The Instigator
sirpegasusrider
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

humanity would have been better off 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 5 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,119 times Debate No: 31158
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

sirpegasusrider

Pro

Considering all the calamities caused by religious extremists throughout history, I believe the world would be better off without religion. I will accept the burden of proof for this debate.
Pennington

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate.

My opponent has taken all the burden of proof for this debate but I think I will offer my own proof as well. No rules were given by my opponent so I'll only submit the rule that round 1 is only for acceptance. I will give my opponent the opportunity to state his case first. In the following round I will go over my opponents argument while also implementing one of my own. Other than that one rule I will not seek to establish any others. As long as we can agree to the common meanings for humanity, religion and better off which are:

Humanity - the quality or state of being human. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Religion- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Better off- being in comfortable economic circumstances: being in a more advantageous position.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...


I look forward to my opponents opening round and wish him good luck. That said, with no further ado I send it back to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 1
sirpegasusrider

Pro

I disagree with the definition of humanity.(Or rather I meant a different kind of humanity.)

Humanity: the human race.

Source: definition 4 of humanity from http://www.merriam-webster.com......

Other then that, I agree with your terms. Let's do this.

Now to make myself clear, I am not here to argue the morality or the intentions of religion, rather the profound negative effect it has had throughout history. I think the best way to start the argument off is to show historical examples of religion causing pain and suffering to the world.

1.Taiping Rebellion: radical political and religious upheaval that was probably the most important event in China in the 19th century. It ravaged 17 provinces, took an estimated 20,000,000 lives. The rebellion began under the leadership of Hong Xiuquan, a disappointed civil service examination candidate who, influenced by Christian teachings, had a series of visions and believed himself to be the son of God, the younger brother of Jesus Christ, sent to reform China. A friend of Hong"s, Feng Yunshan, utilized Hong"s ideas to organize a new religious group, the God Worshippers" Society.

Source: http://www.britannica.com...

2.The Inquisitions: judicial institutions or tribunals that were established by the Roman Catholic Church in order to seek out, try, and sentence people that the Roman Catholic Church believed to be guilty of heresy. 31,912 people are believed to have been executed by the Spanish Inquisition alone!

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org...

3.The Crusades: expeditions of Christian Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land. They are a part of the thousand years' conflict between Christianity and Islam. The combined death toll was about 3 million.

Sources: http://www.religionfacts.com...
http://necrometrics.com...

4.The Jewish Holocaust of 1940s: 6 million Jews dead. If religion didn't exist, Hitler wouldn't have any Jews to kill.

I think I made my point clear. I wonder how my opponent is going to respond.
Pennington

Con

I'd like to say thank you to my opponent for his swift reply. He brought up an issue about my definition of 'humanity' and provided a definition of his own. I don't see any problem with my opponents definition and I think it actually fits the debate better.


Rebuttal:


We can see right off the bat that my opponent has no desire to discuss the morality and the intentions of religious organizations. This is because the real purpose of religion is to help people deal with their life, suffering, grief and insecurities.[1][2] The purpose of religion is to help us learn to "end suffering within." Religion attempts to provide answers to life, to answer the unanswerable and try to find peace of mind. Religion provides people with a sense of security, a set of values for adults and children. Religion can be powerful and because of that, it can result in many abuses but this is true for many social groupings.[5] Violence or abuse is not singled out to just religion but into any kind of activity or group.


1. Taiping Rebellion-


Here my opponent leaves out that this rebellion was also as much political as it was religious.[3] Is it not also the case that the Chinese Dynasty at this time was under many political rebellions?[4] We should also look at the actions of the parties involved and evaluate if they portray the practices of their religion(Christianity)? If they are not practicing their religion with their actions then that could be interpreted as personnel fanaticism and not caused by any religious theology.


2. The Inquisitions-


No one can deny that the actions during the Inquisition was not of any Christian or Islamic value nor its theologies. Where does the Christian Bible claim to kill people for not believing in Christianity?


