The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Is God better for humanity?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 66941
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)




This will not be a debate on whether god exists or not. It is whether it effects us and our future for the better or worse. To clarify I am talking about Christianity, Islam, and, Judaism as the main "god". I would like a nice and mature discussion. I personally am kinda on both sides but I went with con, so I am defiantly not completely one sided.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes you are correct, I will let you go first since I already put lots of my reasons in the first post.


Beginner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I feel like living in a true life is more full than a happy one. I feel that happiness as an ultimate goal is very simple minded, and religion only supports it. Here is a way I like to put it. We are orphans of the universe. Many choose to pretend they have a father, then they don't worry about it as much, but the ones that choose to accept the truth are more mature and better for the future. Yet the people who pretend to have a father, they rub it in?

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.

Debate Round No. 3


Problems with god:
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.


My Arguments
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[1] 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
help I will advance powerfully against you and make war on you wherever
and however I am able, and will subject you to the yoke and obedience of the
Church and of their majesties and take your women and children to be slaves,
and as such I will sell and dispose of them as their majesties may order, and I
will take your possessions and do you all the harm and damage that I can.'

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, faithful comrade of Hernán Cortes in the conquest of Mexico,
wrote that they had arrived in America 'to serve God and His Majesty and also
to get riches.'"[2]

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.
[2]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.

Debate Round No. 4


Jnaejnae forfeited this round.


I'm leaving this mess of a debate as it is. Vote as you see fit.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jnaejnae 1 year ago
oh btw I was trying to say "we should go with the assumption that god is fake". I never said that I think atheism is 100% truth. There may be a higher power, I just think that the current "religions" are just fake interpretations.
Posted by Jnaejnae 1 year ago
Thank you too, and happy new years :D
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I never really thought about religion in this new light before. Good luck on further exploits. :)
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
Jnae, I'm not the one making the claim, you are. I do not believe or disbelieve God. I'm an agnostic. You, on the other hand, made the absolutist claim that God does not exist, and a majority of your arguments are based on that implicit claim. The claim is yours not mine. It's fine if you are atheist, I do not resent or contradict that. I know of many ways atheism can be ideologically concluded as a possible truth. However, I know of no ways atheism can be concluded as an absolute truth.
Thus, I point out your illogical absolutism.
Derogatorily accusing me of using "religious logic" doesn't change the fact that many of your assertions are either false (i.e. religion being cause to most wars) or unproven (i.e. God's nonexistence).
Again, the claims are yours not mine, and I'm just pointing that out.
Posted by Jnaejnae 1 year ago
I am better than you and I won this debate. You can not prove nor disprove therefor you cannot say my claim is false. Therefor it is someone true and you have to deal with it.

lol "religious logic"
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
"Truth is important because accepting it forwards wisdom and logical thinking, because with lies and fallacies, that is against logical thinking entirely, and if you are smart enough to realize this it is wize and opens up your potential of wisdom, that is why the truth is good."
Your position necessarily says that God's existence is NOT true. As established underneath, the assertion in itself departs from logic.
Even if God were false, your musings on 'truth' and its results are purely hypothetical and unquantified.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
I'm not saying God exists. I'm saying we can't prove he doesn't exist. That doesn't mean I believe that he does.
God cannot be proven to exist.
God cannot be proven to not exist.
Therefore it is illogical to take either side. Your taking one side and declaring the other illogical is, by itself, unfair and illogical.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
I'm not saying God exists. I'm saying we can't prove he doesn't exist. That doesn't mean I believe that he does.
God cannot be proven to exist.
God cannot be proven to not exist.
Therefore it is illogical to take either side. Your taking one side and declaring the other illogical is, by itself, unfair and illogical.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
I ran out of space. You get what I'm saying? Having the poor disappear sounds a lot like genocide except not against race/religion, but against class. You're not the first to think this way. Hitler thought the crippled were useless to society and thus needed to be eradicated.
I think your mind is approaching the issue incorrectly.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
Hope you enjoyed your vacation! :)
I'm up for continuing the discussion:
Some of the conflicts in the middle east represent only a tiny fraction of all of humanity's wars.
Here's a timeline of all our wars. Most are revolutions or civil wars against inequality or simply conquests for land. Less than a fraction of these are based on religion.
I feel your war complaint may be your most major complaint, and it is literally false. Most wars are not a result of religion. Some are. I do not contend that. Most are not.

So apparently I thought we were arguing whether or not humanity should ever have developed religion at all (hence my arguments). Based on your response, it seems that you want to dispute whether or not we should dispose of religion now.
If you want to complain about religions' past harms, then, to be fair, you must also weigh it against past merits. Thus, if you want to complain about past wars (caused by religion), you must also contemplate the totality of religions' past benefits.

Ok, so for charity. You seem to believe that charity is bad for society. This could be an entire debate on its own. I will simply say that those who require charity generally are thus not because they are evil, bad or lazy, but because the societal system in which they reside put them where they are. I know people whose parents work 3 jobs and earn nothing compared to even my high school teachers. They're not lazy yet they are poor. They are oftentimes unable to fund, say, car accidents, law suits, health problems, etc. Without these manual laborers who work slave hours at slave wages, we in the upper echelons would not be able to sustain our positions. The lower niche is necessary in order to sustain the upper niche. It's unfair to blame the poor for being poor. Removing the poor (let's say the world's poor vanish) would destroy society as we know it. Charity does not have to be giving money. Manu
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.