Instigator / Pro
7
1488
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Topic

Create A Religion

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

MonkeyKing
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
4
1838
rating
463
debates
69.22%
won
Description
~ 1,030 / 5,000

A battle of theology. Each of us shall do their best to create a religion with its own beliefs, pantheon, and history. IT MUST BE FICTITIOUS. Voters will decide who wins based on its believability(could it convert you?), cohesiveness(does it contradict itself anywhere), and just how interesting it is(make it cool bruh). Inspiration may come from outside sources and pictures are allowed, either made yourself or(if you are untalented like myself) stolen from the internet. If your theology is too closely resembling an existing theology(The God of my pantheon is Yeezus who was killed by capitalist Romans on a cross) than that is grounds for disqualification. That said, if it randomly resembles some super unknown fan fic religion, we can possibly let it pass. Just try to be honest. The first round is used only for the purpose of explaining your theology. The second round may be used to further explain your theology or attempt to debunk their theology as they explained in the round prior. And may the best theologian win!

Round 1
Pro
          My Religion:
Name: Sperianism(Sper=Hope)

Secular History:
Founded in the year 2234 by the Patriarch and Matriarch of the religion, Travis and Amber Davies. During a time of great upheaval and scientific discovery, the understanding and advances of AI had reached their pinnacle. While a majority of the world still coalesced into depression, frustration, and anger caused by gradually increased amounts of unchecked social media and internet addiction, Travis and Amber were members of the House of Commons in England. Originally their family coming from Yorkshire, they chose to move to London in hopes of becoming a more influential part of their society. With the progression of Artificial Intelligence, much of the world had agreed through necessity to allow the majority of important decisions to be made by algorithms. After having nearly destroyed the planet, a coalition of scientists from among several forefront countries chose that rather than side with their nation they would side with humanity and hand over control of all nuclear missiles to a collective AI forcing worldwide cooperation. With AI in charge, many previously unattainable goals were possible such as global regulation on climate change and universal rights for any within these nations. Much of the world viewed this as successful globalism and while much still had to be enforced by human means, the conceptual part of government was considered perfect.  After being there in London for several years, Martin and Amber found themselves only feeling disillusioned by their government as now their human aspects of government decision making were almost completely useless. As a result they chose to sell all they had and travel in search of greater meaning for their lives. They traveled to the technological wonders of the world, from the Hub at Iceland to the Ethereum Pyramid of India but found themselves wanting something more simplistic. They chose then to visit one of the only places left that wasn’t largely ruled by AI, the Polynesian islands. Considered then to be barbaric and unintelligent nations, the couple quickly learned how false these beliefs were. While they didn’t have many of the easy luxuries of the mainland that were provided by sophisticated technology, they were still happier and more at peace than many other peoples of the world. As of this time in humanity, religion had almost entirely become a bygone thing as well as AI analysis of any spiritual belief could find it to not be entirely truthful resulting in what was called the Spiritual Antithesis in 2105. For a few generations, religions still held some prominence but soon found themselves on the wayside in favor of faith in technology. Now the only belief resembling religion was the fervor with which people trusted in their computerized government. Even in the Polynesian isles, as the Davies would find out, only a few still believed in old religious tales. One of these few, Patane Ioane, became close friends and mentor to the Davies. He taught them of the old beliefs, of Tagaloa who was creator and of their own beliefs prophesied to end by another religion by Nafanua. While this usurping belief had once been thought to be Christianity, the Davies challenged Ioane explaining that while Christianity no longer existed his belief had found its way to survive and thus his prophecy needs to still be fulfilled. The Davies went island by island and convinced the remaining religious leaders to council together at the famed Court of Aiga. The Davies, knowing these councilmen had a suspicion of technology having been told their entire lives that their belief was falsified by AI, chose instead of disproving them to create a belief with these councilmen as well as using AI to check its legitimacy, originally in secret, until nearly 2 years into deliberation they revealed what they had been doing and convinced the remaining council members to continue regardless as such progress had already been made. While others had undertaken this concept before, none had found a system of beliefs that computer intelligence could verify as truthful using their known current knowledge. The Davies then spent the remainder of their lives, nearly 70 years, working with these councilmen to develop a belief considered truthful. The end result was Sperianism, a belief centered in human philosophy using largely European as well as Polynesian syntax that recognized an extinct pair of deities who instructed creation. Shortly after their scripture's final creation, named the Speria, it quickly became a staple of human belief, believed to be the ultimate culmination of humanness and computed knowledge. Still, Speriansim faced all of the same obstacles of many previous religions and while becoming popular, never became the official belief of any nation.

