The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The majority of religious people fallow a religion they did not choose for themselves.

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: 12/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 97934
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Each country around the globe has a relitively high percentage of one religion. And different time eras produced many religions that were popular then but are not fallowed today. So if your born in any given place or time you most likely going to be part of the popular religion that exists within the demographic to which one is born. Its not likely a someone is going to be christian born into a muslim nation. Its not really a choice but more a way of social exceptance.
The fallowing link shows religions by nation:


Thanks for the Debate!

There is a lot of ambiguity, here, of what "religion" actually means.

R1.Con.1 - In the absence of definition, I suggest a clear distinction.

Theist: truly believing in God, inwardly;
Religious Observance: Practitioner of a religious sect, outwardly - regardless of inward convictions;

If a Majority of People did not choose their religion for themselves, then :

1. It is "nature" - a biological imperative.
2. It is "nurture" - a social imperative.
3. Or - it really is "Individualism" - a conscious decision and commitment.

I imagine PRO will concede it is not likely "Nature", and so it must be a "Social Imperative" - (rather than "Individual Choice").

So I argue that : the majority of people are choosing their inward faith (religious conviction), but follow a political leaning they did not choose for themselves - that "Political Parties" are in fact Masquerading as "Religious Sects", (e.g., the Spanish Inquisition, The Holocaust, the Extermination of Jewish sects that rejected Pharasaic and Rabbinic authority claiming authority through a supposed "Oral Law", etc).

But - if you equivocate "Political Party" with "Religious Sect", then sure the conclusion is correct - but, I believe that equivocation would render the entire discussion meaningless - as political affiliation can certainly be a social imperative.

R1.Con.2 - My Burden of Proof:

1. To disprove the validity of the research data cited.
2. To point out errors in definitions, that should be clarified in a valid research design.
3. To point out valid, rational, arguments that challenge the hypothesis - in the absence of research data.

R1.Con.3 - Argument : Certainly Political Conformance Can be Forced - but Can a Religious Conviction Be Forced?

Consider Children - and assume that their religious convictions CAN be impressed. Is it true that this impression is "Immutable". Do adults have the capacity to change this, since it is "Nurture" - and NOT "Nature"?

If adults CAN choose that inward motivation, and truly devote themselves to a belief - then it is more than probable that they HAVE chosen, as adults, whether reinforcing that childhood conviction, revising it, or rejecting it altogether.

It is true that people can be forced to practice a religion, for threat of their lives. But, Is it realistic to accept that a majority of those people ALSO truly accept, and believe, in a religious conviction - for threat of their lives?

Do they truly believe that people can see into the secret places of their heart, and will "know" if they aren't truly committed?

Yes, I believe there are people who are that afraid, and force themselves to believe something they don't agree with.

But - I suggest that "a majority" of "theists" have not actually forced themselves to believe in God - for fear of death.

R1.Con.4 - Pro's Burdens of Proof :

1. Identify Scientific Evidence That Proves - (A.) That people are incapable of making a choice to continue in a religion, having reached adulthood; (B.) Or, if capable, that it is not plausible that an individual can maintain an external-self-identification for political purposes, (especially to preserve their lives) - but at the same time reserve a private religious conviction, even if dissonant from that political identification. I suggest that people can, and do, report a political view, and outwardly perform religious observances - while reserving a deeper, and potentially different, religious conviction to themselves.
2. Identify Research that Accounts for Political Parties that Masquerade as Religious Sects - With a design that accounts for people to self-identify politically, and publicly, as Sunni, Shiite, Rabbinical Jew, (Orthodox, Chabad, etc), Catholic, Anglican, etc - but who also inwardly have serious reservations regarding the associated faith, (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), or who lack inward devotion and desire to pursue God, or just don't believe altogether.
3. To Define "Religion" in a Sense that can Distinguish it From Political Identification : Political identification, and observance - does not necessarily mean an individual has a religious conviction. In practice, the spiritual, the numinous, religious practice is very distinct from the governance of a nation, or people. As an example - Rabbinical Judaism, (as Pharasaic and Sadducean Judaism), is a Political Party, far more than it is a religious one. An external compulsion by the Rabbinate in Israel does not equate to an inward motivation to pursue justice, because of an inward devotion to God. Another Example: The Spanish Inquisition. Another example : the holocaust.
4. Or, to Defend that Validity of the Cited Research Data - against the challenge that it doesn't account for Political Parties which Masquerade as Religious Sects.

Debate Round No. 1
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by stcornerap 1 year ago
Many people most definitely base their religion on traditions, relationships and the unwillingness to change rather than a search for truth. In their defense it's not always easy to change your beliefs, for some they might lose everything they have in this world, family, friends, and for some their lives. If you're more concerned with this life it's often an easier choice to stay where you are, if you are seeking truth you might just find answers that aren't as easy to pursue. Though eternity is a long time to ponder whether it was worth making the wrong choice to make your family and friends happy.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
(of farmland) plowed and harrowed but left unsown for a period in order to restore its fertility as part of a crop rotation or to avoid surplus production.
"incentives for farmers to let the land lie fallow in order to reduce grain surpluses"
synonyms:uncultivated, unplowed, untilled, unplanted, unsown;
Posted by Eye0pener 1 year ago
And yes im sure plenty of people do. But the majority does not.
Posted by Eye0pener 1 year ago
Fallow the link i provided, its the statistics of the countries
Posted by Eye0pener 1 year ago
Yes but given the high percent of religion population per country it says they have stayed with the religion they were born into.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
I would agree with this in some countries but not in any developed countries. Plenty of people in the United States change their religion from the one that they grew up in.
Posted by elikakohen 1 year ago
Infants neither choose religion, nor follow religion.
Children follow their parents, not religion.
Adults choose religion, and which leaders to follow, (for whatever reasons).

So - I believe the more interesting debate is whether adults are actually choosing the religion they were brought up in. - I would gladly accept a discussion narrowed to adulthood.

Otherwise - I am not so certain what the debate is about.

Hope this helps!
No votes have been placed for this debate.