The Instigator
BMSxRIO
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
bman7720
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Why is your religion the right one (I prefer to argue Christianity but anything goes here)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
BMSxRIO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 78682
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

BMSxRIO

Con

I welcome any opponent of religious background to step here and state plainly what their belief is, what are the principles of that system, and why their religion is the right one. Note, I am an atheist who does not believe in any God, and makes no claims on God's existence.
bman7720

Pro

I agree to argue and defend why one's religion is the right one. I will be arguing in defense of all religions, not belonging to a religion myself.

Religion: A form of belief system based on faith, usually containing a deity.

Religion has shaped mankind since the dawn of civilization, ranging from massive temples built in the name of Zeus to writings about the glory of God. The idea of religion is internal. It's faith. To determine which religion is the "right one" we must first access what makes a person follow a religion.

Many people find deep devotion to their faiths after meeting with an unfavorable scenario. They are often alone, and lost, and turn to the internal idea of a deity or force will take care of their fate. Others are always devoted to serving their faith. Following a strict system of rules to attain a favorable condition later in life, usually after death. Due to these ideologies being based upon internal thought and emotion, there is no fundamental way to determine the validity of any religion. Thus, the traditional idea of a single religion being correct is simply impossible to substantially defend. However, as I stated in my thesis statement, I am here to defend all religions.

Now that we have accessed what is a religion, we can look into the psychology of it. It is common knowledge that most people, excluding those who are diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder and other similar conditions, feel more comfortable when they have a support system. Often times, these support systems are both internal and external. Suppose the scenario where a man whose friends and family have both turned his back on him. This man finds comfort with an internal idea of a deity that cares and loves for him. This new support system comforts him in a time of depression and lonesomeness. This man has become enlightened to his way of thought and becomes more proactive in his life to attain his spiritual salvation.

Now, to my main point of the argument, every religion is the right religion. These religions support people in times of need, much as science does to many atheists. The very fact that these ideas are internally based and fowwwwunded on faith supports the fact that each and every one is right. The mind shapes the perception of reality to suit the needs of each person, and in circumstances of faith, it will shape often forgettable events into signs and signals of their deity. So, if the mind shapes a person's reality to fit a theistic belief, then does that not justify the claim that the theistic belief is real and correct?
Debate Round No. 1
BMSxRIO

Con

I won't quote mine your text but thank you for posting about the origins of mankind's devotion to various deities. Though I feel you missed a few marks on the idea of several religious prospects. For example the pagan religion of Wicca doesn't revolve around a particular deity "caring" or supporting an individual. Having been Christian, Catholic, Pagan, and even doddering idly in two cults I can say plainly that many individuals who endure religion started doing so because of those around them. They believe because their parents believe, their neighbors believe, and that those around them believe or worship a particular deity or god, so I'm going to argue this point by point in my rebuttal.

o: "Many people find deep devotion to their faiths after meeting with an unfavorable scenario" I claim this as false. Many people only turn to religion under the promise of salvation. In fact, most of every religion focuses primarily on what will happen to you after you pass away rather than how God will help you in the meantime. Many forms of religion give you a set rule and code that clearly states what you should and should not do and if you do these things you shouldn't do, your God will be angry at you, and take away your right to a happy afterlife. To earn that title back, you have to appease your God through acts of repentance, sacrifice, and devotion.

o:"Due to these ideologies being based upon internal thought and emotion, there is no fundamental way to determine the validity of any religion. Thus, the traditional idea of a single religion being correct is simply impossible to substantially defend" Again, I have to point out that most of these ideologies are given through text, such as the Koran and Bible. These claims state that these are the teachings and the workings of God. This is how God created the Universe an this is what will happen to it and "you" in the end. Each religion is vastly different in its approach to salvation. This is purely external, this is a codex of rules and laws given that if one hadn't been exposed to wouldn't play an impact on a sane and rational person. For people like Kent Hovand and others who claim "I would be in jail if I wasn't a Christian." are the select few "radicals" who joined a religious dogma as a means of basic self control. They have to be presented rules and something to follow, ideologies are based upon the acts of a deity and subsequently the power of that deity and what that deity intends for you in the future. Not purely internal thought and emotion.

Note: Empathy does not play a role into the religious foreground. It's good to do something that's good to your self that is good for yourself and bad to do something to yourself that is detrimental to yourself. People already know how they think and feel and since feelings like empathy can't and aren't clearly covered and explained in any religious dogma, that means simply that people innately know what is right and wrong and how they feel. Even if it's "I feel confused about this" the ideology doesn't display nor control how you feel, but tells you simply how you should feel. "Killing someone is bad and you shouldn't do that." Most people who are mentally equipped to deal with such things innately know that ending the life of another human being or is a negative thing, no body goes to church to learn that, and an individual who refrains from killing someone because "God wouldn't like it" isn't mentally healthy to begin with.

o: "Suppose the scenario where a man whose friends and family have both turned his back on him. This man finds comfort with an internal idea of a deity that cares and loves for him. This new support system comforts him in a time of depression and lonesomeness. This man has become enlightened to his way of thought and becomes more proactive in his life to attain his spiritual salvation." I'll note simply that there have been plenty of individuals who have pleaded for a sign from their deity who receive nothing. Often when people believe something they want proof it exist, "just show me a sign!" is an example of an "accusatory-plea" where the exclaimer desires some sort of "proof" that a deity is really there and watching over them. How many times has it come into the fold where someone is abandoned by family members and friends just to find out that things will continue getting worse until they change their actions. In one way or another it is often the individual "taking control" of their own situation that gets them out of it.

o:I declare that every religion is the wrong religion. Wherein those who would otherwise seek a healthier more proactive way to better their lives instead waste their energy and resources on an "afterlife" instead of improving their current existence in the present and alleviate those issues. Many (instead of just fixing the problem or dismissing it) instead choose to hope and pray that something else will come along and fix it. Or give them the strength to fix it, and unless they feel this change coming they will continue to endure their situation instead of making their own opportunities. That is the major fault in religion I feel is happening today.

o:"The very fact that these ideas are internally based and fowwwwunded on faith supports the fact that each and every one is right." This would be true if your first premise was proven to be accurate but it wasn't so this statement is plainly false. Again, the ideas of almost if not every single religion have to deal primarily with the afterlife. The are founded (again in almost every instance) on claims from an old text that says "this happened like this, and this is what it was like." I understand that the corner stone of religion is faith and to endure religion one must follow the dogma presented to them doesn't mean it is the correct faith. If your assertion is that each one is right because it makes a person feel better, than I bring up a simple phrase "God fearing" If it were internally based emotion and predisposition that helped create a deity and holy book from essentially nothing because of faith. Then why do so many different religions focus on torture and fear rather than love and acceptance. That is a method of control, and the fear is kept in different ways which again brings up why religion basically a very bad thing. If one person sees salvation one way, and another sees it another way, but both religions dictate that their followers should try to convert others to save them, then only more fighting and suffering would occur in what would otherwise be a non-confrontational issue about two separate individuals.
bman7720

Pro

To start, I would like to apologize for my typing errors in the previous argument.

Now, I would like to address Con's statement that religion is external in the form of written text, such as the Koran and the Bible. These texts are not religion itself. They did not create the rules that are within them. These texts are simply external representations of one's internal faith. These works of text are based upon an idea that a person developed through belief of a deity or lifestyle. Again, these are texts of the religions, not the religions themselves. Religion is not a tangible thing, it is only an idea that mankind has developed to interpret reality through.

Secondly, while I do accept that many religions promise an afterlife, it is a common trend that people do not focus intently on their afterlife until their current life hits a breaking point of despair. As I stated in my last argument, "...find deep devotion to their faith..." This is not the same as implying that people only follow a religion after this despair, but they find their deeper meaning about it and follow it to heart. This is common in people with near-death experiences. After realizing their morality, people tend to find comfort within a deity or lifestyle that will help them ensure that their after-life will be desirable.

Con again approaches the topic of written word of religion. As I stated earlier, this is just a representation of ideas. They are ideas that were developed and put into practice, written down to aid in effectively conveying their message.

As Con stated, many people do not receive the signs that they desire. This again has to do with the psychological effects of religion. If someone is doubting their religion to the point of calling out directly for a sign, the brain will be looking for a sign instead of creating one. The opposite is true for a devoted man who has hit "rock bottom." His devotion to faith creates his reality of this being watching over him. While it is themselves taking over scientifically, their reality perceives it as their faith showing them hope and chance.

Con's statement on how religious people aren't proactive in changing their lives is barely relevant given the fact that we are discussing religion itself, not followers of religion. When you look at the ideology of many religions, you will find that it is common that the path to salvation involves bettering yourselves and giving back to the people around you.

Con also mentions the idea of fearing one's deity. The idea of fearing a deity is commonly identical to the healthy fear of an officer. It is more of recognizing their authority and power, and knowing that they are above you. Again, Con brings up the teachings of followers of these religions, when in fact many religions are based upon the idea of peaceful coexistence. The mention of conversion is again, a matter of the followers. In fact, in Christianity forcing conversion is against some of the primary principles. Many religions simply ask that followers spread their religion by making it available to others, and spreading knowledge within the parameters of respecting their differences.

My argument that faith is an internal idea that molds a person's behavior and even perception of reality still stands to defend that every religion is the right one.
Debate Round No. 2
BMSxRIO

Con

BMSxRIO forfeited this round.
bman7720

Pro

bman7720 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BMSxRIO

Con

Sorry for my absence I was busy this week and didn't have time to post a proper retort and I don't do "half assed" replies. So lets get in on this.

That's totally fine.

Religion is by definition an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. That being said, religions around the word follow what is told to them in what is displayed as a physical book, scroll, or individual talking to them. The "idea" of religion, there being a higher power than us watching over us, is ambiguous an covers things even "beyond" formal religion. In this sense, Aliens can be religion though having no dogma there is no religion for alien theories (at least not a recognized religion in a mass sense) This debate is about organized empirically situated "evidence" based religions of all kinds. Not the abstract "there is something higher than me" because then there is no just cause, to argue anything because there is always someone higher than you.

I contend again, that this is a farce. Most people who are indoctrinated into a religion are only there because that is all they know. Most people do not convert from one religion to another, and even fewer convert from no faith to any faith what so ever. Upon closer examination, it's easily found that a vast majority of people are within a religion because that is what they have heard and understood a majority of their lives. With a seldom few becoming devoted in a time of woe, such as being incarcerated, nearly losing their life, or losing the life of their loved one. To reiterate part of my point again, it is also for these very same reasons that someone is just as likely to abandon their faith. God took your loved ones, God was the one who created you and you by societies definition belong behind bars, or God wasn't taking care of you, and you almost died because of it. These reasons again are just as likely to make someone LOSE faith in a god as they are to GAIN faith in a god.

Many countries around the world including the United States are founded on religion. When you go to a church, synagogue, or other place of worship. Inevitably someone will be reading text from their religion as a means to help dictate the message of that religion. In cases where they do discuss something personal to the individual, usually a reading of the scripture is carried over because the "idea within" resonates with that of the individual. Similar plights, stories, and instances help stir an emotion and share a bond with the reader. Just like in every other novel ever written.

As Con stated, many people do not receive the signs that they desire. This again has to do with the psychological effects of religion. If someone is doubting their religion to the point of calling out directly for a sign, the brain will be looking for a sign instead of creating one. The opposite is true for a devoted man who has hit "rock bottom." His devotion to faith creates his reality of this being watching over him. While it is themselves taking over scientifically, their reality perceives it as their faith showing them hope and chance.

So are you saying that the psychological effects of religion can "cloud" what is obviously in front of the viewer. When someone ask directly, in reality, real time in person evidence to be shown and receives none. How should that be taken differently from someone who can take something totally ambiguous or abstract and "turn it into" a message. That is what happens when individuals read into something too much and try to find a deeper meaning in something that does not contain it. This is a sign of an actual serious psychological disorder, relevant to people seeing crowns on goldfish, Jesus in toast, or the apple of Adam and Eve in a bowl of broth. It is something that is not there, but the mind "creates" it. Instead. The truth isn't always easy to swallow, but that doesn't mean you don't tell the truth. Sometimes it can be very hard and very scary to understand the world around you, however that does not mean you should just accept something without any given evidence because "it makes you feel better" especially where your life choices are impacted directly by your beliefs.

If what you say is true, then I invite you to find one religion that hasn't created zealots who have caused pain in other people. In every individuals right to say what he or she thinks that is fine, believing that there is a higher power than you is fine, but that's not religion. Religion is following a set guideline to life in the attempts to gain favor with that particular deity.

In every religion there is conflict with other religions for "being wrong" and within each religion there is a kind of "moral code" and if not followed followers of that religion can be offended. NOT saying grace at a Christian table before eating can offend them. NOT giving a Jewish person food blessed by a priest can of offensive. HANDLING pork in Islamic religions can lead to being an outcast. I contend that if each religion can't coexist and hasn't coexisted with another for over the last 2000 years, then none of them can be right.
bman7720

Pro

bman7720 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BMSxRIO

Con

In my final statement, since pro didn't reply to my previous argument I will make this short and sweet.

I contend that religion being the organized system of worship and belief of which I've claimed are all false in the pretenses that they are hypocritical and hypercritical of other religious dogma. The beliefs that organized religions follow are pure fairy tale and have no place in the actual world before for those who need to believe there is something more to life with something beyond death, and that an ethereal skydaddy is watching over them in their times of need. That though there are perfectly nice and peaceful people starving in Africa and millions around the world will go to bed hungry tonight, God will still help you pass that math test.

To not believe in a dogma labels you as one who will be punished for not having faith in ancient scripture of whom's author you have no clue to their identity. From labels thousands of years old to others made up 60 years ago, each one says it's correct and that all of them despite their differences are the one way to true salvation.

I contend, that since each religion speaks of peace, love, and acceptance, each in its own way promotes violence, misunderstanding, mistrust, and feuding between neighbors. I make no claim on God(s) and his/her (their) existence. However, I believe that if they were as omnipotent they could make themselves innately known.

