Is God better for humanity?
Debate Rounds (5)
I am an atheist and I think it isn't right for someone to lie to themselves to make themselves happy and to go against modern science and progression. Also beliefs go against gays, sex, and science, but it does go against killing. Yet it still starts most wars... Will humans truly advance if they are stuck believing in god?
On the other hand, hell scares people making even not good people act nicer and better in society. Also like I said before it DOES make people happy so if you want to see a full life, believe something that makes you feel that way. People that believe in god make themselves believe their life is full and they do that by never going into true violence or doing crimes. The word "saint" has even developed as a slang for "Someone who is over the top good".
I would like to see what you have to say about this. Keep in mind that I AM NOT going for a "Does god exist" discussion so only bring it up if deemed necessary. If you reply please be ready to do an extensive debate and don't join the debate if you can only post one thing then you are done, that is what comments are for. Please be committed and fun and I can't wait to hear what you gotta say.
Just to clarify: I believe my opponent want to debate whether or not the idea of God is objectively beneficial to society. I will be taking the PRO position: that the idea of God, specifically the popular monotheistic ones (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam), is more beneficial to society than not. My opponent is arguing the opposite position: That the idea of God is more harmful to society than it is beneficial.
Am I correct?
I will take round 1 as acceptance so that I don't have an unfair advantage of having more argumentative rounds than my opponent does.
Thank you for an interesting debate topic. I hope we can have an intelligent, fruitful discussion.
Beginner forfeited this round.
I am an atheist, so sorry if alot of my points revolve around the fact that god is a lie.
God has set inequality, it discriminates gays, blacks, and non believers. The mind set of someone who thinks people deserve infinite torture, before they have even met the person, is really setting us back in the ways of equality. It may scare people into respectable morals, but it also has many bad ones.
Idea of God:
1) Source of order
2) Source of charity
3) The idea of God is a source of lasting happiness; truth not necessarily better than happiness.
4) God is an easy, appeasing solution to the existential problem; provides opportunities to worry about other things
5) God provides purpose for many in society, sustaining a large portion of society's productivity which benefits society more than not.
1) Source of discrimination
2) Source of blind illogical faith
3) The God giving happiness in trade for truth; truth is more helpful in human development.
4) God is no solution, only an avoidance of the problems in life
5) If God provides purpose then humanity won't need to search for one, meaning we might never find our true purpose if we are short-minded and make up a lie to make us feel better.
The idea of God is a source of order
Religion, which sprung from the idea of God, is the centerpiece of modern society. It is the first structured forum by which people were able to coexist and interact. The idea of God brings together communities. Humanity works best when its working together, and religion is the most large scale, effective social forum ever created. I argue that it is also integral to the development of societal interaction. Religion is the first forum of social order which decreed structural social coexistence. Marriage, for example, is one such structural social institution, decreed by religion, which supplanted the old system of mating competition. Previously, competitors often fought and killed each other for mates (Trojan War: fictional but relevant). "Thou shalt not kill" meant that people no longer killed to mate. Although the system is not perfect, it provides a first structural basis of peaceful social coexistence onto which we can and have built. On a slightly off topic note, even early Greek society was held together in part by religious social order. For example, early Greek society placed significant value on hospitality to strangers, rich and poor. Many believed that mistreating travelers would invoke the wrath of the gods. This value is a cornerstone of intercultural communications and exchange. I contend that humanity would not have been able to achieve what it has today without religion(s) to first knit it together into larger cooperative units.
The idea of God is a source of charity
Religion calls for charity. Studies have shown that the religious are more prone to charity than the non-religious. Charity is an easy point in favor of religion.
The idea of God provides purpose
Given that a large number of people place significant emphasis on the existential problem, the idea of God is a necessary answer (correct or not) to appeasing this portion of society. The stressing problem of existentialism is alleviated by the answer provided by the idea of God. This alleviation, in turn, allows a portion of society to turn its mind to more productive matters. The idea of God presents a raison de etre for many: to keep them going and to keep them working. Productivity is necessary to humanity's development.
I understand that my opponent is arguing under the assumption that atheism is a given truth. I argue that since we cannot prove or disprove the idea of God, that this assumption is unfair. The idea of God gives people purpose. It makes them feel good about charity, gives them a sense of contentedness in productivity.. whether or not the idea of God is founded on truth, it seems that it has been a net positive force to society's development and coexistence.
In light of religion's massive societal benefits, I think the complaints my opponent brought up in previous rounds are trivial. Some, I argue, are even irrelevant.
1) God as a source of discrimination and war
I argue that God is not a source of discrimination. I believe that the religious doctrines which sprung from the idea of God are sometimes used to justify discrimination, but is not the source of it. Similarly for war and conquest, I believe that those who claim to conquer, exploit and enslave under the name of religion would have done so even without religion. The advocates of war and exploitation are those who either circumvent religious values or use them to semantically excuse themselves for their hideous actions.
I think this passage from Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano perfectly shows the perfunctory role religion plays in war and conquest
"A handful of cavalry, 200 foot soldiers, and a few specially trained dogs
decimated the Indians. More than 500, shipped to Spain, were sold as slaves in
Seville and died miserably. Some theologians protested and the enslavement of
Indians was formally banned at the beginning of the sixteenth century.
Actually it was not banned but blessed: before each military action the captains
of the conquest were required to read to the Indians, without an interpreter but
before a notary public, a long and rhetorical Requerimiento exhorting them to
adopt the holy Catholic faith:
'...if you do not, or if you maliciously delay in so doing, I certify that with God’s
To serve God indeed. The passage explicitly indicates that these blessed conquerors read these long religious exhortations because they were required to. No interpretation was given in the natives' tongues. None were required. The natives did not understand what they were being read. The conquerors didn't care. The bounteous wealth of resources in the Americas attracted a bundle of Western powers, particularly the Spanish, English and France. Religion played a trivial part. I believe that most wars are not started by religion, and my opponent's claim that they are is unfounded. For every war my opponent can name to be caused solely by religious decree and belief, I can name one that is not.
I believe religion is actually the limiter to human exploitative forays. Those who oppose war and conflict are often the religious. If there was no religion, I argue that religion acts as a basis by which people could appeal to others' conscience and that those who argued against exploitation would be unable to voice objection without the existence of religious moral values and standards. War comes more often from human greed than religion
2) Blind illogical faith
Whether or not religion is logical is relevant does not matter. What matters is that religion benefits society. Isn't that what this debate is about?
3) Truth is more helpful in human development
I argue that God is not necessarily a lie and that even if it is, the 'truth' has not been shown to be more helpful to human development. This claim requires proof. How is 'the truth' better for humanity? On the contrary, the history of religion, as I've argued earlier, is integral to human societal development and structure.
4) God is no solution and removes humanity's ability to find real purpose (the real solution)
I argue that God is a solution. Namely that the idea of is an answer to the existential problem. I'm not saying that it's the correct answer (nor am I saying that it's wrong), but that it is an answer nonetheless. It is thus definitionally a solution. To address the second part of this statement, what is real purpose? I argue that seeking the 'real' solution to the existential problem is a waste of time (we've been doing that for millenia), and that those who can simply accept the idea of God and move on are generally more productive to society than those who worry excessively over existentialism.
My argument is basically: If being better for humanity means productivity and societal advancement, then the idea of God is a significant factor and a net positive force to humanity's development.
My opponent, on the other hand, claims that atheism is more beneficial to humanity than not, but has yet to give explanation as to how the points he's brought up are societally relevant.
Weighed against the benefits which have sprung from the idea of God in terms of humanity's development, I believe and argue that my opponent's stance, atheism, provides less net positive force to society.
My sister wants me to type something along the lines of 'You're stupidy" and attribute it to you is some way somewhere in this round. So voila. I apologize for any offense this statement entails.
Belfrage, Cedric. Translation. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a
Continent by Galeano, Eduardo (1997) [First published 1971]. Open Veins of Latin
America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent(PDF) (25th anniversary ed.). Monthly Review Press.
PS: I know I promised a fruitful discussion, and I'm sorry that I haven't been able to provide (even forfeiting one round) until now. Feel free to address any and all points I've made in this round. You may even introduce new arguments.
Jnaejnae forfeited this round.
I'm leaving this mess of a debate as it is. Vote as you see fit.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
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.