Children brought up with religion are more likely to have better moral than those who are not.

Thanks! :D In my first argument, I will be countering my opponent's main claims, and provide evidence that religion can actually be harmful (not helpful) to raising children in the process. Rebuttals - My opponent has provided two main points in her first argument that support her contention, claiming that there is an unavoidable link between religion and morality and that religion provides the threat of retribution for children. I will now attempt to rebut her claims: 1. The Unavoidable Link between Religion and Morality - My opponent begins her argument by claiming that there is a link between religion and morality. She asserts that religious people have a better sense of purpose and that religion provides moral principles in a way that atheism and science alone cannot. My opponent's overall argument relies on the principle that science and atheism (lack of religion) by themselves cannot provide proper morals in the way that religion does. However, this is simply untrue. As seen throughout national and international societies today, atheists can have the moral values and principles necessary to raise a child without religious dogma. Where, might you ask, do atheists get their moral basis from? The answer is simple. Virtuous atheists usually derive their morals from any of a variety of logical and reasonable ethics systems, the most popular and widely-used of which is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, described simply, is a system of normative ethics professing that the morality of an action can be tested based off of how it maximizes happiness and reduces suffering [1]. Those who follow the ideology of utilitarianism believe that an action is moral if it causes oneself and others be happy, and is immoral if it causes others to suffer. Obviously, this objective moral system does not require a God or religion, but is useful when determining whether an action is good or bad. What, might you then ask, is the logic behind utilitarianism? The logic of utilitarianism essentially falls under the quite obvious principle that happiness is good, and so it is therefore good to maximize the amount of happiness in the maximum amount of beings that are able to experience such a feeling. Similarly, utilitarianism promotes the quite true idea that suffering is bad, and so it is therefore good to eradicate as much suffering as possible from beings that can experience suffering. As shown, utilitarianism is one of many, many useful systems that the non-religious can use as a moral basis - for more information on the ideology, go to sources [2] and [3]. While some might argue that there are 'problems' with utilitarianism (a proponent of the system can easily refute these 'problems'), there are even more real problems with religiously-based morality. For example, the holy texts all three major Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) promote hate, violence, and even murder in some situations [4] [5]. Nobody, especially a child, should be brought up believing that hate, violence, and murder are okay - to indoctrinate a child with such beliefs is the actual immoral thing to do. Utilitarianism and other moral similar systems used by atheists contain all the good aspects of religious morality (kindness, friendliness, etc. ), though lack the bad aspects (violence, hatred, etc. ) As shown, non-religious ethics systems can provide a morality equal than or greater to morality inspired by religion, and should definitely be used when teaching children the difference between right and wrong. My opponent claims that only religion can lay down the foundations of morality, though does so untruthfully. Religions contain texts and practices condoning harm, violence, and hatred, while atheistic ethics systems such as utilitarianism only contain principles of kindness, happiness, and universal altruism. 2. Retribution - My opponent's next argument relies on the idea that religious people are required to be moral due to the threat of retribution/judgement for immoral acts, while atheists are not required to be moral because they do not have to fear punishment for their actions. This argument, like the last, is fallacious. My opponent begins by stating that atheists "rely solely on instinct and a vague sense of right and wrong" taught to them by others - as explained above, this is not true. She then argues that the threat of retribution is much worse for the religious than the non-religious. This is also untrue. According to the system of utilitarianism (as well as a variety of similar ideologies), an act is immoral if it causes suffering. An atheist obeying the utilitarian ideology would know that his/her actions are immoral if they cause suffering, and would know not to commit such actions because of their consequences for others. This is what laws are for - to prevent people from committing strongly immoral acts (theft, murder, etc. ) through fear of retribution (imprisonment). Obviously, the legal system provides a clear sense of retribution for all people, regardless of religious affiliation. In a perfectly non-religious and utilitarian world, the legal system would be based off of whether an action intentionally causes happiness or suffering - this legal system, like the current one, would provide retribution for law-breakers in the form of imprisonment, etc. The moral atheist who follows the utilitarian or a similar ideology knows what actions are right/wrong and understands that doing something wrong will lead to another's suffering - the guilt and sadness caused by another's suffering, as well as the utilitarian desire to make everybody happy are forms of retribution that keep the non-religious from committing immoral acts. Guilt, sadness, fear, and punishment under the law are permissible forms of retribution - the concept of 'Hell' is absolutely unnecessary. Furthermore, teaching the concept of eternal torture to a child is harmful - nobody but a bad parent would willingly tell their child that they will face eternal damnation for, let's say, being gay or eating shellfish. All major religions that teach of the concept of Hell (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. ) also teach that you will be cast into Hell for doing absolutely non-immoral things including being a homosexual, wearing certain fabric mixtures, trimming your hair/beard, wearing clothes normally worn by the other gender, touching a pig carcass, or doubting God's existence [5]. It would be horribly immoral to tell your child that they will face retribution for doing any of the above things. While the religious moral system mandates retribution for a variety of random acts, the utilitarian moral system mandates retribution only for actions which actually cause others to suffer. Through this information, we can safely draw the conclusion that it is better to raise your child using a moral non-religious ethics system than an ethics system derived from religious dogma. Before ending my argument, I will provide a few examples of what children would be taught using utilitarian and Biblical morals: Situation 1: Homosexuality Utilitarian Parent: "I'm fine with you being homosexual because it makes you happy and doesn't make anyone suffer. " Religious Parent: "I'm not okay with you being homosexual because the magical sky man says so and I have to listen to him. " Situation 2: Planting on Sabbath Utilitarian: "Let's plant a garden tomorrow because it's fun and we can have fresh veggies! " Religious: "You can't plant a garden tomorrow because it's Sabbath and the magical sky man says so. " Situation 3: Wearing a Shirt with Polyester & Wool Utilitarian: "You can wear that shirt because it makes you happy. " Religious: "You can't wear that shirt because the magical sky man says so. " Thanks! :D Sources: 1. tinyurl. com/r6l7b 2. tinyurl. com/m85wro4 3. tinyurl. com/m59nbam 4. tinyurl. com/ybqke53 5. tinyurl. com/k3zup28