Login/Sign Up




10,000 religions can be wrong
Religion

w8in
Feb 04, 2007
84 votes
17 debaters
7
3
2
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

58
Yes, the fact that there are so many religion implies none of them will probably be right


jjalsop
Feb 04, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
It's all down to faith.

But yeah, the fact that there are so many religions probably means none of them are right.

 
staggy11
Feb 04, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: soundsdifferent

If you say that all religions are based on the bible, then what about those religions that began BEFORE Christianity? Surely that means that Christianity is in fact based on other religions?

As for the world starting with a bang, IT DIDN'T! You are referring to the 'Big Bang' theory, which is a theory on how the universe was created, not just the Earth.

 
disguise
Feb 04, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: soundsdifferent

Yeah, sure, because Buddah's preachings of how there is a limitless cycle of death and re-incarnation is so much like Christ's claim that there is only one life on Earth before one ascends to Heaven or Hell. Oh, and the multitude of Hindu Gods are all just cheap knock-offs of Jesus. You don't make a lot of sense. Try comming up with actual arguments besides "LOL, BIBLE SAYS SO."

 
w8in
Feb 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: soundsdifferent

How is this supposed to convince me? (bad spelling aside)

First of all, you mention the Bible as if all religions are based on that.

Then you continue to say you only respect Christianity because it says what you believe in.

 
jamgen
Feb 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: soundsdifferent

You are hurting your own side. Stop acting like a fool.

jamgen

 
w8in
Feb 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jamgen

I'm the poster and I wonder what you mean with "Some religion is right"?

My question can basically be answered as "I think no religion is right" or "my religion is the only right one".
I would assume that if someone has a religion, he or she believes their religion is the only right one. Otherwise they would have another religion.

 
gormandizer
Feb 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: egyptianactivist

Ok Nowhere in the Bible Muhammad is mentioned. You do not believe that Jesus is God and is the Son of God - Perfect God and Perfect Man at once. You believe there is a God but do you believe that his Son was sent to save us from our sins by dying on the cross? This is how they are different. Yes there are religions that are far more different but you cannot say that they are the same at all.

 
rajio
Feb 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: soundsdifferent Show

What if god created the 'bang' in question?

 
illuminatus555
Feb 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: irenaeus Show

"You see, I think the fact that the vast majority of human beings throughout history (atheism/physicalism has only been widely popular recently) have had religious experiences adds to the probabilty that there is something beyond the natural world."

Response:

That is purely based upon your assumption of the TRUTH of religious experience. Which, really, cannot be proven.

Whats the saying? When a person talks to god it's called praying and when god talks to a person it's called Schizophrenia.

 
kuraimizu
Feb 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jamgen Show

God As he is decribed in most religions is seen as a Being that is perfect. a Perfect being would only teach Truth. It stands to reason That A perfect God would also have Only one Gospel. this Gospel would be taught by only one religion.
And only this Religion would have Authority to teach on behalf of God. Also God does not change his Mind.

Pure Science (True Facts) and
Pure Religion (True Doctine Obtained through Revelation) Never Contradict each other.

therefore since so many religions have Highly differing doctrines, and many of these Religions have taught some form of falsehood in the past, it stands to reason that any Religion that has taught a Doctine or Idea that has been proven False, or any Religion that has Branched off of another Religion is NOT a True Religion and is therefore false.

All Christian Religions Except for the LDS Church are Branched off of the Catholic Church. Therefore Going on the Terms of Authority
the Catholic Church Clames Authority Through Peter the Apostle.
While The Lds Church Clames Authority Through Restoration.
As for Churches that Branched off of the Catholic Church. Their belief was that the Chatholic Church either Never had authority or had Lost it through the changing of Doctrines or teaching of false doctrine. Either way all Churches that have Branched off of the Catholics lost all right to authority when they branched off. also if the Catholic church had already lost the authority there is no way it could be reattained through reorganization.

Therefor if the Catholic Church Holds the Authority
their was no need for Reorganization or Restoration and all other churches are Wrong

But if The Catholic church Had lost the authority or had never had it to begin with. then a Restoration was Needed. And the LDS Church is The Only Church That has Authority From God.

I Personally Believe That the LDS Church is the Only True and Living Church On the Earth Today.


 
illuminatus555
Feb 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kuraimizu Show

Quote, originally posted by kuraimizu:

"I Personally Believe That the LDS Church is the Only True and Living Church On the Earth Today. "

Response:

Just so you know LDS was created by Joseph Smith in very much the same way L. Ron Hubbard created scientology only that Smith did it very much earlier.

I have to agree with L. Ron Hubbard's quote though "Writing for a penny a word is rediculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"

oh and you forgot capital letters on "is"," and" and "the"

 
illuminatus555
Feb 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: irenaeus Show

Quote, originally posted by irenaeus

"I should have said that the vast majority of humanity has "believed" it has had some sort of religious experience."

Response:

Before answering your above quote, lets start by putting my purely anecdotal little quote from the previous post aside. You are still assuming the authenticity of these religious experience even in non-mentally ill people. Which as I said cannot be proven it was with god. We can however possibly be able to demonstrate the chemical interactions and the specific part(s) of the brain attributed to this experience.

Now to the statement you made above. When you say vast majority of humanity has had some sort of religious experience, did you mean 50% of the Earth's population believe it to be so? If that's the case where is the study to demonstrate this claim?

I don't know where you have been living (presumably secluded areas of US) but from where I have come from and been, really not many people have actually claimed to have a religious experience.

 
illuminatus555
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: irenaeus Show

"You have assumed that ALL religious experiences are entirely fabricated by the mind--a small malfunction of the brain if you will."

Response:

I see religion more as a byproduct of a normal psychological disposition. A small malfunction perhaps due to the misfiring in the brain.


"however, the philosphical principle of credulity puts the ball in the skeptic's court"

Response:

Sorry, I thought I explained myself fully but it turns out that I did so in the "God created by human" debate and not on this one. I shall do it now for the sake of convenience.

I suppose you are not familiar with the celestial teapot that Bertrand Russell proposed. If we follow your rule of "ball in sceptic's court" then the onus would lie on YOU to disprove my assertion that a china teapot revolves around mars in an elliptical orbit; the onus would also lie on YOU to disprove my other assertion that the flying spaghetti monster created us. The ludicrousness of the above should be lucid if not obvious. And please do not counter the above by saying that you are not a sceptic of a china teapot revolving around mars......


"I am anticipating your reponse: Being convinced that God exists does not mean someone had a religious experience."

Response:

I do not dispute that majority of people in the US believe in some sort of deity (seeing as how it's looking more like a theocracy than democracy today) I was more disputing on the premise that a religous experience being tentamount to conversing with god (which is what I thought you were coming from due to the previous post "Whether one person heard the voice of God or is just schizophreinc, as you said, is not as much the issue. I personally do believe that there are some people with abnormal disorders who claim to have heard from God.") But if your post is your definition of religious experience then I have no objection.

Just a side note, just because someone tick the "I convince god exist" box does not mean they conversed with god. Hence, by equating that definition to that poll is somewhat misleading if not fallacious.


"but I challenge you to demonstrate atheism holding any thing close to a majority. "

Response:

Way to go off on a tangent there. I never stipulated the fact that atheism is in the majority. I was asking you to provide evidence for majority of religious experience (which I am not entirely convinced btw as I have a hard time visualising people ticking the i-believe-in-god box as the same as the people who have conversed with god; just to repeat myself again).

But then again, we are arguing based on semantics which makes the argument go round and round.

 
kuraimizu
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: illuminatus555 Show

Quote, originally posted by illuminatus555:

Just so you know LDS was created by Joseph Smith in very much the
same way L. Ron Hubbard created scientology only that Smith did
it very much earlier.

