Organized Religion should be dismantled

Hmm, I don't think I'd agree to the burden of proof being solely on me. This is my view on it: organized religion is a sort of hierarchy, as you have leaders of that religion who are considered above the lay people. In my view, all forms of hierarchy have the burden of proof, for hierarchy begs the question: what gives that person right to rule over another person? Thus, this is why I would normally want burden of proof on the supporter of organized religion, but as a compromise, would you accept a shared burden of proof? Usually, unless agreed upon by the contenders in the first round of debate(which I didn't say anything in my first round regarding burden of proof), the burden of proof is shared between the two people. As can be seen in the official DDO guide to debating, which can be found here on page 3 for the definition of Burden of Proof[1] BOP is on both sides unless otherwise stated in the introductory round(which the introductory round is the instigator's first round)Additionally, I don't think arguing that because it's the norm, you don't need to argue for why it should exist. For example, it was once the norm to believe the earth was flat. You're telling me people in ancient times should just accept that because it was once the norm? You're saying that people who believed in a flat earth back then didn't have burden of proof? That would be the logical conclusion if we followed through on your logic of saying that promoting the norm doesn't have the burden of proof.We would both certainly agree that before organized religion existed, and someone tried to introduce it to people, that the burden of proof would be on them. Now, I would agree with my opponent that the burden of proof would be on me solely if it was abundantly obvious why organized religion should exist, but to be honest, I can't think of any reason it should exist, other than maybe it provides comfort to people. At any rate, in the interest of not wasting too much space, and not wasting the 3 days I have to make this argument, I will go into the argument now, and my opponent can tell me later if they agree to the BOP being shared between us. If they disagree with the BOP being shared, I would like to discontinue the debate, as I don't believe my arguments are sufficient enough if I am the one with sole BOP. It can be argued organized religion helps cause wars and/or acts of terrorBecause organized religion is hierarchical, people believe that someone in that religion is a religious authority and has power. This person can use that power to do or encourage terrible acts, such as for Christianity, the Crusades, or in the case of radical Islam, acts of terror. In both of these instances, people are just following the commands of a higher up. On the flip side, organized religion could be used for good too. Instead, maybe the religious authority commands the people to help the homeless in the community or something. Now, I think the evil acts promoted by organized religion outweigh the good however. Let's suppose for a minute that organized religion encourages people to do good, but it also encourages them to do bad, such as radical Islam. Perhaps it increases the amount of selfless acts, but also increases the amount of evil acts. I would say that a world in which has less of both, is better than having more of both. There would be less acts of terror this way. I would, personally, rather live in a world where there is no chance of being killed by a terror attack, though also less chance of having someone do a selfless act for me, than live in one where there might be an increased chance of a selfless act done to me, but also an increased chance of me dying early. Being able to live longer is more important than having kind things done unto me. I think everyone believes the right to live is more important than having a kind thing done for you making your life easier. Organized Religion puts someone in charge of our lives morally, with no benefitTo argue for why someone should be a leader in charge of us, there needs to be a reason why. Some people would argue that organized religion makes people happier, but as this scientific study shows, there is no correlation between religiousity and overall happiness of undergraduate students[2]. I imagine this would be the case for all people, as I don't think there is reason to believe undergraduate students alone would be the only people who aren't happier when religious. One might argue, also, that organized religion will make one more moral, however one way of measuring whether someone is moral is if they do or do not break laws. Of the prison population, 89.4% of US prisoners are of some organized religion[3]. Now, that alone doesn't say too much, but when you compare it to the percentage of people in the US who are part of an organized religion, then you see a bigger picture, 77.3% of Americans are part of an organized religion[4]. What can be concluded from this is that religious people commit a larger share of the crimes than non-religious people, since they make up a significantly larger percent of the prison population than the percent they make up for the general population of the US. So, since organized religion generally puts an authority figure over our lives, who doesn't seem to help us become more moral, nor more happy, what help is given from having an authority figure in charge of our morality? What exactly are people who are part of an organized religion getting out of having a moral authority figure over them? I suppose you could say that they are getting educated on the matter of morality through their religion, but this is something we all could do by ourselves through our own research. Organized religion subjects people to the rule of a few and most are undemocraticWhat gives the religious leader right to lead that religion? Why are they better than the people as a whole to do it? Is it because they are educated on the religion's tenets? Well, anyone can do that if they wanted to, and I'm sure there are plenty of people in each religion who are as educated on the religion as their leaders, maybe even more so. So, for them to be better educated needs to be proved. Is it because the leaders are better at not sinning? Well, that would need to be proved too.Additionally, democracy, something that western society holds dear, is absent in all major religions. Usually, rule is considered illegitimate if people have not consented to that rule. Well, organized religions give no consent to the people. We don't get to vote in those leaders, we don't get to vote on standards the religion has, or what tenets it has, etc. ConclusionFor these reasons in bold above, I believe society would do better without organized religion. I can't think of any other arguments against organized religion at the moment, but if I think of some later, I will bring them up in the next round.Sources:[1] https://docs.google.com...[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com...[3] https://www.statista.com...[4] http://www.pewforum.org...