CreateDebate


Debate Info

133
136
Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other No Religion is Not
Debate Score:269
Arguments:229
Total Votes:290
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other (112)
 
 No Religion is Not (103)

Debate Creator

IchthysSaves(621) pic



Is Religion a Rational Belief to Have?

Rules

1. No Swearing

2. No Name Calling

3. Stay Serious

4. Have more then 4 sentences Generally

5. No Spamming Or Point Farming is allowed

6. No Trolling

7. Be On Topic

8. Stay Calm



Violations of the rules may result in a ban or warning.

 

 


The Following Words Above In The Debate Title Shall Mean


Religion- The belief in and/or worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal god or gods.

Rationalbased on or in accordence with reason and/or logic

Belief- an acceptence that a statement is true or that something exists.

God or Gods- The Creator of the Universe


This only applies to modern humans living in advanced countries like America

 

Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other

Side Score: 133
VS.

No Religion is Not

Side Score: 136
5 points

Yep, rational believers exist. A lot of my friends are into apologetics. Here we go, get your popcorn!!!

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
3 points

Yes apologetics is the stuff!

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
3 points

I'm actually into apologetics myself too! My friends and I many times have long winded conversations on problems we can for see people having or asking.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other

Grabs Popcorn

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Jungelson(3931) Disputed
1 point

Banned for breach of rules 3,4,7 ;)

Side: No Religion is Not
Solomonsston(40) Disputed
1 point

Nay

Religion was grate for its time. not now. i say this because we can see it.

we can talk to practically anyone on the planet. we see over several gods, yet the one god of Christianity, Islam, Jewdism are all right and true?

when the world was large it was good to help people grow but now its only holding us back.

we live in a world of logic and math. our problems should not exceed that. doing so is (to be humerus) putting a stumbling block in front of the blind.

why would it be good for humanity to spend all day or dedicate them self's to a god that will not help them?

Religion is childish. its nothing more then filling the unknown with something that suits the user and ables them to replicate it to make a profitable gain. What does the pope do? what does a priest do? there not much more the over glorified counselors.

HOWEVER!

it was not all bad. through out history we see the unification of people though one belief. and if anything that would be a major step forward to a perfect world.

its funny, if you look at every one of the major religions they all say the same thing (at the end). they all have a happy ever after. that i blelive is true. but a ever after with out religion and an intellectual society yet responsible for its actions

Side: No Religion is Not
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

We live in a world of evilness, a world that can't address why we are even here and why and how we got here?

Why don't you explain the first cause. Would love to see the evidence and proof you have to explain what scientists can't begin to address.

What does the ability to talk to people around the globe have anything to do with anything, especially faith in God? Logic and math?

Why don't you address the logic behind all we know started with a big bang? What happens when something explodes? Is their order or chaos?

How do you know there is no God? And how do you know if there is a God that He would not help people? The fact is there is no possible way you can prove there is no God. You would be in the minority of all that have lived to have believed so. The first peoples of the world believed in a high power. To say all this happened...out of nothing? Now that is irrational. Something does not come from nothing.

What is childish is to make pot shots at people who do have faith especially because you can't answer questions that have been asked since the beginning of time.

If you know about the world religions you would see that they DON'T all say the same things. They can't be all right. They are opposed to one another in many ways..especially about the end.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Jace(4706) Disputed
0 points

The only difference between religion and apologetic religion is that the latter attempts to defend itself within the framework of rationality. However, they are both irrational because both attempt to defend a belief that cannot actually be substantiated.

And for the sake of clarity, believers can be rational... just not about religion.

Side: No Religion is Not
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
1 point

Your points:

1. The only difference between religion and apologetic religion is that the latter attempts to defend itself within the framework of rationality.

2a. However, they are both irrational because both attempt to defend a belief that cannot actually be substantiated.

2b.And for the sake of clarity, believers can be rational... just not about religion.

