frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Is There Anything On This Planet More Intellectually Redundant Than Religion?

13»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • maxx said:
    really? rational? how about eistein? there are lots on intelligent people who aare religious; rationality has nothing to do with it. @Nomenclature
    Idk who Eistein is. But I know Einstein was never religious you dufus. But yeah, on another point plenty of religious people are intelligent. Some are even part of Mensa society.
    Nomenclature



  • MayCaesar said:
    @maxx

    I am not sure why you keep engaging with Nom and Dee, the two people on this website who contribute nothing but endless logical fallacies and petty insults. Just put them on ignore and move on: when they stop getting any attention here, they will move elsewhere.

    On the topic, very intelligent people can have blind spots, especially when entire societies have the same spots. Furthermore, some of the most intelligent people in human history went into some of the deepest philosophical rabbitholes in complete detachment from reality: overthinking is a thing, and the more intelligent a person is, the more in danger they are in engaging in it.

    In case of Einstein, the brilliant physicist's work actually measurably suffered from his philosophical errors: for instance, it took him far longer than it should have to accept many ideas of quantum mechanics that begged to be accepted in light of a very concrete evidence, yet did not sit well with "hard determinists" like Einstein. Remember his "the god does not play dice" proclamation? Turns out that the "god", if exists, very much like playing dice, or, at least, acts as if he did. Chances are, were Einstein to live in a less religious world at the time, he would not have made such a blunder setting him a decade behind his contemporaries when it comes to this field.

    In fact, you're all arrogant grandiose fuktards on here and none of you got the balls to admit when you are being an a$$hole and/or wrong. And you ain't an exception May. Your attempt at playing the higher moral ground aint fooling anyone.

    And yeah, I admit I am being an a$$hole rn, and possibly a fuktard too. But least I got an excuse and that is I am to shades to the wind drunk.




  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @ZeusAres42


    In fact, you're all arrogant grandiose fuktards on here and none of you got the balls to admit when you are being an a$$hole and/or wrong

    I think it's pretty obvious when I'm being an assh-le , I enjoy being such as its the deserved reponse to those who refuse to debate fairly on here , regards being wrong it's utterly absurd to even suggest I'm ever wrong LOL 

    If anyone is ever offended by what I say well then they can  take that offence roll it into a long tube shape, drop their pants and shove it up their a-s

    . And you ain't an exception May. Your attempt at playing the higher moral ground aint fooling anyone.

    Well he / she / it  keeps claiming they're always right as they have a degree and that means they know everything 

    And yeah, I admit I am being an a$$hole rn, and possibly a fuktard too. But least I got an excuse and that is I am to shades to the wind drunk.

    That's a state I'm very familiar with in fact an afternoon session is on the cards  , and please never take back what you say with drink on board as its what you genuinely feel so go with it 


  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    the core of religion is a belief in a higher power. That still does not take away that there is much more to it than that. It is you who are separating  weeds from seeds. There is social unity in religion and it is a part of relgion. Just because there are some extremists does not negate the fact that religion itself can be intellectually inspiring to many people. It being a fantasy is no matter. There are many songs and poets and art and so on of a religious nature and is part of religion simply because of that; and just because you can enjoy or not, a religious composition with out knowing or caring if it is religious, does not mean it is not part of religion. Religion itself created such music or there would not be any religious music. If it is of a religious nature then it is part of religion. Yes, believing in a god such as it is, may be a fantasy, but the religious offshoots that it produces is not. A great artist produces a work because of his belief and in that belief, his art is part of religion @MayCaesar
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    Just because there are some extremists does not negate the fact that religion itself can be intellectually inspiring to many people. It being a fantasy is no matter. 

    It's a very large matter. The Reverend Jim Jones managed to convince 909 people to kill themselves due to their belief in this fantasy. The very fact that you are genuinely arguing it is "no matter" when a large group of people have social interactions on the basis of a complete delusion is extremely worrying.  


  • I think maybe you and I been watching a bit too much of Gordon Ramsey.
    Dee



  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    i never stated there are not extremists in religion. There are also many in politics. Just because of such does not change the fact that there are many aspects of religion that are useful intellectually. You are separating the bad from the good and trying to use that to justify your own post. It is like you are saying everyone in a specific country is all bad and that makes their views intellectually useless. As well, your own post is not even about good or bad, now is it? Intellectually redundant. I gave you my examples as to why that is wrong, and yet you still refuse to debate it. @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @maxx
    i never stated there are not extremists in religion. There are also many in politics.

    My post had nothing to do with extremists. It was about the cult mentality at the heart of religion.

    there are many aspects of religion that are useful intellectually.

    There are none. Belief in a delusion is not "useful intellectually." I'm not a smarter person if I believe in the tooth fairy.

    You are separating the bad from the good and trying to use that to justify your own post.

    My post has nothing to do with good or bad so please learn to read.

    As well, your own post is not even about good or bad, now is it?

    Thanks for refuting yourself. I appreciate it.

    Intellectually redundant. I gave you my examples as to why that is wrong

    You gave no examples of anything except how to misread words and misunderstand debate topics. I was patient with you and systematically refuted all of your objections, but the problem is that you have the attitude of a spoilt child, so when somebody debunks something you write you simply stamp your feet and start endlessly repeating yourself.

    Dee
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    the core of religion is a belief in a higher power. That still does not take away that there is much more to it than that. It is you who are separating  weeds from seeds. There is social unity in religion and it is a part of relgion. Just because there are some extremists does not negate the fact that religion itself can be intellectually inspiring to many people. It being a fantasy is no matter. There are many songs and poets and art and so on of a religious nature and is part of religion simply because of that; and just because you can enjoy or not, a religious composition with out knowing or caring if it is religious, does not mean it is not part of religion. Religion itself created such music or there would not be any religious music. If it is of a religious nature then it is part of religion. Yes, believing in a god such as it is, may be a fantasy, but the religious offshoots that it produces is not. A great artist produces a work because of his belief and in that belief, his art is part of religion @MayCaesar
    Everything that is religious in religion must stem from that core. Is music based on the belief in higher power? Does a composer have to keep a higher power in mind to produce something? Obviously not. Does social unity require the society to believe in a higher power? No. All these things exist separately from religion, and then their interaction with religion occurs. You have never challenged this argument; you just keep claiming over and over that all these things are part of religion. I do not know, @maxx, why talking to you always goes like this: you just pretend that only your voice is heard in the room and keep repeating the same few lines, ignoring everyone else's arguments.

    I do not think that religion can be intellectually inspiring to anyone as it is fundamentally anti-intellectual. Spiritually inspiring? Sure. But no one ever says, "I feel like intellectually stimulating myself. This book on economics is too boring, so I will go and read the Torah instead". Religion does not feature a consistent intellectual framework one can study and use to acquire new pieces of knowledge. In fact, it features the exact opposite: to read a religious text and take it seriously, one must purposefully suppress their critical thinking - and deeply religious people often say so plainly and proudly. Faith is negation of logic, and they take pride in being able to have faith. This is as anti-intellectual as it gets.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    again, just thinking religion is not intellectually stimulating to some is but an opinion. How do you know? As well anything that stems from the core of religion, is religious in itself. Certain music is of religious nature. That is part of religion regardless if there are other types of music. If i belong to a gym, then just because they sell weights in the store, does not mean that the weights in the gym are not part of the gym. Intellectually stimulating? How about a dozen people discussing the history of the bible together? Sure others whom are not religious can do so as well, but that doesnt mean its not an intellectual activity for the religious. You are only thinking this through from an atheist point of view. I fail to see where religious activity is not an intellectual activity. It is still all part of religion. How about people who are in a book club who discusses the books they read together? Is that not intellectually apparent even though the books are mere fantasy? You are stuck upon the idea that the offshoots of religion are not part of religion just because those offshoots occur else where in the world apart from religion. Art and probably music, began long ago because of religion and has been part of religion since.The core of religion is a belief in a higher power and you seem to think that all derivatives from that belief is not part of religion. How about the bible itself/ ? It is derived from a belief in god so are you saying the bible is not part of religion? Art and music and poems that derive from a belief in god is just as much as part of religion as the bible is and none of it may be intellectually stimulating to you, but that does not mean is intellectually useless to those of religious nature. @MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    It is an opinion the logical reasons for which I have provided. If something being an opinion invalidates it in your eyes, then this conversation is pointless. And I have already told you, Maxx, many times that repeating the same points and dismissing arguments against them is a poor debating strategy that impresses no one and makes you look unintelligent.

    Discussions of fantasy can be intellectually stimulating, I agree: I have participated in a lot of discussions about imaginary worlds and characters. What can not be intellectually stimulating is discussing fantasy as if it is reality: you are no more intellectually stimulated them than when you take an LSD and start seeing flying rhinos and pondering on the depth of their existence. As for discussions on the history behind the Bible, those are scientific, not religious discussions.

    You are misrepresenting my position. I have never said that an offshoot from a religion is not a art of that religion "because it occurs elsewhere". What I did say was that the things you clam to be offshot from religion are not such, and I have explained why I think this. You have not really challenged my reasoning in any way. I explained already what I think about your claim that music may have originated from religion, yet here you are just repeating that claim again.

    Why is it always like this in conversations with you, Maxx? Why do you not try addressing people's actual arguments?
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    wait a minute. my claims that i said are religious for they represent what they believe in, a god. I go over these same points because an opinion is not  exactly a way to prove my points wrong. Ilet us take an example, a statue or a crucifix of christ. Religious in nature for it represents their god. How is that not part of religion? A song that represent god is also part of religion. 
    what you are not actually answering, is how is it not part of religion. As well, i have seen many religious scholars as well as students engage in deep intellectually conversation about the contradictions of the bible, the interpretations, and so on. How is that not intellectually stimulating? This is not about wacoks on drugs, it is about people who have a specific way of life. It does not matter if they are wrong in their beliefs; that is not what this post is even about. Their religion is not intellectually useless and you failed to explain why other than bringing into play that their ideas are incorrect. the post is not about if their beliefs are true.@MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    I am not answering that? I made multiple large comments exploring that issue from all sides and explained precisely why I do not consider those things a part of religion. Did not see much pushback on those arguments.

    The story of the crucifix of Christ is a part of Christianity. The "Chocolate Jesus" song is not. It is a song referencing religious entities, not a religious entity in itself - much like me referencing Christianity in this comment does not make me a Christian person. Are there explicit religious songs out there? Sure: Quran is typically sung and the song is a part of Islam. There is a difference, however, between a religious song and a song inspired by religion. Something that is a part of religion is something without which it changes, and nothing changes in Christian teachings if one stops playing music at their local church.

    Once again, discussing religion can be intellectually stimulating, much like discussing Star Wars can be. There is nothing intellectually stimulating in giving up on the most basic logic and taking wild fantasies seriously, just like there is nothing intellectually stimulating in trying to become a Sith. Your brain is stimulated, but not intellectually: the effect is closer to the type of stimulation you get after consuming a lot of psychodelic mushroos, where you gradually succumb to wild fantasies and lose touch with reality.
  • SWHopkinsSWHopkins 17 Pts   -  
    Rational thought process is the logical derivation of a conclusion based on evidence or facts.  I disagree with your original statement:
    "There's only one way for a person to become religious, and that's by switching off the part of their brain responsible for rational thought."  
    A rational thought process does not necessarily result in a rational conclusion.  There are many who become theists and many who become atheists based on both rational and irrational thinking.  
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @SWHopkins
    Rational thought process is the logical derivation of a conclusion based on evidence or facts.

    No, not necessarily. You're radically simplifying what a rational thought process encompasses. It also includes a resistance against making conclusions absent sufficient facts and the scrutiny of evidence to ensure it is reliable.

    I disagree with your original statement:
    "There's only one way for a person to become religious, and that's by switching off the part of their brain responsible for rational thought."  

    Cool.

    A rational thought process does not necessarily result in a rational conclusion. 

    A rational thought process should not result in any conclusion, rational or otherwise, where there are insufficient facts to justify that conclusion. Hence, I am entirely correct that one must switch off the part of the brain responsible for rational thought in order to become religious.

  • SWHopkinsSWHopkins 17 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    No, not necessarily. You're radically simplifying what a rational thought process encompasses.

    I agree that my definition is short and simple, however, I believe it is correct as truly logical derivation includes "a resistance against making conclusions absent sufficient facts and the scrutiny of evidence to ensure it is reliable."

    A rational thought process should not result in any conclusion, rational or otherwise, where there are insufficient facts to justify that conclusion.

    So, exactly which worldview, religious or not, is entirely rational?  Truly rational thinking sometimes requires postulates, which themselves are not rational conclusions.  In other words, facts cannot always be the basis for rational thinking.  

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @SWHopkins
    however, I believe it is correct as truly logical derivation includes "a resistance against making conclusions absent sufficient facts and the scrutiny of evidence to ensure it is reliable."

    I see. So making conclusions is the same thing as not making conclusions? That's quite the interesting contradiction.

    So, exactly which worldview, religious or not, is entirely rational? 

    That is a question entirely separate from the topic. 

  • SWHopkinsSWHopkins 17 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    So making conclusions is the same thing as not making conclusions? That's quite the interesting contradiction.

    I'm not sure where you got that summery from.  You disagreed with my original definition, pointing out that it was not entirely complete; all I'm saying is that it technically is correct because logical derivation (what I said in my definition) would technically include not making conclusions without sufficient evidence (what you said was missing from my definition).  Nevertheless, I think we agree on the definition regardless of how to word it.

      That is a question entirely separate from the topic. 

    Actually, I don't believe it is.  It establishes the purpose of challenging the rationality of religion, which is what you're doing.  If you believe that all worldviews are not rational, then why would it matter if religion isn't either?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @SWHopkins
    I'm not sure where you got that summery from. 

    I see. So you can't remember your own posts? Or spell words?

    all I'm saying is that it technically is correct

    It's the opposite of correct. You defined a logical thought process as "the logical derivation of a conclusion", but as I explained once already a logical thought process does not require a conclusion, or require a conclusion to be logically possible.

    what you said was missing from my definition

    Then it isn't a definition.

    Actually, I don't believe it is.

    Then you're wrong. Again.

    It establishes the purpose of challenging the rationality of religion, which is what you're doing.

    This topic is about the rationality or irrationality of religion, not the rationality or irrationality of tennis, beansprouts, feudalism or the Arabic language. Please learn to stick to the topic. Also, don't assume that all irrational ideologies are equally irrational.



  • SWHopkinsSWHopkins 17 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    but as I explained once already a logical thought process does not require a conclusion, or require a conclusion to be logically possible.

    Exactly where did you say that?  All you said was that a logical thought process does not make conclusions when there isn't adequate facts or evidence to support that conclusion; you never said anything about a logical thought process not needing a conclusion at all.

    While I do agree that not all logical derivation results in a conclusion, the purpose of logical derivation is to come to a conclusion.  

     This topic is about the rationality or irrationality of religion

    I get that; my point is, why would I sit here and debate you on the rationality of religion if you think that all worldviews are irrational.  It's like if I called someone smart, and then immediately followed by saying that everyone is smart; it wouldn't be much of a compliment to that person.  You haven't really challenged religion by putting it in the same place with every other worldview.

     Also, don't assume that all irrational ideologies are equally irrational.

    So what your saying is that some irrational ideologies also have a measure of rational thinking? 

  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    very well, the post is about if religion is intellectually stimulating or not. you agree it is as well as do i. The rest of your answer about it being a fantasy belongs on another post. However to make 1 thing clear, actual religious songs, such as amazing grace and others represent religion, and the belief in god; so any song as such is an actual part of religion depending on who listens to it. The same with religious art.  As for the crucifix, it actually did not come into existence until about 1100 ad. So that artifact is a religious symbol after the fact, in the same way as many religious statues of today. Religious people do not worship either the crucifix, nor the statues, they worship the god it represents.  Therefore both are part of religion.@MayCaesar
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @maxx Well I totally agree with you totally on that point because what a lot of people dont realize is that God is represented by many things because you cant see him. Like when I go away to see a game with my freinds I carry a picture of my misses in my wallet so that when I think of her I look at the picture and think wow thats her. And the same thing is with Jesus because all we need to do is look at a cross and think wow I see him and when we look at the clouds or the streem or the trees or the field or the beech we think of God because God is every where.
    maxx
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    very well, the post is about if religion is intellectually stimulating or not. you agree it is as well as do i. The rest of your answer about it being a fantasy belongs on another post. However to make 1 thing clear, actual religious songs, such as amazing grace and others represent religion, and the belief in god; so any song as such is an actual part of religion depending on who listens to it. The same with religious art.  As for the crucifix, it actually did not come into existence until about 1100 ad. So that artifact is a religious symbol after the fact, in the same way as many religious statues of today. Religious people do not worship either the crucifix, nor the statues, they worship the god it represents.  Therefore both are part of religion.@MayCaesar
    No, I disagree that it is, as I have stated multiple times. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with these cheap tricks... At least work on them: people have tried far better crafted fallacies on me and I enjoyed the challenge of dismantling them. This barely even warrants commenting.

    A song can represent religion, yet not be a part of religion - much like a sculpture can represent a woman, yet not be a part of a woman.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    may, you are not even looking at this logically which is unusal for you. You are only looking at this from one point of view. I agree that songs and art can be part of many things; yet if it represents god, then it is part of religion. Yes it can just be a sculpter from a certain point of you, but from a religion point of you, anything that represent god, is part of their religion. I am not resorting to cheap tricks, just simple logic. A statue of a woman represent women. Depending on what the statue is about can represent many things, for instance, if it portrays a figure who is into womens lib, then that statue is part of the movement. Yes a song or a piece of religious art may be just that,  to you. However to those of religious nature, it is part of their religion because it represents god. I fail to see why you are arguing this point. Scholars and art critics may hold discussions on such art, as well as many other religious artifacts, which makes them not in the least intellectually redundant Aside form the fantasy aspect, how do you consider religion to be intellectually useless? .  Anything that represent god is part of religion, yes it also can not be, for those who do not believe in god. That does not change the fact that it is not part of religion. Let us say a christain writes a song portraying the beauty of their god. He does so because of his belief and his religion, therfore it is part of religion.@MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    My point of view is that of logic. Why would I look at this from any different point of view? I do not see a single flaw in my reasoning: it is very likely that there are multiple flaws, but you have not pointed any of them out yet.

    I just explained how something can represent something, yet not be a part of it; I gave a specific example. Yet you still keep connecting the two. How does the example I provided fit in your theory according to which something representing god is necessarily a part of religion? For that matter, why are you even talking about representing god specifically when there are religions that feature no gods at all?
    A statue of a woman represents a woman. A statue of a woman is not a part of a woman. Or do you insist that it is?

    I have not said that a song or a piece of religious art may be "just" that. It has to be more than that, naturally, as it has a particular context. Much like the score from the Gladiator movie is much more than just a bunch of notes played on a bunch of instruments. And that score is not inherently a part of that movie: an orchestra can play the score outside of the context of the movie, and while the connection is still maintained, it is a more sophisticated connection than just "A is a part of B".

    The "aside" you mentioned is quite essential. Asking how aside from the fantasy aspect I can consider religion to be intellectually useless is like asking how aside from it being wrong I can consider the idea that 2+2=5 to be intellectually useless. That is where the uselessness comes from, my friend!
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2667 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    Dee said:
    @ZeusAres42




    . And you ain't an exception May. Your attempt at playing the higher moral ground aint fooling anyone.

    Well he / she / it  keeps claiming they're always right as they have a degree and that means they know everything 





    @Dee, I am actually very skeptical of that now. TBH, a full-time scientist that spends all day reading peer-review papers (which they don't btw) really wouldn't have the same amount of time to constantly engage in the number of debates here as what @MayCaesar does on a regular basis.

    Don't get me wrong, May is an intelligent and well-read guy, but then again, so is Deepak Chopra. ;). Tbh honest I wouldn't be surprised if he got some certificate via some discredited US university via postal order (a reference to his claim about being a statistician); much like, in the same way, Gillian Mckeith did and who also went around claiming she was a scientist when she really wasn't!.

    There is a thing called the borrowed library effect. This is like where one reads a load of information from a whole variety of books, and then pretends and/or assumes they have the exact same expertise as the professionals that wrote those books. I believe that is what has happened with May.

    @Maycaesar, sorry to be harsh, and I like you as a friend and as a person. What I don't like are people bulls!tting about them being scientists. If you can DM proof of your science expertise, what you do, and how this makes you the science authority you so regularly proclaim to be then I will publically take everything back and apologize for my attitude, hey I will even give you 30$ as a bonus!

    However, something tells me that is never going to happen. I predict some response about privacy concerns or some higher moral ground portrayal; too worried about being exposed I guess.
    NomenclatureDee



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    There is a thing called the borrowed library effect. This is like where one reads a load of information from a whole variety of books, and then pretends and/or assumes they have the exact same expertise as the professionals that wrote those books. I believe that is what has happened with May.

    You're absolutely right. People with expertise don't waste their time bragging about it on the internet. Actual experts are already validated by their peers, so they don't need to seek validation from random strangers on the internet.

    Dee
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    There is a thing called the borrowed library effect. This is like where one reads a load of information from a whole variety of books, and then pretends and/or assumes they have the exact same expertise as the professionals that wrote those books. I believe that is what has happened with May


    I agree , I believe also that your friendly challenge will be ignored for the very reasons you state
    Nomenclature
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    and may i explained how it also can represent religion. That is the point of view we differ upon. A religious song is part of religion, for religion is what the song is about. Religion. It represents god. So are religious artifacts. Yes an atheist can view it, or listen to the music from a different view; however to the religious it is part of religion because it represents god. You tell me, how are things that represent god not part of religion.  Your example is a bit silly. no a statue of a woman is not one; yet it represents whatever the statue was put up for; and what it represents is part of the reason it was put up for. Religion may be intellectually useless to you, but not to many who engage in religious dialogue, discuss religious art, and so on. Go into a college class where a professor is discussing religion. Not intellectual?@MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    and may i explained how it also can represent religion. That is the point of view we differ upon. A religious song is part of religion, for religion is what the song is about. Religion. It represents god. So are religious artifacts. Yes an atheist can view it, or listen to the music from a different view; however to the religious it is part of religion because it represents god. You tell me, how are things that represent god not part of religion.  Your example is a bit silly. no a statue of a woman is not one; yet it represents whatever the statue was put up for; and what it represents is part of the reason it was put up for. Religion may be intellectually useless to you, but not to many who engage in religious dialogue, discuss religious art, and so on. Go into a college class where a professor is discussing religion. Not intellectual?@MayCaesar
    No, that is not the point we differ on; you are putting words in my mouth again. I never said that it cannot represent religion: I merely said that it does not have to, contrary to your claim.

    Okay, by the same logic, a song about bananas is part of bananas. Do you agree that bananas have a song that is part of them? And when you eat a banana, do you also eat that song?

    "Represents" and "is part of" are not equivalent relations, buddy. You seem to be confused about this.

    To your last point, I have explained why religion is intellectually useless. Not every discussion of it is. When will you stop reacting to soundbites and start responding to what people actually say, maxx?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch