The Instigator
Feroste
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
mightbenihilism
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Is there such thing as a "Religion of Peace" and is peace even attainable?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Feroste
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 973 times Debate No: 63075
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

Feroste

Con

I argue there is no such thing as a religion of peace. The only examples would be things like Buddhism and Jainism which explicitly speak out against violence. Every other religion justifies some sort of violence as a sort of necessary tool to bring about peace.

"Peace is an occurrence of harmony characterized by lack of violence, conflict behaviors and the freedom from fear of violence. Commonly understood as the absence of hostility and retribution, peace also suggests sincere attempts at reconciliation, the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, the establishment of equality, and a working political order that serves the true interests of all."

-Wikipedia on Peace

Now the lack of violence part is not what I'm arguing, My argument is the Reconciliation part. I argue that humanity can never achieve peace as long as people are allowed to voice their opinions (not that I think they shouldn't be able to)
For as long as people can have opposite viewpoints there will be arguments, violence, war, and plain disrespect for the other point of view.
mightbenihilism

Pro

Buddhism is a world religion. Jainism is predominantly restricted to India. Both, by and large, spread without force or religious wars. They spread through education and patronage by certain Rajas, and lessened the violent natures of every culture they inspired (not entirely, of course. Japan remained very martial, though it needed to suppress Buddhism in order to achieve this on a nation-wide level).

As to the issue of people voicing their opinions leading to violence, I would say that so long as we agree on non-violence, violence will not occur. Through education and supporting an ethos of mutual respect, tolerance, and the abhorrence of all coercion and force, religions such as Buddhism and Jainism can act as true "religions of peace". They may not ensure a peaceful society totally, for we are evolved from savage cave-people, but over time, as testosterone levels dwindle, as education and economic opportunity become more prevalent, and where more people embrace the peaceful teachings of Buddhism and Jainism, we can expect such a scenario to lead to a greater degree of peace than has ever before been attainable. And it will also foster a society in which mutually exclusive claims can be made without bloodshed.

The testimony of India, as a whole, is one where Dharmic faiths were very disinclined to silence each-other by force, and when such occurred it almost always occurred at the behest of a patriarchal King rather than from actual sages, monks, etc.

True, the question arises whether or not voices that call for violence should be suppressed. I argue that no, they do not need to be suppressed. They must be refuted and shown to be false, but just as Dharmic faiths can have an entire tapestry of mutually exclusive opinions without requiring sectarian bloodshed, so too, a Dharmic world would not require sectarian bloodshed.
Debate Round No. 1
Feroste

Con

It is the conflict of Ideology that will prevent peace, this is how all wars have started. In order to prevent violence you first must have everyone to agree on non-violence which would be nigh impossible to do without first solving reconciliation. In order to have everyone thinking the same way it would take force (some people can be closed minded). Think Rome on a world-wide scale with complete suppression of any rebellion.

Then we could institute declaration of peace (which is what most religions would use as an argument). But, is that really a peaceful peace? What then would we do when someone does have a difference in opinion and causes rebellion?

Religions like Buddhism and Jainism I agree would be peaceful but it is ideology that is not. Once our Rome-style nation comes to their door would they be willing to change their ideals? Peace would require 1 way of thinking, if you have the world agree on non-violence that is one way of thinking not to mention how impossible it would be with so many gun fanatics and religious radicals and troubled teens.

I believe absolute peace is an impossibility, but we may at times see glimpses of peace.
mightbenihilism

Pro

Here is my response to a few points made by the Con:

"In order to prevent violence you first must have everyone to agree on non-violence"

Not necessarily, provided some other conditions are met. An example, if those who advocated violence could see that violence, ultimately, would be unsuccessful, then, provided they were reasonable or had over-riding incentives, they would not engage in violence. To use an outrageous analogy, all the non-violent could build gigantic, impenetrable citadels with gentle, but indestructible mech-robots who would, in a non-violent way, shield against the advocates of violence should they attack. The violent would have no reason to carry out violence, for it would be futile, and the mech-robots could be programmed to merely defend. As to how you remove the violent from the area, the non-violent will agree to influence them gently through incentives, such as a monetary compensation for living on the outskirts of the citadels.

Would the violent be violent with eachother? This is likely. Most violent systems eventually turns upon itself and self-destructs. However, it may also occur that they realize violence would lead to self-destruction and, as such, they would prefer to the monetary payments of the non-violent to instigating violence as each other. This would allow the sentiment of violence to exist without the necessity, or even likelihood, of its action.

I think this answers the other questions.

As to ideology being necessarily violent, it depends on how you define ideology. Non-violence is arguably an ideology in itself which spans many Dharmic religions and Abrahamic faiths (like Anabaptists, Quakers). If your ideology is non-violence, it is not necessary that you be willing to commit violence for your ideology. HOWEVER, if you define ideology as being necessarily violent, then all you are aguing is "if something is necessarily violent it necessarily will be violent." This is like saying, "a duck will steal my crackers because 'duck' is defined as 'that which steals my crackers'". But if a bulldog steals your crackers, you cannot accuse the bulldog of being a duck without re-writing the English dictionary.
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Kadeema,

Are you saying you'd join the mech-warrior citadels of Buddhism, or are you wanting to wing it outside with the violent and wealthy dissenters?
Posted by KadeemaSmith 2 years ago
KadeemaSmith
There is a religion of peace, it is called UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS. The ability to ignore the outside world, for the sake of your inner sanity.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
I used them up to destroy the sinuously sentient fire-ball beings earlier. :(
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Now that is a pickle. Are there no anthropomorphic sparkling star shaped objects to give you invulnerability?
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
The Mech warriors were inspired by the game "Mechwarrior", which I've never played because I'm too into Mario games at the moment.

Actually, debate.org helps me let off some steam in between caffeine-fueled agonies of trying to get my lilliputian working-class Italian protagonist to jump over a pixelated sandpit with fire-spitting venus fly-traps without possessing the necessary racooon ears and tail. . . :(
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Thanks Atmas. I don't always agree with what I write, though I'm pretty much pro-peace, on most days, provided I've had at least a cup of coffee.

People are way too stuffy, sometimes.
Posted by Feroste 2 years ago
Feroste
I agree Atmas, I loved your Mech warriors analogy Mightbenihilism (what was the inspiration for that I wonder)

Good debate friend.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
@mightbenihilism. I do like how you tend to bring humor to most of what you do. It makes what you write entertaining, even if I don't agree with it.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
As for the debate topic itself, if peace is lack of conflict, and conflict brings progress, then logically, peace will not bring progress. So if the goal of a religion is to bring peace and act as the dominant belief system, then the goal of that religion is against conflict, and thus against progress. If a religion claims to be peaceful, they are against conflict, and therefore are conflicting with the ideals of those who are not peaceful. This creates a logical fallacy and proves that they are, in fact, not acting very peacefully.
Posted by Hawkeye117 2 years ago
Hawkeye117
First off peace is not an atanable this for us humans as long as we hold religion dear to us and obtain humanly feeling and the constant need for resources there well never be a lasting peace and just saying Buddhism isant a religion its a practice just like athieism isant a religion
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
FerostemightbenihilismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con at least used wikipedia (a viable source compared to no source) and pro only tried talking about one type of peace rather than addressing the whole of peace.
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
FerostemightbenihilismTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used a source while pro did not. Con tried to discuss peace as a lack of conflict as a whole, while Pro continued to talk only about lack of violence. I think some definition of terms were in order in the beginning. Conduct to Pro, however, for sticking to the actual debate topic title while Con wanted to expand into other areas. If this debate were longer than two rounds, an expansion of the topic would have counted more.