The Instigator
saboosa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Phoenix61397
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

There should be no 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 5 votes the winner is...
Phoenix61397
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 60281
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

saboosa

Pro

Hello, thanks for accepting my debate! I will be arguing that religion SHOULD NOT exist, First round is for ACCEPTANCE. Thanks for joining and good luck!
Phoenix61397

Con

I accept. This one should be fun.
Debate Round No. 1
saboosa

Pro

Argument:

1.Religion starts many wars and violence throughout our nation.

2. Most religions are manly based around the MALE.

3. People are commonly judged by their religion.

I am looking forward to your rebuttals so i can rebut them as well.
Phoenix61397

Con

Alright, thanks to my opponent for the VERY quickly posted argument. I'll open with my arguments and then rebut.

1) Religion is an attempt to ascertain the objective truth of the world through supernatural means. It is impossible to completely disprove any religion. The objective truth of the world, for example, could very well be that a Christian God exists. In Christian beliefs, if one does not have faith in God, they most likely will go to hell. In this scenario, which cannot be disproven, the abolition of religion would cause everyone in the world to go to hell. It would destroy every person in the entire world. It would also strip everyone in the world of their ability to find the objective truth. Although science is great, and can explain many tenets of the natural world, people should have the freedom to use their own means of attempting to ascertain truth, such as the supernatural. This is not a hindrance to anything, as naturalistic science is unable to explain many aspects of life. The answer could very well be the supernatural. To rebut this argument, my opponent must prove that no supernatural being has any possibility of existence.

2) Religion (at least many religions) instill moral values into a society. While religion is by no means required to generate a sense of morality, religions definitely help to keep a sense of moral value in society.

3) Religion contributes to culture. Whether it be Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., religious traditions and practices shape many different cultures and keep the world interesting and thriving. For instance, without Christianity Christmas would not exist. Christmas creates a fun sense of culture and also has an ENORMOUS positive global economic impact [1]. Without religion, Easter, Hannukah, even Yoga would not exist.

Rebuttals:

1) My opponent states that in "our nation", religion starts wars and violence. The only incidence here I can think of is 9/11. There is an abscence of evidence that Muslims committed the attacks [2]. Meanwhile, religion has actually prevented war in our nation. Christianity and Pope John Paul II prevented the Cold War from becoming heated [3]. America could very well have been obliterated without the influence of Christianity.

2) This fact stems from most religions being really old. Women were considered inferior to men prior to the 19th Amendment Era. Many religions are steeped in tradition, but many have also made considerable advancements in women's rights. Many Protestant Christian denominations allow women preachers. In addition, the workplace also still slightly favors men. Does this mean we should abolish work? No. That wouldn't be the answer.

3) People are also commonly judged by their job, school, gender, sexual preference, sport of choice, economic status, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. Humans are a judgemental species. This doesn't mean we should abolish religion.

Conclusion
My opponent has not thus far met their BoP. Religion should not be abolished. Thank you.

Sources
[1] http://www.statista.com...
[2] http://davidraygriffin.com...
[3] http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 2
saboosa

Pro

1. Not every person (aitheist) believes in god. And what you want me to explain is very confusing.

2. It may in some casinerios when people AGREE on the religion. But when they don't, it's strikes lots of violence. Is that a moral value in society?

3. I can't say it dosent come from / contribute to culture because many times it does. That dosent make it right all of the time. And the "fun" of a holiday is not relevant to this topic.
Phoenix61397

Con

Thanks to my opponent for the argument.

1. It doesn't matter in relation to my argument whether anyone believes in God for Him to objectively exist. If He exists, His existence is objective truth. The abolition of religion would mean, if God existed, that we would be moving away from the ascertainment of truth. Unless God can be disproven, then this aspect of religion cannot be discredited. I don't think what I asked was confusing, I simply asked for proof that no God or supernatural being worshipped by any religion exists. Well, it's too late for my opponent to answer now, I suppose.

2.. It took me awhile to decipher that casinerios was actually scenarios here, but my opponent has failed to prove that religions incite violence, while I have rebutted this proposition. When people cite "a religion is violent" they usually refer to Islam. While some sects of Islam are violent, my opponent would throw away many peaceful, moral religions such as Christianity and Buddhism because certain groups of Muslims cause violence. My opponent cannot claim all religions are violent because some are. This is a "Cherry Picking" fallacy.

3. My opponent has conceded this point. She admits that religion contributes to culture. I never claimed it was "right" all of the time, oftentimes (almost always) a cultural practice is neither inherently right nor wrong, but it contributes to the greater diversity of the human population.

My opponent seems to have dropped her initial arguments, I take this to mean they have been successfully rebutted.

Conclusion
Religion is necessary for society. It has shaped society the way it is today, both morally and culturally, in virtually all countries and societies in existence. It is also an alternative method to science of ascertaining truth. Religion should by no means be abolished. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by YamaVonKarma 3 years ago
YamaVonKarma
Translated: Guys religion is evil because it forbids you from giving your teacher a hug so checkmate Christians. To Pro: I recommend studying some of the more popular debates a bit. Rome wasn't built in a day and was constantly perfected.
Posted by saboosa 3 years ago
saboosa
uhh what?
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
guize relijun es evul beecaws itt forbbidds yu frum giveeng yor teechur ahug sso chekmait crischins!!!!!!!!!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 3 years ago
YamaVonKarma
saboosaPhoenix61397Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no sources. Both had equal conduct. Con was the only one who made Serious arguments.
Vote Placed by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
saboosaPhoenix61397Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made very few sensible arguments.
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
saboosaPhoenix61397Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy vote. There are many faults with Pro simply saying "religion starts war" and "religion is sexist" because she did not provide back up arguments. Con put a huge amount of research into his rounds and used sources.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
saboosaPhoenix61397Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: cons only one to use sources, and pro barely made any arguments
Vote Placed by Theunkown 3 years ago
Theunkown
saboosaPhoenix61397Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Despite the fact that I completely disagree with Con, I must say that he atleast put an effort into his arguments. Con must get the vote. Pro put little effort into her arguments and they were not very convincing. Con also uses sources