Religion is predominately a positive for humanity

By no means false flattery, I have to say that Con is an exceptional debater - more-so than I was expecting in fact, but that remains my problem! Ok - rebuttal to Round 2: 1) There is no argument submitted here, just a lengthy quote of Hitch's personal opinions, appealing to the ubiquitous emotional polemic people seem to have against religion these days (as tended to be Hitch's wont). It is not without its value though, as it exposes Con's frame of reference (to a point) in terms of that most of his thoughts basically seem to be Hitch's. My main issue with Con's apparent stance throughout Round 2 (and 3 for that matter) is that it seems very absolute, just like Hitch was. Hitch tended to always be about "I'm right, you're wrong - and I will destroy you in debate". There seemed to never be any seeking of common ground on which to agree, or to even try and empathise with the opposite argument. How can you ever hope to grow and learn with that type of attitude? This was his greatest weakness to my mind, and the irony wasn't lost on me that he was quick to point out the historic wrongs of religion holding such absolute viewpoints to the (often barbaric) marginalisation of other worldviews - yet failed to notice he increasingly did exactly this with his own position. Con has three glaring weaknesses in his stance: a) much like Hitch, he comes across as primarily trying to "win" a debate, rather than approaching this from a perspective that we might come together as two different worldviews to find commonality and both learn something from each other b) cherry picks between logic and emotion when it suits the argument, uses emotional and moral value judgements to decry religion, with no actual foundational logic as to explain why all the examples he provides are actually "bad" (as I will attempt to demonstrate, but again Con has structured their emotional appeal very well to disguise this - it is almost as if I am up against the mighty Hitch himself!) c) copy/pastes arguments, assuming I am a traditional theist - which I can guarantee I am not. I am relatively unorthodox, being studied in physics, philosophy and theology - so if Con tries to listen to precisely what I actually propose rather than just hearing the same old theistic arguments to rebut with standard responses, he may learn something here. 2) Con's insights into his mother are interesting. This is the first example of cherry picking between emotion and logic. Con makes the emotional appeal to the audience that his mother is callous, the unwritten assumption being that "of course" having a brain tumour is "worse" than not praying. But where is the foundational logic for this assumption that the one thing is arbitrarily "worse" than the other? By what logical and moral authority do you assume that? If morality is relative, then your mother isn't "wrong" - she merely has a different worldview to you. Say that heaven does exist, then having a brain tumour is a drop in the ocean and losing your soul is of eternal consequence. It is all relative. The logical basis of your argument is effectively: "on the given assumption (which I don't need to prove) that my mother is wrong in her relative assessment of brain tumours and prayer, and that I am right, then my mother is wrong to hold that viewpoint" - but at best that is merely circular. You haven't provided any logic as to why an inoperable brain tumour is "worse" than not praying - not providing logic being precisely what you accuse religion of in this very point! It is precisely the same with all of the terrorism et alia. You state all this "bad" stuff, not even feeling the need to logically demonstrate why it is "bad". You just rely on the emotional impact that the audience will instantly recognise it as "bad" with no actual logical justification behind thinking this. BUT, if there is no God, and no absolute morality - then how can you demonstrate that both you and your audience are correct in your assessment of torture and terrorism as "bad"? [I happen to agree with you that all those things are "bad" - but I do so with a moral frame of reference of "good", where you have none] It seems to me that Con is utilising some bastardised hybrid of secular logic and cultural emotional bias to define what is "good" (which being Western like me, is largely based on a Christian moral heritage of course!!) Incidentally, I use the word "bastardised" with the scientific intent, not the offensive. If you take offence at the term, that is a matter of your own interpretation, and not my intent. Yet this is precisely the fundamental flaw in Con's assumed position. You cannot just assume in a situation of moral relativism that you automatically hold the moral high ground in what you believe. Your frame of reference for what you consider to be "good" and "positive" and "beneficial" etc is heavily culturally biased by the West. Who is to say that if you were born in Syria, you might be a fighter for ISIS right now? Those "Islamic Terrorists" as you would define them clearly think that they are in the "right" and that you are in the "wrong" with your Western worldview. But here is the rub. Who arbitrates? You? Me? Common consensus (in which case back when the common consensus condoned slavery within society, did that make it "right"?) As soon as you remove a moral true north as defined by a higher power than humanity, there is no "good" and "bad" - there are only different worldviews. 3) I'd agree that Religion has been the primary VEHICLE with which destruction and intolerance have been undertaken, but to declare Religion the primary SOURCE is disingenuous. The Catholic lineage is indeed littered with internal wars in Europe, the Crusades etc - but it would be hard to see how their actions had their source from the teachings of Christ - who preached "turn the other cheek", "pray for your enemies" etc. The simple fact is that Christians undertook the Crusades IN SPITE of what Christ taught, not because of it. You might object at this point and quote the apparent barbarity of Old Testament at me - but then that would only serve to highlight your misunderstanding of Christianity. Christ's message, called the New Testament in the Bible, largely overwrites the Old Testament. The Old Testament is largely in the Bible as a frame of reference for the New Testament. And to borrow Tony Blair's terminology, since when was intolerance a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of religion? Here's a couple of comments from the forum of atheismuk.com I found literally just now: "If a Christian offers to pray for you out of sympathy for your 'affliction', you could in return commiserate with them in respect of their mental disorder, and offer the more practical advice of urging them to seek psychiatric help." "Do yourself a favour and don't give it [religion] credibility that it doesn't deserve." Is this really the voice of tolerance and reason? Being open to hearing other worldviews? You've removed the religion, but not the intolerance. That is a flaw unique to all humanity, and these are how the seeds of intolerance are sown. Yes of course, people of religion have done this historically - but that is because they are human beings, not just because of religion. I strongly contend that it is IDEOLOGICAL FANATICISM which is responsible for all the ills you have cited. Historically, of course, this has largely been carried out using the ideological vehicle of religion - but most probably only because that has been the commonplace worldview right up until very recently. The 20th Century saw all sorts of barbarity, wars and slaughter in the name of Socialism, and even in the name of Democracy and Freedom. Do you deduce from this that Socialism, Democracy and/or Freedom are the "cause", or must be flawed as a result of this? Or do you recognise that it is in fact humanity that is flawed, and that they can and will use any vehicle to justify barbaric actions when it suits them.