The Instigator
Leaning
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Keplor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is religion irrational? Continuation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2020 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 123787
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Leaning

Pro

Continuation of Is religion irrational? Debate, That was unfinished.
If anyone votes, I'd appreciate it, If you read the earlier debate that was unfinished, Before voting on this one.
Some parts of this debate are related to the previous one.


Facts exist yah, But I maintain that one's belief in God 'is a subjective and personal experience. I 'don't need to prove God's existence. Only why it can be a rational belief.
Whether a belief is rational or not, Does not depend on whether it is true. It rests on what 'reasons a person possess to believe it true, Or untrue. What makes it 'Apparently 'True.
To hold a belief rationally, You must have reason to do so.
Additionally, The rationality of holding a belief, Rests on an individuals goals.

So for my round three rationality of belief in God,
I'll argue for God as truth.
And by reason of goals.

"To believe is to think with assent. " - St. Augustine
Belief, I think, Is not as blind as you paint it our to be. After all, Any 'rational belief, Only comes about, For reasons, For evidences, For articles that support that belief.
You paint opinion as though people do not have reasons, Logic, For why they support their views.
But very well, If the goodness of the United States of America is only an opinion, Then there is no need for either of us to address the goodness (Or lack thereof) of God.
We shall only concern ourselves with his existence.

People who believe in God,
can vary in a similar nature, To people who believe a room is 20 degrees.
If an individual is visited by a divine or "original revelation", Such as the prophets whom God spoke to, And ordered to carry out his will. Beholding a talking burning bush, Jesus rising from the dead, Miracles. . .
What would such an occurrence be, But direct proof?
When a person views a thermostat, You said
"Then I have much better reason to believe that it is"
Surely individuals who experience "original revelations" would qualify as having rational reason, Or at 'least much better reason to believe.
Though you deny the thermometer, In God's side of the argument. I make the assumption that you agree belief in God, Would reasonable, To a person whom had experienced "original revelations"
Thus does the Debates title of
"Is religion irrational? "
Fall under
"personal belief as if it were a subjective matter. "
Because it is.

On Revelation
Another form of revelation is
"traditional revelation. " which is even more dependent upon the working of reason. For "traditional revelation. " is dogma, History, The God of ones fathers.
It is why it is rational to believe one's parents, That it is 20 degrees. Assuming we're speaking of a family with a loving and trustful history.
If God or the temperature is not available by means of "original revelation". The thermometer being broken, Or one's parents tell him the thermometer is broken.
God, Or the temperature is reached by ancillary arguments. A person speaks of 'reasons for Gods existence, Or reasons a person is hypothermic.
Whether they're Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological, Historical, Modern accounts of miracles or near death experiences of the after, And so on, Even when they have flaws, They are 'not irrational. Belief and understanding, Is instead reached by their fitting into an individuals logic, That has been built throughout his life by direct experiences and reasonings.
Because again, Using 'your definition of what is needed to hold a belief 'rationally
"By definition, To hold a belief rationally, You must have reason to do so. "
Perhaps this is my being overly 'technically correct using your definition, But I've heard once that Technically correct is more of a Logical term. And logic 'is one of the requirements you set.

On the specific type of God we mean. . .
According to a website pewforum - When Americans Say They Believe in God, What Do They Mean?
Nine-in-ten Americans believe in a higher power, But only a slim majority believe in God as described in the Bible
And the site goes on to talk about various percentages of people who believe this or that in certain aspects here and there, But the point 'I'm getting at, Is the belief at all. Per this debate, It's not necessary to prove any 'one God, Just God.
A person doesn't need to know Canadas culture, Population, GDP, Or various other aspects to possess the understanding that it exists.

An argument for the concept of God
Even you, Surely, Agree that one can believe in the concept of God, Else how could we discuss it?

On ancillary evidence
The 'feeling of it being 20 degrees or not, Is part of evidence, And as such play a part, Though I would not say it is reasonable to think one can 'feel the temperature to a science (With out training) It remains part of what one would use to determine the truth of the matter (Temperature)
Important beliefs and senses that individuals possess, Likewise plays a role in their determining the 'truth of a matter (From their perspective)
Love, Understanding of morality, A sense of beauty, Happiness, Suffering, An on.

