The Instigator
SnowyOxygen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The world would be better off without religion.

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...
blackkid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,256 times Debate No: 75733
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

SnowyOxygen

Pro

Here to have a calm debate about religion. Note: I am anti-theist, skeptic, cynical and sarcastic, and what I say may offend you due to speaking my mind openly; but that is not the objective.

To clarify:

The world = Humanity
we'd be better off = the disatvantages outweigh the benefits
religion = in this case organized religions

BOP is shared

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Arguments
Round 3 - Further arguments and rebuttals
Round 5 - Rebuttals
Round 4 - Rebuttals and conclusion.

I wish my opponent good luck!



blackkid

Con

Right-o! Let's see what'cha got!
Debate Round No. 1
SnowyOxygen

Pro

Firstly, I would like to thank you for accepting the debate and I wish you good luck.

My opinion is that that the world would be better off without religion. But why?

1) Violence & power

As you probably know, religion has quite a reputation over the millenia for inciting wars, crusades, and persecutions of people because they had a different religion, or a different version of the same religion.
Religion isn't necessarily the direct cause of violence (even though it has been), but it can be the excuse for violence, and it can be quite persuasive when it comes to encouraging troops to pillage and ransack cities even though their holy book specifically instructs them that killing is immoral.
When it comes to the numerous crusades for example, the aim of which is generally to kill, ransack, and conquer religious territory, entire cities are sacked and laid to waste in the name of religion. The instigators of these events were the Roman Catholic Church, which was one of the dominant religions at the time, a religion that continuously boasts the ten commandments (In which you must not kill).
This is a clear demonstration of the power that the self-proclaimed "leaders" of the respective religion have. Their word is law and you must follow it on pain of death and going to hell. They can use it for conquering territories, claiming taxes from the poor and the rich, and keeping the people at bay or on their side.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(1204)

While Christians were killing Muslims, Christians had a more internal problem to deal with. Protestants against Catholics caused prosecutions and mass beheadings everywhere. Let's take a fitting example; Queen Mary I of England, was named bloody Mary for her numerous executions of protestants. Ironically, her father Henry VIII played a large part in the separation of the church when he didn't get what he want. Another example would be the Catharsis movement. This was a movement that started in a large portion of Europe, especially southern France. It consisted of heretical Catholics, who were called "The church of Satan" by the Roman Catholic Church. And of course violent battles took place between the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) Ignorance and influence

The majority (if not all) of religions have a tendency to dumb down the population. It's been happening for millenia and is still happening now (Especially in America if I may add). Socrates was sentenced to death for questioning the gods and Evolution, a solid theory backed by mountains of evidence is challenged by ignorant religious fundamentalists who don't seem to know what evidence is.

The ignorance that religion imposes on the population is so prominent that it delays scientific advancements and labels completely reasonable and helpful practices as "immoral", using its falsely claimed monopoly on morality. For example, abortion is largely frowned upon if not illegal in a lot of countries. I've come across numerous stories where a doctor simply refused to abort someone based on his religious beliefs, after which he was praised by the church for saving a child with fatal defects that died shortly after the birth that he knew perfectly well about. Or even cases where doctors refuse an abortion which could and did cost a life.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The whole point of dumbing down the population is to control it. An in-educated population that blindly agrees to the religion's views can be easily controlled by the religion's leader(s). A striking and extreme example would be Saudi Arabia, where it's citizens are entirely controlled by the Islamic religious fundamentalists.

To conclude, in my opinion religion has been the cause of many wars, and has been the tool of an extremely large number of wars, deaths, and control and we would be better off without it.
blackkid

Con

Why Religion is Good

(1) Charity

( http://www.forbes.com... )

Forbes, the top 50 charitable organizations list, well lets talk about that for a moment. Over half of these charities are religious organizations. The notion that religion does not good is just outright false; many drug addiction programs including Alcoholics Anonymous have their roots in religious organizations ( http://www.dickb.com... ) and backgrounds. It speaks for itself.

(2) Diversity

All religions are a type of philosophy and many of those philosophies preach all sorts of good things about how to deal with one's neighbors. It is not the teachings of the religion but the corruption of mankind that allows the assemblies of evil to rise. Men twist anything, any philosophy, and any ideal, shamelessly but that should not be a reason to ban religion where religion is actually more often than not a gateway to modern concepts.

Islam for instance helped usher in Feminism, Christianity helped end loads of poverty and American slavery, the things that Eastern religions did are so numerous there's no way to choose which would be the best example whether it ranges from ending classism and the oppression of the shogunate to bringing light to issues such as Colonialism and ending oppression from even their own governments. Religion wages wars that men who would truly rather benefit from do not; while it is often a scapegoat so such is anything that is available to the greedy man and the contemptable.

From "Atheism" today being associated with being intelligent, forward thinking, and progressive (of which it embodies none of this at face value) to Zen Buddism being a religion of "chilling out and relaxing" (which it's not) there's simply much to be had by truly studying and understanding one's brethren. Many religions do not suggest wiping out people. Jains, Taoists, Christianity (who follow the New Testament), and so forth do not say "slay everyone".

(3) Wealth

Proverbs 21:20 reads "The wise store up choice food and olive oil,but fools gulp theirs down." (https://www.biblegateway.com...)

Islam bans interest (http://www.islamic-banking.com...) as it is seen as unethical.

Hinduism speaks on proper spending and a lack of hoarding but also states that wealth is a principle and the gain of wealh and responsibility of wealth are good things (http://www.hinduwebsite.com...)

"The sage does not hoard. The more he does for others, the more he has. The more he thereby gives to others, the ever more he gets." Taoism too speaks on money and management and he importance of charity. (http://www.taoistic.com...)

Where then does this fail a man?
Debate Round No. 2
SnowyOxygen

Pro

The notion that religion is needed for charities is simply silly. You'd need to prove that without religion, "Over half of theses charities" wouldn't exist or would do poorly. There are plenty of secular charities that don't need religion to work. Do you honestly think that without the bible telling them to, half of the charity organizations that exist today just wouldn't exist?

You make a point about religions preaching "all kinds of good things". But you only get "all kinds of good things" if you cherry pick the bible while forgetting the rest of the bible which is filled with discriminatory, contradictory and things that just simply make no sense. When dealing with one's neighbours, it teaches you for example that if he's working on a Sunday then he should be stoned to death! Although I agree with one point; it is the corruption of mankind that allows evil to rise. But I would make the statement that it is through the corruption of mankind that the bible and the majority of religions were produced.

http://biblehub.com...

The statements that "Islam helped usher in feminism" and "Christianity helped end loads of poverty and slavery" just makes me laugh. The problems with the Islamic state are so prominent and the sexism related with the religion is so visible I'm wondering why you even bothered with the first statement. All you have to do to see the overwhelming sexism present is search "Islamic women" on Google. You'll find women who can't show their hair, their shoulders, even their arms. Up to the point where all that is shown is their eyes so they can actually see where they are going.

http://chersonandmolschky.com...

As for Christianity, ending poverty? Well apart from the Franciscan order which still didn't do a great deal in the long run, the church has claimed taxes from the poor, while paying no taxes itself. It has built massive cathedrals and churches, parts of which were made of gold, gemstones, granite, marble, silver ect. Which I needn't tell you, cost a very large amount indeed, while people where and still are literally dying of various causes due to poverty. And you also say that Christianity helped end slavery. When in actual fact, a lot of Christians endorsed slavery. For example; in the early days of Christianity in the Roman empire, the majority of religious figures encouraged it. A lot of people in the colonized America even used the religion to justify such acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org... <--- Example of an expensive church
http://en.wikipedia.org...

You make another statement related to poverty and money. I'll come back to my original statement; organized religions were and possibly still are some of the richest and most powerful organizations that have and still exist. From claiming taxes while not paying them, to building massive structures made of exotic materials, it still neglects the poor. Most religions have built massive structures that have almost no purpose if you remove the religion. The Aztecs, The Greeks, The Romans, Islam, Christianity.

Finally, I will target your statement about "Atheism". You say that it embodies no intelligence, forward thinking and progressiveness. Am I therefore to believe that religion, most of which was invented several millenia ago when scientists as we see today didn't exist, which preach sexist, fascist, discriminatory, racist and other nonsensical behaviour, which teaches you that the earth was made 6000 years ago when there is solid proof for the contrary, that Noah made a huge wooden boat that isn't even physically capable of existing, and that humans used to ride dinosaurs is intelligent, forward thinking and progressive? Just the fact that a lot of religions were made two millenia or more ago is anything but progressive or forward thinking.
blackkid

Con

"The notion that religion is needed for charities is simply silly. You'd need to prove that without religion, "Over half of theses charities" wouldn't exist or would do poorly." I never made that claim so I'll not be proving anything you "decide" I need to prove. I never said it was necessary but I did show that it is a majority force in charity which of course you've taken no particular action against; instead it's red herrings (http://www.nizkor.org...) for dinner tonight. Please do not be intellectually dishonest. Thank you.

"Point #2" is another red herring. Instead of showing that religion has no particular value Pro chooses to (ironically) cherry pick the sources to provide for the negative stance he has. That's fine, but because it's cherry picking, Pro by extension has committed the very fallacy he claims to consider offensive. Instead of proving or providing that the world suffers due to The Old Testament or showing instances where people have actually been stoned to death in the modern age for working on a Saturday / Sabbath pro simply cherry picks a point and says it's madness. The weight of validity of any text is not in it's content but it's actual moral value when adhered to; to my knowledge if one expresses interest in Christianity then the Old Testament is fulfilled by Jesus ( Matthew 5:17 http://biblehub.com... ) thus rendering that point null to begin with and if this person is arguing specifically against Judaism that's just discriminatory cherry picking the same so either way it's a null point.

"Point #3" is uncited. It's a random picture? Is this attributed to Islam or a cultural problem? Pro makes no effort to support the difference or even define the difference. Surely one only need to look at Islam in America to find that there are not women bound in Chains or the history of Islam to see that women were allowed to vote far before other nations took to that stage (http://mic.com...) however Pro uses common misconceptions as a basis for their ignorant argumentation again citing nothing and simply showing his discriminatory and racist ideas knowing little to nothing of the culture or the reasoning behind the garb.

Christianity worked well in ending modern Southern slavery (http://www.pbs.org...) and played a huge part and continues to play a massive part in ending oppression related behaviors in modern China even with extreme oppression against them as persons (http://www.theglobeandmail.com...) however again Pro fails to acknowledge modern life and the reality of the influence of religion in the good downplaying the value of such things with what he considers to be "ineffectual attempts" and citing one thing. Then he goes on to provide a non-sequitur of a picture stating that allocation of funds is inappropriately placed without evidence and pushing for an appeal to emotion.

"From claiming taxes while not paying them, to building massive structures made of exotic materials, it still neglects the poor." This isn't substantiated. It is a blank claim; the point that has to be substantiated is that it neglects the poor on a steady and clear basis as an organization in regular operation.

"Finally, I will target your statement about "Atheism". You say that it embodies no intelligence, forward thinking and progressiveness. Am I therefore to believe that religion, most of which was invented several millenia ago when scientists as we see today didn't exist, which preach sexist, fascist, discriminatory, racist and other nonsensical behaviour, which teaches you that the earth was made 6000 years ago when there is solid proof for the contrary, that Noah made a huge wooden boat that isn't even physically capable of existing, and that humans used to ride dinosaurs is intelligent, forward thinking and progressive?"

Red herring. First and foremost the point, in context, was that things socially attributed to various philosophies, including those of religions, religious claims, belief claims, and knowledge claims, do not carry the atributed concepts by nature. This means that rather than saying atheism is an intelligent choice versus thiesm I would propose that neither is actually true and neither inherently effects one or the other; instead of being able to understand this Pro makes an effort again to cherry pick a very specific religion and then propose that there is some form of differential which is supposed to back something. What that something is I am not sure as nothing is particularly proven. This leads to:

"Just the fact that a lot of religions were made two millenia or more ago is anything but progressive or forward thinking."

This is just ignorant. There are thousands of religions some made within the last hundred years [ (http://www.churchofsatan.com...) / (http://www.aboutsanteria.com...), ] and some which are far older than 2,000 years as well. Pro's claims are rather poor on all fronts as they are all substantiated. I've no reason to create new arguments this round. Perhaps had Pro actually studied religion in any form he may find himself pleasantly surprised by how tolerant and forward thinking religion actually can be but alas, no, Pro is pretty much making things up and posting links to pictures.
Debate Round No. 3
SnowyOxygen

Pro

SnowyOxygen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SnowyOxygen

Pro

SnowyOxygen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SnowyOxygen 1 year ago
SnowyOxygen
I know it's been a year, but I must apologize for the sudden disappearance. I'm afraid something came up in my life, and I've forgotten about the site in the process.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Go4thegold // Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro was able to back up his arguments with sources independent of his own beliefs, while con mostly defended his arguments using sources related to his own beliefs.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Lack of specifics. Can be copy-pasted to any debate. Makes no mention of what those arguments are. (2) No explanation for sources, conduct, S&G.
===========================================================================
Posted by crazyness 2 years ago
crazyness
I think that religions make you who you are and that's part of what makes you special. Just because of some violence doesn't mean that we shouldn't have some of our personality just gone away. Religion is also how you believe and think like, I don't think that you should have to change that because of some violence and troubles.
Posted by PanchoCisco 2 years ago
PanchoCisco
I've seen this comment many times on many forums. George Carlin got into the act some years back with his comment, "Religion is bull****," and many agreed with him. What is so interesting about the anti-religion people is that they're NEVER able to tell you what religion is. They're against it ~ but have no idea what it is. To some extent, we can blame Christianity for having given religion a bad name over the centuries. In this period of degeneration we're in, everything has suffered, including people's idea of religion. The Catholic "church" (the Vatican) went on, little by little, inventing itself (inventing "truths") until the end product had very little, if anything, to do with religion. And of course we know the rest of its history, slaughtering people by the thousands (those who disagreed or who appeared to disagree); this slaughter went on into the 1940s and '50s (read "The Vatican Holocaust," by Avro Manhattan; it's a free download). Based on all of this craziness, many believe that religion itself was to blame, and that the world would be better off without it. Why don't these people make an effort to find out what religion itself actually is? Answer: Because that would be too much work. It's far easier to dismiss religion altogether; that requires no thinking. The comment that "the world would be better off without religion" only proves that people today (as in the past) do not analyze anything; they jump to conclusions and condemn whatever they don't understand. We find that same mindset in modern-day Christianity. One of the answers below actually says, "Religion causes wars," which is an inconceivably stupid remark. Human beings are the cause of war. Not "religion." To repeat: No anti-religionist knows what religion is, and no anti-religionist has ever studied religion ~ nor have they ever deeply analyzed the things they themselves are saying ... and that's really gotten old ...
Posted by canis 2 years ago
canis
The World would probably be close to the same. "But with other explainations...We are like any other animal species and groups.. We can thing "future" life/dead, and forget ourself in the process.
Posted by greatkitteh 2 years ago
greatkitteh
Oh, only 123. Not a big deal.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
inb4 religion causes wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org... "Only 123 (7%) [of wars] were primarily religiously motivated"
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
- She is basically mocking you. If you keep asking what "your fedora is showing" means, you'll be just exalting her excellency even more.
Posted by SnowyOxygen 2 years ago
SnowyOxygen
Care to explain then?
Posted by PatriotPerson 2 years ago
PatriotPerson
That's unfortunate
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
SnowyOxygenblackkidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: *sigh* Forfeiture...
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 2 years ago
greatkitteh
SnowyOxygenblackkidTied
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: While i dont like how two of over 9000 religons were represented, Pro forfeited, con con gets the conduct.