The Instigator
Kako
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
A_Flying_Toaster
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Religious Faith Is Independent of Societal Progress

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Kako
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,253 times Debate No: 45611
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

Kako

Pro

1st Round: Acceptance/Introductions
2nd Round: Case presentation/Reasoning for Stances
3rd-5th Rounds: Counters

Hello. My name for debate purposes is Kako The Tiger. I do not present any personal religious or non religious positions when debating. Nor do I present any other personal information. I will be taking the Pro Stance.
A_Flying_Toaster

Con

Hello, I am A Flying Toaster that somehow acquired cognitive function. Don't ask how, not even I know. But I am here to debate Kako The Tiger on an issue I wasn't expecting. He had viewed my other debate I am currently doing "Religious Faith Is Not Needed" referring to that of societies all around the globe. He had some intriguing commentary and I was surprised to see this as the argument he proposed, I thought it would have been a clone of mine. But nonetheless I accept this as well, and hope it shall indeed be a swell debate.

~Good luck, opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
Kako

Pro

Let the con be aware that his previous topic of debate still stands as these both have strong relation with each other. The statement "faith is not needed in any society" can be used to place emphasis on its superfluous nature with respect to mankind's ability to enact goodness and positive discipline within itself. This is true. Mankind is wholly capable of doing such feats on its own without theism. This however places the assumption that this is theism's sole purpose. It is not. And many differing religions profess many different purposes. The argument of the con is appealing to religions inability to distinguish its own majority example of goodness within a secular institution, which then leads to the question of its usefulness. However, my argument is not in showing the usefulness of religion in order to combat the con, but making a case that religion's usefulness and purpose are completely independent of any societal framework and that forming any outer conclusive reasoning that deems it to exude a majority of negative traits shows ignorance in examining basic human behavior.

My case is specifically against these statements and quote:

"Alright then. I will go over the reasons as to why I believe religion is a divisive, simple-minded, ignorant, dangerous, and closely related to a virus in all societies, and is a strange distorted form of belief."

"Religious Faith Is Not Needed"

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

I contend that religious faith of its own sole merit is independent of societal progress or lack thereof and undeserving of its stigma. It also does not exist to promote any lethargic sense of satisfaction with regards to world understanding and that these are all by products of successive human error. First I will affirm the opposing stance. Then I will make my case.
____

I have suspicion to believe my opponent is popularly confusing the state of religious faith itself with the abuse of religious faith and the external consequence of that abuse or the ease of that abuse. His position of concluding that the seen result (of theism) requires dismissal of belief from society ['that it is not needed'] and his reasoning's for doing so all exhibit signs of inference-observation confusion. A misinterpretation that the source is of equal guilt as the externally observed results. He concludes that the horrors performed in the name of religion are of equal guilt as the state of belief from which they allegedly came. The idea that simply the possession of belief alone contains a natural and instinctive volatility that has been proven and seen to be harmful to the civilized progression of mankind. The problem with this reasoning is that my opponent overlooks the consequence of human error, instinct, motivation, and the role they all so tirelessly play among mass social frameworks in all instances.

I argue that poor execution, miss-communication, poor presentation, and misrepresentation of any framework, be it theistic in origin or not; all exacerbate an outlet for negative human inclination which then invites the potential for abuse which is what is seen today. This is my case. That natural human folly is of guilt and not the state of belief as it singularly stands.

I will mostly attempt to illustrate this within the resulting counter rounds. However I will make my foremost case here in the 2nd Round.

I have hypothetically illustrated this reasoning beforehand to shown how error in an initial human reaction can have an effect on all that follows it:

___________________________

> A church is made after someone finds a book that says bad things will happen if other people don't believe it or take some form of specific action (This is attempted understanding of ones environment as a protector. It is the origin of this cycle.)

> The church takes to heart what the book says and becomes FEARFUL of the eventual outcome it describes (this can be a conscious reaction or an unconscious one)

> This fear then serves as a protective tool to move it to act in a way that keeps it from experiencing the bad things the book talked about (This is fear as a protector. Some would call this or mislabel it as Fear of God. In this case it is the same as seeing a gun and becoming fearful of the anticipation of being shot. Most equate the power God is said to have with his potential ability in punishing them for whatever they think they've done.)

> But the church sees the protective actions it takes as noble and cares for other people. It then turns the prospect of everyone avoiding a bad fate into a movement, a cause, and a dream (exactly like the Vanguards for Equality from my previous post) and it gets comfortable in its stance (castles and islands example. The "Comfortable in its stance" part can allude to the Richard Dawkins quote stated earlier). It then passes down and teaches to each generation the art of dodging and running from a disastrous fate (which is like the bullet in the gun example). But because the churches initial understanding was based upon a fear, that fear translates into the ways it tries to help other people (Obey God or burn forever type thinking). Thus the church itself ultimately becomes an OP type organization (Overly Protective) whether it meant to originally or not. This can be shown in what the people take away from the teachings or how they view others who don't share their beliefs.

> Since the arts of dodging and running themselves are based on fear within a flight response, they have the potential to reach any radical measures necessary by whatever extreme means in order to protect itself- [this becomes a result only if the initial stance taken is one powered by fear]
_______________________________

Those radical results I mentioned, of self promotion and protection, are what we see today. But the origin of those negative results is not the source itself but of man's initial fearful interpretation of the source. Other men have the potential to not produce a chain reaction of fear after examining their own source at their beginnings. Because there are many differing sources which mean many differing things to many different men. To come to the conclusion that theism itself is the original negative cause grossly underestimates the power and role of human fear and the effect it plays in all human frameworks. This same case of fear's role can even be seen in non theistic environments. Politicians may abuse the fear that potential voters have of their financial or protective futures in order to amass self gain. Fear of failure can be used to promote recklessness among hard workers. Even science has been abused with this exact notion and has had to distinguish itself from pseudoscience. Racial superiority was championed by some to have scientific backing. This had a disastrous effect on whites perception of people of color at the time. But would science be to blame or the fear that infiltrated it/abused it? No. Which is why a distinction was made. Because the abuse of science was the cause, not science itself. The same is true of the horrors done in the name of religion. Fear perpetuates itself in many things and has a mass influence on how we view those things. It's our external judgement in how we view them that matters.

The point being is that even if religion were to be dismissed purely for its potential of abuse, this would still not be justifiable and can even be considered unlawful.

The principles of religious freedom & separation of church in state work hand in hand. They are binding and one cannot function properly without the other.

> Religious freedom prevents discrimination of any one belief so that no one general ruling can work on behalf of them all regardless of any abuse potential.

> Separation of Church and State makes sure that should a religion become abused (assuming that its basis isn't abusive in itself), its effects don't infiltrate the national institution that is supposed to work for all differing kinds of people and all their differing kinds of beliefs.

These statutes are the result of a carefully thought out human framework. But ANY human framework has the potential to be abused. So these same laws which were meant to protect everyone are instead being misused to protect a select few. Just like with the previous examples of theism, fear is at the heart of any form of observable abuse.

Do not confuse one with the other.

My case is that you find both religion and abuse of religion to be of equal guilt and I believe you are wrong. My reasoning to believe this is your use of words like "divisive, simple-minded, ignorant, dangerous, and closely related to a virus" when in fact these are words that are used when describing natural human error, not the frameworks put in place to prevent these traits. And to attempt to distinguish a particular instance from all other religious instances shows bias.

I refrain from delving any further till Round 3 to hear your response.

Good luck.
A_Flying_Toaster

Con

Let Pro be known I have acknowledged and accepted that both this debate and my other debate are connected and interdependent of one another so my arguments can be proven or disproven just based off this debate, or that debate. Let us begin.

I argue with my opponent that religious faith and societal progress, whether it is progression or degradation, are interdependent in all societies handling religious faith no matter what religion it is. I observe that it does cause people to be satisfied primarily on their faiths views of the world and not much further, and these would not be so if said people were secular thinkers.

---

First, let us see to the definition of a society word for word. Society is a mass of people living together in union, despite how well sophisticated said society is. Society consists of humans and humans have had some form of religious faiths in the magnitude of societies humans have had in the course of our existence. There is countless examples of this such as the Egyptians, the Romans and the Greeks. And they had rules, traditions, laws and holidays that were inspired by religious values and it is no different in today's society. The framework of religion demonstrates itself in current societies through similar laws, holidays, rules, and traditions even in modern society. Let us take Christianity itself in America. We have Christmas. We have Easter, both are holidays that have just become a part of the culture and society. Laws. Well we know there are plenty of religiously inspired laws. Homosexual marriage is banned in many states such as Texas, Alabama and Virginia. And the arguments for the ban you will find religiously inspired reasons. Traditions are prayer before eating a meal. Rules society has made generally was not taking God or Jesus' name in vain. There is many more reasons I could go over as to why society and religious values and dogma are interdependent, but I don't nearly have enough characters to list all of them.

I argue that society has inspired and well-invited religion in all societies associated with religious faith, and that abuse on general human standards are interdependent with the faithful. And it is not separated.

My case is not that I find religion and religion fundamentalism similar, my case is that I believe that society and religious dogma and ideals are interdependent to one another in any society affiliated with religion, at least for this particular debate.

Thank you for having this debate, good luck. And might I say, I am admiring of your intellect.
Debate Round No. 2
Kako

Pro

I feel the con has yet to completely grasp the whole of my Round 2 argument and has neglected the aim of my latter points. If he cannot fully address the main points of my foremost argument (or at the least question it in some way) then all proceeding Rounds will become moot.

To the end of my Round 1 argument I state:

[The principles of religious freedom & separation of church in state work hand in hand. They are binding and one cannot function properly without the other.

> Religious freedom prevents discrimination of any one belief so that no one general ruling can work on behalf of them all regardless of any abuse potential.

> Separation of Church and State makes sure that should a religion become abused (assuming that its basis isn't abusive in itself), its effects don't infiltrate the national institution that is supposed to work for all differing kinds of people and all their differing kinds of beliefs.

These statutes are the result of a carefully thought out human framework. But ANY human framework has the potential to be abused. So these same laws which were meant to protect everyone are instead being misused to protect a select few. Just like with the previous examples of theism, fear is at the heart of any form of observable abuse.

Do not confuse one with the other.]

The whole of this part of my post is meant to show that religion is NOT supposed to have any intermingling with any neutral secular framework. But because this secular framework has been abused, it no longer functions in the way it was meant to.

This statement here:

"I argue with my opponent that religious faith and societal progress, whether it is progression or degradation, are interdependent in all societies handling religious faith no matter what religion it is."

Is just you proving my case. Then you go on by merely restating the effects of what happens when these frameworks have already been abused. Something I just gave multiple examples of in my last argument [paragraph 7 non quotes: This same case of fear's role can even be seen in non theistic environments (continued).]

And this statement here:

"I observe that it does cause people to be satisfied primarily on their faiths views of the world and not much further, and these would not be so if said people were secular thinkers."

Is ignoring the absolute entirety of my last argument by once again resorting to external inferences and believing the source is of equal guilt as the effect. You even use the words "observe" & "cause" in the exact way that I warned about as soon as I started my argument:

[I have suspicion to believe my opponent is popularly confusing the state of religious faith itself with the abuse of religious faith and the external consequence of that abuse or the ease of that abuse. His position of concluding that the seen result (of theism) requires dismissal of belief from society ['that it is not needed'] and his reasoning's for doing so all exhibit signs of inference-observation confusion.

|||||>A misinterpretation that the source is of equal guilt as the externally observed results.<|||||

He concludes that the horrors performed in the name of religion are of equal guilt as the state of belief from which they allegedly came. The idea that simply the possession of belief alone contains a natural and instinctive volatility that has been proven and seen to be harmful to the civilized progression of mankind.

|||||>The problem with this reasoning is that my opponent overlooks the consequence of human error, instinct, motivation, and the role they all so tirelessly play among mass social frameworks in all instances.<|||||]

With this I would like potential voters to see that my opponent, as of the start of Round 3, has yet to form a counter to my argument which can be considered to effectively move this debate towards a conclusion.
A_Flying_Toaster

Con

I have reviewed my opponents argument and it seems apparent that he proceeds to argue the case of human nature and religion being two things that weave together. What is misunderstood is that human nature is what makes a society, and if religion has been weaved into human nature over the years then it sure as well will be built into No society of any human culture as well. Currently, I am doing this debate from my phone due to my desktop is having de problems. So I will merely argue the key points you made that I see simply and neatly.

"He concludes that the horrors performed in the name of religion are of equal guilt as the state of belief they allegedly came."

Allow me to correct you, I do not believe that both are equal, I find that the baseline state of belief could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time. It feels good, depending on the type of person you are, you'll proceed and proceed with the drug until you just grow a addiction or tolerance to it. In this metaphor, you can see that as theists who never consider they're wrong, or have contempt towards atheists, agnostics, or even other religions. And many other systems. This point is bad and sadly a lot of people go beyond it around the globe, which does lead to the murders and horrors done in its name. I do not believe they are equal, the path begins once you start religion and depending on how your psychological health is, it gets you more and more out there.

I have reviewed your points for how human nature ties in with religious belief, and again, I agree perfectly. But again, society is an offspring of human nature. And if religious values are added into that human nature, then the society, will also follow in the footsteps of humanity. And going down this list, I would like to point something out to you. You say it yourself, fear ends up dominating the minds of humanity, and through the process of non-thinking called faith, fear grants the holy leaders power, and that is tyranny and manipulation. Granting the people a false disease and a fake cure. Am I wrong?

Ah, yes. Your comparison in your next paragraph I see as faulty because the holy text in religious books endorses said horrors. Allow me to give you some verses.

1. Christian bible, Deuteronomy, chapter 17, verse 12.
"And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel."

2. The Quran, 3:56.
"As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony both in this world and the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

And if these are indeed the literal word of God, then it should not be accepted into faith at all. And these aren't the only ones, there are several more detestable ones.

And the law wouldn't even be needed. I am saying that if people willingly abandoned their faith. I'm not some sort of monster that would force such a thing. That's terrible.

Religious freedom is definitely a thing in America, but most certainly not respected. Atheists in America are treated terribly in so many ways, even people of other religions in some cases.

Separation of church and state is fine if it actually were upheld. But its effects already HAVE infiltrated the national institution. Children in schools are told to say the pledge of allegiance every day with the phrase "Under God" within. If you are anything BUT a Christian in the political system, you will not be successful. Name me one popular atheist or agnostic politician, I challenge you. That's just some reasons. And BOTH are a result of society weaved beside religion which was weaved beside human nature. You admit that.

This is issue of human nature and religion both equally. Mostly religion for taking advantage of the flaws of our species. I am not being biased, this is what I observe, and I do wish you to prove me wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
Kako

Pro

I will take this point by point. For the sake of space I will only include the 1st few words of the con"s argument followed by: "..."
Each part of the counter is separated by: "____"

> I have reviewed my opponents argument and it seems apparent that he proceeds "

Human nature and society are two different things. Though both are man made expressions, one exists as a means to oversee the other. Society is mankind's attempt at regulating individual human nature among a mass of differing mindsets in order make sure one doesn't inhibit the other and that there is at least some form of control or general order. Individual human nature on its own en masse has proven to be disastrous. A defining social structure combats this. I've already stated this myself that separation of church and state exists for a reason.

"These statutes are the result of a carefully thought out human framework. But ANY human framework has the potential to be abused. So these same laws which were meant to protect everyone are instead being misused to protect a select few. Just like with the previous examples of theism, fear is at the heart of any form of observable abuse."

There is no misunderstanding. At its initial stage, human nature weaves religion. Religion comes from man. Just as society comes from man. Man is his own worst enemy. And human nature can infect every one of man's products. You seem to deter yourself from the idea that I strongly support the lack of religious involvement within government.
______
> Allow me to correct you, I do not believe that both are equal, I find that ...

Again. This is conjecture based on an externally developed personal opinion.

[I find that the baseline state of belief could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time.]

Once again, it is not. To emphasize this let's do an experiment. If I take your metaphor and replace the word belief with authority/power. What happens?

"I find that the baseline state of authority/power could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time. It feels good, depending on the type of person you are, you'll proceed and proceed with the drug until you just grow addiction or tolerance to it. - This point is bad and sadly a lot of people go beyond it around the globe, which does lead to the murders and horrors done in its name."

