The Instigator
bennourse
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
mush16
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

we would be better off without religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,302 times Debate No: 10676
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (3)

 

bennourse

Pro

Religion causes more harm than good. Without religion i think we would be better off.
mush16

Con

state how religion causes harm and the ratio of it to good.
religion is so complex you cannot generalize it and dismiss it.
Religion defines some cultures, it is peoples way of life and their faith
in their religion keeps them positive. The ins and outs of every religion would
take too much to explore deeply,for example buddhists believe in non-violence and strive to find the cure to all suffering, how is this causing harm? extremists nowadays are pretty rare therefore
the positive compounds of religion such as encouraging moral values, humane , hope, togethernesss
and hope, hard-working and helpful people. The idea of religion is not melicious, it is the extremists
that are able to find reasons behind violence in their religions that allow themselves to lower the
opinion of other people against their religion, not the religion itself.
Debate Round No. 1
bennourse

Pro

Good point, however religion was not created out of the goodness of people's hearts. In Islam you are sentenced to death if you change your religion. Even people who are part of non-violent religions are targeted by people unfairly. Do you think if religion never existed we would be able to morally be good people? I mean of course we can because now atheists ( like myself ) are morally good people. We do not need religion to keep us in line anymore, times have changed and we need to move on.
mush16

Con

fair comments.
what would taking away peoples faiths lead to, as i said for some it is a way of life.
if the religion was taken away they wouldnt be actively religious but
still use parts of it to keep themselves inside of their own expectations.
In current times where religion does tend to be dwindling, imagine the lack of religious
morals passed down to children because as the religion dies out people forget the original meaning
for their actions. compare todays society with society 100 years ago. Religion was a part of life,
children didnt have a choice they went to church end of. Today there is wide-spread drugs, alcohol,bullying, weapons,
all sorts of problems we as a generally unreligious nation show in comparison to china for example who practise in buddhism have less problems.
Debate Round No. 2
bennourse

Pro

bennourse forfeited this round.
mush16

Con

shame this debate has so many rounds =/
Debate Round No. 3
bennourse

Pro

bennourse forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
bennourse

Pro

bennourse forfeited this round.
mush16

Con

vote con :)
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bennourse 4 years ago
bennourse
I apologise for this debate! This was a couple of years ago and I forgot about the debate and didn't finish answering! It was terrible on my part and is unforgivable! But I've learnt to debate better (I think) since then and I hopefully can make up for this :'). Apologies!
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
I agree with the resolution, but there's now ay he won the debate :P My seven points go to mush
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
@ Geo:

I do not have time to defend my position right now, so you are left in possession of the field for the time being.

Thank you, Geo; I now know what my next debate will be.
Posted by bennourse 7 years ago
bennourse
My point is we should not be able to kill in the name of God. I am not judging the bible, I am clearly stating what Was wanted which was specific examples.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@Chrysippus

You can show people Bible verses promoting peace and forgiveness. I can also show you Bible verses commanding (not merely describing) slaughter of entire nations, killing of pregnant women, stoning of non believers, and global genocide committed by Yahweh. If wish to console yourself with cherry picking the Bible, yet claim it's inerrancy or infallibility, go ahead, but this is a dishonest way to represent the Bible.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Violence is in direct conflict with the clear teachings of Christianity. I can show you (in a PM, if you want) the places in the Bible where we are told to forgive our enemies, suffer wrong without resisting, not fight in wartime; violence and hatred are the exact opposite of the message of Christianity.

Have there been Christians who have fought, or who have committed atrocities? Of course. But they did so in spite of the teachings of the Bible, not because of them.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Think deeply. If a religion teaches pacifism, and religious wars are started in its name, who is responsible for the war? The people whose greed and hatred would start wars no matter what they professed to believe, or the cause they claim to be fighting for?

People start wars. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

There have been a few religions which teach killing; your argument holds true for the Aztecs, Incans, Norse Pagans, Roman polytheists, and some of the other old polytheistic religions. There were some religions in antiquity that practiced human sacrifice. Christianity is not one of them.
Posted by bennourse 7 years ago
bennourse
Yes I understand that and I know not all of it is evil but what gave those christians in the past the right to what they did? It was not justified. You cannot justify mass killings of people in the name of God. It's just not right and I dont think that should be forgotten. Nothing is perfect but we cannot forget those imperfections otherwise does anything change?
Posted by bennourse 7 years ago
bennourse
Mainly it is Christianity. I think that it does not practice what true religion should be about. For example...

'As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.'
What gave the Christians the right to kill the Pagans based on their religion?

'Western and/or Christian powers have been responsible for at least twenty times more deaths than have Muslim powers. In this most brutal of centuries, we created incomparably more civilian casualties than have Muslims in the whole of Islamic history. '
Even today, we have not learnt that religion, christianity in paticularly seems to spark violence and I am not asking for you to justify it I just want to know what gives christians the right to do this throughout history? I do not understand how it is morally wrong to kill someone but is acceptable when religion is involved and this is paticularly presented throughout history in Chrsitianity, the most brutal by far.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
"you can't deny that religion is brutal."

These people? Brutal? http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

You make blanket statements. Is religion itself intrinsically brutal, or have there been brutal people that blamed their acts on the religion they claimed to follow? Or could there be religions based on force, and others based on peace?

Try to think without the generalizations for a bit, eh?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
bennoursemush16Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
bennoursemush16Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
bennoursemush16Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14