Religious Faith Is Independent of Societal Progress

Let the con be aware that his previous topic of debate still stands as these both have strong relation with each other. The statement "faith is not needed in any society" can be used to place emphasis on its superfluous nature with respect to mankind's ability to enact goodness and positive discipline within itself. This is true. Mankind is wholly capable of doing such feats on its own without theism. This however places the assumption that this is theism's sole purpose. It is not. And many differing religions profess many different purposes. The argument of the con is appealing to religions inability to distinguish its own majority example of goodness within a secular institution, which then leads to the question of its usefulness. However, my argument is not in showing the usefulness of religion in order to combat the con, but making a case that religion's usefulness and purpose are completely independent of any societal framework and that forming any outer conclusive reasoning that deems it to exude a majority of negative traits shows ignorance in examining basic human behavior. My case is specifically against these statements and quote: "Alright then. I will go over the reasons as to why I believe religion is a divisive, simple-minded, ignorant, dangerous, and closely related to a virus in all societies, and is a strange distorted form of belief." "Religious Faith Is Not Needed" "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." I contend that religious faith of its own sole merit is independent of societal progress or lack thereof and undeserving of its stigma. It also does not exist to promote any lethargic sense of satisfaction with regards to world understanding and that these are all by products of successive human error. First I will affirm the opposing stance. Then I will make my case. ____ I have suspicion to believe my opponent is popularly confusing the state of religious faith itself with the abuse of religious faith and the external consequence of that abuse or the ease of that abuse. His position of concluding that the seen result (of theism) requires dismissal of belief from society ['that it is not needed'] and his reasoning's for doing so all exhibit signs of inference-observation confusion. A misinterpretation that the source is of equal guilt as the externally observed results. He concludes that the horrors performed in the name of religion are of equal guilt as the state of belief from which they allegedly came. The idea that simply the possession of belief alone contains a natural and instinctive volatility that has been proven and seen to be harmful to the civilized progression of mankind. The problem with this reasoning is that my opponent overlooks the consequence of human error, instinct, motivation, and the role they all so tirelessly play among mass social frameworks in all instances. I argue that poor execution, miss-communication, poor presentation, and misrepresentation of any framework, be it theistic in origin or not; all exacerbate an outlet for negative human inclination which then invites the potential for abuse which is what is seen today. This is my case. That natural human folly is of guilt and not the state of belief as it singularly stands. I will mostly attempt to illustrate this within the resulting counter rounds. However I will make my foremost case here in the 2nd Round. I have hypothetically illustrated this reasoning beforehand to shown how error in an initial human reaction can have an effect on all that follows it: ___________________________ > A church is made after someone finds a book that says bad things will happen if other people don't believe it or take some form of specific action (This is attempted understanding of ones environment as a protector. It is the origin of this cycle.) > The church takes to heart what the book says and becomes FEARFUL of the eventual outcome it describes (this can be a conscious reaction or an unconscious one) > This fear then serves as a protective tool to move it to act in a way that keeps it from experiencing the bad things the book talked about (This is fear as a protector. Some would call this or mislabel it as Fear of God. In this case it is the same as seeing a gun and becoming fearful of the anticipation of being shot. Most equate the power God is said to have with his potential ability in punishing them for whatever they think they've done.) > But the church sees the protective actions it takes as noble and cares for other people. It then turns the prospect of everyone avoiding a bad fate into a movement, a cause, and a dream (exactly like the Vanguards for Equality from my previous post) and it gets comfortable in its stance (castles and islands example. The "Comfortable in its stance" part can allude to the Richard Dawkins quote stated earlier). It then passes down and teaches to each generation the art of dodging and running from a disastrous fate (which is like the bullet in the gun example). But because the churches initial understanding was based upon a fear, that fear translates into the ways it tries to help other people (Obey God or burn forever type thinking). Thus the church itself ultimately becomes an OP type organization (Overly Protective) whether it meant to originally or not. This can be shown in what the people take away from the teachings or how they view others who don't share their beliefs. > Since the arts of dodging and running themselves are based on fear within a flight response, they have the potential to reach any radical measures necessary by whatever extreme means in order to protect itself- [this becomes a result only if the initial stance taken is one powered by fear] _______________________________ Those radical results I mentioned, of self promotion and protection, are what we see today. But the origin of those negative results is not the source itself but of man's initial fearful interpretation of the source. Other men have the potential to not produce a chain reaction of fear after examining their own source at their beginnings. Because there are many differing sources which mean many differing things to many different men. To come to the conclusion that theism itself is the original negative cause grossly underestimates the power and role of human fear and the effect it plays in all human frameworks. This same case of fear's role can even be seen in non theistic environments. Politicians may abuse the fear that potential voters have of their financial or protective futures in order to amass self gain. Fear of failure can be used to promote recklessness among hard workers. Even science has been abused with this exact notion and has had to distinguish itself from pseudoscience. Racial superiority was championed by some to have scientific backing. This had a disastrous effect on whites perception of people of color at the time. But would science be to blame or the fear that infiltrated it/abused it? No. Which is why a distinction was made. Because the abuse of science was the cause, not science itself. The same is true of the horrors done in the name of religion. Fear perpetuates itself in many things and has a mass influence on how we view those things. It's our external judgement in how we view them that matters. The point being is that even if religion were to be dismissed purely for its potential of abuse, this would still not be justifiable and can even be considered unlawful. The principles of religious freedom & separation of church in state work hand in hand. They are binding and one cannot function properly without the other. > Religious freedom prevents discrimination of any one belief so that no one general ruling can work on behalf of them all regardless of any abuse potential. > Separation of Church and State makes sure that should a religion become abused (assuming that its basis isn't abusive in itself), its effects don't infiltrate the national institution that is supposed to work for all differing kinds of people and all their differing kinds of beliefs. These statutes are the result of a carefully thought out human framework. But ANY human framework has the potential to be abused. So these same laws which were meant to protect everyone are instead being misused to protect a select few. Just like with the previous examples of theism, fear is at the heart of any form of observable abuse. Do not confuse one with the other. My case is that you find both religion and abuse of religion to be of equal guilt and I believe you are wrong. My reasoning to believe this is your use of words like "divisive, simple-minded, ignorant, dangerous, and closely related to a virus" when in fact these are words that are used when describing natural human error, not the frameworks put in place to prevent these traits. And to attempt to distinguish a particular instance from all other religious instances shows bias. I refrain from delving any further till Round 3 to hear your response. Good luck.