CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It's an interesting bundle of questions, I'll try to answer them as best I can. Keep in mind I don't think anything can have the exact answers, much of it is what you find yourself.
Is there truth in religion?
Well, what do you mean by that? And which religion? Each one has it's stories and rules. I think you can find truth in it, just like you can potentially find untruth. Does a religious person have to believe everything about the bible? If they don't does that still mean you're religious? What answer you have for those are yours alone, you can still believe in religion and God without believing the bible is 100%, word by word accurate.
How can you prove it?
I think it's very hard to prove the existence or non-existence of God. It's highly personal. Most people who have religion have a reason for it. It could be that they were indoctrinated into it by their family, it could be that they found Him along the way. For a person who truly believes in God it would be highly improbable for someone to talk them out of it. For me, my personal experiences have lead me to believe in His existence. Others may want to believe in Him because they would be lost without some form of guidance. Each person has their own reason and their own way.
Would the world be better without Religion?
I really don't think so. I think we are all capable of good or bad and I think a lot of people need that divine judge to keep them from edging towards bad things. Others want to know that they will be rewarded for good behavior, I don't know if that's really the best way to go about it but that's for them. Others still have had terrible things happen, things that they can get through by their belief in God and His mercy and love. Some people feel less alone in dark times when they know God is there.
Ultimately, religion is personal, there isn't going to be one right answer that all people will agree with, just be a good person.
I entirely agree with 'just be a good person' but I do not think that religion is necessary for that. I think that the vast majority of human beings are genuinely decent, regardless of their religion. In fact, as an atheist, I think it was us who made the rules for living such as the 10 commandments. That means that we all have an inner sense as to what we believe is right and that all comes down to our adaptation for survival. We are a social species, we interact with other members frequently and we dislike being alone for long periods of time. Therefore, we feel that there are basic guidelines by which to live our lives with other people. Saying that religion is needed to make people good means that those people are all in fact, bad people. I disagree. I myself, do not follow religion and I consider myself to be a decent person. If people rely on the fact that if they step out of line, they'll roast forever in hell to make themselves decent people, then something is wrong.
I agree that people are religious for a range of different reasons, however, the reason someone is religious (unless that reason was if God suddenly appeared shouting 'I exist') has no bearing on whether that religion is true. So I have already established that religion is not required to make us decent people so wouldn't it all be better if everyone believed the truth? If we all believed one theory, a proven theory. There would be no more upsets between two different religions, the number of wars would be significantly reduced, terrorism would be reduced.
I entirely agree with 'just be a good person' but I do not think that religion is necessary for that
I partially agree, but for many people it is, that's why I said it's personal and there won't be one right answer that all people agree with.
I myself, do not follow religion and I consider myself to be a decent person.
In a way it kind of feels like you're saying if someone is Atheist they automatically can't be a good person. I don't find that true at all. And I've never stated that religion is needed to make all people good, just some. Some need it, other's don't.
Your truth isn't the same truth as everyone else's. While you may not believe in God or that His existence helps some people strive to be better, that is your choice and is in no way indicative of all people. Others believe in God, that is their truth, their choice. So as I said, just be a good person, whether you believe in a God or not, you can only control how you act, not how others do.
Ok, maybe religion may prevent some people from doing bad things. That I will accept. However, I am confused with 'your truth isn't the same as everyone else's'. Of course it is. There either is a God, or there is not. Both cannot be true. So whatever is true is true for everyone, just like the fact 2+2=4 is true for everyone.
It is a fair assumption that we created religion in order to bring social order to civilisation, the truth within it lies in the aim to control populations through an ideaology of appropriate behavior e.g 10 commandments, 8 fold path etc etc, however, the disparate forms of religion have themselves contributed towards global social disorder ( Invasion, Inquisition, Crusades, Ethnic cleansing, etc etc) whilst becoming part of a very wealthy multi-national industry, so herein lies the conundrum if not religion what would be the alternative.....?
Try and imagine the universe as endless. If the universe really is endless then religion is true. The only thing that can be endless and timeless is god himself. Prophets have come and gone, but prophets foretold the arrival of jesus christ. You might not believe Jesus did miracles, but there is proof that he existed. His teachings were recorded and spread just the like the good book had said they would.
Try and think what else could be Endless and timeless. Only God can be because he was the start to everything in the universe. He created everything so God is the beginning and the no end.
In your initial argument, you said 'If the universe really is endless then religion is true'. Right, so if the universe is endless then the only thing that can be endless is God? What about the universe? That can be endless too because your statement says it has to be for religion to have truth? That makes absolutely no sense.
In fact, your entire argument is invalid because the foundation of your argument is that God exists. You're arguing as if we both believe in God.
the universe is endless because god is the universe. If you don't believe in God, but believe that world is endless then you must believe there is something powerful behind it. What else could be endless as endless as the universe is? Only God
I think it would depend on what you mean by religion and truth. I'm also curious to know what your standard of best is that you would be comparing everything to when you talk about better
Well, religion meaning...religion and true meaning...true. Are the ideas and concepts preached by religions true? That's what it means. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Standard of Best'.
The reason I asked for your definition is because in this day and age, people tend to have different things that they consider to be truthful and religious. What I mean when I refer to the 'standard of best' is someone or something that is considered to be the standard or reference point for which someone or something can meet and be better when compared to others
Well I mean all the words with their literal definitions. And I'm still confused with this 'standard of best'. I think the question is simple enough; Would the world be better without religion? Based on my assumption of the meaning of the term 'standard of best', then the reference point for judging whether the world would be better without religion would be how it is now (With religion) but that seems too obvious so I'm sure that isn't what you're asking.
I think an example of best would be this. Someone who may be an engineer would be the best if he was better than anyone else. If you wanted to be better, you would just compare yourself to him and measure how you were doing based off that
No, religion is not true. Why would it be? Taking Christianity as my main example here, there is no proof of the existence of God. I certainly haven't seen him at all. Or heard him, spoken to him. Nor has he ever spoken to me. The bible talks about the presence of heaven and hell. Well, we've explored a lot of the universe now, still haven't found anything. My other argument is the sheer number of different religions in the world, estimated to be about 4,300. That's 4,300 different theories about our existence (Well, some may overlap). Obviously they can't all be correct, and each is as likely as each other. So the mathematical probability of your religion being correct (Assuming ONE religion is correct), is 1/4300. That is a small chance. So why is your particular religion correct? Wouldn't it be better to assume that they're all incorrect since none of these religions have any proof or evidence behind them. Why not assume that all of these 4,300 religions are incorrect? After all, there's a 4299/4300 chance that that is the case. That 1/4300 chance has no reason or evidence behind it. (That probability is actually much less when taking the argument of atheism into account).
My argument about the probability is perfectly viable. I'll try to explain it again;
There are 4,300 religions in the world. Let's make that 4,400 including atheism (I wouldn't regard atheism as a religion but for the sake of argument, I'll temporarily regard it as one here). Atheism, in this example, is 100 times more likely than any religions because of the amount of evidence there is for it, (The number doesn't have to be 100, as long as it's more than 1(the proabability of ONE religion being correct)). Now that means that your particular religion, out of 4,400, has a statistical probability of being the correct one of 1/4,400. As does any other religion. So that chance is very small. It's very unlikely that it is true. Why is YOUR religion correct and all the other 4,299 incorrect? So, if the probability of ANY of the 4,300 religions existing is 1/4,400 and the probability of there being no religion is 100/4,400, surely it would be much more sensible to agree that there is no God since this is the option which has been tested, tried, experimented, reasoned, explained
I can't help noticing that your argument presupposes the existence of God. Can you actually give me any evidence for his existence? Your argument is like saying that fairies exist because they are small. ??. How does that prove anything?
Now that is better. Earlier, it would be terrible.
But it's funny. You're rejecting a 4300/4400 probability of God existing (and, have made no distinction for agnosticism, but let's ignore that) for a 100/4400 probability that he doesn't exist.
That's not how it works.
Your argument is like saying that fairies exist because they are small. ??.
I don't see where I said such a thing.
My stance is on either no God or a God that doesn't interfere (deism). Except that, if you want to play a wager, I'd recommend Hinduism. (Reminds me, Hinduism isn't a single religion.)
You're looking at this the wrong way. The probability of a God not existing WOULD be 100/4,400 if every religion could be true. That is obviously not the case since many contradict each other. So if there is a God, only one of the 4,300 religions could support it. If ONE religion is correct (Only one CAN be correct), then the probability of that would be 1/4,400 meaning the probability of there not being a God would be 4,399/4,400.
That's why I said that you have absolutely no idea about how probability works. In fact, no idea about how sets and distributions work. And especially no idea about how logic works.
Though it seems that you can use numbers a bit, but sadly, that's not sufficient.
You're probably trying to replicate arguments you read in an entirely different context (that I don't think needs further explanation.)
I am not replicating any arguments in fact, these arguments are entirely my own. And if my understanding of probability and logic is, as you propose, non-existent (which is an incorrect proposal, I can assure you), then I would like to receive an explanation from you explaining why you propose such a thing. My reasoning and understanding behind the probabilities is fine when religion's truth is argued using the concept of probability. I think you are failing to understand what I've said, or choosing not to understand it. However, the actual evidence for the truth in religion cannot be shown with statistical chance alone. I have already given the statistical probabilities, which, although you may disagree, are not wrong. So let's use other arguments.
Some say a God must exist because the chance of a universe in which life can be supported creating itself out of nothing is almost impossible; therefore, a sentient being must have designed this huge universe in which there is a minute little planet, in comparison, with life on it. Yes, the chance of this outcome of the universe is slim, but AN outcome has to happen. If a different outcome happened, who knows what sort of life we may have? If life at all? Maybe a completely different structure to the universe altogether? Either way, THIS outcome happened. Also, assuming a God created the universe because it was too complex to happen by chance, surely something as complex as a God's existence (far more complex than the early universe) must be explained somehow. Did another sentient being create God? Or is it okay for God to just appear from nothing, but the universe (which is stress is less complex than a God supposedly is) has to have been created by a sentient being.
Yes, I'm aware of the other arguments. Most of them.
So, it's your own. Well, better to make some mistake in solving than in replicating. Though, I wonder about that, since I can surely see a context in which it might be a bit valid.
I can explain, yes. How far have you studied it?
In India, we can expect any person who took maths in high school to be able to understand it.
The main point is, atheism is far more likely than any religion. For example, say there is religion A, B and C and atheism as D. The probability of A = 1/5, B = 1/5, C=1/5 and D=2/5. So if I followed religion A, the more likely belief is D. If I followed religion B, then the more likely belief is D and the same is for C. The total probability of ANY religion being true would yes, be 3/5, more likely than 2/5. This does not necessarily mean that a religion is true because we have to look at this in a different way. Let's call all of A, B C and D beliefs. Let's not separate A,B and C from D as one group is for religion and one is atheism. So therefore, the most likely BELIEF is D. The probability of each individual religion will always be less than atheism. Atheism, for any religion, will always be the more likely option (That you agreed with right at the start)
At the first layer of differentiation, the atheism group would thus have a 1/3 probability. 1/3 for theism group, and 1/3 for the spiritualism group.
At the end, after solving it through, New Age has the highest probability.
Well, we can't distribute probability like that. It'd be harder to accurately determine the distribution.
It can be done better after using all the arguments available to us. I'm yet to read Hitchens and Dawkins, but so far, I've not seen anyone doing better than Aristotle and Russell. It annoys me to read many new atheists.
Right, so the only reason people are religious is that it makes them feel better? Then how do you know it's true? I could one day say 'I believe that £1,000,000 will suddenly fall at my front door', believing that would make me feel better, but it's not true though. So although religion may make people feel better, that does, by no means, say it has truth.
Okay, that again just means that religion makes people feel better. That again has no bearing on its truth. If the truth makes people feel worse, tough, it's the truth. You just have to live with it.
Once again, that doesn't have any bearing on whether the religion is true. My question could be better phrased 'What makes people feel like their religion is true. On what basis do they base their belief?'
Because that's what their masters want them to believe.
It's a pity that the strongest species of this planet had to be irrational. But that's simply how it works for survival of something so weak for so long.
Humans are irrational animals who can merely understand what rationality is.
I couldn't agree with you more, Urban. There are thousands of opportunities every day for this "entity" to show itself ... to no avail. To some, "luck" doesn't exist. Good luck is when they thank "GOD", bad luck is .... just HIS way. If ( I ) do something bad ... I'm BAD. If HE does something bad (which, somehow, he CAN'T!) it's HIS strange kind of "love". If my wife "loved me" HIS way, I'd probably be dead. True.
The only faith you want to be untrue is that of God in Jesus Christ the Savior. Who cares about a million other religions? The only God you want to be rid of is Jesus Christ who died for you to save you from Hell. You would rather burn in Hell forever than repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because He would change your life and you are too comfortable with your sins, you love your sins more than life and would rather burn in Hell forever than to repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.....and God will let you have your way in death all the way to Hell.
