganiRMKTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
ManganiRMKTied
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 BellumQuodPacis 7 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
ManganiRMKTied
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 TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
ManganiRMKTied
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 Xer 7 years ago
Xer
ManganiRMKTied
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 NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
ManganiRMKTied
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 Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
ManganiRMKTied
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 Trismegistos 9 years ago
Trismegistos
ManganiRMKTied
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 scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
ManganiRMKTied
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 b3rk 9 years ago
b3rk
ManganiRMKTied
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