The Instigator
Wyattcodered
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrDelaney
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Does Society need Religion?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MrDelaney
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,011 times Debate No: 102923
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Wyattcodered

Pro

I am the pro side, I will argue that society needs religion

Debate will work like this;

1st round Pro states position and first argument
2nd round I respond and sate first argument
3rd round 2nd position for each side
4th no new argument just rebuttal to the first two
MrDelaney

Con

First off I'd like to thank Wyattcodered for this debate.

As was clarified in the comments, he would prefer me to state my argument in the first round, and so I will. First, however, I would like to define some terms and hopefully lend some clarity to the proposition. Before we can truly decide if society needs religion, we should look at those three key words. My proposed definitions are as follows, and if my opponent does not raise any objection to them I will assume we"re in agreement:

SOCIETY: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

NEED: expressing necessity or obligation.

RELIGION: a particular system of faith and worship focused on the supernatural.

So, from our definitions we can see that to say that society needs religion is to say that a system of faith and supernatural worship is necessary in order for a society to exist. This puts the burden of proof on Wyattcodered, who must show that religion is needed for the existence of any society. It is not enough (or even relevant) to argue that it may be beneficial, helpful or otherwise supportive of society. He must show that religion is fundamentally necessary for the existence of society.

For my part, I must only show that religion is not a necessary for a society to exist in order to prove his position false.
To that end I would point out historian Will Durant's findings in "The Story of Civilization." On the topic of "Primitive Atheists" Durant writes:

"some peoples have apparently no religion at all. Certain Pygmy tribes of Africa had no observable cult or rites; they had no totem, no fetishes, and no gods; they buried their dead without ceremony, and seem to have paid no further attention to them; they lacked even superstitions."

The existence of this one tribe alone shows that religion is not needed for a society to exist.

Sources:
Will Durant, 'The Story of Civilization' https://archive.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Wyattcodered

Pro

Thank you Mr.Delaney for accepting this debate.

My focus will be mainly on Christian faith since its the most know throughout the world. I will copy the definition bellow for ease as reference as well, since these are the pliers we will argue from;

SOCIETY: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

NEED: expressing necessity or obligation.

RELIGION: a particular system of faith and worship focused on the supernatural.

I will start to define what a need of religion for society means. Often times religion gets mixed up with having to believe in a super natural God and all power know all. For the most part this is the case by a society needing a religion,especially if you consider yourself a active Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, and more. Prayer is a active line to God through your words to him, its something what can only be experienced by a believer. This is not my first point I am making in this debate.

1st point) Religion gives Society a rule and step by step in how to go about your daily life. Its hard to quote the bible to someone who doesn't believe in the bible as evidence. (not sure where you stand on this issue) Think of this simple example when baking a cake, take Classic Yellow cake Mix from Duncan Hines:

PREHEAT oven to 350"F for metal or glass pan(s), 325"F for dark or coated pans*. GREASE sides and bottom of pan(s) and flour lightly. Use baking cups for cupcakes.
BLEND cake mix, water, oil and eggs in large bowl at low speed until moistened (about 30 seconds). BEAT at medium speed for 2 minutes. POUR batter in pan(s) and bake immediately.
BAKE in center oven at 350"F following chart below. *Add 3-5 minutes to bake time for dark or coated pan(s). Cake is done when toothpick inserted in center comes out clean. COOL cake(s) in pan on wire rack for 15 minutes. Remove cake(s) from pan and cool completely before frosting.
Alternative Mixing Instructions: Prepare and bake following the directions above except using 3/4 cup water, 1/3 cup unsweetened applesauce and 3 eggs.

obviously soiecty needs cake in order to live in soiecty ! Above was a light hearted example of directions of cake, soiecty and humans need directions and guidance to live about their life. Babies need their mothers until they can eat on their own, then once they can eat on their own they need help to walk. Then once they learn to walk they need to learn to talk and write its a never ending circle. Even today I learn from my parents and great grand parents. Just as when we were babies adults look for a guiding figure to live are life by. For the most part this is someone like your boss, father, mother, or a talk show host, someone you look up too. For a religious person this is God.

