An exhaustive evaluation of religion - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

An exhaustive evaluation of religion
in Religion

Religion, in it's total scope is the theoretical assumptioms of a particular cultures view of a god, not God.

Buddhism is a religion of philosophy.

Sayings of bhudda that contradicts any sense of reality and that contradict his precepts.

These contradictions are not insuntaed, they are actual lexical contradictions.

Contradictions:

The mind is everything. What you think you become.

The statement insinuates that you can trancend total reality, therefore insinuating his own reality is not subject to how someone changes reality. 
1.therefore, you as a person can become greater than the religion or philosiphy of the religion.

We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.

1. The statement assumees thoughts are, not the person

2. therefore, a person does not have thoughts.

Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others.

1.Insinuates salvation
2. Insinuates a consequence, damnation 

If we fail to look after others when they need help, who will look after us?

 1.A direct violation of his previous statement

No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path. 

1. A direct violation of offering assistance in suffering

The root of suffering is attachment.

1. A direct violation of his pretense

Two completely contradictory statements

Stop, stop. Do not speak. The ultimate truth is not even to think. 

1. Bhuddha asserts no one should think therefore invalidating his entire precept of the mind and effecting the possibility of change

We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.

1. Contradicts two pretenses and cancels out both pretensesWhatever precious jewel there is in the heavenly worlds, there is nothing comparable to one who is Awakened.
1.Bhuddha insinuates his lack of knowledge of the heavenly words and contradicts the theory of nirvana 2.Bhuddha, insinuates to disregard the heavens and to ignore them3.Bhuddha insinuates not to pursue laws in accordance with the heavens4.Bhuddha statement relects that he does not place importance on the heavenly world or laws5.Therefore bhuddha is against the law to obey the heavens and the God of people.6.bhuddha places no importance on heaven7. Bhuddha insinuates there is something greater than heaven and what's in heaven I.E GodTherefore,Bhuddha as an act of ommision states he assumes he is greater than God and that he is God's enemy
Our theories of the eternal are as valuable as are those which a chick which has not broken its way through its shell might form of the outside world.
1.Bhuddha suggests theory's are important not knowledge, and invalidates the importance of his own theory's while asserting any contradictory theory is valid, therefore invalidating his own.In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.
Bhuddha contradicts himself and Thermakes Distinctions, has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it.
More distinctionsTo be idle is a short road to death and to be diligent is a way of life; foolish people are idle, wise people are diligent.Bhuddha disqualifies his own statements based on the assertion of his precepts
The rest of the post in a following post.Let me post the entirety of the post before commenting.
Jesus is God.
ZeusAres42



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Hinduism category's

    1. Spiritual atheism

    2. Spiritual Monotheism

    3. Spiritual polytheism
    4. Bhuddhism

    All aspects of the religion contradict the religion itself, as aspects of the religion oppose other aspects of the religion.

    god's rely on other god's.

    The fallacy asserts god's are reliant beings, not all powerfull or all capable of doing what other false god's are capable of doing.

    Hinduism is so ridiculously differential that no aspect of the religion can be used to effectively define it.

    hinduism rather is a multitude of religions as a religion insinuating  that Hinduism asserts religion is a fallacy.

    Hinduism lacks orthodoxy. Therefore Hinduism and it's truth are not particular.

    Any contradiction is assumed equally as truth.

    Bahá'í Faith 
    Insinuates religions are all valid and any religious premise that contradicts their own religion is asserted by bahis to be valid which invalidates all religious precepts that are contrary to a religious diversity.

    and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers"


    Sura 3:54


    1. The false god of islam lies.

    Logical fallacy

    2. God ( Yahweh) has no reason to deceive his creations.

    3.Someone who values dishonesty does not have honest intentions and can not be God.

    4.The quran is not a holy book. There is nothing holy about dismembering, beheading, or killing another person nor would the creator of human being request the death of what he created.omniscience would define that someone who knows what a person is going to wind up doing would simply not create such a person if rebellion is not tolerated.

    5. The philosiphy of the religion of Muslims is murder, and deceitfullness.

    6.The false god of islam states that he is deceitful beyond all others. The false god allah declares that it's proud of the fact that it is capable of being the greatest of liers.

    7.Logically, If someone declared they were fond of lieng and prided themselves on lieng they would most undoubtably have a lack of interest in honesty or the truth.so wouldn't it be obvious that they would then deceive people about what is True?

    8.It should be apparently obvious, How much is true about allahs claim about being a god if when allahs deceitful? It wouldn't bother such a personality to lie about it's lack of authority nor it's title.

