The Instigator
MarquisX
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
izbo10
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Religion only causes harm

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
MarquisX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,002 times Debate No: 18818
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (64)
Votes (6)

 

MarquisX

Con

"Religion is the tie that binds good and bad ideas together it is no single idea. The bind does no good. It only harms." This is what my opponent claims. http://www.debate.org... . I just want to see him back it up. The debate will be 4 rounds. No new arguments in the last round only rebuttals. As usual round 1 is for acceptance and clarification of terms only.

Definitions
Religion
1. re�li�gion noun a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Harm
1.harm noun physical injury or mental damage; hurt:
2. to do him bodily harm. moral injury; evil; wrong.
3.verb (used with object) to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt: to harm one's reputation.

I hope my opponent does realizes he carries the burden of proof
izbo10

Pro

Accepted, with the knowledge I will lose the vote, because the iq of the average ddo user is not that of the average rock.
Debate Round No. 1
MarquisX

Con

Maybe it will be easier to get votes if you didn't insult the voters

My opponent states that Religion has never done any good. So in order to prove my case I would just need to show a group of religious people doing good.

Here's an article from 2007 http://www.christianpost.com... that states that Christian charities made up nearly a quarter of the 100 best nonprofit groups for financial integrity in the United States, according to a leading nonprofit management magazine.

Charity is normally seen as a good this. So this is religion doing something good.

Look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
izbo10

Pro

"Religion is the tie that binds good and bad ideas together it is no single idea. The bind does no good. It only harms."

This is what I have to back up. My opponent defines religion as a set of beliefs, which means plural beliefs. Then goes on to give one belief. My point is that belief is not the religion. That is one belief. A belief that secular countries tend to be better at, charity.

So, where does religion come in? Well religion is not that individual action, but the tie that binds it to many harmful actions. When you get religious charity often times the charity is tied to their religion. They waste resources of charity on proselytizing and bringing bibles. In many cases such as missionary work in Africa the charity can go awfully wrong by bringing the bible to them. It inspires witch hunts and burnings and more.

Yet, I will digress. Let me show a set:

(charity, love, kill all who don't belong to your group, friendship)

Now yes you can take out each individual action and say it is good or bad, as well we should. We would say charity, love, friendship are all good and kill all who don't belong are bad(accept retard cerebral, who doesn't grasp morality). Now if we had a belief system that tied all these together as one(the set) group that was take it or leave it. That would be negative. The reason is it has good ideas and bad ideas, the grouping of ideas like that into a take all or none is inherently bad. It would be much better if we could take each idea on its own merit.

Yet, this is exactly what religions do, they tie good and bad ideas together and indoctrinate people into thinking we should take all the ideas, and buy them as a set rather then to take each idea on its own merits. At the very least religions promote tying a good idea to the idea that we should believe without evidence. That on its own corrupts the good idea and makes it lesser then it would have been without the religion.

In conclusion, Good ideas are better when not forcefully tied to bad ideas, like religion always does. So the end result is religion harms always by tying good ideas to bad ideas in take all or nothing package.
Debate Round No. 2
MarquisX

Con

Not sure if my opponent understands the debate. It appears that he believes that the religious only believe in charity and that doesn't make it that they are doing good. Unfortunately for him, the article gave is about people actively participating in charity. Which is good. So religious people,under the influence of their beliefs, are doing good.

But to humour him I'll play along. He gives a set (charity, love, kill all who don't belong to your group, friendship). He then says that religion forces us to take all those at the same time. Meaning every religious person is a murderer. I ask that my opponent explain that with 4.6 billion religious people worldwide (http://en.wikipedia.org...) why he even has a pulse?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and maybe he's talking about other bad ideas that religion does. But I would need him to elaborate in his next argument.

Btw I was thinking about what Geo said " As Christopher Hitchens rightly challenges, show me a moral action that a religious person can do that an Atheist cannot."
The only thing I can come up with is comfort during death. Especially if someone is dying. People want hope that they will see their loved ones again. Religion gives that. People don't want to believe that they will die and....that's it. They want to see what impact they left on their family and on the world. Atheism doesn't allow that.
izbo10

Pro

My opponent does not seem to grasp anything about this debate. When we talk about the idea of giving to charity, we have to look at what tying it to religion does vs allowing it to be an individual idea. It being associated with religion does harm, as it ties it to bad ideas.

My opponent missed the point of my example. It was not necessarily a set based on religion, but instead a sample set to show that bundling good and bad ideas turns the whole idea of bundling the ideas bad. That is what religion does. I have already argued at the very least religion ties these acts to the belief in unjustified nonsense claims. That by itself, makes the effect of religion bad, while the idea of giving to charity is good, and would be better if not attached to religion.

As for his example of comforting during death, it seems to me religion provides a cover for this, yet we would be better off accepting reality. What really useful does the idea of lying to oneself about any knowledge about after death do. It certainly doesn't help in accepting reality.
Debate Round No. 3
MarquisX

Con

I understand what you're saying. It just doesn't make any sense. It's supposed to be "Religion corrupts good things and make them bad" but as you have yet to provide any evidence of this it just comes out as "I don't care if Religion does good, them doing it makes it bad". You mentioned Witch Hunts in Africa. So I looked it up, and the most recent article( http://www.thedailybeast.com...) mentioning African witch hunts, doesn't mention Christian charities being at fault. If you have the evidence please present it. Otherwise please tell us why the millions of dollars raised by Christians each year are considered evil.

"My opponent missed the point of my example. It was not necessarily a set based on religion, but instead a sample set to show that bundling good and bad ideas turns the whole idea of bundling the ideas bad. That is what religion does. I have already argued at the very least religion ties these acts to the belief in unjustified nonsense claims. That by itself, makes the effect of religion bad, while the idea of giving tocharity is good, and would be better if not attached to religion."

So us believing in God, makes charity bad? Thats.......interesting. I asked that you provide me with a better example than this nonsense.

"As for his example of comforting during death,itseems tome religion provides a coverforthis, yetwe would be better off accepting reality. What really useful does the idea oflying tooneself about any knowledge about after death do. It certainly doesn't help in accepting reality."
Where is your evidence that is a lie? And if we accept that God is not real what usefulness is knowledge while dying?

My opponent says that religious does no good because it is tied to bad idea. If his logic were true I'd still win because under his logic,religion is neutral and causes no harm.
izbo10

Pro

My opponent continues to not grasp my position. He thinks I am saying that religion makes charity bad. I am not saying that at all, I am saying that attaching religion to charity makes it worse then it would have been if it had not been attached to nonsensical ideas. Remember religion as defined is a set of ideas, not just one.

My opponent continues to commit the fallacy of composition over and over again. He points out that charity is good and asserts that the set must be good. I on the other hand have argued that forcing charity into a set of other ideas that are both good and bad, is harmful because it would be better to allow charity to stand on its own merits.

I don't think my opponent is grasping this. Its this simple:

I give a college student a bag of presents, here is what is in the bag:

text books for his next set of classes, a e-card for the caf, and a uncaged angry gaboon viper.

If I asked if the present was overall good, it would be a no, as the uncaged gaboon viper being wrapped up in the deal makes it worse then it would have been had that gaboon viper not been included. Including unnecessary bad things into a package always brings it down compared to what it would have been if you allowed the person to accept each one on his own.
Debate Round No. 4
MarquisX

Con

As this is the last and final round, I will not make any new arguments but I must state some facts.

My opponent has accepted knowing he had the burden of proof

My opponent has FAILED to list one single bad act that religion had caused. I am not naive. I know religion has caused several atrocities. However I will not help my opponent beat me.

My opponent has FAILED to say what it is that religion does that causes charity to be bad.

My opponent has FAILED to show that the bundling of ideas makes everything bad instead of neutral. In fact as he didn't refute that point it should be taken as a CONCESSION on his part.

My opponent has FAILED to prove that witch hunts in Africa are started because someone brought a bible with them.

My opponent has FAILED to prove that the existence of a higher power is nonsense, and therefore bundling it with charity CAN NOT be considered a bad idea.

Due to my prior point
My opponent had FAILED to list one idea that of religion that instantly causes all other ideas to be bad.

I ask that you put aside your personal feelings towards my opponent when you cast your votes. He has insulted many people on this site but I don't want to win because people wanted to spite him. If you feel he mad the better arguments, than by all means vote for him. Thank you
izbo10

Pro

Ok, it has been clear the readers and my opponent are not able to understand my argument. I have established that religion is the set of beliefs(plural). Not a single idea. We must look at the impact of creating that set to see if religion is good.

