The Instigator
Debate_King1475
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Scientology (Pro) makes more sense than Hindu (Con)

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 5 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 75776
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Debate_King1475

Pro

Good luck and may the odds ever be in my favor. First round is acceptance only.
tejretics

Con

I accept, and shall defend the atheistic Carvaka philosophy of Hinduism against Scientology.

By standard DDO norms, I shall define the terms:

Definitions

Scientology -- a body of beliefs and religious practises based on the core idea of an omniscient "self" prior to birth [own definition, using http://en.wikipedia.org...].

Hinduism -- a set of various philosophies that form a religion from South Asia, esp. India [own definition, using http://en.wikipedia.org...].
Debate Round No. 1
Debate_King1475

Pro

As you know, Hindus are polytheistic. And a polytheistic religion is impossible because that would imply that the god's limit eachother and that a god has a certain domain. By definition, a god is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipresent, but if a god is only bound to one domain of life, (e.g. god of wind, god of fire) then that destroys the definition of god. That does not make sense. Also, how could there even be many god to exist logically. Is there just a state of being where there are thousands of deities that suddenly have the urge to limit eachother's infinite power and create an imperfect world. That to me makes no sense what so ever.
tejretics

Con

Observation One: I need only defend a *single* philosophy of Hinduism to uphold Hinduism generally, and I shall be defending the *atheistic* Carvaka philosophy.


Rebuttals


"As you know, Hindus are polytheistic. And a polytheistic religion is impossible because that would imply that the god's limit eachother and that a god has a certain domain."

This is a bare assertion and unjustified. There are various branches of Hinduism, and, as mentioned in R1, I shall defend the Carvaka philosophy and sect of Hinduism. Let me explain the *basic* Carvaka philosophy -- "Cārvāka is characterised as a materialistic, atheistic, non-orthodox school of thought. It rejects supernaturalism, emphasizes materialism and philosophical skepticism, holding empiricism, perception and conditional inference as the proper source of knowledge." [1]

Thus, Carvaka philosophy is atheistic, ergo it is *not* polytheistic and rejects the idea of God.

The Carvaka Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha states the position of the philosophy:

"There is no other world other than this;
There is no heaven and no hell;
The realm of God and like regions,
are invented by stupid imposters." [2]

Thus, Pro's case is *irrelevant* to an atheistic philosophy.

Arguments

The most fundamental belief of Scientology is that the soul prior to birth is omniscient. But let me bring a case against omniscience:

For something to be omniscient, x has to know everything. But x cannot know things that don't exist -- for example, x doesn't know that I'm eating a pizza right now because I'm not eating a pizza right now. Omniscience also violates something y's being contingent.

Carvaka philosophy, on the other hand, is entirely naturalistic and rejects such logically incoherent or supernatural entities, such as God, gods, omniscient souls, etc.

Conclusion

The purely atheistic Carvaka philosophy is more rational than Scientology.

Sources

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2]: Ray Billington (1997). Understanding Eastern Philosophy. p. 44.

Debate Round No. 2
Debate_King1475

Pro

"I need only defend a *single* philosophy of Hinduism to uphold Hinduism"

So, you are saying that you can defend Hinduism by only mentioning one part of it. Hinduism is a religion and you can't defend an entire religion by only basing it off one philosophy. You need to defend the entire thing because by only choosing one part, you are picking and choosing what makes sense and what does not.

Also, I said to defend to defend Hinduism not Carvaka.

Hinduism is polytheistic. You are simply choosing one branch of Hinduism.

I'm done with this debate. I am sorry and I thank you for a good debate but it seems as though you were misinformed about the debate and you took a completely different swing than was intended. The point that I was trying to make is that a polytheistic God is one of the most illogical thoughts that exists.
tejretics

Con

First, the BoP is entirely on Pro to prove scientology makes more sense than Hinduism.

Pro *fails* to fulfill the BoP by *dropping* my rebuttals, as Pro's case was based entirely on a polytheistic religion, which is irrelevant to the resolution.

"I'm done with this debate. I am sorry and I thank you for a good debate but it seems as though you were misinformed about the debate and you took a completely different swing than was intended."

I thank you for a good debate as well, and for the graceful concession. All points extended. Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 1 year ago
Discipulus_Didicit
Deconstructional semantics aside, why does something have to be tri-omni to be defined as a god? Seems pretty monotheism-biased to me.
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
Which type of hinduism? Shia or Sunni?
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
- Alright, looking forward to this.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Debate_King1475tejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro pretty much conceded in the end, and dropped all of Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Debate_King1475tejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This is a clear win for Con. If Pro did not define Hindu in the first round of the debate, Con has the right to define it, and to include atheistic Hindu philosophies. If Pro had intended to argue against polytheism, he would have had to make it clear in the first round that he was referring specifically to polytheistic branches of Hindu. Moreover, Pro was shifting the BOP when he said Con had to defend all branches of Hinduism. He was the one making the claim if Con shows that one branch of Hinduism is superior to Scientology, then Con wins, which he does. Finally, Pro's only argument were invalid in the first place. He argued that polytheistic gods make no sense using the monotheistic definition of God. That does not make sense; polytheism has its own definition of god (first letter not capitalised). His argument is like going to a world where the word 'sun' means 'moon' and telling people they are wrong when they say 'the sun does not emit light'.
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
Debate_King1475tejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Ultimately, Pro provided next to no sources, Dropping the Bop. Pro also does a consession.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Debate_King1475tejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Debate_King1475tejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Conceded, Con had sources and better arguments.