The Instigator
ToThinkUpon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
black_squirrel
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Is religion really something to think upon?

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 3 votes the winner is...
black_squirrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 470 times Debate No: 43231
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

ToThinkUpon

Con

Is religion really a topic that should be focused on with young children? I think not. Like myself, up until the age of 8, is was forced to go to church. Why should children be forced to go to church and focus on a religion that they have no interest in? I myself, am not classified to any religion. I have strong reasons to debate against any religion. Not to be offensive but I feel that science is much more logical and practical. Science can be proved, religion can not. What is the point of believing in something that cannot be proven? It is a utter waste of time.

Feel free to debate against me in this topic,
ToThinkUpon
black_squirrel

Pro

Parents are the best advocates for their children

Parents have the responsibility to do what is best for their children. They will use their own judgment to decide what is best for their kids. So if parents believe that religion is important in their own lives, and in the lives of their children, they should be allowed to expose their children to their own religion. As long as parents are not abusive, parents are the best advocates for their children.

Is Church abuse?

One could argue that raising a child with religion is child abuse. Such a sentiment is sometimes uttered by atheists. For some extreme religions this may be true. But most mainstream religions hardly qualify as child abuse.

I cannot speak for your upbringing in church, but I will speak just for myself. I was raised catholic. I was baptized, and I was
"confirmed". I do not remember ever believing in a God, but I do not feel I was abused. Church was boring, yes, but so was grocery shopping. I was "forced" to participate in both. And, I got lots of presents when I was confirmed! Church may have been a waste of time, but on the other hand, it also may have taught me patience.

Science is limited

Scientific theories that have been accepted can be proved. However, scientific theories do not apply to all situations. For example,
science does not explain why Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie, nor does science explain Donald Trump's hair. Sometimes we have to believe something, because we do not have a scientific proof either way.

Debate Round No. 1
ToThinkUpon

Con

Yes, the parents should be able to expose their children to a religion. However, the children have no reason to learn the religion when in some part of their life they will begin to question what they have been exposed to. The parents should NOT force the children to participate in the religion if they do not agree with it.
black_squirrel

Pro

I do not see any harm in learning a religion, even if it turns out the child later in life does not agree with the religion. I think that involving children in the church activities of the parents can be a good opportunity for parents and children to bond. Should the parents get a babysitter when they go to church? I don't think so. We learn useless stuff from our parents all the time. But learning itself is a good thing. It keeps our mind sharp, even when learning useless stuff. How about parents that teach their children to hunt? The child might become an animal rights activist later in life. How about parents who teach their children to play football? The child may actually prefer a different sport when it grows up, and the football lessens may turn out to be worthless. Parents teach their children what they know and care about. Some of it may turn out to be useful, and some if it will not be useful.
Debate Round No. 2
ToThinkUpon

Con

Hunting would not be a valid argument. When you are hunting you are learning a skill that can be useful in life. Even if you become an Anti-Hunting activist, you will still know the skill and may one day need it again. Religion however, you will remember but what will be the use of it. When you die it will all be a waste, simply because you will lie in your grave as a deceased human. Science dictates that evolution has happened. You cannot deny that because there is proof. Religion is simply just something that somebody made up one day. It cannot be proved. Religion is something that someone creates and gets followers by simply creating characters such as Jesus and in ages will never be known but will still be famous. Why?
black_squirrel

Pro

Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. I do not think that hunting skills would be very useful to me, because what are the chances that I would have to hunt for my own survival? In the same way, you may find that knowledge of a certain religion is not very useful to me. But it actually can be useful to you. For example, you could use it in your discussions with theists. Parents teach children what they think is useful to their children. They can be wrong, but they have a right to. All parents teach their children lots of things, and not all of it will be useful.

conclusion
This debate is not about whether religion is useful or not, or whether science is useful or not. Being an atheist, I probably mostly agree with my opponent. What is at stake here is the fundamental right of parents to teach their children in way they think is best. Outsiders should not interfere with this child rearing, unless there is abuse. But in my opinion, teaching children something that may not be useful later in life, does not amount to abuse.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
RFD continued: perfectly, though you other arguments partially flow through. Pro, be careful to make clear, distinct defensive and offensive arguments so you can avoid contradicting yourself. In my opinion, you may have focused too much on defense. All in all, good debate. Both Con and Pro: Try to concentrate on both good clash (address each other's points better!) and clarity (organize!) in your future debates. Thanks!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
ToThinkUponblack_squirrelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were much more convincing than Con because facts are facts: teaching your children your religion is no more abusive than teaching your children moral values.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
ToThinkUponblack_squirrelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really needed to either ask a different question or answer the question he asked. The question is, "is religion really something to think upon?" The burden for proof of this is very high. You can't just prove that religion is worthless (which I don't think Con did), you have to prove that it's uniquely harmful. Even something perceptually "worthless" is always worth a thought, so it must be harmful in order to say that we should not think on it. And Con just didn't prove it. Pro responds well to Con's points.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
ToThinkUponblack_squirrelTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro: Nice arguments on the right for parents to teach how they would like. However, you do not spend much time in talking about whether parents SHOULD teach their kids about religion. In that way, the usefulness of religion is important. It is not enough to say its not useful. Pro's points: parents know best, church teaches patience, learning useless stuff is good, bonding time with parents (good? tell me why). Con: science is better than religion. Con, you tend miss many of Pro's points in this debate, and instead focus on a few that are not vital (such as hunting). Pro: Last round you talk about parents being wrong and suggest that usefulness is not important. These arguments are somewhat counter to your evidence of parent's know whats best for their child and "useless" knowledge is still useful arguments. Although Con did not oppose your arguments strongly and did not offer much offense (explain why religion's inferiority makes it problematic). Even still, only patience flows perf