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

Religions do the world more bad than good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 71868
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




You can propose the rules you want, as long as you are serious.
To start off: I am not an atheist, I am a pantheist and mean no offense to anyone. This is just arguing.


I accept. As maker of the rules I propose that the burden of proof shall be shared, and that the debate should take this format:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3, 4, 5: Rebuttals

Pro will affirm that "religions will do more bad than good in the world" and I will negate it.

I await Pro's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate.

So, I will start with this link here:
If you go to that site, you will see many quotations from the bible about how homosexuals should be put to death. Since I respect homosexuals and think they are natural (here is a link to sustain my argument: ) I obviously can't accept this.
As you can see, a religious book is punishing something natural with death. This leads to discrimination from true bible believers, and is obviously unacceptable. This is a way in which religion is damaging society.
Take, for example, the Islamic State. No matter how wrong their interpretation is, it is still an interpretation, and wouldn't exist without the religion in the first place. The crusades are another example; they put thousands to death just to get their holy city back.
Moving on, some say religions build morals, but I disagree. Buddhism, which, if you look closely is not a religion, but a philosophy, has morals even without the belief in god (and no Buda was not a god). Besides, what kind of morals does religion sustain in the first place? Back to the first link, Christianity is saying something natural is immoral, even though it obviously isn't. (Here is a link on things the christian god did that I find unacceptable [as well as bible mistakes]: )
And just because someone is not religious, doesn't mean that person doesn't love or care about others, so obviously religions are unnecessary to achieve morality.
I could continues but have decided to continue gradually in my other rounds after I see what you are aiming at.

Thank you again.


Per rules stated in Round 2, I will present my own arguments and not yet respond to my opponent's contentions.

C1) Charity

Throughout history, religion has been the propelling factor behind charity and helping others. It motivates people to contribute to humanitarian efforts and issues such as world hunger, poverty, and abuse. Many Christians have decided to "take up the cross" by looking after "the poor, their widows and orphans, their sick and dying" as the Bible asks of them. The first hospitals in the West were built by them, and Christian leaders are the founders of many charities around the world, such as the Kiwanis Club, the Rotary Club, and the YMCA. Vincent de Paul[1] and Mother Teresa[2], both of whom were religious, dedicated their lives to the service of the poor and sick.

Matthew 19:21 states, "if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." Religious people have an obligation to make society better and to contribute to others who are less fortunate than themselves. The Salvation Army's eleven articles of faith are religious beliefs[3]. Had religion not existed, world charities would have not been where they are today: helping millions of people.

C2) Inspiration

Some of the most enriched and genius writers, artists, musicians, architects, and scholars in all of humanity's history have been inspired because of religion. The beautiful Catholic cathedrals of Europe display a unique kind of art that has stood for hundreds of years, from the medieval periods and earlier. Galileo, Copernicus, Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, and many others all saw their scientific vocation in distinctively Christian terms. Holidays such as Christmas and Easter would not be around today had it not been for religion.

Kepler, a German astronomer who discovered the three laws that govern orbital mortion, said, "I wanted to become a theologian; for a long time I was restless. Now, however, behold how through my effort God is being celebrated through astronomy"[4]. Based on their deep Christian faith and desire to learn of the mysteries of the divine, Kepler and other religious scientists ended up making impacting scientific discoveries.

C3) Moral Progress

Religion helps people to have faith to keep moving forward, such as with alcoholics, criminals, and the depressed. The anti-slavery movements of America and England both began with Christians who believed slavery to be morally wrong and something that ought to be rid of. William Wilberforce was driven by Christian convictions in the late 1700's to begin the anti-slavery movement[5] that would eventually have slavery abolished in England by 1833 where it would spread to America and end it there as well. Many morals and laws of modern society were influenced by Christian and Jewish teachings.

Thomas Jefferson's proposition that all men are created equal was a "self-evident" truth and a gift from God, that we are all endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. This truth was used to propel the First and Second Great Awakenings of America that led to freedom and equality of rights for former slaves, women, minorities, etc. The motives of Martin Luther King Jr. are a strong echo of Christianity, that human worth is assessed not through power and possessions but through virtue that has already been integrated into our daily lives.

Religion has benefitted the world in many major ways, such as an abundance of charitable organizations, advances in science, art, and music, and a moral progression that led to the end of slavery and the values of equality being established throughout society.

Debate Round No. 2


I will adress your points individually.
C1- one can do charity without religion, and many religion stitutions in Africa for example try not only helping them but imposing their faith upon them, so in this case, not charity, just interest.
C2- there are just as many people not inspired by religion (Freud, Benjamin Franklin, Einstein (pantheist), Napoleon)
C3- you can believe in a god or heaven and not in religion. Also, it doesn't make sense that all these horrible laws and orders and the image of hell tranquilizes people.
To restate my points:
-Religions have been base to wars like the Crusades and the Islamic State;
-Religions discriminate women, gays and non-believers in a world where discrimination is prohibited;
-Religion is not needed to have morals or a purpose;
-Religions terorrize people with the image of heel and inpurity.
Just name a few.
Also, anyone who really wants to see why religion does suck, see this link, which talks about christianity in specific:


For Round 3 I shall respond to my opponent's objections and refutations.


R1) Homosexuality

Most Christians today believe that as Christ returned, the Mosaic Law was fulfilled and no longer needed, so many of the laws of the time are much different now than they were then. The verses can be interpreted many different ways and are disputed based on varying translations, but to conclude that hate towards homosexuals have arisen mostly because of religion is indeed false. The misinterpretation of something is the fault of the interpreter, not the religion. If I were to interpret Darwin's theory of evolution as justification for eradicating the weak humans in order to preserve the strong ones (the Nazis relied on this belief during the Holocaust), would that be Darwin's fault or my own? Clearly it would be my own and the fault of extreme thinking.

R2) Religious Wars

This argument is largely exaggerated as it ignores other motives for wars and focuses on religion alone. The clash between the Sunnis and Shia is deeply rooted contention of possession of land and socioeconomic disputes. The fight is between one group that is in league with the secular despot Saddam Hussein who ruled Iraq for a quarter century and another group, the Shiite majority, that is currently in power. These conflicts have very little to do with religion and can be applied to nearly every major dispute existent today. Although there are some Islamic radicals, it is mostly the fault of extremism, not religion, that has fueled these regimes.

There is no warrant for considering the Crusades a world crime of any sort. The Christians fought to protect and defend Europe from Muslim rule, for if they hadn't then all of Europe would have likely been conquered as part of the Islamic Empire. As European Christians, they could not allow this invasion of sorts to happen, so it was in the best of their interests to defend their homes and their families from what they genuinely believed to be a threat.

Furthermore, religion was not intended to invoke war. Christ's teachings are those of a peacemaker and opposed to violence and persecution. It does not promote conflict of any sort, which shows that those who have committed violence in the name of Christianity were in the wrong. The spirit of this religion is to "judge not that you may be not judged".

"one can do charity without religion, and many religion stitutions in Africa for example try not only helping them but imposing their faith upon them, so in this case, not charity, just interest."

Many charities of today have come into existence because of religion and wouldn't have helped millions of people without religious convictions towards helping the poor. It is because of teachings from spiritual leaders that have enabled a charitable attidue to take place among so many. Obviously charities don't have to be fueled by religion, but many have and the world has benefitted immensely because of it.

"there are just as many people not inspired by religion (Freud, Benjamin Franklin, Einstein (pantheist), Napoleon)"

So? This does not subtract from the fact that religion has inspired a huge amount of scientists, philosophers, astronomers, etc to do what they did to help us reach where we are today with the knowledge and technology that we possess. Had it not been for religion, we could still be in the medieval age.

"you can believe in a god or heaven and not in religion. Also, it doesn't make sense that all these horrible laws and orders and the image of hell tranquilizes people."

Having spiritual and religious beliefs yet not belonging to an organized religion has no relevancer whatsoever to this debate. One can argue that because "religion" is often defined as a system of beliefs in the supernatural, people who don't attend congregations can still be considered part of a religion. The concept of hell may not have a positive effect on everyone, but the idea of heaven often prompts people to be morally virtuous and do good deeds in order to be seen as one who is willing to do what one can in order to make it to heaven.

Pro has dropped my argument on moral progress, so I will extend it. I have properly refuted all of my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


I didn't see the point of your arguments. The bible and the quaran encourage moral behaviour. Whether people follow them or not is another point. Your charity argument is completely wrong. Churches do charities to try and spread their faths. That is it. You do not need religions to be moral, and the concept of hell, even though it does make people act goodly, it also makes them ethnocentric and makes sure they follow the wicked morals showed in the books. Also, making people act goodly by threatning them is not right.
I have very little time, so thank you.


Pro seems to drop several of my arguments and state he "doesn't see the point of them" even though I have been very clear in all of them. Nevertheless, I will address what I've been given.


Pro concedes that the Bible And the Quran encourage moral behavior but states that it depends on whether people follow them or not. That's the point of religion: to help people better themselves by listening to the words of God and becoming humble and virtuous. My opponent admits that not following these holy books will not encourage moral behavior, which is completely correct. Religion has helped people follow a moral code and is often the only basis for the goodness that they portray. I fail to see how this, in any way, shows that religion has been harmful to society.

Of course one can be moral without being religious, but when it comes to historical moral progress, religion has often been the fuel for the fire. Having elaborated on this in the second round, I don't think I need to do so again.

On the concept of hell, my opponent states it "makes them ethnocentric and makes sure they follow the wicked morals showed in the books." What does this mean exactly, and where is the evidence for this claim? Again, examples for such arbitrary assertions are highly needed here.

I agree that forcing people to act good is not right, and this is not what religion teaches at all. So far it seems as if Pro has taken a bunch of baseless assertions and thrown them together in order to make an argument that seems decent from the surface.


My opponent seems to miss the point completely about how charity has benefitted the world and helped millions of poor people. Even if churches have done it "to spread their faith", it doesn't mean that the effects of them doing so have been harmful. Further, evidence for this claim is seriously lacking and can indeed be properly dismissed. There are many verses in the Bible and Quran where people are taught to give what they have to the poor. Figures such as Mother Teresa were religiously motivated to dedicate their lives to helping the less fortunate and needy.

Many of my contentions have gone unanswered, so I will extend all of my previous points again. Other than that there is nothing else to rebut. Over to you Pro for the final round.
Debate Round No. 4


Rezend forfeited this round.


I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and have extended all my points that he has dropped.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year 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 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: Ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture