The Instigator
JackGhost115
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
funwiththoughts
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should there be religion?

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 2 votes the winner is...
funwiththoughts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,169 times Debate No: 42951
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

JackGhost115

Con

Hello. This is my first time doing this and I've always wanted to talk about it. First off, let me say that I respect all religions. My friends like me for who I am, and I like them for who I am. But, I've wanted to talk about religion for a while and I thought maybe this is the opportunity to talk and debate. For this, I am against it. Religion in a way has had a huge conflict over our world. The Middle East and World War 2 and other times. For World War 2, Hitler blamed the Jews for all the wrongdoings. Jews had nothing to do anything! But, what if there were no Jews... and no Holocaust. We could have saved over 6 MILLION people! Plus, I have a question with Christianity...Who made God? Who? Was he just there all that time? He made Jesus, so how could he just be there? For here I say that if there was no religion, we would live in a much peaceful world.
funwiththoughts

Pro

(Keep in mind I am playing devil's advocate)

"Religion in a way has had a huge conflict over our world."

I assume this means that religion has "caused" a huge conflict? If not then I would ask my opponent to clarify.

"The Middle East and World War 2 and other times."

The conflict in the Middle East is primarily centred around a conflict between two religions, which does not suffice to get rid of all religions. WWII will be dealt with shortly.

"For World War 2, Hitler blamed the Jews for all the wrongdoings. Jews had nothing to do anything!"

Certainly true, but...

"But, what if there were no Jews... and no Holocaust. We could have saved over 6 MILLION people!"

Even without the Jews, the Germans still would have been looking for someone to blame, and a leader as charismatic and hateful as Hitler was could easily have given it to them. Remember the Holocaust had many different targets besides the Jews.

"Plus, I have a question with Christianity...Who made God? Who? Was he just there all that time?"

According to Christianity, God was in fact just there all the time. Some might say this is impossible according to the laws of physics, but before the creation of the Universe laws of physics could not have existed, and certainly they do not bind an omnipotent being.

"For here I say that if there was no religion, we would live in a much peaceful world."

My opponent's arguments only deal with relations between 2 or 3 of the millions of religions out there. This is not enough of a sample size to truly draw a conclusion.
Debate Round No. 1
JackGhost115

Con

It cannot be possible for God just to be there all that time. He had to have been created somehow. Like I said Jesus was born. SO how could God be not? Anyways, Al Qaeda wants all of the world to practice the Muslim religion through not peaceful means. 9/11 for example. They won't stop until all of the world is Muslim. It's not that I don't have anything against Muslims, it's just that I don't want to practice it. If the Muslims didn't exist, Al Qaeda never would either. Plus, if that organization was never created, we wouldn't have to live under so much security. The government always watches us on what we are doing and the airport security can be a hassle.

Also, moving on to science terms. Christian scientists believe the way to cure a person is if they make his faith bigger. But, a long time ago, there were few medicines to cure strong diseases. They prayed to God for something to cure sick people. Times went on and new medicines and therapies came out. People lived much longer lives. But, the Christian scientists believed that it was against their religion. Could it be possible that God created the doctors who created the medicines and therapies to cure people? They could be the answer. Now, I understand how stem-cell research is against Christianity, but what if your child was very sick, and he would not get better, what would you do? If stem-cell therapies would be the last hope, I would let them do it. Advancing into new things could make us a better future. We could find a cure for all diseases. Make everything much more efficient.

Another thing is homosexuality. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. Jesus created the gays. They couldn't just pop out of nowhere. He makes everyone a different person. Years after Jesus died, the Bible was found. Jesus couldn't have wrote the bible because he died. So who did it? The person who wrote the bible said that it would be bad for someone to be gay. Jesus never said that. He created them! Plus, a lot of gays support Christianity saying that Jesus loves for who they are. Jesus forgives and loves everyone. He wouldn't hurt a soul! So, if the gays prayed and did good things, why would he send them down to oblivion?

The story of Job. In the bible, the said Job was a good man. He had a lot of children and a good wife. Did good deeds and raised a farm. He was a fine man. But, Satan went up to God and said that if you took away those good things from Job, then he would stop praying God's name. God knew hat Job would still pray, so he sent down barbarians to slaughter his neighbors. His family died. He got painful boils on his body. He still prayed God's name even tough he was sick and sad. Why? Why would God do bad things to a horrible person just to prove a point to Satan? To test him? Satan is the enemy of God. So, why would God side with Satan to take away the good things? It make no sense.
funwiththoughts

Pro

"It cannot be possible for God just to be there all that time. He had to have been created somehow."

My opponent gives no explanation as to how this limit on God's omnipotence was determined. God is omnipotent, he is not bound by physics or by logic.

"Like I said Jesus was born. SO how could God be not?"

There are other religions besides Christianity, y'know...

"Anyways, Al Qaeda wants all of the world to practice the Muslim religion through not peaceful means. 9/11 for example. They won't stop until all of the world is Muslim. It's not that I don't have anything against Muslims, it's just that I don't want to practice it. If the Muslims didn't exist, Al Qaeda never would either. Plus, if that organization was never created, we wouldn't have to live under so much security. The government always watches us on what we are doing and the airport security can be a hassle."

This, along with the rest of my opponent's arguments, is centred exclusively around the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is not a large enough sample to judge all religion based.

"Also, moving on to science terms. Christian scientists believe the way to cure a person is if they make his faith bigger. But, a long time ago, there were few medicines to cure strong diseases. They prayed to God for something to cure sick people. Times went on and new medicines and therapies came out. People lived much longer lives. But, the Christian scientists believed that it was against their religion."

Again, this focuses exclusively on the Abrahamic religions with no regard to any others. And since these medicines and therapies came long after the death of Christ and writing of the Bible it makes no sense for Christianity to be against them. The church might be against them, but that is not the same thing.

"Could it be possible that God created the doctors who created the medicines and therapies to cure people? They could be the answer."

This does not support my opponent's view.

"Now, I understand how stem-cell research is against Christianity, but what if your child was very sick, and he would not get better, what would you do? If stem-cell therapies would be the last hope, I would let them do it."

Given that stem-cell research did not exist at the time of the Bible's writing or during the lifetime of Jesus it could not be "against Christianity". Therefore the question is irrelevant.

"Jesus created the gays. They couldn't just pop out of nowhere."

This presupposes the Christian worldview, and assumes that gays did not come about naturally and were not created by a deity other than the Christian one.

"Years after Jesus died, the Bible was found. Jesus couldn't have wrote the bible because he died. So who did it?"

Now this presupposes Christianity is wrong by supposing that Jesus is an independent being capable of dying, and is not the human form of God.

"Plus, a lot of gays support Christianity saying that Jesus loves for who they are. Jesus forgives and loves everyone. He wouldn't hurt a soul!"

Jesus encourages us to forgive and love everyone, that is true. But being God (if Christianity is correct) his ways are unknowable and therefore one cannot know this. In fact this makes no sense-if God controls the world, then he hurts billions in natural disasters. He also hurts even more by sending them to Hell, an act incompatible with an all-forgiving nature.

"The story of Job. In the bible, the said Job was a good man. He had a lot of children and a good wife. Did good deeds and raised a farm. He was a fine man. But, Satan went up to God and said that if you took away those good things from Job, then he would stop praying God's name. God knew hat Job would still pray, so he sent down barbarians to slaughter his neighbors. His family died. He got painful boils on his body. He still prayed God's name even tough he was sick and sad. Why? Why would God do bad things to a horrible person just to prove a point to Satan? To test him? Satan is the enemy of God. So, why would God side with Satan to take away the good things? It make no sense."

Once again, this is only relevant to the Abrahamic religions.
Debate Round No. 2
JackGhost115

Con

For this is round 3. For all I will say is that if there was no religion, we would live in a much peaceful world. There wouldn't be so much hatred in the world. War would be diminished and everyone could live without the government bothering us or other countries. Also, one other thing is that the people starving in Africa. Why isn't God helping them? They pray and pray, but nothing happens. I know other countries come to help, but hunger still lingers in Africa. Are Christians against cloning? Cloning may be the answer to end world hunger. I don't want to waddle into another debate while in a debate, but what I'm saying is that if there was no religion, we could advance ,without any protesting, in technology and therapies. I know this may never happen, and I'm happy to live in the world that I live in, but it would be a lot better, if there wasn't any religion. This is my final conclusion. I thank my opponent for doing this along with me. It has ben fun doing it for the first time. Regards, JackGhost115
funwiththoughts

Pro

My opponent has introduced several new arguments (some of them non-sequitur) in the last round, which I will not be addressing.

In summary, Pro claimed that without religion, the Holocaust and the Middle Eastern conflicts would never have happened. I have shown that this only focuses on a small group of religions of the millions out there. Pro claimed that religion held back medical progress, but this too only focused on a small group of religions (one religion in fact-one which could not have made the claims he did in his teachings). Con also presented several arguments that religion is a false belief, which I have shown are invalid regardless of one's personal beliefs. At only one point did Con try to defend his argument against rebuttal (his statement that God couldn't have always existed, which, as I showed, is based on false assumptions (that God is bound by laws of physics))
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Christians are either a threat or an enabler.. "peaceful, loving, Christians" is a false demeanor that is easily dissipated with their actions!
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I agree, and if the topic had been "are all religions harmful?" you would have gotten my vote. But it's not. Con did a poor job supporting his case, and you're right, it doesn't apply to everyone. But the debate is about whether religion as a whole, on balance, is beneficial or harmful. It seemed like you were more concerned with the accuracy of his statements than what they meant to the debate as a whole, and much as you're the one I end up agreeing with, he's the only one who has argued the topic itself.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
@whiteflame: The point was not that these harms don't apply to everyone, the point was that a few religions are not necessarily representative of all religions. You may debate whether or not there are harms to all religions, but one cannot debate that ISLAMIC jihads and false BIBLICAL claims only apply to a few religions.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
So I find myself siding with Con, not because I agree with him and not because I think he was the better debater, but because of burdens never stated but that appear obvious.

The question is, should there be religion? As such, it is Con's burden to prove that religions are negative, and Pro's burden to prove that they are neutral or beneficial. Most of Con's arguments don't help him, as many seem to just be attacking certain religions for harm not caused by those religions, stories that don't make sense, or issues with probability. None of those show the harms of religion's existence. But when we look to the Middle East and stifling of medical innovation, there is a demonstrable harm.

All Pro says in response is that that only applies to a few religions, and therefore is only a reason to not have these few. That's only mitigation - the harms don't apply to everyone, fine, but they're still harms. Pro never erases these harms completely, nor does he present any benefits of religion. There are plenty, yet they remain noticeably absent.

So by the end of the debate, despite Con dropping his best arguments, they are the only ones that matter in the context of the round. Pro doesn't remove or even minimize those harms by stating that they only apply to a few religions (which is debatable). Since Pro develops no actual case and just spends all of his time responding to Con's case, I have nothing to pull the trigger on for him, despite pointing out many logical errors in Pro's argument. So I vote Con, though his grammar leaves something to be desired.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
JackGhost115funwiththoughtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Concade 3 years ago
Concade
JackGhost115funwiththoughtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: The Pro wins on a few key points: A. the Con only focused on the few "mainstream" religions, B. Pro successfully highlighted several contradictions in Con's arguments, C. Con's argument about preventing 9/11 & the Holocaust were hardly developed in later rounds.