The Instigator
MidnightSpecial
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Lacan
Con (against)
Winning
70 Points

Religion should be abolished.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,377 times Debate No: 697
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (29)

 

MidnightSpecial

Pro

I'd like to start a debate on the merits of religion. My position that religion is not only an ignorant idea but also it is a dangerous entity to embrace.

Religion encourages hatred of other races, silences dissent, stunts science, and genocide. By rejecting the notion of religion we can solve for a substantial cause for the justifications of these problems.

Religion also indoctrinates youth which is dangerous because it does not allow for children to get the facts of this world and leads to ignorant adults.

** Note to Voters** Most people vote on the subject of the debate and not actually the content. So I'm asking for all voters to provide a reason for their vote via a comment on this debate thread.
Lacan

Con

First, you may be happy to know I HATE religion.

But i support people right to it.

This argument is simple, abolishing something opens the floodgates for
the abolition of almost anything, this undermines liberty and makes fascism inevitable.

"I hate what your saying, but i'll defend with my life your right to say it"
Voltaire

This is the basis of free speach, if you undermine this concept you may
as well be saying free speech should not exist. This is clearly not a position anyone wants to see themselves in, one step forward, 500 years back.

Want to

1. Ban government subsidies to churches? GO FOR IT!
2. Teach evolution as true? GOOD IDEA!
3. Enforce separation of church and state? WHY NOT!
4. Ban Religion? HELL NO!

Also, banning religion forces it to go underground and breed fanaticism (rome is the example). When people feel their way of life threatened they become violent and with so many powerful religious people this would undermine the stability of nations, which is bad.

In theory, it sounds nice but religion is a right.

"Religion is the opiate of the people"
Karl Marx.
Debate Round No. 1
MidnightSpecial

Pro

Okay I'll go line by line:

On you first argument: "abolishing something opens the floodgates for the abolition of almost anything"
1) That argument is empirically denied. Governments before have taken away so called "rights" before but very few governments have ever abolished all rights. Take for example, even the in the most secularized governments, such as the Scandinavian governments, a massive amount of rights still exist for the people.

2) The Scandinavians also prove that fascism is not inevitable.

On your Voltaire quote: Voltaire was basically an atheist. Since he would have been censored by the absolutist French governments if he had come out and said so, he chose to give himself the title of "deist." Although advocating personal freedom he pushed for religion to be thrown out of government and advocated the use of reason in public life.

I do not advocate an abolishing free speech in this nation. Religion has empirically been the worst violates of this fundamental right. Look to the philosophes, like Voltaire, for proof of this.

On you "religion will go underground" argument:
1) Religion did not have to go underground in Italy. The pope was very much active and a collaborator with the fascist powers until he saw them as the losers in the war, then he changed his mind.

2) Religion going underground does not bread fascism, this is empirically denied. If anything, religion encourages fascism, which turns you argument. When you look at history it has been the religions leaders, not secular ones, who mostly side with the fascists.

On your final argument: Religion is a right. There is the old say "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Religion has done nothing but hamper human civilization from the beginning. It has empirically shown that it justifies murder, genocide, terrorism (both Muslim and Judeo-Christian).
Lacan

Con

1. Your examples don't assume the sheer enormity of a move like BANNING religion. Religion is a major part of life for many people, if the government has power to take this way of life away then they can throw me in jail for being a communist. Secular governments have not BANNED religion, these things are not in the same, what you advocate making religion illegal this is currently not done ANYWHERE in the world.

2. Religion was not banned. When the government has power over beliefs facism is inevitable, you effectively drop this.

3. What Volt is saying is even when he dosen't agree he thinks people have the right to say and advocate things. This is what FREE speech and expression mean. Just because I'm an ashiest dosen't stop me from saying people should have religion.

4. Religion can't supress speech when its not an enforceable law.

In Italy the fascists did not abolish religion they used it to defend their cause. In Rome when being Catholic was minority and illegal they still practiced underground. This dosen't lead to fascism, it means...

BANNING RELIGION DOESN'T MAKE RELIGION GO AWAY, IT MAKES IT GO UNDERGROUND AND MAKES ALL OF YOUR IMPACTS INEVITABLE!

This is in caps because its a reason to vote and it turns the case. In a world where banning religion dosen't make religion go away there is no longer a reason for taking such action as the problem it seeks to solve remains afterword. If banning religion dosen't solve, a risk of my impacts mean you vote con.

Religion is not inherently violent. Capitalism creates poverty, does this mean it can't also make everyone rich? No. Religion could make everyone happy, or could be a bad thing, it's not inherently good or bad, it depends on the people who worship it. This means religion is a right, and it will not go away just by banning it. The best way to solve is to make the government become more secular, its the only way to solve.

Banning religion would not solve religion and would cause violence in itself. The Evangelicals would not take an action like that lightly.
Debate Round No. 2
MidnightSpecial

Pro

MidnightSpecial forfeited this round.
Lacan

Con

Ok, so in light of no argument you are forced to agree...

Abolishing religion dosen't make it go away..(All his impacts inevitable)

Government action in the matter of religion is overstepping its bounds = fascism.

People have a right to religion.

Vote con seeing as pro drops all these arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
MidnightSpecial

Pro

MidnightSpecial forfeited this round.
Lacan

Con

This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.

The outcome should be rather clear.
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
Religion is almost inevitably bad alex, look at history.
Posted by alexthemoderate 9 years ago
alexthemoderate
Religion isn't something that can be banned or destroyed. It is someone's belief in a certain approach to life. Saying that you want to destroy religion is like saying you want to destroy philosophy, or perhaps even thinking. If you mean that you want to eliminate organized religion, than that is something that you could actually argue, though I would disagree with you one the basis of the Bill of Rights stating that we have a freedom to assemble.

It sounds like you want to ban religion because you don't like it. You sound very angry. That's sad to see because religion can be a wonderful thing. I believe in a strict separation of church and state, but our country was founded on the idea that you could believe what you wanted and practice a religion of your own choice with very few exceptions.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free practice thereof"
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Religion is a personal choice, and is simply structured belief system usually with an all powerful or immortal entity/ies which govern that system. The choice of saying your values and morals are derived from religion is no different than assigning your beliefs to any other belief system- including atheism. Ban religion, ban organized ideology in any form.
Posted by roman.legion 9 years ago
roman.legion
Midnight, you got owned...
Posted by aaroncoleman 9 years ago
aaroncoleman
midnight special,

I cannot believe i am actually responding to your absurd argument. You truly are an idiot...no offense, or maybe just a little offense.
Posted by Lydie 9 years ago
Lydie
I agree...
and like you said, religion is NOT the cause. Prejudice against the unknown and pride for your own culture and way of thinking would exist even if religion didn´t, and of course back in the day...and today, men with power like to use institutions to their advantage.

The fascenating and indisposible thing about religion is that it gets down to how people live their lives. And that is what people are most touchy about. That´s were the power of religion lies too...
It is the essence of the largest concept humans can comprehend...their experience on earth. And our choice of how to spend that time is an essential definition of our lives and ourselves. People identify their lives and identities and justice with religion. That´s why people are willing to die for it. And kill.
People obviously have a very hard time letting go of it too. That´s why today, when religion no longer explains rational things to us, it exists. Because of the element of religion that is bonding. That touches the intangible.

God I want to study philosophy of religion!
Posted by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
Religion has been the cause of more wars, death and destrution than anything else. If anything it has been a double edged sword. Religion itself is not to blame however. The people who interpret these religions for their own agendas are the cause. Christianity has the bible. The new testament has Jesus telling people to love, be tolerant, be peaceful, obey the 10 commandments, and be compassionate EVEN TO ENEMIES. Yet somehow religion has been scued and distorted by some to do exactly to opposite. So I don't blame religion, I blame mankind and their warped ways of interpretation of religion. If people actually followed what christianity says the world would be a WAY different place. (I speak only of Christianity as I know almost nothing of other religions.)
Posted by AdamCW12 9 years ago
AdamCW12
Con wins the round easy because you cant ban somthing thats been around since the dawn of time....
Posted by WaximusMaximus 9 years ago
WaximusMaximus
While institutionalized religion has caused much strife in the world RELIGION is not FAITH.

Mere faith in some sort of God, gods, deities, what have you is not in and of itself an evil. The evil comes from the declaration that my religion is right, yours is wrong and I will use force to destroy you and your religion.

Faith on the flip side of the coin is a personal belief and in a day when personal beliefs are regulated all rights have died.
Posted by Felix_Karloff 9 years ago
Felix_Karloff
"Religion is what many societies and ancient civilizations were built on.

How can you say that it should be abolished?

Some people even think that religion makes people who they are. You cannot abolish religion. That would be foolish."

-First of all, the origins of society and civilization is not religion. The whole field of study called anthropology clearly shows this. The earliest societies where based upon nomadic practices where groups of people would follow foodsources around, ie economics.
-"Foolish" is precisely what your argument is. All throughout history the dominant ideologies have asserted their universallity. What any serious thinker must understand is that religion is a product of history and likewise will fall back into history.
-"Some people even think that religion makes them who they are"- much like in Slave society human property created made slaves and slaveowners who they were. It is irrelevant whether some people value religion to a greater or lesser extent than others, the important thing is the social function of religion as a tool for the enforcement of conservative belief structures.
-The only argument that holds any water against abolition of religion is "Lacan"'s. People might have a set of convictions but that does not mean they will not be the source of rebellions, antagonisms, or the subject of private disdain.
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chickenman 9 years ago
Chickenman
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by iam413x 9 years ago
iam413x
MidnightSpecialLacanTied
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:30