On Evolution and vaccinations. . .
Does the average person really understand them beyond some kind natural selection on a grand scale?
I won't deny the scientists do.
But it would make Evolution and vaccinations rather irrational for people to believe, By their limited understanding, And faith in scientists.
"By definition, To hold a belief rationally, You must have reason to do so. "
But science and religion cannot be compared, You might say.
But they can, For they are subjectively experienced. Which is a large part of my argument.
As people have learned to trust scientists from their practical proven successes.
Many people have trusted their religions by their practical proven successes.
Religious practices has long encouraged the well-being of individuals, Families, Communities, Law, Has seemed in line with moral ways of life, Brought comfort, Joy, Meaning.
Which leads me to

Pascals Wager
I don't suggest this as 'proof, Or a path that a person with no evidence would rationally follow, But it adds rationality to the path of he who possesses personal evidence.

Pastafarianism
Is it rational for an individual to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Sure, In a sense, Why not?
If your goal is religious freedom, Making yourself happy, Understanding that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real.
It makes sense for a person to believe in the concept.

And last piece I have is the concept of government
A common idea of God, I assert, Is that he has no form or shape, Yet possesses power, Commands and controls. Appoints prophets and Kings over the people.
Is this not a nature of government?
After all, If one goes to the USA and finds a government official, Or government building, Would one say they have found the 'government?
No, They've only found a person who speaks 'for government, And a holy place of where they do it's work.
An idea of God and Government, Exist at least. Is demonstrable by their effects upon the world.
Can lead to a positive, Or negative path, Depending on how they are used.

Apologies to Quora user
Yashas Shukla
For lifting and probably butchering his government and God thought.
Keplor

Con

I'm supposed to be Pro (i. E. Yes, Religion is irrational) but it doesn't matter as long as we know what we are discussing.

1) You do not need to outright prove that God exists, But you must give me a reason why it is rational to believe in such an extraordinary concept. As of now, I have yet to hear a good reason which supports the existence of God in this debate or at all for that matter. As far as I am aware, A rational reason for God's existence has yet to be presented, And therefore, It is irrational to believe that he exists. If by resting on the individual's goal you mean guiding morality and other presumed positive effects of religion this does not make belief in God rational. For example, I could make a moral system right now that is a better moral guide than any religion. For any religion that follows the Bible, I would just take the Bible and remove all of the verses about treating women as property and keeping slaves such as Exodus 21 and for fun replace God with a purple dragon. There we have it, A less ambiguous moral guide that couldn't lead someone to believe that slavery is okay or women are property as the Bible has historically done and in some parts of the world continues to do. Is it now more rational to believe in this system? If so, Why is it rational for Christians to continue their beliefs instead of my purple dragon, And if not, Then the individual's goal don't matter. Purposefully deluding yourself for a false sense of security is not rational, It's neurotic and delusional.

2-3) I do not paint belief in this view, Again, I would describe the word faith this way. I do think that we should be taking about the existence of God more than his goodness, Because goodness has nothing to do with the rationality of believing in him, But if you have reasons why he exists, That would make the belief more rational.

4) The fact that someone has claimed to see something is not good enough for another person to believe it, Although it seems like you were more closely talking about if someone saw revelation directly from God, Would it then be rational am I correct? Well it would not exactly be rational, No. People who use arguments from personal experience sometimes act as though they are infallible, And that their personal experience takes priority over all known evidence. It would not be rational to believe in God because you think you saw an angel just as it was irrational for people to believe that they saw a flying saucer, Bigfoot, Or the any given cryptid. If it is rational to believe in God this way, It is also rational to believe in dragons, Bigfoot, Reincarnation, And anything else you want to throw in there. This video is a good one about arguments from personal experience: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=i48zNH_olps it's pretty simple and explains everything pretty well.

