• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is religion a net benefit to humanity?

Elvira said:
Oh I can explain and have...you just don't like the point of reference...
Click to expand...

If it is reasonable and logical, then point of reference is irrelevant.
 
RAMOSS said:
If it is reasonable and logical, then point of reference is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Then you won't mind my use of scriptures...thanks for that...
 
RAMOSS said:
AH. You do not know what 'appeal to authority is'. An Appeal to authoirty is 'this is right because some person said so'. However, the wiki links are supported by legitiment sources... that give reasons and evidence. So, you are using the 'logical fallacy fallacy' by misapplying what a logical fallacy is.
Click to expand...

No, that's exactly what the appeal to authority is - anybody can write Wikipedia articles, I have. You don't know who they are. You don't know whether they are experts. You don't know whether they are legitimate, just saying they are legitimate doesn't cut it. That's why (and I have told you before) that you are not allowed to use them as "proof" in some institutions of higher learning.
 
Elvira said:
Then you won't mind my use of scriptures...thanks for that...
Click to expand...

Well, that can be taken at two different levels. If you say 'I believe this, because scripture says this, and quote passages , in context, that will at least if a source and argument. If someone was being pedantic, in this forum, one could challenge that with 'how do you know that scripture is correct. I personally would go with 'can you support your interpretation of scripture in context, and what are your axioms that allow you to come to that conclusion'. I might challenge something like the Book of the Mormon if someone was using it to make a historical claim...
 
it's just me said:
No, that's exactly what the appeal to authority is - anybody can write Wikipedia articles, I have. You don't know who they are. You don't know whether they are experts. You don't know whether they are legitimate, just saying they are legitimate doesn't cut it. That's why (and I have told you before) that you are not allowed to use them as "proof" in some institutions of higher learning.
Click to expand...

You are demonstrating you do not know the difference between 'appeal to authority' and 'supporting your claim.' One thing about wiki articles, the ones that stay up there have links to the original source, and it's a great jumping off place. However, you are certainly showing you don't know logical fallacies, or how to support claims.
 
RAMOSS said:
You are demonstrating you do not know the difference between 'appeal to authority' and 'supporting your claim.' One thing about wiki articles, the ones that stay up there have links to the original source, and it's a great jumping off place. However, you are certainly showing you don't know logical fallacies, or how to support claims.
Click to expand...

Again with the superior being routine. Do you think you will ever be able to defend anything you say without berating me, aka an ad hominem attack? I don't think so.
 
it's just me said:
Again with the superior being routine. Do you think you will ever be able to defend anything you say without berating me, aka an ad hominem attack? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

When you can show that something is not only a logical fallacy, and explain why, and not do a logical fallacy in return, then I will concede. However, when you errors in attempts to counter my argument, and incorrectly throw out logical fallacies, and misuse them, I am going to point out where those mistakes are. It seems to me that you are doing more ad hominem attacks that you realize, plus, you are misusing what an ad hominem attack is. Do you know what that logical fallacy is?? Can you explain it, and show what I am doing is an ad hominem attack?? I think this misuse of the logical fallacy demonstrates my points.
 
sear said:
Topic Question:

Are the supernatural religions a net benefit to humanity? Or a net detriment?

Some supernatural religious notions can be quite soothing, to the bereaved for example.

A few weeks ago I arrived at the funeral home early. The casket was open. I gazed down at my long-tenured friend, and I couldn't suppress the tears resulting from the loss.
I didn't know his widow was there, but she noticed my sadness, approached me, and rested her hand on my shoulder for comfort.
She didn't say much; only: "He's in a better place now."

I turned to her with the glare of alarm obvious on my face, and I asked: "What size box was he in before?!"

Even if there is no Heaven or Hell, the notions can inspire us, comfort us, reassure us.

As my Dad warned me when I was a boy: "Beware the divine imprimatur."

The Holy Qur'an says:

Reports I've read indicate Sunni justify murdering Shi'ah, and Wahhabi justify murdering Sunni with the same scriptural justification.

So I ask:

Are the supernatural religions a net benefit to humanity? Or a net detriment?

* Some translations say "pagan" instead of "infidel". And Muslim scholars will tell you no translation of the Holy Qur'an is acceptable. The only Holy Qur'an acceptable for study of Islam is the original Arabic version.
Click to expand...

Well, if you despise the numerous contributions of Christianity to society, then the next time you're down and out, try finding a BITTER ATHEIST'S HOMELESS SHELTER.
 
sear said:
Are the supernatural religions a net benefit to humanity? Or a net detriment?
Click to expand...
Haha, that is a very broad category of definition. If we are wiped up tomorrow by a nuclear apocalypse, was the pursuit of scientific and technological advancement to get there a net benefit or a net detriment? Absent that apocalypse?

Supernatural religions span the entire course of the historical record and likely occurred even before that time. The iterations and versions as diverse as any category of human endeavor. There is value in this topic but one needs to define it in narrower terms to get something from the discussion. Do you mean is there a net benefit in a personal supernatural religious belief in the modern world? How do you frame such a supernatural religious belief?

soylentgreen said:
Religion is no longer a necessity for a civilization it has become more the albatross that hangs around societies neck and holds us back.
Click to expand...
Holds us back from the brink of our own destruction? I wonder then why you think this old binder has become such a burden? Does it bind society less than politics, sport or customs? Why did this one become so corrupted in your mind well the others remain clean?

sear said:
The language of science is mathematics.
And the standard of scientific analysis is quantification by standardized units.

In this case, we use body count. That's a QUANTIFIABLE standard.

Does religion save more lives than it claims? Please be sure to include ISIL, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades in your assessment.
Click to expand...
Haha, are any of those things even religious? Why not political - just cause they mention god? Where in is the dividing line? Do we count the abortions stopped by faith or only define life in certain terms and by certain measures? If a doctor which save lives does so partly for religious teachings, does their work count for religion or the other human factors that went into their decision to become a doctor? When a psychopath uses religious language to rationalize their actions but has no belief in their heart or mind, doing only so as that s the only way to express themselves is that religions fault? Do ancient Jews who fought child sacrifice still counted with those in the ancient religions who did? Is it just a matter of numbers and who counter balances what?

No body count is a horrible measure…too convoluted…hmm it would no doubt be nice to have a good standard measurement though, any other ideas?

RAMOSS said:
I am merely pointing out that if you are using logic and reason, you CAN describe the process. If you are reacting emotionally, you can not.
Click to expand...
That’s the silliest thing I have heard today. Emotional decisions are rationalized constantly.

Your decision to post here is emotional, not rational for example.

If you want a logical answer you must define your questions.
RAMOSS said:
And how do you know that you are the one that is doing that, rather than other people who disagree with what you say?
Click to expand...
This is accusatory and personal. Look at the use of “you”. The statement itself dismissive of the original meaning(speaks nothing of separating religious beliefs based on lies). It vague and set up in such a general way as to be practically impossible to answer in a logical or civil way. You might as well be asking: but how do you know you know the meaning of life?

Examine your emotions. Examine your reasoning. It should be clear which is your real motive to pose such a pointless question and it’s not inquiry.

If you're actually curious as to Elvira’s reasoning. Ask about something more specific. Something that has a logical methodology. Something answerable in a short reply.

Alas, I am sure you likely don’t care. You’ve proven to yourself it’s all silly. Interesting, so it reasonable to assume you can prove something to yourself? Okay, so you believe there is a degree of personal reasoning not expressed. Great. So you, in fact, agree with her answer to your question: ones personal reasoning can be more valid than others…you just don’t think hers is as logical and rational as your logical answer. Great. Let’s hear it.

Elvira said:
There are many lies floating around out there...only if you can decipher the lies from the truth, can it benefit anyone...
Click to expand...
=> How do you personally reliability decipher lies from truth?
 
backpacker said:
But if someone doesn't steal because it is against their religion it will still be a check in the religion column whether they needed it or not because religion is what motivated them to not swipe something.
Click to expand...

No, it would be more likely because that person understands just how horrible it is for another to have something stolen from them. In other words an understanding of the consequence of their actions. Even as an atheist i can understand that the person who only does something motivated by whether it will get them to heaven or not is not a good person but one who is selfish about their own needs. people do good things because they understand that it is a good thing to do. While people who do bad things will find a way to justify what they do. And many a time religion is that justification.
 
Lutherf said:
Damned near every civilization since the beginning of time has embraced one form of religion or another. That's a pretty good indication that religion is not only beneficial but, quite possibly, a necessary part of humanity.
Click to expand...

Agreed but that only tells us that religion served a purpose, not that it still does.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, I am far older than you thing I am'. However,the statement 'everything in life being laid out on a sheet of paper' is the logical fallacy of a straw man, and also an ad hominein attack. I am merely pointing out that if you are using logic and reason, you CAN describe the process. If you are reacting emotionally, you can not.
Click to expand...

So far she is not using logic or reasoning. What she is using so far is called platitudes.
 
Conaeolos said:
Holds us back from the brink of our own destruction? I wonder then why you think this old binder has become such a burden? Does it bind society less than politics, sport or customs? Why did this one become so corrupted in your mind well the others remain clean?
Click to expand...
Or leads us down the road to our destruction. And as i said it is an opiate and opiates have there use as well as being a detriment. And if i needed a reminder that i need to keep things on a simplistic level for you then your last statement does that well. Where did i say the others were clean. I only stated that we have other binders.
 
it's just me said:
Again with the superior being routine. Do you think you will ever be able to defend anything you say without berating me, aka an ad hominem attack? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Do you think that you will be able to ever have a discussion on here with anyone that marginally disagrees with you without a nuclear response within two posts being exchanged?
 
Lutherf said:
It serves a purpose for those who believe. That's the way things have always been.
Click to expand...

True, but that does not mean it serves a purpose in on itself. Only that it needs to be believed to serve a purpose.
 
What has has any 'god' ever done to make Earth a better planet?

Fill us in.

:lol:
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, you might believe it, but that is different than actually showing thought and reason in it. There is a difference between accepting somethign due to emotional want/desire, and
having actual evidence and reason.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Let's see your actual evidence and reason.

Anyone can run their mouth.

Actually proving something is a little harder.

:lol:
 
shrubnose said:
Let's see your actual evidence and reason.

Anyone can run their mouth.

Actually proving something is a little harder.

:lol:
Click to expand...

No, the burden of evidence is upon those that assert that anything supernatural actually exists; that is if they want rational people to accept that their beliefs are truth, which is what they often claim.

Yes, running your mouth is easy and proving something is hard but, you make it harder by asserting that you know truth revealed to you by a supernatural entity and you might want to have something other than, 'this book says so' if you don't want to be challenged. As always, my challenge does not involve proof, any kind of reasonable evidence that could not be explained by other means would make me reassess my beliefs. If you can't show it, you don't know it.
 
William Rea said:
Do you think that you will be able to ever have a discussion on here with anyone that marginally disagrees with you without a nuclear response within two posts being exchanged?
Click to expand...

Atheists never "marginally disagree". They call us "delusional idiots", to give just one example.
 
it's just me said:
Atheists never "marginally disagree". They call us "delusional idiots", to give just one example.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, I have never called any theist an 'idiot' and I now believe that religious experience is most likely a delusion but, I don't believe that religious people are delusional. It might be interesting for you to know that in the past I have accused religious people of being 'delusional' BUT, I changed my belief on this after a great discussion with someone that has faith but, who doesn't shoot off at the slightest disagreement.

What would change you mind that atheists never 'marginally disagree'? I'm guessing nothing will.

I thought that this would be interesting because, the OP is title is, Is religion a net benefit to humanity?
 
William Rea said:
To my knowledge, I have never called any theist an 'idiot' and I now believe that religious experience is most likely a delusion but, I don't believe that religious people are delusional. It might be interesting for you to know that in the past I have accused religious people of being 'delusional' BUT, I changed my belief on this after a great discussion with someone that has faith but, who doesn't shoot off at the slightest disagreement.

What would change you mind that atheists never 'marginally disagree'? I'm guessing nothing will.

I thought that this would be interesting because, the OP is title is, Is religion a net benefit to humanity?
Click to expand...

What would change my mind? Not calling me an impostor first cracker out of the box would go a long way. That is what is known as an ad hominem fallacy, hardly the mark of reasonable people. It's the same as being called "uneducated", "stupid", "delusional idiots", mentally ill", and so on. Can't imagine why anybody would take offense at that.

But to your question: what do you mean when you say "religion"? Do you mean my religion?
 
it's just me said:
What would change my mind? Not calling me an impostor first cracker out of the box would go a long way. That is what is known as an ad hominem fallacy, hardly the mark of reasonable people. It's the same as being called "uneducated", "stupid", "delusional idiots", mentally ill", and so on. Can't imagine why anybody would take offense at that.

But to your question: what do you mean when you say "religion"? Do you mean my religion?
Click to expand...
That was hardly first out of the box ijm! That is very disingenuous, I put a lot of effort into trying to establish a way of talking to you most of which you just threw back in my face and others. And, I did not call you an imposter, I questioned your claim on the basis of what you post. If you want to give an impression of someone who has benefited from inward change through your religion it might be useful to give some outward signs otherwise I will struggle to use you as a case study for the benefits of religion to humanity.
 
it's just me said:
...But to your question: what do you mean when you say "religion"? Do you mean my religion?
Click to expand...

Specifically in this case, a system of beliefs and worship based around a theistic faith, where faith is a belief based upon no evidence.

I put that forward as a basis to start from, do you disagree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom