azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Many great scientists held religious beliefs and it could perhaps be argued that if they were not religious, their lives may have taken different paths and/or may not have ended up in a situation to discover what they did.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Of course you can argue the butterfly effect, but that's purely speculation. I was asking for specific examples of times where religion has caused scientific discovery, as he claimed that it had. I would accept that a specific discovery may not have been made on a single day if they hadn't gone to Church, even Galileo's findings on the timing of a pendulum supposedly are based off of an observation he made while in Church, but then they went on to reject his findings on Cosmology, in perhaps the most well known example of religious intervention with religion.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

You haven't really disputed anything, just claimed speculation. And just because a religious authority rejects a notion doesn't make the world a more negative place, I think it in fact improves it as 'just as iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens another' it could be argued that if ideas were commonly accepted they may not have been pushed to find true groundings and factual evidence. I think it was positive for them to have been disputed.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Neither did your arguments, the butterfly effect could work in either direction, it could have conversely caused Newton's discoveries to be found in 10 AD, or some other equally amazing find.I agree, that's what the question's asking, I was just asking for specific examples.I know what you're saying, but, specifically talking about Christianity, rejection of scientific discoveries and research as a whole was not beneficial to science. Galileo, a church going Christian, was locked up until he died because he looked into the sky and did calculations on orbits, because his answers proved heliocentrism, which in turn weakened religions claims about creation. It was not a positive net effect on Science.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Well your point about Galileo is valid for that period in time, but religion as a whole exists in a much larger boundary than that moment in time. To say that religion has been a negative effect on science would mean one would have to know how every religion has countered with science. Also, the Church today (as you know) takes measures into promoting compatibility with science and was even humbled a few years ago when it accepted that Galileo was right. You should also take into account that 'religion' doesn't necessarily mean believers of God, but could also mean somebody with a set of beliefs or rituals - something that is common to many people and it could be argued that science itself is a religion based off the search for truth, evidence etc. which would create the paradox of something itself leading to it's own demise, which doesn't make sense.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Promotion of the Church's compatibility with science is different to the research into science for discoveries sake.The vast majority of the time, religion is not a search for truth, it's an answer. Yes, there are definitely occasions where it has pushed research, but I'd consider the rejection of many scientifically accepted facts by theists to be proof that religion and science to not mix well.To be honest, I'd expect you to debate on the idea as a whole, instead of honing in on this small issue.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Religion is neither the cause, nor the effect of scientific discovery. I said they were 2 sides of the same coin, meaning they're both different ways of approaching the same issue: the search for the truth. They give us 2 different stances on the same topic, thus they can be compared indiscriminately. Moving away from science, how would you reject the culture brought by religion? I have to say, the Bible is an excellent read.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

I've read as close to a full version as you could get a 7 year old to read, but I've never attempted the 'whole' thing. Tbh, I read it around the same time as I read Aesop's Fables, and they were both children's books, might well be part of the reason why I've always thought that they aren't true stories, simply something to learn from.I wouldn't reject it, I can't see how religious culture is any different to non religious in its effects to humanity, but I would maintain that it would have been created without religion, people just like making poems and art and books and culture in general, religion just gave them ideas. And you?
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

In general, I agree with the majority of what you have said. However I do disagree when you say that religious and non-religious cultures are the same. For example, Twilight is an example of modern culture which many people (not including myself btw!) enjoy. However not to the point where they worship Robert Pattinson and form a entire culture devoted to him. Whereas religious culture is based on the idea that God is the inspiration for everything, so we must demonstrate this in our culture. And he is the inspiration for millions. In a non-religious culture, where does this inspiration come from?We haven't even mentioned religion in the spiritual sense, and how religion can give people hope and a sense of morality they didn't think they possessed, so you better take another sip of coffee; we may be here for a while!
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

