'Society Needs Religion' Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
A ideal society doesn’t need religion. In such a society people treat one another with mutual respect for the sake of the act itself, and for the positive outcomes it creates for society as a whole. They don’t need to believe in supernatural entities in order to do this. By grounding themselves in reality, they circumvent the inevitable god wars that have plagued humanity during our entire history of creating religions to explain what we don’t understand.

Then again, the ideal society is a dream rather than reality. Many actually do need religion in order to treat others with respect, and thus society benefits in that regard from religion.

Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes.[/quote]

LOL!!!

Religion is many things, but a numbing opiate it’s not. And Marx is and was a complete idiot. Everything he said was wrong. [/quote]

Religion is a drug that helps people be nice to each other. It is also a drug that helps people kill each other. Kinda like how alcohol creates happy drunks and violent drunks, depending on the person and the amount of alcohol.

Which is why I can’t categorically embrace or condemn religion. It has both positive and negative effects on society.
[/quote]

Uh no it’s not. If people are nice to each other it would be a side effect it’s not a Dale Carnegie course in how to win friends and influence people.

22

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
A ideal society doesn’t need religion. In such a society people treat one another with mutual respect for the sake of the act itself, and for the positive outcomes it creates for society as a whole. They don’t need to believe in supernatural entities in order to do this. By grounding themselves in reality, they circumvent the inevitable god wars that have plagued humanity during our entire history of creating religions to explain what we don’t understand.

Then again, the ideal society is a dream rather than reality. Many actually do need religion in order to treat others with respect, and thus society benefits in that regard from religion.

Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes.[/quote]

“respect” and “positive” are derived supernaturally. In order to have a “positive” societal outcome, you must first define a universal positive direction. You can’t have people pull together in the same direction without it. And you can’t arrive at one without the supernatural.

If it’s individually defined, all moral codes break down in society by simple disagreement. While it is often argued that the absoluteness of a religious belief is a weakness that doesn’t allow flexibility, the other side of the coin has the opposite, and IMO much more severe, problem.

You even mentioned in on of the other threads, that you have, and your perfect world requires, faith in right and wrong. That is a religious belief. You are just too biased against the notion of religion to see it. You have faith in a universal moral code. It doesn’t get any more religious and supernatural than that.

Not to mention you are on here just to argue, and are presenting and arguing the opposite of what the OP asked about.[/quote]

People get confused about this all the time, but Sloth is the main offender :wink:

Metaphysical <> Supernatural

Numbers are metaphysical. Numbers are not supernatural. Emotions are metaphysical. Emotions are not supernatural. Values are metaphysical. Values are not supernatural.

Numbers, emotions, and values don’t require a supernatural being in order to exist metaphysically. None of these things implies or requires the supernatural.

23

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
A ideal society doesn’t need religion. In such a society people treat one another with mutual respect for the sake of the act itself, and for the positive outcomes it creates for society as a whole. They don’t need to believe in supernatural entities in order to do this. By grounding themselves in reality, they circumvent the inevitable god wars that have plagued humanity during our entire history of creating religions to explain what we don’t understand.

Then again, the ideal society is a dream rather than reality. Many actually do need religion in order to treat others with respect, and thus society benefits in that regard from religion.

Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes.[/quote]

“respect” and “positive” are derived supernaturally. In order to have a “positive” societal outcome, you must first define a universal positive direction. You can’t have people pull together in the same direction without it. And you can’t arrive at one without the supernatural.

If it’s individually defined, all moral codes break down in society by simple disagreement. While it is often argued that the absoluteness of a religious belief is a weakness that doesn’t allow flexibility, the other side of the coin has the opposite, and IMO much more severe, problem.

You even mentioned in on of the other threads, that you have, and your perfect world requires, faith in right and wrong. That is a religious belief. You are just too biased against the notion of religion to see it. You have faith in a universal moral code. It doesn’t get any more religious and supernatural than that.

Not to mention you are on here just to argue, and are presenting and arguing the opposite of what the OP asked about.[/quote]

People get confused about this all the time, but Sloth is the main offender :wink:

Metaphysical <> Supernatural

Numbers are metaphysical. Numbers are not supernatural. Emotions are metaphysical. Emotions are not supernatural. Values are metaphysical. Values are not supernatural.

Numbers, emotions, and values don’t require a supernatural being in order to exist metaphysically. None of these things implies or requires the supernatural.[/quote]

Explain the difference.

You are saying that a universal morality is not supernatural?

It’s also important to note that none of those things you listed exist physically. The webster definition of supernatural is: “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe”.

You are now getting into semantic games instead of addressing the issue.

You believe in and place your FAITH (from your own posting) in things that do not exist as a part of this universe and for which there is no evidence or justification.

You are more dogmatic and religious than many “Christians” I know.

And yes, Believing in metaphysical numbers would be just as supernatural as believing in a creator. Numbers don’t equate to religion only because people, including yourself, don’t believe in them. NOT because of any particular non-supernatural-ness of numbers. If I were to believe in the actual existence of abstract numbers, then yes that’s a supernatural belief. You are going to tell me that if I claimed the number 2 was a real thing, and not just a symbol or a concept, you’d be okay with that because numbers are metaphysical, not supernatural?

24

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
A ideal society doesn’t need religion. In such a society people treat one another with mutual respect for the sake of the act itself, and for the positive outcomes it creates for society as a whole. They don’t need to believe in supernatural entities in order to do this. By grounding themselves in reality, they circumvent the inevitable god wars that have plagued humanity during our entire history of creating religions to explain what we don’t understand.

Then again, the ideal society is a dream rather than reality. Many actually do need religion in order to treat others with respect, and thus society benefits in that regard from religion.

Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes.[/quote]

LOL!!!

Religion is many things, but a numbing opiate it’s not. And Marx is and was a complete idiot. Everything he said was wrong. [/quote]

Religion is a drug that helps people be nice to each other. It is also a drug that helps people kill each other. Kinda like how alcohol creates happy drunks and violent drunks, depending on the person and the amount of alcohol.

Which is why I can’t categorically embrace or condemn religion. It has both positive and negative effects on society.
[/quote]

Uh no it’s not. If people are nice to each other it would be a side effect it’s not a Dale Carnegie course in how to win friends and influence people.[/quote]

I thought Catholics believed in following Christ’s commandment to love one another as he has loved us, and that in fact the entire law hangs on the commandment to love god and to love your fellow men? If your religious belief doesn’t motivate you to love and serve other people, what is the point?

I thought you knew me better than this. For the record, I have never claimed all religious people need religion in order to treat one another with respect. There are many that are mature enough to continue treating people with respect, even if their religious beliefs were proven to be a fairy tale. I was referring to those who, if their religion were proven false, would stop treating others with respect.

Some of the believers on this board have argued that anarchy would ensue in the absence of religion, and for a portion of the population they would be right.

25

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
A ideal society doesn’t need religion. In such a society people treat one another with mutual respect for the sake of the act itself, and for the positive outcomes it creates for society as a whole. They don’t need to believe in supernatural entities in order to do this. By grounding themselves in reality, they circumvent the inevitable god wars that have plagued humanity during our entire history of creating religions to explain what we don’t understand.

Then again, the ideal society is a dream rather than reality. Many actually do need religion in order to treat others with respect, and thus society benefits in that regard from religion.

Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes.[/quote]

“respect” and “positive” are derived supernaturally. In order to have a “positive” societal outcome, you must first define a universal positive direction. You can’t have people pull together in the same direction without it. And you can’t arrive at one without the supernatural.

If it’s individually defined, all moral codes break down in society by simple disagreement. While it is often argued that the absoluteness of a religious belief is a weakness that doesn’t allow flexibility, the other side of the coin has the opposite, and IMO much more severe, problem.

You even mentioned in on of the other threads, that you have, and your perfect world requires, faith in right and wrong. That is a religious belief. You are just too biased against the notion of religion to see it. You have faith in a universal moral code. It doesn’t get any more religious and supernatural than that.

Not to mention you are on here just to argue, and are presenting and arguing the opposite of what the OP asked about.[/quote]

People get confused about this all the time, but Sloth is the main offender :wink:

Metaphysical <> Supernatural

Numbers are metaphysical. Numbers are not supernatural. Emotions are metaphysical. Emotions are not supernatural. Values are metaphysical. Values are not supernatural.

Numbers, emotions, and values don’t require a supernatural being in order to exist metaphysically. None of these things implies or requires the supernatural.[/quote]

Explain the difference.

You are saying that a universal morality is not supernatural?

It’s also important to note that none of those things you listed exist physically. The webster definition of supernatural is: “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe”.

You are now getting into semantic games instead of addressing the issue.

You believe in and place your FAITH (from your own posting) in things that do not exist as a part of this universe and for which there is no evidence or justification.

You are more dogmatic and religious than many “Christians” I know.

And yes, Believing in metaphysical numbers would be just as supernatural as believing in a creator. Numbers don’t equate to religion only because people, including yourself, don’t believe in them. NOT because of any particular non-supernatural-ness of numbers. If I were to believe in the actual existence of abstract numbers, then yes that’s a supernatural belief. You are going to tell me that if I claimed the number 2 was a real thing, and not just a symbol or a concept, you’d be okay with that because numbers are metaphysical, not supernatural?[/quote]

I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.

If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?

26

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.

If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?[/quote]

No, emotions don’t exist in any way shape or form. They are abstract concepts.

So, they exist somehow. Okay. Prove the number 1. Prove happy. Prove beauty. Prove right.

27

Maybe it would help if you just typed out your definitions for metaphysical and supernatural.

28

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
A ideal society doesn’t need religion. In such a society people treat one another with mutual respect for the sake of the act itself, and for the positive outcomes it creates for society as a whole. They don’t need to believe in supernatural entities in order to do this. By grounding themselves in reality, they circumvent the inevitable god wars that have plagued humanity during our entire history of creating religions to explain what we don’t understand.

Then again, the ideal society is a dream rather than reality. Many actually do need religion in order to treat others with respect, and thus society benefits in that regard from religion.

Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes.[/quote]

“respect” and “positive” are derived supernaturally. In order to have a “positive” societal outcome, you must first define a universal positive direction. You can’t have people pull together in the same direction without it. And you can’t arrive at one without the supernatural.

If it’s individually defined, all moral codes break down in society by simple disagreement. While it is often argued that the absoluteness of a religious belief is a weakness that doesn’t allow flexibility, the other side of the coin has the opposite, and IMO much more severe, problem.

You even mentioned in on of the other threads, that you have, and your perfect world requires, faith in right and wrong. That is a religious belief. You are just too biased against the notion of religion to see it. You have faith in a universal moral code. It doesn’t get any more religious and supernatural than that.

Not to mention you are on here just to argue, and are presenting and arguing the opposite of what the OP asked about.[/quote]

People get confused about this all the time, but Sloth is the main offender :wink:

Metaphysical <> Supernatural

Numbers are metaphysical. Numbers are not supernatural. Emotions are metaphysical. Emotions are not supernatural. Values are metaphysical. Values are not supernatural.

Numbers, emotions, and values don’t require a supernatural being in order to exist metaphysically. None of these things implies or requires the supernatural.[/quote]

Explain the difference.

You are saying that a universal morality is not supernatural?

It’s also important to note that none of those things you listed exist physically. The webster definition of supernatural is: “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe”.

You are now getting into semantic games instead of addressing the issue.

You believe in and place your FAITH (from your own posting) in things that do not exist as a part of this universe and for which there is no evidence or justification.

You are more dogmatic and religious than many “Christians” I know.

And yes, Believing in metaphysical numbers would be just as supernatural as believing in a creator. Numbers don’t equate to religion only because people, including yourself, don’t believe in them. NOT because of any particular non-supernatural-ness of numbers. If I were to believe in the actual existence of abstract numbers, then yes that’s a supernatural belief. You are going to tell me that if I claimed the number 2 was a real thing, and not just a symbol or a concept, you’d be okay with that because numbers are metaphysical, not supernatural?[/quote]

He’s on ignore, but since I see you’re responding to something involving myself…No, I’ve never said emotions are supernatural, if that was the implication.

29

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.

If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?[/quote]

No, emotions don’t exist in any way shape or form. They are abstract concepts.

So, they exist somehow. Okay. Prove the number 1. Prove happy. Prove beauty. Prove right.[/quote]

If rage doesn’t exist, then what is it? An illusion?

Emotions, numbers, letters, concepts, values, attitudes, theories, etc. all exist but they are abstract rather than concrete objects. It’s tempting to think that because something is abstract it isn’t real or it isn’t natural, but in metaphysics that isn’t the case.

30

[quote]Cathall L DW wrote:
Got asked to take part in a college society debate in proposition of the motion, “This house needs religion”, next week. Was hoping that you guys could help me out and give me some arguments that I might be able to use.

PLEASE PLEASE don’t make THIS a forum for debate, that’s not what Im looking to do I just need some help in writing a speech.

Some points I’m thinking of making are

that as long as there has been society, human awareness and the capacity of complex human thought there has been religion and so the 2 simply can’t do without one another
that most of the best second level educational institutions (here in Ireland anyway) are religiously associated, and particularly associated with the Jesuit order
thinking of maybe ending with something along the lines of, in and incresingly atheistic society we have invented a new religion called corporate banking blah blah blah… and our new Gods are the stock and financial markets blah blah blah

Would really appreciate any tips, haven’t publically spoken in quite a while

Cheers lads!![/quote]

Ask them if rape is evil, beyond whatever preference can be enforced. If they say yes, they’ve given up the argument against faith. If they say no, they’ve given up the argument, and supernatural faith is important for humanity. Let those who say no explain to their female classmates that rape, and pedophilia, is nothing but individual preference, subjective. That the inherent evil of those doesn’t exist. There’s why society needs religion. The longer it talks as if the evilness of those acts aren’t a reality, the more and more it, society, will reflect as much.

Ask them if their rights are inherent and inalienable, regardless of what any government says. If they say yes, they made room for faith in the supernatural. If not, never let any of them win a seat in government.

31

“Pedophilia IS evil.”

“Man has inalienable rights.”

vs.

“Evil is not real. Only preferences exist.”

“Man has no rights inherent to himself. His right are properly defined by the preferences of society. In whatever way they will define it.”

One is a solid foundation.

One is sand.

Now go get that A!

32

Back on topic…

I think religion was absolutely necessary for our species. It provided a stepping stone to the concepts of morality. Unfortunately, its inability to change for anything but its own short term survival is condemning it to become obsolete over the long term.

Another problem religion has is natural competitors, which fosters behavior similar to tribal warfare, but on a much larger scale (see Hindus and Muslims in India/Pakistan). We are now at a stage where we need to see if religion is useful anymore, or suited to a slow phasing out to be replaced by philosophical debate on ethics and morality. That is not to say “burn all the religious books!”, but rather to ignore the concept of organized religion and judge the teachings of others (Buddha, Jesus, Confucius) on their own merits, and not obscure them with religious “interpretation”.

Maybe one day we will understand why it is that we can call some parts of holy books a guide on morality (prohibitions on stealing and killing) and discard the other parts (beating children, selling women) as trash. Personally, I think morality is a built in mechanism which is similar/the same across most people, with the exception of sociopaths.

37

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I did not notice that he was from Ireland…

[/quote]

Of course you didn’t which is precisely why I said you had a reading comprehension problem.

[quote]Cathall L DW wrote:
…(here in Ireland anyway)… [/quote]

[/quote]

I am sorry I thought the conversation was about Religion , Just curious what is your point?

I am really not sorry FUCK You, little twit I hope you understand that

38

As a quick aside to Mak…this is kinda what I meant about atheists that are activists not being able to let things lie. Though I freely admit the guy was kinda asking for it by posting in a discussion forum and not seeking discussion. So I disagree with your position for sure, but don’t give people easy targets if you want to argue it in a debate.

Don’t say its necessary for morality that there be religion for example. Easy to knock off by positing moral systems that the religious man might not agree with, but don’t pin yourself down like this.

Don’t appeal to tradition its going to be considered a fallacy in a logical debate. However its a fine technique if you want to convince people that come from a similar background as you.

I’d try to stay as nondenominational as you can or posit something close to the Quakers and their nonviolent stance.

If you are trying to convince people in fact I’d spend much less time on the logic of your argument and much more on your approach. Is it a traditional debate thats judged or are you trying to convince your peers to agree with you? If its the latter if possible to do and not look like a freak touch the people you are trying to convince conversationally. Try to create as much similarity with them as you can same name bring it up etc. Try to monitor and reflect their emotional state…though this is a hard one if it doesn’t come naturally.

Arguments in an internet forum are largely never going to convince people because you can’t bring to bear any psychological techniques that will help sway people. You are stuck only with logic and no emotion or tradition if the readership is broad.

As a way aside there are certainly brain states associated with things like happy or facial expressions that seem to effect the emotion as much as the emotion effects the expression, but I think to try to bring down happy to a physical state only misses the point of happy. Or love. I think its a sad man that needs happy and love proven to him and likely not worth the effort.

40

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.

If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?[/quote]

No, emotions don’t exist in any way shape or form. They are abstract concepts.

So, they exist somehow. Okay. Prove the number 1. Prove happy. Prove beauty. Prove right.[/quote]

If rage doesn’t exist, then what is it? An illusion?

Emotions, numbers, letters, concepts, values, attitudes, theories, etc. all exist but they are abstract rather than concrete objects. It’s tempting to think that because something is abstract it isn’t real or it isn’t natural, but in metaphysics that isn’t the case.[/quote]

No, they do not exist. They are not a part of the physical universe. Period. Please define your words like I asked. I don’t think you honestly know what they mean.

No abstract concept is, in any way, real.

What you fail to realize is that Being minus the supernatural equals the physical and only the physical. Value is not a thing. It is not defined or governed by any component of the universe. There are only passing electrons in your brain. Without god, we are chemical machines indistinct from a metal rod oxidizing into rust. You are a pretty smart guy and I’m torn between believing your lack of realization about your own beliefs is willful ignorance or if you are just barely short on introspection.

There is no rational distinction between believing an abstract concept ACTUALLY exists and believing that a God does. You start throwing around blatant contradictions claiming things exist, but not in the universe, and they aren’t supernatural. You then use terminology to try to hide the contradiction and refuse to actually assign definitions to that terminology, I can only assume because that would reveal the contradiction. You actually believe in the number 2 independently from electrical pulses in your brain? The number 2 exists? Not 2 apples, or 2 nickles, but the number itself.

I do honestly believe that religion in the past has been harmful to you. But I also think your hatred for it has made you obtuse and close minded about God. You absolutely refuse to let any light in for fear it would betray your ideological revenge on anything related to God.

I know I don’t really open up about my own personal belief as much as some on this board. I normally keep my dogma to myself and speak on these things in very general terms, but I really do pray for you. You must have been deeply wounded in the past to build up your wall as fully as you have.