The Instigator
NonZeroBubble
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
Renzzy
Con (against)
Losing
40 Points

Church/Religion is the biggest scam and manipulation of ill informed human minds.

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: 1/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,516 times Debate No: 1810
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (24)

 

NonZeroBubble

Pro

If you have studied the past of many religions, especially christianity, you should know that the church has been involved in many money making scams, created to gain personal wealth even if it goes against the principles of the religion itself. Not so much today, but in the past, the beloved religion Christianity used its power to manipulate the minds of all its followers to pay money, and other sinister acts such as the selling of indulgences. I'm pretty sure, that the founders of the religion did not have intention of using their religion to take money from their followers for their own good. The church even said at sometimes it had more authority than the bible, most basically saying it was more powerful than the religion it was trying to teach. That fact that a church had ANY power in past times is astounding. How could a fictional belief be of one to hold any power in a way such as the power to kill people because of committing heresy. The church tried so hard in those times to kill and quiet anyone who was brave enough to speak out against the Churches absurdity. They were constantly trying to cover up everything to keep it the way it was, keep the money flowing. The church liked having tons of money keep coming in from their followers not only so the officials of the church could live in luxury but especially the pope. In those times, people paid to keep themselves out of "hell" so the money could be spent on the popes new furniture. The pope is a figure of such a nonsense belief and yet he somehow gets more power than others in today's society. He is ruler of nothing. Back in the day the church, made grouops to specifically stop other religions and trick people into joining christianity (Council of trent, jesuits). Back when people weren't as educated and didn't have the explanation for things available today, the church tricked them into joining the religion, believing the churches teachings, and giving the church money. In fact, one of the Holy Roman Emperors officially declared the church interpretation of the bible is final, therefore being able to do anything they want with their followers, which they did. Today, more and more people, as we get smarter are realizing the sad truth that god is a completely fictional character. Let's be real there is no god, heaven, or hell, and people are getting smarter, realizing the world isn't flat, global warming is real (that's for another debate), and finally, hopefully accepting that their religion is complete bogus. God is the center the of most religion, and keeping it real, there is no god, and the places of worship are desperate to keep people in their religions. Without a god, religion is not real. Don't get me wrong, i DEFIANTLY do like some of the moral of some religions and most certainly like some of today's teachings and communities. Today, the scams really aren't as imminent as they were in the past, which is good. Maybe do to the causes, people have realized the church is entitled to no power in the real world. Less and less people are religious today, or at least deeply religious not jus using their religion as a show name. This is because we aren't falling for any of their nonsense and starting to disapprove of common ideas like the idea of a "god". Im pretty sure you don't truly beleive in god right now, and if you honestly do, god save you. Almost every major religion was built around the idea of god. Now since we've realized or at least admitted there is no, there is no foundation. I think some of the teaching and ideas built around the religion are understandable but the center is disproved causing everything else to not be real. I really can understand and learn to like many of the church morals and philosophies. But with those thinkings centered around a scam, i cannot. Everything about religion is a conspiracy that many have fallen victim to and it is sad to see what an early age of immature minds and the common belief can do to people. Not saying christians or any people that practice religion are bad or anything just saying they are a little stubborn and arrogant if they still do truly practice the religion they follow.
Renzzy

Con

First, i would like to thank nonzerobubble for challenging me to this debate. It is an interesting topic; may the best debater win.

"If you have studied the past of many religions, especially christianity, you should know that the church has been involved in many money making scams, created to gain personal wealth even if it goes against the principles of the religion itself."

I agree, it has; but I believe you are doing some serious generalization, and mingling Catholics with Protestant christians. The Roman Catholic church was indeed involved in many money-making scams, one of the most offensive being the selling of indulgences, which you have already mentioned. Scientology is another religion that is all about making money. The basic idea of the religion (and I realize this isn't in great detail) is this: your body is possessed by many "body thetens" which define your personality and influence you to do bad things. How do you get rid of them? Pay lots of money to the leaders of the church (or someone who is at the head of the religion). In fact, the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, is widely rumored to have said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." but although this is probably true, there is no solid evidence. The whole thing is just a money making scam. Another main money scam is the so called "christian" televangelism. Many of these televangelists teach what is called prosperity doctrine which says that if you will only give more to the church, God will bless you with long life, health, wealth, and prosperity. Many, many people fall for this teaching, and spend the rest of their lives wondering just how much they will have to give in order to please God. All of this I agree is very sick, however I don't see how Protestant christians fit into all of this.

"Not so much today, but in the past, the beloved religion Christianity used its power to manipulate the minds of all its followers to pay money, and other sinister acts such as the selling of indulgences."

Roman Catholics have slacked off, but Scientology and Televangelists are as active as ever. Televangelists continue to preach their prosperity doctrine, and Scientologists continue to force their members to "pay money for salvation". Once again, however, I don't see how Protestant christians fit into all of this. While the Roman Catholics were in ther full glory of selling indulgences and all of their other money making schemes (at this time Scientologists and Televangelists were not around obviously), Martin Luther, one of the fathers of protestant christianity, was appalled by the outrageous acts of the Roman Catholics, and posted his 95 theses on the door of the church to show what he knew needed to be changed. This included the selling of indugences. He knew it was wrong, and made an obvious point that it was wrong.
NOTE: I would like to expound on this, however I don't think I will have enough space as it is, so depending on where this debate takes us, I will try to address it further later.

"I'm pretty sure, that the founders of the religion did not have intention of using their religion to take money from their followers for their own good. The church even said at sometimes it had more authority than the bible, most basically saying it was more powerful than the religion it was trying to teach."

You are exactly right, the founders did NOT have this in mind, however the Roman Catholics twisted it to this. You are also correct in saying that they said they had more power than the Bible at some ponts in time, however it was the Roman Catholics that did this, not Protestant christians.

"That fact that a church had ANY power in past times is astounding. How could a fictional belief be of one to hold any power in a way such as the power to kill people because of committing heresy. The church tried so hard in those times to kill and quiet anyone who was brave enough to speak out against the Churches absurdity."

Whether or not a religion is fictional is not for and me to decide, because if you ask a Muslim, their religion is not fictional. If you ask a Buddhist, Buddism is not fictional. It's all what you believe. As to the rest, AMEN! However what you are describing was done by the Roman Catholics, once again. They read the Bible in latin, and anyone who tried to read it any other language was persecuted. They even went so far as to approve of something like the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, which destroyed thousands of PROTESTANT christians, men, women and children alike, who opposed the Roman Catholic church. Once again, the Protestant had nothing to do with what you are saying all religions did and do; especially christianity. At this point, the Roman Catholic church could no longer be considered christian; it was it's own religion.

"They were constantly trying to cover up everything to keep it the way it was, keep the money flowing. The church liked having tons of money keep coming in from their followers not only so the officials of the church could live in luxury but especially the pope. In those times, people paid to keep themselves out of "hell" so the money could be spent on the popes new furniture. The pope is a figure of such a nonsense belief and yet he somehow gets more power than others in today's society. He is ruler of nothing."

You are direcly refering to Roman Catholic and their appaling practices in that time. Since I believe that the Roman Catholics were no longer christians at that point, all I have to say is that you are absolutely correct.

"Back in the day the church, made grouops to specifically stop other religions and trick people into joining christianity (Council of trent, jesuits). Back when people weren't as educated and didn't have the explanation for things available today, the church tricked them into joining the religion, believing the churches teachings, and giving the church money. In fact, one of the Holy Roman Emperors officially declared the church interpretation of the bible is final, therefore being able to do anything they want with their followers, which they did."

Once again, you are describing stunt of the Roman Catholic church, and they were rediculous. The Protestants, who kept to the true christian religion, had nothing to do with this.

"Today, more and more people, as we get smarter are realizing the sad truth that god is a completely fictional character. Let's be real there is no god, heaven, or hell, and people are getting smarter, realizing the world isn't flat, global warming is real (that's for another debate), and finally, hopefully accepting that their religion is complete bogus. God is the center the of most religion, and keeping it real, there is no god, and the places of worship are desperate to keep people in their religions. Without a god, religion is not real."

This whole statement is based on your pesonal beliefes. You believe that there is no god, and I respect that, however MANY people do. Believeing in a god is a right that at least people in America have, and as long as they are not forcing people into their religion or tricking people into it, it is perfectly ok. The Roman Catholics did both of these, and somehow they remain with the title "christian". The protestants along with all other true christian did neither of these, and do not do either. As long as the religion is not fanatic and/or decieving and forceful, believeing in a god does not hurt anything. You go on to say that the church has no power in the real world, and your right. The church has no power to force anything on anyone. You also continue to say that there is no god, but I addressed that above. You say Finally, in closing, you say once again that religion is a scam, but I have shown you that you direcly describe the faulty religion of the Roman Catholics in most if not all of your claims.

I am sorry that I didn't make a straight forward attempt to defend my position, but I will!
Debate Round No. 1
NonZeroBubble

Pro

it's fine man. we all make mistakes and i particualry don't care :) we all make mistakes. Now to the debate...

I think we are on the same page as far as the roman catholic church being very disgraceful during a certain time period. As you and i both are unity on many of the horrible acts of the catholic church. Even though in today's society the church isn't as much a scammer as they were. But still i think religion in general is a scam. Like i said, not really today, but defiantly back then. And saying that what you beleive in is a scam and centered around a questionable idea or figure, is not great. The religion today do not sell indulgences, tax (as much at least), or try to reap money out of the people. But i, think, even to the extent of the church wasting time on such a nonsense pratice, that the religion only is alive today due to manipulated early minds. I think if islam, christianity, or any other religion was created today, our much better educated and smarter society wouldn't fall into that trap. But since our ancestors beleived that belief has unfortunately been passed on w/o question and being buildt upon to the point where relgion is a legitment thing. From what the catholics did to our precious time that the church wastes today, religion is a very big conspiracy that miraculously survives in our time and because of the immature minds of religion creating times.

thank you again for the debate, i know its not over, but im glad i finally get to express my thoguhts on this subj :)

good luck
Renzzy

Con

First off I would like to thank you for being understanding, and also thank you again for the great topic. It is making me research things I would not have researched otherwise...and that is a good thing! Now to the debate.

In my last argument I did not do much to support my side of the argument, so that is what I will mainly do in this argument. I will be arguing this point: PROTESTANT CHRISIANITY IS NOT A SCAM.

In my last argument I made it relatively clear that the Protestant Christians were not involved in the heinous acts of the Roman Catholic church. I said how Martin Luther, one of the fathers od Protestant Christianity, posted his 95 theses on the door of the church of Rome. In his 95 theses, he directly mentions the selling of indulgences, and how he opposes the idea and thinks it incorrect.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

In saying this, he makes it clear that he opposes the main money making scam of the Roman Catholics.
http://www.iclnet.org...

You said in your first argument that the Roman Catholics developed the Council of Trent in order to trick people into joining the church. In saying this, you were correct, however the Council of Trent was simply the Catholic response to the Protestant Reformation, which started with Martin Luther's 95 theses. The Protestants had nothing to do with this, because it was an attempt to destroy them, or at least drown them out.

Roman Catholicism, Scientology, and Televangelism are all scams, trying to trick and/or guilt trip their congregations into giving money, or, in the case of Scientology, simply hiding the truth of the religion until it is too late to turn back. If you compare the religions, there is really no comparison except for the belief in a god:

Roman Catholics sold indulgences to their followers telling them that it gives them sins with no consequences. The Protestants did not do this, and totally opposed it.

The Council of Trent tricked and/or forced people into joining Catholicism. The Protestants preached their gospel freely, not forcing it on anyone, but preaching it to everyone (not only during the Protestant Reformation, but continue to do so).

Televangelists preach that if you give money to the church, God will bless you. Protestants preached (and preach) that if you live your life trying your best to please God, God will bless you. Protestants do NOT believe that giving to the church is a biblical command, but they believe that the Bible encourages it.

Televangelists preach that God will surely bless you with health, wealth, and prosperity if you give money to the church, which is obviously not true given the fact that the only one with those things is the preacher, who gets the money that is "given to the church". Protestants preach even if you do live a godly life and decide to give faithfully to the church you will still suffer hard times.

Scientologists preach that the only way to become perfect is through giving all (literally) of your money to the church (once you officially accept this religion, there is no turning back. People have been killed for denouncing Scientology after professing it). Protestants preach that there is no way to be perfect on earth, but with Gods help it is possible to live a godly life. Giving money has NOTHING to do with it.

As I am defending Protestantism, I tend to point out all of the positives. It seems necessary, however to point out the negatives as well. Protestants were not, and are not perfect. Nothing is. Back when the Roman Catholics were participating in crusades, killing people (mainly Protestants) and forcing them into their religion, Protestants were also guilty of this. There were few Protestant crusades, FAR less than Catholic crusades, but they were still wrong. Roman Catholic crusades came to an end, however, as did Protestant crusades, and never happened again. I must highlight the fact that the VAST majority of Protestants opposed the Catholic, as well as Protestant crusades. It was only a few fanatic Protestants that participated in them.

Now I will address the arguments in your last post.

" Even though in today's society the church isn't as much a scammer as they were. But still i think religion in general is a scam."

I agree that some religions are a scam, but I have made a case for Protestants above.

"Like i said, not really today, but defiantly back then. And saying that what you beleive in is a scam and centered around a questionable idea or figure, is not great."

I agree that there were religions that were scams back then, but there are also religions that are scams now that I have mentioned. I appreciate the fact that you changed from "there is no god" to "god is a questionable idea or figure". Like I said in my last argument, Some people believe in a god, others don't, however I would not go so far as to say that whether or not you believe in a god decides his existence.

"The religion today do not sell indulgences, tax (as much at least), or try to reap money out of the people. But i, think, even to the extent of the church wasting time on such a nonsense pratice, that the religion only is alive today due to manipulated early minds. I think if islam, christianity, or any other religion was created today, our much better educated and smarter society wouldn't fall into that trap. But since our ancestors beleived that belief has unfortunately been passed on w/o question and being buildt upon to the point where relgion is a legitment thing. From what the catholics did to our precious time that the church wastes today, religion is a very big conspiracy that miraculously survives in our time and because of the immature minds of religion creating times."

You are basically saying that the people back then were not smart enough to realize it was a scam, so they accepted it, but what you are failing to see is that the minds of the people back then were no less developed than they are now. We seem to be debating mostly about Christianity and Roman Catholicism, with a little bit of Islam in the middle of it all, so I will concentrate on these. What about Plato? Aristotle? Socretes? Morons. <<(Sorry. Its a quote from "The Princess Bride". Couldn't resist. Disregard "morons".)>> ANYWAY... These men had some of the most developed minds in history, and they came way before any of these religions! What I am trying to say is this: people were perfectly able to analyze what they were being taught, but some people were and are just too ignorant to realize that what they were being taught was a scam. In regards to Protestantism in those days, I don't think that people accepted it because they were ignorant, but because it was (and is) a religion that offers hope.

I will address this further in my next argument because, once again, I am out of space :)
Debate Round No. 2
NonZeroBubble

Pro

i see your points and it is defiantly true taht protestants are btter in most ways and also today's society and reformed the church even more. But it is the same religion and the apple doesnt fall too far from the tree. Sorry for the short rersponse to such a lengthy and well thought out peice but i think you mostly address a single issue of the protestants not being as bad as the catholic. But to some other of my concerns being the foundation and center of the religions being a fiction figure isn't a good thing And like i said, church today wastes your time because of what your great ancestors fell victim to. Today, people go to church, i hate to say it, but i went to church a couple times, and this is all i heard "blah blah worship god, god is soo great, we bow down to god, god is almighty, i am HONORED to praise god, i a SOO THANKFUL that good has given me the prvilige of worshipping him, i love god, god is the best, i am grateful to be here loving god, god will save me, god is the best thing that ever happened tome" now i know this isn't what the church is about but to me hearing this is soo discouraging that people waste their time to stop and be honored to PRAISE a non-existent figure. Its astounding that people actaully do beleive in this and waste their precious time to do this for "god"
Renzzy

Con

"i see your points and it is defiantly true taht protestants are btter in most ways and also today's society and reformed the church even more. But it is the same religion and the apple doesnt fall too far from the tree."

I see your point as well, all of these religions believe in a god, and all of them are trying to make it to a better life through this god. However they are not quite the same religion.

"Sorry for the short rersponse to such a lengthy and well thought out peice but i think you mostly address a single issue of the protestants not being as bad as the catholic."

That just fine, because I did only address one topic:)

"But to some other of my concerns being the foundation and center of the religions being a fiction figure isn't a good thing And like i said, church today wastes your time because of what your great ancestors fell victim to."

I can see your concern, because your right. Without a god-like figure in the picture, most religions would be a scam, telling you that you need to do good works and pay lots of money to the church to be happy; justifying it all by saying your "doing it for God". I think, though, that even without a god-like figure, Protestantism could not be considered a scam. Protestants (true Protestants, that is) do not force anyone onto their religion, they do not require you to pay money to the church, they do not even require good works. It could be considered an "open" religion, due to the fact that no one is force into it, but anyone is open to it. Buddhism I don't think could be considered a scam either, even if there was no real god figure, mainly due to the fact that it does not force anyone into the religion. Buddhism is based on what they call "The Noble Eightfold Path". This is their eight ways to reach the end of suffering, and they are:

1. Right View, Wisdom
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech, Ethical Conduct
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort, Mental Development
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

These are all personal, not to be forced on anyone, only encouraged to teach others. Once again, even if there was no real god-like figure, Buddhism would be an innocent religion, not a scam, even if incorrect.

"...And like i said, church today wastes your time because of what your great ancestors fell victim to."

I guess I am not really understanding how you think they "fell victim" to religion. Like I said in my previous argument, their minds were just as developed as our minds are today, and they were perfectly able to analyze what they were given and decide for themselves if it was worth believing or not. Also, whether or not church is a waste of time is a matter of opinion. If you believed in a religion, you would probably want to go to a church that taught that religion. Same with everyone else. They believe in a religion, and want to go to a church that teaches that religion. Our ancestors did not fall victim to religion, rather they CHOSE religion. Those who did not think it worth believing did not choose it. Also, it was not only the ignorant that chose religion. King Solomon, said to be one of the wisest if not the wisest man in history chose to believe in God. He was not forced to believe in it, but it seemed logical to believe in a god to him. This was even before Roman Catholicism, Buddhism and Christianity.

People have been believing in and rejecting the idea of a god for thousands of years, not only the ignorant, but also the very wise. I agree that many people were tricked into religion, but I also think that many were not, but simply found it logical to believe in God. Those that believed in God would obviously pass it down to their children, and their children's children, but whether those that they passed it on to would accept it or not was not up to them at all. Therefore, I do not think that people are religious because of what their ancestors thought or believed, but because they find it logical themselves to believe in a religion.

"Today, people go to church, i hate to say it, but i went to church a couple times, and this is all i heard "blah blah worship god, god is soo great, we bow down to god, god is almighty, i am HONORED to praise god, i a SOO THANKFUL that good has given me the prvilige of worshipping him, i love god, god is the best, i am grateful to be here loving god, god will save me, god is the best thing that ever happened tome" now i know this isn't what the church is about but to me hearing this is soo discouraging that people waste their time to stop and be honored to PRAISE a non-existent figure. Its astounding that people actaully do beleive in this and waste their precious time to do this for "god""

Like I said in my last argument, I would not go so far as to say that whether or not you believe in God decides if he exists, but I would say this: people have the right to worship God. If someone believes in God, then it is not a waste of their time to go to church and worship him. I know it does astound some people that don't, but that's ok, because they are not required to worship God. Whether or not God exists does not make it wrong to worship God, and it does not necessarily make the religion a scam.

I believe I adressed all of your points. If I did not, please let me know, and I will correct myself in my next argument:)
Debate Round No. 3
NonZeroBubble

Pro

NonZeroBubble forfeited this round.
Renzzy

Con

I have nothing really to add to my last argument, given that my opponent didn't have time to post his rebuttal, so I will wait until the next round to continue.
Debate Round No. 4
NonZeroBubble

Pro

Like i said. I truly do respect of some the religion's philosophies. But the main foundation of religion is the idea of god. I do like some parts of some religions, but for the most part i think church is a complete waste of time. Yes, the church doesn't scam you money anymore, but they do take your time. Now depending on what religions you focus on, the offense could be bad up to barely anything. My problems is that such great philosophies are built on such a phony foundational idea od god/heaven and all that mythical stuff. If a religion didn't have a god and lets just say, their philosophy was to be nice to everyone, it wouldn't be bad at all. But mos religions aren't like that. So when i take about religions i talk about 99% of the religions, not the very few that are reasonable.
Renzzy

Con

African-based religions include traditional, tribal, and more modern forms of worship. Some religions include Santeria or Ocha (also known as Voodoo, Ifa, Orisha), Palo Mayombe y Palo Monte, Quimbisa, Voudou, Candomble, Umbanda y Quimbanda, and Shangoism.

Agnosticism is a belief that neither denies or accepts the existence of one or many gods.

Atheism is a world view which accepts nature without resorting to supernatural explanations, magic, superstition, or beliefs. Information is accepted or rejected based on reason and verifiable observation.

Aztec Native American culture is an ancient as well as a currently practiced religion.

Baha'i religion is one that unifies all the major religions of the world, from Christianity and Islam and Judaism to belief in Sai Baba and Hinduism and Buddhism.

Confucianism is founded on the teachings of Kong Fu Zi, or Confucius. This religion originated in China.

Hare Krishna believers believe in the Hindu god Krishna as the single God. The leader of the religion is Swami Prabhupada.

Hinduism is founded on the existence of a single God manifest in hundreds of forms. It is among the most ancient religions, dating back more than 5,000 years.

Jainism originated in India.

Judaism's beliefs come from the Old Testament and the Torah. It arose before Christianity and Islam and is characterized by belief in a single God.

Mormonism is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is a religion based on Christianity which calls for a return to the original principles and values of Jesus Christ.

Paganism is older than many religions. It is characterized by belief in several gods of different characters and human and animal forms. Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology all contain stories of pagan gods.

Peyotism is the largest religion begun, organized, and directed by and for Native Americans. The religion uses the peyote, sometimes referred to as mescal, in its ceremonies. The name comes from the Aztec word peyotl, which designates a small spineless psychedelic cactus (Lophophora williamsii) that is native to southern Texas and north-central Mexico. Spanish conquistadores found peyote used as a sacred medicine and a source for magic far beyond the area of natural peyote growth. The Inquisition of New Spain, on June 29, 1620, published an order prohibiting the use of peyote for any purpose. The order failed to stop the Peyote religion, however, which persists among the Native Americans surviving in northern Mexico, particularly the Huichol and Tarahumara. The cactus is also used as a folk medicine.
en�theo�gen [becoming god or spirit within] psychoactive sacrament; a plant or chemical substance taken to occasion spiritual or mystical experience. Example: peyote cactus as used in the Native American Church.

Sathya Sai Baba is a religious leader who also tries to unify several religions. His predecessor was Shirdi Sai Baba. The faith is based in India but extends over the world.

Satanism denies the power or existence of the Christian God (Old Testament). The name comes from Satan (also known as Lucifer, Belzebub), the archangel thrown down to Hell by God. Considered by believers to be self-worship, Satanists typically do not indulge in sacrifice but instead are guided by a few minimal moral principles.

Shintoism is a religion practiced mainly in Japan to revere the Emperor, the state, and the sacredness of the Universe.

Sikhism is a religion of India, the practice of which involves strict adherence to certain principles and practices.

Shintoism is a religion that originated in Japan and is a form of ancestor worship..

Taoism is another religion that originated in China.

Unitarian Universalism is a religion born of Jewish and Christian traditions that is open to various religious traditions and is a free faith unbound by strict doctrine.

Wicca is the religion of witches and Wiccans.

Zen is a form of Buddhism.

Zoroastrianism arose in Persia and is now practiced in India as well.

THIS IS A COPY AND PASTE FROM THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE:
(http://www.geocities.com...)
I removed three of them for the sake of space: Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.

These are just a handful of the religions of the world, and I would be willing to bet my right arm that you cannot prove them all dishonest scams. You seem to be saying that a religion is a scam if it believes in a god, but this is simply not true for most religions. Radical Muslims are ridiculous for saying that they kill people for Alah (like 9/11), but it would be worse if they were not "doing it for Alah". If Alah is not real, then everything they do is completely unjustifiable. If you actually count Islam, this makes four religions that are scams.

Having said that, lets look at the religions that are NOT scams. We have already mentioned two, but lets look at this list. I know for a fact that Mormanism is not a scam, because they go door to door preaching their gospel to whoever will hear it, but THEY DO NOT FORCE IT ON ANYONE. I know for a fact that Judaism is not a scam, because that is the religion that Protestant Christianity came from. I know for a fact thet Zen is not a scam, because it is a close relation to Buddhism. Now we have five religions that are for sure not scams, even if they do believe in a god.

The major flaw in your arguments is this: The fact that a religion believes in a god does not make it wrong. A good definition of a religion that is a scam would be a religion that forces unwilling people into it, a religion that cons people out of their money, or a religion that tricks people into joining it. The fact of that matter is, MOST RELIGIONS DO NOT DO THIS. If a religions god does not exist, it makes the religion wrong, not dishonest necessarily.

You may think that these religions waste the time of the people that believe in them, but that is kind of a matter of opinion. You do not believe in a god, so yes, it would be pointless for you to go worship a being that you think does not exist. You cannot disprove the existance of a god, however, so you are wrong in saying that religions are pointless for worshipping a non-existant being. I have given you five religions that are NOT scams, and four that are, and this is withour researching half of the religions on the above list! My main point is this: From the information I have given you, saying that religion is a scam and a waste of time is incorrect.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by gdaysamantha 8 years ago
gdaysamantha
PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY VOTING ON THEIR RELIGIOUS VIEWS, not on your debate D;
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
I agree, and I am sorry that I did not put more emphasis on that point. I did make it sound like they are still like that today, and they are not.
Posted by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
Rennzy won hands down. However, Renzzy, your views on the Catholic church are a few centuries out of date. The Catholic church no longer sells indulgences, and has reformed almost everything the Protestants originally seperated because of, with the exception of the holiness of the pope, transubstantiation, and the over-veneration of Mary.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
To me it seems they are debating in the past as well as now. They are comparing the Catholic religion to scientology and televangelists which are both fairly new. So to compare the three we must also be talking about it now.
Posted by Ref2thecore 9 years ago
Ref2thecore
Kelse1123:

I think what they are referring to is the history of the Catholic church, during the time of the reformation. At that time, the Roman Catholic Church was all about getting more money and power. However, I think anyone would agree that they (the Catholic church) are NOT like that any more. I hope that makes sense!
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
I'm sorry, I also removed Scientology from the list of religions.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
nonzerobubble , your very ignorant in your post. You can not say that I am wasting my time as a Catholic going to church. Only I can decide what is a waste of my time. I like to spend my hour on a Sunday going to church. The Catholic church scams for money?????? Since when ?????? I don't have to give my church a dime. I can choose to only give my church a dime or I can choose to give a $10 bill. The Catholic church never makes the congregation give money. The only large amount of money I have ever give the Catholic church is for my education that I chose to receive there. You compare the Catholic Church to scientology and televangelists saying they all scam for your money. How exactly does the Catholic Church scam me for money? I would love to know????????? Get some knowledge before you sprout ignorance.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
I'm sorry for the spelling errors and my rather abrupt ending, but what I have there is exactly 8000 characters! I will also do more to defend my position in later arguments. You gave me a lot to talk about :-P

Once again, I'm sorry!
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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 Supernova 8 years ago
Supernova
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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 Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by PeaceFinger 8 years ago
PeaceFinger
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Gespenst 9 years ago
Gespenst
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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 desk19 9 years ago
desk19
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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 MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
NonZeroBubbleRenzzyTied
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