Would the world be a better place without religions
Yes of course
Side Score: 366
|
 |
No
Side Score: 366
|
|
|
|
|
More suffering has been caused by religion and religion based "crusades" than any other calamity in history. Religion is "Big Brother" with the sole purpose of controlling people and limiting free thought. If religion were eradicated more people would strive toward true understanding of science and reason. Side: Yes of course
Religion has also taught people to aspire to be charitable, to love thy neighbour, and to give to the poor. While it can be a force for evil and it can be abused, so can governments, and so can science. Ideas like eugenics and trying to cure sexual deviance with electroshock therapy came from scientists, so enlightenment isn't limited to either science or religion. Side: No
No, it hasn't. You cannot build a strong pyramid of morals and ethics on a faith, it's baseless! You can make a stronger argument for why you should love your neighbors with reason than with faith. You build your pyramid with reason at the base, and then take that leap of faith at the top, where you wonder if your reasoning was correct. Use the mind that "god" has given you. Side: Yes of course
Yes, science and religion have both brought us good things. Science is the only one of the 2 things that continues to give us new good things. You need science for the computer your using right now. You don't need religion to be a charitable, loving person. Side: Yes of course
7
points
Charity done by religion is not an excuse to be complaisant with it's existence when it is positively immoral (which I would argue in more detail some other time). Secular organizations have done a much better and more convincing job at assailing poverty and emancipating women, etc. etc. One cannot thing of a good deed religion can do that a secular person could not, however you can think of many evil things religion can do that a humanist can't before you blink. Side: Yes of course
2
points
It has also taught people to brainwash their kids into rejecting scientific theories, to be against homosexuals (i actually argued with a woman that honestly believed homosexuals were possessed by demons, and she learned all this from her church), and that you should believe a 2000 year old book which has no evidence for it (that creates stupidity) Side: Yes of course
How do you begin to quantify that first sentence? Do you have any sources to back up that claim? People do bad things, especially when power is concentrated in too few people. Those in power often times use any means to justify their evil deeds and many times the method of justification is religion. It is a convenient way of painting the world into the 'with us' and 'against us' camps. This red herring has been quite effective in getting people to do evil things. However, religion is not the only means of breaking the world into the 'with us' and 'against us' camps. Communism has been used as well as culture, ethnicity, and race. Maybe religion is the most effective means of doing this, I don't know. However, I believe that in the absence of religion then the other listed means will be used more often. I do not believe humans have reached a general state of knowledge and awareness to avoid falling for the red herring of the 'us vs. them' mentality. Maybe in the future humans will no longer fall for this trick. Side: No
You think that without religion there would still be the same amount of "us" against "them" mentality because the other means of division would be used more often. I disagree. Let's use race as an example because many people do divide "us" against "them" using race. If religion couldn't be used, you wouldn't say "they're twice as different as us because they are a different race". You would still only be able to use the race card once. With religion you can say "they're a different race and a different religion" which makes them even more different than you. Without the difference in religion they instantly become more like you. Side: Yes of course
There is seemingly an endless list of atrocities committed in the name of God, but it is important to recognize that these acts are not committed in the spirit of religion. By and large religions are a moral handbook, a "Life for Dummies" that gives many people a moral path to walk. So while a men may kill in the name of a god, in most cases this would not be considered an action sanctioned by said god. To put the blame square at religion's feet seems unfair. Intolerance is probably where most of the blame should go. Side: No
“…it becomes apparent that those who make the claim ‘religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor in history’ may speak from ignorance or have ulterior motives for the assertion. Further, this type of assertion seems rooted in anti-religion posturing…Men and nations have a history of warfare and the root of conflict is power and gain…Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can't be laid at the door of religion.” -Maj. John P. Conway Under War's Bloody Banner By Carl Teichrib http://www.forcingchange.org/ Modern ideological wars, genocides, and atrocities kills hundreds of millions. So called religious wars which were really largely campaigns of loot or power struggles were just given a religious tone to justify them. These only killed hundreds of thousands, not hundreds of millions. These are the approximate comparisons. Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people. Side: you are all morons
Do we need to understand science and reason, in the first place than to use the rationality to find and our purpose of birth? Science is studies and discoveries of divine wonders, it cannot become divine itself. Who provides us with intelligence? Religions tell us Who. And, as for the sufferings and crusades love causes peace and war. However, compare the wrath and devastations of cold-blooded logical modern day wars. there are no differences b/w religions from the point of view of God, its created by ignorants and those who go against His will. Side: No
6
points
Give me that person's address and I will send him lists of countless rare men who wrote masterpieces of religiously inspired literature, even many who wrote hundreds of years ago, and are still read today; who did wonderful things, not even including thousand of Prophets whom character are enough ample a proof of their truth. Take Rumi for instance, eastern mystic peot for example, whose readers are increasing day-by-day in USA. Only such intelligent beings have been able to give expositions on the religion, scientifically and from traditional perspectives. But, I will get sad if these two quotions are to be removed ever, for I will lose a precious source of continual laughter. Side: No
Put quite simply, yes. The physical God has gradually been pushed aside by science and a better understanding of the world we live in, so that now there exists a purely metaphysical God. We don't need God to help us understand why the sun moves in the sky, why the crops grow, why the tides rise and fall. Whilst I feel that, in the past, religion has probably helped us to achieve the moralities that we adhire to today (although I think society as a whole has led religion for a very long time on moral issues, as opposed to visa versa previously), there is unfortunately no place for religion in the world now. So whilst I agree that, yes, the world would be better if we got rid of religion now, I'm not entirely sure if it would have been had we never had religion. (But then again, I'm sure we would have come up with other ways to build our moral foundations). Side: Yes of course
There has been no physical god of yours in perennial sources of wisdom. Wisdom, as understood in its ancient meaning i.e, love of wisdom, not hate of it, has played the function and continues to in religious worlds, of directing men to their end and purpose. "Man is not man becuase he has two hands, with which he can manipulate and make planes fly or perform complex mathematical operations.... but for other profound reasons." What are they? Enduring Religions, like Islam answer, answer by inviting us to observe the phenomena around us and to deduce signs of The Almighty Creator. Ok. Let's observe. Don't you, I invite you to see, don't you find this universe a law governed place? It is so. Whole universe submit to a regulated system Created by God. This is the demand of religion from man that we should submit our will to the Creator, accept Him as the Absolute King. Because, only this is natural. Only this is the necessity we are here to fulfill using our rationality. It even clearly says that the 'choice' is upto us whether we accept it or reject it. Do you not find it a miracle that a man can reject his Creator, who gives him this choice? Side: No
I agree, there is no place for religion in the world today. But would you say that there is place for faith? I find that atheists often (not always) lack the ability to trust, making it difficult to have faith, even if it is just to have faith in the human capacity to redeem itself once is a while. Side: No
It depends on what kind of faith you are talking about. Do you mean "having faith" in actual things? If so, then most definately. Although the world can sometimes be a cruel and horrible place, it can also be a fantastic one, and seeing that (as I'm an Athiest) gives me some kind of "faith" in the human capacity, society, etc (where as a religious person may well have the same reaction for their faith in God). Side: No
Difficult argument indeed. The thing about religion is that it supports you through difficult times by helping you to believe there is a higher purpose and such. However, I believe religion is still too 'enforced' in this day and age. (example: arranged marriages, sex before marriage, anti-homosexual, etc.) I think people can believe in whatever they want, and that religion should never be enforced. Side: Yes of course
How many wars have been fought "in the name of god"? How many people have been killed because of their religion? How many people have been tortured and executed for heresy? No, atheism won't lead to world peace, but at least we would have one less thing to kill each other over. (BTW I'm a catholic (does that make me a hypocrite?)) Side: Yes of course
If you are referring to the Crusades, it was not in "the name of God" actually. It was only a rallying call. However, it was more likely because the Catholic Church at the time was a body of immense power, and they felt threatened by the Middle Eastern Muslims. It is rather hypocritical of you, but at least you know what to ask your Priest and know whats shaking your faith. Your opinion of yourself is not limited by others, only your own judgement. Side: No
I do believe so, more murders have been caused by religion than anything else in the worlds history. I could not imagine us living in a world without religion since I was born into it. If I wasn't born into religion maybe I could see the truth behind my own religion. But since the truth is I do believe in God and that their is a heaven waiting to take my soul in after I die, I cannot truly say with all my heart that the world would be better. To imagine a world without religion ... back in the midieval ages the Pope would not have been totally revered as being the true sender of someone to hell or heaven. He and every Pope before and after him they are all just regular men who should not with any doubt in my mind be looked upon as being any better than me or any reader. All in all if I did not have a religion and nobody else had a religion we might be farther along in technology or who knows the possiblities and the point being we will never know and the world will always have at least 1 religion until it ends or people end. Side: Yes of course
4
points
Definitely, it's better to get the religious people of today changed if possible to rely on their brain rather than faith. This is because faith has no basis and it relies just on some magical feeling, but if the religious people who rely on faith use knowledge that is derived from realistic events then they'll make decisions that is probably more beneficial to themselves and the whole of society just through better thought processes Side: Yes of course
Religion is a lose easily modifiable set of morals and ethics backed by the mysterious. You have a sacred text, that is so messed up, especially when it comes to knowing what was intended to be taken literally, and what was not. This is where the single text gets so many different believes and different churches and congregations. It's also where you get the disagreement and social instability. Faith, belief, and the likes should not be taken so seriously and should not be used as a tool to guide a person. As soon as you get one group of people that believe on thing, and someone else believing another, as strong as they believe, because belief and faith are at the center of each person, you get some serious problems. All that we can tell empirically is that we as humans are here alone. You can fool yourself all you want, that you see the proof of god in everything, but you're only, like I said, fooling yourselves into seeing what you want to see. You have to start from a clean slate. Look at humanity now, look at where we are headed, and decide, what is a human? Your choices and your views and what you do or say, changes the course of humanity. Reason out Morals, use your "god given" mind to reason all of these ethical principles. What is right and what is wrong? If there be a god, I think he would appreciate you more if you used what s/he's or it's given you to reach his conclusions about right and wrong than just following a flock of idiots to the gates of paradise. If you feel like you've done good in your life, no matter how bad it may have been, and you know that you've made mistakes (because knowing your mistakes means that you've acknowledged them and know that you shouldn't do them again), and you are still sent to hell... then that means more people like you will be there too, and then maybe hell will not be that bad of a place after all, right? Side: Yes of course
Religion was a invention of man to explain things in there surroundings, why in fact not sounds like a good idea lets make something up to explain something we cant answer who is to say what is what but religion based on pain,lies,ridicule, slander and hate there wont be such out there. With religion comes conflict. Side: Yes of course
Religion wasn't created to explain. Explanation is one of it's functions, but really, it was created to control. Think about it. Governments have no real control over people. You essentially sign a contract saying that you will be a faithful citizen to the state... that's all you have to do. The government cannot make you do anything beyond that. If you do something wrong, that the establishment disagrees with, your punishment and all, is not mandatory if you can make the other citizens agree... or you have the means and will to escape it. Fear of punishment is the only thing keeping large governments in power, over the citizens. Religion is the same thing, but rather, it's something that you cannot escape. Once you die, you will be punished forever for doing things that are reasonably bad. What I mean by that is, look into every lesson that the bible teaches, the new testament (the old one is a little... over the edge) and you'll find that they are all engineered moral values that really only hold if you are part of a community, family, or any other form of social environment. Religion is a mechanism to control the individual, and government is mechanism that controls the masses. They go hand in hand. Why do you think kings were so close to the church? It's quite obvious that they weren't placed into power by god, as was believed at the time... The reason religion brings conflict is because religion is placed in the soul, to be personalized, for a person to trust and have faith in... it's very very personal for each individual. Just like Nationalism in NAZI-Germany, it can make people feel like they SHOULD do something when someone disagrees. Nationalism and Religion are both very personal and have the power to make people stand up and do something, all together (which in itself brings about the mob mentality and makes people feel even more righteous and powerful). Side: Yes of course
The question of whether or not the world would be better off without religion is an interesting one though. I am still unsure about where I stand on this but for the sake of this debate I will learn toward the "Yes" side though I will offer both stances. All Religions (while I believe it to fall under the category of mythos) have offered hope to millions of people. Answering questions like "What happens when I die?" can provide a sense of security that is no doubt meaningful. Many people have a need to have a reason for living, and accepting a life without a greater meaning is deemed "depressing", "unecessary", "worthless". Why do anything, if in the long run it is all meaningless...especially if you are born into poverty, slavery, or any other incredibly difficult situation. Religion can offer security, that someone is there watching over us. Is this bad? Maybe...its the chicken or the egg question...Did religion bring about the need for a greater meaning about life OR did people create religion because of a its need. Nonetheless, religion can effect people in a positive way making it difficult to denouce that aspect of it.
Secondly, the concept of an afterlife is absolutely impossible to prove on either side. So, this brings an important addition to the argument of whether of not the world would be better place without religion. And that is the stifling the creative thought process of human beings. An even more than that creating a forum for free thought. When talking about unexplainable issues, one should be free to theorize any idea until it is proven otherwise. It would be a sad world to think that any one unexplained issue had only one theory. It would say very little about us as a species. Our diversity in thinking is how we survived this long AND the need to allow this free thinking could not be more imperative for forward progress. To assume that any Neo-Darwinist/Atheist would believe that all people were not equally important would be counter to forward progressive movement for the species as ignoring the weak would
As far as the point that religious groups offer much in the form of charities, I find this an unacceptable reason to believe that religion is good for the world. Why? Because of 2 reasons (bear in mind I am not downing any church for its chariable intentions...merely pointing out that it is not a good enough reason to justify its existence):
1) How else are they to justify the millions of dollars that is donated to them by their constituents and church goers? Furthermore, are these donations made by people (unconsciously of course) because of guilt that the religion imposes on them, or the fear that without donations ones place in heaven may not be secured? If so, this is certainly something that can be simulated in a non-religious society...easily.
2) Even the worst dictators and emperors in the past have shown instances of charity in order to gain the people's favor. In other words, do good to right wrong. How else is any church to remain in power and continue to hold its following if it doesn't give anything to its followers (and potential followers)?
All in all, I have no problem with people believing in God or being spiritual. It is a completely understandable stance. But there is a realistic downside. This belief is much more complex than just a personal belief. It is a commentary on moral values not just for an individual, but for a society. And when you are dealing with a diverse society, it (religion) lends itself to horrible consequences.
1) the use of god's name to reliquinish responsibility for actions that lead to unjusticness to others. People(or countries) doing things in the name of god. This goes way back and this is a clear use of religion for power and control. This includes misintepretations of ones religion (sometimes purposefully) to gain power in some form (land, money, people, followers, etc.). This is probably the main argument you get from the non-religious standpoint.
2) Another consequence is the internal conflicts and mental damages that having this sort of "moral" value can inflict on those who fail to reach those standards causing an almost opposite effect of instilling the values in the first place. This is a very different consequence from the physical consequences of religion. And the problem can be equally as devasting. And while most religions have a backdoor for this (confession, repentence, God forgives, etc.), these back doors cannot always prevent some of the results that the seemingly impossible guidelines create. Some examples: People forcing themselves to stay in unhealthy relationships because of their vow to god, Peoples lack of knowledge of sexuality leading to a series of issues when abstincy is failed to be acheived, suicide, etc.
And while these consequences may not be a definition of what ones chosen religion stands for it certainly is a direct result of its existence in those persons lives. Side: Yes of course
The argument that more suffering has been caused by religion than by anything else is a bit of a stretch. Looking back at history, there are two main reasons why humans have waged wars. One is territory and the other is ideology. Within ideology, of course, lies religion but it is accompanied by such things as racism, elitism and the like. Nevertheless, I'd still have to say that, in this day and age, we'd be better off without religion. Before, I continue, however, I'd like to point out that it is religion that I deem unnecessary, not spirituality. Throughout history, religion has served as a general guide in our lives and faith has served as a filler for the things we do not know. It was either Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, both geniuses as far as physics and astronomy were concerned, who saw god in nature, a subject which they understood but little. Nowadays, rational thought, philosophy and society itself have come far enough along that religion is more of a crutch than the boon it once was. Belief in something spiritual is still something crucial in man's life as it has a humbling and grounding effect but religion just pigeonholes us into an aged mindset. Side: Yes of course
3
points
Religion has caused more fighting, controversy, death, and suffering than, dare I say it, any other concept in all of history. Just a few examples: Council of Blood/Troubles, French Wars of Religion, Spanish Inquisition, Defenstration of Prague, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, etc. Just imagine if Catherine de Medici had not been blinded by her religion -- as well as Ferdinand and Isabella, Philip II, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, and the list goes on... Side: Yes of course
I think this argument has been destroyed enough already, but since someone actually voted for it, I'll say it again. Von Lauder, add up the totals of what you mentioned, and compare it just to Stalin's atheistic regime. That's just one man. The agrument you make is worthless, and actually hurts your cause. Side: Yes of course
The argument that religion is the driving force behind good deeds seems to me like a lack of faith in mankind. "Yes, I'll give money to charity, but only if there's a unicorn behind that tree". If religion is the only thing stopping you from becoming an egocentric bastard with no respect for human values you should seek help. Side: Religion
I think you are correct - religion has caused the intorerant idealism that causes suffering. I posted on a topic of what three wishes would you choose if you had a genie. After I posted, I realized that I should have wished for all religions to be more tolerant. Side: Yes of course
3
points
Even though I'm sure that humans will find other things to "worship" they will no longer be tied to the irrational beliefs that religion adheres to. People will continue to war, but at least no in the name of invisible beings that have the power to create the universe and all it's splendor but seem to be conveniently absent to help us figure out our own little (in comparison) problems. Side: Yes of course
2
points
The number of atrocities commited in the name of some god is innumerable; Blind faith channeled through effective leaders will always allow the strong to control the weak minded masses, because they have been conditioned to do what their "god" or religious leader or political leader tells them to. We should be raised to question, not blindly follow the instructions of those before us; that is a path of destruction. Some agrue that religion does many a good thing for people, but what i want to know is why do we need a religion to tell us what is right? Why should we do things for other humans simply for benifits after our deaths or because of fear of devine retribution? Why can't we help each other simply because people need help; the answer is we do, and it is past time that we allow the religions of today to be removed from the equation to pass into obscurity along with the names zeus and apollo. Side: Yes of course
But were they truly FOR God? They were only rallying cries. True religion is about living in harmony with one another and to do good deeds, in the simplest form I can put it. Perhaps some people need guidance when it comes to doing good deeds and bettering themselves. Remember that not everyone may be as capable as you and may need guidance to do "the right thing" And dont use what's happening in the Middle East as an example to show that religion turns people into AK47 wielding, scarf wearing, bomb planting terrorists. They dont practice religion. If you think that jihad means Holy War as in a real war, you are sadly mistaken. Jihad is a Holy Struggle against the evils INSIDE us aka our bad character. Not the war against the "infidels" like the media puts it nowadays. True, a jihad can also be taken in that context, but Muslims consider it a smaller jihad. The main purpose of jihad is to strengthen your own faith, not kill people. You may be right in the sense religion controlled by governments to control can create a dystopia where dictators are praised to the skies in the face of all the atrocities they commit, but religion in its proper context ultimately betters people. Perhaps it doesn't work for you, but that dont mean it dont work for other people. Side: No
2
points
Religion is ultimately a set of beliefs and it's up to the individual to choose what he or she wants to believe. However, the ultimate problem I have with religion is that while it does give a person hope in desperate times, it at times becomes too much of a hindrance to a person's daily life, and might even prevent a person from thinking rationally or objectively. While the person might not see it in this light due to their strong beliefs, it's what's happening when you look at it from a third person's point of view, which is why so many people would rather remain free thinkers because they realise what life would be like if they had a religion since they do not have one yet. Side: Yes of course
Einstein supported religion. Thus your postulate that all scientists succeed because they dont believe in a God is baseless. True, while some people may be reduced to religious nut jobs who go around terrorizing people to get them to come to their church, but its not the only reason for intellectual stagnation. I think what breeds intellectual stagnation is failure to research something before taking up a view or ideology. Side: No
2
points
I'm glad this question draws a distinction between a world without 'god' and a world without 'religion.' Religions are a social construct and have been used to control and organize populations to serve a minority elite. As such, if you believe that the majority functions best by dictation then religions have served a higher good. If you believe in personal freedom and liberty that religions have served only those privileged enough to be within the ranks of the ruling class. Freedom and liberty are the rights of all people, religions are a burden to free people everywhere and a parasite on the backs of civilizations. Side: Yes of course
2
points
3
points
atheist are just as narrow minded, if maybe a bit more rational, as theist. the true level ground is agnostic, being an athiest simply says that my belief is better than yours. their is no way that you can prove that a man wont come in the future and walk on water, turn the seas to boiling wine, and talk to us through burning bushes. Side: No
2
points
religion is used for comfort, plain and simple. the fact that people on massive scales will believe in something against all evidence from the academic world on a few scant unproven theories, and a horribly inconsistent series of books written centuries ago all for self comfort is astounding. as a society we frown upon the imaginary friend that so many lonely children imagine, but when someone whispers into the wind to a god , many of us hold said person in high regard. their is no concise difference between the two. why do we continue to allow ourselves to be comforted by the impossibly improbable? to the arguments based on why nots, religion helps many people, i must say i totally agree with you. religion helps many people, but religion also hurts many people. In the middle east the tali ban blow up schools full of children in the name of Allah. In America Christian extremist bomb abortion clinics. Mayans beheaded 225,000 Mayan men and women, boys, and girls, to make the sun come back up, on a cloudy day. religion is a detriment to all society, and in my conclusion i will address the way in which religion restricts our most basic and primitive want, the want for knowledge. the Vatican would arrest and murder scientist, who had beliefs that went against those of the mighty bible. present day, many routes of medicine are n OT allowed to be taken b cause it "goes against the will of god". god never wrote anything about genetics, DNA, or even the simple microscope, so how do we know he doesn't want us saving our race from diseases? we dint! it is only the high, most often, rich priest that ascertain such meaning from the bible, to support their hidden agendas. my argument has nothing to do with whether god exist or not, i personally am a firm agnostic, for i believe theist and atheist are narrow minded to not see both sides. my argument states that religion should be abolished, and no longer practiced Side: Yes of course
2
points
This is a yes and no people should shut the fuck up about which one they think is right because nobody knows except dead people and thats kind of hard cuz they cant hop out their grave and say hey man god is awsome or buda is the funiest guy in heaven you know so lay it to rest and yes the world would be a better place Side: No
3
points
their is no need for profanity, debates are supposed to be civil, calm down. why do you feel the need to stop possitive argument that is related to the subject? if you dont want to debate a subject dont look, this is a choice, no one is forcing you to use this site. that being said i do agree with your point of view Side: No
2
points
While I agree that religion obviously contributes to its fair share of wars in the world, it is not the ONLY reason people go to war with one another. Now, it may have the most wars under its belt, but there are far too many reasons people go to war (land, economy, food, water...) to just lump them all into one anti-religion argument. Side: Yes of course
3
points
No one is lumping all the wars that have ever taken place in with religious wars. So i'm not sure i understand your point. the wars that have taken place to take land from another people of a differant religion, or because your god is not my god so i'm going to kill you and make your god my god. is what i was referring to Side: Yes of course
1
point
2
points
4
points
1
point
Religion promotes as virtue faith; the rejection of reason, rationality, and everything that separates us from the animals. Because evidence, reason, etc. are out of the question, faith can in many cases be immutable, and when two faiths compete, it results in a dogmatic brawl that resists any kind of progress -- look at Israel / Palestine for example. It also promotes irrationality and revelation over free thought and inquiry. These things are only dentrimental to society and our sovereignty no matter how benign they manifest. "Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest." — Émile Zola Side: Yes of course
1
point
Asking "would the world be a better place without religions?" is like asking "would the world be a better place if human beings used their wit and intelligence to help each other and move towards the future instead of worshiping fairy tales and thinking that everything that happens is because of some unseen force and killing and oppressing each other for the sake of contrived beliefs?" Let's see......yes? Side: Yes of course
Fairy tales? I cant say much about that. Unseen force? Cant say anything about that. Killing and oppressing each other for the sake of contrived beliefs? Now thats something I dont agree with. The world is not Iraq, or Medieval Europe. Wake up already. Im not saying those wars SUPPOSEDLY in the name of God did not happen. They did. But what makes you so firmly sure that all people with religion are like that? People with religion have lives like you. They have weaknesses like you. They all are just trying to make sense of it all just like you. They are - - - LIKE you. Don't label all the religious of the world an Islamic terrorist with AK47 in hand, or the overzealous christian who asked you why you didnt go to their church, or the medieval knights who slaughtered innocent people just because its all you think it to be. Go out there and find out from your friends who is religious and study them. Do they look like the kind of people who will hold a pistol behind your back and force you at gunpoint to convert? I dont think so. The world will always have dictators and Presidents to control the people. They are clever. Even if religion is eradicated, can you even be 1% sure they wont use other means to control you? Side: No
Totally agree. People will always try to control other people and they will use any means available to best achieve that. In countries where religions are oppressed and controlled, the dictators control the masses by brainwashing people into worshipping dictators and making them into almost saint status. Ho Chi Minh is a good example of a human figure that's being made into a saint (the truth about him is quite to the contrary). Kim Jung Il is another good example where people think is almost like a god. So religion is not to blame but people is to blame. Without religion, the world would still be just the same. Side: No
Religion hinders science and social progress. It leads to death and hate. The worst part is there is no evidence for the basis of any religious belief. It is a pile of necrotic lard around the midriff of the world. Get rid of it so we can advance as a species. Side: Yes of course
1
point
Religion does not hinder science or social progress. Religion does not hinder science at all, if religion did do that, then we would not be have as much knowledge of the world as we have now. If religion did hinder with science, then theories that do not go in accordance with some religions (such as the Big Bang, and Darwin's theory of Evolution) would have never been able to become as known as they are nowadays. Also, I believe that religion is something you cannot get rid of, that is because of the fact that it is a belief and it will stay around for a long time, one does not simply get rid of religion. Side: No
1
point
Spirituality is fine, but religions are corrupt institutions in the same way that any powerful institution is corrupt. Some may argue that by nature, religions are exempt from such corruption because of the moral values to which they adhere. Sadly, this is not the case. The people in power in any institution, be it religious or otherwise, are human. And human beings are corruptible and sinful. Look to the Vatican for your proof. Is it IN ANY WAY the type of church Jesus would approve of? Absolutely not. It is an ornate waste of money. Religions breed hatred for those that disagree. They also provide an easy scapegoat for problems. History is full of examples, but let's look at present times. After September 11, it became abhorrent to be Muslim. Granted, Islam is a prime example of why religion is dangerous, but the blame is placed on all Muslims, rather than to those who act on hate. Historically speaking, we have gotten nowhere fast in terms of religious tolerance. Religions by nature believe that they alone are correct on the big questions. And that is the inherent flaw. Side: Yes of course
1
point
1. All religions are false. There are too many points of view for there to be a true religion. 2. If what the government told us is true, then without religion the twin towers would still be standing. 3. Opposing religious views cause too much havoc and chaos. Side: Yes of course
1
point
of course it would, the catholic church gives food and water to the africans, however no condoms as they believe they are wrong, yet aids is spreading and making them become more buried in poverty. The bible doesnt make sense as it has been edited by kings and religious leaders throughout time several times and re written with different passages. Plus you cant have that quote that without the 10 commandments there would be no law, people have common sense they can make there own law. Plus without religion humanity would be hundreds of years in the future which means we could have cured cancer or aids. Side: Yes of course
1
point
One of the worst things religion can do is make people close minded. From a young age, a lot of children are taught that the universe is only 6000 years old and that evolution is a lie. If you start teaching evolution in science without telling students that they're learning about evolution, they'll listen. However, if you break the news to them at the end of the lesson, they will start getting annoyed and rebelling. Religion also inspires fear. It scares children with the image of hell and overall makes people afraid to do thing that are absolutely normal. The day young-earth creationism comes into the science classroom is the day I give up hope. One example of the fear point would be found here. Be careful, some slightly graphic images. Also remember that this comic is given to children. Side: Yes of course
1
point
1
point
without religion everyone would be smarter and healthier. without religion there could still be different belief systems that people would have that would have someone or some people made into an authority figure that millions or billions would follow, believe and obey. women could be authority figures that decide the laws and males could promote and obey them or males could decide the laws and promote and obey them. women would still be less strong than men so women wouldn't be able to rule over men unless there were more women than men. or without religion then there could be a one world totalitarian government and one authority figure that everyone on earth would obey which could be a male or a female. without religion there would be authority figures that were people in place of deity authority figures. or without religion maybe there could be one world anarchy with no government and everyone ruling themselves or one world limited government like libertarian. Side: Yes of course
1
point
