The Instigator
Shadowfall
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

A person can be an overall genuine person in the eyes of god without accepting a religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,900 times Debate No: 8019
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

Shadowfall

Pro

We've all read the bible verses, and the preachings that say everyone is the same in god's eyes, but I'm sure you've also read the preachings that those who deny the presence and love of god will not be saved.

But the cowardly, UNBELIEVING, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
(Revelation 21:8)

Now, I for one believe that even without religion, a person can live a fulfilling life for both him or himself, and still respect and help those around him or her. Is this wrong? Sure, you can do the wrong thing for the right reason, and you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons - but what if you do the right things for the right reasons? Are you still to be condemned among the murderers, thieves, and adulterers?

There is no widely accepted "official" definition of the word RELIGION, but almost all the definitions included something along the lines of "an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth" and I chose this definition because I think it effectively covered almost all of the things religion stands for. I'm sure people will argue that religion teaches morals, and that the teachings help to educate people about how they should behave to be good people, and I can't deny that that is true - but if that's all religion is meant for, couldn't someone still be a good person without religion?

I mean, yeah - religion is a good thing, and I'm sure without it we would be in an entirely different situation today without it - but has it not also motivated people to commit acts that would be considered anything but "holy" and "justified" in the name of the "greater good"?

Let me clear up that I am not saying anything bad about religion - and if you follow it, all the more power to you.. I'm just curious to see what other people think.
Tatarize

Con

A unbeliever cannot be seen as a genuine person in the eyes of God because God does not have eyes, because God isn't real.

Many religions damn unbelievers in order to establish a Pascal's wager sort of situation in order to apply the stick and carrot to compel belief via arguments of force because there are no arguments of reason or evidence to compel a person. If you ask believers or check in the Bible it is very clear: Jesus says the only way to the father is through Him. Or in the Koran: God will damn to hell those who make partners unto him.

Many Christians contend that though, Gandhi was an overall good individual he wasn't a Christian and thus is burning in hell. The Nazis burned Anne Frank because she was Jewish; they are evil. God burns Anne Frank forever because she was Jewish; he is good?

The doctrines are pretty clear, if you don't believe, you go to hell. It has nothing to do with being a fair system or a system that credits people with being good. In fact, Christianity tells people they are evil and there's no way any of them could possibly get to Heaven without the blood of the innocent. Christians are told that they should rejoice in human sacrifice and should accept that their souls are saved by the crucifixion of Christ. However, if given half a chance, any good person would try to stop such a barbaric thing. Whereas any Christian would for the sake of his soul be compelled to commit such a murder themselves (or would you risk your soul in order to save Jesus?).

I for one believe that only without religion can a person live a fulfilling life for himself and still respect those around him. Most religions tell people that their neighbors are sin filled evil-doers needing of your bronze aged ramblings in order to be good. While doing nothing wrong and being good and decent people. It isn't that the irreligious can still manage goodness, rather it's that religious practitioners are only moral in spite of the Bible.

You cannot be a good person unless you genuflect to bronzed aged hates speech. Sure, I'm one of the nicest people you'll meet. I don't drink, do drugs, sleep around, hurt people, think badly of them or talk about ill of them, I donate blood on a regular basis and am a firm believer in the goodness of humanity. However, I also know my religions and know that there isn't any major faith supposing I won't burn forever because I'm an atheist.

The gods of various religions in this respect are evil and damn you to hell for not accepting their absolute truth on no evidence. On the surface the claim seems simple. If there is a God he should let good people into heaven. So since you're a good person, even though you're an atheist, you should still go to heaven; this is wrong. It wrongly assumes that the supposed God running the universe is a fair and good God. Every faith seems to have the same general theme in this respect, if you don't believe this specific set of doctrines, you're going to burn.

Why have the doctrine of hell otherwise? Regardless of what bad things you do in this life, an infinite punishment is never called for, and certainly not by a good or loving God. You're wrong across the board with your premise, morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality and religion have as much to do with each other as eye sight has to do with eye color. Religion is not a good thing, and while we'd certainly have a different situation today; that situation would be better than what we have now.

I have not seen faith move a mountain, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers.

Religions do not make people good or moral. Religions make good and moral people do evil and immoral things. People are good. Religions, in order to win converts, make broad immoral claims like everybody burns forever for failing to kowtow to tyranny for no good reason.

Religions say very clearly that good people, who accept that there is no good reason to believe in that religion because there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that that religion is true, are going to burn forever in pain and torment. You don't need to say anything bad about religion, the things speak for themselves. Gandhi burns in hell, while Torquemada enjoys paradise; any religion that allows such claims to be made with a straight face should not be given the benefit of any doubt, but rather condemned.

In short, you are wrong. Because you are good and moral person, does not imply for a moment that you are a good and moral person in the eyes of religion. No. You are a vile heathen less good than many mass murderers who "find God". You are evil and worthy of being burned forever for coming to reasonable conclusions from reasonable examinations of the evidence. Sucking up to this nonsense, is not worth your time or effort, anything that suggests the things that religions suggests is evil. So in the end, in the eyes of this nonsense your deeds amount to a hill of beans. Religion judges goodness only by the degree to which you genuflect to it's nonsensical teachings.

Let me clear up that I am speaking ill of religion, because it should be spoken ill of - and if you follow it, shame on you. I'm am curious to see what other people think.
Debate Round No. 1
Shadowfall

Pro

Shadowfall forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

Somewhat disappointing. I hope my opponent responds in a future round because I'm actually interested with discussing his claims.

Religion does not make a person moral. Religiosity has no bearing on morality. However, none of the major faiths believe you to be a truly moral person without being part of the faith. According to the theology of many religions, good people burn in hell for not accepting Christ, making Partners unto Allah, or various other blasphemies.

While good people will often quickly argue that this isn't the case and hope upon hope that their religion isn't as spiteful, hateful, and evil as this, they are themselves being more moral than their religions.

So no, unbelievers can't be good in the eyes of God. There is no God and thus no eyes. Just a bunch of damn-first-ask-questions later followers who insist that non-believing Hindus are burning in hell, though when asked about Gandhi might think about it for a bit longer before they decide how the laws of the universe are properly laid out. The best among them will reject the obvious conclusions of hateful speech, and insist that since it's good it can't work that way, ignoring the irony that they are of better character than their God.

So in the end, it doesn't have to be the case that "all good people go to heaven". Nor should it be the case when considering that goodness has nothing to do with religion. Religions damn you to convert you, not to make you a better person, but to make you another brick in the wall.
Debate Round No. 2
Shadowfall

Pro

Shadowfall forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

Shucks.

This was going to be good.
Debate Round No. 3
Shadowfall

Pro

Shadowfall forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Shadowfall

Pro

Shadowfall forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

Well, at least I tried.

It would have been an interesting debate had he shown up.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
No. It means that I generally don't believe that being good, makes one 'good' in the eyes of religion. I contend that religion is quite clear that it calls for the torture, pain, and agony of good people regardless that they are good people. Case and point: Christianity says Gandhi is burning in hell.

As for humankind, I love humans. I am a humanist. You will not find a greater advocate for our species than me.

What piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals!
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
hey tarartize , jsut wondering since you are CON to the resoultion above , does that mean you dont belive in being humankind ?
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Your God can condone slavery and demand genocide as repeatedly depicted in the Bible. Is there any difference between God and the Devil outside of this ability to magically always be right? If the Devil was always just by definition, wouldn't the situation be exactly equal with the names reverse. What if the Devil then changed his name to God and the God's to the Devil. Would your theology change one jot snelld?
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
"It is unjust for the Christian God to condemn nonbelievers and save believers that are, on balance, morally equal."

The cristian God can't be unjust. His word is law, so whatever he saya or does (in thei eyes) is just.

If the resolution was along the lines of "A person can be an overall genuine person in the eyes of God without accepting a religion, thus allowing him to enter into heaven." I'd accept it in a heart beat.
Posted by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
You sound just like me! Even the about section on your profile, sweet.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
of course they can ,

its called being humankind .

all relgious people should be humankind , likewise with all non-religious people.

if you are'nt even willing to show mercy to a fellow man or help him out of possible , you are not worthy to walk this planet and breathe its air .
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
I'd paraphrase the resolution as "Any God that is good would reward reasoned moral behavior regardless of religious belief." I think that is how it should be debated.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
The resolution is too vague. You can't just argue against religion in general because every religion has it's own doctrine on the subject. Plus, what does the word "genuine" mean? It's too vague. Here are some ideas that make the resolution more... well... resolute. I'm afraid the person that takes this is going to focus on a single religion despite your wishes, and it might degenerate into semantics, e.g., arguing over the term "genuine" instead of the debate itself.

Based on your opening remarks, your resolution seems to be along the lines of, "It is unjust for the Christian God to condemn nonbelievers and save believers that are, on balance, morally equal." This may not hit the mark precisely, but you see how the resolution leaves less ambiguity? Just food for thought.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
The question is not whether the person is a person. But whether they are a GOOD person.
Posted by adamapollo 8 years ago
adamapollo
This is interesting, but I would prefer to be the pro. Hopefully you can find a religious nut for this
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
ShadowfallTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
ShadowfallTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
ShadowfallTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by falafel 8 years ago
falafel
ShadowfallTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
ShadowfallTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07