The Instigator
A_Flying_Toaster
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
coolguy798
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Religious Faith Is Not Needed

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...
A_Flying_Toaster
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 875 times Debate No: 45350
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

A_Flying_Toaster

Pro

The first round is purely for acceptance and greeting to opponent to opponent and a little "Why I believe this" paragraph if you choose to.

Hello, my name is Alexander Clark, I'm an atheist who is very intrigued with the concept of religion and how it is being acted upon in the world. I appreciate studying the effects it has on people, and in doing so I have come to the conclusion that the world would indeed be a better place without religion. Or a substitute of religion that does not cause the same problems that they do currently on a global level.

It will be a pleasure to greet my opponent and see what he or she has to say.
coolguy798

Con

I feel that religion is necessary in the world because we use religion to explain the mysteries of life. Being able to use science to prove everything is mentally impossible. Without religion, everybody would be filled with the confusion of how or why things are the way they are. Try to explain reality.
Debate Round No. 1
A_Flying_Toaster

Pro

Alright then. I will go over the reasons as to why I believe religion is a divisive, simple-minded, ignorant, dangerous, and closely related to a virus in all societies, and is a strange distorted form of belief.

Religious faith discourages independent thought, it is very divisive of humanity, and it can be very dangerous. Faith is the belief in something with the act of ignoring any outside evidence or ideals that make it crumble and become irrelevant. A stubborn superstition. It causes people to not want to question the reality about them, millions of theists have their minds possessed by a single idea. And ignore everything else. It causes people to follow the "morality" of their religious texts. Which was very primitive morals then, and is still very primitive morals now. Murdering non-believers through cruel ways such as stoning. Along with homosexuals, other religious followers, the appraising of slavery. These are only scratching the surface of the problem that religion causes. It also causes violence, take a look at the 9/11 attacks. Take a look at the terrorism still going on in the eastern part of the world. People whom are willing to give their lives and others to apparently go to a special paradise heaven after death.

This is only some of the problems. And I will end my round by saying a quote from the scientist Richard Dawkins.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

You don't need religion to have morals, comfort, happiness or health. You just need to go out and educate yourself, live your life to the fullest. Life is a beautiful place, a place where you don't need religion to see its beauty.
coolguy798

Con

If people didn't have religion, who would explain the mysteries of the world? Scientists still don't know where the universe came from, or how big it is. People can use religion to explain the unexplained. I know that religin can be abusive, but most of the time it just explains the complex things that human minds can't understand. Thinking that religion isn't important just confuses humankind and could cause chaos.
Debate Round No. 2
A_Flying_Toaster

Pro

Who would explain the mysteries of the world without religion? Everyone. Through science. Science has always been doing so ever since its invention. Scientists may not know where the universe comes from exactly, but we have theories that are slowly being improved upon that one day may show us the answer. Religion does not give answers to neither the mysteries of the universe or its origins. Instead it just makes extraordinary claims with no evidence. As Carl Sagan once said:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan

Evidence any religion has brought up has been religious texts, pseudo science, and Richard Dawkins says it perfectly when he said "Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."

And if you know that religion can be abusive to humanity, why do you support it if its faulty claims are easily refutable at every turn? Sure, things like evolution and the big bang theory are hard to grasp but that is no reason for religion to come along and give false answers and demand that they are truth. And without religion, the world would not go into chaos and destruction. Without the unnecessary crutch of religion, if anything, chaos is more originated by religion in the world. Theists morality is based off a fear of punishment and a hope of reward after death. That's just being good-natured so you can be rewarded. Non-theists morality is primarily based on sympathy, education and social ties. Or many other things. We learn to be good for goodness's sake.
coolguy798

Con

Your quote,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan,
could also mean that religion is an extraordinary answer to the questions that human minds cannot answer. The only reason why religion has become so violent is because followers take it to the extremes. Most religion has good intentions, but there are people that have become so disoriented from the misinterpretation that they decide that everyone should follow their religion and kill anyone who doesn't. People believe in places like heaven because no one knows what happens to your spirit when you die. Religion has its benefits because it revitalizes the spirit, and relaxes people. Religion itself is not abusive; the people who take it to extremes are the main problem. Most people are reasonable, but they are pulled into the vortex of misinterpretation by an extremist religious group.
Debate Round No. 3
A_Flying_Toaster

Pro

A_Flying_Toaster forfeited this round.
coolguy798

Con

coolguy798 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
A_Flying_Toaster

Pro

A_Flying_Toaster forfeited this round.
coolguy798

Con

coolguy798 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
I'll post one then
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Sadly not. Once a debate is started it can not be cancelled. However, I can do two debates at the same time. My opponent does not seem entirely motivated or incapable of debating about such an issue.
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
Your opponent here doesn't seem to be actively involved anymore. Can you cancel this and start the same topic with me?
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Alright then.
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
Y'know what? Never mind the comments. I'd love to debate you.
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Well, you seem very hateful and angry. Why so biased and ignorant?
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
Note hateful. Just annoyed. But it's the internet so.... whatever....
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Kako, you seem very hateful and straight-forward. If you would like to debate later, we can. :)
Posted by Kako 3 years ago
Kako
Someone didn't read the whole of a link I posted. When you say this:

"It relies off faith. It causes divisions within our race, et cetera. "

Your point still falls into a bias reactionary stance rather than a logical objective one exactly as I said before. Here's yet another quote:

"- And if the human experience has anything to show for itself, it"s that we have a hard time disassociating the feelings and actions of a person with the person itself. It"s a "a bully bullies because they were bullied" type situation. But you can"t fight against an emotion without putting in effort to discover what powers it. And because this takes too much time the more expedient and instinctive approach is taken. We start to stereotype. We decide to make our enemies and friends based upon the faces that hold those emotions. When this happens we make blanket generalizations. - "

When you say 'It causes divisions within our race' what exactly do you think that means? Does income inequality cause divisions? Does power cause divisions? Does plain old mistrust cause divisions? What you are doing is associating the effect with the cause. Much like this:

"You"re at work and with a childhood friend. You laugh and talk and stuff. Real good buddies. Well unknown to you, your friend eventually receives a phone call that scares them half to death. Afterwards you leave work and encounter that same friend with a gun/bat/crowbar/fists pointed at you. They are visibly distressed and could react at any time. Is your true enemy your friend? Or the fear that possess them?

This is how an understanding starts. What you fight against is fear. What you fight against is what has possessed a people, not the people itself. You are fighting:

"Disincarnate entities [that] take control of a human body, resulting in noticeable changes in health and/or behavior.""

What you have done is associate the typical type fallacies of human nature with religion but are blaming the whole of religion as
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Sorry. Love*
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
A_Flying_Toastercoolguy798Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that religion isn't needed, that science can account for many things. Pro also argued the dangers of religion, for example, the warped morality. Con's final paragraph, although uncontested, does not negate the resolution, instead argues that there shouldn't be a reason against religion, for it has its place. "Revitalising the spirit" and relaxing people, were not sufficient arguments for religion, especially in light of Pro highlighting the negatives. Arguments to Pro. Pro did forfeit first, so conduct to Con.