Counter:

1. Their is not apologetic religion, just apologetic works and theologians for a certain religion.

2a.Thank you for your claim, where's your evidence?

2b. Because you gave no evidence for 2a, 2b cannot be substantiated.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other

I will take the side that it is rational to believe in a God or a higher power.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

Care to share why?

Side: No Religion is Not
2 points

Yes, it is a rational belief to have. It is just as rational as any other belief or lack there of because the individual can find rational reasons to believe and keep believing.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Intangible(4933) Disputed
2 points

And what rational reasons would those be?

Side: No Religion is Not
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

Many people find it irrational that things came into being without the assistance of any force more powerful than what was made. If it is of use and functions, someone intelligent made it. That is one reason.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

The fine-tuning of the universe

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

The fine-tuning of the universe.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
2 points

Yes, religion is a rational belief to have because you can easily state the following:

There are so many religions and while many seem extremely divergent the reality is they all have the same basis...belief in one or more god(s) who by definition have control over we the creatures they somehow created.

You do not need to prove or disprove evolution because that can exist even if we were originally created. In fact,what a brilliant idea. An imperfect, self improving and cleansing system where over time diversity is balanced with the propogation of more favorable traits.

It seems to be believable.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

If I am understanding you correctly, your argument is that religion is rational because it is a widespread phenomenon. That is like saying discrimination is rational. I mean, it pervades every society right? So it must be.

Believable is not the same as rational. Not at all.

Side: No Religion is Not
addltd(5109) Clarified
1 point

No No! I am saying if you look at why religion is a widespread phenomenon, you will see that its roots are based in extremely similar beliefs often based on the same historical (if you can call it that) accounts.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
2 points

Swearing and acting like he did is childish....it shows lack of substance.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other

I'm going to say that yes, Religion (in general, not any specific one) can be a rational belief to have. Often, the religious beliefs are not rational or reasoned at all, but that doesn't mean that they never are.

Assume, for a moment, that the individual in question is neither a religious scholar, nor does he or she have anything resembling a university level science background. This in fact represents most of the population of even developed countries.

From this perspective, with limited information available, an individual is essentially choosing which group of humans to have faith in; the atheist community or the community of the religion in question. Without the capability to perform any but the most basic experiments by oneself, trusting in the atheist perspective essentially means accepting the results of experiments one not only did not perform, but does not even truly understand; additionally, it means accepting the conclusions drawn by those performing the experiments. Science is not as perfect as we would like it to be; experiments themselves can be performed incorrectly, not properly controlled, and even when they are properly executed the conclusions drawn are not necessarily valid. For some, the fact that science is constantly being revised as new data is uncovered is a mark in science's favor- but for others, that in and of itself compromises the trust that those individuals can place in current scientific knowledge. Certainly, there is peer review amongst the scientific community for the aspects of science that are at odds with religious perspectives- but also recognize that for every verse of every holy text, there are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of years of analysis and interpretations available. From a certain point of view, one could say that any given religious interpretation has had its own heavy share of peer review.

Belief in an afterlife, for example- whether factual or not- is a rational position simply due to the inability of most (if not all) humans to actually conceptualize oblivion. Before something can be reasoned, the key concepts at play must first be conceptualized (even vaguely) as a starting point. As an example, people knew about gravity, if not in so many words and without the actual physics involved, simply due to the fact that when something is dropped, it falls. Quantum Mechanics and its ilk, on the other hand, appear as arcane hocus-pocus to most laymen due to an inability to conceptualize it.

Evolution vs. Creationism is a similar topic; from a certain perspective, applying Occam's razor seems to favor a creation event caused by forces we simply don't understand over current life taking its current shape over a time period that nobody can actually conceptualize and caused by random mutations. Without influences in either direction, simple observation shows that pretty much every life form on the earth has its own place in a huge system that fits together neatly like a puzzle. Experiments that seek to verify or observe speciation are exceedingly difficult even for the scientific community, and are well beyond the reach of the layman.

