ADreamOfLiberty (PRO)Something is a waste of time when it accomplishes nothing, or accomplishes only that which could more easily/safely be accomplished by something else.
Therefore there are two BoPs involved here. Con has a BoP for showing religion accomplishes something worth while. Pro may attempt to refute all such arguments or show how the benefit is not unique to religion and that there are better means to attain said benefit.
So Go?
Return To Top | Posted:
nzlockie (CON)Yep, Go!
OK, I'll agree unreservedly with my opponent's first definition of the term, "waste of time" but I'd like to reservedly agree with the second.
The reservation comes around the idea of how efficiently a goal is achieved. My contention is that there are subtle differences in the way a goal is achieved and provided the person has an excess of the resources required to achieve that goal, doing so in a manner that picks up the differences that person finds most pleasing does not make it a waste of time - even if it may be less efficient.
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to know,
It is well, it is well, with my soul."
As he crossed the atlantic to England himself, his Religion gave him the comfort to write this hymn.
Religion provides structure
Within Religion, the people know that they must obey even in times where they might not be able to reason through the why aspect.
While this may not seem seem like a worthy benefit to many readers who are uncomfortable with the idea that one can't know everything - that is no obstacle to the Religious believer and in fact can be a huge burden lifted off them.
To the complete skeptic, there is a good reason why religions have persisted throughout the centuries. Religion can be a very effective tool to control the masses.
IF Religion is true and does carry the secret of how to attain this reward, then those that follow it will have made a wise investment of their resource, Time.
IF Religion is proven NOT to be true, then those who have lived their lives accordingly will be no worse off than those who saw through the whole thing.
It's basic insurance. Is it a waste of resource to have insurance? Not if you need it!
For this argument to be refuted, my opponent needs to prove that Religion is wrong about there being a great reward. As long as there's a chance that there IS, the best he can do is show that SOME religions are a waste of time.
Vote CON - we'll put in a good word for you.
Return To Top | Posted:
nzlockie: Seeing as I'm the only one who's presented anything attackable so far, I'll let PRO take the front foot...ADreamOfLiberty: Alright, we have four days so to prevent the confusion I saw in the humantarian aid debate I will only ask one question at a time.ADreamOfLiberty: First, why do you think time is the only resource that religion consumes? I would say its primary fuel is faith not time, and that fuel necessitates a philosophy with negative effects of its own.nzlockie: Good plan! I'm not saying that time is only resource consumed by religion, but it IS the only resource we're debating with this resolution!ADreamOfLiberty: So it is... speaking of ceding things I will give you "Religion provides a comfort in times of trouble." I used to be religous myself and have caught myself longing for the comfort in hard times.ADreamOfLiberty: However (and this applies to the later point %u2018Religion promises eternal reward%u2019) isn%u2019t it true that religions often create stress as well as comfort? Do they not promise eternal punishments as well?nzlockie: I'll answer your last questions first, its true that most major religions speak of eternal punishment as a foil for eternal reward.nzlockie: But its important to note that this punishment does not apply to the righteous believer, hence the comfort. A sound understanding of what you've been saved from brings all sorts of good things.nzlockie: (which I'd be happy to elaborate on, in round)nzlockie: its true that Religion can place the believer in situations where they are required to go against their natural instinct or inclination. evangelism would one of these. This can be stressful...nzlockie: ... however, two points. 1) it's no more stressful than similar activities would bring the non-religious person, yet the comfort religion brings means that they will, on balance, be less stressed...nzlockie: ... with life's events.nzlockie: And 2) the degree of stress they feel is inversely related the degree they accept the religion. The more they accept the Religion, the less stressed they become. Therefore, its not Religion that's...nzlockie: ... the issue, it's actually a LACK of Religion!ADreamOfLiberty: Whether other activities are stressful is not the issue, what matters is religion's effect.ADreamOfLiberty: I believe you are referring to many religions denouncement of sexual deviancy, however I do not wish to go down that route because that would mean religion is only a waste of time for a few.ADreamOfLiberty: Instead what I find most important is the qualification you made "the righteous believer." If I could qualify atheist or agnostics similarly I could win this by merely pointing to myself.ADreamOfLiberty: We cannot forget that many religous people still suffer from self-doubt, self-loathing, and they can experiance real and sometimes even constant fear of the fate of their soul.ADreamOfLiberty: On average we must assume that the stress releived is equal to the stress introduced.ADreamOfLiberty: There is a reason for this, it is not random. Religion takes the stress induced by values being endangered on earth and says there is value in the after life to worry about.ADreamOfLiberty: More importantly stress is not the only benefit or harm to think of.ADreamOfLiberty: This actually belongs in my next round, so for now I will ask about your "premium on being better." Why does anti-selfishness (what you basically cited) make one better?nzlockie: Haha, I was beginning to wonder if there was a question in there! I'll answer your question but then I'd like to clarify one or two things and ask you a question.nzlockie: Why do I equate unselfishness with a "better" person? I'll admit that defining the traits that make someone a "good" or "socially desirable" person is subjective...nzlockie: ...that being said, every list I can find is populated by traits typified by showing compassion and empathy for others.nzlockie: Furthermore, society holds those who display these traits for others even to their own personal detriment as being heroes and saints. For this reason I'm echoing popular opinion by saying that...nzlockie: ...unselfishness is a trait of a "better" person.nzlockie: Clarification Point: "Righteous believer". This was the best term I could find to indicate a believer who had a solid faith in their religion. I'm trying to judge the religion itself, using ...nzlockie: ... the example of a person who has wholly embraced it, rather than someone only partly committed. nzlockie: Clarification point 2: I wasn't referencing any specific deviancy. Not sure exactly which point this was aimed at, but happy to address it in round.nzlockie: Follow up question for PRO: on what grounds can you say that the stress relieved is equal to the stress introduced? ADreamOfLiberty: I can find you a list which doesn't have it [compassion] on there, in fact it's the list I subscribe to. On the grounds that the punishment is equally perfect to the reward.nzlockie: As mentioned previously, what makes a person "better" is largely determined by the populace. The fact that a minority doesn't value compassion as a desirable trait doesn't negate the fact ...nzlockie: ...that the majority do. Religion is not the only mechanism that encourages these desirable traits, but it is one of them.nzlockie: Q: Practically, would you agree that in many situations, a problem shared is a problem halved? In other words, if two people are able to share the burden then the problem is less stressful? ADreamOfLiberty: Why is what makes a person better determined by the populace? If that were the case wouldn't it be true that a mostly atheist populace means religion is bad in that place? [notice something circular?]ADreamOfLiberty: Yes in many situations a problem shared is a problem halved, it is also true that in many situation a problem shared is a problem spread 
nzlockie: I would be happy for you to try to defend a contention that there are more atheists in the world than Religious or Agnostics...nzlockie: ...Considering almost half the world's population falls into Christendom, Islam and Hinduism alone - you might struggle with that contention.nzlockie: I think it's clear that we both disagree on whether Selfishness is a more desirable trait than Compassion. I'm happy that my side is in a majority in considering the latter a more desirable trait...nzlockie: ... than the former; my contention stands that most religions promote that viewpoint. nzlockie: Re: Problems shared -my contention is that in most religions, the everyday problems of life, death, disease, lost keys can be shared with God - thus reducing the burden on the individual.nzlockie: This is a benefit of Religion - one which you've said you accept. It has a value and is therefore not a waste.nzlockie: I'm happy to answer any further questions, but my own line is done and I eagerly await PRO's round!ADreamOfLiberty: Except God doesn't alleviate death, disease, or lost keys. It's a placebo, one that can be seen as a detriment if it allows people to ignore the evil of these things rather than do something about it.nzlockie: sounds like you might have your argument for round 2! Return To Top | Speak Round
ADreamOfLiberty (PRO)Con has presented several points meant to show the benefit of religion. I will attempt to answer them in four sections labeled I - IV.
Section I. will make the case that some benefits come with detriments that cancel them out.
Section II. Claims some benefits are not unique to religion.
Section III. Questions whether some of the values religion hands out are true benefits.
Section IV. Challanges the notion that BoP rests on the doubter if benefit is the proposition.
I. Delusion the cost of comfort?
To feel good (or at least better) seems to be a clear cut example of benefit. However there are times when there is a cost to comfort, times when it is an escape and an addiction.
A drug addict may only see his problem when intervened, but if he lived on a society of addicts how few would check themselves? Sugar and fat taste good, but they are so energy dense that becoming overweight by eating them is all too easy. The ability to remove pain is considered a valuable medical treatment, yet only the most foolish doctor would advise taking pain killers constantly. Why?
If you cannot feel pain, you may not know you are hurt; but more importantly you won't have a motivation to deal with the damage.
Everything religion offers to humanity is bought with faith, and this currency is a dangerous. What makes it dangerous is that like a narcotic, the very act of generating it pushes one to a position of relying on it more.
If someone uses drugs because they have nothing better to do, the harm is minimal; if they do it to escape a boring life with a dull job they may cause themselves to lose that job. If they lose the job their life will get worse, increasing their need for drugs to maintain their good feelings.
So too with faith.... ha got you. You thought I was going to say that faith makes people less productive? No. If it did religion would have died long ago. Faith is far more insidious. Faith saves someone from the trouble of thinking. It a mechanism by which ignorance becomes less fearful, a virtuous state.
In other words faith is used to create a delusion, a comfortable delusion but a delusion none the less. Delusion is harmful when it impedes the proper function of a person, especially if it impedes steps to repair the original problem.
There are problems that can't be solved, like death. The secular world, which is the world of rationally verifiable offers no solutions so you might be tempted to say there can't be a downside. However as noted above it is still possible a delusion is harmful even if it is not a vicious cycle relating to the object of the delusion.
The vicious cycle of the delusions bought with faith is the devaluing of verifiable truth. When one's commitment to reality is weakened, they do not have the philosophical tools to choose only some aspects of reality. If they do so it is by social and personal factors fighting with faith not working in harmony with it.
This is best illustrated by Con himself when he said secular philosophy requires that a person be able to reason why they should follow a convention. The cost of following a convention even when you can't rationally justify it is that it may not be rationally justifiable.
Religion may keep someone loyal to their parents even when they see no reason to be, and if they ought to be loyal to their parents that's a good thing. However if they don't need a reason, religion can also keep them bigoted towards infidels and deviant sexual orientations. It can also keep them dismissive of certain facts. In extreme cases it can cause them to hold to human sacrifice.
To be clear, the argument I just presented is not saying that religion takes up too much time, but does more harm than good even if comfort in isolation is good. Therefore no matter how little time it takes, it's a waste.
To wrap this section up, I want to post two quotes. One from Con and one from Ayn Rand:
"While this may not seem seem like a worthy benefit to many readers who are uncomfortable with the idea that one can't know everything - that is no obstacle to the Religious believer and in fact can be a huge burden lifted off them." - Con
"If devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater,
nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the
responsibility of thinking." - John Galt, Atlas Shrugged
II. Religions reflect the structure and nature of humanity/reality.
They do not create it.
