Does Religion poison everything?
Debate Rounds (3)
To begin, I will relay some information regarding religion as a whole so as to allow the rest of my arguments to be illuminated within a specific light.
Religion, as some may argue, originated from the infancy of man. Ignorant to the truths of the world, man, fearful man, sought out answers in the form of religious belief. Without knowledge of how the world actually worked or how some of the natural phenomenons occurred, religion sprouted. Now, I'm not here to debate the validity of religion, so I will explain my reasoning for bringing this up. Modern man is no longer in a position where we have to guess or create bizarre theories as to why things happen. We have science to gain and utilize knowledge to understand our environment. We know how the universe came about, even though some would still choose to believe that a confused "omnipotent, omniscient' man spoke a few words and out came the universe.
Religion impedes social progress, thus it poisons. A few topics I'd like to bring up for my opponent to consider is racism, tribalism, etc. It's no secret that religion plays a big role in these disgusting traits of humanity. With proper knowledge of our origins as man, we would all understand our kinship with one another and that no race is inferior to another. Now, this is not to say that every person of faith holds these beliefs, but rather that these acts originate in the ignorance of religion.
I'd like to withhold on further statements as to not overwhelm the first round with topics for my opponent to counteract.
This sort of militant atheism usually lacks knowledge in history and other cultures. All too often I hear people repeating arguments from such people as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. The arguments goes something like this; how can you be religious don"t you know that religious people have caused all the mass murders in history and it"s done nothing but keep society in the dark ages. Of course the argument is usually more complex then this but I am sure you get the idea and possibly heard this type of argument before.
Primarily focused on core ingredient of the militant atheist"s arguments is this, that all religions do nothing but cause harm. The problem with this argument is that Christianity has done much good for society and if this is true the argument of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins crumbles in a few seconds if a Christian can present just one good that Christianity has done for society. There are numerous things Christianity has done in the past that can be presented.
We have the abolition of slavery in England by William Wilberforce, the movement was started by protestant Christians who believed that every man was created in God"s image and no man shall have rule over another without consent. This was fought for many years originally they lost in the parliament but William Wilberforce came back and tried again this time passing the bill to abolish slavery. This was Christian movement.
Then we have the hospitals and educational structures, these were mostly all started by Christians and Jews who believed all men should receive an education of some sort. I would like to more specifically talk about one country where Christianity did much good and that is India. This country is based in the Hindu religion a pantheistic religion, which teaches if you are a morally bad person you will be reincarnated in the next life and have to work of the bad karma by suffering in this life.(please read chapter on why other religions are wrong) Given that Hinduism is prevalent in India the people would refuse to help those that were suffering because they would interfere with the karma and thus also interfere with their own karma. This is why the Christians had to build hospitals over in India, so we see here we have another good that Christianity has done.
In Australia most if not all the social welfare groups started as Christian organizations to help the poor and needy. If you actually look at all these welfare groups they were all based on Christian principles and mandates given to them by Christ, to feed the poor, and give to those that were in need. I offer you a challenge if you are an atheist who uses this type of reasoning to go to the phonebook and look up the welfare societies; they are predominantly Christian and not atheistic.
I would also like to finally address an issue that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens fail to realize in their arguments. These militant atheists are born in a Western Christian society that has Christian values, which were originally based on Christian morality. So when a disaster occurs somewhere in the world, these western Christian societies rush to send aid, you never see a Muslim or Hindu society rush to give aid, why because they do not have the same Christian values en-grained into their societies that teach that one needs to actually help their fellow man when in need or disaster strikes.
LookingBeyondThings forfeited this round.
Templar81 forfeited this round.
LookingBeyondThings forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.