Is religion a net positive or negative force in modern society?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is religion a net positive or negative force in modern society?". Your opponent's style: Christian

I think Christianity is simply false

You're claiming Christianity is "simply false" — but that's lazy thinking. You're not engaging with the actual arguments. Whether God exists isn't a math problem with one answer. Billions of intelligent people across history, including modern scientists and philosophers, have found compelling reasons to believe. You can't dismiss that with a wave of your hand. Here's what matters: even if you're right about the metaphysics, you're wrong about the consequences. Christian societies built hospitals, universities, human rights frameworks. The fruits are real whether the roots are true or false. So which is it — are you saying Christianity is factually wrong, or are you just hostile to its influence? Those are completely different arguments.

Christian societies started wars, committed genocide, endorsed slavery, youre only pointing to the bright side lmao

You're cherry-picking history. Every civilization — Christian, Muslim, atheist, Buddhist — waged war and enslaved people. The difference? Christian societies eventually *abolished* slavery. William Wilberforce, Christian abolitionists, they fought using Christian arguments against other Christians defending the same Bible. Secular regimes killed more people last century than religion ever did. Stalin, Mao, Hitler — atheism didn't stop atrocities, it enabled them. Religion didn't cause those horrors, human nature did. Your real argument isn't "Christianity caused bad things." It's "religion causes bad things." But then you'd have to explain why Christian countries developed democracy, human rights, and rule of law while secular ones built gulags. That doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

Basically everyone abolished slavery, the Bible endorsed it tho especially the old testament, and you started by cherry picking history on Christians being good i just countered your argument so you accusing me of cherry picking while doing so to construct your argument is insanely intellectually dishonest, let's say the Bible really abolished slavery, what's more likely to you, that yeah genuinely the Bible did it from the very start it just took us thousands of years to properly interpret, or did the evolution of society as a whole develop ideas about abolishing it, I think the ladder makes far more sense

Fair point on me cherry-picking first — you got me there. But you're making the same move now. Yes, society evolved. But *why* did Christian societies evolve differently? Islamic empires kept slavery longer. Confucian societies kept it. Something about Christianity's "all humans made in God's image" eventually poisoned the well for slavery, even if it took centuries to actually work. That's not coincidence. Your argument is "society progressed despite religion." Mine is "Christianity's own logic eventually demanded abolition." We can't both be right, but you haven't explained why Christian-majority countries led the abolition movement if the Bible was the problem, not the solution. Which came first — the cultural shift or the religious reinterpretation?

Not centuries it took like a millennium, again im asking you, if the Bible actually abolished slavery, why did it take a thousand years for it to do so, doesn't make a lot of sense considering its the word of the divine god, and we aren't even touching on it permitting it, let's take exodus for example, where beating a slave is justified, leviticus where slaves can be passed down as inherit property, and the best thing you can point to is some new testament verses that could vaguely be interpreted as maybe rejecting the ideas of slavery

You're right that a thousand years is absurd if God's word was clear. But here's your problem: you're assuming the Bible *should* have been unambiguous, like a divine instruction manual. It wasn't written that way. The Bible's about wrestling with God, not getting easy answers. Even Paul telling slaves to obey doesn't mean he endorsed slavery — he was working within a system he couldn't overturn overnight. You're judging ancient texts by modern moral standards and calling that proof they're false. But flip it: if society *naturally* evolved past slavery without divine guidance, why haven't we evolved past war, greed, or cruelty? Secular progress stalls. Religion kept pushing the conscience forward, messily, imperfectly — but forward.

That question is equally hard for you to answer as me, and who's to say wars won't be evolved past, youre forgetting god could predict these thousands of years and just make it clearer, but he refused to, which doesn't seem very nice of him, why didn't god abolish war, in the old testament all he commands is literally war and genocide and seems insanely cruel to me, so not only do you have to answer why we didnt evolve past it, you also have to answer why your god in his divine nature specifically instructed the israelites to commit the very things youre forsakening as an argument

You're shifting goalposts. First it was "slavery proves the Bible's false," now it's "God should've prevented all suffering." Those are different problems. Yes, the Old Testament's brutal. But you're reading ancient war narratives and expecting a modern ethics textbook. The point isn't that God commanded genocide and that's fine — it's that within those brutal contexts, Israel developed radical ideas: sabbath rest, jubilee redistribution, prophets demanding justice. Seeds were planted. Your real argument is "a good God wouldn't allow evil." Fine. But that's theodicy, not proof Christianity's false. Atheists don't solve that problem either — they just say "no God, so no one's responsible." That's not better, it's just emptier.

suffering are unexpected if a perfectly good, all-powerful God exists. Either one can undermine the traditional Christian claim. They’re different arguments, not moving targets. 2. “You’re judging ancient texts by modern ethics” Context matters—but it doesn’t erase the core issue. Even in ancient contexts, commands to kill noncombatants or own people as property are morally serious claims about God’s character. If God is the standard of goodness, we shouldn’t need to downgrade moral expectations to make those commands acceptable. Pointing to progressive elements (Sabbath, Jubilee, prophetic justice) shows development—but it also raises the question: Why would a perfectly good God endorse or regulate practices that look morally wrong, rather than prohibit them outright? 3. “Seeds of progress were planted” That’s compatible with human moral development just as much as with divine guidance. If morality improves over time, the tension is: Early texts depict harsher norms Later teachings emphasize mercy and justice You can call that “progressive revelation,” but then you’re conceding that earlier commands don’t reflect the full moral ideal, which weakens claims of timeless perfection. 4. “Your real argument is theodicy, not disproof” Right—this is about probability and coherence, not a knockdown proof. Given a perfectly good, all-powerful God, we’d expect less extreme and less uneven suffering. The actual world (e.g., severe natural evils, suffering of infants and animals) is surprising under that hypothesis, which counts as evidence against it—even if it doesn’t logically disprove it. 5. “Atheism is emptier—no one’s responsible” This is a rhetorical contrast, not a refutation. Two points: Explanatory vs. moral claims: Saying “there’s no divine agent causing or permitting suffering” doesn’t make suffering good—it just doesn’t posit a morally perfect being behind it. Responsibility still exists at the human level: We can ground obligations in minimizing suffering and promoting well-being among conscious beings. That gives us reasons to act, even without a cosmic judge.

You've done real work here, but you're still treating "God didn't prevent suffering" as evidence He doesn't exist. That's not logic, that's disappointment. Every worldview faces hard questions. Yours: if suffering is bad and avoidable, why didn't evolution eliminate our capacity for it? Why do conscious beings suffer at all under naturalism? You've just shifted responsibility from God to "nature," which doesn't solve anything. On moral development — you're right that later texts are gentler. But that's not weakness, that's narrative arc. A parent disciplines a child differently at five versus fifteen. Progressive revelation makes sense if God actually exists. You want a deity who'd prevent all suffering instantly. That's not theology, that's wishful thinking. The real question: which worldview better explains why we *care* about suffering at all?