"does religion have a place in todays society" To answer that question literally, it most certainly does.

Religion engenders a self of worth or purpose in many people, allowing them to be able to face the world they live in. Religion has served the purpose of forming a structure to promote wellbeing, social norms, and societal integration. Not only that, but it has incredible political power that people wield regularly, with people supporting the interaction their religion has with society. So of course religion has a place in society, because we give it a place and it fills a role. But I assume you meant your question to mean should it have a place in society, or does it need to be. My answer is emphatically no. There is no necessity for religion, as the mere existence of happy, healthy, productive atheists demonstrates that as individuals, we don't need religion to cope with life. It's not needed as an external force to us as a species, but many people do as they were raised to lean on it as a crutch that is incredibly hard to walk away from. While I, along with everybody else here, agree that a person has the right to believe what they want to believe as long as it doesn't directly harm society and I would never advocate outlawing religion. There is something to be said for how fast we will as a species adapt to live without any religion controlling us. A generation or two would probably do the trick. It's an expedient answer that a rationalist would promote, but I think people's rights are more important and the ends justifying the means is never something I subscribe to.

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not

! Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

necessarily those of Conservapedia.

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. The preceding unsigned comment was added by
Rhompa (talk)

Contents
[hide]

1 Yes 2 No 3 Why Ask? = o 3.1 Humanist

o

3.2 Maybe not

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. --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.--Itsjustme 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT) A widely published author once wrote something like this: When religion fails to inculcate a sense of morality into society then the whole of law and enforcement falls onto the shoulders of government. In broad, general terms, religion is a force for morality, for good. Though not every religion has 10 commandments exactly, traditional religions have a moral code its followers are encouraged to follow. Yes, religion has a place in society, no matter how freely a society communicates within and without its borders. Terryeo 17:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT) I would have to disagree with both you and that author. In a Canadian city, about 40 years ago, the police went on strike for a day. Shops and banks were robbed, cars stolen, vandalism, looting etc. The town pretty much went to the dogs for that day, and almost every shop along the main drag was robbed and massive amounts of damage occured. Now, the majority of the people in that city were christians, and fairly devout ones as well, yet despite having a "strong moral code" they still participated in the robberies and muggings because the police weren't there. This suggests that faith in God is not enough to stop people doing bad things, a lot of people need something more mundane and real. Bolly Ottihw 09:30, 22 April 2007 I was under the impression inoculating you with morality is the responsibility of your parents and the community. -Sam The moment people forsake religion, or God in a society, ancient or modern, it is the moment the society becomes rotten, like US now.Kmcheng 12:24, 25 December 2008 (EST)

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? 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. 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? kchittur 18 March 2007 Religion? No, lets make this quite clear: Not all religions are equal. Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth. But the abomination of Islam should be wiped out, destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions, and for leading people from Christ and thus damning them eternally. To speak of 'religion' lumps all religions together. Christianity is good, everything else is bad, and any christian who doesn't realise this just hasn't yet realised that by the fundamental tennants of Christianity they are allowing people to literially go to hell in the name of freedom. - BornAgainBrit, from a town just outside of Londonistan. Just to point it out, Religion is defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or Gods, and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --Hojimachongtalk 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. --Hojimachongtalk 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT) Riiiigghhttt... it was only 1998 when the Catholic Church announced that the world was not in fact, flat. Furthermore, Christian beliefs like the Earth being 6,000 years old have been long abandoned by most Christians after nearly irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. As for believing the Earth is the center of the universe, those following an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible still follow this belief. And, being flexible is a good thing. Science changes constantly because more and more evidence is found and more and more research is done. As these changes continue, as new information is discovered, scientific thought begins to move further and further from the history told in the Bible. Many Christians however, hold on to what little in the Bible hasnt been unquestionably proven inaccurate claiming the Bible as absolutely true. Science advances, Christianity is still living in the Dark Ages. ResponseYou sir are not much of conservative. If you want to use you biased relative arguments then get thee to Wikipedia. Here on Conserapedia bold clear and simple assertions carry more weight than Socratic diatribes and explicit analogies.Rebiu 24 March 2007 --Facio Socrate's method was asking questions. Explicit analogies are by definition better then vague analogies. Biased relative arguements is the funniest statement I've heard in a while. The reson

they don't say religion is evil is because it is a debate and discusion where you have to explain your position. -Sam Minor correction - in 1998, the Catholic Church did not admit the world was not flat. They never claimed that in the first place, it was a story made up to poke fun at them shortly after the continent of America was (re-)discovered. An easy mistake though 1998 is the year in which they admitted that the earth is not the stationary center of the universe, and that not everything has to orbit around it. The RCC always knew the earth to be round, and even had a good idea of its size - both discoveries of Greek science. They did have some minor doctrine on the issue though: Church policy was that the other side of the earth was nothing but uninhabitable water, an assumption based on the idea that if there were another continent then they could not be exposed to the Second Coming of Christ, which the bible states will be witnessed by all people. BornAgainBrit oooookkk....so christianity has never done anything bad in its name over the past 2000 years, compared to islam? I think that to say that is in blatant ignorance of the facts of many atrocities commited in the name of the christian God and with the support of the church. The Crusades, the holocaust, the witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, the killing of doctors who carry out abortions, the list continues. To deny that the christian faith played no role in any of these is just plain stupidity. Bolly Ottihw 09:35, 22 April 2007 There are good morale people and there are bad inmorale people. There are good religous people and there are bad religous people. Religion does not make you a better or more morale person. Sometimes people use religion as guidlines or something that can scare them into doing the right thing. But people know the difference between right and wrong and if you need religion to tell you that and religion to scare you into being good then you're probably either an ignoramus (for not knowing the diff. between right and wrong) or a bad person in complete denial only behaving well to get your ticket into heaven and eternal bliss (as if you're personality is going to be somehow different in the afterlife). - DMiller Ever wonder why it is that human life was short and miserable prior to the enlightenment, while since the enlightenment, average human quality of life has been improved exponentially? Ever wonder how every remarkable improvement of individuals and society happened in spite of religious dogma? If religion had had its way, without he input of science and humanism, we would still be in a world where life expectancy is in the 20s, a small cut is a death sentence via infection, and people who criticize religion, like me, would be burned at the stake. Religion has had thousands of years to attempt to prove itself necessary, something that it has failed at miserably every time. Also, for those who posit that Christianity is necessary, but none of the others are, ask yourself: would I rather be alive today, or in the 15th century? =skb

Why Ask? =
This seems to be a pointless question. Which religion are you refering to? Do you mean one in particular or just religiosity in general? If you say yes or no how far are you willing to go to bring about that outcome? 17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)Evanave 17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

"Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth." Right...because we know that this so called God said that Christianity was right and was the truth...Hey, why don't we all live like our savior Jesus...oh wait, Jesus was Jewish...If you want to follow his path, convert! Jesus was Jewish, get over it, this is a fact (as opposed to the existence of a god). Also, I have trouble taking arguments seriously when I read: "i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago." I'll let you slide on the I, but come on people...it is intelligent than, not intelligant then. "destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions," nessicessary? attrocities? Try something like...necessary or atrocities. Moving on... There is no proof whatsoever of the existence of a supreme being. Not one single bit of information. There are approximately 6 billion people in this world, and if I'm not mistaken, over 80% of people are religious...That means 4-5 billion people waste their time praying to nothing (Assuming all of these people have prayed at some point or another) What makes you believe in God? Somebody told you that God existed as a little child and you believed them. People also used to think that cigarettes weren't harmful to the body, but guess what, people were wrong! Take a moment and think...what has God done for me? How would my life be different if I did not believe in God? I have no answer, but then again, I'm atheist. So, in response to the question, No, religion should not play ANY role in modern societies. ~Evan Lack of evidence does not speak against the truth/existence of anything, anybody with a basic knowledge of science should know that. And religion gives you a crutch, regardless of whether it is true or not; knowing (truly believing, knowing that you are undoubtedly correct) that there is a God who loves you can be the best drug ever. And don't take the politicized Christian Conservative views as the only kind of Christianity; There are plenty of forms which are much more Biblically accurate than evangelism (IMHO). --Hojimachongtalk 17:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Humanist
Exactly what the Humanist Manifesto says is being repeated here. Waisting your time praying to nothing... etc. You are a Humanist. That is a religion. You say you are an atheist? You are a Humanist. You are religious. Non-theistic religion. You obviously don't even now what constitutes a religion. When someone says religion, you think of Judeo-Christianity. Whatever your religious belief is, and whether it is theistic or non-theistic, get over it. It's all religion, and

every single one of you believe in something. So instead of criticizing everybody elses why don't you all get a life and tell us all what is so great about what you, that's right you, believe in. If all you got is bashing everyone else then it only tells the rest of us you ain't got nothin.-Roopilots6 22:14, 31 May 2007 (EDT) That isn't true. I believe reality exists. The truth is out there and then it whops us on the head. Damn truth. I was under the impression that religion had to do with belief in God(s). Morality and ethical codes are not religion because they are based on reality (it's the other people stupid). (We) bash you because it reminds (us) of wack a mole. It is rather fun, although it can be tedious. - Sam

Maybe not
Not that it's not relevant, its just, it shouldn't play a large role. Relgion is like your thoughts, its yours, you make it according to your own personal moral values and based on the teachings of those before you. Getting religions entangled with people is quite dangerous some times, or annoying at others. Religion is for you and those who believe with you and those who wish to believe, none others. Category: Conservapedia Debates