The Instigator
Ayanami
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Is Religion Still Needed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 78965
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Ayanami

Con

Apologies, but first I would like to state that I am new to this, so of course, there will be a few errors from my part.

In this debate, I would like to discuss whether or not Religion is still needed in our current world - if it does more bad than good now a days.

I will be arguing that it is no longer needed. It has caused a barrier around people - such as different beliefs may cause conflict. It could also be stated that Religion halts the world into the modern world - with them protesting against gay marriage and woman rights and so on.

I do hope that someone would take up this debate, and if someone does, then I look forward debating with you.
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

First, your question assumes that religion is a tool to keep people under control. I would disagree, religion in my honest opinion is the truth (specifically Christianity) and the truth is always needed regardless of the opinion of mankind. In this debate I will assume that religion is only a tool for public control and not related to truth.

There are many religions, with different laws, so I will not argue for a specific religion, only for the belief in a supreme being full of justice and morality.

If the public believe in such an entity, they are less likely to perform criminal actions due to the belief that they are watched.

If the public does not believe in such an entity, they are more likely to perform criminal acts due to the belief that they are not being watched and that their acts have no consequences.

The belief in such a deity serves as a restraint on the acts of people positively preventing them from leaning towards the side of criminality and other acts considered evil.

We can clearly see that the greatest murderers in human history like Stalin and Pol Pot lacked a belief in such an entity and often had very personal anger towards such an entity.

Thus, I state my position as pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Ayanami

Con

I look forward to debating with you. I do hope that you understand that this is just a debate - I don't wish to be offensive, and if I do, I'd like to apologize in advance.

When you assumed that, "that religion is a tool to keep people under control," was in all honesty far off. I don't believe that I have mentioned any of that sort - merely that the modern world is changing, and that Religion seems to halt the progress. As stated above, religion has been infamous for it's protest against gay marriage, against love. It has been against woman rights, against equality, and there are a few other points I'd like to state as well.

On a poll on this very website, 76% of the votes claimed that, "Religion isn't necessary," compared to the remaining, 24% that is still grasping at religion. A quote from one of the commentators is; "Religion is an artifact from a time when mankind did not understand the world around him and, when he could not determine the answers, created a supernatural explanation."

And to be blunt, I would like to talk about this. It is true, though, isn't it? Religion came back from hundreds of years ago, back when they thought that the world was flat. But scientific proof showed everyone, that the world is indeed, a sphere. Is there any proof that there is a God?

Experiments have been carried out, majority of them with negative results, and some entwined with pure coincidence. The experiment was to get people to pray to this God, and see if the prayers were carried out. But of course, the results weren't that positive.

"Most British people think religion causes more harm than good according to a survey commissioned by the Huffington Post. Surprisingly, even among those who describe themselves as "very religious" 20% say that religion is harmful to society."

Another poll that I found on this website had close ties, but even so, the results were that Religion was bad for the world(53%) to Religion is good for the world(47%) Here is a comment from that poll; "Taxes could be cut 10 percent if churches paid their just share. That would mean a probable saving of 20 billion dollars a year to the people of the U.S. Every year of their lives."

Well, just imagine what you could do with that amount of money spent there. Schools, roads, hospitals, police stations - all of them, could help gain some help with that. Schools could get more equipment to educate the people of tomorrow, hospitals could help cure the people of today.

I understand that religion may have caused good, I acknowledge that perhaps, it has brought people together - but it also caused hurt as well. Holocaust is a horrifying example of how Religion tangled with the world. 6,000,000 people died, just because they were Jews - including 1,100,000 children. Between 3,000 to 6,000 homosexuals were killed - just because their love was unacceptable. Yes, Religion did play part in all of this.

But there's also the, "je suis charlie" fiasco that I personally will never forget. Gunmen have attacked the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, killing 12 people including the editor and celebrated cartoonists. Once again, lives were lost.

"The belief in such a deity serves as a restraint on the acts of people positively preventing them from leaning towards the side of criminality and other acts considered evil." Is what you say, but not everything is black and white. Morals is something that is still taught in the world. And as harsh as it sounds, we still have to think about the future.

This debate is whether Religion is still needed, and although it may have helped in the past - it may be effecting less people now a days. "We asked all respondents whether religion is gaining or losing influence in American life, and 72% of U.S. adults (including 70% of the religiously unaffiliated) said religion is losing influence."

As you can see in the statistics, people seem to be losing less interest with Religion. I must admit, I was once religious as well, went to Sunday school and all - but I myself left that behind.

Have you ever heard of a saying that is some what like, "won't believe it till I see it with my own eyes" ? Well, that saying is taking place right now. It happens to everyone though, an example is how children believed in Santa and the tooth fairy, but as they grow older, they begin to lose belief.

It may happen to us all, regarding Religion, there is no permanent answer.

"Religious extremists are major problem that wouldn't exist if religion didn't. These people get upset far too easily and have a negative impact on society." Is a comment I saw from another debate, just thought I'd leave it here.

Anyway, this is the first part of my debate, once again I hope that people won't get too offended by this - and if so, I apologize.

http://www.alternet.org...
www.debate.org/opinions/is-religion-necessary-in-todays-society
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.pewresearch.org...
http://www.debate.org...
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

Thank you for the response. No, don't worry, I am not offended, it's merely a debate.

You: When you assumed that, "that religion is a tool to keep people under control," was in all honesty far off. I don't believe that I have mentioned any of that sort - merely that the modern world is changing, and that Religion seems to halt the progress.

Answer: I would rather have the world halt than remove the truth, nothing is greater than the truth. However, I would argue that no, the belief in a supreme being does not halt advancement, it may even speed up advancement, for example, the founders of modern science were strong believers in the Bible. Islam also had a great scientific age under the Abbassid Dynasty.
______________________________
You: As stated above, religion has been infamous for it's protest against gay marriage, against love. It has been against woman rights, against equality, and there are a few other points I'd like to state as well.

Answer: Many would argue that homosexuality is not advancement -- so you have to define advancement here. Perhaps it's stopping homosexuality, because it goes against nature by violating the use of the reproduction parts -- but it's a whole another discussion if homosexuality is advancement or not, so don't use that as an argument.
______________________________
You: On a poll on this very website, 76% of the votes claimed that, "Religion isn't necessary," compared to the remaining, 24% that is still grasping at religion.

Answer: Argumentum ad populum. Rejected.
______________________________
You: A quote from one of the commentators is; "Religion is an artifact from a time when mankind did not understand the world around him and, when he could not determine the answers, created a supernatural explanation."

Answer: You can't say religion and believe you have it all. Religions are different, therefore, it's a fallacy. Rejected.
______________________________
You: And to be blunt, I would like to talk about this. It is true, though, isn't it? Religion came back from hundreds of years ago, back when they thought that the world was flat. But scientific proof showed everyone, that the world is indeed, a sphere. Is there any proof that there is a God?

Answer: Yes, some religions create religion to explain the world, but I disagree that this is the case with every religion -- Christianity, I would argue, is not that way -- I honestly believe it's the truth, everything it says. Then, you question, 'is there evidence that there is a God?' And my answer is, WHAT? Are you not aware of nano technology present in our cells, 3.1 billion letters of information, and the irreducible complexity present? The body is a masterpiece -- of course there is evidence of God. It's everywhere -- God is the default position for many.
______________________________
You: Experiments have been carried out, majority of them with negative results, and some entwined with pure coincidence. The experiment was to get people to pray to this God, and see if the prayers were carried out. But of course, the results weren't that positive.

Answer: I hope you're joking. This experiment is total and utter nonsense, if I was the professor of the students performing this experiment, I would definitely be ashamed and try to disassociate myself from them. The approach is horrendeous, it assumes that this God can (1) hear their prayers (2) would like to respond to them (3) would like to be tested like an animal (4) agrees with their prayers and possibly more assumptions, any of them could be wrong.
______________________________
You: "Taxes could be cut 10 percent if churches paid their just share. That would mean a probable saving of 20 billion dollars a year to the people of the U.S. Every year of their lives."

Answer: (1) this assumes that the churches are worthless, which is the assumption we're arguing, so you're coming to premature conclusions and attempting to bring them to the debate of the conclusion (2) the same could be said of many other institution (3) without churches people may more likely become atheistic and find no reason not to perform criminal acts, increasing criminality and therefore money spent in prisons, statistics also show that atheists are much more likely to perform suicide, reducing work power.
______________________________
You: I understand that religion may have caused good, I acknowledge that perhaps, it has brought people together - but it also caused hurt as well. Holocaust is a horrifying example of how Religion tangled with the world. 6,000,000 people died, just because they were Jews - including 1,100,000 children. Between 3,000 to 6,000 homosexuals were killed - just because their love was unacceptable. Yes, Religion did play part in all of this.

Answer: You're absolutely out of line here. Just because Hitler said he was a Christian does not mean it's correct. He was a great speaker, deceiver and manipulator, which greatly reduces his cerdibility. Hitler most likely used religion to make the Christians of the region not oppose him. He invented Nazi baptism, went against the scriptures on many occasions, wrote of evolution in his book Mein Kampf etc. The motivation of Hitler was most likely a combination of economy and the theory of evolution -- considering that the Jews controlled the economy of Germany and were considered very close to apes evolutionary, this was openly stated during WW2, they even measured their skulls to determine how ape-ish they were.
______________________________
You: But there's also the, "je suis charlie" fiasco that I personally will never forget. Gunmen have attacked the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, killing 12 people including the editor and celebrated cartoonists. Once again, lives were lost.

Answer: First, these people provocated Islam over and over and over and then they cry when they Islam hits back, but that's another discussion. My point is, like I said before, not all religions are the same. You can't point to Islam and say 'all religions is bad, look at what these people over here did.' It's a logical fallacy.
______________________________
You: "The belief in such a deity serves as a restraint on the acts of people positively preventing them from leaning towards the side of criminality and other acts considered evil." Is what you say, but not everything is black and white. Morals is something that is still taught in the world. And as harsh as it sounds, we still have to think about the future.

Answer: What part of my statement is wrong?
______________________________
You: This debate is whether Religion is still needed, and although it may have helped in the past - it may be effecting less people now a days. "We asked all respondents whether religion is gaining or losing influence in American life, and 72% of U.S. adults (including 70% of the religiously unaffiliated) said religion is losing influence."

Answer: Majority opinion, again. It's a fallacy and therefore I reject it. However, I want to make a brief comment here. The fact that it's losing influences does not mean it's less bad, it could very well mean that the world rejecting it is bad. It's a bad argument.
______________________________
You: "Religious extremists are major problem that wouldn't exist if religion didn't. These people get upset far too easily and have a negative impact on society." Is a comment I saw from another debate, just thought I'd leave it here.

Answer: There are atheistic extremists as well. Stalin for example. But like I said, religion should not be an umbrella term. You simply can not select all religion at once, it's not possible. It's the same as trying to select all humans with one example.
______________________________
Debate Round No. 2
Ayanami

Con

Rebuttal:

": I would rather have the world halt than remove the truth, nothing is greater than the truth. However, I would argue that no, the belief in a supreme being does not halt advancement, it may even speed up advancement, for example, the founders of modern science were strong believers in the Bible. "

Regarding your first answer, I would actually prefer if you could show me this evidence of the truth as you claim of. And also, just because the founders of modern science are strong believers, does not mean that Religion - god it self, is investing itself into science - no, it's just people who have money.

----
"Many would argue that homosexuality is not advancement -- so you have to define advancement here. Perhaps it's stopping homosexuality, because it goes against nature by violating the use of the reproduction parts"

Advancement takes many forms, accepting is one form of human advancement as far as I'm concerned. And if God created this world, then couldn't he have prevented homosexuality, and so on? I do believe that discrimination against homosexuals does play into this category a bit. https://www.youtube.com... Hope you find this video I found interesting.
--
"You can't say religion and believe you have it all. Religions are different, therefore, it's a fallacy. Rejected."

Would you prefer it if I said the main religions that the majority of the people believe in? After all, 31.50% of the world's population is Christian, and Christianity was created back when the people barely knew what hygiene was barely existing?

---

What you have claimed that, "of cocurse there is evidence of God. It's everywhere" Well, this I claim as a very biased thought. There are many theories how the world came to be, one of them being the Big Bang Theory - but of course, this theory has proof. Unless of course, you want to protest against that - but if you are, then you are saying the the schools are teaching rubbish to the children?

---
" I hope you're joking. This experiment is total and utter nonsense, if I was the professor of the students performing this experiment, I would definitely be ashamed and try to disassociate myself from them. The approach is horrendeous, it assumes that this God can (1) hear their prayers (2) would like to respond to them (3) would like to be tested like an animal (4) agrees with their prayers and possibly more assumptions, any of them could be wrong."

The experiment did take place, and this lord of your's did not appear - at all. There is still no statistics, no absolute solid facts that he exist, and I'm still waiting for anyone to provide the information. If you do have such information, please show, or if you found a website with such content.
----
" this assumes that the churches are worthless, "
Barely, merely that they should also find a way to form their own part of money to support themselves as well, instead of relying on taxes in such a manner. Are you insisting that hospitals and schools are worthless though? They are the place where the people of now rest as well as heal and the people of tomorrow learn. You haven't even mentioned them.

"The belief in such a deity serves as a restraint on the acts of people positively preventing them from leaning towards the side of criminality and other acts considered evil." - "What part of my statement is wrong?"

Not everything is black and white. Morals is something that is still taught in the world. And as harsh as it sounds, we still have to think about the future.
----

And also, I would like to say, you still haven't commented on the woman's right section, and that the majority of people seem to be accepting the proposal, with several statistics that I have shown to you to back up this statement from round 2.
-----
Proposal

This whole debate is whether or not that Religion is still required in the world, as fun as it was talking about the past, I would like to focus a bit more on the actual debate. My proposal is that Religion may not be required any more, that it may not be needed now.

Never will we forget what religion is, I admit, but honestly, right now, we are still struggling to move forward. We, us humans, still have our own morals, and we still have our law. Just say if Religion was gone, well, we'd still have our prisons, and also, we'd still have the death penalty in America and certain other countries.

Churches, temples - they should all just chip in as well, they should pay their own taxes, and so on. And of course, people may still support them, even with the decline of people believing in religion now a days. But perhaps Religious subjects could be taken out of schools - replaced with something that may advance the future doctor, the future scientist, the future teacher, the lawyer- the future of this era.

Parents can teach religion to their children, it's not that we're going to ban religion from the world as a whole - that would be speaking of the impossible. But yes, my proposal is that Religion should now take care of themselves - to make it a smaller deal than it is right now. After all, numbers are declining.

Whereas you make quite strong points, there is barely any statistics, or sources to back up any of your claims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
-----
It was nice debating with you, nerve shaking experience to be honest, but fun nonetheless. Apologizes that I didn't manage to cover everything you said during the rebuttal. And kudos on the win ^^" The con side is impossible to win! *dies while trying* But once again, thank you for the debate!
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

First, I would like to thank for an amazing debate.. this topic is not factual like mathematics, so it's harder to arrive at conclusions or form arguments, but it was fun nevertheless. Here are my final responses:

Would you prefer it if I said the main religions that the majority of the people believe in? After all, 31.50% of the world's population is Christian, and Christianity was created back when the people barely knew what hygiene was barely existing?

Not relevant, we're only discussing a supreme being, aren't we? About hygiene, a surgeon was put in a mental institution some 200 years ago for even suggesting that surgeons wash their hands after touching a dead body and performing surgery on a living body, they simply didn't know about these things, even in the 1800s, which is why I find these old words by the Creator quite fantastic, "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean"

Regarding your first answer, I would actually prefer if you could show me this evidence of the truth as you claim of. And also, just because the founders of modern science are strong believers, does not mean that Religion - god it self, is investing itself into science - no, it's just people who have money.

I could show you that it's the truth, but this is not what the debate is about, you can invite me to another debate after this with 10,000 letters afterwards and I'll be glad to show you. Then, when I said that I'd rather have the truth than halt the world, I assumed that the religion in question is the truth -- because your assumption was that it's not, opposite. Furthermore, your claim was that religion does slow down advancement, and I provided people who were very religious and founded modern science to show you that the claim is false, science can prosper and advance with religion -- in fact, in their writings, for example Newton's, it's clear that they are inspired to do science because they believe the universe is an intelligent construct, so religion may even boost the advancement of science.

Advancement takes many forms, accepting is one form of human advancement as far as I'm concerned.

Accepting is advancement? Okay, by your definition, we're advancing when we accept the proposal to arm every nation with one thousand nuclear warheads and to legalize cannibalism.

And if God created this world, then couldn't he have prevented homosexuality, and so on? I do believe that discrimination against homosexuals does play into this category a bit. https://www.youtube.com... you find this video I found interesting.

Depends. Different religions have different teachings. The Bible, for example, states that the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman, but that the world we live in is fallen, and therefore corrupted, one part of the corruption is that males are with males and females with females, going against the obvious design of the reproductive systems.

What you have claimed that, "of cocurse there is evidence of God. It's everywhere" Well, this I claim as a very biased thought. There are many theories how the world came to be, one of them being the Big Bang Theory - but of course, this theory has proof. Unless of course, you want to protest against that - but if you are, then you are saying the the schools are teaching rubbish to the children?

Yes, the schools are literally indoctrinating the children with new age secular theories such as the Big Bang theory, which is basically nonsense. I know of a man named Robert Gentry who posted ten papers refuting the Big Bang to the national science archive arXiv, then they were deleted, no reason given. You can see all the letters back and forth with his attorney. The Big Bang is a carefully protected state theory that is there to offer an explanation of the universe without a creator, and the secret is, the theory does nothing of the kind -- also, I believe there is more evidence in the molecular world, where there is nano technology and irreducible complexity, even 3 billion letters of information. It's fascinating.

The experiment did take place, and this lord of your's did not appear - at all. There is still no statistics, no absolute solid facts that he exist, and I'm still waiting for anyone to provide the information. If you do have such information, please show, or if you found a website with such content.

Read the assumptions of that experiment. Any of them could be false, it's a terrible experiment. And to say there are no solid facts that he exists is quite dishonest. First, we have the material evidences which is nano technology in our cells (hint: it takes intelligence to create nano technology) Secondly, we have archaeological evidence of every major event in the Bible. Thirdly, there are millions of testimonies of people who came back from death and they tell the exact same story. And finally, I had two encounters that have forever convinced me of the existence of God, but of course << this I can not prove to anyone.

Not everything is black and white. Morals is something that is still taught in the world. And as harsh as it sounds, we still have to think about the future.

If there is no creator, morals are different for everyone, they are what we want them to be. It's pointless in the world of relativism.

And also, I would like to say, you still haven't commented on the woman's right section, and that the majority of people seem to be accepting the proposal, with several statistics that I have shown to you to back up this statement from round 2.

I would say that there is a very big misunderstanding when it comes to women's rights. I look at men and women as two different types of humans, each has their role -- blending the roles is a no, in my honest opinion. Now, here is where the confusion comes. Feminists say that they are oppressed because they can't do the same as men, but that equal to a policeman complaining that he is not allowed to perform surgery in the hospital, or that a doctor is complaining that he can't arrest people -- both the policeman and the doctor are worth equally, but they have different roles, and there is no reason different roles should indicate that one is less worth than the other in this case.

Parents can teach religion to their children, it's not that we're going to ban religion from the world as a whole - that would be speaking of the impossible. But yes, my proposal is that Religion should now take care of themselves - to make it a smaller deal than it is right now. After all, numbers are declining.

Declining numbers is similar to an argument from majority. It does not follow that since numbers of followers are declining, there is something wrong with religions or that they are not correct in their teachings -- perhaps it's the indoctrination in schools? Statistics show that approx 70% of college students drop out of religion, that's where the mad atheist professors rip their faith apart using tax dollars from these people, in other words, people of faith fund their own secularization.


Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ayanami 1 year ago
Ayanami
Well answers/replies to all:

@brianjustin3709 Seems to be 3 days - unfortunately I am new to all of this, and thus I barely know a thing ^^"

@Lavaguava Thank you for answering brianjustin3709 's question... School is time consuming...

@ tstor "require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable." Is the first definition that first appeared. I guess it's just how you view the point.

@robertacollier apologies if this may seem offensive to you. Merely, I am actually writing an essay about this subject and thought that this website would be an interesting way to gather opinions. The only reason why I am debating on the con side is because I thought it would be more interesting - a harder debate if you will. But to call me a heathen just because I am merely on a side of the debate, which I am estimating that you disagree with, is pretty brash in a sense.

Heathen is; a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do. Correct? And you know my religion how? Wait, no let me reword that, you think you know my religion - or if I'm an atheist...?

Please refrain from just saying what you have said, "If it's not for you, then don't use it. Heathens who make this argument are always arguing that others don't use it. Mind your own business." Especially if you don't even know if it is my business. Thank you.
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
robertacollier
If it's not for you, then don't use it. Heathens who make this argument are always arguing that others don't use it. Mind your own business.
Posted by tstor 1 year ago
tstor
Was it ever really "needed"?
Posted by Lavaguava 1 year ago
Lavaguava
@brianjustin3709 To view the time limit, click "Accept Challenge" A screen will appear confirming whether you accept the challenge, the details are also provided there.
Posted by brianjustin3709 1 year ago
brianjustin3709
what is the time limit
Posted by brianjustin3709 1 year ago
brianjustin3709
what is the time limit
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
Ayanamipr.Daniel_JordanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes commits several logical errors, most notably an appeal to popularity. However, Pro never even really addresses the actual topic. Pro has defined religion as everything from worship of a god, acceptance of a god, a supreme being, a moral code and facts. Some of Cons points could have been made with broader (less specific) examples, but most were supported with sources. The claims by Pro were not supported, and often contradictory. Con only addressed how religion might be helpful for those who are religious, but was not convincing even there.