If I said they were the same, I probably meant it in a different way. They have the same use, a book about Jesus would be as important to a religious community as a book about Twilight would be to a Pattinson obsessed community. Inspiration comes from anything, religion is simply one source of it. If there was no religion, something else would fill the void it left.I know, it's a huge question, no way I'm getting this involved in each aspect :S I expected Science to be the simplest part, to be honest.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Yeah, it is pretty ridiculous how much detail this kind of question goes into. Which is why it's so fun to debate, so kudos for creating it. Anyway, I need a nap or a shot of Red Bull, or a line of cocaine, or something. Debating makes me tired.So lets review: from a scientific point of view, it is still very much open for debate. From a cultural perspective, religion has filled a gap that some would argue could have been filled by something non-religious, it was just never needed. And morality is far too complicated to even approach. Best hour or so I've ever spent!PS-I don't know whether you meant to or not, but you just indirectly compared Robert Pattinson to Jesus! :)
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

I just see myself against religion in the vast majority of debates, I thought I'd give it a time to talk about it's positives.To briefly go over morality, some religions have it pretty close (Buddhism, and Hinduism to an extent, as the most famous), but even they aren't what I'd call perfect, being perpetually happy doesn't lend itself well to progression, you need to be angry to cause change. I think the overarching ideologies in most religions are good things to follow, but on specific issues they aren't always appropriate. I personally follow many of the ideas Jesus is said to preach, and agree with a lot of moral teachings in the Bible, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be the same without the Bible, again. And also, religion is used as an excuse to enforce a lesser mans beliefs, such as on gay marriage, equality in general, abortion, even killings, while religion actually preaches a very different ideal.And of course, you can compare anything to anyone, almost. They're both scientifically accepted as fictional characters (one is less fictional than the other) from books that millions of people love, that's an easy comparison.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

no religion no wars. no religion, gays can live happy, in fact no religion no slave trade. you can believe in a religion or set of beliefs but actual organized religion is causing more problems than fixing. Most religious views are good and moral but churches often are hypocritical. coming from a straight religious conservative in a catholic school. have your views don't fight over them and don't question others ability to do what they want.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Religion has done a positive things in our life. If you look at the history ever since Jesus came He changed the world. He changed people's lives and told people how we are suppose to live and act everyday. You should read the book called "What if Jesus was never been born?" by Dr. James Kennedy. He explains some stuff that happened through out the history and if Jesus was never born we wouldn't have what he explained in the book. I suggest every atheist and agnostic person to read it. Most of the stuff he said was true.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Religion has done a positive things in our life.That is not the debate question. The question is whether it has had a net positive or negative effect. It doesn't matter if religion has done positive things. What does matter is that whether or not it has done more positive than negative things or not. And I don't think that you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that it has.He changed people's lives and told people how we are suppose to live and act everyday.Hitler has also changed people's lives and told people how they are supposed to live and act everyday. Does this mean that Hitler has had a net positive influence on humanity?I suggest every atheist and agnostic person to read it.I have read it. I think that it is full of bias.Most of the stuff he said was true.So which parts are not true then?
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

If you look at the history of Jesus from a source other than the Bible, it's not all that unlikely that he was never born.Second, did people take in his message? I see good and bad Christian's, simply following the idea of Jesus does not make people better. If anything, many people in the middle might even become religious, and then think 'I'm obviously a good person, don't need to be nice to them', I've seen it happen. And do you really think that the ideas of Jesus wouldn't have come from somewhere else?And also, what about a Jesus, with no religion? Simply a moral philosopher? What about other religions? This question has no easy answers.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Negative

If Jesus was never born then half the wars in the worlds would have never started.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

firstly, let's suppose that there is no religion/belief in this world...what would happen if that's the case? because there is no religion or belief which human can rely on to do good things, a lot of war could have just happened by now... no peace, human will know no fear against something for committing crimes. say, in Christianity or Muslim , they believe their gods, in Buddhism or Hinduism, they believe 'The Law of Karma' they fear for the consequences they'll get in the afterlife , so that's why they're afraid of committing crimes,or because they want to be happy in the afterlife
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Do you really think that if there was no religion, there would be significantly more wars? There have been millions of deaths in the name of religion, first of all. Second of all, people have evolved to have a natural intuition in regards to morality, killing people is not the standard attitude.In my experience, the religious people that start wars do it in the name of the greater good, and ignore the idea of the after life. You can also start to prove that theists don't 100% accept an afterlife, or wouldn't suicide rates be higher in theists? If I knew I could go to heaven when I died, and didn't want to do something, what's stopping me from killing myself?
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

oh well, you got some pretty awesome arguments there..OK, you said that there have been millions of deaths in the name of religion, first of all. in fact, yes, it's true, but if you look back, it's not like Jesus told his followers to wage war like you said. it's humans' ego which had caused war you know. humans waged wars in the name of their religion, so they can get more support or anything from that religion followers, or even to make all of the war stuffs seem 'right to do'. i bet you know terrorists. yes, they committed crimes in the name of Islam, it sucks, nothing in their Koran tells them to do crimes, it's just simply a misinterpretation of understanding. in fact, not all Muslims are terrorists, most of them are good people. second, about the (a)theists,yup, they don't 100% accept or even believe afterlife. but it's up to them, there are penal codes in every countries to control their deeds, no matter where they are, they must abide by the laws.. and one more thing, you wouldn't be able to know whether you'll go to heaven if you died (i don't even think so). it depends on the good things you've done in your life. and what will stop you from killing yourself? your WILL mate, if you already have no interest to live in this world, i bet you wouldn't have disputed my arguments (turn on your computer, and go browsing on the internet). well that means you still don't want to die because you still have the WILL to dispute my arguments againi look forward to your reply :D
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

But intentions are different to effects, part of the logic used in Hitler's propaganda stemmed from Christianity. I agree, the preachings of Jesus are of pure non violence. But people have abused them, and taken them out of context, and used them to incite violence in people (crusades are another good example). I'm not saying religion is bad, just that bad people have abused it, causing an overall negative in this aspect.The fact that you say in fact, not all Muslims are terrorists, most of them are good people just suggests to me that you find it surprising that they aren't all terrorists. The Quran does preach violence in some situations, which I agree is right, I believe that violence has a time and a place to be used appropriately. It's worth remembering that God may not preach violence, but he practices it. Every religion has a history of violence. But, again, it's extremists using its arguments in ways that they were not intended. Islam is not a bad religion.Just to clarify, when I say theists, that means those who believe in a religion, or divine God, atheists means those who do not. That kind of changed my entire argument.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

sorry, it's because i never heard the word 'theists' before. ok, let's go back to the title of this debate : Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?in FACT, it's brought us positive influence in our life. religions teach us to be charitable, good and wise people.and, because their presence has more positive effects than the negative ones (like you said), it means religions are good for us, as long as we don't abuse it. (how many people do you think are abusing them right now? compared to the ones who don't abuse it, religions' positive effects outnumber their negative effects)
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

My opinion is that good people will be good people with or without a God telling them to be. I'm an atheist, yet I would consider myself a good person. Religion preaches morality, but you cannot say that religion is the source of morality. Obviously, it does help some people, but that's not the only aspect.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

yet I would consider myself a good personHow are you a good person? Without a God, how can you consider yourself a good person as there is nothing to set yourself against and therefore you a just a person. Without a base set of something you cannot be good or bad; you are as good a person as Hitler in that regard, unless you claim that you are a good person because you do certain things that you claim are universally 'moral'. you cannot say that religion is the source of moralityReligion IS the source of morality. It gave people, who believed in them, a base set of what is moral and had them follow the rules etc. to live a relatively moral life (with reference to their particular religion). Also, most things people consider 'moral' today just stem from the 10 commandments which was usher in by a religion.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

