The Instigator
michael_care
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
debater321098
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The world would be better without religion

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
michael_care
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,432 times Debate No: 32295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

michael_care

Pro

In recent times, threat to social security has been at the forefront of society. Governments had a sharp wake up and found themselves facing a terrible trouble - terrorism. I truly believe that it is fair to say that the majority of terrorists are religious, and it needn't be said that the worst overwhelmingly are. This perpetual danger forces leaders of great, secure countries, like the US and Britain, to transgress some of our most basic rights in the name of counter-terrorism. I'm absolutely confident that both you and I would rather not have our legs rubbed up and down when trying to travel through an airport.

It isn't just modern religion that is dangerous, it is also the remnant of the archaic and outdated religion that poisons our society. The most prevalent are, of course, Islam and Christianity. What I mean when I suggest that religious is poisonous, is that it infects us in our most basic integrity, and spreads lies such as 'you cannot be moral without God.' How insulting and offensive is an untrue statement like that to an atheist? I don't want my basic moral values to be credited to a fascist Big Brother in the sky. I'd like the credit to go to the ones who have raised me, like my mother and father.

Now onto the family matters. The Roman Catholic Church, very recently, introduced a basic code to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This was called the ABC policy, which was: abstinence, being loyal to your partner, and, if all else fails, condoms. It's true that abstinence and being loyal can prevent the spread of such a disease, but why can condoms not be a first resort instead of the last?! I'd like you to bear in mind, while reading this paragraph, that this was the exact same church that spread the devastating lie to African countries that condoms actually have small, microscopic holes in them that can actually increase the number of cases of HIV/AIDS. Now, how dare the Roman Catholics call me, as an atheist who likes to think of himself as a morally adequate person, a morally EVIL person, when they are directly causing the deaths of thousands and thousands of Africans who will never know any better?

The Catholic Church seems like a very easy target, though. So why not go onto not a different denomination, but a whole new religion. Islam. The most morally inept, destructive and sickening religion known to man. This is a religion that, when guiding a middle eastern theocracy, sets down laws that state a woman cannot be executed if she is a virgin, but imperial guards may rape this woman and then kill her. What a sickening though, and even more sickening to think that things like this happen on a day to day basic in these vile countries. I am not blaming the people of the country though, they are only victims of this totalitarian regime that dictates to them what food to eat, what clothes to wear, who they can go to bed with and what they can think. I believe the final dictation in the previous list to be thought crime, something that George Orwell used to exaggerate the consequences of a hypothetical situation where a totalitarian government sat in power.

Finally, I'd like to close my opening remarks by borrowing a question asked by the late Christopher Hitchens: Name an ethical deed or statement said or done by a religious person that couldn't have been done by a non-believer. If you can't do this, then do the following: name me a wicked deed or statement said or done that could have only been done by a believer.
Who says we get our moral values from religion?
debater321098

Con

It matters what religion. Like: Christianity that isn't dangerous, but some religion are saying suicide is right and they believe in thier religion they commit suicide. So you are right but not every religion is dangerous. Like without Chrisitanity there would be no one in Heaven and everyone would be in Hell. So if you don't have some religions it isn't safe. So, Religions are safe and the world would be better with religions. It's not religions making our world bad. It's drugs, murders. drunk people etc.
Debate Round No. 1
michael_care

Pro

It's obvious that you are a Christian, as you seem to take a single minded approach, but I hope you know that you're holy scriptures are, in some ways, just as dangerous and terrible as the Koran. While the Bible supports ideas such as slavery, sexism, racism and genocide, some might say that this was merely a product of its time. Now, this would be a plausible argument if it wasn't for the fact that people still abide by these moral codes, no matter how sickening they are. Also, while your lord and saviour may be idolised by your faith, he wasn't the pacifist that people make him out to be. In the Bible he says 'I don't not come with peace, I come with the sword.' Just like much of the Bible, this can be taken as metaphorical, and this is where the different denominations of Christianity come in as a result of their interpretation of the Bible varying. However, whichever way you look at it, Christianity is not a peace loving religion. It is appalling that you think that it is not a contemptuous religion.
debater321098

Con

Yes, People got stoned in the Bible, but its thier fault for adultery, sexism etc. The Bible/Christianity isn't dangerous. The Israelites were slaves who's fault? Egyptians. The Prophets (Moses in this case) helped free them from slavery. And, Yes..Yes I am a Christian
Debate Round No. 2
michael_care

Pro

How dare you say that people were stoned for sexism in the Bible? The Bible is the catalyst for sexism! Just look in the grotesque book that sits in every hotel room drawer, every pulpit and every library, and you'll find verses like 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.' (1 Timothy 2:12) It's not just the sexism that's so prevalent in the Bible, however. It's the categorical and unanimous support for slavery, genocide, racism and the persecution of other religions. When people say that 'in recent times, maybe the last hundred years, the Jewish people have been the subject of perpetual persecution', try two thousand years! A lot of these ill informed believers don't even recognise that Jesus was a Jew himself!
Anyway, back to the motion, which is 'the world would be better without religion'. Do you claim it morally acceptable that crucifixion is still in use in Saudi Arabia as recent as last month? These are crimes that are not even worthy of a ten year prison sentence in America. Is it merely a coincidence that Saudi Arabia is under a theocracy and the legal system is dominated by Shariah law? How about not even letting women drive? Is that morally just? I say that this is evil, and should be treated with contempt.
Judaism is a religion which I don't believe we have covered yet. What rational, thinking person would look down at a new born baby and think 'let's mutilate this thing's genitals'? These are people who have been corrupted by the poison of religion, and the sooner we rid the world of it, the sooner we'll be living in greater harmony.
debater321098

Con

That's to bad for Saudi Arabian women. And that's a law not a religion. I'm sorry but it's treu they DID get sroned for sexism and adultery. My dad is a pastor he has read the entire Bible about 4 times. He teaches me this stuff.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Fruitytree 4 years ago
Fruitytree
So you mean without religion there will be peace and no more troubles in the world ?

Can't be, Religion has always been there to insist on morals, but people -even religious people- always do as they want and will support it by religion - if they have one - or by other means. you are fighting the wrong enemy ..
Posted by Ian159 4 years ago
Ian159
Point out pro's hasty generalization fallacy "It's obvious that you are a Christian, as you seem to take a single minded approach." You could also call that an ad hominem (personal attack) fallacy.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Volk23 4 years ago
Volk23
michael_caredebater321098Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Most of the PRO's argumentation is poorly framed, Christopher Hitchens-type bashing, but CON lost me when (1) his arguments were glib and short whereas PRO gave enough time to write, I don't know, paragraphs, and (2) he drops a zinger of an argument like "My dad is a pastor he has read the entire Bible about 4 times. He teaches me this stuff."
Vote Placed by girg 4 years ago
girg
michael_caredebater321098Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't even try, there wasn't much structure at all and con had errors.. Disappointing. A topic like this is a great one to debate.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
michael_caredebater321098Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sad debate. Sad. Sad. Sad. Con's arguments were pretty much useless and He didn't use sources. At least Pro used the Bible. Sad. Sad. Sad.
Vote Placed by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
michael_caredebater321098Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I am sorry Con, but "My dad is a pastor he has read the entire Bible about 4 times. He teaches me this stuff." is not a winner, a defense or even a valid point to make in this debate. Clear winner for both arguments, thoughtfulness, logic and insight into what religious texts actually say and what the followers actually do.