Religion needs to go away, it is outdated.
Debate Rounds (3)
Firstly, as Pro is the instigator here I'd like to clarify that they have the BoP in fulfilling the resolution. Which is that "religion needs to go away" and is "no longer needed". For me to negate this resolution all I have to do is show that religion is in fact needed for some people and can be a net benefit for society.
Pro's basis for religion no longer being "needed" is the fact that it pre-dates modern science and was a way to explain life and things relating to it, however, it should be noted that religion serves a much wider purpose than this; and that both religion and science can accommodate each other if approached correctly. Instead of just *explaining* life, for many people religion actually gives a reason for life and motivate them to do what are essentially "positive" things. An example would be the vast number of religion based charities that are made and the missionary work that exists as a result of them. Organizations like "ChristianAid" would be a clear example, as well as other Jewish and Islamic charities that exist. Research also suggests that religious people are general more likely to donate money [1.] http://www.telegraph.co.uk....
In addition, religion has helped shape society massively. Much of the "basic" laws that exist today were influenced by religion and religious belief; as are much of the personal moral that people have. In all societies [both Eastern and Western] religion and culture have also existed together and complimented each other. In fact, a number of cultures in the world would not exist as we know them were it not directly for religion. As well as bringing people together and contributing to a generally more diverse society, religion can also be a financial benefit. A number of countries have a tourist industry that is primarily based on religion--with one main example being Israel. This country is significant to Jews, Christians and Muslims and attracts huge amounts of visitors for its historical status as the "Holy Land", which thus generates a lot income. Naturally people visiting book hotels, rent cars, eat at restaurants/etc. and spend money going to religious places of interest. Such as the Western Wall and Har Habayit [Temple Mount], the sea of Galilee, the ancient city of Kfhar Nahum [Capernaum], Tabgha, and Nazareth--which are the main places for Christians, there is also he River Euphrates, and many other holy sites. [2.] http://www.israel21c.org... [3.] http://www.goisrael.com...
So here we have religion being a positive thing, not only is it providing an industry but it's also making people become more culturally and historically enriched.
To conclude round one I'd also note that as of yet Pro has based his argument exclusively on personal opinion. For example, just because religion "fails in every aspect" to give him "answers", it doesn't necessarily mean that's the case for other people. Religion can give answers spiritually and financially, as I've already shown.
To close my argument for round two I would like to agree my debate is opinionated, the facts that I have produced speak rather loudly to support my opinion. Science would call it factual evidence. Religion does not produce any for its argument. people can be what ever they choose. They don't need religion to help them. They control their future not religion.
Pro is yet to affirm his resolution and demonstrate exactly how religion is not "needed". Because no definitions were provided in round one, I'll state once again that all I have to do is show that religion is in fact needed by some people and can be a benefit to society; which I've clearly outlined and used evidence for.
The financial benefits argument has been completely dropped by Pro, as has the argument of religious charity contribution. Both of these contentions prove that religion fulfills a purpose and that it's more than possible for it to be a positive thing.
Pro again [as with round one] argues that the primary reason for religion was that it was used to explain the existence of mankind and the entire universe--however, this isn't exactly the case. That was merely one thing that religion has given answers for. The primary purpose of religion was [and is] in fact to give provide people with moral teaching and an understanding of God. This is particularly correct with the examples of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The are many purposes that religion can fill; once again, there is also community and maintaining personal identity, and the connection to culture has continuously remained a deep one--this is just another contention that Pro has dropped and failed to respond to. The fact that religion has significantly helped shape the laws of our society has also been entirely ignored by Pro. If religion was that useless, why does still continue to remain relevant through our laws today? This is simply another area where religion has in fact been used in a productive way. I'll reiterate that three of our most basic laws are explicitly based on the Mosaic commandments. These include: Thou Shalt not Kill, Thou Shalt not Steal, and Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor--which can be taken in the context that people *can* be prosecuted or face legal action for such an offence depending on the circumstance[s].
So if religion was to "go way", something that Pro argues it should do, are laws that are inspired by religion to be eradicated to? This is exactly where the bias and lack of objectivity in Pros argument becomes even more apparent.
Before moving to the next round, I'd also note that Pro has made a number of accusations without including any sources to verify them whatsoever. Pro cannot just simply ask me, as Con, to Google what they're referring to. Rather it's entirely on them to provide a direct source and support each assertion that they put forward. The less than one percent statistic of atheist inmates is, thus far, not to be taken a valid contention.
As for religion in helping people, the simple answer is that if religious does help people [which is clearly the case, as it still exists] than Pro isn't in a position to state that they do not need it. Moreover, believing in a religion does in no way mean that people cannot "control their future". Once again, the only arguments here are personal opinions and unsupported claims.
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe.
It appears Con is proven wrong on her statement "The primary purpose of religion was [and is] in fact to give provide people with moral teaching and an understanding of God". Here is a reference too studies shown that non religious people have not only the same morals as religious people but actually have stronger emotional bonds. http://goo.gl.... http://goo.gl..., And "understanding of God", well which God? Thor, Zeus, Odin, Allah, Jesus, the list goes on and on. Over time there has been 1000's of religions. Christianity has 38,000 branches all with different beliefs, as you will find in my reference. Also there has been at least 1000 God's. And quoting Lawrence Krause "if you believe god your atheist 999 times".
Just because something has charity does not make it needed. Al Capon had charities during great depression which fed hundreds. Kim jung un of north korea has types of charities. But most the world doesn't want him around. That argument for charity does not mean people are incapable of helping others without religion. Actually that same money that's freely given up to religion is a much larger percent then donated to charity. In 2012, Ryan Cragun, associate professor of sociology at the University of Tampa, made a research paper and points out that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which Cragun is formerly a member, only gave .7 percent of its annual income to charity between 1985 and 2008. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, "gives about $1.75 billion in food aid to charities each year...almost double what the LDS church has given in the last 25 years," according to Cragun's research. That does not seem to support the Con at all. I advise Con to do their homework. Yes it is nice when it's written out for us to just believe (like religion tries to do) but if you don't search yourself that's plain gullible. So feel free to check on my research i would like people to find the answers for themselves.
Con seems stuck on her opinion of religion shaped laws. No examples? And like I argued in round 2 The only ones that are punishable laws are Don't kill and Don't Steel. Anyone person can understand these immoralities, without being told that these are wrong behaviors. There is no evidence for religion shaping these laws. Actually religion does not exactly practice Don't kill. Where does religion get mentioned in our laws today? It doesn't. How is it relevant? That's an attempt by con to avoid the fact that religion has left out major laws that we hold true now. It is a big deal to be for enslavement of people, beating/killing a spouse, raping a young women to declare marriage, Child molestation, etc. So since Con has completely ignored these horrible behaviors, they must not matter in there eyes. Reference: the old testament.
Here are the sources for my "Accusations". They are very interesting to look at. Atheists in prison: http://goo.gl..., most stolen/read book in the world: http://goo.gl...
Con says i have not included sources. I have now. Religion is very deceptive. They set it up for scaring people into not not questioning there teachings by threatening damnation. People we are better than this. We have build vehicle that travel underwater, fly in the atmosphere, and take us to space. God/religion was not responsible , humanity was.
I'd first note that a dictionary definition of the term "religion" is absolutely not needed; though perhaps Pro should have included the definition in round one if he/she thought it was necessary. Outlining any kind of definition[s] is round three only serves to show poor debate structure. So essentially, Pro has just wasted characters on something with no valid reason to and is simply playing at semantics in order to compensate for their own lack of argument.
In no way does this definition actually disprove or negate my own case--it merely gives a description of what religion is, if anything the definition actually affirms my own statement that religion is also there to "give people an understanding of God.", which corresponds easily with the last sentence of the definition. Most people would acknowledge that another purpose of religion and another thing that it fulfills is bringing people together in a shared belief[s].
Additionally I'd remind voters that Pro has only just started to use sources in the final round of the debate. Earlier assertions come him have still gone unsupported. And I provided a source in my opening argument that technically counters Pros own sources that proclaim secular people have the same morals and have stronger emotional bounds. However, there's other alternative sources that I can use that again contradict this.
Now onto Pros third point, my argument of religious charities was to demonstrate that another net benefit of religion. Pro essentially argues that these particular charities are not needed on the basis on them being religious, however, the billions of people in the world that specifically gain from these charities would naturally argue otherwise. Pro is evidently just not able to let go of his/her bias in acknowledging that religion [regardless of whether you believe] can be beneficial. Moreover, religious and spiritual practice can also have a number of psychological/health benefits [4.] http://spirituality.ucla.edu...
This article here goes into all of the economic benefits of religion, in fact the U.S government is said to profit 2.6 trillion a year from religion [5.] http://www.forbes.com...
So, if religion was made to "go way" as Pro outlines in his resolution, these kind of benefits would just not exist. Christmas [being an integral part of religion] would not be celebrated and thus not appear on the consumer market; which means a huge amount money for business, both small and big, would be lost.
This source includes other historical and societal benefits of religion [6.] http://www.biographyonline.net...
Research has also shown that religion can be linked to a happier and more fulfilling life, as is shown in this BBC article: [7.] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Alluding further to the benefits of religious practice, this IONA Institute again highlights exactly what they are: [8.] http://www.ionainstitute.ie...
Moving To Pros statement that I have somehow been "stuck" on the opinion that religion has shaped laws, their points of mine have received equal if not more attention. More importantly, religion has helped shaped the laws that we uphold today, thus showing that it's been of importance to society and that it does in fact have relevance. Pro incorrectly states that any person can understand that things like killing and stealing are "immoralities" and "wrong behaviours", but my question is: how so? There's in fact nothing to say that this is universally understood by people or things that they can somehow immediately understand as "wrong".
The point with religion is that it directly teaches people about these behaviours and the general consequences of them. Pro appears to be unaware of the fact that America itself was founded on religion by people who were escaping religious suppression in Europe. [9.] http://www.loc.gov...
Pro incorrectly states that only two things that are explicitly outlined as laws in the First Testament are punishable offenses, but "bearing false witness", especially when taken in the context of a court of Law, can absolutely be a punishable offense.
Pro attempts to argue that certain *things* have that he/she *claims* are a part of religion [keeping in mind that religion is an extremely broad sphere] are not associated with the laws we have now. However, things such as child molestation, enslaving/beating people, raping young women, etc. are not even religious law anyway. A look at some of the 613 Mitzvot--Mosaic commandments upheld by Judaism, easily affirms this. For example, you have laws such as:
"Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger." (Lev. 19:16)
"Not to cherish hatred in one's heart ." (Lev. 19:17)
"Not to leave a beast, that has fallen down beneath its burden, unaided." (Deut. 22:4)
"Not to afflict an orphan or a widow." (Ex 22:21)
"To leave the gleanings for the poor ." (Lev. 19:9)
"Not to refrain from maintaining a poor man and giving him what he needs ." (Deut. 15:7)
"To love the stranger." (Deut. 10:19)
"Not to wrong the stranger in buying or selling." (Ex. 22:20)
"To be fruitful and multiply." (Gen. 1:28)
"Not to demand from a poor man repayment of his debt, when the creditor knows that he cannot pay, nor press him." (Ex. 22:24)
"Not to break a vow." (Num. 30:3)
"Not to defraud." (Lev. 19:13)
"Not to covet what belongs to another." (Ex. 20:14)
So once again, Pro is entirely incorrect in his/her assumption that religious laws telling people to rape, molest, and kill, actually exist.
To summarize my concluding argument and the debate itself, Pro started off with a poor resolution and only really gave an argument that was more in-depth in the third round. Whereas I began with using clear arguments [that were sourced] and used the same method until round three. Overall Pro has failed to affirm his/her resolution and conclusively show how/why religion should "go away" and no longer be a part of society. Therefore, vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kasmic 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: rfd in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.