The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Religion itself is to blame for peoples actions

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,359 times Debate No: 59289
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I will show how religion has done no harm and only people are to blame.


Hello, an interesting topic.

I assume the BoP is on Con as he says that he will be showing, but I will also put some arguments out there.

The Quran has caused much violence, war, and discrimination. Take a look at most modern Islamic countries after "Draw Muhammad Day" and this is what you'll find:

and even worse, this:

These things are all the result of religion, and although I do not need to prove that religion is to blame for people's bad actions, I thought I'd focus in on that for this round.

The kids in the picture above could be playing in a sandbox, doing homework, reading, or listening to music, but instead they are part of a religious parade. These kids have no idea the depth of what they're doing is. They don't even consider that Allah might not be real or that there are other religions out there. This is because their pious parents felt the need to pass on their religion to their children. These kids didn't have a choice.

It religion to blame for these actions because were these people non-Islamic, they would not have cared about "Draw Muhammad Day" and would not have preformed these actions.

Also, if you look in Islamic countries on a daily basis, you might find this:

These powerful images were delivered by religion, as the Quran is what has influenced thus women's rights violation because of its many sexist passages[1] that were taken as the word of Allah.

"O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful."[2]

All these things are by products of religion, because if you were to make all of these people atheists, those images would not exist. It is religion which causes people to devote their entire lives to a god, take ancient desert books and use them as the source of their morality, and countless other things.

I've focused in on a Islam quite a bit here, but I'd like to note that Christianity has its bad influences as well. For example, this all-too-familiar picture:

More kids, who have been brainwashed by the Westboro Baptist Church to believe in their religion, causes kids to hold up these signs. What eight-year-old that you know holds up signs saying "God hates America" because it's their will? Religion influences these people's actions.

I awaiat Con's Arguments.

Debate Round No. 1


You actually proved my point without realizing it, what do those photos all have in common? People, people themselves do these things not religion. An ideology is not capable of committing disgusting acts but people are. Take away people from the equation and not only would you see that no harm will be done but religion itself won't exist in the first place. The only reason these things are happening are because of people. Religion is a tool nothing more it is not the problem people are, just like if you take away a gun you will still have people killing each other the same goes for religion. Regardless of religion people will always find an excuse to do harm to one another and religion is one of those excuses but it can't do harm since its only an idea. What does harm are the people who push what they believe by force, taking away a ideology won't change that people will always find an excuse to be destructive.



If this is truly your position you have mislead me with your debate title and opening argument. It is extremely obvious and self-evident that without people there is not even a religion to influence people. Nobody is dumb enough to not realize this. An ideology cannot go around burning flags, punching or killing people, etc. That would be like saying "Hunger is not to blame for people eating because if you take away the person, hunger by itself can't do anything." It can only influence people.

However, your second example and latter half of the statement, although they do not match up with the first half of your argument, give me hope. If you're saying that religion itself is not the influence, but human nature, and that if people were to cast aside religion, there would still be violence and flag burnings, etc. This is what the title and first argument of this debate make me believe it is about.

I will now argue the latter issue. All the pictures you see above are acts of violence, hatred, or discrimination (except the one with the kids). I argue that were you to take away religion, these people would not be doing these terrible acts. To prove this, I will use a simple logical argument.

P1: These people get their morality from scripture
P2: It is these people's conception of morality which causes them to do these things
C1: If you take away these people's morality (i.e. their religion) they will no longer do these things.

It is pretty easy to confirm P1, as these people take the Bible/Quran as the word of god, and as such they will follow the rules and advice written in their book as if they were absolute.

P2 is valid because, as we can see, if these people get their morality from scripture, which we have confirmed, they are told:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death"
[1], and

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land."[2]

Therefore if you detach their morals from scripture (eliminate religion), they will no longer see the need to do these terrible things to fellow man.

Debate Round No. 2


i do not see how my opening statement and argument title are misleading, please explain.

Now here is simple logic proving relgion can do no harm.

P1: Ideas or ideologies are nothing more then inanamate ideas.

P2: Ideas or ideologies that are inanimate can do no harm.

P3: Religion is an inamimate idea and idealogy.

P4: Therefore religion can do no harm.

That is all I'm trying to argue, not that religion can't give people a reason but that religion itself being an inanimate idea and ideology can do no harm. Many people have done evil regardless of religion, by taking away religion violance, bigotry, burning of flags will still happen just for different possible reasons. Will the people will always be a destructive lot no matter what the reason.


Again you contradict yourself!

You literally say "religion itself being an inanimate idea and ideology can do no harm." is the only thing you're trying to argue, then you say " by taking away religion violance, bigotry, burning of flags will still happen just for different possible reasons."

Those are two different arguments.

Again, if you are going with the first, the title of the debate is "Religion itself is to blame for peoples actions", which assumes that people are taking actions. Thereofe I call for an unfair debate because of a misleading title.

If you are using the second argument, I've refuted it already, so rebut me if you'd like.

Sorry for the big text and all, but I am a bit frustrated.
Debate Round No. 3


Sorry for the confusion what I meant was if you take away religion the bigotry, burning of flags will still happen for different reasons.

Now inanimate ideas can do no harm in and of themselves so if you can prove that they can then you will have made that point.

As for the title, religion is not to blame for peoples actions just like if you made a written order for the killing of innocents you wouldn't say the order is to blame you would say the persons actions were.


Yes, I concede the point that the inanimate idea of religion can do no harm.

I hope we can drop that whole argument now.

What you said you meant, "if you take away religion the bigotry, burning of flags will still happen for different reasons," Is what I'm arguing against.

Extend my arguments from round 2 for that claim.
Debate Round No. 4


"If you're saying that religion itself is not the influence, but human nature, and that if people were to cast aside religion, there would still be violence and flag burnings, etc. This is what the title and first argument of this debate make me believe it is about."
Yes that is what I'm saying.
P1: These people get their morality from scripture
P2: It is these people's conception of morality which causes them to do these things
C1: If you take away these people's morality (i.e. their religion) they will no longer do these things.

Your premises assume that they won't find another reason to do these things which is based on pure assumption.

People get ridiculed all the time because they are different, so being gay, fat, mentally challenged or what I ever it is, people with differences get ridiculed and religion being taken from the equation doesn't change that. So even if you took religion away bigotry for sexual preference or any other reason will always be there.

As for burning of flags people hate America and talk down on it all the time, even people in this country spit in its face.

s://; alt="" width="1197" height="798" />

Bigotry, women abuse, hatred for our fellow man for being different, and violence will always be and taking away religion won't change that simple fact. Religion is like an order by a man given to an assassin to do harm to another human being. Now one ever blames the order they blame the man who made it. Who are in this case the writers of the bible. Don't blame the order blame the man. Don't blame religion blame humanity.


Okay, that was a very good argument.

I commend my opponent on a great job tackling that point, I only wish he could have done this from the start.

Although my opponent presents a good argument, I still have an issue with it and some counter-examples.

My issue is that if humanity is to blame, and humanity will always be violent and hateful because of their nature, then the good things religion has caused cannot also be a product of humanity. I believe the bad things religion contributes outweigh the good, however there are still some good things religion has to offer. I argue that religion's sense of community and calming effect (since these people are coming together knowing they will go to heaven, a perfect place, so they worry about worldly struggles less) attribute to the inaction of many people. If religion was abolished, people wouldn't meet the same people they met through church, wouldn't be able to create bonds through community, and would be more stressed out. This could cause a variety of things such as more auto accidents (more stress means less sleep and less attentiveness), hostility between people, and many other things.

My counter-examples are:

1) Burkas

I don't think there could be another reason besides religion that would make people dress their women like this. Burkas and veils only started popping up around the tenth century[1], exactly the time period when Islam was climbing in popularity towards its high point.[2]

2) Churches and money

This is a very real, tangible effect of religion, as many churches were and continue to be built, which costs quite a bit. Furthermore, religions always want money. Ken Ham, for one project for his "creation museum", received 73 million dollars.[3] This is for one project. Imagine how much religion has spent over the entire course of its history! We certainly could have used that money, and I'd say that if religion were non-existent, we'd have a lot less debt in America and a lot more resources.

3) Street preaching

If religion were taken away, people would not preach on the streets, because there would be nothing to preach about.

I'd like to thank agnostic meatatarian for this debate.

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
Of course I agree religion and people need to exist together in order to make an impact. But my point is inanimate ideas can't do things on there own. I am not saying that religion is not a motive for doing harm.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
Very well played, indeed you are correct, religion without people is not harmful just like any mass murder weapon which is not actually deployed. However, you miss one thing in here, religion and people are not mutually exclusive. Religion will not exist without people and ideology which does not concern itself with good or bad is basically a building block of bias. Having no universal standard of morality, an ideology which may be correct for others is not for a specific group of people and vice versa.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
My point is an ideology can't do anything only people can so unless you can prove that religion itself can do harm without people then religion is not in and of itself harmful.
Posted by Anonymous 7 years ago
Religion is the worst thing that happened in our society after Justin Bieber . If not for the reason that we needed to venture a path towards god (considering he exists), religion in itself is useless. Whether you like it or not people are influenced by religion otherwise it would have died out a long time ago. Say, why do think that Christianity, an ideology so long time ago still thrives today and is accepted as truth by many people yet only a few believes that the Olympians did existed?
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 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: This is a rather confusing debate the judge... it seems that it didn't really start until the final round, and, as per DDO standard rules, last round arguments do not count because neither side can effectively address the other side's argument... thus, I have to give the win to Pro, who at least provided some sort of elucidated opening argument before the final round... For future reference, it is generally better to sort out misunderstandings like this in the comments section rather than in the debate itself; had the entire debate been like the final round, my vote would most likely have gone Con's way.

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