Hello Veeky Forums, I have a request. Previously I was not very engaged in religion and its meaning, but that view has changed quite a bit after my school implemented obligatory religion classes. I find it interesting, and I wish to know more about different aspects of religion. My teacher constantly wishes to initiate a debate whether or not religion is useful in today's society. My classmates all agree religion is stupid and should be removed completely. So that is why I'm here. I want to be that one person which makes sure the debate keeps on going, taking a stand which is the complete opposite of which everyone else. I don't know enough about religion, but I'm sure you guys do. Primarily I wanted to start a debate about religion, but also please provide advice on how I can increase my knowledge and reflect more maturely. So here is my question to you guys: Does religion have a positive or negative effect on the world, and are there any aspects of these religions that today, or throughout their history, that have had a negative of positive effect of the world.
TL;DR: I want to debate my class whether religion has had a positive or negative effect on the world, and if there are any aspects of these religions that today, or throughout their history, that had a negative of positive effect of the world, but my knowledge isn't wide enough so I want to use your brains.
I don't want you as the spokesperson for religion. Just be a good sheep and say "baaaaaa".
Nicholas Turner
Religion is tool. One can use a hammer to build a house. Or smash someones head in. The tool is not to blame, but rather the user.
Cooper Ross
Quote from who?
Elijah Lewis
>I want to start a debate of a topic I am not prepared debating Do you even have the slightest idea what you're doing and why?
In fact, what are you even going to school for?
Aaron Foster
literally just made it up sounds like something someone would say though, i imagine. sounded good in my head.
Xavier Lopez
>provides a sense of community >provides purpose and a goal >a lot of religions have some sort of meditation and inner contemplation that results in some sense of inner peace t. buddhist I could go on
Easton Brown
Religion is too Religiously Correct, so I that's why I don't like it.
Robert Baker
you're a professional quote maker user
Julian Perry
Don't mention Christianity. Stick to Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. Taoism is too bullshit for your class to handle.
Your class thinks they know everything about Christianity and that they know why it is garbage. It is garbage, but they don't know anything about it. Foreign religions allow you to dodge their misconceptions about Christianity without falling into stupid traps. You have a blank slate to debate with, while they have nothing.
Actually understand how these religions differ from Christianity. You NEED to be able to present them as more than just a different flavor of "bearded man in the sky says do x, y, and z".
You don't need to make them theists, just show them that religions have their benefits.
Aiden Hernandez
History is unthinkable without religion. It's the foundation of society and of how we come to understand the world since the beginnings of mankind. It's the foundation of every civilisation. Even in the latter stages of civilisation, when most people no longer have the necessary sense of spirituality to be true believers, religion continues to play an important role as the vehicle of tradition, which is what ensures the continuity and stability of any society.
Now while all religions fill those functions, they're not all the same. Christianity in particular is very different from other religions, as it's a kind of anti-religion, a deconstruction of all other religions and of the violent elements they contain. By philosophically rejecting any form of violence, it had a tempering effect through the centuries, and it's the reason we no longer consider things such as sacrifice, slavery, gladiator fights or massacres and persecution in general morally defensible. Buddhism had a similar effect. Keep in mind I'm talking about Christianity as a philosophy here, not about the Church which was a real life institution and which at times carried out actions that weren't in accordance with that philosophy. But taking the Catholic Church as an example, its effects were also overwhelmingly positive. It conserved and copied ancient knowledge. It ran schools and colleges and maintained a class of academics and a setting for intellectual life. It provided both a motivation and the resources for the vast majority of medieval art and architecture. Its philosophy and policy promoted the development of Western science and created the conditions for the scientific revolution.
But as I said before this doesn't apply to all religions. Islam for example has had an overwhelmingly destructive effect. The same can be said for Protestantism, although not nearly to the same extent. But both of those are "reform" religions, which aim to return to a more religiously pure past.
Read Edward Feser and get your class to renounce logic.
>Now while all religions fill those functions, they're not all the same. Christianity in particular is very different from other religions, as it's a kind of anti-religion, a deconstruction of all other religions and of the violent elements they contain. By philosophically rejecting any form of violence, it had a tempering effect through the centuries, and it's the reason we no longer consider things such as sacrifice, slavery, gladiator fights or massacres and persecution in general morally defensible
Not really this misunderstanding occurs because of Christianity's uniquely secular approach compared to the other abramamic faiths.
Rulers were able to violently coerce people into converting, carry out constant wars - particular when compared to places like China- whilst the Church was able to remain pure.
I would say its great value was its unifying force which helped keep some form of unity in Europe after the fall of Rome.
>But taking the Catholic Church as an example, its effects were also overwhelmingly positive. It conserved and copied ancient knowledge. It ran schools and colleges and maintained a class of academics and a setting for intellectual life.
It also shut down the Philsophical academies established by Plato and Aristotle and purged pagan thinkers and artists from public life.
Much like Islam Christianity had a very violent a destructive period as well as very creative and beneficial one. Islam spread a common language and created lasting wealth, prosperity, art and scientific and philosophical endeavors which were well ahead of Christian Europe. Handwaving this is just dogmatic.
However I will say its a mistake to automatically assume these religions will return to such a role if given the chance.
Gabriel Mitchell
>Rulers were able to violently coerce people into converting, carry out constant wars - particular when compared to places like China- whilst the Church was able to remain pure. He specifically distinguished between Christianity as a philosophy and the Church, and he was talking about the philosophy there, learn to read.
>It also shut down the Philsophical academies established by Plato and Aristotle and purged pagan thinkers and artists from public life. No it didn't. The academies of Plato and Aristotle were closed in 83 BC and 86 BC. Nice bullshit memes though, you forgot about them burning down the Library of Alexandria.
>Islam created art and scientific and philosophical endeavors No it didn't. At worst it suppressed art and science, at best it allowed it to continue to develop where it already existed. Islam made no useful contribution in those areas whatsoever.
Jaxon Young
Hey I know this is pretty unrelated but somewhere else on Veeky Forums one time I saw this comic where a Christian Monk? conducts research and saves libraries from being burned down and then he's looking down from heaven at a fedora atheist saying that christianity set science back 1000 years
I think this board would be most likely to have someone who has it
Evan Russell
>Edward Feser Edward Feser is a great philosopher.
Gabriel Gray
I'm not religious but I think the Bible is pretty great.
Jordan Walker
Here you go my friend
Zachary Watson
Thank U Very Much
i dont have any Veeky Forums related memes but you can have this
Luke Ortiz
Try reading Why Nations Fail; and The Origins of Political Order.
Religion is pretty important for getting tribally-organized societies to become centralized states.
Joseph Davis
>required religion classes That sounds awful. Go debate with the people that made this happen. Seriously. t. christian
Ian Clark
>I want to debate my class You are going to look like an undesevedly arrogant jackass and a pompous douche even if you "win" (you won't).
If you already ran your mouth, apologize and stfu for the rest of the semester while you read up on classroom politics.
Of course you won't do this so just call them unscientific retards or something.
I only know that I know nothing.
Juan Cruz
You sound like a pretentious dickwad.
Benjamin Mitchell
Exactly this, the use is dictated by the ideology/policy. A religion is an organization, as is government, business, academia, and non-profit. A government with nationalist xenophobic tendency is similar to a religion with a belligerence against nonbelievers. Both exhibit tribalism.
Much as patriotism(value) promotes the false sense of superiority based on geological birth so too does faith(value) promote a false sense of knowledge. Faith is not exclusively religious nor is religion exclusively faith based.
Science is a method(policy/process) of academia, with religion there is tradition(ideology/process). It is this user's opinion that a religion of reason is possible and is not necessarily theism based.
I would argue it is ignorant to be anti-religion where anti-theism is warranted.
If they claim that all religion is historically violent recognize that it is humans who are violent. If they make that claim explain that the experiment has never been done scientifically to show religion must be faith based, theistic, or violent. Existing examples are observed without control, without measured variation, and current examples are limited in number (small sample size).
