- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Religion in the modern world has a much less central role in defining the morals of the average person. We're pretty privileged in terms of how mannerly our society is in America and other 1st world countries. In a much more primitive time, religion had a much more central role in defining someones morals, because there wasn't a society that by itself incentivized following any morals. So I'd say yes, overall, religion has benefited society as a whole, in developing our morals. However, religion is a very widespread term, and to be open minded you have to include radical religions into the mix, that might believe that killing in the name of their God is sensible. In that regard, religion would be damaging our society. But I'd say over the history of the world it's done more good than evil, but that's just my opinion so don't take it as a factual statement.
Well it depends what you're going for. Sometimes it's relatable when a movie ends in a way similar to the real world, without a fairy tale ending, you know, and they all lived happily ever after (One example would be Manchester By The Sea, great flick, but not if you want to be uplifted necessarily). But at the same time, movies help us express ideas about the future/past that are entertaining to add our imagination to, so yes, I'd say they are primarily made to expand upon reality.
I think the point is that there is no answer that is so correct that there is no probability of anything else being correct. Like saying 1 + 1 = 2, that statement has no probability to it, it's just 100% true, but as soon as things get remotely complicated, like answering why we are here, you must answer things in terms of probability
I would rather that come from a mutual dialogue through love and kindness
I agree. I think regardless of what you think, it's more important to not be offended of what others think (unless it involves violence), and to be able to have a rational discussion of why they think what they think and why you think what you think. We should all be able to agree on at least this much.
The death penalty is not unjustified, while abortion is unjustified, from the fetus's perspective, considering that it should have a right to a life. That is the key difference. An innocent fetus has a right to life, while someone who has done something so heinous that they are considered a danger to exist in society, has lost their right to live. Obviously that is such a severe punishment that it is reserved for people who have seriously damaged society.
There's multiple perspectives you could look at this from.
-One, is to say that be moral to at least stay in society. A sane human being wants to succeed in
life, and part of that includes not getting kicked out of a society (i.e. put in a prison, executed)
-If you believe that a higher being created us and commands us to follow a moral code, you can
assume that said being has reasons for telling us to follow those morals. Therefore, if we could
discover the reason for the morals to exist, which I think we can through experimentation, then
I'd say that's a much more satisfactory way of telling someone why to be moral than to tell them
that if they don't they will be punished in the afterlife for eternity