The Instigator
17Dsuthe
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Religion is a force of evil in the world.

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 2 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 677 times Debate No: 75213
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

17Dsuthe

Pro

Con is to say that Religion is a force of good in the world.
Pro is to say that religion isn't a force of good in the world.

I will focus on the Christain religion, because I have the most knowledge in that specific sector. I believe that religion was invented by man, in order to give themselves a divine right to enslave, murder, and oppress people. It was mans first attempt at philosophy, and it shows. There are no commandments against genocide, slavery, rape, and murder, because God calls for exactly those things in both the old, and New Testament. I am looking for an intellectual man of faith, to try and convince me that we can be moral without religion, and that we should not get our morals from the bible.
lannan13

Con

I accept.

I know await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
17Dsuthe

Pro

Con is to say that Religion is a force of good in the world.
Pro is to say that religion isn't a force of good in the world.

I will focus on the Christain religion, because I have the most knowledge in that specific sector. I believe that religion was invented by man, in order to give themselves a divine right to enslave, murder, and oppress people. It was mans first attempt at philosophy, and it shows. There are no commandments against genocide, slavery, rape, and murder, because God calls for exactly those things in both the old, and New Testament. I am looking for an intellectual man of faith, to try and convince me that we can be moral without religion, and that we should not get our morals from the bible.

Opening Argument:
First and foremost, this is a debate of philosophy and ethics, not that of evidence and science. To accept that God is real, is to accept that we live in a totalitarian dictatorship. He can condemn a man who lived his life with kindness and love, to hell if he doesn't believe in Him. Yet a man who sexually abused children will be accepted into heaven, as long as he accepts Jesus Christ as his savior, and as long as he repents his sins. This seems morally wrong, to have a man be forgiven of all his sins, whether it be theft, murder, rape, sodomy, or lying. It is a cowardly cop out, to say that all will be forgiven. This way, a man can live terribly, and get into heaven. It's disgraceful, and morally corrupt.
Even if you can accept that a wicked and cruel man can get into heaven, there are passages in the bible, which states that slavery is okay (Leviticus 25:44-46).
The following passages are quite wicked in their own sense:
The oppression of women is called for in (1 Timothy 2:12)
God commands genocide of the Amalykites in (1 Samuel 15:3)
God commands Abraham to kill his own son in (Genesis 22:2).

Only these few acts are absolutely horrid and terrible, and no less, they are called for in the bible. They are villainous and evil, and if you accept the good teachings in the bible, you must accept all of it as good. If it's the word of God, layed out in a book, shouldn't it be absolutely perfect? If God himself is perfect, he should have spoken out against these horrible acts that man had committed, not called for them. Also, please don't use the common excuse for these passages "they were different times. They didn't know it wasn't okay". To me, that's an absolutely pathetic argument, and if you say that, it just confirms my belief that the word of the bible is not morally acceptable.
lannan13

Con

Okay thanks for the debate.

Firstly, I would like to point out that there are differnet sects of Christianity, so I will argue to defend it as a whole, not just a sect.

"Everything He does is just and fair. He is a faithful God who does no wrong; how just and upright He is!" (Deuteronomy 32:4)

In the above Biblical verse we can see that everything that God does is fair and he does NOTHING wrong. So everything he does is for a purpose.

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." (John5:24)

This is what I believe my opponent is talking about when he condemns those against him. It is very simple and the evangellical belief that if you believe in God you can go to heaven. You see Jesus died for our sins and those who sin and repent are cleansed by what God has done on the cross. I would like to note that on the religious "rape" thing I A) find it offensive to associate a steroetype to a religion. That's like saying all blacks are theives (they're not, I'm just using this as an example). B) This is a crime in the face of the church and is forgivable IF God forgives you. God can punish you in Hell or pergatory for your sins.

Some sects don't believe in Hell. Like the Morman church, they believe in 13 layers of heaven. You just get less and less as you get to lower levels. Kind of like a Donte's Inferno thing.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

Here you can see whether you like it or not God punishes EVERYONE. It's whether or not they accept God do they get rewarded. For example. Say you paid minimum wage. At the end the week you want paid, correct? If your boss doesn't pay you you'd be upset, because you have bills to pay and you've earned that money. Well you've sinned and you've earned death by doing these sins. Even if it's a little white lie.

"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." (Hebrew 8:13)

Here we can see that God has nullified the first Covenant by making the Second Covenant and this includes the Laws of Leviticus and thus Slavery and other things are nullified. (https://www.gci.org...) So you see, God has spoken out about these acts.

For the Samuel verse you have to look at it's context. 1 Samuel 15:2 speaks about Amalykites attacks and attrocities on Israel, God's Chosen land.

"Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodius 34:15).

Here we can see that God is that of a jealous God and isn't that of a kind and loving God that all make him out to be that justifies his actions as he wants people for himself as he is in a war with Satan for souls. This actually ties in with the story of Abraham and his son. You see God was testing Abraham and because he did what he was told, God spared his son and made his family the leaders of Israel. (https://www.biblegateway.com...)

Since my opponent brought up morals let's define it, " concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) So we can see since the Bible points out what is right and wrong, people who read it have similiar moral values and the Bible thus has morals.

With that I have refuted everything that my opponent has said and I hand it back over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
17Dsuthe

Pro

Regarding the first verse you referenced (Deuteronomy 32:4), I have to simply disagree with the premise that everything God does is fair and that he can do no wrong.

To say that God can do no wrong, is to say that he is absolutely perfect. Yet, in Genesis 6:6, it states "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

Definition of Repent: feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin.

If God is perfect and can do no wrong, then he is therefore incapable of feeling repentance.

Second, I never once associated rape with religion. I asserted that religion offers forgiveness to those who commit rape, whereas my fellow humanists and I, would never accept someone who committed such heinous acts. I meant to provide an example of moral superiority, where religion cannot.

Now, I am done providing rebuttals, and instead I will attempt to provide new arguments.

Firstly, I would point out that there is nothing (in the Ten Commandments) about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape, nothing about slavery, and nothing about genocide. Surely, a book inspired the word of a perfect being, would speak out against vile, wicked, and malevolent acts?

Secondly, I would like to quote an Ancient Greek philosopher, Epicures.

He states : "Is God willing to prevent people, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence comets evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Here, the quote ends. I absolutely agree with this statement. I believe that this statement alone contradicts the idea of a personal, all powerful, and loving God.

If you could provide a reasonable, logical, and heartfelt response to the last point I made, I will forfeit the argument, and the win shall be yours. I may even convert at that point.

NOTICE: I'm sorry that below, I trail off the well defined path of logical arguments, and into a personal case against a God. To me, the reasons below, are the reasons that I am so strongly in favor of atheism. If you can speak both logically, and eloquently, as to why I'm wrong for the reasons below, I may take a second shot at trying to accept a god into my heart.

Thirdly, I will finish with my own passionate skepticism of a personal, loving, omnipotent God. From the age of six, to the age of fourteen, I endured (and bore witness) to mental, and physical abuse coming from my father. I had always been told that I should both love the man who had given me life, and simultaneously love the one who beat daily with impunity. At the age of fifteen, I was able to connect the unnerving similarities between my father and God. I realized that the very idea of loving a man, who you should fear at the same time, was absolutely absurd. The comparisons of religion to North Korea is stunning. They are both totalitarian concepts, with the main figure head being a man who you should love, as well as fear. At least in North Korea, you can die and get away. That isn't the case with the celestial dictatorship, that is God.

Lastly, I will provide a challenge, first posed by Christopher Hitchens (a great man, who I admire deeply).

"I challenge you to find one good or noble thing which cannot be accomplished without religion. It is impossible. You cannot do it." Furthermore, find one wicked or evil thing, done in the name of religion, that cannot be accomplished without the influence of religion. I bet you've already thought of something.

Postscript; I am extremely excited to be participating in a more formal debate, against a more intellectual opponent. It gets extremely tiring, when you have to argue with people who normally cannot hold a debate (I'm 16, and in high school).

Best of luck, cheers
lannan13

Con

Now to refute your Greif statement I will counter with the Watchmaker Anology. It is that God has created us, the universe, and everything, but then like a good watchmaker, walked away. This was argued by William Paley in his novel, Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Here it was where he argued that the watch, the world, is breaking and we need to fix the watch in order to preserve God's creation. We can see that God has walked away like a watchmaker, because if he stays to watch over it constantly like the NSA he would become so obsessed with it possibly even ruining it. That is the purpose of the anology. It applies to this case even more to show that he may have grief of humanity, but he has decided to leave it alone. Humans have done terrible things throughout the years, genocide, murder, Rape, etc... God has allowed it as you yourself have argued by giving evidence from Epicures. He is able to prevent people and stop them. This has been shown by even your own evidence of the story of Abraham. He has stop attrocities by smiting Sodom and Gamorrah. So you can see the evidence you brought up against Christianity supports my case while contradicting your own. I also extend across the points that were dropped by my opponent.

10 Commandments

The 10 Commandments was only 10 Laws on how one should rule their life. 10 rules, not the entire Christianity Constitution of Right and Wrong. However, the Bible does give stances against rape and slavery.

Rape
But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found," (Deuteronomy 22:25-28)

Anti-Slavery
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." (Exodius 21:16)
"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1)
Debate Round No. 3
17Dsuthe

Pro

17Dsuthe forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 4
17Dsuthe

Pro

17Dsuthe forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.

Thank you and please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
canis
Evil does not exist.. Religion does not exist. God does not exist.. But the human mind can make anything exist...
Posted by 17Dsuthe 2 years ago
17Dsuthe
Hey, at least we both agree that the Eragon books are awesome. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. Right?
Posted by KVDebates 2 years ago
KVDebates
non-sequiturs everywhere ;(
Posted by 17Dsuthe 2 years ago
17Dsuthe
Also, I am new to this debating website, and I'm used to debating my friends at lunch and in class. I found that I am generally superior when it comes to arguing with my peers, so I'm really excited to find many people to match up against I'm all the debates to come. Thank you to anyone taking the time to have a pleasant, logical debate with me! Cheers
Posted by 17Dsuthe 2 years ago
17Dsuthe
Okay, I admit that I messed up on the statement on murder. But if there is a commandment against murder, than why does God blatantly wipe out millions of people, and watches with indifference as the sin itself is committed. Heck, didn't he give Samson strength enough to murder 30 men, just so Samson could repay a debt? And he orders the genocide of the Amalykites. So I stand by the rest of what I said. I also have changed the debate to 72 hours long.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Lengthen to 72 hour argument time and i'll accept.
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
ColeTrain
Lol, The-Voice-of-Truth is right. Much of what you mentioned is explicitly detailed in the Ten Commandments.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
You obviously have NEVER read the Ten Commandments.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
17Dsuthelannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
17Dsuthelannan13Tied
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.