The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

There is a religious instinct that explains much beyond religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 12 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,696 times Debate No: 6774
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)




Resolved: There is a religious instinct that explains much beyond religion.

I contend that there is a "religious instinct" which is independent of any particular religion. Every religion is a manifestation of the religious instinct, but not every manifestation is a religion.

The claimed religious instinct is a conjunction of three factors:

1. An innate human desire to have theories that explain the world around them.
2. An innate human design to belong to a tribe bonded by common beliefs.
3. An innate human tendency to preserve the ego by rationalization of beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.

I am not particular about the terminology. The resolution could be framed in terms of the "X Instinct", characterized by the three named elements. I call non-religious manifestations "quasi-religious", but if Con likes a different term, that's fine with me. The proposition does not depend upon the terminology.

In the case of a traditional religion a mystical belief, not always a belief in a god or gods, explains the origins, purpose, and conduct life. Believers join in the religion that share the belief and bond as a tribe that reinforce the beliefs. Believers instinctively rationalize their beliefs. Rationalizations involves downplaying or ignoring all data contrary to belief system while embracing all confirming data. Rationalization protects the ego and provides the comfort of certainty.

My speculation is that making theories and refusing to abandon them is an evolved trait that provides a survival advantage. For a primitive person in the wilds, coming up with quick conclusions and then acting with determination is an advantage. As a consequence, many manifestations of the religious instinct have a paranoid aspect. There is a survival advantage in being safe rather than sorry.

Traditional religions are distinguished by a concern with overarching concerns, like the origins and meaning of life. However, the instinct operates at many other levels. Examples include:

1. Racism provides the believer with a simple sweeping explanation as to why many bad things happen. All, or at least a large class, of bad things derive from some race or other identifiable group. The racists bond as tribe to "protect" their tribal interests.

2. Political ideologies explain most of the ills of the world in terms of the ideological beliefs, and the non-believers who oppose them. Believers form a tribe that bonds the believers in a fight against the non-believers.

3. CO2 Climate Theory in the minds of environmental extremists casts non-believers not just as dissenters, but as heretics.

4. Sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome explains nearly all the evils of society in terms of the policies of the President. Agreeing with even one policy is considered an inexcusable pact with the devil. Anything good that Bush has done, like unprecedented humanitarian aid to Africa, is ignored in the interests of rationalization.

5. Some atheists attribute many of the world's problems to religion, per Hitchins' "Religion Poisons Everything It Touches.". It is used as a simple sweeping explanation of social ills. Missionaries helping poor people are ignored in the interests of preserving the rationalization.

I am not arguing that all beliefs are irrational, or even that there is not some measure of truth in each of the five examples of quasi-religious beliefs I have cited. What elevates a mere belief to the the status of a quasi-religious one are the attributes of (a) treating non-believers as enemies of the tribe, (b) a pattern of recognizing confirming evidence and ignoring contrary evidence, and (c) application of the beliefs broadly to explain things that are not really relevant.

I claim that the instinctual desire to seek simple broad theories is self-evident. The least common answer to any broadly challenging question is "I don't know." People almost always call upon some higher principle to come up with an answer. If people did not do this they would be perpetually frozen in indecision. It is absolutely necessary. What is not necessary is sticking with a simple theory in the face of counter-evidence and in a situation that demands questioning.

I don't think there is much doubt about the tribal instinct of mankind, but [1] is a reference.

The use of rationalization for protecting the ego is presented in [2]. The work by Shermer and Gould [3] is a classic analysis of the use of high intelligence to rationalize strange beliefs.

[1] "Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind"

[2] "A Mind of Its Own" A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives"

[3] "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"

The theory embodied in the resolution explains not only why religion exists so widely, but why many strong non-religious beliefs have a profoundly religious character. the theory is well-ground in knowledge of psychology. It is demonstrated concretely with many examples.

The resolution should therefore be affirmed.

[Please do not accept this challenge if you think you may have to forfeit. The unexpected can happen, I'm requesting assurances of a low probability.]


First, I want to thank RoyLatham for posing a thought-provoking resolution and then expanding upon it in his first argument to the point that no easy routes in existed for the Con. I feel like it's a morning commute from Virginia Beach to Newport News with six-car pile-ups in both bridge-tunnels and the James River Bridge stuck in the lift position. If I want to make it to work, I'm either taking back roads all the way out to Richmond and turning around, or I'm taking a boat. Given an 8,000-character limit, I'll take the boat.

My opponent posits that people possess a religious instinct, but is quick to explain that religion is merely one possible outgrowth of this instinct, which could just as easily be termed the "X instinct". What he asserts can be summarized as follows:

People have at least one instinct, characterized by a desire to construct consistent explanations for the world around them that are subscribed to by a group for which they have an affinity.

I object to my opponent's argument for a religious instinct on the grounds that this purported instinct contains inside it the seeds for the species' destruction and can therefore hardly be the evolutionary advantage that he claims it is. To say that an instinct is necessary but that we must move beyond it, as my opponent does, is to argue against the necessity of said instinct. It is like arguing that training wheels on a bicycle are an instinct, when in fact they are merely a man-made tool that can be applied or removed as the community sees fit.

Man is born with precious few instincts. Rather, he learns by trial and error and by the instruction of his community. The "tribal instinct" of which my opponent speaks is a mirage caused, first, by the child's inability to leave his community; second, by his rational decision to stay with the community that has hitherto provided for his needs; and third, by his learned suspicion of the unknown. Regarding the third point, consider how a child will touch a hot stove once, but usually not twice.

Of course people construct theories to explain the world around them, but it hardly follows that such action is instinct. Rather, it is people learning to do what is most likely to further their survival, just as Pavlov's dog learned to associate the sight of a lab coat or the striking of a bell with the appearance of food.

Now, after the lab coat and bell no longer bring food, the dog eventually stops expecting it. Why, then, does it seemingly take so much longer for humans to change their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence? My opponent offers the religious instinct as explanation. I propose another explanation, which I will explain via example:

A person grows up as part of the community of the United States of America. His parents raise him to support his country, right or wrong. His country goes to war, and he accepts the justifications offered by his community (his parents and, by extension, his country). It's going to take a lot of contrary evidence to cause him to doubt the position of those who have provided for his physical and emotional needs (his family) and those who he has been led to believe provided for him (his country). When (if) he finally does make the break, he finds himself in crisis situation: all his life, he has found it in his best interest to align himself with his community, and for the first time he is doubting that assertion. Afraid of losing the generic benefits of community, he now "puts his faith in", to use an appropriately religious term, the community that ultimately caused him to break (ideologically, at least) with his original community.

I would like to emphasize that this example does not depend on any instinct, but only on the learned benefits of belonging to a community.

Finally, we are left with the ego. Certainly, people go to great lengths to protect their fragile egos. But why are egos so fragile, you might ask? It is because they are merely social constructions.

Psychologists' identification of the ego, superego, unconscious, subconscious, and et cetera only describe how compartmentalized each individual has become. Rather than identify with his whole self, the average person learns to see himself as only a fraction of his total self--not because of instinct, but because of poor education. As a convenient way of dealing with nightmares, parents tell the child repeatedly, "It was just a dream," causing the child-to-be-man to devalue what many cultures consider a valuable extension of the self. To prepare him for life in a semi-capitalist society, the child is taught the artificial concept of property. To prepare him for a life where he will make profligate use of the Earth's resources, he is taught that he is superior to everything else on and in the Earth. The child is taught patriotic and religious songs in his earliest, most impressionable ages. He is taught to be Separate. Because it is an artificial construction, designed to fit the needs of the society, the ego is necessarily fragile. The slightest kick from a countercultural website, or a dream of great portent, or a controlled substance, and the child-now-man is sent reeling, grasping for a new community to fill his needs.

If my opponent had argued that we were all aspects of God waiting to realize our divine birthright, or that religion owed its existence to people's attempts to rationalize the sudden appearance of divine beings, either in physical reality, dreams, near-death experiences or hallucinations, I would have a harder time taking issue with his claim. However, his very widening of the "religious instinct" to encompass all kinds of non-religious activity cheapens the idea of religion. Perhaps all religions are false, but many of them are outgrowths of legitimate experiences with the divine, and not merely expressions of some vague human instinct.

Furthermore, according to my opponent, people are hardwired for their own destruction. Preserving the ego requires more and more destructive means of protection (destruction) as our scientific knowledge increases. How is this an evolutionary advantage? Let me string it all together here: If we have, as my opponent sets out at the beginning of his argument, "(1) an innate human desire to have theories that explain the world around them", then our scientific knowledge will continue to increase to the point of being able to either cause all sorts of good or create all manner of destruction; but because we have "(2) an innate human design to belong to a tribe bonded by common beliefs" and "(3) an innate human tendency to preserve the ego by rationalization of beliefs in the face of contrary evidence", we will inevitably prioritize development of those destructive technologies to protect ourselves from the instinctually threatening Other.

My argument, that what my opponent claims is instinct is actually learned, carries with it the hope that our species can survive through better education. In contrast, my opponent argues that we must overcome something hard-wired into us, what he calls an instinct. I have a hard time believing, and refuse to believe, that we as a species are hardwired for our own destruction.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1


I look forward to a good debate. Con has found objections of which I would not have conceived, which is a purpose of debate.

Con supposes that humans have few instincts and that therefore most behavior is learned. He supposes in particular that tribalism and the human desire to construct explanatory theories are learned behaviors, not instincts. Con asserts, "Man is born with precious few instincts. Rather, he learns by trial and error and by the instruction of his community."

Is man is born with few instincts? Let us suppose that humans were born perfectly rational, free of instincts. What would he do? Would he act perfectly rationally to insure his survival? No, the will to survive is an instinct. The perfectly rational man would act as an unprogrammed computer and do absolutely nothing. He would have no reason to do anything. He would not desire food or water or come in from the cold or protect his offspring, nor in fact care to have offspring. Everything that man does is in fulfillment of instinct. Reason is a survival tool, ultimately a slave to instinctual motivation. This obvious fact should not be upsetting. If we were unprogrammed computers, what would the fun be?

How do we know what is instinctual and what is learned? How, for example, do we know that ducks fly south for the winter out of instinct, rather than just to conform to the learned behavior of the duck tribe? (Pardon the Northern Hemispherism.) We suspect that ducks are not smart enough to figure out that flying south is good for them. That doesn't help much resolve the human question; quite obviously humans are not smart enough to figure out rationally what is good for them either, at least not very often and less often in the short run. What identifies the duck instinct are its universality and its presence in populations raised in isolation. Those are the characteristics that identify human instincts as well.

With respect to tribalism, or more generally, social behavior, consider the settlement of Polynesia. Small groups spread out independently to settle islands independently, developing, for example, new languages in isolation. Environmental pressure was low; the islands were often among the most generous environments for human survival. Yet we know of no instances of the populations failing to develop societies. The phenomena is worldwide. Humans always prefer groups and never in isolation. Animals like bears and tigers live in isolation, not humans.

Instinct derives from survival, so it isn't a coincidence that the human social instinct helps survival and more than it is a coincidence that ducks flying south helps their survival. All of the evolved instincts have origins in survival; instincts contrary to survival are naturally selected out. There is in the literature a semantic dispute over whether "instinct" means "compulsion" or "tendency." It is creeping into our debate. I take it as innate tendency. People can overcome most human instincts, even self-preservation can be overcome, with people volunteering to be sacrificed to volcano gods and such. An anthropologist interviewed an Amazon native and asked, "Your people run around naked. Why don't you have sex all the time." The man replied, "Don't be ridiculous, we couldn't support that many children." Reason can overcome instinct as well.

I provided a book-length reference supporting the tribal instinct. There is a Wikipedia article that discusses the subject and provides additional references. Con has offered no scientific references in support of his contention that there is no tribal instinct, and he ignores all of the contrary science. I think it is fair to say that there is scientific controversy over the limits of the instinct, such as how it transfers from small populations to large, but I don't see any controversy over the fact that tribal behavior is instinctual and not learned.

Theory-formation is also distinguished by its universality. If were learned behavior related solely to survival advantage then there would be no impetus to form theories that have no relation to survival. How the world was created has no impact on survival in the present world, yet the theories abound. The many traditional theories are wildly diverse, yet the resolution of one theory in favor of the other has no bearing on anything to do with survival. Therefore, if the theories derived from survival we should all agree that the origins of the world are unknown and irrelevant, and we should have all been given that in tradition. Yet there is an obvious compulsion to form theories that have no relevance to survival, and it is seemingly impossible to rationally overcome the need for a theory.

Not only is there a compulsion to form theories when none are necessary, there is a compulsion to stick to a bad theory rather than abandon it in favor of no theory. On this site magical theories are defended on the grounds that a magical theory fits the data, so therefore it is much better than having no theory. (e.g., comments in Learned behavior cannot explain the desire for theories that have no utility, yet such theories abound. This occurs not only with cosmic questions, but with matters of no relevance to the individual, like why celebrities are misbehaving and what is behind unsolved crimes. Human curiosity, the desire to have an explanation, is unbounded.

Con says, "I object to my opponent's argument for a religious instinct on the grounds that this purported instinct contains inside it the seeds for the species' destruction and can therefore hardly be the evolutionary advantage that he claims it is." If it were true that the X Instinct is characteristic of mankind, and moreover that having the instinct implies that mankind carries within it the seeds of its own destruction, that would not falsify the theory. It would only make it a sad fact, but nonetheless a fact. If, similarly, we were to learn that a meteor is on a collision course with earth and all life will end on a certain date, that too would be a sad fact. Nonetheless denying the fact or wishing it untrue would not change it from being a fact. Con's contention that the theory implies doom is therefore not an argument against the theory. It would be an argument in favor of stepping up research on how to change genetic predisposition, not a reason for supposing the theory untrue.

Having an instinct that proves fatal in the long run is not at all contrary to the instinct providing a survival advantage in the course of evolutionary history. Advancing technology --developing more and more clever tools-- has clearly been a survival advantage for humans over the past million years. However, it is possible that the technology of weapons of mass destruction could become so advanced that a single crazed individual can destroy the whole planet. If so that would mean that the survival advantage had the seeds of eventual destruction. It was nonetheless a survival advantage up to that point. ... As the world ended we could launch a vigorous protest with an appropriate international court, but liberals would of course argue we had no right to force our values upon others :-(

I don't see any necessity of doom in the theory. Most people in modern societies live as members of many tribes where membership in a tribe does not escalate to warfare. Church members, professional society members, and fans of a sports team all have outsiders whom the members oppose. Churches have differing doctrines, professional societies demand professional standards of work, and sports fans want their team to win over the opposing team. Only in rare cases does anything escalate to violence, and as societies become more advanced there are fewer occasions, not more. Advancing technology lowers competition for scarce resources, so the competition for survival is less.


I hope my opponent is ready for a snack, because I'm going to begin with some concessions. First, I must concede that there is no reason to expect evolutionary adaptation to ensure long-term benefits for the species, so I will discontinue my "seeds of our own destruction" argument. My opponent has gently but eloquently quashed it. Second, my opponent has presented substantial evidence for the tribal instinct. Having Offered no sources of my own, I must concede that point.

Having shed that weight, I'm going to refocus my attention on a contention that was present but less developed in my first round: Religions are outgrowths of encounters with the divine, and not just one of many possible outcomes from the combination of instincts that form what my opponent has suggested is the X instinct.

Religion is an attempt to commune with or approach the divine. Almost all cultures engage in this activity not because of a common instinct, but because all people are divine. First, people are a part of the world—they are not naturally separate from it. Second, people in a sense create the world via perception (in the same sense that all perceiving entities create the world), and so they are gods of a sort. People seek to explain even phenomena that are of little practical use because these phenomena are of the world—and people are also of the world. In short, people have always sought to explain the world because this is a way of explaining themselves, a way of gaining self-knowledge.

Of course, many people today care little about the workings of the world, but this is the result of bad education. Religions, originally designed to ritualize and facilitate interaction with the world, which is divine, were exploited to give people power over others. By teaching humans that they were separate from the rest of the world, these power-seekers made the divine appear to be Somewhere Else, rather than right here and in us, and they gained and continue to gain power by serving as intermediaries between humans and the so-called divine.

Despite the admitted weakness of some of my contentions, the essence of my argument remains valid: religion cannot be explained, cannot be reduced to, a phenomenon resulting from the same causes as the quasi-religious situations my opponent has presented. I presented in the first round what I thought was, when combined with the pleasure-seeking instinct, an alternative explanation for why humans behave as though they have a religious instinct. That argument depended on survival needs, trial and error, and peer pressure. Rather than depending on the three instincts that comprise what my opponent has posited as the X instinct, my explanation combines pleasure-seeking behavior (to include survival) with actual divine experience. I maintain this alternative explanation, of learning-driven activity not dependent on instinct, alongside the possibility (probability) of a tribal instinct. Nevertheless, religion cannot be reduced to the outgrowth of a combination of instincts.
Debate Round No. 2


Con argues, "Religion is an attempt to commune with or approach the divine. Almost all cultures engage in this activity not because of a common instinct, but because all people are divine." My interpretation of what Con is saying is that people believe they have something in common with the divine, so they seek to better understand that relationship through religion. The literal statement that "people are divine" is false. The powers of perceiving the world are not divine powers, they are human powers. Moreover, if they thought that they had the status of a god, then they wouldn't be seeking to know gods; rather they would think themselves self-sufficient.

Still, Con has a point in that individual views of reality are necessarily self-centered. In some sense the world is a show put on for the benefit of the individual perceiving it. That perception elevates the person to the center of his personal universe in certain sense. I don't think this contravenes an X Instinct, however. I think it is a manifestation of the X Instinct.

The X Instinct is postulated as the conjunction of (1) an instinct to explain the world, (2) tribalism, and (3) rationalization to preserve the ego. A desire to "commune with or approach the divine" clear serves both to explain the world and to attempt to bond with the divine tribe. It is ego driven in that the activities help maintain the self-centered universe of person, as Con supposes. There is conflict in wanting to stay at the center of one's universe and also subordinate to the tribe. Instincts are not logical; they are allowed to pull in different directions based upon circumstances.

The postulated X Instinct allows many manifestations that serve the instinct. Factors outside of the Instinct determine whether it will be manifested in adopting a traditional religion or a radical political ideology or a radical neo-pantheism. Moreover, if the person adopts a traditional religion, the Instinct does not determine which religion the person will choose.

Con's supposition that "Religion is an attempt to commune with or approach the divine." does not explain the religions that do not feature gods. The prominent example is Buddhism. The Buddha explicitly advocated avoiding of consideration of the question of whether or not gods exist, and took no position on the subject. (As Buddhism spread, a number of the variants merged with traditional folk religious beliefs, so non-belief is far from universal among Buddhists. Still, the original teachings of Buddha are also widely believed.) A number of other religions have atheist variants, even Christianity. Daoism and Confusionism are considered de facto atheistic.

Religions that are not god-centered nonetheless offer explanations of how the world works and a community that shares and supports those beliefs. The beliefs are rationalized. For example, bad luck in life is explained by Buddhists via reincarnation, in which errors of past lives are revisited. Hence, Instinct X explains godless religions, but Con's alternative does not.

Con's hypothesis may help to explain why some people choose certain types of religion, but it does not explain religion in the many forms in which it is expressed. That religion cannot be defined by belief in gods is an important clue that there a larger instinct at work. Once the larger instinct is pointed out, then not only do atheist religions fall in line, but all-consuming ideologies that have long been observed to have many characteristics of religions. In fact, beliefs that are not all-consuming, but which pretend to provide simple answers to complex situations are well-explained. Those range from racism to ecology-worship.

For these reasons, the resolution should be affirmed.

My thanks to Con for a highly intelligent debate that has given me new points to ponder.


Man is born aware of the divinity of all life, and religion is his attempt to facilitate and synthesize his experience. What does it mean to be divine? Wiktionary offers four definitions:

1. of or pertaining to a god
2. eternal, holy, or otherwise supernatural.
3. of superhuman or surpassing excellence
4. beautiful, heavenly

How can a godless religion pertain to a god? How can nature be supernatural? How can humans be superhuman? How can the earth be heavenly? By definition, nature cannot be more than nature--it is what it is, and nothing more. Likewise, humans cannot be anything but human. However, nature is much more than what is covered in the *word* nature, and humans are much more than what is covered in the *word* human. When I say everything in the universe is divine, I am not claiming that the universe is anything more than what it is. Rather, I am emphasizing the point that the universe is much more than what people *perceive* it to be.

Man is born understanding that he is more than his body. He is born perceiving--although probably imperfectly--that there is more to nature than he can perceive with his five physical senses. To express this inexpressible supernatural element, he creates religion--or not. As my opponent points out, some cultures have constructed what he calls "godless religions", but where gods exist they are only imperfect expressions of the superhuman and supernatural--they are expressions of the divine, and not divinity itself. Definition 1 of "divine" is "of or pertaining to a god" because the most common method of expressing the divine today is via gods. Communing with the divine can occur just as readily in a "godless religion" as in one with gods.

Regarding the question of ego, my opponent writes, "There is conflict in wanting to stay at the center of one's universe and also subordinate to the tribe." It is true that perception makes each of us the center of our respective universes, but a recognition of the divinity and unity of all things reveals the illusory nature of this. A child believes until a certain age that other people can see his thoughts. Is this lack of development, or an awareness of how things really are? We are not born with ego--it takes form and grows more rigid as our perception of the world deteriorates. Religions and other mystical belief systems are, at their root, attempts to remediate our perception.

Although most religions have been corrupted beyond recognition today, the original impulse is to lessen--not strengthen, through tribal identity--the ego. Man is a part of the world, and so he seeks to know his full self (the whole world). No instinct is required here, any more than an instinct is required for a man to explore the land on which he is born. Furthermore, to say that religion comes out of the same X instinct responsible for supporting political parties and sports teams, for example, is to conflate an impulse to understand the unity of all things and lessen one's ego with an impulse to further divide the world and inflate the ego. Religion is qualitatively different in purpose from many of the quasi-religious activities my opponent listed in his first round argument, and they therefore cannot be said to derive from the same purported instinct.

I thank my opponent for beginning and sustaining a debate that made me think in both untested and unfamiliar directions. For every one of the "new points to ponder" I gave him, he gave me at least three points. Now, I only hope the voters will be as generous.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LoveyounoHomo 12 years ago
Maya you fail to amaze me.

Someone could say something so ignorant, and you would ignore it
GodSands on the other hand may say something, and you would just blow it out of the water.

Anyways I thought you would have a longer debate Mr. L, you look so focused in class today.
Posted by RoyLatham 12 years ago
I am never certain what GodSands is trying to say, but my guess is that it is the argument that "atheism is a religion" and that I am favoring that viewpoint. I'm arguing that many things can take on the aspects of overarching belief, tribalism, and rationalization that characterizes religion. However, religions have to be religions, whereas atheism only has a potential to take on those aspects. I do think that some atheists do step over the line and attribute most of the world's ills to religion, but there is no need to do that to be an atheist. Some people seem to make religions out of sports, for example, but there is no necessity to do that.

I am also endorsing the notion that "everybody has to believe in something." If you wake up every morning pondering whether gravity is going to be working right today, or any other of a thousand things you take for granted, then you are never get anything done. We all must have shortcuts embodied as principles. The issue is what beliefs we are willing to rationalize when placed under scrutiny. Astronauts have no intellectual problem accepting that gravity is different in space, even though 100% of their previous existence passed with gravity always working to pull things down.
Posted by KyleLumsden 12 years ago
All right, it's time for me to jump into the deep end. I think I can at least swim a few strokes . . .
Posted by Maya9 12 years ago
It is very revealing that GodSands would say that even though Roy defended religion in his argument, saying that the rationalization that religion is the fault of all ills in the world is false.

Of course, who here actually thinks that GodSands thinks before he speaks?
Posted by GodSands 12 years ago
RoyLatham you have to includ that you are too religious as an atheist. Sort of fight against your self here.
Posted by Maya9 12 years ago
Tatarize, your reasons explain why humans falsely assign natural phenomena to the work of a deity, but they don't really explain other facets of religion: strict rules, dogma beliefs outside the belief in the deity, and religious ritual. These things exist to fulfill a psychological need in humans. I think this was what Roy meant by "religious instinct".
Posted by SquareOne 12 years ago
I've just presented an argument similar to your 3rd point in my debate.
Posted by LearnLoveLiveLife 12 years ago
This looks like an amazing debate I'm curious to see how it turns out. I would accept but I don't think I can argue con =/
Posted by Chuckles 12 years ago
very well put, looks to be quite an interesting debate...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dwest23 12 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 12 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by animea 12 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.