CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
7
No Yes
Debate Score:12
Arguments:10
Total Votes:12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No (5)
 
 Yes (5)

Debate Creator

atypican(4873) pic



Is there even one truly significant difference..

...between "What a government is" and "what a religion is"


No

Side Score: 5
VS.

Yes

Side Score: 7
1 point

There might be. But if there is, I am not aware of it .

Side: No
3 points

Governments take charge of a group of people defined primarily by boundaries.

Religions take charge of a group of people defined primarily by association with principles.

One organization can do both by becoming a theocracy. We wouldn't likely have a word to describe such things if governments and religions were synonymous.

Side: Yes
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

This was the closest I ever got to finding an acceptable distinction between these.

However....

Getting people to respect and defend territorial boundaries absolutely requires getting people to accept certain "philosophical first principles" as valid, does it not?

One organization can do both by becoming a theocracy.

What if an organization did both while maintaining a narrative that's regarded as entirely secular in nature. Would we not have essentially the same thing as a theocracy? Albeit described in different terms. I am not convinced that opression under "theocracy" is significantly different than opression under "secular government".

We wouldn't likely have a word to describe such things if governments and religions were synonymous.

I don't share you confidence on that, but I appreciate the time you take out of you day to type up challenges to my thinking.

Side: No
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

Getting people to respect and defend territorial boundaries absolutely requires getting people to accept certain "philosophical first principles" as valid, does it not?

Not necessarily. It typically has more to do with access to resources than anything else. Besides, I don't accept all philosophical first principles as being religious.

What if an organization did both while maintaining a narrative that's regarded as entirely secular in nature.

To be a true theocracy, I believe it would to be formally declared as such and be accepted by the general populace. Simulations of theocratic effects can and do exist though.

I am not convinced that opression under "theocracy" is significantly different than opression under "secular government".

Not by necessity, no. But the way many religions are expressed makes it more difficult to avoid oppression in theocratic societies.

I don't share you confidence on that, but I appreciate the time you take out of you day to type up challenges to my thinking.

:)

Side: Yes
1 point

Governments set rules and laws that, if you break, you will be punished for in this world/ life.

Religion sets rules and laws that, if you break, you will be punished in the next world/ life/ existence.

Government deals with the here and know/ religion deals with the hereafter.

Side: Yes
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

Accepted premise: Both governments and Religions are concerned with rule setting.

But I think all rules are created in anticipation of an imagined hereafter. Even if it's just that we live on through our offspring.

Side: No
mitgag(1652) Disputed
1 point

Religion sets rules and laws that, if you break, you will be punished in the next world/ life/ existence.

that is not necessarily true. you could be punished in this life as well. or you could be punished after a few hundred lives.

Governments set rules and laws that, if you break, you will be punished for in this world/ life.

or sometimes it may let the criminal go free. in rare cases though.

Side: No
1 point

Governments can change .

Side: Yes
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

The Mormon religion now allows blacks to have the priesthood.

Side: No
lupusFati(790) Disputed
1 point

But only because if they didn't, they would have a worse reputation than they already do with the public. How do you think that religion has survived for so long? They saved face when the popular opinion demanded it.

Side: Yes