In the debate “Does Religion Poison Everything,” there are two groups of people. One group is supporting the view that religion poisons everything whereas the other opposes this view. The group in support of the view purports that religion poisons scientific advancement, the society, and the mind of young children. The debate supporting the issue is biased; they have raised valid and justifiable points, but the points do not explore the issues objectively; for instance, the debater argues that whenever scientific advancements contradict religion, religion always tries to undermine the advancements. This is not always the case. The example of Galileo is supportive of the fact that, at times, religion undermines scientific advancement. Galileo was found intensely suspect of heresy for arguing that the Sun lies motionless, the Earth is at the center of the universe, and that the Earth moves. The arguments were declared opposed to the Holy Scripture and hence, he served a punishment, which was severe until his death. The support although not up to date shows that religion at the time was very authoritative and did not accept scientific advancements; nevertheless, this is not the case today, scientists have made various discoveries, which have contradicted religion, yet they are not arraigned in court. People have difficult times accepting scientific truths, but they do not refute them to the point of considering them heresy.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
The second point in support of the debate is that religion poisons the society as it causes various wars between members of the different beliefs. This point is important, as there have been numerous cases even in the modern society when different faiths contradict causing warfare; a good recent example of this is the burning of Christians by the Sunni Muslims in 2011. Nevertheless, the point is biased because religion also promotes peace among people leading to reduced warfare’s, and it does not just cause wars between sects.
The third point in support of the debate is that it causes psychological and physical abuse with psychological abuse being predominant. The debaters cite an article by Richard Dawkins- 2006 on a small girl molested in 1966 by the priest, which she had not forgotten forty years later. During the same period, her friend also passed, and she was told that she would go to hell because she was a protestant. It is true in this aspect that religion harms children psychologically, but this is not always the case because it also promotes physical and psychological growth. The support used in this case was sufficient, up to date, and relevant; nonetheless, the argument was subjective as it did not look at the positive impact of religion on physical and psychological growth in children. The points in support of the debate do not have various viewpoints, and they lean on one side of the debate. The fourth point in support of the debate is that society and politics are poisoned by religion. The debater argues that politics is good but corrupted by religion- - religion has caused divisions in politics and society. In addition, he also points out that both politics and money also poison everything in society. Humankind poisons everything about religion. These points were subjective as they explored even other aspects, which poison the society and pointed to the fact that it is humankind, which poison religion. This is true as religion is a component of culture-and divisions arise from the way people interpret it.
The points opposing the fact that religion poisons everything purport that religion makes people happier. The debater arguing in support of this point cites a 2006 book, which showed that the more religious people are, the more money they give, and the more volunteer. In addition, a 2004 study found that 23% of non-believers were very happy whereas 43% of believers were very happy. Thirty six percent of the people who prayed also claimed to be very happy whereas 21% of those who did not pray claimed to be very happy as well. The debater also argued that religion gives people purpose for life, brings about creative things such as art and music, and offers goals in the community and promotes monogamous relationships. Furthermore, religion was not bad initially, and it was people’s actions, which misrepresented it. This is very true as it is misrepresentation, which actually results in wars between people of different faiths.
In the debater’s view, religion is a substance of culture and science and whereas science makes major contribution to minor needs, religion contributes to things that matter the most. This debate was objective as it looked into both sides; it is not subjective in showing that religion is not poisonous. There are also different points of views offered, and they are not biased. The supports are sufficient, up to date, and relevant. The performance in the Q & A section is quite good as the debaters of both sides add various important points, which support the main points given initially. The team that wins the debate, in this case, is the one opposing the debate that religion poisons everything. The team wins the debate because of its objectivity of the arguments, the use of reliable and up to date supports, and the use of both believers’ and non-believers’ points of views.