Round 1. OzWeatherman vs Getreadyalready: Heavenly Peace

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:45 AM
The topic for this debate is "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam will eventually achieve a peaceful reconciliation.”

OzWeatherman will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Getreadyalready will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 09:55 PM
Greeting to Vagabond, the readers, judges and of course my esteemed opponent. I must apologise for my late start, Im currently on holiday and only just found out about this debate today, and I also have limited access to the internet.

Anyway, the topic for this debate is "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam will eventually achieve a peaceful reconciliation”, and I will be arguing the pro position.

First, to understand the topic at hand, we need to actually know what the definition of religion is.

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

As a whole, the moral codes, and belief system within all the different types of religion are actually very similar. Each places an emphasis on belief as well as practice, and each relates to the exsistence of a supernatural being, or deity and divine involvement with that particular deity and its relation to the universe and human existence.

The other key word that stands out in the topic is the word, peace.

Peace can be defined as:

Peace describes a society or a relationship that is operating harmoniously and without violent conflict.

To achieve that, each person must have an understanding of one another, and acknowledge and respect each persons differences, wether that be colour, sexual preferance or, and as we will be discussing, religion.

So with that in mind I will be formulating an argument to prove that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam will eventually achieve a peaceful reconciliation.

Without giving too much away (I want to keep this introduction extremely brief), I will be focusing my main points on the similarities and common relationship between these religions, the common ideaologies from a historical point of view and the methods that can be applied and have been used in the past to show, that these religions can coexist in a peaceful environment.

Thanks again to the organisers of the tournament, and I will now hand the reins over to my opponent

posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by OzWeatherman

First let me thank The Vagabond and other moderators for the wonderful topics and hard work on putting this together. Next, let me say thank you for allowing a rookie like me to participate in the “senior” tournament. Lastly, I am genuinely thrilled to have Ozweatherman as my opponent!!

I do not debate the negative side of this argument lightly. It is with sad heart and heavy mind that I reluctantly point out the past, the present, and the future of humankind and our religious struggles. It is easy to be a fan of the opposite side of this debate. I, myself, would love to believe that there is a peaceful reconciliation possible in the not too distant future. I hope Ozweatherman can convince all of us that this dream is a reality. Unfortunately history and reason, show this peaceful reconciliation to be impossible. I will argue, with history and reason as my tools, but I am not a fan of war and strife, and I am not a critic of religion, I am only pointing out the sad truths of our human situation.

Let me now get to the meat of this Opening Statement.

We are not just discussing Religions here. We are discussing “Religious Ideologies.” The difference is important, because an “Ideology” has inched into every facet of a civilization’s existence. An ideology is important to the very survival of the civilization. It affects governments, economies, foreign affairs, communities, and families. I will show that a “Religious Ideology” is an irrational devotion to a supernatural deity that serves as a mechanism to build and control a civilization. That “irrational devotion” and the belief that it is necessary for the survival of one’s civilization makes it impossible to reconcile with any competing belief. It becomes so much a part of a civilization that it becomes unquestionable as a matter of “truth” and any deviation from that belief is heresay! It becomes dangerous to the individual and the society as a whole to begin to doubt the truth of their belief system, and any amount of compromise or quarter is the beginning of the end for that civilization. Therefore, compromise between competing Religious Ideologies is, and always will be IMPOSSIBLE.

Let me first define “Ideology”, for my purposes, and then define “Religion,” and it will become clear that a reconciliation or any resemblance of peace between religious ideologies is impossible.

First Ideology:

David W. Minar describes … different ways in which the word "ideology" has been used:
1. As meaning, whose purpose is persuasion; and
2. As the locus of social interaction.
For Willard A. Mullins, an ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:
1. it must have power over cognition
2. it must be capable of guiding one's evaluations;
3. it must provide guidance towards action;
4. and, as stated above, must be logically coherent.

Wikipedia Source

Summarizing for my purposes in this debate, an “Ideology” is a collection of ideas with some logically coherent structure that plays a sociological role in society. It must be “persuasive” and it must form the “locus” of social interaction in that society. It must also have “powers over cognition.” The ideas are typically proposed by the dominant class and adhered or conformed to by the lesser classes fighting for roles within the society. By such a definition we can see that competing ideologies are also competing in a hierarchy of control and competing for the hearts and minds of the population. Maintaining dominance in ideology equates to maintaining control of the society and its resources. Compromise and/or weakness in this ideological power struggle equates to voluntarily giving up hard-earned control of a society, and therefore becomes dangerous to the society’s very survival.


Most of us are aware that ”Religion” is probably responsible for more deaths and struggle on this planet than any other factor. With that in mind the definition of religion seems frivolous and inconsequential, so its importance can only be realized in the context of our human history.

1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
2. A religion is a set of beliefs …usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
3. A collection of practices, based on beliefs … that are highly valued or sacred; … is seriously devoted to

Web Definitions of Religion

The definition seems mundane, even silly: A set of ”beliefs” in a supernatural power that controls human destiny! A set of beliefs “involving devotional and ritual observances!” Beliefs that are “highly valued” or “sacred,” in which someone or some group is “seriously devoted!”
By definition religion is not based in logic, nor is it based in fact, nor is it subject to compromise or reason. Religion is a “belief” and it is held “sacred” and it requires “serious devotion.”

By the shear definition and practice of religion it is clear that a “reconciliation” is impossible. Combine that illogical and sacred devotion to a religion, with the necessary components of a society’s ideology and you have a religious ideology that is considered sacred, beyond human influence, and necessary to the survival of the society.

Once we understand what is engrained in a religious ideology and the components at work, we understand that no mere human good will, or logical reasoning is going to reconcile competing religious ideologies such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. We also realize that peace between the competing entities is only a temporary reprieve while there is an abundance of resources. As soon as any single resource becomes scarce, the peace cannot last. The competing entities will go to war based on their deeply-engrained beliefs for the survival of their ideology, their religion, and their society. Lasting peace is an impossibility as is reconciliation of irrational and supernatural beliefs.

How can one rationalize a compromise among irrational beliefs?
How can one propose reconciliation, when it means giving up one’s sacred devotions?
How can one expect peace, when survival hinges on control of resources, including human resources, and the historical and successful mechanism of that control has been religion?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
My opponent will surely point to brief periods in history that have achieved peace. He will surely point to other religions that are attempting a reconciliation of all faiths. Ba’hai faith, vague “Spiritualism”, and my favorite, Deism. These strategic religions try to include all beliefs, but because of their constant compromise, they do not lend themselves to sacred devotion the way that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do. The beautiful compromise is also the seed for tolerance, and inaction. Those progressive religions do not control societies or civilizations the way that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity do. There have never been crusades, jihads, or exterminations of these religions. In times of great peril the irrational sacred devotion to a specific deity is what motivates hoards of religious followers to massacre their enemies in the name of their deity and thus win control over their own destinies. Inaction, compromise, and tolerance might win popularity contests, but it does not win wars. The tolerant versions of religion will never win this type of irrational devotion, and they will never have power over entire civilizations. The inclusion of “tolerance” and “reason” are fatal flaws for any serious religion.

My opponent might point to the similarities among these three religions. He might point to Jesus in the Quran, or the Torah included in the New Testament. He might propose that once these religions understand their commonalities and similarities that no compromise is needed. He would be wise to point out that the main facets of all these religions are similar enough to warrant a peaceful reconciliation. I would love to agree! In reality, that argument would be naïve. Each of these competing religions at its inception was well aware of the prior and competing beliefs. That very awareness, and subsequent disagreement has led to the constant splintering and rewriting of their sacred books. Over millennia these religions, with intimately entwined roots, have become more and more separated. Even within each of the three religions further splintering has occurred, so that there is not just one Christianity, but dozens. There is not just one Islam, but dozens. There is not just one Judaism, but several. The constant splintering means that there are not just “three” religions to reconcile, but actually hundreds! First “Christianity would have to reconcile amongst itself, and then the same for “Islam”, and “Judaism.” If each of the religions cannot reconcile within itself, how can we every imagine a reconciliation among competing religions? Splintering within the religions is further proof that a reconciliation is impossible, and that day by day the splintering continues to worsen.

I leave it now to my esteemed colleague to show me the error in my rationale. I pray that I have made an egregious error. I hope to be proven wrong, and learn of a path in which religion no longer leads to war, strife, and terror. Civilizations have come and gone, but our fundamental human flaws have remained. Their will never be a reconciliation or a peaceful end as long as any religion remains.

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by OzWeatherman

As my opponent is out on Holiday and I hate to see him forfeit, I am forfeiting my 2nd post to buy a couple of days for his return. Hopefully we can finish the debate upon his return without delaying the tournament or letting him withdraw.

posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by OzWeatherman

Unfortunately my opponent has not been able to respond to the debate or my U2Us. Please consider this as my closing statement for this debate. We do not want to delay the progression of the tournament.

posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 05:09 PM
Getreadyalready has won by default and will advance to round 2.

new topics
top topics

log in