Should we look forward to the death/extinction of organized religion ?
Debate Rounds (5)
Well, science is known as a good servant but a bad master, and if you spare a moment to think about this, you"ll realize and anything and everything is a bad master. But, people have never been slaughtered in the name of science, scientists have never claimed to know-it-all, even if they did, it"s based on thorough evidence and solid proofs after countless experiments and hard work. Sadly, same cannot be said about religion, it has supernatural claims, ridiculous propagandas, subjugation for women and sexual repression. Moreover, it is based faith, which is believing in something because you believe in it because you believe it. Sounds peculiar to me.
Talking about Nazi exploitation of Science, they exploited religion more than anything. It is a popular myth that Hitler was an atheist, anyone who has read his autobiography Mein Kampf, can very well point out how religion and God were the strongest facets of the Nazi war propaganda, and he persecuted Jews because he thought they were "Incarnate denials of the beauty of God"s image and His creations." . Every soldier"s belt in Nazi Germany carried a motto, "God is with us." and 80% of Nazi officials were Roman Catholics.
Also, I"m absolutely convinced that God is man-made, since there is no scientific evidence to support his existence, and people within his order (religion) fight among themselves for their versions of him. Christianity has Catholics and Protestants. Islam has Shias and Sunnis. If there is a God, and these religious people boast about their know-all about him, then why do their views on him conflict? Such a phenomenon only happens to the things which are man-made. Everyone claims to have their version and that too, the correct one.
Talking about God not giving a damn, there are countless number of innocent people dying every day on this planet. COUNTLESS. Some die soon after birth because of hunger and filth, some because they are exploited, some because they don"t have rights, ironically all this can be chiefly traced to Middle East and Africa, where religion is flourishing. Majority of these innocent people are the believers in God, and if God decides to let them die, then he either he"s incompetent or he doesn"t give a damn.
"Sadly, same cannot be said about religion, it has supernatural claims, ridiculous propagandas, subjugation for women and sexual repression." Pro did not back this up with specific evidence.
" it is based faith, which is believing in something because you believe in it because you believe it"
Pro misunderstands the concept of faith from a biblical perspective. Faith in Hebrew means "aman" which means "to support" (Strongs #539). it's correct context is then to trust and support God, not blindly believing in something.
"people within his order (religion) fight among themselves for their versions of him. Christianity has Catholics and Protestants. Islam has Shias and Sunnis. If there is a God, and these religious people boast about their know-all about him, then why do their views on him conflict? Such a phenomenon only happens to the things which are man-made. Everyone claims to have their version and that too, the correct one."
Their views conflict for the very reason that any other views conflict: disagreement over what the truth is. Just as there are disagreements over evolution, does that imply that evolution isn't true? Pro's argument then doesn't make sense nor does it imply that God doesn't exist.
He then points out that because suffering exists, either he isn't as powerful as he claims or doesn't care, however that assumes a faulty and specific definition of good that God doesn't have to follow. Moreover, it is also flawed to assume God doesn't care as you don't know of his ultimate plan outlined in Scripture. Neither are you in a position to question God's actions, only to follow and obey him.
ProTTT forfeited this round.
I can use the same argument on atheists.
Alfred Kinsey was an atheist professor who exploited children for sex and was sadistic in his research
Napolean Bonaparte was an atheistic tyrant who ignored treaties, conquered Europe and other lands, and left 6 million dead Europeans in 1 generation.
Than Shwe was an atheist who took many rights away as he lives a luxurious lifestyle
Jim Jong 2 caused 4 million Koreans to die. He lives in luxury and invests in the military at the expense of his people. He also helped in assassinating South Korean leaders.
Jefferey Dahmer, brutally killed men and boys, dismembering them and storing their parts for cannibalism and necrophilia, saying "if a person doesn"t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what"s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?".
I can go on and on about "the evils of atheism", should we then look forward to the death of atheism? I doubt you would agree to end a whole system of beliefs based on a select few "bad individuals."
ProTTT forfeited this round.
Christianity as well as other religions have helped build schools, communities, sheltered the poor and starving, charity, help people change, etc. Christianity for example teaches man to love his neighbor, to do good to all men, forgive those who have wronged you, stand up for the weak, fight for what is right in the eyes of God, and many other things. It promotes faith and understanding in God so that we can acknowledge who we are and trust in him so that he could better our lives in order to become better and unique individuals. With that in mind, religion should not be exterminated, but rather it is ignorance and evil itself which should be exterminated.
ProTTT forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.