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

Listen, religion did not cause war it was human intoleranceIs human intolerance and religion mutually exclusive?don't say anything about religion being evil or blind or stops science.Are you saying that religion does not do all these things or that people practicing the religion do not? Be specific.In my religion we don't want wars or inhumane executions.What is your religion?
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

This question is hard to answer because it apply to to different people but to make this simpler we will concentrate on religions that claim peace. For these religions, human intolerance and the 'peaceful' religion itself is mutually exclusive. The problems start to arrive when stupid religious people like Osama Bin Laden claim that they killed these people in the name of Islam, then that is human intolerance because they themselves don't do what their religion tells them to do. So how can the religion of these men be blamed if the only way they did those bad things was to not follow their religion. I used to be agnostic but now i am a Muslim. When the pope was talking to cosmologists at a meeting, he told them not to research the origin of universe. This is not the Catholic church's fault but the popes's fault. He was weak and could not defend Christianity. So, what did he do? He tried to destroy all chances of anti-christian evidence.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

it apply to to different peopleExactly. That is precisely my point. You are making a very hasty generalisation when you say that all religions do not cause wars. You haven't catalogued every single religion, so how can you make such a bold claim? It's ridiculous to believe.but to make this simpler we will concentrate on religions that claim peace.But if you are allowed to nitpick on which aspects of religion you would like to emphasise on how religion is positive, why am I not allowed the same license to cherry pick the bad aspects of religion as well?What you are doing here is deliberately ignoring the evidence and trying to smoke your way through the debate.The problems start to arrive when stupid religious people like Osama Bin Laden claim that they killed these people in the name of IslamThey do not "claim" to kill people in the name of religion. They do kill in the name of religion. That is characteristic of the Islamic jihad terrorists. They use their religion to justify their acts of violence. Take away religious belief, and they will have no basis for terrorism. If this is so, it is quite plausible to believe that without religious influence, such people will not commit such extremist acts of violence.So how can the religion of these men be blamed if the only way they did those bad things was to not follow their religion.It doesn't matter if they did not follow their religion. The fact is that religion has been used to justify (falsely) their acts of violence! Similarly, Karl Marx did not talk about oppression and corruption or even state religion when he talked about an idealist socialist state. However, we can't say that just because this is so, the Russians' (i.e. Lenin's and Stalin's) view of communism was not wrong because they did use their Marxist ideas to justify their acts of terrorism. In fact, Stalin's use of force is more inline with Niccolo Machiavelli's view!This is not the Catholic church's fault but the popes's fault.As the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope is directly responsible for the Church's doctrines. Thus, your statement is false.Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Islam or indeed any religious person other than the fact that I don't agree with their world view. I will never claim to generalise any one's character based on the actions of certain religious extremists. As a person living in the multi-racial and multi-cultural society of Singapore, I have many religious friends.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

._.That's all well and good.The supporters of any religions when on a platform where others who may or may not share that religion will hear or see what is being advertised of it, will undoubtedly put it in the best light.Destpite the best or worst intentions of any religion though, find me one in which none have ever been killed solely in the name of it.This religion you are speaking of does not exist.At its core religion serves a sole purpose, that is to give mortal beings the illusion of immortality.That is it. That is its power. Everything else is decoration.Because the human psyche is just bright enough to understand all of our impending deaths, but not quite smart enough to grasp it as innevitable and natural, these superstitions have a great power over most.The original intent of any power is inconsequential, because it can be used however one wishes by whoever weilds it.And every religion has and can be used for evil.Taking away relgion is simply taking away a powerful tool, one that frankly, people really don't have a use for if they are simply honest and thoughtful about mortality.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Negative

Oh, really? There have been many reports about people murdering the innocent because their God told them to. And lets not forget The Dark Ages. The Dark Ages was a time when religion was the authority during that time. It was a time when many had died for not following the authority of religion. It was a time when literally all science, technology, and medical advancements came to a complete stop because of religion. But when it came to science, many scientist where killed, banished, and tortured because of their scientific discoveries that went against the teachings of religion. Many of those scientific discoveries were lost, burned, and buried away. Look at the Library of Alexandra. All information of that era, all the history that was lost, all the discoveries that were recorded, were destroyed by those who's actions were influenced by their religion. And even in today's modern world we see many problems. You say that it's human intolerance that is the cause of these wars, but the reality is that religion is what makes them intolerant, and ignorant. You say people cause the terrible crimes because they don't know what their religion is telling them. So tell me, are you an expert in every religion? Do you know all the teachings of all of these religions? What you don't get is that people can use religion as a valid excuse to do these crimes. It doesn't matter is the religion says it doesn't, people will do that. Look at all the hate crimes against homosexuals, atheist, and anyone else with other religious beliefs.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Interestingly enough Atheistic regimes have caused far more deaths than religious ones, however that does not mean that atheism is the cause, rather the more totalitarian the government the more likely a great number of murders etc were committed. SO to anyone who even once mentions the crusades or some other comparable event... Spare me.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

