Question: Should Religious Organizations Continue to be Tax-Exempt?

Resolved: Churches in the United States should not be exempt from taxation.

In this discussion, I advocate for the PRO position, requesting that the CON refrain from rebuttals in the second round, dedicated to case formulation. Without any debate parameters, I proceed with my argument:

**Thesis**: The tax exemption for churches breaches the First Amendment, conflicts with US legal standards regarding religious entities, and strains the national economy. Therefore, American churches ought to be taxed.

**Contentions**:

1. **Subsidizing Religion Contravenes the First Amendment**:
   - **Sub-point 1a**: The intent of subsidizing churches includes promoting religion, which the IRS acknowledges in its Code Section 501(c)(3) as including religious advancement [1].
   - **Sub-point 1b**: The government shows favoritism to churches over other nonprofits, granting automatic tax exemption without the need for Form 990 filing [2].

2. **Tax Exemption for Churches is Economically Detrimental**:
   - The untaxed property of churches, estimated at $300-$500 billion, could significantly alleviate deficits [3].

3. **Legal Basis for Revoking Tax Exemptions for Churches**:
   - **Sub-point 3a**: Churches often act as political entities, endorsing candidates in violation of a 1954 law [4], yet face no consequences [5].

Sources:
[1] Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court dissent, Everson v. Board of Education, Feb. 10, 1947
[2] IRS, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Orgs., 2009
[3] Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, "The Church of America," Huffington Post, Oct. 11, 2011
[4] US law, 1954
[5] Andy Birkey, "Pastors Face Few Consequences for Endorsing from Pulpit," iowaindependent.com, Oct. 6, 2011

To begin with, religion does not stop "fornication", homosexuality, jealousy, resentment and drunkenness. Surely any capable parent, religious or not, would not expose their child to such things. Also, sin and lack of morals are not necessarily the same thing, from an objective view. You are also proving my point. Fornication or sex, is not a sin, neither is homosexuality, intoxication, jealously or resentment. In fact, they are normal human reactions, some uncontrollable, and some inevitable. By telling children these are sins, you are setting them up for a life of shame and pain, forced to believe there is something wrong with them, rather than being told the truth. They are human. They are flawed. But them having sex, or coming out gay are not "problems". They are facts of life. They don't need to be "disciplined" out of it. They need to be given the room and opportunity to be who they want to be, not to be stunted at a young age by cruel standards that they have been born into. Which brings me back to my point. A child should be kept away from religion until they makes their own choice regarding it. Look how people can be. How can you want a child to be brought into such hate?

Religion: b4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Websters Seventh New Collgiate Dictionary,1969 Athiest believe that there is no diety. It should not be contested, as this site is full of examples, that Athiest use lack of evidence and modern scientific knowledge to defend their beliefs and challenge pro diety religions. Yet any scientist worth their salt would hold the position that the lack of proof of something does not negate its existence. Darwinism v. Creationism Modern science has observed that animals(including humans) have evoled over a period of time, through genetics, leaving the best equipped to survive. A change in environment can almost immediately cause change in species adapting to such change. In England, the peppered moth changed its color from white to black in order to comouflage themselves from birds on soot covered trees at the turn of the last century. Once soot output was diminished, the liken grew back and the moths changed back to white. Domestic pigs that escape to the wild, not only change the color of their coat from pink to brown, but also their tusk will grow in order to feed on roots and for defense. My point is we humans have the ability to effect the evolutionary process. So it is safe to say, that so could a diety, if one exist. Most religious people today do not take Genesis for word. The earth has been around for a little longer than 6000 years. However, the theory of evolution leaves plenty of room for an "unearthly" force to control the evolution, either in part or as a whole. Its existense has neither been proven or disproven. If it walks like a duck...... Religion has certainly had it's effect on scociety. Most notably the struggle for dominance in thought. Atheism is now fighting(and winning) for dominance in public thought just as any other religion has. Most notable examples would be the restrictions on public displays and thought in public classrooms. Evolution without intervention of an unknown is a theory. Yet the athiest seek to ban any examination and discussion in the classroom. The church used to control thought. If it talks like a duck...... The belief in a diety is based on faith and has not been proven. The belief that no diety exist is based on faith and has not be proven. Both are forms of religion.

I am glad your back, though we are short a response; please do not hold it against PRO. As for the begging for votes, I assumed you forfeited completely. Once again I do not see you making any valid reasons that religion shouldn’t be forced on children in schools. I do not think outrage, discomfort and personal objection are valid arguments, though they are emotionally compelling. Also I don’t care if it’s a man, women, Muslim or Christian, you’re framing the question in a way to try to evoke a personal response to make a point by exception rather than an argument. Also suggesting my bias, which is silly as I was at pride while you were camping, which is a pro gay parade, shows the weakness of your argument. I am not anti-gay, I just find your argument not logical or accurate. Also your argument from not at all, to it should be taught what other believe and not one religion is true, is different and that even if you have slightly shifted your position will eventually end up with the same problem. They can’t be all true, and your imply one or more is false. Why go to the logical conclusion, if there is no proof why believe in a god at all? The best way to educate people is to actually do that, educate them on the facts, logic and reason. It should be forced into the classroom and it should be taught accurately, rather than interpreted falsely as so many people do, to fit their personal or religious view. Why is it important to teach the bible and religion accurately? Because it’s such a big part of society, it shaped our history and inspired our art. So much of the wold is shaped by it, to ignore it is to do education and students a disservice. If you think objection due to discomfort then the holocaust is a non-subject, or white washed subject, because it might offend Christian to hear how is was a Christian movement to kill the Jews. It was important, it was a major moment in history and students should be forced to learn about the holocaust, why it happened and how it came to be. You’re not teaching that the Nazi point of view is true, just why they believed and how it was wrong and what it did to the world. Nor do you invite various hate groups into the class and let them via for students or present interpretations that are easily disproven or false. Why? Because the truth matters. The truth is the truth is the truth is the truth, and your discomfort doesn’t matter. I dont care if you believe 2+2=5 and your believe it should be allowed as legitimate math in the class room (unless to point out why its not true and example of bad math). Just like I don’t care if you feel uncomfortable that the bible teaches you’re going to hell for being gay, it’s what the book says. Offense is not a reason not to teach something. If it’s relevant, if it’s required to operate in the world or it’s relevant to the world once you go out into it, it should be taught. You even suggest this, by going half way to teaching what people believe, but not once did you say teach the facts and that there is no proof for god, and assuming one is illogical. Why? Your original object is Religion should not be forced, is now only teach what they believe even if it’s not true? What would be what next, opt out for people who object to hard math as they do with sex ed in many places, or avoid teaching it all together like evolution in many places? Oh wait, that was the original argument. Again, I say it should be forced into the classroom and taught accurately not preached inaccurate. Thank you This was extremely fun an interesting and I will debate you on other subjects any time as I found your viewpoints challenging and interesting. Seriously thank you. . . Please comments on votes are greatly appreciated as well. . .Thank for reading.

It's not a question of restricting freedom of religion, it's simply a question of whether or not society would be better off without religion. Of course it can be denied that religion was needed to make the first morals. Morality is essentially an instinct derived from our tribal origins. It behooved us as a species to cooperate, and so the groundwork was laid for a system of mutual reliance which comprises what we now call "morality". I agree that the issue of when life begins is a debate for another time. As for the issue of whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, I do not advocate censorship of proponents of intelligent design, I simply think that in order to be taught in schools, something ought to be scientifically sound. You can teach people all about intelligent design anywhere else, but you cannot force feed it to children via the public school system, as it has no legitimate scientific basis. I agree that people should be free to believe what they want to believe, but that is not the question we're debating.

I apologize. I was trying to simply state what you said in your argument. I will provide better evidence to support my claim and use pure logic. Religion causes war. 9/11 was taken place because of religion, because Islamic/Muslim terrorists committed these horrible acts because it was supposedly the "Word of God". Religion s centered around one god but humans are stubborn and they will claim that their religion is the right one. The argument will go on and on, and this will cause wars. And with the type of warfare today, atrocities will be upon us. Thousands, if not millions, will die, including innocents. I will now use evidence from a website I came across that explain why religion cause brain damage. I advise the user scan the whole website: http://truelogic.wordpress.com...

