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.
Will religions survive another century ?
Eventhough the number of atheists is increasing day by day, considering the fact that religions are succeeding to manipulate the weak minded, financially insecure, loads-of-problem bearing people to make them pray and wait indefinitely for solutions to there problems; what do you think, will religions survive another century in this world ?
There are simply too many people who, by either genetics or upbringing, feel the compulsion to latch onto the indefinite. They use it to give their lives purpose, to assuage their discomfort with mortality, to have confidence in their own morality.
It is a mixture of fear, ignorance, creativity and a desire for order, all of which exist in us to some level. Religion ain't going anywhere in a mere century.
Christianity might finally die off, but due to high birth rate and lax immigration, Islam isn't going away any time soon; in fact it's spreading at an alarming rate.
Alternatively, until people are capable of reconciling themselves with their mortality without appeal to the supernatural. Religion is a coping mechanism for those who cannot accept the rather apparent reality of that mortality, little more. Although, throw in an inability to reconcile oneself with ones insignificance and the cosmic meaninglessness of life. Oh, and the inability to develop a mature, internal moral conscience.
There was never any answer to what awaits after death and it is a normal thing to fear the unknown. It is a human thing to seek guidance and aid when you are in the darkest times. Fear has kept our civilization safe and religion allowed us to control that fear.
And until we can have all the questions answered, religion shall remain
I never said it was unnatural for human beings to fear the unknown or seek guidance (even false guidance). That was actually rather my point, that it is in the nature of most humans to avoid reality. This attribute has served humanity to some extent, though at considerable cost, but that does not make it an inherent necessity. An evolved attribute will either become obsolete because the context changes (i.e. we get our answers) or because other, better faculties are developed (i.e. we become capable of reconciling ourselves to the unknown).
The human mind continues to evolve, and as non-theistic views continue to grow as a demographic we can suspect the theistic coping mechanism to become increasingly obsolete. That atheists exist while we simultaneously still lack answers about key questions of human existence is empirical evidence that religion certainly is not necessary. The human mind is evolving to reconcile our selves with reality, to being able to accept and live with the unknown.
P.S. Religion never gave us control over our fear. It has controlled humanity just as much as the fear has. The only thing that controls fear is confront it; consoling it with illusions just feeds it.
Non-theistic views on death are limited and can only reach so far before turning into something Nihilistic. It is probably even less effective when heard by simple men who has done nothing in life that will be remembered.
The belief that you will be rewarded for your good deeds however is very optimistic one. It also gives hope to the person that he is loved and cherished and everything that he has lost will soon be his again.
Prayers and worships was there for a reason and it will probably stay until we gathered answers or became immortals. But I will still keep an open mind for positive non-theistic outlooks for death
I see no reason why non-theistic views are limited, ineffective, or inherently Nihilistic. Further, as a nihilist I challenge you to demonstrate why nihilism itself is problematic. As it stands you have not only falsely grouped all non-theistic views together and arbitrarily assigned certain attributes to them as a falsely homogenized group, but have equally implied without substantiation that those attributes are objectionable. Additionally, there is no reason to assume that the present limited capacity of the average human being to adopt non-theistic views represents an inherent, static constant in human psychology (and given my reasoning in my prior post, there is reason to think it capable of changing).
Let me speak from my own experience and perspective as an anti-theistic nihilist.
I reject the implication that we have meaning only by consequence of a deity. I reject also that cosmic meaning (i.e. that we matter to the universe or some immortal being in any way) is the only possible significant form of meaning. I contend that the only meaning that matters is our personal sense of meaning. I do not think that such a personal sense of meaning requires cosmic significance or immortality; it is based in our personal self-value and experience of life (i.e. I matter because I feel I matter, others matter to me because I feel they do). The same may be said of purpose; I derive my sense of it internally and do not need a deity or cosmic purpose to externally direct me.
I think life ends with death, and consider this substantiated by our knowledge of human biology and psychology. I consider the belief in life after death not only unsubstantiated but probabilistically unlikely given the aforementioned knowledge; consequentially, it is an empty and meaningless placation. I do not consider my life constrained by my mortality, but enhanced by it; this is the only life I will ever have and this knowledge compels me to live it the very best I can and enjoy it as fully as is possible.
I further contend that while our consciousness does not outlive death, our past actions impact the way that other people live their lives (and this is born out by sociology and human psychology). We are passed on as echoes of ourselves to others who outlive us, though we ourselves cease to exist. I think this is a remarkable form of limited immortality, and it compels me to live my life in as positive a way as possible so that the manner in which I affect others who outlive me is positive as well.
Views like mine are increasingly common. More and more people reject religion as a non-explanation of the unknown, and as an empty placation. This is empirical fact.
Religion is the shelter for those incapable of reconciling themselves to their own mortality and cosmic insignificance, and to the cosmic meaningless of life. It is the refuge of those incapable of developing a mature internal moral conscience. So long as the majority of human beings remain incapable of confronting reality as it really is, religion will survive. While I consider it probable that religion will eventually become evolutionarily obsolete, it is unlikely that the human mind should evolve so rapidly as to bring this to fruition within a century.
It is human nature to seek for an answer to the things that people cannot explain. Religion is often the answer to these unsolvable mysteries, and it may well be used to answer the questions that, in 100 years, will not be answered
Even from a scientific perspective religion will survive. The natural religion of man is Shamanism. It was first observed in those ancient drawings and burial grounds of the cave man, organically from all parts of the globe. Evolutionary theory has a strong branch of thought that religion has a psychological function for survival, even ask Dawkins about that. Also, religion is healthy! For more info on this fact check out the Great Courses series audio lectures titled "The Spiritual Brain".
Ethics: Check, but only based on what society has established
Material Expression: Does Atheism have a symbol like the Cross, the Star of David, the Dove... anything like that? Nope.
Sacredness: Nope
So Atheism gets a three out of seven on the ol' religion checklist. If you don't believe that is an accurate evaluation, then go ahead and run any religion through it. I guarantee they'll each match up to it 100%.
Though not officially recognized science and atheism are bonded, most atheists and scientist can agree to this.
To pick up where you checked off:
The myths of atheism, are the myths of science. The big bang, with no actually proof is labeled a theory, because it's peer reviewed. yet that is no different than the theory of Jesus' resurrection, with no peer review.
It's not necessary to have rituals to be a religion. Though Christians, Jewish people, and other publicly recognized religions do, less recognized religions such as The Church of Jedi do not.
Atheism's symbol is the body, since they believe in themselves.
What is sacredness? Not all religions hold something sacred.
What you refer as myths of science are not myths but mere theories which have to be validated and falsified. On the contrary, myths of religions are unquestionable and unchangeable to any extend. There is a big difference between myths and theories.
The big bang, with no actually proof is labeled a theory, because it's peer reviewed. yet that is no different than the theory of Jesus' resurrection, with no peer review.
The big bang theory is a theory unlike Jesus resurrection which is a myth, and I am sure if science fails to validate and falsify the big bang theory, science will abandon it once and for all.
It's not necessary to have rituals to be a religion.
Definition of religion is not confined to the scope of rituals rather it is a strong belief in super natural power, deity or god that control human destiny. This definition does not hold true with atheism.
What you refer as myths of science are not myths but mere theories which have to be validated and falsified. On the contrary, myths of religions are unquestionable and unchangeable to any extend.
Hmm... I didn't even think of that. That's a pretty good point.
I stated that the myths of science are theories. They are peer reviewed myths named theories that, like the myths of religion, have not been proven but are widely accepted.
How is Jesus' resurrection, and the big bang different? I didn't see in your explanation how you say they are.
The definition of religion does not fit with Scientology or Buddhism, (accepted religions with either no deity and or no rituals) yet they are religions all the same.
More specifically myth does not equal the definition for how sciences use the term theory.
You are not using the correct definition here. It would be like me trying to talk to rocket scientists but using the star wars definition of 'force' in place of the definition that scientists use.
This is something that should be evident is why I provided no definitions, any footwork would show this. Since you are trying to equate mythology and science you must use the scientific definition of theory, but even if you do not the two words/ideas do not equal each other. Would you ever use the term 'scientific theory' to describe a myth? Of course not.
The most notable difference between the definitions is that theories are falsifiable, mythology often uses supernatural and is not falsifiable.
myth
miTH/Submit
noun
1.
a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology
traditional stories or legends collectively.
"the heroes of Greek myth"
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē,ˈTHi(ə)rē/Submit
noun
1.
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
I stated that the myths of science are theories. They are peer reviewed myths named theories that, like the myths of religion, have not been proven but are widely accepted.
Science does not take anything just for granted, even though something which has been accepted widely; a good and famous example is science proved earth is not flat.
How is Jesus' resurrection, and the big bang different? I didn't see in your explanation how you say they are.
Like I stated before, unlike jesus myth, big bang is subjected to validation and falsification. I hope you know what exactly validation and falsification does. Science will abandon big bang theory when it realizes there is no point in holding on to it. Big question is will it ever happen with jesus myth ?, I highly doubt it and thats why it is called a myth.
The definition of religion does not fit with Scientology or Buddhism
Scientology is created by a science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard in 1954 and he claimed and characterized it as a religion just like you are proposing atheism as a religion now. BTW a little bit of research will make sure that scientology is not considered as a religion by the majority of people.
Buddhism is a religion without a God, which was started in the 6th Century BC by Siddartha Guatama. They do not pray to any creator, but they have devotional meditations that can be compared to prayers. However they seek to get favour from Amida Buddha, who is the Buddha of Infinite Light because they believe he has created a Pure Land in the west and only those who have faith will go there.
The most important thing is atheism and science are very different, while science is a is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe, atheism is a rejection of any kind of belief in the existence of deities. Atheists use scientific knowledge for the purpose of education does not mean that science and atheism are same or even comparable.
Yes, but for the several centuries it was believed, and scientifically written off that the earth is flat until more evidence came along. That is the case with modern theories.
The big bang theory has many a flaw and has yet to be discarded.
For the religion of Scientology, it not being recognized by 'many' people is of no concern, because it is an established one legally.
For your last paragraph the point I'm referring to is how you say "Atheists use scientific knowledge for the purpose of education" , and so on. I have this to say. It may not be mandatory but it is always used, making the two very interchangeable.
The myths of atheism, are the myths of science. The big bang, with no actually proof is labeled a theory, because it's peer reviewed. yet that is no different than the theory of Jesus' resurrection, with no peer review.
That's a decent argument, but it should be important to note that to be an Atheist, you don't have to believe in the big bang theory. While most Atheists believe the Big Bang to be accurate, the theory is not specifically central to the beliefs of Atheists.
It's not necessary to have rituals to be a religion. Though Christians, Jewish people, and other publicly recognized religions do, less recognized religions such as The Church of Jedi do not.
I had no idea that was a real thing... so I looked it up. On their website it says they perform "Jedi Marriages"... which would obviously be a religious ceremony. In other words, they do take part in rituals.
Atheism's symbol is the body, since they believe in themselves.
That doesn't count. Actually, I think you may have just made it up LOL! The body is not a logo for Atheism. When you go in a Christian church, you'll find the Cross along with images of Jesus. Judaism has the Star of David. Buddhism has the Buddha... every religion has a symbol and the "body" is not Atheism's.
What is sacredness? Not all religions hold something sacred.
Certain objects, people, actions and places are considered sacred in religions. Name one religion that doesn't hold anything to be sacred.
Jedi marriages take place, as do atheist marriages. Would that mean atheists do take part in rituals?
An atheists believes that they are here, that is true. If that can not be seen as a symbol, then it is true that atheism has no symbol, but it does not solidify that a religion needs a symbol.
Your last question asks for a religion that holds no object sacred, the answer to that is Scientology. They believe in their deities but hold no object sacred in regards to it.
Jedi marriages take place, as do atheist marriages. Would that mean atheists do take part in rituals?
Yes, Atheists often take part in rituals from other religions. They tend to get married in churches, and if not there, then they still probably have a pastor marrying them.
An atheists believes that they are here, that is true. If that can not be seen as a symbol, then it is true that atheism has no symbol, but it does not solidify that a religion needs a symbol.
All religions have symbols. It's part of what makes a religion a religion.
Your last question asks for a religion that holds no object sacred, the answer to that is Scientology. They believe in their deities but hold no object sacred in regards to it.
Are their churches not sacred? Is their symbol not sacred? Are L. Ron Hubbard's religious texts not sacred to them?
The Christians often take part in the rituals of other, former religions themselves.
I stated that at least three religions I know of have no symbol. Jediism, Pastfarianism, and Scientology. And although we disagree, Atheism is also a religion with no symbol.
Yes, their is a distinction made on what is sacred and what is ordinary, but we all have "sacred" possessions, or beliefs, and ordinary, easily discardable ones. I don't understand.
The Christians often take part in the rituals of other, former religions themselves.
That's very true... but the difference is that Christianity has adopted the rituals of dead religions. Atheists take part in rituals from religions that still exist.
I stated that at least three religions I know of have no symbol. Jediism, Pastfarianism, and Scientology. And although we disagree, Atheism is also a religion with no symbol.
By the way, Jediism and Pastafarianism should hardly be counted as real religions. They were clearly made to mock religion.
Yes, their is a distinction made on what is sacred and what is ordinary, but we all have "sacred" possessions, or beliefs, and ordinary, easily discardable ones. I don't understand.
Sacred is pretty much just a religious term. It shouldn't really apply to an Atheist. Something that is sacred in religion is seen as holy and is often used in religious worship.
What difference does it matter if the religion is dead or existing. Atheists adopted the rituals of existing religions, and Christians adopted the rituals of dead ones. Yet they both have them.
I wouldn't consider any of them to be an official symbol.
Something that is 'sacred' is something said to be more special by a religion, but that does not mean it is mandatory, evidenced by the mock religions that neglected something sacred. Fake or not, or for whatever purpose they were created, they are accepted as religions, and they lack what you claim a religion must have.
What difference does it matter if the religion is dead or existing. Atheists adopted the rituals of existing religions, and Christians adopted the rituals of dead ones. Yet they both have them.
Let's use marriage as an example. If atheists are getting married in a Christian church and being married by a pastor... what kind of message does that send to the audience (assuming they don't already know)? Theze peoplez be Christianz, yo! Of course, that isn't actually true... but my point is, they're taking part in Christian rituals! They didn't adopt the ritual into their own movement. It's not holy to them.
On this site I found various logos for atheists.
Did you know of those symbols? I certainly didn't. I bet the majority of atheists don't even know about those symbols. However, all Christians know about the cross. All Buddhists know about Buddha. All Jews know about the Star of David... and so on.
Something that is 'sacred' is something said to be more special by a religion, but that does not mean it is mandatory, evidenced by the mock religions that neglected something sacred.
They mocked it because they don't believe it to be sacred.
Fake or not, or for whatever purpose they were created, they are accepted as religions, and they lack what you claim a religion must have.
Are you talking about Pastafarianism? That would qualify as a "parody religion". Not an actual religion. It is a movement that was created to oppose the teaching of creationism.
For your first point. Not to discredit you but all I take from this, is that the religion of atheism holds nothing sacred. Which is not a defining factor in being a religion or not, and that they are an open house of religious culture not limiting themselves to anyone. Picking and choosing as they go along, the aspects that they like. With no set rules on what they can or can't pick.
I did not know of these symbols. What I take from this, is that atheists have a weaker community than other religions.
For your last statement I'm referring to all the mock religions, that are still recognized as religions.
For your first point. Not to discredit you but all I take from this, is that the religion of atheism holds nothing sacred.
It doesn't... and to be a religion, it needs to.
Which is not a defining factor in being a religion or not
Well, it is a defining factor in being a religion. In order for something to be considered a religion, it has to match up to the list 100%. I didn't just make it up!
that they are an open house of religious culture not limiting themselves to anyone.
They really have little choice when it comes to religious culture. We're surrounded!
I did not know of these symbols. What I take from this, is that atheists have a weaker community than other religions.
They are definitely a minority.
For your last statement I'm referring to all the mock religions, that are still recognized as religions.
Those religions, mock or not, were made to act as opposition to publicly recognized religions, and they are accepted in some countries. In countries with equal religious belief laws, if something is stated to be necessary of you religion you are granted the right to do it. Their are people who have upgraded their driver's licenses with their religious symbols, or at least one that i know of. A pastfarian chezk man who had his I.D. upgraded with a sieve on his head, for his religion, that legally had to be recognized, pastfarianism.
You may consider something to be a religion... but that doesn't make it one.
Okay, let's assume that Pastafarianism is a real religion (they even say so on their site, even though their site even seems like satire). How does that prove that atheism is a religion?
Science isn't a religion. You could be a Christian scientist. Faith isn't a religion either. You could be an atheist with faith.
The same could be said for your not considering these to be religions.
I've stated in the explanations above how atheism is a religion.
Science is not a religion, but atheists agree to a different science than Christians. Science almost always backs atheists, and they almost always cling to it.
I've stated in the explanations above how atheism is a religion.
You can be a Buddhist and still be atheist. Pastafarians are atheists. Christians are theists. Is theism a religion? No. They are just words to describe whether or not you believe in a God or gods.
Science is not a religion, but atheists agree to a different science than Christians. Science almost always backs atheists, and they almost always cling to it.
What is your point? Some Christians do agree with the same science as atheists. Some Christians even believe that "science and religion are two different languages, telling the same story".
Your first statement is a reiteration of my own, with the twist that atheism is a description. From my perspective it is both, being a non religious atheist myself.
My point is that atheists believe science as Christians believe in faith. Just because some don't doesn't make them any less apart of the religion, as some Christians believing in science makes them any less part of their religion.
Your first statement is a reiteration of my own, with the twist that atheism is a description. From my perspective it is both, being a non religious atheist myself.
But the difference is that by being an atheist and a Buddhist, you are arguing that they have a religion within another religion.
My point is that atheists believe science as Christians believe in faith.
Atheists have faith in science. Christians don't have faith in faith lol. They have faith in their own religion.
Just because some don't doesn't make them any less apart of the religion, as some Christians believing in science makes them any less part of their religion.
I think we're getting off topic... do you still believe that atheism is a religion? If you do, then the belief in sasquatch is a religion as well as the disbelief. The belief in aliens is also a religion, as well as the disbelief. Basically, what you're saying is that any belief or disbelief is a religion.
Your sarcasm is noted, but you could file for it and be granted rights based on your belief in unicorns if it were real. Your belief that is, not the unicorn.
Wow... that is so untrue, I don't even know what to say. What qualifies as a religion goes SO much deeper than that.
The common definition of religion does not go into detail. This leaves the door open for many things to be classified as religions... but to give an actual definition of what a religion really is, would be too long. So I shared with you seven of the eight common elements (I left out one because I didn't think it was important) that make up a religion. You agreed that atheism does not match up to that list... which as anyone who has an actual education on this subject would know, means it is NOT a religion. You are completely misusing the term. I'm sharing with you information from a college textbook, practically giving you a free education on religion... and you're just refusing to accept it. So, if you disagree with me, then that is fine... but I'm not disputing you just because I disagree, but because I know that you are wrong.
Our debate may not be about mock religions, but the points we began discussing are. What those points included was that mock religions are recognized. The point I have been arguing since that, is that if mock religions are recognized, their factors must be added included to the official definition since they are now official by law.
The mock religions that you included, specifically Pastafarianism, consists of atheists. They don't actually believe in a FSM. Many Buddhists are also atheist. Atheism does not match up as a religion, because some religions already have atheistic followers. There aren't Christian Muslims or Jewish Hindus. You can't have a religion within a religion.
I've already said that Pastafarianism can be considered a religion, even though it is unrecognized. It still matches up to the eight elements though. Atheism does not.
Maybe I jumped the gun with a belief system. The only official belief is believing in there is no god, but that's a debate point in it's own right so i choose not to argue on it. I only have for certain the community.
Most debates here usually end with one guy getting bored and leaving. I think this is the third or fourth debate that I've seen to be formally concluded.
Oh. So they don't end like this very often. I guess that is to be expected when we have no obligation to return other than pride, or a sense of surety.
The big bang, with no actually proof is labeled a theory, because it's peer reviewed. yet that is no different than the theory of Jesus' resurrection, with no peer review.
Yeah, that's why it's accepted as a definite answer.
That's why there's still debate over this.
BTW, the big Bang has lots of evidence :P The question is wether the evidence is pointing to the big bang or something else.
Though I believe that Organized religion such as Christianity and Islam will die out in the near future, the belief in a God or some sort of higher power will most likely always remain.
Their not growing that well, most new religions such as Scientology, Mormonism, and the New Age movement are already losing footing. This is most likely because they are more recent. Older and more widespread religions like Christianity and Islam will take a while, but their starting to decline as well.
I'm pretty sure that the aliens will have arrived by then and will have informed us that it was they who created most things. This will destroy religions for sure.
You only downvoted me because you are afraid of the truth! THIS IS THE TRUTH!
YOU WILL ALL SEE ONE DAY!!! YOU WON'T BE PREPARED AND YOU WILL REGRET IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
no because they can't come out of there believes to the reality of time on earth. alot of them think that everything must be like how god made it. gay, lizben, zoosexuals would not be living if god people take over. god people would do to gay, lizben, zoosexuals people like what hitler did to the jews.
hi what I think he meet to say god people is killing them by voting against them. Just because they believe in god that no reason to make other persists life hell. And that there like hitler because hitler just killed them just because there different.
Well, yeah. Some people are like that. But the person I was responding to said religious people where a threat to homosexuals, which is not true for all religious people.
The ones that do wish harm upon homosexuals believe that God will punish them in the afterlife. these are a minority.
what he was saying that voting against them is killing them. that mean it would be doing harm to them. just because they can't think with out god. And that it would not be good for the future.
Because if this was illegal all over the earth. it would be no reason for them to live. so if you vote against them. it would be illegal. And they would die because of that.