It is unjust to prove or disprove someone's religion.

(Disclaimer: Round 3 and 4 will be Rebuttals. If you have more reasons, you are free to state them in the next round. Sorry for the annoying disclaimers. But, at least, I'm doing this to inform you guys of what's going on. Also, I'm trying to be a little comical........and I'm bored again. Seriously, what's with me being bored? At least, be thankful that I'm doing this. Man, I'm way off topic.) I thank Con for his reasonable and civil argument. Therefore,we shall now start the rebuttals. Anyway, let's begin with the rebuttals REBUTTALS 1A. What you've stated is true, but I don't see what was the point of the elaboration. How could you believe in something you don't believe in? That completely contradicts itself. Plus, that has nothing to do with people pointlessly debating on Religion. Now, I wouldn't mind if you prove your belief to everyone if it was TRUE and it has been proven. But, no religion has been proven true yet. We're still wondering around about our existence. They're just a series of traditions, beliefs, and claims. I'm trying my best to rebut while maintaining logical sense. My main rebut here is nobody can debate on religion if they don't KNOW if their religion is true or not and/or if can be PROVEN or not. That's the main thing here. Nobody knows what's true or what's false. 1B. Yes, I understand. People are looking for the truth. I absolutely understand that. But, like I said, nobody knows what's true and what's false yet. Some people don't even bother. They just believe in something and not think about it and that's fine. That's why I people are free to believe in what they want to believe in. Each member in every religious activity have their own motivations to seek for truth. For instance, a stranger might not base his/her beliefs off of logic and reason like I do. I believe in Christianity, but I only believe in it REALISTICALLY. Since, the truth hasn't been discovered yet, so what's the point of proving/disproving religion then? That's basically just blurting about beliefs, not facts. That's the point of I'm trying to make here. 1C. Religious ideals should be shared. That's what I said in Round 2. "It's okay to challenge other people's religion to respectively share and learn ideals with one another." You don't know if you're living a lie. So how would you know that you are in the first place? 2A. Now, science and religion are kind of different from each other. I keep seeing that Science disproves God, but they don't know about Science in general. In general, Science is the extent of OUR UNDERSTANDING. That means what we know of in this Universe is science. We don't know if there are things out there beyond our understandings. That's my counter of the whole Science disproves Religion debate. We don't know if there are Aliens that exist yet. We don't know if in places, beyond Earth, you can probably do/see some crazy stuff. Okay, let's imagine a planet that can sustain life that we know of. We launch a Space Shuttle over there and this astronaut goes around. We would have no idea of what's on that planet. It's kind of the same thing for Religion almost. 2B. Okay, first of all, it's apparent that Bilbo doesn't know what a religion is. A religion is "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe." Basically, it's beliefs of our existence. Religion is not a belief of superiority or inferiority of other races. That's racism. The only reasons he probably stated that is so he could abuse the fact that you can believe in whatever you want and take it in an unnecessary sense. Second of all, nobody respects racism. It's a thing that a majority of us disagrees on. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2C. Again, that is not related to religion in general. You're talking about "religious" views on opinion that's not "religious." Yeah, same sex marriage, transgender operations, etc are opinions. But, there's a difference between a religious opinion and a personal opinion. The ones you're talking about are PERSONAL opinions. Being gay has nothing to do with why we exist. It relates to your personal choice and likings. 3A. There's a difference between politics and religion. Politics directly and sometimes indirectly affects people. Religion doesn't affect anybody else other than yourself at all. It's your choice of what you believe and what you believe in doesn't affect the people around you. It is just to change someone's mind politically if it's for the greater good of the people. You can't change someone's mind religiously. Like I said in my first debate and this applies to my other rebuts, even though if you try to disprove a religious belief, YOU STILL HAVE NO CLUE IF WHAT YOU JUST SAID WAS TRUE. So, what's the point of debating about the disproof of religion, if all you're blurting out is "possibilities." It's a "possibility" that there's a heaven. It's a possibility that there's a hell. There's a "possibility" that there are Gods/Goddesses. It's a "possibility" that there is not a God. Every thing that we're talking about is a possibility. Maybe, I'm wrong and there is not a God. Maybe, everyone is wrong, there is a God and all of that stuff they believed in was false. It's all "maybe." There's no proof. There's no proof to disprove. You see where I'm going? That's why they call them "BELIEFS." Like I said, beliefs are opinionated. 3B. That shouldn't be acceptable to criticize a cult's beliefs. Small or big. It doesn't matter. It's their choice and their opinion of what they should believe in. I would like to see someone criticize someone's belief using facts. The only time that it should be acceptable to disprove religion is if you KNOW IT'S TRUE. 3C. I mean, if the beliefs of "crazy people" to be someone's interpretation of why we exist then it's kind of a religion. It's not an official religion. But, remember, the definition of Religion are beliefs of our existence and the Universe. If these "crazy people" are explanations of those 2 things, then it's a religion. I'm kind of struggling of what you're arguing about. I don't mean to insult you, but I mean, you're talking about crazy people. What does that have to with the issue of Religious Derogation? What does being crazy have to do with what you believe in? Plus, this contradicts itself again. Well, you don't contradict it. It's the "people" who consider what's fine and what's not. They contradict it. It's hard to explain, but how can it be acceptable to disprove a cult and not be acceptable to disprove religion itself? What? A cult is a small religious group. Emphasis on "Religious." 4A. Like I said before, it is okay to disprove someone's religion when you know it's true. That's my main rebut. People who try to disprove religion have no earthly idea if their claims are true. If their religious beliefs are true, then it proves itself. Why would someone's religion require you to kill children? That in itself is unjust. That's not a religion. To kill people is not a religion. I struggled really hard to rebut on your arguments not because I didn't know what you were talking about. I tried to make logical sense because this topic is really controversial and it's kind of hard to debate on. At least, for me it is. I think my rebuts make sense. I just don't know if they make sense to you and everyone else. My head is hurting right now because I couldn't figure how to combat your arguments without not maintaining sense and it was so hard to explain myself. I'm going to go relax now so I go watch some Naruto. I'm burned out.