3. The Crusades-


This can arguably be just as much about suppressing the Arab-Muslim power as much as a religious campaign. The people who suffered during the Crusades were for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons.[8] When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they killed Muslims, Jews, and native Christians which is in no way suggested in the Christian doctrine.


4. Holocaust-


Here my opponent has given us an assertion. He claims that if religion did not exist then Hitler would not have killed 6 million Jews. That leaves us with the impression that Jews would not exist if religion did not exist. We need evidence for that claim! We further need evidence that Hitler would have not killed Jews or any other group if religion did not exist.


A1) False Assessment


Many people's assessment of religion is wrong because they assume it is the religion's theology that demands conflict with other groups but this is not true. All religions preach peace but do the followers practice peaceful beliefs? The truth is that many people claim to be something they are not or claim to be doing something for one cause and really have a different cause entirely. Their are many false believer's and practitioners of religious theology. Many claim actions they commit are for the sake of their religion but are far from the requirements of their religion.


It is human nature to combat and separate into groups. These impulses are present in all individuals, so wars or conflicts can not be attributed to any one specific institution like religion.[9] The dynamics of religion is not to cause pain but to comfort.


A2) Religious Fanaticism


"Religious fanatics are people who attach to some object an ultimate valuation and then attend to that overvalued object with what is recognizable as a kind of religious devotion."[7] Religious fanaticism comes not from deep faith, but from a lack of it. Religion has always had authorities who have sought to control its followers, often through use of force. Individuals as these are driven and seemingly obligated to do all in their power to act upon revelations they perceive. In no way does the actions of these select few paint the picture that religion itself seeks harm and over-all causes more pain than it heals.[7]


A3) Positives of Religion


The strength of family value is increased with the practice of religion. The religious are more likely to stay married and less likely to get divorced.[6] Religious belief and practice contribute substantially to personal moral and sound judgment. The regular practice of religion also encourages such beneficial effects on mental health. In repairing damage caused by alcoholism, drug addiction, and marital breakdown, religious belief and practice are a major source of strength and recovery. Some 81 percent of studies show positive benefit of religious practice, 15 percent were neutral, and only 4 percent showed harm.[6]


David Larson a professor at Northwestern and Duke University Schools of Medicine and president of the National Institute of Health care Research, found that, "the relationship is powerful and positive; overall, psychological functioning improved following a resumption of participation in religious worship for those who had stopped."[6] A study by Religion News Service shows the fact that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. Compared to those who are non-religious they are more involved in voluntary associations, and in attending public meetings, and more likely to vote in local elections, and to donate time and money to causes.[10]


Conclusion:


Religious communities promote positive ethical behavior such as charity and forgiveness. Religious communities offer support to couples and families through a family-centered social network. Religious belief provides people with a sense of purpose and meaning about life in general and their relationships, and this helps them deal with stress. What is clear is that society would be a far more emotionally poorer without the contribution of organized religion to public life.


Sources:


[1] http://contemplative-scholar.blogspot.com...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[3] http://www.britannica.com...


[4] http://www.britannica.com...


[5] http://quod.lib.umich.edu...


[6] http://www.heritage.org...


[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[9] http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu...


[10] http://www.zenit.org...

Debate Round No. 2
sirpegasusrider

Pro

"We can see right off the bat that my opponent has no desire to discuss the morality and the intentions of religious organizations. This is because the real purpose of religion is to help people deal with their life, suffering, grief and insecurities. "

The reason I do not wish to discuss the intentions of religion is because the intentions usually aren't clearly stated in religious texts and are very much so open to interpretation.

"the real purpose of religion is to help people deal with their life, suffering, grief and insecurities. "

An irrelevant opinion. The purpose does not matter. It's the results that matter and based on the results, it doesn't appear to have completed it's "purpose", considering that religion led to lots of loss of life, lots of suffering and grief, and lots of insecurities concerning divine punishment.

1.Taiping Rebellion:

Sure it may be true that the political state of China at the time played a huge role in the rebellion, but it still doesn't change the fact that religion intensified the conflict.

"If they are not practicing their religion with their actions then that could be interpreted as personnel fanaticism and not caused by any religious theology."

Shall we look back at the definition of religion we agreed on, back in round 1.

Religion- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

Although, the religion practiced by the God Worshippers Society is not Christianity, it is still a religion as it is a institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

2.The Inquisition

"No one can deny that the actions during the Inquisition was not of any Christian or Islamic value nor its theologies."

I can,

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Surah 9:123 "O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous."

Thought I cannot prove that these quotes are meant to be taken literary, you cannot prove these quotes are to be taken figuratively. This is why I wished to not discuss the morality of religion.

"Where does the Christian Bible claim to kill people for not believing in Christianity?"

Deuteronomy 17:2-7

2 "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:

5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you."

Considering that only about 10% of the accused were executed by the Inquisition, I would bet that not very often will 1 witness get you killed. So, the Inquisitions followed the standards stated in the bible quite clearly.

Sources: http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://quran.com...

3.The Crusades:

"This can arguably be just as much about suppressing the Arab-Muslim power as much as a religious campaign. The people who suffered during the Crusades were for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons."

What convinced the majority of peasants to fight in the Crusades was very much so religion.

4.The Holocaust
"We further need evidence that Hitler would have not killed Jews or any other group if religion did not exist."

Evidence? It's common sense! If everyone who ever lived was an atheist and the concept of religion didn't exist, there would be no Jews. Therefore, millions of lives are quite likely to be spared. As for the other groups, they are still likely to be persecuted. I never said anything about them.

A1.

"All religions preach peace."

So you're saying that the religion of the Aztecs, which believed in human sacrifices, preached peace! You must be out of your mind!

"It is human nature to combat and separate into groups. These impulses are present in all individuals, so wars or conflicts can not be attributed to any one specific institution like religion."

I agree, I don't blame these conflicts on just religion, but I think it's undeniable that religion contributes quite greatly to the conflicts.

A2.

"Religion has always had authorities who have sought to control its followers."

If religion didn't exist, maybe we wouldn't have so many of these kind of authorities.

"In no way does the actions of these select few paint the picture that religion itself seeks harm and over-all causes more pain than it heals."

Who said they were "select few". All those peasants that fought in the Crusades were definitely not "select few". The rebels in the Taiping Rebellion were not "select few". There was a whole lot of them! And, they were responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

A3.

Sure there are some positives in religion, but the negatives clearly outweigh them.

"The religious are more likely to stay married and less likely to get divorced."

Divorce is not always bad. If you have an abusive husband who beats you, you are more likely to divorce the douche bag if you are an atheist, rather than putting up with it and "praying" it gets better. May I also point out the mistreatment of Muslim women in the Middle East due to religious views.

"Religious belief and practice contribute substantially to personal moral and sound judgment."

I'm guessing your idea of a moral and sound judgement is driving a plane into a building.
Pennington

Con

Thanks again to Pro for his last round.


By the terms of the debate declared in R1, my opponent accepted the BOP that 'humanity would have been better off without religion.' Therefore if Pro fails to provide unaminous justification for religion being more harmful than non-harmful, then I win.


Rebuttal:


Pro made the claim that intentions do not matter but I disagree. Interpretations can be different for each individual but isn't everything in life up to interpretation including religion?[1] The truth is religion has been far more beneficial to humanity than harmful.[4] Therefore humanity itself screams out that religion has been greatly needed by the sheer overwhelming number of followers and believers. Religion gives people a purpose and hope. A well-defined purpose is fundamental to success in any organization or person.[5] The intent or purpose within a cause should always be taken seriously when making a judgement on it. The intent of religion is not harmful or controlling but teaches freedom and love.


