The Instigator
RossM
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Iamaconfederate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Can fundamentalist religion be harmful?

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 4 votes the winner is...
RossM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,811 times Debate No: 48774
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (4)

 

RossM

Pro

I believe that fundamentalist religion can be harmful to society, especially children who are raised in this way. I define fundamentalism as:
A form of a religion that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
I hope that this debate can be as polite as possible and thank my opponent in advance for accepting this challenge.
Iamaconfederate

Con

I accept your debate.
I believe that fundamentalism is not harmful because it teaches children about God and traditional conservatism, which I believe is a benefit to society.
Debate Round No. 1
RossM

Pro

Fundamentalist religion is harmful to society. Not only does it teach to segregate certain groups of people, it also offers dated opinions and views on the woes that we face in our modern society. It places such huge emphasis on doctrinal conformity that a child or a susceptible individual brought up in this way will be extremely close minded. Let us take homosexuality in The Bible as an example:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
How can we expect these children to treat a homosexual with respect if this is what they are told from a young age? Gay teenagers already have the highest suicide rate when compared to their heterosexual counterparts, mainly due to the fact that our society is not yet accepting of it (as we have been basing our morals off religion for hundreds of years). Furthermore, how can we expect a gay teenager to come to terms with themselves if this is what they are told from a young age? It seems ridiculous that we could even suggest that Fundamentalist religion isn't damaging to a young man's/woman's mental health, and isn't damaging to their attitude to social events in the modern world.
Iamaconfederate

Con

"Fundamentalist religion is harmful to society. Not only does it teach to segregate certain groups of people, it also offers dated opinions and views on the woes that we face in our modern society. It places such huge emphasis on doctrinal conformity that a child or a susceptible individual brought up in this way will be extremely close minded."

It is good for children to be close minded about segregation, segregation in a racial way, is a way to keep culture, without culture, the world will fall apart. (Jeremiah 17:4)

"How can we expect these children to treat a homosexual with respect if this is what they are told from a young age?"

Well, homosexuals don't deserve respect, they go against natural laws and defy the bible and God, they don't need to treat them with respect, they need to treat them with the exact opposite of respect, Leviticus 20:13, as you quoted, If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands, that basically means gays should be executed without hesitation and we are not guilty of any sin or murder.

" It seems ridiculous that we could even suggest that Fundamentalist religion isn't damaging to a young man's/woman's mental health, and isn't damaging to their attitude to social events in the modern world."

Social events in the modern world do not matter, the only world that matters is the eternal world, this modern world is evil, filled with atheism, globalism, and neo-Imperialism. We should not feel obligated to be a part of it, when its all said and done, fundamentalism is the only way to protect children from atheism.
Debate Round No. 2
RossM

Pro

I would like to bring to attention Con's statement in round one:
"I believe that fundamentalism is not harmful "
And yet we see in round 2 the statement:
"Well, homosexuals don't deserve respect, they go against natural laws and defy the bible and God, they don't need to treat them with respect, they need to treat them with the exact opposite of respect, Leviticus 20:13, as you quoted, If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands, that basically means gays should be executed without hesitation and we are not guilty of any sin or murder"
Con states that Fundamentalism is not harmful to society, but then goes onto say that homosexuals should not be treated with respect and should be executed on sight without hesitation. These ideas stem from fundamentalism, so I ask this: In what world is the mass genocide of a particular group of people not harmful to society? Some of the greatest people of the world have been gay (Oscar Wilde and Michelangelo for example), and without them we would not be as rich and diverse as we our today.
Moving on from the example of homosexuality, Con does not explain why Fundamentalism is actually beneficial at all. He says that it promotes a belief in God, but reform religions also do this. What he is actually doing in his argument is offering a subjective opinion on an objective issue. He supplies us with ludicrous statements of "this modern world is evil, filled with atheism", which, again, is his own opinion, and offers no real evidence to support the claim.
Con has not touched my point about close mindedness. He has used a quote from Jeremiah 17:4 (which is actually incorrect anyway), but does not answer the very crux of this particular argument. He states that it would teach people to be close minded about segregation, but I think the opposite. Again, by teaching impressionable children that some people are different and deserve less respect is promoting the idea of segregation, not stopping it.
Iamaconfederate

Con

First off, if you mean that fundamentalism is harmful to modern society, filled with sin, which is evil, then yes, you would be correct. Fundamentalism IS harmful to sin and evil and one particular sin, being homosexual. Jeremiah 17:4 states that without heritage and culture, you have defied God and you have kindled a fire in his anger which shall burn forever, yet there are people out there who support interracial marriage? This makes no sense. Sin, being evil, has filled this world, so it is not an opinion that the world is evil, it is a fact.

When I say I support segregation, I mean cultural segregation. By that, I mean that people from different cultures should not interbreed and mix cultures, which is not a bad thing according to fundamentalism, so we should be promoting segregation, not stopping it. When I say close minded, I mean making sure it does not stop. In what Christian world would fundamentalism NOT be harmful?

People that are politically correct, or PC, would probably call me a racist, even though fundamentalism has been practiced for the vast majority of time, and the world was segregated and it was a good Christian world, where atheism was shunned. If one was gay in this era, he would be executed for defying the being that created him. That is a good thing, not harmful to society, but EXTREMELY beneficial. If you say that this is harmful, would that not be an opinion based on liberal, atheist, And PC values?
Debate Round No. 3
RossM

Pro

As Pro for this debate, I have been arguing that Fundamentalist religion is harmful to society. I have identified 2 points of clash during the arguments given:
1)The Modern World
2)Segregation
The first clash concerned the modern world. Con stated that our modern society is filled with evil and sin like atheism. He offered no evidence to support this claim as it was a subjective opinion and can not be backed by hard evidence (IE. The idea that atheism is evil is from his own point of view). I said as Pro that these claims had no backbone and could therefore not be taken with any merit. He also then goes on to say that the execution of people who defy the bible would be extremely beneficial to society but offers no real reason for this. He fails to see how much of a contribution these people make to the world, and how much their input is valued. It is obvious that my arguments have won on all accounts in this particular clash as Con's points were simply ludicrous and could not argue against my own.
The second clash was to do with segregation. Con stated that cultural segregation is good as it preserves heritage. He also stated that, in times gone by where fundamentalism was practiced on a large scale, the world was better because it was Christian. He fails to see how the mixture of cultures is extremely beneficial and has helped STOP racism and some of the bigoted opinions that he is promoting. As Pro I said that this segregation would have no benefit whatsoever, and would only strengthen the boundaries of ignorance and hate that we are trying to break down. Again, it is obvious that my points won in this particular argument as Con could not and did not argue against my points to a sufficient extent.
Lastly, Con states that I am basing my opinions off of liberal, atheist and PC opinions. I am simply saying as Pro that it is our moral obligation as a world to remove hate and ignorance of any kind, and Fundamentalist religion promotes the idea of close mindedness to other races, genders and ways of life that is extremely harmful to society and the children in it. I urge you to side with the proposition.
Iamaconfederate

Con

I HAVE proven that the modern world is evil, because according to the bible, sin is evil, and the world is full of sin, and sin is disobeying or doing something morally wrong, so therefore, the world is evil because it is filled with sin, which is evil.

You have not proven how segregation is not beneficial. Anti-segregation KILLS your race, and killing is murder, which is a sin and against the ten commandments. Segregation is not hate, in fact, it is the exact OPPOSITE of hate, because you love your people and culture.

Ok, this debate is about religion, so now i am going to prove to you and the voters how religion is beneficial to society.

1. It helps keep the gay away.

2. It destroys atheism, benefiting society.

3. It helps us to trust in God almighty, the only supreme power of the universe.

4. It provides us with laws and morals, etc.

5. Without religion, there is no point to life.

6. Atheists are evil, therefore, religion destroying it is good because it kills evil.

7. It gives us a beginning and an end.

8. Christianity tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, what does the atheist bible have to say?
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
What?
Telling me delusional Nonsense, such as unsupported by evidence Anecdotes, trying to Help Me???

Not very likely, more like trying to make us believe in absolute Nonsense.

I have a much better knowledge of Psychology than yourself and I know that even just dehydration can make people have visions, not to mention fear, which pumps up the natural Corticosteroids in the blood stream and produces Illusions and even Hallucinations.

The man was extremely Delusional, most likely from Dehydration and low oxygen in the blood, just like Jesus was in the woods, which likely caused his visions as well.
What you are believing in is nothing more than a Hallucination.

The man never really Died, thus he cannot have a vision of what happens after his Death.]

That's Impossible.
You've been surely Sucked Into Nonsense!
Posted by Iamaconfederate 3 years ago
Iamaconfederate
Well, believe what you want, I'm just trying to help you.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Oops I often miss words when typing quickly: the full name is Sample Size Of One Fallacy.
Which means with an anecdote within a population of thousands means nothing.
If we had a population of 1 million in a region, 10,000 random samples or a Sample size of 10,000 would mean 1% of the population, which is still not a great sample but if 50% of those have a consistent positive result, you could rationally (providing it was a good cross-section sample) say that it is possible that 50% of the entire population of 1 million may have similar positives.
Though a sample size of 1 cannot give you even a basic idea of what can apply to the entire population.

Say 10,000 people worldwide suffer NDEs and all had hallucinations of not being able to move in hell, then the possibility of a link between them could be proposed.
Even 50% would warrant an investigation into possible causal links.
30%, less likely to be a link, but still worthy of investigation.
10%, Hardly worth investigating though some will bother that think they may be able to establish a link.
1% or 100 have the same Vision, the odd Delusional believer in such things will consider it worthwhile investigating a causal link, though the chances of finding such a link is very remote indeed.
0.001% or a Sample Size of 1 in 10,000, Only a completely Delusional Idiot would think there is a causal Link.
They would likely never get any funding, even from other delusional people to do such an investigation.
Though Creationists seem to find enough delusional nutcases to fund shifty projects.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Besides: Near Death Experiences/Hallucinations are Near Death by Definition.

If somebody was shown to come back from Actual Death, it would be called an Actual Death Experience or ADE. NDEs are not ADEs.

There's a massive difference, if Heaven or Hell existed, only Actual Death would get you there.
Near Death would not.
Near Death Experiences are only Hallucinations.
That person Hallucinated about not moving, likely that comes from a Fear of not being able to move, which acted itself out in the Hallucination.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Nobody has Ever Come Back From Death!
NDE's are bogus, they never really died, neurologists know that.
Being pronounced clinically dead, doesn't really mean actual death, it is only the nearest normal instruments can determine.
The instruments to determine actual death are far to expensive for hospitals and unwarranted.
One person's testimonial means absolutely nothing and statistically it amounts to nothing.

We in Statistical Analysis call it "The Sample Of One Fallacy". Many people suffer NDEs, which are really only Hallucinations.
Every single one of them differ and if they were all exactly the same, the Sample Size would be much bigger, but a Sample Of One Person In Millions, Means Absolutely Nothing.

You need to do much better than personal Anecdotes.
Anecdotes, Testimonials or Sample Of One Fallacies cannot be shown as proof of ANYTHNG!
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Confederate, until you talk to ALL people who have died,
you are sharing an anecdote.
Anecdotes, especially in the singular, are not evidence
Posted by Iamaconfederate 3 years ago
Iamaconfederate
There was a man that died for eight hours after a plane crash and he said he was in hell and he couldn't move and nobody else was there and god told him that that was his eternity.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
@ Confederate.
How do you know you can't move in Hell.
Nobody has come back to tell you that.
The Bible never states that.
You are making that up.

You are telling Porkies.
That makes you a Christian Apologist.
Their job is to tell Porkies.
And Theologians Job is to Ponder Porkies.
And a Priest's Job is to Preach Porkies.

You're just another porky producer/apologist.
Just like William Lane Craig.
Who has made up a truck load of Porkies so far to cover up the porkies he's been caught out on telling.
Posted by Iamaconfederate 3 years ago
Iamaconfederate
You can't move in hell.
Posted by Iamaconfederate 3 years ago
Iamaconfederate
You can't move in hell.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
RossMIamaconfederateTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not provide evidence for his claims. He used the Bible without showing that the Bible is true. Con also supported Pro's position with what he was saying. All in all, Con failed this debate.
Vote Placed by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
RossMIamaconfederateTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pfft. Con.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
RossMIamaconfederateTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had poor arguments. Con basically just confirmed everything pro said.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
RossMIamaconfederateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments made logical and rational sense, while Con's arguments made no rational sense whatsoever. Posting extreme bigotry is not a form of logical defense essentially all Con was doing was proving Pro's arguments by Con's own admissions of cultural and sexual bigotry. Both cited Biblical sources, which cancelled out. Cons final arguments were without any logic nor rational support.