Thank you daSnowman1183 for starting this debate. I offer the following definition: insane- utterly senseless (from dictionary.com) My opponent argues that religion is insane because: 1) it creates problems 2) "the Bible speaks of lies" 3) there is no proof that God or Gods exist I will now counter my opponent's arguments 1) By "problems," I assume my opponent means conflicts such as the Kashmir Conflict. Conflicts are caused due to many things. Religion causes conflict because of an antinomy or because of multiple antinomies. Other conflicts are caused by antinomies as well (i.e. The Russian Civil War- Reds believed that a communist rule was optimal, and the Whites believed that the rule of the Czar was optimal; they had a civil war because of it). As religion isn't the actual cause of the problem, but rather a disagreement of ideas, this argument does not prove that religious insanity. 2) The Bible refers to one religion: Christianity. Calling ALL religions insane because one speaks "lies" that are specific to that religion is illogical. 3) There is also no proof that God or Gods do NOT exist. If belief that God or Gods exist is insane because there is no evidence supporting the claim, then, in turn, belief that God or Gods do not exist is also insane because there is no evidence saying that God does not exist. If my opponent argues this, then his own atheistic belief is insane. My argument: Theists believe God exists to explain what they cannot explain otherwise (i.e. existence of life). As there is no evidence confirming that theist beliefs are false, religion is not utterly senseless (which is the definition of insane if you scroll/look up a little). I patiently await my opponent's response.

How dare you say that people were stoned for sexism in the Bible? The Bible is the catalyst for sexism! Just look in the grotesque book that sits in every hotel room drawer, every pulpit and every library, and you'll find verses like 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.' (1 Timothy 2:12) It's not just the sexism that's so prevalent in the Bible, however. It's the categorical and unanimous support for slavery, genocide, racism and the persecution of other religions. When people say that 'in recent times, maybe the last hundred years, the Jewish people have been the subject of perpetual persecution', try two thousand years! A lot of these ill informed believers don't even recognise that Jesus was a Jew himself! Anyway, back to the motion, which is 'the world would be better without religion'. Do you claim it morally acceptable that crucifixion is still in use in Saudi Arabia as recent as last month? These are crimes that are not even worthy of a ten year prison sentence in America. Is it merely a coincidence that Saudi Arabia is under a theocracy and the legal system is dominated by Shariah law? How about not even letting women drive? Is that morally just? I say that this is evil, and should be treated with contempt. Judaism is a religion which I don't believe we have covered yet. What rational, thinking person would look down at a new born baby and think 'let's mutilate this thing's genitals'? These are people who have been corrupted by the poison of religion, and the sooner we rid the world of it, the sooner we'll be living in greater harmony.

Pro made an excellent response, and I am happy we have made it to the final round! 1.Ah, I was unaware that was the official title of a logical fallacy. 2.Actually, there are two definitions for ‘doctrine' – one is a specific principle, and the other is a broader, encompassing "body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject". So in essence, the sum of the teachings of the Christian Church is a doctrine, and that's what I was referring to. 3.A) My opponent has claimed that I have not cited specific examples of vile, perverse behavior endorsed by religion. To begin with, I'd like to note that the Islamic legal code (Sha'aria) is what governs Iran. Sha'aria is the book of laws Muslims are supposed to follow. Therefore, that stoning is an example of vile and perverse behavior endorsed by religion. While it may seem that the recent Iranian death-sentence was a freak occurrence, the fact of the matter is that, since 1996, Sha'aria law has been carried out on adulterous women in Afghanistan, the UAE, Nigeria, and Sudan, among others. It is not an isolated occurrence. Additionally, Saudi Arabia claims to govern by pure Sha'aria law, in which the "Hadd laws" are observed, including the severing of hands for theft and death sentences for improper sexual affairs. http://www.guardian.co.uk... I will here list some further biblical endorsements for your viewing displeasure (hopefully): From the Old Testament, Leviticus and Deuteronomy (wherein God lays out the laws for His people): -If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. ( Lev 20:9) -If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. (Lev 20:13) -If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people (exiled). (Lev 20:18) -A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them. (Lev 20:27) -If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. (Lev 21:9) -Lev 21:16-23 forbids any blind, disfigured, sickly, or deformed person from praying at an altar to God -Deu 13 concerns the discovery of a town that worships any other god. It orders that the town be sacked, that every man, woman, child, and animal be killed, that everything in the town be burned, and that the town should remain in ruins forever. -Deu 17 says that if at least two witnesses attest that you believe in another god, you are to be chained to the gates and stoned to death! To comment on this particular group of Bible-endorsed behaviors: They essentially demand discrimination and intolerance. Yes, intolerance, the same thing I'm championing. The key difference is that I'm advocating intolerance of religion precisely because it advocates (and in fact, demands) the sorts of cruel and twisted punishments listed above. In place of these harsh laws would be discussion and reflection in a modern world, where the moral shackles of that terribly dated, discriminatory code are broken and minds are open. Further, it might seem that these types of laws are so dated that they are irrelevant. However, the fact of the matter is that the sentiments of these statements live on. The passage listed above (Lev 20:13) is the most cited passage when Christians are asked for their opinion on the gay ‘lifestyle' choice. The Bible condemns it – therefore, it is evil and should not be tolerated. These people fall back on the Bible as their evidence regardless of how the opposing side frames its view. There is simply no negotiating on this point. That's the danger – deeply religious people cling deeply to the beliefs they find in the Bible, and when laws like those listed above are validated, nothing good can result. My opponent reduces my qualms with religions structured moral code to my relying on the ‘harm principle'. He is correct in stating that this principle simply does not work, but is incorrect in saying that it summarizes my view. All I have ever advocated is the removal of religious influence on the moral decision-making process. The causing of unnecessary harm is the reason that I find religion to be immoral, as my opponent points out, but that isn't the reason YOU should find it immoral. We should ALL find religion immoral because it restricts our ability to use our developed, rational brains to make moral decisions that MAKE SENSE in the context of our modern word, which grows more morally-aware by the day. Religion throws a wrench in the gear and slows the process of moral growth, as there is no room for change. As far as the arguments on the legality of gay marriage and abortion, I don't believe a legal debate fits the theme of our current debate. I would happily debate that with you at a later date, but in regards to religious tolerance, my point in bringing those two examples was to demonstrate the presence of religious ideals in political issues. Religion should have no place in this government, as established by the first amendment to the US constitution, wherein we find that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion..." My opponent reiterates claims that I would be OK with violent action against religion, which is patently untrue. He is once again using hyperbole. This is intolerance that is very specifically pointed at religion as a concept. The word 'intolerance' has a negative connotation, to be sure, and I was aware of that going into the debate. The intolerance I advocate is nothing more than an absolute refusal to accept religious reasoning as a valid means of coming to a conclusion. You might still be wondering by this point (as my opponent was) why I endorse intolerance even in the case of benevolent chapters of churches who do real good in this world, volunteering and having community dinners, and just being good people. Well, here's why. A mere 2% of the people in the USA call themselves atheist, and these people are NOT the people in the Senate, the House, or the White House. In fact, EVERY SENATOR currently seated is openly affiliated with a religion, in this supposedly secular nation. When a moral code as strict and structured as that found in religious doctrine is seated deep in your brain, you have a much harder time making a choice based on a different set of laws: for example, the US Constitution. Yes, the reason religion of any form should not be tolerated is that it is an ever-growing force in politics, and these politicians are the ones making the decisions that guide the course of our country. It is our responsibility to make it clear to the government that we will not tolerate the influence of religion on the critical decisions that change the course of our lives, and the clearest way to do that is to denounce it outright. By this point, it has probably become clear that my points are directed almost entirely at Christianity and Islam. As previously stated, these are the two major players on the world stage. These are the religions we are being asked to tolerate. And these are religion which pose a great threat to the moral progress of a changing world. Thanks to Lightkeeper for this great debate! Thanks to everyone who reads it for lending us your ear! I hope you will think carefully before voting, and vote based on the content and quality of the debate, not your pre-existing views, regardless of who wins!

I will take this point by point. For the sake of space I will only include the 1st few words of the con"s argument followed by: "..." Each part of the counter is separated by: "____" > I have reviewed my opponents argument and it seems apparent that he proceeds " Human nature and society are two different things. Though both are man made expressions, one exists as a means to oversee the other. Society is mankind's attempt at regulating individual human nature among a mass of differing mindsets in order make sure one doesn't inhibit the other and that there is at least some form of control or general order. Individual human nature on its own en masse has proven to be disastrous. A defining social structure combats this. I've already stated this myself that separation of church and state exists for a reason. "These statutes are the result of a carefully thought out human framework. But ANY human framework has the potential to be abused. So these same laws which were meant to protect everyone are instead being misused to protect a select few. Just like with the previous examples of theism, fear is at the heart of any form of observable abuse." There is no misunderstanding. At its initial stage, human nature weaves religion. Religion comes from man. Just as society comes from man. Man is his own worst enemy. And human nature can infect every one of man's products. You seem to deter yourself from the idea that I strongly support the lack of religious involvement within government. ______ > Allow me to correct you, I do not believe that both are equal, I find that ... Again. This is conjecture based on an externally developed personal opinion. [I find that the baseline state of belief could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time.] Once again, it is not. To emphasize this let's do an experiment. If I take your metaphor and replace the word belief with authority/power. What happens? "I find that the baseline state of authority/power could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time. It feels good, depending on the type of person you are, you'll proceed and proceed with the drug until you just grow addiction or tolerance to it. - This point is bad and sadly a lot of people go beyond it around the globe, which does lead to the murders and horrors done in its name." Does this statement still make its case with the words replaced? Yes. Yes it does. In fact this statement shows itself to be accepting of a wide range of examples. To cling to a particular, various different stories illustrate the effects of the social "megalomaniac". Gaius Julius Caesar for instance is one such case. And in his dominance, military might and status were his drug, not religiosity. What does this mean to show? It means that if your argument can still accept differing concepts and remain consistent means that there is an even simpler unifying concept that can't be broken down any further (one with no known substructure) which connects any two initially different concepts together. I say that this unifying concept, one that connects all the contexts of all observable misuse (be it power, faith, or money) is fear. What your observational inference tries to do is make a special case out of the state of belief and it cannot be seen in the same light as any of the other abusive positions. This thinking can only work if one keeps hold of their own perception and it only can exist if one starts with the assumption of observed guilt. Theists do the exact type of mental justification that you did within your mind after making those observations. One professes the ills of atheism while the other professes the ills of theism. A generalized inference of either of those ills that separates any unifying role leads us to why we are debating this right now. All I am saying it that your metaphor can be used to describe ANYTHING that can be seen as potentially addictive. Because of this, it isn't at all effective in making a point against any one particular thing. Medical drugs can be used in your example. On their own they are just a chemical substance. But depending on the user they can become either beneficial or detrimental. The exact same thing is true with authority/power. Depending on the hands it"s in, it too can become either beneficial or detrimental. This is not me disregarding your personal conviction as unconvincing. This is me saying your approach in trying to expressing your personal conviction is unconvincing. ______ > I have reviewed your points for how human nature ... Yes. You are wrong. I mentioned separation of church and state for a reason (plz refer to the 1st part of the post about society) but when I say you are wrong I specifically mean your last point. > You say it yourself, fear ends up dominating the minds of humanity, and through the process of non-thinking called faith" No. I said nothing at all about false diseases and fake cures. What's more, FEAR induces the process of non-thinking. Not faith. Fear. It is the universal monolith and all withstanding instinctive law that governs non-thinking. If non-thinking had its own God that it fervently worshiped day and night, that God would be named Fear. One can have faith that God(s) exist One can have faith that their partner loves them enough to not cheat on them One can have faith that their parents will be back to bring them food On their own these are all indifferent emotions and perceptions which are hardly of arguable consequence. But what is it that causes someone to mutilate themselves and others as an offering? What is it that causes someone to constantly monitor their significant other for signs of mistrust? What is it that causes a child to murder an adult just so they can steal some bread? This is fear. The same fear that halts one in their steps, unable to move and unable to think whenever confronted by serious threat. Fear that the God(s) one placed so much value and hope in won't be able to return them any tangible favors. Fear that one's partner has a dismissive love that can turn against them at the single pass of a better prospect. Fear that one just might starve after their parents promised them they wouldn't. Fear is what creates what you see and yet you adamantly believe, Even to the point of argument, Even to the point of debate. That the state of belief is the problem at hand. That the state of belief is something of a true enemy. Are you afraid of someone believing in God(s)? Or are you afraid of how that person can possibly behave in reaction to their belief? Your answer to this determines why you think the way you do. I applaud any stance of atheism that does not seek out to make an enemy of theism. Likewise, I applaud any stance of theism that does not seek out to make an enemy of atheism. To initiate any form of ethical confrontation between the two falls below my sense of respect. ______ > Ah, yes. Your comparison in your next paragraph I see as faulty because " Remember when I posted this? [ - And to attempt to distinguish a particular instance from all other religious instances shows bias.] If you wish to call out a specific denomination then challenge the denomination itself. Challenge what you see to be documented as potentially unjust. But first know what you are actually challenging. To feel potential error in the ways of a denomination and to jump to the reasoning that all the state of belief is at fault is a textbook description of inexperience. The full hardy nature of the eager intellectual. If I see that a business is stealing from its employees do I reason that all forms of business are inherently bad? Or do I challenge that particular business with respect to what it has done? If the latter then why would religion be any different? Remember again what I said in Round 2: [Other men have the potential to not produce a chain reaction of fear after examining their own source at their beginnings. Because there are many differing sources which mean many Differing things to many different men. ] Know who you are actually combating. ______ > Religious freedom is definitely a thing in America, but most certainly not respected ... EVERYTHING you just said here is the aftermath of abuse of a system. I do not condone this at all. I know what you mean. I feel what you mean. I have even fought for trying to get others to understand what you mean. I have heard this same exact plea more times than I can conceivably count. We both know that this is not right. What I know and what you show struggle in realizing, is the CORE of WHY this isn't right. Not the observable aftermath effects of why. The core of why. 'The absolute core of why' has no particular relation to religion, or power, or greed, or violence, or anything. The absolute core of why has everything to do with how humans abuse their fears and desires. This is what radiates to create the situation you find so uncomfortable. That is your actual enemy. The antidote to fear is understanding, not just education. Because education has the potential to be misused also. Understanding takes a reaching between two sides and it knows and feels the heart of another person. That is the bottom line. > This is issue of human nature and religion both equally" - and I do wish you to prove me wrong. Fear takes advantage of our flaws. Not blaming humans themselves allows for humans themselves to continue and abuse whatever other means that comes along. Discrediting religion is not going to appease whatever ails you. And only you can prove you wrong. All I'm capable of is showing how I feel things are and hoping that what I say at least causes you to think about the negative potential your argument carries. You may have the most upstanding, and glowingly beneficial goal that ever existed. But if your argument for the means to which you want to reach that goal are in error, then I will debate you each and every time.

I accept the weakness in my argument in the previous round, it is because of the way I presented it. I would like to make up for it now. Most religions has the history of not less than 2000 years like Christianity,Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism etc.. According to CIA's World Factbook 2012 estimate there are only 9.66% non-religious and 2.01% atheists in total population of the world. Proportionately we can assume same percentage of religious population for the past( with slight changes). " Most religious practices intentionally force individuals to live morally acceptable lifestyles ...." " Religions are welfare organizations to the poor and are more efficient in their fight for poverty ...." " Religion upholds morally acceptable behavior in individuals especially in ...." With the grand history each religion has; with the majority of population being religious, there is slaughtering of man by man( most significant number which cannot be treated as shortcomings ) in the name of war and significant number of people are living in absolute poverty. so your argument religion upholds morality and fight poverty is invalid. If 2000 years is not sufficient for a religion to uphold morality, to fight poverty, then it can never do it. As far as my relation of terrorists and women rights to religion is.... If a person with the lust for power, misuse religion then that person should be blamed. But if millions of people agree with him and they are ready to die and kill others with morally taking support from scripture, then religion should be blamed. In some nations, the administration and judiciary is completely based on the scripture of their religion. In one such nation women is restricted in every thing to such extent that they cannot be considered as a witness to the rape committed on them, they need witnesses from males; they cannot marry of their wish. So, don't I have the right to blame religion as human being with some humanity still left after witnessing these incidents. The human nature has divided human beings into two-- man and woman. But religion has divided human beings into Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists and many many other. But it didn't stop there, Christians are divided into Catholics and protestants; Hindus into shaivists and vaisnavites and many other; Muslims into shias and sunnis; Buddhism into four ; and so on. There is constant conflict between different sects of a religion often killing each other. Instead of bringing unity among people, divisions are created. This does more harm than good to humanity. There is every need in the present hour to develop ethics and morality separated from religion which can induce unity rather than divisions. There is significant contributions going on in this field from the philosophers across the world. Hope they succeed and these divisions created by religion fall apart before the strength of humanity.


Question: Should Religious Organizations be Granted Tax-Exempt Status?

Churches should be subject to taxation in the same manner as private non-profit organizations. Given that my opponent has conceded, I will keep this concise. The rationale for a differential tax treatment lies in the fact that, in contrast to social clubs, churches are inherently charitable institutions. This is clearly reflected in the criteria for their respective classifications. Regardless of one's stance on the benefits that churches provide, such as missions, spiritual guidance, mental well-being, counseling, food banks, etc., their primary objective is to contribute positively to society according to their beliefs. In contrast, social clubs do not have a charitable mission as a prerequisite, thus they are fundamentally different and should not be forced to undergo identical treatment. For more information, refer to the IRS guidelines on charitable organizations and the requirements for 501(c)(3) status. [IRS guidelines on charitable organizations] [IRS requirements for 501(c)(3) organizations]

First of all we have to settle what the definition of religion is. The oxford dictionary defines religion as: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". By this definition it is clear that a human being can not be a god, which completely eliminates one of my opponent's argument. If my opponent has a better and more accurate source of definition he will be very welcome to represent it. And one question we ought to ask ourself is wheter a belief in something makes you religious. I believe that Scarlett Johansson is the most beautiful woman alive, is this now a religion. Or let's say that some people believe in UFOs, does this mean their gods are now UFOs? First of all there are non-religious people who does believe in a god. What makes them non-religious is simply because they don't belong to an organized religion and they don't follow a written down set of beliefs. A religion is an organization with a belief system in a god/gods with a large following of people. Atheism rejects the possible existence of god, which is not a belief in and of itself, it's a disbelief of other religious people's beliefs. However there is no doubt that there are a lot atheists that worship other things such as the government, the global warmist agenda, political leaders etc. But that does not make them religious.

Pro takes a high burden: that there is absolutely no negatives with being involved in all religous groups. This means if I can show just one counterexample to this statement I have fufiled my burden of refutation, thereby winning the debate. Keeping this in mind, I will use three examples where religion has a negative effect on its members and non-members that religion may target. Seeing that Pro didn't really make an argument, I will make short and sucinct arguments in this round for each of my examples.1) Order of Nine AnglesThis is a cult that praises Satan, encourages and participates in human sacrifice, and embraces Nazism. Terrifying stuff, really.2) Militant Islam (Islamism)This religion has lead to many deaths, including, but not limited to deaths from:-The Six-Day War-The Persian Gulf War-The creation of the Taliban-Terrorist attacks3) Hasidic JudiasmThis denomination is responsible for many Pallistinians untimely death. The Head Rabbi, Dov Lior, has been quoted to say, "A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jews fingernail."I would ask that Pro refrain from using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in his argument, otherwise Pro's argument may be rendered irrelevant.

Of course religion predates Science. And yes it tried to give answers on life but what research has been shown by religion for the answers that were come up with. And how does anyone know that the stories written and/or told by religion have credibility. The bible was written centuries before copyright laws and before "Guaranteed or your money back". There is a game called "telephone" , it's played as so: One person whispers a story to another, then that person does the same to yet another person, and this continues throughout a number of people. When the last person to here the story is told to reveal what was said it is never the same story. But because religion was the only explanation, for most of humanity, it is a "belief" passed generation to generation. People are born and immediately taught the "belief" I believed in Santa, until discovered the truth. Religion is not "needed" it's just been so widely influenced that it is. However more humans have died from the name of religion that any other cause, the holly wars, the crusades, which trials, 911, etc. To me that's a reason for death. And what laws besides don't kill and don't steal exist in the bible that we hold true today. If it really wanted to produce laws it should have been against slavery, torture, rape, child molesting children (Catholic priests), and I'm sure there are others I have not mentioned that religion forgot to say don't do. Yeah it a number one seller the bible but it's also the most stolen (Google most stolen if you don't believe). Wait was not that one of the only two laws it produced. And try Googling number of Atheists in the prison population. It's less than 1 percent. So how's is religion helping the prisons? By filling them up with believer of religion. Yes Countries do have tourist attractions most of which are historical. Meaning from the past. Therefore the attraction would remain without religion now. "Churches take in billions of dollars, and pay no taxes. And they always need more." To close my argument for round two I would like to agree my debate is opinionated, the facts that I have produced speak rather loudly to support my opinion. Science would call it factual evidence. Religion does not produce any for its argument. people can be what ever they choose. They don't need religion to help them. They control their future not religion.

Thank you for pointing that out. In the first place, your statement "Church is a business, selling faith and hope." is very general. You must have made it a point that you are only referring to the country USA. Also, your argument is a type of faulty parallelism. Hiring staffs is basic in all organizations, whether for profit or not. Just because USA has mega churches, doesn't mean the world world has it. Moreover, USA has one of the most competitive economies. Therefore, many prominent and well to do people can really contribute to church welfare. That is just a normal case. Last, I would want to stress that as long as the Church doesn't mistreat us or deprive us of our basic spiritual needs. Whatever special treatment or privilege they have accorded to the rich, we have no reason to envy or question us. Simply because such situation doesn't harm us.

== Response to Questions == 1. By stating such a claim [secularism can find ways to determine moral codes of conduct applicable to all people without showing a preference or tolerance for one religious perspective over another], are you implying that secular ethics cannot conflict with religious ethics? Thereby making this resolution redundant? ----> No, secularist ethics can absolutely conflict with religious ethics. I pointed out that they don't always have to (for instance both secular ethics and religious ethics typically advocate non-violence), however, there are many pertinent cases where religious and secular morality conflict. There are also many cases where religious people tend to feel one way, but that doesn't mean their preference should be applicable to law. For instance, religious people tend to be pro-life whereas many of our current laws are pro-choice. Religious people also tend to be against euthanasia which is also legal [1]. In short, I never implied that secular ethics do not or can not conflict with religious ethics, therefore my point wasn't redundant at all whatsoever. 2. Do christian religions today apply such Old Testament law as you mention? ----> This question needs to be more specific; I have no idea what law(s) you are referring to. Moreover, it doesn't matter what certain Christians in particular believe. This resolution is about prioritizing religious ethics - not necessarily Christian ethics. Even if Christians did not apply Old Testament law... which many do [2], all of the criticisms and arguments of favoring religious ethics over secular still apply. 3. Is logic always correct? If you apply logic to every problem you encounter, can it not lead you astray? did not Aristotle assume that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones? Isn't Aristotle one of the most renowned political philosophers in history? ----> Logic is the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. Seeing if theories are logical or not is one way to determine the validity of those assertions. One question I plan on asking you is whether or not there is a better method for observation, and to give one example of where logic actually failed. Your example regarding logic and Aristotle is entirely irrelevant given it has absolutely nothing to do with logic in the first place. Aristotle never applied our logical laws to his theory. He was handicapped by the fact that he had to use a deductive method of inquiry instead of an inductive method. Today, we know that an inductive (sometimes called scientific) method is most appropriate for the study of nature. Aristotle didn't know that - in fact, the inductive method wasn't invented for 2000 years after his death [3]. Moreover, the only reason one would even suggest following religious ethics is because they have come to the conclusion that if god exists it's LOGICAL to do so. If you plan on advocating abandoning logic, then you'd also have to abandon every conclusion you've ever come to considering the use of logic is paramount in reasoning of any kind. 4. Let's say God does exist, and that he did give us laws to follow. Should we then follow His laws, if he existed? ----> This is a ridiculous and irrelevant question that ignores all aspects of reality. If it was able to be PROVEN without a doubt that god exists, then many of my original arguments would be for naught. However considering that this is not the case, then it becomes an entirely irrelevant hypothetical scenario. Even if I were to say "yes" in response to this question, it would be entirely inapplicable to the debate at hand considering we don't know god exists, we can't prove god exists, etc. I can just as easily say to Con, "Let's say we have proof that god did not exist. Should we follow religious laws if we knew god did not exist?" The same hypothetical question is entirely useless to the debate from both sides. 5. Is it POSSIBLE that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Quran are true? Is it even infinitesimally possible that ONE of them is true? ----> Isn't it POSSIBLE that unicorns exist? Isn't it POSSIBLE that Santa's reindeer can fly? Isn't it POSSIBLE that god does not exist? Isn't it POSSIBLE that you're a flaming homosexual and haven't realized it yet? An infinite amount of things are possible yet once again these hypothetical questions are irrelevant considering the universe's innumerable possibilities. Moreover I'd argue that neither of the aforementioned holy books are reasonable because of all the logical breaches in text. For instance, the Bible says that Jesus died, rose and ascended into heaven (a logical impossibility) among many others. And finally you'll notice that even if one of these books are true as my opponent implies, all of my arguments from the first round would still apply considering there would still be Christians even if the Quran was "true." 6. How can you prove that no religious book 'portrays God's desires'? ----> God was not responsible for writing any holy books. There is not one shred of evidence that god had a guiding hand in writing any religious texts aside from personal testimony which is completely unreliable. How can you prove that god's desires are portrayed, and if so, in which book? Once again these are nothing but hypothetical questions that do not have any bearing on my arguments. 7. Are religious ethics NOW telling us to condemn Galileo, justify slavery, kill Jews, and oppress Homosexuals? (Note, discouragement and disapproval is not oppression. Neither is protesting.) ----> First, there are a handful of religious beliefs in the world outside of monotheism. You cannot possibly pretend to know what all religions advocate. Since this debate is about applying *religious law* and not necessarily Christian law, you don't know that there are no oppressive religious beliefs out there. Second, there are still A LOT of absurd religious claims and beliefs that stand entirely contrary to science much like people stood against Galileo. For instance, over 95% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution, yet Christians still rally against it despite the plethora of evidence and the fact that it stands as a cornerstone and foundation of all modern science [4, 5]. This proves that people still advocate accepting faith and fantasy over evidence and logic, meaning my same concerns still apply. Religious people also believe in a bunch of other non-sensical things like choosing prayer over medicine [6], etc. Additionally, protesting and other hate speech reinforced by RELIGIOUS HATE GROUPS [7] is indeed offensive, intrusive and oppressive in that they advocate inequality and bigoted attitudes and legal policy against innocent individuals they simply disagree with. They also wish to enact oppressive laws by only electing people who share their bigoted views [8]. 9. Cannot secular ethics have devastating effects? Utilitarianism tells us that if we have a choice in letting 10,000 people die, or killing 9,999, we should kill the 9,999. Is this a devastating effect? ---> First, not all secular ethics are utilitarian making this once again a completely useless question. Second, that example doesn't even make sense. In one case you're losing 10,000 people and in another case you're losing one less than that. You're implying that saving one more life is devastating? That makes no sense and is insufficient as an attack on either utilitarianism OR secularism. 10. Once again, if God DID lay down laws to these effects, should we not follow them? ----> Please extend my answer regarding why this question is both absurd and useless from #4. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com...

So, let's get right into it..."Ok and thank you for being so organized! Ok well to continue it seems you have taken the view atheism is a belief there is no god and then said I was confused. As I said someone can say they believe there is not one but that at he heart is not what atheism is, again it is the not guilty verdict not the innocent one. I know you think this is strange but again even up to the point of Webster dictionary the misconception is there that atheism is "I BELIEVE..." this again is not so. I am concerned how you asked "everyone" if this makes sense it seems society is really caught in this trap of believing atheists are making a religious claim."When we debate.. It is imperative that you address the audience with your informal opinion. This means including evidence (sources). Also, I still feel my view point on this topic (and on the authentic definitions) I presented are in fact accurate. __________________________________________________________________________________________________"If you are an agnostic you are also an atheist. This point has been made by not just Dillahunty (who you brushed off as confused...?) but Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Denette, Sam Harris and other reputable atheists."To be blunt, I only was addressing you and Mr.Dillahunty, no one else. Now, if you want to present your evidence to me, and the rest of us these people made the exact same point as Mr. Dillahunty... By all means, please do so. _____________________________________________________________________________"I can say I am fairly certain that there is no god but will always have to be in theory agnostic about about but in practice will go about life as though there is not one. Again to clarify you used ONE definition that does not fit what the actual group, nor many scholars say it is and you completely ignored the point made at the beginning when I said agnostics are atheist and just don't know it."Ok. So, before I go on to constructively criticize you, please know this.. The topic of this debate is "Atheism is not a religion". This being said, since there is more than one authentic definition of religion, I have the choice of which definition I wish to use to rebuttal your opening statement. This being said, I am not claiming atheism is a religion based on this definition... 1 : the belief in a god or in a group of gods 2 : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods(Which both of these definitions are pretty much the same thing in the sense of "a belief in a god or gods" )but on this definition... 3 : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or ggroup. Now maybe you feel this is unfair, but there was no rules set up we use a specific definition for atheism. This being said, I am not breaking any rules here. ____________________________________________________________________"Again I already explained that Atheism is in no way demanding you believe there is no god and yes many non-atheist thinkers/scholars etc have made the fallacy (as you have) of saying that."It's odd you make this claim, but to be honest, if you want to try to attack the credibility of these non-atheist scholars, go right ahead. Just present the evidence. _______________________________________________________________________ "I am sorry but you just asked an atheist if they were an atheist.... you really cannot repeat this fallacy again I do no want to bother to repeat this I can go find a dictionary that says what I am saying and that still isn't the point. Please stick to the topic as I am. Not wishing to sound crass I just can't be bothered with people who have to be corrected twice. Atheism=I do not have super natural beliefs. Is that a religion, YES or NO and why? Please stay on topic this time, if you do not I will have to leave this debate."This issue I address earlier on this post. ____________________________________________________________________________ "Since you asked I will. Those of you reading lets think here, if the atheists are saying atheism is not having any religious or supernatural beliefs and there are as well dictionary definitions along with that and you know actual atheists disagree with my opponent is there a point to arguing definitions or should my opponent actually give an answer to the actual topic?"Here my opponent argues atheism isn't a religion in the sense of this definition; 1 : the belief in a god or in a group of gods 2 : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods(Which both of these definitions are pretty much the same thing in the sense of "a belief in a god or gods" ) When I am in fact, arguing atheism is a religion in this sense; 3 : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.This being said, my opponent has failed to defend the notion that atheism is in not a religion. Before I finish up, I have one more question for my opponent,.. Why is atheism based off of a theory of materialism according to the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus?Theory - : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proved to be trueFinally, I thank everyone for observing this debate and hope you enjoyed reading it. Most importantly, I thank my opponent for debating me on this topic. Much respect from Haroush. Side note: My opponent and I both have spelling and grammar mistakes so I ask everyone to not give either of us points for spelling and grammar. http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I am a atrong atheist and strongly believe there is no god. i think religion was started a long time ago because people back then simply didnt know any better. science has again and again contradicted religious beliefs. religion started as an easy way to answer earths biggest questions. as science evolved, and some answers came about,religion was turned into a business. for example, mormons have to give up 10% pay. is that really fair? i think it is all jut a way forstory tellers to make money.

Since my opponents argument is based solely on the claim that disbelief and lack of belief are different, which does not affect my case in any way, let me define some terms with sources provided. Disbelief- mental rejection of something as untrue[1] Belief- a strong feeling that something/somebody exists or is true[2] Atheism- a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods[3] Agnostic- one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god[4] Religion- the service and worship of God or the supernatural [5] As is obvious, Atheists do not have a belief in God, which means they have a lack of belief or disbelief. Obviously if you do not believe in God, you do not worship or service him. By definition, religion is the service and worship of God. If Atheists (and Agnostics) don't do either of these two, it creates a paradox of both definitions if Atheism were to be considered a religion. These two definitions contradict each other, and in that case, it would be unthinkable to consider them the same as you are (I assume, since you have made no argument) proposing. Also, my opponent's only remark on the subject is complete and utterly false. As was made known in the legitimate definition of the word, Agnostics are unsure if a God exist. Atheists do not believe that a God exists. This is the exact opposite of what you said. Your quote, "agnostic is the lack of belief position on such claims". Reread the two definitions and now tell me which is which. Disbelief, mental rejection of something as untrue. Obviously, if you reject the belief and label it as untrue, you do not have belief! This means you have a lack of belief. This conclusion proves that both of your two claims are false, and also proves how atheism is the opposite of religion, which logically means that it is not and should not be a religion. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com... [3] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] https://www.merriam-webster.com...

Like the millions of religious zealots before him, my opponent has been blinded by his beliefs. =)I'll break this down into simple contentions, each documenting how the impacts of this debate play out. The Minds WarIn my opponent's final round he suggests that I have ignored his contentions from Round 3. Nothing could be further from the truth. During Round 3 I argued three points (and cited them):1. A world without religion results in a constant life stress which will increase the risk of 6 billion deaths by 50%. 2. People now participate in religion at their own convenience. Worshipping is no longer a zealous, stressful activity. 3. Even if worshipping was stressful, that stress would pale in comparison to the life stress that is death. My opponent ignores these points throughout rounds 4 and 5, I invite the reader to reread them. My points have remained completely unrefuted. Which means, my esteemed critics, when you finish reading this debate the first order of importance is 6 billion potential deaths. Even if you grant my opponent every single one of his other arguments, the risk of 6 billion lives will heavily outweigh. Genetic CodesAs should be recalled, the topic of this resolution is two fold. My opponent must win that religion is not beneficial to (1)humanity and that religion is not beneficial to (2)society. Throughout my five rounds I have continuously argued that the root of humanity is the human genome. I have continually argued (and cited) that aggression is partially a genetic trait, and thus, to improve the human genome, religious wars are useful in culling these expressions. In response, my opponents sole argument is that, "both genetic and environmental factorsplay a role in aggression and violent tendencies". OKAY. I will grant his argument as completely 100% true. However, his argument does nothing to answer my argumentation. Insofar as my opponent has conceded "humanity = the genome" and insofar as my opponent has conceded that "aggression is partially genetic", my opponent has lost this debate. It doesn't matter that environmental factors also play a role in aggression, that's not the relevant question. The question is, "does religion benefit (1)humanity?" My opponent concedes that it alters the genome in a preferable way, and so yes, it benefits (1)humanity. Cause and EffectIn Pro's final round he asserts:"A Study Suggests that Religion helps criminals justify their crimes. [2]" However, a careful rereading of source 2 reveals no such argument. No where in his source 2 does it say that religion helps criminals justify crimes. In fact, like my opponents previous source, this one once again asks the causality question. That being, "does religion cause crime or does religion spring up in places where crimes exist?" I would implore the reader to revisit this section of my round 4 arguments. Wherein I completely dissected Pro's argumentation by demonstrating (with substantial citations) that religion springs up in response to crime, hard lives, and atrocities. Seldom is religion the instigator of such things. These arguments were never refuted by Pro, he only states, "Con again in blatant denial of logic."If there is any doubt left on this matter... one only has to look as far as my opponent's own omission. Religion is not an integral part of violence or atrocities. In fact, the world changes religion in order to fit the world's own needs. Thus, any atrocity attributed to religion would still exist in a world sans religion, only under the guise of another group philosophy. A Secular Community:I would like to examine my opponent's impacts in this debate. Throughout these five rounds I have argued that it is impossible to quantify the lack of religion. In response my opponent has repeatedly stated, paraphrased, "we should just look at mostly secular societies." Ignoring the glaring problem with this logic (Read: Cause and Effect), my opponent has been completely non-responsive to my ultimate line of reasoning. The reason why it is impossible to quantify the lack of religion is because: It is impossible to know the magnitude of wars that were avoided because religion existed. What does this mean? Well... reread my opponents source on Hitler, at the very bottom is states, "Would the Holocaust have happened if Hitler had been a Buddhist?" The question is this, "how many wars were avoided because world leaders were linked to peaceful religions?" Because we can never answer this question we can never quantify my opponents impacts. ...My opponent continues to argue the holocaust. I don't mean to be rude, but he's just wrong; Hitler passionately hated religion. Final Thoughts:1. Without religion 6 billion people gain a 50% risk of death (society). 2. Religion absolutely helps the genome (humanity).3. Pro has cause and effect backwards; religion helps the disenfranchised, it doesn't create them.4. Pro's impacts are unquantifiable. Great objectivity urges a Con ballot!!

I disagree with the notion that this not a religion, because what I have highlighted in my ideologies are a set of principles to adhere by, ala a belief system. My religion IS about focusing on yourself and developing a relationship with whomever you feel god should be, wherever you are from. "Nothing for the individual human being. It"s just you saying, "JUST BE GOOD", mankind isn"t that simple unfortunately." WELL... THAT'S why my religion stands out, how many other religions do you see putting people first? As stated many times my religion is not fear based, it's a root one approach at changing yourself for the better. YES, the majorities of religions are based on some organized set of cultured revelations given by god, BUT not all of them. Atheism and Taoism for example require no gods.the definition of religion is vague in nature, mine is simple to follow it you look past your god complex. YES, All religions and faiths discriminate against all other religions, belief in Muhammed does automatically disqualifies you from heaven in the Christian view, AGAIN my religion focuses on protecting people's faith, gender, sexuality, and upbringing/race. REGARDLESS of what my ideologies are, religions will always offend others. This is not my problem, again this may cause it to fade into obscurity, but in the meantime, It's a good set of principles to adhere to. "MRAAJism literally doesn"t stand for anything", WAS it not you who identified the 3 pillars of it all, which includes Peace and Anti-Corruption. "Let me ask you then, if all moral and ethical behavior of MRAAJISM is based upon development of the community ---- Why shouldn"t we sterilize people carrying certain genetic diseases? Or why not grow human fetus in test tubes so the community can harvest their organs?" - MY religion is not government. MRAAJISM does not wish to interfere with what you do as a man, just what you can achieve by following its principles. Ie i don't want to control you, only guide and direct you to a hassle free life. In conclusion, MRAAJISM is an ideology to get behind because it puts people first. it is not interested in fearing the unknown, but developing one's moral standing based on the principles highlighted, especially the development and prioritisation of learning self discipline. You claim I don't have the horsepower to tread these waters. Obviously not at the moment because I'm just promoting it, it's not been implemented yet. See title, In the works. Finally I want to say you have completely distorted my goal. I intended For Round 1 to merely be acceptance, R2 I'd have been expanding on my loose definitions (introduction), but since you chose to exhibit contempt from the offset, no mutual respect was possible. There's one thing you achieved in all of this, and that's demonstrated how manipulative you are. Example, you say you have no interest in attacking my character, have you not read what you have written? Jonlee deserves 0% respect from me, for he doesn't understand the concept of putting other people first, something MRAAJISM PROMISES TO DO.


Question: Should Religious Organizations Continue to Be Exempt from Taxes?

Churches should be subject to taxation similarly to private non-profit organizations.
Indeed, I've been caught up with a multitude of personal matters lately. I had a significant English project to complete, followed by a bout of illness, and to make matters worse, I misplaced the charging cable for my laptop. It's been quite an eventful week. If my opponent is willing to continue the discussion after we've exhausted our rounds of debate, perhaps in the comments section or through a new debate, I would be more than happy to do so. I would like to emphasize that the focus here is solely on property taxes and tax deductions. These are the primary tax distinctions between churches and non-profit clubs that merit discussion. "The rationale for treating them differently is that, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable in nature, as evidenced by the requirements for their respective classifications." However, we need to scrutinize what constitutes 'charitable.' A charitable organization or a government agency/public service, like a library, county courthouse, or soup kitchen, receives tax-deductible contributions. Religious organizations are also included in this list of tax-deductible entities. Additionally, two types of private organizations, Domestic Fraternal Societies and non-profit cemetery companies, are on this list. However, even these organizations face certain restrictions. For a fraternal society, the entire amount claimed as a donation must be used for a charitable purpose, and for a cemetery company, it cannot be used for a specific lot or mausoleum. *1 It's true that churches engage in charitable activities, which is evident to everyone. Having been part of a synagogue for a significant portion of my life, I recall instances where a collection plate was passed around or requests for canned food were made. I also remember the funds being used to construct a new synagogue because they didn't have one (they held services in other rented or borrowed locations). However, most religious organizations do not allocate enough funds towards charitable actions to be considered charities. The rationale behind designating something as a charity, refraining from taxing it, and offering deductions for donations is twofold: 1) To encourage individuals to use their own money to support relief and assistance programs that the community broadly supports. 2) To avoid the need for the government to provide services that the organization is already rendering. Does a church fulfill either of these criteria? While the community might generally support the church, is it truly providing relief to the community? Is giving ten dollars to that church genuinely going to have a greater impact, or

Resolved: There is a religious instinct that explains much beyond religion. I contend that there is a "religious instinct" which is independent of any particular religion. Every religion is a manifestation of the religious instinct, but not every manifestation is a religion. The claimed religious instinct is a conjunction of three factors: 1. An innate human desire to have theories that explain the world around them. 2. An innate human design to belong to a tribe bonded by common beliefs. 3. An innate human tendency to preserve the ego by rationalization of beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. I am not particular about the terminology. The resolution could be framed in terms of the "X Instinct", characterized by the three named elements. I call non-religious manifestations "quasi-religious", but if Con likes a different term, that's fine with me. The proposition does not depend upon the terminology. In the case of a traditional religion a mystical belief, not always a belief in a god or gods, explains the origins, purpose, and conduct life. Believers join in the religion that share the belief and bond as a tribe that reinforce the beliefs. Believers instinctively rationalize their beliefs. Rationalizations involves downplaying or ignoring all data contrary to belief system while embracing all confirming data. Rationalization protects the ego and provides the comfort of certainty. My speculation is that making theories and refusing to abandon them is an evolved trait that provides a survival advantage. For a primitive person in the wilds, coming up with quick conclusions and then acting with determination is an advantage. As a consequence, many manifestations of the religious instinct have a paranoid aspect. There is a survival advantage in being safe rather than sorry. Traditional religions are distinguished by a concern with overarching concerns, like the origins and meaning of life. However, the instinct operates at many other levels. Examples include: 1. Racism provides the believer with a simple sweeping explanation as to why many bad things happen. All, or at least a large class, of bad things derive from some race or other identifiable group. The racists bond as tribe to "protect" their tribal interests. 2. Political ideologies explain most of the ills of the world in terms of the ideological beliefs, and the non-believers who oppose them. Believers form a tribe that bonds the believers in a fight against the non-believers. 3. CO2 Climate Theory in the minds of environmental extremists casts non-believers not just as dissenters, but as heretics. 4. Sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome explains nearly all the evils of society in terms of the policies of the President. Agreeing with even one policy is considered an inexcusable pact with the devil. Anything good that Bush has done, like unprecedented humanitarian aid to Africa, is ignored in the interests of rationalization. 5. Some atheists attribute many of the world's problems to religion, per Hitchins' "Religion Poisons Everything It Touches.". It is used as a simple sweeping explanation of social ills. Missionaries helping poor people are ignored in the interests of preserving the rationalization. I am not arguing that all beliefs are irrational, or even that there is not some measure of truth in each of the five examples of quasi-religious beliefs I have cited. What elevates a mere belief to the the status of a quasi-religious one are the attributes of (a) treating non-believers as enemies of the tribe, (b) a pattern of recognizing confirming evidence and ignoring contrary evidence, and (c) application of the beliefs broadly to explain things that are not really relevant. I claim that the instinctual desire to seek simple broad theories is self-evident. The least common answer to any broadly challenging question is "I don't know." People almost always call upon some higher principle to come up with an answer. If people did not do this they would be perpetually frozen in indecision. It is absolutely necessary. What is not necessary is sticking with a simple theory in the face of counter-evidence and in a situation that demands questioning. I don't think there is much doubt about the tribal instinct of mankind, but [1] is a reference. The use of rationalization for protecting the ego is presented in [2]. The work by Shermer and Gould [3] is a classic analysis of the use of high intelligence to rationalize strange beliefs. [1] "Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind" http://www.amazon.com... [2] "A Mind of Its Own" A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives" http://www.amazon.com... [3] "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" http://www.amazon.com... The theory embodied in the resolution explains not only why religion exists so widely, but why many strong non-religious beliefs have a profoundly religious character. the theory is well-ground in knowledge of psychology. It is demonstrated concretely with many examples. The resolution should therefore be affirmed. [Please do not accept this challenge if you think you may have to forfeit. The unexpected can happen, I'm requesting assurances of a low probability.]

Thanks again, Roy, for taking this debate. Disbelief is not a belief This is a lame argument one can find in any Atheist forum. "I don't believe in God", "I believe God does not exist" "I believe modern science disproves the existence of god". Petty and not worth much attention in my opinion. A hobby requires an action, so no, not collecting stamps is not a hobby. To be a religion requires " a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." ie. Faith that modern science disproves the possibility of some form of diety. What would you think about a stamp collector mocking a bottle cap collector? I could not find any leprechaun movements. No one is fighting for seperation of leprechaun and state. No students, to my knowledge, have asked to have leprechaun prayer time in school. Even if I didn't believe in leprechauns, I would not claim to be offended if my town hall placed a "pot of gold" on public property. My opponent obviously still misses the point. Concerning Buddist, I will paste a qoute from the first page of the link, Religion Facts, that my opponent provided. "On the other hand, the Buddha did not explicitly rule out the existence of a God or gods" Show me an American Atheist who does not "explicitly rule out the existence of a God or gods", and I'll show you an Agnostic. >>>Pro states, "My opponent proclaims that 'Buddhists who follow the teaching not to even consider the question of whether or not there are gods[,]....don't believe' in a god. This is not true. They only choose not to ask." I challenge Pro to clarify how "not considering the question" differs from "choosing not to ask."<<< It doesn't differ. Not considering or not asking does not equate to disbelieving. No Buddist claim that modern science disproves the existence of a diety. No American Atheist believe in reincarnation. "2. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" And the faith Atheist have in modern science fits this criterion perfectly. My opponent claims that not all Atheist believe in modern science. His claim of proof is Buddism. Even if I were to concede that Buddist are Atheist(I don't), it would be no different then the different sects of Christiananity or the differences in all deity based religions. So yes, I am speaking of the sect of Atheism that subscribe to the "tenents" of modern science. My opponent has succesfully proved that there are different sects of true Atheism also. "virtually no one(Atheist in Japan) objects to official state-sponsorship of Buddhist temples or Shinto shrines. (Shinto has many deities.) They value tradition more highly than belief or non-belief." This is a huge distinction between Japanese and American Atheism. My opponent sites his own poll and claims that "few(Atheist) had objections to public Christmas Trees and such. I am very much in doubt that "and such" includes Nativity Scenes, Crucifixes, The Ten Commandments, etc. All common traditions in America. After all "He is the reason for the season". My opponent claims that lawsuits concerning the false doctrine of "seperation of church and state" are brought by "ACLU types who actually are believers". The ACLU can't act without a willing participant with standing to bring a law suit. Here are a few lawsuits brought by Atheist according to Athiest Empire; >>>> The U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the thick of one of the nation longest running First Amendment cases " the dispute over the Mt. Soledad Christian Cross. Atheist Phil Paulson has been fighting for 17 years to have this religious monument removed from public land. Government and religious groups, however, have resorted to every conceivable ploy to keep this enormous sectarian symbol standing." American Atheists filed suit in federal court on Friday over a case involving "prayer bullying and conspiracy to violate the rights of an Atheist family in Oklahoma. Chester Smalkowski and his family have been taking a stand for freedom from religion, and now charge a battery of local officials with illegal behavior and conspiracy. American Atheists files suit in federal against the City of Jacksonville, Fla. which used over $100,000 in public money to host a glitzy prayer day rally. The suit calls for an end to such government-sponsored religious events, and the return of the money to the taxpayers.<<<<< American Atheist act much like other religions have. Here is one example of Atheist acting like any other religion, pushing there beliefs as the path to salvation; http://www.findingdulcinea.com... Con claims, "The scientific consensus on Evolution is 99.86% affirming it, so it is established science. So there is an educational consensus as well; it is the same reason that flat-earth and an earth-centered universe are not offered as alternatives to round earth and heliocentrism. Neither the restriction of science to science nor the decision to teach according to 99+% consensus are religious beliefs of atheists; they are common to believers as well." Scientific consensus is not proof and there is no established science. Heliocentrism, in it's birth, claimed that the universe revolved around the sun. Everthing science which has been considered established science eventually gets overturned with new findings. Eat raw eggs, don't eat raw eggs. eat raw eggs, don't.. Many scientist around the world do not exclude the possibility of "Inteligent Design". Therefore their is no reason not to introduce the theory in public school science programs. Yet it seems that every time a town wishes to do so, some athiest seeks to ban it. Since the theory is the same as any other theory taught in science class, it seems that Atheist are practicing censorship in the same manner as other religions have. If it walks like a duck....... Con says, "Pro notes "A scientist may theorize that dark matter exist because without it, the universe would be unbalanced." However, dark matter is subject to experimental verification, so it is science. Religion is not subject to verification, so it is not science." The experimental verification of dark matter is no different than the experimental verification of Intelligent Design. The former may be more excepted than latter, yet neither have been verified. Closing my argument The modern day American Atheist movement falls under the criteria both I and my opponent claim to constitute a religion. (a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith./ set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) The censorship sought by the American Atheist movement is just more proof that Atheism has taken the form of a religion.

I will resubmit: it is not, in itself, noble to follow illogical assumptions. Those who search, find no evidence, but still believe in something are a dangerious entity. I say this because its spreading the idea that logic doesnt have to play a role in importnat decissions about life that makes that person suseptable to other methods of control. Today, religion, tomarrow, politics. Weve seen MANY times throughout history that religion and politics have been intertwined. The faithful are asked to not question, or do question and find no evidence but still have faith, and are taken advantage of. This happens from the grand scale of religious establishments to the small scale of cults or gangs. Religion is far too important a part of life to be left up to illogical conclusions.

Before you accept this argument will be running off the assumption that God does not exist, or more an argument such as "religion is good because without it we'd all go to hell" or something along those lines will not be acceptable in this debate. Arguments can include only real life examples with evidence to back it up. So the argument "Religion creates a society with better morals" would be valid argument. The first round should be only for acceptance, second round for displaying beginning arguments and the last round should be for refutation only. No entirely novel arguments may be presented however additional evidence may be provided to bolster your preexisting arguments presented in round one. Religion shall be defined as a "A theistic Cause, Principle or series of of beliefs held to with ador and faith" (1) (The original definition does not include Theistic but I added it in to try and avoid a battle of semantics. ) (1). http://www.merriam-webster.com... If you have any questions please ask them in the comments before accepting.

