The Instigator
Weiler
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
QandA
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

There is only one true religion.

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,182 times Debate No: 38250
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Weiler

Pro

There is only one true religion. For the purposes of this argument I will not put forward which one I believe is true, but that only one CAN be true.
QandA

Con

As there have been thousands of different religions, belief systems, Gods etc since the the dawn of man we come to only two real possibilities.
1.That one religion is true.
2. That no religion is true.

2 is another possibility as well as 1. You cannot prove or disprove this possibility so it is not valid to say that only one religion CAN be true when for all we know, they could all could be false.
Debate Round No. 1
Weiler

Pro

I would assert, contrary to my opponent's position, that there being NO true religion is not possible. If every deity-believing system is incorrect, then atheism is the true religion.

All other systems of belief contain factual assertions which are contrary to each other, therefore, only one, or none of them can be true.
QandA

Con

I see that my opponent is trying to use the lack of explanation in their first round to try and catch me out. If my opponent feels that Atheism is a "religion" then they should have stated that in the opening round instead of trying to catch me out. This was unfair as my opponent showed me no way of knowing this. However I, like most people don't see atheism as a religion. It is quite the opposite of religion.

Religion definition: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

Atheism definition: The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Great comparison between the two. Atheism cannot possibly go under the category of religion as it would contradict what religion actually is. Taking this into account, my original point still stands that there is not necessarily only one true religion because there easily could be no true religion if we are to conclude that atheism cannot be a religion, which, by definition, it can't.
Debate Round No. 2
Weiler

Pro

I am not sure what "catch me out" is. It is not a phrase familiar to me. There was no trickery intended in the debate title and I am sorry to hear that my opponent feels there was.

Cleary my opponent has a definition of religion that does not include Atheism, which is curious since he lists "Atheist" as his religion in his profile on this very site. I was referring to the common dictionary definition of the word, which is what people generally assume one means by a word unless otherwise noted.

re"li"gion [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. [1]

Clearly Atheism can fit into the first, second, third, and/or sixth definition.

Source
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
QandA

Con

Unfortunately this debate has forcefully turned into a debate on whether atheism is a religion or not. This of course could have been easily avoided if my opponent stated such terms in their opening round.

However I will refute my opponents points nonetheless.

My opponent states that atheism fits into definitions 1, 2, 3 and 6. Let's take a closer look at this.

"1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism is indeed a set of beliefs (or lack of belief) in this case. However it does not deal with the cause, nature or purpose of the universe. It only goes against the religious ideas of the cause, nature or purpose of the universe. Remember there is a big difference between Atheism and Science. Atheism does NOT consider a superhuman agency and most certainly does not involve devotional or ritual observances. Also atheism does not contain a moral code on how humans should behave.

Therefore atheism cannot possibly fit into this definition.

"2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion."

Again atheism is not fundamental set of beliefs in respect to the origin of the universe. It does not make claims about how the universe started, it merely refutes religious theories on the subject. Also atheism holds no practices agreed upon by a number of persons.

Again atheism cannot not fit into this definition.

"3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

It could be argued that atheists adhere to a set of beliefs in the sense of non belief however again, there is NO particular set of practices involved with Atheism at all. It is all independent in this respect. You see, even one word in the definition can discount the notion that Atheism is a religion. Without analysis atheism can easily, but wrongly be associated with these definitions.

Lastly,
"6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Atheism absolutely does not follow a point of ethics or conscience, it is all independent in respect to these values. There is no atheistic law that states how a person must act, feel etc.

Therefore atheism cannot fit into this definition.

I have refuted the notion of atheism being a religion through the definitions in which you have proposed. Taking this into account my original point still stands that there is not necessarily only one true religion because there easily could be no true religion if we are to conclude that atheism cannot be a religion, which, by definition, it can't (as I have just shown).
Debate Round No. 3
Weiler

Pro

At the very least, my opponent must concede that atheism is "something one believes in and follows devotedly" and therefor fits into the sixth definition.

And again I must point out that under "Religion" in his profile, My opponent identifies his Religion as "Atheist", not "None".
QandA

Con

Again, Atheism is indeed something one believes in and follows devotedly but it cannot fit into the sixth definition as that definition is "something one believes in and follows devotedly; A POINT OR MATTER OF ETHICS OR CONSCIENCE: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Atheism is in no way a point or matter of ethics or conscience so it cannot fit into the definition. There is a reason why the second part of the definition is there. It's the difference between Atheism and religion. My original point still stands.

Yes, although it is not much of your business or isn't related to the debate I do have "Atheism" under religion on this site. All I can say to this is that it's not my fault that Debate.org doesn't have a "Are you an atheist" option as well as a "Religion" option. Although that of course in itself would be highly unnecessary. Come on, that is an attempt at a really cheap shot.
Debate Round No. 4
Weiler

Pro

Unfortunately we will get to nothing else since this debate breaks down to a semicolon, the one I the sixth definition of religion. The semi-colon means that either, and not necessarily both apply, and therefore atheism fists the sixth definition.

It what way is it cheap shot to bring up how my opponent himself religiously identifies? It was completely on topic and point.
QandA

Con

I never thought this debate would resort to a semi-colon however as you persist, I will refute.

Definition of a semi-colon: (http://oxforddictionaries.com...)
a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma.

Absolutely nothing to do with what you state a semi-colon to be, "The semi-colon means that either, and not necessarily both apply" in relation to the sixth definition. I will assume you just made this up as you gave sources for your previous definitions yet you gave no source for this one.

Attempting to make a case that Atheism must be a religion because it is an option under "religion" on this website is a very weak argument. Again, it's not my fault that Debate.org doesn't have a "Are you an atheist" option as well as a "Religion" option. Although again, that in itself would be highly unnecessary.

I have shown multiple times that by definition, Atheism cannot be a religion. Referring this back to the debate topic, there is not necessarily only one true religion as there could very well be no true religion i.e Atheism.

Thank you for the debate, it has certainly been an interesting one.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Hmm, most Superstition-based-belief-systems (Religions) have a complete codes of conduct (morals) and lifestyles built around them. Christian and Muslim belief systems are the most popularized in the Western World, but Confucianism, Hinduism and Buddhism had similar Morals and complete lifestyles of their own for hundreds of years before Christianity began.
Debate_Loser, has never visited China, India nor been with cultures where those other mainstream religions dominate. I have many Buddhist and Hindu friends who have shown me their cultural heritage that dates back more than 3500 years.
They have entirely moral lifestyles, rules of conduct and achieving enlightenment (godhead to Hindus) that they must follow.
There Morality is in ways better than Christians, so nobody can ever tell me that one cannot be Moral without the Christian God, because that is stupidly false.
Buddhism proves that people are extremely Moral without God, since Buddhists do not have a God, since Buddha is only a Prophet of enlightenment, who showed them the way.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Not today, Death. Not today!
Posted by Debate_looser 3 years ago
Debate_looser
There are millions of religions but i think in this world only two has its own rules and lifestyle they are MUSLIMS and CHRISIANS ( which think that God is God and Jesus is son of the god)But every guy will make his own religion "great" it is threat of time!
Posted by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
Pro, Con...you're both wrong. There is only one god, and his name is Death. Do either of you know what we say to Death?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I'll stick my 20cents in by stating that I think no religion is true.
Because of the history of humans.
We only developed religion around 250,000 years ago, yet we had been around godless for millions of years with no religion, nor even the possibility of having a religion.
Religion only started when we developed complex, descriptive languages that allowed us to produce Abstract notions like religion and to pass such notions on to others.
Prior to such development, we had no way to pass abstract notions on.
Even charades cannot pass such abstraction of thought on, without a complex language to use as prompts and making guesses.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Murphy348834 3 years ago
Murphy348834
WeilerQandATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Both sides used the source PRO introduced, so a tie there. Atheism does meet the dictionary definition of a religion.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
WeilerQandATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Well this fell into shambles. I agree with Con, both now and before - and since this debate fell into semantics, nothing was swayed. Conduct and spelling & grammar were fine. Arguments to Con, due to his refutations of Pro's (rather semantic) posts. Sources are tied, because both Pro and Con used one which I consider to be reliable.