What gets confused is a religion person and religion actions. What I mean by a religion action is something what is given to us through stories and theories. This includes Moral compass, seven deadly sins, hate, and love you can take the bible as fact or as stories. If you just take the bible as stories like the Greek myths they still have a story to them. The Bible gave us ten commemorates bellow

I am the LORD thy God
No other gods before me
No graven images or likenesses
Not take the Lords name in vain
Remember the Sabbath day
Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shall not kill
Thou shall not commit adultery
Thou shall not steal
Thou not bear false witness
Thou shall not covet

then the Christian faith gave us seven deadly sins
Envy = the desire to have an item or experience that someone else possesses
Gluttony = excessive ongoing consumption of food or drink
Greed or Avarice = an excessive pursuit of material possessions
Lust = an uncontrollable passion or longing, especially for sexual desires
Pride = excessive view of one's self without regard to others.
Sloth = excessive laziness or the failure to act and utilize one"s talents
Wrath = uncontrollable feelings of anger and hate towards another person

The ten commandments are two values every man should try too live their life by. No one wants to be killed (murdered), no one wants to be cheated on, no one wants to be stole from. Their simple principles that the Bible has given as a moral compass for man. The seven deadly sins have existed since the time of man preexistent the bible. Humans love to think out of terms, humans love to be greedy, humans love to prove their the best and humans love to hate. God knew this, people of bible and after the bible knew if it as well including "Anger: Can you imagine a world without anger? Aristotle, very insightful on these matters, talks about anger - not as a sin, but quite to the contrary - as something which the good person will naturally feel, in the right set of circumstances. Not to get angry in the appropriate circumstances, to the appropriate degree, to the appropriate person, is to be a fool.
also the worlds most famous atheist Nietzsche in" Envy: Envy is a basic human emotion. Its not a deadly sin."

Even if Nerds felt that religion was not needed for soeicty I would be interested to ask him in more detail about what religion ideas gave.

Hope to hear from you soon,

Sources
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.bibleinfo.com...
https://www.duncanhines.com...
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com...
MrDelaney

Con

As I stated in my first round, the goal of this debate was for Wyattcodered to demonstrate that religion was necessary for society to exist. In his first round of argument not only had he not supported that assertion but he made no attempt to rebut the evidence I presented of societies that have been found to have no religion.

I will not be going through Wyattcodered"s reponse line by line due to the fact that, with all due respect, the majority of the argument presented is irrelevant to the debate at hand. The majority of what was presented may demonstrate that religion is sufficient to help a society exist, but it falls extremely short of demonstrating it is necessary.

The crux of his argument is: "Religion gives Society a rule and step by step in how to go about your daily life."

Essentially, what Wyattcodered is saying is that society requires rules to exist and, in his opinion, religion can supply those rules. But this is only an argument for the necessity of rules, not the necessity of religion. While religion may be able to supply a rule set by which a society may function, it is clearly not the only possible source of rules.

We have another name for rules by which a society functions, and that is "laws."
I will gladly agree with Wyattcodered that societies require laws, however I still see no support for the idea that religion is the only possible source for those laws " as evidenced by the numerous societies on our planet that are not theocracies.

To reiterate, Wyattcodered has not demonstrated in any way that religion is necessary for the existence of a society. Arguing for the necessity of laws does nothing to that end, unless he is able to demonstrate that only religion can supply the laws which a society requires to exist. In order to do that he must:

1.Explain the existence of societies which have no religion (as specifically mentioned in my first round).

2.Reasonably justify why secular laws alone would be insufficient for a society to exist.

Until those points are met the sufficiency of religion is moot, as it is the necessity of religion which is the focus of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Wyattcodered

Pro

I will start by addressing Mr.Delaney point of societies what had no sign of religion. I will first like to ask what Mr.Dealaney need by no religion in society. The culture could of a border belief of a supernatural force but not as its main focus. Their religion could be believing that their isn't a supernatural force. Religion with a lower case r (religion) is a belief of something. for example a religion could be belief that the Big Bang was the main causes of how the earth was formed today. In essence what I'm asking you is to prove what these cultures beliefs were in.

They could be ground in stories, laws, farming/ foraging, or even war. In case Mr.Delaney wants my thoughts I would think most non religious society's would be ground in laws. Uruk had the first sat of written laws by a clitzation in (4100-2900 BCE) . These Uruk laws would give the people of society something to follow by like directions. I will not spend as much time since we agree that society requires laws.

2) What goes to MR.Delaney point of why secular laws alone are not enough.
Secular laws are not enough to keep a society in check. Laws definition the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. In order to understand the definition more I will give a example. Think of it in this why when Johnny disturbs his first grade class their are rules mini laws in place to punish Johnny. In catholic schools might bean the paddle, ruler, or getting basically slapped by a fish (it happened) Basically laws give the government are leader a way to judge and determine the peoples faith. Laws alone can not feed into a human brain, its just something what are done and followed. Humans look for something to believe in sometimes this includes money, and sometimes Religion.

to answer the question in full must understand what Religion gives a society. When talking about the Christian Religion the bible is the Connor stone of its faith. The bible gives that person stories of how to go about your life and laws with the ten commandments. Every Religion has its own laws to ensure that humans can follow to their best of their adiabatically.

If you take the bible not as fact like mentioned in round two they are stories. Just like you can use the Greek Myths in morals in living your life. Religion gives society someone or something to look up too. This does awnser the need of Religion in society. The society's what didn't have faith in a supernatural all knowing had faith in their king and the laws of the peoples. If a society doesn't have a Religion it has religion. When society gets turned on its self people can fall to Religion for guidance.

This is my final point Religion gives society guidance. Laws are black and white while as Religion is colorful. Laws tell you what you cant and can do Religion tells you what you can and cant do through its writings. You can turn to Religion when something has gone wrong and right the same as you turn to your family. It takes Faith to believe in Religion as it takes faith to believe in its laws. The humans need for someone to look up too and guidance is In real and something what should be taken in account for this debate. A supernatural all know Religious God is someone to look up to for a person who doesn't have a father or lost his/her father just as you get guidance from your parents you get guidance from reading and processing the word of God. Society needs a role model and this role model time and time was God. Almost every major society has are still has Religion. Why again Religion gives you its laws and a guidance on how to live a happier life.

Mr.Delaney could you awn ser these two questions,

1) what were the societies beliefs, if not Religion ?
2) do people need someone to look up too?
MrDelaney

Con

I will do my best in this round to respond to Wyattcodered’s arguments, as I understood them.
Wyattcodered stated:

“I will start by addressing Mr.Delaney point of societies what had no sign of religion. I will first like to ask what Mr.Dealaney need by no religion in society. The culture could of a border belief of a supernatural force but not as its main focus. Their religion could be believing that their isn't a supernatural force. Religion with a lower case r (religion) is a belief of something. for example a religion could be belief that the Big Bang was the main causes of how the earth was formed today. In essence what I'm asking you is to prove what these cultures beliefs were in.”

I would remind Wyattcodered that the definition of religion which we agreed upon was “a particular system of faith and worship focused on the supernatural.” The key points to that definition are WORSHIP and SUPERNATURAL. Without those two components we cannot say that a society has a religion, at least not one that fits the confines of this debate. Wyattcodered’s claim was that a society must have a system of faith and worship focused on the supernatural in order to exist, but now wants to claim that a belief in ‘anything’ can be considered a religion. As Durant has recorded, there are tribes in parts of Africa which have no supernatural beliefs, no system of worship and no superstitions. These societies are clearly able to exist without anything close to the definition of religion on which we’ve agreed.

Wyattcodered then goes on to claim that Secular laws are not enough to keep a society in check,” but fails to support that claim in any meaningful way. The closest he gets to a defense of that assertion is: “Basically laws give the government are leader a way to judge and determine the peoples faith. Laws alone can not feed into a human brain, its just something what are done and followed.”

I am not certain how that is a defense of the idea that laws alone cannot allow a society to function, or how it follows that religion is necessary. He claims multiple times that religion gives us laws to follow, but, while he agrees that laws are necessary he does not justify why laws alone would be insufficient for a society to exist.

He then goes on to argue that religion gives people “someone to look up to,” something which would need to be shown to be not only necessary for society, but only available through religion in order to be relevant to this debate. He does not support either aspect of that assertion.

The two questions he posed to me in the end of his response were:

1) What were the societies beliefs, if not Religion?

The obvious response to this question seems to be, why do you assume that the society required a shared belief system at all? And, even if they do have shared beliefs, why would they need to be focused on anything supernatural? I do not contend that a society must have a shared belief system in order to exist (unless you are of the mind that agreeing to a set of laws is a shared belief system, in which case, sure, all societies agree to share a belief in their laws as part of the social contract). Wyattcodered must first demonstrate that a society necessitates a shared belief system, as well as demonstrate that that system must focus on the supernatural, and then still must justify that supernatural belief alone is not enough, the society must worship it. None of those points have been met.

2) Do people need someone to look up to?

Perhaps. But what does this have to do with the necessity of religion in society? Is Wyattcodered claiming that religion is the only system through which an individual can have someone to look up to? Is he going to claim that non-religious people do not look up to anyone? What role then do parents, grandparents, mentors, teachers, historical figures and own societal origin stories play in guiding us? What argument or evidence is there to justify the idea that we must not only rely on the idea of the supernatural, but worship it, in order to exist as a society?

I will close with this challenge for Wyattcodered.

If religion is truly necessary for society then we should expect to see a clear correlation between religiosity and societal health, in the same way we see a correlation between any other necessary things. If a human being does not have enough food, which is necessary for life, we see their health suffer. If a plant does not have access to necessary sunlight it will shrivel and die. This is what we mean by things being necessary. And so, it follows that IF religion is necessary for society that we should see a drop in societal health as religiosity drops in societies. The thing is, not only do we not see the correlation that Wyattcodered is arguing for, when the evidence is examined we actually find the opposite.

As University of London professor Stephen Law put it “if declining levels of religiosity were the main cause of…social ills, we should expect those countries that are now the least religious to have the greatest problems. The reverse is true.”

Look, for example, at the ‘Global Peace Index’ which is calculated every year by the non-profit ‘Vision for Humanity. The index measures violent crime, safety, warfare and other factors within each nation. The world’s most peaceful nations are routinely the most secular (Iceland, Denmark, etc), while the lowest ranked nations are routinely the most religious (Syria, Sudan, etc).

For another example, we can take a look at the United Nations Global Study on Homicide which shows us that the nations with the highest intentional homicide rates are also the highly religious (El Salvador, Honduras, etc), while the countries with the lowest intentional homicide rates are also among the least religious (Norway, Netherlands, etc).

These are just a handful of examples, but the trend continues across many standards, including teen pregnancy rates, infant mortality, literacy rates, quality of hospital care, sexually transmitted disease rates, corruption rates, access to clean water, pollution, sanitation, and so on. By every single one of those metrics societal health increases as religiosity decreases.

To be clear, I am not claiming that religion causes any of these problems. But, if religion were necessary for society to exist we should expect it to correlate positively with societal health (as food, air and water access correlate positively with human health due to their necessity for life). Instead what we see across the globe is an inverse correlation between religiosity and societal health. This is not opinion, this in not conjecture, this is data based fact.

The claim that society needs religion is clearly false.

We have already seen societies which exist without religion, proving it is not necessary.

We have also now seen that religiosity is correlated with a decrease in societal health across a wide array of metrics.

The data is clear, not only is religion not necessary for a society to exist, it may actually be an obstacle to societal progress and well-being.


SOURCES:

The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Societies

https://books.google.com...

United Nations Global Study on Homicide 2013

https://www.unodc.org...


Global Peace Index

http://visionofhumanity.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Wyattcodered

Pro

Thank you again Mr.Delaney, I will start with my round 3 comment of Religion with a capitol to the one without. There was confusing thoughts on what I might by this. Really what I was trying to say is major faith in something what not a God. Faith gets tied into supranational Religious things. While sometimes faith in something not super natural can taken just as seriously. Some people have so much faith and respect for laws they would almost consider themselves religious to them that was my thought to Mr.Delaney question of explaining why society have not all had religion. My thought was something else took up the place for major faith in laws as a example. I did not change the definition of the word Religious to Mr.Delaney first definition.

Mr.Delaney you are right not every society fits into being a supernatural believing in God. What goes the same for people in general not everyone likes chocolate cake. What I think is above I believe that instead someone thing else took the focus of God supernatural and more towards laws or something else. That is in the middle between are two points of view, of society's what appear to not have any religion.

I would clear up my point also on secular laws are not enough to keep society in check. I will start by what laws are something that must be followed or punishment. A king or government controls these laws and is able to enforce the laws when needed and when not needed (British Quartering Act 1774) Between 1774 and 1776 the Brits were allowed to go into any American home and the American was required to let them in, feed them, and provide a bed. How this relates its simple government with power of laws can and will do anything. Nero, Stalin, bloody marry were all leaders what used law to their advantage in a almost in human way. Again how does this relate in theory religion should give the leader in power a step back from being as greedy,prideful, lustful, and others. As the seven deadly sins of Christian Tradition. God gave us his own laws in the ten commandments and the seven deadly (do not's) sins. In the bible Sin is on the main topic God and the stories of the bible talk about. The bible gives us humans a clear understanding of what sin and what godly rules are. If supranational God exist then wouldn't his laws be ones we would want to follow? A religious law is more stable then a law being changed over and over by the congress. The ten commandments have bean their for 1000's of years and still relate to what humans go through today.

To respond to Mr.Delaney last point "if religion is truly necessary for society then we should expect to see a clear correlation between religiosity and societal health, in the same way we see a correlation between any other necessary things." I would like to start this by what if there wasn't a religion? Religious people for one give more upwards of 9% more according to Philanthropy.com Plus religious charities are more successful then the ones of government. This is for several reasons outside of religious people given more. I would first like to respond to Untied Nations statement of highly religious society to non religious societies. I would not say the Untied Nations is wrong in the study they did that would be ridiculous. What I will say is the countries Mr.Delaney has compared. Norway and the Netherlands have a wildly bigger government over Honduras and El Salvador. Governments do not always help when it comes to feeding the poor but their might be some inaccurate consideration.

I do not understand Mr.Delaney point of including teen pregnancy and ..... What I do understand is when religious society is large in population their social health is bad. Let alone the fact of counties like Vietnam who are not religious are how are they doing? what about North Korea who banned Religion how are they doing. What about communist Russia who was not religious how did their people turn out. All theses countries abandoned religion for there people and their people did not do well also this takes out the whole point of where you were born is where you will be idea. Norway is a rich country and Honduras is not as rich. Honduras poor people are going to be worse of then Norway poor people, this would make it harder for Honduras people to get to high scocal status.

conclusion,
Religion gives guidance to society in its laws and stories. The laws have stayed the same for 1000's of years in its ten commandants. what can be used for everyday life and be followed by the mass amount of society. The bible gives guidance through its reading for what to do in a certain case. Religion gives hope to people who are in need of hope. Religion gives people and society a supernatural God to look up too. Societies need guidance and hope in their life, throughout past societies religion has bean a Connor stone. For example Egypt,Rome,Britain, and Greeks. The Untied states is a religious country as a whole and poor people of the state have done very well.
MrDelaney

Con

As stated in the rules, I will use this round only for rebuttals and not for the presentation of any new arguments. As it stands I feel no further argument is needed for the con side of this debate, as pro has failed to show that religion is necessary for society to exist.

Before going into my specific rebuttals, I would like to mention that Wyattcodered has conceded the fact that not every society has a system of belief and worship of the supernatural. In his own words: “Mr.Delaney you are right not every society fits into being a supernatural believing in God.” Now that he has agreed that not every society has a supernatural belief system he has conceded that society does not require religion.

I will now respond to each of Wyattcodered’s points, summarized below to the best of my ability:


1) Faith in things other than religion can be so strong that it can take the place of religion in society.

I am not certain why Wyattcodered would make this argument, as it goes against his entire position that society requires religion to exist. If something can take the place of religion in a society then it simply shows that religion was not necessary for it’s existence in the first place.

2) Secular laws are not sufficient for a society because leaders can enforce them unjustly.

Wyattcodered sites Nero, Stalin and others as examples of leaders that misused their power. While this might be an interesting topic to explore at some point it is irrelevant to the debate at hand. Our debate is focused on whether or not religion is necessary for society. Even if a society existed which had no religion and the leader used his power to enforce laws unjustly it would still only serve to prove that a society can exist without religion. Whether or not a given society might benefit from religion is a moot point within the confines of this debate. As I said in the very opening of this debate: “It is not enough (or even relevant) to argue that it [religion] may be beneficial, helpful or otherwise supportive of society. He [Wyattcodered] must show that religion is fundamentally necessary for the existence of society.”

3) Religious people are 9% more philanthropic than non-religious people.

I’m not sure what this proves to us in regards to the idea that society requires religion in order to exist. While it is nice to know that religious people are philanthropic, it doesn’t seem entirely relevant to the topic at hand. Also, when added to the fact that societal health drops on a variety of metrics in highly religious societies it is possible that 9% is not nearly enough to cover the needs that apparently correlate.


4) Some countries are larger than others and so it is expected that they would have more problems.

Once again this is not exactly relevant to our debate, but for what it’s worth the majority of studies linked to in my previous rounds rate countries on a per capita basis as opposed to raw numbers. So any issues arising from increased population should be controlled for.

5) Some countries have less money than other countries and so it is expected that they would have more problems.

Once again, this doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not a society requires religion. I am not about to argue with the fact that some countries have more money than others, but I will point out that according to Pew research less religious nations tend to be the wealthiest (as measured by GDP). While there are exceptions, the correlation does exist. So the trend continues that as societal health increases religiosity decreases.


In conclusion, Wyattcodered has not supported his assertion that religion is required for a society to exist. I have shown that societies without religion do in fact exist. I have also shown that societal health drops as religiosity increases, making its necessity nearly impossible. And, in the final round, Wyattcodered has agreed that it is possible for a society to exist without religion.


Therefore, it is clear that society does not need religion.

I’ll leave you with the words of my opponent, who conceded the debate when he said,
"Mr.Delaney you are right not every society fits into being a supernatural believing in God."

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
It seems voting periods no longer end. Remind me tomorrow to vote.
Posted by MrDelaney 1 year ago
MrDelaney
Apologies, I forgot to post my source for the Pew Research claim made at the end of my last round.
For anyone interested, here it is:

http://www.pewresearch.org...
Posted by MrDelaney 1 year ago
MrDelaney
I actually removed the necessity of a monotheistic God from the definition in order to make it less constricting for the Pro position. Also, it only seemed fiar given that there are some religions which we all (for the most part) recognize which do not involve a personal God or gods (Buddhism, for example).
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
sboss18
Two things wrong with what you are saying:
1. You are going against the arguably more popular and widely-used definition of "religion," which is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," and:
2. If that was your original intended definition, you should have said so in your Round 1 post. As it stands, you left it to Con to define it for you. Again, you can't change the definition halfway through the debate after Con already established it.
Posted by Wyattcodered 1 year ago
Wyattcodered
i do understand what you are saying but I'm using the word in place for major faith in something.
Posted by Wyattcodered 1 year ago
Wyattcodered
@sboss18 its a theory definition, in order words it means you have faith in that something. Like laws as a example just as much as a religious person is in God.
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
sboss18
"Religion" does not need to be capitalized, nor does capitalizing it change the definition.
Posted by Wyattcodered 1 year ago
Wyattcodered
@sboss18 i didn't i defined what Religion with a capital R is to the one with a lower case r as explained in the debate. i did not change its definition.
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
sboss18
Pro, you can't go changing the definition of "religion" halfway through the debate.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
Society clearly does not need nor requires religion. In "religion", I am assuming that you are referring to god of the bible. Because there are some quaint rather peaceful religions out there. But still, no the answer is, is that no, no society requires religion. nor does it need religion. Religion is a fallback positioning for fabled insecurities that people have. In the case of god and most religions it stems from power then trickles down to fear and then to control of its subjects, So once again who "needs" religion? No one. And who really follows their specific religion to a fault anyway? Almost 0. christianity, well christians scarcely pick up their bible's and read them. And if christians were actually do that, I'm sure that they would be shocked into what they would find with all of its hate an unpleasantness especially its suffering geared towards children. So no religion is most certainly not a "need". Its is only a want or a desire.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
WyattcoderedMrDelaneyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Religion is to society as pre-made cake mix is to cake. This was hands down the highlight of the debate, and perhaps next time should be the resolution. ... By the debate definitions to which both agreed. and con repeatedly brought up that useful does not so much as infer necessity, I'll quote pro " to quote pro "fact of counties like Vietnam who are not religious are how are they doing? what about North Korea who banned Religion how are they doing. What about communist Russia who was not religious how did their people turn out. All theses countries abandoned religion for there people and their people did not do well." Those countries might suck, but they still maintain societies. There might be better ways they could be organized, but they remain organized and living together etc etc. ... Also please use spellcheck. As all arguments were understandable, I am not inflicting the point penalty, but it's still a nice consideration