Does this statement still make its case with the words replaced? Yes. Yes it does. In fact this statement shows itself to be accepting of a wide range of examples. To cling to a particular, various different stories illustrate the effects of the social "megalomaniac". Gaius Julius Caesar for instance is one such case. And in his dominance, military might and status were his drug, not religiosity.

What does this mean to show? It means that if your argument can still accept differing concepts and remain consistent means that there is an even simpler unifying concept that can't be broken down any further (one with no known substructure) which connects any two initially different concepts together. I say that this unifying concept, one that connects all the contexts of all observable misuse (be it power, faith, or money) is fear.

What your observational inference tries to do is make a special case out of the state of belief and it cannot be seen in the same light as any of the other abusive positions. This thinking can only work if one keeps hold of their own perception and it only can exist if one starts with the assumption of observed guilt. Theists do the exact type of mental justification that you did within your mind after making those observations. One professes the ills of atheism while the other professes the ills of theism. A generalized inference of either of those ills that separates any unifying role leads us to why we are debating this right now.

All I am saying it that your metaphor can be used to describe ANYTHING that can be seen as potentially addictive. Because of this, it isn't at all effective in making a point against any one particular thing. Medical drugs can be used in your example. On their own they are just a chemical substance. But depending on the user they can become either beneficial or detrimental.
The exact same thing is true with authority/power. Depending on the hands it"s in, it too can become either beneficial or detrimental. This is not me disregarding your personal conviction as unconvincing. This is me saying your approach in trying to expressing your personal conviction is unconvincing.
______
> I have reviewed your points for how human nature ...

Yes. You are wrong. I mentioned separation of church and state for a reason (plz refer to the 1st part of the post about society) but when I say you are wrong I specifically mean your last point.

> You say it yourself, fear ends up dominating the minds of humanity, and through the process of non-thinking called faith"

No. I said nothing at all about false diseases and fake cures. What's more, FEAR induces the process of non-thinking. Not faith. Fear. It is the universal monolith and all withstanding instinctive law that governs non-thinking. If non-thinking had its own God that it fervently worshiped day and night, that God would be named Fear.

One can have faith that God(s) exist
One can have faith that their partner loves them enough to not cheat on them
One can have faith that their parents will be back to bring them food

On their own these are all indifferent emotions and perceptions which are hardly of arguable consequence.

But what is it that causes someone to mutilate themselves and others as an offering?
What is it that causes someone to constantly monitor their significant other for signs of mistrust?
What is it that causes a child to murder an adult just so they can steal some bread?

This is fear. The same fear that halts one in their steps, unable to move and unable to think whenever confronted by serious threat.

Fear that the God(s) one placed so much value and hope in won't be able to return them any tangible favors.
Fear that one's partner has a dismissive love that can turn against them at the single pass of a better prospect.
Fear that one just might starve after their parents promised them they wouldn't.

Fear is what creates what you see and yet you adamantly believe, Even to the point of argument, Even to the point of debate. That the state of belief is the problem at hand. That the state of belief is something of a true enemy.

Are you afraid of someone believing in God(s)? Or are you afraid of how that person can possibly behave in reaction to their belief? Your answer to this determines why you think the way you do.

I applaud any stance of atheism that does not seek out to make an enemy of theism. Likewise, I applaud any stance of theism that does not seek out to make an enemy of atheism. To initiate any form of ethical confrontation between the two falls below my sense of respect.
______
> Ah, yes. Your comparison in your next paragraph I see as faulty because "

Remember when I posted this?

[ - And to attempt to distinguish a particular instance from all other religious instances shows bias.]

If you wish to call out a specific denomination then challenge the denomination itself. Challenge what you see to be documented as potentially unjust. But first know what you are actually challenging. To feel potential error in the ways of a denomination and to jump to the reasoning that all the state of belief is at fault is a textbook description of inexperience. The full hardy nature of the eager intellectual. If I see that a business is stealing from its employees do I reason that all forms of business are inherently bad? Or do I challenge that particular business with respect to what it has done? If the latter then why would religion be any different? Remember again what I said in Round 2:

[Other men have the potential to not produce a chain reaction of fear after examining their own source at their beginnings. Because there are many differing sources which mean many Differing things to many different men. ]

Know who you are actually combating.
______
> Religious freedom is definitely a thing in America, but most certainly not respected ...

EVERYTHING you just said here is the aftermath of abuse of a system. I do not condone this at all. I know what you mean. I feel what you mean. I have even fought for trying to get others to understand what you mean. I have heard this same exact plea more times than I can conceivably count.

We both know that this is not right. What I know and what you show struggle in realizing, is the CORE of WHY this isn't right. Not the observable aftermath effects of why. The core of why. 'The absolute core of why' has no particular relation to religion, or power, or greed, or violence, or anything. The absolute core of why has everything to do with how humans abuse their fears and desires. This is what radiates to create the situation you find so uncomfortable. That is your actual enemy. The antidote to fear is understanding, not just education. Because education has the potential to be misused also. Understanding takes a reaching between two sides and it knows and feels the heart of another person. That is the bottom line.

> This is issue of human nature and religion both equally" - and I do wish you to prove me wrong.

Fear takes advantage of our flaws. Not blaming humans themselves allows for humans themselves to continue and abuse whatever other means that comes along. Discrediting religion is not going to appease whatever ails you.

And only you can prove you wrong. All I'm capable of is showing how I feel things are and hoping that what I say at least causes you to think about the negative potential your argument carries. You may have the most upstanding, and glowingly beneficial goal that ever existed. But if your argument for the means to which you want to reach that goal are in error, then I will debate you each and every time.
A_Flying_Toaster

Con

You are correct, I am saying human nature and society are two different things but society does branch of human nature just as religion does. And the two have always been connected in many civilizations around the world. Even in America, it is obvious. What I am saying which I am sure my opponent misunderstands -whether the blame be on me or him is irrelevant- is that yes, human nature, society and religion are offspring's of it, but that does not exclude religious faith being a part of society at all, it very much is. Whether it be a corrupt society or not, religion still is in the societies, misuse, corruption, evil, does not exclude the idea. But I shall go over the arguments of my opponent nonetheless.

----

Yes, opinions and claims are all about debates, to prove my opinion wrong.

Your entire next argument here is partially true, I give it that, human nature loves authority whether being in it or ordering it is up to the person. But again, this does not prove how religion is not a part of society. Religion has made laws and bills pass. Such as Arizona's recent bill that allows people to refuse service to others based on religious beliefs. Showing religious authority is a popular thing among the people of the society.

Separation of church and state is sadly irrelevant, because it isn't respected. Or enforced.

I was using false diseases and fake cures as a metaphor. Fear may induce it, but faith uses that fear as an arrowhead. And like I said, this again does not prove a separation between society and religion. And just to quickly point something out off topic, if religion appeals to our fears and not our rationality, then why respect it? I make no enemy of theism, I simply see it as something society to go without. Am I an enemy of my friend Nate because I think he could do well without cigarettes? No.

Your last 3 paragraphs warm my heart and I thank you, but do bear in mind, don't drift off the subject. And I agree with you fully on human nature. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
Kako

Pro

Very well. As this is my final say I will try my best to apply the acuteness of formalities that care little of personable means. I regret not taking this approach earlier as I have made the mistake of appealing to my opponent as a person rather than an objective that needs to be superseded. Such is a failure on my part in not realizing the nature of this 'arena' and of debate itself. A far cry from both communication and understanding. Slowly I begin to doubt my actual value here.

Moving on...

The case I am arguing for is that "Religious Faith is Independent of Societal Progress". Had I argued that "Religion Is Independent of Societal Progress", the whole of my argument would have ended in fault as religion is in fact a part of society. Let it show that there is a distinction between Religion and Religious Faith.

Religious faith alone professes a belief in God(s) or doctrine, stemming from spiritual apprehension rather than proof. [Something we've previously alluded to as "The State of Belief"]

While religion is an applicable system of that belief.

The inclusion of the word faith (as pointed to again within the title) places emphasis on the personal, rather than interpersonal value, of a religious aspect. Thus society, which is a structure of the interpersonal, can now be seen as independent of that aspect.

What my opponent must be able to do within his final argument is either show that religious faith alone [and not religion] possesses a definitive and exclusively intrinsic means in which it interacts with any external persons, or engage in combat with the many differing semantics concerning documented definition between religion and religious faith. In a sense he must either refute the difference between mental conjecture and external application of said conjecture or refute the labels that identify them.

Though not completely worthless, my previous arguments have shown that even non-faith based feelings and conclusions themselves are still restricted to one's mental person and that any external reaction to those mental faculties immediately becomes attributed to the physical person themselves and not the mental reasoning's from which they came. Please note that as the instigator, these are the stated parameters to be argued within.

In conclusion let it be known the disparities between the interpersonal and the personal. One enacts influence on its surroundings while the other enacts influence purely on the intangible self, which can then be seen as independent of the community that 'self' exists in.

My case rests.
A_Flying_Toaster

Con

Oh, come now opponent. You don't need to treat me as an object, I would be insulted if you did. We're both people here. :)

Anyways.

Yes, you are arguing religious faith and religion. But my arguments still practically stand in strength due to the fact that religion in it of itself is always a personal belief if you go to the roots of it. But it spreads with other people who have the same belief and it causes reinforcement in the peoples beliefs thus causing it to become a part of society naturally. If a big part of the society believes it, its naturally gonna be part of the society.

And, in conclusion, religious faith may be a system made to be personal, but it sure isn't. That is shown within the numerous factors of our society that are religiously endorsed. Because religious faith is so strong among human beings that the ideal is reinforced and made into society. I demonstrated that in the arguments above. Have a nice day, Kako. Good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
If you didn't already know, this was my first debate. In a sense this served as experimental for me from the get go. And I've already stated my feelings about the results I found:

"Such is a failure on my part in not realizing the nature of this 'arena' and of debate itself. A far cry from both communication and understanding. Slowly I begin to doubt my actual value here."

When I said this I wasn't joking. This first time out made me realize that my place resides more within discussion than debate. Preferably 1x1 and without much in the sense of rules/restrictions.

That being said if you do want to debate again it would have to be a topic of your choice and then I would decide to agree to it or not. Just know that this isn't something I'd actively seek out.
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Yes, except this time it is purely experimental. Any topic we like except the topic side we choose we have to disagree with. My mother says that will help me debate better.
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
I'm not sure I follow.... You want to debate again over another topic?
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Ah, Kako! Hello again. My computer got the blue screen of death and I got a new one. Real fancy and high tech. But anyways, my mother said if I ever am to get good at debating, I should debate for something I flat out don't agree with. I wanted to try this out with you since you are an incredible debater yourself.

I do not have a topic in mind at the moment. You can make one up too!
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
"I really didn't meed to go into great detail"

"I did all I had to."

....????

Wait... wut?
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Why speechlesness? Hm.. What bothers you, I really didn't meed to go into great detail for my last argument or in the comments section. I did all I had to. Simple. Do calm yourself and relax, our voters will see who won or lost, and if not, they will merely see this argument and decide for themselves. That is what I am greatful for.
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
[speechlessness intensifies]
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
There is critical evaluation that happened. But I need to go be with my family. Goodbye, thank you for the debate.
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
Irrelevant????? The whole of this argument was hinged on that statement:

"the difference between mental conjecture and external application of said conjecture"

Just reading your response showed that you tried to argue this point without even thinking about what it is. That statement is not an opinion nor is it irrational. What it means is that there is a difference between what you think and how you act. For example: I can think about killing someone (mental conjecture). But if I don't act on these thoughts then I am not a murderer (external application of mental conjecture).

The state of belief/religious faith is mental conjecture. But in order for it to effect society (external application) those beliefs must be acted upon.

That is the argument which you decided to completely ignore. I read your conclusion and was awestruck at how it made no actual attempt to refute even the labels of those concepts. Even the reason you just commented makes little to no sense. It's as if instead of countering the point above you just decided to say "Yea well your wrong" without justifying why. If I am to take ur argument with a grain of salt I at least need to see some critical examination.
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Because it is irrational. Anyone can say anything is an opinion. Thus irrelevant to the argument at hand because both sides of our debate can be completely said "Well that's just your opinion." You could do the same to me. Like you have been. Therefore, pointless to aknowledge.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
KakoA_Flying_ToasterTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job, guys. I'm giving arguments to Pro because he presented good arguments, and adequately refuted Con's. Nicely done to both.