The Instigator
GrayJaeger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SurvivingAMethodology
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Religion? Opium? No Difference

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
SurvivingAMethodology
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 25780
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

GrayJaeger

Pro

Sure, religions bring people together and are full of GOOD reasons to exist... but they are also the cause of many vices mankind has faced: Racism, Censorship, Slavery, Divine Right, etc. that countless people have had to endure and will continue to endure because religion will always persist?

Do you truly believe the pros outweigh the cons?

Is comfort truly more important than logic?

Gray area in this argument, as in all arguments, is not welcome.
SurvivingAMethodology

Con

Greetings, I look forward to our debate. One thing I would like to point out before I get started is that you say that "gray areas" are "not welcome", and yet, the debate title is quite vague. I will have to assume it was an oversight and hope we can both stick to facts and logic, and not emotional arguments in our debate.

The first thing you will have to do here is to provide some evidence to your claim that religion is indeed the cause of "racism, censorship, and slavery". I will cede "divine right", as that is a bit redundant, however, I will also point out that including this in your group of things which religion is the "cause of", and which "people will have to continue to endure" (implying that as long as religion exists, these things will exist) because of, it kind of pokes a hole in your theory right away, as divine right is practically non-existent any longer, and yet religion still exists.

"Do you truly believe the pros outweigh the cons?"

Yes, I do. In fact, I would go as far as to say that recent archaeological finds show that society as we know it probably would never have existed were it not for religious beliefs. As Charles C. Mann states, "We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world"s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization." [1] So the question becomes somewhat moot: Would all of these bad things exist without religion? Well, would we even be here to talk about these things were it not for religion? Perhaps we would still be nomads who survived by hunting and gathering. There is no control group for reality!

"Is comfort truly more important than logic?"

This is unfortunately a loaded question. It implies both that religion is comfortable and that logic is entirely discarded by the adherents of religion. Speaking just for myself and many people I know, our religion is hardly always 'comfortable'. It is in fact quite challenging to keep at it (for example, as an Eastern Orthodox, I am basically a vegan for half of the year through keeping to the fast days), but we do because we believe in it.

Also, I was not raised in my religion. I was raised by agnostic parents, and converted in my 30s after much deliberation and study of history, philosophy, and theology. You could say I used logic to arrive at the doorstep of religion. I do intend to use anecdotal evidence such as this once I am responding to your specific claims, I just wanted to give my initial objection in the opening round.

I will refrain from making any specific arguments in the opening round about the good done by religion, as I want to first see what it is I need to respond to after you provide evidence for the claims made in yours.

Source

[1] http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com...
Debate Round No. 1
GrayJaeger

Pro

GrayJaeger forfeited this round.
SurvivingAMethodology

Con

I wonder if the new Dr. Who episodes are on Netflix yet.
Debate Round No. 2
GrayJaeger

Pro

GrayJaeger forfeited this round.
SurvivingAMethodology

Con

My cat was hungry before I fed him.
Debate Round No. 3
GrayJaeger

Pro

GrayJaeger forfeited this round.
SurvivingAMethodology

Con

I thought this might be fun.
Debate Round No. 4
GrayJaeger

Pro

GrayJaeger forfeited this round.
SurvivingAMethodology

Con

Good morning!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SurvivingAMethodology 4 years ago
SurvivingAMethodology
Oops! Just wanted to point out I misspoke at the end of my argument. When I said "I do intend to use anecdotal evidence such as this once I am responding to your specific claims", I meant to say I do NOT intend to sue anecdotal evidence...
Posted by GrayJaeger 4 years ago
GrayJaeger
I would watch it but I feel so embarrassed for the people on the show.

Thanks, though!
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
Have you watched ancient aliens? It's an educational TV show on History Channel, I definitely recommend it.
Posted by GrayJaeger 4 years ago
GrayJaeger
Basically, Pro is in attack of religion, Con is in defense of it.
Posted by GrayJaeger 4 years ago
GrayJaeger
Well, the question IS rather one-sided, true...
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
If I'm con am I arguing that there is a difference between them, or that the question is bad?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
GrayJaegerSurvivingAMethodologyTied
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 slaughtered Pro. It should be evident to anyone who read the debate.