5) I did tell you that my definition was incomplete for the sake of simplicity in the previous response. The same logic applies, If your parents tell you that a far fetched claim with no evidence to support it is true, It is irrational to believe them. This seems intuitive to me. If my dad told me that Bigfoot was real I would ask him why he thought so, Not just accept his claim because he is my father. It would be irrational to do otherwise.

6) Yeah I agree.

7) You can believe in God I've seen people do it. I used to do it. I now believe it is irrational to do so.

8) Yeah my analogy wasn't very good. A better one is the Elvis analogy used by Sam Harris: https://youtu. Be/zn_i3RxGGTk or again, Bigfoot. "I can feel that Bigfoot is real in my heart" is not evidence for his existence.

9) The words faith and trust are used strangely and interchangeably here in my opinion. It depends on definitions which you use, But I have no faith in science, But I trust many scientists. The same goes for other rational people who get vaccinations. Just as I trust that the people who designed a plane I fly on based on their proven success in the real world, I trust vaccinations. I am not an expert on how every element within a vaccine will affect me, However they have been proven to work and to not regularly have negative consequences. If I am wrong about this (or God) I would love to know so, But no one has given a reason why the general scientific consensus and myself are wrong, And the burden of proof is on them, So I'm sticking to my conviction for now. I do understand evolution enough to say it is true, Because when you get down to it, It's pretty simple to grasp enough of it to tell it's true. The faith placed in religion is not the same as the trust placed in science, As this faith has not consistently made empirically true predictions about the real world or been statistically proven. Your perceived effects of religion on the world do not make the belief rational. My above religion I created seems like a better alternative to any religion out there if we're only looking at usefulness and if not, I could just reform it indefinitely until it's the best religion (so long as we are not looking at proof and only utility).

Pascal's Wager:
Frankly, This argument has been thoroughly debunked. One example: I just made up the fact that you have to believe in Bigfoot or he'll kill you in a mysterious way and then send you to a lake of fire and infinite punishment after you die. If you believe, You'll be sent to eternal and infinite enjoyment. Belief in Bigfoot is now equally valid according to Pascal's Wager. This also applies to similar religions and an infinite number of concepts. These rules and definitions do not make belief in God rational, We must first have evidence.

Pastafarianism
You can have all of those things without believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Did you imply that you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster while understanding that he is not real? Did you imply that God is not real? If you want me to elaborate on my definition, I would say that it is irrational to believe in something you know to be false. Otherwise you're just following the rules, But you are not religious. At that point you might as well just say that you are following a moral code based on a certain religion. I don't kill people, But that doesn't make me a follower of Jesus because he said we shouldn't kill.

The fact that religion can be used for good does not make it rational. It can also be used for bad. Actual things that are true can be used for the same good. You don't have to prove that God exists, But if you don't give a reason why it's rational to believe in Him, Then as far as the debate is concerned, It isn't.

Do you have a reason that religion or belief in God is rational aside from the utility of it? I do not consider belief in what may or may not be a useful concept to make it rational, Because a better alternative is apparent.

Side note: People have told me that I type in a way that makes me sound like I'm being rude so sorry if I did that, I didn't mean to.
Debate Round No. 1
Leaning

Pro

I'm supposed to be Pro
. . . . . Blast. . . . How irritating for me, To only notice now. Ah well.

Given the beliefs/values/ideas, That I 'infer that you have. I'd think it rather irrational for 'you to be religious. Unless some of them changed.
Or be irrational for 'me to be religious, Given 'my beliefs/values/ideas. Unless some of them changed.

Hm. I don't really have any 'new arguments here I think. Rest of what I say in this round ought to be me arguing what you said in the previous round.

I don't think that forced utilitarianism is really the only answer, In regards to goals.
While I'm willing to suppose that some moral system could be made a better moral guide than any religion.

If a fellow said he wanted to play baseball, Because it was fun.
And some other gent, Noted that the fellow had better legs than arms, Always did the best in soccer, Said
"Fellow, With legs like yours, You could be a soccer star, Win every game. If happiness be your goal, Surely following a baseball career would be 'irrational. For your happiness can be gained to a greater extent in soccer. In baseball, You'll never make it to the majors. Failure is assured there. "

'I think most people would say that choosing baseball, Because it makes one happy, To be a reasonable enough decision. While understanding that there is more to that decision than 'just the goal of being happy. Likewise, Religion does not contain 'only a single variable for people choosing it.

As for the moral code, People a number of religious people 'already seem to interpret the Bible in fashions that seem the most reasonable, 'to them.
If some bloke was running around (Modern world) USA mistreating women, Keeping slaves, Stoning adulterers, All because that's what the Bible told him. Even other religious people would find him rather mad.

Unless one has reason to trust a person, Or reasons why their given experience would be convincing. It 'would be a bit irrational for an individual to believe another, Purely based upon anecdotes. But the reason is in the details of a situation. Not simply it's bald premise.
I'm extraordinarily rusty on the Bible, But I remember bits.
To 'me, Even religious people are capable of incredulity, Of doubt, And the surety of their reason.
Gideon was one such person, Who tested God three times I believe.
If 'I heard some otherworldly voice speaking to me. Pretty sure 'my first thought would be, Oh no, I'm going mad, Just like my crazy uncle.
Even if I were to die, And go to Heaven or Hell, There are other explanations. I'm so much an atheist myself, I'm sometimes unsure 'any experience could convince me. That I'd be more likely to say, Well it's possible I'm mad, Aliens, In a simulation, And so on.

The Bible had lot's of 'proofs of God, Miracles. Which I imagine the lack of today, Some religious lament.
But I wouldn't say that people's faith and reason for their belief in God has always depended on absolute proof. Instead I think their faith and reason in God, Has always been able to grow, Bloom, By pieces of proof. Side proofs. Life experiences and so on.

If I saw Bigfoot or aliens, I 'might believe in them. But even if it was a good close look, I think I'd have some doubt, And think that it easily could have been some guy in a costume. Or an effect of the shrooms, Or whatever rationalization I take, Other than rationalizing that I 'did see aliens or Bigfoot.

I myself find analogies difficult to use 'exactly. But even if used imperfectly, I think they have value in 'helping a point across. Or at least 'why that person is trying to make a point.

I consider 'feelings a type of evidence, Myself. Simply rather 'weak evidence. What matters more, To 'me. Is 'why one possesses whatever feeling is experienced. I 'don't find it rational to act purely on feelings and intuition. People still need 'reasons. Which I argue the religious have. And in many cases 'personal 'proof. Though their proof does not convince me, And I think them mistaken. I don't think them irrational. Well, I do find some religious people irrational, But not 'because they're religious. Plenty of irrational atheists and areligious people as well.

As the only people to 'know if their religion was as safe as a plane, It seems an unfair analogy. So their proof and reasons must be found elsewhere. Such in how their lives have been guided by religion, Or how it relates in their interpretation of the world.
As for the aforementioned religion, I refer the reader to my earlier statement about baseball and soccer.

Eh, I think Pascals Wager a bit weak myself, But still think it to have some power.
If I told someone to believe in Eribue, The evil demon, Or he'll kill you. A person has no reason to do that really. Since I made up that name ten seconds ago, By randomly smashing some letters on my keyboard.
Bigfoot has been around longer, Have reasonings and weak evidence for their existence. Still be 'more reasonable to believe in them, Than Eribue, The evil demon I made up twenty seconds ago.
The Abrahamic religion is rather ancient, With thousands of years of related history, Evidence, Reasonings. Be more reasonable to believe in that than Bigfoot. Unless one lived in a region where Abrahamic religion did not exist, And instead Bigfoot folklore in great detail did.

I've been told by people, That my view of morality is viewed too much as a personal experience. Perhaps I have a similar problem with religion.