I consider myself a good person based on logical reasoning. For example, if many people did as I did, would it be beneficial to society, would it make people generally happier, do I respect people where it's deserved. They are not just random things, they are things that debate and experience have shown us that are fundamental to society. The moral argument is circular and self satisfying, it simply says 'how can we know anything if God hasn't told us' but I've yet to see a theist apply the same strict requirements for accepting beliefs to their own. But on what I said, I simply said I think, not I am, two different things. If you say 'I believe this book is blue' then that is not incorrect, even if the book is accepted to be red.So people before religion followed no rules?Btw, I didn't mean this as a debate on the validity of God, just so you know, just about religion as a whole.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Without a God, how can you consider yourself a good person as there is nothing to set yourself against and therefore you a just a person. And why should any God be a yardstick? Are you referring to just the Judeo-Christian space daddy or other gods like Zeus, Apollo or Vishnu?Religion IS the source of morality.Prove it.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

no beliefs mean no disagreements and so no conflict no crime no victims etc. people don't hurt other people because they have an "urge" unless they're mentally insane. also atheists don't believe there is no right and wrong they believe in logic. no one logically attacks others for no reason. it is conflicting beliefs which cause problems so no religion less problems.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

First of all, most people who claim religion to be a negative thing talk about the number of wars it has caused etc. which is false and so takes away a large backbone in the 'negative' argument. Secondly, let us look at the other side of the coin. Has atheism benefited us more? Look as the USSR, with Stalin killing millions under his atheist state, North Korea letting a large proportion of its population starve. Religion more often than not provides a moral compass for nations and (although this isn't always true) it helps a country to act morally. Thirdly, religion has often been responsible for education facilities and promoting thought, something which is inevitably good for humanity as it advances our thinking and our perception on different situations.Thirdly, look at the 'great' societies throughout history, most of them have been grounded in religion. One can surely build from this that religion has brought people together as it allows them to have common ground. It also allows a framework for a successful nation to be built upon. You can even look at modern nations, as most of them have a religious grounding. Without the nations we have had, it would have been harder to people to discuss ideas, test theories and move forward as a human race and so from this one could claim that religion has been a positive influence.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

First of all, most people who claim religion to be a negative thing talk about the number of wars it has caused etc.So what? That's not the only bone I have to pick with religion. If that is your only opposition to the atheists, then you have not shown beyond reasonable doubt that religion has had a net positive influence.Has atheism benefited us more?This is not the debate in question. Whether or not atheism has benefitted more has no bearing on whether religion has had a net positive or negative influence. So your argument here violates Occam's razor. Furthermore, Stalinism is a state religion. The Russians were forced to worship Stalin and Lenin as gods. Indeed, they were revered as gods by some Russians at that time.Religion more often than not provides a moral compass for nationsThis is an unjustified assertion.look at the 'great' societies throughout history, most of them have been grounded in religionThis is argumentum ad populum. Even if I were to accept that "great" societies were grounded in religion, it still doesn't mean that it has had a net positive influence on humanity. Look at the Ancient Greek societies, they believed that religion and morality were very much separate. Their moral codes were very much not grounded in religion. Thus, your entire argument also commits the genetic fallacy.One can surely build from this that religion has brought people together as it allows them to have common ground.And you haven't shown whether this "common ground" is good or otherwise.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

"Secondly, let us look at the other side of the coin. Has atheism benefited us more? Look as the USSR, with Stalin killing millions under his atheist state, North Korea letting a large proportion of its population starve. "They didn't do these actions because they were atheists. This had nothing to do with whether they were theist or atheist. They were just tyrants.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Up vote for you because you were down-voted without any legitimate response.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Religion is what gave some people the inspiration to live. Listen, religion did not cause war it was human intolerance and those people don't even do what their religion tells them to do so don't say anything about religion being evil or blind or stops science. In my religion we don't want wars or inhumane executions. Not only my religion depicts that no one is allowed to kill a million people in an explosion and claim they did it in the name of their religion, but that the people who do it get punished. Basically people that start holy wars would not have started it if their religion says so, and human intolerance is everywhere before and after religion spread.