The Instigator
spencetheguy
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Advidoct
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

religious countries prosper economicly

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,078 times Debate No: 1211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

spencetheguy

Pro

i am simply speculating using historical evidence and am not yet proposing any present day actions.

thought history when the people of a country follow their religion in its original form (that is in a form that is designed to improve the lives of its followers and not control them) willingly the country prospers. a few examples are america, ancient islam, china, india, rome, israel, egypt. all these countries were very religious but not harshly so like many modern day examples, and all were the dominant power on the earth during their time. when religions became corrupted and societies secularized the societies fell and civilizations collapsed. based on the historical evidence when the people of a nation are religious the country prospers.
Advidoct

Con

Saying that religious societies prosper is not a well grounded statement at all. There is just as much evidence that being a religious society has absolutely nothing to do with prosperity.

1. Up until the last 100 years or so, there hasnt even been any such thing as a unreligious society. Almost all (if not all) societies before the 20th century were well grounded in some form of religion, both the properous and unprosperous ones. So most of your examples aren't very signifigant.
2. At one point, every one of the societies you have mentioned has also failed.

america - suffered from civil war in the middle of a religious rival.

ancient islam - is very religious today, and yet is one of the poorest areas in the world

china - is almost completely unreligious today and yet is argueably much more economically prosperous than the US

rome - was hardly religious until christianity took the empire by storm. Then, just as christianity had sealed its grip on the empire...the empire collapsed

israel - this one i dont understand. When has israel ever been prosperous??? Maybe during the Abassid and Umayyad Caliphates but that goes back to ancient Islam

egypt - is a powerfully islamic nation today, yet it is not very prosperous

4. There have been a few empires that are not religious that have become prosperous. Again, China has been almost completely unreligious since the founding of the communist government, yet China is competing for the title of world superpower. The Soviet Union was mildly propsperous at one point, yet it murdered people of faith. Europe is at an all time low when it comes to relgious piety, yet they enjoy the second highest standard of living in the world.

I do not think religion has much to do with prosperity at all. Every society goes through a cycle of rises and falls. They were religious when they were mighty, and they were religous when they were weak. That, to me, says religion doesnt mean a thing when it comes to prosperity.
Debate Round No. 1
spencetheguy

Pro

i see
i apologize i think i was vague. the ancient adjative was referring to islam, china
india, rome, egypt.

i am too lazy to explain all of these examples so i will summarize
all of the societies above were in their prime during their peek religious involvements. none of my examples were referring to modern day examples, so your misguided argument was mostly my fault.

rome was extremely religious, do you think they built all those monuments and temples for fun?

the united states was not going through a religious revival during the civil war seeing as how the nation was at war. the two largest revivals in the early 1700's and the early 1800's did coincide with large jumps in economic and scientific progress.

the USSR was never prosperous. maybe for a few years at the beginning but never, and it was ashiest

ancient china was very religious if you count Confucianism and buddhism which are not your conventional religion but they taught religious principles, it was also strong.

your argument that all societies were grounded in religion including the poor ones was responded to in my opening argument. i said that when the religion was in it's original or uncorrupted form and i now contend that all religions that any country is based on today is not in such a form.
to summarize, all societies were at their economic and scientific peek at the same time they were the most religious.
Advidoct

Con

Rome was a very secular society. You can argue that they worshipped their gods, but the average citizen never went to a shrine or temple unless something was wrong. They built all those temples because they were rich and rome boasted the largest populated city in the world at the time, not because they were religious. You can build all the churches in the world, but that doesnt mean people use them.

The United States started its second religious revival in the mid 1820s' and that lasted until the first shots were fired at fort sumpter. Sounds like the religious aspect didnt help prevent war.

The USSR was the second wealthiest nation in the world. Despite the fact that the money was very poorly distributed, the government was wealthy enough to be considered a world superpower.

I'll take your ancient China point, but that brings me to my next point which is this.

What is the standard for considering a religion to be in its corrupted form? All i see is you pointing at religious regions that happen to be poor, and calling them corrupted as an excuse to meet the frame of your argument.

Christianity in the US is at an all time low for attendance. People sell "holy water" on tv. Many christian groups have become dangerously radical. They are intolerant of anyone who isnt christian. Now as I recall, Jesus said to love everyone. Now if some churches (note that i did not say all) are teaching intolerance (and I know they are), isnt that corruption of doctrine? Much of christianity is getting more and more corrupt every year, yet we still thrive.

You cant back this argument up unless you can prove that every religion grounded in a poor region is corrupt, and every relgion grounded in a wealthy region is not.
Debate Round No. 2
spencetheguy

Pro

As for the rome argument just because the temples were not used by the common people does not indicate that the general population did not believe or behave religiously. it is true that worship was conducted by the upper class, same as egypt but that does not mean that the general population was not religious.
another example i could use is ancient greece.

I did not say that a theocracy indicated was an indication of a religious state. a secular government and a religious population is still a religious nation.

the USSR controlled people through fear and intimidation. they may of been powerful internationally, but the living standards and other domestic areas were extremely week. the reason they seemed to have so much money is because they spent it all on military and space related projects.

allow me to expand on my corrupt religion definition.
i believe the criteria for determining a corrupt religion is
1. inter-relignonal feuds and schisms.
2. consistent abuse of power by leadership.
3. teaching of violence and hatred.

according to my definition most religions that play a major role in out world are corrupt.

Islam-split hundreds of years ago and are fighting and killing each other over disputes. i.e. Iraq and Israel.
christianity- i think you know plenty of examples.
Judaism i believe is not corrupt because they do not fall into any of my categories, one could argue so because of zionism and the state of Israel but i do not.

my argument can be expanded to include groups of people and cultures within nations as well.

please remember that i am not attempting to draw present day connections because i understand all major religions to be corrupt there is not control group with which to draw conclusions from.
Advidoct

Con

1. Romans citizens were not religious. They believed in higher beings, however they did not take any actions to please these higher beings. Simply believing, like most romans did, makes them believers, not religious people. To be religious involves being actively engaged in regular rituals to please the higher being(s). The romans citizens did not meet that qaulification. They were not religious, yet they prospered.

2. According to you argument, a country whose religion is no longer in its "original" form or the is "corrupt" does not prosper. The problem with that is that no religion is in its original form.

-For example, the romans worshipped their gods. However, their gods were a romanized forms of the greek gods.

Unoriginal

-Christianity thrives in the US, yet original christians were organized under the papacy after the death of St. Peter. In the US, protestant christians make up the vast majority faith in this country. Protestantism in definatly not the original form of christianity and to many, its even a corrupt form of christianity, yet the US thrives

3. --Islam--
The first split in the Islamic religion occured between the Sunni and the Shi'a not long after the death of Muhammad, when Abu Bakr was named caliph instead of Muhammad's direct descendants. This is the biggest split in the Islamic faith, and it happened long before Islam ever prospered.
Now, according to your definition of a "corrupted" religion, a religon is corrupt when it has

"1. inter-relignonal feuds and schisms.
2. consistent abuse of power by leadership.
3. teaching of violence and hatred."

Islam was majorly split while it prospered and often fought internal wars between different Islamic groups. Caliphs used their power to convince others that the caliph's enemies were evil and that Allah wanted them dead. Thats abuse of power and teaching of violence and hatred.

According to your definition, Islam was corrupt while it prospered.

--Chrisrianity--
I have already adressed chritianity in a previous paragraph

--Judaism--
Judaism is incredibly split up. Judaism is on of the most split up religons in the world.

Conservative* Judaism
Orthodox* Judaism
Reconstructionist Judaism
Reform* Judaism
Humanistic Judaism

and these are only the largest five.

4. You say I cannot make any present day connections because you consider all modern major religions to be corrupt. That in itself destroys your argument.

According to you, every major religion is corrupt. According to your argument, If every major religion is corrupt, than almost ever country in the world must be poor an weak.

Every country in the world is not poor and weak, however. The christian US thrives. The Christian Europe thrives. Much of the Islamic Indonesia thrives. Buddhist Japan thrives.

According to your argument and what you have said , the United States, Europe, Indonesia, and Japan must be unprosperous countries...

but they aren't. So what you have said MUST be wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"i am too lazy to explain all of these examples so i will summarize"

You lost my vote right there. You STARTED this debate but you concede that you are too lazy to actually debate it?
Posted by EricW1001 9 years ago
EricW1001
yeah this will be a tough one for you spencetheguy.

I see where you are coming from, but speaking from present day terms the EU is a secular economic powerhouse
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
For every example of an economically-successful religious society, there are ten or twenty examples of religious societies that have failed economically.

How can you count the US as an example of a successful religious nation given that our nation is secular (and was from its inception)?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
spencetheguyAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
spencetheguyAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
spencetheguyAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
spencetheguyAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
spencetheguyAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03