Religion does more harm than good.

Once again, I have no doubts nor do I question the idea that suicide bombings occur outside of a religious context. Human sacrifice is done outside the realm of a religious context consistently on the battlefield. However once again I feel I need to remind you that none of these are CAUSED by a lack of religion. Acts of human nature such as honour, generosity, and violence are unavoidable and I wouldn't be arguing for a second that a world without religion would not have violence. However only religion explicitly causes violent acts in people who would otherwise be harmless. I've been through the examples several times but to make a point let me remind you that the 19 hijackers on September 11 would not have sacrificed their lives, nor would they have willingly and knowingly killed nearly three thousand people if they weren't religious. The idea of Asymmetrical warfare being linked to secular ideas frankly doesn't make much sense in terms of the fact that no secular idea has ever CAUSED a war. No war has ever been fought in the name of atheism. The point that the 'morality' from religion is made by the priest/rabbi/imam is infact a point for religion not really being the cause of the morality. As demonstrated through extracts of the Bible and the Quaran, if read objectively, these texts are far from pillars of moral and ethical behaviour. The 'ethics' extracted by the priest/rabbi/imam are nothing but bastardised versions of the true texts (of which the so called 'extremists' take literally). You seem to be somehow suggesting that this morality can only come from religion, however the contrary is true. We see time and time again that one does not need religion to be moral, starting off simply in nature, it is easy to see animals such as koalas sharing some food, or monkey mothers defending their young, these basic moral acts aren't those of religion (to the best of my knowledge, animals aren't religious). Not only in nature but in real life, as I've said there is no correlation whatsoever between being religious and moral behaviour. No such empirically tested study exists which demonstrates that atheists are on average less moral than those who follow a religion. Infact the opposite might be true, especially in the USA where atheists make up 14% of the population and yet only 0.209% of the prison population (according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons http://www.holysmoke.org...) conversely, this means that 99.791% of inmates who answered the poll were religious. Now, I am aware that this alone doesn't prove that atheists are more moral than people who are religious however that is not what this debate is about and that is not what I am trying to show. I'm simply demonstrating that the idea that atheists are somehow less moral than people of religion is short sighted at best. Once again I do have to question your comparison of states and religion because that is not what I'm talking about at all, irreligion/atheism is in no way tied into the role of government/state. Well first off, the separation of chruch and state is not intended for the promotion of free religion. If I am correct in assuming that you are reffering to the USA, this right is granted by your Bill of rights and the clause of free practice of religion and speech. This specifies that no religion is superior to another but also, no religion is inferior to another one. This allows anyone to practice morality in anyway they want to, as long as within the realm of the law. Your idea of social nihilism being spawned through the modern interpretation of the separation of church and state seems to be based around your opinion and nothing else. If you are indeed referring to the current climate of the USA (Where I presume you are from), let me remind you of a few quotes from your current commander-in-chief. "Americans do not presume to equate God's purposes with any purpose of our own...."[Prayer] teaches us to trust, to accept that God's plan unfolds in his time, not our own." Washington Post, May 7, 2004 "...Freedom is not America's gift to the world, freedom is the almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world."Speech in Pennsylvania, October 22, 2004 You talk of separation of church and state, however it seems your current president is having a bit of difficulty himself in maintaining this. Going onto talking about fertility rates, I've got a few problems with this. A) You've provided no empirical sources for the information that 'fertility is higher amongst religious people'. B) Problems arise yet again from the 'morality' of roman catholicism spreading AIDS throughout Africa with their refusal to endorse the use of condoms. Africa being one of the most religious regions on earth, relies heavily on the teachings and advice of their religious leaders. When someone like the Pope forbids the use of contraception, this does nothing but spread the sexually transmitted disease to become one of the biggest epidemics since the black plaque. C) Contrary to what you say, the fertility rate among Americans has climbed to its highest level since 1971. (http://www.usatoday.com...) If this wasn't enough, the UK has hit its highest fertility rate since 1980. (http://www.guardian.co.uk...) If you desire one more, then Australia's birth rate is the highest it has been in 36 years. (http://www.theage.com.au...) All this seems to put a gaping hole in your argument that the 'nihilist nature of society' is somehow promoting 'low birth rates'. If you somehow attribute this clear rise in birth to religious reasons then I ask you to provide clear evidence of this, and retract your statement about nihilism being spawned through the lack of religion. Because it seems clear from this that the west is producing more babies than ever. To sum up my arguements, I've put forward that 'religion does more harm than good'. What I have demonstrated is that: Physically, religion is a direct cause of harm, evident in the innumerable events of religious wars, and acts of terrorism and murder which would not have happened if there were not religion. Mentally, the concept of faith is very dangerous and is always wrong to teach a child to believe in something without sufficent evidence. I've also demonstrated that those who lack religion are not more likely to commit crime or are nor in any way less moral than those with religion. The good done by religious groups are not directly caused by their faith in the way that terrorist acts are. It is very likely that the people working for groups such as the Salvation Army would not be immoral if they were not religious (and indeed, there are many secular humanitarian groups such as Amnesty International). I thank you for the debate.