As I have said religion is like creating a set of (text books, e-cards and and angry gaboon viper) and giving it as a gift. Or maybe a clearer example, take this salad: Lettuce, tomato, onions, bread crumbs, fat free ranch dressing, and rat poison. It would be retarded to argue that because the salad contains lettuce it is good for you. The overall impact of putting these things in a take all or nothing package is clearly bad. Religion never fails to add the rat poison, by adding gullibility to believe nonsense. My opponent is clearly trying to argue the salad is good because it adds lettuce. The only failure to this analogy is it would give religion too much credit with the amount of good ingredients, but it gets the point across.
Debate Round No. 5
64 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 2 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
No one said that Religion was charity, your argument was valid... for another debate. Next time read the resolution.
Posted by izbo10 2 years ago
izbo10
Sad that nobody comprehends what religion is. Religion is not charity. It is what ties charity to other concepts that are associated with religion.
Posted by Mark1068 2 years ago
Mark1068
Minuscule proportionately referring to number of instances/time in existence. I didn't mean minuscule in terms of the moral gravity of wrongs - there have been morally despicable wrongs. But, the number of occurrences over thousands of years is minuscule proportionately.

Sex abuse is not limited to the Catholic Church. Sex abuse cases in all religions are very close proportionately. The Catholic Church being the largest may have a higher number of cases, but other religions have similar percentages of cases.

The number of Catholic priests that are pedophiles is less than 1/2 of 1% (Johns Hopkins study results). This means over 99.5% of Catholic priests aren't yet public perception would judge it to be much higher due to unequal media coverage. The estimated percentage of pedophiles in the entire population is about 5%, regardless of occupation.
Posted by ryalaway79 2 years ago
ryalaway79
How old are you izbo10
Posted by izbo10 2 years ago
izbo10
See once again, this board shows to lack intellgence, my argument has been that religion makes sets of good and bad ideas. For me to show an individual idea would be wrong. I am arguing that religion by attaching its dogma to anything by default makes it worse. Not my fault the majority here are too stupid to grasp this.
Posted by ryalaway79 2 years ago
ryalaway79
by the way! Why didn't the pro side give any links supporting his ideas. I did not see any real facts or examples. It seem like he relied more on opinions and scenarios he came up with.
Posted by ryalaway79 2 years ago
ryalaway79
sorry about the bad grammar was in a hurry
Posted by ryalaway79 2 years ago
ryalaway79
It was not the challenged but it was an example. How do you prove that religion does not only do harm when you are not allowed to show examples how religion doing good deeds. I mean the Salvation army is christian founded and it is hard to argue that the don't do good. This would just be one example that would win the debate. Also hospitals, Martin Luther King Jr. (A preacher), most homeless shelters based in a religion, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Bob Marley, etc. All examples of how religion can cause good which disproves it only does harm. But if you are not allowed to give any examples to support your Argument it is going to be a very on sided debate. That is just my thoughts.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 2 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Charity is good (not challenged)
Religion may be a causal factor in the doing of charity (not challenged), then the statement 'Religion only causes harm' can not be true.

To argue that the net sum of a religion is negative does not deflect from this.
Posted by ryalaway79 2 years ago
ryalaway79
They used charity as an example but how you behaved and your style or lack there of debating is what I have a problem with stop making excuses
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
MarquisXizbo10Tied
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: Sad to see that the great Izbo10 thinks himself so highly when he can barely string a coherent thought. Conduct: obvious, Pro loves to throw aside comments and to fancy himself as some Shakespearean genius...as well as acting quite like a mechanic with his head puffed up..Arguments: Pro FAILED to demonstrate how religion made charity bad and loses points for wasting time and playing games....
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
MarquisXizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: somehow I understood thta, barely poor debate
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
MarquisXizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I lost track of what the issue being debated was after constant bickering, but I am smarter than a rock, so I gave conduct to con
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 2 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
MarquisXizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con clearly showed an example of religion as a causal factor in the doing of good, Pro failed to defeat this example. His argument that religion as a net package did net harm may have some truth but failed to directly address the resolution. The resolution was, religion only causes harm, not religion is more harmful than beneficial. Conduct to con for not behaving like a retarded brat, S and G fairly tied, arguments to con, only con provided sources.
Vote Placed by GWindeknecht1 2 years ago
GWindeknecht1
MarquisXizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con had better sources as well as a stronger final statement. Pro didn't elaborate on the "gaboon viper of religion", so I gave win to Con.
Vote Placed by Zetsubou 2 years ago
Zetsubou
MarquisXizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: A lot of darting on Pro's part. He did not affirmed his position AT ALL. Con's argument wasn't great but was more than enough to beat nothing. Izbo10 lost the conduct vote for not debating and for being obtuse. Comments like in R1 don't help either.