The Truth's of Life: 
  1. Life is designed to necessitate suffering. Suffering creates humility and gratitude, developing hope. 
  2. Suffering is made possible by weakness.
  3. Accepting weakness and choosing to constantly improve brings hope and understanding.
  4. Weakness is failure in self control of one’s actions, one’s thoughts, and one’s emotions.
  5. A lack of suffering breeds indifference and imbalance.
  6. Weakness comes from the spirit, liberated by the death of the body
  7. The spirit is created by Tama Alu(Father Gone) and Tina Alu(Mother Gone)
  8. Continuous change is a result of human variation, interdependence a result of human commonality.
  9. Harmony comes from acceptance of change and lack of true independence.
  10. All sources of life come from other life.
  11. Spirit is the intelligence to be aware of morality and its consequences.
  12. All living carry the responsibility of life's continuation.
The Creation:
The Book of Olaga: 1. All things were, are, and will be in a constant state of change. So it was in the beginning. 2. Two beings of unknown power, known only to humankind as Father and Mother, or Tama and Tina, set upon reality to exact change. 3. With the universe in constant demand for rest, these two beings reprimand its desire. 4. They look out to the cold, darkened space and say one to another, "This is of no spirit, no life, and no death. Only existence. We shall cause there to be a great change that there may be progress." 5. Tama and Tina then collected all there was in space, gave it renewed energy, and set it loose. 6. Boundless, this change runs out still into the open dark to fill the void with its chaos. 7. As their first goal was now complete, they waited to begin their second. 8. They waited until a place was ready, a place known later to its people as Earth, where they could provide life. 8. When Earth was ready, at once they seized their opportunity to place small, simple life that it may grow and change to whatever it saw fit. 9. Within this life they wrote the code for spirit, that one day something may feel as they do. 10. Their task complete, they retreated from existence, leaving this life to whatever misfortune, bounty, wonder, or pain it may endure. 11. Their will, unknowable, their motive unclear. 12. Yet the consequences of life continues still.

Basic Practices:

1. Organization: Sperianism, unlike many religions, is not focused on any large and laddered leadership model. Only the organizing itself amongst those living is encouraged, whatever form it may take, so long as it is done with the purpose of the following two tenets. It is widely encouraged to develop familial, friendly, and communal groups for support, communication, and growth. If leadership is required, allow it to be chosen organically and democratically that those most suited and comfortable may fill the position.
2. Responsibility: The greatest focal point of human suffering is an inability to accept weakness, or a lack of responsibility. Finding responsibility in oneself first, then within a community, allows for hope, improvement, and accountability. If one is unable to face responsibility for themselves, they will forever be haunted by their spirit. If one is unable to face responsibility among others, they will forever be haunted by those around them. The key to finding responsibility is meditation, mentoring, and mental fortitude.
3. Self and Collective Improvement: All life grows in different ways, but human life grows in more ways than one. We as humankind must grow physically, mentally, and emotionally. Growing in these three areas is both difficult and exhausting. Accomplishing this task is nearly impossible alone, as humans are not given all the tools to complete this task themselves which requires us to gather together for strength. Once able to accept responsibility, the true path begins to face these challenges and overcome them as best as possible. To find the greatest results, humans are meant to both be students and teachers with one another. To teach one patience while also learning frugality from another or to mentor gratitude while learning charity is the synergistic power our species holds. To live without goals or improvement is to choose to decline and fall and us such is constantly, consistently required.

Symbol:
The Samoan symbol for wave:(I used the first, couldn't get the pic to cooperate)(https://tattmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Samoan-Water-Symbol.jpg)
Representative of the source of life as well as life's continued need for change.


This is my first bout, thank you for your patience and accepting. And good luck!
Con
There's no structure laid out in the description and both me rebutting in this Round or not doing so could be seen as unfair on Pro. I will choose not to do so. Instead, I will point out some fundamental flaws in the nature of BoP in this debate and run a creative case whereby I believe I shall win due to both my religion being more believable than Pro's and at the same time Pro's violating the 'not resembling religions' more so than me.

==

BoP in this debate (as per the description) is a rather self-contradictory trap, which I knowingly agreed to when accepting.

We are asked to present to you a religion that is more believable than the opponent's, in one aspect of the BoP, yet the other side of the stated BoP is to be the side that least resembled any established religion at all that could lead to it being disqualified as truly 'fictitious'.

How can I present to you a believable religion, that is securely more believable than my opponent's and then establish it as definitely fictitious such as to win this battle? Even I don't know how but I don't care because all I have to do, as the second debater here, is construct a religion that is both more believable and yet less resembles any real religion in comparison with Pro's (a privilege Pro can't remotely negate in a 2-Round debate). If I fail this, I really screwed up, if I win, I merely played my position as well as it inevitably would be by a proficient strategist here.

==

Seloorem
followers: Simply called Seloo-Shaman or alertnatively dubbed Seloora
That is the name of my religion, which is linked to the name of the primary organisation of demigods within it; the Seloo. Why the 'rem'? Nothing to do with this songI assure you, it's just a way to end it off and my religion is much more linked to words like 'problem' 'anthem' etc than the typical idea like '-ity' or 'ism' since what you will discover is my religion sees itself as merely a thing that results from other actions. 

The Seloo are the 'alpha' alien/demigod organisation way beyond this realm that we call our universe. They aren't physiological aliens as you and I know them, they're outside this simulation entirely. I know, I know, you're going to accuse me of either copying The Matrix or Star Trek here, please bear with me, I copied nothing. Unfortunately, I think my religion does slightly resemble Hinduism but it's virtually impossible to not resemble anything at all, for instance Pro's resembles values in Confucianism and Buddhism with elements even of Islam in it to do with how are supposed to endure hardships without complaining (stoicism is the overall concept).  I'll go more into how Pro's religion represents real religions in Round 2, since it depends what he accuses me of copying in terms of how harsh or lenient I should declare 'copying'.

The Seloo consist of a group of 7 demigods though it is possible instead of 7 individuals it is 7 pairs or even groups. The Seloo have no set form, so this ambiguity isn't an issue for the followers of the religion.

Unlike most religions, each 'element' involved in the mix tends to have two components, not just one.

The Seloo (singular also 'Seloo'):

Spoora - Goddess of creativity and chaos
Keera - God of fury and destruction
Borem - God of patience and caution
Smoogel - God of secrecy and deception
Primrohsahlee - Goddess of complexity and depth
Aathyloo (aath-igh-loo not ah-thee-loo)) - Goddess of knowledge and intellect
Qveroo (not typo, Qv not Qu) - Genderqueer God of adaptability and balance

These 7 Seloo were the original 7 people of our reality (or groups of people, it is not known if each god and goddess is merely a masculine and feminine energy type that is in fact a group of demigods). They had no why to their creation beyond that it seems to be axiomatic that they'd inevitably all be needed to balance one another out (as Qveroo would agree and is seen as the leader among the group though they're all equally powerful).

Qveroo is possibly the first created or the last, it's not known or important, the force beyond them is an unnamed, untouchable force. It is not the 'god' as we know it, it doesn't hear you or care about your affairs, only the Seloo do. It is the Seloo that you ultimately pray to.

Each of the 7 has their own agenda with what reality is supposed to resemble and be like and it tends to be that in heated disputes that Qveroo has to settle them down, it is part of why the Seloo' got their name, Keerah wasn't happy about it but in fact he was the cause of the original dispute as he kept destroying everything they came up with. While they can't directly hurt or 'punish' each other, each of the Seloo crave the unity of the other 6 with them as some innate, inbuilt need so even Keerah needs them and their rejection makes him weak, which is irritating (they don't have emotions as us mortals have, they're hormone-less but they do experience dissatisfaction on a spiritual level).

They are predicted to have many underlings, demigods and sub-factions serving each Seloo but all that's known or ultimately matters character-wise is those 7. 

They do kind of have 'forms' as depicted by some artists who believed in the religion as it evolved but it is well known that they are beyond the physical realm entirely, though Spoora probably is the most appreciative of the depictions and is most certainly envious of us mortals for having a physical form to be vain about and dress up.

The moral code of the follower of Seloorem is not a strict set of rules but just as Qveroo is in some ways the unofficial leader of the pack, there is an emphasis on balance and appreciating the many aspects of life and people. It is extremely immoral in Seloorem to censor and oppose those that are simply strange and offputting, instead those who directly are a danger to the further balance and serenity of each individual being their weird self is worth censoring and controlling.

To stand in the way of individualistic expression is very against Seloorem whilst being evil in a very individualistic, fascinating way is not inherently against it though it is condemned by most followers of it and has been throughout history. Most warmongerers of history like Genghis Khan through to Bonaparte through to Hitler could be seen as actually supporting the religion though you must remember Borem when analysing how genuine a follower of it is.

You see, a genuine, thoroughbred shaman/guru/monk of the religion (they don't care what term you use, the females prefer shaman or Seloora though) will aim to consistently represent all seven at all times in some way. Lacking in any one of the seven aspects and denying its necessity to reality is a grave error in the religion and they believe reality itself has proven that many times. This religion has Borem and Qveroo which allude to a peaceful side to the religion but none of the Seloo directly value peace itself, instead among even the Seloo themselves, peace is simply a result of equal powers keeping each other team (especially in the case of Keera). This doesn't mean diplomacy is negated, Selooras seek to be very diplomatic indeed until it's disallowed for them to be and remain true to being pro-individuality.

Let's say you have a scenario on a small-scale where someone you know is being mistreated at work/school. You should approach it in a way that lacks none of the seven. There's no Seloo that represents courage itself just as there is no god of cowardice (Borem is not a coward, when the time comes for him to fight he is very ready to, it was actually primarily Borem who stopped our world being ended each and every time our species proved to be nothing much more than a parasite to the planet, votes on annihilating a creation need to be unanimous, Borem voted against it ever since our planet began because he saw the potential in it and us humans and no reason to stop this project).

Borem is in fact possibly the most terrifying of the Seloo to truly aggravate, for when Borem has seen something as wrong, he will not say it at first, he will wait, he will watch and will help it go worse bit by bit until everyone agrees there's a problem with the situation. Borem and Smoogel are good friends actually, there are indeed 'pairings' or friendships among them.

You do get some who prefer one faction/Seloo (remember, there's no consensus on if the Seloo are individuals or groups of merged consciousness in 7 factions) over the rest but generally even they tend to appreciate 2. Keera is in fact ironically a significant ally of Qveroo, despite it having been Qveroo who, after Borem, forced Keera to settle down in his earlier days (when they began Keera destroyed everything nonstop, it was infuriating and he loved that spreading of fury amongst the Seloo, though their version of anger is less 'intense' than ours it is definitely there and experienced (they don't have the hormones or body to experience anger as we know and feel it).

During the colonisation of both Christian and Islamic nations history books got rewritten and due to Smoogel's philosophy and teachings of his sect within the religion, as well as Qveroo's, the followers agreed to completely deny the religion ever existed. They invented other names for it, merging with Hindus in India and begging the Seloo who cared to help them survive and avoid persecution any further and they did. They wiped the memory even of most of the believers of the original name of their religion, which took a lot of teamwork between them, Spoora was in charge of the recreating of false memories and names and led to many Paganist variations of it, from Wicca to Hinduism to Jainism to Taoism all of which have elements of it (and more of course). It's plausible they even wiped out ancient drawings/carvings and writings linked to it but that's for you to figure out. The Seloo are very willing to oblige reasonable prayers of extraordinary power-requirement and very reluctant to oblige prayers that are deemed not really focusing on what the seven stand for.

I practise Seloorem everyday and will deny I do by the end of this debate, as that's required to win it and abides by several of the Seloo's teachings.

You may ask what we are then, our world, our reality, it's just one of may experiments of theirs, a fun experiment, they're trapped in a hell of their own and need us to cure their boredom. If we are reborn it may be in another reality of an alternate 'redo of these events' but those are seldom done and only when significant dispute between the 7 can't be resolved, especially if even Qveroo can't find a win-win scenario.
Round 2
Pro
I shall begin with first dealing with what appears to be some confusion on the side of Con, then I shall rebut, and lastly I will add a portion to my theology.

My opponent begins by saying: 

There's no structure laid out in the description and both me rebutting in this Round or not doing so could be seen as unfair on Pro. I will choose not to do so. Instead, I will point out some fundamental flaws in the nature of BoP in this debate and run a creative case whereby I believe I shall win due to both my religion being more believable than Pro's and at the same time Pro's violating the 'not resembling religions' more so than me.
There is indeed a structure in the description, luckily you followed it regardless.

The first round is used only for the purpose of explaining your theology. The second round may be used to further explain your theology or attempt to debunk their theology as they explained in the round prior. And may the best theologian win!
This seemed pretty straightforward. Perhaps I could have explained further, I will keep that in mind for the future. Either way, not a huge deal but I'd suggest reading the whole description next time. As far as the attempt to prove my religion resembling another, I'm not sure you understood the spirit of the description and I would think voters would agree with me. The debate is not meant to be determined by who's may or may not resemble a different religion more or less, so long as it isn't some plagiarized silliness. The statement:
 IT MUST BE FICTITIOUS...Inspiration may come from outside sources and pictures are allowed, either made yourself or(if you are untalented like myself) stolen from the internet. If your theology is too closely resembling an existing theology(The God of my pantheon is Yeezus who was killed by capitalist Romans on a cross) than that is grounds for disqualification. That said, if it randomly resembles some super unknown fan fic religion, we can possibly let it pass. Just try to be honest.
As I ended this point with, I intended for creativity and honesty. If you truly believe my theology to be a carbon copy and not self-made, then you may attempt to prove this as you so decide but, to be clear, it is not meant to be something that is a factor in judgement. It is to discourage an uninteresting and copied theology and only really needs to be invoked for use by voters if someone was trying to troll or something. The voters ought to be judging on:
...believability(could it convert you?), cohesiveness(does it contradict itself anywhere), and just how interesting it is(make it cool bruh).
I hope that makes things a little more clear. So if my opponent should attempt a rebuttal centered on proving similarities between my theology and others I'd suggest it is a waste of time and type. As stated by my opponent:
 I know, I know, you're going to accuse me of either copying The Matrix or Star Trek here, please bear with me, I copied nothing. Unfortunately, I think my religion does slightly resemble Hinduism but it's virtually impossible to not resemble anything at all



Moving on. Let's focus on the more fun part and dissect Seloorem.

SELOO: Starting with the Seloo, their creation, and their nature.

The Seloo are the 'alpha' alien/demigod organisation way beyond this realm that we call our universe...The Seloo consist of a group of 7 demigods though it is possible instead of 7 individuals it is 7 pairs or even groups.
I have a few objections to these two statements, first being the creation and nature of these demigods. As there is no definition of demigod provided, I shall provide the most prominent: "a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank." This already raises some questions as the Seloo are described as "alpha' when by definition demigods are lesser deities born of a different, more powerful god. As explained by my opponent later, these 7 Seloo came into existence as the first 7 people in our realm but gives no explanation as to how they were created or by whom. As stated:

 They had no why to their creation...Qveroo is possibly the first created or the last, it's not known or important, the force beyond them is an unnamed, untouchable force. 
This suggests that these "alphas" do not know their own creator or creation, surely making them not so superior after all. How they came into these powers is unknown and my opponent attempts to exempt himself from explanation by simply stating, "It is not known or important." Continuing on:


They are predicted to have many underlings, demigods and sub-factions serving each Seloo

This then suggests that others can attain the same power and position of these Seloo, considering they are originally human and only demigods. Personally I'd find it very important to know how they were created, the extent of their power, my motivation for following them, and how to attain the same power all of which is not given.

We then run into contradictions regarding their form and their physicality. Originally it is stated that they were the first 7 people, then immediately recalls the statement by saying:

(or groups of people, it is not known if each god and goddess is merely a masculine and feminine energy type that is in fact a group of demigods)

This suggests they are a collective of male and female energy that is some synergistic amorphous grouping of consciousness which is supported later when stated:

...though Spoora probably is the most appreciative of the depictions and is most certainly envious of us mortals for having a physical form to be vain about and dress up.
This leaves lots of unanswered questions, such as if they are demigods then what happened to their physical form? Demigods are described as mortal which suggests they must have physical bodies and that they can die, yet the author has made it clear that they are not physical beings. This is contradictory to the very definition of their existence. If my opponent attempts to backpedal on their being demigods, I'd be very wary as it appears as their main description for the first three paragraphs. In any case, it appears he changes syntax soon after anyway and states them as:
Spoora - Goddess of creativity and chaos (etc.)
So in their primary description here they are full deities? So they are both a god/goddess and a demigod as well as being physical mortals but also non-physical energies? This leaves me very confused.


Let's move on to the INDIVIDUALITY vs. CODEPENDENCE conflict.

Each of the 7 has their own agenda with what reality is supposed to resemble and be like and it tends to be that in heated disputes that Qveroo has to settle them down... each of the Seloo crave the unity of the other 6 with them as some innate, inbuilt need so even Keerah needs them and their rejection makes him weak, which is irritating (they don't have emotions as us mortals have, they're hormone-less but they do experience dissatisfaction on a spiritual level).
Here we have the 7 Seloo debating and they exhibit traits of being individuals, so much so that they are capable of "heated disputes". Yet they crave unity and without it, they are made weak. This would suggest then that these energies are codependent, made strong only when they are of the same mind and if one should speak out against the others they would be weaker. This is very odd considering later the central, and really only tenet of the belief, is given as such:

It is extremely immoral in Seloorem to censor and oppose those that are simply strange and offputting...To stand in the way of individualistic expression is very against Seloorem whilst being evil in a very individualistic, fascinating way is not inherently against it... Most warmongerers of history like Genghis Khan through to Bonaparte through to Hitler could be seen as actually supporting the religion though you must remember Borem when analysing how genuine a follower of it is.
So the alphas, or demigod god energies, teach others that they must allow all individual expression even to the point of evil yet if any one of the Seloo disagree with another on anything, as what they are debating is reality itself which is quite a large and general topic, they are inherently made weak? One also can generally define evil as taking away the pleasure of freedoms of others for the purpose of causing pain, although based on Seloo philosophy we aren't provided with any morals so using the word evil is interesting in and of itself. Regardless to say that evil, so long as it is individualistic, is acceptable is an extreme oxymoron. Those who we might define as evil, such as the example given of Hitler, spent a great deal of time destroying others individuality in favor of a regime and gas chambers. Hitler quite literally wrote the book on a homogenized society without other "imperfect" individual traits. Ghengis was a mass conqueror, murderer and likely the most prolific rapist in history. I certainly wouldn't believe that rape, murder, or conquest is a celebration of individuality yet you would claim both of these as a follower. Even considering your final statement, that one ought to consider Borem, applies little to no explanation as he is the god of patience and caution. Are you suggesting the rape, murder, and conquest or attempting to make specific human traits ubiquitous is acceptable but if they aren't patient or cautious they aren't a true follower? This is quite frankly incredulous. Adding on:
This doesn't mean diplomacy is negated, Selooras seek to be very diplomatic indeed until it's disallowed for them to be and remain true to being pro-individuality.
Simply more contradiction here. The Selooras attempt to be unanimous but for the sake of "individuality" they will disagree, although to disagree brings weakness to them and anger from their fellow Selooras while touting the necessity of individuality.


EMOTIONS: Jumping back briefly to the previous quote stating that "they don't have emotions as us mortals have", ignoring that this quote again suggests that they aren't mortal and is contradictory to their being demigods, this very clearly states that they don't feel emotion. Contradictorily, they feel "dissatisfaction on a spiritual level" and later are described as "trapped in a hell of their own and need us to cure their boredom." The author again describes an emotion by writing:
 Keera is in fact ironically a significant ally of Qveroo, despite it having been Qveroo who, after Borem, forced Keera to settle down in his earlier days (when they began Keera destroyed everything nonstop, it was infuriating and he loved that spreading of fury amongst the Seloo,
We have anger, rage, impertinence, impatience, love, and fury all described here. These are emotions! Literally! My opponent again tries to allow for these by saying:
...though their version of anger is less 'intense' than ours it is definitely there and experienced (they don't have the hormones or body to experience anger as we know and feel it).
Clearly their emotion is there and being experienced, whether more intense or not. It appears that even as the author is writing they are confused as to the actual nature of the Seloo as they are experiencing physical emotions while not being physical.

I also worry that these supreme alpha beings are confined to a hell of boredom when they are the gods(or demigods depending on the paragraph). Are they then trapped and in fact have very little power then? If they cannot save themselves, how do they intend to help me or anyone else? In any case, they ought not to feel emotion anyway and should not have this as an issue except for conflicting writing from the author.


I had hoped to add more onto my own theology but after taking the covid vaccine I've been absolutely wrecked. I leave off to my opponent here, cheers and good luck.

Con
1. Degree of believability
2. Disqualification if it represents standing religions too much

Pro's thesis is that in the future this becomes a religion. That is basically conceding that it isn't one at all. My religion existed already and was covered up to protect followers from persecution during the colonisation of nations by the Christians and Muslims. Pro has to first prove his future is viable (that all religion is pretty much depleted by 2105, for instance) and then on top of that explain why his god and theology are believed in, none of which are really explored.

Pro's religion is basically nothing more than taking the philosophy of Nihilism, combining it with the inverted form of  Buddhism and literally that is almost entirely how to form that religion. It also has some elements of Stoicism and Islam in it but not enough to mention.

I will now explore what Nietzche teaches and firstly attack it (degree of believability) and secondly explore why we should disqualify Pro's thesis based on copying it. Then, I will do the same with Buddhism, more so exploring why to disqualify it.

If we weren’t suffering to get closer to God, what was the point of life? From whom now would we draw the strength to endure life’s difficulty?


While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of the 20th century it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself–all action, suffering, and feeling–is ultimately senseless and empty.

In The Dark Side: Thoughts on the Futility of Life (1994), Alan Pratt demonstrates that existential nihilism, in one form or another, has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition from the beginning. The Skeptic Empedocles’ observation that “the life of mortals is so mean a thing as to be virtually un-life,” for instance, embodies the same kind of extreme pessimism associated with existential nihilism. In antiquity, such profound pessimism may have reached its apex with Hegesias of Cyrene. Because miseries vastly outnumber pleasures, happiness is impossible, the philosopher argues, and subsequently advocates suicide. Centuries later during the Renaissance, William Shakespeare eloquently summarized the existential nihilist’s perspective when, in this famous passage near the end of Macbeth, he has Macbeth pour out his disgust for life:
Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

An athlete, such as a bodybuilder, is the epitome of this idea. A bodybuilder subjects his body to the pain and suffering of training in order to create a physique that is aesthetically pleasing. The weightlifting adage, “No pain, no gain,” is an echo of Nietzsche’s ideas.

Nietzsche sharply criticizes those people who wish to abolish suffering. According to him, suffering is the only thing that bestows value upon the world. Without pain and misery, life would be absurd and worthless.
You want, if possible – and there is no more insane “if possible” – to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it – that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible – that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?
To Nietzsche, suffering provides the only test by which a person’s worth can be determined. In other words, the person who can endure the greatest suffering is the greatest of men.
To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities – I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not – that one endures.
Finally, Nietzsche asserts that pain is sacred, and that mankind ought to revere pain as religious followers revere their gods. He explains that the ancient Greeks were the first and perhaps only people to realize this.
For the Greeks the sexual symbol was the venerable symbol par excellence, the real profundity in the whole of ancient piety. Every single element in the act of procreation, of pregnancy, and of birth aroused the highest and most solemn feelings. In the doctrine of the mysteries, pain is pronounced holy; the pangs of the woman giving birth hallow all pain; all becoming and growing – all that guarantees a future – involves pain.
To conclude, many philosophers, theologians, and people in general regard suffering as something undesirable and as something to be abolished. Nietzsche, on the other hand, asserts that life without pain is meaningless. Pain is the source of all value in the world; it is the test of one’s true worth; and it is as sacred as the gods.

These things are explored in Pro's thesis throughout. Pro basically has mimicked Nietzche's philosophy even so far as claiming that in the future religion and need for it is abolished (a centrel tenet of Nihilism is that religion will inevitably break down and is futile for us). Nietzche may be correct insofar as saying that suffering itself isn't something to totally abolish but in my proposed religion, suffering is part of a balancing act, in Pro's religion it's actually a fantastic way to find harmony.

That's an interesting concept, isn't it? What if everything bad in life is just about motivating us towards a harmonic outcome?

We begin with the first harmony within our own mind. We
practice by cultivating harmony or peace within ourselves so that
we can eventually be free of the suffering originating in fear, anger,
and selfishness. Then we are prepared to spread harmony from self
to another person, progressing to our family, our community, our
society, and the rest of the world.


Of course, you can’t purify the mind of another.  The Buddha is very clear about that. But it’s also true that if we’re not skillful our contribution can further devolve the circumstance into more delusion and more suffering.  

There can’t really be social harmony if there is not widespread basic morality. Ethical conduct is key in that it reduces actions which harm and which invite retaliation.

There’s a certain way in which I see the Buddha’s teachings as allowing us to move into a recognition that many of these deep forms of suffering are causally conditioned and arising in the present in an impersonal way.  Without taking on shame or blame in response to these circumstances, there’s still the possibility of acting with wisdom and compassion and hopefully some skillfulness. Why? Because this is what’s happening, this is the suffering that’s present.  It needs to be met for the conditions for healing and reconciliation to occur.

All Pro did was essentially invert this in a Nihilistic way.

The entire aim in Buddhism is to do as much as you can in any situation to alleviate the suffering of those around you while creating as little to cause it. This is believed to lead to harmony. Nihilism embraces suffering as inevitable and in Stoicism it's basically a part of nature, 'just suck it up and know this is natural'. Pro's 'religion' is just Buddhism turned on its head with suffering being an acceptable, necessary part of life. 

In other words, whatever god there is in his religion or whatever way we interpret the moral code, we are to set out sadistically to teach everyone to accept and embrace suffering and telling them that will make a harmonious society which is the end-goal, according to him. So, for instance, if we follow his religion and someone is being bullied, we should join in bullying them because we needn't disrupt the present system of exploiting weaknesses, which deserve to be exploited...

Not only that but with regards to suicide being 'okay' for the weak and teachings like this:

Weakness comes from the spirit, liberated by the death of the body
We are left wondering WTF he is actually teaching (yet another think stolen from Nihilism)

The Dark Side: Thoughts on the Futility of Life (1994), Alan Pratt demonstrates that existential nihilism, in one form or another, has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition from the beginning. The Skeptic Empedocles’ observation that “the life of mortals is so mean a thing as to be virtually un-life,” for instance, embodies the same kind of extreme pessimism associated with existential nihilism. In antiquity, such profound pessimism may have reached its apex with Hegesias of Cyrene. Because miseries vastly outnumber pleasures, happiness is impossible, the philosopher argues, and subsequently advocates suicide.

it’s the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the 1940s and 50s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness. Jean-Paul Sartre’s (1905-1980) defining preposition for the movement, “existence precedes essence,” rules out any ground or foundation for establishing an essential self or a human nature. When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being “thrown” into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning. It’s a situation that’s nothing short of absurd. Writing from the enlightened perspective of the absurd, Albert Camus (1913-1960) observed that Sisyphus’ plight, condemned to eternal, useless struggle, was a superb metaphor for human existence (The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942).

I am totally confused what his religion even advocates for? We are all weak in some ways and all suffer in some ways... So, when he says this:
Weakness comes from the spirit, liberated by the death of the body
What on earth is he advocating other than suicide or masochism?

The religion seems to say that life is about suffering and suffering is what to aim for. This seems to then result in quite a psychopathic moral code if it exists at all, where the weak are to be made to suffer so they either commit suicide or refine their weaknesses to avoid suffering so much... Except somehow suffering is still considered desirable.

If you were to actually follow his religion's teachings you'd become quite a miserable, vindictive individual.

His religion totally lacks any existential aspect. God just made us and we suffer, this 'god father' and 'god mother' are just making us to suffer or liberate ourselves from it by dying.

The practices seem to have nothing to do with the religion at all, for instance why is growth a religious thing and how is growth defined? Most would say you want to avoid too much suffering as you grow, however this would approach that differently. Maximise suffering to grow but for what? 

A major component of religion; having a meaning to existence, a 'why' to us being here is lacking from the religion unless extreme masochism is the only meaning of life.

I don't understand what the religion actually is saying is the way to perceive their god's agenda unless, again, that god (father and mother duo) is out to make us suffer as much as possible.

Then comes 'harmony', it's curious that growth is a vital practise while harmony isn't. If you think about it, the three practises are challenging, prone to make division and disharmony. A society that is seeking to stratify/organise with growth and responsibility as the only important aspects, is going to be extremely disharmonious to anyone wanting to relax and enjoy life. Even worse, what do you do if someone has depression? I shudder to imagine what a high-ranking preacher of his religion would suggest.