This is why religion has persisted for so long; whether correct or not, it provides answers to many questions that fit what is observable by the layman. What is being rational, what is being reasonable, if it isn't arriving at a conclusion that is consistent with ones observations?

Not all rational, well reasoned positions are factual, and not all factual positions are rational or well reasoned.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Jace(4706) Disputed
2 points

From this perspective, with limited information available, an individual is essentially choosing which group of humans to have faith in; the atheist community or the community of the religion in question.

This is a false dichotomy. You ignore soft atheism and agnosticism, which require no evidence because they are essentially statements of the absence of belief rather than a belief for or against religion.

Without the capability to perform any but the most basic experiments by oneself, trusting in the atheist perspective essentially means accepting the results of experiments one not only did not perform, but does not even truly understand; additionally, it means accepting the conclusions drawn by those performing the experiments.

The theistic option of course being that believe in hearsay rather than research, though your point is taken that most people either lack the resources or the dedication to generate an informed and opinion. However, a lack of education/knowledge does not make any belief more rational (just maybe less irrational).

Science is not as perfect as we would like it to be; experiments themselves can be performed incorrectly, not properly controlled, and even when they are properly executed the conclusions drawn are not necessarily valid.

The fallacy here is that imperfection of evidence is conflated as being equal to the absence of evidence. Science is certainly imperfect, but given its checks against human error it is more probabilistically and reliably true than non-scientific belief.

Certainly, there is peer review amongst the scientific community for the aspects of science that are at odds with religious perspectives- but also recognize that for every verse of every holy text, there are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of years of analysis and interpretations available. From a certain point of view, one could say that any given religious interpretation has had its own heavy share of peer review.

The difference of course is that scientific peer review follows standards of proof whereas religious interpretation does not. Further, while science has internally challenged and modified its understandings religion has not changed at all in its fundamental beliefs (i.e. a god exists and created life). What changes and what is challenged internally has nothing to do with the belief in god but with relatively minor things (i.e. what clothing is acceptable, the role of women in congregations, the acceptability of homosexuality). So sure, religion has changed but that change has not been informed by any rational process substantiated by reason and evidence.

Belief in an afterlife, for example- whether factual or not- is a rational position simply due to the inability of most (if not all) humans to actually conceptualize oblivion.

The inability to reconcile a genetically and socially conditioned drive towards life and significance with the reality of impermanence and insignificance does not make belief in an afterlife rational. In fact, it is a clear example of the ways in which religion allows the human mind to sidestep rationality in favor of emotional gratification.

Evolution vs. Creationism is a similar topic; from a certain perspective, applying Occam's razor seems to favor a creation event caused by forces we simply don't understand over current life taking its current shape over a time period that nobody can actually conceptualize and caused by random mutations. Without influences in either direction, simple observation shows that pretty much every life form on the earth has its own place in a huge system that fits together neatly like a puzzle. Experiments that seek to verify or observe speciation are exceedingly difficult even for the scientific community, and are well beyond the reach of the layman.

You assume Occam's razor is true of course. Playing along, the principle is meant to give preference to theories. An irrational belief is not a theory, and thus creationism does not weigh against evolution. Otherwise we would assume that leprechauns are a better explanation of an apple falling than gravity; do not conflate simple with easy.

Furthermore, creationism has its own host of objections and complications. Not the least of which is: if God created everything, where did God come from. You are only displacing the point of arbitration without actually resolving the matter (which actually makes creationism a more complex notion, rather than a simpler one).

What is being rational, what is being reasonable, if it isn't arriving at a conclusion that is consistent with ones observations? Not all rational, well reasoned positions are factual, and not all factual positions are rational or well reasoned.

Rationality is a process of substantiation. As I said earlier, a lack of knowledge does not make something more rational only less irrational. If you dilute the meaning of rationality to include anything observed it looses its purpose altogether, namely it ceases to serve as a distinction between uniformed assumption and educated thinking.

