The Instigator
TheAtheistWW2Debator
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DoesThouHoisteth
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religion is immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 82163
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

TheAtheistWW2Debator

Pro

For thousands of years, mankind has believed that religion is a righteuous and justifiable cause, and yet it isn't. The two biggest religions, Islam and Christianity, have both had extreme cases of violent outbursts, sometimes even resulting in death. I, as an atheist, wish to argue that religion, not only lacks morality, but is irrelevant in the 21st century.

Anyone may enter this debate against me. I recommend a firm theist believer. Good luck, and happy 1st debate on my new account :)
DoesThouHoisteth

Con

"Religious is immoral" is not a subjective moral statement but rather alludes to absolute morality.
As an atheist you believe in evolution, an unguided naturalistic process, with the aim of survival of the fittest. Hence, morals are subjective. Hence, to what standard is religion amoral? The atheist worldview cannot make such absolute moral statements.

People have committed atrocities in the name of religion such as the Christian crusades which killed Muslims in droves. Now the important distinction is not whether people do bad things in the name of religion, but do their actions conform with scripture or not. Hence, because Christians did amoral things in the name of Christ, does not mean Christianity is amoral, rather they disobeyed scripture instead of conforming to it. From your reasoning because religion had "violent outbursts" therefore religion is amoral. The same can be said for atheism. Do you wish to be held accountable for the atheistic regimes of Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and the soviet union? Certainly not.

Hence, religion is immoral in so far as people are born immoral. Religion does not have a monopoly on violence as demonstated throughout history.
Debate Round No. 1
TheAtheistWW2Debator

Pro

If religious people claimed to be as moral as they were, surely their people would not disobey the scripture. I thought in religion, scripture was one of the most highly held values in the belief system.

Religion is not immoral because people are immoral. That is illogical. The simple fact is, whilst humans CAN be immoral without religious fuel, it is religion that gives them an excuse to do so. Extremist Muslims use the excuse of a martyr's heaven and 'infidels' as their flame for injustifiable violence. Christians in the Crusades were told by (ironically named) Pope Innocent the III to fight the Crusades if they also wanted to go into heaven. Religion is also the basis for a lot (not all) but a lot of wars. I've already touched on the Crusades (11 in total) but what about the current wars in the Middle East? ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, all groups that have committed acts of terror IN THE NAME OF RELIGION.

Finally, there is a distinct difference between pro-religious totalitatarian regimes and NON-religious totalitarian regimes: Pro-religious regimes actually USE religion as an excuse for it's genocide. In all of the Atheist regimes, religion has NEVER been the core reason for genocide. Mao Zedong wanted to reform China into it's Dynasty period and rid of all technologies. Stalin wanted to imprison all anti-Communists. Pol Pot wanted to restore Democratic Kampuchea to it's former glory by killing INTELLECTUALS AND FORMER POLITICAL RIVALS. In NONE of the above regimes has religion been a topic, or at least a MAIN topic, for genocide. Meanwhile, Hitler, the most well known and infamous tyrant of all genocidal history, was even quoted to have said:

"To completely annihilate a nation, replace science with religion."
DoesThouHoisteth

Con

DoesThouHoisteth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DoesThouHoisteth

Con

DoesThouHoisteth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DoesThouHoisteth

Con

DoesThouHoisteth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheAtheistWW2Debator

Pro

Extend.

I'd like to thank Con for participating in my inaugural debate and wish Con the best of luck in the result of this and future debates.
DoesThouHoisteth

Con

DoesThouHoisteth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by WorldSkeptic 1 year ago
WorldSkeptic
TheAtheistWW2Debator is absolutely right, you can't do things IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM, because it's just a position on whether something is real or not. Our position is: no, probably not. That's it, we don't take it a step further in saying how your life should go on, and what you are allowed to do.
Number 2: We believe evolution was the process that created us, THAT DOESN"T MEAN WE FOLLOW IT LIKE A MORAL CODE. We know, for example, that exploding stars created our world, that doesn't mean we'll go around exploding stars like madmen.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
The simplest of moral issues "slavery" the bible has got wrong, what does that tell you?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
belief=theism
No votes have been placed for this debate.