The Instigator
mendel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

from an objective perspective judaism is the most believable religion in the world

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 3 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 748 times Debate No: 54005
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

mendel

Pro

The issue brought up constantly by those who don't believe in religion at all is the simple question, why should they believe, you claim that a particular individual received a divine message from g-d who says he wasn't a fraud or a mad man. A question i agree with wholeheartedly, why indeed.

The only religion whose proponents claim that the revelation by g-d was to the entire nation is Judaism. The reason why no other religion tried making a similar claim is quite obvious, it's extremely hard to convince a nation of people that g-d had spoken to them all, for the prophet to claim divine revelation is one thing but for him to claim that they had all collectively received a prophesy would be preposterous, to make such a claim it had better have happened. And even with a group- that is to say- more than one person for example 12 people (the apostles) it's always possible that they were in collusion with each other and the whole thing is a fraud. However when you're dealing with convincing thousands of people that an event had happened to them-and were not discussing some kind of abstract event- we are discussing convincing a nation that they had experienced a splitting of the sea, had collectively heard g-d speak to them, traveled in a desert for 40 years surrounded by clouds of glory etc. etc. although on the one hand it seems too fantastic to be real (the narrative of all other religions are far less grand) but on the other hand when one wants to sell a religion (unless the human brain has changed drastically to a place beyond recognition) if it's not true, the way to go about it is to minimize the event not make it more and more grand, imagine someone claiming these things to a nation telling them that all this had occurred to 2 million people (600 thousand between the age of 20 and 60) wouldn't they be scratching their heads wondering why it's the first they're hearing of it.

And it's not like the easiest religion it has 613 commandments infringing upon all areas of life incumbent upon all Jews, not just some devoted priests. Point being that it would seem that they actually believed it to be true.

Even if for some reason you disagree with the above stated (and I would be more than happy to have a debate in the future on the subject and expand on it much more) in my opinion it seems clear that from an objective perspective this aspect of Judaism puts it head and shoulders over all other religions.

Also on a theological basis i find it difficult to believe that g-d would demand belief and faith (with the threat of eternal damnation in most religions) for a particular faith without some objective way to arrive at that faith, if someone wasn't raised in a belief system, was g-d demanding that he or she blindly accept the true faith, the true religion what if they don't believe plain and simple, and which religion should they choose. (Parenthetically perhaps (with the above mentioned) we could also explain why the bible was a one time show 50 years of spectacular miracles maybe the purpose of man was to find and reveal g-d in this world a mission which would be pointless if g-d were already revealed and the events in the bible were so that if one truly objectively searched for g-d with reason alone he could arrive at the truth and accept the yoke of heaven.)

Finally all the points stated were regarding Judaisms superiority over all religions however in connection to Christianity and Islam who's followers faiths accept the Torah as being given by g-d (granted the Muslims say that the Jews distorted the text but the essential prophecy of Moses is accepted in the Koran) it's much easier, because one doesn't have to prove why to believe in the bible their very belief believes in the bible. Now listen closely to their claim they agree that g-d gave the torah in the presence of the entire Jewish people something which has never happened before or since and they want you to accept that g-d whispered in the ear of Paul or Mohammed that the Torah isn't applicable anymore, and g-d has changed his mind, and the Jewish people are no longer his chosen nation, the Jewish response seems quite right by saying that if g-d has changed his mind let him come and tell us himself. That is of course beside for the fact that is says in the Torah a few times that this is an eternal law for all your generations that is a quote.

As far as the question what's with the rest of the world who are not Jewish, Judaism actually says that g-d gave commandment for non-Jews as well, they are called the seven noahite laws. which basically means that g-d wants every human being to live an upright moral, and ethical (spiritual would be even greater) life based on principles called the seven noahite laws which have many details but in short 1.don't commit adultery 2.don't murder 3.no idolatry (one g-d) 4.blasphemy (respect g-d) 5.stealing 6.not eating a limb that was taken from the animal when it was alive 7.set up courts of justice in every society (this world is not a jungle).

I want to emphasize the title of the debate, the discussion here is not who is right (then we could play the game yes hu, nu uh) everyone will continue to believe their respective faith (if any faith). The point is that coming from an objective perspective
(without any faith) in a world with hundreds of religions claiming to be the truth, i would like to suggest that Judaism is the most believable of all.
Wylted

Con

I am going to demonstrate that Judaism isn't the most believable religion on the planet. Since my opponent has chosen the religion of God's chosen people, I will choose the (supposed) enemy of God's religion. I'm going to show why Madam Blavatsky's Theosophy is more believable.

Introduction

Theosophy doesn't rely on a person with special knowledge or a divine book. Theosophy gives you the tools to discover the nature of God for your self. When seeking God your own personal revelations should take precedence over that of a stranger's. I'm going to go into some of the basic tenets of theosophy and then go into more detail as needed.

The Universe Comes From an Eternal Source

This being one of the main tenets of Theosophy can be shown to be true based on the Kalam Cosmological argument. Which is demonstrated like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


I don't believe my opponent will object to the Kalam cosmological argument so I'll move on to my next proof.

Theosophy Believes in the Omni-God

The Omni-God can be described as omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. These attributes are proven as part of the Modal Ontological argument which also proves his existence.

Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. (Borrowed from Alvin Plantiga and various other people)

Premise 1

It is possible a greatest possible being exists. There are no logical absurdities here or contradictions. If my opponent can prove this premise wrong then the whole argument falls apart. So far in the history of mankind this has yet to be done so good luck.

Premise 2

Necessarily, if a greatest possible being exists he must be omnipotent and omniscient. If it wasn't omnipotent and omniscient then a greater possible being could exist in some possible worlds.

Premise 3

If the concept of the greatest possible being is coherent it exists in some possible worlds.

Premise 4

If a greatest possible being exists in some possible worlds it exists in all possible worlds. It exists in all possible worlds because it is a necessary truth and not a contingent truth.

Premise 5

If the greatest possible being exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world.

Premise 6

The greatest possible being exists and by definition is God. It is omniscient and omnipotent.


Logically Valid

The argument is logically valid. Mathematic proof will be given upon request and the soundness will be defended if attacked.

Theosophy and the Philosophy of The Mind

It's explained differently in -The Secret Doctrine-, but Theosophy basically shares Descartes' theory of the mind. Which can be summed up like this:

1. The mind is indivisible by its very nature.

2. The body is divisible by its very nature.

3. Therefore, the mind is completely different from the body.


The mind as understood by Descartes is also the soul and God. Descartes view of the duality of body and mind is compatible with and proves Theosophy.

The Universe has Consciousness.

Theosophy believes that the universe has consciousness. One argument that can be made is sense we are a part of the universe and conscious that the universe indeed has consciousness. http://m.psychologytoday.com...

http://www.raptitude.com...

The universe through it's own processes has become aware of it's self, and it's growing in awareness everyday.

Conclusion

Most of this argument is inspired by The Secret Doctrine by madam Blavatsky. The Secret Doctrine as well as most if not all of Madam Blavatsky's writings can be found for free online. I'm willing to defend Blavatsky's Theosophy as more believable than Judiasm. I wish my opponent good luck and look forward to his rebuttals. I will also be giving my rebuttals next round.
Debate Round No. 1
mendel

Pro

Thank you Wylted for debating me. And wow it's amazing, for a religion which has about 80,000 followers. I really respect that, you know the truth remains the truth regardless how many people believe it (certainly Judaism doesn't claim to have the most followers).

Now down to the discussion. You argue that theosophy is the most believable religion in the world because quote "Theosophy doesn't rely on a person with special knowledge or a divine book. Theosophy gives you the tools to discover the nature of God for your self. When seeking God your own personal revelations should take precedence over that of a stranger's." Now i would have to agree with you that there's nothing like receiving a personal prophecy from g-d, now in the year 2014, but somehow i don't think theosophy is offering that. I don't think you're referring to a strong and powerful emotional connection to the tenants of theosophy, because surely you're aware that there are such feelings in other religions. So i guess what you were saying was that through theosophy one can intellectually "discover" the nature of g-d for ones self, and apply it to ones life accordingly.

There's a story told of a student in university who wrote an essay for class. The professor wrote on the top of the paper, great and original ,and proceeded to flunk him, he got a 62. He came to the professor and asked you said it was great and original what's with the mark. He told him, it's quite simple, what was great was not original and what was original wasn't that great it was actually horrible. I think you get what I'm getting at. I've been looking into this philosophy and there"s really a lot of good stuff there but the problem is what's good is not original and what's original is not good.

Now what I'll do is go through some of the things you mentioned are the tenants of theosophy, and show at which point Judaism agrees or diverges. Regarding the first two points you mentioned A. the Universe Comes From an Eternal Source B. belief in the Omni -g-d, Judaism (and I think most religions) say this very thing. As to how to arrive at it, there are many ways philosophically how one can arrive at these points. As discussed at great length by all the great Jewish philosophers. (amongst other philosophers)
I'll just quote one of the most famous Jewish prayers recited in all synagogues composed in the 11th century. "The Lord of the Universe who reigned before anything was created. When all was made by his will He was acknowledged as King. And when all shall end He still all alone shall reign. He was, He is, and He shall be in glory. And He is one, and there's no other, to compare or join Him. Without beginning, without end and to Him belongs dominion and power. And He is my G-d, my living G-d. to Him I flee in time of grief, and He is my miracle and my refuge, who answers the day I shall call. To Him I commit my spirit, in the time of sleep and awakening, even if my spirit leaves, G-d is with me, I shall not fear."

C. This is where I feel you should have elaborated, being that from the little research online that I"ve done, this and the next one seems to be the bulk of theosophy. (Perhaps there's just way too much hocus pocus going on over there, that, would be very hard to prove intellectually, so you would rather avoid the issue.)You just wrote this "the mind is completely different from the body. The mind as understood by Descartes is also the soul and God. Descartes view of the duality of body and mind is compatible with and proves Theosophy." I would prefer for you to elaborate on this doctrine before I write a rebuttal.

D. "The universe has consciousness. One argument that can be made is sense we are a part of the universe and conscious that the universe indeed has consciousness. http://m.psychologytoday.com......
http://www.raptitude.com......
The universe through it's own processes has become aware of it's self, and it's growing in awareness everyday."

So I checked up the links. They both made the point that since the world was produced through evolution - a point which I don't accept - and how does such a brilliant world get produced by dust particles etc. it must be the universe is intelligent, another point was that that since our minds were produced by evolution (does that fit with C.?) our minds are part of the universe so the universe in intelligent. Obviously if one believes that g-d created the world these arguments carry no weight. Now Judaism believes that g-d created the world and continues to create the world every moment and runs the world. So yes I guess you could say there's consciousness in the universe, but what it is, is the hand of g-d (called divine providence) and yes everything has a soul but that's the g-dly energy within it bringing it into existence. I'll give you a link to a class which discusses this idea; it's discussed in chapter two of the link http://lessonsintanya.com...

Now I'll just conclude with pointing out that Judaism disagrees with the whole premise that one can really "discover" g-d and connect to him through meditation and philosophy, or actually in any way. You see a finite being has no way to connect in any way to infinite. Using numbers as an example, a billion and a trillion is not one iota closer to infinity as 1 or 2, finite and infinite just don't exist in the same realm of reality, so no matter how much meditation and philosophy and goodness etc. etc. people do, one cannot become closer to g-d or connect with him in any way.

The only way we can connect is when the infinite being makes the connection, if he has a purpose for us, if he decided that were important and he wants something from us, so then so to speak g-d gambled with us, it's in our power to fulfill his desire or not.

This is the reason why Judaism emphasizes the action more than anything. Because in the end of the day a mitzvah (commandment) is the way we connect with g-d. Now some of the commandments of g-d are to love g-d, a commandment to fear g-d, to know g-d Deuteronomy 6:5, 10:20. Meaning that g-d wants us to be involved in our minds and hearts in the awareness of g-d. But without belief in a revelation from g-d, religion doesn't really have a place.

So in conclusion I don't think that theology's tenants are ones that can be intellectually proven, and therefore does not have the advantage of "personal revelation". Which puts Judaism out of the regular religions (i.e. ones that are based on revelation) as the most believable in my opinion.
Wylted

Con

The Age of the Earth

According to Judiasm the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. This figure directly contradicts modern scientific knowledge. Since the Earth is older than 10,000 years old and Judaism claims it to be younger than we can conclude Judaism isn't very believable.

http://creation.mobi...

Modern science has proven that the Earth is billions of years old, through carbon testing, radiometric testing, and other dating methods.

http://www.universetoday.com...

Evolution

With an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old evolution couldn't have occurred. Yet Evolution is now a scientific fact, making Judaism and it's writings a very unbelievable thing.

http://www.faseb.org...

The Nation as a Witness

"The only religion whose proponents claim that the revelation by g-d was to the entire nation is Judaism. The reason why no other religion tried making a similar claim is quite obvious, it's extremely hard to convince a nation of people that g-d had spoken to them all, for the prophet to claim divine revelation is one thing but for him to claim that they had all collectively received a prophesy would be preposterous, to make such a claim it had better have happened. "


The Torah is a bunch of stories derived from ancient Sumerian and Egyptian myths.

http://www.danielmiessler.com...

http://m.washingtontimes.com...-/

There is no evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt, despite the fact that a mountain of evidence should exist for it.

http://www.religiouscriticism.com...

This whole myth about Moses being given some tablets and the whole nation of Israel being talked to at once is completely unbelievable. It's more likely this story was spread and exxagerated for quite sometime before it was finally written down. Given the short lifespans of people back then. It's easy to see how myths can spread fast with very little fact checking. This is probably multiplied by the fact, that the whole myth is telling it's adherents how uniquely special they are and how they are genetically superior to the rest of the world.

Faith

"And it's not like the easiest religion it has 613 commandments infringing upon all areas of life incumbent upon all Jews, not just some devoted priests. Point being that it would seem that they actually believed it to be true."


I'm sure they had some strong faith. It's probably the reason they have survived as a people despite the amount of adversity they've faced. Faith of it's people, doesn't make it true. It just makes the deluded, and only a few strong personalities need to be deluded. I mean let's face it. Most people are conformists. It's easier to go with the flow, than challenge the status quo.

Another thing that should be noted about really strong belief systems (which can often be interchangably called intolerant), is that the more intolerant they are of other views, the easier and faster they spread. This is the reason it only takes a few strong players to get the whole nation of Israel to believe their great grandparents, heard direct communication from God and was handed some tablets.

http://ies.fsv.cuni.cz...

Conclusion

I'm extremely pressed for time. I wish I could go into more detail here, but I think I still have sufficient evidence to show how unbelievable Judaism is.
Debate Round No. 2
mendel

Pro

I commence my final round first by expressing my great wonder and bewilderment that in your first round you said that you would show how theosophy is the most believable religion. You said quote "I'm willing to defend Blavatsky's Theosophy as more believable than Judaism." And you said you're awaiting my rebuttals. Now you just move on to ignore discussing the tenants of theosophy, and just discuss Judaism. But the title of the debate is that Judaism is the most believable religion and i will not stray from that.

I made the argument that being that Judaism is based on the collective experience and testimony of the entire nation - as opposed to other religions which have to take on faith that g-d have revealed himself to that individual - our experience is a historical fact, the evidence being the nation itself, which celebrates the events of the giving of the torah by g-d, the exodus from Egypt, the traveling in the desert for 40 years. All of these events are commemorated every year with the three main holidays.

This is an event which has more historical basis than most events in history, which were witnessed by comparatively a small amount of people. It's accepted scientifically that if numerous people say they witnessed the same thing, the broader the spectrum of people the more there is less room for doubt.

Now the Jews are a very large group of people, they claim that these events occurred to them. You want to deny this (perhaps the temple never stood in Jerusalem, perhaps the holocaust never happened. You see denying that something happened is very easy, the question is what should be acceptable as evidence for normal people, a number of witnesses constitutes proof the greater the number of witnesses the more positive you are.)

Now you would like to say that we've been had. The Jewish people has been deceived, my question to you is how. I don't believe that parents would deliberately lie to their children and deceive them and raise them on a complete lie. So you will argue no, your parents didn't lie to you they were also deceived, all the way back. But what happened back then, then how did an entire nation become convinced of such a story occurring to them. Again to say they were in collusion with each other is ridiculous thousands of people can't be in collusion and I don't think people would indoctrinate their children on something they don't believe.

Another important point, the smaller the story the easier it for people to be deceived. You would like to claim that quote "It's more likely this story was spread and exaggerated for quite some time before it was finally written down. Given the short lifespans of people back then. It's easy to see how myths can spread fast with very little fact checking. This is probably multiplied by the fact, that the whole myth is telling its adherents how uniquely special they are and how they are genetically superior to the rest of the world." But my friend by saying that something happened over quite some time doesn't answer the question how did hundreds of thousands of people come to believe these events had happened to them. If someone would come now and make up the story of the creation of America (revolutionary war etc.), if it hadn't occurred it would not be accepted.

I challenge you to spend 500 characters giving a believable, plausible theoretical story about how such a thing can happen. Use your imagination come up with whatever you want. The reality is your story will be an unbelievable tale (probably as extraordinary as the story of the exodus itself) making you the conspirecy theorist as opposed to the norm, anything rather than to say that the events actually occurred. http://www.chabad.org...

Just to comment on your remarks you should know that when we say the mortality rate was 35 or whatever it doesn't mean the average person was dead by 35, rather the child mortality rate etc. brings it down in fact all the great Greek philosophers 2,500 years ago lived into their 70s as did a great percentage of the population. http://johnhawks.net...

Regarding your point of the message being how special they were. Two points, one like i said parents don't purposefully teach their children things they don't believe to be true, secondly (you, like the last person I debated completely misunderstood my comment of there being 613 commandments) to accept Judaism meant (unlike the whole ancient world around them) restrictions in your sex life, many woman you can't marry, can't be with your wife for about half of each month etc. most animals and birds and fish can't be eaten and the list goes on. Point being it's not just privileges.

You said quote "The Torah is a bunch of stories derived from ancient Sumerian and Egyptian myths." with two links to prove it. The first link proved it by showing how there exists the story of the flood before the time of the bible and there are so many details that are the same, so we see the bible was just copying ancient myths. You are obviously not familiar with bible criticism, defense etc. because what's amazing about the great flood, is that every society on earth has this story with them, with small differences (like the name of the g-d doing the flood) and this is normally brought as a proof not a refutation. The second link the article was taken off the Washington post apparently because the article was wrong, it said that a 4,000 year old tablet was found with measurements for the ark etc. which disproves the story because it's before it's supposed to have happened. The mistake being that 4,000 years ago is after the story.

I have very few characters left so I'll be very brief. You want to make Judaism less believable than other religions because it doesn't believe in evolution which is a "fact" This is a debate in its own right but that's completely not true, evolution has never graduated from theory to fact, from speculative science to empirical science.

Regarding the age of the world, indeed Judaism believes that the world is less than 10,000 years old (5774 to be exact). You say that that makes Judaism not very believable, because science has proven the age of the world to be billions of years old.
To respond to this i have two major points: A. There's one major factor not being taken into account when we calculate the age of the world that is that g-d didn't create a new world, it says in the bible that g-d created a fully matured world. Adam wasn't created a baby to grow up, rather he was created a fully grown up man. So when we measure the light years it takes for the light to reach us as well as almost all of the methods we are working with this kind of methodology.
B. I send you to 2 links each one brilliantly shows how discussing the age of the world is not empirical science rather built on certain assumptions which themselves cannot be substantiated http://www.chabad.org... https://answersingenesis.org...

Now I literally have no space for Egyptian issue but just 3 points
1: The vast majority of recorded Egyptian history is in tombs and temples (99% of personal stuff on papyrus and the like just didn't survive) tell me how many Egyptian defeats are recorded there and we could have a conversation the answer is basically none, and the Jews crushed Egypt.
2:There was a group in Egypt called the habiru and the Jews are called the Hebrews http://www.israel-a-history-of.com...
3:Read this papyrus it's very likely talking about the plagues https://archive.org...

Voters you don"t have to think Judaism is actually right to vote, and agree, that it has a leg up over other religions
Wylted

Con

Introduction

"Now you just move on to ignore discussing the tenants of theosophy, and just discuss Judaism."


It's fair. The debate is only 3 rounds. This is a huge barrier to address. We're discussing 2 religions and how each is more believable than the other. Or in my case I only have to show Theosophy is equally believable. I spent the 1 full round on Theosophy and 1 full round on Judaism, just as my opponent has.

Nation as a witness

" It's accepted scientifically that if numerous people say they witnessed the same thing, the broader the spectrum of people the more there is less room for doubt."


History and science are 2 different fields of expertise. As far as the Torah being given to the Jews we only have 1 witness. That 1 witness, is the Torah. This isn't the same as denying things such as the holocaust like my opponent says. The holocaust has numerous books as witnesses, pictures, the testimony of millions of people and multiple other things. The Torah was derived from a bunch of Sumerian myths that were accepted by the Jews reimagined and passed down through the generations, until at some point when it was decided to write them down.

"So you will argue no, your parents didn't lie to you they were also deceived, all the way back. But what happened back then"

This is too much speculation. Lot's of religions exist in lots of places. Most of this isn't intentional deception. The WW2 cargo cults, popped up in less than 1 generation had 1 whole tribe as witnesses and probably didn't involve any intentional deceptions. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

My opponent goes on to say the Sumerian flood story is proof of a global flood not proof of a story derived from Sumerian mythology, but if you examine the articles I linked the story is almost word for word the same. This would be evidence towards the story be derived from Sumerian myth as opposed to being 2 seperate stories about the same event. Let's examine the similarities.

"Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It's not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc. Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon -- hundreds of years before the Bible was even written."Daniel Miessler http://www.danielmiessler.com...

Evolution and Age of the Earth

"that's completely not true, evolution has never graduated from theory to fact"


Evolution is fact and theory. If you see a house on fire and you turn your head to look at something and then look back and the house has collapsed, the fact is it was on fire and now is collapsed. The theory is the fire caused the collapse. A simple application of Occam's Razor shows that the house probably collapsed due to the fire.

Just like evolution probably occurred based on the evidence provided by the fossil record.

Just like the Earth is probably over 10,000 years old based on the evidence we have, such as radiometric testing.

My opponent hasn't done anything to prove the status quo beliefs of an old earth and evolution are false. My opponent has made a big deal of explaining neither is empirical science. This is a weak argument and quite frankly very silly. My opponent hasn't attacked the common proofs of old earth or evolution, and hasn't offered a competing theory or evidence.

What my opponent is doing is trying to let links to other sites do his arguing for him, but he himself hasn't even so much as quoted those other sites. Unfortunately for my opponent it's not good enough to just pass the buck.

No Evidence for the Jews in Egypt

My opponent again let's his links do his arguing and passes the buck. My argument still stands.

My opponent argues Hibiru sounds like Hebrew, so they must be the same people. This is an assumption based on the similar sounds of the names after they are translated into English. The Hibiru are clearly no Hebrews. http://www.britam.org...

As far as the papyrus is concerned. It's too many pages to quickly read, another case of my opponent passing the buck instead of arguing and not the least bit similar to the plagues.

Theosophy

" through theosophy one can intellectually "discover" the nature of g-d for ones self, and apply it to ones life accordingly."

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

"there"s really a lot of good stuff there but the problem is what's good is not original and what's original is not good."

Well, none of theosophy is really original. It's pretty much derived from the most believable aspects of several different religions and philosophy. It's a mutt of a religion. So I guess what you're saying is "all of Theosophy is good".

I just can't stop agreeing with Pro. Pro, you should convert.

The universe Comes From an Eternal source

My opponent actually writes about 3 paragraphs agreeing with this tenant of Theosophy. So he holds up this point and my premise stands.

Theosophy and the Omni God

My opponent also agrees with the Omni God, philosophy here, and my 2nd premise is held up.

Theosophy and the Philosophy of the Mind.

I've written out the entire argument for this and my opponent for the most part ignores it and try's to buy time by asking me to elaborate and waste the very few characters I have to offer a rebuttal of his entire religion. My argument was written out, the premises weren't attacked and my argument acts as another point in my favor.

The Universe has Consciousness

Believe it or not, my opponent actually agrees that the universe is in a way conscious as well.

Conclusion

Basically Theosophy eliminates all the hard to believe stuff from Judaism, such as old Earth, anti-evolution, Hebrews enslaved in Egypt etc., and it keeps all the most believable stuff.

The only thing it a adds in as far as the believable stuff is philosophy of the mind, which is something that all philosophers pretty much agree with. The only reason the philosophy of the mind is ever disregarded is for practical reasons.

In summary: My opponent agrees or ignores all my premises and I've provided reasons to doubt his. Vote con.

Even if you somehow find Judaism equally believable as Theosophy, than he has still failed to prove his resolution. Again I urge a vote for con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I meant conduct, not comment.
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
mendel
Hey that's not fair i didn't even know there was such a rule. whatever
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Please delete comment points from my opponent for arguing in the comment section.
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
mendel
The debate is over but i just want to point out a few things since my opponent got the last word.

1. Eyewitness accounts is a whole science, how reliable a given testimony is, how many people, the possibility of error etc. This is mainly relevant for courts regarding whats passes in a court of law. http://en.wikipedia.org... . The definition of science is knowledge and it covers a massive range of subjects.

2. If you noticed my opponent didn't take me up on my challenge of writing a believable story of 500 characters (and he had about 2000 characters left). And check up the cargo cult it has no relevance to the discussion. Like i said a million times, no religion on earth claims that the nation had seen it with their own eyes.

3.I didn't have to prove that the world is less than 10,000 years old, i merely had to show that you had no proof against me saying that it wasn't, and the say is for Egypt.

4.In my opponents second round he had 5000 characters left, and yet he didn't elaborate on the parts of theosophy which i told him i would refute. If you see what i quoted from his description of the doctrion you'll see why an elaboration was necessary.

I say vote for me (just kidding do what you want) and thanks for reading it's been fun.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Thank you.
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
mendel
absolutely! no problem. Good luck with your debates.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'm in the middle of 5 debates at the same time right now. I look forward to debating this subject. However I won't accept until just before the amount of time left to accept it expires. So'll I'll accept in probably about 6 1/2 days and it will probably take 3 days to post my round 1 argument.

I hope you don't retreat after I say this. As I said on your first debate I won't be limiting myself to the Abrahamic religions. I can also argue for Scientology, Raelianism, Branch Davidianism etc.

Good luck please be patient with my acceptance.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
mendelWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: I'd just like to start by saying that this was a really awesome debate; religion topics like this are my fav :D However, it is quite clear who the winner here is. Pro's main argument for Judaism was that more people were reported to have witnessed the miracles associated with it. Con responded by pointing out the flaws in Judaism regarding YEC and the Exodus. Pro's counter-rebuttals were not very convincing at all and were easily dismantled by Con. Pro did not successfully affirm the resolution. Meanwhile, on the neg side, Con gave a comprehensive overview of Theosophy, arguing for the logic behind faith based on personal experience rather than the recorded experiences of others. Pro virtually conceded the entire case, only making a couple of weak objections to personal divine relevations based mostly on his opinions. Thus, Con did successfully negate the resolution by showing the believability of Theosophy over Judaism. Great effort by both sides!
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
mendelWyltedTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As someone who is Jewish, I do feel somewhat biased, but given my decision, I don't think I've let that bias affect my decision. What I'm getting out of Pro is an argument that Judaism is objectively more believable than other religions, but the comparison is solely to religions that involve shared experiences. I buy that, given his analysis, it is more believable than most other religions. However, Con presented me with a religion that doesn't have any shared experiences. Therefore, it doesn't have stories that need to be believed or passed on. Even if I buy Pro's arguments against evolution and the age of the Earth, those and all the stories cited by Con are all (apparently) required material for Judaism to be considered believable. Even if they're coming from reputed sources, they all require an extra level of subjective belief. Meanwhile, I get no reason why Theosophy isn't objectively believable, except some small analysis on the mind that doesn't apply. Hence, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by rross 2 years ago
rross
mendelWyltedTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I liked this debate a lot. There were lots of new ideas for me. I'd never heard of the Noahide Laws before - for some reason, they make me smile. So thanks to Pro for that. I especially liked Pro's manner, and would have given him conduct for his courtesy, except that he referred to theosophy as "hocus pocus". The term "believable" was never defined. I would have thought it meant able to be believed - so could be related to the number of people who believe it, or the ease of conversions maybe - but it became clear that neither side meant that. Because of this lack of clarity, I found it impossible to judge whether Pro had met his burden of proof or not. I think the resolution was not really established, and so had to give the argument points to Con.