Religion only brings negative things to the world.
Debate Rounds (5)
I would like to focus mainly to the religion surrounding the bible.
Your resolution argues that "religion (can) only bring(s) negative things to the world."
Yet you state the following:
#1. "...in my perspective it's mostly a negative influence since religion"
Your perspective doesn't comply with what you've stated in your resolution which means it's contradictory, thus unreliable.
#2:"For example, atheists can have hope, do good, be happy etc without a God"
Doesn't mean religion cannot or doesn't do any good. For example, religion is responsible for wide-spread cooperation across the globe. 
#3:"It seems that the only thing we actually gain from religion is negative things since we don't need religion for any of the good things"
What seems to me, is that that statement is factually incorrect which may or may not be true until I state this: Religion can have a positive influence as it inspires people to higher ideals of morality with mention of important historical figures such as Mother theresa. 
#4: "Name 1 good thing we can't do without religion."
It is logically impossible to donate to a charitable Christian organization without religion.
Thus, I've refutted your resolution.
2. "Doesn't mean religion cannot or doesn't do any good." - Never said otherwise.
"For example, religion is responsible for wide-spread cooperation across the globe." - Since the majority of the population has been theists so far, they will obviously have been responsible to most wide-spead cooperation across the world, but if you do a little research you will find that a whole lot of atheists based cooperations like charities (cross-nation) are popping up everywhere. So yes, if you have 100 good people, 99 theists and 1 atheists, then obviously it would look like the theist do more good because they are the majority. However that doesn't mean that the atheists are any less good, and you do not need religion to do good things and be a good person. We don't need religion to do good things, we need good people. But religion is often used as an excuse or reason or motivation to do bad things.
3. Again, never said it didn't bring good things.
"Religion can have a positive influence as it inspires people to higher ideals of morality with mention of important historical figures such as Mother Theresa." You don't need religion for morals and you don't need religious figures to have a positive influence, inspire people or teach them morals. I look up to historical figures like Einstein, Newton, Churchill, Copernicus, Kant, Nietzsche etc. They are all people who inspire me and make me dream and think and wonder and wanting to know more. But the most influential people are my teachers, my parents and my grandmother who told me stories about the time she fought the nazis as part of a resistance group. Listening to her telling stories about how she helped jews flea the country over the water, smuggling messages in her booths and encountering nazis were the most inspirational moments in my life. Listening to my teachers was inspiring and motivating, and them telling me that I would get far and that I was bright and strong and could do a lot of incredible things if I put some work and effort into it was what motivated me to get an education and do good things and teach others about the wonders of the universe. Helping my parents out on their farm is what made me volunteer at a cat shelter after I moved into the city and my two aunts who were nurses was the people who inspired me to donate blood.
4. Our churches are much different from the ones in the us, but I donate about $150 dollars to the church every year to go to a trip for the children to have an adventure. It has nothing to do with religion, it's about the kids and I know it's for a good cause. So no, being an atheists doesn't mean that I can't team up with the theists in our neighbourhood to do some good, but luckily our churches are not like yours at all. A lot of the people who belong to the church call themselves christian but doesn't believe in god or jesus or anything in the bible as anything literal, they do it for the stories, the tradition and for the community. Unfortunately it's not like that everywhere. And you do realise that there are a whole lot of charitable organisations that are atheists or non-religious, right? If an atheists don't wanna donate to a religious group it's really not that hard to find a non religious organisation, and that goes for pretty much everywhere in the world. You can easily find a list of the biggest atheists charity organisations online.
Your links still don't disprove me, I never said there weren't good I only said that there were bad. It might have been necessary to bring people together in the past, but we don't need that anymore. It might have been good to teach people things that could be dangerous, like eating pork could kill you because of bacteria and handy stuff like that, but we know that know and don't need religion to tell us that. Religion was good, now it's outdated and harmful. And since we don't need religion to be good, the good of the theists and the good of the atheists "cancel each other out" and all we are left with are people doing bad things in the name of religion which might be heavily reduced if we got rid of religion and people who are just bad.
So, the first link didn't say anything I haven't said myself and the second link is broken.
I'm afraid you haven't quite refutted my resolution since you either misunderstood or didn't really think your answers through. You haven't proven me wrong yet. And I would like to add that English is my third language, I apologise for my misspellings but it is only to be expected, no need to point it out.
I hope I made myself more clear this time and there won't be too many misunderstandings in your next argument.
Don't think this debate needs 5 rounds.
Here go my arguments:
1. It doesn't. You state in your resolution that "religion only brings negative things to the world", which you disagree with when you state "...in my perspective it's mostly a negative influence". If religion only brings negative things to the world, it's influence would be wholly negative, not even slightly positive or non-negative. Your resolution argues for an absolute, while you argue otherwise in your rounds, thus revealing the contradiction and the unreliabity of your sources.
2. Someone in the comments did mention this. Your resolution argues that religion can't possibly bring anything non-negative in the world, which you contradict again with your statements. Take note, you're arguing for an absolute, that is, religion only brings negative things to the world, and not "religion has more negative influence on the world". Argue accordingly.
"...if you have 100 good people, 99 theists and 1 atheists, then obviously it would look like the theist do more good because they are the majority"
Again, this has absolutely no bearing on religion having a slightly positive influence on the world, which you have admitted (a contradiction again) making my task easier. You're not arguing "non-religious people have a more positive influence on the world than religious people", which is something I agree with.
3. Basically the same blabber again, so I won't go about marking your contradictions yet again, seeing as I have to attend to a wonderful job, and a wonderful (Christian) wife.
" I look up to historical figures like Einstein, Newton, Churchill, Copernicus, Kant, Nietzsche etc. They are all people who inspire me and make me dream and think and wonder and wanting to know more."
So do I. I also look up the my beer-mates, when my wife's unwilling to have sex with me. What's your point?
4. "So no, being an atheists doesn't mean that I can't team up with the theists in our neighbourhood to do some good."
Okay. So? You go do that, doesn't mean those Christian Churches can't congregate your neighbourhood peeps to a mass and help them in some way.
"You can easily find a list of the biggest atheists charity organisations online."
I can also find you a list of the best hookers in town.
"Your links still don't disprove me"
They do. Unless, you could make a case arguing how 'religion can only bring negative things to the world.'
Here's the second link, by the way:
My hope is it is abundantly clear to you, what my 'misunderstanding' has been.
By the way, I don't mind your language, since it's extremely easy to understand you.
When I say they only bring negative things to this world, I mean that the positive things don't need religion to happen, but some of the negative things do like e.g. killing the people the bible tells you to kill, rape or hold slaves etc.
Imagine a party where everyone brought a good mood, but you also brought a cake - being the only one who could actually bake. You could ague that the only thing anyone actually brought was that cake since the good mood was just normal, it was the default. But the cake stands out. The cake is there because you know how to bake. Being a good person is how we're supposed to be, it's the default, it's how we are mostly brought up to be. But religion kinda messes that up because it gives us reason and justification to do bad things.
2. Again, you shouldn't take the resolution out of context. Just like many religious don't like people taking quotes from their books out of context. I can see how one would think that I said religion never brings any good just by looking at the title, but you have to look at my explanation to see that the good is being canceled out as explained above. You can keep going on this little detail, but there is really no point in having a debate if you don't look at what I'm actually saying. I'm saying that religion only brings bad because there is no need for religion in the good it gives. It's not a contradiction if you take my initial statement at put it against the explanation of the statement, that makes no sense. You have to take it all as one.
3. How about you look at what you said - "Religion can have a positive influence as it inspires people to higher ideals of morality with mention of important historical figures such as Mother Theresa.". Sure you can look up to Mother Teresa, but I have already stated that you don't need religious inspiration to do good, you just need inspiration. Why pick a religious woman who did some good over the thousands of other people who did good that didn't involve religion? Point is, sure, religion has good people on their side but they didn't need the religion to do those things. They just needed to be good people.
4. It seems like you don't even know how to argue against it, or did you just not get my point? I was proving everything I stated above and disproving your statement that "It is logically impossible to donate to a charitable Christian organization without religion.".
5. No it doesn't. I never stated it does absolutely no good, I did quite the opposite. If you cared to take my initial statement in context you will see that the thing I write just after it is "Religious people does good things, and so do atheists.". It's not a contradiction, it's a conclusion and if you do not understand my explanation then you can't argue against it. You are like a broken record arguing against something you don't seen to get. You only argue against half a sentence. Your links shows that religion is inspirational - but there are a thousand other things that can be inspirational to doing good without all the bad that follows. The act of doing good is simply because you are a good person, because you were inspired by something (anything) good. It's completely separate from religion. It is a fact that religion has been the cause or the motivation for thousands of people being killed etc. and if you actually follow the bible or the Quran then you will do an awful lot of bad things. And people do. But atheists don't have any reason at all to do bad things unless they are bad people. That's the whole point.
There is a big difference between "religion can only bring negative things to the world" and "Religion only brings negative things to the world.". You seem to think you're smart so it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out that difference, and in the meanwhile please stop twisting my words, at least I have the courtesy to quote you directly and not twist the words. There was a reason for my choice of word and again, read the damn explanation cause this is getting ridiculous.
If you keep saying that I contradict myself, then try reading what I'm actually writing. You said it was easy to read, yet you don't seem to get my point. The initial statement isn't supposed to be taken out of context, you have to read my explanation for it to make sense, clearly.
And if you didn't wanted to go for 5 rounds then you shouldn't have taken up the debate. If you don't read and understand what I'm actually saying then it clearly does need that amount of rounds.
Hello, again. Let's see what you've argued there.
You've argued that since religion is one the reasons why the religious lot do bad things we only gain negative things from the whole of religion. I may be a bit blind-sighted, but I don't see anything relevant between your premise and your conclusion. Yes, religion is a reason why religious people would do bad things (obviously), but does that mean we only have to gain negative things from religion? Makes no logical sense.
Also, how exactly do atheists "not doing bad stuff" pertain to this debate at all? We're arguing about the consequences of religion, atheists not doing bad stuff doesn't equate to religious people doing good or bad. There's simply no relation between the two.
"...religion gives us a reason to do bad things, a justification and a passion to do it, which is bad"
So, according to you religion justifies doing bad things and may even promote immoral behaviours, which is "bad". Help me out here, how exactly does that mean it cannot have a non-negative influence on the world? Any hypocritical organisation with a shrewd case of half-morality, which promotes violence on one hand may help other people in some way, and commit a non-negative deed - which some Churches in fact do.
You don't see your local priest chanting abuses at every other passerby, do ya?
"When I say they only bring negative things to this world, I mean that the positive things don't need religion to happen, but some of the negative things do..."
"I'm saying that religion only brings bad because there is no need for religion in the good it gives."
What you mean to say here - and this is important - is that the positive things religion promotes 'may' not require religion because of the concept of human morality.  However, religion helps society in many ways which wouldn't happen with the same intensity as without it - congregating members of a society, offering aid to those who seek it, making society happier in general.  This proves that religion brings non-negative things to the society regardless of the negative attitudes it promotes.
Towards your second point. Before we explore this point, let's see what your resolution actually states.
"Religion only brings negative things to the world."
Here's how you answer that: "No it doesn't. I never stated it does absolutely no good, I did quite the opposite." (Ahem.)
Jesus, why don't I start a debate with the resolution, "Theists are total mad", and support this with arguments like "chocolates are delicious" or relating a bit towards your case, "theists aren't totally mad"?
You have to make your explanations comply with your resolution and not any other way around.
"Point is, sure, religion has good people on their side but they didn't need the religion to do those things. They just needed to be good people."
This isn't an established fact, I'm afraid. It's a shot in the dark to guesstimate that what people's attitudes may have been like without certain circumstances. Would you know whether a certain priest who patronised children in the name of their god, would have done so without their religion?
"I was proving everything I stated above and disproving your statement that "It is logically impossible to donate to a charitable Christian organization without religion."
By illustrating the good deeds of atheists? Try explaining the whole point once again, as I didn't understand the full extent of your point very well, it seems.
" ... there are a thousand other things that can be inspirational to doing good without all the bad that follows."
Give your resolution a hard look. A very very hard one. It wouldn't stand, even if 99 percentage of religious influence was negative, and only a paltry percent positive which is why I accepted the debate. So, 'all the bad that follows' isn't really in the picture, seeing that we're not arguing whether religion should exist, or over it's potential alternatives.
"But atheists don't have any reason at all to do bad things unless they are bad people. That's the whole point."
That's the Whole point? Well, there's a flaw there. How do atheists affect religious influence or it's consequences at all? Did the resolution change when I wasn't looking?
"There is a big difference between "religion can only bring negative things to the world" and "Religion only brings negative things to the world.""
Ah, I see. The difference is indeed epically vast.
One's a potential statement, while the other's a factual statement.
I really don't see how this difference comes to your rescue, however.
Oh, and rest assured I have no intention of twisting your words seeing that my religious morals keeps me from it. (Positive religious influence, anyone?) I'm just reading your words for what they are. Is that so bad?
Sure, then. I don't mind 5 rounds, but was of the opinion that 5 rounds weren't really necessary. Big difference.
 Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals | Psychology Today
I hope you will some day be free of your religious chains, you should read what I've written again maybe you'll get it someday.
I have to say this was absolutely unexpected, considering the accusations you've made of me.
"... you clearly aren't listening... refuses to read what I'm saying."
Am I arguing pigeons have cocks? To come up with the arguments I did, I was required to read and assess your arguments without which I couldn't come up with a bull.
"...you can't understand what I'm saying"
"I hope you will some day be free of your religious chains, you should read what I've written again maybe you'll get it someday."
Getting a little personal, are we? Too bad I'm not religious, myself.
Maybe you should read what you've written again, and see that this deviation was completely unecessary.
One would think by the fourth round you'd be ready to wrap up your arguments.
As a former policeman, I'd suggest making a case, and not baseless accusations.
Speceus forfeited this round.
NobodyMove forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years 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:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: 1) Pro's arguments are not reflecting the topic. 2) Con made too much formatting.
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.