The Instigator
GuiAlex
Pro (for)
The Contender
Se7enth
Con (against)

THB That All Forms Of Organized Religion are an attack to freedom and should be over.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
GuiAlex has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 225 times Debate No: 102331
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

GuiAlex

Pro

Religion itself is a way of thinking and living our life and almost always has a spiritual base and worships a God, more than one God or other entities.
The main religions in the modern world are Christianism(all of its forms), Islamism(all of its forms too) and Judaism(all kinds too).
Each culture or country has a religion that outnumbers the others and so it's the official religion, for example, Saudi Arabia rules itself by the Sharia Laws.
In my country, Portugal, the religion with more believers and is the Catholicism (a form of Christianism) and people who are born in a Christian family are taught about their God, they read the Holy Bible, some of them go to the Church on Sundays and so on.

What I bring here today is that this forms of religion are an attack on freedom, individual and collective, because they conditionate our lives in almost all subjects.
Women in countries that adopted the Islamism and Sharia Laws are obligated to use the hijab or burka, taking of them their right to have a public image. Sharia Laws also defend that non-believers should be killed and this is not only affecting the freedom of the believers but also putting in risk people that have nothing to do with the religion.
About the hijab, most of the women forced to used it will tell you it's their choice. But is it really their choice? They are born in that country, that family, that environment and because of that, they are taught that that is the right thing to do. In Islam, women are effectively inferior to men and that is not acceptable, nor morally nor socially.

What I'm proposing as a solution is. in fact, also an attack on freedom: the freedom of having a religion. Now I'm going to explain to you why I consider this justifiable.
The well-known principle of utilitarianism reads "The best decision is the one that brings the better consequences to the most of the involved people" and I'm doing this by taking them the religious freedom and giving them the equality freedom, the speech freedom, the freedom of making up their (people) own minds and not being indoctrinated with lies about miracles and things already proven to be wrong...the liberty of wearing whatever they want to wear, to have as many husbands/wives they want without being judged, the liberty of being transexual or gay(...) I'm giving all of this to people and all I need in return is the religious freedom so I think this is a great, great point for the Government ("yes", and Opposition will be the "no").

For all of this, I think the Government wins and I'm waiting for other good arguments I didn't write due lack of time/space/patience or I didn't just think of to support my case. Also, Opposition, do your best.
Se7enth

Con

You state that all forms of organized religion are an attack to freedom and should banned so people get their freedom back.

Religion is not a physical thing you can take away from somebody. It are his or her beliefs about our origin and society. The only way to change their beliefs is to teach them different. Not to force them to think different. If you want to completely ban religions in a county, then that country must be ruled by an an incredibly powerful, totalitarian centralized government. But in such a country a lot of other freedoms are ate stake as well. So you have to take a lot of freedoms from the followers of that religion, because they do not voluntarily want to give up their religion.
Debate Round No. 1
GuiAlex

Pro

Religion is not a physical thing that I can take away from someone, but I can shut down churches and other cult places, just to refute your point.
But that doesn't really matter because the motion is "THB" which I thought everyone knew the meaning, sorry, it means This House Believes. I believe that All Forms Of Organized Religion are an attack on freedom and should be over and I don't need to show you how you have to show me why we should keep religion in our lives and societies and not question how I would do it. Also, you should present a counter model because there is in the fact this problem: people aren't free and in many cases, people are dying because of religion, you can't ignore it. Debates are about people and if you don't care about people you may just leave.

So, bringing some extension to the Gov side, I'd like to pick some main arguments that will be:
1. Religion is bad
2. Religion is fake
3. Freedom is important
And then I will whip it all together and repackage my first speech to show you that Religion takes our freedom.
Religion is bad because it divides us. We can see this everywhere, in our TV, our smartphone, all over the news: Religion causes murders, injuries, danger, fear because some people can't respect the others and their religion. I'm not saying that everybody is like that, but we will never get the number of this dangerous people down the 0 by any method than approving this motion and let me show you why: we already have airport security, border control, police in the big cities(...) and yet Europe has been target of countless attacks in the last few years. By approving this motion, we will be taking away this cause of division. It's one less reason for people to hate each other and it's something we can take from people with a lot of benefits over the religious freedom.
Second, Religion is a fake. We have Science now and we can refute a lot of miracles that the Holy Bible (Christianism) tells us, turning the Religion main guide into something we cannot trust. (Not negating a God, that's not the debate) If God had actually written the Bible himself through people, as we are told he did, he wouldn't make such mistakes and contradictions, he is supposed to be perfect after all. I don't have much knowledge on other religions and their failures on their holy scripts but they surely support happenings that aren't possible as we know now, in the XXI century.
Third, freedom is important and this is pretty basic. We need to be free to be ourselves and act by our own will. If we are not free we cannot be responsibilized and therefore we would have anarchy but no one would be guilty because they are not acting upon themselves. Also, as humans, we seek to be the best version of ourselves, or we should, and we can't be it without freedom because that means someone is doing the job for us and therefore we don't have the credit.

Whipping my second speech, Government is still winning because you failed to refute my main points.
Se7enth

Con

Sorry, I should have known the rules before I attended to this debate.

"All forms of organized religion are an attack on freedom and (therefore) should be over"
Speed limits are an attack on freedom. Minimum drinking ages are an attack on freedom. Prohibiting the use of drugs is an attack on freedom. All forms of law and regulations are an attack on freedom. So yes indeed religious rules and laws are an attack on freedom. But the people that are "attacked" and do believe that those rules have been created for their own greater good. Just as speed limits have been created for our safety. Just as prohibiting drugs and alcohol for people below a certain age to protect our health. Just as every law and rule has been created so that we do not form a danger to others or ourselves.

You have also stated that religion is fake. This is something that can"t easily be stated and should be a topic for a whole other debate. But religion is about the worshiping of a God or Gods. There have been thousands of debates about the existence of God, but it is something that simply can"t be proved. So if we don"t know whether God exists or not, we also don"t know if religion is fake or not.

"The well-known principle of utilitarianism reads "The best decision is the one that brings the better consequences to the most of the involved people" and I'm doing this by taking them the religious freedom and giving them""
Most of the involved people believe that following the rules of their religion brings them the better consequences. And because we can"t know if God exists or not, we also don"t know if living a religious life gives you better chances in the 'afterlife'.

"Third, freedom is important and this is pretty basic. We need to be free to be ourselves and act by our own will. If we are not free we cannot be responsibilized and therefore we would have anarchy but no one would be guilty because they are not acting upon themselves."
Do you know what anarchy means? Here is a definition I found: "Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." In other words: Anarchy equals Total freedom.

I do agree with you that all forms of organized religion are an attack on freedom, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to ban all forms of organized religion.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
Please define "Organized religion"
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.