Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs

Thank you for your response. 1. This point needs no further scrutiny, as my opponent has conceded this to be the case. However, just as my opponent would have you note that "this point is merely explains the root cause of belief in the afterlife, and provides no support for the resolution," I would have you note that this point is the framework from which I build my case. I have already said that this point wasn't necessarily a problem in-itself; however, it should be understood within the entire context of my argument, not as an island. 2. "My opponent isn't establishing a causal relationship here." - Actually I am, and you are doing a great job of assisting. You freely admit, first, that "belief in an afterlife is a function of faith," with which I agreed. Then in R2 you write "yes, faith can have negative consequences, and belief in an afterlife is an indication of faith." From here it seems logical that belief in an afterlife, insofar as it is a function of faith, can have negative consequences as well. "Belief in the afterlife does not cause faith. Ergo, it does not cause the problems associated with faith." - Again, you are correct - partially; we already agree that belief in an afterlife is a function of faith, not vice-versa. As such, it is possible and logical that belief in an afterlife can, does, will, and has cause(d) *some* of the problems associated with faith, as it is a function of faith, and is therefore completely relevant. If the resolution were "Faith, via belief in an afterlife, impacts..." nothing in the debate would be different. The specific problems are made clear in the next point. 3. "The phrase 'a better world' arose in your argument. However, I will assume that a better world is marked by a greater amount of utility: 'a measure of relative satisfaction.'" - Such an assumption is only proof that you missed the point I made about the word "better" and more specifically the phrase "better world." It means whatever it means to whatever subject (person) - and that's all. "All of these examples are irrelevant to the debate, as the debate concerns only the present." - Says who? You? What happened to not "limiting the scope of the resolution"? Let's go ahead and use a strict definition of the word "present" so that neither of us can use any evidence whatsoever... "Of course, the jihadist example is relevant." - I'll return to this. "However, I negate this point on the grounds that jihadist act out of faith, not out of a belief in the afterlife. Hence, that specific belief has no negative influence. My opponent must prove that the jihadist and the religious tyrant act on the basis of belief in the afterlife, which he has not done." - Incorrect. My claim isn't that every example I mention is primarily motivated by a desire to get to (the good part of) the afterlife of whatever religion. My claim is that the idea of an afterlife (which the people I'm talking about believe in sincerely) has influenced their actions in some way, generally a negative one. The idea is there; it is in-itself irrational (which my opponent has conceded), and therefore has an irrational affect on their thoughts and actions. The jihadist and the religious tyrant both believe in an afterlife - which is after all a function of faith. They want themselves (and others?) to be in their afterlife, and act accordingly - to whatever their own notions of getting there involve. - I feel I must now call attention to the double-standard my opponent has set up: when belief in an afterlife has a positive impact (charity, etc.), it is because of belief in an afterlife. However, when it has a negative impact, it is due to faith and not specifically the afterlife. This is intellectually disingenuous. To go on and claim, as he did above, that "...that specific belief has *no* negative influence" is nearing nonsense. I have already explained how primacy fits into this debate and have admitted that religious charity, etc., may be connected with a belief in an afterlife, although I hold that the negative effects are greater than the positive. Now, my opponent has created a new burden of proof for himself - that belief in the afterlife "has *no* negative influence" - in addition to simply arguing that belief in the afterlife has a positive impact (and that it can I freely admit.) "If my opponent can prove this, he must present the actual impacts: deaths caused by suicide bombers, policies imposed by religious tyrants." - Fair enough. http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.hindustantimes.com... http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://www.commondreams.org... As for religious tyrants: http://www.aina.org... Of course, there are numerous examples of religious tyranny throughout history, including but not limited to: forced circumcision by the Hebrews on their conquered foes, the subjugation of women in the Judeao-Christian-Muslim tradition, the closing of the Academy by Justinian, and of course the Inquisition. 1. "Every war will be justified by some method... Essentially, war would exit[sic] to the same extent without this belief." - Certainly war would continue to exist, and there are good reasons for fighting that involve neither religion, faith, or a belief in an afterlife. The point is: Would those who have died or killed others in whatever war have been as comfortable as they were in doing so if they did not have the cushion of eternal bliss in their minds? Some would, yes, but I doubt it for the vast majority. 2. "The jihadist acts in order to fulfill Allah's will, not in order to achieve an eternal afterlife. It is his "duty", not a manner of getting into Heaven." - Incorrect. Islamic martyrs go to heaven, thus it is a way of getting into heaven. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... and especially: http://en.wikipedia.org... "The Christian would act out of greed regardless of his beliefs..." - If so, then this only serves to expose the superficiality and hypocrisy of Christian belief. The point is (again): they were comfortable enough with their (supposed) future to act in the way they did. If there is a heaven or a hell, which there is no good reason for supposing there is, then what good is the temporal world to the believer? - A Reprise Christian Soldier [sidenote: there could be no such thing according to the basic doctrines of Christianity]: Well, today I killed twenty enemies! I hope they burn in hell forever! But they got ten of our guys - God bless them, they're in a better place now. Why don't you come fight for us? Rationalist: I don't want to die, as this life is a reality and your 'afterlife' you go to when killed is a fantasy. - Jihadist: Today I'm going to blow myself up, along with dozens or even hundreds of people I don't know. I will simultaneously do Allah's will, achieve martyrdom, and go to heaven to boot! R: You need psychiatric treatment *immediately.* Please get as far away from me as possible. - Christian Businessman: Your credentials are good, I'd like to hire you to chop down thousands of acres of rainforest. I will pay well. R: No thanks, there are more valuable things than money - like trees. CB: You should reconsider - this life is short and tomorrow isn't promised to us. R: Exactly. CB: You worry too much. You should do what you can while here - God may take any of us anytime. R: - CON 1. Charity, just like war, would exist without faith or belief [x]. See also double-standard above. 2. A religion's doctrines may condemn war, but religions thrive on it.