The Instigator
Mohitaxoxo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Religion's should be there?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 72517
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Mohitaxoxo

Con

I feel there should be no religion... We all should live together and by the way religions are just kind of making fun of god... putting lots and lots of oil on their bodies... getting bald... wastage of candles,milk,rupees... instead the money we for buying these things should be used for nourishing poor...
Zarroette

Pro

Thank you, Mohitaxoxo, for instigating this debate.

My goal, as Pro, is to show that there is good reason for religion to exist.


Affirmative Case

P1: Humans are not purely rational

Humans are most certainly not purely rational creatures that operate purely on logic. Anatomically, whilst there is the neocortex which enables higher functions of operations such as spatial reasoning and language [1], there are other parts of the brain which influence behaviour. Within the limbic system, there is a couple amygdalas, which are responsible for emotions such as aggression, fear and sexual response [2]. Another area of the brain which are connected to the limbic system (therefore influenced by emotion) is the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is involved with “thinking about the future, making plans and taking action”, yet it also plays a part in pleasure and addiction [2]. Due to the existence of amygdalas and the prefrontal cortex, humans are not purely rational creatures; we should sometimes account for the emotional aspect of humans.



A1: Giving people purpose in life

I. Religion giving purpose: Even today, with all the technology and comfort being far greater than an era of past, there is still a large group of people worldwide seeking answers to the question: what is the meaning of life? [3] This is because humans are not robots that merely operate mechanically. Rather, as was shown under my initial premise, humans are creatures which are sometimes subject to their emotional whims.

Religion is a fantastic way in which people can derive a sense of purpose in life. For example, if we are to suppose that classical theism is true (i.e. God is the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being), then there is a satisfying argument to say that the universe cares about us, that we will always be loved [6]. I think we can agree that these thoughts are comforting.

Classical theism also gives us clear direction in life, often via holy books. This direction helps keep order and a sense of value to life. Should we have queries about how we should live our lives, the instantaneous answers greatly help to quell limiting, doubting thoughts within us. This can extend to the point where a person can experience great fulfilment in life, thinking that he/she is performing acts in accordance to how his/her creator wanted.

Another point where classical theism gives purpose is the idea that all people are of equal worth, that all were created by the same God, all in the same image [6].

Finally, classical theism gives people a reason to be moral even when the eyes of their fellow humans are not watching. Due to thinking that there is a divine ruler observing their every move, people have a reason to place their rubbish in the bin, even when they think no one is watching. People have a reason to not short-change others, even when they know that the other person cannot count.

II. Purpose without religion: Without religious purpose to life, there are some particularly dark ideas that can manifest within a mind.

Nihilism, or more specifically existential nihilism, is the philosophical position that purports life has no meaning. When people turn to Atheism, they implicitly agree with the notions of nihilism, as they have recently rejected the idea that meaning to life, given by religion, is legitimate. It is essentially the default philosophy to life, wherein those who do not believe (i.e. Atheists) automatically ascribe.

To humans, a life devoid of meaning struggles to be which is enjoyable, according to collaborative study by R. Baumeister et al (of which three Universities were involved). The study found that a life lived which aimed to “cultivate happiness” was one wherein there were overall downsides [7]. Rather, the recommendation for life-living was to focus energy on “understanding meaningfulness”.

Another study, conducted by a Spanish university showed that certain people with a lower feeling of “meaning in life” were found to have a “serious level of depression and suicide risk, and moderate level of hopelessness” [8]. So important was “meaning in life” that it was a significant predictor in determining the variance in depression and suicide.

So, to have a lack of meaning in life, to the point of embracing a philosophy based on that lack of meaning (or at least having a lowered appreciation of meaning to life), clearly brings problems to lives that have been well-documented via research.


A2: Impracticality of removing religion

According to the Pew Research Center, who compiled “a comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries”, estimated that there were “5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84% of the world population of 6.9 billion” [4]. How would any organisation possibly remove the religious aspect of 5.8 billion lives in 230 countries? A lot of these people have religion ingrained within their culture, such as places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with the Sharia. On this point, there should be religion because it would be insanely difficult to get everyone in the world, including all the places that are deeply religious, to give up their faith. You can imagine how the deeply religious people would react, given how strongly they feel about religion. Remember, as I showed with my first premise, humans are not purely rational creatures, so you can expect some pretty violent backlash if you try to take away religion from some types of people.

This is not to even begin on the legal aspect of religion, of which countries such as America have the right to freedom of religion [5], so you would have to change thousands of laws worldwide to rid religion, too. You would also be taking away what can be considered as fundamental human rights. A far saner stance would be to let people freely choose their religion, thus there should be religion.

Counter-arguments

“We all should live together and by the way religions are just kind of making fun of god...”

This is inconsequential to the resolution; I challenge my opponent to prove otherwise.

“putting lots and lots of oil on their bodies... getting bald... wastage of candles,milk,rupees... instead the money we for buying these things should be used for nourishing poor...”

What gives you the right to dictate how people spend their money? If people want to “waste” their money, then that is their decision. If you want people to spend money on the poor, then perhaps you could try and convince them instead of bulldozing their religion because they do not spend money how you would like them to spend it.

Conclusion

From the premise that shows humans are not purely rational creatures, I give you an argument which shows how a sense of purpose on life, gifted by religion, gives people a sense of hope, purpose and generally fulfils them in their lives. I also show you that without religion, the default of nihilism is a surprisingly damaging philosophy which can really hurt people with their lives. For both reasons, there should be sufficient argumentation (link and impact) to vote in affirmation of the resolution.

I also showed the impracticality of removing religion in terms of sheer numbers, people’s emotional attachment, and freedom of religion.


The resolution is affirmed.


References

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...

[2] http://webspace.ship.edu...

[3] https://www.google.com.au...

[4] http://www.pewforum.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] Louis Pojman, “Religion Gives Meaning to Life,” in The Meaning of Life, ed. E.D Klemke and Steven Cahn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 27

[7] http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu...

[8] http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Mohitaxoxo

Con

Mohitaxoxo forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Pro

My arguments have gone completely uncontested. Therefore, you should vote for me =)
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
MohitaxoxoZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by EAT_IT_SUKA 2 years ago
EAT_IT_SUKA
MohitaxoxoZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: CON forfeited and PRO didn't, therefore, points are awarded to PRO for better conduct. CON had several errors in spelling and grammar in their first post, PRO had very little compared to how much they wrote, therefore, points are awarded to PRO for better spelling and grammar. PRO's arguments were all uncontested, therefore, points are awarded to PRO for more convincing arguments. CON used no sources and PRO used several, therefore, points are awarded to PRO for more reliable sources. It is clear that PRO won this debate. Thank you.