Religion Is Bad and God (Probably) Does Not Exist

Org. It is an honor to be his opponent on his first debate with the community. As one may have guessed by reading the comments, I have been trying to avoid accepting theological debates on the account that I want to expand my horizons. Nonetheless, I could not resist the urge to partake in a potentially engaging theological debate. Since my opponent has not yet done so, allow me to lay down the ground rules for this debate. Pro will have the BoP. There will be no use of evidence unless it is cited. Logical/Opinion-based evidence does not require a citation. There will be no use of ad hominems. Any questions/concerns should go in the "Comments" section. With most debates, the instigator lays down the ground rules in round one; after which, the contender accepts the debate. Round two is usually where the arguments are stated. Nonetheless, for the sake of this debate, I will post my counter-arguments in this round. I wish the best of luck to my opponent! Rebuttal"The only evidence of god is the bible and testimonial hearsay. Little to no evidence of Jesus exists currently, though I admit that his existence was possible. "My opponent chooses Christianity as his basis for argumentation. His contention seems to have been influenced by the controversial documentary, Zeitgeist: The Movie. Unfortunately, I don't see how my opponent can argue that all religion is bad based on the actions of one religion, when there are some religions that actually seem to bring good into the world. I will address this in further detail, later. This contention, in particular, doesn't address the whole issue. "Supposed encounters and interactions with an ethereal being as such are all void of evidence. "If my opponent wishes to dismiss first-hand accounts of these interactions and encounters, he will have to prove that they are not viable forms of evidence. Christianity aside, there are personal encounters with "God" happening on a daily basis- around the world[1],[2]. Unfortunately, I would think that most would agree with me when I say that "God," (meaning: an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being) cannot be {dis}proven as of now. At least, we don't have the ability to prove or disprove God. If anything, the existence of religion itself could be the only viable evidence for the existence of God. "Religious beliefs should be kept within personal boundaries, yet people allow them to influence society's advancement in science and politics. "People with power will use large institutions to control the masses. The media, the food industry, the music industry- these are all examples of large institutions. Religion is one of them. Just because it is one of them, doesn't mean it is *bad. * Like other institutions, it is liable to fall into the wrong hands. And, thus, commit *bad* things. "This in turn leads to negative consequences within the countries that religious people inhabit: specifically democracies. As a result, elected officials and authorities can (and have) impose[d] unwanted laws such as making abortion illegal and disallowing gay marriage. "This doesn't prove that religion is *bad,* it simply proves that powerful people will use large institutions to further their greedy endeavors. The same could be said for corrupt popes, politicians, lawyers, businessmen, and anyone who strives for personal profit. "More so, religion impacts scientific progression in society by insisting that evolution and dinosaurs are falsities, and that the universe was created by a mystical being. "Let the sheeple believe what they want; scientific progression will never be hindered, so long as those who are scientists strive for progression. If anything, the Creationist's religious dogma motivates mainstream science to discover an adequate rebuttal. Nevertheless, since the origin of the universe will most likely always remain a theory, it is best to approach it with an open mind. Also, religious discourse does not halt scientific progression- to disagree is to act in accordance with human nature. If there wasn't any productive use for disagreeing, this very website would be completely different. "Additionally, most religions in the world seem to be plagiarized versions of increasingly older religions [ *THE VIDEO TO THE RIGHT*]. "Similarities that occur within a certain frequency tend to point to the contrary: that there is, most likely, an external process that is happening. Forgive me if my reasoning seems obscure- I am no scientist. But this is certifiable within the Scientific Method: for when there are recurring outcomes, there is usually an external interference causing the reaction. What that external interference is, I don't know; but no one can prove that it isn't God. "The facts in the movie this clip was taken from (Zeitgeist) are indeed truthful. "I would ask my opponent to please present evidence to confirm this contention. I have evidence that it is, in fact, not truthful[3]. I will get into further detail, if my opponent so chooses. "Religion has indeed caused many wars and atrocities in the past. "I contend that mankind has caused wars- not religion. Blaming religion for wars is like blaming guns for killing people. Religion is merely a motive for warcraft, not a causation. "Religious leaders, like the pope, use donations from churches to buy golden chairs and scepters instead of feeding the poor and assisting humanity in need. "The actions of the Popes stand in stark contrast from what their religion claims that they are supposed to do (see citation [4]): Further evidence that mankind's corruption is to blame for shady religious agendas. "Christianity for an example leads people to do good for the wrong reason; people of Christianity do good in God's will. They do not do good for the sake of goodness. "To which I ask my opponent, "what is your basis for 'goodness? '" If it is not religiously based, I would ask for my opponent to state this foundation for which to attribute "goodness. ""One might ask 'If they do good, why does it matter what they do it for? '. Well, the good that is done may remain, but they would not have made themselves better people. "My opponent makes a claim that he cannot confirm, as he has not experienced the lives of these people. He has no way of knowing whether or not they became "better people. " Ergo, this contention is conjecture. "Religion impels people to have a phony sense of security after death. "I would argue that this sense of security is, in actuality, very real to those who closely follow their religion. Whether or not it is a valid form of security, is a different question. Perhaps it is this meaningful sense of security that brings hope, and joy to people. I would contend that this very factor could only make religion a good thing; which would negate the resolution. "This means people may feel okay to do things such as this [. http://www.dailymail.co.uk......]. "There are many flaws with this contention. Firstly, this argument can only hold water if my opponent can prove that it affects every follower of every religion- in accordance to the resolution. Secondly, the radical actions of one religion/belief system does not mean the same for every religion. This is the same logic that racism tends to follow. ConclusionI have adequately refuted all of my opponent's arguments. For now, I would like to share with the audience and my opponent, a few religions that (at least in my opinion) have contributed more to society than have harmed: Sikhism[5] Buddhism[6] Taoism[7] Unitarianism[8] Furthermore, most religions tend to be based on the premise of love[9]. Discrepancies only occur when human nature's selfishness outweighs its selflessness. Onto Pro. [1] . http://www.arabicnoor.com...[2] . http://darvish.wordpress.com...[3] . http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com...[4] 1 John 3:17, Proverbs 19:17, Deuteronomy 15:7-11, Proverbs 14:31[5] . http://wendythomasrussell.com...[6] . http://www.accesstoinsight.org...[7] . http://divinetao.com...[8] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[9] . http://en.wikipedia.org...