The Instigator
Balacafa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AliAdnan
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Religion is based on fear

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...
AliAdnan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,300 times Debate No: 76741
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (48)
Votes (1)

 

Balacafa

Pro

I will be arguing that religion is based on fear. The opposition will arguing that religion isn't based on fear.

In round one you will introduce your argument.
In round two you will introduce your main arguments and justify them.
In round 3 you will make contradictions.
In round 4 you will conclude

I'm looking forward to an exciting debate!
AliAdnan

Con

I accepted Pro debate challenge and this is my first debate. I just want to say that English is my second language so I will make effort and hope it will be OK.
I am Con(against) and will be arguing that religion isn't based on fear. Because I did not understand the concept about first and second round, and also he did not introduce his arguments, I will introduce my arguments and justify them in the round two.
I'm looking forward to the round two and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Balacafa

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

From the moment we opened our eyes we have been scared. We have lived in fear, because there was no other way of living.
All other emotions, beliefs, drivers came from our lives cooked in fear. They distracted us, protected us made us temporarily forget.
The biggest distraction? The biggest protector? Religion.
Religion marinated in love and forgiveness. Religion telling us to not be afraid (to remind us fear is out there), that we can conquer it. But we can't forget it. Don't let your guard down.
AliAdnan

Con

Main terms:

Fear - Fear is a chain reaction in the brain that starts with a stressful stimulus and ends with the release of chemicals that cause a racing heart, fast breathing and energized muscles, among other things, also known as the fight-or-flight response. (1)
Religion - A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. (2)

Argument 1:
There is no evidences that religion is based on fear. All we can see is just a opinions of people who do not prefer religion.
Argument 2:
If we couldn't be afraid, we wouldn't survive for long.(3) Fear is every day appearance and focus it on just one thing like religion is unfounded.
Argument 3:
If religion was based on fear then our life would be based on fear, in all, which is no true.
Religion is based on many things, like moral things and it is unfounded to say that religion is just based on fear.

(1) http://science.howstuffworks.com...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Balacafa

Pro

Thank you for saving me the trouble of defining our key terms. In response to argument 1 you claim that there is no evidence that religion is based on fear yet you fail to provide any evidence suggesting that religion isn't based on fear. You also claim that all we can see is the opinions of people who prefer religion. Religious belief is a symptom of fear: aware that our lives are precarious and vulnerable, we seek the protection of a powerful deity, to comfort ourselves with an illusion of safety. The second is that fear is a symptom of religion: in particular, doctrines of punishment in both this life and the next cause ignorant believers to live in fear unnecessarily.

To contradict argument 2 you have supported my argument. You have said that without fear we wouldn't survive for long. This means that you agree with my argument. This debate is not about survival it is about religion.

In response to argument 3 we cannot be sure that we are living our lives in fear. Firstly, because if we are used to living this way so we wouldn't actually know what fear is and secondly because not everyone is religious. It is true that religion is based on 'moral things' as you have said but the source of these morals is from fear. The creators of these religions are fearful of death so they have made up a God and made up an afterlife to rid themselves of this fear.

Sources

http://www.theguardian.com...
AliAdnan

Con

In the beginning, I will disprove what you have written in your first paragraph.
You said that I fail in suggesting that religion isn't based on fear, but I will answer with these two claims.

1.There is no burden of proof so I do not need to prove(defend) that religion isn't based on fear. We both cite evidence to our side and the others will vote who was the better in arguments in this debate.
2.You didn't make any evidence that religion is based on fear. You just presented your thoughts which can collide with logic. I didn't want to speak about this topic like atheist and theist on the street with unfounded and unscientific opinions. I want that psychology,science and evidence say is religion based on fear.

You wrote in the round two:

"Religious belief is a symptom of fear: aware that our lives are precarious and vulnerable, we seek the protection of a powerful deity, to comfort ourselves with an illusion of safety. The second is that fear is a symptom of religion: in particular, doctrines of punishment in both this life and the next cause ignorant believers to live in fear unnecessarily."

These are not your sentences and opinions. You copied that from the link you wrote down so I am not in debate with Clare Carlisle, the author of that text.

Before explaining (disproving) your second contradiction, I have to say that you make no order in your arguments (round 2) and you didn't mention any sources for that text. So you have to be clearer in your writing. I hope the voters will notice this.
Now about your contradiction. I said that we face many kinds of fear every day and it is important for our survival. And I will mention the same source again, if you didn't check it. (1) If there is no religion, there also would be same kinds of fear, so if you say : 'if there is no religion there wouldn't be any fear', you are making mistake.

And finally, I will contradict your third paragraph.

You made a big own contradiction. In the second round you said:
"From the moment we opened our eyes we have been scared. We have lived in fear, because there was no other way of living."
and after that in the third :
"We cannot be sure that we are living our lives in fear. Firstly, because if we are used to living this way so we wouldn't actually know what fear is.."

If morality is based on fear in the meaning you said then there wouldn't be positive situations and appearances in religion.
But there are, and I will list just two reasons (evidence) for that from the scientifical sources.
1.Religion helps us gain self-control (2)
2.Religion can help college women who are sexual victims deal with distrust (3)

At the end I just want to say to you that most religions are created by humans but there is only one right, which isn't created by human.

Sources:
1)http://science.howstuffworks.com...
2)http://www.sciencedaily.com...
3)http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Balacafa

Pro

You have said that I have just "presented your thoughts that can collide with logic" I am using the logic as my evidence. If my thoughts collide with logic then unless you have a way of disproving logic then I don't see how this isn't considered as evidence. It is true that I used that from my source however I used this to support my contradiction - this was also not my main argument aimed at your previous answer.

The reason I mentioned no sources for the second contradiction was because the only source I could have said for that is my own brain. It was very short and I thought that I could come up with a response to that without the aid of sources.

I understand that you are saying we need fear in order to survive but I am not saying that without religion there wont be any fear. I am saying that the reason that religion exists hear today is because people are afraid to accept the truth about both life and death.

If you read both of these carefully you will soon realize that I have not contradicted myself. The first thing I said was that we have lived in fear because there is no other way of living. I never said that we were aware of this fear in my first statement which leads onto my second where I said: "... if we are used to living this way so we wouldn't actually know what fear is..." If we don't know what fear is we wont know if we are experiencing it.

To contradict your penultimate paragraph referring to morality being based on fear I will say that it is true that religion has its advantages (I don't recall saying it didn't have any) but are the advantages of religion really worth it when you look over the disadvantages?

"Vilification of homosexuality, resulting in discrimination, parents disowning their children, murder, and suicide."

"Women treated like second class citizens, or even slaves, based on religious teachings."

"People dying - and letting their children die - because their religion forbids accepting medical help."

Ask yourself why people take their religion so seriously. All of this still happens today because of religion. Why do they do it? The answer is simply because they are afraid. They are afraid of what God will do to them. They are afraid of going to hell. They are afraid because of their religion.

Before I begin my conclusion I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

CONCLUSION

The fear in religion isn't a bad thing. Fear is a part of the human condition. We all have fear, we cannot avoid it. Religion can be appealing to people because of their fears. When people are confused or have questions that cannot be answered they look up to religion as their answer to all their problems. In religion you can pray and as a result of this you are given a clean slate and have no sins. People who have done wrong may be scared of the consequence and look to religion. The of similar examples to this is endless. The conclusion that I have come to is that religion is based on fear and it is very clear to see if you look at the examples I've given. Religion is based on fear but can also rid people of their fears. Religion is good and never stops helping people. But we have to remember that religion is based on fear so we have to be careful. We need to establish the difference between the morals of religion and the parts of religion that cause unnecessary fear because some rules in religion were founded from fear and this fear has been passed down and is now worrying very religious (orthodox) people to take many instructions written in holy books seriously and as a result lives have been taken. There are countless examples of extremism in religion (e.g. The Klu Klux Klan). This fact cannot be denied or contradicted. I am looking forward to reading my opponents conclusion and contradictions (optional).

Sources

http://ragingrev.com...

https://answers.yahoo.com...

http://www.quora.com...
AliAdnan

Con

Well, it is conclusion round. I will try make it briefly and simply that people can understand easily.

