The Official CC Debate Thread!

[Wartsandall]

I can't comprehend why you are stating it's not beneficial. Didn't you state earlier that it keeps people sane and gives them something to believe in? I would believe religion is optimistic. It gives people something to look forward to, something positive aside from the world we have been accostumed to. I don't know if you would agree to this, but the world that we live in isn't sympathetic. Religion allows individuals to possess an alternative outlook. It enables people to look forward to an alternative lifestyle, something that would in turn make people optimistic. You don't believe in a religion because you don't believe it's beneficial, yet is being atheist any better?

Also(I posted at a similar time as the poster above), ^I agree. Those who are devoted to a particular religion follow some form of guidelines that generally attribute to the benefit of society.

[applicannot]

Yes and no. Belief gives people something to believe in. It keeps them sane if they have a difficult life and are unable, via their oppressors, to find joy in anything but solace after death. That's fine. However, religion itself is a set of practices and guidelines FOR BELIEVERS. I do not think that religion is net positive. Religion itself defines many negative things. For example, religion has helped define an overtly patriarchal society (in Christianity, for example, women are spiritually inferior to men; in Islam, women are spiritually equal but men and women are relegated to different tasks in the material world, placing men over women). Religion itself also condemns certain practices, like homosexuality, while promoting others, such as slavery and evangelicalism (and in some cases, violent evangelicalism). Religious extremists further pervert religion. So what religion contributes positively to the world doesn't balance with what religion and the religious contribute negatively to the world. That's not to say that all elements of religion are bad, or that in some ways religion has been good for human development.

Religion isn't optimistic. IF you follow the rules, religion has an optimistic view: you will go to heaven. But for everyone else? Nada. You get to burn in HELL. That's hardly optimistic. I don't believe in marriage or waiting for marriage to have sex. I also don't agree with a host of other Christian practice, or Islamic practices. Therefore, religion is pessimistic because I'm going to hell. So religion is optimistic IF you believe in its tenants. And I believe some of the tenants, and certainly the people who pervert them, are negative. Therefore, I don't feel that religion is optimistic OR beneficial.

Islam can attribute to the benefit of society in the form of the jizya, or charitable contribution, but I do not feel that that makes up for the treatment of women by the religious. Similarly, the religious of Catholicism can promote the stature of women but that does not forgive the position relegated to them by the Bible. So you can separate religion and the acts of the religious, but ultimately I feel there is a net negative.

I don't "don't believe in a religion because [i] don't believe it's beneficial," so that's not why I chose atheism (technically atheistic agnosticism). I'm not a believer because I don't believe in the supernatural, therefore I don't believe in God. I'm anti-religious because religion is more negative than positive. That's not to say atheism could never be perverted - which is why I'm an atheistic agnostic, rather than an atheist (since atheism IS the lack of belief in God, therefore IS a belief in something). Generally, though, it's easier to say I'm an atheist, if I've mentioned it before. Like it's easier to say you're Catholic or Protestant rather than, you know, Southern Baptist.

[Wartsandall]

I like to think of it from a different perspective. If the whole world was religious, let's say Christian, do you believe that there would be less crime and torment as opposed to if the whole world was atheist? From my perspective, if the whole world was atheist, less people would care about the outcome of crime, and would in turn commit more of it. After all, who cares? It's not like they will burn or face consequences after death. They will die equally to everyone else. I'd like to believe that those who have conducted good lives would be benefited more so than those who have led lives full of murder and hatred. Also, you stated that religious aspects are relevant to slavery. I'm in opposition to this statement. How are religious people promoting slavery? Being religious, I believe that we are all equal, and that as long as individuals conducts beneficial lives in the name of God, we will be benefited. Does that sound like I'm promoting slavery or hatred of specific kinds of people? Every religious person that I know doesn't encourage those actions.

I'm curious to know why you believe a religion like Christianity is degrading women? Are women not treated equally as men? I comprehend now that you are referring to religion itself on society. It is solely pessimistic for those who don't believe in it, I agree with you on that statement. It actually makes sense though. After all, why should those who are in opposition to something be benefited? Again, as I've claimed, it's all about perception. You believe religion isn't beneficial to society and I do. You will likely be in opposition to it for the remainder of your life, while I will likely be in favor of it. Sometimes it's ok for people to believe in something without proof. In modern times people are so set on having proof to everything, having a logical answer. Sometimes it's solely about perception.

[applicannot]

I like to think of it from a different perspective. If the whole world was religious, let's say Christian, do you believe that there would be less crime and torment as opposed to if the whole world was atheist? From my perspective, if the whole world was atheist, less people would care about the outcome of crime, and would in turn commit more of it. After all, who cares? It's not like they will burn or face consequences after death.

I don't think the world would be more or less violent if the WHOLE WORLD was atheist or Christian. Consider the bitter wars that go in the world with religious undertones. That doesn't go away with a world that is all the same: the undertones become political. If anything, the world would be equally less violent because there would be no religious disputes (until religious sects developed, which wouldn't take long, but I'm assuming you meant all the same KIND of Christian or atheist). Atheists would commit crime, just as Christians would. However, atheists wouldn't "just commit crimes." First of all, atheists have morals. So, just as with Christians, only atheists would commit crimes if their morality was corrupt. Atheists have a more tangible form a punishment for committing crimes, though: punishment in LIFE. Non-spiritual atheists probably don't believe in an afterlife. This means they have to make the most of their one life. There's no Jesus to save them from 30 years in prison. If a Christian commits a sin that happens to also be a crime, he or she goes to jail, but is ultimately redeemed; i.e., he or she gets a second chance. Not true for non-spiritual atheists. I don't commit crimes now because I think I'm going to heaven. I don't commit crimes because I'm morally opposed to doing so. I wouldn't magically start committing crimes if everyone were atheist.

Also, you stated that religious aspects are relevant to slavery. I'm in opposition to this statement. How are religious people promoting slavery? Being religious, I believe that we are all equal, and that as long as individuals conducts beneficial lives in the name of God, we will be benefited. Does that sound like I'm promoting slavery or hatred of specific kinds of people? Every religious person that I know doesn't encourage those actions.

We need to make two distinctions here.

1. RELIGION promotes slavery. Christianity for example:

2. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE promote hatred for certain groups. The Muslims and the Christians have hated each other for over fifteen hundred years. Pretty much everyone has hated the Jews for one reason or another at one point (as an interesting anecdote, I find Judaism to be the most valid monotheistic religion). Some religious people hate gay people. Religion itself certainly condemns homosexuality, but religious people take it to another level.

I'm curious to know why you believe a religion like Christianity is degrading women? Are women not treated equally as men?

Women are not treated equally as men. Let me use my most researched examples, Christianity and Islam.

1. CHRISTIANITY. In Christianity, women are spiritually lesser than men. They are also treated as lesser than men. For example:

Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure."

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of any daughter is a loss." (New Jerusalem)

Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days."

2. ISLAM. Men and women were spiritually equal, but women were inferior in the material world.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. (The Noble Quran 4:34)"

I comprehend now that you are referring to religion itself on society. It is solely pessimistic for those who don't believe in it, I agree with you on that statement. It actually makes sense though. After all, why should those who are in opposition to something be benefited?

All people are different. If someone that one group believes in promotes the persecution or otherwise pessimistic action on another group, such as the Muslim Conquests or the Christian Crusades or the Holocaust, I don't agree with it.

You believe religion isn't beneficial to society and I do. You will likely be in opposition to it for the remainder of your life, while I will likely be in favor of it. Sometimes it's ok for people to believe in something without proof. In modern times people are so set on having proof to everything, having a logical answer. Sometimes it's solely about perception.

I have to agree with you here, except that I don't sanction belief without the tiniest glimmer of proof. I don't believe in Santa Claus and I don't believe in God. Do I rule out a higher power all together? No, that's what makes me an atheistic agnostic. But am I going to believe in God because a two thousand year old compilation of stories that has been changed numerous times over the years tells me to do so? No way. Could I have faith in something higher than myself, or some kind of afterlife? If I were a spiritual person, sure.

[StellaNova]

If the whole world was religious, let's say Christian, do you believe that there would be less crime and torment as opposed to if the whole world was atheist?

I'm inclined to think that if everyone was religious, they would be more apathetic about their lives. Who cares about your 80-year blip on earth compared to the eternity of the afterlife? This is why the serfs of the Middle Ages tolerated everything they were subjected to - they thought their lives were only preparation for heaven (or hell).

The Puritans were a uniformly religious society. Sure, there was probably less crime, but can you honestly say that their lives were better?

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

Religion itself defines many negative things. For example, religion has helped define an overtly patriarchal society (in Christianity, for example, women are spiritually inferior to men; in Islam, women are spiritually equal but men and women are relegated to different tasks in the material world, placing men over women). Religion itself also condemns certain practices, like homosexuality, while promoting others, such as slavery and evangelicalism (and in some cases, violent evangelicalism).

It's just silly to blame religion for things that have and would happen in its absents. It's just human (perhaps even animal) nature to dislike things that are different. If Religion disappeared there would be plenty of other things just waiting for people to fight over.

And if you're going to say that Christianity promotes slavery it would be only fair to point out its vital role in the abolition of slavery. I'm not sure why you think there's anything innately wrong with evangelism, apart from the typical atheist irony.

[Wartsandall]

^^^I'll respond to that tomorrow(I need time to think about it)
^^I don't believe in the Puritan's methods. They based who received control in government on those who had proof of divine contact(something that can't be proven). However, they made the choice to formulate that group. They were being persecuted in Europe, so yes, I believe that for them, their lives were better. The New World provided them with an alternative opportunity(though, like I stated, I don't believe in their methods).

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

The Puritans were a uniformly religious society. Sure, there was probably less crime, but can you honestly say that their lives were better?

Can you honestly say it wasn't? Technology and wealth is a much bigger limiting factor there.

[applicannot]

I don't have a problem with evangelism. I DO have a problem with evangelism when it comes violent, forced, or generally unwanted. And evangelism gets that way. Knocking on doors is one thing. Relegating Native Americans to missions or selling pagans into slavery is no evangelism I'll support. And yes, those actions come about because Christianity is inherently evangelical (as is Islam). Judaism is not, for example, and so the Jews are generally the victims rather than the persecutors. I'm sure there are atheists out there who are out to get you to stop believing in God. Kind of stupid, isn't it? I definitely want to cause you to question your beliefs, your religion, and religious history, if to strengthen OR weaken your beliefs. And hopefully you'll do the same for me. I liked the description of God being an unimaginable force rather than a supreme being in this thread, for example. I'm anti-religious because of the forced actions that occur and the negative aspects of religion.

[Wartsandall]

^That's exactly what I was thinking. This thread really affirms and strengthens one's beliefs. It redefines why an individual believes in something. What do you mean by forced actions though? Based off of your understanding of the religion, why would you believe the Ten Commandments(for example) are wrong? I personally believe that rules like don't lie, kill, etc. are beneficial.

[theReach]

Originally Posted by ThisCouldBeHeavn

It's just human (perhaps even animal) nature to dislike things that are different.

No its not, you are speaking for yourself. But if that's what you think, than you're just spouting typical intolerant religious bigotry.

Originally Posted by ThisCouldBeHeavn

And if you're going to say that Christianity promotes slavery it would be only fair to point out its vital role in the abolition of slavery.

You mean, abolition of slavery in the UNITED STATES. Slavery was abolished in many European countries long before Christianity was a dominant power. And your argument is wrong. Slavery was justified by all of the Southern churches for hundreds of years before abolitionists, most who were not influenced by the newer Christian beliefs, began arguing for abolition.

[dunbar]

You mean, abolition of slavery in the UNITED STATES. Slavery was abolished in many European countries long before Christianity was a dominant power. And your argument is wrong. Slavery was justified by all of the Southern churches for hundreds of years before abolitionists, most who were not influenced by the newer Christian beliefs, began arguing for abolition.

And yet the first American anti-slavery society established in the U.S. was founded by Quakers.

[dunbar]

The Puritans were a uniformly religious society. Sure, there was probably less crime, but can you honestly say that their lives were better?

I'm pretty sure the Puritans had the highest quality of life in the world during their time, at least according to The American Pageant.

[Wartsandall]

^The New World did enable them to practice their religion freely. I believe everyone was content with their lifestyles until the Half-Way covenant ensued. I don't really agree on their beliefs of nominating political figures based on their proved encounters with God(something that can't be proven) though. Personally, I'm more fond of the Quakers. They treated their memebers with respect, they were in opposition to war, and they even paid for the land that they acquired from the Native Americans.

[dunbar]

I was speaking in economic terms and of the Northeast as a whole; obviously the political structure of Quaker society is much more appealing to those of us in the modern world than that of the Puritans.