No religion is correct, as each spreads lies and fear among its followers and if all you have going for your "rule" is propaganda and tyrancy you aren't advertising yourself to a popular demographic.

As most people continue to do actual research into the bible and other sources they see more and more that the works within the covers are purely fiction. From the flying horse of Muhammad to Jesus's Resurrection from the dead and the individuals who followed the teachings even to a discriminate level are more likely to change and become more accepting. (This is in relation to the "God Hates Gays" slogan) With fewer people using religion as their focus more empathy, sympathy, and understanding would come from one person to another on the basic principle of us all being human an occasionally needing help. I would honestly as an individual rather have someone say "I really wish I could help you." over "I'll pray for you" because honestly, in my point of view. That's just like taking a rock and throwing it into a lake and hoping to get something out of it.

Religion served its purpose throughout mankind's time. It helped to explain what we thought at the time were the rules of the universe. Gave people a sense of hope in times of severe gravity and helped to fund some of the greatest technological achievements in previous eras. however, now that mass genocide is available at the push of a button, and extremest religion groups (following their beliefs and cultural teachings) from all over the world have been more prevalent over the years I think it's about time humanity calls it quits with religion all together and focuses on bettering man kinds involvement with each other and their inhabited spaces.
bman7720

Pro

bman7720 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
Religion is the worship of a deity (or system of worship). The word "worship" in turn includes an *expression* of "faith". No only is a deity a requirement of a religion, but a religion is distinct from theism is that it requires an actual action. If Pro had simply provided the actual dictionary definition, it would have rendered Con's argument irrelevant, since any claim to"comfort" does not require an action, and thereby does not require religion.
Posted by Grokka 1 year ago
Grokka
The terms of the debate are indeed vague. The main subject assumes that religion excludes other religions mostly because his central focus seems directed at Christianity and similar faiths involving a One GOD clause. The Pro side is essentially pointing out that religious belief itself is an independent fact from the organizations of churches or cults and the texts used to guide those organizations and their followers. Both sides seem to be ignoring the fact that being born can be considered an unfortunate circumstance since simply being alive is filled with painful questions about the merit of existence, the validity of our notions of being the dominant life form and host of other existential doubts. The Instigator is clearly angry about organized religious belief not providing him the spiritual and emotional support of the kind that the Contender is describing. However BMSxRIO is also not seeing the ultimate truth of philosophical inquiry which is that no proof is found for any aspect of existence without an act of blind faith in the basic ideas of a reality which can be perceived. Religion is an extension of the innate act of faith we make simply by waking up and believing in our own existence. So, while "why is your religion the right one?" is a confrontational question based on an assumed failure of a particular faith, the real question which we all have to ask at some point is "What is the religion that is right for me?" or more simply...what collection of ideas do I choose to believe in to live the life where I am content, productive, and feel valid in my own existence? Making those choices is in a very real way the basis for morality, society, and is the ultimate, perhaps only meaningful act of free will we have. Questioning the answers from time to time in our lives is also a necessary step for evolving our view of our world and ourselves from the viewpoint we had before the addition of experience. That questioning is the true point of the debate of course.
Posted by WillSelenus 1 year ago
WillSelenus
The proponent's response to the initial question seems askew from the obvious purpose of the debate. Although I understand the slight ambiguity on the word "right," the proponent's appeal to the degree of subjectivity most likely runs afield of the question I suspect the opponent is concerned with: validity/soundness of the belief system's substantive tenets. Proponent touches on this but otherwise doesn't address it.

Proponent's argument overgeneralizes to the point of error to suggest that religions, focused on internal thought and emotion, cannot be held as valid or invalid. This is plainly contradicted by substantive claims made about the external universe, such as that an entity like a god exists. Proponent then indicates that theism may be justified correct based on mental shaping of reality, once again ignoring any question of validity in the external universe as to substantive claims by religions, i.e., whether there exists a god who has/does interact with the universe.

Unfortunately, I believe that proponent's response to opponent misses the mark.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
BMSxRIObman7720Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's stance was... ingenious. The issue revolved around the definition for "religion". Pro asserted it's "a form of belief system based on faith" (see comments). Con did not refute this until Round 4, and "stated it's an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence". This was still insufficient to refute Pro's stance of providing comfort is "right". Con then redefined it as "the organized system of worship and belief". The key word being "worship". Belief is sufficient to provide the advantage asserted by Pro; worship and therefore religion is unnecessary. Pro did not refute either definition, but I'm not giving victory to Con due to waiting until Round 4 to assert a definition, then*changing* it thereby contradicting themself. Ergo, it's a tie.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
Unbelievable.Time
BMSxRIObman7720Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff