The Instigator
lissa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Guidestone
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

religion should be banned

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 2 votes the winner is...
Guidestone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,728 times Debate No: 54082
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

lissa

Pro

Religion should be banned. There is no proof, benefit, nor scientific evidence of a god. Religion encourages stupidity in children from a young age by preventing questioning of religious preaching, this prevents growth in the brain and limits their mind's abilities.
Guidestone

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this debate. It should be interesting.

My opponents first claim of why religion should be banned is that there is no proof of a god(s).

Proof defined by Merriam-Webster is "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning" [1]
There has been many proofs most commonly Ontological argument, Cosmological argument, and other less common ones such as C.S. Lewis's Argument from Reason and Argument from Morality. These establish the validity of the statement that there is a god, so there actually is proof.

Second claim is that there is no benefit of a god(s).

Well, according to Nigel Barber, Ph.D., "Organized religions serve many different functions today from running charities and hospitals to generating laws and providing political organization." and "According to the security blanket concept of religion, supernatural belief systems provide peace of mind and help believers to cope with the more stressful events in their lives. This is a valuable service because chronic stress increases blood pressure leading to heart disease, clinical depression, and contributing to a number of other health problems ranging from obesity to cancers." [2]

Third claim is that there is no scientific evidence of a god(s).

I don't want what I said here to be misleading or misunderstood. I agree you can not prove god(s) existence scientifically, but that is because of limitations of science. Science studies the natural world like cats, planets, humans, etc. However, any god would exist outside of nature, and therefore, could not be studied like we could study Mars. That is the job of Theology.

Fourth claim is that there is that religion encourages stupidity in children from a young age by preventing questioning of religious preaching, this prevents growth in the brain and limits their mind's abilities.

I must point out that this is a currently a claim lacking proof. Also, if this was true then Christianity would have never been reformed by Calvin or Martian Luther, because they should have taught as children to not question religious preaching, but as we know they did. Also, if this prevents growth in the brain and limits their mind's abilities then people who are brought up as religious should be less intelligent, but almost every person in history such as Einstein, Isaac Newton, the Founding Fathers have been the people we consider smart and set as role models.

I would argue that religion benefits society.

In 2012 just the Catholic church donated $70 million dollars to charity. [3] Also, as mentioned earlier it is good for individual health. "There has long been a correlation between being a churchgoer and longevity" [4] Also the American Civil Rights movement was heavily influenced by religion and religious leaders such as Reverend Martin Luther King. [5]

Concluding, religion should not be banned.

Sources
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[3] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com...
[4] http://abcnews.go.com...
[5] http://www.gilderlehrman.org...
Debate Round No. 1
lissa

Pro

Thank you for accepting this challenge, I am in agreement this should be very interesting, even more so the outcome of such debate. Please message me if you don't understand a particular word or phase so that I may clarify, English is not my first language.

My opponent's first claim is that based on the definition of proof according to Merriam-Webster: "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning"

Well the definition implicitly suggests that a wide variety of methods and styles can be used when proving MATHIMATICAL or SCIENTIFIC statements. Which I must point out, that the definition you supplied, does not apply to your claim unless you wish to calculate the probability that 'god' exists, however, you would then need to compare your data to those of well known scientists and cosmologists. In which case you would you would lose this current debate, for all well known and successful cosmologists will agree with me.

To supply proof one must support one's theory by giving evidence, verification, or documentation that would authenticate their claim. Furthermore according to your logic I could say fairies exist, and while it is true that I have said it, does it make the statement itself true? No, it only proves that I have made a claim, not that the information provided in that claim is true.

I am currently unable to rebuttal the claim concerning C.S. Lewis's Argument from Reason and Argument from Morality, because I am unable to find the page or source you are talking of.

My opponent's second claim is based on the OPINION of Nigel Barber, Ph.D.: "Organized religions serve many different functions today from running charities and hospitals to generating laws and providing political organization." and "According to the security blanket concept of religion, supernatural belief systems provide peace of mind and help believers to cope with the more stressful events in their lives. This is a valuable service because chronic stress increases blood pressure leading to heart disease, clinical depression, and contributing to a number of other health problems ranging from obesity to cancers."

I am willing to acknowledge that religion does have a few miniscule good points, however, I believe that you are vastly over estimating them. First I would like to point out that Christianity is the main RELIGION associated with helping charities and churches are not the only ones who donate money to charities. In fact you should consider what the church actually does, is the church itself giving charities money? No, the people who go to these churches do, the church can not provide the amount of money you are talking about, it's just the location for charities, and a very good one too, it's the perfect place to guilt trip people into doing something good. On that note Christianity is given a lot of good publicity and gains many new followers because of their so called good deeds. Also the more people who convert to their religion, is equal to the amount of money that they 'rake in' to help support the church. The church is basically getting money for doing nothing, hence it is no longer beneficial to people because at that point they are then losing money.

I would like you to note, the charity money you so proudly speak of, is not actually all going to charity. In fact some pastors are robbing the church blind."Other charitable works, like a promised orphanage in Brazil, either dried up or never materialized.

Meanwhile, the three white pastors "" Paul Melnichuk and his 40-year-old twin sons, Tim and Tom "" lead lavish lives in contrast to the mainly working-class black families that make up the bulk of the church.

Between them, the pastors have amassed a real estate fortune worth about $12 million. Each owns a multi-million-dollar country estate north of Toronto (Tim's is worth as much as $5.5 million), they share a Florida vacation villa, and the pastors and their wives drive luxurious cars "" among them a Porsche Cayenne SUV, a Lexus RX 330 SUV and a Mercedes-Benz CLK 320 convertible."(source at bottom)

Also this so called, 'peace of mind', only helps to further my claim in the sense that it is basically saying 'ignorance of mind'. It is considered willful ignorance in the sense that religion teaches people to be satisfied not knowing. Do not use religion as a sort of comfort, one is merely deluding oneself that faith is the same thing as courage. Well I apologize for the disappointment but faith is a coward's substitute of courage. It would be better for such patients to look back on their accomplishments and find something they value, something that made their life worth living, instead of something to die for. There are hundreds of people who rely so heavily on faith that they commit suicide in order to be with their loved ones in heaven. Some religions go so far as to say that it's okay to kill people who are non believers.

My opponents third claim: 'I don't want what I said here to be misleading or misunderstood. I agree you can not prove god(s) existence scientifically, but that is because of limitations of science. Science studies the natural world like cats, planets, humans, etc. However, any god would exist outside of nature, and therefore, could not be studied like we could study Mars. That is the job of Theology.'

I am glad we can agree that one cannot prove that god scientifically exist. I would like to point out that you have a misguided understanding of the capabilities science and the vast range of science. There are scientists who have specifically spent their life trying to find proof god exists they're called creation scientists, the reason you probably haven't heard of them is that they have nothing to show for their entire life's research. As for the technology not existing today, no technology has the ability to find something that doesn't exist.

My opponent's fourth claim: "I must point out that this is a currently a claim lacking proof. Also, if this was true then Christianity would have never been reformed by Calvin or Martian Luther, because they should have taught as children to not question religious preaching, but as we know they did. Also, if this prevents growth in the brain and limits their mind's abilities then people who are brought up as religious should be less intelligent, but almost every person in history such as Einstein, Isaac Newton, the Founding Fathers have been the people we consider smart and set as role models."

Have you ever heard of a man named Giordano Bruno? A true genius before his time, he lived in the 1500's, he was originally a monk who liked to educate himself by reading books, however, the church discovered he was reading books from the index which at the time was illegal. He was basically thrown out onto the streets, then one night he came up with a brilliant theory (this is before telescopes were invented ) he created the theory that the sun and stars were other planets, and that there were other worlds. Now Bruno was a religious man, when he was asked to lecture at oxford, they laughed at his idea. However Bruno was not discouraged, he went back to his home in Italy, from which they had banned him from returning to, and he was capture and tortured by his own church brothers for eight years. Eventually they found him guilty and his fellow monks burned him alive at the stake, for claiming god created an infinite universe. 10 years later Galileo looked through the telescope and discovered Bruno was right.

While yes the church has made some changes they are still as ignorant as ever. Refusing to except explanations that interferes with their preaching, they simply ignore

Sources:
FAST FORWARD TO 16 MINUTES AND 40 SECONDS FOR VIDEO ON BRUNO:
https://www.youtube.com...

Pastures who rip off the church reference:
http://atheism.about.com...
Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for there response, but I do think they missed a few points.

The definition of proof does not only mathematical or scientific statement. It is used for any truth claims. To claim otherwise is ludicrous and closed minded.

My opponent's second paragraph about proof shows a poor understanding of points made. My opponent claims "according to your logic I could say fairies exist, and while it is true that I have said it, does it make the statement itself true". I never claimed that God exist because I said so. I was claiming that there are proves for God such as the cosmological argument.

For C.S. Lewis' proofs the argument from reason, which is from his book Miracles in chapter 4, goes like this
  • No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non rational causes.
  • If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of non rational causes.
  • Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred (from 1 and 2).
  • We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence.
  • Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism.
It also continues for a proof for God with
  • Since everything in nature can be wholly explained in terms of non rational causes, human reason (more precisely, the power of drawing conclusions based solely on the rational cause of logical insight) must have a source outside of nature.
  • If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason. (from 2)
  • So, human reason cannot come from non-reason.So human reason must come from a source outside nature that is itself rational (from 1 and 3).
  • This supernatural source of reason may itself be dependent on some further source of reason, but a chain of such dependent sources cannot go on forever. Eventually, we must reason back to the existence of eternal, non-dependent source of human reason.
  • Therefore, there exists an eternal, self-existent, rational Being who is the ultimate source of human reason. This Being we call God (from 4-5).
Then Lewis's argument from morality is in his book Mere Christianity in chapter 1: The Law of Human Nature. Here he argues that since we all have an inborn belief in an objective morality such an objective meaning can only come from a being outside of Nature or otherwise said conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver. [1]

Now to another false claim my opponent makes. They claim the quote from Nigel Barber, PhD, was his opinion. This is simply not true. Both the quotes that I made are facts that can be proven. For example, look at the first quote "Organized religions serve many different functions today from running charities and hospitals to generating laws and providing political organization". In that quote there is no opinion involved either it is true or false. Same goes with the second statement of "According to the security blanket concept of religion, supernatural belief systems provide peace of mind and help believers to cope with the more stressful events in their lives. This is a valuable service because chronic stress increases blood pressure leading to heart disease, clinical depression, and contributing to a number of other health problems ranging from obesity to cancers". This can be proved, and it has by others like in "The Role of Religion and Spirituality in Mental and Physical Health", a academic journal article, it states "This article reviews the literature on the impact of religion and spirituality on physical and mental health, concluding that the influence is largely beneficial" [2]. Further, even if it was an opinion it doesn't necessarily make it less valid; it could be an expert opinion.

Moving to the debate about church and charities. Rather perplexingly my opponents claims that churches don't give the money itself, but rather the people who go to church give the money. Here is why it is wrong. At the time the money was given to charity it was under the ownership of the church not the people. Also, to claim it was the people giving the money and not the churches is like claiming it was the people who shop at Wal-Mart who bought the store not the company. This is obviously ridiculous, the churches are the ones that give to charity. Further, major religions don't act like a businesses and just rake in money, many churches sponsor local events and welfare services, so the churches are getting money for something. Additionally people still benefit because it makes for a better community to have such events/services. Also, they aren't losing money anymore than people donating to cancer research are losing money, it is an improper use of that term.

Sadly, some people do take advantage of this such as Paul Melnichuk, but that because people can be greedy. This is not a inherent problem with religion because this happens whenever there is someone in a power position whether in congress, or CEO.

Dealing with the peace of mind argument, it is not ignorance of the mind. This is because I was not making a God of the gaps argument that is ignorance of the mind, but rather it was a psychological argument that people feel better when they believe their lives have purpose/meaning. This is scientifically verifiable with studies. It is true SOME religions kill non believers, but that is not a reason to ban all religion because of a very small minority.

Now with science and God. It is true you can not prove god scientifically, but you also can't disprove god scientifically. This is due to the limitations of science, which is inherently agnostic. However, you can infer god from scientific evidence such as detectable design, but there is no way for certain to prove or disprove just using science.

Giorrdano Bruno is an interesting case, but there are some false claims here. "It is often maintained that Bruno was executed because of his Copernicanism and his belief in the infinity of inhabited worlds. In fact, we do not know the exact grounds on which he was declared a heretic because his file is missing from the records. Scientists such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler were not sympathetic to Bruno in their writings" [3]. Further, Bruno held many views contrary to Catholic teaching such as Pantheism, theory of multiple worlds and transubstantiation [4], so if anyone is arguing from ignorance it is those who claim he was put to death because of Copernicanism.


Sources
[1] http://lib.ru...
[2] http://cdp.sagepub.com...
[3] http://galileo.rice.edu...
[4] http://www.egs.edu...



Debate Round No. 2
lissa

Pro

lissa forfeited this round.
Guidestone

Con

I extend all arguments to the next round. Hopefully, my opponent will give a thoughtful response.
Debate Round No. 3
lissa

Pro

lissa forfeited this round.
Guidestone

Con

I further extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
lissa

Pro

lissa forfeited this round.
Guidestone

Con

I hope that maybe in the near future that we could continue this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
This is what I get for performing my Megadeth recital on Shabbat.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Soldiers won't budge, hmmm desperate 2 play that guitar.
Maybe if I think of my last night with Mary Magdalene, my erection may get the guitar high enough to play with my teeth?
Boing! Managed to get an E note, but not lasting long enough.
Aww come on you soldiers, at least give me some Viagra.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Damn, I can't play my guitar with these nails in my hands.
If one of you soldiers could just raise the guitar a little, I might be able to do a Jimmy Hendrix and play it with my teeth.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I was waiting for some interesting arguments from Pro, but maybe Pro has lost interest in this debate.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ Your_Logical_Fallacy The founding fathers also wanted Freedom From Religion as well.
A truly Secular society offers both freedom from religious proselytizing and freedom of belief.
This the community I live in right now.
We don't discuss religion with others in our community, we don't denigrate people for their beliefs and they refrain from trying to proselytize (promote) their religious views.

We enjoy each other as productive, intelligent individuals, where belief systems are kept private and not flaunted in public.
You don't see religious people trying to push their religion onto others at gatherings and you don't see Atheists fighting back.
Atheism has almost disappeared here, but, also, atheism is the most common belief system here.
Most of the people in my community are Atheist, but to visit them, you would never know it.
Because Faith has become a non-Issue, and militant atheism has thus completely disappeared.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Con's arguments are full of Fallacies, hope Pro brings Con to task on them:

Con stated: "There has been many proofs most commonly Ontological argument, Cosmological argument, and other less common ones such as C.S. Lewis's Argument from Reason and Argument from Morality. These establish the validity of the statement that there is a god, so there actually is proof.

Every single one of those so called arguments of proof are nothing but Fallacies, dressed up to resemble something like proof. Yet, none of them are Proof. Just Fallacious Arguments Out Of Ignorance
Posted by Your_Logical_Fallacy 2 years ago
Your_Logical_Fallacy
really i thought our country was founded on freedom of religion
Posted by MagicBananas11 2 years ago
MagicBananas11
What are you gonna do, ban people from thinking about what they want to think about?
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
The only argument needed for Con is freedom of speech and religion and why it is necessary.

The arguments about the proof of god are unreliable. The benefits of religions are kind of lame too. I mean, you don't need religions to do charities. The donation part is.. wow... yeah, we need rich people so they can donate some more.

Freedom is the answer my friend.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
lissaGuidestoneTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
lissaGuidestoneTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Though I think it was nasty and stupid what Christianity did to Bruno, Pro did not argue strong enough for banning beliefs, organized religion should be relegated to being nothing more than an institution of superstition, such as Astrology and Psychic groups, but actually banning religion is going a bit too far. We cannot ban Astrology, palmistry and psychics which are the same as religion, only religion has more social control, which is indeed Wrong! Con also gets the conduct point for Pro's dropping out of the debate.