Did you imply that you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster while understanding that he is not real? Did you imply that God is not real?
Yes, And yes.
I don't believe in either.
But it's 'another one of the options I'm suggesting for the rationality of religion. It's 'reason.
I refer you to the baseball and soccer.
I don't think there's 'only one rational view of something.
Accepting that other people have their own makeup, Of 'what they are in mind, Ideals, Experiences, And desires. Allows one to understand that a person and their decisions can be rational, Yet different from your own.

"There's a funny thing that happens when you know the correct answer. It throws you when you get a different answer that's not wrong. " - Dr Bowman

Eh, If a person has faith in the meaning of their religion. And possesses the courage to act upon it, I would call such a person religious.

"Just because you can't see something with your eyes, Or hear it with your ears, Doesn't mean it's not real. Some things exist in here. " (Taps chest)
"In your heart? "
"Sure, If you can believe in Santa in your heart, Then he is real. And so is everything he stands for. Like giving, And selflessness and friendship. "
-Movie quote


I'll list out my reasons given for the rationality of religion in the final round, Probably. I 'think I've said what I can.
I 'was annoyed by 'something in round three of the last debate. But I attribute that now to both thin skin and over-personalization on my part. Rereading it now, I don't really see anything worth getting upset over.
Keplor

Con

It seems as though your reason to believe that religion is rational hinges on it's presumed usefulness and ability to make individuals happy. This just seems to me like a different use of the word "rational" and more of a semantic argument than one about external truth. Believing something which is evidently false, Has more useful alternatives, And leads to unnecessary suffering of others to me would be irrational. From what I could tell you agree that religion possess all three of these qualities, But is still rational. I agree that there are individuals who would be happiest following their religion, But what makes people happy can be completely irrational. For this reason I find the soccer and baseball analogy flawed. It's more like either playing baseball, Or an objectively worse version of baseball in every way that's completely unfair and terrible. I use "objectively" loosely here, But it's about as objective as it can be for something like this. I'm sure you would agree that anyone could make a better moral guide than a holy book like the Bible. Many Christians have already done so by ignoring the parts they don't like.

Sure, If someone in any civilized place on earth claimed that they could own slaves because the Bible said so, Everyone would still think that person is a monster, But you cannot deny that religion is used to justify terrible acts even in the modern era and in western nations. Many Islamic people commit terrible acts supposedly for their God and many Christians push to teach kids blatant lies in schools and deny homosexuals equal treatment for no reason but the old book saying so.

Pascal's Wager doesn't really lend any credibility to God and much less to religion. At this point, We are talking about the probability of the existence of God, Bigfoot, And Eribue the imaginary demon you made up. You mentioned that God has evidence to support his existence and Bigfoot has weak evidence. To my knowledge, There is not evidence for God's existence at all, And much evidence against his existence as every religion describes him. There really isn't any evidence for Bigfoot either unless you count the extinct gigantopithecus which I don't. The fact of the matter is if there is no reason to believe these things in the first place, Then Pascal's Wager doesn't suggest anything useful. The likelihood of something existing does not depend on the religion you live in or what the people around you think. If there is no evidence, There is no reason to believe, And it is irrational. As mentioned before, Making someone feel good isn't a rational reason to believe something in a meaningful sense of the word, Otherwise, Everything is rational and the word becomes a philosophical tautology. I know I link a lot of videos but: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=NKzqQ-IVxGs this ones is pretty good.

Is there any one (or more) piece(s) of evidence you can show that seem to point towards God's existence or any religion being true? I've never heard one that hasn't been disproven and I'm pretty sure that there aren't any solid ones in existence but I'd love to see one and I'd love to be wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
Leaning

Pro

Oh I wouldn't say 'hinges, Myself.
More of a probability game maybe?

'Evidently false, To you and I.
'Evidently not false, To Nine-in-ten Americans believe in a higher power, But only a slim majority believe in God as described in the Bible
pewforum - When Americans Say They Believe in God, What Do They Mean?


While I can't speak for all religions. The form of Christianity, That 'I practiced with my family, I do not believe to lead to the suffering of others.
More useful alternatives?
Supporters of Democracy, Monarchy, Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, "All presume and 'reason their method to be the most 'useful, By dint of their experiences and values.
'Use, Is a subjective term. That depends on 'what a person wants, 'how they want it done, What they have experienced.
It's not what I would 'hinge my argument on.
Returning to that probability I just mentioned. The usefulness of religion, Is simply another drop of water, Before it spills out an answer.
Another 'reason to add credence, Towards a person pointing upon their religion, Speaking of why one should follow or believe.

Sure religion can be used for terrible acts, So can atheism, Communism, Tree hugging, Guns, And Riddick's teacup.
'Just because?
I disagree, Rather it's because of their life experiences and point of view.

Pascal's Wager, Was never meant to be a hinge, Just another drop. Whose size and significance depended on factors such as how likely one believed the religion to be true. (Based upon whatever evidence and reasoning a person possessed)
If I lived in an apartment somewhere and my best and most trusted friend came in, Told me that a wreking ball was coming for my room and I needed to get out. It would be rational to leave the room, Assuming my friend was trusted, Not the type to prank, That I could hear what I 'thought was heavy equipment outside.
Though one could 'also rationalize and reason 'not leaving the room.
Example has flaws, But the drift is there.

Hm, Evidence for it being 'true?
I didn't focus as 'much on that I suppose.
Perhaps due to the debate title being
Is religion irrational?
Rather than
Is religion false? /more likely to be false than true? /Are the claims that Christianity makes about an afterlife and God false?

Hm, I've said what I can I suppose, But late to add more in the final round.
Anywhoo, If anyone votes, Again it'd be appreciated if you take into account the debate that this is a continuation of, And read it as well.
Also should you vote, Pretend that Pro, Says Con, And Con says Pro.
Due to an error I made in creating to the debate.
Keplor

Con

1) It doesn't matter what a majority of people think, If it hasn't met it's burden of proof, It is illogical to believe it.

2) The religion my family follow isn't hurting anyone either as far as I can tell, But as a rule, Religion discriminates. A vast majority of religious people I know hold opinions that, If acted upon, Would lead to the direct oppression of others. Even if it isn't true in the western wold, Religion still continues to inspire needless violence and cruelty. For your other point, Image a version of capitalism that is an exact copy, Except it also states that slavery is okay and gay people should be killed. That is the difference between my fictional religion and Christianity. They are the same except one is needlessly more cruel. Substitute slavery or killing gays with any other moral atrocity that is also in the Bible and that's a valid example too. So I disagree that it is comparable to political systems, Because for all purposes, The moral guide of religion is objectively worse. Even if it wasn't, This wouldn't lend a bit of credence to it's rationality if it has no evident reason to be believed.

3) In the modern world and historically, Religion is used for far worse acts than atheism. I'm not even sure if atheism can be used for terrible acts, Since it is only a lack of belief in God.

4) You say this, Yet you haven't provided a single drop of evidence in the first place. Without any reason at all to believe God exist (which you never provided) Pascal's Wager is entirely useless. It literally is the same for using Bigfoot as a substitute for God in the Wager. Or instead of Christianity's God, Using Islam's God. A famous response to Pascal's Wager is, "an imam could reason just as well". Just because the consequences of Godly Bigfoot are dire if you don't believe in him and he is real give absolutely zero rationality to believing in him unless you can prove, Demonstrate, Or even suggest that he might actually exist, Which no one has ever done for God. Maybe I would leave a building If my buddy told me it was going to be destroyed by a wrecking ball, But that's because I know that wrecking balls exist and they do in fact demolish buildings. If my friend on the other hand told me that a magical, Unidentifiable spirit with no evidence to support his existence and he literally just made up was about to blow up the planet and kill everyone on it, I would be skeptical. When I ask for proof, Imagine if he said "well if you don't leave the planet, You'll be sorry" because this is essentially Pascal's Wager in a nutshell.

5) Without single reason why God is true, Pascal's Wager is useless as explained. Your only other argument for the rationality of religion was it's presumed moral use and utilitarianism. Again, There are objectively better alternatives to achieve happiness for yourself and other that don't involve needless suffering. The utility of religion is just a crippled version of the utility of acting like a secular and moral person. Many religious people just skip the whole religion thing and cut straight to being a secular and moral person for this very reason.

I understand that you're playing devil's advocate at this point as you said in your comments and you don't actually believe what you're typing, But forfeiting is never wrong when you know that you're not correct (no offense). I just don't see an argument that hasn't been debunked and then re-typed in favor of religion's rationality.

Boy, After typing that I am not winning the better conduct vote. Sorry if this one was meaner than the others, But I'm in a hurry to get some stuff done and I don't have time to edit this to be less of a jerk. Anyway that was a fun debate and I'll probably see you on here again later. Good luck in your future debating endeavors my friend.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
Angelina Jolie isn't God though.
And I don't think I 'quite ever tried to rely on one single argument in the debate. One point I tried to make is that many of the reasons become synthesized together. Like a court case, Where a piece of evidence may have other explanations for how it came to be. Is not wholly convincing on it's own. It's only when numerous evidences are brought together that a case becomes convincing.
Be easier to prove, If there was a video, Some DNA, And the perp, Admitting it. But if enough evidence and proofs can be found and bound together. It can be rational for people to believe it, Even without the blatant proofs.

Besides God supposedly had people write down holy books about how much he loved them, Which are accepted within their cultures as true. Where there's smoke, There is fire.

Back to function though.
I make the argument that there have been medical treatments that we have used in the past, Though we did not always understand 'why they helped. When religion is used by people and it appears to help them through difficult times, Bring family together, Or whatever beneficial functions religion has. It seems reasonable to think there's something in it.
(I will research for an actual example of such medical treatment if asked, But right now, I'm just going with vague memory and assumption)

I know you make the argument that people should choose the system that exhibits better function. But I stand by my flawed baseball/soccer analogy.
Or an argument that there's no 'right way to grip a golf club.
Or that certain systems can only work optimally in certain cultures, Or must be grown organically.
Posted by Keplor 2 years ago
Keplor
https://youtu. Be/LpJQ9njMgP8 that link did work
Posted by Keplor 2 years ago
Keplor
Something else useful to add about the usefulness of religion making it rational to believe: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=LpJQ9njMgP8 another video.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
Eh, Last round didn't seem rude at all to me. Though I still disagree that religion has to be irrational.
I was possible 'too broad in my arguments, And neglected the evidence side a fair bit.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
Though I 'did think that youtube video made some decent points regarding Pascals Wager. I think I just didn't use Pascals Wager 'quite the same way.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
I recall the user missmedic, Saying 'something about not requiring beliefs. But I'll have to go find it, To recall 'what was said exactly. All I recall right now mostly, Is it being a thought I hadn't quite considered before. One I disagreed with, But still one I ought to mull over and think about some.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
. . .
If you ever want to just 'talk about religion or some other subject, I'm usually willing for a conversation. And 'on this site an oddly large amount of the time.

When I debate, I think I tend to take whatever stance I accepted, 'more than speak my mind and honest thought. I don't really see the point in forfeiting really, One ought try their best to be the devils advocate, If they picked a side they don't believe in. Seems but rude to forfeit maybe?

Though in this case I 'do think that religion can be rational. As well as irrational.

I probably accepted a bit irrationally myself though. Since I 'do like religious people well enough. And can be thin skinned on their account. Somehow calling religion irrational seems like an insult.
Though I'm glad I accepted. Good to remind myself that there are many religious people who also think it irrational, And think that fine. Though there's also religious people who think it rational.

It was an irritating amount of reading on some other sites, Brushing up on religion a bit.

Ah! , Also, I noticed in the last video, The guy saying
"You can't choose what to believe in. "
"Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy. "
I disagree. CBT for example, Cognitive behavioral therapy. If a person 'wants to change a belief, They can.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
Myself, I think religion can be rational or irrational, Depending on who you are.
Personally I'm an atheist.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
A fair number of religious people, Also share the view that religion is irrational. I think.
Though not all.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.