Is Religion A Force For Good In The World? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?
in Philosophy

By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1034 Pts edited October 2019
Following an interesting debate from Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair which I still have yet to finish I would like to know what other peoples views here are in regards to this question.


I myself haven't looked at this too deeply to have a definitive position. With that being said, however, I am currently leaning towards the position that religion is not a force for good or at least not necessary as being a force for good in the world. What do you think?


PlaffelvohfenMayCaesarSkepticalOneAlofRIMattGouldZombieguy1987621MR












Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • I'm with Christopher on this one... To me religion is a paleolithic philosophical tool, sure it helped early tribes social cohesion when we learned to walk on two legs but it's as outdated as an Oldowan stone chopper... 

    Insisting on using religion to explain Existence when we have science and philosophy is like insisting on using a flint hand axe to perform brain surgery... Results are about the same...
    Polaris95AlofRIZeusAres42Zombieguy1987TKDBsmoothie
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2532 Pts
    I don't think religion is really a force in itself. Religion is merely a reflection of human flaws, of our innate desire to have the image of the world that resonates with our psychological traits and that compensates for our insecurities - even if that image of that world has no reason to have much in common with the real world. If there was no religion, there would be some other ideology covering the gaps the absence or religion leaves.

    The overall role of religion is probably negative, although it does have some positive effects - but, again, it is not as much the fault of religion as that of us, humans.
    ZeusAres42SkepticalOneAlofRIZombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 1326 Pts
    No it’s certainly not , religion has been used to tyrannize ,subjugate and divide people since it’s first inception and it continues to do so , take a look at Islamic countries that follow Sharia law where women are treated as inferiors to men , apostates are jailed or executed , child brides perfectly  acceptable  and homosexuality given the harshest of punishments.

    A belief in a god came into being by people who could not explain natural phenomena as in storms , lunar eclipses , earthquakes etc ,etc the one who claimed to know was elevated to the special status as one in communion with the gods and thus began the whole religious racket 
    ZeusAres42BrainSocksPlaffelvohfenAlofRIZombieguy1987
  • I try to be a good person, and serve people, but some religious people are nasty. Every faith has good, and bad people. I hope that helps.
    ZeusAres42BrainSocksAlofRI
  • As a Christian realist, I believe that Religion can be a tool for the greatest charity. However, I am far from blind. Religions the world over have been radicalized to wage war against others, commit massive atrocities, all while failing to follow on the potential they have for generating charity, goodwill, and the overall public good. In our current state, I believe religion only can serve to further divide our species as a whole. 
    AlofRIZeusAres42
  • First of all religion is stems from the Greek word religio and religion is defined as ; deep contemplation or thought.

    1. Thoughts, are not a source of knowledge. The range of knowledge or experieience of any person is based on information.

    2. If someone does not know who God is, they lack such information as a basis for the knowledge of God's existence and individuality.

    Second yeshuahredeemed what are you doing? You are not called to agree with the dust. I reject these people's false sense of the world and testify Jesus is God and Lord.

    They are returning to the dust and if in unveilief are going to hell and eternal damnation. There is not value in what they esteem.

    religion , does nothing for anyone.

    I keep on stating a fact CHRISTIANITYS not a religion.

    Third reality is defined as all of what is real or exists therefore since Jesus came in the flesh, all of what is real or exists is based on the matter of fact Jesus is God.

    You are limited to consider reality only by all of what has happened to determine what is known.

    Religion is not based on practical knowledge nor is what the secular retards call science.

    Jesus is God and Lord.

    Religion sends you straight to hell because it is at emnity with Jesus.

    Religion is meant to divide not determine what is actual.
    ZeusAres42PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • And kiss my Debra, whoever designed your ai is a retard.
    ZeusAres42CYDdharta
  • Religion for what it is only causes bad. Too many wars have been fought because of ones acclaimed religion. Though shalt not killed has been lost on the minds of Christian's for thousands of years now and is no longer recognized. Religion has lost what it once was and people now fight because of it contradicting the whole religion in itself
    BrainSocks
  • I think it depends on the person.
    대왕광개토
  • Given the title of this thread, I figured some of you may be interested in voting on a related debate: 
    https://debateisland.com/discussion/3986/why-you-should-believe-in-a-religion-by-a-atheist

    Vote please!
  • MayCaesar said:
    I don't think religion is really a force in itself. Religion is merely a reflection of human flaws, of our innate desire to have the image of the world that resonates with our psychological traits and that compensates for our insecurities - even if that image of that world has no reason to have much in common with the real world. If there was no religion, there would be some other ideology covering the gaps the absence or religion leaves.

    The overall role of religion is probably negative, although it does have some positive effects - but, again, it is not as much the fault of religion as that of us, humans.
    Agree, but religion is a much more powerful ideology than most. After all, if you can convince others your views are in-line with  the creator of the universe, then who can possibly argue with you?
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    edited September 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    "am currently leaning towards the position that religion is not a force for good or at least not necessary as being a force for good in the world."

    Illegal drug use, or drug legalization isn't a good force, for good in the world, is it?

    Global warming, isn't a good force, for good in the world, is it?

    Some of the parents around the world, being cruel, or inhumane to their kids, isn't a good force, for good in the world, is it? 

    Some of humanity, being obsessed over religion in general, isn't a good force, for good in the world, whether some are religious, or anti religious, is it? 

    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB Won't be long now until you reach more than 1000 irrelevant posts, i.e posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the theme of the topic ls that you post in.Y must really enjoy wasting your time.
    PlaffelvohfenTKDB









  • @ZeusAres42

    Look at you, you're off topic, via your bias comment:

    "Won't be long now until you reach more than 1000 irrelevant posts, i.e posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the theme of the topic ls that you post in.Y must really enjoy wasting your time."

    Define the theme of your topic?

    I gave 4 responses, that are all based on your Religious oriented rhetoric.

    "am currently leaning towards the position that religion is not a force for good or at least not necessary as being a force for good in the world."

    Illegal drug use, or drug legalization isn't a good force, for good in the world, is it?

    Global warming, isn't a good force, for good in the world, is it?

    Some of the parents around the world, being cruel, or inhumane to their kids, isn't a good force, for good in the world, is it? 

    Some of humanity, being obsessed over religion in general, isn't a good force, for good in the world, whether some are religious, or anti religious, is it? 



    @ZeusAres42

    Are you a Richard Dawkins internet deciple?

    Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?
    in Philosophy

    By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 507 Pts May 29 Flag
    Following an interesting debate from Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair which I still have yet to finish I would like to know what other peoples views here are in regards to this question.


    I myself haven't looked at this too deeply to have a definitive position. With that being said, however, I am currently leaning towards the position that religion is not a force for good or at least not necessary as being a force for good in the world. What do you think? 


    ZeusAres42
  • @jesusisGod777 said:
    "Religion is meant to divide, not determine what is actual." I can agree with that line. It has done this for centuries. Time to stop it.
  • @ZeusAres42 while it is true that religion is the cause of a lot of problem in the world, such as dogmatic thinking, group think, and illogical arguments. I would argue that religion, for the most part, provides a philosophical value and moral value rather than a logical scientific one. Even though I am agnostic, I find books such as the Bible to be fascinating from a philosophical and a historical point of view. So no I don’t agree that religion is mostly a force for bad in the world. 
    "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking...is freedom."-Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore

    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand

    "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater


  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 249 Pts
    edited October 2019
    MattGould said:
    @ZeusAres42 while it is true that religion is the cause of a lot of problem in the world, such as dogmatic thinking, group think, and illogical arguments. I would argue that religion, for the most part, provides a philosophical value and moral value rather than a logical scientific one. Even though I am agnostic, I find books such as the Bible to be fascinating from a philosophical and a historical point of view. So no I don’t agree that religion is mostly a force for bad in the world. 
    To be fair, dogmatic thinking, group think, and illogical arguments are not exclusive to religion and are merely part of our default ignorance. Religion has philosophical value? Sure, but no more value than any view which adds to the overall discourse. Even still, value doesn't mean "force for good" - for instance social darwinism has philosophical value in that it is an example of a bad philosophy. (I'm not suggesting religion is necessarily a bad philosophy - just showing how this doesn't serve to uphold your view) Moral value? No. Religion is a substitute for morality. If someone adheres to an absolute codified morality (such as in the Abrahamic religions) then they are not moral as much as they are obedient. At best, religion borrows from some form of humanism, at worst, it completely disregards humans. 
    ZeusAres42
  • Honestly I don't think Religion is any better or worse than science in regards to its positive AND negative impact upon the world as a whole.  Science has driven just as many (If not more) evil agendas as religion and we have substantial proof that the total absence of Religion DOES NOT in any way bring about greater peace or positivity for mankind.

    If I had to choose between the two I'd side with Religion for the very basic and simple reason that Religion's rules have been set in stone (Sometimes literally) for centuries whereas Science can't really figure out what the rules are because they're always changing.  One day we have the missing link in human evolution and 40-50 years later we discover that it was BS and we were wrong the entire time.  Religion has continuity, Science is still in the making.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    Honestly I don't think Religion is any better or worse than science in regards to its positive AND negative impact upon the world as a whole.  Science has driven just as many (If not more) evil agendas as religion and we have substantial proof that the total absence of Religion DOES NOT in any way bring about greater peace or positivity for mankind.

    If I had to choose between the two I'd side with Religion for the very basic and simple reason that Religion's rules have been set in stone (Sometimes literally) for centuries whereas Science can't really figure out what the rules are because they're always changing.  One day we have the missing link in human evolution and 40-50 years later we discover that it was BS and we were wrong the entire time.  Religion has continuity, Science is still in the making.
    If your absolute rules are wrong from the get-go, then they are wrong forrrrevvvverrrr (nod to The Sand Lot).
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • @ZeusAres42

    It is quite apparent for anyone with a real understanding of Christianity that Hitchens and Blair did not comprehend it at all. They conflate man made religious cults with true Biblical Christianity. 

    The problem with these celebrity "atheists" is that they are mainly out for shock and awe, and laughs, most of the things they come up with are complete hogwash. In this debate Hitchens immediately starts ranting about Catholic and Anglican things, not understanding that these institutions do not represent Jesus Christ in the slightest bit. All he seems to muster are strawman attacks, which is exactly the unenlightened approach someone without real facts takes.

    A "celestial dictator" he calls God, who says that people should love and live in peace. Hitchens is Comedy Gold!, yet so sad that he actually seems to believe in his own delusions. The complete surrender of critical faculties, he blames the "religious" for, yet this was his own greatest weakness.

    It is one of his favourite jibes that a world ruled by faith is like North Korea, a place where all is known and all is ordered." On the contrary, North Korea is the precise opposite of a land governed by conscience. It is a country governed by men who do not believe in God or conscience, where nobody can be trusted to make his own choices, and where the State decides for the people what is right and what is wrong. And it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought. If you do not worship God, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush. In which case, God help you." - Peter Hitchens, Brother.

    Blair is equally deluded as well, he says "the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad," quoting the Quran 5:32 "saving one life is like saving the whole of humanity," not knowing that the Quran is in fact quoting from the Talmud and has to do with what is taught in Judaism.

    Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. - Quran 5:32 

    Blair conveniently leaves out the very next verse;

    Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, (Quran 5:33)

    Watching this debate is like watching monkey's at the zoo throw their own crap at each other.

    Hitler murdered at least 12 million. Stalin, another 30 million. Mao, perhaps 40 million. And Pol Pot killed one third of all Cambodians in the mid 1970s. The number of people killed by the secular atheist regimes of the 20th century dwarfs by far those killed in the name of religion since the beginning of recorded history." - Shmuley Boteach, "God is greater than Christopher Hitchens."

    Asking if "religion" is a force for good is like asking if science is a force for good. What "religion", what science? Using "religion" or science as an undefined umbrella term is quite disingenuous if not logically absurd. If defined in this way, there are then two aspects to "religion", true and false. Obviously "religion" cannot be a force for good, if it's not true and leads someone to Hell.  

    He says, again without defining "religion" in any sense, that it makes extraordinary claims without evidence, yet to this day no one has any evidence how life began, only extraordinary claims that there was this big bang and things started colliding together forming molecular motors, complex codes, and other fantastic systems. The only thing extraordinary is the logical fallacies in which Hitchies engages in.

    It is undoubtedly true that people commit evil acts in the name of "religion", in the case of Christianity one would have to twist and conflat it's true meaning in order to do so. Is that the fault of the "religion" or those that do the twisting.




    ZeusAres42
  • Neopesdom said:
    @ZeusAres42

    It is quite apparent for anyone with a real understanding of Christianity that Hitchens and Blair did not comprehend it at all. They conflate man made religious cults with true Biblical Christianity. 

    The problem with these celebrity "atheists" is that they are mainly out for shock and awe, and laughs, most of the things they come up with are complete hogwash. In this debate Hitchens immediately starts ranting about Catholic and Anglican things, not understanding that these institutions do not represent Jesus Christ in the slightest bit. All he seems to muster are strawman attacks, which is exactly the unenlightened approach someone without real facts takes.

    A "celestial dictator" he calls God, who says that people should love and live in peace. Hitchens is Comedy Gold!, yet so sad that he actually seems to believe in his own delusions. The complete surrender of critical faculties, he blames the "religious" for, yet this was his own greatest weakness.

    It is one of his favourite jibes that a world ruled by faith is like North Korea, a place where all is known and all is ordered." On the contrary, North Korea is the precise opposite of a land governed by conscience. It is a country governed by men who do not believe in God or conscience, where nobody can be trusted to make his own choices, and where the State decides for the people what is right and what is wrong. And it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought. If you do not worship God, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush. In which case, God help you." - Peter Hitchens, Brother.

    Blair is equally deluded as well, he says "the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad," quoting the Quran 5:32 "saving one life is like saving the whole of humanity," not knowing that the Quran is in fact quoting from the Talmud and has to do with what is taught in Judaism.

    Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. - Quran 5:32 

    Blair conveniently leaves out the very next verse;

    Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, (Quran 5:33)

    Watching this debate is like watching monkey's at the zoo throw their own crap at each other.

    Hitler murdered at least 12 million. Stalin, another 30 million. Mao, perhaps 40 million. And Pol Pot killed one third of all Cambodians in the mid 1970s. The number of people killed by the secular atheist regimes of the 20th century dwarfs by far those killed in the name of religion since the beginning of recorded history." - Shmuley Boteach, "God is greater than Christopher Hitchens."

    Asking if "religion" is a force for good is like asking if science is a force for good. What "religion", what science? Using "religion" or science as an undefined umbrella term is quite disingenuous if not logically absurd. If defined in this way, there are then two aspects to "religion", true and false. Obviously "religion" cannot be a force for good, if it's not true and leads someone to Hell.  

    He says, again without defining "religion" in any sense, that it makes extraordinary claims without evidence, yet to this day no one has any evidence how life began, only extraordinary claims that there was this big bang and things started colliding together forming molecular motors, complex codes, and other fantastic systems. The only thing extraordinary is the logical fallacies in which Hitchies engages in.

    It is undoubtedly true that people commit evil acts in the name of "religion", in the case of Christianity one would have to twist and conflat it's true meaning in order to do so. Is that the fault of the "religion" or those that do the twisting.




    Looks like Christopher hit one of your nerves. Can't say I'm surprised. Oh, and as for Peter Hitchens here's another video of a young guy about a year before he goes to Uni brilliantly deconstructing his arguments:

    Neopesdom









  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    What is fair and equal about the anti God, anti Jesus, or anti Religious ideologies?

    Are they fair to both sides of the anti God, Jesus, and Religion debate, or conversation?

    Or are they maybe, just primarily fair to their own anti God, Jesus, or Religion conversations? 

    Why not invite God, or Jesus to your online debate, and ask them your fair and equal anti God, Jesus, and Religion questions? 
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1034 Pts
    edited October 2019
    TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    What is fair and equal about the anti God, anti Jesus, or anti Religious ideologies?

    Are they fair to both sides of the anti God, Jesus, and Religion debate, or conversation?

    Or are they maybe, just primarily fair to their own anti God, Jesus, or Religion conversations?
    I don't know. Ask someone that is anti-religious perhaps?









  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    What is your motive behind the below question?

    "Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?"


    Religion isn't a force, in the World.


    Is Christopher Hitchens's point of view, a force for good, in the World?

    Is Richard Dawkins's point of view, a force for good, in the World? 

    (What is fair and equal about the anti God, anti Jesus, or anti Religious ideologies?

    Are they fair to both sides of the anti God, Jesus, and Religion debate, or conversation?

    Or are they maybe, just primarily fair to their own anti God, Jesus, or Religion conversations?)

    @ZeusAres42


    "I don't know. Ask someone that is anti-religious perhaps?"

    I'm asking you.

    Are you anti God, Jesus, or Bible?




  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @Plaffelvohfen


    sci·ence
    /ˈsīəns/

    noun
    1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
      "the world of science and technology"

    Can you explain humanities existence, outside the scope of known science?

    Can Christopher Hitchens, explain humanities existence, outside his scope of known science?

    I believe that science is limited, because our understanding, is limited.

    Therefore humanity really can't explain it's existence, outside of individual speculation, individual theorizing, or by creating individual hypothetical scenarios, to hopefully come up with a legitimate answer, outside of humanities own limited understanding? 


    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    What is your motive behind the below question?

    "Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?"

    My motive behind the question is to invite a discussion.

    Religion isn't a force, in the World.

    Why?

    Is Christopher Hitchens's point of view, a force for good, in the World?

    Is Richard Dawkins's point of view, a force for good, in the World? 

    (What is fair and equal about the anti God, anti Jesus, or anti Religious ideologies?

    Are they fair to both sides of the anti God, Jesus, and Religion debate, or conversation?

    Or are they maybe, just primarily fair to their own anti God, Jesus, or Religion conversations?)

    ZeusAres42


    "I don't know. Ask someone that is anti-religious perhaps?"

    I'm asking you.

    Are you anti God, Jesus, or Bible?
    That isn't what this debate is about. This debate is called "Is religion a force for good in the world?" If you want to discuss Chris hitchens or Richard Dawkins I'd be very happy to; just create another debate, and we can go from there.









  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    What discussion?

    This set of word's?

    "Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?"


    You brought this talking head to the discussion via the video you shared.

    So the question is valid, because of your provided video, that you've used to platform your rhetoric with.

    "That isn't what this debate is about."

    "Is Christopher Hitchens's point of view, a force for good, in the World?"

    This debate is called "Is religion a force for good in the world?" 

    Do you view Religion as a force in the world, and you're questioning the good of it right?

    You're wearing your motives along your upper lip, like it's a mustache.

    "If you want to discuss Chris hitchens or Richard Dawkins I'd be very happy to; just create another debate, and we can go from there."

    Chris Hitchens, and Richard, are two anti God, Jesus, and Bible talking head's, that thrive on being pandered to. 

    I view Religion, as it is, and it's not a force.

    "Abortion" is a force in the world, because millions of babies, are Aborted each year, thus creating a void in humanity.

    "Terrorism" is a force in the world, because it affects the lives of thousands of people each year, thus creating a void in humanity.

    "Guns" are a force in the world, because they are used to protect people, and then at the same time, are used illegally used to kill innocent people with as well, thus creating another void in humanity.

    Those are examples of, "forces," in the world.

    Religion doesn't do the above to humanity.

    The Force of humanity does the above to itself, thus creating an unnecessary void unto itself. 
    ZeusAres42
  • And there was me giving someone the benefit of the doubt he might not be trolling. Silly me. Sorry to other readers for the recent spam flood by you know who. Anyway it's final now that I will never respond and feed the troll again. I do look forward to some other discussions with you genuine guys that understand what civil debate actually means though.









  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    "And there was me giving someone the benefit of the doubt he might not be trolling.
    Silly me.
    Sorry to other readers for the recent spam flood by you know who.
    Anyway it's final now that I will never respond and feed the troll again.
    I do look forward to some other discussions with you genuine guys that understand what civil debate actually means though."

    What is civil about you going after GOD, Jesus, and Religion?

    The civility of your biased argument, is that it appears to be biased and one sided, isn't it?

    You're trolling on GOD, Jesus, and the Bible.

    And none of them have done anything wrong to you, have they?

    Has Religion ever personally disrupted your life?


    Some of the United Kingdom Press, have developed a reputation for how they write stories around some people haven't they?

    Not implying that you're a part of the UK Press.

    But you, writing the way that you, (your opinions, and or perceptions makes sense,) as you present your questions as you derive them from your imagination, and they are teaching moments, for the rest of the internet to be educated from.

    So please continue with your style of teaching?



    And I stand by my counter arguments, in the light of your question: 

    "Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?"


    I view Religion, as it is, and it's not a force.

    There are multiple churches, that have fed the homeless via soup kitchens.

    That have also provided clothing, and shelter to the homeless.



    I wonder if  Chris Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, have ever done anything for the homeless? 




    "Abortion" is a force in the world, because millions of babies, are Aborted each year, thus creating a void in humanity.

    "Terrorism" is a force in the world, because it affects the lives of thousands of people each year, thus creating a void in humanity.

    "Guns" are a force in the world, because they are used to protect people, and then at the same time, are used illegally used to kill innocent people with as well, thus creating another void in humanity.

    Those are examples of, "forces," in the world.

    Religion doesn't do the above to humanity.

    The Force of humanity does the above to itself, thus creating an unnecessary void unto itself. 






  • MattGould said:
    @ZeusAres42 while it is true that religion is the cause of a lot of problem in the world, such as dogmatic thinking, group think, and illogical arguments. I would argue that religion, for the most part, provides a philosophical value and moral value rather than a logical scientific one. Even though I am agnostic, I find books such as the Bible to be fascinating from a philosophical and a historical point of view. So no I don’t agree that religion is mostly a force for bad in the world. 
    To be fair, dogmatic thinking, group think, and illogical arguments are not exclusive to religion and are merely part of our default ignorance. Religion has philosophical value? Sure, but no more value than any view which adds to the overall discourse. Even still, value doesn't mean "force for good" - for instance social darwinism has philosophical value in that it is an example of a bad philosophy. (I'm not suggesting religion is necessarily a bad philosophy - just showing how this doesn't serve to uphold your view) Moral value? No. Religion is a substitute for morality. If someone adheres to an absolute codified morality (such as in the Abrahamic religions) then they are not moral as much as they are obedient. At best, religion borrows from some form of humanism, at worst, it completely disregards humans. 
    This really is a great argument. Sorry i missed it before.
     
    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne









  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/14/is-religion-a-force-for-good/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15717575353951&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/14/is-religion-a-force-for-good/

    "Is religion a force for good?"

    "A study of Muslim students found that hearing the Islamic call to prayer made them act more morally."

    By Ryan McKay 
    Ryan McKay is a senior lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London.
    January 14, 2015 at 6:00 AM EST

    "Do we need religion in order to be moral? George Washington cautioned against “indulg[ing] the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion,” and today more than half of Americans believe morality is impossible without a belief in God.

    The idea that religion is important for morality is not just widespread, but deeply ingrained. Psychologist Will Gervais has shown that even people who explicitly deny believing in God harbour the intuition that acts such as serial murder and incest are more representative of atheists than of religious people. Of course, prominent atheistic commentators resent any suggestion that the religious have some special claim on moral behavior.

    In Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion he writes: “Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.” In a month when gunmen shouted “Allahu akbar” (God is greatest) while murdering 132 school children in Pakistan, it may be easy to sympathise with this viewpoint. There is no shortage of spirited rhetoric on this emotive topic, but what does the scientific evidence reveal? Does religion promote moral behaviour? In a new paper published in Psychological Bulletin, Harvey Whitehouse and I explore this issue."


    "What is religion and what is morality?

    The first problem is how to define “religion” and “morality.” This is no mere matter of academic hair splitting. Take religion: What does it actually mean to be religious? Does it mean that one believes in agents or forces that transcend ordinary physical laws? For example, gods, ancestors, or karma? Or that one identifies and affiliates with a certain community or tradition – by being Roman Catholic, Sunni Muslim or Buddhist, for example? Or that one attends certain services and partakes in certain ritualistic behaviors? Each of these possible definitions captures phenomena that would not ordinarily be classed as religious – a belief in Santa Claus say, or national or sporting affiliations, or rituals in military settings. What is more, each of these tendencies may be underpinned by different psychological processes, with differential effects on relevant behaviors.

    The situation is, if anything, worse where morality is concerned. According to the currently influential Moral Foundations Theory, there is no single morality but rather a set of mutually incompatible and incommensurable moralities, each underpinned by a psychological system specialized for solving a particular adaptive problem. For example, the moral foundation of “fairness” generates ideas about justice and rights, and is thought to have evolved to solve the problem of how best to secure the benefits of two-way partnerships. Depending on your cultural background and political leanings, your personal moral norms may be constructed on a particular subset of these moral foundations. So while some may consider appropriate sexual behavior to be of primary moral importance (the “sanctity” foundation), for others, morality may be more a matter of charitable concern for those who are less well off (the “care” foundation).

    Pope Francis lifts the Holy Book as he celebrates a Mass at the Vatican AP PhotoAndrew Medichini
    Pope Francis lifts the Holy Book as he celebrates a Mass at the Vatican. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini) "


    "To be seen to be doing

    Assuming we could all agree on what it means to be religious and what it means to be moral, how might we go about investigating the relationship between them? One common approach simply involves asking people about their beliefs and behaviors. For example, surveys indicate that those who score higher on indices of religiosity – those who report praying regularly, for example – reliably report giving more money to charity.

    So does this mean religion promotes charitable behaviors? Not necessarily. There is evidence that religious individuals are more motivated than nonreligious individuals to preserve a moral reputation, so it could be that the religious are more likely to report charitable behaviors simply because they care more about making a charitable impression.

    Another problem is that a correlation between religiosity and charity (self-reported or otherwise) does not merit the conclusion that religiosity promotes charitable behavior. It could be that people with community-minded dispositions are more likely to gravitate toward religion (and more inclined to donate to charity), simply by virtue of those social inclinations."


    "Religious primers

    To circumvent these problems, a number of studies have employed “priming” methods in a bid to establish causal relationships between religious concepts and morally relevant behaviors. In these studies, which began with the seminal work of psychologists Azim Shariff and Ara Norenzayan, religion is not just measured but is “experimentally assigned” to some of the participants.

    For example, in a recent study, Mark Aveyard had 88 Muslim students listen to an audio recording of a busy city street, and asked them to count the number of vehicle horns they heard. In one condition, the Islamic call to prayer could be heard on the recording. The students then took an unsupervised mathematics test on which cheating was possible. Aveyard found that participants exposed to the call to prayer cheated substantially less. This finding is consistent with the results of other priming studies, which have also found that religious priming enhances cooperation and generosity towards others.

    Muslims pray at a mosque in eastern China at the beginning of the holy month of RamadanAFPGetty Images STR
    Muslims pray at a mosque in eastern China at the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan. (AFP/Getty Images) (STR)

    So, religion may promote a love for thy neighbor (or at least neighborly behavior), but how big is the neighborhood? The positive picture revealed above is complicated by the results of other studies, which have shown that religious priming also elicits a range of aggressive and prejudicial behaviours. For example, Brad Bushman and colleagues found that participants who read a description of violent retribution commanded by God were more aggressive in a subsequent task than participants who read the same description but with the passage about God’s sanction omitted. And Megan Johnson and colleagues have found that participants primed subliminally with Christian concepts display increased covert racial prejudice and negative affect toward African Americans. Another recent study by Joanna Blogowska and colleagues revealed that self-reported religiosity predicted the helping of a needy member of the in-group but also physical aggression towards a member of a moral out-group (a gay person). "


    "(So, is religion a force for good?)Ultimately there may be no easily characterizable relationship between religion and morality. Under the pluralistic approach we advocate decomposing both religion and morality into smaller units, such that the relationship between them fans out into a matrix of separate relationships between more basic elements. So some components of “religion” may promote some components of “morality” just as others suppress the same, or different, components.

    In short, in discussing whether religion is a force for good we must be very clear what we mean by religion and what we mean by good. This rather nuanced conclusion may disappoint the polemicists, but – at least until this research field matures – a measure of restraint before we jump to conclusions about whether religion is inherently good or bad may not be such a bad thing."


    Some Reference Material for the Public. 

  • Vaulk said:
    Honestly I don't think Religion is any better or worse than science in regards to its positive AND negative impact upon the world as a whole.  Science has driven just as many (If not more) evil agendas as religion and we have substantial proof that the total absence of Religion DOES NOT in any way bring about greater peace or positivity for mankind.
    Firstly, that is a very generic statement. Secondly, science is not a religious ideology. Sure, there are bad scientists out there with highly sought political agendas, but that's really not what science actually is.

    If I had to choose between the two I'd side with Religion for the very basic and simple reason that Religion's rules have been set in stone (Sometimes literally) for centuries whereas Science can't really figure out what the rules are because they're always changing.  One day we have the missing link in human evolution and 40-50 years later we discover that it was BS and we were wrong the entire time.  Religion has continuity, Science is still in the making.

    And this is what makes some religious ideologies so dangerous; that high level of certainty they have that what they believe in is Gospel. If only those terrorists of 9/11 actually doubted their beliefs about how blowing up the twin towers was a good thing to do; perhaps things might have been a bit differently today eh?


    SkepticalOneNeopesdom









  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    How is it that a portion of the Headline of this specific forum, was apparently published prior to the creation of this forum, back in 2015?

    (Did you maybe, or temporarily borrow some of it?)

    https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/14/is-religion-a-force-for-good/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15717575353951&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/14/is-religion-a-force-for-good/

    "Is religion a force for good?"

    "A study of Muslim students found that hearing the Islamic call to prayer made them act more morally."

    By Ryan McKay 
    Ryan McKay is a senior lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London.
    January 14, 2015 at 6:00 AM EST


    @ZeusAres42, Do you have a response? 

  • AlofRI said:
    @jesusisGod777 said:
    "Religion is meant to divide, not determine what is actual." I can agree with that line. It has done this for centuries. Time to stop it.
    Not sure I entirely agree here but, I can see where you're coming from.









  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/14/is-religion-a-force-for-good/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15717575353951&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/14/is-religion-a-force-for-good/

    "Is religion a force for good?"

    "A study of Muslim students found that hearing the Islamic call to prayer made them act more morally."

    By Ryan McKay 
    Ryan McKay is a senior lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London.
    January 14, 2015 at 6:00 AM EST

    "Do we need religion in order to be moral? George Washington cautioned against “indulg[ing] the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion,” and today more than half of Americans believe morality is impossible without a belief in God.

    Religion isn't a force.

    But humanity, should be a global force for good unto itself, shouldn't it?

    And it's failing itself miserably.

    The homeless in the United States, and in the United Kingdom, speak to that failure of humanity, towards itself.

    @ZeusAres42

    You are an Internet blessing, because your rhetoric, is sadly un-enriching, to those who can't get a fair, equal, or unbiased position from you, can they?

    Because, I've yet to see that through your current efforts?

    I've never been to a religious building, that ever made a claim that it could be viewed as a force for good in the world?

    I'm curious, would you be so kind to go interview some of the poor or homeless, in the U.K., and see if they view the Religion practiced in your country, as a force for good in the world?

    https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/22/at-least-320000-homeless-people-in-britain-says-shelter?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15717946371422&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/22/at-least-320000-homeless-people-in-britain-says-shelter

    Homelessness

    "At least 320,000 homeless people in Britain, says Shelter

    "Charity says figure for England, Scotland and Wales is likely to be underestimate"

    At least 320,000 people are homeless in Britain, according to research by the housing charity Shelter.

    This amounts to a year-on-year increase of 13,000, a 4% rise, despite government pledges to tackle the crisis. The estimate suggests that nationally one in 200 people are homeless."

    " Shelter says its figures, which include rough sleepers and people in temporary accommodation, are likely to be an underestimate of the problem as they do not capture people who experience “hidden” homelessness, such as sofa-surfers, and others living insecurely in sheds or cars, for example."

    "Newham in east London is ranked as England’s number one homelessness hotspot, with at least one in every 24 people in housing insecurity. More than 14,500 people were in temporary accommodation in the borough, and 76 were sleeping rough.

    In the capital as a whole, 170,000 people – equivalent to one in 52 – have no home. Westminster had the most rough sleepers, 217, followed by Camden, with 127. In Kensington and Chelsea, the UK’s richest borough, there were over 5,000 homeless people – equivalent to one in every 29 residents.

     The figures indicate how homelessness and housing insecurity is spreading beyond its traditional heartland of London into the wider south-east and Midlands, and the impact of high rents and welfare cuts ripples outwards."

    The homeless in the United States, and the United Kingdom, are more educational than some who express themselves, via a keyboard, because, they are fighting for their own survival each day. 





Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch