Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs

Definitions] Sin - a term generalized in this debate to mean anything that prevents a person from reaching the after-life of his religion. Example: In the Christian religion, it is a sin to kill a human. If the said Christian does not ask forgiveness from this sin, he will not enter the after-life. Thus killing for this person is a sin. Example: In the Islamic religion, cursing Allah's name is a sin. If said Islamic does not ask forgiveness for this sin, he will not enter the after-life. Thus cursing Allah's name for this person is a sin. After-life - a term generalized in this debate to mean the "good" place a person goes to after he dies if he is free from "sin" Example: Heaven [Negation] I would like to thank my opponent for such a superb debate subject. I would like to take the time to state my feelings of the utmost respect for my opponent. I will proceed to highlight his main arguments and, in turn, negate each one using as much logic and factual evidence as is possible. To start off I will try to sum up my opponents main points: His main resolution is "belief in an afterlife, be it Christian or otherwise, negatively impacts the temporal world in a large way." I hope this resolution will be sufficient seeing as how it differs from the primary resolution, because under that definition my opponent could easily be the victor by simply proving that in some way belief in the afterlife negatively affects the world. 1. To start off with, my opponents first main point (combined 1 & 2) is the following: (please correct me if I misstated this) When political leaders and persons in power, hold the belief that they will be judged by their actions by (a) supreme being(s), they make decisions that do not agree with those who do not have the same belief that they will be judged in the afterlife. My opponent goes on to state, unless I am mistaken, that the said political leaders will make policies regarding their particular faith's values and rules (so to speak). While he brings up a good point, I would like to respectfully recall to his memory that this debate only involves the politicians belief in an afterlife, and that they will judged regarding their decisions. While my opponent may go onto state that the said values and rules of that faith will influence where that said politician (or persons in power) goes in the "after-life", I would like to affirm that the majority of religions believe that a supreme being will judge whether they have been "good" or "bad". While I understand that the definitions of both "good" and "bad" is very relative in regards to the religious authority, I think my opponent can agree that the majority of religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) are all based off of the same basic values in the old testament of the bible. Such as the ten commandments. Although I know this to be a large generalization, I would like to ask the readers to understand the character limit in these arguments. Some examples my opponent gives are the following: The negative effects of teaching creationism in school. The Crusades causing destruction Dictating Morality Sex Education Reproductive justice (which I'm assuming is abortion) Drug Policies 2. The second point, which my opponent states is the majority of his argument, is this: The belief in the afterlife negatively affects persons by taking the focus off of this world and putting it on the next. This causes believers in the afterlife to stop contributing to this world. Having summed up my opponents resolution (and I hope he will correct me if I excluded/included any piece of correct/wrong piece of information) I will continue on to refute his two main points. 1. To start off I would like to go over how in *most* religions, to get to the "after-life", a person has to remain free from "sin" (see definition above) While my opponent has stated that the policies made by persons in power negatively affect the constituents who do not believe in the persons faith, I would like to call to memory that this debate is only about belief in the afterlife, and henceforth reaching it. In most religions, sin is a personal issue. It deals only with self. Example: Delilah is the president. Deliah considers a policy regarding abortion. Delilah's religion states that abortion is a sin. Delilah enacts no policy restricting abortion. This is not a sin because Delilah herself did not commit abortion Example: Delilah is a person. Deliah's religion states that abortion is a sin. Delilah commits abortion. This is a sin. My opponent, so far, has made the mistaken notion that by not making policies that uphold religious beliefs, a person will not go into the after-life. However my opponent has forgotten a key component. Policies regarding religious doctrine or the upholding of it only stem from a persons faith, not a persons belief in the afterlife. If a person does not make said religious policies that affect constituents, that person will still enter the afterlife because not making policies for other people is not considered a personal sin because the person in question has not actively committed that sin them self. Therefore my opponents examples regarding his first point: The negative effects of teaching creationism in school. The Crusades causing destruction Dictating Morality Sex Education Reproductive justice (which I'm assuming is abortion) Drug Policies Stem not from a persons belief in the afterlife, but stem from their faith. Additionally the issue regarding the crusades was a sin of both religions involved. Because all religions held the belief that killing a human was a sin no matter how it was done. Furthermore the crusades were waged more for political reasons than religious, although religion was the main reason. The crusades stemmed from greed and corruption of political leaders. Not their faith. Dictating morality stems from a persons own character not their faith's beliefs. The other examples (in my opinion) directly stem from their belief in their faiths principles and not because the process of not enacting said policies will prevent them from reaching the afterlife. 2. Continuing with my opponents second main point. My opponent goes onto state that religious members essentially treat this world as a waiting room so to speak and in turn contribute nothing to its success. However, I would like to remind my opponent that in all three major religions (and additionally minor ones that I don't have the space to name) the act of charity plays a huge role. And this role of charity does not simply including giving money to the church. It extends to the poor in many cases. If in the next example my opponent would like examples of religions advocating of charity and making this world better, he need only ask and I will post the scripture thus advocating it. Additionally, with regards to making this world a better place. I'm sure you will find that everyone has a different definition of what "better" is will be completely different. However I can assure you that religions advocate changing this world for the better. So I negate that religious members simply wait around for the next world to come. Most religions advocate the opposite. I would like to thank my opponent for his excellent opening statement and excellent debate topic. I look forward to his next sequence of arguments that prove that belief in the afterlife effects this world in a large way.