Side: No Religion is Not
1 point

-Not a false dichotomy. I'm oversimplifying here, obviously, but the specific oversimplification in use is literally a divide between those who believe in a god or gods and those that do not. You may have noticed that I'm not using a specific religion here but a generalization as well.

-Rational is defined as being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Level of knowledge doesn't really factor in- additional information can change a rational opinion, but an opinion formed via reason and logic is a rational position regardless of currently available data. This is one of the reasons for the changes in various scientific theories over the time.

-I did not allege that imperfect evidence is equal in any way to absence of evidence. It's not, by any means- but to a certain mindset, it's actually worse; one has to acknowledge that.

-Recall that I'm referring specifically to those who lack the capacity, motivation, or both, to do independent review and research. Obviously, the standards of proof et al within the scientific community are pretty evident to those who take the time to educate themself on such, but to those who do not or can't, even the standard of proof is dubious,

-Belief in an afterlife is rational as an extension of that which we take for granted in order to perform any reasoning; that our senses and memories combine to give us a more or less accurate perception of reality. This is far from perfect, I'll acknowledge, but as we've seen on both the scientific and religious sides- imperfect reasoning or lacking knowledge does not make a reasoned position from assumptions we make out of necessity any less rational, and I expect the positions on such to be revised if and when better data is available, obviously with a large number of holdouts despite it.

-I should again note that I'm not referencing my own position here. And when I refer to 'creation event' I am not referring to what is generally accepted as creationism, eg. someone snapped their fingers and called all life into being. The broad strokes I am painting also allow for evolution being used as a tool by a creator, shaping it intentionally rather than leaving it to the whim of random mutations. Perhaps I should have said Intelligent Design there, my apologies. I should also note that the statement/question "If God created everything, where did God come from?" has its own fundamental flaw- namely, the premise of the question assumes there is a god that created everything, and if one makes the assumption that a supernatural being and/or event created the universe as we know it, that supernatural being and/or event, being supernatural, does not need its own cause; we're already well outside the realm of causality and what can be observed and measured directly.

-Your understanding of what is rational is flawed. Rationality is in fact the state of being agreeable to or in accordance with reason. A rational position is one formed using reasoning and logic. Level of knowledge does not factor at all into whether or not a position is rational. Rational does not mean correct. Reasoning from bad data, or lacking key data, is not flawed reasoning because of that even if incorrect conclusions are drawn from it. Frankly, that's why the scientific method exists; to maximize the amount of data and sanitize as much human error from the reasoning process as possible.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

I WORSHIP LORD SATAN AND GODDESS KISHKI :D WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

http://kishkizism.wordpress.com/

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

When did Kindergarten get out? Why don't you go get your color book and crayons and draw us a nice picture.

Side: No Religion is Not
Intangible(4933) Clarified
1 point

For someone who worships God, you suuure are a dick and I do not mean the appendage, though your personality smells of a filthy one.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

The belief in God can be reasonably disputed as being rational. Religion, however, as a whole is not rational as its multiple forms contradict one another. But if one where to look at the various types of religion and cut off the least rational types that would leave one type of theism, which once filtered again could be seen as rational from a theological standpoint.

The main issue with religion as opposed to just the philosophical notion of God is that its strength is also its weakness - religions usually show a viewpoint of involved gods or God which usually means the intervention into our realm. The strength of this is that it helps to convince those who witness it that their God is real. However this leaves open the negative - the ability to disprove those events,and pick apart that belief system. So it would have to be a decently strong piece of theology.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

You cannot isolate religion into a singular theism, and to premise an argument on an impossible hypothesis is utterly meaningless.

The conception of an involved deity or deities is not a strength in defense of its rationality. An interpretation of events as divine intervention is not evidence of divine intervention. There can be no "decently strong piece of theology" because it is all based on fallible assumption.

Side: No Religion is Not
Vaan(167) Disputed
1 point

That's like saying that you cannot argue for a particular type of government in a debate about governments so I'd hardly call it an impossible hypothesis.

And fallible theories can then be argued for and against appropriately, using the limits of current science, philosophy and historical research. In fact the idea of an involved God makes it more rational as if it is true it becomes possible to definitively prove, as opposed to the probability element of just the philosophical evidence.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

The reliability of a religion is dependent upon two main categories.

The first is the role model(s) that represents the religion and who according to the effectiveness of his morals and actions has the credibility to be the representative of that religion.

The second is the moral argument. This is due to the fact that it is unnatural for a representative or prophet who abides by morals or whose morals are innate in him to deceive people into worshiping God. And further than that, the human being has a built in characteristic to accept good and reject evil from the first day he is born. And so religion reinforces that mechanism of choosing good rather than evil.

Any other categories like miracles of Moses or Jesus peace be upon them or the miracles of the Quran are there to to support the moral and prophecy arguments.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

it is very rational to believe a magic man in the sky...............................

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

Yes, it is very rational. If you think about it honestly, If there is no God, then how do we know anything? We don't. Everything could just be an illusion. You could have dreamed up everything that we know. You say it's not true? Prove it. And if this world is just an illusion then why are there laws of physics? Why does gravity always seem to work? But, then again, this argument I just made could just be nonsense, imagined as a logical question...

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other

Religion can be rational if someone who believes takes everything in moderation.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
4 points

It is rational to be afraid of death, as it is in our natural programming to want to live. It is also rational to seek the truth. What is irrational, is accepting something lamentably not true, because you cannot think of a suitable answer for the question. What is life, what happens after death, why are we alive?

It is rational to disagree with others. It is not rational to fight to the death for your beliefs, and encourage others to do the same. It is not rational either, to accept one ridiculous answer and lead your life by it, and yet turn your back to a similar answer, profetised by a secondary religion.

What's more, it is irrational to ignore the facts that are staring you in the face which are disproving your beliefs ( or at least some of them) and to continue fighting for something which has been proven ( or at least in part) not to be true.

^ Many aspects of religion are irrational.

Side: No Religion is Not
quickscopz(163) Disputed
1 point

What is irrational, is accepting something lamentably not true, because you cannot think of a suitable answer for the question. What is life, what happens after death, why are we alive?

Depends on who the person is. If this is like an uneducated family in China or Africa it's completely rational. A deity of some sort or belief in reincarnation is okay for them.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

I just added only in advanced countries...

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

A lack of education does not make a religious belief rational, it just makes it less unreasonable.

Side: No Religion is Not
AliKh(46) Disputed
1 point

There is a difference between uneducated people and people who lack common sense.

Education is vital, but but you do not have to be Einstein to see the unseen.

People with true wisdom can see God and the purpose of creation without having to tackle the scientific details which never contradict with the fact that God exists.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

I am not afraid of death...I would like to live a long life however. I know my eternal life will start after I die. I would think someone who is unsure about what happens after death...would be afraid.

You talk about answers to questions. Why since you say the believer knows nothing....don't you explain why we are here and how we got here. What was the first cause?

It is rational to fight to the death for something you believe in. I would fight for Christ and my family. It is rational to encourage others to do good, the right thing.

The facts?

Why don't you share the facts with us all.

What was the first cause?

And address cause and effect...coming from the science angle of it.

Did a big explosion happen? If it did...what caused the explosion and why?

How do you account that evolution formed the universe in perfect harmony...the eye, the egg, life on our planet and on no other?

Why is being in an intelligent creator so irrational..if you can not explain anything either?

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

I would think someone who is unsure about what happens after death...would be afraid.

I do not believe in life after death. In fact, I am quite convinced that there is no life after death. This does not frighten me. I am reconciled with my own mortality and universal insignificance. To me, escaping into a belief in the afterlife to avoid confronting those realities cheapens the life we know we have.

It is rational to fight to the death for something you believe in. I would fight for Christ and my family. It is rational to encourage others to do good, the right thing.

It is not rational at all to fight to the death if one appreciates the finality of death. Of course, believing in an afterlife without any actual evidence to support that belief should make death insignificant. But a belief that fighting to the death is rational when premised upon an irrational belief is itself irrational.

And please, who are you to say you actually know what is "good" or "right"? Does it never strike you how incredibly egotistical that is, to think that you have the correct view on life, the universe, and everything and everyone else is just flat out wrong. Especially when you cannot prove it at all.

Why since you say the believer knows nothing....don't you explain why we are here and how we got here. What was the first cause? [...] And address cause and effect...coming from the science angle of it. Did a big explosion happen? If it did...what caused the explosion and why?

I will not pretend to understand complex scientific theories on the origins of life and existence, nor will I attempt to claim that science is even capable of explaining all of that yet. However, I refuse to substitute an arbitrary set of beliefs for knowledge we do not yet have. Ultimately a belief in god does not answer the question of where existence came from anyways; it only changes the point of arbitration to the consideration of where god came from.

How do you account that evolution formed the universe in perfect harmony...the eye, the egg, life on our planet and on no other?

The universe functions as a complex system because it has had billions of years to develop from the simplest causes to the more intricate effects. Given that the human life span has never exceeded much more than a century, obviously it is a challenge for most people to conceive of how much complexity natural cause and effect can generate. Creationism is a way of sidestepping the frequent human inability to grasp the possibility of complex evolution. Basically, since we cannot fully understand or appreciate it, let's invent a deity who can.

The existence of some deity capable of accounting for the complexity of the universe and creating it in one go makes far less sense, particularly as it necessitates the creation of such an intelligence. If you subscribe to a creationism where god laid the seeds and let things develop from there... well, then, your own reasoning defeats itself since clearly cause can lead to complex effect.

Side: No Religion is Not
-1 points

It is rational to be afraid of death, as it is in our natural programming to want to live. It is also rational to seek the truth. What is irrational, is accepting something lamentably not true, because you cannot think of a suitable answer for the question. What is life, what happens after death, why are we alive?

It is rational to disagree with others. It is not rational to fight to the death for your beliefs, and encourage others to do the same. It is not rational either, to accept one ridiculous answer and lead your life by it, and yet turn your back to a similar answer, profetised by a secondary religion.

What's more, it is irrational to ignore the facts that are staring you in the face which are disproving your beliefs ( or at least some of them) and to continue fighting for something which has been proven ( or at least in part) not to be true.

^ Many aspects of religion are irrational.

How would you explain the fine-tuning of the universe.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
3 points

Fine tuning? come on now? Heard this one before. How is the universe fine tuned when 90% of it is fatal? Perhaps you choose to view it as fine tuned because you have grown to find certain things about it more convenient than other things about it (which should happen fine tuned or not) and this makes you more secure in your beliefs about god?

Side: No Religion is Not
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

Why is it rational to be afraid of death? I am not afraid of death...why are you? You maintain that there is no life after death...so you just end up as ash....so what are you afraid of?

Who programmed you to believe that way?

Side: No Religion is Not
3 points

You lost me at rule #1, Fuck!

Side: No Religion is Not
3 points

No it is not rational, a child who claims they have an imaginary friend will be allowed this fantasy ,till he or she is a certain age,

and then the illusion is gently dispelled , as the child's matures .So why is this any different? . Humans fear death , and the thought of extinction.There seems to be a need not to feel that this life is all we have, so "God " and the belief in a God is their safety net.

It is incredible in every other facet of life believers , use logic and reasoning , yet when it comes to this they just claim it's " faith " . All believers are brainwashed from childhood , if a child was never exposed to a belief in God till adulthood, they would reject the idea out of hand as nonsensical tripe .

Side: No Religion is Not
Vaan(167) Disputed
1 point

I was one of those brainwashed kids. I fell away for many years, using alot of those silly statements until I actually stopped being lazy and reviewed the evidence as unbiasedly as I could and decided belief in a higher being was acceptable. I was able to use the process of elimination to settle where I am today.

Its ignorance,stubborness and personal bias that makes this process so difficult, you have believers and nonbelievers not bothering to study both sides with an honest heart and prefer to just throw ad hominems and conjecture around.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other

It's not rational to believe in a supposedly omnipotent God who was defeated by iron chariots, so there goes Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Side: No Religion is Not
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

God never lost to iron chariots. The people of Judah did. Anywho, he beat them in Judges 4 which proves that chariots could lose and God can beat iron chariots.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
2 points

Judges 1:19

The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: No Religion is Not
2 points

I am not sure what you guys are talking about, but I have a question. In Judges 4 did God defeat the iron chariots, or help the people of Judah to defeat the chariots?

Side: No Religion is Not
1 point

Although I am not directly disputing that (I will on another dispute) why do you think life is so fine-tuned in the universe?

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
2 points

Although I am not directly disputing that (I will on another dispute) why do you think life is so fine-tuned in the universe?

Fine-tuned?

That's the last thing I'd call it.

Side: No Religion is Not
churchmouse(328) Clarified
0 points

Well...lets see. I think it's a really complexed question but I will try.

It all boils down to CHANCE...with me. The chance that an egg..or the eye..or our entire planet just came into existence by random chance....not buying it. Is it impossible that a molecule just happened by chance?

Then how about cause and effect? Did something come from nothing? Just some random chance event in perfect harmonious unity so that everything works?

Am I to believe that the cosmos in all of its complexity was created by chance?

R.C Sproul said this..."chance is magic wand to make not only rabbits but entire universes appear out of nothing."

So chance implies no design or designer. The eye as I said is a complexed property.

This is what Darwin had to say about this. "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Ok the egg....it is one of the most highly organized and complexed structure in all the world. Sperm meets egg...and a human is created...an animal created so small it can't be seen by the human eye....microscopic with all it needs genetically. It is as small as a grain of salt and yet it has all the instructions it needs to develop.

Now look at our earth...precision and design. Ocean tides, gravitational pull of the moon....coming together perfectly. Even the temperatures on earth...our closeness to other planets. If we were closer to the sun we would burn up...further away we would freeze.

Random Chance? No way. That would take a lot of faith to believe.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
churchmouse(328) Disputed
0 points

What was the first cause anti-christ?

Tell us the truth of what happened.

Why are we here and how did we get here?

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
2 points

What was the first cause anti-christ?

Tell us the truth of what happened.

Why are we here and how did we get here?

I don't know.

Side: No Religion is Not

Religion in itself is a placebo of the mind, it gives comfort to those who find thereselves in fear of the harsh world that surrounds them, it also works as a system of indoctrinative brainwashing that begins when a child is born into a culture based on these religous principles and is taught and forced to accept these principles and reject all outside information, even those that contradict their "truths" .

Side: No Religion is Not
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

Jesus isn't a religion He is Christianity. And being a Christian is about having a personal relationship with HIm.

And people can be brainwashed to beleive anything even the lies about Christ that the humanist tells.

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Thejackster(517) Disputed
1 point

Thats only your perspective, I have a friend from Saudi Arabia whonis a Muslim, her "relationship" with Allah is as real to her as your "relationship" with Jesus is to you. Christianity is a religion as any other, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Wiccanism, Norse Mythology, Greek Mythology, etc. all are backed up by the same concept: faith, which is the belief in something despite the lack of evidence. God is in itself an extraordinary claim, and like any other extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up, the default of any approach to such a claim is to remain skeptical until you are shown proof of its exsistance. I am an Atheist because I dont believe that a God exists, due to the lack of evidence.

Side: No Religion is Not
1 point

Racist much? .

Side: No Religion is Not
2 points

?

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

Religion is an emotional, genetic, and social byproduct of human evolution. Human beings possess the imagination to conceive of our own mortality and insignificance, but largely lack the emotional capacity to reconcile this with our most primal genetic directive to live. We are genetically predisposed and socially conditioned to desire life to have meaning and perpetuity, and religion provides an easy justification and fulfillment of that desire. Socially, religion has also functioned to regulate populations and control behavior. There is not a rational component to religion at all, and indeed religion itself flies in the face of rationality and reason.

Side: No Religion is Not
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

No reason we are here....all this just came about by random chance? Why didn't what we know happen on other planets? We are using iPads, pods on our planet and life is not sustainable on other planets? Odd isn't it?

So your world...says, no right or wrong. Rape can be good as can pedophelia as can murder. No afterlife on penalties for actions. Everything should be allowed then in your world...because there is no real meaning...no goodness.

You keep mentioning genetically predisposed.....who set us up to work that way?

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

No reason we are here....all this just came about by random chance?

Largely correct. We exist for no reason. We exist as we do by chance, the origin of which is random but the effects of which are causally connected.

Why didn't what we know happen on other planets? We are using iPads, pods on our planet and life is not sustainable on other planets? Odd isn't it?

No, not really. The requirements for life are complex and elements are unequally distributed across a massive universe, and this is wholly in keeping with a statistical odd favoring the absence of life on most planets. It seems far more strange to me that a God would create millions of worlds only to make one for living creatures; why bother with all the rest?

So your world...says, no right or wrong. Rape can be good as can pedophelia as can murder. No afterlife on penalties for actions. Everything should be allowed then in your world...because there is no real meaning...no goodness.

False. You conflate religion with morality, and consequentially assume that without religion there can be no morality. You assume that life must have meaning for principles of right and wrong to exist. In addition to being an atheist, I am a nihilist; I negate morality and instead adhere to a system of structural ethics. This means that right and wrong are stripped of arbitrary judgement and are instead defined in terms of function and dysfunction. Rape, pedophelia, and murder are clear cases of interpersonal and social dysfunction and thus can be codified as being wrong. Penalties are still exacted to ensure interpersonal and social function going forward. Just because my system of ethics is different from your system of morality and does not depend upon life having meaning or significance, this does not mean my worldview allows for all behavior without consequence.

You keep mentioning genetically predisposed.....who set us up to work that way?

No one. It is a consequence of evolution.

Side: No Religion is Not
1 point

I think NO. I can give example, women in Islamic countries have to follow to Islam laws according to Government Law.

Please participate on debate:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Do AfghanwomenhavehumiliatingpositionIsitnormalthatwifemustobeyherhusband_3#arg0

Side: No Religion is Not
1 point

It is not rational, that's why is it called religion .

Side: No Religion is Not

Is it rational or even healthy to believe and be dependent on the idea of a god/gods, which also has no basis of fact or evidence behind it?

Side: No Religion is Not
Jrob(134) Disputed
1 point

No basis of fact for evolution/atheism either. All the evidence you use to prove there is no God could be just imagined by you... That is if there is no God. You see, if the universe evolved, it could have evolved any which way, right? So, then how do you know that the entire universe isn't just one big brain floating in space imagining a world around it? That brain could be you. So then there is no reason to believe anything...ANYTHING! Since it could all just be in your imagination, anything could change at a moment's notice. Gravity reversed, Friction ceasing to do it's job, Hey, maybe you could imagine me up a million dollars! How bout it? So, anyway why don't we just see all these weird things happening... Then again, I guess you could be just imagining this message, so it probably doesn't even exist. See how confusing everything gets without a God!

Side: Yes Religion is/Mixed/Other
1 point

Except you can't prove there is a god, so all of your issues about the inability to prove anything remain, regardless of one's atheism or theism.

Side: No Religion is Not

Seeing how people I know who believe in God are so close minded and refuse to even hear facts. I would totally say that Religion is an irrational belief for sure and it's sad because that's what most people believe in.

Side: No Religion is Not