Re: Rebuttal pt 2cargillMarch 8 2005, 11:12:47 UTC
Now make no mistake: I am in no way saying that these ideas sprung from the divine itself - some otherworldly force that has whispered these ideas and inventions into the ears of their creators - but rather that it was men inspired by the idea of the divine who created such things in their quest to either discover the nature of the divine or to praise it's name. It's certainly easy to say that these ideas could been obtained without religion - yet the burden of proof remains with the Atheist who has only conjecture with which to base such an opinion. And it is certainly hard if not impossible to refute the level to which Religion in society has created such beautiful and splendid ideas that has enriched our culture and that of every culture around the world.
And yet with all of beauty and wonder religion has given the world through the creative works of man, one might easily try to rebuff with the initial statement - these ideas may well have been duplicated without the presence of religion. Which brings us to the next aspect of religion in society - what it does on the personal level as opposed to society as a whole. With all it’s enlightenment, atheism or a lack of religion on the whole gives man nothing. Not only does it in no way contribute to the arts and ideas of a culture, but it in no way contributes to the day to day existence of the human being. Where is your atheism consoling the man dying in bed of cancer? Where is it consoling the family around him? Where is atheism’s answer to the eternal one-word-question ‘Why?’ - the very question that drives us and plagues us on a daily basis.
Alfred North Whitehead once wrote “Philosophy begins in wonder. And, at the end, when philosophic thought has done its best, the wonder remains.” Simply put, there are no answers to the questions we all ask. There are holes, gaps, sections of existence we can’t explain. But as human beings we try, we have to try. Something within us demands that we know what exactly fits into those holes - and in those holes, gaps and sections, we put faith. We put religion. We try to explain away what no logic can. And it satiates us; it quenches the confusion.
Atheists love to quote Karl Marx who wrote “Religion is the opiate of the masses” and yet they’ll offers no answers in exchange. They can’t tell you why an opiate of the masses is a bad thing. Sure, they’ll explain that it allows the government to offer a carrot at the end of a stick - but is it not the fault of the men who would pervert religion to their own ends and not the religion itself that is inherently evil? The utopian ideal is a society that needs no laws to govern its populace, and yet, does it make Utopia evil when someone acts immorally within its society? No, it is in fact the men who would use religion to govern and not the religion itself which is inherently evil. Certainly this is why Religion has no place in government - the ability to pervert the ideas that satisfy men’s existence to the political ends and ambitions of those who would distort them is a powerful weapon. But to say that it has no place in society for this reason is like amputating the hand when it is only the finger that ails you.
It’s not harmful to think that you are here for some purpose beyond that of chemical accident. It’s not harmful to think that there is some divine presence watching over you. And it’s not harmful to think that a man suffered and died so that you may find salvation. These things are comforting to many and often inspiring. These things offer us something atheism cannot - hope when there is none. It can push men beyond the thought of mere survival - it can drive us to better ourselves, even when faced with our own mortality. It can help us deal with a life that offers only grief and become better men for it. This opiate is not a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with contentment. There’s nothing wrong with lofty ideals. And that’s what religion has to offer that no lack of it can reproduce.
Re: Rebuttal pt 3cargillMarch 8 2005, 11:13:17 UTC
Religion plays an important part in society, every society. That’s why there isn’t a society on earth free of it, that isn't founded upon it, structured around it or privy to it. Even those states that would quash it cannot destroy it. It has existed in all places at all times and will continue long after religions present incarnations are relegated to myth. It is part of the human existence, part of our history and part of our culture. It is inseparable from us in every way. And it most certainly cannot be duplicated within a hypothetical society that lacks it entirely.
Re: Rebuttal pt 3somnambulisaMarch 12 2005, 07:07:21 UTC
You've lost the point, here. You don't have to prove that religion permeates society; that's a given. The question isn't even whether it's a merit to society, it's whether its merit outweighs its demerits (which there's also no question of). Also, the question isn't wether or not religion can be duplicated in a hypothetical society that lacks religion. The question is whether any of the merits of religion are unique to it, and cannot be duplicated by other means.
Please focus on the point. I don't have time to read gibberish.
Re: Rebuttal pt 3 (clarification)somnambulisaMarch 12 2005, 16:16:59 UTC
it's whether its merit outweighs its demerits (which there's also no question of).
The parenthetical phrase refers to the preceding word "demerits" and not to the preceding phrase "its merit outweighs its demerits." I just realized that wasn't entirely clear.
Re: Rebuttal pt 2somnambulisaMarch 12 2005, 07:04:04 UTC
Not only does it in no way contribute to the arts and ideas of a culture..
Certainly there is plenty of art and ideas that were created outside of religion..
Make up your mind.
what it does on the personal level as opposed to society as a whole
That's not the subject of this debate. But if you want my opinion, a lack of religion would decrease a lot of individual-level suffering in areas of the world where religious persecution and violence is taking place, or where state-religions oppress whole classes of people in perpetuity.
Where is your atheism consoling the man dying in bed of cancer?
Again, this has little to do with the merits of religion to society. You're talking about the merits of religion to an individual, but I'll answer you: The consolations are morphine, the presence of loved ones, the ability to look back on a life that was lived with dignity, and which was appreciated and lived to the fullest, and the law of conservation of matter and energy (a scientific fact which is just as much a consolation as the Hindu's idea of escape from samsara, or the Buddhist's idea of nirvana.)
Where is religion's consolation? Where is religion's answer to the question "Why?"
Simply put, there are no answers to the questions we all ask.
By my opponent's admission, religion cannot fulfill the demand he makes of non-religion.
But as human beings we try, we have to try. Something within us demands that we know what exactly fits into those holes - and in those holes, gaps and sections, we put faith. We put religion. We try to explain away what no logic can. And it satiates us; it quenches the confusion.
Your argument has turned away from an attempt to disprove that religion's demerits outweigh its merits, and you're now focusing on the idea that religion provides benefits which cannot be duplicated by other means: answers to unanswerable questions. But such things can be duplicated by anyone or anything. If I make up an answer to the question "Why?" just to see how much money I'll make off the book, is that a religion? If I take drugs that cause me to hallucinate the answer to the question "Why?" is that religion? If I pursue the scientific investigation of extraterrestrial life, or archaeology, or genetic research, out of a desire for an answer to the question "Why?" is that religion? No, but those things duplicate what you would assert is religion's unique quality: they would provide answers to the question "Why?" or provide a platform from which to seek the answers (just as not all religions even answer that question). Religions the world over have provided answers to the question "Why" that had horrifying effects. In some cases, the end-result of the answer to that question is mass-suicide (doomsday cults). In many more cases, the answer facilitates a lack of response to, an allowance of, or direct large scale harm to others, such as priest pedophilia, death by faith healing, death by the refusal of medicine (because it's against the religion), enslavement of people (who aren't the same religion), oppression or wholesale slaughter of people (who are seen as unclean or unwanted by a religion). Because the answer to the question "Why" in most of the world's religions is that we're here as punishment, either for behavior in a past life or for original sin. The end result is masses of people willing to endure great suffering without question.. masses of people wasting the only lives they can be absolutely sure they have.
The utopian ideal is a society that needs no laws to govern its populace, and yet, does it make Utopia evil when someone acts immorally within its society?
Now you're babbling. That's a meaningless question.
Religion, as you have defined it, is a set of made-up answers to as-yet unanswerable questions. The harm in accepting these answers is the complacency that it brings. The government doesn't have to wield religion in order for religion to be the "opiate" that causes the masses to ignore injustices and endure atrocities. How can you say that "there are holes, gaps, sections of existence we can’t explain," say that religion fills those holes, and then ask how it is an opiate?
Re: Rebuttal pt 2somnambulisaMarch 12 2005, 07:04:25 UTC
It’s not harmful to think that you are here for some purpose beyond that of chemical accident. It’s not harmful to think that there is some divine presence watching over you. And it’s not harmful to think that a man suffered and died so that you may find salvation. These things are comforting to many and often inspiring. These things offer us something atheism cannot - hope when there is none.
It's not necessarily even religion to think that you are here for some purpose beyond that of chemical accident. There are many people without religion who feel they have a purpose in life, such as simply enjoying themselves, passing on their DNA, or making the people around them a little happier for having known them. As for "thinking that a divine presence is watching over you," that can be duplicated by mental illness or drugs. The idea that a man suffered and died so that you may find salvation is not common to very many religions - only one, which I can think of. What's next, are you going to tell me that nothing but religion can duplicate the belief that a coyote helped create the world? Because even that's not true. There are people in mental institutions who believe much more specific fantasies than that. Are they practicing religion?
It can push men beyond the thought of mere survival - it can drive us to better ourselves, even when faced with our own mortality. It can help us deal with a life that offers only grief and become better men for it. This opiate is not a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with contentment. There’s nothing wrong with lofty ideals. And that’s what religion has to offer that no lack of it can reproduce.
You know what else can push men beyond the thought of mere survival and drive us to better ourselves? Quite a few things, but I just want to name one big one: The desire to fill those "holes and gaps" that you say faith in religion covers up. And my contention with your last "nonduplicatable" is that you ignore the fact that religion helps people resign themselves to a life that offers only grief, and that's also duplicatable -- by opium, in fact. You've yet to list a benefit offered by religion that cannot be duplicated by mental illness, chemicals, a feeling of self-worth, natural curiosity, appreciation of life, hoaxing or scientific inquiry.
And yet with all of beauty and wonder religion has given the world through the creative works of man, one might easily try to rebuff with the initial statement - these ideas may well have been duplicated without the presence of religion. Which brings us to the next aspect of religion in society - what it does on the personal level as opposed to society as a whole. With all it’s enlightenment, atheism or a lack of religion on the whole gives man nothing. Not only does it in no way contribute to the arts and ideas of a culture, but it in no way contributes to the day to day existence of the human being. Where is your atheism consoling the man dying in bed of cancer? Where is it consoling the family around him? Where is atheism’s answer to the eternal one-word-question ‘Why?’ - the very question that drives us and plagues us on a daily basis.
Alfred North Whitehead once wrote “Philosophy begins in wonder. And, at the end, when philosophic thought has done its best, the wonder remains.” Simply put, there are no answers to the questions we all ask. There are holes, gaps, sections of existence we can’t explain. But as human beings we try, we have to try. Something within us demands that we know what exactly fits into those holes - and in those holes, gaps and sections, we put faith. We put religion. We try to explain away what no logic can. And it satiates us; it quenches the confusion.
Atheists love to quote Karl Marx who wrote “Religion is the opiate of the masses” and yet they’ll offers no answers in exchange. They can’t tell you why an opiate of the masses is a bad thing. Sure, they’ll explain that it allows the government to offer a carrot at the end of a stick - but is it not the fault of the men who would pervert religion to their own ends and not the religion itself that is inherently evil? The utopian ideal is a society that needs no laws to govern its populace, and yet, does it make Utopia evil when someone acts immorally within its society? No, it is in fact the men who would use religion to govern and not the religion itself which is inherently evil. Certainly this is why Religion has no place in government - the ability to pervert the ideas that satisfy men’s existence to the political ends and ambitions of those who would distort them is a powerful weapon. But to say that it has no place in society for this reason is like amputating the hand when it is only the finger that ails you.
It’s not harmful to think that you are here for some purpose beyond that of chemical accident. It’s not harmful to think that there is some divine presence watching over you. And it’s not harmful to think that a man suffered and died so that you may find salvation. These things are comforting to many and often inspiring. These things offer us something atheism cannot - hope when there is none. It can push men beyond the thought of mere survival - it can drive us to better ourselves, even when faced with our own mortality. It can help us deal with a life that offers only grief and become better men for it. This opiate is not a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with contentment. There’s nothing wrong with lofty ideals. And that’s what religion has to offer that no lack of it can reproduce.
Reply
Reply
Please focus on the point. I don't have time to read gibberish.
Reply
The parenthetical phrase refers to the preceding word "demerits" and not to the preceding phrase "its merit outweighs its demerits." I just realized that wasn't entirely clear.
Reply
Certainly there is plenty of art and ideas that were created outside of religion..
Make up your mind.
what it does on the personal level as opposed to society as a whole
That's not the subject of this debate. But if you want my opinion, a lack of religion would decrease a lot of individual-level suffering in areas of the world where religious persecution and violence is taking place, or where state-religions oppress whole classes of people in perpetuity.
Where is your atheism consoling the man dying in bed of cancer?
Again, this has little to do with the merits of religion to society. You're talking about the merits of religion to an individual, but I'll answer you: The consolations are morphine, the presence of loved ones, the ability to look back on a life that was lived with dignity, and which was appreciated and lived to the fullest, and the law of conservation of matter and energy (a scientific fact which is just as much a consolation as the Hindu's idea of escape from samsara, or the Buddhist's idea of nirvana.)
Where is religion's consolation? Where is religion's answer to the question "Why?"
Simply put, there are no answers to the questions we all ask.
By my opponent's admission, religion cannot fulfill the demand he makes of non-religion.
But as human beings we try, we have to try. Something within us demands that we know what exactly fits into those holes - and in those holes, gaps and sections, we put faith. We put religion. We try to explain away what no logic can. And it satiates us; it quenches the confusion.
Your argument has turned away from an attempt to disprove that religion's demerits outweigh its merits, and you're now focusing on the idea that religion provides benefits which cannot be duplicated by other means: answers to unanswerable questions. But such things can be duplicated by anyone or anything. If I make up an answer to the question "Why?" just to see how much money I'll make off the book, is that a religion? If I take drugs that cause me to hallucinate the answer to the question "Why?" is that religion? If I pursue the scientific investigation of extraterrestrial life, or archaeology, or genetic research, out of a desire for an answer to the question "Why?" is that religion? No, but those things duplicate what you would assert is religion's unique quality: they would provide answers to the question "Why?" or provide a platform from which to seek the answers (just as not all religions even answer that question).
Religions the world over have provided answers to the question "Why" that had horrifying effects. In some cases, the end-result of the answer to that question is mass-suicide (doomsday cults). In many more cases, the answer facilitates a lack of response to, an allowance of, or direct large scale harm to others, such as priest pedophilia, death by faith healing, death by the refusal of medicine (because it's against the religion), enslavement of people (who aren't the same religion), oppression or wholesale slaughter of people (who are seen as unclean or unwanted by a religion). Because the answer to the question "Why" in most of the world's religions is that we're here as punishment, either for behavior in a past life or for original sin. The end result is masses of people willing to endure great suffering without question.. masses of people wasting the only lives they can be absolutely sure they have.
The utopian ideal is a society that needs no laws to govern its populace, and yet, does it make Utopia evil when someone acts immorally within its society?
Now you're babbling. That's a meaningless question.
Religion, as you have defined it, is a set of made-up answers to as-yet unanswerable questions. The harm in accepting these answers is the complacency that it brings. The government doesn't have to wield religion in order for religion to be the "opiate" that causes the masses to ignore injustices and endure atrocities. How can you say that "there are holes, gaps, sections of existence we can’t explain," say that religion fills those holes, and then ask how it is an opiate?
Reply
It's not necessarily even religion to think that you are here for some purpose beyond that of chemical accident. There are many people without religion who feel they have a purpose in life, such as simply enjoying themselves, passing on their DNA, or making the people around them a little happier for having known them. As for "thinking that a divine presence is watching over you," that can be duplicated by mental illness or drugs. The idea that a man suffered and died so that you may find salvation is not common to very many religions - only one, which I can think of. What's next, are you going to tell me that nothing but religion can duplicate the belief that a coyote helped create the world? Because even that's not true. There are people in mental institutions who believe much more specific fantasies than that. Are they practicing religion?
It can push men beyond the thought of mere survival - it can drive us to better ourselves, even when faced with our own mortality. It can help us deal with a life that offers only grief and become better men for it. This opiate is not a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with contentment. There’s nothing wrong with lofty ideals. And that’s what religion has to offer that no lack of it can reproduce.
You know what else can push men beyond the thought of mere survival and drive us to better ourselves? Quite a few things, but I just want to name one big one: The desire to fill those "holes and gaps" that you say faith in religion covers up. And my contention with your last "nonduplicatable" is that you ignore the fact that religion helps people resign themselves to a life that offers only grief, and that's also duplicatable -- by opium, in fact. You've yet to list a benefit offered by religion that cannot be duplicated by mental illness, chemicals, a feeling of self-worth, natural curiosity, appreciation of life, hoaxing or scientific inquiry.
Reply
Leave a comment