The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Yraelz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,873 times Debate No: 41515
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Hi i would like to have a orderly and interesting debate about this topic!
Basically i would like to debate that religon does more harm than good today and in
the past.
Rules are as follow.

1.Burden of proof shared by Both parties.(will not be discussing wether or not god exists)
2.Use logic and back up arguments.
3.First round acceptance.
4.Be kind no insults and proper grammer.
Thanks
Yraelz

Con

Alright, let's do this. I'll allow my esteemed opponent the first argument, as I will have the last.
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Hello i Thank con for accepting this debate i look foward to haveing a interesting and fun debate!

My opening argument is Religon overall is not beneficial to humanity or society. First let’s point out what is logically not beneficial to society and humanity.

To start off and name a few Religous motivated violence,the Quashing of science and impediment of education and the teaching of creationism in public schools , political oppressiont he discrimination of same sex couples .

Such things are not beneficial being of society and humanity and any of us are nearly entirely becuse of religious ideas and teachings.
P1

Religious inspired violence.

Devout religious followers have done horrendous acts of violence entirely for their faith and religious reasons. Religion has procured and cultivated Religious extremists such as the Taliban in the Islamic world or even the Christians here in the USA who don't care about separation of church and state ,democracy or respecting other people's right to live differently from them. This is irrelevant to them. because in their mind the only thing that matters to them is making God's will happen.

In their mind, God created everything that exists... and therefore, God's will trumps everything so with religion producing and cultivating such deas starting in young intellectually defenseless children who are told before they have critical thinking & can think for themselves they are forced to believe that the world around them is, quite literally, irrelevant since their religion has imprinted upon them that the next world is what truly matters.
Suicide bombing, "honor" killing such as the attack on the world trade center was a direct cause of Religion Islamic extremism.USA one is also one of the most religious first world countries in the world with a huge rate of gun crime, murder, imprisonment compared to less religious western nations.

P2

Oppression.

The unverifiability of religion leads to many forms of oppression.It makes religious leaders and organizations extremely powerful because according to them they have God on their side.Their followers as young children are told to implicitly believe whatever their religious teachings and leaders tell them. They are taught that their religious leaders have superior virtue, with a connection to God they've that they should trust their religious leaders and if questioned since childhood they are filled with vivid, traumatizing stories of eternal burning and torture.

And for these reasons such things happen.

Saudi Arabian women are required to wear the abaya, a black loose outfit that is reserved for Arab women so as to prevent men from viewing them as sex symbols.

In Iraq all women are forced to conform to the Islamic religon and thus half of the population lives in cloth bags.If the resist they are beaten ,murderd and raped.

In India Hindu law gives women limited rights to inheritance the oppression of females in India, is due to Hinduism as well as Islam, which are religions that confine, restrict and oppress women.

A pew survey of 198 countries found that the share of countries with high or very high restrictions on religion rose from 37 percent in mid-2010 to 40 percent by the end of 2011.

Equal rights.

In the United States, when same-sex marriage has been up for popular vote, it has been shot down by followers of religious groups .It has been consistently defeated largely because the force of several organized religions, especially the Catholic and Mormon churches, have marshaled against it.

How could this be helping our society by aiding discrimination and suffering of others?Think about the trouble and pain that same sex couples have had to endure just because a holy book .Is this benefical to their well being and to live a better life? I dare say no.

Quashing science and education.
religion our undercuts science and education

Forcing abstinence-only sex education on kids? Teaching creationism in public schools? School boards all across this country are still spending time and money debating whether or not to have the theory of evolution taught in the schools. while they could be using these resources to actually teach they're spending debating this incredible thus denying our children the future leaders of society the ability to learn and think rationally this is in no way helping them become productive and intelligent citizens of society . The impediment of scientific advancement from Galileo ( took the church until 1992 to apologize) to current Stem cell research bans coming from a direct cause of religious ethics,morals and organizations that are a massive roadblock to the advancement of science.

So when religion teaches that believing in the invisible is more important than understanding the perceivable... that personal faith is more important than critical thinking... that that what God supposedly says about the world is more real what's in the world itself ...such things are the root of much evil.

Yraelz

Con

The Pro Case:
The downfall of this debate is the inability to quantify the "non-existence" of religion. What do I mean by this? Well consider my opponents entire case, he clearly demonstrates the many acts of violence committed in religions' names. But I can't tell you about the many acts of violence that were avoided, because there is no empirically relatable world devoid of religion. I can't say something like, "a great war, which would have killed 1.9 million people, was avoided because the inciter had previously converted to Islam." There is no evidence to back up my statement because we can't go back and "re-live" the world sans religion. Thus, in this debate, the judges must weigh the empirical impacts against probable impacts of a world sans religion.


The World... Sans Religion:

A prerequisite for the entire Pro case is the existence of civilization. Consider this simple example: if large societies had never formed, then the crusades would never have occurred. Obviously. Thus I will argue that small scale religion made large scale civilization possible. In order for large scale civilization to form a moral code which stresses anonymous altruism must exist. Otherwise societies remain within selfish segregated family clans or "fractured cultures". Studies using the "Dictator Game" and "Ultimatum Game" have demonstrated that anonymous contributions (acts of altruism) are much higher in populations which practiced world religions [1]. This suggests that the formation of world religions served a cohesive factor which promoted societal agglomeration. The dependence of codified law on religious law demonstrates the same truth [2]. It is likely that large societies would have been precluded in a world without religion. In practical terms this means that the current world population would be dramatically diminished; perhaps only consisting of a few hundred thousand people [3]. Thus, while my opponent wields many atrocities generated by religion, those people would have never existed without religion. I will argue that some atrocities are preferable to "non-existence". Indeed, one benefit of religion is the current world population: 7.1 billion people.

Obviously the wars prevented by the teaching of religions are unquantifiable. However, since most religions teach peaceful messages much more often than violent ones, these positive preventative impacts are likely to be more numerous.


The Mind's War
The #1 agent of death comes from within, it is stress. The American Medical Association has noted that stress is the basic cause for 60% of all human illness and disease [4]. Stress has been shown to dramatically increase risk of death in numerous situations; individuals who lead stressful life styles display an increased 50% chance of death [5][6]. I'll suggest that a world devoid of religion is a world where stress runs rampant. I'm sure my opponent will agree that many religious folk are drawn to religion because of "eternal salvation" promises. The fear of death is part of the human condition, as such it is classified as a "life stress"[7]. A world devoid of religion would likely affect the current 6 billion humans who practice religion by substantially increasing their stress levels. In turn these humans would produce higher levels of cortisol and be much more inclined to death. Some of the best hospitals in the world (read: Mayo Clinic) recommend practicing religion in order to substantially alleviate stress [8][9]. Thus we must weigh impacts. The impacts my opponent has isolated perhaps affect hundreds of thousands of people. The impacts I am isolating affect 6 billion people with premature deaths.


Genetic Codes
The well being of humanity is a question of genetic favorability and inheritance. In order to evolve "well" it is advantageous to have a large population with many potentially favorable mutations; I have already established that religion allowed for large populations. However, with large populations come an equal number of genetically unfavorable mutations. Thus some forms of natural selection are necessary to optimize the gene pool. I think that my opponent and I would both agree that violent tendencies are societally unfavorable. I'll suggest that religious conflicts are useful for the long term existence of humanity because they optimize the gene pool. This is true because the less advanced society is often correlated to the highest death toll which leaves a higher percentage of genetically predisposed intellects. I'll also suggest that religious wars are fought by societies with genes predisposed to conflict, thereby lowering the frequency of such genes. In other words, religious wars facilitate long term human peace.


Sources:
1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. http://tinyurl.com...
7. http://tinyurl.com...
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro


P1 “The Pro Case”

The downfall of this debate is the inability to quantify the "non-existence" of religion. What do I mean by this? Well consider my opponents entire case, he clearly demonstrates the many acts of violence committed in religions' names.

This is an untrue claim. We can quantify the non-existence of religion. For example ,we can clearly compare act’s of violence in secular communities vs devout religious ones.

The evidence is clear.

USA for example is one of the most religious first world countries in the world. Compared to less religious nations, the USA a huge rate of gun crime, murder, and imprisonment.

Furthermore Con has proved my first point “acts of violence committed inspired by religion” .Surely, we can agree that acts of violence are not beneficial to society.

P2 “The World... Sans Religion:”

I quote from the SAME source which he derived his own argument.

gods are not required for complex societies.""In modern societies at least, non-belief is correlated withless corruptionand more trust.”

Social norms, rather than god beliefs, seem to be of primary importance.”

Research done by Gregory showed strong positive correlations between nations' religious belief and levels of murder, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse and other indicators of dysfunction. (Again proving my first point.)

So we can conclude that religion does not make for a better society and is not necessary.

Con sates

benefit of religion is the current world population.

Another absurd claim. Clearly the current world population would be much higher if religion did not exist.

For example, if we take the death toll of just some of the major religious wars such as Thirty Years' War, The French Wars of Religion, Nigerian Civil War, Second Sudanese Civil War, The Crusades and The Lebanese Civil War.

If we add just the death toll of these major religious wars it comes out to be 20,750,000 dead. These are just the ones we know about .Since, most of these wars occurred hundreds of years ago the current world population would be much higher if they did not happen.

So surely, we see that religion is not beneficial to society and humanity if it reduces our population.

“these positive preventative impacts are likely to be more numerous…

This is a absurd claim however while some religions teach peaceful messages we, must take into account how those messages are interpreted for example how they are always changed to fit the need of the time.

Look at the most catholic country in Africa …Rwanda.

The Rwanda Genocide.

Beginning on April 6, 1994 in the African country of Rwanda. As the brutal killings , lasting 100 days, left approximately 800,000 dead.

Over 70% ,of the population is devout catholic.

Some of the nuns and priests who have been convicted by Belgian courts and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, enjoyed refuge in Catholic churches in Europe while on the run from prosecutors. One priest,Father Athanase Seromba, who led the Nyange Parish massacre was sentenced to 15 years in jail by the tribunal. Seromba lured over 2,000 desperate men, women and children to his church; where they expected safety. However their shepherd turned out to be their murderer.

In ancient civilizations, such as the ancient babylonians and egyptians, religion was used as a method of enslaving humans for personal or political gain. By convincing people to do things because their god wants it that way, or their god would punish them and their families for not following "their" commands.

P3

The Mind's War

Con states…

“ a world devoid of religion is a world where stress runs rampant. I'm sure my opponent will agree that many religious folk are drawn to religion because of "eternal salvation" promises.

No, infact, quite the opposite is true. Religion creates stress where there is none.

Many religions require there followers to go to church, obey holy edicts, or constantly repent for “sin”. Some religions require there followers to pray and worship up to 7 times a day . These requisites cause perpetual stress. Followers, since even childhood, are filled with vivid traumatizing stories of eternal burning and/or torture. They are made to be believe that if they don't adhere to these requisites they are to experience the horror in these aformentioned stories.

Surely,we can all agree that religion produces stress and therefore higher levels of cortisol as cons points out would be much more inclined to death.

Many religions teach that being gay or lesbian is a sin and you should be put to death for it. What about the countless people who are born gay or lesbian? What about the stresses they go through if there parents or themselves are devoutly religious? Is this making their lives less stressful surely not.

P5Genetic Codes

"religious wars are fought by societies with genes predisposed to conflict, thereby lowering the frequency of such genes. "
Con has ZERO evidence for this claim. His entire point is religious conflict is useful.Surely it's not.
Yraelz

Con

Framing:
The way that pro has set up this debate requires him to prove that religion is overall not beneficial to society and humanity. He clarifies in his round 1 that this means both in the present and past. Thus there are four arguments which my opponent must uphold:
1. Religion is not beneficial to society now.
2. Religion was not beneficial to society in the past.
3. Religion is not beneficial to humanity now.
4. Religion was not beneficial to humanity in the past.

Thus far my opponent has mostly focused on point 2, with a tiny bit of point 1.



The Trap: A Secular Community:
Pro suggests that quantification of non-religion can occur by examining secular communities. This is a false proposition, very few completely secular communities exist in the world, and none are of substantial size [1]. The next best thing is to examine the motive behind past atrocities: were they religious based or not? This examination will tell us whether they would occur in a world devoid of religion. Thus I will quickly list three secular movements responsible for mass deaths:

1. The Holocaust (6 million deaths)
2. Pol Pot's Cambodia (1-3 million deaths) [2]
3. Stalin's Russia (3-60 million deaths) [3]

My esteemed opponent will of course argue that there were some religious underpinnings. In the 2nd and 3rd case such an argument is unfounded, both situations were focused on the ideals of communism (an asecular philosophy). In the 1st case it has been well documented that Hitler became disdainful of Christianity; he repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular idealogy [4].

Of course these are only examples of wars which religion failed to prevent. My source 1 from round 1 demonstrates that religions heighten altruism in populations. Fundamentally many world religions preach respect for fellow human beings. Thus we arrive at the same problem as before: comparing secular and religious atrocities is impossible because we do not know how many atrocities religion prevented.

Finally my opponent uses a few out of context quotations from my own source. The actual quote reads, "Perhaps moralising gods are not required for complex societies. After all, the Romans and Greeks created large, complex societies despite having a pantheon of gods who were not exactly paragons of virtue." This of course isn't my point; I'm well aware that moralizing gods are not "required". My argument is that complex society formed around religions which acted to bind them together. As the source delineates pro-social training can be taught via religion or otherwise. However, it is most likely that religion was the enabling factor for complex societies as it represents an absolute moral code. Thus religion has enabled much of present day society and it's population.



The Mind's War

I'll quickly reiterate that massive medical organizations (the mayo clinic) recommend religion as way to relieve stress. My opponent's speculation stands unfounded in the face of scientific research. He argues that religion creates stress by causing people to pray, worship, and repent for their sins. I would like to remind him that the alternative is not knowing what will happen after death (a life stress). Religions allow people to avoid the greatest perpetual stress via promises of salvation. Besides, the majority of religious people are religious at their own convenience despite what the church says [5].

I will reiterate the magnitude of what we're discussing. Life stress can increase risk of death by 50%. We are talking about 6 billion people here, these impacts dwarf anything my opponent has presented.



Genetic Codes:
As my opponent has constructed this debate, he must also argue that religion is not beneficial to humanity. He has yet to do so. I previously articulated that humanity, at it's core, is the genome. Thus the question of being beneficial to humanity is one of genetic favorabilty and inheritance [6]. Since Pro has already conceded that aggression and violence are not beneficial to society, my point is quite easy to win. Aggression and violent tendencies are partially genetic predispositions [7][8]. And war, at it's core, is just glorified natural selection [9]. Since people with violent predispositions are the most likely to be caught up in wars those predispositions are also the most likely to be terminated. Societies with the greatest scientific advances are likely to triumph in these wars, which allows their brilliance to become a larger proportion of the genetic pool. A world with religious wars is one in which humanity thrives, regardless of society.



Sources:
1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ridley, Matt. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. HarperCollins 2013. Print.
7. http://tinyurl.com...
8. http://tinyurl.com...

9. http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 3
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Framing.

Basically in would like to debate that religion does more harm than good today and in
the past.”

There is no doubt what we are doing here.The Good Vs the Bad religion does not solely if it is beneficial or has been.

So with that cleared up.

“The trap”

Con is apparently in blatant denial of the facts at this point.

And also in error of the second rule stated in round 1.

(Use logic)

Pro suggests that quantification of non-religion can occur by examining secular communities. This is a false proposition”

Logically if we want to quantify the non-effects of something we would look where it is overall the least such as less religious communities and nations.

The crime rate of secular communities is far lower VS mostly religious ones.[2]

In the us 0.209% of the prison population are atheists.

Not only do less religious countries have less crime

Studies show that they also have a higher quality of life compared to religious ones this negates Con’s second point as well as his first.

Non-religious nations have higher quality of life

Religion and the Holocaust

Con attempts to provide 3 secular movements trying to back his case up however he further proves my point thank you Con.

  1. 1. The Holocaust (6 million deaths)

  1. 1. Hitler was baptized a Catholic and attended Catholic schools and churches in Austria.
  2. 2. Hitler repeatedly wrote and said that he was on a divine mission from God to destroy the Jews.
  3. 3. The Nazis made much of their interpretation that Jesus was not Jewish so they could retain him for a god.
  4. 4. In 1941 Hitler told his army adjutant General Gerhard Engel: "I shall remain a Catholic forever."
  5. 5. Adolf Hitler was raised by devout Catholic mother.
  6. 6. We again clearly conclude that religion is responsible for yet another atrocity and that death of 6 million people is not overall beneficial to society or humanity therefore my argument holds while Cons simply do not.
  7. 2. Pol pot specifically said he was going after Cambodians with “Khmer bodies, but Vietnamese minds” as well as actual Vietnamese people.
  8. 3. Get that? He murdered for nationalist, racist and ethnic reasons-he wasn't motivated by "atheism".

Stalin was raised devout in the Greek Orthodox Church. His parents hoped he would become a priest.

Of course wars will happen regardless of religion but however all the wars Con stated where religiously inspired.

Furthermore without religion we do know that there would be fewer wars because we know of so many that religiously motivated.

Remember were balancing the good of religion against the bad.

As far as altruism.

Secular nations such as those in Scandinavia donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations.

Zuckerman also reports studies show that, during the Holocaust, the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews.

Numerous studies, show that atheists, when compared to religious people, are actually less likely to be nationalistic, racist, anti-Semitic, dogmatic, ethnocentric, and authoritarian.

Secularism also correlates to higher education levels

63 studies has found that atheists are on average more intelligent than believers.

Atheists and other secular people are also much more likely to support women's rights and gender equality, as well as gay and lesbian rights. Religious individuals are more likely to support government use of torture.

Non-religious countries have a far better quality of life.

“Genetic Codes:”

Con has no evidence that genetics are solely responsible for violent tendencies and aggression.

Research has demonstrated that both genetic and environmental factors play a role in aggression and violent tendencies.

We see how I have demonstrated that religion overall does more harm than good to humanity and society.

Let’s look at Cons argument...

That the less there is of a population that has violent tendencies that are genetic predispositions would indeed benefit humanity.

So because a population or society is has violent tendencies they should be eradicated?

Would it not be far more efficient to remove a major cause or source of the violence?

Of course such as religion.

A Study Suggests that Religion helps criminals justify their crimes. [2]

Thus I have backed that religion is the motive for a lot of aggression and violence and therefore is not overall beneficial to humanity and society.

Therefore without religion we would have less societies that are predisposed to violence and aggression.

I will reiterate that it is because of religion that we have a greater amount of societies that are predisposed to aggression and violence.

We see how religion is not overall beneficial to society and humanity.