Con says religion provides structure and morality, however as demonstrated above there is no reason the structure and morality it provides should be trusted to be correct.
However it must be based on something, so what?
Absent the proposition that it was actually divinely inspired (which is something I do not have BoP to disprove) it must come from something in humanity.
The simplest (and I assert correct) answer is this. It is a formalization of tradition and general human emotions and observations. It is little more than taking the social norms, subjective as they are; and saying they are absolutes because God(s) agree with them, indeed God(s) created them.
This has the effect of smoothing the changes in these norms, after all if they are the absolute truth they don't change right? But history has shown us they do; and every religion has been dragged along with the change or been destroyed for their failure to do so.
If we then realize that religious structure and morality is nothing more than formalized social norms, and we accept that challenging irrational structures and morals is indepensible faculty of a human individual (see section I.) then the entirity of the benefits Con suggests could be accessed more easily and with less general risk simply by teaching that social norms have weight. This takes less time and does not require the dangerous faith.
Yet there is an even more efficient option. Philosophy, a philosophy of reason is not a disguise for social norms nor is it subjective or dishonestly absolute. It takes an investment of time but unlike subjective norms, or their common disguise as religious morals; reasoning out the problem is never a waste of time.
III. God or community?
Con takes for granted that taking someone's attention away form themselves and place them onto the community around them is a benefit. I could not have asked for a better example of the dangers of religious thinking than Con saying this under a point titled "Religion places a premium on being better."
Who is being better for whom?
My immediate expectation upon reading that point was that religion placed a premium on a person being better, but if that is the case then Con immediately assumes that the measure a person is how little attention they give themselves vs the community.
Con points out in the cross examination that this is a common view, and it is. Selfishness is code for evil while selflessness is code for good in pretty much every culture, religion, and literature.
However, would it be proper for a reader to judge his point correct for that reason alone? It would not, in fact it fits in perfectly with my analysis in I. and II.
Con is saying that religion is beneficial because it echos social norms, and does not feel the need to support that the social norm is good.... even though he is attempting to make the case that religion is a primary cause of such values being wide spread.
Taken as a whole his position is either circular, or relying on the judge to take it on faith that the norms are correct.
A God which tells you to focus on yourself, to do what's best for you everyone else be damned is just as conceivable and just about as supported as a Christian God and no less religion. If Con purports that religion is not a waste of time when religion happens to be causing something worthwhile, he'll get no argument from me. The question rather is whether religion in of itself is a worthwhile thing.
IV. Religion cannot mitigate the unknown.
This ties into all the points made previously, but I want to present it in a different way in reference to a different point.
Con says that religion promises an eternal reward, and many do. As I said in the cross examination many also offer eternal punishments.
The real problem lies in what Con said this promise of eternal reward means. Namely that I had the burden to show that it was impossible or else it constituted a benefit. By this assertion Con is basically saying that religion owns the unknown and can manipulate it into a beneficial form.
It is benefit until I prove otherwise, Con claims only established knowledge can defeat this point; yet the point was never made with established knowledge.
What matters in reality is what IS.
If the possibility of eternal reward is a real benefit than the possibility of an eternal punishment is a real detriment. In fact the mere possibility that religion is delusional is just as solid and real a problem as this eternal reward is a benefit.
Therefore I issue a reciprocal challenge of proof to Con. Until he can prove that religion is not deleterious delusion then it remains that it COULD be true. If it is true, and does undermine the secret of how to live a full and productive life then those that follow it will have made a terrible mistake with their time.
Return To Top | Posted:
nzlockie (CON)I thank my opponent for opening his case. I'd like to open my second round argument by looking at his four sections in more detail.
The claim is that the net result of Religion bringing COMFORT, HOPE and PEACE is so beneficial that people are willing to compromise the verifiable truth to maintain it.
What Religion promises is a help to deal with that pain, and as my opponent concedes, a very effective help.
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on Faith - Faith is simply the belief in things unseen. My opponent might like to add, "unverified" or even "unverifiable" in there as well. Even he does, that still doesn't change the fact that almost EVERYONE has faith, regardless of being religious or not. Here are some examples of things that fit the definition of things that are unseen, unverified or unverifiable to the same degree as my opponent claims God is:
LOVE, HATE, CHANCE, GOOD, BAD... for a person to believe that these things exist requires faith. And while I'll happily agree that faith gone too far creates a delusion and that delusions can be harmful when they, "impede the proper function of a person"; PRO hasn't actually explained how Faith impedes the proper function of a person. In fact, "the proper function of a person" is probably something else that requires Faith!
Having established that Religion, like life, requires faith, it remains to my opponent to explain how exactly one is impeded by that faith.
The big picture sum-up - My opponent's argument is that the chance that religion may require a person to discount verifiable truth creates enough of a harm as to outweigh the uncontested benefit.
To be clear, most of the benefits I've brought up so far are not unique to Religion. That has never been my contention.
Stalin ran a very effective campaign to get Russia out from the dark ages and into becoming a genuine super power without resorting to Religion. Talkshow host, Ellen Degeneris is not alone in teaching love and compassion for others every day when she signs off with, "Be kind to one another".
My contention has never been that Religion was the only source of most of my benefits.
