Do we not need Religion?
Debate Rounds (3)
(b) Also, it is apparent that no group of people disengage itself from self-interest. For example, in colonial days the assemblies and councils of colonies were enacting laws to suit the interest of the White rulers. Now, the same institutions (but with different members) are making laws keeping in view the interest of the local population. Self-interest was, and still is, the key word of legislation in the whole world.
(c) Moreover, no man or group of men is in a position to make a comprehensive law based on perfect equity and justice.
So it is necessary that the laws should be made by someone who is superior to man, who has nothing to lose or gain by that law and with whom every man has equal relation. and that one is "Allah". Hence we need the religion
(d) Moreover, all the man-made laws and customs have a very serious defect: they cannot stop crime. This defect makes their existence somewhat superfluous. A thief enters an unoccupied house, in a remote village at dead of night for stealing some valuables. He knows perfectly well that there is no representative of the government for good many miles around the house. He feels perfectly safe from being detected. Is there any law of government which can stop him from committing the crime? The answer is, certainly, "no".
No government can stop the said person from stealing, but Religion can.
Religion, true Religion as explained above, teaches that there is a God, Who knows everything and sees everything; who is Just and Virtuous Himself, and wants us to be just and virtuous; that we are responsible for our deeds in His eyes, and we have to give account of our deeds to Him after our death. If a person believes in it, then (and only then) he can restrain himself from committing sins and crimes and inflicting injustice upon other people.
Laws of government can control the external affairs of a man and even that only at a time and place where its hands can reach. But the belief in God and religion controls not only the external acts but hidden desires and inner thoughts also.
This control is not confined to any particular place or any limited time, because God is omnipresent and omniscient
(e) To realize fully the unquestionable benefits which the society derives from the belief in God and religion, try to think about the chaos and turmoil which the mankind will certainly plunge into if the belief in God is put aside. There will not be any society. Instead, there will be a multitude of people. In such atmosphere every individual is at liberty to do whatever he wishes. He thinks there is no God and no life hereafter, and he has come into being by the chance of a blind nature; and he also knows that the span of life is very short. So he naturally will be overcome by the desire to enjoy this life as much as possible without any regard to anything else. His only consideration will be to avoid being caught red-handed or detected by the government law. And whenever he will feel safe he will not stop at any crime to fulfill his desire, how much heinous that desire may appear to others.
Good Day and thanks for the Debate.
Pro didn't mention any rules, therefore I shall state my argument in a form of a argument-entry.
For parts a),b) and c) of your argumentation.
Yes we all know that Homo Sapiens S. is a social animal. Our psychology and life are adjusted to a social animal model. Humans have over time united under a complicated hierarchy, that we today know as a State.
"Because every one of them is capable of wrong judgment" This is in fact true, but every individual has his own opinion and beliefs. We all have self-interests and without them we wouldn't be so successful. And you highlighted an important issue of the today´s political system of the western countries.
Direct democracy is the answer. Because everyone has his opinion and everyone is an different individual. If the society gathers together and then decides via. a democratic way (with voting) we achieve a much better law. Critical thinking in a democracy allows people to negotiate about issues, to then present a better law for the society.
Such systems exist in Switzerland in form of a Landsgemeinde.
Laws therefore can be made without an theocratic intervention.
For part d) of your argumentation.
Crime is a very large problem of the society.
But religion does not help to reverse the crime, but mostly the opposite. More religious countries, actually tend to have more crime. This is also very visible in the US.
I would like to compare these two maps (first one shows the importance of religion per country, the other one shows intentional homicide rate per country).
But I really have got to mention that there are also other factors for crime.
In fact religion isn't the biggest factor.
The most important factors are the overall psychological state (more depression causes more crime). How many progressive policies the country has (this is very visible on this map) and it includes the overall inequality, education and many other. And of course, the economy plays a big role.
For part 2 of d) and e) of your argumentation.
Less religiosity and more "moral-less" liberty does not throw the society into chaos, but the opposite. This is seen in North-West Europe (except UK) and Australia and New Zealand. Sweden & Estonia are excellent countries to live in, with high human standards, incomes, stability, HDI (as well as IHDI) and low crimes and are the most irreligious.
Religion has an opposite impact in France, UK, Australia and the Philippines where its destabilising the system, especially because of Islam.
Secular and Atheist governments tend to be more stable and have less crime.
If your statement turned out to be true, then the Eurostat total Crimes recorded by the police should be rising, but its mainly not.
But I would also like to state that there is no evidence of God or Allah or any spiritual force.
This is my argument and good luck to Pro.
I think you have not fully understood, what I said about the right authority who should make the law. As I didn"t say that self-interest is wrong entirely. But I"m saying that a monarch or a dictator are not capable of making LAW for humanity! The reasons are quite clear as the first thing they see is their own interests and benefits in that law, instinctively. As, I have also given an example of colonial days, where the assemblies and councils of colonies were enacting laws to suit the interest of the White rulers.
And now the same institutions (but with different members) are making laws keeping in view the interest of the local population. Self-interest was, and still is, the key word of legislation in the whole world.
And about direct democracy, you are speaking off the point as we are not discussing any pros and cons of direct democracy here, but for the sake of argument I would like to mention a few points here.
Demerits of direct democracy:
(i) Room for Manipulation and Corruption:
With a direct democracy, each person votes directly. However, just as there is manipulation and corruption in an indirect democracy, so too can there be corruption and manipulation in a direct democracy. Given the complexity of some issues, it is easy for one side or the other to flood the airways with promotional materials trying to influence how people decide to vote
(ii) Based on unnatural equality:
The concept of equality is enshrined in direct and indirect democracy. It is against the law of nature. Nature has not endowed every individual with intelligence and wisdom. Men's talents differ. Some are courageous, other are cowards. Some healthy, others not so healthy. Some are intelligent, others are not. Critics are of opinion that "it is against the law of nature to grant equal status to everybody."
And many more disadvantages...
So again I"m repeating that it is necessary that the laws should be made by someone who is superior to man, who has nothing to lose or gain by that law and with whom every man has equal relation, and that is GOD. Hence we need religion.
For your second part to be honest I haven"t understood anything from the maps you provided as nothing is clear.
First of all we should see the definition of crime ("illegal activities") in every country, which you will find it different. In more-religious countries you would find some acts as illegal but on the other hand in less-religious countries you would find the same act as legal. For example gay marriage in the most part of Europe is legal but in many other religious countries you would find it illegal.
So in this case, I don"t think so there is any survey conducted which has shown, the details mentioned, as precisely.
The link you provided about crime rates (eurostate link didn't work) , that are higher in religious countries and less in the less-religious countries is just an assumption. Because at the end it says "correlation is not necessarily causation. There are many other variables that affect the rate of crime". So again we see that it"s not accurate enough to blame religion for it.
What I said earlier in the first argument, clearly shows that how religion and believe in God can restrain one from committing sins and crimes and inflicting injustice upon other people. Because he or she would find himself/herself accountable for their deeds.
I think we should be reading some history before associating moral-less liberty with developed countries, especially Europe.
If we go back to 14th century before Renaissance and see how the Europeans lived you"ll be amazed.
Before the Renaissance occurred, several countries across Europe were suffering from diseases and poverty. They were also suffering from problems such as lack of employment and education, health care, a stable home, and basic necessities of life. These problems sometimes led to numerous deaths of both children and adults due to lack of health care provided etc. etc.
From the 11th to 13th centuries, medieval Europe absorbed knowledge from Islamic civilization, which was then at its cultural peak. Of particular importance was the rediscovery of the ancient classic texts, most notably the work of the Greek natural philosopher Aristotle, through re-translations from Arabic. Also of note is the reception of advances in astronomy and mathematics made in the Islamic world during the 10th century, such as the development of the astrolabe.
From the 11th to the 14th centuries, numerous European students attended Muslim centres of higher learning (which the author calls "universities") to study medicine, philosophy, mathematics, cosmography and other subjects.
The Islamic world made important advances in science, such as in algebra, chemistry, geology, spherical trigonometry, etc. which were later also transmitted to the West. Stefan of Pise translated into Latin around 1127 an Arab manual of medical theory. The method of algorism for performing arithmetic with Indian-Arabic numerals was developed by the Persian al-Khwarizmi (hence the word "Algorithm") in the 9th century, and introduced in Europe by Leonardo Fibonacci (1170"1250). A translation by Robert of Chester of the Algebra by al-Kharizmi is known as early as 1145. Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen, 980"1037) compiled treatises on optical sciences, which were used as references by Newton and Descartes. Medical sciences were also highly developed in Islam as testified by the Crusaders, who relied on Arab doctors on numerous occasions. Joinville reports he was saved in 1250 by a "Saracen" doctor.
Also, I think I don"t have to explain how the Britain became Great Britain, as it"s well known.
There are so many other important things to mention, but I think this much should give us an idea, about how the Europe developed.
