Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs

Salve all. I had this debate some time ago against a friend, but the arguments given by my opponent led the debate somewhat astray. I've been out of practice for a minute so I decided to post again and possibly meet a few newbies in the mean time. This debate is about how the belief in an afterlife, be it Christian or otherwise, negatively impacts the temporal world in a large way. The issue is not whether "god" exists or not - this is basically irrelevant in this context as religion and its doctrines certainly exist, and this is where the problem stems from. Believers, whether they realize it or not, have faith in these doctrines and their fruitions, and not necessarily in an actual god, should such a thing exist, or what he/she/it may have actually "said," if anything. I know many dislike the tactic of debating semantics, which I often use successfully (and sometimes not so successfully) and for that reason will allow it. However, unless you are really good at this tactic, I would avoid it because you will probably at best turn the debate into a grammatical gridlock, and at worst get completely torn out of the frame. In all, I hope we debate the issue at hand, and not waste time on useless sideshow distractions, as there is a plethora of arguments that can be utilized by either side. RESOLVED: Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs. Arguments 1. Many believers do not make a clear enough distinction between what is, i.e. the empirical world of known reality, and what possibly could be, i.e. the doctrines of their faith, specifically the concept of an afterlife. Example: To the common functioning naked eye, the sky is for all intents and purposes blue. This is observed data. Beyond the atmosphere lies what we call space, the observable universe. These things are known. To the religious believer who has what may be termed "true faith," there also exist specific places known as heaven and hell, where a person will be either eternally rewarded or eternally punished, respectively, based on their actions during a relatively short, as well as temporally and spatially incidental, time alive on Earth. These concepts are not known, but are believed to be true regardless of the lack of evidence that ordinarily is needed to believe something -- this is religious "faith." 2. While this in itself might not be a problem, except in that it betrays a lack of rational thinking ability in said believer, and the inability to separate fact from fiction and fantasy, it soon becomes a problem. If a person's decisions and actions are influenced by their faith -- and I don't think it can be argued that they aren't -- and if that person is in a position of power over others, political office or such, then obviously a person of "true faith" will make policy decisions and the like, all informed by the possible yet highly unlikely and in any case unknown tenets of that "faith." These policies affect many people, depending on how much power the believer has. Problems arise here because: A. Not everyone affected shares the same faith, or even has faith at all. To subject others to policy based on one's own faith is tyranny. B. Faith and what is needed in the real world to deal with problems often conflict. Examples: Scientific fact versus religious dogma is seen in the battle over what should be taught in schools, creationism or evolution. Seeing as we are talking about *science* class, the choice should be obvious. Another example would be justifying war, along with a slew of other atrocities, by claiming it is the "will of God." The Hebrews (apparently) did this in the Old Testament, the Popes did it during the crusades, and the current administration has done it with the "war on terror." To dictate morality to a secular nation (which the US is) based on one's faith is tyranny as well, but we see it done when it comes to sex education, reproductive justice, the "war on drugs," and other issues. Not all of this ties in with my overall resolution, it is simply an example of some things that happen due to the influence of faith on policy. The actual connections I will make clear in the next point. 3. This is my primary argument: When there exists belief in an afterlife, attention is taken away from the here-and-now of reality. There exists (at least in the mind of the believer) a safety net, as it were (I don't know any religionists that count themselves among those going to hell). Instead of focusing on how to actually make the world a better place, the people I am speaking of put their energy and efforts into 1) trying to get to heaven themselves, and 2) trying to convert (or kill, depending on the subject) others so that they will go to heaven as well. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of these places, but some people let the *concept* more or less rule their lives. They live *as if* this afterlife were a definite, not a remote possibility. No one really *knows* what happens when a person dies, but those with faith of this kind act like they know absolutely what happens, and act on that supposed knowledge to the detriment of their contemporaries and the world as a whole. Rationalist: I hear you're joining the army so you can go to Iraq. Why would you want to kill people that have no issue with you personally? Why risk your life for a fight that isn't yours? Christian: Because my country needs me, and god has called on me (second-hand) because my country is Christian and is at war. If I die, I'm going to heaven. ------------------------------------------------------ Rationalist: I hear you're going to fly a plane into a building. Why would you do such a thing? Islamic Fundamentalist: Because Allah is great and the infidels must pay for their lifestyles defying his will. When I die, I'm going to heaven and will have 70 virgins for the taking, so I'm not worried. -------------------------------------------------------- Rationalist: Why are we destroying the planet, bit by bit? For money? Aren't you worried about what will be left for our children, and their children, etc? Christian Businessman: Well, money has the most to do with it, you're right. We could at least try not leave such a big mess behind, I suppose, but that would cost money. I'm trying to *make* money. Eventually I'll die and go to heaven, my children will inherit my estate, and by the time they have children Jesus will have already returned and saved those that can be saved, you know -- the apocalypse. ------------------------------------------------ I am aware my dialogues above are a bit caricatured, but they aren't off by much. To be clear, I am not talking about EVERY religious person out there. I am talking about those that can't differentiate between the absolutely real and the possible existence of an unknown and unknowable afterlife, and proceed to live as if this life were secondary to the unknown future. It would be like the difference in those that just go through the motions of worship, meaning they still attend church regularly, sing in the choir perhaps, celebrate Xmas, but don't really think that snakes talk or that Noah's ark was a literal story, as well as have a relatively clear understanding not only of the concept of separation of church and state but also *why* there is such a thing in the first place, versus those that do take the Bible literally and see this as the ONLY truth that there is. In other words, the group I am speaking of still operates in life (why would there be a debate if it were otherwise), but god/faith/doctrine/etc always has primacy, no matter what the situation. If anything is a sin, it is forsaking the real and known for the fantastic and unknown. I look forward to a good debate. Britt