CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of God. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What God desires is here [points to head] and here [points to heart] and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not."~Hospitaller (from 'Kingdom Of Heaven')
Religion fosters superstition, hatred for minorities, covers up crimes committed by prieste (paewdophilia in the Catholic Church and encourages hypocrisy and falsehood.
So you've chosen to ignore the millions who had and continually have their lives enriched by religion?
You write as if you believe that religion has caused these atrocities, that if there was no religion, we wouldn't have to deal with crimes like paedophilia.
Saprophetic speaks words of wisdom here, your view however is extremely naive that all priests are paedophiles and perverts, in fact I have never even heard of a paedophilic priest except in films.
Examples of, now you may either remain willfully ignorant or except that some priests are pedophiles and that religon has played a part in protecting them.
You ignore the part about supersition and ignorance, which are both near guarenteed in religon. Religon has protected those guilty of pedophilia, and worse, actually encourages anti-logical, anti-scientififc thought which is probably its most dangerous aspect.
Are you speaking specifically to one religion, or generally? Because not all religions promise great happiness upon death, or 40 virgins. Many just promote moral fibre and satisfaction in living - is that "a false sense of hope"?
Wrong. The point of Buddhism is to exit samsara. Samsara is the cycle of death and rebirth. This cycle is a part of the 1st noble truth: life is suffering. If you exit that cycle, you stop suffering. But you have to find it while you are alive. Otherwise, if you die without doing so, its back in the meat-grinder with you...although Buddhism does have the interesting feature that you won't receive your rewards if you want them...that's the real trick...but most Buddhist sign on without the ability to do such a thing...so...reward.
Name a specific religion that doesn't promise happiness in the afterlife? Buddhism. Buddhism is seriously depressing when you think about it--the best you can hope for is oblivion, and that's only if you're very very good.
"Religion is an indoctrination." Depending on what you mean by indoctrination, yes, I can see that, but couldn't the same thing be said about any formalized philosophy? I suppose religions tend to be pretty strenuous in their recruiting efforts, but so were many philosophers...
Well the two most popular religons, Christainity and Islam, do; thus it is reasonable to say that people belive them for the reward, and that it is a dangerous sense of false hope.
I'm not sure you can say that all Christians and all Muslims are just in it for the rewards in the afterlife, though--I don't speak to a whole lot of highly religious people, but the way my one pious Christian friend explained it to me, it's about living your life in accordance with the ideals of a perfect being, not about being rewarded.
Would religions like Christianity and Islam attract followers without the promise of an eternal reward? That's an interesting question--I'll have to ask him that one. Thank you.
If religion is meant to free people, it has enslaved them.
It does this by creating a perception that minor "mystical" experiences which frees people from their worries are dependent upon a dogma or the church, and thus like an addict people turn to the church for their fix.
If religion is meant to cure people of social ills, it has supplanted their previous ones for new ones.
Consider the previous drug addict that now shuns and fears diversity and pushes his religion even if it violates others rights(like intelligent design or creationism in schools), after all most popular religions in our society has converting others as a duty.
Religion is filled with promises, but the promises are empty. We're told that Jesus died for our sins, and that the Prince of Peace would bring "joy to the world." But after a 2000+ year experiment we find that Christianity has failed on that promise, along with every other religion. If religions are effective, they should be producing positive results on earth, not just promising that their effect will be seen in "the afterlife." Yet on the ground we find that religions are at the heart of the majority of conflicts of the past few millennia. This is true in the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Egypt-Israel conflict, Northern Ireland, and thousands of others. Religious leaders also fail to provide positive role models or any kind of meaningful leadership. Whether it's priests molesting little boys, or Rabbis convicted of trafficking cocaine, or
There is no effective counter-argument, we only get the same tired assertions that the prince of peace died for our sins to bring peace on earth, but that peace has yet to be seen.
I would say yes..... I believe humanism/atheism is just as much a religion as Islam or Christianity. It is this worldview that has failed society. The people that follow this worldview believe that morality is relative. They believe that what is legal is moral...that morality can change and does to fit culture. They beleive in doing what they think is right for them, they exclude everything else. They beleive that everything happened by random chance...that somehow something came from nothing. They blame others for what is going on in the universe and see themselves as the non responsible party. Sometimes they cant see the difference between right and wrong because truth for them is in the eye of the beholder. They call people of faith in God hypocrites, yet they force their false sense of morality on the masses. They say there is no God...making an absolute statement of fact, yet they can't begin to prove it. They have just as much faith in athiesm as one who believes and lives like there is a God. They want all symbols and references to God gone from society. They don't even want to hear the word God and are so offended that religious references have been taken out of our schools, public places, even our military.
The deteriorating moral climate of the world has not been caused by just those of faith in God but those who have none and live like it.
The religion of atheism is the real destroyer because it lends itself to tyranny, and that is where we are headed. Nietzsche’s message to the world is the one we mostly hear today. We are headed for ruin.
As a Christian I believe in Christ and I live that worldview. Any failure comes from my part or others to live like Christ commanded. We are the ones who have failed not God. Being a Christian is all about a relationship...not church membership or how many bible studies one attends...or the good works we might do. It is about our relationship to Christ....a one on one personal relationship that does not involve anyone else. It is about living the life Christ commands us to live. George Barna wrote a great book called Thinking like Jesus. If you do this....you treat everyone equal and you treat them with love. How many people do this who have accepted Christ? So while I believe athiem/humanism is what is taking us down today....I place a good deal of the blame on the Christians of today who do not stand up against it. The blame also lies with the pastors of churches who are more interested in remaining silent in opposition in order to fill the pews. Christianity has not failed society...those who do not stand on it have.
Religion is supposed to make society peaceful correct? It has not achieved this. I would definitely say it has failed. If anything it's proven to be quite the opposite making opposing religions less peaceful and less at rest.
Before in Britain the church played a very important role in villages and towns. Such so that we still have Parish councils which are based around churches and vicars, the may not have played an important part in religion itself but they've helped sustain and govern British villages for years.
"And Hitler had a very important role in leading Germany. Does this mean Nazism didn't fail Germany?"
Hitler did help rebuild Germany's industry during the begining of his time in power, so yes Nazism didn't fail Germany, Hitlers sadistic mind did on the other hand.
"Irrelevant. We have words that come from Latin too, but that does not render Latin a superior language to English."
Are you stating that Latin words have failed the English language?
"There is no additional benefit to a theocracy than to an elected democracy. None whatever."
That only applies in the world of Today, where we are brought up to say that we don't need religion and most of us are taught the relgion is wrong.
Hitler did help rebuild Germany's industry during the begining of his time in power, so yes Nazism didn't fail Germany, Hitlers sadistic mind did on the other hand.
Nazism was a system designed to facilitate Hitler's vision. It would be nothing without that "sadisitc mind". Hitler promised peace and prosperity, but brought utter ruin and devastation to the land. Thus, Nazism failed not only Hitler, but also Germany.
Are you stating that Latin words have failed the English language?
I am saying that the presence of remnants from one matter in another does not mean that the original matter is superior to the latter matter.
Or, to continue with the analogy, the presence of latin syllables in English does not mean that we should use latin grammar. Unless you'd rather say "Religion failure utter is" than "Religion is an utter failure".
That only applies in the world of Today, where we are brought up to say that we don't need religion and most of us are taught the relgion is wrong.
That's simply not correct. The vast majority of the world's population is raised with some religious beliefs.
Religion hasn't failed us. It is us who have apparently failed religion. Including the Religion of humanity. A holy scripture guides us in and out of what we usually assume might be Right or wrong. Every religion changes a little when it comes to the methods of the Religion. People choose those topics to fight about. And definitely... We are a part of Religion, Religions do not require to be part of us.
This implies that religion is actually distinctly distinguishable from society, and I don't think that's possible. Religion is an important aspect of our society, so ingrained into our cultures that it's practically unfeasible to imagine society without it's influence. Religion hasn't failed society; we have.
Slavery played an important part to society in that era; it's influence was that which helped shaped society. They both grew together, intertwined, and if slavery had not been so popular American society would not have been what it was, what it still symbolizes.
And I still believe religion has succeeded in it's purpose - offering a sense of meaning in existence and as a catalyst for bringing a community together.
Slavery played an important part to society in that era; it's influence was that which helped shaped society. They both grew together, intertwined, and if slavery had not been so popular American society would not have been what it was, what it still symbolizes.
The reasoning above does nothing to aid your point. Slavery is incontrovertibly a bad thing, both morally and economically. Its prevalence in a society is irrelevant to this fact. It is therefore illustrative of my point, which was that religion's extensive historical role in society does not suggest that it is a good thing.
And I still believe religion has succeeded in it's purpose - offering a sense of meaning in existence and as a catalyst for bringing a community together.
A sense of meaning garnered from a nonsensical tome written by madmen is not what I'm looking for. Are people's lives so meaningless to them that they need to be told that they're not?
And while religion brings communities together, it drives seperate communities apart. Ultimately, religion is supposed to be about worshiping a true God. Community is irrelevant to that.
My apologies, I made a mistake in my usage of 'indistinguishable', which I have now learnt the correct meaning of, and I concede to your point.
However, that you don't think it is necessary for a belief to help you find significance in yourself does not mean that others who cannot have not been aided by faith. I am not a religious person, but time after time, I have met those who are, whose religion allows them to put away fear in not knowing, in the impossibility of ever comprehending fully the secrets of the world. These are not the stereotypical anti-science fanatics that is commonly thought of. It is simply in religion that they are better able to appreciate living. In this, religion has not failed.
My apologies, I made a mistake in my usage of 'indistinguishable', which I have now learnt the correct meaning of, and I concede to your point.
Noble of you, sir. Many people, including myself, are often far too stubborn for that.
However, that you don't think it is necessary for a belief to help you find significance in yourself does not mean that others who cannot have not been aided by faith.
But we must not confuse individual consolation with the greater good of society, which is what we are actually discussing. The fact of the matter is that religion becomes institutionalised at a societal level when enough people subscribe to it. Thus, a significant amount of power is given to a delusional group who believe that it is their intrinsic right as Christians, Muslims et cetera to spread fallacies and contrive to force their moral teachings upon society.
You may wish to argue that in the modern world, the church holds little power, but that would be to ignore two important truths. First, is that the church has a long history of oppression and violent proselytisation. Second, that the church no longer wields significant power because its numbers are beginning to wane, and because of the rise of secularism in government, which arose because it was acknowledged that the church wished to impose its teachings upon all through legislation.
Furthermore, as I said before, religion is fundamentally about worshipping the creator of the universe. As all of the creators that have thus far been proposed are magical, and thus impossible, religion has ultimately failed its most significant purpose.
I am unfamiliar with the term 'sir' being used on a female, but let us continue.
It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your primary issue with religion is not the religion itself, but the physical manifestations of them - the church. And yes, they have a long history of subjugation, but can we place all the fault on the religion? After a shooting, we do not blame the gun, for it is merely the tool with which a person commits the crime. If we were rid of guns, the main problem of violently inclined people would still exist. Similarly, without religion, we would still have oppression - only in different forms. And are you really going so far as to blame the government? The problem of institutionalisation is not intrinsically the religion's, but a part of society's.
We must also have different ideas about the meaning of religion. It is not cumulation of the strands of belief in a deity/deities, but something more.. something less literal - a spiritual wellbeing. As in, someone can be religious without subscribing to a particular faith, that someone who believes in more that can be proven is religious. But this will not be what religion is for you, or everyone else, and I don't believe that we can continue to debate without at least agreeing on this.
In light of these past few comments, I've changed my original stance, actually, to something I hope we can all agree on. That religion, molded from the lack of real understanding of society, is not an absolute solution. That, like the belief in a flat Earth, religion may too pass to a better model. But we still have not yet reached that stage, and there has not been a more accepted form of recognizing our lack of understanding, so religion suffices.
I am unfamiliar with the term 'sir' being used on a female, but let us continue.
My apologies, madam.
It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your primary issue with religion is not the religion itself, but the physical manifestations of them - the church.
My issue with religion is that it is a delusion that inevitably forces itself on others. It is akin to a hallucinatory disease.
And yes, they have a long history of subjugation, but can we place all the fault on the religion?
Can we blame unregulated capitalism for slavery? The answer in both cases is yes.
After a shooting, we do not blame the gun, for it is merely the tool with which a person commits the crime.
But religion is does not equate to the gun. The gun merely represents power, whereas the motive for its exercise is religion.
If we were rid of guns, the main problem of violently inclined people would still exist.
Again, your analogy would equate to the presence of religious people in a secular state. You've robbed them of their tools, not their beliefs.
Similarly, without religion, we would still have oppression - only in different forms.
That's an interesting idea. You suggest that tackling any cause of oppression is pointless simply because their is more than one? The fact is that some of the most intelligent statesmen that have ever lived recognised the need to exsect religion from government, which is why we live in nations where there is a separation of church and state. As a secondary result of this, the number of children who are gradually indoctrinated into these absurd schools of thought has greatly diminished. Thus, we live in a freer, healthier, more enlightened society. Religion is retrograde to many forms of societal progress.
And are you really going so far as to blame the government?
I don't recall blaming the government.
The problem of institutionalisation is not intrinsically the religion's, but a part of society's.
The fault lies not so much in society as in the principle that the power of any school grows proportionally with subscription. When the school is based on repressive delusion, this is a bad thing.
We must also have different ideas about the meaning of religion. It is not cumulation of the strands of belief in a deity/deities
Semantics have little worth in debate. The context of debate is theistic religion, so with respect, your definition is irrelevant.
That, like the belief in a flat Earth, religion may too pass to a better model. But we still have not yet reached that stage, and there has not been a more accepted form of recognizing our lack of understanding, so religion suffices.
Any theistic religion is a superstitious worship of ignorance. Anything besides is a philosophy. It is important not to confuse the two, or juxtapose them in a manner that is confusing to others. Philosophy has always had an important role in society, and probably always will, but religion is, thankfully, beginning to fade in that great cultural heart of western society, Europe.
You win, EnigmaticMan. Your argument is convincing, and everything you write only pushes to the surface what I knew already. It was a losing battle from the start.
Something stills feels a little wrong though, but perhaps it's only religion clouding my ability to think straight.
Thank you for the debate :) I see I still have much to learn.
No, People have failed this society. Any attempt to blame religion, race, age group or sub-culture is just a way to take blame of oneself. It's like blaming video games for school shootings... Sure, it's violent, but it is solely their fault.
Religion has not failed our society, we have failed religion. Regardless of what doctrine of belief, religion has caused hostility in differences, but despite the differences, it is the belief in a higher power.
Religion and society are constructs of human nature. We have no choice in either. However, I do believe we've outgrown religion. I don't begrudge anyone their delusion on their dying bed or after a great loss. I take exception on how god is used as a social tool by religious charlatans on about 99% of the instances this superstition is evoked though.
I would say not, on the whole. Is every good deed done by a religious person points in religion's favor? Conversely, is every evil deed done by a religious person a commentary on their entire faith?
And what does it mean for religion to fail our society? Fail our society in what capacity? In reducing war? Yes, screwed that one up royally. In raising money for charity? No, organized religion does pretty well there. In giving people a sense of purpose? Doing pretty well there, too. In making our political rhetoric more reasonable and lucid? Religion does the exact opposite, and did we ever expect anything else? We can't say religion has failed us without first knowing what we as a society expect from religion and how we're going to measure its success.