The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Religion plays a negative role in our society.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,219 times Debate No: 36859
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Religion has probably existed for as long as our very conscience. It has allowed us to look at life with less fear, believe that we can somehow alter natural events, understand death and be able to deal with it properly. Since the dawn of human-kind there have been gods by whose principles we lived, and to whom we sent our prayers. Surely religion had a positive role when we arrived on the scene. We were frightened by everything around us, and we hardly knew anything about what was going on. Faith allowed us to ignore the things that scared us, and focus on surviving and creating a civilization. Under no pretense will any logical person ever deny that.

However useful religion might have been until just 600 to 2000 years ago, I am here to argument that it is not anymore. Physics, medicine, geology, cosmology, chemistry, biology, and so on, gave us perfectly sound explanations for what is going on around us. Things like death, disease, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc. do not frighten us anymore, because we are now able to understand them. While science has been pushing us forward, religion is dragging us back. The irrational beliefs that an almighty being/a number of almighty beings created everything there is, and is/are the explanation for everything science can not yet describe are ruining an awful lot of minds, that may otherwise one day find alien life, cures for various diseases, create interstellar means of transport, etc. The institutions of religion teach their youngsters never to look into any matter. The children are taught that if they do not understand something, they should look to god, and find meaning in him.

While this particular reassurance has been of great help in times when surviving was of the utmost importance, the human civilization has reached a stage in its evolution where its individuals are no longer required to fight for their survival, and the one of their species. We can now ask questions and find answers. We can look up at the night sky in awe, and dream of one day being able to understand how our universe works.

Religion used to be a great tool for us, but just as the steam engine replaced the water-powered wheels, we now have better tools for understanding the world. Religion is now fighting against these tools, trying to maintain its place in the human mind. This means that not only will a person INFECTED by religion be unable to use the modern tools they are presented with, but they are a danger to anyone around, threatening to keep them from moving forward, and dragging them back to a dark age of the mind.


religion is still has postive advantages to societiy.
First lets desmiss the science vs religion debatte
a lot of scientist are and religion onlu defair on three big questions:
_word creation
-the origin of specis
goods existens isnt important to scientist and they mostly not argue it exsitenz.

more un civil countries benefit from religion mostly from issac relions(islam,judaism and christianity)
countries in sud america are well influenced by religion countries were there is more than one religion .religion isnt fromany use.
proven in the middel east and india(cast sistem)
but you said:Religion plays a negative role in our society.
you didnt specifie what countrie so i just have to prof that it still has use some where in the word and I did in sud america religion works great.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, I will make mention of your attempt to counter my science vs. religion argument. The statement that a lot of scientists are religious is neither relevant nor correct. Censuses all over the world show that more than 90% of members of Academies of Science are atheists or agnostics. Even if that weren't the case, the personal beliefs of scientists have no effect whatsoever on how science and religion interact, since science is a concept, not a belief. Furthermore, scientists do not only disagree with religion on the matters you mentioned. Members of several Christian denominations refuse to vaccinate their children based on their religious beliefs, while others have strong opinions against blood transfusions or organ transplants. Finally, I would like to mention the fact that scientists are not taking a stand on abortion from that position, but rather based on their personal reckoning.

You also mentioned that god's existence is not important for scientists, and they rarely argue his existence. While the first part of your statement is true, I am afraid the second one isn't. Scientists would rather choose never to discuss a god, but seeing that most of the population strongly believes in a supernatural entity they feel they have the moral obligation to try and spread what they believe is the truth. Most scientists whose research came in conflict with religious beliefs (Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, just to mention a few of the most famous) have often discussed and disproved the existence of god.

The second part of your argument tried to prove that religion still has a positive effect today.
Firstly, you talked about countries strongly influenced by religion. Examples of such countries are the radical Islamic ones in the Middle East. The Talibans and other fundamentalist groups have a history of torturing and murdering people of other faiths and beliefs. I would not call that a positive influence. States where religion has a strong influence on the leaders often undergo civil wars, discrimination, genocide, etc..
You also mentioned the caste system in India, which you were correct to state that it relies on religion. This system is one of the worst models of society in the world, because members of the lowest caste do not have equal opportunities as members of the higher classes. They do not get the chance to proper education, housing, nutrition, and so on. Because of this system, India has a very high percentage of poverty, and hundreds of millions struggle with famine.

Finally, you talked about religion in South America. However, I do not understand why you think religion plays a positive role there. Many of the South American countries are poor, and the ones that are not (e.g. Argentina) are the ones in which religion plays a less important role than in the other ones. You still have to find an example where institutionalized religion, beyond the shadow of a doubt, played a positive role.


even if im am wrong in the whole science vs religion topic.
i have only to prof that religion has a positiv effect some where.
you have the burden of prof :Religion plays a negative role in our society.
you didnt said what society so i only have to prof that religion has apositive effect on on society.
religion has a positive effect on less developt societies that have more or less the same religion or juge majorites in a religion.
Religion has contributed a lot to the social, cultural and economic development of most first world societies. Religion has also been used as an economic tool to exploit the gullibility of the commoners in favor of the elite.Religion has been used as a tool to maintain political dominance of the world order. Religion has been one of the biggest obstructions to scientific development and success. Medical science has faced some of the most disgusting attacks from religious fanatics hiding behind facades of morality and righteousness.Religion is now and has always been the cheapest and most effective way of controlling the masses.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, I would like to clarify some things. I did not mention which society I was talking about since I was obviously making a case against religion in general. In both my rounds I argued that religion influences people in a negative manner (i.e. all of the inhabitants of this world).

I am afraid some of the information you included in your latest round is false, while the rest does nothing else but help my case, and not yours. I will begin with the falsehoods present in your second round.

You said that religion contributed a lot to the social, cultural and economic development of most first world countries. This is an absurd affirmation, as all of the current world powers are strong secular nations, in which religion and religious personalities do not have any implication whatsoever in how the state is run. Obvious examples are the United States of America (a country based on a clear and well defined secular constitution), the People's Republic of China (being a communist state, the Chinese government is strongly against institutionalized religion), Russia, Germany, and so on. Furthermore, the majority of citizens from the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are atheists, and these countries are well-known to guarantee some of the highest living standards in the world. Seeing how countries where religion plays a minor or non-existent role in their political systems tend to be the most socially, technologically, economically and political advanced ones, it becomes obvious that the absence of religion allows for all of that.

You also said that third world countries are helped by religion, which I also feel is a gross untruth. As I said in my previous round, countries in the Middle East or South America, India, etc. are crushed by political and economical instability, civil wars, genocide and discrimination of all kinds (gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.).

The rest of your argument was essentially an abstract of my first round. You asserted that religion is a tool that exploits the gullibility of the masses and it is used to maintain political dominance. That sounds an awful lot like the communist propaganda. Furthermore, you made my case by saying religion has been one of the biggest obstructions to scientific success. I could not agree more. My entire first argument was based on this very statement. Next, you said that medical science faced disgusting attacks from religious fanatics. And indeed, that is so. But do we take the side of bigots and not the one of medical doctors who save millions of lives every day?

Finally, you close your argument by saying that religion is a cheap and effective way of controlling the masses, statement with which I would like to close my case as well. The truth is, religion today is nothing more than that. It serves no other purpose, it does no good to society. Controlling the masses isn't the answer, educating them is, and religion does nothing else than fight against that.


leandro.sanchez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 5 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's FF. Spelling and grammar is obvious. Arguments to Pro for proving the resolution, whereas Con was talking about a dispute between science and religion, which had nothing to do with the topic.