The Instigator
SnowyOxygen
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
speechlessspeaker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Belief in the afterlife is beneficial.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SnowyOxygen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 517 times Debate No: 61052
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

SnowyOxygen

Con

1st round - Acceptance
2nd round - Argument presentation
3rd and 4th rounds - Rebuttals
5th round - Closing arguments

The topic is "Belief in the afterlife is beneficial.", so is it better to believe in the afterlife? (I am against.)
Debate Round No. 1
SnowyOxygen

Con

The concept of an afterlife opposed to oblivion has been around since ancient Egypt at least. The need for an afterlife in my opinion is non-beneficial and often dangerous. Today's afterlife is often either Heaven or Hell, depending on what you did during your life on earth. So, a lot of people instead of living for the life they have now, would rather follow the rules of the bible and live for the next life. For example, people who follow the bible by the letter by fear of going to hell will often kick out their own child just because he is homosexual,.
Then comes the problem of not worrying that you will die because there is another life awaiting you. Why not live your life to the fullest and do as much as you can until you die? Of course, people are afraid of death and would rather think of something waiting for them instead of complete oblivion. But I quote Mark Twain in saying: "The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time."
speechlessspeaker

Pro

speechlessspeaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SnowyOxygen

Con

It's unfortunate that my opponent was either not prepared or not up to the task of presenting his argument, I was looking forward to it. Oh well.
speechlessspeaker

Pro

i do apologize for the forfeited round, i had other obligations that overshadowed the recollection of this debates time frame.

now then, first off i would like to recognize that i agree there are many bad things in the belief in an afterlife. many differing interpretations give way to much controversy in the world today. however then only thing i could find more troubling than the fallout of differing opinions in afterlife/religious views, is the instability that would occur with the lack of an afterlife/religious idea/following/belief. when people put there whole heart in the bible (ill just use your presented afterlife example), they believe that certain things are sin, and sin is wrong. they also tend to disassociate themselves with people who do not follow the same beliefs. this results in broken homes, rejected friends, and (the worst possible example that i could think has ever resulted from a religious/afterlife fallout) the crusades. now the crusades are absolutely horrible, but having absolutely no presence of afterlife repercussions is a far more disturbing idea. now, not only do you have men capable of terrible deeds, but you have men capable of terrible deeds without any moral checks and balance system. it would be a completely accepted idea that no repercussions would be given to you for any of your bad deeds towards others. there would never be a man who contemplated for months on weather or not he should kill his cheating wife, and her lover after he and she left him with nothing, there would only be a man who had everything taken from him and did the logical thing and took revenge. since there is no greater power morality complex, many situations would end in one party just saying they had a good run and offed, or took care of whatever or whoever just ruined their life, and quickly ended their own as to not suffer worldly repercussions.

as for the mark twain quote. if an afterlife believer had no fear of death, then they themselves would also have no fear of life. this would suggest that lack of fear in death would also represent a life lived to the fullest, but yet you found a problem with the suggested result (no fear of death) of the quotes definition of a man who lived his life fully, and yet "why not live your life to the fullest" was your question posed towards the problem of not having fear of death. i fail to comprehend the intended supporting impact of the final paragraph in your round 2 post.
Debate Round No. 3
SnowyOxygen

Con

You seem to be proposing that without an afterlife to look forward too, or not in the case of eternal hell, that we would have no "moral checks". Which is basically saying that without the bible no one would be reprimanded for a bad deed and would do as they please.
It would be thoroughly depressing if you got your morals from the bible, because if you were good only because the bible told you to be good; you aren't really being good at all. You're just not killing your neighbour because you fear eternal suffering. Furthermore; the concept of hell / afterlife has been around for much less than humans have been on this earth. Wouldn't we have been killing each-other without end? In fact, the bible and the concept of an afterlife has often caused or help cause horrific events including 9/11, the crusades and the holocaust.
Furthermore, we are animals, so why do animals not behave in a malicious way? Because there must be order and mutual respect among each-other in order to survive. If we or any other species were to all murder each-other, extinction would be very likely. The argument "What would we be capable of without the bible's morals?" is depressing and simply false.

The need for an afterlife by the religious is often viewed as an escape from the fear of death. But 16.3% (Third most popular "religious" group of the world), of the population (athiests) apparently do not accept the idea of the afterlife (including me of course). Would you think that they are all cowering in fear of a certain impending death that awaits them?
I would say no, there is no need for an afterlife and we would be unnecessary and also often damaging. Furthermore, after your death; you are granted an everlasting heaven? In which you have an infinite amount of time to accomplish everything? In which case you would at some point do so. At that point you would have a similar result to oblivion: an infinite amount of time and nothing to do.
speechlessspeaker

Pro

speechlessspeaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SnowyOxygen

Con

Another unfortunate forfeit. I advise my opponent to be ready for the debate he is accepting, otherwise do not accept. It wastes quite a bit of time and is rather annoying.

I conclude that, through atheists getting along fine without it, the afterlife is un-necessary. And through 9-11, various kamikazes and a large deal of other harmful events; it can play a large part in being dangerous.
I thank my opponent for taking the debate although he was quite in-active, and I thank the audience for reading.
speechlessspeaker

Pro

speechlessspeaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SnowyOxygenspeechlessspeakerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture