Okay, due to lack of space for the lead in, please allow me to be more specific now.

I am having a debate with another atheist about society, the evolution of human social structure, and the requirements of morality/ethics to allow a functional society.

His point is that religion (as a moral/ethical guide post) was/is a requirement for a functional society, and this has been proven and played out through history. Understand He really is an atheist, but feels religion, and the morality it has, and does impose is an absolute requirement for a functional society. He is also very well versed in history, to the point of fucking annoying!

My problem is that I know this is totally fallacious, but lack the knowledge and information for a good rebuttal.
I was hoping you kind folks might have some helpful “stuff” that I could use to crush this debate once and for all.

Religion isn't a moral or ethical guide post. Bigotry, wars, bombings, hatred, genocide, murder of disobedient children, promotion of gang rape of one's daugters (genesis 19), hatred towards women, self entitlement, delusion, the destruction of the minds of children, endorsement of pedophilia, witch burnings....

These are the things that you get with religion. With religion you get the dark ages, where superstition reigns supreme, suffering is widespread, knowledge is supressed. Indeed, Society has evolved to the point it has DESPITE religion.

End Arument.

P.S. Ask him if he thinks that the common cold was required for society to form. That's something that a lot of people get that serves no purpose as well.

All that is necessary is a system of government. Religion is not necessary for this.

The reason religion had an important role was that it was, in a sense, a system of government. God, the almighty being, decreed what was good or bad. He threatened to punish anyone who disobeyed him or his rules. This kept people(for the most part) from stealing, killing, and lying. If people defied God and/or the law, not only would God threaten to send them to Hell, but anyone that defied the church to a certain degree were burned, tortured, and stoned to death as a result of this.

However, his claim that religion is necessary for a functional society is balderdash. All one needs is a proper system of government. For instance, let us imagine a hypothetical situation in which religion never existed. This does not mean that society would be chaotic.

Humans have a natural tendency to obey authority figures. To explain why this is relevant, let us say that I wish to kill you. Killing you would make me VERY happy. However, if I kill you, I know that the net benefit for me is nullified by the fact that I would probably be sent to prison by the government (a collective authority figure). This is reason enough for me NOT to kill you. The same is true for you and every member of society. There are certainly people that would kill and rape, but those people are usually captured and punished by the government.

Your opponent cannot easily deny this, as the historical evidence that he may present only further proves that religion itself is not necessary, but a system of government that may or may not take the form of religion.

- Nautilidae.

Of course, it's trivially and tautologically true. Everything in the past was "required" for things to be as they are today. If that's the theme in your debate, you're in real trouble, man.

It's not pedantry on my part. It's exactly like that. Just as Astrology was required for Astronomy, just as druids were required to teach the first medicine men, and then the first medical doctors, just as alchemy was required to reach chemistry....

We all needed to be toddlers before we grew up you know?

Luis Dias wrote:Of course, it's trivially and tautologically true. Everything in the past was "required" for things to be as they are today. If that's the theme in your debate, you're in real trouble, man.

It's tautologically true that religion is necessary for a functional society? I think that you have misunderstood the topic of debate.

While it is true that everything in the past resulted in what we observe today, that does not mean that religion is necessary for a functional society.

S1e wrote:His point is that religion (as a moral/ethical guide post) was/is a requirement for a functional society, and this has been proven and played out through history. Understand He really is an atheist, but feels religion, and the morality it has, and does impose is an absolute requirement for a functional society. He is also very well versed in history, to the point of fucking annoying!

Wow, sounds like you have quite the smart friend. If you find his knowledge annoying, just imagine how he feels about you

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful".

Though I suppose if the "Wise" were, they'd be the rulers

I can't think of any long term successful society in the historical records that were not religious, which is probably your friends point. It is either a coincidence that such a society did not evolve, or religion is a necessary requirement.

Tyrannical wrote:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful".

Though I suppose if the "Wise" were, they'd be the rulers

Oh yeah, and how often have "the wise" and "the rulers" been the same people?
It'd be nice if,... but.

S1E wrote:Okay, due to lack of space for the lead in, please allow me to be more specific now.

I am having a debate with another atheist about society, the evolution of human social structure, and the requirements of morality/ethics to allow a functional society.

His point is that religion (as a moral/ethical guide post) was/is a requirement for a functional society, and this has been proven and played out through history.

How and why? In the past, moral codes and societal norms were justified and standardized by religion, and allowed for a kind of nascent nationalism which, while being rife with problems, allowed for social cohesion and loyalty, not to mention justifying the social order of the day. I think that there is a good argument to be made that religion allowed societies to flourish in the past, and in different ways depending on the religion itself.

I would concede the point on religion being useful in the past.

That said, I think secular alternatives have since been crafted for the various goods that religion provides. I don't see a modern need for religion. You should ask your friend what unique and necessary benefit religion provides modern societies.

Loren Michael wrote:

I would concede the point on religion being useful in the past.

