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.
There is nothing good from religion which cannot also be gotten within a secular world, and the secular world can secure those same things with fewer harms. Religion has served its evolutionary purpose during the earlier stages of the development of human consciousness. It functioned to help people feel better when bad things happened, to create an external sense of meaning and purpose, and to explain what we didn't understand. The truth is though that we can accomplish these things far better with a secular framework.
Life does not have to have greater meaning to be important and personally significant. The understanding of something does not make it any less incredible. We are capable of reconciling ourselves to the inevitability of death. We are able to appreciate that while we do not have answers for something, myth is not itself an actual answer or explanation. And so forth.
Religion is slow to change and has been a consistent tool of prejudice and intolerance. It is not as evolutionarily advantageous as it once was, and eventually we will live in a world where we are evolved enough not to need its mythical beliefs to make life bearable.
At the end of the day the world would be a better place for sure. But humans can't live in a world like that. They fight among each other and are weak. They'll look to the sky deliriously asking for help to the clouds while they die. People search for security and weak people will take whatever form of security they can get their hands on, whether it be logical or not depends on the individual.
Secular societies do much better than theocracy ever did.Just look ow fast we are advancing. Try to compare Somalia and Sweden... I'm pretty sure that there are many Somalian refugee in Sweden but I'm damn sure that there are no Swedish refugee in Somalia.
The truth is we have not truly had a secular society because religion is so thoroughly pervasive even in self-proclaimed secular states. Your example of Somalia and Sweden is absurd. Somalia did not fail as a state because of religion. It failed primarily because of economics, race issues, and political strife.
This may come as something of a surprise to you but I am not actually talking out of my ass. I am actually quite well informed on the matter having read multiple editions of Bildhaan, a journal on Somali studies, and have had conversations with a current elected Somali representative about the nation and its history. The civil war was a consequence of multiple variables, the primary factors including colonial history, political power struggles, economic resources, and inter-tribal conflict. Religion had relatively little to do with what happened in Somalia.
...colonial history, political power struggles, economic resources... that's same for all revolutions but only those that are lead by religious groups (Jihadist in this case) end up as a horrible catastrophe.
It is no accident that the same variables lead to conflict and civil war, and I think your case is quite weak. Absent the factors I mentioned it is highly unlikely that religion could have caused civil war in Somalia or elsewhere on its own, and there is not evidence in my opinion that it is even the primary cause. You have no evidence that it is anything more than a byproduct of other variables, a manifestation of pre-existing instabilities, a theo-political exploitation of the circumstances.
Bildhaan is a credible academic journal started and overseen by one of the most reputable Somali scholars alive and an elected member of the Somali congress. You have no idea what you are talking about. I worked for the journal.
Somalia was fully overtaken by about 5 Jihadist groups which after that start killing each other and banned everything. I don't see any similarity to French revolution or US civil war.
Bildhaan is a scam, just bullshit parasiting on various grant systems, written by uninteresting "pseudo scholars" with ideas from 18th century.
Somalia is in constant tribal war for more than 4000 years. It's maybe good for people studying stone age cultures.
The civil war was not started by jihadists. It was started by paramilitary groups divided along tribal lines after the dissolution of the oppressive military regime of Barre. Jihadists took advantage of the situation, but like I said religion was not that primary cause. There simply is not evidence to support your claim. The Somali civil war is obviously different in its results than the French and U.S. revolutions/civil wars, but ultimately the causes were very similar - economics, politics, power, resources, etc.
Quite frankly, I doubt that you have even picked up a copy of Bildhaan let alone even read what I wrote about it. Do current elected representative within the coalition and leading Somali scholar in the world really mean nothing to you? You honestly think you have a better grasp of what happened? Piss off.
Somalia has not been in constant tribal war for more than 4000 years. It has not existed that long. No nation has. Europe was feudal for most of its history, so was China, and so forth. The only difference is that we call the factions groups for those regions and tribes when they're in Africa. The reason Africa overall and Somalia in particular has had struggles with development and stability is primarily a consequence of European colonization. Somalia is not a stone age culture, you ethnocentric ass.
I would say yes though when you say religion I am speaking of an organization based around belief. It is not so much the concept of having faith in something that is so bad but how it can be utilized. Though there have been tangible benefits to religion the other side to this is far worse. Most religions cannot be proven in a factual sense so it is taken on faith. The problem is this can be bred into the idea that the facts behind something is not as important as the belief in it. For this to work you have to believe that the founders of the religious thought you are following were obvious vessels for your deity then everything they do is ordained. There lies the issue. Its human nature to want to maintain the positive and brush the negative under the rug. History has shown time and time again that one person can through force of will or personality change so much. That is far from always a good thing. A strongly organized religion takes away from you trying to understand your place in the life and how you relate to whatever/whomever you consider divine.
I would think yes at times because of the past and how much of an issue is was, you were a Jew you got slaughtered by Nazis, and if you were Christian/Catholic you were downgraded. But just think if we didn't have religion would the world still be like what it is today? I think yes, at time religion would be better off not existing, but at the same time there is a reason for religion.
This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.
I like my religion. I don't think everyone should follow it. I think the broad choice of religions and beliefs available is a good thing, something for everyone. If everyone were atheists, what would the world be like? There would be no temples, no icons or myths.
Why is the absence of those things inherently bad? I hear you say that, and all I can think is: great, we will conduct ourselves according to reason and knowledge on the basis of reality. Why is that such a terrible thing?
People have the erroneous belief that being an atheist means you do not value life, that you do not think it is beautiful, that you cannot experience wonder, and that you are not ruled by any moral or ethical code. The truth is, none of that is accurate.
Churches in themselves are infact beautiful but look at the world as a whole. what has religion done to us as humans? poeple kill over religion, rape over religion, people have gone over board because they believe in what you clearly just said was a myth. i think without religion a lot more people would be safe
I do not disagree that there are beautiful works of architecture and other artistic work that have been constructed in the name of religion. However, I see no reason why beautiful works of art cannot also exist within a secular world. Beauty is not the sole purview of religion. Also consider that some of the most beautiful architectural religious buildings were built upon the backs of oppressed and exploited populations; for me that detracts considerably from the beauty.
People can still make things up. We have many great contemporary fiction authors. They just make up all the stuff they write about. It's not real. This is an improvement on mythology because mythology is made up stuff that some people at some time were delusional enough to convince themselves was real. Or still think is real.
Religion is something that is unavoidable in development of every society. It is one step in human development and if that step didn't happen we would never become what we are now. We have overcomed religion and now we must go further without looking back to it
To the contrary, I think we know a very good deal about religion. And what I know makes me sincerely believe that while it served an evolutionary function it is increasingly obsolete.
There is no logical reason to consider the actual existence of deities to be a possibility. There is, on the other hand, a fair amount of evidence pointing to religion and god as being constructs of the human mind.
And each is as unlikely and unsupported as the last. The most prevolent beliefs are in abrahamic religions and even that god we have nearly disproven. What makes you think that after disproving the mainstream god that we have to then disprove the unheardof Great Joo Joo of the Sea?
If a deity didnt create anything then it becomes useless. If god didnt make us and doesnt have the potential TO make anything then why believe in him? They just become even more illogical. And if deitys exist in despite this then they are just as bound by reality as we are.
We don't know for sure if anything does or doesn't exist. So that line of reasoning will get us nowhere.
What I meant was, for example, no Irishman in his right mind actually believes there are tiny fairy beings in green suits trafficking gold over rainbows. Yet there are thousands of Irish Catholics generally considered to be "sane" who actually believe that a demigod hippie zombie walked the Earth before ascending bodily to a magic kingdom in the sky.
Both of these beings, Leprechauns and Jesus, might have some "foundation" to their myths. That I don't dispute. I just find it kind of ridiculous most of humanity has no problem blowing off unicorns as a preposterous work of fiction while at the same time most of humanity believes in something equally absurd, they just call it religion. There's equal foundation (or lack thereof) for both of these kind of beings, yet one is regularly and casually dismissed as a fairy tale and the other is regularly and seriously accepted as the holy truth.
That a majority of human beings have been and remain religious does not make that belief legitimate or factual. There is a fairly compelling case for religiousity serving an evolutionary function by serving as a coping mechanism during the earlier stages of the development of the human conscious and self-awareness.
I was looking at the diversity of belief, and in all those religions some deities are really quite similar. Hekate and Brigit, for example. Or Thor and Zeus.
They are entertaining stories, but there is no truth in them that cannot be gotten through a secular approach more directly and without all the extraneous mistruths.
Why would I consider something to be true when there is no reason to? Why also, when there is enough reason to think that religion is nothing more than a human construct?
Not at all. There is not a single religion with an objective, rational explanation driving it. I know enough about religion to have a basis for thinking that it is nothing more than a construct of the human mind that developed as a consequence of evolutionary pressure.
I don't see how any of that counters our reason. Reincarnation, possible. Nirvana, it's a different world .'. our logic does not apply. Deities, it's fully possible that there are higher beings.
Meditation, Spellworking~ both have psychological value.
Reincarnation, not possible. There is no such thing as a soul and the self is construct of the human brain which ceases absolutely to exist upon death. Nirvana, a transcendent world that does not exist because again the mind is limited to the physical reality of the brain. Deities, as I have said are readily explained as a consequence of human bio-evolution and as we possess a rational explanation for human religion we have fair reason to doubt the validity of a belief in any deity or deities.
Meditation does have actual psychological value, but it is not intrinsically religious just because some faiths practice it. Spellworking, no value beyond a possible placebo value and certainly nothing which could not be obtained through other, rational means.
For fucksake, I just gave you absolute facts about the human self and soul that are scientifically established and known to be true. They directly counter the validity of religion. Facts: I have them, you do not.
Did you even read what you just posted up? It explicitly states that science treats the soul as a "an object of human belief" and "as a poetic synonym for mind." The soul is a construct of the brain, and while it encompasses our sense of self, body, pattern or whatever that does not make it an actual unique entity that is capable of transcending the material structure of the brain.
Explicit = verbatim, those were direct quotes explaining the soul as a mental construct that refers to the sense of self rather than any actual thing independent from the physical body.
Astral projection and hallucination are products of brain chemistry; they are delusions caused when the brain creates an artificial, internal reality and do not reflect an external non-physically bound soul.
What, you think that atheists do not have a moral compass or ethical frame of conduct? Please, if you need religion to tell you the basic dos and don'ts of life then you are far more terrifying than a person who can figure that out without the threat of hell and damnation.
Awesome, I do not. Consider me unpersuaded by your assertion of personal preference. I tend not to place much stock in irrational beliefs and illogical faith.
Religion is neither entirely good nor bad. There are people who belief that all of the worlds problems are caused by religion. I disagree. Religion is just an easy scapegoat to rally people behind a cause. Even if religion did not exist, dictators would just use something else, eugenics, nationality, or someone kind of propaganda.
That being said, religion does have positive traits as well, granting inspiration, giving comfort, guidance... It would be wrong to Try to destroy it, since as a said previously, it's absence would do nothing to stop the worlds problems.
I think you partially but not entirely correct. While religion may arguably be an expression of negative human aspects I would argue that religion is more susceptible to abuse than the secular. Religion is inherently a matter of faith and dogma, and is followed with little question and minimal accountability. Secularism can become dogmatic but has considerably more checks against abuse - scientific method, humanitarianism, etc. - than does religion. Religion also allows people to defend and rationalize their insecurities, ignorance, and prejudice without having to uphold any standard of reason or proof. The absence of religion would not end all of the worlds problems, but I sincerely think that it would be an improvement upon current conditions.
As far as the positives go, I would contend that very few if any of those benefits are the unique purview of religion. Inspiration, comfort, support, guidance, and so forth are definitely available in a secular world just as much if not more so than in a religious world.
I was once taking this anti-anxiety medicine or something that put me in a pretty bad state with chemical depression. I was on the verge of Suicide. What stopped me from doing so were two things, not wanting to hurt my family and my religion.
I know this is a more subjective argument, which I typically try to stay away from, but when you talking about something religion it is always personal because religion, and sometimes even atheism, lay part of the foundations of who we are.
Secularism may be less commonly used to create a dogma as you put it but it has proven itself to create just as much damage. Hitler used eugenics, Stalin used communism ( which forced atheism on the people of the ussr), North Korea just uses blunt propaganda, etc. I am not going to pretend like the crisis going on in the Middle East and Africa are not at least in some part caused by religion. It is just like all other things it has both good and bad traits.
In the end I belief that a better world would be brought about if their was a balance of secularism and spirituality.
I appreciate your sharing your personal story and in no way intend to devalue your experiences. However, I firmly believe that while religion can afford that support (or other benefits) it is not uniquely equipped to do so. I think that secularism is able to produce those same benefits for those who fully accept its perspectives, and without the harms. I think you missed my argument that there is a reason religion is more harmful than secularism: because it is canonical and dogmatic it is slow to change and has consistently lagged behind and impeded social progress.
Hitler was not an atheist. Stalin enforced communism ineffectually and this create the damage, with atheism being a mild negative effect if not positive (though I do not support silencing anyone). North Korea has deified Kim Il Sung. In none of these examples has atheism been the primary force motivating anything, whereas in conflicts in the Middle East and Africa and throughout Euro-American history conflict and destruction have been directly fueled by if not immediately caused by religious belief.
In the end, I believe in pragmatic and objective reality far more than superstition because the latter remains in my view as being more susceptible to abuse.
People will simply find another way to implement their beliefs and ideas. Religion is simply the most convenient. I honestly cannot conceive of a human reality without the concept of religion (not necessarily religion being true, but rather the human nature to categorize groups of people with the same or similar belief system as them and put a label on it).
A world without religion would be complete and utter chaos.
The reason that there is chaos in spite of religion is because many different religions have sprouted over time and fought each other to what seems to be an ever-unattainable distant survivor of all religions (which I hope is Buddhism).
Because the gods of every religion was based on what the followers desire as a moral guide. It does not have to be a loving model, just someone that everyone can look up to and try to immitate
It instills order and power. Without that god, the people will have only themselves to follow and the hierarchy of mankind wont take effect
If religion is just a moral guide created by the people who follow it then it is no different than the secular moral guide which would grow up to replace it; both are created by human beings. Imitating a religious guide just for the sake of it is stupid, particularly when there is an alternative of intentionally creating a model which maximizes compassion, inclusiveness, and human rights by prioritizing them as goals over that of satisfying some fictional deity.
It is an intrinsic and universal aspect of human nature for us to order ourselves into societies, and we establish hierarchies just as easily. The atheist still lives within a moral framework, the difference is that that framework is objective and rational so it does not actively discriminate against people like religion does. A secular model is also more able to accommodate change.
Basically, we currently do only have ourselves to follow. That is all we ever have had. We just displace the responsibility of that reality onto a fictional scapegoat instead of assuming it ourselves and being intentional about our conduct.
These are a bunch of religious people saying, "the world would be chaos because I like my religion" or "I like religion so it wouldn't be better" no facts. The point is this, the world would obviously be a better place with out religion, but, here we are today. This question is irrelevant in that people clearly THINK they need religion. Whether they actually need it or not is not something one could even say.
I largely agree. I think that for some people religious belief is still a necessity. Some people simply are not capable of living without religion, which has evolutionarily served to insulate people from their fear of death.
Buddhism is a religion which adheres more to rational structure than other faiths and is more in tune with emotional reality, but ultimately it is afflicted by many of the same problems of other religions - it adheres to a notion of afterlife for starters.
You also did not answer my question: Why would the absence of religion lead to chaos?
How on earth does that follow? Of course there is a reason to maintain order and peace - both are beneficial to the well-being of humans as individuals and the survival of the species. If anything, peace and order would be more readily attainable without the divisiveness of faith.
If we wanted the best for our species we'd kill off the weak and les able and ensue natural selection so only the best of the best of each generation passed on their genes.
Again, how is this a response to what I said? My argument was not that we should select for better attributes but that religion is more violent as a consequence of its fundamentalism.
At any rate, eugenics is inherently flawed because it is a consequence of human vanity and ego. Evolution is extraordinarily complicated and the nuances of genetics and epigentics not yet mastered (if it ever can be), and it is entirely illogical to think that humans could do a better job than natural selection does on its own. The species evolves at the pace which most ensures its survival; too rapid and extreme of a change in too short a period of time would be destabilizing and could threaten the survival of the species.
When did I ever even imply that I thought human nature was not aggressive? I absolutely recognize that aggression and conflict are in our nature. My observation is that religion is more prone to bring out and validate these dispositions than is secularism.
I also do not underestimate the force of irreligiousness - I think it is can be a very powerful positive force.
The reason religion has appeared chaotic and violent is because there are different ones.
If everyone was the same religion, this wouldn't be the case.
On the other hand, if everyone was atheist, it would be a very callous and cold-hearted world indeed where everyone only looks out for 'numero uno' as they say.
The reality is that diversity is inherent to the human species and always will be. There will never be a universal human perspective. Within the theocratic era, religion has been a manifestation of our diversity but it has manifested in such a way that is wholly intolerant of that diversity. Religion is inherently dogmatic and slow to change, whereas social progress has always driven at a far faster rate.
It is a complete fallacy to conclude that atheists are callous, cold-hearted, and self-centered. We are not, certainly not to any greater extent than the religious. The capacity for compassion is not the sole purview of religion, and I would actually argue that religion is worse at compassion and love for the express reasons stated above.
A world without religion would be complete and utter chaos.
Give me more reasons for this, if religion where not to be real it would be more likely to have peace as there would be less fighting for who's right and wrong on beliefs. Not to mention you'd be more open to whats actually real and makes sense.
I am sorry but the theory of atheism makes next to zero sense to me. If it is a logical explanation of the universe and how it came to be, Buddhism has all the answers.
Buddhism has no creation theory. They say that you must strive for enlightenment, and that thought about such things is futile ("Questions about the eternity or infinity of the universe at large are counted among the 14 unanswerable questions which the Buddha maintained were counterproductive areas of speculation")
Atheism is simply the disbelief in deities, that is all.
We believe that there was no original consciousness but rather an almighty one that eventually made a consciousness that went back to the beginning of time and reality ad made the almighty power than made it, this occurs eternally, as a cycle beyond human comprehension. We can merely appreciate what it is, not ever hope to understand how it works.
Effectively, then, you are arguing that atheism is wrong because you possess an unfounded religious belief that says otherwise. In a rational discussion you cannot just claim that you or your religion have the answers. You need to be able to give a reason and/or proof. There is not a single reason why your creation myth should be true. Not one.
This is similar to a child screaming to Einstein: I don't know whether anything can truly travel faster than the speed of light within constricted dimensions but I know that you don't either (despite him having done years of work to come up with the formula).
Except that Einstein could prove his theory with reason and mathematical logic. You have no rational structure to your beliefs nor any proof. Your belief is wholly arbitrary and there is no legitimate reason to believe it.
Your answers are barely coherent. Quit using Buddhism to hide behind. Buddhism isn't strict in some rule set. In Buddhism you are supposed to be under the impression all things are one, and the goal is to reach enlightenment, not praise a god of some sort. You are pathetic.
