On Balance, Religion is a Positive Social Force

1. Charity I hold to the claim that a large percentage of PRO's claims of philanthropy funnel back into the church. And not the boon to charities as PRO would suggest. Let our respective evidences be the deciding factor. "As a non-for-profit, the Catholic Church does NOT charge anything for those that cannot afford to pay AND does not discriminate based on creed, color, gender, sex, or sexual orientation." I indirectly countered this claim in round 3, allow me to expand upon the Mercy Health Partners story I referred to earlier, as PRO is gravely misrepresenting the details: Tamesha Means was turned away 3 times from the Catholic hospital, (despite being in labor, intense pain, and fever from infection) after the hospital found out it could not continue to hold the patient AND operate under "The Ethical and Religious Directives". Her chances of dying during childbirth were "close to 100%" and so the hospital simply refused to treat her under the directives of the Church, as abortions are not optional. Margaret McBride, a board member who approved the abortion, was auto-excommunicated and the Church even severed ties with the hospital after they couldn't obtain a promise that "no abortions would be performed in the future". This should be clearly recognized as nothing else other than a religious organization refusing to budge in the face of medical science and the advancement of women's rights out of nothing but sheer religious dogma. "Therefore, a secular organization simply hasn't, can't, and won't replace the charitable scope of religiously affiliated charities like Habitat for Humanity and Catholic hospitals." It's worth noting that you claim secular society is the minority when needed to defend against wealth and success, however expect the same minority to compete on a global scale with the "vast majority of humans (that) have been religious for the vast majority of human history." 2. Happier and Healthier "The study Con cites in rd-3 actually supports my claim" This is another case of selective evidence, in complete context: "In religious societies and in difficult circumstances, religious people are happier than nonreligious people. But in nonreligious societies or more benign societies where many people's needs are met, religious people aren't happier...Religious people in secular countries report more negative feelings than the nonreligious do, however." "Religion goes hand-in-hand with a community the same way Vitamin-C goes hand in hand with drinking orange-juice." As has been demonstrated, religion goes hand in hand with both poverty and ignorance, according to the data cited in round 3. This point has little to do with charity, and the consequences of faith based institutions upon the masses are evident in my claims of STD's, birth control, false teachings, and bigotry in religiously dominated societies. "This usually isn't the case in a bowling or science club" This is the 3rd time that you've referenced a bowling club. I make no claims that a recreational club for fun is going to build strong community bonds, (although it will undoubtedly help). In respect to you, and this debate I will refrain from introducing new evidence you can't counter, however I'll simply suggest that there are many secular organizations that are specifically for helping those in need. These are created with the intent of helping those in need and applying humanistic morality to the community or world. No religion required. (On another note, you've got me wanting to go bowling. If that was you're plan, you've succeeded.) 3. Sense of Community "Faith-based communities are the MOST INCLUSIVE and make religious folks happier because sacred guiding principles trump social norms that would typically exclude classes of people like the elderly and handicapped from a social-gathering you would host at your house." This is overtly incorrect, and the evidence even lies within the sentence itself. You mention religion being most inclusive, while in the same breath state that it makes religious folks happier. Religion makes you happier as long as YOU are of that religion. However in the case of the dominant religion in the US who has been demonstrated to look down on women, homosexuals, prostitutes, and a myriad of other people belonging to different groups, this is most obviously false. While a party at my house may not be wheelchair accessible or safe for someone with severe autism, I would never place societal pressure or physical punishment upon someone for being the way they are as religion as demonstrably done in the past, present, and foreseeable future. "Where they're (homosexuals) discriminated against it's tragic and can be better attributed to a heteronormative bias, which thrives most in poverty, that pre-dates the major world religions." Suggesting that hate for a homosexual predates religion, and is most prominent in poverty is incorrect. Some of the wealthiest and most successful countries in the world are responsible for laws and hate towards homosexuals. Interestingly, as posted previously, we can see a trend between a country's success and their secularism, as well as their secularism and their tolerance of people that the world's religions are typically against. In reference to it predating religion, this would imply that religion simply adopts the non-religious standards around them and has no effect on the well-being of people. Like the disrespect for homosexuals and poor treatment of women. If religion is simply the avatar of what a culture or society already believes, than we have no need for religion. 4. Faith Based Institutions As previously mentioned, hospitals are very much expected to follow the binding terms of the "Ethical and Religious Directives" at the risk of the Church severing ties with them completely and auto-excommunication for their staff (and eternal souls). This is a hard blow to more than 25% of the world's population that can only be served by religious churches. 5. Social Transformation As repeatedly demonstrated, the religious have acted out of self-righteousness to justify horrific actions that have killed millions, and used some of your sources on this point to support that claim. 6. Metaphysics and Ethics I claim our natural understanding of empathy that derives from morality guides us just as much in our decision making for every human. There are many who care little about someone on the other side of the world. However, if they were placed in the middle of the madness, they would be overwhelmed with empathy. This further supports the idea of a relative morality based on circumstances rather than an objective and "baseline" code of ethics that religion implies, of which we have no proof, and has caused substantial death and misery under the premise of acting under the false pretenses of "moral superiority". "Don't blame religion. Blame the bad pastor or warmonger that flew a religious banner in bad-faith." Unless you accept the idea that religion is and always was "bad faith" by its very nature. It is another tool of creativity to influence control. When the foundation is faulty everything built on top of it will be faulty as well. Massacres PRO offers no counter claims to support his reasoning that all of the conflicts I listed were done in direct result of religious intolerance. I've gone to the trouble of directly quoting the sources for you, dear reader, in an effort to defend PRO's claims that I was lacking evidence. Rights PRO made no attempts to counter my claims of the long withstanding tradition of the religious and denial of rights, or the consequences of those who dare to challenge this status quo. Using Islam in defense is unacceptable, as it is cited being one of the most modern and most grossly violating of women's rights. In conclusion: There are 14,000,000 deaths PRO didn't counter. Brutal sect violence occurring to this day. Deplorable human rights violations occurring regularly, openly, and worldwide such as sacrifices, torture, honor killings, and murder. The torture and murder of homosexuals in the US, Europe, and Russia. Organizations that existed at the behest of the Church that torture and execute people for not believing. Ignorance of sex education responsible for the spread of both STD's and unintended pregnancies. Denial of scientific advancement both in the educational and medical realm that reinforces false knowledge supported with pseudo-science that allows ALL previous claims to occur. The denial of women's rights that secures a male dominated world where girls are shot in the face for daring to receive an education, imprisoned or beaten for showing their faces, and denied rights that even corpses possess. These points are unchallenged, unacceptable, and born from religion or ignorance thereof. These support my claim the religion does more harm than good. I would like to thank you for taking the time to read both of our arguments, and regardless of your original stance, I challenge you to consider the opposing viewpoint. Most importantly I'd like to thank Hierocles for the opportunity to debate with him, and to demonstrate that both parties can debate such a sensitive topic without it coming to name calling or blows. Thanks again, and may the best argument win.