Is Religion Right or Wrong?
Debate Rounds (3)
The first round of the debate is for placing your stand and putting forth your foundational argument. No rebbuttals will take place in the first round.
In the second round the debaters can put forth new arguments and rebuttals can take place. Sources have to be provided for all statistical reports, surveys, etc.also videos can be posted through YouTube for evidences, interviews,etc. All religious text, if qouted, have to end with the name of the book, the chapter, and the verse.
The third and the final round will consist of only rebuttling, no new arguments will be entertained. The third round should have a proper and convincing position and also it should have a good conclusion.
The debate would be more interesting if The Contender has a good knowledge about different religions and beliefs rather than simply debating for scores or points.The voting, hopefully, will be based solely on the arguments and not on personal opinions.
And lastly, I am not an atheist. My views are solely based on the topic and are not personal (And i cannot be used as a substantial example for the contenders arguments). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
My stand is that religion is solely based on blind faith there is no proof, whatsoever, of most of the arguments put forth by religious heads. in fact religion is confused with itself it is just a blind man's buff. Religion teaches to worship by faith not by force but what did some religion do, they banned other religions and forced the people to follow theirs.
Some religions like Christianity (I am specifically basing this on Roman Catholicsand am not even hinting any criticism against other sects of Christianity.) do not even know what they are believing in they say that Jesus is their one and only saviour and the next day the Pope goes to make a new 'World Religion' which combihes all the major religions together and joins all the gods and the symbols (Question: With all due respect does the Pope really believe the giberish he is spouting about mixing gods together? It sounds more like he is controlling the gods rather than serving them.). One thing I learnt from this is that You can't get better than the Pope in being a fake, and you call him the 'Holy Father of Christianity'
If Religion teaches you to love each other then why do so called religious fanatics (which grammatically means 'Over-Religious People') kill other people instead of chanting or doing some ritual to appease their God, because I don't think that you kill humans for worship anywhere except some cannibal religion or something (Correct me if Iam wrong.). Or do they believe that killing people is the only way to send them sky high and straight to heaven, if it is so then i am sad to inform that gravity still exists. So, What do they do it for?.... Is it for meeting beautiful woman in heaven as Osama Bin Laden said... I am not so convinced about that because why would he want to take up such a risky endeavour without even the guarantee of getting a girl, he might have as well as kidnapped Angelina Jolie at least he had a guarantee of getting her.
So I hope this argument proves to be substantial enough to show that religion is wrong.
(Do not mistake my words for blasphemy, I hold the Pope in high esteem and do not disagree with his wisdom, but I am completely against the way he is leading christianity into the ground. I also revere Christianity and all other religions in their own varied beliefs but I can't make sense of the way they are followed).
However, here's the jist:
1. Religion relies heavily on interpretive teachings. It's not what religion teaches it's the way religion is taught or believed to be taught. Thus the practicers of the religion are in the wrong and not the religious texts itself. If you've read a Bible or a Qu'ran(Figuring your referring to monotheistic religions); it actually makes a lot of sense.
2. Religion can't be wrong or right. There is no burden of proof for either argument for religion, or against religion, thus it is only an opinion as to whether or not the belief in a God is right or wrong.
3. Violence in religion usually has a lot more to do with the religion itself. Many Muslim jihadists are actually not just defending the faith solely because religious texts say so, but as land disputes and foreign relations have left areas of south western Asia in poverty. Groups like ISIS are fighting for land and territory; strategically, blaming the U.S. for invading land for oil. Yes, it does have a lot to do with religious faiths however, but the absolute poverty and land disputes lead to these terrorists.
4. Catholicism is a vey specific religious sect for a very specific religion and should not be used as verifiable evidence to whether religions are wrong or right.
Those are basically my arguments. I am not arguing semantically as I can tell you're new.
mattyalby forfeited this round.
mattyalby forfeited this round.
Normerican 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.