    9.Infact someone who says they are wholefully deceitful can not be trusted nor insinuate they are being honest.such is a contradiction. If anyone said they are proud of the fact they lie but they are telling you the truth, such a contradiction determines they are indeed lieng about the truth.

    10.Considering allahs not concerned with the truth, or being honest himself with anyone but delights in his dishonesty with others how does such a false god hold anyone accountable on account of his deception being a moral failure, on part of the person it deceived while also considering,  why would such a being be concerned if anyone cared if the quran was legitimate, which it's not when it itself is not concerned with the truth?

    11.The fact and answer is because allah is satan. The proto-hebrew word for allah is satan.muslims have no problem with deceiving others themselves. Jesus is Lord. Not allah , allah's a false god I reject.

    12.This means the false god allah would rather lie about the truth, the Bible, and the spiritual reality of the world. Such an extreme disinterest for honesty, makes the false god just that. A false god and liar.

    13.A god could not suggest people should be honest while being dishonest with the people he expects honesty from. allahs a FALSE God I reject.

    14. Therefore the false god lied to a false prophet.

    Judaism:

    This is hard evaluation.

    Mormonism

    Mormonism crosses a threshold of aliens and the Bible and an idiot named Joseph Smith who read and wrote comics.

    Universal Unitarianism

    Asserts that its not based on truth as it asserts the religion is
    free and responsible search for truth and meaning".

    That would determine anyone who search's for truth or meaning is religious

    Rastafarianism

    Contradictory because God Jesus came to die primarily for brown Jews.

    Taoism

    Taoism is completely philosiphy and has nothing to do with existence or creation.

    Yoruba religion

    The entire false religion is based on destiny or fate

    The majority of all other religions are

    1. Pantheon's whose false gods are reliant on eachother

    2.philosiphies without a god.

    3. Scientific spiritualism

    Jesus is Lord.

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 500 Pts
    edited September 4
    This isn't even an argument, and it's an insult to actual genuine religious people include those genuine Christians that take their faith seriously.

    In short, this is no more than a retarded attempt to promote some cult-like medieval Christian sect. It's akin to extremism mentality going on here. Op = either insane or on some level of retardation.
    PlaffelvohfenjesusisGod777

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • @ZeusAres42

    It's basing whether or not such is applied to reality based on the statements of a person. If a person's statements conflict with previous statements they are found to be lieng.

    Feeling has nothing to do with a logical assessment.

    You being upset or mad because someone is evaluating what someone has said is ignoring contradictions that are presented as a basis for the religion.

    Anything anyone asserts is open to scrutiny.

    A debate is an argument.

    The argument stated is that religion is fallacy because it is not based on real world information.

    Contradictions assess that something's not genuine.

    As if people's belief justify what they believe in as genuine.

    Fallacy.

    You get docked for any sense in your counter argument and receive a big fat F.

    Jesus is Lord.

    There is one actual cause of the universe. You don't get to choose.

    To ignore reality is FALLACY, a logically failing argument.

    You need a lecture on scrutiny. It seems I hit a nerve because your religion is fallacious.

    It's because your religion is fallacious that it is, not because it's reality fault for making you realize it.

    Jesus is Lord.
    ZeusAres42
  • Second arguments are not based on your level of comfort.

    An argument is controversial, therefore arguments were never intended to make someone comfortable.

    Do not participate in a debate because your uncomfortable.

    Debates are not based on emotional appeal, they are meant to scrutinized the logic of an assertion.

    Religion is stated to be THEORETICAL, an assertion, therefore it falls under scrutiny.

    To suggest people shouldn't determine what's true by a process of elimination suggests to failed every test you have ever taken because you thought it would be rude to invalidate one of the supposed answers.

    You do realise your suppose to answer questions, not act like there is know way of knowing something.

    How much you know is based on your personal level of expierience or information.

    Don't offer a debate a fallacious emotional appeal as a way to counter reasoning , zues.

    Jesus is Lord.
    ZeusAres42
  • You can type fallacy all you want all that means is your assertion of my statement being fallacy is fallacy.

    Either refute what I said as to the reasons it was illogical based on a logical argument or stop making in an evaluations and suggesting something is fallacy without stating a logical reason.

    Anyone who suggests something's fallacy without a logical argument has no reason to avoid stating a counter-argument.

    Jesus is Lord.
  • The false god krishna (satan)

    So another fallacy of religion,
    Suggests a blue person named krishna was killed by a hunter who had mistaken a blue man for a brown deer.

    Jesus is Lord

    the sleeping Krishna for a deer, a hunter named Jara shoots an arrow that fatally injures him. Krishna forgives Jara and dies. While some believe that Krishna died at the age of 125, the other set of people on the basis of research done on his life say that he was 88 when he died.

    Additionally no one thought it was important to document the blue false god s age.

    So it is made aware to the public, krishna was all knowing.

    If it's insinuated he died because he was asleep logically an all knowing person would never fall asleep knowing that if they did they would have been killed by a hunter while they were unasleep unaware of what could happen.

    Jesus Is Lord only.

    Religion is fallacy. Fallacy asserts contradiction and contradiction outlines that something is false, not in accordance with the Truth.

    Yahweh said he is the truth the way and the life and no man comes unto the father except through him.

    Jesus is Lord and God.
  • @jesusisGod777

    Maybe Buddhism is a true philosophy, after all they seek a state of nothingness, and it would seem that if they continue on this path that they are on that's what they will get in the end, nothing...  :grin:  the sound of one hand clapping....
    Sand
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 500 Pts
    edited September 5
    The error in your reasoning in its entirety is that you keep trying to downplay all religious beliefs and yet at the same time you keep trying to up-play Jesus Christ as being Lord which is a religious concept; and a religious concept that rests on pure faith; no solid, empirical or objective evidence. In short, you're making no sense what so ever.
    jesusisGod777

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • VaulkVaulk 639 Pts
    How exactly is a single page of information considered an "Exhaustive evaluation" of anything?  
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @ZeusAres42

    Base a logical argument.

    You haven't don't so.

    Apparently you haven't realized there is no counter-argument for a statement that is logical.

    There are 4 unary operations:

    • Always true
    • Never true, unary falsum
    • Unary Identity
    • Unary negation

    Logical trueEdit

    The output value is always true, regardless of the input value of pLogical TruepTTTFT

    Logical falseEdit

    The output value is never true: that is, always false, regardless of the input value of pLogical FalsepFTFFF

    Logical identityEdit

    Logical identity is an operation on one logical value p, for which the output value remains p.The truth table for the logical identity operator is as follows:Logical IdentityppTTFF

    Logical negationEdit

    Logical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true if its operand is false and a value of false if its operand is true.The truth table for NOT p (also written as ¬pNpFpq, or ~p) is as follows:Logical Negation.p¬pTFFT





    There are 16 possible truth functions of two binary variables:

    Truth table for all binary logical operatorsEdit

    Here is an extended truth table giving definitions of all possible truth functions of two Boolean variables P and Q:[note 1]

    pq F NOR  ¬p  ¬q XOR NAND AND XNORq1011p1213OR14T15
    TTFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTT
    TFFFFFTTTTFFFFTTTT
    FTFFTTFFTTFFTTFFTT
    FFFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFT
    Com
    L idFFTTT,FTF
    R idFFTTT,FTF

    where

    T = true.
    F = false.
    The Com row indicates whether an operator, op, is commutative - P op Q = Q op P.
    The L id row shows the operator's left identities if it has any - values I such that I op Q = Q.
    The R id row shows the operator's right identities if it has any - values I such that P op I = P.[note 2]

    The four combinations of input values for p, q, are read by row from the table above. The output function for each p, q combination, can be read, by row, from the table.

    Key:

    The following table is oriented by column, rather than by row. There are four columns rather than four rows, to display the four combinations of p, q, as input.

    p: T T F F
    q: T F T F

    There are 16 rows in this key, one row for each binary function of the two binary variables, p, q. For example, in row 2 of this Key, the value of Converse nonimplication ('{\displaystyle \nleftarrow }nleftarrow') is solely T, for the column denoted by the unique combination p=F, q=T; while in row 2, the value of that '{\displaystyle \nleftarrow }nleftarrow' operation is F for the three remaining columns of p, q. The output row for {\displaystyle \nleftarrow }nleftarrow is thus

    2: F F T F

    and the 16-row[4] key is


    Apparently you haven't realized if you make a false statement it's going the result is it's a false statement.


    Your not vary good with variables however.

    I've realized evil people have evil intentions. 

    I don't fictionalize evil intent or evil intensions.

    You do because you intend to deceive, therefore your evil.

    If you think I would betray the actual God Jesus Christ your nutts. never going to happen.

    I have pictures of bill Nye destroying biblical archeology.

    You disregard evidence.

    I'm more than willing to die for what I know is true.

     1. All religious people KNOWINGLY defy God ( Jesus Christ my Lord.)

    It doesn't take much to realize if you had to carve a statue than what you carve is not real.

    People use the same wood they make to carve a statue for firewood.

    God states you worship at an alter. No images.

    1. The same God (Yahweh) that applies to one person in application applies to everything.

    How do I break this down to you.

    For the sake of teaching you about reality,
    I'm going to use a simple logical examniation for truth.

    You can not handle complex equations.

    Most of you have no grasp of science and suggest that scientific assertions apply to something they don't.

    So you need a simple way to understand.

    Truth is true

    Fiction is false

    You've never heard of propositional logic.

    Propositional logic is easily used to determine fallacy.

    P or q
    not
    p and q

    You suggest p and q .

    If p and q are contradictory than p and q can not be true only p or q.

    If p and q are asserted to be equally true when they are equally contradictory they are worth false as the variable determines (U)P or (U)Q over P or Q.


    Therefore it is either p or q

    If it is suggested (U)P or (U) q then the statements can not be asserted as true. Therefore of anything contradicts either p or q and is true both p and q are false.

    If p contradicts q then logically you use another system of logic

    In mathematical logic, a predicate is commonly understood to be a Boolean-valued function P: X→ {true, false}, called the predicate on X. 

    Logical implication
    pqp ⇒ q
    TTT
    TFF
    FTT
    FFT

    The truth table associated with the material conditional if p then q (symbolized as p → q) is as follows:

    Material conditional
    pqp → q
    TTT
    TFF
    FTT
    FFT

    It may also be useful to note that p ⇒ q and p → q are equivalent to ¬p ∨ q.


    It's called discrete math

    If you assert P and then violate the condition that P is true while asserting Q it's called logical inequality.

    Anyone who asserts that P is Q and Q is P asserts a logical inequality and determines they neither know if p or q is true therefore p or q can not both be true as either would determine the other false.

    When someone expresses a logical inequality however they can not suggest either P or Q is known.


    true
    false
    {\displaystyle \land }land 
    AND (logical conjunction)
    {\displaystyle \lor }lor 
    OR (logical disjunction)
    {\displaystyle {\underline {\lor }}}underline lor 
    XOR (exclusive or)
    {\displaystyle {\underline {\land }}}underline land 
    XNOR (exclusive nor)
    {\displaystyle \Rightarrow }Rightarrow {\displaystyle \Leftarrow }Leftarrow 
    conditional "then-if"
    {\displaystyle \Leftrightarrow }Leftrightarrow 
    biconditional "ifif-and-only
    If

    Therefore only true statements if they are true are true.

    Any statement that is in conflict with statements that are from the same person determine the person's statements are false.

    I'm not going to explain it you because your going to get lost

    For sake of argument

    if you suggest something definedis defined by P(x) as {x | P(x)}, and is the set of objects for which P is true.

    Then you can not say

    -P(x) as {x| -P (x)} for which {x| P(x)  • - {x| -P(x)}  is True as they are directly conflicting sets.

    For instance, {x | x is a natural number less than 4} is the set {1,2,3}.

    If t is an element of the set {x | P(x)}, then the statement P(t) is true.


    Your suggesting which is fallacy that  P(t) + P(f) + P(tf) = P(t)



    Apparently no one taught you there is an actual difference between what is true and what is false.

    Any combination of statements that contain conflicting views, are contradictory.

    Jesus is Lord.


    ZeusAres42
  • @Vaulk

    Exhaustive evaluations don't need to be long they simply need to evaluate.

    1 a summary total of what's being evaluated. Exhaustive in the sense your implying is that I'd waste going over ever single word that was ever spoken by someone to create an exhaustive examaniation.

    Exhaustive is defined as
    complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.

    That's the definition Merriam Webster uses.

    Jesus is Lord.


    ZeusAres42
  • @ZeusAres42

    So you realize since true and false statements are based on variables you can predict whose wrong in an argument based on the variables in a truth table.

    You don't make sense.

    Who uses an emotional appeal in an argument?

    Jesus is Lord.
    ZeusAres42
  • @ZeusAres42

    So you realize since true and false statements are based on variables you can predict whose wrong in an argument based on the variables in a truth table.

    You don't make sense.

    Who uses an emotional appeal in an argument?

    Jesus is Lord.
    So just more woo-woo from you then, and no argument what so ever?

    Maybe learn how logic, and argumentation works, then come back in a few years, and then maybe you might be able to put a coherent argument together.

    FYI, each time you give me a fallacy for no reason, or at least no good reason, I'll just return the favour a few times back.

    The mere calling out of fallacies is meaningless as well as the fallacies you make up which are also meaningless. Take a course in logic and argumentation would be my advice unless you're just here to troll. Anyway, good luck with getting on with other people here; you're gonna need it!
    jesusisGod777

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • Talking about logical arguments having made none?

    That's not logical.

    You get - 2 

    Zeus=
    ZeusAres42
  • Jesus Is Lord
    ZeusAres42
  •  :dizzy:  <------- when you talk about logic with zumba classes
    ZeusAres42
  • Talking about logical arguments having made none?

    That's not logical.

    You get - 2 

    Zeus=
    Lol. I wouldn't even call what you say is an argument let alone a logical one. You clearly have no idea how logic and argumentation works and you demonstrate that with every sentence.  

    You would do well to take my advice about learning this stuff a bit more before you make yourself look any more foolish than you already do.
    PlaffelvohfenjesusisGod777

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • @ZeusAres42

    So you realize since true and false statements are based on variables you can predict whose wrong in an argument based on the variables in a truth table.

    You don't make sense.

    Who uses an emotional appeal in an argument?

    Jesus is Lord.
    Where is Jesus lord too?
    jesusisGod777
  • @John_C_87

    Jesus IS LORD because YAHWEH JESUS IS.

    Look up the definition of reality.

    It excludes the possibility of interpretation.

    Jesus is Lord.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • So what you are saying is Jesus has killed in battle to become a Lord? Or Jesus is your Lord. GOD is Lord. Jesus is Jesus Christ and is not capable to hold a united state of Lord like GOD. Its just not possible. Though in honest truth he can be your Lord and you can share that truth with others it simply is not a United State.

    @jesusisGod777
  • In other words, all the religions in the world are false, but your religion is true, correct? We have been hearing this kind of rhetoric for as long as humanity existed, yet the religions still constantly change and evolve, and there seems to be no end to it. Chances are, in 2000-3000 years Christianity will be a forgotten religion, just like, say, Ancient Greek polytheistic religion is nowadays, and there will still be people believing in something else and absolutely sure that they are the only ones who know the truth.

    As an independent non-religious observer, I see that all religions have one thing in common: they are based on assumptions not grounded on real world evidence. As a person with a mathematical mind, I cannot accept anything that derives from the initial set of axioms not based on reality. In mathematics, we do have a lot of somewhat arbitrary axioms, but they always have some basis on what we observe around us; for example, the axiom stating that parallel lines never intersect is based on the intuitively obvious truth, and while it cannot be strictly proven per se, it does seem reasonable based on our observations. On the other hand, say, your religion is based on the axiom that there is a being called "god" - one that has no real world evidence suggesting that this axiom should be accepted.

    A lot of your arguments go in circles: "My religion is right because it says it is right". This is not how logic works, however. You can only judge a statement on its own merit, and whoever made that statement should not be a factor in your analysis.
    Plaffelvohfenethang5ZeusAres42
  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    edited September 10
    @MayCaesar

    Your comments here can easily be shown to be illogical.

    >...for example, the axiom stating that parallel lines never intersect is based on the intuitively obvious truth, and while it cannot be strictly proven per se, it does seem reasonable based on our observations.

    So for this axiom, you have no evidence, but you accept it anyway.

    >On the other hand, say, your religion is based on the axiom that there is a being called "god" - one that has no real world evidence suggesting that this axiom should be accepted.

    Yet you require "real world evidence" for this axiom. Why?

    First, there is real world evidence, you simply reject it. The very existence of the universe and the need for a first cause all are evidence of the existence of God.

    That you reject it does not mean it doesn't exist.

    Second, an easy experiment with parallel lines will show how your bias has crippled your thinking.

    Take 2 infinite lines that intersect, A and B, and try to make them parallel by straightening one of the lines, line B, on an axis. It isn't possible. No matter how much you turn line B, it still intersects line A. The intersection just moves further and further away, but always intersects.

    Thus when you said,

    >...the axiom stating that parallel lines never intersect is based on the intuitively obvious truth...

    It is intuitive yes, but is not truth. 

    You are just assuming it is truth based subjectively on experience.

    Whereas the theist is assuming truth based objectively on logic.

    Everything must have a cause, with the first cause being God.

    >...one that has no real world evidence suggesting that this axiom should be accepted.

    Axioms are accepted  for only 2 reasons,  Axioms have no real world evidence, but appear to be logically true, and every belief must begin at some point that cannot be regressed, thus axioms precedes every truth claim.

    Real world evidence has no bearing on why they are accepted.
  • I have to admit, to ME trying to "evaluate religion" IS exhausting. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch