Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs

I'm sure it will be enjoyable. pt 1: "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. " -Incorrect. It was quite clear in my R1 what the resolution to be debated was. It was the title of the debate and followed the word "RESOLVED" as well. Therefore I must reject your change of resolution. I will, however, meet you halfway. RESOLVED: Belief in an afterlife, be it Christian or otherwise, negatively impacts the temporal world. Fair enough? In any case, it won't matter too much as of yet. "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. " -So far so good, although they may also make decisions that I do agree with. Politicians that do have the same (lack of) beliefs as I do, although I'm not sure there are any, may also make policy decisions I do not agree with. However, if the disagreement were on the subject of some of the topics in the examples listed, it would not have anything to do with religion, as most arguments against the legalization of drugs, abortion, teaching creationism, and non-abstinence only sex education do. There would automatically have to be a reasoned argument against [X], because religion would not be a factor. pt 2: 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. " -Incorrect. This is where my opponent begins goes lose me. My point is not that the people I am speaking of will make legislation or policy directly about their faith, but that they will be influenced in action by the tenets of their faith, one being the existence of an afterlife. If by "judged" my opponent means by a higher power, this is not what the debate is about. It isn't about the effects of their policy concerning them (the religionists), but about how the effects of their influenced decisions affect the world at large. "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 never made this argument. I am under the impression that there is no proof of an afterlife, and therefore no reason to believe in one. It is a problem when leaders, people in positions of power, etc. , create policies based on the assumed unilateral truth of their beliefs, and not on rational arguments based on empirical evidence or what I would call "universal" morality. That is, there are arguments to be made against abortion, the legalization of drugs, etc, that DO NOT include the power of Christ (or any other god-concept. ) The religionists I am referring to do not make these cases, though, because the influence of their belief system (their "faith," in one sense) and the idea that THEY and few others know THE one and only truth about some of the greatest mysteries and problems in the world, and it's "their way or the highway," so to speak, has corrupted their pt3: . .. minds by making them dogmatic: the answers (assuming we are even asking the right questions) are already there, thus no search for truth exists, with all of this leading to the net fact that such people are unassailable to reason. "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. " -Partially. The first statement is fully correct, except that I would emphasize again that "this world" (the world of practical affairs, the temporal world) is known as real, in general, and that the "next [world]" is an unknown. There's no getting around this, as I see it, because of the infectious dogmatism I make in my first argument. I would add to the second statement my point is not that believers in an afterlife stop contributing *in any way* to our current world, but that they significantly contribute in a way that impedes not an easily deconstructed abstract such as "progress," but general humanitarian efforts toward things which one might think they would agree with, on the face of it, from a glance at their own given morality (peace on earth, helping the less fortunate, ending suffering, compassion, no killing, no lying, no stealing, the importance of moderation, etc. ) "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. " - Incorrect. The debate deals with the effects of a belief in the afterlife, and is about the world of practical affairs as a whole, not about self. I also fail to see the relevance of the points about sin my opponent makes. pt 4: "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. " - I made no such argument or claim. "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. .. " - In the cases we are speaking of, a person's faith necessarily includes belief in the afterlife, so the two go hand-in-hand, if not perpetuate each other. This is also irrelevant as per above. "Therefore my opponents examples regarding his first point: [see list] Stem not from a persons belief in the afterlife, but stem from their faith. " -We are still on my opponent's mistaken counterpoint, but I will address it anyway. First, I will not speak in terms that already assume the existence of either sin or the afterlife as known truths. Second, why do these people have their "faith" in the first place? To be "saved" and make it into "heaven"/avoid "hell," from the long-range perspective. Thus is created a race to get not only themselves to "heaven," but to try and take everyone else with them and persecute/minimize those who do not agree or want to go, by their tyranny of the majority in most places. -Crusades conceded, except that I am willing to take religionists at their word, and the Crusades were ostensibly religious wars. -A religionist is more likely to dictate/legislate morality. ". .. and not because the process of not enacting said policies will prevent them from reaching the afterlife. " -This was not the point I was making. ". .. Charity. .. " -Being charitable doesn't equal being religious. I hope there is more than charity that religionists rely on as their positive contribution. -Their idea of "better" is so drastically different than evidence suggests it should be in respect to all other issues mentioned because their ability to think critically has been compromised, as I mentioned above. I see nothing in my opponent's refutations to suggest my thesis is incorrect.