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

Is religion a detriment to the advancement of the human race for all the issues it causes?

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: 9/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 668 times Debate No: 61296
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Let's keep this debate clean and well mannered. With that said just as the debate topic says is religion worth haveing as in do the con's outweigh the pros of religion. I well be taking the side of I think religion is a hindrance and detrimental to human progression. Obviously con well try to argue religion is a positive and does good for humanity. As I said let's keep this clean and nice I'm not here to offend everyone everyone has the right to there beliefs this is just to have a stimulating debate and make people think. With that all out of the way this is how the rounds well go.
Round 1 acceptance and con may begin his/her argument
Round 2/3/4 well be debating
Round 5 well be closing arguments no new arguments
Forfeiting a round well be loss in conduct points and points well go to other debater
With all that said to my opponent good luck and to the rest of you enjoy the debate and don't forget to comment your opinions


I accept the challenge, i will be arguing that religion is not a detriment to advancement of the human race.

The first thing we need to know is that there is no religion that tells there followers to fight, murdur, wage a war in the name of religion, divide among themselve etc.

Exodus 20:13, "You shall not kill,"

Luke 6:27 - But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mark 10:19 - Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Quran 16:82 " If anyone slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole humanity." (Al-Qur'an 5:32)

Quran 17:53, 54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith.

" If anyone slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole humanity." (Al-Qur'an 5:32)

As you can see religion motivates peace among its followers.

Then what about so many bloody wars that has taken place in the name of religion ?

These wars were actually for political power, control of land or resources, money etc,
As we alredy know this is not what religion teaches.
Humans by nature are selfish and greedy atleast to some extent, if this was'nt true then there would not have been poeple who enjoy a very luxurious and confortable life's on one part of earth while there are people who are dying due to lack of food and water somewhere else.

Perhaps there would have been a lot more wars if religion did not exist, which would have been detrimental for the society
Since it does exist and teaches peace, there are less wars.

Those people who are really close to there religion will always try to live a moral and peaceful life, help people around them, give charity and try to abstain from such bad things as they know that they will have to account for everything they do in this world.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay taking into account with what you said religion has been fought in the name or religion not just for land, resources, or money. With that being said I well bring up the Conquistadors and exploring British pushing their religion, Christianity, upon the natives and killing/ whipping out populations that wouldn"t convert. Also bring up the Inquisition where if you went against the Church you were killed; also bring up the Salem witch trials innocent people were killed due to religious people killing due to them believing they were the devils followers/ the doing the devils work. And while yes some religions condone killing and fighting and try to teach tolerance but I stated I was debating that religion is a detriment to society and by saying that im not just saying what the bibal says that also includes the fallowers as they are apart of the religion and practicing it they way they interpret it. With that stated I well bring up ISIS that wishes to set up a new state under strict Shria law which limits womens rights a theif gets his/her hands cut off, you look at Christianity, Islam, Morminism, and many more discriminate aginst gays using there religion to discriminate aginst a person"s sexual identity. In the past using religion to discriminate against blacks, gays as previously stated, Atheists and many more denominations. The Evangelical Christians have pushed harsh anti-gay laws in Africa specifically Uganda. That all being said religion does teach some good things but as a whole when you look at wars they are fought for three main reasons: land, resources, and religion I am not saying religious people are bad I"m saying what it turns people to and how people use it as a cape goat to be bigoted hatefull people isant acceptable and it has been used since the start of religion. Now takeing a modern look at how religion is detrimental to socity is people trying to foce religion into the school system and trying to dismiss science. Religion has caused many undue deaths and from that I mean by cloneing where a person with a failing organ could get a brand new organ from cloned that could save them 18 people die every day waiting for an organ but cloneing is illegal as it playing god and taboo. Religion has also impacted the reacerch on stem cells and genetic engineering all of witch can help socity majorly. Well that is my debate for now I wish my opponent luck


Conquistadors and exploring British pushing their religion, Christianity, upon the natives and killing/ whipping out populations that wouldn"t convert. Also bring up the Inquisition where if you went against the Church you were killed; also bring up the Salem witch trials innocent people were killed due to religious people killing due to them believing they were the devils followers/ the doing the devils work....etc

Yes, all this happened in the name of religion but this isn't what religion actually teaches. These kind of people do not make up more then 0.1% of the population.
Thats like 1 in every 1000 people, So don't you think something is wrong with that 1 person and he is being detrimental to the society and not the religion itself. Some people develop this kind of mentallity, perhaps beacuse they grew in this kind of environment or saw their parents being killed and similar types of reason. These kind of people with terorrists mentallity would be detrimental to society anyway, if it was'nt for religion, they would be killing for some other reason. The other people practise good becasue that is what the religion teaches.

Religion says not to discreminate against skin clour and not the opposite.

gay is somthing unnatural for human beings, it develop due to access watching of porn or similar reasons.

People give charity in the name of religion and try to a live good life because they know they have to account for it in he hereafter, perhaps if religion did not exist they would have been a lot more wars and crimes which would be more detrimental to the society, but since religion exist and it teaches peace, it is lower.

So, relogion is not only detrimental to society but the opposite.

Debate Round No. 2


-Ok I well start off with saying as you never offered a rebuttal to stem cells use and cloning and how religion is running chances to save people"s lives through this research and as thus I well take it as you don"t have a rebuttal for that and well move on and saying your article that talks about terrorism it seems like you just put that article in to put it in just pointing that out. But you say .1% of religious people do things like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials where you got that number I have no idea and you never give a source and my point was no that say .1% of the religious populace does these terrible acts my point was saying these actions were done in the name or religion and thus caused many innocent to die, and as for you saying religion doesn"t discriminate against skin that is wrong in the bible Deuteronomy chapter 7 when the Israelites are reaching the promised land there are other ethnic groups living there and god tells the Israelites to kill all the other people of ethnicity "smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them nor shew mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them." And while you say being gay is unnatural the definition of unnatural via the Webster"s dictionary: Not existing in nature; artificial. Well you your family even I am human and we are natural not artificial so if say I were gay that would be natural as I exist in nature and not artificial and you say it is due to porn I would like to see where you get those facts cut then what about animals in nature that parts of the populace are gay aka penguins for example. And you also say that religious people are giving and live a good life so what you are saying Agnostics and Atheists don"t live a good life or giving charitable people as an Atheist I take offence to that but this debate isn"t about me so moving on. Ok I want to get this straight am not saying all religious people are bad, am saying religion gives people a scape goat to do misdeeds in the name of their religion say look at ISIS or ISIL which ever you prefer to say want to create a new state with strict sharia law in place in thus women would be mistreated look at Syria or Saudi Arabia where Sharia Law is in place and if a women are to travel outside without a male accompanying her she is arrested, women are only property to men and if a female shows skin she is considered a hoar/ slut and under the law can be stoned to death all under Sharia law which stems from Islam and Muhammad"s teachings. Christians using there religions to not allow gays to marry due to it not being sinful to be gay, and yes in the bible it allows slavery:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Now like you brought up in the last round about how no book of a religion tells people to fight, murder, wage war in the name of religion that is dead wrong in Islam if a person leaves the religion that person is to be killed Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper." Basically what they"re saying if they don"t believe in Allah anymore to kill them that"s not peaceful and tells there followers to kill but that"s just one of many verses in the bible, Koran, and Tora.


Religion has also impacted the reacerch on stem cells and genetic engineering all of witch can help socity majorly.
You did not give any link proving that Religion has also impacted the reacerch on stem cells and genetic engineering. thats why i did not rebuttal it before.

isis are not following any religion, islam does not call people to terrorism, In saudi arabia women can go out alone, i lived in saudi arabia and i have seen women walking alone in public places, malls, parks etc. saudi arabia is a very peaceful country. No women are not property to men. I don't know where you got all this nonsense from, there is no law in islam which says women should be stoned. Mohammed(PBUH) said "the best of you is he who is best to the women".

Qur'an (4:89) this is the quranic verse you quoted, you have just cherry picked this verse to prove your point. In order to properly understand the circumstances you need to look at the next verse.

quran 4:90
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

From this its clear that it was in self defence.

By the way the arabic word kafir is translated as unbelievers, which does not exaclty mean non muslims.

Similarly in the bible god tells to the people of israel to take over the land because those people who lived there practised genocides included killing off people who were practicing very evil religions. Worship of Molech was popular in the region, and it included burning your first born alive as a sacrifice to Molech [2]. Israel is warned that if they do not destroy the people, they they will eventually end up following such abominable practices. The scriptures also say that happened when Israel failed to destroy the people as commanded. This wasn't genocide commanded for the sake of hatred or Hebrew superiority. In fact, the scriptures explicitly say so in Deuteronomy 9:4 [3]. The Bible isn't condoning murder. It is condoning capital punishment, which is a debatably moral practice.

(Deuteronomy 9:4 )
After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you.

And whats makes you think that the bible started slavery or promotes it, slavery existed before the bible. the bible just laid down some rules for it.

As you can see pro has just cherry picked verses without proper understanding and also did not consider the time, place,purpose and the circumstances under which they were written

to prove that religion promote violence.

religion and terrorism isn't exactly our topic, so just for futher clarification i will post similar types of debats.

when you study religion with proper understanding, its clear that they promote peace.

where did i get 0.1 from
thats simple

0.1% of the populaton following religion would mean 6 million, and the we don't have so many terrorist, not even near that number.

I don't understand why you feel offended when i say religious people are giving charity and live a good life.
this does not mean atheist or agnostics don't but people who follow religion do more charity work and they have a source of motivation for doing good deeds.

Terrorism is more because of psychological reasons, lets take the example of iraq, iran, syria etc they have one thing in common they are all war torn countries, so what can you expect from a generation which has grown up under such terrible conditions. This kind of environment develops terrorist kind of mentallity. if islam were to promote terrorism then other countries under the muslims rule like dubai, bahrain, qatar, turkey, Egypt etc
would have also been practising terrorism, but no they are not, they have very good infrastructure and are not war torn countries.

scholars study religion in detail and if the religion were to preach violence then the religion scholars would have been the worst people, but as we know thats not the case. In fact they are well respected.
Debate Round No. 3


So con would like to bring up that the verses were cherry picked, yes that is true but so is the verses used by con throughout this debate, but I am not here to attack con but am here to say. Con you say ISIS doesn"t have to deal with religion that is wrong as they want to creat a state that fallows strict shria law and that has to deal with Islam. Islamic terrorist groups like Al Quaeda is using religion as a means to do its evil deeds weather there fallowing there religion is up for debate but this debate isn't about scriptural texts its just in general is religion detrimental to society I'm mostly talking about in practice now script but here's a video showing Islam isn't all its crated up to be.


No pro, i did not just cherry pick any verse. you can check the verses before and after it to understand the whole context , they still mean the same.

ISIS is also in iraq, they are just using religion as a cover to gain support from some ignorent muslims, Since muslims are close to their religion. Muslims know that what they are doing is wrong and other muslim nation also label them as a terrorist group.

Yes, it does have to do with scriptural text because thats were the knowledge about a particular religion comes from, it gives the rules and regulation, how one should live there life.
if the text say , you should not do something and if some people still do it, then they are to be blamed and not the religion itself.

whoever made that video does'nt know much about islam either.

1) Mohammed(PBUH) did not write the Quran.

2) The Quran is not arranged in the order in which it was revealed. The first verses revealed to mohammed(PBUH) are placed in the 96th chapter.

And saying that, first the quran speaks about peace and later it talks about killing is absurd. If you just understand and read the quran, its message is clear.

Even if you are taking everything literally, the message is clear that if they are willing to live in peace with you then you have no right to fight.

Yes the quran was revealed in one life time, but over the course of nearly 23 years. In this time period many wars were fought in defence of their religion, thats when those verses were sent down.

Some of the things in the video are just wrong, while some others are just cherry picked.

Eg: fornicators should be whipped, but there is condition, anyone acussing someone of fornication must produce four witnesses who have actually seen it happen.

When Mohammed(PBUH) was in madina, people used to come to him when there was dispute between them, suppose the people were jews he used to make judgement between them from the laws present in their own scriptures, and did not force the laws given in the Quran on them, even the quran makes it clear

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. (2:256)

The video presented by pro does not even quote any verses to prove its point.

