Religions cause more harm than good

* REBUTTAL * My opponent suggests that I did not provide "much of a rebuttal." The reason is because there was nothing compelling about his case. In order to affirm the resolution, the only thing he put forth in R1 was one simple example of religion being used to take lives or as a catalyst for war. This lone contention is not enough to prove, on balance, that religions cause more harm than good. I can negate this assertion as I did in the last round by pointing out that just because something has been used as a tool for negativity doesn't automatically make that tool immoral or inherently bad. There's not much to refute in Pro's example; it's entirely true that religion has been used for oppression in the past. However, I disagree with my opponent that religion has been the greatest motivating factor behind most wars. His example of Kipling's "White Man's Burden" reflects just one man's opinion and justification for the deeds of Europeans. However, just because people do bad things in the name of religion doesn't automatically make religion bad. People manipulate religion all the time to suit their political agenda, which is exactly what happened during most of the examples my opponent described including European colonization. Again this does not make religion itself bad, but rather the fact that people are using religion as a tool for bad the REAL bad part. The bad actions itself are still bad; attaching those actions with the broad spectrum of "religious" in general is irresponsible. For instance, terrorists on 9/11 committed horrible and destructive acts in the name of Islam. That does not make Islam immoral; it makes the act itself immoral, and the fact that it was done "in the name of Islam" an unfortunate representation of the faith. I'll conclude this by making an important distinction: Religions don't cause more harm than good; greedy and power hungry leaders cause more harm than good, and use religion as the scapegoat or catalyst as a means to an end. Most religions promote peace, tolerance and respect. If people distort those messages to suit their own agendas, it does not lessen or degrade the religious messages or overall scope of the faith. While I don't believe religions are infallible nor is their scripture, overall they promote a lot of good, which I will get to here... * Re: ARGUMENTS * Regarding health benefits, Pro says that there are no mental benefits to partaking in religious traditions. I've explained that attending church is considered a therapeutic mental break that many people find rewarding and necessary or helpful to their mental well being. Moreover, it's neurobiologically proven that prayer often promotes a beneficially meditative state of elevated conscious. Pro also says that religions cause divide rather than community. To demonstrate this, he noted colonies that were created specifically for religious purposes. First, this just proves my point that religion brings people together. Second, we are sharply divided in many ways. The northeast, for example, is predominantly liberal as compared to the conservative south. We create groups for mutual interests, jobs, etc. We create political groups with those that share our political ideology; why not those that share in our religious? In discussing tradition, Pro points out that tradition can be counterproductive. I should clarify that tradition is not only doing something for the sake of tradition if that tradition is impractical (such as his watch example). However tradition is very important in every culture. In America we watch football and eat turkey on Thanksgiving: it's tradition (and comforting, which Pro does not deny). Tradition is about celebration or upholding a value or ideal deemed important to your family and those around you. If something is not important, it falls out of tradition and indeed becomes obsolete. However the traditions that survive usually serve a functional and positive purpose. In terms of traditions being old-fashioned, my opponent commits the genetic fallacy. Nevertheless, a tradition like marriage, for example, to some religious people cannot be "changed" if they believe it is granted by god. However, that doesn't mean they have to infringe upon other people's rights (such as giving gay people the LEGAL if not religious right to get married). In the Politics/Social section, my opponent points out that many young boys have come forward with stories of rape and other sexual abuse instigated by religious officials. This is indeed a travesty. However, once again these horrifying acts were not religious in nature. The men that committed them were not true representatives of the faith but simply employees of the church; bad men who abused their power. People abuse their power in every field - not just the religious. It's not right and it's not just, but it'd be wrong and again irresponsible to pin the blame on religion itself. That would be analogous to a serial killing medical doctor turning people away from medicine because some doctor abused his position. It's not right. In the Tolerance/Ignorance rebuttal, my opponent again draws yet another example of religion being used to foster hatred and bigotry, this time in the name of slavery. First, it is said that the Bible was manipulated and/or misinterpreted to seemingly condone slavery, while in reality the "slaves" were just a mistranslated term for the equivalent of an indentured servant or some other low employee. Regardless, once again we see religion being used as a tool for bad. However, that doesn't negate all of the times religion is a tool for good. More about this in the conclusion... Regarding science and evolution, I agree that it's laughable to the degree in which many theists reject scientific concepts such as evolution. However, I should note that evolution, just like creationism, is in fact nothing more than a theory. While it's a theory I'd say most should reasonably believe to be true, there are still conflicts within the realm of theism itself that regards many theists saying evolution supports god's existence, etc. Though most scientists continue to assert that evolution is blatant, are the non-believers really causing any harm? So long as the legitimate intellectuals and well-informed educators and problem solving scientists know and believe what is probably true, then other people's fantasies are not really inhibiting society to a significant extent. * CONCLUSION * I've proven that throughout history far more people have been religious than not religious. To ALL of those people, religion offered benefits. If religion was not beneficial to them in some way, they would abandon it. Those benefits include but are not limited to the things I mentioned in the last round: social benefits, spiritual benefits, mental and physical benefits, etc. As I explained, many people admittedly using religion as a crutch used their faith to help motivate them into recovery of a dire illness, or help propel them through other tough situations or low points. For most, religion offers a sense of security and hope. Since so many people are religious - and it's reasonable to conclude that they drew positivity from their faith - then you can see in sheer number, volume and practicality that religion has positively impacted many people by distracting and comforting them from the harsh realities of the cruel world. It also helped them lead a happier and more fulfilling life in most cases. While religion has, in fact, been used as a tool for oppression, you cannot lay sole blame on religion itself; religion may have helped people going through hard times endure, again, the realities of a cruel world from the inevitable political class wars (i.e. slavery) evident since humanity's inception. In this way it is not religion itself but simply the act of oppression that was wrong; religion was important and useful on both sides.