Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs

I would like the voters to know that a personal conflict arose with my opponent that is thoroughly acceptable to myself. I would ask you to disregard the "brittwaller forfeited this round" and refer directly to the comments section where you can find my opponents rebuttal. It is within the character limit, and this redirection should in no way affect who you vote for. For clarification purposes I redefined the definition to make sure there were no loopholes. I strive to clarify the resolution in full early in the debate. I'll start with my opponents primary point: "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. " My opponent has stated that the policies politicians make will be influenced by their belief in the afterlife. To clarify my rebuttal to this point: I have shown in R2 that a politicians belief in the afterlife cannot possibly affect the policies they make. Instead as I have shown and will continue to affirm is that politicians policies are influenced by their belief in the religion and its values instead of by their belief in the afterlife. The difference between the two is clarified in my R2. To summarise: The concept of sin is the main component of achieving the afterlife. To achieve admittance in the afterlife a person (in all three major religions: Jewish, Islamic, Christian) a person must remain free from sin. Therefore we can only conclude that for a politicians policies to be affected by their belief in the afterlife, it in turn must be affected from their avoidance or prevention of sin. As is shown above, sin is a personal concept and only applies to self choices. Example: In the bible it is implied that homosexual activity is wrong. Person A may consider homosexuality a sin. If Person A does not make policies restricting homosexuality, he is not considered to have sinned because Person A did not commit the sin personally. However if Person A engages in sexual activity then Person A has sinned. Since sin is a personal concept, the policies a politician makes cannot be influenced by their personal avoidance of sin (since making/not making a particular policy is not considered to be a sin), therefore we can conclude that the policies a politician makes can in turn not be influenced by their belief in the afterlife, but strictly by their belief in that faiths values which is entirely separate (in this instance) from their faith. Next my opponent states: "It is a problem when leaders, people in positions of power, etc. , create policies based on the assumed unilateral truth of their beliefs" I agree, as I have been arguing these decisions are made from the values of their faith and not in their belief in an afterlife. Example: Bob is a Jobu. The Jobu's religion states that their is no afterlife, all members turn to dust. Instead they believe Jobu created earth and all good things in it, and set up rules that they must obey. Bob is elected president. Here Bob's policies are influenced by his religion and not by his belief in the afterlife. This is similar to those who believe in an afterlife. Since policies are not affected by the personal concept of sin, their policies are influenced by their belief in religion, not belief in afterlife. Next my opponent states: "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. .. " 1. My opponent has conceded that believers in an afterlife contribute to our current world in some way. 2. My opponents second argument which is purely opinion, has no factual backing to it. Furthermore: The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their "civic behavior," including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey. The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions. . http://www.hks.harvard.edu... Additionally there are numerous ways I could show that people bearing religion give to charity My opponent goes onto state that he doesn't understand the points I am making about sin. I affirm that sin is the only thing preventing a religious person from reaching the afterlife (see definition). Sin in most religions only refers to the choices made by an individual choices that are known as sin by religious rule. Since sin is the only thing keeping a person from the afterlife we can conclude that the only effect from believing in the after life is the avoidance of sin. Since sin is personal we can denote that belief in the afterlife does not affect a politicians policies religion does. "- 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. " A persons faith includes a persons belief in the after-life - conceded, however a persons belief in the after-life does not fully include a persons faith. Example: Bob believes in Christianity. Bob does not interpret that the earth was created in 7 days. Bob believes in an afterlife, therefore Bob does not advocate creationism teaching. Joe believes in Christianity. Joe does interpret that the earth was created in 7 days. Joe believes in an afterlife. Therefore Joe does advocate creationism teaching. As you can see in this example a persons policies derive from their belief and interpretation of faith not belief in the afterlife. "We are still on my opponent's mistaken counterpoint. .. " 1. I am assuming they are for purposes of the debate to show a religious perspective and due to the nature of the debate. The argument of whether or not they exist should be restricted due to the nature of our debate. 2. It is not my purpose in this debate to show why humans have a religion. Or to prove that religion itself does or does not negatively affect the world. I simply must show that belief in the afterlife does not negatively impact the world. Through logic I have shown how the two differ and how belief in the afterlife affects personal decisions and not ones that influence policies or the world as a whole. "Being charitable doesn't equal being religious. " Nor does being religious not equal being charitable. My opponent so far in this debate has shown how religion negatively impacts the world. My opponent however has not refuted my evidences that belief in the afterlife does not negatively impact the world. The majority of my opponents arguments are personal opinions rather than factual evidence or logic. I have in turn proven how belief in the afterlife does not negatively affect the world.