On the first case, I advice you to check what is really logic (1).
I thought that we should make statements based on evidence, and not copy text by some author like you did.
Yet, you didn't have any order of arguments and we should enclose arguments in the second round. I wrote the numbered arguments so every one can see that, while you could write anything you wanted because your writing was unspecified.

You said: ..'reason that religion exist today is because people are afraid to accept the truth about both life and death.'
I call you and others to check what I wrote in the end of third round and scientifical sources for that. I totally accept the 'truth' about death and life and does that make me an atheist ? No. That makes me believer in something like atheist believe in something. I will quote the most famous scientist of all the time( who wasn't atheist) Albert E. and he said: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Yes, you made big own contradiction. Now in the 4th round you left out the first part of your saying.
Before conclusion. On your discriminating, dishonest and UNFOUNDED saying about religion I will not answer because of many things. That isn't freedom of speech when you criticize something you do not know and you do not have any logical, scientifical evidence for that.
Extremism is not about real teachings of some religions. It is about people who use it to make their own violent goal.

In the conclusion, I won't do that like my opponent because people can check up there what is mentioned to support my side that religion isn't based on fear in the meaning pro made this debate.
I will just point out some important things why people should vote for me.
My opponent didn't specialize his arguments so he could write whatever he wanted.
He constantly base his evidence on logic, nevertheless that logic is not acceptable by the most people.
Sources which he used aren't scientifical or proffesional. Those were subjective texts written not by experts but ordinary people. Did he make a own contradiction you will see up there also.
I am the only one here who has a scientifical sources and founded statements and you can check out that.
I hope voters will notice this and make a objective decision.

Thanks to my opponent for opportunity to debate on this topic and others who followed this debate.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
DDO should really fix the vote removal system. The previous voter who got his vote removed stated a valid reason for arguments but didn't have an explanation for sources. All of the points he awarded were removed. It would be a lot simpler if you could just remove the elements of the vote that were not explained. If the voter gives Pro sources and arguments and explains why he gave arguments to Pro but doesn't explain the sources points does that really mean that you can take out his whole vote? Surely you can see that there is a flaw in the system.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
That's not what you said before, but let's go with that. If the voter felt Wikipedia being used by your opponent was reason enough to afford you those points, he had to say so. It wasn't obvious, mainly because use of Wikipedia is not automatically grounds for handing out source points. It's not inherently so awful a source that it's a given that you should have gotten those points. I'm noticing that you're not responding to the extremely generalized nature of the RFD - they are required to reference arguments made in the debate. They cannot be so generic that they could potentially apply to any debate.

If the voter's reasoning was good enough in his head, he could also have reposted it with more detail. He chose not to do that.

The second vote must have been removed by the user themselves, for whatever reason.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
You have misinterpreted something here. What I meant by that was that the previous removed vote had enough detail in their explanation. It didn't need to be removed. If you read through the debate again you will realize that my opponent used Wikipedia as I stated during the debate. The voter didn't need to include a huge amount of detail it was obvious.

The 2nd vote just mysteriously changed. No reason was provided by anyone... so yeah, I don't get what happened there.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I feel like I'm missing something. I found one of the previously removed votes - it gave sources to you for no perceivable reason, and analyzed the debate solely through generalities, never actually addressing any individual argument. That was exactly the same as mine in terms of quality and detail? How?
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I have a feeling there may have been a tiny bit of bias on the voting. 2 votes in favor of me were reported and removed. One vote in favor of my opponent and it doesn't get removed. The reasons provided by both the people voting me and the person voting him were exactly the same in terms of quality and detail.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
*********************************************************************
>Reported vote: whiteflame// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Comments 40, 41. Relevant cut: (What is reason enough is the plagiarism in R3. Merely putting the citation at the end of the round is unsufficient: you need to quote the line you"re taking from it, otherwise I assume it"s your own words. The fact that these weren"t quoted is reason enough to pull me over on conduct, and so that goes to Con.)

[*Reason for non-removal*] The RFD does say that arguments were equal and awards no points for the arguments. No voter is obligated to award any points and most certainly don't need to justify points they don't award. This voter voted Con on Conduct and the RFD clearly elaborates on what the voter interpreted as plagiarism.
*********************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD:

So" what are you guys arguing, exactly?