I am someone who does not believe in god. BUT (besides not letting homosexuals marry and fighting pro-choice) religion is very important in society. It teaches people what is right and wrong and persuades them to do the right thing with promises of a better life (or afterlife)
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Overall? I would say positive. Religion (in the modern age) has laid down good morals for people to follow.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

I will opine that the positive forces of religion do outweigh the negative forces.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Had Christianity and Islam not bee invented (yes, invented), then yes. But I just can't fathom how, after seeing what has been done in the name of Jesus and Allah, how it has. Other religions, yes. Religion in general, no.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

really? so your point is: you can't stand the fact that many wars have been waged in the name of Allah or Jesus? I've explained this thing in my previous argument, the one that caused war to happen is humans' ego, not religion.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Well, humans wouldn't have so big of an ego if they didn't think they were better because of their religion. It is true that racism and wars are not caused directly by religion, but people have crafted them around religion, and thereby linking them. You cannot argue that people have not used religion as an excuse to treat others terribly. And if you say that religion is good, then shouldn't the head of those religions (namely the gods/priests) kick out all the bad people so they don't hurt other innocent people anymore? If religions won't be used to help save lives, and will not degrade immoral people within the religious group, then that group will have to face the consequences of others stereotyping against them.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

OK, but none of those religions ever mentioned that they (namely their followers) must go to war, or wage war in the name of religions. it's just a mere personal ABUSE you know... the world in the past (and even now) had a lot of political problems (e.g. conquering a new area or place which originally belonged to other people).do you know why do people abuse religions? it's in order to gain more and more support from a certain religion's followers, so the abuser can achieve their wicked goal. it's just like the terrorists' leaders, they abuse Muslim, so they can retaliate on the Jews and westerner. (even though there's no certain proof for that, but it's likely to be 99% true, they are aiming for them)religion teaches us to help and save people, you are told to help or save people in need in every religions. I hate to explain the same things over and over again dude,. it's humans themselves who caused war, not religion
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

I hate to explain the same things over and over again dude,.“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men” ~Orwell
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Orwell is a moron one who I cannot stand. (assuming you mean George Orwell).
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Really, Orwell a moron, maybe you're just too stupid to understand his message. Orwell is widely recognised as the 20th century's best chronicler of English culture, his 1984 is among the greatest novels ever written and would be the number one chioce of many, he is also widely acknowledged as one of the (if not thee) greatest writers of the 20th century and of all time.Now, even if I fundamentally disagreed with an author and their message I would at least be willing to recognise his/her greatness(as the whole of human kind have), I would never be so small minded as to call them a moron, the fact that you have called one of the greatest writers of all time a moron only proves your own stupidity.Now, I'd like to see you try to defend that stupidity by attacking aspects of Orwells writing, possible logical contradiction's in his message etc...etc, which incidentally is what you should done from the beginning.I've read 1984, animal farm, and a shit ton of his essays, so please, humour me;-)
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

If you deal with the more serious atheists, you would find that the number of wars is the least of the problems we atheists have with religion. There is an entire multitude of reasons why I have a bone to pick with religion even if you take armed conflict out of the list.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

Yes but are you the type of atheist who is trying to find more answers or are you the type who doesn't of think of the chances of an intelligent designer.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

are you the type of atheist who is trying to find more answers or are you the type who doesn't of think of the chances of an intelligent designer.I am a philosopher first and an atheist second. My atheism is a result of my love of philosophy. Thus, I am actively trying to look for more answers. The problem is that the theists here have not given me any good arguments to change my position.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

I'm only arguing this side because there is at least one positive thing that has come from religion; change. Yes, if it weren't for religion we may not have the scientific knowledge we have today. It was the ancient Islamic astronomers who collected so much information about planetary motion and disproved the Greek model which was based on ancient Greek religion that placed earth at the center of the universe, that later Christian astronomers based their knowledge on it. Albeit, the Christians still believed Earth was at the center of the solar system, it wasn't until later that that notion was challenged. More importantly, these church supported scholars could not have made as much progress in scientific studies if they'd studied in the private sector. While the Religious leaders sanctioned scientific research in order to give legitimacy to there religious beliefs, the scientists were only seeking the truth, whatever it came to.Even when Isaac Newton first published "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" the church still believed he was doing God's work. Little did they know how liberating this new way of thinking was going to be. After all, it was the oppression of religious doctrine that brought out rebellious thinking. That's what oppression does.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

A small reminder, we are talking about religion not man's religion. Otherwise that would be different. Honestly, I do agree some wars are caused because of people thinking their religion is superior but I don't side the negative because that would religion is the cause of human intolerance. It's like blaming cars for making everyone lazy. It is human intolerance+ religion that causes the problems even though religion is trying to stop human intolerance.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Religion has had a very positive influence on humanity. Religion helped people get out of the Middle Ages in Europe. I believe that no matter what religion you are, you are a better person. If people didn't have religions, people would be very bad people. Our religions teach us morals and values. Almost anything we do links back to religion, even if you're a person with no religion, you have probably done or said something concerning religion in a positive way. Without religion, i believe this world would be chaos, sure, there have been world wars because of religion, but it's NOT the RELIGION that caused these wars, its the PEOPLE. Some people take their religion too seriously and THAT'S what makes the wars. The religion in general, has nothing to do with the decisions of these people.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Negative

So what you're saying is; I don't have a religion, therefore I'm a bad person. That's not a fair statement given the fact that a lot of Atheists have done good, too. You don't have to belong to a religion to be a good person.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Negative

Exactly. Look at Bill Gates. He gives billions of his wealth to charity and yet he's atheist. He is also an example that you don't need religion to be moral, you can be moral with logic and reason. For example, I know killing is wrong because you are taking the life of someone else. I don't need a God to help me figure that out.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

In the end I think that religion is an eneviability. Every culture has had some belief system, some moral code and way of explaining the world. Currently we explain the world therough science and we gain morals from others and society. However we should remember where that societal feeling came from. It is long standing and came from people who used many different beliefs, but in the end it is a huge piece of why societies have structures and morals.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Religion has had a positive effect on history because without religion people wouldn't unite!!Countries were able to gain independence because they united under a religion. For example India would not be independent unless freedom fighters emerged and these freedom fighters were of the same religion thus they told the people to unite under their religion and overthrow the British.The US was not there when Britain, India and other Old World countries were present. It was then discovered by Christopher Columbus as a New World country. But how did it quickly develop to be one of the most modernized country in the world. The answer is religion. In the past, a few wars had erupted between the US and Britain for freedom. Because the people united under their religion they gained independence. At the same time slavery was abolished because even slaves are people and they are also under the same religion. I now end my point by saying, "You are free today because you united before under religion".
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Religion has been our base. It has provided the platform we were and are standing on. Many people under different religions go above while some people stay level or go below their base. Successful people always talk about their past and one thing everyone talks about is religion. Some people say "i was an untouchable but under the religion of Hinduism i was a leader". They always talk positive about religion. Historians and Humanists of the past and present always start from religion to find more about a person. Muslims used Greek and Roman texts to find, do and alter many things. Religion has a positive influence on humanity because without it there would be no Muslims, Hindus, Greeks, Christians etc. We would just be people. We would have no history and history itself would be boring then ever. Religion plays a major role in our daily life. It gives us faith and a reason to believe in God. I end my point by saying "With religion as our base we achieve success, failure or none which helps us in our afterlife".
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: negative

I've yet to see anything good done by an individual in the name of religion they would not have done in the name of human decency should god be absent from that equation. Individually it is more a matter of god being there to take the credit when the deed is done than present to encourage the act.The charitable, in other words, are charitable with our without god--I submit as proof atheists who are charitable. There are no statistics pointing to any reason to believe that those who think there is a god are kinder, more giving or otherwise more caring than those who do not.Where religion is a negative is its ability to control masses. And it is only through control that great evils can be justified in the mind of the majority of humans.Most humans, if a god is not saying it's okay, or even telling them they have to do it, would not participate in stonings, burnings or religious wars.Sure, other excuses can be made and religion is not to blame for every horrid act. But you cannot take away human nature, you can take away a belief system adopted by the humans with this nature.Take away religion and humans are no more or less charitable, and I'm fairly certain there are less than half the atrocities our shared humanity has inflicted on one another.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

Absolutely in no way is religion needed for positive behavior in fact I think arguments can easily be made to the contrary, religion is a catalyst that bigotry, racism and ignorance are very easily attached to and fostered from.
Debate: Has religion had a net positive or negative influence on humanity?
Side: Positive

I've yet to see anything good done by an individual in the name of religion they would not have done in the name of human decency should god be absent from that equation.As if you had a way of knowing such things.Individually it is more a matter of god being there to take the credit when the deed is done than present to encourage the act.Some people are just not prepared to think about what religion is without getting all theistic. :)The charitable, in other words, are charitable with our without god--I submit as proof atheists who are charitable.People whose actions are guided by an internally held concept of greater good are more charitable than nihilists.There are no statistics pointing to any reason to believe that those who think there is a god are kinder, more giving or otherwise more caring than those who do not.Really?! How did you find out that there were no such statistics?Where religion is a negative is its ability to control masses.This would be an argument against government too then.And it is only through control that great evils can be justified in the mind of the majority of humans.To the contrary, mindsets that are overly absolutist have a way of voluntarily teaming up.Most humans, if a god is not saying it's okay, or even telling them they have to do it, would not participate in stonings, burnings or religious wars.That is an argument for the existence of god. I thought you were atheist!“The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other - instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals.” ~Abbeyyou cannot take away human nature, you can take away a belief system adopted by the humans with this nature.you can't "take away" a belief system unless you are willing to commit murder or genocide.Take away religion and humans are no more or less charitable, and I'm fairly certain there are less than half the atrocities our shared humanity has inflicted on one another.If you care to expose it to scrutiny, I think you will find that your position is logically untenable. You argue as if religion was something that can be taken away. My position is that religion can be altered and modified but not done away with.