Ask why religion causes so many problems

*Sighs* "There's no way that I have bias considering the fact that believing in god, in which no one can prove he even exists, is extreme bias because after all the the only source for god is a little blank black book. And no god of the bible would use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible." Incorrect. Not just your debate history, but your hilariously aggressive demeanor, poor choice of sources, and basis of all your evidence on merely disproving God's existence instead of the point of the debate - which is to see if there's any positive or negative benefit/disadvantage from religion. "Little blank black book" is humorous, so I will ignore this. There is no evidence that text is the worst form of communication. You have also confounded with "God" with the "Christian" God. Overall, you don't seem to be taking any of this seriously. The Deuteronomy 13 quote is irrelevant to our argument - but I suspect you put it in simply because I pointed out your own bias. Whereas I had a purpose to bring up your bias, you seem to just reiterate what I said in the hopes of outing me as a "hypocritical" thinker. But just for entertainment: the quote that you posted has no implications of "bias" - and I'm not even Christian! To an atheist, I'm sure it seems frightening, as it depicts violence for apostasy and non-belief - but really it just lays down a set of moral rules and a punishment to follow. This isn't illogical or unjustified - it's descriptive. Bias is not used in this context - they are used for evaluating evidence and making conclusions. Saying something is "biased" because it asserts its own truth is overly focused on semantics and incorrect. Afterwards, when you quote my own lines back at me: "Oh 100% false and totally opinionated on truly shakey unsubstantiated ground with nothing but tears to sway an empty crowd." Not at all. Several peer-reviewed sources indicate this: 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... All of these point a common conception of God as close to what I have described. "So what con is saying is that this god of his is to be completely bankrupt and create, pain, suffering, be completely pig-headed and immoral and allow torturing especially to children in which this god of his knowingly hates. Now this god of his could have easily started out with peace, kindness, care for each other, love, etc..." I left out the rest of that rant. Again, most of it is broad claims made by Pro without any backup. There are some heartfelt argument sure, but nothing really of substance. You are simply reiterating claims made by ignorant atheists who see religion through a biased lens. And as usual, this has no relevance to our argument. "in comparison that the Inca, many of the native American Indian tribes until your white man greasy sweaty racist pig christian wiped them out, the aborigines, Hindu"s, Gaia Mother Earth, Buddhists etc etc etc they do not practice nor preach nor go to war over their religions, not anywhere close to the evils nor hate that the christians do." This is both historically wrong and somewhat funny. "White man greasy sweaty racist pig christian?" Come on voters... this vote should be a no-brainer! Later, when I say that religion has better morality - Pro finally gets down to actually trying to contradict what I'm saying. He responds that what I said about religion bettering morality as: "Absolutely 100% false. Google "Atheism VS god which is more peaceful" and you will get about 4,820,000 results. And god is the most immoral figure in history. And christ is the most fought over figure in history. And the bible delivers a message of false hope because for a third time, there"s no proof for god even existing. And what educated or intelligent person would ---ever--- want to believe in god or christ anyway?" 1. No, not 100% false at all. 2. That many results on Google simply indicate vast interest in the topic, not evil/immorality 3. Same reasoning can be used for your useless "Christ is foughtover" mention 4. Saying there's no proof for God existing is not just wrong, but also irrelevant to the debate 5. The majority of people who study religion believe in God. The majority of scientists either believe in God or are at least agnostic. Of the highest IQ scorers in the world, most believe in God. In any part of the world (aside from America), increased education leads to increased belief in God. Granted, the plurality (among American scientists) is still atheism - but this has been explained countless times as simply selection bias rather than expert knowledge leading to non-belief. And this trend will likely change as theists grow in numbers. You quoting YouTube videos is hilarious. Although it's good that you moved from no sources to some sources, understand that I can't take them too seriously due to the lack of consistent quality among YouTube videos. Some may be good, some may be horrible - and considering your own bias, I doubt the sources' quality. And again, like with any argument I have made - I CAN FIND SOURCES JUST LIKE YOURS PROVING THE EXACT OPPOSITE. In the future, do not waste time grabbing videos off YouTube. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......... -> "review study of ALL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE" Well no its not. Not even close. Did you even read it? And a lot of it was correlated with mental ill-health. *Sigh*. Look up what a review study is. It is a review study. Review studies go over all possible scientific literature. Most of the literature indicated positive correlations with mental health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......... -> "The relationship between religiosity and mental health has been a perennial source of controversy." Gee I cannot possibly understand what that means. You are not doing so well. Yes, congrats - you read the title. If you read further, they clearly state it has positive effects on mental health. "Because since religion is all based on faith. Faith is not evidence nor truth of any kind"" AGAIN, IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE - so I'm not sure why I'm responding to this. And faith is based on evidence, or else people wouldn't have a reason to believe. There are countless ontological proofs, cosmological arguments, mathematical answers, science studies on the effect of prayer, etc... to prove that there exists solid evidence of God likely existing. The rest of your irrelevant ranting is equal parts hilarious and ignorant. Aside from quoting celebrity atheists at me, you haven't brought up a single shred of evidence/reasoning either RELEVANT to our debate, or TRUE even when I parse through your babbling nonsense, no offense. :) Overall? 1. WE ARE NOT DEBATING GOD'S EXISTENCE. Even though you've proven you cannot defend that. 2. PLEASE STICK TO YOUR OWN RULES AND FOLLOW THE STRUCTURE OF THIS DEBATE, STOP IRRELEVANTLY COPY AND PASTING 3. If you are not indeed a troll, I thank you anyways. You give me great practice to sharpen my debating skills. :) 4. I wonder if I send a friend request to you, would you friend me back? :p (jk)