azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

Without religion, there will be peace...partial peace because for there to be complete peace there has to be no possessions. But without religion we are confronted with the harsh truths of our human condition. The reason why human created religion is to avoid that...
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

The answer can be found easily simply by looking into the past. Besides the male ego, what caused 90% of all wars in the history of mankind? You guessed it, religion. The holocaust, the crusades, the inquisition. Doing nothing but causing suffering and pain, and killing millions, if not billions, of innocent people. I understand that many people found comfort in religion in times of hardship, but it must be understood that man fears what he does not understand. In order to stem that fear, he created religion, as an explanation to the unknown, but now science and technology has advanced to the point that we can explain the things with science that religion used to. Without religion, there would be far less racism, sexism, prejudice, and violence in the world. We are holding on to an obsolete psychological opiate, without religion we would be able to experience our full potential as a species.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: No

The Crusades were not motivated by purely religion, they were used for many different reasons, the Pope was a religious and political figure. In this case the people of Europe were violent, they attacked each other, in an effort to redirect the violent people and in order to gain political power the Pope called for a crusade, the people who went did not go for purely religious reasons, many went for wealth and power, particularly the leaders of the armies. Ex. When the Christians captured Edessa they killed other christians in order to gain wealth and power. Also the looting of Constantinople.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

I agree that the leaders of the armies were in it for the money but without religion they won't have volunteers to have their war. The pay wasn't good for the normal soldier.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

More or less.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

When looking back in time many wars where fought over religion. Much blood was spread and many lost all they had. Some would say without religion than the average person would not care for another and things such as murder would be okay. But is this true? No i don't believe so because i myself am an atheist and i do not desire to kill people or hurt anyone and either does the many atheists i know. Having no religion would take away many criticisms that there are and take away the wars that are fought over them. Many people get upset if another person does not believe what they do, but we where born with our own way of thinking so we cannot always help this and it leads to many problems. This can even lead to little things such as a child not being able to date another child or one another not being allowed to communicate with a individual because the parent does not accept this person. Religion has been causing problems with people not liking each other, we don't focus on it but it is just like the discrimination of color. Which is a big problem the world focuses on. I find that religion has caused many problems in our world. Even though some of humans have become closer because of religion and it has helped people do the right thing i believe it has caused more suffering and damage to our race
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: Yes

Well, there would be no divisions based on religion and wars would not be fought over religion.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: No

While not religious, I have come to view religion as an evolutionary device that has helped mankind get to where it is today. Religion brings people together, and was instrumental in our transition from Nomads to City-Dwellers. A non-religious tribe might have trouble networking with other tribes, making a city more difficult to establish or keep. Religious Ceremonies brought the community together, created a command structure for our first leaders, and were a place to socialize and meet new friends and even potential mates. Its fairly common for a member of a religious Youth Group to make a chastity promise, then break it with another member of the group that made the same promise!Furthermore, religion was a great placeholder for science! I like to think this conversation happened once in Man's primitive times:"Where did the Sun come from?"'A man in the sky! Now lets to hunt so we can EAT"Without religion to hold science's place, we might not have been able to cope with some of the more frightening aspects of this world, why do you think the most memorable gods from the past and present are Shiva the destroyer, Zeus the Lighting God, Osiris the God of the Afterlife? Man had a hard time with these issues, and still does.Now that Science is catching up and pulling its own weight, you might say Religion is useless, as it tends to start more wars then it ends. I think religion gets a bad wrap though. Its used as an excuse more often then a valid reason. For example, Hezbollah doesn't really hate Israel because its Jewish. Hezbollah hates Israel because Israel is on the land Hezbollah wants. They CLAIM its because they're Jewish,and they're fighting a religious war, but since Jews and Muslims live together fairly peacefully in other regions, this can't be true. Its just that "We want to kill them for their land" doesn't sound so appealing to potential new recruits.. The truth is, religions still give tremendous amounts of money and food to those in need. I remember watching South Park, an early episode where Starvin' Marvin is running from the Christian Missionaries in Africa, because they want Marvin to read the Bible before they give him food his people desperately needs. While I admit that does sound like blackmail, really, who else was there, willing to dish out free food?The Bottom Line is this: I think, overall, people are Decent. Not great, but slightly more caring then hating. This is true of both religious and non-religious people. However, I think religions are a better network resource then anything available to non-religious people, and that allows religious people to make a bigger impact on the world. And, over a long enough time line, I think all religions will do more good in the world then evil, and any tool that brings good into this world should stay. Even if its only slightly, its still worth having.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

"Religion brings people together, and was instrumental in our transition from Nomads to City-Dwellers."Actually, I'm pretty sure that it was agriculture that helped us make that transition. It is true, however, that the religious leaders played a role in the development of the first settled civilizations. But they had been doing that well before agriculture had made it possible to stay in one place throughout the year."Furthermore, religion was a great placeholder for science!"I completely concur. I believe this is precisely where religion came from, and I have often referred to it as an "intellectual placeholder" for early man. But now that science has come to disprove long-held religious tenants, some religious folk try to hold back the tide of knowledge, and I find that to be detrimental to society. I feel that faith has outlasted its usefulness."For example, Hezbollah doesn't really hate Israel because its Jewish. Hezbollah hates Israel because Israel is on the land Hezbollah wants. They CLAIM its because they're Jewish,and they're fighting a religious war, but since Jews and Muslims live together fairly peacefully in other regions, this can't be true. Its just that "We want to kill them for their land" doesn't sound so appealing to potential new recruits.."If you are right, then the last sentence would seem to indicate that religion is indeed creating a problem (more new recruits). Basically, it is not so much that the religion itself is the cause of the problem, but rather that religious fervor can exacerbate the problem. People who wouldn't do evil things normally could be convinced to do so if presented with religious justification. Indeed, they might be convinced that it is their duty. Anything that can be easily used to reinforce differences between groups should be scrutinized for validity and necessity. "While I admit that does sound like blackmail, really, who else was there, willing to dish out free food?"Secular humanists. And they don't blackmail in the process. Granted there aren't as many of them, but it could become a growing movement in a world where more people were motivated to do the right thing without religious lures.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: No

Agriculture made it possible, but religion is identified as one of the greatest factors in convincing Nomads to settle in the cities and create a sense of community. Take this excerpt about temples from Wikipedia's Uruk page (Uruk was one of the worlds first real cities):"There are different interpretations about the purposes of the temples. However, it is generally believed they were a unifying feature of the city. It also seems clear that temples served both an important religious function and state function"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UrukAnd when you say"Secular humanists. And they don't blackmail in the process. Granted there aren't as many of them, but it could become a growing movement in a world where more people were motivated to do the right thing without religious lures." I'd say thats true, there are many caring Secular humanists out there. But like you said, there are less Secular Humanists, and they are less organized. Can you name me one Secular, non-government agency that responds as quickly or as powerfully to a disaster as say, The Salvation Army? One of the first agencies to react to the 9/11 and the 2004 Tsunami, it spends millions of dollars a year to feed shelter and clothe the needy of all races and religions, despite being a hard-line Christian program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army The point is, wishing you could help is one thing, having the infrastructure to help is something else. religion still provides that basic infrastructure, and while I've seen some great secular charities, like Child's Play, they don't yet reach the scope of religious charities. Might Secular charities someday reach that level? Maybe, only time will tell. But right now, they don't even come close.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

"Agriculture made it possible, but religion is identified as one of the greatest factors in convincing Nomads to settle in the cities and create a sense of community."Most of what we know about the ancients is based around their religions. Through such a lens, we can identify religion as being one of the most important factors of anything they did. To an extent this would be true, religion did shape their lives immensely. But the thing is, a settled life is easier once you start figuring out how to do it, especially if you come across really fertile land. Having to constantly be on the move all the time has got to be hard on the young and sick (I'd say the elderly too, but there probably weren't too many truly old folks back then.) Always being exposed to the elements, having predators constantly on your heals, never knowing if there is any game to be hunted over the next hill. The oldest societies had been tool users for quite awhile, making structures would have been possible well before they settled down. But the kicker was understanding the basics of horticulture and animal husbandry. Once they realized that they could increase the land's yield noticeably, they started understanding that the hard life they had always known could be mostly put behind them. Religion certainly formed the center of the new society, but I doubt the average folks needed too much convincing once the smarter members of the tribe showed them the possibilities. As far as a sense of community: you don't think that traveling through rough conditions all year long with small group of people (many of whom are related to you) would foster community? Humans are social creatures, as were the apes we descended from. It almost certainly played a huge role in our success as a species. We can form bonds with people just because we're sitting next to them on a bus. Its a part of our nature, and religion is just one of the aspects it takes. I'm an atheist and I have no problems forming deep, meaningful relations with people from all aspects of my life, irregardless of their spiritual preferences. I barely know most of the people in my neighborhood, but I would stand by them in an emergency. And I'm pretty sure they'd do the same for me. "Can you name me one Secular, non-government agency that responds as quickly or as powerfully to a disaster as say, The Salvation Army?"Several corporation donated trucks, supplies, and money during Katrina. Many corporations open up voluntary funds that their employees can contribute to during national and international emergency. Your point about the infrastructure is a pretty good one though. These organizations have put a lot of time and effort into getting these responses efficient. They are quite well established and a lot of people find it easy to support them financially and as volunteers, no matter the religious preference of the volunteer. I've worked with church led organizations myself. But if religion suddenly disappeared, or stopped supporting these actions, I think there are plenty of secular groups who would figure out a way to pick up the slack.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

Before I say anything I am a christian. Furthermore, I dont beleive christianity is a religion, but a relationship. "Where did the Sun come from?"'A man in the sky! Now lets to hunt so we can EAT I hope your not implying that only atheists have brought us to where we are today in science. Because that would be far from true. And the man who proved that the earth revolved around the son was christian. Also the bible does not say the sun revolves around the sun so this is a mere human flaw.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

"Furthermore, I dont beleive christianity is a religion, but a relationship."Then you are a rarity. Most of Christianity's adherents and critics agree that it is a religion. "And the man who proved that the earth revolved around the son was christian."And then the Pope had Galileo put under Inquisition. He refused to deny the mathematical and observed proof, so the Church placed him under house arrest until the day he died.There are many examples of Christians who have practiced good science. Why did you pick one of the most famous examples where Christians in power punished them for it?
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

And then the Pope had Galileo put under Inquisition. He refused to deny the mathematical and observed proof, so the Church placed him under house arrest until the day he died.Not religion but political, Pope wanted to keep political power he believed that science threatened his power. Religion is not the source of bad things, people are.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

And how many good Christians sat by and watched this and many similar events happen without trying to do anything about it? How many people who really believed that the Church's authority came directly from God accepted it as God's will? How many good Christians sat by and allowed the witch hunts to occur without lifting a finger? How many rounded up their own neighbors and family because the preachers ramped up their insecurities and superstitions into a boiling turmoil of fear and rage? Fear and rage that only seemed justifiable from their religious mindset. How many times did this kind of thing have to happen all throughout the world before some courageous people organized and fought to rein in religious authority?And if religion is truly a way to learn morality, a bastion of goodness and grace that should stem back the tide of evil, then why do evil people keeping managing to take hold of it and hoodwink good people into supporting evil deeds time and time again? How many atrocities do you have to rationalize before you start to wonder if religion is really doing what its supposed to?
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

Because it is the one that is used most often against religion. What I am saying is that it is a mere human flaw not a flaw of religion. The church during that time was flawed. If they truely were to be true followers of christ they would know to respect all peoples rights and freedoms. They are hypocrites themselves for they do not even know how to practice good disernment. It was a pride issue. The church during that time agreed upon the fact that the sun revolved around earth. Im sure the leaders who set that foundation were highly respected during that time. Now for some scientist to come along and try and prove them wrong hurt the pride of the leaders. This is a mere human flaw not a flaw of religion. Yes I am repeating myself. I want to get this clear.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

"What I am saying is that it is a mere human flaw not a flaw of religion."This is true. However, after you take a stroll through history, you have to use this justification numerous times. Galileo, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Witch hunts, the murder of abortion doctors, the skirmishes between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland and N. Ireland, and on and on and on. And several other religions have a just as many dark spots in their history. At the least, its hard to see any moral ground gained by religion. But it gets worse than that.Some of these events were motivated more by greed and politics than by religion itself. But the otherwise good folks at the bottom of the chain don't really realize what's going on. They were duped. They didn't want their faith to get questioned, they allow their preachers to fan the flames of fear, and eventually got caught up in mob mentality. Religion isn't the only thing that does this, I know. But it can make an already bad situation worse.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: No

People who represent themselves as christian may not truely be christian. To beleive in something is one thing but to beleive in something that is more important then your life is another thing. Who you are is not what you do. Its who you are at heart. The first thing to prosper should be in you. For example alot of religions center itself around power and influence. Using your religion for these motives is disaterous and horrific to the human soul. A true beleiver in christ lives for God/Jesus same thing, and for others. Humility comes before honor. I am going to the navy and I hold that in my heart. I fasten it around my arm. You cannot have honor if you do not have humility. Also according to revelation their will only be 7 churches that are true to God and God fearing. 7! Let me ask you how many churches are their in the world? What does this tell you? That the truth is the % of chrisitans in America are alot lower then what we claim it to be. In conclusion, statistics arent the judge for the human heart. Their is only on judge who truely knows where your heart lies. Jesus christ.
Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

And now we get to the next stage of rationalizing: "They are not true Christians." The definition of what makes a "true Christian" ends up being highly subjective and biased towards one's personal beliefs. Somehow, the person making the claim feels that the very specific set of beliefs they have is the obvious choice, and yet only their specific branch, out of the billion or so Christians, has access to that wisdom. If the Bible is the Word of God, if the teachings of Christ were universally true, if there truly is a beacon of light that can put you on the right path, how could it be so divisive? How so many branches be getting it wrong? How could so many people who read the Bible miss something so universally true? How can this religion of peace and humbleness inspire so much violence and desire for power if it really is something more than words on a page? I agree with some of what you say. "The first thing to prosper should be you." I'm not sure if I would use the word "prosper," but I do agree that one needs to get their act together before they can be a benefit to the world around them. And I believe in living for others. I think the most obvious and honorable path is one that makes the world a better place. I don't, however, believe that living for Christ is necessary. People around the world who have never been exposed to His teachings still do good for their communities and the greater world. Many Buddhists dedicate themselves to this. Many Secular Humanists do this too, not for religion, but because it is the right thing to do. I try my best to do this, living humbly and graciously and for the world around me before myself. And yet that wouldn't be quite enough would it? I would have to believe in some stories that my brain tells me can't possibly be true, would have to accept an illogical and culturally restrictive notion that wouldn't, apparently, say anything about my character (since apparently not even very many Christians get it right.) I have to accept Hell, because of some sins that I haven't committed or have worked very hard to make right can't be cleared until I do some arcane, ambiguous soul ritual, when I can't even be presented with evidence that a soul actually exists? Standing from an outsider's perspective, can't you see how this is a bit off-putting? The sheer divisiveness of it all simply reinforces my distrust, and makes it hard to see where any benefit is coming from.Good on you for going into the Navy though. My dad was a sailor.