CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
12
Yes. It's Bullshit No
Debate Score:17
Arguments:14
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. It's Bullshit (5)
 
 No (7)

Debate Creator

TheThinker(1697) pic



Religion must make a difference in your life or Else you are Bullshitting

Hey Andy, Hell no, Joe, and everybody else. LONG TIME. 

how are you all? :)

Ok so this debate is about....

If you are going to call yourself a Muslim (for example) but it isn't making a significant impact on your life, I will say you are bullshitting and you aren't a muslim. That is like if you are a claimed Muslim but you didn't read the full Quran. 

If you call yourself a Chrisitian because you are "so called" baptized, then no.....i think you are bullshitting society and you are a danger. You are a danger to society because you are a liar. If you haven't read the full bible and you call yourself a christian, i will say "nope. sorry. you ain't a christian." And i am not saying that in order to be a christain, you have to read the full bible. 

And i want to stress this point a little more. Can you honestly call someone a true harry potter fan if he or she didn't read the books? How can you claim to be a christian or a muslim if you haven't read the full bible? That is bullshit. 

I think Relgion must make a full impact on your life. I am not talking about JUST going to church every sunday. Because if you are partying and playing call of duty and go to church every sunday and claim to be a christain...you are bullshitting. 

Relgion must change the way you think, dress, eat, etc. It must have a dramatic shift in your life and your view as a whole. And i want to know if you agree with me on this. 

Yes. It's Bullshit

Side Score: 5
VS.

No

Side Score: 12
1 point

If I claim to associate yourself with a religion yet do not meet the expectations of some others, who is standing in the larger pile of bullshit.

Side: Yes. It's Bullshit

Well i disagree with you guys to the right.

Don't be part of a religion if you haven't read the entire religious text. And don't claim your religion is the best when you haven't read and LIVED through the other 2000 religions out there.

So if you are a Christian but haven't read the holy book in completion, you are a danger to society. And you are bullshitting.

Side: Yes. It's Bullshit
DrawFour(2662) Disputed
1 point

Not reading the whole text makes you uneducated, however it does not make you wrong for choosing, it just makes you quick to jump to conclusions, which is dangerous I agree, however I wouldn't say it's the most dangerous of these potential scenarios relating to religious people and their holy book.

You are right to say that making the claim that your religion is the best, when you have not experience the others, is a false claim, or more so it's an uneducated claim, and since it's entirely subjective it doesn't really matter. I've not tasted every flavor of ice cream in existence, hell I've never even had rocky road and I can get that any day if I wanted, yet if I were asked what's the best flavor in the world, I'd say pumpkin pie flavored ice cream in a heart beat, and that'd just be the end of it, no one would inquire further.

Now on to your point you keep making, on how religious people who have not read all of their holy book are a danger to society. Could you explain how, or give an example please?

I'll start by saying, religious people who have read their entire holy book, seem more dangerous to me, because those religious people are the ones claiming to know all the inner workings of God, and will usually have a verse quick and ready to throw at you to justify darn near anything they do, of course claiming it's in the name of God.

To help you out, we could at least agree that Muslims who have not read all of the Qu'ran could definitely be more dangerous than those who have read it all, mostly because in the Qu'ran they say some things that are pretty bad, then later in the book they either expand on them, change them, or verify them to be true. The way the Bible differs from the Qu'ran is that the Qu'ran states that anythign coming later in the book, supersedes anything that came before it. So in that sense only, does it make sense to me to even say they maybe a religious person who hasn't read all of their religious book could be more dangerous.

Side: No
1 point

It's like claiming you're a neuroscientist just because you like the idea of it.

Side: Yes. It's Bullshit
4 points

This would be like saying that in order to identify as a Democrat you have understand the full party platform and know the names of every politician in your party in your jurisdictions. A few people fit this category, but most people do not. The same for religion and the religiously identifying. Most people are not strict adherents, and are fairly hypocritical and/or lax in their practice of their faith. They call themselves Christians or Muslims because that is their religious tradition, and to whatever extent their religion affects them that particular faith bears the greatest influence.

That all being said, I think the devoutly religious are far more dangerous than the loosely adherent tend to be. If the loosely adherent are dangerous it is not because they lie (we all lie about something - it serves an evolutionary function), but because they still attach to delusional ideologies that distort their perception of reality more than would otherwise be the case.

I will also add that people who do not read their religious text but identify with their religion are not dissimilar from people who identify as communists (or whatever) without reading their communist (or whatever) texts. Most people do not thoroughly understand the ideologies they align themselves with.

Side: No
1 point

I wholeheartedly agree that the devout religious are more often more dangerous than those who are on the fence.

I doubt there's an agnostic in existence that killed someone in the name of God. I don't know but I highly doubt it.

