The Instigator
Masonnblake
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Buckethead31594
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Religion Is Bad and God (Probably) Does Not Exist

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 5 votes the winner is...
Buckethead31594
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,186 times Debate No: 43971
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

Masonnblake

Pro

RULES: *the usual*

The only evidence of god is the bible and testimonial hearsay. Little to no evidence of Jesus exists currently, though I admit that his existence was possible. Supposed encounters and interactions with an ethereal being as such are all void of evidence. Religious beliefs should be kept within personal boundaries, yet people allow them to influence society's advancement in science and politics. This in turn leads to negative consequences within the countries that religious people inhabit: specifically democracies. As a result, elected officials and authorities can (and have) impose[d] unwanted laws such as making abortion illegal and disallowing gay marriage. More so, religion impacts scientific progression in society by insisting that evolution and dinosaurs are falsities, and that the universe was created by a mystical being. Additionally, most religions in the world seem to be plagiarized versions of increasingly older religions [ *THE VIDEO TO THE RIGHT*]. The facts in the movie this clip was taken from (Zeitgeist) are indeed truthful. Religion has indeed caused many wars and atrocities in the past. To justify this statement all one must do is a bit of research. Religious leaders, like the pope, use donations from churches to buy golden chairs and scepters instead of feeding the poor and assisting humanity in need. Christianity for an example leads people to do good for the wrong reason; people of Christianity do good in God's will. They do not do good for the sake of goodness. One might ask "If they do good, why does it matter what they do it for?". Well, the good that is done may remain, but they would not have made themselves better people. Religion impels people to have a phony sense of security after death. This means people may feel okay to do things such as this [http://www.dailymail.co.uk...].

This concludes my first argument.
Buckethead31594

Con

I thank my opponent for an interesting resolution, and I welcome him to Debate.Org. It is an honor to be his opponent on his first debate with the community. As one may have guessed by reading the comments, I have been trying to avoid accepting theological debates on the account that I want to expand my horizons. Nonetheless, I could not resist the urge to partake in a potentially engaging theological debate.

Since my opponent has not yet done so, allow me to lay down the ground rules for this debate.

  • Pro will have the BoP.
  • There will be no use of evidence unless it is cited.
  • Logical/Opinion-based evidence does not require a citation.
  • There will be no use of ad hominems.
  • Any questions/concerns should go in the "Comments" section.


With most debates, the instigator lays down the ground rules in round one; after which, the contender accepts the debate. Round two is usually where the arguments are stated. Nonetheless, for the sake of this debate, I will post my counter-arguments in this round. I wish the best of luck to my opponent!



Rebuttal


"The only evidence of god is the bible and testimonial hearsay. Little to no evidence of Jesus exists currently, though I admit that his existence was possible."

My opponent chooses Christianity as his basis for argumentation. His contention seems to have been influenced by the controversial documentary, Zeitgeist: The Movie. Unfortunately, I don't see how my opponent can argue that all religion is bad based on the actions of one religion, when there are some religions that actually seem to bring good into the world. I will address this in further detail, later. This contention, in particular, doesn't address the whole issue.



"Supposed encounters and interactions with an ethereal being as such are all void of evidence."

If my opponent wishes to dismiss first-hand accounts of these interactions and encounters, he will have to prove that they are not viable forms of evidence. Christianity aside, there are personal encounters with "God" happening on a daily basis- around the world[1],[2]. Unfortunately, I would think that most would agree with me when I say that "God," (meaning: an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being) cannot be {dis}proven as of now. At least, we don't have the ability to prove or disprove God. If anything, the existence of religion itself could be the only viable evidence for the existence of God.



"Religious beliefs should be kept within personal boundaries, yet people allow them to influence society's advancement in science and politics."

People with power will use large institutions to control the masses. The media, the food industry, the music industry- these are all examples of large institutions. Religion is one of them. Just because it is one of them, doesn't mean it is *bad.* Like other institutions, it is liable to fall into the wrong hands. And, thus, commit *bad* things.



"This in turn leads to negative consequences within the countries that religious people inhabit: specifically democracies. As a result, elected officials and authorities can (and have) impose[d] unwanted laws such as making abortion illegal and disallowing gay marriage."

This doesn't prove that religion is *bad,* it simply proves that powerful people will use large institutions to further their greedy endeavors. The same could be said for corrupt popes, politicians, lawyers, businessmen, and anyone who strives for personal profit.



"More so, religion impacts scientific progression in society by insisting that evolution and dinosaurs are falsities, and that the universe was created by a mystical being."

Let the sheeple believe what they want; scientific progression will never be hindered, so long as those who are scientists strive for progression. If anything, the Creationist's religious dogma motivates mainstream science to discover an adequate rebuttal. Nevertheless, since the origin of the universe will most likely always remain a theory, it is best to approach it with an open mind. Also, religious discourse does not halt scientific progression- to disagree is to act in accordance with human nature. If there wasn't any productive use for disagreeing, this very website would be completely different.



"Additionally, most religions in the world seem to be plagiarized versions of increasingly older religions [ *THE VIDEO TO THE RIGHT*]."

Similarities that occur within a certain frequency tend to point to the contrary: that there is, most likely, an external process that is happening. Forgive me if my reasoning seems obscure- I am no scientist. But this is certifiable within the Scientific Method: for when there are recurring outcomes, there is usually an external interference causing the reaction. What that external interference is, I don't know; but no one can prove that it isn't God.



"The facts in the movie this clip was taken from (Zeitgeist) are indeed truthful."

I would ask my opponent to please present evidence to confirm this contention. I have evidence that it is, in fact, not truthful[3]. I will get into further detail, if my opponent so chooses.



"Religion has indeed caused many wars and atrocities in the past."

I contend that mankind has caused wars- not religion. Blaming religion for wars is like blaming guns for killing people. Religion is merely a motive for warcraft, not a causation.



"Religious leaders, like the pope, use donations from churches to buy golden chairs and scepters instead of feeding the poor and assisting humanity in need."

The actions of the Popes stand in stark contrast from what their religion claims that they are supposed to do (see citation [4]): Further evidence that mankind's corruption is to blame for shady religious agendas.



"Christianity for an example leads people to do good for the wrong reason; people of Christianity do good in God's will. They do not do good for the sake of goodness."

To which I ask my opponent, "what is your basis for 'goodness?'" If it is not religiously based, I would ask for my opponent to state this foundation for which to attribute "goodness."



"One might ask 'If they do good, why does it matter what they do it for?'. Well, the good that is done may remain, but they would not have made themselves better people."

My opponent makes a claim that he cannot confirm, as he has not experienced the lives of these people. He has no way of knowing whether or not they became "better people." Ergo, this contention is conjecture.



"Religion impels people to have a phony sense of security after death."

I would argue that this sense of security is, in actuality, very real to those who closely follow their religion. Whether or not it is a valid form of security, is a different question. Perhaps it is this meaningful sense of security that brings hope, and joy to people. I would contend that this very factor could only make religion a good thing; which would negate the resolution.



"This means people may feel okay to do things such as this [http://www.dailymail.co.uk......]."

There are many flaws with this contention. Firstly, this argument can only hold water if my opponent can prove that it affects every follower of every religion- in accordance to the resolution. Secondly, the radical actions of one religion/belief system does not mean the same for every religion. This is the same logic that racism tends to follow.



Conclusion

I have adequately refuted all of my opponent's arguments. For now, I would like to share with the audience and my opponent, a few religions that (at least in my opinion) have contributed more to society than have harmed:

  • Sikhism[5]
  • Buddhism[6]
  • Taoism[7]
  • Unitarianism[8]


Furthermore, most religions tend to be based on the premise of love[9]. Discrepancies only occur when human nature's selfishness outweighs its selflessness.


Onto Pro.














[1] http://www.arabicnoor.com...
[2] http://darvish.wordpress.com...
[3] http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com...
[4] 1 John 3:17, Proverbs 19:17, Deuteronomy 15:7-11, Proverbs 14:31

[5] http://wendythomasrussell.com...
[6] http://www.accesstoinsight.org...

[7] http://divinetao.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Masonnblake

Pro

Masonnblake forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Con

Extend arguments and refutations.
Debate Round No. 2
Masonnblake

Pro

Masonnblake forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Con

Again, extend arguments and refutations.
Debate Round No. 3
Masonnblake

Pro

Masonnblake forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Con

My opponent has not been online in over a week. Arguments and refutations extended.
Debate Round No. 4
Masonnblake

Pro

Masonnblake forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Con

My opponent has abandoned this debate, and thus, I would urge the viewers to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by harpz 3 years ago
harpz
Well, how on earth can you state that God isnt real and that he doesnt exist when you have no proof on that satement.Secondly, religon is not bad because the queen belongs to a religon are you trying to say that she is bad as well.I have no proof either but at lest im nnot going round expressing these stupid hurtful comments.YOU MIGHT NOT BE HURT BUT OTHER PEOPLE ARE! The world would be happier if people like you kept their comment to themselves.
Posted by saxman 3 years ago
saxman
Haha masonblake, sorry you got paired with such a tough debater. First time too. But it is good experience. And also, when you mentioned Christianity, you talked about corruption. Well, Christianity has 3 main separations. Catholic, Protestant, an Eastern Orthodox. Now the Old Roman Catholic popes were completely corrupt, I have no defense for them. I am not experienced with the Eastern Orthodox. The protestants were tired of the corruption and broke off of the Catholic Church. The Corrupt Catholic Church started wars to snuff out Protestants. They didn't work. The Protestant Reformation succeeded. Then the Catholics were just like "woah, what just happened" So they had there own Reformation. The modern day Christians are much different. If you are going to mix both modern and past examples. you must acknowledge both modern and the past of that subject. In fact, modern day Christians successfully rebuttal evolutionists, and guess what? Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian. Mendel, the famous biologist, was a christian, a monk actually. Many Christians have made huge contributions to science, yet you do not even talk about them. Now religion has caused wars, plain and simple. But war itself is not bad, the motives have to be good. And Bucketthead said, goodness is really a religious virtue. Ethics are defined by nonscientific terms, so you must acknowledge something other than yourself and every other human being disconnected. And one more thin. Christians believe in Dinosaurs, just like everyone else. Now this comment is getting really long, and i have to go. good luck on the debate.
Posted by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Lol... I've never been good at detecting sarcasm. My apologies.
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
Lol, Buckethead, Installgentoo was joking I'm pretty sure. ;)
Posted by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
@Installgentoo, if you were so eager to change your religion based on a mere, flawed YouTube clip, you may want to reassess your beliefs. I have watched the documentary myself, and honestly; I found many flaws within it- and that was before research. I have provided a popular reference within this debate, to provide support for my point. Nonetheless, I will freely give more evidence to support my claim if it is necessary.
Posted by Installgentoo 3 years ago
Installgentoo
In all seriousness though there are a great deal of historical accounts of Jesus, and Zeitgeist's claims that he bears similarities to other Messiahs has been completely and utterly disproven long ago.
Posted by Installgentoo 3 years ago
Installgentoo
I do tip my fedora to the good gentlesir who has created this debate. I was a Christian until I watched this YouTube clip. I have now converted to atheism because of the pure logic and science in the OP.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Might be possibly because I'm Buddhist?
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
Burden of proof. Meaning, who has to show their position to be true? If I say "God exists" and have the BOP on Pro, then Pro must demonstrate sound arguments for God's existence, and all I have to do is argue against his arguments. If the BOP is shared, then I'd also have to argue "God does not exist."

Just curious. I'm sure you'll find someone to accept this debate though.
Posted by Masonnblake 3 years ago
Masonnblake
Don't resist! :D!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
MasonnblakeBuckethead31594Tied
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: conduct for no forfeits. Reliable sources for using marginally unbiased sources. Con provided adequate proof that religion as a whole is not bad, and the other part of the debate was marginalized. Vote to con for convincing argument.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
MasonnblakeBuckethead31594Tied
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: Even without all the forfeits, Con flawlessly refuted Pro's argument.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
MasonnblakeBuckethead31594Tied
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: Pro forfeited the debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
MasonnblakeBuckethead31594Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro. Con also had better arguments and tons of sources.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
MasonnblakeBuckethead31594Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF