Humanisng the Religions - A way fo secularists to reap the benefits - God need not apply - 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!

Humanisng the Religions - A way fo secularists to reap the benefits - God need not apply
in Religion

By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 500 Pts

Humanizing the Religions - A way for secularists to reap the benefits - God need not apply


I have often been interested in how the mind works, psychology, and philosophy. As such, I recently came across some sects of some the most famous religions that had gone completely humanistic. Some of these are as follows:

There is no denying that a number of religions do offer benefits such as a sense of belonging, communal gatherings and get together s, etc. The idea however, with these humanistic movements, however, is that to reap the benefits of these religions you do not need to believe in a higher power. Interestingly, some time ago during the Darwinian era in Great Britain most of the people that attended religious functions was mostly because of the social and communal aspect much rather than believing in a higher power. Then again, we are Mammal species that are social beings.


Moreover, in regard to Humanistic Judaism I especially like their take on morality which is "Ethics and morality should serve human needs, and choices should be based upon consideration of the consequences of actions rather than pre-ordained rules or commandments." This is actually pretty close to Philosopher Immanuel Kant's "rational theory of moral absolutism" I would say.


As for Humanistic Buddhism, the only elements to drop I can think of would be reincarnation, and karma. Ordinary Buddhism in my opinion is pretty close to humanism anyway. Several sects of Buddhism focus a lot of compassion and empathy. This focus on compassion and empathy is about trying to understand how other's view things, and understand how other people that are suffering are feeling; and this has nothing to do with a high power; it's about being compassionate and empathetic for one's own sake and that of those others that one is feeling compassionate and empathetic about. Furthermore, empathy is part of most people's biology; the only people that mainly that empathy doesn't apply is in people that are psychopaths/sociopaths, or other people with serious brain dysfunctions. And it is this empathy that I hold as the true foundation of all morality.


As for Christian Atheism this is mainly to do with living a good life according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, while at the same time rejecting the supernatural claims of Christianity.


I guess the bottom line is that one doesn't need to give up their religion if they're losing faith; one can still reap the benefits of religion without believing in a Deity.


What do you guys think of this?


The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • I like psychologist Jordan Peterson's work on religion, myth and fable. He presents them as encoding inarticulate knowledge, which when you look into it makes a lot of sense. This is especially compelling because dreams appear to serve the same function and also are deeply symbolic.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1872 Pts
    edited August 31
    I see it in a slightly different way, but with the same general idea: everything you believe in has to serve you in some way. "Conscious belief", that is choosing to believe in something based on how productive that belief is, rather than how persuasive it is, is a very handy tool to have.

    I recently have gotten very interested in the ideas of Shintoism. Like any other religion, Shintoism is inherently fairly totalitarian, and it has had a pretty bloody history. But it has some elements that I really like and choose to accept, because of how they enrich my life.
    I have a mathematical mind, so my brain is at odds with fully believing in unsubstantiated ideas. However, in the end, everything we think about our world is just a model: we have no way of knowing of what the world "really" is like, and we can only roughly describe it with abstract models. Choosing a model that cannot be easily proven to be wrong, even if it cannot be proven to be right either, that has a very positive impact on our life, is a very reasonable option.

    I am strongly attached to my car; we have been through a lot and we have had each other's backs throughout the entire journey. I like to think of my car as a living being that has a soul, and that has befriended my soul. Yes, one could say that the car is just a piece of plastic and metal - but by the same token, I am just a piece of meat and bones. How we classify something depends solely on our perspective, and I find the Shintoist perspective of inanimate objects having souls as well as making my life richer and happier.

    I have never believed in any deities, and always disliked organised religion - but I do not see anything wrong with personal religion, tuned to the individual preferences. If someone believes in the Queen of Spiders, then there is nothing wrong with them - as long as they realise that this is just a model, and as long as they reasonably believe that this model serves them and enriches their life. Following something because of a societal pressure is silly, but following something because one independently arrived at it, for whatever reason - that is a good thing.

    I had a Catholic roommate for a year, and we had a lot of discussions on the subject. I find his views absolutely reasonable: he does not like the church and the Pope, and he has many views that most Catholics would deem heretical - and he, as a topologist, understands that all this is just an ideology. At the same time, his beliefs make him a very charitable person, and he is always calm and grounded, regardless of the situation. 
    Does he understand that there is likely no god "in reality"? Sure. Does it bothers him? Not really. He has defined his views well and reconciled them with the observations, and while they definitely conflict with his logical mind some, his logical mind is not the only mind he has. His emotional mind also demands food for thought, one that logic alone cannot provide.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Oppolzer
  • @ZeusAres42

    What a stupid argument.

    If morality does not apply to God Jesus Christ, how would anything be preferable to senseless standards of morality that is not even perspectively moral to begin with.

    Considering any personal opinion would dictate morality your own view of morality isn't a basis for moral conduct.

    Are you retarted?
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • @ZeusAres42

    Are you retarted?
    Asks the guy that clearly doesn't understand what he reads as well what he writes about most of the time.

    If name calling and preaching rubbish is as far as your argumentation style goes then I think it's pretty clear to most people on the forum who the real retarded imbecile is out of the two of us.
    PlaffelvohfenjesusisGod777Sand

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • @ZeusAres42

    I'm not even going to read what you people write anymore.

    It's apparent you lack sense and the ability to rationalize how stupid your arguments are. Age old arguing against God.

    Never worked out for anyone in hellfire.


    ZeusAres42
  • @jesusisGod777

    Here's a tip but it is a long shot for someone like you that's on the lower end of the evolutionary scale:

    Try to read posts more thouraghly, then contemplate and see if you've understood it. Do this multiple times if you need to. If you do that you might just find yourself posting stuff that is not fallacious and actually relevant to the topic. 

    You're welcome.
    jesusisGod777

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 500 Pts
    edited August 31
    @jesusisGod777 ;

    You see, if you were able understand what I wrote you would notice that I didn't make an argument against God. Follow the tip I gave;  it might help. It's nothing to be ashamed of if you need a bit more time than other people reading posts to actually comprehend them.

    Anyway, now time for me to get back to the adults.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.


  • A religion without God is not a religion against God. To assume that someone is anti-religious or anti-God because they happen to talk about religions that don't revolve around believing in a single God or any God's is ultimately fallacious reasoning.


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

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