My argument is that the efficiency of a construct is not grounds for that construct being a waste in the event that a person has an excess of the commodity in question. In this debate, that commodity is "Time". When the person has an excess of Time, which we do, then efficiency can be weighed against perceived value. (I gave a good example of choosing a car in round one. I don't want to repeat it, but you should read it again, I worked really hard on it.)
Section III - Is it REALLY better to consider others?
I'd also like to bring up a few other traits that are almost universally accepted as being "good". All of these traits are promoted by Religion.
Looking after one's health - "Eat of the good things we have provided for your sustenance, but commit no excess therein..." Quran 20:81a
None of us KNOW what lies after death, but it's true that Religion MAY hold the answer.
Note that in the beginning the author is at pains to point out that these benefits don't necessarily stem from the actual beliefs, merely from the act of following a Religion. Therefore these benefits can be shown to be a direct connection to Religion as an objective construct.
Seven years extra life
Vote CON - we approve of the DNA version of Suzanne Vega's 'Tom's Diner''.
Return To Top | Posted:
nzlockie: "When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."nzlockie: Would it be fair to say that, objectively, Religion as a construct has allowed certain groups to expand more efficiently than sheer military conquest would have?ADreamOfLiberty: First I would like to say I find that quote absurd, and a typical example of collectivist thinking. Christianity had no part in imperialist schemes, missionaries took advantage of colonies to preach.ADreamOfLiberty: It would be fair to say that in some cases religion has allowed certain groups to expand more efficiently, it is also true that in some cases religions have held back expansion and technology.ADreamOfLiberty: I believe the later cases outnumber the former. More importantly why would military conquest or accomplishing the same by other means be a standard of value?ADreamOfLiberty: If it were true, that would be a mark against religion no? As a means of subjugating people and undermining liberty it fits with my evaluation not yours.ADreamOfLiberty: You said "Religion placing a premium on thinking - PRO's John Galt would love this." but you aren't seriously contending that advocating independant rational analysis is a consistent message?ADreamOfLiberty: I phrased that as a rhetorical question, but I actually want an answer. It is my position that almost all religions are contradictory, but that the very means by which this is ignored is non-thinking.nzlockie: I'm establishing benefits of Religion as a construct. In many countries, including NZ, religion played a really important role in colonisation. nzlockie: Missionaries were often the first to breach the language barrier for example. nzlockie: As a construct, it has proven a very effective tool for effecting change. Whether this has advanced or held back, freed or subjugated is irrelevant. The fact is that it's a tool that works...nzlockie: ...and therefore, not a waste of time.nzlockie: I actually WOULD contend that many Religions, Christianity being one of them, consisting encourage believers to question, reason and use their brain. nzlockie: But if we disagree on that point, it still doesn't matter. These are the doctrines of a religion and are not necessarily what we're discussing. There's nothing preventing you from...nzlockie: ...establishing a religion that DOES advocate full independent thought. Religion as a construct gets results and is therefore not a waste of time. nzlockie: Do you concede that Religion was an effective way of ensuring that the tribal medicine man was looked after, even when he was too old an weak to fend for himself? ADreamOfLiberty: No, I think people will take care of their elders without religion; that religion for the most part validates what their emotions tell them to do. Religion as a construct, when what people would naturally do is removed gets results but they are all over tADreamOfLiberty: ..the board. Religion sometimes causes them to do good but more often causes them to do evil, such as engage in self-delusion and other-delusion.nzlockie: Leaving aside the witch doctor for a second then, you're agreeing then that religion is not a waste of time for an evil man then? nzlockie: And you're agreeing that Religion does work, albeit sometimes for good and sometimes only echoing natural instinct?nzlockie: But it DOES work, leaving only the question of whether it is used for good or evil?nzlockie: Aside from Man, do you believe animals use religion as a construct within their communities?ADreamOfLiberty: About an evil man, no it's still a waste of time because evil is a waste of time (and worse). For a man that pursues evil everything is inverted, what is truly a waste of time is something he wants to do.nzlockie: I whole heartily disagree with this. considering that "good" and "evil" are only relative terms depending on which side of the action you are sitting.nzlockie: is there any benefit to even trying to define an action as "good" or "evil"? why should the motivation change the measure of effectiveness? ADreamOfLiberty: I do not believe good and evil are subjective, and neither can the religous masses if you want your point about structure and higher power (i.e. absolute divine morality) to remain pogniant.ADreamOfLiberty: Religion may be used for good or evil, but there is no net (as in uncanceled by the inherent detriments) good that it can be used for that is not attained with less trouble without employing faith.nzlockie: I think I see where we are missing each other in this debate... who decides if an action is "good" or "evil"? nzlockie: And just to be clear, you're saying that ALL evil actions are a waste of time... correct?ADreamOfLiberty: I say reason decides, religion says God, gods, or other spiritual supernatural forces decide; your typical atheist tries to hobble along with social norms or floating appeals to practicality.ADreamOfLiberty: All evil actions are a wate of time yes. If it were otherwise I could not possibly win this debate, since even if I proved something could not possibly be an efficient use of time towards rational ends, you could just say "Well person X has irrational goaADreamOfLiberty: Even digging a hole and standing in it for forty hours isn't a waste if wasting time is your goal ADreamOfLiberty: As for your question about animals, mmm that is complicated and depends entirely on how one defines religion.ADreamOfLiberty: I define religion as a set or system of beleifs that requires in some part of its doctrine the exercise of faith by the believer.ADreamOfLiberty: I define faith as the concious choice to suspend rational skeptisim, i.e. a supression of asking "why" or demanding support.ADreamOfLiberty: Faith is similar to trust but there is a key difference. Trust is based on past experience of reliability. It does not ignore independent support nor does trust ever trump objective reasons.ADreamOfLiberty: Since only a precious few animals are capable or full abstract reasoning, or the objective logical processes implied by such; very few have the option of choosing such suspension.ADreamOfLiberty: Therefore I guess there is two ways to look at it, either they rely totally on faith; or they are incapable of it.ADreamOfLiberty: I would say they trust certain things will happen. I say it is trust instead of faith because they learn by experience. What is not learned by experience is probably instinct, if you are willing to call faith that which cannot be altered by experience theADreamOfLiberty: ..then many animals have faith; interestingly though the cloeser they are to humans intellectually the less faith they have. It is the plant or the ant that has the greatest faith because they do not learn.nzlockie: Re: Reason deciding parity - who's reason? The individual? The social group? nzlockie: *whosenzlockie: Re: Do animals have religion? - Religion is not faith or trust. As you've said, these are simply currencies of Religion and can exist outside of a religion. I'm therefore going to take it that you don't think animals have religions. ADreamOfLiberty: There is only one reason just as there is only one truth and only one reality. The negation of that statement is a negation of the very exercise we are engaged in.ADreamOfLiberty: If it was false, then no matter what you say; no matter what reasons you come up with, they would only neccesarily matter to you. So why communicate them?ADreamOfLiberty: If debate is nothing more than exchanging a list of subjective likes and dislikes (for that is what truth is reduced to without objective reasoning) and judging is merely a process by which you see which likes are more common, then debate is like religionADreamOfLiberty: .. a waste of time.ADreamOfLiberty: The question is not ADreamOfLiberty: "Who"ADreamOfLiberty: But "Why"nzlockie: To sum up, in this CX round you've said:nzlockie: 1: The tribal medicine man who used religion to feed, clothe and shelter himself in a manner far easier than if he were to do it himself is no proof for this resolution...nzlockie: ...since social norms dictate we look after our elders. (Ignoring the fact that he's only an elder once he's actually old, and ignoring the fact that you questioned last cx whether social norms hold any actual weight.)nzlockie: 2: Animals don't use Religion, making this a man-made construct. Man-made inferring a need. The fact that religion persists today inferring that that need is being met.nzlockie: 3: ALL evil actions and motivations are a waste of time - despite the fact that things/goals are being accomplished and in many cases, in a very efficient manner. Both things being YOUR criteria for what constitutes a "waste of time".nzlockie: My uncontested criteria didn't include the efficiency part, but is still met by "evil" actions.nzlockie: Final question for this CX round: Does Religion's inspiration to the artistic world and its role as a foil to inspire scientific research and discovery grant it any merit in your eyes?ADreamOfLiberty: 1. But he didn't use religion. Those who clothed, fed, and sheltered him used looms, crops, and architectural skill.ADreamOfLiberty: In the same way that I would say fortunate telling is a waste of time despite the fact that you can learn a living on it, I say religion is a waste of time. It remains a waste of time because your %u2018customers%u2019 as it were are wasting their time; yADreamOfLiberty: 2. Man-made does not infer needed. If that were so there would categorically be no such thing as a %u2018waste of time%u2019 if a human is choosing to use their time so.ADreamOfLiberty: 3. It is a contradiction in terms for someone to pursue something they see as evil.ADreamOfLiberty: I believe art is made by artist and science by scientist. They would have found other inspirations, other challangers; and who is to say that religion has inspired more than it has supressed?nzlockie: Re: 1. I dispute that. He did use religion. Religion dictates his tribe look after him as their guardian. Most religions have an equivilent role as well - it's not just isolated to this instance.nzlockie: Re 2. Man-made does not EQUAL needed, but it does infer it. The fact that Religion as a construct has survived as long as it has lends significant weight to that inference. I doubt we'll be seeing umbrella hats in 2000 years!nzlockie: Re: 3. I never said the person pursuing the action saw it as evil. Most times I doubt they do. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that your definition of "waste of time" speaking purely to accomplishments irrespective of parity. nzlockie: To say that religion has not inspired art is clearly false. To say that the artist would have found another inspiration is at best, pure speculation. nzlockie: Academic and Philosophical thought always benefits from having views and theories questioned and contested. Religion is one construct that provides this service. nzlockie: Again, not the only one, but a valuable one, none the less.nzlockie: Thank you for the round, I'll await the final stages of this debate!ADreamOfLiberty: But we do see the equivalent of umbrella hats in the form of wearing clothing in tropical areas which do not get cold enough to warrant it.ADreamOfLiberty: TestADreamOfLiberty: But we do see umbrella hats in the form of wearing clothing in warm areas where there is no need for them.ADreamOfLiberty: What you call speculation is no different in nature to what you just called inference.ADreamOfLiberty: Since I see non-religous art I know the non-religous can inspire art. Since man is a rational animal it follows that most of the things he creates and which endure for many generations are needed (or at least wanted).ADreamOfLiberty: This is induction, not deduction.Return To Top | Speak Round
ADreamOfLiberty (PRO)Section I - Do the cons of a benefit outweigh the pros?
“The effect of being comforted in your sorrow... becomes addicted to it like a drug.“ - Con
If the friend was real it wouldn’t be a problem, but if you have to imagine a friend… then there is a problem because the only reason imagining a friend would help is if will alone was known to be insufficient.
In other words they would not be helped if saying "I can deal with this hardship myself" was enough, therefore they must think they are getting real help and not just self-confidence from this friend.
“The claim is that the net result of Religion bringing COMFORT, HOPE and PEACE is so beneficial that people are willing to compromise the verifiable truth to maintain it. “ - Con
This point has already been all but ceded by the world’s major religions. Let me give the position of the Catholic Church (whose teachings I am most familiar with).
“This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also .... – Pius XII, Humani generis 561: DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2: DS 3005;
DV 6; St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th I, I, I. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PB.HTM#-X
If any Monotheistic domination claims to supersede this position, to claim that everything they believe can be objectively verified, I submit they are lying to themselves.
“Religion does not mask pain... What Religion promises is a help to deal with that pain, and as my opponent concedes, a very effective help.”- Con
I was afraid my point would be misunderstood. I did not say religion masks the pain, rather I was explaining the bait used. The harm is philosophical. Many religions marginalize pain was part of ‘dealing’ with it, and thus encourage believers to embrace it, leading to greater suffering. People may claim to be happy to do this, but their suffering is real and they will not be compensated for it in the hereafter. That is an example of the real harm dismissing reason causes.
Again from the Catholic Church:
1460 The penance the confessor imposes ... It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."63
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm#1460
The bible:
For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake - Philippians 1:29
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+1%3A29&version=ESV
“LOVE, HATE, CHANCE, GOOD, BAD... for a person to believe that these things exist requires faith.”
Yet I claim to believe these things exist without the use of faith. Faith is not just belief in the literally unseen, one cannot see math or molecules. One can prove they exist. I have felt love, hate, I understand the concept of chance; and I have identified good and bad.
“To sum up, he's saying the fact that the Placebo is not itself real means that its very real effects are worthless… The vast majority of the medical community disagree with him. Including this guy from Harvard.”
I believe this study makes my point for me. When it is so easy for expectation to control perception, every effort must be made to preserve objectivity. People will not always create a delusion beneficial to themselves. The study compared two fakes, and found that a third of 270 people complained of awful side effects… from cornstarch and non-penetration.
So what happens when they have taken their medicine and think they need no other? Are we to keep lying to them until we find an effective pain treatment? Do we only tell them the truth when the delusion is harming them? For instance if a person convinced of their own sinfulness fasts and punishes themselves, or if they are overcome with self-worth problems for the same reason?
… and what happens when the doctors themselves believe the placebo is effective?
Section II - Some benefits are not unique to Religion
“To be clear, most of the benefits I've brought up so far are not unique to Religion. That has never been my contention. “ - Con
To be clear, my contention was that religion included unnecessary and dangerous requirements. I am saying that even if the benefit does outweigh the cost in a particular issue (via religion) the benefits via another solution could outweigh the costs by an ever greater degree.
For instance say John and Frank both make the same mistake in life, this causes self-esteem issues; and they both solve the problem in different ways.
John finds religion, he solves his problem by saying God loves him no matter what he did in the past; unfortunately because he truly believes this he occasionally relapses. He knows he shouldn’t depend on God’s forgiveness like that but subconsciously he does, and on that subconscious level he knows that he can always go back feel forgiven by God and feel good again. On top of this he feels he needs to go to church and pray often in penance and to maintain his connection to God and his feeling of being saved.
Frank on the other hand discovers a secular philosophy (say objectivism). His guilt about his mistake does not go away, but he rationally identifies the fact that he cannot change the past. He resolves not to make that mistake again; and by this conviction regains his self-esteem. He does not need to go to church, believe in things he cannot support; and more importantly since he does not believe his mistake can be mitigated by the torturous death of someone who lived two millennia ago, he does not relapse fearing the guilt and self-esteem problems he originally had.
Section III - Is it REALLY better to consider others?
"Note that he agrees that Religion DOES preach this message and that it echoes popular society. I therefore rest my case that Religion as a construct promotes traits that are seen as desirable." - Con
Con has agreed that witty talk show hosts all across America echo the sentiment that being kind and compassionate towards others is not a desirable trait. These people existing and being relatively popular, I therefore rest my case that Religion as a construct promotes traits that are not seen as desirable.
I guess the question a reader should ask themselves is “seen by who?”
Secondly this response is a pretty serious strawman, considering others, kindness, and compassion were not the traits being referenced. Instead “taking someone's attention away from themselves and place them onto the community” was the key phrase, especially when talking about putting oneself at risk. If this was an argument about values this would be a critical point. If Con wishes to assert that Religion promotes objectively correct values, it will become critical point.
“Again, all these traits are seen as being desirable. Almost all major Religions teach this message.” - Con
I do not disagree with the three values listed, thus I refer those points to sections I and II. I would like to point out that religion does not consistently promote any of those.
Looking after one's health:
Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?– Matthew 6:25 http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-25.htm
Questioning teaching:
Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. - James 1:21
http://biblehub.com/james/1-21.htm
There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. – Proverbs 16:25
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+16%3A25&version=ESV
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. – Proverbs 3:5
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+3%3A5&version=ESV
Working together:
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. – Luke 12:51
http://biblehub.com/luke/12-51.htm
Section IV - Religion owning the unknown
“None of us KNOW what lies after death, but it's true that Religion MAY hold the answer. “ - Con
Consider this then, what if I claim that there is an afterlife, a heaven and a hell. Heaven will only be attained by rejecting all preexisting religions, one need not believe that there is a haven or a hell, the only requirement is that they do not do anything on earth differently because of the possibility of heaven and hell.
If this belief is true, then your insurance just turned into a suicide pact; and atheism/agnosticism is the only real insurance.
To maintain your point you must challenge the truth value of this claim about the afterlife (this religion if you will). However, your point here is that regardless of whether religion is true or not it’s cheap insurance. I have shown by this claim how nothing is anything without logic and evidence. Some truth value is always a dependency.
“Since I have some more space, here's a bunch of other benefits drawn from a single article carefully selected from a non-religious source, Forbes Magazine.” - Con
This a very common problem I encounter in online debating. From statistical association to conclusions about causality.
Religion is culturally seen as a good thing, something young people should ascribe to as part of a successful healthy lifestyle. Therefore there will be a strong sampling bias between people who care about living ‘correctly’ and those who engage with religion. Most parents try to raise their children with some level of religious conviction, thus those who listened to their parents more closely often engage in religion more.
In this case then I am claiming there is a common cause, and the proposition that religion causes the benefits you listed is a fallacy of ignoring...
Return To Top | Posted:
nzlockie (CON)As we enter the final round I thank my opponent for the interesting debate. In his last round he's made several comments on points I've made and I'd like to address those here before making my final reply speech.
Section I
The friend must be real - I made the point way back in round one that one of the benefits of Religion is that it can provide comfort, hope and peace to the believer in times of trial. This is because Religion is capable of, and usually does, provide the believer with a "Higher Power". Someone who is in control and has their best interests at heart. Prayer is the term we use for communicating with this higher power, and it has already been established, (and confirmed by my opponent during our first CX round) that the very act of sharing problems CAN lead to the kind of benefits I've mentioned.
My opponent has said in this last round that those very REAL and tangible effects can only come about if the "friend", in this case our higher power, is real. I wholeheartedly reject this premise and you should too. It doesn't matter if the friend is real, what matters is that the believer BELIEVES the friend is real.
Everything must be objectively verifiable - I'm afraid I have no idea where my opponent is going with this point. It seems we actually agree. I have no problem saying that Religion as a construct requires a faith element. Often belief in a Religion requires belief in something which can't be objectively verifiable. (The Biblical account of Creation springs to mind)
The quote he's used here was in response to his contention that there is no value in those benefits. My point was that there is SUCH a value in those benefits that people are willing to believe the unverifiable. In other words, if it wasn't working, why are they still buying it?
Religion marginalizes pain - Again, I'm a little lost. It seems here that my opponent does NOT believe that Religion is capable of providing those benefits of comfort, hope and peace in times of suffering, despite the fact that he has said that he himself has experienced them before. I'm happy to simply disagree with him here. Religion DOES provide these benefits - although it's true that it's not a "one-size-fits all" kind of thing. Islam may help me, while Christianity comforts you. Simple absolution by a Priest may be my cup of tea, a feeling that you've suffered for your sins may be more reassuring to you.
Our debate here does not centre around the specific beliefs, only the construct itself.
He brings up a nice example of Maths and Molecules, and correctly points out that those can be objectively measured. He's right. That has no bearing here. The fact remains that Religion is not the only thing that requires Faith.
I've already addressed this point in a previous round, so I'm not going to repeat it here.
The big picture is that it really doesn't matter if the Religion is true or not. The fact is that it works. It accomplishes things and that means that it is NOT a waste of time.
John uses his own will and self sufficiency to help him through his problems. Like the statistical average for people attempting to help themselves out of an issue, he doesn't make it. He commits Suicide and dies alone and unhappy.
See my point is that this story is useless. We can both tell stories which make our side look better.
It does. Therefore it is not a waste of time.
Section III
I suspect this was just an innocent slip by my opponent but it kind of paints me in a bad light.
I'm going to simply address his point that our key phrase was on "taking someone's attention away from themselves and place them onto the community".
I'm ok with this. This is the very definition of "Considering others more important than yourself" - which is the trait I was talking about.
Some of the people we hold up as heroes are put up there because they have sacrificed themselves, their very lives, so that others might be saved. Firemen are only one example of this. As a society we celebrate their selflessness as being an admirable quality.
I'm going to let this one go without debate because it is going to take me too long. All of the verses he's quoted here have been taken out of context and ultimately it DOESN"T MATTER! As I said, this debate is not about the efficiency or consistency of the message - only whether it achieves.
If making the message consistent would help, then let's make the message more consistent. An inconsistent message is not a fault with the construct, only with the specifics of the belief system.
Consider this then... - Yet again, my opponent has gotten caught up in the details of what a religion offers. The debate here is not about the benefits of a specific religion. There are plenty of Religions that don't even offer a heaven or hell option!
My point here was that IF religion is true when it said there was a prize for believers, then it would definitely not be a waste of time.
Since we accept that there is a POSSIBILITY of an earthquake, and we have an excess of money - it's not a waste.
Religion can be seen in the same light.
I did this on purpose to avoid any accusation of bias. My opponent has simply replied that this list is biased because society views Religion favourably.
There is simply nothing to rebut here. The article was NOT biased. The benefits it lists are real, tangible and measurable.
And because they are cool, and I yet again have space, I'm going to list them AGAIN!
Return To Top | Posted:
nzlockie: wasn't really expecting another CX round, I don't really have any questions at this point. Return To Top | Speak Round
nzlockie (CON)Well I'd like to thank my opponent for the good debate. In this final round I'll be summing up my side.
This debate on whether RELIGION IS A WASTE OF TIME has been approached from two different angles by my side.
Religion as a construct is not a waste of time:
This angle has gone largely undisputed by my opponent. He does not dispute my assertion that religion has been used by men and women throughout history and even to the current day to achieve various goals - whether they be purely selfish or altruistic. When confronted with a list of the physical, financial and mental benefits shown to stem from religion, he simply dismisses them without any reasoning. I hasten to remind the judges that this list was drawn up based on a person following A religion - regardless of what that religion was.
I'd like to remind the judges that the definition we agreed upon for this debate stipulate that how efficiently reigion achieves its goals is NOT a consideration. For that to be a factor, my opponent would have had to show that we do not have an excess of the comodity, "time" - something he has not even attempted to do.
The one argument my opponent has launched against religion's effectiveness as a construct is that since ALL of its gains are evil, they should be discounted therefore making it a waste of time. After he failed to be able to tell me who decides what constitutes "evil" I saw no benefit in addressing this point any more. It's demonstrably obvious that GAINS are not a waste of time. Look at my example of the tribal medicine man. He has nothing so he invents a God and a cool background story, and he convinces the people that for God to be happy with them they need to obey His commands. One of those commands is to feed, clothe and house the Medicine man. How is that a waste of the resource, Time, for the medicine man? It clearly is not! He had nothing, now he has traded time for food, clothes and a house! Even the people get something out of it as will be explained in the next point.
Religion has been around for as long as recorded history. If it failed to get results then it would have died out ages ago. The fact that it is still kicking is alone testament to the fact that it is acheiving and is therefore not a waste of time.
Religious Beliefs have benefit:
This was a secondary point to the resolution but was still a valid one. The point has already been made that Religion achieves and is therefore not a waste of time. This side of the argument was all around the kinds of benefits that Religion can deliver. I cited a number of psychological benefits to accompany the physical and financial ones in my 2nd round list. My opponent's dispute with my psychological benefits of PEACE, COMFORT and HOPE was that because they were based on a lie, they were not benefits. Again, this is demonstrably absurd. The net result of these benefits is real and tangible. People feel better. They feel comforted in times of stress. This comfort comes from Religion.
My opponent claimed that if the believer realised the lie, then they would feel bad. My response to this is that this proves my point that religion delivers those benefits. Not having the religion anymore means those benfits are taken away.
Note that I have deliberately not contested my opponent's assertion that Religion is a lie. Don't mistake me for agreeing with him. My point is to acheive the benefits of a Religion, one only has to believe it. How believable a specific religion is will influence the number of believers it attracts but all that is imaterial to this debate.
Finally on this side of the argument, I also brought up the fact that may religions encourage traits which are generally regarded as being "Good" or desirable traits. Namely, caring for others over yourself. My opponent contested that these were desirable at all, completely in the face of popular convention. The evidence to support my contention was born on the back of society, where we celebrate and praise those who sacrifice themselves and their own gains for the gains of those less fortunate. His evidence was lacking.
It was important to me to note as well, that Religion is not the only construct that preaches and teaches these messages. In fact Religion and secular society almost always echo the same truths in this regard. My evidence was Ellen who is lovely.
When judging this debate, you must remind yourself of the definition. What constitutes a religion has not been debated. Whether religions are beneficial, efficient or desirable should not factor into your decision. Ultimately, many of the rabbit trails we've taken discussing the effectiveness and desirability of the benefits have only a passing influence on the resolution. My opponent has not contested the assertion that we have an excess of the resource - Time. He initially proposed that the efficency of the method needed to be included. That if the gains could be made more efficiently or more safely by another method then Religion was a waste of the resource. I contested that premise and submitted a counter definition which was never contested.
What matters then is only this - does Religion achieve?
If it does, then it can not be a waste of time.
The resolution has been negated -vote CON y'all.
Return To Top | Posted:
ADreamOfLiberty (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
Judge: Blackflag
Test comment. This comment was posted at 18:24 NZT.
Posted 2014-05-20 18:24:40
Shoot I missed posting it. ah well.Posted 2014-05-15 16:11:50
Haha, I mean, no new information etc. You're just supposed to sum up your case. Posted 2014-05-13 15:44:33
AhPosted 2014-05-13 15:37:54
Haha, I mean, no new information etc. You're just supposed to sum up your case. Posted 2014-05-13 14:11:38
Ahh interesting, what reply is not an argument do you think?Posted 2014-05-13 13:58:21
Not quite, it was 3 rounds with a reply speech. So you have one more comment to make. Reply speeches are not for arguments, just for summing up. You get half the number of characters and the order is reversed, which is why I went first. Posted 2014-05-13 13:24:54
Can someone explain what is going on, I thought this was a three round debate, it was over right?Posted 2014-05-13 12:48:06
In that case con burdens himself with proving god, proving which god, and proving that this is in fact what the religions say. Very high onus. Don't like to give away cases I would use prior to a debate, though I think it's safe to say I'd run this far more pragmatically on either side.Posted 2014-04-06 01:47:47
Really? The big monotheistic religions paint a pretty clear picture. The perfect reward vs the perfect punishment. If that assertion is right, there isn't anything done in pursuit or evasion of these that could be a waste of time...Posted 2014-04-05 03:59:51
That's arguable logic.Posted 2014-04-04 08:26:08
Um... It seems extremely relevant whether God exists. If he does, as religion claims; then Religion is hardly a waste of time.Posted 2014-04-04 07:54:49
By the way - my intention with this topic was a religion debate without actually invoking the usual "existence of God" arguments. Coming up with good religion motions is tough!Posted 2014-04-01 19:06:06