The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

the islamic belief of getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false 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 3 votes the winner is...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 582 times Debate No: 62557
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

that islamic belief in getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

that is pandering to human desire. in the here and now, it would be wrong to have a bunch of virgins and have sex and such with all of them. so suddenly the afterlife makes it okay? it's like rewarding indulgence etc. it shows the religion is based on sand.
Commondebator

Con

Since you are saying Islam is a false religion purely because of that fact is wrong. There are many religions with wrong aspects, and there is no way to prove that one religion is a false religion. I believe you might be Christian, and you think Christianity is the right religion? Please correct me. Because as you are saying that Islam is a false religion, I believe you are implying that other religions may be true? I will first present my case then do rebuttals in upcoming rounds.

Definition of false: not real or genuine

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My case:

I. There is no way prove any religion is false, or true
Since my opponent states "bunch of virgins upon death", makes it a false religion, I would like to add that there is no way to prove that it is false. Is it immoral? Yes. But, theres is no way to prove that is false, and other religions are true. Again, the idea may seem immoral, or impractical, but not false.

II. Other religions are also immoral
My opponent is not concerned if its true or not. My opponent's logic is that if it seems immoral, its false. (Which is wrong, based on the definition of false). Using that logic, I can state that most of other religions are also false. Again, please do correct me if I'm wrong based on my assumption thinking that you believe that there is a true religion.
Christianity:
1. Witch burning
2. Crusades
3.Kill homosexuals
4. Charlemagne beheading all saxons
5. Marry the rapist
6. Holocaust (Hitler stated in Mein Kampf "hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.")
7. Kill people who work on Sabbath
You see, these are all aspects of Christianity that are immoral, but that doesn't make it false, BASED on the immorality. Its possible the logic can make the religion "false", but not the morality.

Sources:http://biblehub.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://biblehub.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikiquote.org...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
http://biblehub.com...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i know i can't deductively prove islam is false. but if i can show it has wrong aspects according to more objectives sources of morality, then it shows evidence of it being a false religion.

as to the christian points. it was never official teaching as it is with islam and virgins, that witchcraft and crusades and halocause and beheadings was to be practiced. that is the personal sins of people, not reflective of hte religion itself. killing sabbath workers and homosexuals is an old testament judaism teaching, not chrsitian belief. marry the rapist was old testament judaism and reflected their cultural norms for protecting a woman who wasn't a virgin any more.

i never said islam was false and other religions are true, all i have the burden to argue is that islam is false.
Commondebator

Con

"i know i can't deductively prove islam is false."

My opponent has stated that he cannot prove Islam is false, but only by the immorality of the religion. As I have stated before, that logic is false, based on the definition of false. Therefor, there is no way to prove that any religion is false, purely based on the morality.

My opponent has not clearly stated why having sex after death shows the religion is false, or immoral. Sex, is a biological need in order for a population to thrive. I fail to understand the viewpoint of my opponent's definition of false. Perhaps my opponent can explain WHY having sex is wrong upon death the following round.

" it was never official teaching as it is with islam and virgins"

Please do correct me, but I believe my opponent is implying that "getting a bunch of virgins upon death" was unofficial teaching? If so, then there is no evidence, even based on morality that it is a false religion. To clear up the confusion, I will provide my sources related to the "bunch of virgins upon death".

In the Qur'an, (fundamental holy book for Islam), there is nothing that states that you will be awarded with 72 virgins upon death. Instead,it was the translators fault for using other sources such as the Hadith (the Qur'an is a more import and and superior text than the Hadith).

With that said, the fact of "getting a bunch of virgins upon death" is false. Which means, now the tittle of this debate is false, and there is no way to prove Islam is false.

". it was never official teaching as it is with islam and virgins, that witchcraft and crusades and halo cause and beheadings was to be practiced."

With the sources I have provided, killing people on Sabbath is on Exodus 31:15. It is in the New international Version, and King James' Bible. Same applies to Witch burning, and killing homosexuals. Marrying a Rapist can be found in New international versions. (Deuteronomy 22:28).

As for Hitler, he thought he was doing it for god, and he was a Christian, even though its not a teaching in Christianity. Same applies to Charlemagne, even though its against Christianity to kill the innocent, those people are considered Christian because of their faiths. The reason why I brought this up is because those are not "official teachings", and yet based on your logic, the religion is false. (Because 72 virgins upon death is not an official teaching, yet on your logic, if it is practiced, the religion is false)

That ends my round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"Even though the Qur'an does not mention the number of virgins, it does say in verse 56:36[27] that Muslim men will be awarded with virgins in Paradise. The Qur'an describes their physical attributes, for example they will have large eyes (56:22) and big breasts (78:33)[20] and so on. The actual number of houri is thus a minor issue and 72 is the number of those houris confirmed in multiple hadith. The hadiths are a crucial part of Islam and certain Muslims ignore them because sometimes they contain uncomfortable details about Islam. There are many hadiths and Qur'anic verses which talk about various issues of a sexual nature. According to Sahih Bukhari 1:5:268 which belongs to the most authentic collection of hadiths, Muhammad himself was given the sexual strength of 30 men and so on."

i know i can't deductively prove islam is false. but if i can show it has wrong aspects according to more objectives sources of morality, then it shows evidence of it being a false religion.

as to the christian points. it was never official teaching as it is with islam and virgins, that witchcraft and crusades and halocause and beheadings was to be practiced. that is the personal sins of people, not reflective of hte religion itself. killing sabbath workers and homosexuals is an old testament judaism teaching, not chrsitian belief. marry the rapist was old testament judaism and reflected their cultural norms for protecting a woman who wasn't a virgin any more.

i never said islam was false and other religions are true, all i have the burden to argue is that islam is false.
Commondebator

Con

My source to previous round: http://www.justislam.co.uk...

My opponent has not provided any sources to prove he's statement is true, looking at the first paragraph. Nevertheless, I have stated in my previous round that the Hadith is unreliable and the translators have made a mistake while translating. The main book (Qur'an) makes no promises for getting "bunch of virgins upon death".

I have also stated this earlier. If something is immoral, it does not mean it is false. Using my opponent's logic, many people, and religions are false because they are immoral. Based on the definition of false, (not real or genuine), it has NOTHING to do with morality, thus proving my opponent's statement false.

My opponent has not clearly stated WHY having sex makes the religion false, or even immoral. What is wrong with having sex? It is a biological need for a species to survive and reproduce, and it gives off pleasure both emotionally and physically. Having sex contributes the human race. (Hopefully, I will not have to search up sex online, and provide sources for my statement)l.

I thank my opponent for making this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Hm, I guess i forgot to put in the source.

Ill do it in the following round.

But, here it is. http://www.justislam.co.uk...
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
All 70 of them are male.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
I'm not a Muslim but I can see a problem with the argument, as stated. But I just joined and debate.org says I don't meet the age criteria or debate rank criteria. Darn. :(
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
dairygirl4u2cCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was both unable to explain reasonbly how this would imply a religion is "false," and failed to provide any sources. Con also presented great arguments, and I liked how he took from the Bible to show examples of how it can be morally wrong, but is still considered a religion.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
dairygirl4u2cCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't get the impression that Pro has really thought this topic through. Con's arguments weren't fantastic either in my opinion, but he rightly pointed out the flaws in Pro's arguments. Many sources on Con's side, none on Pro's side. Good conduct on both sides. Once Pro thinks this topic through again, I would be very interested in watching it play out in greater depth.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
dairygirl4u2cCommondebatorTied
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: Pro's burden was specifically to show that the virgins belief of Islam (which, I gather, is debatable) showed that Islam was a false religion. She never really presented a justification, and conceded that she can't "deductively prove islam is false". Arguments to Con, for noting that Pro had failed to establish WHY this teaching showed Islam to be false. A little more structure might have gone a long way, here. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.