The Instigator
Metz
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
belle
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The logical base for claims of religious superiority is inherently fallacious.

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: 2/20/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,018 times Debate No: 11250
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Metz

Pro

Let me explain the topic. Throughout history peoples have sought to impose their religion on other, claiming their beliefs to be superior to others. It is my argument that the idea of one religion being logically superior to another is fallacious. Thus no religious belief is anymore valid than any other.

First of all, to clarify, I am not an Atheist. I am agnostic. I do not deny there is a god, nor do I believe there is one. I find Atheism to be hypocritical because Atheists accuse theists of having no proof, but they also cannot DISPROVE the existence of God. Rather I believe that humans cannot possibly ever know if there is a god or not and as such should not devote our live to worship of one.

---

In order for a religion to be superior to another their must be some logical reason to prefer it to over others.

As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "There cannot be a God because if there were one, I could not believe that I was not He."

While this claim seems narcissistic if we look at what Nietzsche means, we come to our logical flaw. If we can assign some super characteristic to an unknown entity what possible reason is there to exclude the possibility of infinite gods? it is impossible to find ONE reason why any belief in god is either more or less correct than any other belief. finding such a reason is impossible because someone will always have a counter claim to any religious puzzle that they will believe is most valid. Religion cannot be warranted without appeal to itself. It is a classical example of circular reasoning. In order for the conclusion to be true the premise must be true and in order for the premise to be true the conclusion must also be true. Thus the logical basis for religion requires fallacy. In order for a religion to be superior, tenants of that religion must be true as well. For example if religion A says there is an afterlife and religion B says we just go away, it could be argued that A is superior because of an afterlife. However this automatically presumes A to be right in the first place. But A has no more claims to validity than B or C so thus we cannot presume that religion A is superior.

Religious belief is always going to require a leap of faith. And because such a leap of faith is dependent upon the individual making it, there is absolutely no way for any religion to be logically superior unless we either make another leap of faith or logical fallacy. Making a leap of faith automatically discounts any logical value since it would be equivalent to a syllogism that read:
A=B
B=C
A=E

Thus because any claims of religious superiority require fallacious reasoning there is no such thing as a logically superior religion.
belle

Con

Metz has claimed that no religion is logically superior to any other since they all require a leap of faith, and illustrates this with a fallicious syllogism. While it is indeed the case that all religions require a leap of faith, it does not follow that one cannot be logically superior to another. I will compare two ficticious religions to show that this is not the case.

Religion A holds that its deity is made of an "incorporeal substance"; that He is omnipotent in the sense that he can do literally everything (including square the circle and other such nonsense) and that He is powerless to control human actions because he imbued us with "free will".

Religion B on the other hand, is silent on the physical embodiment of its deity, claiming only that He is extremely powerful (though not omnipotent) yet infinitely good ( and thus worthy of worship).

The deity of religion A is clearly self contradictory, as well as being unsupported by evidence, whereas the diety in religion B is simply unsupported by evidence. Speaking from a purely logical point of view, B is superior to A.
Debate Round No. 1
Metz

Pro

Metz forfeited this round.
belle

Con

Unfortunately, Pro has forfeited... :/

Extend my arguments...
Debate Round No. 2
Metz

Pro

I apologize for the forfeit in R2. I had more pressing matters to attend to.

My opponent provides a hypothetical comparison between religions coming to the final conclusion that
"The deity of religion A is clearly self contradictory, as well as being unsupported by evidence, whereas the diety in religion B is simply unsupported by evidence. Speaking from a purely logical point of view, B is superior to A."

However this doesn't actually answer the original argument I made. I argued that there is no logical argument for religious superiority because such arguments are always predicated on the belief that the premise of the religion is true in the first place. In order for the conclusion that Religion B is Better than religion A but that automatically presumes Religion B to be correct to even begin logical evaluation. Thus the Conclusion that B is logically superior requires that the premise that B is true to also be true and vise versa.

"While it is indeed the case that all religions require a leap of faith, it does not follow that one cannot be logically superior to another."

It actually means religion is entirely distinct from the realm of logic. Because that "leap of faith" has no logical grounding. It inherently contains an assumption that differs from person to person and thus cannot hold universal logical appeal.
belle

Con

My opponent seems to have misunderstood what logic is. It does not deal in truth or falsehood, at least not directly. Logic is about the relation of ideas to one another; the content of those ideas is purely secondary. An argument can be valid even if every claim it contains is false. For example:

All unicorns have two horns
Socrates is a unicorn
Therefore Socrates has two horns.

Flawless logic, perfectly valid.

"In order for the conclusion that Religion B is Better than religion A but that automatically presumes Religion B to be correct to even begin logical evaluation.Thus the Conclusion that B is logically superior requires that the premise that B is true to also be true and vise versa."

Manifestly untrue. Are you going to call the above syllogism illogical as well?

What if you had a syllogism made up of claims you didn't know the truth values for? Would you be unable to determine whether it was logical or not until you discovered them?

This is a logical proof:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu...

Having no idea what the letters represent, one can still ascertain whether it is a valid proof or not (it is!)

"It actually means religion is entirely distinct from the realm of logic. Because that "leap of faith" has no logical grounding. It inherently contains an assumption that differs from person to person and thus cannot hold universal logical appeal."

Nothing has "logical grounding". Things are grounded empirically, though observation. Logic is about relationships between concepts, which don't require grounding at all. Its quite likely that all religions have equal empirical grounding; that is, very little. However, speaking in terms of logic, some belief systems, and indeed some religions, can be superior to others, and indeed are.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Has anyone ever thought about the Laws of Logic?

-)The most Probable of two theories is to be Preferred.(Pro-atheist argument)

++Belle, are you holding a Crucifix on your avartar? Atheist? Why??? '~'
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
you can test the *logic* of an argument by reducing it to absurdity though. if you take the same logical structure, substitute reasonable premises and get an absurd conclusion....

like the greatest possible island argument by Guanilo
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Con had a good analysis of "logical basis" that I thought was quite persuasive. An interestng debate.

I'm not sure religion requires a leap of faith, but that didn't come up in the debate, and would have taken it in another direction.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
@Geo & Roy

What I am saying is that I neither believe or disbelieve in the existence of God. The technical nitpicking of my belief just takes it out of context. I was referring to belief in God (capital G) as in the Judeo-Christian God. The FSM and Pink Unicorns examples are in of themselves logical fallacies. You don't test the truth value of a statement by bringing it to its absurd limits.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Some gods can be disproved, but others cannot. The Argument from Evil disproves a god that is omniscient, omnipotent, and good. A volcano god that makes certain demands is disproved by offending the god and observing that the volcano does not erupt. Other gods cannot be disproved, but are nonetheless not believed based on general principles. One cannot disprove that there are pink unicorns on the dark side of the moon, but it is reasonable to not believe in them rather than be agnostic on the issue.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"but they also cannot DISPROVE the existence of God"

Depends on how you define it. Use of logic tends to find all sorts of contradictions when people do. :)
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"I find Atheism to be hypocritical because Atheists accuse theists of having no proof, but they also cannot DISPROVE the existence of God." - PRO

FAIL. You can't disprove FSM, so it too is just as valid as God. Are you also Agnostic towards Flying Spaghetti Monsters as well? You can't disprove it right? You see how absurd this position is? Also, you commit the fallacy of demanding negative proof. The burden of proof is not on the atheist.

Btw, you ARE an atheist because you admitted you don't believe in God. You just say you're an agnostic because you can't disprove God. However, that's a fallacy. Hmm, maybe the resolution should be "The logical base for the claims of agnosticism is inherently fallacious."

Of course, I'm referring to your form of Agnosticism, the most common version, which says you can't prove or disprove God. Other forms of Agnosticism simply say "I don't know."
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
MetzbelleTied
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 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
MetzbelleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
MetzbelleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04