(Include round 3)

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

Yraelz

Con

Pro has declined to reply to many of my R3 arguments. =)

Cause and Effect:
Pro has made an unsubstantiated assumption throughout this entire debate. He articulates that religious societies have 'caused' the atrocities, crime, lower qualities of life, etc... Unfortunately, not one of his sources actually supports this concept. In fact, a close examination of Pro's sources indicates that there is correlation between these but not causation. This fact will be damning for my opponents case.

Let's take the instance of prisoners. As Pro indicates, most prisoners are religious; he implies that religion must have caused them to become criminal in some way. Of course, the implication is absurd. The reason that most prisoners are religious is because they converted to a religion while in prison [1][2]. The hyper stressful environment of prisons necessitates that felons seek hope and relief from it's confines. Prisoners convert to religion while in prison, as a means to find meaning in their lives [3]. Thus religion is actually a point for the con case in this regard. Religion helps prisoners lead happier and meaningful lives [4].

My opponent makes further arguments in this same vein but with more absurd premises. He suggests that religion causes nations to have a lower quality of life. However, his source (R4 #6) states so such thing; the source's final line states, "Cue discussion over which causes what!" The reality is quite similar to that of the prison system. People living in societies with lower qualities of life will naturally seek refuge from their harder lives in other ways. The underprivileged turn to religion because it makes them happier [5].

Thus I have demonstrated the causality is the inverse of Pro's implications. Pro has given me additional arguments to win this debate with. Crime, drug abuse, delinquency, and low quality of life are promoters of religion, which then help people maintain happy, meaningful lives. Pro has reaffirmed my stress argumentation.


Wars, wars, wars...
Pro has failed to respond to my arguments regarding the unquantifiability of wars that have been avoided. Due to the nature of the world (being predominately religious) it is impossible to measure the wars that have been avoided. We would require an alternative universe, wherein religion didn't exist to measure the difference. I have provided substantial rational as to how religion could plausibly avoid wars. Thus there is no way to evaluate my opponents claims.

That being said, let's take a look at a quote from R3; my opponent states,

"while some religions teach peaceful messages we, must take into account how those messages are interpreted for example how they are always changed to fit the need of the time."

And hereby my opponent has all but conceded this debate. In this simple sentence Pro has conceded that religion is a non-integral part of all human violence. Instead of religion shaping the world, Pro has admitted that the world shapes religion to it's own needs. This reality is true of every group philosophy imaginable. Stalin shaped communism to his own means. Hitler shaped Eugenics. Governments shape nationalism, race, and science to justify agendas. The fact that religion is non-integral means that any form of group philosophy can replace it. The leaders will still have the same murderous intent, which means they'll find other "tools". In the end my opponents impacts are severed from his advocacy.

Onto my opponents final points. As I previously stated, and sourced, Hitler used religion as a posturing tool to overcome his political opponents. Hitler's utter disdain for religion lead him to explicitly state that Nazism was not influenced by religion in any way. My opponent can talk about Hitler's catholic childhood all he wants, this doesn't change the fact that Hitler was violently opposed to religion influencing his policies. Pro argues that Pol Pot didn't murder for atheist reasons. That's not the point, his ideologies were secular in nature. And finally, Pro suggests that Stalin's atrocities were religious because "his parents hoped he would become a priest." This is incorrect, communism was the epicenter of Stalin's atrocities, and they were secular in nature. I already sourced these.


The Creation of Society
Pro doesn't address my points regarding how complex society formed around religion. In fact he says that atheists are less likely to be nationalistic, which is an argument against secular complex societies forming. Thus I win the current world population.


Genetic Codes
Pro argues that genetics are partially responsible. That's fine, I win that religion helps humanity (the strengthening of the genome), even if he wins society. At best my opponent wins a draw, at worst he loses.


The Mind's War
Pro drops these points. That's 6 billion people dying of premature deaths.


Sources:
1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 4
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

My adversary might be slightly confused and may be trying to piece together what is left of his arguments.

Con yet to reply to my first initial 4 contentions of how religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.

I’ve taken his 4 points apart and backed each of mine with sources,statistics and research his point’s actually further proved the motion that religion is not overall beneficial.

Contentions that Con dropped and never mentioned.

1.Religiously restricted Equal rights.

3.religion undercuts our science and education

4.Religiously motivated Oppression.

I’ve shown thoroughly , and extensively how religion has caused,inspired and supported such things and thus

Nearly all of Cons arguments are in my favor.

"The Mind's War" and “Genetic Codes”

Con’s point again goes in my favor I’ve easily shown how religion increases stress in so many ways again a point in my favor.

I already addressed in the round above.Studies show that they also have a higher quality of life compared to religious ones this negates Con’s second point as well as his first.

They also have much lower crime therefore even lower stress.

Religiously inspired and motivated violence.

Cons only rebuttal to this was that we can’t quantify the wars that religion prevented I have addressed this issue and have stated that we can.

Cons entire argument is without evidence’ve stated that religion has caused many wars and he states the Halocaust and Hitler as a secular movement I’ve provided evidence against this false premise again a point in my favor clearly showing how religion not only did not prevent this war but on the contrary fueled it and inspired it.

Con suggests that religious conflict is useful to society and humanity an absurd point which actually further goes in my favor as I have demonstrated.

I sufficiently demonstrated that this is a point in my favor even con says.

“...he wins society. At best my opponent wins ..."

A Study Suggests that Religion helps criminals justify their crimes. [2]

Thus I have backed that religion is the motive for a lot of aggression and violence and therefore is not overall beneficial to humanity and society.

Therefore without religion we would have less societies that are predisposed to violence and aggression.

I will reiterate that it is because of religion that we have a greater amount of societies that are predisposed to aggression and violence.

“The World... Sans Religion:”

Surely voters will notice that this point has more than been addressed again is my favor, as I have sourced and shown that we can observe the impact on society without religion.

“Wars, wars, wars...”

Con again resorts to vauge empty statements backed by nothing.

“unquantifiable of wars that have been avoided”

Clearly I’ve shown that if anything at all religion created many wars thought history and the Haolocuast a point brought up my Con just furthermore proves mine.

.Mine are backed up with evidence Cons evidence is no evidence a tall.

Con resorts to taking quotes of mine out of context.

“Logically if we want to quantify the non-effects of something we would look where it is overall the least such as less religious communities and nations.

The crime rate of secular communities is far lower VS mostly religious ones.[2]

In the us 0.209% of the prison population are atheists.”

And one more.

secular nations such as those in Scandinavia donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations.

Zuckerman also reports studies show that, during the Holocaust, the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews.

Numerous studies, show that atheists, when compared to religious people, are actually less likely to be nationalistic, racist, anti-Semitic, dogmatic, ethnocentric, and authoritarian.

“Cause and Effect:

Con again in blatant denial of logic.

I’ve backed up each of my statements with statistics and evidence Numerous of my sources indicate that religion is the cause for,motivation for and inspiration for countless atrocities , crime and war.
For example.
1. The church assured listeners that God wanted them to exterminate Moslems that Christ commanded it and assured that God wanted them to participate in Holy War, masses pressed forward to take the crusaders' oath. They were guaranteed place in Heaven for themselves. Con claims that this was not a cause? clearly we see his disregard for logic.

2.Was it not the sole intention of the terrorists on 911 to get in a spot in heaven by honoring their "god"

Of course it was and countless more atrocities are caused by religion.

Simple brief examples show that Con's assertions are empty and unfounded.


Conclusion.

I have thoroughly shown how “Religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.”

I’ve taken apart Cons contentions mine still stand we see that Religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.Vote Pro.

This has been an interesting debate thanks :)

Yraelz

Con

Like the millions of religious zealots before him, my opponent has been blinded by his beliefs. =)

I'll break this down into simple contentions, each documenting how the impacts of this debate play out.

The Minds War
In my opponent's final round he suggests that I have ignored his contentions from Round 3. Nothing could be further from the truth. During Round 3 I argued three points (and cited them):
1. A world without religion results in a constant life stress which will increase the risk of 6 billion deaths by 50%.
2. People now participate in religion at their own convenience. Worshipping is no longer a zealous, stressful activity.
3. Even if worshipping was stressful, that stress would pale in comparison to the life stress that is death.

My opponent ignores these points throughout rounds 4 and 5, I invite the reader to reread them. My points have remained completely unrefuted. Which means, my esteemed critics, when you finish reading this debate the first order of importance is 6 billion potential deaths. Even if you grant my opponent every single one of his other arguments, the risk of 6 billion lives will heavily outweigh.


Genetic Codes
As should be recalled, the topic of this resolution is two fold. My opponent must win that religion is not beneficial to (1)humanity and that religion is not beneficial to (2)society. Throughout my five rounds I have continuously argued that the root of humanity is the human genome. I have continually argued (and cited) that aggression is partially a genetic trait, and thus, to improve the human genome, religious wars are useful in culling these expressions.

In response, my opponents sole argument is that, "both genetic and environmental factorsplay a role in aggression and violent tendencies". OKAY. I will grant his argument as completely 100% true. However, his argument does nothing to answer my argumentation. Insofar as my opponent has conceded "humanity = the genome" and insofar as my opponent has conceded that "aggression is partially genetic", my opponent has lost this debate. It doesn't matter that environmental factors also play a role in aggression, that's not the relevant question. The question is, "does religion benefit (1)humanity?" My opponent concedes that it alters the genome in a preferable way, and so yes, it benefits (1)humanity.


Cause and Effect
In Pro's final round he asserts:

"A Study Suggests that Religion helps criminals justify their crimes. [2]"

However, a careful rereading of source 2 reveals no such argument. No where in his source 2 does it say that religion helps criminals justify crimes. In fact, like my opponents previous source, this one once again asks the causality question. That being, "does religion cause crime or does religion spring up in places where crimes exist?"

