Instigator / Pro
Conservallectual's avatar
6
Conservallectual
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3469

Religious pluralism is false

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Tags
Religion
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
oromagi's avatar
14
oromagi
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Pro:

* Has to show why all religions can't be equal in truth

Con:

* Has to defend the idea of religious pluralism

rules:

* don't commit these fallacies:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
* Follow site TOS
* Do not offend or insult anyone.

misc:

* The instigator is a former pluralist

Round 1
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
Pro
#1
Let me get a point across. 2 contradicting statements cannot be true at the same time. If the statement "there is a God" is true, and then the statement "there is no God" is also true, then we got a contradiction.

Here's a though experiment:

  • Imagine a scenario where there are 3 men and 1 chair
  • One man says the chair is fully red
  • One man says the chair is fully blue
  • One man says there is no chair.
  • These statements can't all be true at the same time.
  • So either all of these men are lying or only 1 man is telling the truth.

Religions often contradict each other. For example:

  • Protestantism(and all Christianity in general) states that the ultimate reality is a tri-personal deity named God
  • Protestants(and all Christians in general) believe that God created the world and the universe 
  • Protestantism states faith alone is the way to salvation
  • Protestants(and Christians in general) do not believe in reincarnation and that humans either go heaven or hell eternally after they die.
Buddhism disagrees:
  • Buddhists do not believe in a personal ultimate reality
  • Buddhists do not believe that the world was created
  • Buddhism says that nirvana comes from following the 8 fold path
  • Buddhists believe that we reincarnate infinitely until we reach nirvana
These 2 religions are so contradictory that the 2 can't possibly be true at the  same time.



Other arguments for pluralism that I know of include:

1. "Those who believe that only their religion is true is arrogant"
  • This is a classic ad hominem fallacy.
  • The pluralist also believes that his view on religion(pluralism) is the one true view. Wouldn't he be considered arrogant by his own standards?
2. "Religions are culturally relative so if you were born in Arabia then you would be a Muslim. If you were born in Ireland you'd be a catholic."
  • This is a classic genetic fallacy, or an attempt to invalidate a view by how a person came to hold it.
  • If you were born in ancient Greece, you'd probably believe that the earth is in the middle of the solar system. But today we know that this idea is false no matter were you live or what you believe in.
  • The objection is also a double edged sword. If the pluralist was born in a religiously conservative(aka particularist) nation like Saudi Arabia, then he would probably not be a pluralist. So the pluralist's view was the result of being born in contemporary liberal America/the west.
So what about the people who never hear of Christ? Don't worry, they have a chance. The bible states that God loves all humans and he wants them all to be saved. Those who never hear of Christ will not be judged on the basis of what they don't know, but on what they do know. God has revealed 2 truths:
  • That he exists, based on reason, logic, and the natural world around us
  • And that morality exists, we know this by experiencing the consciousness within us.
  • So those who never hear of Christ can respond to their given light in nature and in the conscience
  • On the basis of what they have been given, they can turn to God and Christ for forgiveness and new life.
  • Just like people prior to the time of Christ, they can be saved.
But about those who reject? Those who reject what they have been given are not saved but not forced to it either. 

But what about those who have not responded because they never heard? Don't worry cause God chosen to create everyone at a time for so that those who want to be saved will get saved.

oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#2
Thank you, Conservallectual, for  instigating this debate.

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is FALSE

NOTE:  In the absence of any definition of terms in DESCRIPTION, CON submits the following:

DEFINITIONS:

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM [noun] is "The peaceful coexistence of multiple religions in a community"

Wikipedia advises: 
  • RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:
    • Recognizing and tolerating the religious diversity of a society or country, promoting freedom of religion, and defining secularism as neutrality on issues of religion as opposed to opposition of religion in the public forum or public square that is open to public expression, and promoting friendly separation of religion and state as opposed to hostile separation or Antitheism espoused by other forms of secularism.
    • Any of several forms of religious inclusivism....
      • religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus acknowledges that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.
      • two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid; this may be considered a form of either toleration  or moral relativism.
      •  the understanding that the exclusive claims of different religions turn out...to be variations of universal truths that have been taught since time immemorial.
    • Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism,
    • As a term for the condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
    • As a social norm and not merely a synonym for religious diversity.

FALSE [adjective] is "Untrue, not factual, factually incorrect."

BURDEN of PROOF

Wikipedia advises:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof in this debate.  PRO must show why all religions can't be equal in truth.  CON must defend the idea of religious pluralism.

COUNTER1: THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

These statements can't all be true at the same time.  So either all of these men are lying or only 1 man is telling the truth.
  • But they can all be FALSE at the same time.  
    • If, for example, the chair is fully yellow, then all three men are wrong (lying seems harsh, what if the three men are blind, for example?).
      • Just because two men are wrong, doesn't make the third man right.
      • All three men can be equally false and therefore "equal in truth."
  • PRO's thought experiment fails to account for the condition of all three men having zero truth and therefore being equal in truth.
COUNTER2:  CONTRADICTION

Protestantism(and all Christianity in general) states that the ultimate reality is a tri-personal deity named God
  • This is false.  There are multiple sects within Christianity that reject the trinity.  Jehovah's Witnesses reject the trinity, for example.  Multiple sects within Unitarianism and Pentecostalism are likewise nontrinitarian but still considered both Christian and Protestant in nature.
Protestants(and all Christians in general) believe that God created the world and the universe 
Buddhism disagrees.  These 2 religions are so contradictory that the 2 can't possibly be true at the  same time.
  • Since Christianity and Protestantism are likewise internally contradictory, let's agree that Christianity and Protestantism likewise "can't possibly be true."

CON1: FREEDOM of EXPRESSION

  • Let's agree that freedom of expression is a fundamental and inalienable human right and as such government abridgements of that right ought to be limited to specific cases where the harm done to others clearly outweighs the civic benefits of that liberty.
"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
    • "The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
  • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    • and in our motto, "E pluribus unum," Latin for "Out of many, one."  Our Founding Fathers applied this outlook to religious plurality just as much as political or geographical plurality.  Americans believe that there is wisdom to be found in diversity- in the dynamic tension and rational synthesis of opposing points of view.  Out of many religious perspectives, the First Amendment forged an agreement that all perspectives have equal right to expression.
CON2:  FAITH and REASON

  • Let's agree that all principles of public policy and good citizenship should be based on provable, evidence based understandings of nature.
  • By definition, all religion posits some unproven or unprovable principle.  By definition, religions describe mankind's relationship with the supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual.   It requires no faith to believe in a testable, repeatable explanations of natural phenomenon.
    • Since no articles of faith are provably true, all such principles should be tolerated and studied as alike in unknowability and therefore inapplicable to public policy.
    • All humans have an equal right to speculate about unprovable theories and an equal obligation to respect the similarly unprovable theories of others.
  • Therefore, principles of faith should not apply to public policy.
  • Furthermore,  because religion is not based on repeatable phenomenon, the inconsistency and instability of religious principle over time and geography makes religion particularly alienating and schismatic.  Since much of the power of any community is derived from its capacity to harmonize and synthesize principles and policy, particularly divisive , personal subjects should be excluded from the civic forum.
CON3:  WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

  • Christians have a particular obligation to practice RELIGIOUS PLURALITY because Christ commanded religious tolerance:
43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 
44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 
45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 
47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
  • Since God  tolerates and looks over and provides for the unrighteous, Christians should follow God's perfect example.
I look forward to PRO's R2.


Round 2
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
Pro
#3
NOTE:  In the absence of any definition of terms in DESCRIPTION, CON submits the following:

DEFINITIONS:

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM [noun] is "The peaceful coexistence of multiple religions in a community"

Definition of pluralism: The belief that all religions are equally valid in truth.

These statements can't all be true at the same time.  So either all of these men are lying or only 1 man is telling the truth.
But they can all be FALSE at the same time. 
Yes this is an option. But I am just illustrating a point on why equal in truth is impossible

If, for example, the chair is fully yellow, then all three men are wrong (lying seems harsh, what if the three men are blind, for example?).
Do you think that blind men can even have an idea of what the color of the chair is?

Just because two men are wrong, doesn't make the third man right.
All three men can be equally false and therefore "equal in truth."
PRO's thought experiment fails to account for the condition of all three men having zero truth and therefore being equal in truth.
COUNTER2:  CONTRADICTION

Yes but what if we add an innumerable amount of men, and each of these men are saying a different and contradicting idea then each other. Then only 1 can be fully right.

And also there are cases in which all statements can't be false at the same time. The theological positions for example:

  • Theism: There is some kind of higher power that is fully active in the universe
  • Deism: There is some kind of higher power that is not active in the universe.
  • Agnosticism: We don't know if there's a higher power or not
  • Atheism: There is no higher power.
These positions cannot be false at the same time or we will get an absurdity like this:

The idea that "we don't know if a higher power exists"
 is false and there is also a god and yet there is also no god. 

Does this sound absurd to you? If it does, don't worry you're not alone.

Protestantism(and all Christianity in general) states that the ultimate reality is a tri-personal deity named God
This is false.  There are multiple sects within Christianity that reject the trinity.  Jehovah's Witnesses reject the trinity, for example.  Multiple sects within Unitarianism and Pentecostalism are likewise nontrinitarian but still considered both Christian and Protestant in nature.
I do not consider unitarians to be Christians, more like heretics(and therefore their own religion). So we scratched away a rather minor and insignificant objection that even if true it would not affect my argument.

Buddhism disagrees.  These 2 religions are so contradictory that the 2 can't possibly be true at the  same time.
Since Christianity and Protestantism are likewise internally contradictory, let's agree that Christianity and Protestantism likewise "can't possibly be true."

Protestanism is a branch of Christianity. It doesn't matter because when I mean "all Christian" I mean "all orthodox Christians(not to be confused with eastern orthodox)" and I include protestants, Catholics, and the orthodox churches into. This "Orthodox Christian" group does not include JWS or Mormons. And also Protestanism is a branch of Christianity.

CON1: FREEDOM of EXPRESSION

Let's agree that freedom of expression is a fundamental and inalienable human right and as such government abridgements of that right ought to be limited to specific cases where the harm done to others clearly outweighs the civic benefits of that liberty.
As the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen elucidates:
"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
or as John Stuart Mill codified in On Liberty:
"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
I am an American and here in the United States, we have codified this principle into our First Amendment to the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
and in our motto, "E pluribus unum," Latin for "Out of many, one."  Our Founding Fathers applied this outlook to religious plurality just as much as political or geographical plurality.  Americans believe that there is wisdom to be found in diversity- in the dynamic tension and rational synthesis of opposing points of view.  Out of many religious perspectives, the First Amendment forged an agreement that all perspectives have equal right to expression.
CON2:  FAITH and REASON
Supporting freedom of religion does not make you a pluralist. I support freedom of religion but that does not make me believe that all religions are equally valid(which is what being a pluralist is).  Believing in religious tolerance does not make you a pluralist either(since pluralism requires the belief that all religions are equally valid in truth - which I don't believe in).
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#4
Thx, Conservallectual-

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is FALSE

DEFINITIONS:

  • VOTERS will note that PRO has submitted a definition of RELIGIOUS PLURALISM in the second round and without any sourcing. 
  • VOTERS will note that PRO's customized definition does not match any standard dictionary or encyclopedic definition, including the fairly broad offerings made by CON at the top of his argument.
    • VOTERS should further note that PRO has violated his own rule against fallacies.
      • * don't commit these fallacies:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/"
        • PRO's fake definition of RELIGIOUS PLURALISM builds the  conclusion into the premise, by customizing a definition that is obviously untrue. That's assuming the conclusion, a form of begging the question.
          • Consider-
            • While some may argue that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid in terms of socio-political tolerance or on the basis moral relativism (true from one cultural perspective), nobody would argue that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are not claiming mutually exclusive truths.  That's a falsism- a claim that is self-evidently false.   If we accept PRO's late-coming, unsupported DEFINITION then the debate is over because PRO is essentially arguing "given A does not equal B, my opponent must show that B  equals A."  PRO can't set the condition that CON must defend religious pluralism, then later on, invent a definition that defines religious pluralism as false.
      • I ask VOTERS to consider that CON was the first to do this debate the favor of defining terms and considerately stuck to usages of the terms used by popular dictionaries. CON's definition is therefore superior to PRO's late and wrong attempts to redefine the essential term of this debate and CON is entirely justified in sticking to a superior standard of definition.
By that superior standard:

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM [noun] is "The peaceful coexistence of multiple religions in a community"  
(wiktionary)
FALSE [adjective] is "Untrue, not factual, factually incorrect."
(wiktionary)

BURDEN of PROOF

PRO accepts Burden of Proof

COUNTER1: THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

Yes this is an option. But I am just illustrating a point on why equal in truth is impossible
Since you accept that all statements might be false then you must accept that all statements could be equal in a zero amount of truth.  All multiplications of zero are equal to zero.  That is how equality in truth is possible- equally zero.

Do you think that blind men can even have an idea of what the color of the chair is?
exactly.  As an analogy for mankind's understanding of the universe, we are as blind men. We haven't even seen 95% of the Universe but we're so eager to say for sure what's what.

Yes but what if we add an innumerable amount of men, and each of these men are saying a different and contradicting idea then each other. Then only 1 can be fully right.
False. It is also true and likely that none are right, whatever the number of religious theories. 

And also there are cases in which all statements can't be false at the same time. The theological positions for example:

  • Theism: There is some kind of higher power that is fully active in the universe
  • Deism: There is some kind of higher power that is not active in the universe.
  • Agnosticism: We don't know if there's a higher power or not
  • Atheism: There is no higher power.
By definition, all religion  posits some unproven or unprovable principle.  By the very acknowledgement of acts of faith, of belief without evidence, all religions affirm their agnosticism to some degree.    Asserting some idea as true without evidence is irrational but  to the extent that all religions acknowledge some mystery, some imperfect understanding of how higher powers work, all religions affirm their agnosticism..  That much, at least, seems true of all religions.  Nor do I think that agnosticism qualifies as religion itself.  Religion is listed as antonym of agnosticism.  Good grammar does not allow us to capitalize the words agnostic or atheist because those any religion of any name- the noun describes an absence of any named supernaturalism.

COUNTER2:  CONTRADICTION


I do not consider unitarians to be Christians, more like heretics
A UNITARIAN is defined as "A Christian who does not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity."  Let's not hear any further entries from PRO's customized dictionary.  VOTERS should note that PRO again broke his own rule against committing any of the informal fallacies listed on the "your logical fallacy is" website, namely NO TRUE SCOTSMAN.  "You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument." 

PRO asserts his own authority on real Christianity above the judgement of any Unitarian and indeed most Christians and all lexicographers.  No true Christian is  Unitarian therefore every dictionary calling Unitarians Christians must be false and CON's argument disproving PRO's purist claims conveniently undermined.  I'd call on  PRO to explain why he must have it right and all the dictionaries must be wrong regarding Unitarianism but since PRO seems to permit  some non-trinitarian Pentecostals into the ranks of Christians in spite of their non-trinitarianism, PRO's original assertion that all Christians are trinitarians stands disproved anyway.

when I mean "all Christian" I mean "all orthodox Christians(not to be confused with eastern orthodox)" and I include protestants, Catholics, and the orthodox churches into. This "Orthodox Christian" group does not include JWS or Mormons
  • I'm sure the Mormons will be sorry to hear you kicked them out of Christianity.  
  • You haven't really answered the question.  If Christianity  itself differs internally regarding basic facts like trinitarianism, doesn't that suggest that not all Christianity can be true?  (And then by the same argument, not all Protestantism can be true.)  If Christianity and Protestantism can be partially true, can't it be true that other religions can likewise be partially true, perhaps even to the extent of non-contradiction with other faiths?
CON1: FREEDOM of EXPRESSION

Supporting freedom of religion does not make you a pluralist. I support freedom of religion but that does not make me believe that all religions are equally valid(which is what being a pluralist is).  Believing in religious tolerance does not make you a pluralist either(since pluralism requires the belief that all religions are equally valid in truth - which I don't believe in).
  • Wikipedia literally defined RELIGIOUS PLURALISM as "promoting freedom of religion."  PRO's whole argument here depends on his late, non-authoritative definition of RELIGIOUS PLURALISM.  VOTERS should permit CON to treat this argument as DROPPED.
CON2:  FAITH and REASON

  • [Therefore, principles of faith should not apply to public policy.]
  • PRO dropped this argument entirely.
CON3:  WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

  • [Christians have a particular obligation to practice RELIGIOUS PLURALITY]
  • PRO dropped this argument entirely.
I look forward to PRO's R3.
SOURCES:


Round 3
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
Pro
#5
VOTERS will note that PRO has submitted a definition of RELIGIOUS PLURALISM in the second round and without any sourcing.
VOTERS will note that PRO's customized definition does not match any standard dictionary or encyclopedic definition, including the fairly broad offerings made by CON at the top of his argument.

the link states that "Religious pluralism generally refers to the belief in two or more religious worldviews as being equally valid or acceptable."

exactly.  As an analogy for mankind's understanding of the universe, we are as blind men. We haven't even seen 95% of the Universe but we're so eager to say for sure what's what.

This is arrogance, we don't even know how large our universe even is. How are sure if we now 55% or 95%

False. It is also true and likely that none are right, whatever the number of religious theories. 

I already gave you an infinite amount of choices each one different from each other yet somehow they're all wrong.

False. It is also true and likely that none are right, whatever the number of religious theories. 

And also there are cases in which all statements can't be false at the same time. The theological positions for example:
  • Theism: There is some kind of higher power that is fully active in the universe
  • Deism: There is some kind of higher power that is not active in the universe.
  • Agnosticism: We don't know if there's a higher power or not
  • Atheism: There is no higher power.
By definition, all religion  posits some unproven or unprovable principle.  By the very acknowledgement of acts of faith, of belief without evidence, all religions affirm their agnosticism to some degree.    Asserting some idea as true without evidence is irrational but  to the extent that all religions acknowledge some mystery, some imperfect understanding of how higher powers work, all religions affirm their agnosticism..  That much, at least, seems true of all religions.  Nor do I think that agnosticism qualifies as religion itself.  Religion is listed as antonym of agnosticism.  Good grammar does not allow us to capitalize the words agnostic or atheist because those any religion of any name- the noun describes an absence of any named supernaturalism.
Agnosticism is legally considered a religion. And if none of these 4 choices are right then even agnosticism is illogical. Also you have become hypocrite by saying that my definition of pluralism is not supported by links and yet you do the same thing when you say "Religion is listed as antonym of agnosticism."

A UNITARIAN is defined as "A Christian who does not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity."  Let's not hear any further entries from PRO's customized dictionary.  VOTERS should note that PRO again broke his own rule against committing any of the informal fallacies listed on the "your logical fallacy is" website, namely NO TRUE SCOTSMAN.  "You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument."

when I mean "all Christian" I mean "all orthodox Christians(not to be confused with eastern orthodox)" and I include protestants, Catholics, and the orthodox churches into. This "Orthodox Christian" group does not include JWS or Mormons
  • I'm sure the Mormons will be sorry to hear you kicked them out of Christianity.  
    • VOTERS- that's PRO second NO TRUE SCOTSMAN and PRO's third logical fallacy
  • You haven't really answered the question.  If Christianity  itself differs internally regarding basic facts like trinitarianism, doesn't that suggest that not all Christianity can be true?  (And then by the same argument, not all Protestantism can be true.)  If Christianity and Protestantism can be partially true, can't it be true that other religions can likewise be partially true, perhaps even to the extent of non-contradiction with other faiths?
A no true scotsman is only a fallacy when the thing defining what a "true Scotsman" is is arbitrary(for example: No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge). But the trinity is far far more important than putting  sugar on your porridge

oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#6
Thx, Conservallectual-

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is FALSE

DEFINITIONS:
the link states that "Religious pluralism generally refers to the belief in two or more religious worldviews as being equally valid or acceptable."
  • OBJECTION:  Media Bias / Fact Check rates gotquestions.org as an unreliable source of evidence.
    • "Overall, we rate Got Questions a far-right Pseudoscience website that interprets the bible literally."
  • RationalWiki complains that gotquestions.org is not sufficiently representative
    • "Got Question's branch of Christianity is not representative of the majority of Christendom in the world or throughout history. Its Protestant beliefs are at odds with those of the most historical churches, like the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches"
  • PRO has failed to argue why VOTERS should credit PRO's late arriving and entirely non-standard definition above CON's well sourced, timely, and therefore superior citation.
COUNTER1: THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

This is arrogance, we don't even know how large our universe even is. How are sure if we now 55% or 95%
I already gave you an infinite amount of choices each one different from each other yet somehow they're all wrong.
  • None has to be right or is even likely to be right.  How can we understand that which we cannot see much less study?
Agnosticism is legally considered a religion.
  • Legally?  Legal sources please....sources that are not specificly inclined to any one religion, preferably.

Also you have become hypocrite by saying that my definition of pluralism is not supported by links and yet you do the same thing when you say "Religion is listed as antonym of agnosticism."
  • False.  I gave you two links to prove my case. 
    • First, I gave you  Miriam-Webster's definition of religion as antonymic (opposite) to agnosticism.
    • Then I gave you an example of how good English grammar does not capitalize agnostic because it is not a religion.
      • both of these establish well enough that agnosticism is no religion, the opposite in fact.
  • Denying the existence of those links won't help your argument and calling me a hypocrite for something obviously untrue is mere ad hominem, breaking your rule against informal fallacies for a fourth time.
COUNTER2:  CONTRADICTION

A no true scotsman is only a fallacy when the thing defining what a "true Scotsman" is is arbitrary. But the trinity is far far more important than putting  sugar on your porridge
PRO's own source disputes this.  PRO's source does not mention PRO's exception for arbitrariness.  Wikipedia advises:

"The No true Scotsman is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:
  • not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified assertion (all Christians non-trinitarian)
  • offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample (Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons not Orthodox)
  • using rhetoric to hide the modification" (trinitarianism is not arbitrary)
    • check, check, and check again.  PRO's source proves PRO's fallacious line of argument.
  • Besides, trinitarianism only seems non-arbitrary to the initiated.  Apply the same standard to any other figure:  "You aren't a true follower of Elvis Presley unless you accept as fact that Elvis is magically triple-peopled."  Seems like a pretty arbitrary, non-essential quality to me.
CON1: FREEDOM of EXPRESSION

  •  [RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is "freedom of religion." ]
  • PRO dropped this argument entirely.
CON2:  FAITH and REASON

  • [Principles of faith should not apply to public policy.]
  • PRO dropped this argument entirely.
CON3:  WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

  • [Christians have a particular obligation to practice RELIGIOUS PLURALITY]
  • PRO dropped this argument entirely.
I look forward to PRO's R4.

SOURCES


Round 4
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
Pro
#7
  • OBJECTION:  Media Bias / Fact Check rates gotquestions.org as an unreliable source of evidence.
    • "Overall, we rate Got Questions a far-right Pseudoscience website that interprets the bible literally."
  • RationalWiki complains that gotquestions.org is not sufficiently representative
    • "Got Question's branch of Christianity is not representative of the majority of Christendom in the world or throughout history. Its Protestant beliefs are at odds with those of the most historical churches, like the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches"
  • PRO has failed to argue why VOTERS should credit PRO's late arriving and entirely non-standard definition above CON's well sourced, timely, and therefore superior citation.
COUNTER1: THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:
Classic genetic fallacy. You know that RationalWiki isn't reliable either right(they are a far left wiki). MediaBiasFactCheck is not reliable either. Just look how they put all the left wing sources(even the far left ones) with higher accuracy ratings than right wing ones. https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mediabiasfactcheck.com
Either way this definition is the one I wanted to debate

Appeal to authority fallacy. You know scientists are only human beings with a perception of the universe limited by their technology.

  • None has to be right or is even likely to be right.  How can we understand that which we cannot see much less study?
You know, even if you can't understand them all, you can still use your reason to suggest that one must be right.

  • Legally?  Legal sources please....sources that are not specificly inclined to any one religion, preferably.
By legally I meant protected by the first amendment.

COUNTER2:  CONTRADICTION

A no true scotsman is only a fallacy when the thing defining what a "true Scotsman" is is arbitrary. But the trinity is far far more important than putting  sugar on your porridge
PRO's own source disputes this.  PRO's source does not mention PRO's exception for arbitrariness.  Wikipedia advises:

"The No true Scotsman is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:
  • not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified assertion (all Christians non-trinitarian)
  • offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample (Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons not Orthodox)
  • using rhetoric to hide the modification" (trinitarianism is not arbitrary)
    • check, check, and check again.  PRO's source proves PRO's fallacious line of argument.
  • Besides, trinitarianism only seems non-arbitrary to the initiated.  Apply the same standard to any other figure:  "You aren't a true follower of Elvis Presley unless you accept as fact that Elvis is magically triple-peopled."  Seems like a pretty arbitrary, non-essential quality to me.
I should have mentioned this before, but this is not necessary to my general point and I will therefore not respond here.

CON1: FREEDOM of EXPRESSION

  •  [RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is "freedom of religion." ]
  • PRO dropped this argument entirely.
Pluralism is far more than just tolerance of other religions.

CON2:  FAITH and REASON

  • [Principles of faith should not apply to public policy.]
  • PRO dropped this argument entirely.
this I never stated. Also this has nothing to do with the idea that "all religions are equally valid in truth" which I wanted to debate 

CON3:  WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

  • [Christians have a particular obligation to practice RELIGIOUS PLURALITY]
  • PRO dropped this argument entirely.

Again, This is not a debate about religious freedom, this debate is about whether all religions are equal in truth. Jesus obviously did not believe that all religions are equally true.
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#8
Thank you, Conservallectual-

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is FALSE

DEFINITIONS:


Classic genetic fallacy.
  • PRO seems unaware that informal fallacies must be considered within context.  The first criterion of any good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth of the claim.  To argue genetic fallacy, the origin of PRO's definition must be irrelevant to the legitimacy of PRO's definition.  Alas for PRO that reliance on some Evangelical Christian website to redefine a our central term is entirely relevant to the argument that PRO's source can't be trusted.  gotquestions.org defines itself as evangelical.  That is, gotquestions.org begins with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant truth and so, is well motivated to delegitimize any contradicting claim without adherence to reason. PRO uses an entirely subjective and motivated definition of our central term in the face of commonplace usage.
  • PRO failed to define the central terms of our debate in DEFINITONS and then failed a second time in Round 1.   CON offered the definition of PRO's term that can be found in any dictionary
    • OXFORD: PLURALISM is "the existence of many different groups of people in one society, for example people of different political or religious beliefs, or people from different ethnic groups."
    • MERRIAM-WEBSTER: PLURALISM is "a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization."
    • CAMBRIDGE: PLURALISM is "the belief that the existence of different types of people within the same society is a good thing."
  • PRO's rejection of the commonplace usage subverts good faith documentation of meaning with a Christian agenda we need not find persuasive.
You know that RationalWiki isn't reliable either right(they are a far left wiki). MediaBiasFactCheck is not reliable either. 
  • But to the extent that both sources accurately describe your source as fundamentalist Christian and a source of many, many unverified assertions, both sources effectively exclude gotquestions.org as an objective describer of religious concepts.
Either way this definition is the one I wanted to debate
  • But since my definition is superior to yours in timeliness, universality, objectivity, and therefore legitimacy the rest of us can safely ignore your definition.
COUNTER1: THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

Appeal to authority fallacy.
  • Again, PRO demonstrates that he does not understand how informal fallacies work.  To quote Wikipedia:  
    • "The appeal to authority is not in itself fallacious. It would be a fallacy to quote an auto mechanic upon what is the best treatment for small cells lung cancer, but it would not be a fallacy to quote a professor of medicine upon what is the best treatment for it. Of course, it would be a fallacy to claim that the professor would be infallible."
    • Relevancy matters.
    • VOTERS can decide whether it is reasonable to quote NASA and JPL, the operators of the James Webb telescope, for an estimate of how much of the Universe humankind has seen through such telescopes.
By legally I meant protected by the first amendment.
  • False.  The First Amendment to the US Constitution prevents the Federal Government from establishing religions or preventing the free exercise of religions.  Since agnosticism is not a religion itself but a rejection of any one religion as correct, no Federal protection is wanted to achieve the desired effect.  The First Amendment enforces  Federal agnosticism. It does not, therefore, pretend that agnosticism is a religion itself.  That would violate the First Amendment.
COUNTER2:  CONTRADICTION

I should have mentioned this before, but this is not necessary to my general point and I will therefore not respond here.
  • PRO concedes that Christianity and Protestantism are internally contradictory and so ought to be subject to PRO's dismissal, "can't possibly be true."
CON1: FREEDOM of EXPRESSION

Pluralism is far more than just tolerance of other religions.
  • PRO doesn't elaborate but here seems to concede that Pluralism is at least, tolerance of otherreligions and so, CON's definition seems redeemed even to PRO's thinking.
  • PRO concedes that FREEDOM of EXPRESSON includes RELGIOUS PLURALISM.
CON2:  FAITH and REASON

this I never stated. Also this has nothing to do with the idea that "all religions are equally valid in truth" which I wanted to debate 
  • False.  RELIGIOUS PLURALISM  or its rejection are questions of public policy whether PRO likes it or not.
CON3:  WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

Again, This is not a debate about religious freedom, this debate is about whether all religions are equal in truth.
  • Sorry, but that is not what RELIGIOUS PLURALISM means.   Why would any academic invent a term for such a claim?  There is no word to mean all contradictory claims in science or history or politics must be equal in truth because such an assertion would be dead on arrival.  The same applies to RELIGIOUS PLURALISM.  PRO must first misrepresent the concept to make an easy argument.  Without PRO's mis-definition, PRO's entire argument lack any cohesion.
  • PRO does not dispute that Christ commanded religious tolerance.
Thanks to Conservallectual for instigating this debate and
Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Please VOTE CON!


SOURCES: