• 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?

Yes, religion provided a framework for most of humanities advancements until very recently.
 
William Rea said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was talking in general terms, just like I was with the "uneducated", "stupid", "delusional idiots", and mentally ill" comments.

As for "inward change", you don't see me visiting the sick and imprisoned, feeding and clothing the hungry, or even celebrating the Mass, because you can't, and if all you have to judge my character by are your opinion of my responses to purposely irritating and rude people, then I say you have nothing. Most people understand that talk is cheap and it's not what you say, it's what you do. And since you don't know what I do, you are in no position to judge anything. Our Bible says "judge not, lest ye be judged". What it means is that if you don't want to be judged by your own standards then keep your judgement to yourself. Most of the time the people on your side of this debate want to do all the judging, up to and including the intellectually lazy habit of demanding "proof" of God on a microscope slide so THEY can decide the fate of the universe. Let someone react to them in the same way they sound to us and they act all offended. What they want, in other words, are doormats to wipe their feet on with impunity, and I can give as many examples as you need.

So, I would suggest that you police your own ranks, because if this is a one sided game there is not much to recommend you.
 
William Rea said:
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?
Click to expand...

There are thousands of them, that's not much to go on.
 
"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." Lf #10
Click to expand...
And each of those civilizations had cancer, and crime.
Is that "a pretty good indication" cancer and crime are "not only beneficial but, quite possibly, a necessary part of humanity"?
"You are demonstrating you do not know the difference between 'appeal to authority' and 'supporting your claim.'" R #30
Click to expand...
In the supernatural religions, divine authority is the criterion of truth.
"Well, if you despise the numerous contributions of Christianity to society, then ..." [self-named] Lm [savor the irony] #33
Click to expand...
The key word being: "if".
" 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? " C #34
Click to expand...
SUPERB!!
Thank you for this excellent counterpoint!

BUT !!

The difference is it's not about contingency; -shoulda woulda coulda-.
Religion has ALREADY manifest madness and mayhem.
Didn't one of the early popes have his predecessor exhumed, and placed on trial?
Torquemada, etc.
"one needs to define it in narrower terms to get something from the discussion." C #34
Click to expand...
Excellent.
You've got the job. And my thanks in advance.
"Do you mean is there a net benefit in a personal supernatural religious belief in the modern world?" C
Click to expand...
The topic question is:

Are the supernatural religions a net benefit to humanity? Or a net detriment?
"How do you frame such a supernatural religious belief?" C
Click to expand...
That which transcends nature.
"are any of those things even religious?" C
Click to expand...
By necessity no.
a) Introspection is fine. But including the word in its own definition is circular; pointless.
"Why not political"
Click to expand...
b) For starters because the criterion of truth in our culture is science, not politics.
"- just cause they mention god?"
Click to expand...
c) Because they invoke scripture as the irrefutable source of divine and irrefutable truth.
"Where in is the dividing line? Do we count the abortions ..." C
Click to expand...
Understood.
Thus my use of the term "net benefit to humanity". Count it all, mathematically weighted.
Obviously a valid determination would require weighing major factors more than minor factors.
It's the total that matters. "Net" benefit is the topic wording.
 
William Rea said:
So you don't disagree?
Click to expand...

Disagree with what? When someone posts something as nebulous as "Is religion a net gain"? I find myself wondering what it even means.
 
Religions based on supernatural beliefs have given us cultural wonders from great monuments, to fine art, to great books and plays. Religions have functioned like a societal glue to give civilizations purpose and direction while smoothing over sources of division. Religions have awoken and fueled great creativity and great thinking. Religions have shape ethics and morality and given humanity moral compasses by which to navigate the difficult course of life.

Religions based on supernatural beliefs have caused division and alienation between people and societies. Religions have allowed hate and xenophobia to take hold of societies and have led to the commission of monsterous crimes. Religions have been used by cynical leaders and elites to justify cruelty and ineqality. Religions have been used to extinguish thought and learning. Religions have caused and been used to justify terrible wars and atrocities.

The two paragraphs above are short and not comprehensive accounts of the benefits and harms of religion. However those two paragraphs can be equally applied to the roles of leader-worship/the cults of personality, to secular ideologies, to tribalism and nationalisn and to reason and secular enlightenment. The accomplishments and wicked vices of humanity transend religion and are more a product of the human condition then of any belief system.

Anyone who has experienced violent death intimately knows that spiritualism and religion are hard wired into humans. The wounded and dying, the frightened or threatened, the horrified and traumitized routinely invoke religion when faced with mortal peril and death, even when they otherwise claim to be non-religious. There are few if any true atheists on a battlefield among both the combatants and the civilian bystanders when lives are in peril. The impulse to believe is as real as the survival instincts wired into our mid-brains.

Religion is positive when it inspires humans to be better at what they do and when it promotes empathy between folk. Religion is negative when it undermines empathy and lowers barriers to prejudice, discrimination and violence. Religion is useful when it has a centripicle force effect holding peoples and groups together and preventing disharmony and disunion. Religion is harmful when it has a centrifugal force effect which promotes division and social fracturing.

Religion is based on faith and in many cases a belief in an immortal soul or an immortal essence. If something threatens that soul or essence then that is a greater peril than threatening the health of a body or a society to the believers. That is not an acceptable positions to non-believers. Thus the priorities of the religious transend the material world and thus consepts like harm or good are mismatched between believers and non-believers. This makes a cost-benefit analysis by either group illegitimate in the minds of the other group and thus prevents a consensus. The question is unanswerable in a way that satisfies the priorities of both groups becase the priorities are so different. An appaling war or inquisition may seem to non-believers to be mindless and wanton violence driven by irrational hate and superstition. But that same war or inquisition may be seen as a neccessary evil due to metaphysical priorities which discount biological lives in favour of protecting immortal souls. And lest agnostics and atheists recoil at this grim and grisly calculus, ask yourself about the thought processes which goes on in the material world by irreligious people in power. When a general or a politician sanctions a missile attack or drone strike on a wedding party in order to kill a dangerous political enemy, with the full knowlege that others around the target will be killed or maimed, then they are placing political/military priorities above consideration for the lives of innocents as they pursue their objective, no different from a zealous Dominican inquisitionor or a salafist, martyrdom-seeking, jihadist. When a group of corporate executives examine a cost-benefit study and conclude that is more economical to sell flawed car tyres which will fail and kill a few customers rather than recalling and replacing them, they are acting on different priorites but with reason in the confines of those priorities. How different is this from a religious institution refusing to offer support to people in need who do not conform to the reliogious requirements of a religion?

Thus the question is impossible to answer, as concepts of benefit and harm are not universal.

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

And here we have the logical fallacy of 'painting with too broad a brush". It is also known as the logical fallacy of 'over generalization'.
 
RAMOSS said:
And here we have the logical fallacy of 'painting with too broad a brush". It is also known as the logical fallacy of 'over generalization'.
Click to expand...

It's clear that you don't understand logical fallacies, beside, those are all specific incidents, I just didn't name names.
 
it's just me said:
It's clear that you don't understand logical fallacies, beside, those are all specific incidents, I just didn't name names.
Click to expand...

You are right, you didn't 'name names'. You specifically said.

Atheists never "marginally disagree". They call us "delusional idiots", to give just one example.
Click to expand...

You didn't say 'some'. you said 'Never'. You statement says atheists and never. That is painting with a broad brush, since the way you phrased it points to all atheists. It would not be over generalization if you used 'some atheists' or 'many atheists'. If you meant 'some' or 'many', you could have said 'some' or 'many' , instead of using a phrase 'atheists'. Language can be used with precision. Language, when misused, can give false impressions. Perhaps you want to modify your statement ??

If you are going to try to parrot criticisms towards your arguments, you should had least try to be a little accurate.
 
RAMOSS said:
You are right, you didn't 'name names'. You specifically said.



You didn't say 'some'. you said 'Never'. You statement says atheists and never. That is painting with a broad brush, since the way you phrased it points to all atheists. It would not be over generalization if you used 'some atheists' or 'many atheists'. If you meant 'some' or 'many', you could have said 'some' or 'many' , instead of using a phrase 'atheists'. Language can be used with precision. Language, when misused, can give false impressions. Perhaps you want to modify your statement ??

If you are going to try to parrot criticisms towards your arguments, you should had least try to be a little accurate.
Click to expand...

I've got a better idea: suppose you point me to a thread where an atheist didn't do or say one of those things.As my bride is fond of saying, "stereotypes exist for a reason", the reason being that it occurs so often it's predictable.
 
it's just me said:
I've got a better idea: suppose you point me to a thread where an atheist didn't do or say one of those things.As my bride is fond of saying, "stereotypes exist for a reason", the reason being that it occurs so often it's predictable.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that there aren't atheists that do that. Realitywins, and Cephus certainly do Can you show me where William Rea did that, except in direct response to your bringing it up? I think The Governess is an atheist too (or at least a strong agnostic), Can you show where she did that?
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
I am not saying that there aren't atheists that do that. Realitywins, and Cephus certainly do Can you show me where William Rea did that, except in direct response to your bringing it up? I think The Governess is an atheist too (or at least a strong agnostic), Can you show where she did that?
Click to expand...

William doesn't get off that easy. True, I haven't made it easy on him at times, and it's usually because he is following on the heels of one of the fundamentalist atheists, but if he and other atheists are going to say "you're not like any priest I've ever met", I am going to say, "You ARE like every atheist I have met".

That door swings both ways.
 
it's just me said:
William doesn't get off that easy. True, I haven't made it easy on him at times, and it's usually because he is following on the heels of one of the fundamentalist atheists, but if he and other atheists are going to say "you're not like any priest I've ever met", I am going to say, "You ARE like every atheist I have met".

That door swings both ways.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between pointing out your idiosyncrasies, and painting with the brush 'all religious people are delusional'.
 
RAMOSS said:
There is a difference between pointing out your idiosyncrasies, and painting with the brush 'all religious people are delusional'.
Click to expand...

You're changing the subject. You were claiming that I was broad brushing atheists while atheists broad brush priests. We are, after all, child molesters.

And since when does pointing out my idiosyncrasies move the ball down the field in any discussion? It doesn't.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
There is a difference between pointing out your idiosyncrasies, and painting with the brush 'all religious people are delusional'.
Click to expand...
Excellent.
What specifically is the difference?
 
sear said:
Excellent.
What specifically is the difference?
Click to expand...

One is pointing out a specific persons behavior. The other is painting a group with the logical fallacy of over generalization.
 
sear said:
Excellent.
What specifically is the difference?
Click to expand...

The difference is that one is personal, the other is not but they are both ad homs.
 
RAMOSS said:
One is pointing out a specific persons behavior. The other is painting a group with the logical fallacy of over generalization.
Click to expand...

Only atheists can judge another person's "behavior" based on a few internet posts.
 
it's just me said:
Only atheists can judge another person's "behavior" based on a few internet posts.
Click to expand...

Ah.. another 'painting with too broad a brush'. How very nice.
 
RAMOSS said:
Ah.. another 'painting with too broad a brush'. How very nice.
Click to expand...

Do you actually know anything about the topic, because you surely don't know anything about me, your favorite subject. You're not real good at logic, either.
 
it's just me said:
Do you actually know anything about the topic, because you surely don't know anything about me, your favorite subject. You're not real good at logic, either.
Click to expand...

I am not saying anything about you, except for what you post here. What you post here does give a distinct impression though. If you bothered to read in context, you will noticed I was specifically addressing your statement. How nice of you to be concerned.
 
I can see no way someone could measure whether religion has been a net benefit to humanity.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am not saying anything about you, except for what you post here. What you post here does give a distinct impression though. If you bothered to read in context, you will noticed I was specifically addressing your statement. How nice of you to be concerned.
Click to expand...

I am pretty good at recognizing crap when I hear it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom