Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

Religion has a more positive effect on society and your daily life


The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Required rating
Contender / Con
Points: 2
1. No forfeit
2. No insult
3. No religious argument
Round 1
Sorry for the delay on my argument, I seldom have time to write it. Thank you for joining the debate on the subject, I probably will lack a lot of proper format and sources. If you require any clarification or proof from my argument, just ask and help me improve thanks!

First, Allow me to trace back history.

The fact that religion has accompany man kind from the first recording of history to present day is no accident. By a evolutionary sense, There would be no reason in any case for humans to obtain and keep any trait that would be more harmful than helpful!

1. Ability to unite people together to forma or/and strengthen social structure.

The purpose of any type of community is to use it power and wealth gathered within it, from the individuals, for the benefit of the whole. But due to the disagreement of different people, as they have different interest, it has been impossible for any form of sustainable organization that are larger than a few family. Conflict will always emerge as the tribe crosses the size limit and divides. But with the help of religion, people have gained the ability to push through acts, policies, and even form countries in the name of God, by creating a strong and natural bond between each other within the country, as it is practiced by and regarded as the interest of everybody! 

Here are some examples from history:

If you trace back to any ancient and long lasting empires like Chinese, Roman, Ottoman, etc,. most of the region they once control all believe in the same religion (there might be some fluctuation due to latter historic events). The now divided nations only shows the power of religion to bond together different cultural and race before the empire failed!

One could also argue that any form of major human advancement (either cultural or scientific) is based the mass wealth and power empires managed to gather to invest in it and the stability the empire provided for the research to finish and spread its effect. For example: If the Roman didn't expand their country into an empire with the help of religion, not matter how advance it may be culturally and scientifically, they won't have the same lasting effect on the Europe as they did before! (Also advance in science does not equal to military strength until it hits a critical mass, the advance Chinese empire failed multiple times to Nomads)

2. Beneficial for mental health

(This is a rather weak point as studies on the subject have proven both side of the argument to be true so I will just brush through it)

Every religion is based on the purpose for explaining the unknown and the uncertain, for we humans fear it. While science has provide reasonable explanation for many of them, the more we discover only creates more questions.

While today we probably live in the most stable and certain world in Human history—not having to worry about food or water. Smaller things that have relatively very little impact on our daily life like fashion, economy, and war in some other country trouble us more every day than it should have for a simple reason: "knowing more unknowns. "

So as a result, being more optimistic, or believing a religion that promise more certainty, has a better impact in life as most of these worries nowadays mostly are unnecessary and only makes us depress more than we should have.

Religion has been known for its surprisingly effective way of socially connecting people. While they can be divided through different classes, Ethic, and political believe. The problem of social isolation caused by the advancement of technology like cellphones and social media can be easily solved through the participation of church by believing in God.

(The following is a Extra point if you are gonna argue religion has caused a great number of division in class, gender, ethnic, etc.)

3. Religion is closely tied to politic and society if not just another body of it. Religion is never the cause of any division in society, but the expression of the division in gender, class, ethnic, etc. 

Many of these so called "religious wars" are actually not very religious at all! The cause of these wars are either political, social, or economical.

For examples:
  • the crusade is never really about Christianity even if they say so, it is mainly just about seeking wealth and fame.
  • Then we have the Peasants'war during the reformation. Even though the peasants say they revolt because they were inspired by the teaching of Luther, the truth is that the peasants were just mad about the high taxes an the abuses from nobility!
  • In the thirty years war, the French fought the Spanish even though they are both Catholic.
  • The English reformation is caused by Henry VIII of England's own desire to remarry, not for religious purposes.
  • The atrocity of the Aztec and Inca empire are done by the self funded, wealth and fame seeking Spanish inquisitor.
  • Other of these so called "religious crimes" are either done by the angered society blaming their failure in life or the nation at others like many of the Jew expulsion.
  • This has also been used as an excuse for white supremacist to attack Muslim people, as they in their believe: "threaten the Christian religion".
Any way it has been really fun to post these opinions and try to prove them with evidence from online. I look forward to your response. 

No force in human history has been more evil and more destructive than the Roman Catholic church.. when you look at the wars the torture of innocent jews and protestants and even its own catholic people the rape of its own children the wars the plunder the creation of the mafia.. no other political terrorist group has achieved more death and misery not even the communists. the Protestants arent really much better as they are responsible for the crime of the evil British empire which is respsible for more genocide and famine than any other entity with the possible exception of the catholic church..and lets face it islam has a record just the same bodies evry where stoning hookers and gays..and everyone picks on the jews..who ironicaly started the whole mess.. religion acts as a drug to keep people numb a church serves the same purpose as the local bar to keep people stupified 
Buddists seem pretty cool but someone pointed out even they do messed up stuff, all religion does is cause war and divide people whatever  good it does is negated by the bad it does

Round 2
Thank you for the response!

You brought out some really interesting points today about religious persecutions and claim that religion is responsible for these actions.

But in my opinion, the variety of religion and its conflict is mainly due to the variety of social and political communities and the conflict between them. The conflict of different religion is never the conflict of different beliefs, but rather the conflict of the different social and political group who are united under different religion.

Here are two proof of my argument:

1. Like I have argued before: Most, if not all, of these so called "religious acts" are done not mainly for the purpose of religion but for a more political or social reason. 

Many of these inquisition during the Reformation are done to protect the benefit of a particular group or organization instead of the pure cause of religion:
  • Martin Luther's condemnation of the Catholic church is mainly on its corruption and the indulgences made by the Pope.  
  • Henry the VIII of England's persecution of the Catholic are done to reinforce religious unity in his country for stability.
  • Louis XIV or the sun King's persecution of the Huguenots (French Calvinist) are again to instate religious unity for the sake of stability in his country.
  • The war of the three Henrys, is more of a conflict between the notabilities and the crown. It is resolved for political reasons, by having the Protestant King switching his religion to obtain stability of the country and ensure the Huguenot's politically and social position and religious freedom.
2. Religion's meaning is often modified to fit the people believing it. 

For example: In the Bible, it sometimes even justify and encourage rape by blaming women for the occurrence of it to a degree, but that aspect of Christianity is never taught here in US church as it does not fit the moral system.

These two evidence I think to a large degree shows that religious people are acting more on behave of their own political and social benefits rather than religious ones. Which shows that religion is never the cause of any division, but the expression of it.

Rebuttal of your other arguments: 

1. Addressing your point about more crimes in religious society: I will admit that what you have presented is a proven fact, but whether religious devotion is the cause or the symptom of the poverty and crime in a third world country is debatable.

But in my opinion, it is the chaos, caused by poverty, crime ,and lack of education, that led to people's desire of a reliable and constant mental reassurance that led to the devotion of religion. Not the other way around.

2. Addressing your other points about religion serving as drug that kept people numb: While it is true to a degree, its ability to control people has been the base of civilization and is arguably the base of any major human advancement as I have argued before. 

A more relatable comparison of religion is spices, while the substance itself in particular has no direct beneficial use for human health mentally and physically, it has been able to be act as a bridge between Asia and Europe, a major factor for Columbus's famous exploration ,and the cause of Renaissance due to the mass wealth it managed to gather to be used on scientific research and cultural advancement. 

Any way thank you the opportunity you have given me to improve my thesis, I look forward to your response.

Religion has the same positive effect that a bar or an opium den might have, god is a concept by which we measure our pain, religion numbs us it does give people a sense of community when they come together and rules  to abide by to hold the society together but religion like ethnicity divides groups and is not necessary as proven by the fact that secular societies have lass crime, better educated people conduct themselves better than those governed by fear
Round 3
1. Religion is the expression of society’s division, not the cause of it. (Proven in my previous rounds, which you made no effort of rebuttal)
2. Your study has shown nothing but that poor countries are more religious, it didn’t prove that religion has cause country to become poor! (Again the same statement is made in my previous argument)

I may have misunderstood your points, so I look forward to your response. Please highlight your thesis too as the last round have been confusing for me.
Religion aggravates existing divisions like pouring gasoline on a fire  for example Ireland , Serbia Croatia same people same race  same language, different religions poof, they spend 1000 years trying to kill each other
Round 4
First of all, inaccurate statements!

1. the majority of Ireland aren't the same race as the majority of England, Tension in Ireland are more social than religious. (Too tired to provide proof, just search online)

2. Serbia and Croatia’s conflict aren’t mainly religious, but more political! (By that, I mean 90% of the cause is political. The religious cause are even regarded more as political justification than actually religious) I mean just do your research man!

Over here on wiki you can see that almost all of these conflict are more social and political: like people claiming other’s land and claiming that they are the same race and have the same language and therefore should be united. Only like 1/10 of it mentioned anything about religion, and even that is used as justification for conquering and governing Croatia.

Lastly, no effort of disapproving my previous points on history so I assume you agree with it. You failed to make any valid points that I have not unproven. I am tired of finishing your own research and defending your irresponsible attack that are proven by no record what so ever.

Thank you for the opportunity of consolidating my thesis. Good day to you!
How many died in the 30 years war?
8 million

It remains one of the longest and most brutal wars in human history, with more than 8 million casualties resulting from military battles as well as from the famine and disease caused by the conflict.Nov 9, 2009
Thirty Years' War - HISTORY › topics › reformation › thirty-years-war one in three germans alive at the time died of war famine and  disease deciding whether or not priests should wear silly hates or whether churches should have statues, germans slaughtered earth other over religion its true people will fight over anything religion is obviously only one of many things that divide people but religion doesn't have a very good record of bringing people together what is the benefit of such slaughter over silly differences in doctrine ?

--> @Ragnar
Thank you! Sorry for my late response.
I really appreciate the help and the suggestion you have given me and how the people in this cite are treating these types of debates very professionally. The monitors are pretty awesome too! Much better than people from!
--> @Yours
Welcome to the site, and nice job on the formatting! ... You don't really need it, but it might teach you a couple tricks:
My biggest argument feedback would be use a couple more sources. Second would be rather than in later rounds listing the numbered responses to the new stuff, list the same numbers and count forward into any new arguments. Your old ones can just be "My opponent dropped this, extend."
--> @Yours
That's ok.
look at how long the list is of sceintists that were atheists it is shocking, many sceintiest beleive in a god, fine not doubting that what is so surprsing is how ignored the facts is that amongthe gernal population athesits amount to at most 5 to 10% of the population the higher up the iq chain you go the proportion increases, the fact is a majority of sceintists are athesit or agnostic "The recent survey of scientists tracks fairly closely with earlier polls that gauged scientists’ views on religion. The first of these was conducted in 1914 by Swiss-American psychologist James Leuba, who surveyed about 1,000 scientists in the United States to ask them about their views on God. Leuba found the scientific community equally divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.
More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leuba’s survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larson’s 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results."
--> @Dynasty
So anything else you need from me? (Also I don't have money to pay to see that study, sad)
--> @billbatard
That is actually an very misinforming statement. Many of the greatest and most famous scientist are religious and their belief have not abate their progression and understanding of science! Just search online about people like Newton, Einstein, and even Darwin! They are all religious person!
ask yourself why are so many smart people atheists, sure religion make stupid people happy, so does crack cocaine
--> @Yours
There are some studies.
--> @Dynasty
Thank you for the question! Do you want me to prove religion’s effect on countries or its effects on individuals?
(Also there probably aren’t any studies based on studying the effect of religion on countries so I probably can only provide you with a map of where religion is and what religion is dominant, in comparison with a map of the territories the empire once control)
--> @Yours
Cite meta analysis studies.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
"Rules: ... 3. No religious argument" haha (I get what pro meant, but it still reads funny on a debate about religion)
1. Unit People
Well laid out assertions about empires, and I would have liked some verification on what religions they had.
2. Mental Health
So because we talk online, we should specifically believe in God and go to church on Sundays for needed human interaction... This majorly begs some questions.
3. Wars
Wars in the name of God were really "political, social, or economical." A great example here was "In the thirty years war, the French fought the Spanish even though they are both Catholic." Con counters with something of a rant, which the poor punctuation ossufcates the message, but there's bits like how apparently Catholics currently commit wars so that they can rape their own children and plunder the creation of the mafia? ("catholic people the rape of its own children the wars the plunder the creation of the mafia"). And apparently "Protestants arent really much better as they are responsible for the crime of the evil British empire which is respsible for more genocide and famine than any other entity" if the British empire created worst famines than communism, this needs to be shown, and the religion angle needs to be connected. Pro of course already said his angle that any of this stuff isn't about religion (hard to prove or disprove, but he front loaded his case rather than doing special pleading after the fact).
I admit to being genuinely curious about the wars and genocides carried out in the name of Buddha (they were said to have happened, but none were listed).
I was going to leave these tied, but con in the final round trying to pull the thirty year war, which was already shown to be Catholic Against Catholic violence, undermined his case that religion is the cause of these wars rather than just an excuse during them too much (this is in addition to him dropping the positive claims of religion).
I couldn't understand con. Gibberish about children rape mafia war etc., and other examples above, already show that this case was illegible. Pro on the other hand was well organized, clean, with no glaring mistakes to distract me from the debate.
"Rules: ... 2. No insult"
Not a hard rule to follow. Cite examples (even broad ones of the priesthood) rather than accusing all Catholics of child rape and personally forming the mafia.
Pro on the other hand stayed respectful.