The world would most defiantly be a better place without Religion, we divide ourselves by colour, gender, sexual orientation, location road, city country continent, etc.... religion is just another reason to be divided and gives reason and justification for acts of terrorism. Side: Yes of course
1
point
1
point
1
point
Religion has caused the suicide of many, the verbal abuse of some, and the heartbreak of others. A mere miss-writing, some misinformation, or a misunderstanding is what makes religion truly rotten. Sometimes, religion can be rotten to begin with. Falsely life changing. I don't know if you've noticed but most of the people in the "No" category are religiously fazed. Brainwashed. It scares me, somewhat. Side: Yes of course
1
point
This concept is a component of the socialist "Utopia" wherein the abolition of religion is a stepping stone for communism. Well, religion can be used to control, dominate, and manipulate people as a context of classic capitalism. That's why poverty is rampant in this century and before that. The so-called religion is forbidding things that were ethically acceptable just because their religion says so. It creates social tensions between members of society if their religious beliefs differ from one another. And religion's dark side, which is religious extremism is what drives terrorist groups in the war for terror. With many religions coexisting with only a minor difference, it would cause confusion for people. Side: Yes of course
1
point
I believe the world would be a better place without religion. Religion often is able to act as a gateway in order to coax people into distrusting mainstream knowledge. For example, the majority of Qanon and Flat-Earth conspirators identify as heavily religious. Side: Yes of course
This question is worded poorly, because it implies "would the world be a better place if everyone was atheist", when I think the better question to debate would be "would the world be a better place if everyone was the same religion as you". It would spark a better debate (more points of view rather than atheist against everyone else). I believe it would be, because there would be one less thing to divide people and one less thing to use to form prejudices. All groups of people want the same basic things in life (health, comfort, most want to raise a family, etc.), but religion is used more often to highlight our differences than our similarities. The question you have to ask yourself before you make an argument against the statement is not if the world would be better without your religion, but if it would be better without all the other religions. If you ask a Jew if the world would be better if everyone was Jewish and they would probably say yes, but if you ask them if the world would be better without all religion including their own of course they would say no to defend their belief. Side: Yes of course
There is no problem with the title, it's a proper question. If the question were ''would the world be a better place if everyone was the same religion as you'', everyone would have differing opinions and no progress would be made because everyone looks at the world differently, has different morals and want different things. Regarding your claim that everyone wants the same things, I just want to say that you are partially wrong. We all have a basic guideline on what we should want for ourselves and the people around us, but this is not fixed. Most people share common desires for health and well-being. However, this does not mean that everyone wants the same thing. Even if people wanted to want well-being, some are being oppressed by their religion and system of beliefs. Side: No
-1
points
The question does not imply atheism. However, I believe atheism is a belief system in that the atheist believes in their perceptions (based on their perceived evidence/facts/truths/etc). Thus, the posed question is appropriate. Regarding the posed question I believe Existence could not even occur without the concepts of 'faith' and 'belief' (and inherently 'belief systems'). The very acceptance of the concept of Existence requires faith [i.e. to believe that Existence occurs is to inherently have faith in that belief (e.g. I have faith in my belief that Existence occurs)]. Regarding your suggested replacement for the question posed, I do agree that is a good question (not a better one but just another good one). To answer your question, I agree with you that the world might indeed be a better place if everyone supported the same belief system. The sadness of it is that we are all emotional creatures and ignorance of one thing or another is a constant (too bad we are not the borg with a collective consciousness). Side: Yes of course
|
If you look at religion as a mere social construct, it is apparent that it is a necessary system of control. For the most part, the beliefs and values taught in each respective religion are important to keep people in a some what "moral" state of mind. Religion is most needed for ingraining these important morals in people in a way in which they completely believe them. Where you get into trouble is when radical religious zealous take it upon themselves to hate other religions for no apparent reason other than they are different in some way. However, if you actually take the time to study these religions or perhaps read their holy books, you will see many parallels in beliefs. Many of which, that actually contradict the hateful actions that many people take. Throughout time it seems as though religion evolves along with the knowledge of society. Our technological and scientific revolutions have brought about this new one, Scientology, which takes the relevant knowledge we know about the world along with previous viewings of religious quarrels and creates its own twisted reality for people to believe in. Even though there is much opposition to this new belief system, I don't think there will be any Jihads any time soon over it. The way it stands, I believe that religion is a necessary evil for the time being in the way of controlling the vast majority of immoral and unintelligent people; it just needs to be refined, which will happen over time. Side: No
4
points
You must have never heard of the social contract. These "radicals" you speak of are not making the things they do up. They are simply doing what their religious text's tell them too; let's not forget the bible and the koran are two of the most violent books ever written. Religion is an unnecessary evil. The religious have been in control for thousands of years and jail populations are at an all time high; It's time for a change. Side: No
Religion is an unnecessary evil. To say that religion is unnecessary reflects a misunderstanding of what "necessary" means. Also of what religion is. But we are not discussing "religion" we are discussing religions which perhaps we can come to terms and agree that we really mean "religious organizations" when we say "religions." To claim that (all) organizations of this nature are evil is an (albeit somewhat justified) over generalization. Compared to criticizing the specific principles behind particular religious sects, condemning religion as a whole is a cop out. Side: No
Science, venturing into stating its position on God, has come into the realm of religion. The atheist-scientific movement is vying for power in the highest ranks, touting their ability to be rational beings that base all they trust on what they can prove (which in itself is curious, because they cannot prove their own rationality). At the hands of science art will die, because how do you prove beauty? At the hands of science love will die, because as every good scientist knows, love is merely hormones designed for procreation. It is as if scientists in general forget that the true value of something is often lost in the analyses of its parts. Value is what rules society, the moment a scientist veers into defining values, he or she defines beliefs. The moment they do that they are creating a religious system because those beliefs will dictate the actions of the society they control. So should atheists and scientists get control of government, how would that be any different from religions (which, I might add have most certainly only feature by name in the White House and not by function)? As for violent books, go read something on the history of America and tell me there is no violence. Mankind is violent by nature, religion cannot be blamed for our lack of self control. Side: No
0
points
You had me until you started talking about Scientology which is a defamation of religion as it is simply a guise for a successful money making scheme. Real religions, most which are peaceful and good, when taken upon by average and sane citizens overall improves the conditions of man as they dictate standards of moral judgment. Side: Yes of course
False Premise: Religion betters a sane human. Sane people, which I trust means "Reasonable" people, can figure out why things should and should not be done. Religion is like a cheat sheet for ethics and morals, and it's outdated. Now people sign up and proclaim that the rest of the world is evil. Why do you think this is? Because the world of intelligent and non-religious people know about religion. We are all waiting for religious reign to end, and people to start thinking on their own. If religion changes again, without an obvious reason, to better fit our age, it will collapse. It's like santa clause. You can lie about his existence until the child reaches a certain age, but it'll require more and more and more to keep him believing... Dressing up like santa, flying animals pulling a slay on the roof, and so on... until there's no fooling him, and then what? He finds out the truth and stops believing and wonders why in the hell he believed such a crazy thing for so long, etc. Side: No
Scientology is nothing more than a bunch of lawyers waiting to slap 13 lawsuits on you for defamation, and none of them are good cos they are just hoping you will give up in face of all the redtape you have to clear, and its also nothing more than performing abortions with a clothes hanger. It sure as HELL aint religion. Side: Yes of course
1
point
To me, your statement exemplifies all that is wrong with religion. It is this type of thought that is the premise for this entire discussion. Every religion MUST believe that all others are false and then proceed to making it a mission to show the world why. All of this is usually done while ignoring the similarities inherent in there own beliefs that they are so adamantly against. While I'm no religious scholar I do think that the bible has a CLEAR message that all followers are obligated to give 10% of there wealth to the church. Where is the distinction that makes your religion any different from Scientology. Is this not a reason in support of the absence of religion? Hypocrisy is a dangerous game. Just about every "Christian" based denomination I can think of is a "successful money making scheme". Side: No
8
points
I was going to argue for the other side, but while I was typing my argument I realized that taking religion out of the equation wouldn't actually change anything. People would just find another excuse not to think. If it isn't religion that works people into a mindless mob, it will be politics. Or maybe economics. Take the whole communist "scare" for example. The problem isn't with religion itself, it's with humanity. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. Side: No
Religion in today's world is a complex thought that entwines social values, ethics, and personal spirituality. Taking away these things would do no good to society. Humans are hardwired for religion and need the comfort of an organized, predictable world. However, there are ethics, values, and spiritualities outside of 'religion.' So one can be ethical, have high morals and values, and deeply spiritual without being a religious nut. So it's not the beliefs, its the actions and leaders who instigate (or fail to prevent) harmful behavior that are wrong. Side: No
The world would be pretty much the same if all of the religions were to vanish tomorrow because all of us would still be here. Greedy people would still be greedy and unreasonable people would still be unreasonable. People who now commit murder for religious reasons would still murder; they just wouldn't have a religious excuse. Side: No
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are all morons. If you really want a foot in reality here is something to digest. “…it becomes apparent that those who make the claim ‘religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor in history’ may speak from ignorance or have ulterior motives for the assertion. Further, this type of assertion seems rooted in anti-religion posturing…Men and nations have a history of warfare and the root of conflict is power and gain…Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can't be laid at the door of religion.” -Maj. John P. Conway Under War's Bloody Banner By Carl Teichrib Side: you are all morons
Let me see if I understand? People should not group up based on values and beliefs? The world would be a better place if people stopped doing that? I can't help but think that people who make these anti-religion statements just really don't get what religion is. All these people bagging on religion instead of trying to improve it's practice. They say "let's get rid of religion" as if that was possible. If you have a better example to set regarding religion, set it. That is unless you wish to remain a card carrying member of the church of foundational complainism. Side: No
Religion is a system of beliefs and values, often (but not always) linked to a deity of sorts. It includes rituals, specific knowledge (captured in the writings of its founders) and a general agreement between its adherents as to what constitutes the core belief. To believe (which is, to accept something as true with or without the necessary supporting evidence) is an innate human feature. We need it in order to exist as cognitive beings. It works like this: we start with an assumption (as a hypothesis taken for granted, or a hypothesis that cannot be proven or disproved), either learned from our peers or deduced from our interpretation of our environment. On that conviction we build a new set of convictions. As time goes by, those very core assumptions are no longer questioned and we have a set of beliefs and values, around which we create rituals and social symbols. On a broad level, science holds true to this phenomenon. It starts with the assumption that we are capable of understanding nature completely through the use of reason and logical languages (such as mathematics). It then builds on that assumption a set of rules as to how to do this, and a number of rituals. It then proceeds to provide a set of values (the value of questioning, the value of proof etc.) Without this very basic assumption science has no meaning, yet it is rarely openly questioned. So, would the world be a better place without religion? For the world to be without religion, it needs to be without humans, and then "better" has no meaning. We only use that word if it applies to us. I like science, so my answer, based on my argument, would be a simple "no". Side: No
3
points
1
point
"In every beLIEf there is a lie" So what of atheists? are we not human? are we not "cognitive beings"? You did get one thing right, at the core of religion there are assumptions, we know what assumption does, that turn into beliefs, but these beliefs are thing people are willing to die for. Things they will force on others, because they believe so fanaticaly that they are right. when at their core all they have is an assumption Side: Yes of course
Do atheist not believe all of sudden? Of course atheist believe something! By the very nature of their name their beliefs simply exclude the possibility of a deity (a-theist). Atheists therefore also believe from a basic assumption namely that God does not exist. They cannot prove or disprove God's existence. And you are right, I have seen many people die for their beliefs, including atheists whom, at their core, also only have assumption. Side: No
"Things they will force on others, because they believe so fanatically they are right" Woah, hey there, Force is a pretty powerful term to use. Perhaps you've met too many over zealous Christians and have a bad experience with them. If you've been with the not-so-cultist-like people with a religion you would notice instantly that they are human like you, they are no different from you. They just have a different way of life. So why bother shutting religion away just because you have been through several rough encounters? I think its rather overly cynical. True, people have been over zealous and killed in the name of a God before. But what makes you think all are like that? Take me for an instance, I'm a Catholic, a member of a religious group, but am I forcing my beliefs on you? I think not. Im just asking you to see both sides of the coin. Side: No
Firstly, I'm not religious. I'm actually atheist. But I don't think a world without religion would be any better. Yes, religion has caused a lot of strife and violence in the world. But honestly, what makes anyone think it's the only cause? Even if you take away religion, people will always find a reason to hate other people. And for a lot people, religion provides guidance and hope, and helps them live a better life. Trying to pin societies' problems on one factor doesn't make any sense. Side: No
True. Blame it on the media portraying the situation in the Middle East as a "jihad" or holy war. In case some of you dont know, the jihad is a holy struggle. Its not about fighting evil in the name of a God, its about fighting the INNER evils within you. Its a very big misconception people have. Not all Muslims are Fundamentalists like you see on TV or perhaps in your games (for those of you who have played too much Call Of Duty 4) Anyway, back on topic. Hobbes argued that "The state of nature is a state of war" Humans will always tend to band together for personal gain to protect themselves from what they percieve as threats. Humans will always do terrible things, with or without religion. So certainly, religion should not be blamed for all of your problems today. Religion doesn't kill people, people do. People who have been misguided and deviated so much from the original purpose of religion as a way of improving oneself. Side: No
2
points
It is entirely possible to destroy religion, however, it can not b condcted in the realm of philosophy and theory. A critique of religion is necesaarily a critiqique of the social conditions whose spiritual aroma is religion. When the social/material conditions which necessitate religion are destroyed (alienation) religion will disapear. Read Marx Side: Yes of course
0
points
Religion and belief system (philosophy) are different. Freud thought that religion was ineradicable and he very well be right. As the west becomes less religious we are still embracing irrational and illogical beliefs under the guise of "spirituality". However, the reason I oppose your post is not because I disagree, but because it wasn't the question. The question is "Would the world be a better place without religions" not "Is it possible to get rid of religion." Side: Yes of course
Religion is a belief system, its expressed knowledge (books and stuff) as well a ritual expression thereof. Beliefs systems is the group of concepts of which religion would be a part element. Philosophy on the other hand is the collection and process of discourse concerning how, what and why we believe. It is a meta-science of belief systems if you may. Also, the west isn't really becoming less religious. The non-religious people are just more vocal due to the ability to freely express the opinions without too much social risk (teh interwebs is cool). Side: No
3
points
The less you know about the world, the more you need guidance. The best guide is that which is unquestionable. Unfortunately there is nothing in existence with that characteristic, nor has there ever been. Therefore, religion/god was necessary early on (VERY early on) to get people to work together and also to comfort the lack of understanding of the world. Religon turned what could have been fear into optimism. Still, at some point, the training wheels have to come off to maximize potential. So, if this question is specifically referring to religion as it exists today and not religion throughout history, I would say yes. However, because of the importance of religion from the beginning of time, I have to disagree. Side: No
Nearly every religion that has ever existed boils down to a moral code. Every major world religion includes the Golden Rule in its doctrine in some way. While many realize that following the Golden Rule results in good for all parties involved, many more would not follow the Golden Rule if they did not believe that they were bound to do so by some higher power. I believe that the world would be a better place if people stopped caring so much about religious divisions and moved away from religious extremism, but without religion I think that less and less people would still look out for their fellowman. Side: No
3
points
Maybe if man simply had not created religion he would be better off, but at this late date I feel it would be disaster. The simple fact is that many people would assume that if God is dead; everything is permitted. Many people's only reason for remaining law-abiding is the fear of God. Side: No
3
points
Look at all the good atheists have done in the world. Look at the hospitals they've built, the ivy-league universities they've founded, the charities they run, the missions they send overseas to feed, clothe and provide medical assistance for the impoverished. What would this world be without atheists? Side: No
To the best of my knowledge atheist aren't prone to gathering in groups to discuss how awesome being an atheist is. But just because there are no atheist organizations to congregate and contribute to charities and the like doesn't mean that there are no individual atheists out there doing good work. Side: Yes of course
No, because even if there were no religions, people would still find something to fight about. And, at least in the Christian religions, a lot of people are afraid of hell so they stay away from "evil and sins" which might doom them to an eternity in hell. And in Islam, believers have those 5 pillars that they follow in order to make their lives better and achieve sanctuary in the after life or w/e they believe in. And then Judaism they believe that if you live your life with kindness and to the fullest extent through prayer and what-not then you will be rewarded in the after life and pretty much most religions are formed on that basis which makes the world all around better for the most part. And I think we have learned from Russia what a world without religion would amount to. [; Side: No
3
points
Some religions should be abolished but some should stay. Religions are a system to guide us to be morally perfect. Without them it's hard to have a stable community and safe world. Codes of conducts cannot exists with itself but needs to exist with religions. Religions explain the inportance of moral codes of conducts etc. Without them the world is in havoc. Side: No
The world would not be a better place without religions because then that leads a God out of the world and we could do whatever we want without obeying God's rules. I think we should be able to obey God's rules because there are some restrictions in the world if we follow someone else's rules. Sure it would be hard it is what is best for other people. Side: No
Better place without LGBT. They are not the face of gay people they are an organization. They hate people like grandmothers and other good people in the community. Havnt you noticed how hateful society has become? Thats because they are hateful. They give gay people a bad name. Gay people are nice LBGT is not nice Talk about tolerance, freedom of speech, and religious freedom. Disagree with their views of same sex marriage and your church will be shut down. Religious freedom, are you willing to let them take that away from your parents, and grandparents, and from you if ever you chose it matters to you? The key is, should you ever be left without a choice regarding your American given freedom to exercise ehat you believe? What if you were an animal activist, and I was a butcher? Should you have a right to not stock meat on the shelves of your store. And shouldnt I have a right to be a butcher and provide people who like and want steak, in other grocery stores? Or should the animal rights person be able to trample my rights? Or miine theirs? Wouldnt you want to be remain in full control of your own religious freedom? Why let them take that? Arent they taking it from all of us, including all of you, except Muslims? Gone are the days of pluralism. This is what tyranny looks like. This should come as no surprise, as it reflects the vile militancy the LGBT movement is known for. Just as they unleashed threats of violence and arson against a tiny pizzeria in Indiana when they dared to express a very mild opinion against gay marriage, so they want to punish Christians who dare to preach, well, Christianity. Notice who he did not mention: "mosques." Gays never criticize Islam, even though it is only Muslims(not Christians, who are commiting hate crimes against gays. And bullying is not a Christian adgenda against gays, its individuals) Muslims are hanging gays from cranes and throwing them from buildings every single week. So why attack Christians? The baker who was respectful to that gay couple, had a religious belief she exercised according to her concience. They destroyed her business! Good? Fair? In the same area, a guy went as a gay and requ Muslim bakers, he went to several Muslim owned bakeries for a wedding cake, each said no! So, do you think gays, arent aware that many Muslim bakeries would also say no? Or, do you think they are hatefully discriminating against Christians, and targeting specific people and groups? Wake up they are not giving you anythinh, tbey are taking everything away from you, on purpose! Side: No
Consider the free movement of religion through people who have faith in communities, and the value they contribute to the health, and balance, and stability, and support, in the lives of everyone that live in our communities. No one is perfect, but think of the people you know of, and many you personally have loved in your own lives. What touch or impact has religion had in your own personal sphere of experiences? People who may have had issues, touched by religious influence exercised in their communities. It supports them, challenges them, and often pulls them up. The moral standard of religious values influenced many people to be a better versions of themselves, as fathers and mothers, when for 1 reason or another they may not have been capable of being before. They may not have arrived to a standard of others, but the steps taken are leaps in a positive direction for so many. Without it, where would they be. And just as important, what impact would that be in the absence of religious influence in the lives of all these people? Would they have taken those steps without the moral standard of religion showing them the need and reasons to reach? So, has it been an imposition to have freedom of religion in our communities, or is religion something we all should protect, because religion benefits all in common? Side: No
loved ones touched by religion are just drops of rain in a downpour of people religion has touched, I know hundreds of people touched positively by the free movement of religion. Religious values making its effects felt in the lives of families everywhere, everyday, from drug addicts to criminals, to the broken and the abused. Religion makes our streets safer, and gives hope to all those the lives its touches and changes. Are they perfect people, no, but reaching, yes. And that’s not a bad start for anyone? Religion IS in the public interest of peace and tranquility of all regardless of personal religious choice. A moral standard belongs in a healthy society, a bar to reach, and a standard of accountability, without it there is no reach! Side: No
1
point
I don't think religion is the problem. I think stupid people are the problem. Please read about stupid people and their effect on global warming here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ The above link also discusses what we should do with said stupid people. And I don't need some one writing in and saying, "Whose going to be responsible for deciding who is stupid." But if you must ask, what we could do is work it on an honor principle. I mean if you're stupid just fess up. You know who you are so just accept responsibility for your stupidity so that the rest of us can get on with our lives. Side: No
1
point
Okay for one this has absolutely no relativity to our disscussion, and two I am tired of hearing about this global warming comments. Yes there is a whole in the oxone layer we can not do absolutely anything about it now so stop mentioning it and start doing something to prevent another whole to become created, and plus you are probably a hypocrite yourself and have done absolutely nothing at all to help the problem with Global Warming you are just another one of those media hyped, uninformed, hypocritical person who just jumped on the bandwagon on the latest issue and in reality you are doing nothing to prevent it either. Practice what you preach. You ignorant hypocrite Side: No
2
points
1
point
Actually, we did do something about it when we first learned of the hole (not whole). We determined that ChloroFluoroCarbons (CFCs) were responsible. they were being used for a lot of things, but mostly refrigerants. So what did we do? We outlawed them. Guess what happened? The hole in the Ozone began to shrink! So actually we used science to solve the problem. Also, the hole in the ozone is not the same thing as global warming. Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases (such as CO2) building up in our atmosphere. It's a separate issue. Side: Yes of course
1
point
No. Without religion, the world would still have war and conflict as a result of colonialism, opposing ideologies, and ethnic conflicts, to name a few things. Although religion is often used as an excuse for war and conflict (usually an angle fed to a populace by its government in order to gain support for a particular initiative), the truth is that colonialism, ethnic conflict and financial gain are what's truly at the heart of these struggles. Religion, in it's truest form, is simply a collection of guidelines for leading what should be a good and morally sound lifestyle. The fact that people use religion as a mask does not change the fact that an absence of religion would not get rid of the true cause of struggle: humanity. Side: No
1
point
0
points
Four questions. 1) Is there a God? 2) Can you oppose religion without opposing God? 3) If the world "had no religion", what would it have? We would either languish in ambiguity with regards to the question of where the universe came from (assuming that it had a start point somewhere in the past a.k.a. Big bang) or we would just have an anti-religion religion. 4) Is it possible to debate this question based on what little we know of the religions being raised? Side: No
Here's some food for thought. Many of the opposition's arguments are founded on objective morals. The very fact that we all agree that things like honour killing etc. are inhumane and cruel. Yet, that we all abide by this similar innate conscience to deem the actions of others as ethical or unethical, to me, is indicative of the existence of a moral God, hence the existence of morally aware creation. The real question is, can religion be seperated from God? If a religion comes about by divine revelation, the world cannot be a better place without religions if God cannot reach out to humans. All we'll see is increased depravity and immorality. Side: No
1
point
If there was no guns in the world people would just commit murders and other crimes with other weapons. The world still had wars, murders, theft, rapes and other crimes before guns so its no as if gun introduced all the crime and war to the world. With or without guns, people will commit crime! Side: No
1
point
No absolutely not. Religion is the base of individual morals. Without morals the world would be more corrupt than it is now, which isnt that drastic of a change to be honest, but that is a differnt debate. Religion debatable or not is needed to keep morals intanct and differnt individuals raised correctly. Severely debatable or not Religion is needed in the world and it would change nothing for the better. Side: No
1
point
So you don't think we can use reason to determine morals? Do you need a 2,000 year old book to know that killing or hurting someone is wrong? I think that people are very capable of determining the basic difference between right and wrong without religion. Side: Yes of course
2
points
Yes I believe we are prefectly capable of that now after the influence of religion even not directly just hearing about it,but to at first put the message into our mind is religion or influence of religiouts people. If you are a child you do not learn what is right and wrong until someone tells you if your parents never had religion or no other individual ever had religion the base of morals would be completely erased. And honestly without religion people would let there instincts take over to not bleieve in a god or gods would make us nothing but animals.Religion is needed for basic regulations for an individual. My opinion is we need religion in th eworld now more than ever. Side: No
History has an answer. The Sumerians had religion, but no form of afterlife, one of the most important aspects of a religion. They feared death, and were sad and depressed because of how grim that is. However, the Egyptians began to envision a colorful afterlife, and they celebrated death. So they built great tombs and temples and decorated them colorfully. And they were generally happier people. So which were better off? Side: No
No, why would the world be a better place? In the name of God, people have helped each other out in times of crisis. Religions have generally brought peace and good values to the masses. Family values, living better lives, etc... all religious concepts. Sure, religion has also been used to wage wars, but wars will be waged regardless, and without religion there would be something else that can be used to wage wars. Don't blame religions for atrocities done in the name of religions, but blame those who use it (because they can use anything else if religions weren't available). Side: No
Most religion was created, because years ago people wanted answers to things like, why do we have seasons. They created gods to answer these questions because they didn't understand the science behind it. Chritianity (including Chrisidelphian-ity if that is a word) is based of fact, belief and experience, and was created by Jesus to give people hope instead of eternal death in hell after life on Earth. Religion (Chrisianity included) is merely beliefs people have to give them hope, security and answers, which gives reasurance. People though have twisted religion, thinking it makes them holy, and killing people for it. The bible states "love your enimies" and "do to others as you wish to be done to yourself." Religion gives hope and reasurance and makes the world a brighter place. Unless idiots twist it into an evil mess. Side: No
1
point
Religion regardless if it existed or not wouldn't change anything, because religion is a mindset created by culture. It is a way to explain things that humans have no answers to. If I could say it would make no difference if you worshiped a god or what have you. Your Life is a constant and the only thing that changes is the way you choose what you do. Consider it as a number of variables. If I chose variable 1 over the others, then I would be here rather then if I took the other choices. Religion is based on culture and mindset, therefor you would find no difference as many to this day are non-religious. I hope this helps. Side: No
1
point
I absolutely think that the world would not be a better place without religions. That is because religion is not what makes the world a worse place, what makes the world a horrible place is the people that follow the religion. That is because of the fact that not all people are the same, for example, in Islam you can find people that are very normal, yet there are others that do harm to huge amounts of people. Side: No
Hell no! Do you have any idea what people in general will become without Christianity. Not any other religion, Christianity! The Messiah fullfillmemt of Judaism . Turn on the TV and ask which you would rather have? The Louisiana flood victims, they were saved off of rooftops, and lost everything. And these people were smiling at each other, helping one another, talking about things that are more valuable than their things. Ready to rebuild together. Then you go to Black live matters, lgbt, protesters, disconnected cold self centered hateful screeching demons holding all those people captive to their miserable mindset. One is a community infused with faith and in a great state of health. The other is an example of a state of poor health and sickness. Yeah I want more of the 2nd group in my community! Side: No
I think religion is necessary for the human race. What causes conflict are fanatics that do not accept different views. I think the perfect solution will be to have one single religion in the whole world. That way people will have some direction of what is good or bad, but there won't be disagreements, and there will be peace on earth. But obviously this is unrealistic... but also thinking of a world where people do not come up with their own religions is also unrealistic. Side: No
i never heard nor seen a preacher that from religion x promotes the religion Y,all i heard from each preacher from diffrent religions are that they are the ONE,that they are the true gates to heaven,some of them even heard off crticizing other religion,so who do you think that thought or gives the idea of a "fanatics"its like they teaching us to close our minds to other different views... can see now that religion is a big business,a great way to multiply there cents...they preventing us to listen to other religions that might invite us to leave the present religion,just imagine how many membrs we could invite to come wid you to the new religion,thats a thousand of donations/contributions already,will just fly away from them... its like a MLM/networking business,invite and invite then baptist... people are intelligent enough to know whats good and whats bad,they need freedom not dictators. peace start with in our selves,peace is like a diseases could spread and be contagious...how well idk...lol... ill stick to the religion named createdebate... Side: Yes of course
1
point
i happen to take the complete opposite, i believe that religion must be abolished in order for the human race to survive. religion is an educational retardant, under the influence of religion, humans are able to accept talking snakes, as apposed to abiogenesis. niether are definitive, the difference is one source is thousands of years old, says we rode dinosaurs, is very contradictory, and suggests that their is an omniscient and omnipotent being, who contradicts himself by being a malevolent, torturer. the other source has prime data to support it, is beleieved by most scientist, and other academic scholars, and doesn't discredit other widely accepted sciences, like carbon dating. Side: Yes of course
0
points
|
