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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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.
Why is religion important for the society?
'No,It's not important... it starts wars and causes millions lives to be lost senselessly every year due to a false belief. If god existed rape wouldn't.'
For now, it gives people a crutch to lean on before they start to seek the truth, then they don't need it. At some point in the future, all of religion will be dead.
I've copied one of my arguments from another debate where someone suggested that morals are derived from religion because it fits this one as well:
The idea that a depraved book of primitive savagery for the deluded should serve as some sort of moral compass is a tired idea that belongs in the dark ages.
Morality is just another part of evolution. Behaviours that are considered "moral" have been adopted simply because they are beneficial for survival.
If you take the Bible for example, you can clearly see that morality exists in spite of it, not because of it.
If we were to look to the Bible for moral guidance, we'd be forbidding women to speak (the Bible says they are to remain silent and are not to teach, or have authority over any man), killing our children for being disobedient, stoning our daughters to death for losing their virginity, forcing them to marry men who rape them and sending them out to be gang raped by angry mobs to protect our male dinner guests; not to mention keeping slaves and beating them to death (condoned in the Bible so long as they don't die right away) and "dashing babies to death on rocks" because they happen to be the children of our enemies.
Does this really sound to you like a book to be consulted by anyone in search of morality?
Well it is important to instill good morals to your children, however I don't find it to important after they know they need to treat others as they want to be treated, never steal, etc.
Not something that makes them carry through with them.
The threat of Hell will scare most kids straight.
The threat of hell is a form of abuse. At best it doesn't stick with a child, and they ignore it as implausible. However to some children it fills them with deep fear that lasts for years until they can overcome it. Parents shouldn't torture their children with this kind of misinformation.
Lets not make this one of these kinds of debates ;)
The threat of hell is a form of abuse. At best it doesn't stick with a child, and they ignore it as implausible. However to some children it fills them with deep fear that lasts for years until they can overcome it.
So is every other threat. Parents threaten their kids all the time ... Christmas, boogey man, threat of leaving their kid somewhere, etc etc.
The idea of hell is a form of abuse in that the idea of heaven is a treat.
If you have something that informs you of punishment in one aspect with the latter aspect being there is a reward of pamper. Why would one be bad? If they did do something bad why not repent?
So is every other threat. Parents threaten their kids all the time ... Christmas, boogey man, threat of leaving their kid somewhere, etc etc.
You're grasping at straws.
The idea of hell is a form of abuse in that the idea of heaven is a treat.
Both of which are great lies that require a developed mind to work out why they can't exist, and thus not be a threat.
If you have something that informs you of punishment in one aspect with the latter aspect being there is a reward of pamper. Why would one be bad? If they did do something bad why not repent?
Telling your child that they will be forced to live in constant agony if they do something wrong is traumatic. It doesn't matter if you tell them an equally big lie that they will encounter bliss. You're manipulating their credulity and trust of you in order to make them accept your authority, at the cost of damaging them later in life with a warped sense of reality, and when they finally work out that you were lying they will lose their primitive fear-based morality and become amoral.
Telling your child that they will be forced to live in constant agony if they do something wrong is traumatic.
Thats not how it works though. The threat of Hell is used quite minimally. Kids usually do not understand the whole concept of Hell, only that it is something uncomfortable and not fun.
You're grasping at straws.
You can't make bricks without straw. Can't build up an argument for threats without showing you some examples that are equally as threatening to a child with a low capacity for analyzing complex situations as Hell.
However as we are drifting towards a different debate lets bring it all back ....
Why is religion important for the society?
When a child is utterly surrounded by the shroud of religion he/she becomes conditioned to believe what they are told in the sense of their religious upbringings. With a religious upbringing, one has morals instilled upon them.
Thats not how it works though. The threat of Hell is used quite minimally. Kids usually do not understand the whole concept of Hell, only that it is something uncomfortable and not fun.
Now you're just trivialising it. The fact is that you're threatening a child, who is programmed to believe you unconditionally, with pain and agony if they don't obey you, and you're giving them a neurosis.
When a child is utterly surrounded by the shroud of religion he/she becomes conditioned to believe what they are told in the sense of their religious upbringings. With a religious upbringing, one has morals instilled upon them.
Non sequitur. You jumped from ritual to morality.
A religious upbringing teaches the child dogma required to be in that group, and the various rituals the group uses to gain the favour of their imaginary friend.
Rituals are not morals however. Morals come from experiencing life, and empathising with your peers.
The fact is that you're threatening a child, who is programmed to believe you unconditionally, with pain and agony if they don't obey you, and you're giving them a neurosis.
If a child believes a parent unconditionally, then when a parent tells him/her to never lie or else ... why do children lie?
Non sequitur. You jumped from ritual to morality.
I said the same thing I have been saying since the other moral debate. If a kid is brought up around Christianity he/she will have the morals that revolve around Christianity instilled upon him/her.
Rituals are not morals however. Morals come from experiencing life, and empathising with your peers.
I'm sorry what ritual did I mention ... ?
A religious upbringing teaches the child dogma required to be in that group, and the various rituals the group uses to gain the favour of their imaginary friend.
I agree, the child is taught the religion. So we are on the same page as of now, lets take it a step further. There are 10 commandments that are taught to children that are raised under Christianity. Hopefully we are still in agreement. In those 10 commandments are morals that in having been taught to said child are then instilled upon him/her.
If a child believes a parent unconditionally, then when a parent tells him/her to never lie or else ... why do children lie?
There is a difference between credulity and obedience.
A child's credulity allows him to believe that an angel spoke to a man in a cave who later became a mouthpiece for god, or that a flood destroyed all life on earth, etc. These are obvious fables but the child believes them.
I said the same thing I have been saying since the other moral debate. If a kid is brought up around Christianity he/she will have the morals that revolve around Christianity instilled upon him/her.
In a perfect case he will become completely indoctrinated into religious dogma and ritual, and have his morality stripped away so that he is an obedient servant of god. In a worst case his morality will prevent him from accepting church dogma and rituals and he will become an apostate. Typically when happens falls between these. The person's morality is separate from the religion, but the religion can suppress morality.
I'm sorry what ritual did I mention ... ?
Rituals: commandments, prayer, church attendance, etc.
I agree, the child is taught the religion. So we are on the same page as of now, lets take it a step further. There are 10 commandments that are taught to children that are raised under Christianity. Hopefully we are still in agreement. In those 10 commandments are morals that in having been taught to said child are then instilled upon him/her.
Five of those commandments revolve around ritual. The other five are values that tend to develop independently in the child regardless of religion (killing, theft, deception, covetousness, adultery). Religion may only make these morals more rigid, or it may teach them before the child understands them.
Rituals: commandments, prayer, church attendance, etc.
Ah, but at that point in time I hadn't mentioned any of those now did I?
Oh and since you didn't reply to the whole straw paragraph, I am going to guess you liked it =)
Five of those commandments revolve around ritual. The other five are values that tend to develop independently in the child regardless of religion (killing, theft, deception, covetousness, adultery). Religion may only make these morals more rigid, or it may teach them before the child understands them.
Ok ... so you disagree that religion instills morals, and yet you say that it makes the ideas of morals more rigid. Aren't you being a little antithetic?
In a perfect case he will become completely indoctrinated into religious dogma and ritual, and have his morality stripped away so that he is an obedient servant of god. In a worst case his morality will prevent him from accepting church dogma and rituals and he will become an apostate. Typically when happens falls between these. The person's morality is separate from the religion, but the religion can suppress morality.
You mentioned that 5 of the commandments that fall under Christianity do have to do with morals. So it is obvious that the religion being used as an example advocates morals. So how could something that advocated morals, strip away someones morals?
Ah, but at that point in time I hadn't mentioned any of those now did I?
Oh and since you didn't reply to the whole straw paragraph, I am going to guess you liked it =)
You insisted that religion instils morals. I corrected you: it instils rituals.
The "straw paragraph" was spurious and needed no attention. If you can't guess why it was wrong, it's simple really: You were equivocating my meaning of "grasping at straws" to segway into a sentence about the necessity of "hell" when plenty of societies get by without invoking eternal torment and misery as a reference point for their children.
Ok ... so you disagree that religion instills morals, and yet you say that it makes the ideas of morals more rigid. Aren't you being a little antithetic?
No. Rigidity implies a lack of ability to make case by case decisions regarding morality. In other words religions takes common sense morals and makes them inflexible, no longer moral decisions but immutable rules that must be followed to the letter.
Put simply, the child would learn these morals on his own, making religion unnecessary, but religion can actually stunt moral development by making him unreasonable with his morals.
You mentioned that 5 of the commandments that fall under Christianity do have to do with morals. So it is obvious that the religion being used as an example advocates morals. So how could something that advocated morals, strip away someones morals?
It's simple, actually. When you are following a rulebook, or law, you are avoiding deeper thinking and simply deferring personal judgement to that book or lawmaker. Morality requires active decision making and experience with different, often complex situations which may not have a clear or even beneficial solution. Deferring judgement to a rulebook or lawmaker authority depersonalises the situation and stops critical thinking, leading to a stunted morality that is in fact obedience.
I don't think the threat of hell is the only thing keeping humans from uncontrollably lying, killing, and stealing. If this were true, all atheists (and others who don't believe in Hell) would be incurable criminals, and all Christians would be completely law-abiding. It is fairly obvious neither of those things are the case.
We were born to empathize and cooperate with each other, religious influence or not.
When they have all of the wonders and fantastic beauties awaiting them if they are good, why misbehave? Why would a child ( a child mind you, not some grown atheist ) not try and follow through with the golden rule?
Religion in my own opinion, yours is irrelevant to me, is only good for instilling good morals on children. Whether or not they grow up and decide to take another religious path, they still know that adultery, murder, stealing, etc etc are all bad things to do.
We were born to empathize and cooperate with each other, religious influence or not.
Humans were born to hate, there is not one human on this planet that is totally empathetic towards humanity. The human race is savage, the human race thrives off of blood shed.
If we were born to empathize and cooperate with each other, we wouldn't have wars. It is fairly obvious that neither of those things are the case. ( see what I did there? )
When they have all of the wonders and fantastic beauties awaiting them if they are good, why misbehave? Why would a child ( a child mind you, not some grown atheist ) not try and follow through with the golden rule?
Religion in my own opinion, yours is irrelevant to me, is only good for instilling good morals on children. Whether or not they grow up and decide to take another religious path, they still know that adultery, murder, stealing, etc etc are all bad things to do.
Religious societies tend to be more immoral, the more devout the population is. Religion corrupts our sense of morality, and makes us approve of immoral actions. This is partly why, for examples, the Middle East, south Asia and northern Africa have such gross human rights violations. People are butchered, raped, and tortured with a religious mindset allowing for it. Experiments have been done where a religious story of genocide is told and it is asked if the listeners approve, the majority did. When the names were changed to eastern ones, the same listeners disapproved. This experiment was conducted in Israel and demonstrates how religion causes moral problems.
Humans were born to hate, there is not one human on this planet that is totally empathetic towards humanity. The human race is savage, the human race thrives off of blood shed.
If we were born to empathize and cooperate with each other, we wouldn't have wars. It is fairly obvious that neither of those things are the case. ( see what I did there? )
Humans are a social species that cooperates with its tribe or group. Wars exist because of an ingroup versus outgroup bias. Religion is entirely superfluous to this fact.
The idea of Hell keeps children in line maybe a little bit more effectively than the idea of Santa Claus does. Do you really think Christian children are that much better behaved than non-Christian children? Go look at a playground and see how much a presence Hell has in the every day life of a child. And if and when the threat is effective, it is not instilling morals in them; it is scaring them and lying to them to force them to behave.
The most effective way to get children (and adults) to behave is to help them really want to do it; to teach them how to have sympathy, and to show them that cooperation is more effective than cruelty. Fortunately, my point about us being empathetic creatures at heart is still true.
Humans were born to hate, there is not one human on this planet that is totally empathetic towards humanity. The human race is savage, the human race thrives off of blood shed.
If we were born to empathize and cooperate with each other, we wouldn't have wars. It is fairly obvious that neither of those things are the case. ( see what I did there? )
I do see what you did but it doesn't make it correct and it is actually kind of scary to me that you see the human race like this.
We are one of the few and perhaps the only animal with the ability to put ourselves in the position of our companions. There is a portion of our brain that responds to the emotions of our fellow humans by mimicking them; it responds to sadness with sadness, joy with joy. I am not claiming this makes us able to always get along with everyone, perfectly, because that is obviously not true. But our intelligence and ability to empathize have enabled us to progress as far as we have. We are social and cooperative animals, evolved to function in family groups from the very beginning. If we weren't born to empathize and cooperate with each other, we would never have built a city, invented a language, raised a family, or even survived past the infancy of our species. The empathy we feel for each other is not in total control of our actions, but it is most definitely present from day one.
War is an example of members of an in-group fighting members of a perceived out-group and is also, in its own way, excellent evidence of empathy and cooperation. Wars could not be fought without members of a group or nation cooperating very efficiently and empathizing with each others' dislike of an enemy, in fact on an astonishingly large scale.
Finally, all social animals exhibit a rudimentary but obvious code of behavior, and transgressors are punished. The more intelligent the animal, the more defined the code of behavior. What is more likely to be the reason for this, that social animals must evolve a code of morals in order to continue being social animals, or that all social animals fear a certain kind of hell?
I disagree, frightening little children with an idea like hell is torturous, the mind of a child is governed by imagination, a threat of hell is very real to them. Children are brilliant, funny and make life worth living. I have two sons, I have never thought either of them about hell and neither of them is immoral, quite the opposite actually, they are good, happy children, free form the mind invasion of religious dogma they are free to become forward thinking humans.
How many evil, bigoted, hate filled misogynist, racist pigs have come from religious backgrounds? too many to count, it would seem that the threat of hell didn't scare them straight or put them in line with a decent moral code. Even if you look at populations and their beliefs it is in the areas of high religious concentration that the crime rates are highest.
Even if you look at populations and their beliefs it is in the areas of high religious concentration that the crime rates are highest.
I'd love to take a peak, have any sources?
I disagree, frightening little children with an idea like hell is torturous, the mind of a child is governed by imagination, a threat of hell is very real to them.
So is the idea of heaven.
Good and bad is something very clear to children, you instill the 10 commandments upon them and they understand what good and bad are.
I have two sons, I have never thought either of them about hell and neither of them is immoral, quite the opposite actually, they are good, happy children, free form the mind invasion of religious dogma they are free to become forward thinking humans.
Are you saying that people who have a religious preference aren't free thinking?
free form the mind invasion of religious dogma
Sometimes the mind invasion of religious dogma is what makes somebody great. I have known a few people whom have religious ' awakenings ' turn their lives around and strive for excellence.
How many evil, bigoted, hate filled misogynist, racist pigs have come from religious backgrounds?
More than likely an equal amount of non believers if the whole world wasn't following some religion or another.
It is in human nature to be cruel to each other, the Huns didn't need a religion to slaughter all that they did. I know you're not empathetic towards humanity.
I will have to leave this one here as I agree with some of your arguments, although I don't think that it supports the argument that religion is important for society.
In regards to your first rebuttal I believe I misworded my point what I should have said was that areas of high religious concentration have a greater leaning towards violent crimes. (Crime being relevant to the country in case) think about South America, Afghanistan, Africa, Northern Ireland, India and Pakistan and Sudan to name a few all places where violence is carried out in the name of and/or in line with religious teaching.
I do believe that religion is important I never disputed that, but not as a means to gleam morals from, it is archaic and blind. The ten commandments cover some of the basic rules of life but leave out more puzzling moral dilemmas such as treatment of homosexuals, animals, the environment, race etc.
Are you saying that people who have a religious preference aren't free thinking?
This depends on your religion but as you mention the ten commandments I assume you are of a Judeo-Christian slant and I will say this.
It is a clear part of Biblical doctrine that to think sinful thoughts is a sin in itself and your thoughts are being monitored, this would lead to the belief that you can not in your mind expand on issues that would seem sinful. This is a perversion that creates a state of fear and in some a lack of enthusiasm to grasp more modern concepts.
I don't see how mind invasion makes people great though, is it not that they are suppressing their tendency to actually be themselves?
How do you know that I am not emphatic towards humanity?
Well as I dispute your points and you to me we grow further from the original question =)
I do believe that religion is important I never disputed that
What makes you think religion is important? Everything you have posted has kind of leaned towards an opposite.
How do you know that I am not emphatic towards humanity?
Chances are fairly high that you don't like some race, religion, or political standing. Really really high.
Did you also mean to say emphatic?
This depends on your religion but as you mention the ten commandments I assume you are of a Judeo-Christian slant and I will say this.
More of an Agnostic. I pray there's no hell, if you catch my drift ;)
It is a clear part of Biblical doctrine that to think sinful thoughts is a sin in itself and your thoughts are being monitored, this would lead to the belief that you can not in your mind expand on issues that would seem sinful.
When I was younger I had no doubt that the bible was 100% factual, however now that I am older I see holes in it, though I denounce none. I still wonder, I am a free thinking man. Whether or not I have had such a heavy pounding of religion into my brain I still have ended up a free thinking person.
Well as I dispute your points and you to me we grow further from the original question
Agreed, I have posted a debate on religion and morality, as you have something to say on this I would appreciate you having a look and giving your opinion.
What makes you think religion is important? Everything you have posted has kind of leaned towards an opposite.
I feel that religion is important as a means to understanding the past and a key to the human psyche, the question of morals though is quite a debatable topic and I don't think it is a reason why religion is important.
When I was younger I had no doubt that the bible was 100% factual, however now that I am older I see holes in it, though I denounce none. I still wonder, I am a free thinking man. Whether or not I have had such a heavy pounding of religion into my brain I still have ended up a free thinking person.
This is something I think is happening to a lot of the more educated Christians, more so because they are growing up in a secular world. It is up to the individual what they believe, but I do believe that prescribing to a faith should mean that one follows its rules, otherwise start ones own schism or leave. Being an agnostic opens you to doubt in the possibility of God and the disregard for scripture. This for me would make me question where my morals came from, if you go to my Religion and Morality debate I have given a link on one of my posts to a brief article on the origins of human morality from prehistoric altruism. I think you might find it interesting.
Chances are fairly high that you don't like some race, religion, or political standing. Really really high.
Did you also mean to say emphatic?
No I did not mean emphatic (My typing is pretty dismal), I meant empathetic. This depends on how you define the word, total empathy no, but an understanding of the human condition yes, I try to think of everything from the third party perspective. It is not my place to tell anyone they are outrightly wrong, unless they are illogical and even that is open to scrutiny, but to debate a topic that I believe is where empathy is most exercised.
religion has always been apart of my life and has helped me get through some very tough times in my life and has helped me make some huge decisions in my life
The idea that religion instills morality or is superfluous is a false dichotomy. For some, religions is unecessary and superfluous. For others, religion is a necessity to help incentivize civil behavior. Some find a mixture of both religion and secular ethics help form a moral code. Personally, I think religion was just another step in human social evolution. We as a society decided that human sacrifice and incest were self-destructive things that prohibited the advancement of our species. Religion was the vehicle that helped civilize society thousands of years ago and ended these practices. As society progressed, certain actions that religious texts condoned, we decided were no longer "civil" and instilled chaos rather than order. I think eventually one day, religion will be dead. We are moving towards a secular ethics based society rather than a dogmatic one like Pax Romana. Religion is like the carrier pigeon. It was useful at one point, it served its purpose but now is obsolete.
I think eventually one day, religion will be dead.
While this outcome would be likely in civilized western countries, unfortunately, the cancer that is Islam has infected nearly 1.5 billion people and that cancer continues to spread.
The western world, through generosity and ignorance has invited the enemy into its home and by the time it realizes that like any other parasite, Muslims intend to live off, and eventually kill their host, it's going to be too late. It probably already is.
Should a religion be judged by its extremist followers? Other holy books can be misinterpreted or twisted to seemingly justify terrible actions, the Bible included, but that doesn't mean they represent the spirit of the religion, or the beliefs and behaviour of most of the followers.
But I know relatively little about what Islam actually preaches, so tell me, what is it about Islam (not its craziest disciples) that makes it the worst religion?
I'm not talking about how other holy books have been interpreted or misinterpreted, I'm talking about how the followers act.
A religion should be judge by the civility of the majority. As far as Islam is concerned the moderates are like fanciful Unicorns, they don't exist, or they simply remain silent, passively condoning what the extremists do.
I know that today Islam as practiced by the "extremists" which in my opinion are the actually the majority are violent, evangelical, anti-intellecutal, sexist, and homophobic. There is no respect for dissenting opinions in Islam.
A religion should be judge by the civility of the majority. As far as Islam is concerned the moderates are like fanciful Unicorns, they don't exist, or they simply remain silent, passively condoning what the extremists do.
Fair enough, but the thing about moderates is that they do tend to be silent rather than vocal. In any issue, on either side, it is the extremists who try the hardest to make themselves heard.
I doubt that the majority of citizens in the Middle East, if they are violent, are so solely because of their religion. Factors like an unstable government, poverty, and constant threat of death from war seem more likely culprits. Take as an example, Muslims who live in America. Are there literally millions of Muslim American citizens who are unquestionably more violent, anti-intellectual, sexist, and homophobic than Americans of all other religion? I am not trying to claim Islam is a good religion, but all of those adjectives you just used could and do apply widely to certain sects of Christianity as well.
I maintain that people use religion as a tool to justify the things they already think and feel whether or not these things are supported by that particular religion, that Christianity and Islam are incredibly similar in essence, and that if someone is hateful, violent, and prejudiced, they will be so in the frame of any religion they chose to attach themselves to.
Should a religion be judged by its extremist followers? Other holy books can be misinterpreted or twisted to seemingly justify terrible actions, the Bible included, but that doesn't mean they represent the spirit of the religion, or the beliefs and behaviour of most of the followers.
The extremist followers show us a real life example of "reductio ad absurdem" with those followers genuinely applying and carrying it out to their religion. It also shows us the boundaries of that religion, just how much hatred or charity or selflessness it can inspire under certain conditions.
The most worrying sentiment however is that those moderates are extremists waiting to come out under the right circumstances like desperation, hatred, poverty, etc.
But I know relatively little about what Islam actually preaches, so tell me, what is it about Islam (not its craziest disciples) that makes it the worst religion?
Thanks to Islam we see a trend of suicide bombings happening very frequently, with no end in sight. Al-Qaeda is frequently the backer of these operations, but it's all decentralised and nothing we can do will kill this behaviour off, except maybe government sanctioned deprogramming camps and severe criminalisation of this type of religion (Wahabiism specifically). However that's practically worse than the problem.
Also thanks to Islam we see movements being supported that wish to implement Sharia law upon the world, in other words medieval theocracy.
