#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Was religion the worlds first form of psychology?
Yes
Side Score: 15
|
 |
No
Side Score: 8
|
|
1
point
|
HA! So I'm sure before Christianity everyone just killed everyone and had a great time of it! No. I was born with morals, just like everyone else. I don't get my morals from religion. I don't need religion to tell me what's right and what's wrong in life. You get a three year old and give it a hamster. That three year old has never heard of God or Jesus before, yet it knows that killing the hamster is bad. You can rant on about your religions to me you're not going to convince me. I know, for a fact, I did not get my morals from religion. I am an atheist, and I have had morals since the day I was born, and I will have them until the day I die. Side: No
Let me first make clear that I am not religious. I consider myself to be an Agnostic. I do not know if God exists, you don't either. So I am not ranting on about MY religions, as you put it. Now let me make this clear, what you have just said to me is complete and utter bullshit. You do not understand what you are talking about. You are not born with morals. You gain your morals as you grow. HA! So I'm sure before Christianity everyone just killed everyone and had a great time of it! Do you think Christianity was the first religion? Christianity came after Christ. You are aware of Judaism, Hinduism, Paganism, and Greek Mythology... right? These are the world's first religions (the most well known from before Christianity). Now I don't know very much about Paganism, but I do know that these religions all taught important morals for the followers to live their lives by. It is also a well known fact that the world was a much more violent place back then. Maybe they didn't have a "great time" killing others, but they had many stonings and public executions, as well as many wars. I don't need religion to tell me what's right and what's wrong in life. Open your eyes man, it already has! Maybe your parents are athiest, but are your grandparents? If they are, then were their parents? The list could go on, but at some point in your bloodline is a follower of a certain religion. Take the middle ages for example. That time period was governed by the church in Europe. They did not believe in science, only in what the Bible said. We obviously live more healthy, productive lives now, but the morals were still passed down. The Bible, or any religious text, don't necessarily guide all of your choices, but they do for most of the moral choices. The ten commandments probably guide a lot of how you live. Adultery is a good example. You see that as wrong, don't you? But why? Or lying... Do you find that to be immoral? Read the Ten Commandments. You will find that you live your life by most, if not all of them. You get a three year old and give it a hamster. That three year old has never heard of God or Jesus before, yet it knows that killing the hamster is bad. The three year old doesn't kill the hamster, because he/she was taught that killing is wrong by her parent(s)/guardian(s). You can rant on about your religions to me you're not going to convince me. Like I said before, they are not MY religions. I am not religious. Considering the fact that you are an athiest, you obviously base your beliefs on facts. Well it is a FACT that our morals are based off religions. I know, for a fact, I did not get my morals from religion. I am an atheist, and I have had morals since the day I was born, and I will have them until the day I die. If you know this for a fact, why don't you prove it to me? This is your chance to blow the lid off the whole "morals came from religions" debate we are having here. How could you have been born with morals? Is it your soul that came pre-programmed with morals? Well that sounds kind of like something a religious person would say... Kind of a strange argument for an athiest. Side: Yes
Prove what to you?! You give me some solid proof that it DOES! The proof I have is that, basically, there is no religion to have given me morals. And trust me, there is much more solid proof showing religion doesn't exist as appose to a bunch of brainwashed morons who believe on walking and water and all that crap! Side: No
Prove what to you?! That you did not get most of your morals from religion. Somewhere in your bloodline is religious followers who passed down their morals. Maybe you think you received your morals from society... well where do you think their morals came from? You give me some solid proof that it DOES! How about a college education on the subject? How about the fact that I have brought my studies on the topic beyond college? You do understand that I am not arguing that religions are correct, don't you? I am trying to get you to realize that although you are an athiest, your life has been greatly influenced by religions. the proof I have is that, basically, there is no religion to have given me morals. That isn't proof. Although you are an athiest, it wouldn't hurt you to learn more about the world you live in and study some religions. You don't even understand what you oppose. Buddhism is a good example, I left you an argument a few days ago on the topic of whether or not Buddhism is a religion. I did this because your original response was so far from the truth, that I just could not ignore it. And trust me, there is much more solid proof showing religion doesn't exist as appose to a bunch of brainwashed morons who believe on walking and water and all that crap! There is "solid proof" showing that RELIGION does not exist? Well damn, I'd like to see that! The argument you are referring to is whether or not GOD exists, not religion. We don't know if he exists or not. I don't care how many Big Bang Theories you have heard, that still does not mean that a higher being does not exist. Same goes for Christians or any other religion, they can preach all they want but it does not convince me that what they say is correct. That is why I am in the middle, an agnostic, just as everyone should be. Does God exist? I don't fucking know! That's not what this debate is about. I'm telling you that your life has been greatly influenced by religion. Do you celebrate Christmas? That is a Christian holiday. Maybe you just put up a christmas tree... Well that was a pagan tradition. How about marriage... Your parents are/were married, correct? You plan on getting married right? Well you can thank religion for that. The wedding ring tradition dates back to Paganism as well. For adultery to be commited, one must be married, correct? So if marriage is a religious tradition and adultery is seen as immoral, wouldn't that mean that this view stems directly from religion? This is just one example. Can you still honestly deny that religion has not affected your life and some of your views? Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Somewhere in your bloodline is religious followers who passed down their morals. And where did those morals come from? And so on and on. But this is no ad infinitum. The social contract is the reducible starting point of morality. But whereas morality presupposes philosophy, religion does not presuppose morality. The belief in a higher being and institutionalizing a series of procedure or criterion relating to that belief don't automatically dictate any moral code. Religions are tools of mental coercion, adopting whatever tools its creators deem necessary to fulfill their ends(whether they be noble in nature or not). Maybe you think you received your morals from society... well where do you think their morals came from? My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. Ayn Rand I am trying to get you to realize that although you are an athiest, your life has been greatly influenced by religions. Influenced yes. Dictated morally? Not at all. For adultery to be commited, one must be married, correct? So if marriage is a religious tradition and adultery is seen as immoral, wouldn't that mean that this view stems directly from religion? No. Coming to the conclusion that adultery is wrong, immoral, or unconducive to the human condition is entirely possible without the influence of religion(especially considering the most famous and bizarre examples of adultery come from religious figureheads). Given the territorial nature of primitive creatures, I don't doubt that the conclusion that a mate should be exclusive to oneself predates religion by quite a considerable degree. Side: No
And where did those morals come from? And so on and on. This is a common argument. It is true that even nomads had a certain degree of morality. But you are missing my point. I am not saying that all morals are directly influenced from religion. Religion helped spread certain morals. Our ancestors lived in a world governed by religion. Now you may think religion is a tool of mental coercion, but imagine if there were never any religions. There could be some positive aspects, but there would also be very many negatives as well. What is right and wrong would not be as emphasized as it currently is. Coming to the conclusion that adultery is wrong, immoral, or unconducive to the human condition is entirely possible without the influence of religion(especially considering the most famous and bizarre examples of adultery come from religious figureheads). It is pretty well-known, that the world was once a much more sexist place. Men saw women as lower than them (this is still relevant today if you look at NewLee's debates), and rather than marriage being purely out of love, it was more of way for men to claim a woman as their property. Now you can argue that maybe stealing was seen as immoral before religion, thus meaning that adultery is a form of stealing, but I think it stemmed more from disappointment. For example, say you are a caveman who just made a new tool. This tool gets the job done and you find that you are satisfied with the results it gives you. You go to sleep and awake a few hours later to find that one of the other cavemen stole it. Now ignoring the fact that a caveman wasn't nearly as intelligent as we are today, he would not have looked at the other caveman and considered what he had done to be wrong or immoral, he would have been upset that his tool that he enjoyed so much, is now being used by somebody else... Not him. What is moral and what is immoral, were labels developed by religions. Influenced yes. Dictated morally? Not at all. Not at all? Now that is something you cannot know. Like I've already said, not all morals come directly from religions, but many do. No. Coming to the conclusion that adultery is wrong, immoral, or unconducive to the human condition is entirely possible without the influence of religion(especially considering the most famous and bizarre examples of adultery come from religious figureheads). Without religion, adultery would not be a term. Even under a different name, it still would not exist. Marriage stems from religion. Adultery stems from marriage. Commiting adultery is breaking one of the ten commandments. So marriage came from religion, and so did adultery... so how is adultery not one of the morals gained from religion? As for the religious figureheads commiting the most bizarre cases of adultery, well then they obviously aren't the most faithful followers of their religion, are they? Side: Yes
1
point
Religion helped spread certain morals This could be said of any social institution, making this a meaningless proposition. Now you may think religion is a tool of mental coercion, but imagine if there were never any religions. There could be some positive aspects, but there would also be very many negatives as well. I can't think of a single negative to a society governed by reason and voluntary cooperation rather than mysticism and authority. What is right and wrong would not be as emphasized as it currently is. But right and wrong aren't emphasized whatsoever, and society is becoming completely consumed by relativism. And who can blame it when the strongest voice of objective moral values is not only not objective but proposes horrible standards for any society to be based on? Not him. You're whole scenario showcases the social contract at its conceptual stage. What is moral and what is immoral, were labels developed by religions. A moral code is a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code’s standard of value. The standard is the end, to which man’s actions are the means. A moral code is a set of abstract principles; to practice it, an individual must translate it into the appropriate concretes—he must choose the particular goals and values which he is to pursue. This requires that he define his particular hierarchy of values, in the order of their importance, and that he act accordingly. "Concepts of Consciousness" Not at all? Now that is something you cannot know. As an Objectivist it is a claim I can make quite strongly: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/ Without religion, adultery would not be a term. This is inconsequential as the implications of both marriage and adultery can and are present devoid of any religious influence. well then they obviously aren't the most faithful followers of their religion, are they? Ask Henry the Eighth. Side: No
How can u say that we don't need religion for moral values ? actually 3 year old children can not decide what is right or wrong. you give hamster example but children feels it is bad because they are watching death , they fear death. in fact all animals (including humans) fear death by birth. Side: Yes
1
point
|