Why should people be forced to have a religion? Do you mean by everyone should have a religion? We must acknowledge that majority of the world practice religion in different manners, Like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, Etc. However, What about the 16% or 1. 2 billion people who are atheist, Agnostic, Secularist, And anyone non-religious? Why should they have to adopt a religion? It's freedom to express whatever religious or non-religious affiliations you want to express. Not everyone has to be in a religion. *Please elaborate more on your position so I have a clearer understanding on your views*

school vouchers are essentially tax write offs for families who choose to send their children to non-government, or privately funded and parochial schools. the reason for this tax break according to supporters is that families should not have to pay taxes to help schools that their children do not attend. i stand in firm negation, and will expand on the four main arguments in opposition of these vouchers. 1. since most of the schools in the program are religious, government funding violates the 1st amendment separation of church and state. if parents want to send their children to a school that incorporates faith based teachings into their curriculum, that's fine. but why should my tax dollars support a school that teaches christianity if that is not what i believe in or want my money being spent on? supporters of the voucher are hypocritical in this regard. they don't want to have to pay for school that their children don't attend (and therefore support), but they want other tax payers to have to fund a school that they do not support. i think this is a huge flaw in their argument. expecting the government to help fund public schools makes sense; they are not incorporating religious teachings and therefore are open to anyone. they are public schools with public goals: the teachings of reading, writing, etc. leave the religion at home where it belings, i'm all for that. but shouldn't schools exist that are open for everyone regardless of income? if not, an even greater separation of class exists, literacy in the united states goes down (and history shows us that non-literacy leads to disaster like serfdom and other hierarchies). plus, what if these people who can afford private school are no longer able to? should their children suffer? how would a class system ever be able to be overcome? 2. vouchers take funds away from already underfunded public schools. there is already a huge discrepancy between the success (college admission, eventual income, etc.) of children who attend public school vs. private school. taking away government funds to help children who can't afford more expensive ("better") education is doing a great disservice not only to the individuals to society. you are stifling some potential great minds and perpetuating a rigid class system. it's already bad enough; the government should be concerned and trying to fix the education system - not break it even more. 3. private schools aren't subject to as rigorous of oversight; thus, they may not act responsibly. parents could be paying a lot of money for a school that does not comply with adequate academic standards. the united states protects children's rights to a certain extent; that is, ensuring that they are able to receive a decent education. if a minor wants to attend a public school, but his parents want him or her to attend private school with less academic credential, the student is being robbed of his right to an education that we grant in our constitution and bylaws. furthermore, a minor may be forced to pray, worship or learn about a religion they may not believe in or want to participate in. again, this comes down to an issue of why private schools should receive funds for inadequacy instead of funds supporting an academic standard that ALL people of ALL faiths and economic backgrounds can agree to. 4. public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics; private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students. public schools provide equal opportunity for all regardless of class, race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. schools that can discriminate based on admission create stereotypes, rigid social and social class hierarchies, etc. public schools must exist to prevent rule by a small minority. that would cease and destroy democracy, the founding of our nation's beliefs. without government funded schools, many institutions would be destroyed. families who could not afford schools, or pay teachers decent salaries, will have school-less children, or youth being taught by inferior educators. vouchers would take away money being put into schools, and our schools are already considered inferior compared with the schools in other nations. again, this would do a disservice to not just individual families, but the entire nation. the prestige of the united states will suffer. school vouchers are a bad idea. they do not consider the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, utilitarianism, which is a maxim that makes sense. i defend the principle that the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure is optimal amongst society; to combat this, my opponent would have to be con on the position of why utilitarianism is not the best moral maxim. if they cannot, you must except my maxim, and therefore my stance that being con on the issue of school vouchers is morally preferable because school vouchers inhibit utilitarianism. thank you. source: http://www.balancedpolitics.org...

That’s not the definition of religion, in fact it’s a horrible definition of religion. It targets theism specifically when there are religions that are atheistic (e.g. Buddhism) this definition is completely biased. But all this aside, it doesn’t matter how we ourselves define religion, the question is what did they mean by the “establishments of religion” and what it’s function was. It’s function was never intended to remove God, it was intended to remove Church favoritism. You need to understand that the authors of this amendment viewed God as a self-evident fact of life, when they were talking about “establishments of religion”, they were talking about churches not God himself. The reason why God is not taught in school is because the intelligent design group were being dishonest in their case. Which was extremely detrimental. It’s not because we are a secular nation, it’s because the presenter’s credibility was destroyed. Just about every debater knows that you can have a perfectly winnable case, but if you lose credibility, you will lose no matter what you do. Also they don’t teach facts in natural science, because they can’t, you would be severely misunderstanding science literature if you think that is true. For example evolution and the big bang are theories, not a fact, theories are popular speculations by scientists, not facts. Just because the universe expands doesn’t mean it exploded, I expand as I get older, but that doesn’t mean I exploded. The way how science works is that they look at the “evidence” that coincides with a naturalist worldview, and try to speculate on how things happen…. When new evidence surfaces they change their speculation in hopes to fit the evidence because that is the rational thing to do. There is no absolute truth (Facts) in natural science, simply because that is not how science works. Well yeah, literary would drop. If the idea is to increase literary, then we can also offer to teach opposing literacy. As in we don’t have to just teach naturalism in public schools, but require to teach creationism as well. That would increase literacy dramatically. Children would have a much more rounded and fair education, one that isn’t being suppressed by secularists. And this’ll enable kids to have a better understanding of American values and heritage, the primary one is belief in God. I just find it absurd that kids can’t learn about the creator in American schools, even when our very own declaration of independence asserts his existence. The kids in school should know their maker. Secular nation? Are you blind? Lets see I could list them out… there is tax exemption of churches, chaplaincies in the armed forces, the "Pray for Peace" postmark, the widespread observance of Christmas holidays, and, in classrooms, singing the fourth stanza of America which is prayer invoking the protection of God, and the words "in God is our trust" as found in the National Anthem, and the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, modified by an Act of Congress of June 14, 1954, to included the words "under God". We are certainly a religious nation, most of our institutions presuppose a supreme being. theres a lot more evidence i could list. Seriously, the fact that our very own currency has “in God we trust” is proof we are a religious nation and not a secular one. Yes it does reject the atheist position…. It says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” That is clearly rejecting the atheist position. Atheists don’t believe in a maker. It even mentions God when it says “…station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,” The document is more than that, it tells us why we have some fundamental human rights in America, and why the policies are structured the way they are. Why do we have unalienable rights? Because of God. The thing is, if we don’t teach that there is a creator, we might risk raising a generation that will second guess our human rights because they don’t believe in God. This is why Kids should learn about their creator in schools to secure these American values.

I will be your opponent. Seperation of Church and State is not mentioned in the Consitution. But that does not mean it cannot be a law. It is illegal in Ohio to smoke in a public place (restaurants, pool halls, etc.). But it does not say that in the Consitution. The Consitution, however, does say "Freedom of Religion". This applies in two distinct ways. First, the Constitution applies mostly to the individual citizen of the United States of America. When they say Freedom of Religion they mean that each citizen has the right to practice his or her own religion. Secondly, it means "Freedom of religion" as in "Freedom from religion". You do not have to be forced to follow any religious rules or rights that conflict with your own religion or beliefs. In other words, no prayer could be said in Public Schools for it might take offense to an Islamic child or an Atheist. Also, no things such as "Merry Christmas" can be said, and no "Ten Commandments" can be displayed. These will infringe on the rights of many Americans and citizens who want to be free of Christian dogma. "ridding our nation of it's Judeo-Christian roots" We didn't have Judeo-Christian roots. The writers of our government and the Constitution were smart enough and very free-thinking to exclude religion from government. I think it was also John Locke who had the idea that the government cannot control things such as religion, because they focus on the people, not the individual thought.

Whereas religion has caused countless problems in the world and will continue to create problems indefinitely. The bible speaks of lies and there is absolutely no proof of any existence of a "god"

If we actually take a look of the definition of religion, It's 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, Especially a personal God or gods'. That's the definition that numerous people would agree too. I believe you would also agree that definition to be to one that's use on a day-to-day basis. The part where we differ is when we define religion as 'a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion'. I'm well aware that's part of the definition, But no one uses that definition when they talk about religion. "If you believe that running every morning before work will make you a healthier person and so you do it religiously every day. Therefore you have adopted running as your religion. " In this sense, You used 'religiously' as a adjective rather than to identify yourself with a religious organisation. If we use that same logic, I could say that i religiously take illegal drugs. Therefore it's my religion. Also, Where does it end? If i have a great devotion towards anything, Like eating food, Exercise, Playing on my phone, Does it make it a religion? I don't think so. "I'm saying that people should devote themselves to something meaningful that gives their life a meaning. " I totally 100% agree with that statement. However, Devoting something that will improve you as a person does not warrant a religion, As i previously talked about. Other words to describe devoting to something can be a 'routine', Like "I have a routine to read books every night", Or 'lifestyle', Like "exercising 5 times a week is going to be a part of my lifestyle. " No one says "Since i run everyday religiously, It must be my religion". "Why shouldn't someone believe in something greater than themselves if it makes them better people in society? " Again, I totally agree with this statement, But again, Striving to be a better person with great devotion is not a religion. If we look back to the main definition of religion, It's 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, Especially a personal God or gods'. Being a better person is not a superhuman controlling power, It's a total human thing to do. Thus, Actively improving on oneself is not called a religion, But rather it's called a routine or lifestyle.