Debate Round No. 4


Hey sorry for my last round I barley had time to write it I was mountaineering with my Bro and we got caught in a storm for two days up there so when I got back I had 20min to type a debate so sorry about that but if you wait till the very end of the video he does bring in the verses he based his video off of. And with that out of the way and this being the last round I would like to say thanks for accepting the debate and having a civil debate with me as I know and understand this is a touchy topic and I don"t want you or anyone to believe I hate religion in fact I"m fine with religion as it brings people comfort, but just as long as people don"t try to shove there religion down on me, all that being said this debate wasn"t if religion is bad or more so the quotes in the religious books cuz you can have say one of the commandments "thal shall not kill" but people still kill just because it is written in your sacred text doesn"t make the religion bad or good my point of this debate was to say is religion a detriment to the advancement to society; which I believe both con and I showed our view points to our best but I still hold that religion is a detriment to the advancement as a species just due to the fact that religious people stop science with some amazing things like I said in one of my previous rounds like cloning and stem cell research though both we can create organs for people who need them but die waiting for a transplant they well never get when you could have one cloned from your own cells or use stem cells to create that organ. Along with that we still today see religion discriminating/ telling people what they can and cannot do such as people fighting to get abortion illegal when it should be the right of the mother and father, mostly the mother, to decide if they want to abort, or gay marriage all these things plus many more wars, destruction of entire cultures, limitation of science and medical field, civil rights, Sharia law, extremist groups, and many many more hamper our abilities to progress our species farther and more advanced and prosperous. I"m not saying get rid of religion not at all just get rid of religious influences in civil matters and in science and medicine where it has no place being and is only harming more and more people. But that"s the end of my debate now we just wait for cons final debate and then we leave the voting off to you the viewers, but again I would like to say again thanks to you again con this was a fun and enjoyable debate not something I can say often in a debate about religion so thanks again and hope to debate you again someday.


Pro has broken his own rules, pro brings up a new argument speaking about abortion in the final round, he does not speak about abortion in his previous arguments.

Pro do you honestly think that those 3 or 4 verses in the end prove the claims made in the video.

pro that is my point, if the text says do not kill and if the people still kill (for their own selfish reasons) and justify it by just cherry picking the verses from the text without properly understanding it, then those people are being detrimental to the society and not the religion itself. Something is wrong with those people, not the religion. Any person in his right mind will not just cherry pick those kind of verses and start killing.

Pro again claims that religion is the reason that cloning and stem cell research has been hindered, but again does not provide any evidence for it. By the way religion does not stop advancement of technology.

Pro says religion stops people from donating organs but agian does not provide any evidence for that,
religion does not stop people from donating organs. The link pro gave in the starting about organ
donatoin does not say that religion is stopping people from donating.

Religion is not the cause of wars, destruction of cultures, limitation of science and medical field, civil rights, Sharia law, extremist groups etc. There are various other reasons for this, which i have shown in my previous arguments.

Let me also present a list of all the arguments pro has dropped through out this debate.

1) Pro did not rebuttal for the verses i have quoted to prove religion is good.

2) pro accepted that he has just cherry picked verses without understanding to prove his point.

3) Pro dropped the argument that very few people are involved in terrorism and it is because of psychological reasons and not religious reasons, which i have discussed in more detail in my previous arguments.

4) pro claimed that i have cherry picked verses, but did not present any argument to prove his point.

5) pro dropped the argument that when you study religion with proper understanding, they promote peace.

etc, there are many more, but i am running out of time.

So, as you can see religion not only promotes peace and harmony but also asks its followers to live a moral and an ethical life which is very beneficial for the society.

you are welcome pro, just because i support religion does not mean i hate atheits or agnostics etc. I like anyone who is kind and friendly with me.

Yes pro it was an interesting debate and the longest one i had.
And Thankyou for your kind words and a civil debate.

I would also like to request the voters to judge purely on the content of the debate and not let their own ideas reflect in the votes.

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by khizr 2 years ago
If i give different sources now , they will contain some new arguments, so i cannot. So for this debate wikipedia should be considered a valid source.
Posted by khizr 2 years ago
If you informed me about that before i would have given other sources.
Posted by Hawkeye117 2 years ago
oh sorry forgot to put this in my final round but con just saying for future reference I wouldn't recommend using Wikipedia as a source as it has been known for being tampered with and lies/ false info in it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: It's very very rare for me to do so, but I'm only scoring S&G here. Pro's case was rambling and nigh-incoherent. I think he brought up a few points that I'm not sure Con fully rebutted, but not in a way that I can really award points for it--if only because his case was so difficult to slog through. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.