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

Religion does more harm than good in this world.

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: 10/3/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,737 times Debate No: 38414
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I believe religion has a positive influence in this world.


Thank you for starting this debate.
Pro, I will take first round for acceptance and I will put up my arguments once you provide arguments for your belief.
Debate Round No. 1


Religions have a powerful role in that they influence individuals' values and behaviors. Through constant preaching and inspired actions, most religions shape different communities' civilization and how individuals interact with their fellow religious mates and with the rest of the world. The following are ways in which religions shape individuals' behavior and thought patterns, collectively or not, to positively work on making this world a world that everyone finds comfort and pleasure living in.

1.Most religious practices intentionally force individuals to live morally acceptable lifestyles. It injects discipline in an individual's character and it helps individuals from diverse backgrounds; with or without the same religious beliefs, to live at peace with each other.
-Research paper about "Why religion matters even more" by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. -

In the article; the article by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D is further summarized and looks at an applicable approach of this issue in Rome. It bases more emphasis on the higher levels of sustained motivation and progressive achievements of religious students in high school and college with relative contrast to non-religious students.

The first argument, mainly about peace and discipline, relates to the second argument (below) in the following ways :
a) For two individuals to live at peace with each other; there has to be a mutual sense of "standardized and acceptable behavior" between the two individuals and
b) How religious groups treat others in time of need is reflective of their own values. Any religion with peace as one of its central themes willingly takes the responsibility to try and restore peace within the whole world, without taking into account any religious boundaries.

2. Religions are welfare organizations to the poor and are more efficient in their fight for poverty and other world-problems-restorative-measures.

- highlights the positive contribution of religion with respect to fighting poverty in Canada. It argues that, with the aid of Canada Statistics, religion in Canada is the leading "structure (for lack of a better term)" in terms of fighting poverty.

An insignificant yet relevant page promoted by different religions from the Middle East with the purpose of helping individuals who got injured in a natural disaster:

Brief Conclusion : Religion upholds morally acceptable behavior in individuals especially in a world that has been through recessions, racial fighting and currently still fighting 3rd World issues. It reduces the crime rate and racial killings that would otherwise do more harm to the world. Religion intervenes in the lives of the poor and offers financial and emotional support, more efficiently that most government organizations. These kind and considerate religious acts reduce the impacts of poverty to society.


Religion is intended to bring peace, morality ,unity and whatsoever required for mutual existence of one and all. But the history and the present happenings suggest a contradicting picture.
Is there is no religion when there are more than 100 million casualties in the two world wars? Is there is no religion when 1.29 billion ( world bank report 2008 ) people of the world living in absolute poverty? Of course there are many religions and few has a history of more than 4000 years, witnessing the bloodshed and cries of hunger. The most saddest part of the religion is the solace a present day terrorist, responsible for 9/11, Mumbai attacks, violence in Kenya, Somalia, Afghanistan, middle east etc, find in its scripture.
Con, your instances about the goodness of a religion in Canada and Middle East offer a drop in the ocean.
A 11 year old girl Malala was attacked for supporting education to girls in a country called Pakistan which owns a religion as a state religion. The present picture of that country where there are no rights to women depicts a perfect example for saying religion does more harm than good.
Debate Round No. 2


Pro, do you suggest that religion has the answers to solve world hunger issues? I don't think so. Do you criticize religion for the occurance and negative impact of the two world wars? I believe that are arguments which are placed out of context (in terms of this debate) because they do not support your argument that religions do more harm than good in this world, instead they only point out the shortcomings of religions trying to help the hungry and also create peace in this world. All organisations with such goals, however, will have such shortcomings. I therefore disagree with your stance that religion is the main organisation to be blamed.

On what authority do you relate a few terrorists' behaviour to any religion? With specific reference to the 9/11 attacks ofcourse.

Take note that, while all the countries you mentioned above seem to be experiencing civil wars because of religion as the main issue, there is a much bigger issue at hand which is being ignored in this civil wars : the fight for political power! Certain people want their respective countries to be ran by members of their own religion, an ambitious call which is not supported by any religious scripts. When does people falsely use religion as a factor to gain support and control the MISLED, then any negativity which arises afterwards can be blamed on that person, not the religion. America is diverse, religion wise, but you see no such extreme behaviour, probably because the citizens are more informed that those in counntries where most of the people cannot even read their bibles.

Pro, under what authority do you base your view that religious women have no rights?

Lastly, wouldn't we both agree that an ocean is made up of many drops? the mere fact that there are life changing religious activities, all over the world, is (and I know I'm repeating this point) in an aggregate perspective,very positive.


I accept the weakness in my argument in the previous round, it is because of the way I presented it. I would like to make up for it now.
Most religions has the history of not less than 2000 years like Christianity,Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism etc..
According to CIA's World Factbook 2012 estimate there are only 9.66% non-religious and 2.01% atheists in total population of the world. Proportionately we can assume same percentage of religious population for the past( with slight changes).

" Most religious practices intentionally force individuals to live morally acceptable lifestyles ...."
" Religions are welfare organizations to the poor and are more efficient in their fight for poverty ...."
" Religion upholds morally acceptable behavior in individuals especially in ...."
With the grand history each religion has; with the majority of population being religious, there is slaughtering of man by man( most significant number which cannot be treated as shortcomings ) in the name of war and significant number of people are living in absolute poverty. so your argument religion upholds morality and fight poverty is invalid. If 2000 years is not sufficient for a religion to uphold morality, to fight poverty, then it can never do it.
As far as my relation of terrorists and women rights to religion is....
If a person with the lust for power, misuse religion then that person should be blamed. But if millions of people agree with him and they are ready to die and kill others with morally taking support from scripture, then religion should be blamed.
In some nations, the administration and judiciary is completely based on the scripture of their religion. In one such nation women is restricted in every thing to such extent that they cannot be considered as a witness to the rape committed on them, they need witnesses from males; they cannot marry of their wish.
So, don't I have the right to blame religion as human being with some humanity still left after witnessing these incidents.

The human nature has divided human beings into two-- man and woman. But religion has divided human beings into Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists and many many other. But it didn't stop there, Christians are divided into
Catholics and protestants; Hindus into shaivists and vaisnavites and many other; Muslims into shias and sunnis; Buddhism into four ; and so on. There is constant conflict between different sects of a religion often killing each other.
Instead of bringing unity among people, divisions are created. This does more harm than good to humanity.

There is every need in the present hour to develop ethics and morality separated from religion which can induce unity rather than divisions. There is significant contributions going on in this field from the philosophers across the world. Hope they succeed and these divisions created by religion fall apart before the strength of humanity.
Debate Round No. 3


SamsonKK forfeited this round.


I forfeit...
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
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