The Instigator
dukeofpanda
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DoulosChristos
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Organized Religion Should be Abolished Worldwide

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,045 times Debate No: 113201
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

dukeofpanda

Pro

I'd like for this debate to follow a structure similar to a typical parliamentary debate.
I'd also like for the arguments in this debate to be somewhat calculated so as to avoid massive walls of incomprehensible text. At the same time I'd like any evidence you'd like to reference be restated in your own words so as to draw upon the main points that apply to your argument. Posting links is good, but don't expect to me or any judges to read entire studies or watch videos for more than two minutes. Not many have time for that. I'd like to make this debate easy for audiences to follow. Therefore the 3,000 character limit, which I feel might still be too much.

Round 1: is for accepting the terms and debate. Just type that you accept.

Round 2: I will post my first argument and you can rebut it and present 1 or two of your own arguments.

Round 3: I will rebut and post an argument or two and you should do the same.

Round 4: This round is reserved for final rebuttals and reinforcing any of your current arguments. A few closing words can be shared to state why you think you won. Please, no new arguments should be presented in round 4.
DoulosChristos

Con

I accept your challenge and look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
dukeofpanda

Pro

First I want to clarify that I'm not proposing mass genocide because that would be ridiculous and somewhat contradictory to some of my arguments.

What I propose is the immediate dissolution of all currently established religious organizations as well as the destruction of relevant religious structures and artifacts tied to the religions. Also, their property should be seized and re-assigned for general public use. The goal is to effectively wipe the world slate clean of these religions without having to resort to outright killing people. Jailing may be necessary, but probably not for long because of my first argument.

1) Provoke/Invoke God. There are a lot of people, Atheists and Agnostics for example, who question the existence of God. Many religious people also question who's right about God. We have all these religions are they all correct or is it all a scam? If only there were a way to figure it all out. There is! I propose to the people of the world that they allow an agency like the UN to stamp out all religion. If God exists and has a say in the matter God will do something to protect his religion. And if he doesn't everyone will know at the very least that those religious institutions aren't needed. If God acts, or doesn't mankind, will have learned something very valuable.

It's not so unreasonable to test religion anyway. In the Bible the Jewish prophet, Elijah, tests whether or not Baal is real or not. When Baal fails to show the priests of Baal are all killed and all their places of worship and artifacts are destroyed throughout Israel.

In some understandings regarding the Christian Greek scriptures of Revelation the world leaders are supposed to turn on religion and destroy it. This is supposed to be a precursor to God's war on the world and the supposed paradise afterward. The destruction of religious organizations is foretold in Christianity

Let's do it! What do we have to lose? Either we prove that all this religion stuff is nonsense and stop beating ourselves up over it or God settles it and there's paradise for whichever religion was right.
DoulosChristos

Con

Just as in introductory I would like to point out the fact that my opponent has stated he/she does not want to resort to killing but jailing may be necessary. We have people who as of right now would die for their religion, abolishing world religions would result in mass killings on both parts. Imagine trying to destroy the dome on the rock. That would not go well. Mass killings would be inevitable. This idea will not work from the start, pious religious people would not stand by as their sacred places are dissolved. This would result in mass revolt.

Moving on to the basic argument my opponent has put forward, my opponent has stated this premise:

" If God exists and has a say in the matter God will do something to protect his religion"

The entire argument my opponent put forward rests on this premise. This premise however is not true. My opponent has used Scripture as an example so I will too.

In Ezra 5:14 we read:

And the vessels also of gold and silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought them into the temple of Babylon, those did Cyrus the king take out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered unto one, whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor;

All throughout Jewish history the Holy Places were invaded, dissolved, and usurped by enemy forces. God allowed this to happen. Using the premise my opponent has put forward, the true religion should have special protection above all others. This is not the case in Scripture. The Jews were persecuted throughout Biblical history and when we get to the New Testament, we see Christians suffering the same fate. And likewise, by this supposition my opponent has put forward, even now we should not be seeing the death or suffering of members of the true religion.

In reality, God allows suffering for His own Sovereign purposes, and destroying all churches, mosques, temples, shrines, or any other religious institution will not change those divine purposes.
Debate Round No. 2
dukeofpanda

Pro

"If God exists and has a say in the matter God will do something to protect his religion" This is not necessairly the entire premise of my argument.

By citing Ezra and the destruction of Jerusalem you mention that the destruction of a religion is often allowed by God and that he would not necessarily intervene, but this is very conditional. In regard to the destruction Jerusalem, though, it was prophesied in response to the people's failure to uphold God's laws and standards. In other instances when the nation was under threat separate from prophecy, God did react. Also you failed to address the argument regarding Chrisitan prophecy foretelling the destruction of false religion. My argument is two fold, attack his people without provocation to provoke a response consistent with examples from Judaism, or fulfill prophecy similar to that presented in Christianity and invoke his action. This way we can actually cover all his sovereign purposes.

Your statements about the propensity toward violence leads to my second argument.

Religion has failed and more effectively organizes people into potential terrorist organizations ready to mobilize against the government.

Many will claim that their religion is one of peace and that it instills good moral standards among it's practitioners. But as you recognize, their are many willing to fight, die and commit acts of violence as soon as they can for their religion contrary to the teachings of their Holy texts. How less warranted would this violence be if their own god wasn't willing to even defend them. Religion breeds this kind of ignorant violence. Religion has caused or propagated many of the wars and disgusting act of violence throughout history. It's leaders are hypocritical and violate standard moral conduct frequently. Many religions can't even decide what should be their own standard for moral conduct. Instead many compromise morality to bend to the trends of society. Why? To make money? To hold onto political influence? In many cases, yes, for these reasons exactly. Religions constantly compromise; they're a lie. But they are influential in inciting people to violence. Maybe this endeavor will result in blood shed, but it will be religion to cast the first stone, which will only serve to reveal its cancerous nature in society and further merit its swift removal. At best religion is like a benign tumor and it would be better to have it removed. Otherwise, its full blown cancer needing to be removed.

How long should the parasite of religion be allowed to leech off the government and spread it's infection of ignorance and hate throughout society?
DoulosChristos

Con

"Religion has failed and more effectively organizes people into potential terrorist organizations ready to mobilize against the government"

" Religion has caused or propagated many of the wars and disgusting act of violence throughout history. It's leaders are hypocritical and violate standard moral conduct frequently. Many religions can't even decide what should be their own standard for moral conduct. Instead many compromise morality to bend to the trends of society. Why? To make money? To hold onto political influence? In many cases, yes, for these reasons exactly. Religions constantly compromise; they're a lie"

If, as you say, religions are so evil, and their followers so corrupt, what would make you think God would intervene when these religions are being attacked?

You have undermined your own premise.

You have started out by saying that if we attack these religions, God would intervene and defend the right one. When I challenged that premise by citing examples from Scripture that prove contrary, your explanation is God remained silent because it was a response to them not upholding God's laws and standards. Now you claim that religionists are across the board immoral and religion is evil, and we should attack them to provoke a response. According to your own standards that response would be silence.

Since many religionists , according to you, live out of line with their holy texts, they are by all means a mirroring of the Jews during Ezra's time. Hence God's response, silence.

If you state the opposite, that there are some religious people who are good, moral, and decent human beings, who are in line with their holy texts, then what justification do you have to essentially wage war on the innocent?

In regards to the prophecies you cite in Revelation, you state:

" the Christian Greek scriptures of Revelation the world leaders are supposed to turn on religion and destroy it. "

Not quite. In Revelation the world leaders do not turn on religion and destroy it, they usurp it and set up a unified world religion, they don't eradicate religion they just make a global one. This is seen in the 13-17 chapters for anyone looking for a citation.
Debate Round No. 3
dukeofpanda

Pro

I would not say that I have undermined my own premise. I set out to give reasons why it would be a good idea to get rid organized religion. The only premise I needed to uphold was to show why it would be a good idea. And I gave two.

First I stated the possibility of invoking or provoking God, or we could say even gods. You argued that God doesn't necessarily give special protection.

You failed to see the point. If God or gods are unwilling to give special protection on the cusp of their entire religion being dissolved then God, or gods are useless. I cited prophecy in regard to the end of false religion to show that it could be a precursor to the beginning of a new world of peace. Your counter was that world leaders didn't destroy it but instead usurp it. Really? To usurp and rebuild into something else is to essentially basically abolish organized religion. Your suggestion still results in the abolishment of current organized religion worldwide. The point of the argument was that we potentially get an answer to any doubts regarding God, or we usher in a new age of peace. If God, or gods fail to answer the call to action we can do away with religion and move on. After all what use do we have for gods of inaction?

You never gave me an argument. You rebutted, yes. But you gave no argument of your own.

Then I gave my second argument that religion has failed. If they are so evil that God and gods would do nothing to protect them then it would only further justify their being abolished.

The purpose of this debate was to prove why abolishing organized religion is a good idea not to get God to act. Getting God to act is a potential bonus.

The premise of the arguments are essentially: there are some good reasons to abolish organized religion. 1) maybe get God to do something and usher in an age of peace or 2) get rid of a failing drain on society that has directly or indirectly caused the deaths and suffering of millions. This fact you did not directly challenged at all. The second reason is not dependent on gods at all.

You have spent the entire debate trying find fault in the premise of my arguments, but you failed. Instead you have essentially said, "But if religions are so bad why would God help them, he might not do anything at all." Exactly. If religion is so screwed up God and gods don't want them why should we keep them?

And that's the problem. During the entirety of the debate you haven't given a single reason, compelling or not, to keep organized religion. You gave no reason to keep religion and instead reduced yourself to arguing religious interpretations. You fell for that distraction and missed the debate completely. You did just as the confused religions do themselves; get so caught up in meaningless nuances and interpretations you fail to contribute any real good to the problems at hand. A distraction mankind would be better of without. Organized religion should be abolished.

You lose, good day sir.
DoulosChristos

Con

" If God or gods are unwilling to give special protection on the cusp of their entire religion being dissolved then God, or gods are useless"

You have not addressed my response to this, why would God protect people who you have argued are essentially morally bankrupt? You argued that we need to abolish religion to invoke God to see which religion would be protected. I argued that God would not necessarily protect any given religion. My argument was from Ezra. Your response to this was that God stayed silent in Ezra because it was punishment for their usual breaking of God's standards. You also argued that religious people today are not in line with their holy texts, and are immoral. I argued if this was the case, God would not protect them. Hence, if we abolish world religions, we are back to square one. God would not necessarily even respond. Hence your first premise was disproved.

"Your counter was that world leaders didn't destroy it but instead usurp it. Really? To usurp and rebuild into something else is to essentially basically abolish organized religion"

Using Revelation to support the view that we need to do an experiment to see which religion is true is not valid, in Revelation they believe they have received the true religion because of the antichrist's presence on the earth. One could argue that the current religions were abolished, but it was not an experiment, the scenario in Revelation was a replacement of religions with another, again, not a provoking of God.

"You never gave me an argument. You rebutted, yes. But you gave no argument of your own."

So I suppose the possibility of mass killings and global war was not strong enough to dissuade you?

"And that's the problem. During the entirety of the debate you haven't given a single reason, compelling or not, to keep organized religion. You gave no reason to keep religion and instead reduced yourself to arguing religious interpretations. You fell for that distraction and missed the debate completely. You did just as the confused religions do themselves; get so caught up in meaningless nuances and interpretations you fail to contribute any real good to the problems at hand. A distraction mankind would be better of without. Organized religion should be abolished.

You lose, good day sir."

Attacking my responses and disproving my responses are two different things. Stating I lose and defeating me in a debate are two different things as well.

-DoulousChristos

"
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
I propose mass genocide.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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