Attention: is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

It is good to be religious but not blindly

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 862 times Debate No: 58904
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




It is good to have faith in god ,to be religious but to be blind follower of god .In the era of technology and science there are still people who believe there every thing to god and for god. It is true that every thing in the world is beyond the capability of a human .this means god existing in every thing ,but some people are having a kind of mentality that says ... that this is restricted to this and this to that , they always find out some or the other thing and would relate to god .Such people do not try to use their minds in scientific way and the ones who are curious to know and learn everything on the basis of a reason these blindly religious people always pull such people down and do not let them enhance their ways of thinking .


I accepted this debate to argue the following: It is NOT good to be religious. I want that to be perfectly clear. I am NOT debating that it is good to be religious but you should follow blindly. Blindly following anything is absolutely wrong.

To my argument, that it is not good to be religious. I will begin my argument by proposing to you what has become known as the "Hitchens Challenge." The challenge: Name one moral or ethical statement made, or one moral or ethical action performed, that could not or have not been uttered or done by an nonbeliever. Next, name an immoral or evil statement made, or an immoral or evil action performed, that was said, committed, or carried out in the name of God.

Happily awaiting your response.
Debate Round No. 1


The challenge itself is completely invalid when proposed by an atheist because, logically, it could never be answered to the satisfaction of an atheist, even if valid answers exist.Nobody is stopping atheists from doing moral things. So why might an atheist not be able to do something moral that a theist could do? The only possibility is that there might be certain acts that only theists would recognize as being moral. Atheists, not recognizing those acts as being good, would not attempt to do them as moral acts.Coming to your second challenge,Atheists can be as good or evil as believers. Some religious laws are immoral from the perspective of equality, freedom, and improving the human condition. We would be better without these.


Well, it's not completely invalid because if a valid answers exists then it would satisfy the challenge. You're focusing purely on the term "moral" and ignoring the term "ethical."

The only possibility is that there might be certain acts that only theists would recognize as being moral."
---Can I have an example please?

"Atheists can be as good or evil as believers."
---This is not the point. An atheist has never flown a plane into a building because of his/her atheism. An atheist has never spread lies about polio vaccinations because of their atheism. An atheist has never interfered with a woman's reproductive rights because of their atheism.

You've failed to fulfill the burden of proof of your original statement.
Debate Round No. 2


Kavisha forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited their turn, vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Amoranemix 7 years ago
The resolution of your debate is unclear. Next time try being clearer on what positions you and your opponent are supposed to defend. You seem to have taken a middle ground.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 7 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's FF allowed Con's rebuttals to go un-countered.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.