Asssuming a religion's God doesn't exist we have a moral imperative to discontinue that religion.

"Your title doesn't match the body of your text. The title says, "Assuming a religion's God doesn't exist, we [should discontinue it]," which means that we should discontinue any religion if it turns out that its god doesn't exist--for the very reason that its god doesn't exist. The body says that we should discontinue the particular major religions in the link, for the reason that they are inimical to human happiness, assuming for the mere sake of the argument that their gods don't exist. Which is it?" RWZeroThe title, the body was just reinforcement for why we should discontinue religion if that religion's God doesn't exist. "Assuming that your argument is about discontinuing religion in general, on the basis that all religion causes harm, my initial response would be: the value of the link you provided is tenuous. No meaningful connection can be drawn between Christianity and the Holocaust, or the KKK and Christianity--in the sense that these things would not have happened in the absence of religion. Furthermore, how do the atrocities you've listed compare to those committed by nation states for non-religious reasons? If you count the dead and the wounded, for example, you'll find that (excluding the Holocaust) most of these just aren't that significant." RWZeroThe evidence might not be crystal clear, but I think enough evidence is there that religion played a part in these events. Yes, there is plenty of harm done for non-religious reasons. Just as in a theoretical example there is more violence in country A then B. Yet, we still try to minimize the violence in both countries. Let's put this another way. Let's say there is a criminal on the loose that committed grand theft auto. Another criminal is speeding. We shouldn't ignore the speeding criminal just because we failed to catch the first criminal. People use this argument with the environment a lot too, I say we need to be vegan, and they say overpopulation is more important. So what? This is a long winded way of stating that my opponent brining up secular crimes is a red herring and should have no impact upon the resolution. "Discounted here is the great psychological benefit that millions of people derive from religion, as well as the extensive philanthropic work that is done by religions, especially Christianity (which I have good personal knowledge of). In order to demonstrate that we should discontinue all major religions on a "harm" basis, you would have to weigh the benefits against the harm, and for the harm, you have to argue that it would not have happened without religion. That's not an easy argument to make, considering what we've seen throughout history. The Crusades were territorial conflicts, and in the absence of religion these would just have been nameless wars, similar to many others waged in Europe throughout those times." RWZero Yes, this is essential what I am stating. Another way of phrasing the resolution would be as follows. "Let's assume God doesn't exist for a second, and ask the question does religion do more harm than good?" If a religion does more harm than good we should discontinue the religion and if religion does more good than harm we should continue the religion. With me arguing the former and my opponent the latter. I probably could have phrased this better, but I couldn't think of a better way. The problem with just the much simpler question does religion do more harm than good? Is that if God exists, even if we find religion does way more harm than good, well in the end we are in big trouble if we discontinue that religion. That's why God's existence is key. For example, lets say that we decide that the Norse religion does more harm than good. We discontinue the religion, and then at judgement day we figure out the Norse Gods were the true Gods and every other God was a false idol. I think we would be in deep manure. I will make the argument that all religions do more harm than good. If my opponent can prove one religion does more good than harm my opponent wins. If I can prove all religions do more harm than good I win. Excluding religions where we have already proven the God(s) exists. I'm not going to battle hamster worshipers. Hamster do exist, in that sense you can prove the hamster worshipers' God exist. All religions teach irrational thinking, tribalism, piety, and blind faith. There is no productive arguing with each other because each one is irrationally holding onto blind faith. Same dialogue "I believe my religion is best because my grand parents told me so!" Believer A Oh yeah, well I believe my religion is best because my God is more merciful because this ancient book that has been translated several times says so! Believer BIt becomes a contest of will and often brute force as opposed to logic and argument construction. Either one side gives up and becomes submissive because they have better things to do than argue all day, or they engage in physical blows. Claiming that whoever is victorious God is on their side. David vs Goliath is a classic example. Then, there is piety. People use time and energy praying. If there is no God, what is the purpose of this activity? Why not just simply mediate instead? Blind faith is easily the most dangerous. Since we are assuming God doesn't exist, the person is obviously following blindly. Obeying religious leaders without question. Assuming those leaders would be revealed by God if they were committing any treachery. This is like the fox in the chicken house for a malicious religious leader. Everyone assumes God will keep him/her in check and that person gets free reign to perform malevolent deeds. Religious tribalism takes away from the we are all human philsophy. Instead, we see each other as heathens, heretics, infidels, non-believers, and so forth. Dehumanizing each other. Dehumanizing is really bad if you want people to treat each other well. I'm done my argument for round two. I await my opponent's argument. My opponent only has to prove that one religion would do more good than harm even if God doesn't exist. Thanks in advance.