Difference between revisions of "Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Conservapedia:Is religion relevant in todays society? moved to Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?: I believe this more accurately sums up the question. The writer does not say that religion plays a small role in )
m (Replacing page with 'No')
Line 1: Line 1:
−
I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat.  Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago.  All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe.  In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point).  So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code.  However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes.  The moralities set up in each religion are different.  Mores are not universally accepted or shared.  Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.).  If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
+
No
−
==Yes==
 
−
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it. 
 
−
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
 
−
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth.  Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.
 
−
 
 
−
So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue.  Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance.  If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong).  For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate?
 
−
--[[User:Anti-Facio [[Facio]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say.  In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction.  Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point.  Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades.  I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion.  To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient.  We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.
 
−
 
 
−
Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==No==
 
−
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative.  Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.
 
−
 
 
−
So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT) 
 
−
 
 
−
'''Response'''
 
−
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth.  [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007
 
−
 
 
−
I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion?  Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth?  [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007
 
−
 
 
−
::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT) 
 
−
 
 
−
:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 19:56, March 20, 2007

No

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Should_Religion_Play_a_Large_Role_in_Modern_Societies%3F&oldid=52088"