Side: No
atypican(4875) Clarified
1 point

Great Post.

Most people do not thoroughly understand the ideologies they align themselves with.

Maybe most do, I'm not sure. Depends on what you mean by "align themselves with" i suppose.

To "align oneself" with a named group, and to have true religious unity within a group are two very different things. I wonder how it could be made more obvious because obviously it's not.

Side: Yes. It's Bullshit
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

The overwhelming majority of people I have spoken with lack a thorough understanding of the ideologies they purport to ascribe to. Most people, in my experience, have a rather shallow understanding of the narratives that compel them. Critical thought and reflection are not especially common attributes in my opinion.

I really do not think it is possible to make a strong distinguishment between the more superficially religious and thoroughly devout. You can identify the extremes rather easily, but the in-between is what becomes the challenge.

Side: Yes. It's Bullshit
TheThinker(1697) Disputed
1 point

I do think they are a danger by their lies.

Because if someone bullshits and spreads the bullshits, then i will bullshit too. And then this world will become more bullshit and we will crumble. And because society will crumble under bullshit, we won't have defense. And without defense, we are not humans but barbarians. And we will not be happy because defense equals happiness.

Side: Yes. It's Bullshit
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

My primary objection to your argument is that it is entirely non-unique to religion. Everyone lies. For your argument to hold any water, you need to prove that the religious lie is uniquely damaging. Otherwise your argument is not against religion, but against lying itself (which is itself a fairly preposterous assertion given that lying is an evolved attribute the functionality of which has been established in fields such as biology, psychology, and sociology).

May it be further noted that you are also treading a very fine line into the slippery slope fallacy. The logical leaps taken in your post lead to gross oversights in demonstrating actual causality.

Side: No
3 points

In a sense you are correct. Religious folks who did not read their whole holy book, and or do not live their life perfectly according to it are full of shit. However that does not make the any less of a religious person, it just makes them either bad at their religion, or a hypocrite who does not practice what they preach.

Religion is a stance of belief. If they believe in their higher power, it does not matter if they don't do as they believe they should, they are still of the faith, just bad at it.

Side: No
TheThinker(1697) Disputed
1 point

I agree that religion is a stance of belief. But what does believing in something mean? I think that if someone doesn't read the holy book at least, they are less from a true religious person. I do think that makes them less of a religious person. Because a person who actually believes in God, should have a life that is radically different.

For this reason i am down voting you.

Side: Yes. It's Bullshit
DrawFour(2662) Disputed
1 point

Here's why reading the book does not matter. I can read the book and I won't believe, because belief is objective, you can't make yourself believe, just as you can't stop yourself from believing. The only thing reading the bible will do, is allow you to know why you should or shouldn't believe, and from there the choice is up to your level of susceptibility. Though some people, don't even need that much persuasion. They might in fact be just gullible enough to believe "god is real" because some guy in pastor suit said so, to deny that this is reality is just lying to yourself.

Now on to what you say about the religion needing to make a significant change for you to be a true member. Can you prove that, more so than just saying it? or at least explain logically why that simply must be so? I've explained logically why I feel that it mustn't so surely you have some explanation for your claims.

Side: No
1 point

And i want to stress this point a little more. Can you honestly call someone a true harry potter fan if he or she didn't read the books? How can you claim to be a christian or a muslim if you haven't read the full bible? That is bullshit.

Thats simply false. If I were to read the first chapter, I could be a fan of Harry Potter. If I were to read the summary, I could be a fan. If I were to be told the overall plot, I could be a fan. Would you say that a man cannot be a football fan because he or she has not watched every football game? What about the books of the Bible that have not been found? Would we say that a person who has read the entire (putative) Bible not be a Christian because he or she has not read the other books that no one has read? Your argument's logical conclusion would mean that everyone would have to be experts in a field to believe the material within it; otherwise, you're making an arbitrary distinction. There is no necessary connection between belief and knowledge; and if there is, it would be that one must simply know something of it, not the entirety of it. Its simply false, on all academic grounds, to say that one must read the Bible to be a Christian; or the Quran to be a Muslim.

Now, on to the actual debate topic (as the other was a separate question):

Beliefs impacts actions; beliefs impact lives. If one believes a car is going to hit her, and that the car hitting her is going to be bad, then she is going to move. Beliefs have a necessary connection to impacting one's life; the issue is to what extent the belief is applied to one's life. If one believes a wall is red, that probably won't do much to impact a person's life significantly, but, nevertheless, make a difference, no matter how minute. Religion, if properly understood, would impact one's life significantly, for most people, that is. Some might believe something, but not care or simply want the opposite. So, in that case, its also simply factually incorrect to say that to believe a religion must make a different in one's life (up to a point, that is).

Side: No