I"m honestly at a loss on this question, and that shouldn"t be happening. I should be clear from the get-go what"s going on in this debate and what each side is seeking to prove. What does it mean to be "based in fear"? Does it mean that religions were founded in order to produce fear? Does it mean they were founded in order to reduce it? Does it mean that religions have perpetuated fear, or focus on fear in the status quo? Does it mean that religion has to be uniquely increased/decreased by religion?

I have no idea what the answers to any of these questions are, and yet you both argue on all of them and probably several more. I don"t know what, if anything, either of you proved. I didn"t see any proof, from either of you, that religion as a concept has elicited fear or reduced it. What I see a lot of is focus on certain concepts that are common to several religions, but nothing about what the first religion must have looked like (where fear might be based) and nothing about the many religions that don"t include an afterlife.

So I don"t know how to judge this. The arguments never seem to really get at the issue as a whole, getting so caught up in tangential minutiae that I can"t make sense of how they fit into the debate.

Why does it matter whether we"ve lived in fear from the moment of our birth? I could look at it 2 ways: that fear is a constant in our lives and therefore that religion cannot have affected it, or that fear is a constant in our lives and therefore religion must have been based in it. But neither of you make the links to either of those ideas. This argument comes the closest to clarifying anything, and yet it just sits there being argued on the link structure.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD:

So" what are you guys arguing, exactly?

I"m honestly at a loss on this question, and that shouldn"t be happening. I should be clear from the get-go what"s going on in this debate and what each side is seeking to prove. What does it mean to be "based in fear"? Does it mean that religions were founded in order to produce fear? Does it mean they were founded in order to reduce it? Does it mean that religions have perpetuated fear, or focus on fear in the status quo? Does it mean that religion has to be uniquely increased/decreased by religion?

I have no idea what the answers to any of these questions are, and yet you both argue on all of them and probably several more. I don"t know what, if anything, either of you proved. I didn"t see any proof, from either of you, that religion as a concept has elicited fear or reduced it. What I see a lot of is focus on certain concepts that are common to several religions, but nothing about what the first religion must have looked like (where fear might be based) and nothing about the many religions that don"t include an afterlife.

So I don"t know how to judge this. The arguments never seem to really get at the issue as a whole, getting so caught up in tangential minutiae that I can"t make sense of how they fit into the debate.

Why does it matter whether we"ve lived in fear from the moment of our birth? I could look at it 2 ways: that fear is a constant in our lives and therefore that religion cannot have affected it, or that fear is a constant in our lives and therefore religion must have been based in it. But neither of you make the links to either of those ideas. This argument comes the closest to clarifying anything, and yet it just sits there being argued on the link structure.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

It doesn"t matter if religion is a detractor or protector. I don"t know what that means with regards to fear or what effect that has on fear, and even if I did, I can"t know whether these were the reasons that religion was incepted. Pro seems to imply numerous times that religion reduces fear" but I"m not sure whether that satisfies his burden to show that religion is based in fear. Why can"t that reduction be a side-effect? And, even if it was the purpose of religion, couldn"t that be an argument for religion being based on a REJECTION of fear, which negates the resolution?

It"s not like Con"s arguments get any closer. I"m not sure what evidence Pro could provide in support of the resolution, though I agree it"s absent. I"ve already pointed out why persistent fear doesn"t help either of your cases, and I"m not sure why religion being based in moral ideas makes it not based in fear.

So, who do I vote for? I"m honestly tempted to vote against Pro just because this is his debate and he made it about as confusing as possible. But that"s not a reason to pick Con up on arguments, nor is it quite reason enough for me to award conduct. What is reason enough is the plagiarism in R3. Merely putting the citation at the end of the round is unsufficient: you need to quote the line you"re taking from it, otherwise I assume it"s your own words. The fact that these weren"t quoted is reason enough to pull me over on conduct, and so that goes to Con.

Word for both of you: know what the topic is, know what you have to prove, understand your burden.
Posted by AliAdnan 1 year ago
AliAdnan
And if someone inteligent reads these comments he will be laughing, To your desire to say unfounded things even after you showed not too good in the debate, and to my desire to insist on the truth and to my patience with this comments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
BalacafaAliAdnanTied
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: Given in comments. Sorry about the double post.