Instigator / Pro
3
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3159

Have we moved past the need for religion in modern society?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Nyxified
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Description

Religion has often been used by societies as a moral standard and a way to impose rules that people are inclined to follow, often under threat of punishment by god(s). The question posed today is whether or not we as a society have moved past the need for religion. Polls show that religion is on the decrease in both attendance and practice so it appears that many people are starting to agree with this premise. Are they on the right path or are they misguided?

A shame that my opponent forfeit. I was looking forward to this debate.

Hoo boy, I managed to submit a solid two minutes before the deadline.

-->
@Bones

I wouldn’t say that it is inherently against the truth to believe in Buddhism because it just makes you a better person. Our goal in life is to seek happiness and if religious people can accept others while being happy and positive members of society, Why not?

-->
@Bones

What exactly is reality anyways?

Religion basically form traditions. Are you, as well, telling people across the world to give up their traditions to suit “your way of life”? No?

-->
@Bones

Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory

Galileo suffered through the humiliation of having to deny his theories in order to save his life. He was Catholic, believed in God, but, on the other hand, he was a great believer in the role of science and the fascinating beauty of God's creation.

Gregor Johann Mendel was a meteorologist, mathematician, biologist, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia.
Through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance

A person doesn't need religion to discriminate against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy against oneself, the state, or favorite anime.

I disagree that religion is a wall between people and the pursuit of truth.

Matthew 5:27-28, is just common sense, (In my view of it)
Of how thoughts can effect a persons 'heart, or even their actions in time, should it fester.

If religions are often just what people think reality 'is, a history of what 'was, and how people 'ought act, what's so dissimilar in atheist groups who believe in the same reality, history, and ethics?

-->
@Intelligence_06

Religion is a lot more than a bunch of peaceful monks praying themselves. Religion discriminates against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy and apostasy and is a major wall between people and the pursuit of truth. Just consider the incontrovertible scientific fact of evolution. It is of absolutely no dispute to anyone with 2nd-grade biology knowledge, yet we have fully grown people unironically arguing against it because their old book says so.

"If Jesus, etc. walked past them, chances are that Jesus would educate about them what is better to be done, rather than patting them on the head for shouting racial slurs at random people and oppose vaccines"

Excellent point. However, if Jesus really were real, why would he not have foreseen the stupidity of the future generation and given people eternal truth, instead of facts which are subjectively true to only a certain time period? Why give us stupid advice, such as "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'" Matthew 5:27-28

Religion has outlived it's usefulness. As Seneca once said "“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”

-->
@Bones

That is different in essence. That opinion is falsifiable and is harmful to the general society. Those people who "need it" have no need to even hold on to that belief anymore.

However, religion itself doesn't harm greater society. You pray 30 minutes a day? No problem. It only becomes a problem when religious extremists become hate groups, in which their religious twists wanders far beyond what the original prophet would say, hence making their crimes of their own, not the religions'.

Although, an opinion I hold is that the religious figures would react differently, if they are present in the 20th or 21th centuries. Upholding things that are once good things to do but are frowned upon at the moment is not the problem of the religions. They just can't wrap their head around that things change and their hate is not justified by religion. If Jesus, etc. walked past them, chances are that Jesus would educate about them what is better to be done, rather than patting them on the head for shouting racial slurs at random people and oppose vaccines.

-->
@Intelligence_06

"Some people need it, to say the 'least."

Some people also believe that childhood vaccines cause autism.

Some people need it, to say the 'least.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Though I might be taking liberties, with the three examples I give,
Posts number ,
#50 and #56
Of the thread,
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6396-systemic-racism-exists?page=1

I take the view myself, that it comes from a manner of nature and nurture.
The things we call good and evil, in a person.

-->
@Lemming

Yes I was just pointing out an irony that he argued religion distinguished us from animals as moral people, but now we can abandon the very thing that apparently made us moral in the first place. I do believe that any moral system that does not include God is, at it's core, a system of "might makes right." But that is a debate topic all by itself.

You stated:
"Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.

Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness."

I completely agree with you here. And this is where worldview becomes so important. The way that one answers the question of WHY people do bad things determines what solution one arrives at to solve this "sin" problem, so to speak.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

With 'or without a focus on religion, people often enough have based hierarchies based on how well we can kill each other.
The 'error, in my opinion, is the idea that a human can be 'without religion.
Oh 'sure atheists exist, and people so called as opposed to religion.
But they mistake themselves, 'I think.
They are not without 'creed, subjective valuation of themselves, others, and the world they inhabit.

He spouts off about replacing religion with 'reason, as if the practitioners of organized religion as we traditionally see it have lacked for reason.
Failed to use it in their understanding of their religion, and the world.
Unless one is talking about some 'math equations, we aren't likely to arrive at the same conclusions using reason.

There's plenty of educated Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Criminals, Cops, Law Abiders, and Anarchists.

People's values are not likely to disappear, and that's in a way what religion 'is, in my way of thinking.
Values.
If you gave 'everyone the exact same genetics, exact same experiences, prevented 'any deviation, that we shone, reflected, myradiated like a set of geometric patterns on a mirror, we'd arrive at the same conclusions.

Though there's no objective 'reason, that the starting point and conditions following 'ought be.

Rambling. . .

Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.

Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness.

Ah, but I'm incoherent, and rambling, post #3 was rude of me I'm sure.

Still, the part you quote, stands 'against his earlier statement of

"Without religion it is hard to justify cutting off the tip of a baby's penis. Without religion it is hard to pin down why liking the same sex is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why women should be submissive to men. Without religion it is hard to justify how owning another human being is just. Without religion it is hard to explain why changing your gender is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why killing someone for doing work on a certain day of the week is permitted."

Besides which your quote,
"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."

Of his misses the context, that he's implying we 'won't be like that now (Using Atheism and Logic), but only needed religion as training wheel.

-->
@Lemming

"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."

I don't know, this part was actually pretty convincing.

My thoughts on Pro's round 1 argument.
I don't know why it so often amazes me, how stupid I think some atheist arguments are.
I suppose it's because I expect 'more from atheists, though I 'really shouldn't.
Maybe I just don't pay as much attention to people who make religious arguments.

Ah screw it I'm just gonna accept the debate anyways. Don't want someone to snipe it while I wait for a response lol

-->
@FryingPan227

I would argue that religion holds the same function that it has always held, that being providing spiritual enlightenment, guidance on how to live a just life, and answers to existential questions. Even if what is considered 'just' by any given religion is enforced upon a society at large, that does not relate to the function of religion as much as it does relate to people enforcing their beliefs onto others. Would you say this argument is consistent with the resolution?

Also I'd recommend changing the title to something more like "Society No Longer Needs Religion" so it more accurately reflects the debate.