I have to agree with L. Ron Hubbard's quote though "Writing for a
penny a word is rediculous. If a man really wants to make a
million dollars, the best way would be to start his own
religion"

oh and you forgot capital letters on "is"," and" and "the"

Response:

If that is what you think then you are nothing more than an Ignorant Anti.
Joseph Smith did not start a religion for money. The Church was Restored through Revelation. Also many of the things that Are writen in the Book of Mormon have been proven correct through Archeaology. The LDS Church has more truth than any other Church on this planet.
Also I am one of it's members and I will not let someone like you spread rumors and half truths.

Don't talk about another religion untill you are a member of good standing in that religion.
If you want to know about the LDS Church, ask a member of the LDS church,
If you want to know about Catholicism, ask a Catholic
If you want to know about Scientology, ask a Scientologist.
Never Compare one to the other.
Compare the Religion to it's own Scriptures.

You can Compare A religion to Science.
Pure Religion (True Doctrines) and
Pure Science (Facts) Never Contradict each other.
But you can only compare Pure Religion (Doctrines) with Pure Science (Facts).
Never Compare Religion to Scientific Theories. (Such as Evolution. Or the Big Bang.)

And Never Talk about Another Religion except for the Facts, History, and Statistics in a Neutral Unbiased Manner, Never Discuss the Doctines of another Religion Except with a Member of that Religion.

Anti-s like you are the Worst type of People.

Also I Capitalize the words I wish to Emphasise.
So go correct your own spelling.

 
illuminatus555
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: irenaeus Show

I apologise first to my presumptuous nature to think that you were ignorant of the teapot.

"Yet, we are debating the authenticity of religious experience which as you have already argued is falsefiable: mental illness has shown some claims to be invalid.

Thus, according the principle of credulity (that philosophy depends on the general reliability of our experiences) it IS the responsiblity of the skeptic to falsify every single religious experience, unless of course you want to concede that some of these expereinces are indeed valid. "

Response:

If you're using "religious experience" with the same definition that you stipulated earlier then religious experience does involve the existence of god, which means you could apply celestial teapot. If you are using religious experience as my definition then the poll you have shown earlier would not be valid for our argument.

One more thing, if I claim that I talked with the flying spaghetti monster and that I also talked to teapots does that mean you as the sceptic of MY experience should falsify my claims? Personally I wouldn't waste my time even trying to falsify those claims because i see them on par with conversing with god.


"(you seem fairly well read, do you have any formal training in philosophy?)"

No but I do read, an act which not many people do anymore. Quite depressing really when most argument I engage with my university friends often ends in ad hominem such as "that's because you are a phucking cock gobbler" or the kind with the likes of LDS arguments above.

 
kuraimizu
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: illuminatus555 Show

Quote, originally posted by illuminatus555:

"Good job on paraphrasing."

I didn't Paraphrase. I was making a statement in response to

"Just so you know LDS was created by Joseph Smith in very much the same way L. Ron Hubbard created scientology only that Smith did it very much earlier. I have to agree with L. Ron Hubbard's quote though 'Writing for a penny a word is rediculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion'"

From the quote you made. I can discern that Hubbard's reason for starting scientology was to create a religion so he could get money. Atleast that is how it comes across.

I on the other hand was only making a statement that Joseph Smith had not intended to start a religion. The story of Joseph Smith, Restoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ, starts with Joseph only wishing to know which of all the churches if any were true, and deciding to pray about it. The answer he recieved was that he was to join none of them. and it was only later that he was told to translate the Book of Mormon, and to later organize a church under the direction of revelation.

The way you portrayed Hubbard is that he was someone who desired to find some way to get people to give him money.


 
kuraimizu
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: illuminatus555 Show

"Funny thing how your arguments ended up on the left side of the debate and mine on the right. O.o"

Code Error.

"Wow, it just so happens one other person did exactly the same thing as Joseph Smith. His name is Bobby Henderson. Bobby was wishing to know which of all the churches if any were true, and deciding to pray about it. The answer he recieved was that he was to join none of them. and it was only later that he was told to translate the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and to later organize a church under the direction of revelation. The church that we have come to know as the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Very sacriligious, and Very Immature.
you must be around the age of twelve to pull such a "brilliant" argument out of your ass.

all you did was replace some words in my original paragraph

also I checked out the website. it has no mention of how it came into being that I could find.
and it was about a 2 on a scale of ten in the Humor section.

I was making better arguments then yours when I was in grade 7.

also I wasn't attacking your religion so why are you attacking mine? every one is free to believe as they wish. why do you feel you have the need to try and tear down what others believe or hold sacred.


 
illuminatus555
Feb 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: zebostoneleigh Show

Ahh, finally a person who can avidly address the issues.

"Granted, the whole debate is inherently flawed from the start"

Response:

Quote for truth


"It seems to me that the debate should have been between:
1) The fact that there are so many religion implies none of them will probably be right.
2) The fact that there are so many religion does not imply that all of them are wrong."

Response:

I personally don't see what is the relevance of the fact that there are so many religions since you can never actually disprove any religious claims (not that it's up to the sceptics to prove or anything.)

The only relevance I see in this is that for an impartial observer who is thinking of choosing a particular religion, the difficulty and the margin of error increases exponentially with the increase in the number of religions.

 
asylum
Mar 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Why do you think there are so many religions? It is man's creation of self-worth and an explanation, in so many varying forms. None is true, but they are all striving toward the same goal- explaining our existence. Modern science is the only religion I can believe in.

 
asylum
Mar 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: illuminatus555 Show

I do not understand the essence of "Science"? And to what do you base that accusition? By no means do I consider science a religion- it was meant in the form that Science is the one thing we can really believe in. I can't believe one may be so dense as not to recognize that...

Read some Kant... he and I have very similar perspectives.

 
persuademe
Jun 26, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
You can't claim something is correct when there is no where in the world which states this. There may be a bible, which was written by over 40 different people stating there was god to guide us through our good and bad times, but what evidence is there that what the 40 and more people wrote was true and not simply because of cult, group ,etc, someone had made because of their own theories and people had joined afterwards. People believe in god is just striving for a reason for how we exist, by creating theories and grasping onto it to no ends and passing this down each generation.

 
+ Add Argument

26
No, my religion is the only right one


egyptianactivist
Feb 04, 2007
7 convinced
Rebuttal
I am a muslim and I believe in my religion that it is the right religion, BUT I also believe that many other religions have similar traits with Islam, which suggests that most religions are somewhat right, because they are all deviations from the others to a small extent.

Christianity, the Jewish faith, and Islam have many things in common, they all believe in jesus and moses, in fact in Islam, jesus is th emost quoted prophet in the Quran. And I belive the bible mentions prophet Muhammad. Whether you believe that god is a trinity, or that there is only one God, or whatever you believe in, chances are, in the religion you adhere to, except athiests and what not, believes in one super god, or metaphysical force that is above all the rest. So in that sense, your god and my god, are the same god, so at the end of the day, many world religions today are united in the core, just deviated a little as the truth travelled along the way. Time took the original story and transformed it in to other religions. The two most popular religions in the world, Christianity being the first, followed by islam, take half of the worlds population under their belt. Now logically, I dont think all those people will be wrong, that their faith is a bunch of balogny. We are humans, but we are not that dumb, that we adhere to a religion and follow its teachings and what not just for show. This isnt scientology.

Believe whatever you want, but there is a heaven and a hell, and the fact that almost all religions adhere to this notion of heaven and hell, strengthens the claim that religion is the essence of life, whatever you believe in, in one form or another, there is one god with one original story, and there is a heaven and hell. So if there is heaven and hell, Id like to think there is a judgement day, and a God that will judge us. I'd like to think we are more significant as humans, than to live for 60-70 years in turmoil then die, and there is no more. God must have great things planned for us, earth cannot be the end, God put a lot of time in creating earth, and humans, and everything in between to make life so short. There has to be a God, and religion is the essence of it all.

 
jamgen
Feb 04, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
The question is inherently flawed. On one side, the viewpoint:
All religions are wrong.

