CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
7
LichPotato interviews atypican atypican interviews LichPotato
Debate Score:15
Arguments:18
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 LichPotato interviews atypican (8)
 
 atypican interviews LichPotato (6)

Debate Creator

atypican(4873) pic



This is a private debate. See the FAQ for more info.

Challenge Debate: Can your view of religion withstand scrutiny?

LichPotatoe thinks my view of religion is too broadly inclusive and I think his is too narrow and exclusive. Because of the way I view religion, I reject the idea that some people are religious while others are not. Rather I think all people are religious but the ways that they express their religion vary. In this debate, if LichPotatoe accepts, each of us will scrutinize the others position hoping to expose one or more logical contradictions underlying them.

atypican(4873)

LichPotato interviews atypican

Side Score: 8
VS.
LichPotato(362)

atypican interviews LichPotato

Side Score: 7
1 point

In my view, the universal human phenomenon of religion is misrepresented by the foremost definition shown in most modern dictionaries. As an intrinsically social phenomenon, one of its primary functions is to enable group cohesion according to commonly held primary values, or in other words a shared sense of the sacred. I believe that the current overall state of human religion is a largely corrupt mess and this is due in no small part to a hypercapable class of thinkers sharing a peculiar delusion (reinforced by a poorly crafted definition) concerning religions very nature. Historically religion has been in such a shambles, and so often, that the temptation to judge the whole process by its worst expressions is very strong. Strong enough to cause a smart class of people to make a grave mistake. Rather than seeing religion as something we are all obliged to help.shape, through our actions (and inactions), this otherwise hypercapable class naively fancy that opting out of religious involvement is somehow going to improve the situation. I hold that the means by which the overall situation can be improved is through religiously oriented dialogs, and that the kind of dialogs that are most sorely needed are practically impossible, because the common ground for fruitful discussion (That we are all religious albiet differently) won't be acknowledged. I didnt come here to write an essay, so I will end here prepared to have my view scrutinized by my gracious opponent. On the other side I will be scrutinizing his view. Hopefully at least someone will learn something :)

Side: LichPotato interviews atypican
1 point

I was asked if the following correctly describes my view....

[RELIGION] includes any group of people with strong, like beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong; misrepresenting your statements would be contrary to a meaningful discussion), not necessarily beliefs of a supernatural nature.

not precisely. people can share strong beliefs like "the main reason people debate is to prove their intellectual superiority in relation to their opponent(s)", but since these kind of shared strong beliefs aren't necessarily relevant to ones most deeply held values, They do not form the basis of ones religion as I understand it.

As to whether or not religious beliefs must be "of a supernatural nature" I must admit that the meaning of "supernatural" isn't clear enough to me to say.

Side: LichPotato interviews atypican
LichPotato(362) Disputed
1 point

"people can share strong beliefs like "the main reason people debate is to prove their intellectual superiority in relation to their opponent(s)", but since these kind of shared strong beliefs aren't necessarily relevant to ones most deeply held values, They do not form the basis of ones religion as I understand it."

But how does one determine what a given group's most strongly held beliefs are? Further, are multiple beliefs capable of simultaneously holding this position?

Side: atypican interviews LichPotato
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

But how does one determine what a given group's most strongly held beliefs are?

I think the surest way is to observe what they spend their time doing.

Further, are multiple beliefs capable of simultaneously holding this position?

I doubt that I understand this question. I wll say that I think values (beliefs concerning importance) that are virtually identical can be expressed and explained in wildly different ways.

Side: LichPotato interviews atypican
2 points

I'll state my position clearly and simply: the only meaning a given term has is what is universally (or all but) accepted by the population, be it local (regional dialect) or national/international (language).

With this in mind, the meaning of the term "religion" is universally agreed to mean something along the lines of "belief in a supernatural, or 'higher', power", the important bit being the term "supernatural". Why is this important? Because my opponent's definition of the term "religion" (being the issue at hand) includes meanings inherently irrelevant to its universally agreed upon meanings, I.E. includes any group of people with strong, like beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong; misrepresenting your statements would be contrary to a meaningful discussion), not necessarily beliefs of a supernatural nature.

This misdefining the term is following inversely (yet no more rationally) along the lines of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Another example of this erroneous reasoning would be to claim that "All leaders have beards. My substantiation for this claim comes from the fact that all leaders in the past have had limbs, and limbs are beards, therefore all leaders have beards". The error in this syllogism comes not from an invalid structure (I.E. the conclusion not logically following from the premises), but from an untrue premise (I.E. "limbs are beards").

Side: atypican interviews LichPotato
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

You say that: "the only meaning a given term has is what is universally (or all but) accepted by the population, be it local (regional dialect) or national/international (language)."

It would almost seem that you disagree with my position that valid conversational meaning only requires two people to jointly recognize a phenomenon and come to terms on an acceptable symbolic and/or linguistic word to refer to it. Is this the case?

the meaning of the term "religion" is universally agreed to mean something along the lines of "belief in a supernatural, or 'higher', power", the important bit being the term "supernatural".

In the discussion that spawned this one, you identified as being religious yourself. So, since this means that you "Believe in a supernatural or higher power" can you help me understand your position better? Would a "higher power" be any thing or being that is more active or capable than others? And of "supernatural", I have trouble enough understanding the meaning of natural, can you explain that...then how some things or beings can be thought of as "more natural" or "of a greater nature"? I appreciate your patience here. I am not trying to be difficult. I really struggle to think clearly about the meaning of these terms.

In the previous post (the one I am responding to here) you asked me to clarify and correct you if you misrepresented my position. Since this side is for me scrutinizing your position, I will correct/clarify it on the other side where I answer inquiries about my position. Just trying to establish what each "side" is for

Side: LichPotato interviews atypican
LichPotato(362) Disputed
1 point

"It would almost seem that you disagree with my position that valid conversational meaning only requires two people to jointly recognize a phenomenon and come to terms on an acceptable symbolic and/or linguistic word to refer to it. Is this the case?"

Agreeing upon a particular definition of a term for purposes of a discussion is also an option.

"Would a "higher power" be any thing or being that is more active or capable than others?"

A "higher power" refers to an entity or entities with supernatural quality or qualities, universally (if there's an exception, I'm unaware of it) regarded as having created the world.

"And of "supernatural", I have trouble enough understanding the meaning of natural, can you explain that...then how some things or beings can be thought of as "more natural" or "of a greater nature"?"

The term "supernatural" applies to concepts which are non-physical, or not bound by physical laws. That's really all there is to it.

"I appreciate your patience here. I am not trying to be difficult. I really struggle to think clearly about the meaning of these terms."

Don't worry about it; given the abstractness of the discussion, clarifying one's terminology is only appropriate.

"Just trying to establish what each "side" is for"

Understood.

Side: atypican interviews LichPotato