Do we NEED religion?
Debate Rounds (5)
I really want you to focus on the work NEED, because as I understand religion DOES help people with faith, but obviously can also be bad and vice versa.
But as an atheist, and the rest we have not had the need to be religious, and as an effect in general terms, we have the same morals, ethics, and mind set discarding any extremities.
Which can really be answered in it self; No, we don't NEED religion to be the people we are but in some cases it can improve out lives for some but with everything has the opposite effect.
It is often said that religion is the opiateof the masses. We live in a world of very limited resources. Poverty is inevitable.
Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
Most of these people have no way of escaping their lives of poverty, misery and destitution. It's not about hardwork, these people work very hard, often being forced to either work inhumane hours or starve to death. For these people there is no hope. There is no system to help alleviate their poverty. For these people, religion is necessary to keep them going and working. Even if you personally aren't religious, others need religion to give them motivation: at least in the afterlife they'll have what they can never even dream of having in life.
The working poor helps keep our society running by providing indispensable labor resource. We would not be where we are now without these people. Are you going to deny them a reason for them to justify their misery to themselves? That's cruel.
Religion has huge historic value, and gave people the first common moral standards to coexist. Without these moral standards we might still be living in a time during which the concept of right or wrong is nonexistent. Religion is the first codified set of values that deters things like murder, rape, theft, etc. People came together and worked together as a civilization because of this largest common forum of human coexistence called religion.
The fact that religion may or may not give hope doesn't mean that they need it.
Its not a question for just those who are in poverty but everyone else in need for lighter times. But similar to people with problems, those without religion has managed to get through just as easy as those with religion.
Religion is purely subjective, which may not be a bad thing, but it will not get you through any true physical hardship.
As for giving us a basic understand of Morality, im sure you know as an agnostic (I'd like to have a seperate conversation with you a of why you think you should be agnostic - Im not militant), In the old testament, The moral views have almost been completely hanged to what we think the difference between right of wrong.
Just some quick examples or rape, slavery, homophobia and discrimination against woman.
Off track, nothing suggests that we truely NEED religion, im not picking on religion as this could be said with a lot of other topics such as phones, internet, vehicles etc..
"There are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84% of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion."
Religion is not objectively necessary. If we take purely objective stances, humans can act function robotically. Screw psychological health or physical discomfort, pain, suffering, anything.
All things are subjective
Which means that while things may not be objectively significant, they can still be subjectively significant.
Religion is subjectively needed in order to keep people from falling into the abject abysm of despair. To deny it to them is to be subjectively cruel. Subjectivity matters. Funnily enough, subjectivity's significance is subjective.
"those without religion has managed to get through just as easy as those with religion."
How many? How often? Is it enough to justify refuting religion's opiate necessity?
Over half the world lives in miserable poverty and more than 84%of the world are religious. By inductive guessing, I'd say that most of the poor are indeed religious. Their being religious shows that they want to be religious. Since they want to be religious, it is likely that religion helps them to justify suffering, something you've agreed that religion is capable of doing. I am saying that it is likely that it is what religion does.
Unlike phones, cars, etc. Religion impacts 5.9Billion people in the world and probably helps alleviate the misery of the other over 3 billion who live in abject poverty.
Religion is subjectively necessary
There is no denying of religion to those who want to believe, but to say to those who WANT to be religious is a different matter. Because those people may or may not know any difference to what they have been told.
Once again, this is truly a point based on perspective and whether the individual needs religion, but what does that say about atheists in any same circumstance? How differently would we act? Cope?
What I would like to say is, yes it does and can help from falling into abyss, but without knowing what religion was they would have gone through the same experience?
If there is, I would very much like to see an experiment of this sort, whether religion or any other factor can prevent us from what may mentally or physically harm us.
But surely its an obvious question to ask whether you truly need anything, because if there are coping people present that are without religion or anything and still have the same mentality, then surely we do not necessarily need those functions.
I would like to ask why you don't need religion?
"How many of those without a religion gone through what someone with religion has with the same mentality and outcome? All of them."
This comparison is faulty. Everyone is different. You cannot compare a middle-class or upper-class U.S. citizen with a lower clasee Hindu. Your comparison accounts for religion, but it doesn't account for anything else. I am not religious, but I have not lived through abject poverty or misery that such poverty entails. Between me and a poor man, our outcomes and mentality are necessarily different because being poor and being not-poor are different things.
"There is no denying of religion to those who want to believe, but to say to those who WANT to be religious is a different matter."
I don't get what you're saying here.
"Because those people may or may not know any difference to what they have been told."
Religion is solace. The opposing point of view is not. I think that those people may not even want to know abject misery without religion. That 84% of the world want to be religious - religion by choice since everything we do is based on choice - gives us inductive reason to believe that these people don't want the opposite of what they want.
The statement: I want to be religious
and the statement: I don't not want to be religious
"Once again, this is truly a point based on perspective and whether the individual needs religion, but what does that say about atheists in any same circumstance? How differently would we act? Cope?"
Everything is based on perspective. What does it say about atheists? People want their opium, this one doesn't make them lazy or worthless. This opium makes them productive and helps them live on.
"What I would like to say is, yes it does and can help from falling into abyss, but without knowing what religion was they would have gone through the same experience?"
We don't know. They don't want to find out.
"If there is, I would very much like to see an experiment of this sort, whether religion or any other factor can prevent us from what may mentally or physically harm us."
Well without objective empirical data, we can only resort to inductive guessing, and I've given some fairly good inductive reasons to believe that religion does serve as an 'opiate of the masses'.
"But surely its an obvious question to ask whether you truly need anything, because if there are coping people present that are without religion or anything and still have the same mentality, then surely we do not necessarily need those functions."
Whatever drives these coping people doesn't matter. What matters is likely that religion drives the majority of coping people, meaning that it is likely that the majority of coping people need religion. We're talking about subjective necessity here, so blanket rejections of necessity is impossible.
"I would like to ask why you don't need religion?"
Objectively, I have much greater life opportunities than the average poor. Subjectively, I can pschologically cope with how I am right now since I am not suffering or anything. Subjectively I don't really need religion to cop, but that doesn't mean others don't. Again you can't really make a good objective comparison between people of different socio-economic status. There are way too many factors you ignore when you differentiate solely with jsut one factor, religion in your case.
A reason why I chose religion was because of this taboo we have, especially in Europe and most certainly the UK, that is seen as wrong to speak against the opinion of religion.
What I ultimately wanted to tackle, which may have not come across although is slightly different is the key essentials for being human.
What do we really need?
To ability to survive with or without religion, I think in most cases you could agree this it is possible to be without religion and that of many other things.
You have made this a very lovely conversation and with every debate sharpen's ones opinion to be near perfect. But it's still only an opinion aha, Another interesting question to how pedantic we can take a piece of information for what we believe is true yet could still be technically an opinion that has been shaped over the years we reinforced evidence all pointing to one direction; which is why I am an athiest.
"There is no denying of religion to those who want to believe, but to say to those who WANT to be religious is a different matter."
- "I don't get what you're saying here."
I was trying to make a simple point about those who are religious may not know any difference to anything this refute's the idea. Hence maybe a different way of seeing is that there was no step into choosing or wanting to be religious because to them it's a way of life.
"Everything is based on perspective. What does it say about atheists? People want their opium, this one doesn't make them lazy or worthless. This opium makes them productive and helps them live on."
I don't think religion is necessary for productivity whether they are forced to do a task or not, if that was what you were getting at.
Is religion helping people cope with the necessity of it? This may seem harsh to those that are helped with the idea of god but coping will be done no matter what. I'm trying to really just dig down to basic functions of living that I may have not put across.
I adhere to what I've said earlier as it is largely uncontested. Religion is a subjective necessity and that it is likely that religion is a sujective necessity to the larger part of the world.
"this taboo we have, especially in Europe and most certainly the UK, that is seen as wrong to speak against the opinion of religion."
That is unfortunate, but it's not illegal to speak against religion is it? I don't see a point in being an anti-religion activist as such an activism is counterproductive. Sure you can have your views and explain them when asked. Sure you can try atheist activism, but what's the point? To raise awareness for atheism? Why? In the end what would you be accomplishing?
"What do we really need?"
Objectively I've come to the conclusion that we don't need anything. That is, if we apply infinite regress to anything's necessity, it always ends on some existential question that we cannot provide an objectively true answer for.
Let's take, for example, homicide. Why is it a bad thing? From a religious point of view, it is simple: God says so. Thou shalt not kill, right?
From an atheistic point of view, homicide can be considered a harm to society since it would make societal coexistence difficult if entirely condoned. Apply another layer of regress: why is society's peaceful or productive coexistence necessary? Well, you could argue that peaceful and productive societal coexistence helps humanity to maximize its survival and productive potential. Apply the next layer of regress: Why is humanity's survival or productivity necessary? You could argue that it is necessary for life. Next layer: Why is life necessary? You could argue that life is rare or beautiful. Beauty is subjective and not necessary. Rarity is not an objective axiom. Life is rare. So what? Is it necessary to treasure what is rare? Isn't that subjective?
In the end, you cannot show murder to be an objective wrong (or right, for that matter). So murder isn't really wrong right?
But what do you mean when you ask what we 'really' need? Is it a question between objective necessity versus subjective necessity?
I assert that subjective necessity is the only verifiable necessity in existence based on the fact that infinite regression corrodes all such things into a subjective core.
Religion may not be necessary, objectively, for productivity, but it may be what people need to keep themselves psychologically happier. Arguing from a utilitarian model, happiness in greater quantities is superior to happiness in lesser quantities.\
You could argue that nothing is 'really' necessary, but what then would shoul we strive for? Should we just throw away all our standards?
I assert that subjectivity matters and that it has to matter. Subjectively, you must agree.
KylePooley forfeited this round.
I extend all my points.
Thank you for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit for Con. Pro had more thoroughly developed arguments and used sources at any rate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.