That said, I think secular alternatives have since been crafted for the various goods that religion provides. I don't see a modern need for religion. You should ask your friend what unique and necessary benefit religion provides modern societies.

I'm not sure if I am willing to risk the fall of civilization to prove if you are correct or not. That's a pretty high stakes social experiment.

I have a (medieval) history degree and I do not see how your friend has drawn this conclusion.

Naut wrote: All that is necessary is a system of government. Religion is not necessary for this.

I agree.

Who can say what society would have been like if it had stayed Pagan, or become atheist as opposed to Christian? We can never know because Christianity carpet-bombed everything else. He does remember witch-burning, banning medical research on cadavers and the general cock-blocking of science that religion cheerfully partook in, right? These were not great ways to 'advance' society.

Nautilidae wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:Of course, it's trivially and tautologically true. Everything in the past was "required" for things to be as they are today. If that's the theme in your debate, you're in real trouble, man.

It's tautologically true that religion is necessary for a functional society?

Don't you mindfuck me. I read the title well, I read the OP well.

I think that you have misunderstood the topic of debate.

Oh did I? Or did you enter a battle that you can't win? I think it's the latter, and it's not my fault. So don't blame me.

While it is true that everything in the past resulted in what we observe today, that does not mean that religion is necessary for a functional society.

Well, I never said it was. But my parents were really needed for me to live my life. You told me that he was very good at history. Thus his points are historic. What are his points wrt the present society? Everything changes. And a theistic society can become an atheistic one. Why not? Because it "never did"? What is his evidence that such a society would destroy itself?

Luis Dias wrote:You told me that he was very good at history. Thus his points are historic. What are his points with present society? Everything changes. And a theistic society can become an atheistic one. Why not? Because it "never did"? What is his evidence that such a society would destroy itself?

Not what I would call the strongest counter argument. Not trying to be rude, but after rereading it and thinking about it, do you still really think that?

Tyrannical wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

I would concede the point on religion being useful in the past.

That said, I think secular alternatives have since been crafted for the various goods that religion provides. I don't see a modern need for religion. You should ask your friend what unique and necessary benefit religion provides modern societies.

I'm not sure if I am willing to risk the fall of civilization to prove if you are correct or not. That's a pretty high stakes social experiment.

...because that's how political scientists operate, right.

Luis Dias wrote:Oh did I? Or did you enter a battle that you can't win? I think it's the latter, and it's not my fault. So don't blame me.

Don't get snippy with me. It seemed as if you misunderstood the point, so I decided to point it out. This was not meant to "blame you" for anything at all.

Well, I never said it was. But my parents were really needed for me to live my life.

I don't think that this is a good analogy. While religion served as a form of quasi-government, a proper system of government doesn't necessarily need religion to develop into a functional system.

As I said before, the opponent cannot easily refute the arguments in my original post. If he uses historical arguments to show that religion was necessary, this is essentially counter-productive; most examples of this only show that religion itself wasn't necessary, but religion acting as a sort of government.

I’d like to thank everyone that has replied, however, it seems that my “opposition” still has the upper hand in this debate.

I agree that religion could be considered a form of government, however religion requires supernatural authority that can cause you grief in life, and far beyond. Government can only cause you grief in life (And I can proof it).

So what I have been able to surmise from the thoughts proposed so far is that I’m going to lose this debate?

I get the fact that the history of “society” puts a rather definitive stamp, as it were, on the use of religion to instill order. But certainly there has to be logical fallacy in the idea that just because a tool was used, and worked, does not make that tool a requirement. It only makes the tool useful, hardly a requirement.

Thoughts?

S1E wrote:I’d like to thank everyone that has replied, however, it seems that my “opposition” still has the upper hand in this debate.

I agree that religion could be considered a form of government, however religion requires supernatural authority that can cause you grief in life, and far beyond. Government can only cause you grief in life (And I can proof it).

So what I have been able to surmise from the thoughts proposed so far is that I’m going to lose this debate?

I get the fact that the history of “society” puts a rather definitive stamp, as it were, on the use of religion to instill order. But certainly there has to be logical fallacy in the idea that just because a tool was used, and worked, does not make that tool a requirement. It only makes the tool useful, hardly a requirement.

Thoughts?

I think that it would help us understand your position if you explained the arguments. What arguments have you made thus far?

Tyrannical wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

I would concede the point on religion being useful in the past.

That said, I think secular alternatives have since been crafted for the various goods that religion provides. I don't see a modern need for religion. You should ask your friend what unique and necessary benefit religion provides modern societies.

I'm not sure if I am willing to risk the fall of civilization to prove if you are correct or not. That's a pretty high stakes social experiment.

Like other social experiments before it, Democracies, Republics, Feudalism, Windsor legal systems, etc. I suppose you think we should still trust to the per city priest kings and wash our hands of such advances?

S1E wrote:I’d like to thank everyone that has replied, however, it seems that my “opposition” still has the upper hand in this debate.

I agree that religion could be considered a form of government, however religion requires supernatural authority that can cause you grief in life, and far beyond. Government can only cause you grief in life (And I can proof it).

So what I have been able to surmise from the thoughts proposed so far is that I’m going to lose this debate?

I get the fact that the history of “society” puts a rather definitive stamp, as it were, on the use of religion to instill order. But certainly there has to be logical fallacy in the idea that just because a tool was used, and worked, does not make that tool a requirement. It only makes the tool useful, hardly a requirement.

Thoughts?

I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that religion has not in fact aided society at all. The perceived morality that is supposedly instilled by religion is in fact a feature of society itself. With the less sane members of society, the threat of invisible sky daddies may aid somewhat in getting them to stick to the rules, but I don't think religious rules have ever quite coincided with society's idea of what moralistic behaviour is. Even in theocracies, the society's morals will tend away from the legal system, just as it does in secular legal systems.
Also, in the sub-complete testing of the idea of atheism in society we have in the current secular governments, where there is a sub-set of society that's atheist, with the rest theist of some sort, the statistics clearly show that the section of society that is atheist causes the legal system and law enforcement much less trouble. Not more.
In light of this, I fail to see how a person could argue that religion serves a purpose in maintaining order. The real usefulness from a government point of view, is the ease with with religion allows the governing body to demonize and de-humanize an opposition. Especially if they wish to use the populace in typically violent efforts to subdue neighbours or even distant nations.
To summarize, IMHO, religion is not a tool for establishing a peaceful nation. It can be a tool for welding a violent warlike nation out of an otherwise peaceful one.

Dogmantic Pyrrhonist wrote:

I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that religion has not in fact aided society at all. The perceived morality that is supposedly instilled by religion is in fact a feature of society itself. With the less sane members of society, the threat of invisible sky daddies may aid somewhat in getting them to stick to the rules, but I don't think religious rules have ever quite coincided with society's idea of what moralistic behaviour is. Even in theocracies, the society's morals will tend away from the legal system, just as it does in secular legal systems.
Also, in the sub-complete testing of the idea of atheism in society we have in the current secular governments, where there is a sub-set of society that's atheist, with the rest theist of some sort, the statistics clearly show that the section of society that is atheist causes the legal system and law enforcement much less trouble. Not more.

The ironic thing about this is that people often argue that atheists are less moral than theists.

What is moral in terms of a society is decided by the society. If a society allows stoning without resulting in chaos, most will see nothing morally wrong with this. I am in no way saying that stoning people is a rational course of action, but for the time, it served it's purpose. A perfect example of this is murder; if murder was dubbed legal, there would be chaos. This is the purpose of an authority figure in society; without someone to enforce laws, no one would see a reason to follow laws. This is the role that God played throughout history. God was an omnipotent being that enforced laws; he could either A} send you to a utopia of happiness as long as you followed his rules until you died, or B} send you to Hell, an ultimate realm of pain and suffering, for all eternity if you did not follow his laws. This is essentially the role that religion, at least monotheistic religion, has played throughout history: it is a quasi-government.

However, this in no way indicates that religion itself is a necessary component of a functional society. This indicates that religion played the role of government for many years and nothing more.

S1E wrote:Okay, due to lack of space for the lead in, please allow me to be more specific now.

I am having a debate with another atheist about society, the evolution of human social structure, and the requirements of morality/ethics to allow a functional society.

His point is that religion (as a moral/ethical guide post) was/is a requirement for a functional society, and this has been proven and played out through history. Understand He really is an atheist, but feels religion, and the morality it has, and does impose is an absolute requirement for a functional society. He is also very well versed in history, to the point of fucking annoying!

My problem is that I know this is totally fallacious, but lack the knowledge and information for a good rebuttal.
I was hoping you kind folks might have some helpful “stuff” that I could use to crush this debate once and for all.

I think the other person is right on the grounds that not all in society actually think about this and so having a moral authority is a neccessary because of another fundamental problem.

Everyone is not like us. We spend years working out the underlying basis of ethics, questioning authorities, reading books, debating and analysing. We do know that forced atheism (of the likes of autocratic communism) is as wrong as forced religion so the necessary organic atheism that you find in us in societally healthy nations comes from a high level of education (and personally chosen).

On the other hand I'll use everyone's whipping horse of the United State of America in that according to the National Right to Read Foundation on the Illiteracy Statistics they have 42 million American adults can't read at all; 50 million are unable to read at a higher level that is expected of a fourth or fifth grader and that the number of adults that are classified as functionally illiterate increases by about 2.25 million each year and that 20 percent of high school seniors can be classified as being functionally illiterate at the time they graduate.

They are basically peasants and that is in ostensibly a 1st world nation. Religion is what you impose whilst you are working out how to educate the masses. It's not the society we want but it makes it functional. I see our role are three-pronged, promoting education to make people self-reliant, supporting the middle classes and controlling the influence of religion to use it as the opiate for the rest.