The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love

Thank you to DDO for allowing discussions like this to take place. Thank you to Pro for being involved in an intellectual discussion that invites the collision of ideas rooted in reason, Rationality, And logical discourse. To be perfectly honest, I think the topic is too easy to be against and could have been formed in a more evenly matched way, But I will gladly take the bait. Let me declare that I am not that religious myself. I don't preach Christianity, Nor do I preach atheism. I am religious in the sense that I have a firm belief in searching for knowledge and understanding. Before I lay out my case, I will first lay out definitions of the debate topic and then proceed to explain why I disagree with it. There are many definitions for these terms, But I will use the ones that align closest with the topic. Faith: A system of religious belief https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/faith Religion: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/religion Love: A profoundly tender, Passionate affection for another person https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/love Now, There's issues with Pros argument in regards to the topic: 1A) It clearly doesn't account for all religions 2A) It is strictly adherent to the dogmas in whatever few religions are prescribed 3A) It has it's own contradiction of claiming the good of religion is the only thing paid attention to and yet only calls out the evil I will address these points, But will also lay out what I need to do in order to show the debate topic as false. All I need to do to make the topic false is simply prove one statement to be untrue. Now, In my opinion, I will make all three false by definition, But I want to expand on certain portions to give a good understanding of my argument: 1B) I will make a case for faith not having any upsetting factors and make it true that the actions based on faith can cause these problems. 2B) I will outline the real benefits the West has redeemed as part of religion and how religion itself can take any form of beliefs aforementioned in the definition. 3B) I don't think I need to go too deep into love being a worth debate topic, But if it gets to that point, Then sure; instead I shall use this point to demonstrate the value system in humans whether it be hierarchical, Dogmatic, Or even atheistic, Can still set forth a religion. Let's begin. 1A) Pros argument has exclusivity to certain religions, If not, Only one religion. It may be Christianity or Catholicism, I'm not sure honestly. The real problem with this holding true to the topic, Is that it already allows so much room for other religion to enter the discussion. We'll take Buddhism for example. It's a self-fulfilling religion that doesn't create harm to others by any means. Does a Buddhist murder children and force rapists to marry their daughter by way of it's principles? Absolutely not. This negates all of the instigators positions. I said this in the beginning, Pro should have picked a better topic to instigate. 2A) It's a safe bet for Pro to hold this position, But as many arguing against religion have failed to do so in the past, Pro is assuming that any opposition to the argument is in full favor of dogmatic principles and once again, The debate topic doesn't say anything about dogmas. I don't deem really anything as incontrovertibly true. This doesn't mean that I ignore the vast benefit humanity has received as part of a belief in a system even though it may have done cruel, And inhumane acts in it's uprising along the way. I don't appropriate such actions, Rather I condemn them. I pose a question to Pro for fun; if there are absolutely no dogmas you are for, What is your morality based on, Basically, Why are all those killings evil to you, How do you define good and evil in which you don't believe in the existence of any system of principles in the first place, Either put forth by you or by many, Many individuals before you thousands of years ago? I rest this point knowing you cannot formulate reason and rational without first establishing values/morals and at the least, Having personal belief in those values. 3A) This isn't necessarily a point I wish to drive home, But I do want to make the claim that Pro is in contradiction within their argument saying, Pro: "Are we to ignore some things and only identify with the good? ". My argument: Well no. It's a bad way to argue. As you clearly go on to ignore the major civilizations brought forth by religion and the science, History, Greek philosophy, And the entire Western enlightenment give credit to belief systems based in morality and reason. Besides discussing that, Pro directs all of the attention to the evils and horrors of a specific belief system. In a crude way this should be the line of arguing that Pro doesn't stand for. Pro also lays out a specific scenario: Pro: "If your friend told you that she was raped and that her rapist paid her Father for the injustice and is now forcing her to marry the person who raped her, What would you tell your friend? " My argument: We should also acknowledge the source that is provided to backup such a scenario, Pro: "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. [a] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, And he may never divorce her as long as he lives. " My argument: I'm not even religious and I can tell that this text suggests and is the basis for marrying out of wed-lock. This was actually for the benefit of children to not grown up in single-parent households. My turn. 1B) Faith, Is a confidence in belief. If you want a simple pragmatic example, What's 2 + 2? How do you know this answer to be true? If Pro intends to hold a strong position, They will align similarly with me, In which I say I seek knowledge and understanding. Can't go wrong, It's a safe bet, So agree with me on that. Now, This doesn't make faith itself problematic. Just because you believe 2 + 2= 4 doesn't create any problems. If you make decisions based on that, Those can be deemed problematic, But it's the action, Not the faith. Pro still raises the question of how is it problematic if you are against the very belief in any moral reasoning itself. How can there be such a thing as "problems"? I settle this point in reasoning itself being a religion. It's belief. Even animals don't openly say they are Christians, But they still show mercy, They still show beliefs in predators and feel pain and have set systems of beliefs that they learn to use as guidance in their existence. 2B) The majority of Western civilization is a bi-product of religious values and beliefs over the history of humanity. The founding fathers of the American government laid out strict rights deemed unalienable. They base them as given to the people by their "Creator". Now, Creator could mean Christian God or it could very well be that the creator is determined by the individual themselves and that's why they have the freedom of religion. No matter how you regard your creation, The fact of the matter is that you exist and in that, You are inherently provided rights. The belief comes from many different religious values. The impact from those values reached through philosophers like Plato, Astronomers like Galileo, And the age of the enlightenment. These all contribute to the vast advancements in technology we have as humanity today. Religion can take any form as it's a belief system. To claim that a belief system destroys humanity is factually incorrect. Advancements all due to belief systems are thankful to religion. Religion isn't the cause of war or destruction, Tribalism is. Tribalism is the true evil of war and war within religion. Tribalism is amongst animals as well, But it's not a belief system. It's important we understand the true nature of war before we criticize it. For the same reason you could attribute slavery to religion. It's a set of beliefs that made that occur. The civil war would be the tribalism. When different beliefs are held by different people, Tribalism, Then war is a result of that tribalism. Here, Pro should agree that religion is not excused for tribalism, But that it cannot be blamed for the war that comes from that tribalism. 3B) Many atheist claim that atheism is not a set system of beliefs, That's another debate in and of itself, But fine. I will allow it for the time being. Regardless, There are still beliefs that exist within an atheist. How is this determined? Well, As humans, It seems we put ourselves into hierarchical structures and base values and/or beliefs off of that as well. It varies form person to person and the dogmatism that comes from these set systems are also fundamental religion builders. If someone kills someone else, That person has died. It's incontrovertibly true to the killer that the person they have killed, Is dead. This is simply a formed dogma within the killer's conscience. So whatever dialect is used to formulate a set system of beliefs, Morals, And values, The truth of the matter exists. A belief system is created. Strong belief in that system is not problematic, Only the actions based on those strong beliefs can cause problems. And lastly, Love isn't an illusion, It's the affection towards something or someone. To regard chemicals being released in the brain as an illusion is to embark on the simulation theory. Which is no different than being a believer in a god or many gods. If nothing exists and reality isn't true, Then none of the topic exists, Which makes it have nothing to be in agreement for. If there's no instigator, Then there's no contender. Therefore, Again, I wipe your argument away. Here, I have shown every statement as a falsehood. See ya in round two.