Debate: God Exists

[Azu]

A better question to refine with is, since god is a religiously constructed concept:

Why do religions exist?

How about that?

Psychology. Weak psyches (sp?).

That's not a sophisticated answer. It's like a shortcut to thinking.

Let's make this a debate. Shall we get started?

Let's be speculative as well as using historical evidence. The question isn't asking merely who wrote religions and what their political motives were. The question is multilayered: have they made differences in human history? Without religions, how would the world today be? What impacts, whether positive, negative or both, did they have upon today's world and the future ? So on.

[ignoramus]

I believe we've come to an agreement in the past that religions as a whole have done good but are still in the net sum negative.
in other words, the world would've progressed quicker and with less violence without the bronze age divisive influence of religions.

[Drich]

Psychology. Weak psyches (sp?).

Let's be speculative as well as using historical evidence. The question isn't asking merely who wrote religions and what their political motives were. The question is multilayered: have they made differences in human history? Without religions, how would the world today be? What impacts, whether positive, negative or both, did they have upon today's world and the future ? So on.

This is a rather uninformed or presumptuous assumption.. It Is like an alternative to thinking...

What makes you think Religion has anything to do with God? If you are going to have a debate then you need to first establish the relationship between religion and God. What does God think of Religion, what does he think of the religious, what classifications does he place on the religious, what place in the after life can most religious expect to see??

Then if God's response even just leans towards the negative to the religious, then why use the religious to determine or argue the existence of God?


Or do you simply not know any better? If God shows any level of contempt towards "X" then how does "X" determine the existence of God?

This is why formal debate is poison in this type of discussion, because more often than not one side if not both are nearly completely ignorant of the subject matter, so all that is accomplished is just a reaffirmation of what you already think you know. Because if you locked the subject matters in formal debate to your questions concerning religion, then religion/religious become the foundation of the discussion. But what happenes like I pointed out above when your foundation can not considered to be a load bearing structure?

Then everyone becomes a fool who follows or contributes to the debate. nothing is gained, only the practice of the debate rules themselves.

[PETE_ROSE]

Well said D.

[Harry Nevis]

Let's be speculative as well as using historical evidence. The question isn't asking merely who wrote religions and what their political motives were. The question is multilayered: have they made differences in human history? Without religions, how would the world today be? What impacts, whether positive, negative or both, did they have upon today's world and the future ? So on.

This is a rather uninformed or presumptuous assumption.. It Is like an alternative to thinking...

What makes you think Religion has anything to do with God? If you are going to have a debate then you need to first establish the relationship between religion and God. What does God think of Religion, what does he think of the religious, what classifications does he place on the religious, what place in the after life can most religious expect to see??

Then if God's response even just leans towards the negative to the religious, then why use the religious to determine or argue the existence of God?


Or do you simply not know any better? If God shows any level of contempt towards "X" then how does "X" determine the existence of God?

This is why formal debate is poison in this type of discussion, because more often than not one side if not both are nearly completely ignorant of the subject matter, so all that is accomplished is just a reaffirmation of what you already think you know. Because if you locked the subject matters in formal debate to your questions concerning religion, then religion/religious become the foundation of the discussion. But what happenes like I pointed out above when your foundation can not considered to be a load bearing structure?

Then everyone becomes a fool who follows or contributes to the debate. nothing is gained, only the practice of the debate rules themselves.

Since religion invented god, it seems like the place to start.

[Drich]

This is a rather uninformed or presumptuous assumption.. It Is like an alternative to thinking...

What makes you think Religion has anything to do with God? If you are going to have a debate then you need to first establish the relationship between religion and God. What does God think of Religion, what does he think of the religious, what classifications does he place on the religious, what place in the after life can most religious expect to see??

Then if God's response even just leans towards the negative to the religious, then why use the religious to determine or argue the existence of God?


Or do you simply not know any better? If God shows any level of contempt towards "X" then how does "X" determine the existence of God?

This is why formal debate is poison in this type of discussion, because more often than not one side if not both are nearly completely ignorant of the subject matter, so all that is accomplished is just a reaffirmation of what you already think you know. Because if you locked the subject matters in formal debate to your questions concerning religion, then religion/religious become the foundation of the discussion. But what happenes like I pointed out above when your foundation can not considered to be a load bearing structure?

Then everyone becomes a fool who follows or contributes to the debate. nothing is gained, only the practice of the debate rules themselves.

Since religion invented god, it seems like the place to start.

define religion, then point to that place/time in histroy

[brewer]

Psychology. Weak psyches (sp?).

That's not a sophisticated answer. It's like a shortcut to thinking.

Let's make this a debate. Shall we get started?

Let's be speculative as well as using historical evidence. The question isn't asking merely who wrote religions and what their political motives were. The question is multilayered: have they made differences in human history? Without religions, how would the world today be? What impacts, whether positive, negative or both, did they have upon today's world and the future ? So on.

Not sophisticated and shortcut are only your opinion.

I don't care about historical evidence. The motives were to have a man made fantasy delusion provide explanations and make comfortable lives/situations for which the culture/society did not have an answer for. The religion(s) then became a manipulative tool, sometimes used for good, some for bad. 

Any potential benefits derived from the delusion of god(s)/religion(s) has now run it's course. It is a tool that has become obsolete. The people that need the delusion today to make their life complete are welcome to it, as long as they don't force that belief on to others. And there is the rub. It's still being used to manipulate societies. The religious feel that they are part of a higher standard that needs to be applied, by force if necessary, to all. 

So, remove god/religion from the human condition. How would you classify the psyche of an individual or group that depended on a delusion as an integral part of their existence?

[Mister Agenda]

A better question to refine with is, since god is a religiously constructed concept:

Why do religions exist?

How about that?

Hm. I suppose religion started with animism, the belief that animals, plants, objects, and natural phenomena have spirits that do things for reasons. I'd include belief in ghosts and ancestor spirits.

Where the idea came from isn't hard to imagine: dreams and hallucinations. We didn't know what dreams were, we only knew that in our dreams (and sometimes in our fevers or mental illness or psychoactive substances) we might wind up talking to a mountain or our departed grandparents.

Since everything or most everything had a spirit, it only made sense that we could influence them if we could figure out what they wanted. As long as the price wasn't too high, a band of hunter gatherers could take a chance on the person who said they figured out how to get the favor of the spirits, even if all that was really figured out was that people count the hits and forget about the misses, especially if ad hoc explanations for failure worked fine (the people up the river gave more to the spirits than we did!). Such a person didn't have to be dishonest (though knowing what you're doing would probably make you more effective), just fantasy-prone. Being the local shaman could be a matter of survival if you want the band to keep you around even when you're blind or having seizures, or lame, or (especially) hearing voices.

So the shaman sold hope that the hunt would be successful, that the famine would end, that there were reasons that bad and good things happened. The more hand-to-mouth your existence is, the more important it is to have reasons to hope. Bands that thought they had agency over the outcome of events that they couldn't possibly influence through natural means could well have been more successful than bands that didn't.

So the shaman became a fixture of communities (and the rabbi, priest, imam, and preacher). Religion became a way to unify the community, lend authority to laws (the sun god commands it!), and motivate the population (the members of the next village over with the weak defenses are all blasphemers, attack!).

When we developed into nation-states, wars became bloodier and economy-wrecking. It's not like grabbing their cattle and women would make up for the costs, so war became something that you just couldn't afford having in the hands of the priesthood, who might really take it into their heads that war is necessary to crush heretics. In most places, and in the whole developed world, the reigns of power have been pulled from the ranks of the priesthood, as a matter of necessity.

Now, in the majority of the world's countries, religions have to compete with each other and other ideas without (much) special protection from government, in a world where we increasingly understand natural phenomena, the nature of dreams and hallucinations, and have practical ways to influence the natural world that would have seemed god-like to our distant ancestors. Where technology is most developed and government is most neutral on religious matters, religion is in decline. In developed countries we aren't desperate for hope, because the vast majority of us have access to enough food and don't worry about not having enough children live to support us in our old age (of 40 or so). The conditions under which religion grew and flourished have changed. Now the only sense it can be said to be growing is in less-developed countries with high rates of population growth. Almost all the global population growth in the next 40 years will be happening in Africa and South America; and the countries there tend to be highly religious, so the percentage of Christians and Muslims will likely go up on those continents even as they go down in Europe and Australia and North America and Asia.

The best friend of religion is poverty.

[Ben Davis]

A better question to refine with is, since god is a religiously constructed concept:

Why do religions exist?

How about that?

That's a discussion question, not a debate topic. You need to state it in a way that allows pro/anti positions. Something like...

'Gods caused Religions' or 'Religions caused Gods'.

[Edwardo Piet]

A better question to refine with is, since god is a religiously constructed concept:

Why do religions exist?

How about that?

I think The Intentional Stance explains it, really.