The Instigator
hikarijon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BoboftheDead
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Religion, the final word

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 444 times Debate No: 36611
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

hikarijon

Con

Ok, here goes...it's time we got this sorted once and for all.

Religion, come on...please show me the real and final reason why it should not be cast out along with such fun topics as "is the world round or flat" and of course...nessie.

I want a serious debate here, not a rant for atheists or fanatics....lets put this baby to bed
BoboftheDead

Pro

1. Religious belief is fundamentally about the individual and not about the aggregate result of religion. That is, clearly people do terrible things in the name of religion, however, many individuals clearly have also found deep, personal significance in the word of Jesus, Allah, or even Odin. Religion is fundamentally about personal growth, deeper happiness and spiritual fulfillment with one's life, whatever that life may be.

2. While there are, obviously, those who use religion as a justification for utterly terrible, immoral decisions, I would argue that fundamentally that is a problem of the individual and not one of the religion as a whole. Religion has served as almost a "PR"-move to justify a decision that may seem more popular than true reasons. As reason for this, simply look at the many atrocious acts that have been committed without needing to cite religion at all: Stalin's restructuring of the Soviet Economy, Hitler's genocide of the Jews (which, I may add, had more cultural than religious overtones to it), the Khmer Rouge's genocide of the Cambodian people.

3. If your argument is less about the political implications, I would say that doctrinal religion provides an easier source of spiritual advancement that often may be out of many individuals reach. It may be a bit elitist but while it is clear that individual's intellectual capacity clearly differs (and there's nothing wrong with that), so too does their spiritual capacity. While I would argue that individual spiritual advancement is always a good, not every individual is fully capable of that. Doctrinal approaches provide spiritual advancement for all (or mostly everyone, I, personally, don't find much value in a strict adherence to doctrine) and an ideal to strive for. For example, an uncle of mine concedes that he is not a good person and yet he follows his Christian faith strongly in the hopes that he might one day become a better man and be happier with who he is as a person.
Debate Round No. 1
hikarijon

Con

Thanks for the reply...

Interesting, you mention the word 'spritual' as if it'S quite a normal, say as normal as the word 'day' in 'Have a nice day' but that is what is bothering me, it does seem almost like it is somewhow engraved on our DNA. I suppose that the argument contains a little political and doctrinal because I am concerned about its influence. For example, there are laws that protect faith (I'm not talking about protecting those that beat a Muslim man to death for just happening to be around at the time of 9/11) but in an almost 'we are too scared to leave this out of the argument' sort of way.

I once new a guy who was fired from his job because they had to make room for a group of people (their origin is not important here) that were hired to ensure that the company was adhering to a policy that stated they had to have a certain number of people from a mixture of faiths so as not to discriminate...which is in itself a sort of discrimination certainly againt my good friend.

Now someone once said that a religion should never be considered a race due to its very nature, a race is not something you can learn, join or leave.

Two things here, how can we continue the Grey area that seems to hover between religion and law and also explain the word spirituality, given that the very word 'spirit' is something again that has no basis in reality
BoboftheDead

Pro

Frankly, I'm not sure that I fully understand where you're going so if I seem to be misinterpreting you, please clarity. Further, it seems that you're shifting out of the debate as originally proposed and more towards the practical question of advancing alternative perspectives within hiring / education / laws etc. If so, that's perfectly, I just want to double-check where you're going.

Now, onto the substance: I would define "spirituality" as fundamentally an issue of accepting and improving oneself. That is, spirituality is fundamentally about coming to terms and accepting the "universe" (literally and vaguely defined) on it's own terms while potentially improving oneself to deal with it. And further, I would argue that religion is not necessary for spirituality, however, it provides an easy, common-way of achieving spirituality as it offers potential other advantages including group and social dynamics that reinforce spiritual development.

On the role of religion in hiring process: overall, I would agree that it really shouldn't be that important, however, it fundamentally depends on the position. Making hiring decisions based on superficial characteristics such as religion or race can be highly beneficial in certain job sectors (off the top of my head, I would say anything trying to appeal to a broad public, marketing, PR, politics), however, in other sectors it's really irrelevant and shouldn't be considered. If you can operate a drill-press or solve some mathematical equation, who cares whether you're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Indian, White, Hispanic, etc? The thought process operates independently of subjective considerations of race and/or religion.
Debate Round No. 2
hikarijon

Con

Hi there,

Apologies for being so vague, you hit the nail on the head there when it comes to 'who cares' this is precisely my point, I'm trying to see a point to it existing as something that is taken for granted as real. Not only in the sense that a lot of people just want others to accept it but in the case of my friend for example, it seems it can be conveniently brought into and out of an argument whenever rational thought should be used instead.

To clarify, my friend worked alongside me before I left the country and the job was a simple admin role for a Telecoms company (not even a customer facing role at that) Also, I remember an issue I had with a Policeman...it wasnt a pleasant experience but the argument got out of control, I hadnt done anything wrong...just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was trying to control a disturbance in the pub I was running and the police came to intervene but mistook me for one of the drunken yobs currently fighting outside, the policeman held me down to the floor and told me that God would be ambarrased by my behaviour (obviously a religious man but not very observant)

I was really the victim of my own big mount but hey, I said 'well officer, I don't believe in God but I beleive you just assaulted the Pub Landlord'

At that point I was arrested and charged with inciting a religious (verbal) assault on a police officer.

Where do we draw the line? had there been no religious protection law there the situation would not have turned out that way, the guy was so offended by the fact that I didnt share his belief in a supernatural being that watches over everyone that I ended up spending weeks with a lawyer just to get the charge overthrown and the courts were so scared of upsetting the religious members of the community that the charge was reduced to a caution for disturbing the peace even though I was not actually involved in the issue...I was actually the one who called the police!! nuts!

Now this is a small scale event but then start to justify Sharia law.....you get my point
BoboftheDead

Pro

BoboftheDead forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
hikarijon

Con

hikarijon forfeited this round.
BoboftheDead

Pro

BoboftheDead forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
hikarijon

Con

hikarijon forfeited this round.
BoboftheDead

Pro

BoboftheDead forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
hikarijonBoboftheDeadTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FF