modern religion is benificial to humanity
Debate Rounds (3)
1st round for acceptance and opening statement
2nd round for argument
3rd round for rebuttal
beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
1.having good effect: producing a good or advantageous effect
Burden of proof goes to both.
Modern religion does not include acts commited past 1900 such as the spanish inquisision, and etc
Opening statement: I believe that religion is benificial to humans and society.
Now, before I begin my opening statement,I would like to personally thank Trystanharpold for creating this debate concerning a topic of much relevance and importance to the human race, which is that regarding the subject of religion. I sincerely hope this discussion will be mentally stimulating and enlightening.
To begin my opening statement, I should like to inform the reader that I hold the position of that of an Agnostic,regarding the question of the existence of God and similar supernatural/religious doctrine. Hence, It is clear that I am going to be arguing against religion.
Since Trystanharpold has not stated any specific arguments in his opening statement for me to rebut, I shall simply state a few succinctly written arguments expressing my general opinion of why I think religion is unbeneficial for humanity. I assume that Trystanharpold will choose the subject of the debate in his argument for Round 2.
I do not believe religion is an appropriate source of morality for humanity . As, It is merely based on the arbitrary command of a deity/god (see Euthyphro's dilemma http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...) and because of this, there is great potential for the particular god/deity to order the believers to commit morally reprehensible acts, as the laws are dictated from what is considered to be the absolute source of morality ( examples of some reprehensible acts are found in the following bible passages: Exodus 22:17,Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9,Exodus 22:19,Deuteronomy 13:13-19 ). I do belive that Divine Command Theory can only tell us "IF" a given action is wrong, but not "WHY" a given action is wrong (e.g. The 10 Commandments) and this is problematic concerning a situation where moral relativism is the case (e.g. committing adultery or theft on an utilitarian basis )
Moreover, if one objects to this and says that theistic morality is not arbitrary,but is derived from the God's essential nature (which is believed to be perfectly moral and good) then this raises the problematic question of why God commands people to do immoral acts in the Old Testament, as this would mean that it is evident that there is capicity for immorality in God's "perfect" nature. It is possible that one may object to this and say that Jesus's sacrifice abolished the OT laws, but then why would god's laws need abolishing if they come directly from his perfect nature? Surely, if "absolute" laws that come from a perfect being need to altered , this implies some form of imperfection.
Religion as a source of retardation regarding human progress
I believe religion retards human progress, especially in the field of scientific research. Religion is founded upon dogmatic principles that must be assumed to be absolutely true and believed to be void of contradiction. However,science is quite the opposite, as truth is not taken for granted, and theories must be proven by strong evidence, and old theories could suddenly be abandoned when new, more evident theories are discovered.
When scientific theories are discovered that disprove a particular theological doctrine, many religious authorities go on great crusades in an attempt to suppress these discoveries, that are heavily backed by strong evidence (unlike the religious beliefs). A modern example of this is the attempt to replace the highly proven theory of evolution with the essentially "faith-based" pseudoscience that is Intelligent design.Intelligent design has little to no basis in real science, and is merely religious belief shrouded in sophist, fallacious reasoning.
One of the main reasons for believers campaigning against evolution is because evolution disproves the creation account in Genesis of the Bible, which is a central tenet of Christianity, and (assuming we are talking about the traditional literal interpretation) without this doctrine, Christianity would probably have a greatly diminished basis for coherency. Therefore, it is evident that the attempt to replace Evolution with "Intelligent" design is merely done from an ideological basis, rather than an intellectually honest one.
Religion should not be believed on its pragmatic benefit
Even if we assume that religion is beneficial for society, I do not believe that the claims it makes should be taken as truth just because of its practical benefits. As, I believe that the claims are religion are illogical and essentially have no reason or evidence to make them credible , or any reason for them to be assumed as axiomatic beliefs. Therefore, if we are to look at pragmatic benefits, it would be more rational for us to create a secular system based on reason, rather than on a religious belief that is not true, but merely only has pragmatic usefulness.Examples of some secular systems that have been created are Humanism and Utilitarianism, which are systems that have humanity in best interest and do not make any supernatural claims or preach dogmas, but are merely pragmatic.
I also thank you for accepting my debate. I apologize in advance if I get off topic since I am religious and may try proving points not involved with the actual topic.
Definition of morals-
how right or wrong something is: the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards
1.In gods eyes the sins you listed (exodus 22:17, etc.) are morally wrong and should be punished by death. How does this make them reprehensible to someone that follows his laws. Gods law does not provide morality to you, however he does provide morals for me. Morality is based on opinion and personal beliefs, thus is not the same for all people. By the definition I provided it does not matter if the why of morality is given but the simple fact that god tells us what is right and wrong. Also, on the abolition of OT law, jesus's death did not abolish them because they where imperfect laws but because his death ended the need for the law. his coming in the first place was based on the fact that just because a law is perfect doesnt mean imperfect humans will follow them.
2. Most scientific retardation occured pre-1900's and is not covered because of the clause I put in the debate because modern religion is considerably more accepting of scientific theories than older religion. You also neglected the compatability of modern religion with science. For example I can coexist evolution and the big bang theory into my religion. If science and religion can coexist there is no way for them to retard each other. also, is there a reason evolution is now taught in schools instead of creationism.
3. Your point on "Religion should not be believed on its pragmatic benefit" does not pertain to the debate since it shows nothing negative about religions benifits and thus I have nothing to rebutte
1. Hope to humanity
Definition of hope-
want or expect something: to have a wish to get or do something or for something to happen or be true, especially something that seems possible or likely
Most religions give there believers the hope of a life after this or everlasting life in a paradise. This gives people a reason to believe in god and to do good deeds, even if you dont believe in a religion, most of them have tenants that are generally accepted as good or benificial (Thou shall not kill, steal, cheat, etc). That leads to another point but more on that in a moment. Religion also provides hope of a personal guardian or god always protecting them. Wouldnt it be reassuring to you if you knew nothing bad could not happen to you without a pre-concieved reason.
2. Peace of mind
This goes with hope to some extent. Religion goes farther than science in telling you what you can expect in death. Science tells you nothing of what happens to you after you die. people that believe in a religion such as christianity have the peace of mind that they will not suffer after they die but will go to a paradise. I would rather take paradise than uncertainty.
3. Basis of morals
Although you might not admit it, religion has created many of the basic laws and morals average people believe in. After all America was founded on christian morals. Using this example, religion has provided many important morals for society that might not have been created without religion. Things such as intoleration of adultery, stealing, and murder where created through various religions.
Zlifko forfeited this round.
Trystanharpold forfeited this round.
Zlifko forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.