If we take away religion we would be violating people's religious rights.[8] Any discrimination of religion is against the current laws. Everyone should have access to the religious rights they are accustomed too. They should be treated with equal respect, regardless of their religion. Religion is a very personal choice and each religion has their own belief system.[10]


When we look at religion we can not take one group to define all religion because of the many different religions out there. I disagree with any religion that has intent to cause harm and seeks control over its followers and outsiders. There are many types of religions like these religions but they remain in the minority. Most majority religions seek peace and moral goals. Four of the top five religions of all-time preach peace and the fifth is Islam who one can argue also teaches peace. My opponent only gave us a handful of incidents to go by to determine if religion is harmful or not.[9]


1.Taiping Rebellion: My opponent respectfully admits that political upheaval was the major cause of China's rebellion and that religion played a smaller role. My opponent failed to catch the point I was trying to make which was that if a person has a religion and is not doing what that religion commands then that person is not acting from a religious bases and but their own.


2.The Inquisition: Pro stated that he can deny that no good value came from the Inquisition. I think we all wish to hear the reasons why he denies this, what good came from the Inquisition?


My opponent offers us scripture from Luke about a parable from Jesus called, 'Parable of the Talents.' My opponent has made a error in assuming that this was actually a ordering of people to die but was instead a story from Jesus to teach the people a lesson.[2] This story also involved Jesus talking about casting judgement on those who refuse Him in the afterlife. My opponent then falsely claims that the Bible suggest to Christian believers to kill other people. The Gospels never claim no such thing and we should remember that Christians are compelled to follow the New Testament and not the Old. [3] The entire commandment of the New Testament is to love thy neighbor as thyself.


I will not interpret the Koran and stand firm that any religion that suggest killing and oppression for its followers should be abolished.


3.The Crusades: People went on Crusades for many different reasons and the Crusades were not solely in the Holy Land. They sought new lives, no taxes, looting, to kill non-christians, to be forgiven of sins, by punishment, to be treated better, land, more importance and to destroy Islam.[6] The most important cause and effect of the Crusades was economic.


4.The Holocaust: My opponent makes the mistake of thinking Jews are only a religious group and not also a ethnic group. If religion did not exist there would still be Jews, there are Jews who are atheist. He also is attempting to blame the Jews for Hitler's actions and it kinda sounds like he has Hitler's views. My opponent is suggesting to get rid of religion because Hitler wanted to kill one religious party or group. He then blames religion itself because people want to oppose it and strip the rights of people to believe in their religion.


A1) False Assessment


My opponent is content in suggesting that religion is not about peace but hasn't given us any real statistics to go by. It is fair to recognize that, at the very least, religion has two very different aspects. One clearly divides humans; the other might be able to unite them. It is also fair, of course, to say that most religions teach some sort of love and peace.[7] There is only one world-wide universal religion, the religion of Love, based on the fundamental truth.


A2) Religious Fanaticism


Fanaticism is not restricted to the religious but it is also in politics and corporate business as well. These kind of fanatic authorities will always exist and have always existed in every group and society. The individual who chooses to partake in fanatic behavior is not defining the religion or institution in which he proclaims. Instead the person is acting on selfishness or deceit for either fortune or fame.


A3) Positives of Religion


In what religion suggest that the follower should drive air-planes into buildings? What religion has actually drove air-planes into buildings? My opponent admits that there are positives inside religion but insist there is more harm than good. He did not give us any facts to support such claims nor did he address all of my positive claims for religion from last round.


Most physicians in the United States believe that religion and spirituality have a positive effect on patients’ health. Disease has lead to far more deaths than religious propaganda.[4] Despite the claims of many theorists, religion has continued to play a vital role in the lives of individuals worldwide. Offering counseling services, providing food and shelter for the poor, helping people in what ever capacity they can. It doesn't matter the religion, faith, or belief, there are benefits of religion that are a benefit to the human race as a whole.[10] Religion provides you with friendships which is a vital element in ones life. As said before, religion has been shown to improve a person's mental and physical health. Religion teaches one to have the skills to help others with consoling for what reason that arises. Religion gives a person the strength to carry one thru struggles and obstacles in their life. No matter what religion you believe the underlying point is that faith is for the betterment of humanity.


Conclusion:


The conclusion is that religion has given far more greater good to humanity than it has took away. My opponent has yet to convince us that humanity would have been better off without religion. Let's remember that my opponent took the BOP and made the initial claim and he must fulfill his BOP.


I turn it back over to Pro!


Sources:


[1]


http://www.str.org...


[2]


http://www.religioustolerance.org...


[3]


http://www.jstor.org...


[4]


http://www.nytimes.com...


[5]


http://www.techrepublic.com...


[6]


http://history-world.org...


[7]


http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org...


[8]


http://www.ohrc.on.ca...


[9]


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


[10]


http://www.articleclick.com...


Debate Round No. 3
sirpegasusrider

Pro

RE-REBUTTAL

"If we take away religion we would be violating people's religious rights.[8] Any discrimination of religion is against the current laws. Everyone should have access to the religious rights they are accustomed too. They should be treated with equal respect, regardless of their religion. Religion is a very personal choice and each religion has their own belief system.[10]"

Did I say anything about making religion illegal? No, I did not. I simply stated that if religion didn't exist, the world would have been better off. Please stay to the topic, Con.

"Most majority religions seek peace and moral goals."

Well, let's examine the major religions then.

Christianity:

Exodus 12:29-30

29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead."

Is killing innocent children your idea of moral?

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com...

Samuel 15:2-3

2 "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

I guess Christianity supports genocide.

Source:
http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Ezekiel 9:5-7

5 "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:

6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city."

Wow! This God fellow makes Hitler look like an angel!

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com...

Islam:

If you though the Christian God was bad, wait till you meet Allah.

Surat At-Tawbah 9:73

"O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination."

Muslims obviously support religious conflict as shown in this quote.

Source: http://quran.com...

Surat Muĥammad 47:4

"So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."

As you can see, Muslims are not at all about peace. The Muslim that are peaceful are going against their religion unknowingly.

Source: http://quran.com...

Hinduism:

Do you find the Caste System to be moral? You know I certainly don't.

In 2008, hunger affected 1 in 6 people in India. If only they could chop up some cows and feed themselves. Oh wait, it is forbidden for a Hindu to eat a cow! The poor people are starving because of their religion!

Source: http://www.deccanherald.com...

Judaism:

A lot of the same stuff as Christianity. I don't really think I need to argue this one too much.

Buddhism:

I will admit, Buddhism is a moral religion for the most part.(Although some forms of Buddhism are not considered religions but rather philosophies.)

1.Taiping Rebellion

"My opponent failed to catch the point I was trying to make which was that if a person has a religion and is not doing what that religion commands then that person is not acting from a religious bases and but their own."

I think you failed to catch my point, then I said they invented their own religion in the process of disobeying Christianity.

2.Inquisition

"pro stated that he can deny that no good value came from the Inquisition. I think we all wish to hear the reasons why he denies this, what good came from the Inquisition?"

I think you misunderstood me. I was denying the fact that the inquisition went against Christian and Islamic morals not whether they were bad. You ought to read my arguments carefully.

"we should remember that Christians are compelled to follow the New Testament and not the Old."

That is not universally agreed upon Christians and many still follow the old testament to some extent. On top of that, Judaism unquestionably follows the old testament.(You know we're not only debating Christianity.)

3.The Crusades:

"The most important cause and effect of the Crusades was economic."

I disagree, if the war was economic, they would fight for other cities that were wealthier than Jerusalem.

4.The Holocaust

"My opponent makes the mistake of thinking Jews are only a religious group and not also a ethnic group. If religion did not exist there would still be Jews, there are Jews who are atheist."

In order to be part of the ethnic group, you must be either practice Judaism or have descendants that practiced Judaism. In other words, you cannot be a Jew if Judaism didn't exist.

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"He also is attempting to blame the Jews for Hitler's actions and it kinda sounds like he has Hitler's views."

When did I blame the Jews for Hitler actions? Now your just making stuff up! And, I assure you, I don't have Hitler's views as I am Slavic myself.

"He then blames religion itself because people want to oppose it and strip the rights of people to believe in their religion."

I blame religion because it was the Christians that exterminated the Jews not atheists. Many Christian Germans believed that they lost World War 1 because of their high population of Jews and that "God" was not on their side because of it.

Source: http://www.sixmillioncrucifixions.com...

"My opponent is content in suggesting that religion is not about peace but hasn't given us any real statistics to go by."

62% of the time, terrorist acts are committed to people of a different religion, but in a typical country, your chances of randomly selecting a person of a different religion(if the religion of the terrorist is the majority in the country the act is committed, which it usually is.) the chances of them being of a different religion is only 27%.

Source:http://books.google.com...

"Most physicians in the United States believe that religion and spirituality have a positive effect on patients" health."

Well, of course most physicians believe that! Considering most physicians are religious themselves! You find me 1 atheist physician that says that and maybe I'll consider your claim. Otherwise, your data is biased.

"Let's remember that my opponent took the BOP and made the initial claim and he must fulfill his BOP."

I forfilled my BOP way back in round 2.
Pennington

Con

Congratulations to my opponent for a good debate! Since no round or rule format was created, I will make a last round argument in the heat of the debate. My opponent brought up some interesting points in his last round that need to be addressed.

CLOSING ARGUMENT:

We should not forget about the important research that has been done in regards to world religions. The worlds leading anthropologists have shown that religions did not evolve, but instead, its shown to become distorted over time.[2] Religion appears to have been around for almost thirty thousand years. This distortion of religion has caused the many radical religious beliefs.

The sheer amount of religions from humanity is amazing. Religion can truly be traced to the earliest humans as hunting and adventuring would be.[3] The majority of humanity have come together because of religious belief. When harmful or non-harmful are compared in religion we will see that religion causes less harm more than most of the time.

Evidence shows that religion has been apart of human nature. Even though there are many different religions today, the original source has given growth to mankind instead of stunting it. Again, I remind you that taking away religious belief is a rights violation.

Not all people who commit terrible acts who are connected to religion, do them for or because of religion.[4] My opponent would appear to have us believe that everyone who has done something terrible who has religious beliefs, makes that religion at fault. Fact is, religious and non-religious alike do terrible things and most of the time it really has nothing to do with the religion themselves.

Pro suggests that Christian doctrine is the same as the Hebrews in Egypt.[1] Well there was no Law for Israel yet and it was God who did this, not people. There were also no Christians at this time because Jesus Christ had not come yet.

The next verses are in Samuel, my opponent gives us just part of the story and ignores statements in the passage itself. The passage gives clear indication that Amalek had done something to Israel first and this was part retribution. There is also another reason which was that these people were not only incestuous but also mixing with angels or demons. Notice that these people had giants with them. This is a common theme in the Bible and God did not intend for that to happen.

In Ezekiel we are given the judgement of the Idolaters. Here we see that people were marked who were to be spared because they did not take part in idolatry. If we read more we would see that the Idolaters burned their children alive, they killed, robbed and captured surrounding peoples. God commanded Israel to rid the earth of these specific idolaters, not all idolaters.

My opponent moves on into other religions as Judaism but never gives us any example against Judaism itself. Pro can not expect us to know all the things that have happened because of Judaism. Or maybe this is because there are not many cases to mention? My opponent also opposes India's choice not to eat cows. Well shouldn't we also call vegetarians a religious group also by that standard? Just because one choose not to eat meat does not necessarily mean its about religion or harmful. There are many types of food to eat in India besides cows.

1. Taiping Rebellion:

My opponent claims that because someone is apart of one religion, his acts are because of that religion. Untrue, it is that person who is to blame for his acts. This kind of phantom religion argument don't fly.

2. Inquisition:

I agree that Islam calls for its followers to kill anyone who is not Muslim to some extent. I can agree there is a problem there but there is no way to justify the Inquisition for Christianity.

3. Crusades:

My opponent disagrees with my sources assessment but that does not dispose of its comments. I also would like to point out that Jerusalem supposedly had tons of gold and in fact had a temple with tons of gold and jewels. Though really it was Muslims who were advancing and caused the wars during the Crusades and the capture of Israel developed later by the Roman Catholic church and various others.[5]

4. The Holocaust:

First my opponent admitted that you do not have to be in Judaism to be Jewish when he said that being a family member qualifies you. What if you are atheist and mother and father are Jews? In fact you are Jew if you descend from Jewish heritage, even if you do not practice Judaism.

Here we go again, the occurring theme of blaming religion for its members actions. Was Hitler claiming Jesus Christ or the Bible told him to kill Jews? Hitler and Germany may have been Christian but that does not mean they were with support of Christianity. Was world-wide Christians supporting their cause? No, Christians and a variety of other beliefs defeated Germany. Also my opponents assessment and source on this topic is incorrect. It is common knowledge that Hitler sought a supreme race of men and that included killing many races besides Jewish.

CLOSING:

This whole debate has been about labeling groups from a select few within them. This kind of thinking is the problem with my opponents resolution. The problem is, people, each and every kind of people. This can go into any group then, like gangs, military, societies, boy scouts, what's next? People disagree and have disputes that lead to war and people dead. With or without religion people would still disagree and people would still find reason to kill one another. Therefore religion is not the issue, it is people themselves.

I thank everyone, Vote Con!

SOURCES:

[1]

http://www.answering-christianity.com...

[2]

http://www.scribd.com...

[3]

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

[4]

http://www.encyclopedia.com...

[5]

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

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
Thanks DoubleR, felt like it was vote Bomb. Your the man.
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
@Daktoria
"Con, on the other hand, doesn't explain how the Taiping Rebellion was primarily political"

Another example of your biased voting having nothing to do with the debate. Con did not have to explain this because Pro accepted it in round 3. You would have noticed that if you paid attention as opposed to finding reasons to vote for whoever you felt like.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
sirpegasusriderPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Daktoria, who places the burden of proof on Con to convince him as opposed to the burden being on Pro to affirm the resolution against Cons rebuttals. Daktoria's last sentence demonstrates this clearly by stating that it was unclear whether the positives Con provided outweighed the negatives. So that alone should have granted Con the victory if Daktoria understood anything about voting. Anyway Cons arguments were clearly more well put together and understandable. Pro simply tried to show a few instances of bad caused by religion without assessing how a fully atheist world would compare. His style of argumentation was very difficult to follow and his comments like "Is killing innocent children your idea of moral?" were distracting and did nothing to support his case, yet these types of comments became more frequent as the debate went on despite clear and articulate rebuttals by Con. Cons arguments showing the good of religion was adequate enough to refute Pros case.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
sirpegasusriderPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering wolfman
Vote Placed by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
sirpegasusriderPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made simple, yet solid, arguments as to the atrocities of religion in history. Con, on the other hand, doesn't explain how the Taiping Rebellion was primarily political, or how the Inquisition, Crusades, or Holocaust were primarily cultural; the supposition of atheist Jews isn't proven in 1940s context. After that, Con repeats himself over and over in claiming Pro failed. He actually comes off as rather obnoxious due to harassment through redundancy. I would award one conduct point for each round if it was possible. Con inconsistently engages Pro's scripture references also, nor does he recognize Old Testament scripture as belonging to Judaism as well. While Con does emphasize family values and psychological well being from religious benefit, he doesn't measure or compare them to Pro's argument, so it's uncertain whether the positives outweigh the negatives. What is certain is that the negatives were extensive.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
sirpegasusriderPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needed to show that humanity would be better off. It's not enough to point to the bad only. You must show that the bad out weighs the good AND that atheism alone would have resulted in even more good. Pro only focused on some bad instances. Con showed that much good comes from religion, and Pro responded with quips like "I'm guessing your idea of a moral and sound judgement is driving a plane into a building." All other arguments about religious content was irrelevant. While Con's arguments could have been stronger, they still were not adequately rebutted by Pro.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
sirpegasusriderPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments were pretty dead on even though I think con had better sources.