Religious Faith Is Independent of Societal Progress

I will take this point by point. For the sake of space I will only include the 1st few words of the con"s argument followed by: "..." Each part of the counter is separated by: "____" > I have reviewed my opponents argument and it seems apparent that he proceeds " Human nature and society are two different things. Though both are man made expressions, one exists as a means to oversee the other. Society is mankind's attempt at regulating individual human nature among a mass of differing mindsets in order make sure one doesn't inhibit the other and that there is at least some form of control or general order. Individual human nature on its own en masse has proven to be disastrous. A defining social structure combats this. I've already stated this myself that separation of church and state exists for a reason. "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." There is no misunderstanding. At its initial stage, human nature weaves religion. Religion comes from man. Just as society comes from man. Man is his own worst enemy. And human nature can infect every one of man's products. You seem to deter yourself from the idea that I strongly support the lack of religious involvement within government. ______ > Allow me to correct you, I do not believe that both are equal, I find that ... Again. This is conjecture based on an externally developed personal opinion. [I find that the baseline state of belief could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time.] Once again, it is not. To emphasize this let's do an experiment. If I take your metaphor and replace the word belief with authority/power. What happens? "I find that the baseline state of authority/power could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time. It feels good, depending on the type of person you are, you'll proceed and proceed with the drug until you just grow addiction or tolerance to it. - This point is bad and sadly a lot of people go beyond it around the globe, which does lead to the murders and horrors done in its name." Does this statement still make its case with the words replaced? Yes. Yes it does. In fact this statement shows itself to be accepting of a wide range of examples. To cling to a particular, various different stories illustrate the effects of the social "megalomaniac". Gaius Julius Caesar for instance is one such case. And in his dominance, military might and status were his drug, not religiosity. What does this mean to show? It means that if your argument can still accept differing concepts and remain consistent means that there is an even simpler unifying concept that can't be broken down any further (one with no known substructure) which connects any two initially different concepts together. I say that this unifying concept, one that connects all the contexts of all observable misuse (be it power, faith, or money) is fear. What your observational inference tries to do is make a special case out of the state of belief and it cannot be seen in the same light as any of the other abusive positions. This thinking can only work if one keeps hold of their own perception and it only can exist if one starts with the assumption of observed guilt. Theists do the exact type of mental justification that you did within your mind after making those observations. One professes the ills of atheism while the other professes the ills of theism. A generalized inference of either of those ills that separates any unifying role leads us to why we are debating this right now. All I am saying it that your metaphor can be used to describe ANYTHING that can be seen as potentially addictive. Because of this, it isn't at all effective in making a point against any one particular thing. Medical drugs can be used in your example. On their own they are just a chemical substance. But depending on the user they can become either beneficial or detrimental. The exact same thing is true with authority/power. Depending on the hands it"s in, it too can become either beneficial or detrimental. This is not me disregarding your personal conviction as unconvincing. This is me saying your approach in trying to expressing your personal conviction is unconvincing. ______ > I have reviewed your points for how human nature ... Yes. You are wrong. I mentioned separation of church and state for a reason (plz refer to the 1st part of the post about society) but when I say you are wrong I specifically mean your last point. > You say it yourself, fear ends up dominating the minds of humanity, and through the process of non-thinking called faith" No. I said nothing at all about false diseases and fake cures. What's more, FEAR induces the process of non-thinking. Not faith. Fear. It is the universal monolith and all withstanding instinctive law that governs non-thinking. If non-thinking had its own God that it fervently worshiped day and night, that God would be named Fear. One can have faith that God(s) exist One can have faith that their partner loves them enough to not cheat on them One can have faith that their parents will be back to bring them food On their own these are all indifferent emotions and perceptions which are hardly of arguable consequence. But what is it that causes someone to mutilate themselves and others as an offering? What is it that causes someone to constantly monitor their significant other for signs of mistrust? What is it that causes a child to murder an adult just so they can steal some bread? This is fear. The same fear that halts one in their steps, unable to move and unable to think whenever confronted by serious threat. Fear that the God(s) one placed so much value and hope in won't be able to return them any tangible favors. Fear that one's partner has a dismissive love that can turn against them at the single pass of a better prospect. Fear that one just might starve after their parents promised them they wouldn't. Fear is what creates what you see and yet you adamantly believe, Even to the point of argument, Even to the point of debate. That the state of belief is the problem at hand. That the state of belief is something of a true enemy. Are you afraid of someone believing in God(s)? Or are you afraid of how that person can possibly behave in reaction to their belief? Your answer to this determines why you think the way you do. I applaud any stance of atheism that does not seek out to make an enemy of theism. Likewise, I applaud any stance of theism that does not seek out to make an enemy of atheism. To initiate any form of ethical confrontation between the two falls below my sense of respect. ______ > Ah, yes. Your comparison in your next paragraph I see as faulty because " Remember when I posted this? [ - And to attempt to distinguish a particular instance from all other religious instances shows bias.] If you wish to call out a specific denomination then challenge the denomination itself. Challenge what you see to be documented as potentially unjust. But first know what you are actually challenging. To feel potential error in the ways of a denomination and to jump to the reasoning that all the state of belief is at fault is a textbook description of inexperience. The full hardy nature of the eager intellectual. If I see that a business is stealing from its employees do I reason that all forms of business are inherently bad? Or do I challenge that particular business with respect to what it has done? If the latter then why would religion be any different? Remember again what I said in Round 2: [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. ] Know who you are actually combating. ______ > Religious freedom is definitely a thing in America, but most certainly not respected ... EVERYTHING you just said here is the aftermath of abuse of a system. I do not condone this at all. I know what you mean. I feel what you mean. I have even fought for trying to get others to understand what you mean. I have heard this same exact plea more times than I can conceivably count. We both know that this is not right. What I know and what you show struggle in realizing, is the CORE of WHY this isn't right. Not the observable aftermath effects of why. The core of why. 'The absolute core of why' has no particular relation to religion, or power, or greed, or violence, or anything. The absolute core of why has everything to do with how humans abuse their fears and desires. This is what radiates to create the situation you find so uncomfortable. That is your actual enemy. The antidote to fear is understanding, not just education. Because education has the potential to be misused also. Understanding takes a reaching between two sides and it knows and feels the heart of another person. That is the bottom line. > This is issue of human nature and religion both equally" - and I do wish you to prove me wrong. Fear takes advantage of our flaws. Not blaming humans themselves allows for humans themselves to continue and abuse whatever other means that comes along. Discrediting religion is not going to appease whatever ails you. And only you can prove you wrong. All I'm capable of is showing how I feel things are and hoping that what I say at least causes you to think about the negative potential your argument carries. You may have the most upstanding, and glowingly beneficial goal that ever existed. But if your argument for the means to which you want to reach that goal are in error, then I will debate you each and every time.