The Instigator
A906500a
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jackthemarine86
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religions are just arbitrary theories to understanding God

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: 3/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 49197
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

A906500a

Pro

No religion can be regarded as the RIGHT religion to believe in--one that has the CORRECT understanding of God. Religions are just theories--a human creation--only representing themselves.
Jackthemarine86

Con

"No religion can be regarded as the RIGHT religion to believe in--one that has the CORRECT understanding of God. Religions are just theories--a human creation--only representing themselves."

This is a very bold, assertive statement. The burden of proof lies upon Pro. I am very interested to see exactly what method he has utilized in order to test the validity of this claim.
Debate Round No. 1
A906500a

Pro

"This is a very bold, assertive statement" ACCORDING TO CON. According to others, that may have been an apprehensive and non-assertive statement. Because, you see, perception is reality. This actually illustrates my point. The truth of the claim, "this is a very bold, assertive statement" cannot be proven with evidence but, importantly, it cannot be proven to NOT be evidence. The same principle applies to the existence of God. Con says for me to "TEST the validity of [my] claim"--he wants the EVIDENCE for such a claim--akin to many people who want the EVIDENCE for the claim that God exists. These people say that there's no evidence that God exists. But what if YOU and ME are the evidence--what if the UNIVERSE is the evidence and we're simply unaware that it's evidence. We cannot prove that the universe is evidence, but by the same principle, we cannot prove that it's NOT evidence. This illustrates the validity of my claim: there's no CORRECT religion--no TRUE religion. may be

Now let's address the validity--the relevance--of my claim: there's no CORRECT religion, no TRUE religion. I can prove that there's no correct religion by disproving all religions because precognition violates the known laws of our universe (for more on precognition, refer to Michio Kaku's book "Physics of the Impossible"). Precognition is one of only two things that violates such laws--rendering it impossible--it's impossible to know that heaven is held in the future. How selfish is it to think that THIS isn't heaven?

With that said, I'm excited to see where Con takes the argument.
Jackthemarine86

Con

This is clearly a side-step. There is absolutely no confusion in the matter that your original quote was a bold, assertive statement of fact. In fact, besides yourself, I don"t know of anyone else who would see it any other way, unless they were floating around in your precognition hypothesis.

By the way, I don"t even see how precognition has anything to do with this argument whatsoever. "The existence of precognition, as with other forms of extrasensory perception, is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community," http://en.wikipedia.org....

Ergo, I think it"s a no-brainer to say that we test the accuracy of theories with either one or two methods: Scientifically or logically.

Since religion is immaterial and cannot be tested from a material (Scientific) method, the only way a religion can be verified is with evidence in the world prescribed by the tenants in said religion (i.e., creation lends evidence to a Creator), historical evidence, and lastly subjective evidence (known by the believer based upon the relationship they have with their God.)

To make the claim there is no Correct religion lends to the view that all religions are essentially the same. But this is a contradiction. For example: If Jesus was not the Messiah, then Christians are wrong and the Jews were right. If he is the Messiah, then the Jews are wrong and the Christians are right. If neither are right, then that makes the Muslims right. If the Muslims are wrong, then either the Christians or the Jews are right, and we already covered the difference between them. This could go in circles to every religion on the face of the earth. At the end, you would have one that is right and all the rest being wrong. For this reason, not all religions can be argued as being the same or all wrong.

Furthermore, the very principles of material evidence pointing toward a religion, historical evidence, and subjective evidence need to be taken into consideration in that research.

So I go back to my original though / query concerning your statement: What evidence do you have which can prove that all religions are essentially the same in being wrong, and that they are all simply human creations?
Debate Round No. 2
A906500a

Pro

As I said, precognition is impossible because, again, it violates the laws of the universe [i.e. physics, math, etc]. In other words, "the existence of precognition, as with other forms of extrasensory perception, is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Con said he doesn't see how precognition has anything to do with my argument. So i'll reiterate: precognition is the fundamental basis in virtually all religions because each religion offers a specific account of the afterlife.

To Con's statement "since religion is immaterial and cannot be tested from a material (Scientific) method", I'd like to offer the following reply. That which is immaterial is an abstraction--the cognitive process in which we make INFERENCES from OBSERVATIONS [2 steps in the SCIENTIFIC method]. And observations are evidence and vice-versa. Con backhandedly pointed out that religion can be verified scientifically since the scientific method involves observations and observations are considered evidence.

However, Con was correct when he said "to make the claim there is no correct religion lends to the view that all religions are essentially the same". This is another one of my points. At the most basic level--the most fundamental level--all religions share the same RELIGIOUS identity just as we humans share the same fundamental HUMAN identity.

It's much easier to prove that humans created religion [i.e. via historical records] than it is to prove that non-human(s) created religion. I never said that all religions are WRONG, as Con presumes. I said it's impossible to determine if a religion is wrong [or right] in its account of an afterlife. Therefore, no single religion can be considered the correct religion. And the evidence for my claim is physics and math--the laws of the universe. Because, again, these laws render precognition--predicting the future--impossible.

I'd like to thank my opponent for taking the time to entertain this argument.
Jackthemarine86

Con

"As I said, precognition is impossible because, again, it violates the laws of the universe [i.e. physics, math, etc]. In other words, "the existence of precognition, as with other forms of extrasensory perception, is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community" (http://en.wikipedia.org......). Con said he doesn't see how precognition has anything to do with my argument. So i'll reiterate: precognition is the fundamental basis in virtually all religions because each religion offers a specific account of the afterlife."

-Not necessarily. If we look at Historical accuracy. For instance, the Book of Luke in the New Testament of the Bible talks about the Transfiguration of Christ in Luke 9:28-32 ; 28 About eight days later Jesus took Peter, John, and James up on a mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was transformed, and his clothes became dazzling white. 30 Suddenly, two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared and began talking with Jesus. 31 They were glorious to see. And they were speaking about his exodus from this world, which was about to be fulfilled in Jerusalem. 32 Peter and the others had fallen asleep. When they woke up, they saw Jesus' glory and the two men standing with him."

- It's important to note here, that Jesus was transfigured (transformed) to as he would appear in Heaven, inferring there was an afterlife, as Moses and Elijah were with Him.

-For the record, Luke was a scientist and a doctor, and hence wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts with an accuracy and skepticism required of both professions. Furthermore, archaeological evidence confirms the accounts provided in the Gospel of Luke, establishing a unique credibility to his writings: http://www.ichthus.info...

"To Con's statement "since religion is immaterial and cannot be tested from a material (Scientific) method", I'd like to offer the following reply. That which is immaterial is an abstraction--the cognitive process in which we make INFERENCES from OBSERVATIONS [2 steps in the SCIENTIFIC method]. And observations are evidence and vice-versa. Con backhandedly pointed out that religion can be verified scientifically since the scientific method involves observations and observations are considered evidence."

-I"ll agree that observations can be evidence to support a claim " but skeptics often do not substantiate the same claim. Such an example of observational evidence is what I described above from the book of Luke. However, other observational evidence comes about Heaven comes from the book of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelations in the Christian Bible.

"However, Con was correct when he said "to make the claim there is no correct religion lends to the view that all religions are essentially the same". This is another one of my points. At the most basic level--the most fundamental level--all religions share the same RELIGIOUS identity just as we humans share the same fundamental HUMAN identity."

- I disagree . Christianity is identified as being allocated to that of those who believe in Christ. I already provided the definition of Christianity and where its roots are derived from. Judaism, Islam, etc., have no affiliation with Christ as being the common denominator for their beliefs.

"It's much easier to prove that humans created religion [i.e. via historical records] than it is to prove that non-human(s) created religion. I never said that all religions are WRONG, as Con presumes. I said it's impossible to determine if a religion is wrong [or right] in its account of an afterlife. Therefore, no single religion can be considered the correct religion. And the evidence for my claim is physics and math--the laws of the universe. Because, again, these laws render precognition--predicting the future--impossible."

-Negative: Your beginning hypothesis was the following: "No religion can be regarded as the RIGHT religion to believe in--one that has the CORRECT understanding of God. Religions are just theories--a human creation--only representing themselves."

- The opposite of Right is Wrong, last I checked. Furthermore, your original statement made absolutely NO reference to the afterlife as justification for that claim " "but as to the CORRECT understanding of God." These are two totally different things. The evidence for your claim is not math or physics " as you used neither to make your point " you utilized precognition (not accepted in modern science) in reference to the afterlife to make your argument.

- As a final note, I would say that in the realm of Christianity, it is somewhat of a farce to believe that it was created as a representation of ourselves. I observe humanity on a daily basis. I realize that those who profess to be Christians are just as subject to sin as those who are not. The teachings of Christianity are professed to come from Christ - And Christ taught us to do things that most of us find to be a struggle - humility "turning the other cheek", forgiving those who continually wrong us, abstaining from the love of money, etc.,. A plethora of things that I see people go against daily in today's society. In fact, many claim these 'morals' to be archaic in nature - and accuse Christians of attempting to shove these principles down their throats. Heck, even Christians struggle with some of the guidance given by Christ. If one were to invent a religion, with the recognition of our selfish natures, I would dare wager that it would be something that would coincide with the natural natures we possess - ergo creating a God who's much easier to reconcile ourselves with.... no the opposite. Most people who give money to the poor, help out a neighbor, dedicate time and money to charities - we look at them as good people - yet the Bible says "All of our righteousness is as filthy rags", and that salvation is not by works lest any man should boast that he earned it by his good deeds... These very tenants go against what our natural inclinations and ideas dictate.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.