The Instigator
TheEvilPolkadot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hirakula
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Religion must die for mankind to live

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 4 votes the winner is...
Hirakula
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,371 times Debate No: 38281
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (60)
Votes (4)

 

TheEvilPolkadot

Pro

"The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting it dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die." - Bill Maher
Hirakula

Con

Greetings. First allow me to state that I am strongly anti-religious. I'm an atheist, and, yes, I enjoy Bill Maher's anti-religious rants also.

However, I feel the need to argue the point that it is not quite necessary for religion to die for the survival of mankind. I feel that society would be a far better place, and yes, it's possible that some consequence of religion could bring total destruction down upon us.

However, your claim is that mankind cannot survive while religions do also, and I find that is a strong assumption. If you feel able to argue that, I look forward to a good debate. However, if you feel that you have used language that too strongly expresses your point, and you, like me, believe that religions are harmful, but their deaths are not quite necessary for the survival of mankind, then I feel you have no choice but to forfeit the debate.

That being said, thank you for your statement, and I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
TheEvilPolkadot

Pro

In my opinion, religion enables people to shirk off the responsibility of taking care of their bodies and their planet while empowering them to do horrible things in the name of their religion/God. The outcome of such power doesn't equal anything good for the overall being of mankind. It just serves that particular people or society at the moment.

Why would anyone who is truly religious be motivated to make any progress on issues that concern the well being of the planet we all live together on? Most religions claim to know how the end of our demise comes about and none of them say a whole heck of a lot about issues like global warming becoming an issue.

Religions all have their own sense of Divine Right or Manifest Destiny. This sense of global entitlement in the name of religion is virtually the reason for every act of war, genocide and occurrence of unpleasant thanksgiving table conversation. The core beliefs of those involved root so deep into a person that their sense of individual humanity gets overthrown by a simple fundamental difference of opinion. The danger is real.

The religious of the world are the infected zombie apocalypse population. When the infection spreads further more people will lose their lives after stopping the use of their brains and hearts.
Hirakula

Con

While my opponent makes all fair conclusions and suggestions, nothing in the arguments suggests that the presence of religion means certain death for mankind.
Once again, I feel the need to emphasize that "Religion must die for mankind to live" is a very bold statement, one I feel is not easily argued. While I feel my opponent is certainly offering effective arguments to suggest that the consequences of religions and religious people could be, and have been, detrimental to the health of humankind, no argument has been made to suggest that religion will kill us all, as the prompt claims.
I would agree with most of my opponent's claims - I do believe that religious people are considerably less likely to take positive action on Earth, due to their determination to abandon it in favor of an afterlife, and that they may even be fixated on the idea of world-destruction.
However, religion has had its time in the sun, methinks. The Christian Dark Ages were probably the worst time in civilized history, but even they did not cause the annihilation of the human race - in fact, due to the desire of religions to expand the number of followers that they possess, they increased the population, though the rampant disease compensated, leaving general population at a low - however, I feel we can presume, should we ever experience another Dark Age, that this can be combated by the medicine that modern science has created, even if we never advance further in medicine, so even in another Dark Age, there is hope for mankind.
Even at its most extreme (which it is unlikely ever to regain), religion can be survived, so, I feel, the prompt has been sufficiently contended.
Debate Round No. 2
TheEvilPolkadot

Pro

The odds of man inflicted catostrphic events have greatly increased since the dark ages. Religion equals power and control over a large group of people who willingly opt in because religion answers all of the really hard questions in life. Weapons of mass distruction, chemical warfare and the every day reliance the world has on technology has changed the game entirely when it comes to how we fight wars. Every religion has its extremists. The complete destruction of an entire populous can come with the push of a button. When religious extremists are put in a position of high enough power I don't trust any of them not to press their finger down in the name of their religion. They will need nothing more to justify those actions other than their God given sense of entitlement.
Hirakula

Con

Again, I agree with all points made - yes, religion has led mankind into a state of peril that would likely never have been known without religion. Extremists in power are very dangerous, especially considering modern warfare and technology. However, as our contemporary state of advanced dangers has emerged, religion has declined. Atheists, agnostics, and non-religion in general have greater rates and numbers now than ever before (well, since the rise of religion, which occurred very early in human history). It is no surprise that mankind has advanced with great speed and strength while religion slowly declines and becomes irrelevant. I believe it is likely that religion will become a rare sight, on the outskirts of civilization, much like the practice of witchcraft - looked-down upon and unusual.
However, it is undeniable that the very survival of mankind could be put at risk if there were a religious revival. But could we get through it? Yes, I believe we could. Despite the typical stubbornness of religions to refuse to accept anything besides their own teachings, it is clear that religions have benefited from exposure to science, and the methods of science - reason, rationality, and cooperation.

Could religions ultimately cause the destruction of mankind? Absolutely.
If there were a religious revival sometime in the near or far future, would mankind be in great danger? Quite possibly.
If religion continued to decline, would we still face a danger in religious extremists? Yes, but likely not one on a worldwide scale.
If religions never truly died, would mankind be doomed, as the prompt suggests? Probably not.
Debate Round No. 3
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Hey, neptune, I apologize if you think I'm personally attacking you.
All religions are superstition. That is a Fact that can be confirmed by any commonly used dictionary references.
I'm and encyclopedic person, most of my knowledge, especially my early knowledge originated from encyclopedias.
While I was studying theology, it was encyclopedias that made me realize that Theology (pondering the mind of God) was truly pondering nothing but massive Porkies.
I've had my head in encyclopedias every since. Though Wikipedia is not a true encyclopedia, as it is contributed and caters to interest groups. It's take on Religion and Christianity are softened to not upset Christians, Muslims and other religious groups, as they have input.
My favorite Encyclopedia was "Chambers" which is mostly the product of reasonably unbiased, critical and skeptical research, it doesn't pull punches and much of what it stated about the history of Christianity was rather scathing, far more critical than Wikipedia.
It was through the Chambers encyclopedia that I learned that there is no real archaeological evidence and no anthropological evidence found to support the life and activities of Jesus.
There is no proof that he was executed on a Cross, only that he was executed.
Nor were there any evidence found in Roman documents, nor any other documents that he was buried in a tomb, most likely he was thrown into a mass grave with all the others executed alongside him.
Such was fairly normal for Romes treatment of petty criminals, of which Jesus was considered as by the Romans.
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
I apologize for being so rude. I was insulted by your attitude towards me, but that isn't how I should respond to you, because I try to behave better than that. I don't expect any type of apology from you (mainly because I don't think that I'll get it) but I am sorry for my response. I'm not sure how to retract my previous post, but if you or someone else tells me how, then I will. Either way, I do not feel that negatively about you, I simply responded angrily.
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
Again, you haven't the slightest clue about my intelligence. Oh, and lol, apparently I've misinterpreted your constant posts about "religion is irrational" and "people who believe in religion have lowered intelligence" and "beliefs in God are superstition". Not that specific religions or religious beliefs are unintelligent or superstition. Not that certain Ideas about God or versions of God, but any belief in God. Don't try to pull the "you didn't understand me" b.s. because it isn't gonna fly. Especially when you follow it up with some bigoted b.s. that I am somehow too unintelligent to understand you.

Bigotry: a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).
Stereotype: to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same.

Yes, you are an intolerant bigot that relies on stereotypes and stating things that you couldn't possible know as truths (as well as other forms of intolerance, like ridicule), to further your bigotry. The fact that you have no idea what my beliefs are and yet you presume to make judgements about my intelligence and rationality based on whatever group you've shoved me into proves it. I never once said that I do not believe in evolution and that I believe in a flat Earth (I DO believe in evolution and a round Earth, btw, not that you'll probably remember that fact when you reply). In fact, the only things that I HAVE said about my beliefs is that I believe in a God (of sorts, that's all you know) and the possibility of a soul (or I prefer the term consciousness, not that you would know why, but I'm sure you'll jump to a bunch of your own conclusions, like you do). I did, however, also state that I believe in scientific fact so far as what has been proven and not what bigots assume or make up in an effort to spread religious intolerance and hatred. The quotes I presented apply to you, I know it's hard to realize that you are a bigot.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
This didn't post, so I'll put it again.
A summary from a very intelligent dude on Creationism, fraudulent thinking for money.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
More on the stupidity of Complete Nonsense based fraudulent teachings for making money!

From far more intelligent thinkers than yourself!
Possibly even those dumber than dog droppings creationists featured in their clips out rank you in the intellectual stakes.

http://gawker.com...

Everything this Creationist will say in the following clip is so ludicrously WRONG that it's hard to believe he owns a fully functioning brain, same can be said of most Creationism Believers.

Here is a basic overview of my reason for attacking dumber than dumb, deliberately produced Lies like Young Earth Creationism or Flat Earth Theory, both born in the naive writing of Genesis.

Enjoy!
Yes, it is all about MONEY, not Religion.
Creationist leaders are Frauds, telling deliberate Lies for Money!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
People are being ripped off by Charlatans like Ken Ham and The Flat Earth Society's stupid conspiracy theories.
Those people need to be Told So, in any way possible.
Too Simple for you, though!

When any such group gets caught teaching what is obviously and stupidly WRONG, for the sake of making money through selling literature supporting that which is stupidly WRONG, they should be immediately jumped on and closed down for what these groups are doing is really, technically, FRAUD, though the government and legal system doesn't seem to realize this, as it is disguised in the cloak of Religion. But, those of us who have studied these groups for the last 30+ years know full well that religion is only a disguise for their fraudulently trying to promote pseudo-science and complete falsities (LIES) for the sake of making a lot of money.
You are way too naive and unintelligent to be able to see this.

Because, you have also been conned by their deceptions.
Young Earth Creation and Flat Earth Society, truly have nothing to do with Christianity.
This is only a front for Fraudulent activities and teachings to make money.
They worship money more than god and truth.

This is what all people on planet Earth must be told.
Since the governments and legal systems are too stupid or ignorant to take charge.
It is up to the people, scientists, rationalists, scientists, etc... to take charge.
Richard Dawkins and others have been trying to achieve the message through education, which is way too slow.

I prefer to use Comedy or ridicule!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Comedy is a great way to spread such messages, when these groups have tried to prevent education from being used, and education is a very slow method.
Great comedy gets spread around the world very quickly.

The more we make fun (ridicule) these groups, and those believing in their proven nonsense, the better!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Note: We are not dealing with philosophical differences here for starters.
We are dealing with people pushing deliberate false information.
Earth 6000 to 10000 years old, proven to be complete nonsense.
Earth Flat, not spherical: Proven to be complete nonsense.

These are physically proven nonsense, used by groups such as Creationism and Flat Earth groups to make money, they have nothing whatsoever to do with religion, since they are both Irrational takes on a naive piece of writing by idiotic camel or goat herders around 5000 years ago from junk handed down by Rote/(Chinese Whispers).

Your Gandhi and other quotes do not Apply to nonsense that has been completely disproved by rational knowledge for the last 200 years and Flat Earth is being disproved every single day since commercial flight became popular.
And Creationist garbage is being destroyed every week in laboratories and farms around the world.

Your claims that I'm being somewhat bigoted against beliefs is ridiculous to the extreme.
I'm being bigoted against what has been totally proven and verified to be nonsense.
It has nothing to do with innocent personal belief whatsoever.
It has to do with naive people becoming pawns in a game of gross deception.
If people are being deceived, they should be told that they are being deceived,
Whether this message comes through comedy (ridicule) or education, it doesn't matter.
They have to be told the truth.

Yes, I'm very accurate in my assessment of your declining Intelligence.
You are making that very clear indeed.

You haven't even rationally understood my message, for starters!
:-D~
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
Here's some things to think about:
"Taking the line of least resistance, we lump the most different people together under the same heading. Taking the line of least resistance, we ascribe to them collective crimes, collective acts and opinions. "The Serbs have massacred"", "The English have devastated"", "The Jews have confiscated"", "The Blacks have torched", "The Arabs refuse"". We blithely express sweeping judgments on whole peoples, calling them "hardworking" and "ingenious", or "lazy", "touchy", "sly", "proud", or "obstinate". And sometimes this ends in bloodshed."
-Amin Maalouf

"Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding."
-Mahatma Gandhi

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."
-Sydney J. Harris

"Religious wars are not caused by the fact that there is more than one religion, but by the spirit of intolerance... the spread of which can only be regarded as the total eclipse of human reason."
-Charles de Secondat

"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs... begins."
-Isaac Hayes

"Claiming that you have got the truth wrapped up does breed violence and intolerance."
-Timothy Radcliffe
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
Btw, don't you realize that using social pressures like ridicule and spreading hatred of certain groups or beliefs are not very rational ways to argue a point. If a person acts as though they agree, it was not because it was the most logical choice but they made the decision under duress. If you want to be as rational a person as possible, you should argue your point with logic and not insults.
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
Wow....I'll just say that you know nothing of me or my intelligence. Your statements still come from a standpoint of bigotry and stereotyping and you still make a bunch of claims that you really have no clue about. Therefor, all of your standpoints are just as irrational as you claim religion to be. You don't even know my beliefs or even have the slightest clue about why I believe them and yet you want to throw me into a bin of irrationality and lowered intelligence based on nothing except that you think that anyone who does not hold your views must somehow be deficient. You definitely have no room to talk about rationality or others' intelligence. Maybe when you mature a little, you'll learn about the value in tolerance for others. Good luck convincing many others with your current belittling and degrading attitude towards people who don't agree with you.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ian159 3 years ago
Ian159
TheEvilPolkadotHirakulaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: BoP on pro. Pro fails to provide. Have to give argument to Con. Otherwise a good debate.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
TheEvilPolkadotHirakulaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a tie I couldn't agree with either
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
TheEvilPolkadotHirakulaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Burden of proof on Pro. No argument made. Con gives reasons to the contrary with no real argument by pro.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
TheEvilPolkadotHirakulaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con points out the hyperbolic fallacy so I had to give him arguments.