Religion is, at best, useless

What a salad of slanders. I'm sorry I might not have been clear the first time, I should have said religion is useless, as in bad uses don't count, but after defining what I want, you still don't seem to understand it. 1. "First, I'll have everyone note that I never cited "a tool to divide people" as a use of religion." I never said YOU DID. I said, "Oh well excuse me, maybe I should change the word "useful", as in you are right, it can be used as a tool for dividing people, if in that way you want to make it useful, then you do win." What I meant by this was: By usefulness, please make a case where it can be used for good, when nothing else can. I am well aware, AND THIS IS MY POINT, that where no problem exists, it CAN CAUSE ONE. And you repeatedly fail to address it. "Realize that these are not things inherent in religion. A religion can have good teachings, it can have bad teachings." Again, you say this, this is my point to begin with. It can teach good, yes, but NONE of its good comes EXCLUSIVELY from it, as in you can get the GOOD from elsewhere, but not the BAD. I said in my first response: "Let me make it clear again: something that you would ABSOLUTELY need religion, otherwise it couldn't happen." I don't think you read this at all, or you wouldn't say 'A religion can have good teachings, it can have bad teachings." Now, when you compare religion to philosophy you are way over your head. philosophy begins where religion ends. Who was it that said, "At worst, the mistakes in philosophy are ridiculous, the mistakes in religion are deadly"? Well I disagree with him on one point, the muslim IS NOT making a mistake when killing his daughter of she becomes an apostate. Philosophy is questions we may never answer, RELIGION is answers which we may never question. Steven Weinberg's famous quote, where he says "Normally, good people will do good things, bad people will do bad, but if you want a good person to do bad, give him a religion." This is because you can meet a rabbi, who's perfectly nice, or a muslim, but then when it comes to the birth of the baby, it's time to mutilate the genitals. Because it's a covenant with god, ANYTHING is possible and indeed obligatory. You can see how for these past rounds my opponent still doesn't get it, even when spelled out in cold print. Yes people can do bad, and good, but NO good is such that it would be non-existent without religion. There is however, many bad. Then my opponent just goes in a circle, but these bads can exist anyway; no they cannot. The idea of divine reward for dying for a god cannot exist without a god-worshiping RELIGION. Hence, back to what I think the rest of the readers on this site will understand, there is NO goodness at all that would not exist if it weren't for religion, but there are MANY bad that exists BECAUSE OF AND ONLY BECAUSE OF religion. Finally, if you want just one more proof that my opponent doesn't care/ read / want to read his opposition. "And fifth, as my opponent did not even address, religion can be used as a charity organization. Yes, secular charity orgs exist. That, like the knife for the screwdriver, does not take away the fact that religions are USEFUL in doing charity work." I refer you dear readers to my first statements made in the first counter-argument. " Oh well excuse me, maybe I should change the word "useful", as in you are right, it can be used as a tool for dividing people, if in that way you want to make it useful, then you do win. But if anyone without more than an IQ can gather from my entire initial explanation, I am speaking about some *good* use that can come from it. Let me make it clear again: something that you would ABSOLUTELY need religion, otherwise it couldn't happen. " This is what I am saying, I have repeatedly said, once I realize I wasn't being clear enough from the gate, that I want to hear of something good that only religion can do, and without religion , we could never do. If you are going to say (you are not saying this, it is an example.) That I am going to murder you because my book tells me to. Yes, then it is *USEFUL* in the sense that it is useful but for bad. I am trying to argue against religion here, by saying how it provides NOTHING, NOTHING good that we couldn't get from elsewhere, hence it is USELESS.