At the same time it clearly demonstrates that how developed and advance was Islamic government (not the IS of today who are PORTRAYING Islam as terrorism, as they are being paid for this job to create division and chaos in the society) and also how MORAL society. Regarding morality in Islam I would just like to quote a few verses of Holy Quran:
"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land." (Quran 5:32)
"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah (GOD) is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is all Knowing and all Acquainted.
And before you come to conclusion, I would like to say that NOT every religion can serve humanity. But a religion that has the qualities.
" First of all, Religion must satisfy the intelligence and intellect of the Man.
" Religion must teach and practice dignity of man.
" Religion must be a complete guide to develop human body, mind and spirit as a whole.
" Religion must have a complete code of life.
" Religion must be in conformity with the human nature.
" Religion should not be a tool in the hands of oppressor to suppress the masses.
At the end I would like to state that, there are no evidences that God doesn't exist. As "We come from nothing, we are doing nothing and we go to nothing" doesn"t make sense.
Good luck to Con
Lukas8 forfeited this round.
Misunderstanding about religion:
Often we hear some patent slogan used against "Religion" they are nowadays widely used by the communists. They are:
(a) Religion is anti-science.
(b) Religion was a drug invented by capitalists to keep the oppressed classes content with their wretched condition. In other words it was opium to make people seep.
(c) Religion retards material and intellectual progress.
Let us, now examine these allegations. All these statements have been made by the Europeans (from Karl Marx to Bertrand Russell) WHO HAD KNOW A PARTICULAR RELIGION ONLY i.e. Christianity. They committed the intellectual sin of seeing a particular religion and assuming all religions (Including Islam) must be of the same caliber. It was, to say the least, a fallacy, if not a deliberate deception.
To explain the above statement, it is necessary to pint out just in general outline what was the attitude of Christianity towards knowledge and progress.
"From the sixteenth century A.D. the conflict between the church and science began. This most unfortunate struggle was not started by the scientist but by the protagonists of Christianity, who feared that their religion was in dire danger of losing its hold on the masses. Their house of cards was threatening to fall down. Both Catholics and Protestants, though they were at logger-heads themselves, took the same stand against the impact of revolutionary scientific theories of Copernicus and Galileo. They did what every tyrant, afraid of his inherent weakness, does. Ruthless persecutions were launched against the brave scientists who defied the church and said what they knew was the truth.
"At first we should take Copernicus (Nicolaus Koppernik) 1473-1543, as he was the man who set the ball rolling. He did not dare to publish his work, "On the revolution of Heavenly Bodies"", for a long time due to the fear of the church. In the end he successfully tried to appease the church by dedicating the book to the Pope. In fact his publisher wrote a preface alleging that the theory of the earth"s motion was only a hypothesis and not an assertion as positive truth. In the words of Lord Bertrand Russell, "For a time, these tactics sufficed, and it was only Galileo"s bolder defiance that brought retrospective condemnation upon Copernicus. (Religion and Science)
"Luther, also, opposed the Copernican system on the theological grounds.
"Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), though once a friend of Pope Urban VIII, was thrown into the prison of Inquisition by the orders of the same pope and threatened with torture if he did not recant. Galileo"s only crime was that he supported the Copernican system because of the observations made with his telescope. These observations were more difficult to cope with for the church than the theoretical of Copernicus.
"Giordano Bruno (1549-1600) was another victim of the cruelty of the "tolerant" people. He was burnt alive.
"As Lord Bertrand Russell has written: "Theologians were not slow to point out that the new doctrine would make the Incarnation difficult to believe." (Religion and Science)
"So the Inquisition announced the following as the truth: "The first proposition that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth is foolish, absurd, false in theology and heretical; because expressly contrary to the Holy Scriptures. . .
The second proposition that the earth is not centre, but revolves about the sun is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological point of view at least opposed to the true faith.' (Religion and Science).
"And as it was not enough, the Jesuit Father Melchior Inchofer postulated that 'the opinion of the earth's motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; arguments against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the Incarnation should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves.' (Religion and, Science).
Faced with this ruthless oppression, the scientists, in their turn, denounced Christianity as 'anti-intellectual, anti-science, a pack of superstitions and degrading to human progress." What is not understandable is that they aimed their broad-side to ALL the religions; certainly Islam can never be termed 'un-scientific, illogical or anti-progress. If you don't believe me than I would suggest you to read about Islam from its ORIGINAL SOURCES not the media. As the Holy Qur'an state:
"Or, Who originates creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Say, "BRING FORTH YOUR ARGUMENT, IF YOU ARE TELLING THE TRUTH!" (Qur'an 27:64)
Religion and Science by Bertrand Russell
Lukas8 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.