The opposite of this would, of course, be: "Some religion is right". Is that what the opposite side says? Of course not. Instead it says that "my religion is the only right one."

If the poster has something to prove, let him do it in a fair fight. Or rather, I have one question for him:

Do you like bananas or do you support the nazi party? Because, you know, there isn't any other answer...

jamgen

 
irenaeus
Feb 11, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: illuminatus555 Show


My response:

Well, for starters, frankly, we both come to this debate with certain assumptions... how would we be in disagreement if we did not? You have assumed that ALL religious experiences are entirely fabricated by the mind--a small malfunction of the brain if you will. And yes, I have assumed that many but not all religious experiences are in fact valid. And I do not suggest that it can be proved that someone had a religious experience; however, the philosphical principle of credulity puts the ball in the skeptic's court. You must prove that apart from the cases of diagnosed mental illness all "healthy" religious experiences are the result of physical conditions in the brain or what have you.

Now on to the "vast majority" thing. Feel free to look at the latest Gallup poles that show America's religious sentiments.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1690&pg=2

The following might be of interest to you: (and i think this includes more than just the secluded parts of the US that you think I'm from)

-73% are convinced that God exists
-14% think God probably exists (that is 87% total)
-60% say religion is still important
-63% say they are members of a church or synagogue

I am anticipating your reponse: Being convinced that God exists does not mean someone had a religious experience. However, a religious experience can be defined as 1) a sense of union with the divine, 2) a sense of dependence on the divine, 3) and/or a sense of separateness from the divine. --Evans "Philosophy of Religion"
Most people that believe in God or go to church have a sense of at least one of these things.

Now granted this pole is America, not God forsaken Europe :)
But my original claim was that the majority of Humans throughout human history have believed in some religion.
As I am sure you know, atheism was not very popular before Darwin made it logically (or scientifically) tenable. Sure you had a number of outspoken skeptics but I challenge you to demonstrate atheism holding any thing close to a majority.

 
soundsdifferent
Feb 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
every singal religions tech wat the bible does but they add on a whole lot of crap. or take some out
christianity is the only 1 religion i respect that you may not beleave that but how could the world start with a bang

 
zebostoneleigh
Feb 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The argument is flawed, but you're not alone wondering how such diversity of opinion could actually lend itsenf to any solution ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/9-10#7 ). I believe in God and in religion and in Christ. That' my choice - based on my experience in life and my faith. However, the vastness of options doesn't mean that there can't be truth somewhere. It just means there are lots of options.

To dumb it down a notch... Is one burger place better than the rest? Or because there are so many (McDonalds, Burger King, Carls Jr., Wendy's, Fat Burger, etc...), are they all bad?

And that leads to a related issue. Is your question about 1) what suits people best or 2) what God's preferred religion is?

I think that certain people are probably better suited to different religions (or rather certain religions are better suited to different people's perceived needs). You may find that your preference/needs change over time (like how you liked McDonalds hamburgers when you were 4 - but now, maybe you like Wendy's better).

God still might have a preferred religion that he'd like you to attend, follow and believe - but maybe you're not ready for it. In the mean time - options might be a good thing.

 
zebostoneleigh
Feb 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: w8in Show

The question could be better answered:
1) I think no religion is right.
or
2) I think a religion could be a right.

Finding the "right" religion should not be requirement for its actual existance. It is possible that the right religion does exist (answer 2 above), but I haven't found it yet.

 
nbcrusader
Feb 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
To suggest that there are no true religions based on the mere variations in world religions is overly simplistic and intellectually lazy.

It is quite possible that there is one true religion, but the current pluralistic need for inclusion prevents one from considering the possibility. It is far easier to embrace all things as true, instead of discovering the one real Truth.

So, instead of simply declaring there is no true religion, one must evaluate belief systems, the reasons for their differences and what those differences say about God.

 
jonemi
Feb 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
When we're talking about religion, we are talking about a concept. There is no limit on the amount of concepts. The amount that can exist (contradictory or not) is infinite. Let's compare that to the color spectrum. It is also infinite.

Because we are dealing with something that has no limit, the probability of selecting the 'correct' one from a given sample size will diminish to the same degree in which we add to that sample size (e.g., picking the right answer out of 3 is more probable than selecting it from 1000).

However, when we are searching for a specific characteristic in a given set of variables, the probability of it existing does not diminish, only our ability to find it does. Provided, of course, we first believe that what we're looking for actually exists in one of those variables.

Take for example that we're looking for a color that is the 'healing' color and that only on can exist. Most people will think that's absurd because they don't believe a 'healing' color exists. The fact that you introduce more and more colors into your search segment only serves to reinforce that belief. But what if a person, in their mind and experience, was healed by the color red. The fact that you introduce more colors doesn't change their belief in and their real experience they had with the healing power of red.

That's the problem with trying to use 'facts' to demonstrate that something based on faith is false. To have religion, we first need to believe in an ultimate truth that is infallable and incontrovertible. People like myself can substantiate our belief about as well as people can find evidence against it because what it all comes down to is just that: belief based on personal experience and subjective evidence.

 
irenaeus
Feb 10, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjalsop Show

It is faulty logic to claim that the existence of so many religions means none of them is possibly right.

Say you were on an island with 100 people. 95 of these people claim that they saw a large object out in the ocean. Yet, 50% say it is a cruise ship, 30% say it is a large ship with sails, 15% say it is a massive flock of seagulls, and 5% say it is a sea monster.

Now the fact that there are many different views about what the object is out in the water, does not count against the high probabilty that there is indeed something out there... and that some of the people are most likely closer to describing the actual object than others.

You see, I think the fact that the vast majority of human beings throughout history (atheism/physicalism has only been widely popular recently) have had religious experiences adds to the probabilty that there is something beyond the natural world.

 
kuraimizu
Feb 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
God As he is decribed in most religions is seen as a Being that is perfect. a Perfect being would only teach Truth. It stands to reason That A perfect God would also have Only one Gospel. this Gospel would be taught by only one religion.
And only this Religion would have Authority to teach on behalf of God. Also God does not change his Mind.

Pure Science (True Facts) and
Pure Religion (True Doctine Obtained through Revelation) Never Contradict each other.

therefore since so many religions have Highly differing doctrines, and many of these Religions have taught some form of falsehood in the past, it stands to reason that any Religion that has taught a Doctine or Idea that has been proven False, or any Religion that has Branched off of another Religion is NOT a True Religion and is therefore false.

All Christian Religions Except for the LDS Church are Branched off of the Catholic Church. Therefore Going on the Terms of Authority
the Catholic Church Clames Authority Through Peter the Apostle.
While The Lds Church Clames Authority Through Restoration.
As for Churches that Branched off of the Catholic Church. Their belief was that the Chatholic Church either Never had authority or had Lost it through the changing of Doctrines or teaching of false doctrine. Either way all Churches that have Branched off of the Catholics lost all right to authority when they branched off. also if the Catholic church had already lost the authority there is no way it could be reattained through reorganization.

Therefor if the Catholic Church Holds the Authority
their was no need for Reorganization or Restoration and all other churches are Wrong

But if The Catholic church Had lost the authority or had never had it to begin with. then a Restoration was Needed. And the LDS Church is The Only Church That has Authority From God.

I Personally Believe That the LDS Church is the Only True and Living Church On the Earth Today.


 
irenaeus
Feb 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: illuminatus555 Show

Thank you illuminatus555 for pointing out my poorly chosen words.
It does sound like I assumed that all these religious experiences
were authentic. That was not my intention.

I should have said that the vast majority of humanity has
"believed" it has had some sort of religious experience.

Whether one person heard the voice of God or is just
schizophreinc, as you said, is not as much the issue. I
personally do believe that there are some people with abnormal
disorders who claim to have heard from God.

My argument, however, focuses on the fact that so many people, in
every culture, at every socio-ecconomic level, and of all
intellegence levels, have led healthy "normal" lives (a key
difference from the schizophrenic) while also claiming to have
religious or supernatural experiences.

On a side note--the DSM-IV lists as criteria for dellusions,
hallucinations, and various psychotic disorders such as
schizophrenia
-interfering with work to the point of termination
-being destructive to all relationships
-and completely inhibiting normal day to day activities

 
illuminatus555
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kuraimizu Show

Quote, originally posted by kuraimizu:

"The Church was Restored through Revelation."

Response:

Good job on paraphrasing.


"Also many of the things that Are writen in the Book of Mormon have been proven correct through Archeaology."

Response:

Are you trying to back up what you are saying or are you now just trying to make random claims that your church wants you to believe?


"You can Compare A religion to Science.
Pure Religion (True Doctrines) and
Pure Science (Facts) Never Contradict each other.
But you can only compare Pure Religion (Doctrines) with Pure Science (Facts). Never Compare Religion to Scientific Theories."

Response:

Way to go off on a tangent there. Since when did I even mention science? Granted that I did mention scientology but that is more science fiction.


"Never Discuss the Doctines of another Religion Except with a Member of that Religion. "

Response:

Oh I see, is that why you came online to a "debate forum" so you can talk about your fictitious book with members of your "church." Please climb out of the hole you live in, not everyone is from salt lake city.


"Anti-s like you are the Worst type of People."

Response:

I am just going to dismiss that as ad hominem which will always be a logical fallacy.


"Also I Capitalize the words I wish to Emphasise.
So go correct your own spelling."

Response:

Yea, but when you do it so often it kind of defeats the purpose of emphasising them in the first place.

 
irenaeus
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: illuminatus555 Show

I am actually familiar with Russell's "celestial teapot." It is a brilliant argument I must confess. In fact, I am in complete agreement with it. And your use of this argument when asked to prove God's nonexistence is entirely warranted...

However, it is inappropriate to apply the celestial teapot to our current debate. Russell's argument only works for unfalsefiable claims... that is the whole purpose of introducing a make believe teapot or flying spaghetti monster. This type of argument is called Reductio ad absurdum.

Yet, we are debating the authenticity of religious experience which as you have already argued is falsefiable: mental illness has shown some claims to be invalid.

Thus, according the principle of credulity (that philosophy depends on the general reliability of our experiences) it IS the responsiblity of the skeptic to falsify every single religious experience, unless of course you want to concede that some of these expereinces are indeed valid.

As to the rest of your rebuttal I think my previous post remains strong.

(you seem fairly well read, do you have any formal training in philosophy?)

 
illuminatus555
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kuraimizu Show

Funny thing how your arguments ended up on the left side of the debate and mine on the right. O.o

Now on to your argument.......

"I on the other hand was only making a statement that Joseph Smith had not intended to start a religion. The story of Joseph Smith, Restoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ, starts with Joseph only wishing to know which of all the churches if any were true, and deciding to pray about it. The answer he recieved was that he was to join none of them. and it was only later that he was told to translate the Book of Mormon, and to later organize a church under the direction of revelation."

Response:

Wow, it just so happens one other person did exactly the same thing as Joseph Smith. His name is Bobby Henderson. Bobby was wishing to know which of all the churches if any were true, and deciding to pray about it. The answer he recieved was that he was to join none of them. and it was only later that he was told to translate the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and to later organize a church under the direction of revelation. The church that we have come to know as the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 
illuminatus555
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kuraimizu Show

"Very sacriligious, and Very Immature.
you must be around the age of twelve to pull such a "brilliant" argument out of your ass."

Response:

Again, ad hominem. Address the argument itself unless you haven't even got the point I am trying to make.


"all you did was replace some words in my original paragraph"

Response:

Which was the EXACT intent. You keep claiming that your church wasn't made, it was created through "revelation" etc. etc. So I just wanted to show you that without evidence, your argument work just as well as the flying spaghetti monster.

Stop making random claims unless you have the evidence to support - was the actual point.


"also I wasn't attacking your religion so why are you attacking mine? every one is free to believe as they wish. why do you feel you have the need to try and tear down what others believe or hold sacred."

Response:

Hence I am on the debate forum questioning the validity of the religions. Not tough enough to handle an actual argument and to defened your "faith" then stay in your church where nobody will question you.


 
zebostoneleigh
Feb 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kuraimizu Show

Kuraimizu,

Stop. It seems like you want a fight. Or at least you don't know how to effectively debate without getting emotionally caught up in the dialog. illuminatus555 is making good points (from a debate and analysis standpoint). I'm LDS, and I don't agree with him, but he's certainly poking holes in your thinking and those are holes you ought to explore rather than insulting him and his arguments by calling him "sacrilligious," "Immature," and "ignorant."

This is a debate about whether the vast number of religiouns implies that there couldn't possibly be any truth to even one of them. I see no reason for this to be the case, but it seems like you're getting caught up in proving you've chosen correctly (LDS) among the many choices you've been given - rather than that there actually could be something to find at all.

As for your "LDS, Catholic, or Bust" logic - it sounds nice in an LDS Sunday School class about the Christian apostacy, but it hinges on several facts not addressed in this debate (yet):

1) Christ is the guiding diety of truth
2) churches must be ordained of God to do the work of diety
3) the Catholic church has/once-had a monopoly on His divine guidance

There were plenty of people 2000 years ago that rejected (or never even heard of Christ) and yet you base your entire "arguement" on the fact that there was unified agreement when Christ started His church that it was the right one. And yet, history clearly indicates that many people didn't and haven't accepted that fact. Likewise, before Christ, many people rejected Judiasm.

But, I don't think those are issues to be raised here anyhow - since this isn't a debate about proving one religion's truth over another, but rather proving that a religion (somewhere) could be true or that all religions are not true (despite the miriad of choices).

Granted, the whole debate is inherently flawed from the start (the initial question is not equally worded). The choices are:
1) none of the thousands of religions are right
2) I've found it.

It seems to me that the debate should have been between:
1) The fact that there are so many religion implies none of them will probably be right.
2) The fact that there are so many religion does not imply that all of them are wrong.

Either way, the quesiton isn't which religion is true, but rather - could any religion be right. Many people will not look for a true religion until they believe one could exist. And many have stopped looking because they're convinced there's nothing to find.

And yet, although the people on the "I've found it" side of the argument are likely from various denominations (and likely various religions), they'll all band together to say, "The fact that there are so many religion does not imply that all of them are wrong" Why?

 
illuminatus555
Mar 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: asylum Show

You are just a pseudo-atheist wanabe who doesn't even understand the essence of Science. Science is not a religion, it's a methodology. Atheism is not a religion by the same premise that not collecting stamp is not a hobby.

 
illuminatus555
Mar 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: asylum Show

I just find it very hard to believe you would even say "science is the only religion I can belive in"

Misleading that word can be especially when used in that context.

If you don't consider science as a religion then why equate science as a religion in your first post? I am sure you can find a word better suited in this context.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

atheism christianity debate god islam religion Abortion atheism atheist athiesm athiest BBC belief Beliefs bible buddhism catholic catholicism Christ christian christianity christians Christmas church Creation creationism death debate enlightenment ethics evil Evolution faith god heaven Hell hinduism Islam islamic jesus jewish judaism logic love morality mosque muslim opression peace philosophy politics Pope religion Religon Salvation satan Science scientology sex sin society supernatural terrorism Theology Truth VanCam violence war world