The Instigator
godtraitor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
isaacthemaniac
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Sincere belief in Leprechauns is equally rational to sincere belief in Gods.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/18/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 609 times Debate No: 86800
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

godtraitor

Pro

The belief in Leprechauns and the belief in God/s are equally rational. The empirical evidence to support each belief is identically zero. Positive existence claims for both Leprechauns and God/s are not falsifiable. Because these beliefs are identically rational and plausible, it follows that Leprechaun believers are due a higher level of respect and influence in society that believers in God/s currently and historically enjoy or else believers in God/s deserve a higher level of ridicule and institutionalized mental help enjoyed by believers in Leprechauns.
isaacthemaniac

Con

The notion that belief in leprechauns and belief in God/s is equally rational is ridiculous. From a historical context, the belief in God/s has been tied to man's spirituality whereas the belief in Santa, Easter bunny,leprechauns and other cultural mythical and frankly other made up figures that stem from superstition,are tied to amusement of children ,commercial considerations and culture. No one Prays to leprechauns for help(generally) while since the dawn of man countless humans have turned to a Godhead figure. To claim that believers in leprechauns are more respected than people who believe in God/s is make belief, firstly more people on earth believe in God/s while most people acknowledge that leprechauns are as real as Santa,also the us dollar note states in God we trust not in Leprechauns we trust, more proof of the absurdity of the notion that leprechaun believers are worthy of more respect. The empherical evidence to support leprechauns and Santa is zero,but the evidence to support the notion of a Godhead figure can be drawn from logical conclusions, scientific law as I.e the law of entropy, and the manner in which nature is organized among other things,depending on one's knowledge and sincerity among other things. whether or not someone believes in God ,the empherical evidence is more than zero, even to consider such a possibility based on any fact is more than zero whereas for leprechuens it is strictly zero.isn't that why children outgrow tooth fairies and leprechuens as a fact as opposed to faith,religion, God? Granted some drift away but an adult can one day believe in God but no adult can one day believe that leprechuens exist. (Normally)
The moral lessons drawn from religious texts which we impulsively acknowledge are more evidence and of higher context than the message of greed that leprechauns propagate, isn't this evidence enough in itself that a sound comparison between the two is like comparing something with life to something without life? I have never heard of a human being willing to die for leprechauns but countless people have died and are willing to die for God and gods, such conviction can not be dismissed as nativity or stupidity, rather as faith,something leprechauns can never offer and something which is reinforced by ridicule many a times, as most who do the ridiculing are motivated by personal interests. Sir Isaac Newton believed in God but not leprechauns.
Debate Round No. 1
godtraitor

Pro

In response to your rebuttal, I have a short and long version.

The short version: Your counter-argument, riddled with logical fallacies, failed to show any error in the tenets of my argument.

The long version: My premise that both beliefs lack empirical evidence was not refuted by a single example you put forward as empirical evidence of the existence of Gods. If there existed such evidence, faith would not be required. A simple demonstration of the test that yields the quantifiable and observable evidence would be sufficient. This is exactly how a person judges the validity of any other truth claim. The necessity for faith puts theistic beliefs in the realm of unfalsifiability, which is logically fallacious. The same is true about any supernatural claim that cannot be tested, only believed on poor or no evidence.

To address some of the points you brought up:
1. You spent a lot of your counter-argument making comparisons between God/s and Leprechauns as if somehow the importance of one belief vs the triviality of another changed the nature of the belief itself. That's not the case. The fact still remains that both beliefs are void of empirical evidence to confirm them and both claims are unfalsifiable, making both beliefs equally plausible, equally unsupported and equally rational/irrational and thus, those who hold the beliefs on either side should be equally respected for it, whether the Leprechaun crowd gets more respect or the God/s crowd gets less, it makes no difference. To show that my argument's premises are wrong, more than just anecdotal evidence and opinion are required.

2. I never claimed that believers in Leprechauns were or should be more respected than believers in God/s. I claimed that they should be either respected equally for their beliefs or ridiculed equally because the justifications for their beliefs are identical.

3. You brought up morality from religious texts as an evidence that a belief in God/s is more rational than a belief in Leprechauns. Not only is this a non-sequitur as it has absolutely no bearing on the argument put forward, but the notion that religion carries with it a moral superiority is patently false. There is not a single moral preaching that can be made or moral action that can be taken in the name of religion that cannot be made or taken by a non-believer for morality's sake. On the other hand, there are countless examples of evil, immoral statements and actions that can ONLY be made or done in the name of God/s. When it comes to morals, it's best to avoid religion as an example worth following. But again, completely unrelated to the rationality of believing in the existence of an unproven entity.

4. Appealing to authority is another logical fallacy that does nothing to prove the truth of your argument. Sir Isaac Newton believed in the practice of Alchemy. Smart people can also have wrong ideas and beliefs.
isaacthemaniac

Con

To compare the belief in God/s to that of leprechauns by asserting that they are both equal simply because of the word belief is false.
Short version: your arguments are riddled with terminology meant to discredit my arguments that refuses to acknowledge the error in the tenets of your arguments. a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning,where is my flaw in reasoning? Why didn't you show one flaw I set forth or are you simply dismissing my arguments are the result of one in need of a mental institution, rather you have dismissed my counter claims,so you avoid addressing them under the pretext of flawed reasoning. Is it flawed because it offends you or because you are indifferent?
Long version: I spent time comparing God/s and leprechauns because I needed to distinguish between the belief in God/s and that of leprechauns. I had to rationalize why one set of beliefs has a greater possibility of being acceptable than another. You would have me accept that both beliefs are the same,however clearly if you read my arguments you would conclude that faith is only required for one and not both and hence such differences affect the validity of any belief by your logic, those who subscribe to scientific theories and beliefs are in the same boat,like you said people make mistakes. And how can both be devoid of empirical evidence,you are erroneously attempting to set the parameters by (as so many people do) claiming that something must be scientifically proven to be accepted. How can we trust human hand when many a times they have been corrected? I presented the law of entropy as my evidence by deduction, you engaged in a logical fallacy by casually dismissing it and as such you expect me to present scientific finds as my argument but that onus is not upon me.is this about leprechauns and God/s are an image desire to discredit the belief in God/s? What poor evidence? What is your evidence for your beliefs that is error free? The emphasis on empherical evidence is it's self a logical fallacy.

The justifications for the belief in God/s and leprechauns is not the same. I briefly gave a lay out of why but you keep insisting they are as such, by this logic those who hold evolution true, God/s and leprechauns are in the same boat. As all can be challenged,some based on empherical evidence for evolution I would argue that it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, cambrian explosion among many other things as such your insistence on empherical evidence is your attempt to avoid the issue by making this an argument about the merits of belief as opposed to the differences in both beliefs.
To people commit others souls to leprechauns in death? Not even the believers in leprechauns would do this. Why then do they deserve the same respect, are you implying that believing in a Creator is identical to belief in Bugs Bunny? If so, you are simply putting this forth to ridicule those who believe in God/s.
I brought up religious texts to show that belief in God is backed up by text unlike that of leprechauns and that the moral message shows a level of intelligence at play and by that deduction one should conclude that belief in God is superior to belief in a non text non moral mythical being.the Bible says thou shall not kill, the quran equates killing one person to murdering the whole of mankind,is this the message you claim is not morally superior? Of course you judge based on your own standards but that is unfair as your standards are subject to cultural influences and biases let's look at atheist nations by definition,( are they morally superior? ) for instance China,Soviet Union,how many did Mao and Lenin kill? Are you saying Mao and Lenin are superior to Moses and Adam? .the claim that man can have moral superiority is an arrogant assertion as African Americans where enslaved, humiliated and killed in contradiction to religious text by apparently religious people hence it is men who commit gross evil not religion. It is simply a way evil men justify evil deeds not the other way around. What about mother Teresa? Was she motivated by faith or human logic? Will a non believer give up all his wealth to help the poor? Name one if you are truthful. You have lied when you say a lot of immorality and evil has been done in God/s name, this is simply a shallow way people use to find fault with religion and even the so called texts you refer to,many are known to have been corrupted by men. The point of this was to show the superiority of belief in God/s to that of leprechauns after all everything we see has a beginning and hence valid for this argument.
I used Isaac Newton because of his accomplishments and as a man a science his belief in God should carry weight. His belief in alchemy (a scientific notion) is not the same S his belief in God(supernatural), are you saying that it's a Logical fallacy to use the statements of others? By that logic no empherical evidence can be deduced as it is done by "smart people".if smart people can also have wrong ideas and beliefs that list includes Darwin too.
Back to the argument though, belief in leprechauns should not and can not be the same as belief in God/s. It is clear for anyone with clear and sound reasoning of course not the same if one has an agenda.
Debate Round No. 2
godtraitor

Pro

Your very first sentence of Round 2 ("To compare the belief in God/s to that of leprechauns by asserting that they are both equal simply because of the word belief is false.") makes it abundantly clear that you have either misunderstood the argument, or you are intentionally avoiding addressing it. I laid out my argument and reasoning as to what makes a belief in God/s and a belief in Leprechauns identically rational.
1. Both beliefs cannot be confirmed with empirical evidence and therefore must be taken on faith.
2. Both claims of the existence of God/s and Leprechauns are unfalsifiable and therefore equally plausible.

Twice now, you have failed to counter either of these premises. Instead, you provide examples as to how one belief affects the believer compared to the other - this is irrelevant. You've provided anecdotal and circumstantial evidence trying to pass it off as empirical - this is intellectually dishonest.

Again, I'll try to address some things you brought up:

"a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning,where is my flaw in reasoning?" Here are some of the logical fallacies you've used -

1. "leprechauns and other cultural mythical and frankly other made up figures that stem from superstition" - This is special pleading until you prove God/s is/are not also made up superstitions.

2. " No one Prays to leprechauns for help(generally) while since the dawn of man countless humans have turned to a Godhead figure." - This is an appeal to popularity and also irrelevant to the argument's tenets.

3. "more people on earth believe in God/s while most people acknowledge that leprechauns are as real as Santa" - Again, an appeal to popularity.

4. "the us dollar note states in God we trust not in Leprechauns we trust" - This is an appeal to authority.

5. "The moral lessons drawn from religious texts which we impulsively acknowledge" - False presupposition.

I could go on, as this was just some of them from Round 1, not to mention nearly every other sentence is a non-sequitur, completely unrelated to my argument.

You claim that because I dismiss these non-sequiturs, I am avoiding your counter-argument. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not God/s exists, only that matter moves from a state of order to disorder within a closed system. The planet earth is NOT a closed system, as the Sun is constantly showering it with more energy, by which matter can become ordered. At best, this law casts doubt on the evolutionary process, and in no way validates a belief in God the way holding your breath validates the human body's need to breathe.

You said that one belief requires faith while the other one does not but you did not specify which one. I will assume that you don't think a belief in God requires faith but belief in Leprechauns does? This is absurd as faith is a tenet of every theology man has ever come up with. Like I said, if one shred of testable, repeatable evidence could be brought forward to support the existence of a God, or a Leprechaun, or a unicorn, or a fairy, or Bigfoot or any other supernatural thing, faith would no longer be requisite.

However, as it is, no such evidence has ever been brought forward. Thus, beliefs in Gods and Leprechauns are supported equally by faith alone.
isaacthemaniac

Con

Belief in God/s and the belief in leprechauns can not be identical for the reasons below:
Comparing the belief in God/s to that of leprechauns is simply an argumentative strategy meant to discredit the belief in God/s. Leprechauns for a fact are a human invention that claims no right to be worshiped nor any right to creation. How can we compare a being that claims the exclusive right over all creation to a man made myth hence the central premise of the argument is the erroneous claim that belief In God and belief in Leprechauns can be identical. For example, because I am here I believe that my great great grand parents existed, I do not know where they are buried or their names and lack empirical evidence (at the moment) but I believe it by logical deduction. However I can also believe that I am an alien from Pluto implanted by my superior race in infiltrate the human race. Can both beliefs be judged in the same category? Absolutely not. Hence my opponent attempts to disregard that obvious fact simply to ridicule my point with fancy terminology
1.There is empirical evidence depending on your criteria. Leprechauns can be defined, there features are well known, and they exist (even if in a non living thing form), It is usually depicted as a little bearded man, wearing a coat and hat, who partakes in mischief. They are solitary creatures who spend their time making and mending shoes and have a hidden pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If captured by a human, the leprechaun has the magical power to grant three wishes in exchange for their freedom. Like other Irish fairies, leprechauns may be derived from the Tuatha D" Danann.[1] that is the evidence for leprechauns, we know them for a fact to be myth and if one believes them it is a choice and has nothing to do with faith. Do you need faith to belief in leprechauns, absolutely not.
The empirical evidence for God/s is in the human beings own inner conviction (2). How could the perfect system of stars and galaxies, planets and moons be working with mathematical precision and have no one controlling it, do we require evidence that we can see and evidence we can deduce by reasoning is rejected? My opponent has not presented any facts that dispute my notions and ignored my scientific arguments including the law of entropy, second law of thermodynamics among many other signs, the changing of seasons in an orderly man, and the functionality of the ears and eyes all symbolize an intelligent design, it is either of human origin or non human, it can not be human, otherwise we would have replicated it, hence it is non human. The world around us is empirical evidence and the fact that people have for millennia continued to believe in God/s is more proof of the innate human instinct towards a singular source, that is evidence enough for an open mind.
Even science requires empirical evidence, should we reject the big bang theory too, after all it is believed based on faith , by my opponent's logic, the belief in Leprechauns is similar to the belief in the big bang theory""theories and myths
2.The belief in leprechauns is falsifiable .According to Wikipedia, A leprechaun (Irish: leipreach"n) is a type of fairy in Irish folklore. It is usually depicted as a little bearded man, wearing a coat and hat, who partakes in mischief. They are solitary creatures who spend their time making and mending shoes and have a hidden pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If captured by a human, the leprechaun has the magical power to grant three wishes in exchange for their freedom. Like other Irish fairies, leprechauns may be derived from the Tuatha D" Danann.[1]

As shown the existence of leprechauns can be seen as a myth that can be traced back to its origins and roots. God/s are believed in many parts of the World , But all parts of the world believe in a singular supreme Unitarian God , however leprechauns are tied only to the Irish historically, shall we compare a national belief to a global belief and consider both equal simply because they are beliefs? Clearly my opponent only seeks to discredit the belief in God/s without a clear rationale.
Twice now, you have failed to counter either of these premises. Instead, you provide examples as to how one belief affects the believer compared to the other - this is irrelevant. You've provided anecdotal and circumstantial evidence trying to pass it off as empirical - this is intellectually dishonest.
My examples are meant to show that the belief in God/s is more verifiable and apparent than the belief in Leprechauns ,aliens and the Easter bunny. By having an effect on the believer, the notion that both sets of beliefs are equivalent is proved false.
Addressing the so called logical fallacies;

1. "Leprechauns and other cultural mythical and frankly other made up figures that stem from superstition" - This is special pleading until you prove God/s is/are not also made up superstitions.
How is this assertion a logical fallacy, we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that leprechauns are a man made invention, but we can not prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that this applies to God, hence it is only a logical fallacy because my opponent is not willing to distinguish between God and gods and leprechauns.

2. " No one prays to leprechauns for help(generally) while since the dawn of man countless humans have turned to a Godhead figure." - This is an appeal to popularity and also irrelevant to the argument's tenets.
This is not an appeal top popularity, it is a logical argument meant to show that the belief in God is superior to that of leprechauns by showing that mankind for the most part has admitted that he is in need of one who is higher, this is an attribute exclusively to God ands as such makes that belief not identical to that of leprechauns. My opponent is using a logical fallacy, he has dismissed my claim without consideration simply to belittle this fact as admitting would show that both beliefs are not equal.
3. "more people on earth believe in God/s while most people acknowledge that leprechauns are as real as Santa" " This is to show that had the belief in God/s been identical to that of leprechauns, then they would have had identical followers, but because they do not we can reason that one belief in by far superior. Also believers in leprechauns can also believe in God/s so clearly one belief is fundamental another is simply a luxury.

4. "the us dollar note states in God we trust not in Leprechauns we trust" " This is to show that the authoritative value of the belief in God is something the belief in leprechauns can never achieve, hence by logical deduction , the belief in God is superior and more valid and as such can not be com
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 12 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: rextr05// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro dismisses Con's arguments for being logical fallacies. Whereas pro does show that in some cases, his explanation falls short in others. Pro uses the word 'empirical' when referring to evidence. The definition states, "..... verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." Experience for everyone may be different from the next guy, altho it's still experience. Therefore the basis for the argument is moot, & con was able to use this type of experience as a basis for his argument. I do agree with some of pro's reasoning for his arguments, his ambiguous use of his definition for his rules, doomed his fate here. Pro uses a great argument to end his debate, "beliefs in Gods and Leprechauns are supported equally by faith alone." Altho, his premise for what was considered material for argument was flawed.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct isn"t explained. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to directly and specifically reference arguments made by both debaters, and in this case he only does so with Pro.

Note: A voter is not required to award any points they do not wish to award. Any points they leave as a tie are never sufficient reason to remove a vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by isaacthemaniac 1 year ago
isaacthemaniac
And how exactly do you prove a belief? I guess the belief in science,leprechauns,cookie monster...etc... and God can't be proven....because it's a choice....you could prove the logic behind your choices
Posted by jglass841 1 year ago
jglass841
The belief in both God and leprechauns cannot be proven.
Posted by nightwish672 1 year ago
nightwish672
Is the bible or Torah or Quran or any religious text harmful or is it the person?
Well to some extent it's both. The stem comes from the books itself, yes. Obviously some of the blame goes to the person, but without the Religious books, they would not commit crazy acts in the name of their Religion/God.

It depends on passion and how one has been indoctrinated. Some people are more protective and passionate about their Religion that others, so if one were to question their Religion, you'd expect different results from different people.

And yes, I didn't understand the debate question. So my fault on that part.
Posted by isaacthemaniac 1 year ago
isaacthemaniac
This isn't an argument proving or disproving the existence of God, it is an intellectual challenge to prove that belief in leprechauns can not be equated to the belief in God/s and that such a belief does not equate you to being mentally unstable. Will you judge a man as mad simply because he chooses what to believe? You would never accept to be labelled as such why label others as such?as far as evidence goes, the world is so perfect?(nightwish672) this has nothing to do with the law of entropy and perfection is subject to opinion as for a lion a successful hunt is perfection but it spells imperfection I.e doom for the deer. Also this is besides the point, their is a large amounts of literature to support and in some cases counter my arguments but it would make this a non philosophical debate but rather a shouting contest,so I'd prefer you critique the examples given, that's why I said depending on knowledge and sincerity. But again, we are debating mythical figures vs belief in God not the merits or lack of merits to believing in God/s.
So the pointing out by nightwish672 that religion is harmful has nothing to do with the debate, is the bible or Torah or Quran or any religious text harmful or is it the person? The majority of religious peoples do not engage in violence but people have killed and kill for what they believe in ,be in democracy and human rights, should we consider them as harmful too? Lets not forget this is a philosophical debate not a pro and anti religion bashing contest.
Posted by nightwish672 1 year ago
nightwish672
"The empherical evidence to support leprechauns and Santa is zero,but the evidence to support the notion of a Godhead figure can be drawn from logical conclusions, scientific law as I.e the law of entropy, and the manner in which nature is organized among other things,depending on one's knowledge and sincerity among other things."

The evidence to support the notion of a Godhead figure? Perhaps you'll bring up the finetunning of the universe, or that the world is so 'perfect'. Not sure what you're on about, but I'd love to hear about tihs 'evidence'.
Posted by nightwish672 1 year ago
nightwish672
The point I think PRO is trying to make is that since there's no evidence for the existance for both of them, it' be equally stupid to believe in their existance.

"I have never heard of a human being willing to die for leprechauns but countless people have died and are willing to die for God and gods."

Just another reason why Religion is harmful.
Posted by Thracian 1 year ago
Thracian
Very well said isaacthemaniac! The beginning of this debate is more of a statement than a debate question. Who would logically try to defend against the notion that believers in God deserve institutionalized mental help?? The statement is ludicrous and doesn't warrant any more response than what isaac gave.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No. I have 4 of them in my front garden.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
But yes. Only rational explanations exist...........My 4 Leprechaus are explainded by "made in China"
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
I'm pretty sure this is how the Flying Spaghetti Monster came about.
No votes have been placed for this debate.