I would implore the reader to revisit this section of my round 4 arguments. Wherein I completely dissected Pro's argumentation by demonstrating (with substantial citations) that religion springs up in response to crime, hard lives, and atrocities. Seldom is religion the instigator of such things. These arguments were never refuted by Pro, he only states, "Con again in blatant denial of logic."

If there is any doubt left on this matter... one only has to look as far as my opponent's own omission. Religion is not an integral part of violence or atrocities. In fact, the world changes religion in order to fit the world's own needs. Thus, any atrocity attributed to religion would still exist in a world sans religion, only under the guise of another group philosophy.


A Secular Community:
I would like to examine my opponent's impacts in this debate. Throughout these five rounds I have argued that it is impossible to quantify the lack of religion. In response my opponent has repeatedly stated, paraphrased, "we should just look at mostly secular societies."

Ignoring the glaring problem with this logic (Read: Cause and Effect), my opponent has been completely non-responsive to my ultimate line of reasoning. The reason why it is impossible to quantify the lack of religion is because: It is impossible to know the magnitude of wars that were avoided because religion existed. What does this mean? Well... reread my opponents source on Hitler, at the very bottom is states, "Would the Holocaust have happened if Hitler had been a Buddhist?" The question is this, "how many wars were avoided because world leaders were linked to peaceful religions?" Because we can never answer this question we can never quantify my opponents impacts.

...My opponent continues to argue the holocaust. I don't mean to be rude, but he's just wrong; Hitler passionately hated religion.


Final Thoughts:
1. Without religion 6 billion people gain a 50% risk of death (society).
2. Religion absolutely helps the genome (humanity).
3. Pro has cause and effect backwards; religion helps the disenfranchised, it doesn't create them.
4. Pro's impacts are unquantifiable.

Great objectivity urges a Con ballot!!
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Religion has no cure for psychopaths, psychopaths often exploit the vulnerabilities of religion to reach positions of power, ie. Charles Manson, David Koresh, Moses, Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Pope Innocent iii, Osama Bin Laden, all considered high religious based leaders or cult figures, all psychopaths.

Regardless of whether religion exists or not, when psychopaths gain positions of power in any group, there is TROUBLE!
Modern neurology and psychology, will eventually be able to pick such individuals, before they gain too much influence and have them stopped from achieving the power they desire as part of their psychosis/narcissism.
So the world may become a safer place, not from removing religion, but from preventing psychopaths from gaining positions of power.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I pretty much know Jesus existed, the inferences are too many to ignore on his side, even though there was no evidence for him from any contemporary witnesses.
None of his Aramaic disciples could read nor write, so everything was passed on by rote.
Thus stories changed with each passing, until eventually it reached the ears of some Greek scholar(s) who finally (at least 40 years later) wrote the messed up stories down in Greek, thus the Canonical Gospels.

So I believed he lived, but was just a charismatic preacher.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually, personally, I've never really had a problem with religions.
Many of my friends are Christians and Muslims.
I don't see their faith as having any issues for me, so essentially I'm neutral.
I don't consider religion as any threat.
I think it may just dwindle and fade away as the world becomes more Rational.
I'm a Confucian follower, my belief is in Scientific knowledge and good Sound Education will eventually change the world.
I don't agree with such groups as the Freedom From Religion movement.
That is why I chose Confucianism, not Atheism.
I'm not really anti religious, I'm only anti nonsense.
Thus my choice for whose side I was on before I read the debate.
It was only your poor choice of references (Stress, Stalin, Pol Pot (also a raving Psychopath)) that changed my vote. I don't like garbage, being construed as truth.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Funny 1 on Hitler, Hitler vowed to rid Germany of Atheists as well.
He considered them a threat to his new religion that he was leading under God.
Thus his soldiers belt buckles that confirmed that they had God on their side.
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
I doubt Jesus even existed. I'm not disputing any of those points. My point was that religion facilitated the development of morality.

More importantly, none of those points were in the debate. I am well aware that over half of my arguments are morbidly false, and I completely disagree with my position (as apparently do you). Your opinion of the 'right' or 'wrongness' of the positions doesn't affect who debated better. There is a literally a column which states, "who did you agree with before the debate".
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Also, morality evolved, it was not given to humans by religions.

Many Atheist religions like Buddhism had the same Moral codes as Christianity, hundreds of years before Christianity began.
Many believe that Jesus learned his philosophy from Buddhist or Confucian traders/preachers.
What Jesus's main claim to fame, is introducing Asian philosophies into Judaism.

Confucius had the "do unto others as you would do unto yourself" rule, 500 years before Mary popped out baby Jesus.
It was likely quite well known across Asia and the Mediterranean regions by the time Jesus lives.
Same rules came from Buddhism, which we know was already in the same region where Jesus lived nearly 200 years prior as Buddhist priests were sent to that region then.
Yes, Buddhism also had the "Do unto others as you would have others do unto yourself" rule, around 400 years before Jesus popped into existence.

Such moral codes evolved in all group dependent species, apes and humans and some others like meerkats all have similar moral codes.
The only thing we have that other animals don't have is rational discussions about morality or as we call it Ethics. Yet, in times of trouble, Ethics is often forgotten and basic primitive morality codes become dominant.
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
And Sagey, I wasn't ever trying to prove that secularism is a motivation for violence. I was pointing out that religion wasn't always a motivation (see the Stalin example that you just reinforced).

I'll debate you, "Hitler was anti-christian", and slaughter you. =)
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
Please Sagey: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also I'm the biggest atheist you've ever met.

And finally, the points regarding Hitler and Stalin have no bearing on this debate. Even if I had flat out won them it would only prove that *sometimes* wars are fought irrespective of religion. That's not a weigh-able impact ESPECIALLY in a debate where I'm arguing that wars aren't weighable because the flip side is nebulous.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Disliked the false inferences placed on Stalin and Hitler.
Stalin committed his crimes because of his severe Narcissistic Megalomania, he was a severe Psychopath, even beat Charles Manson by a mile in degree of Psychopathy. The crimes had nothing to do with non-belief.
He even executed his fellow Atheists, sent a hit squad overseas to assassinate his previous leader, because of a difference in opinion.
Hitler was a devoted Catholic, only when the Catholic church opposed him, which dismayed Hitler, as he understood that he was doing what the church wanted, in persecuting Jews, since the Catholic church had been persecuting Jews for 1500 years prior, which is what Hitler stated in his meeting with the church leaders. It was only when they disappointed Hitler that Hitler decided that he was God's chosen one, because of his surviving the bunker assassination attempt. So Hitler was instigating his own religion that he considered as being his mission from God.
Can't understand how Con got that so wrong, been reading too much anti-atheist false propaganda.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
Con failed to underline and bold the majority of text. This speaks to points. Looks interesting, I'll weigh in tomorrow.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
imsmarterthanyou98YraelzTied
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 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: Pro being unable to show what a world would be like without religion should cost him this debate based on the nature of the resolution. While the dictators that he mentioned, such as Hitler and Stalin hated religion, they weren't really a valid argument either way because the fact that atheism preaches tolerance; atheism is supposed to arise naturally, and not be force. However, con never addressed several of the points that pro made, and some of them were very important in judging the world with religion. Overall, I think neither side was sufficiently able to meet their burden. However, because pro never really effectively proved his burden, the resolution was not affirmed. I will award one point to con.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
imsmarterthanyou98YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't like Con's play on references, stress and such issues bears no relationship to religion, it has been shown that religion causes Irrational Stresses. Religion is not the stress relief it was once considered as being. Also meditation has nothing to do with religion, many Atheists meditate, I do Mindsight Meditation, which is considered one of the best stress relief and life changing forms of meditation. Secondly Con started kicking the old Hitler Stalin mules. Which is an Irrational Wrong Anti-Atheist propaganda, neither of their wrongdoings had any relationship with secularism. Hitler was a devout Theist and Stalin was a confirmed Psychopath. So I consider deliberately flogging false concepts as poor conduct. Religion did do a lot of good for societies during the early formation of society, though from some of Pro's references, yes, it may be time to remove religion from society, because, what was once a unifying concept, may have become a divisive beast.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
imsmarterthanyou98YraelzTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I am not entirely convinced this debate should get awarded to either debater, as the arguments used by Con neglected some critical arguments of Pro, while Pros arguments were poorly formulated. As such argument points are drawn. I have awarded conduct points to Pro, as Con continually ignored some key points as mentioned before (i.e. teaching creationism). Con however gets awarded grammar and source points, as his grammar and structured arguments were far easier to read. Additionally, the sources I did look at of Con were balanced and logical.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
imsmarterthanyou98YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: [Conduct Verdict]: Didn't notice anything bad from either side. Tie. [S/G Verdict]: Nothing too bad from either side, though Yraelz' grammatical failings are notorious. Tie. [Convincing Arguments]: The 4th voting point alone is enough for a CON vote here. CON was right on the money about PRO being unable to quantify a world without religion. His efforts to due so by citing holocaust and whatnot backfired. Upon review of Hitler's writings, it's pretty clear the dude hated religion (there are additional writings CON could have provided, but since he didn't present them, I'll pretend they don't exist). Same goes for Stalin and Pol Pot, both of whom which PRO didn't really have an answer for (that Stalin was raised Christian at one point is unpersuasive as there's no indication that such contributed to his actions). [Reliable Sources Verdict] PRO talked about a lot of sources, but I would've liked to have been able to verify them for myself. CON linked to all of his.