without religion would there be such a thing as world peace??
Debate Rounds (3)
Without religion the world would not be the way it is as present. Mankind learn alot to be a humble and kind human being with the guidance of religion by their sides. Mankind would be ignorant with out the help of religion or Godly appearance to guide them and stray them away from danger. Religion played a big role in the politic/governmental system...actually religion/church is what made the governmental system that we sill use to this day. Having religion is giving us human being something to live for and to give thanks to.
I'm really looking forward for this debate and hoping we would discuss this topic politely following the example of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) in the authentic hadeeths. Although I'm an irreligious atheist who is not counted amongst his followers, I have seen my friend's comments and he seems to be a practicing Muslim.
What I understood from my friend's topic, which was ignored in his opening statement, is that an irreligious World Society can never attain world peace. I'm going to use the following arguments to refute that:
1- Dominantly irreligious societies like Sweden and Denmark are peaceful and civilized societies, although they are mostly composed of irreligious citizens. Therefore, having an irreligious World Society with world peace doesn't seem to be logically contradictory because of those examples. My opponent has to prove that it is.
2- Our sense of good and evil is present without religion. A believer in God doesn't have to be religious to be good, nor does an atheist who has his own set of morals. Hence, lack of religion doesn't necessitate anarchy and wars, as my opponent argues.
3- Religiosity doesn't imply peace and moral goodness. A person could be religious and yet do horrible things. For instance, suicide bombers follow religious teachings, regardless if they contradict Islam or not. Therefore, in some cases, it is better to be irreligious than religious in order to attain peace and moral goodness.
Brief critique of my opponent's opening statement:
Contention 1: Mankind would be ignorant with out[sp] the help of religion or Godly appearance to guide them and stray[?] them away from danger.
I disagree. The sense of good and evil is found innately in man and progresses with social experiences. I don't need religion to tell me that "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not steal." I innately know that they are wrong. Moreover, a moral person could be an irreligious theist: someone who follows God without following religion. My opponent has the "burden of proof" to prove that every atheist and irreligious theist is morally ignorant and bankrupt, even when some of them make it to the list of top philanthropists like Bill Gates, for example.
Contention 2: Religion played a big role in the politic/governmental system...actually religion/church is what made the governmental system that we sill[sp] use to this day.
Religion surely had a major role in shaping our political/governmental systems, and so did the separation of church and state, by the way. Needless to say, I don't see how this is a reason why we can't attain world peace without religion. True, there are some benefits from religion, but what does this have to do with the topic "religion and world peace?" Alchemy played a major role in the invention of chemistry, but that doesn't mean we should still conduct alchemical rituals to achieve chemical discoveries. Similarly, religion might have played a major role in the declarations of peace and unity, but we could achieve peace and unity without it, as is currently the case in secular societies
It is possible that the set of morals presented by religion are not from God, but man-made and derived from traditions, customs and innate behaviors. My opponent has to refute that notion before he claims that morals are only sent from God and only available to man through religion and religious teachings.
In conclusion, my position is that we could have world peace and a World Society which is irreligious, and I shall be proving that using three arguments, (1) Examples of contemporary irreligious societies with peace and moral goodness, (2) Innate and non-religiously acquired morality in mankind, (3) And the fact that religiosity is sometimes worse than its counterpart in some moral situations. I shall be extending each point further in the next two rounds. I wish my opponent the best of luck.
fazilkhan123 forfeited this round.
fazilkhan123 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.