The world would be better off without religion.

"The notion that religion is needed for charities is simply silly. You'd need to prove that without religion, "Over half of theses charities" wouldn't exist or would do poorly." I never made that claim so I'll not be proving anything you "decide" I need to prove. I never said it was necessary but I did show that it is a majority force in charity which of course you've taken no particular action against; instead it's red herrings (http://www.nizkor.org...) for dinner tonight. Please do not be intellectually dishonest. Thank you."Point #2" is another red herring. Instead of showing that religion has no particular value Pro chooses to (ironically) cherry pick the sources to provide for the negative stance he has. That's fine, but because it's cherry picking, Pro by extension has committed the very fallacy he claims to consider offensive. Instead of proving or providing that the world suffers due to The Old Testament or showing instances where people have actually been stoned to death in the modern age for working on a Saturday / Sabbath pro simply cherry picks a point and says it's madness. The weight of validity of any text is not in it's content but it's actual moral value when adhered to; to my knowledge if one expresses interest in Christianity then the Old Testament is fulfilled by Jesus ( Matthew 5:17 http://biblehub.com... ) thus rendering that point null to begin with and if this person is arguing specifically against Judaism that's just discriminatory cherry picking the same so either way it's a null point."Point #3" is uncited. It's a random picture? Is this attributed to Islam or a cultural problem? Pro makes no effort to support the difference or even define the difference. Surely one only need to look at Islam in America to find that there are not women bound in Chains or the history of Islam to see that women were allowed to vote far before other nations took to that stage (http://mic.com...) however Pro uses common misconceptions as a basis for their ignorant argumentation again citing nothing and simply showing his discriminatory and racist ideas knowing little to nothing of the culture or the reasoning behind the garb.Christianity worked well in ending modern Southern slavery (http://www.pbs.org...) and played a huge part and continues to play a massive part in ending oppression related behaviors in modern China even with extreme oppression against them as persons (http://www.theglobeandmail.com...) however again Pro fails to acknowledge modern life and the reality of the influence of religion in the good downplaying the value of such things with what he considers to be "ineffectual attempts" and citing one thing. Then he goes on to provide a non-sequitur of a picture stating that allocation of funds is inappropriately placed without evidence and pushing for an appeal to emotion."From claiming taxes while not paying them, to building massive structures made of exotic materials, it still neglects the poor." This isn't substantiated. It is a blank claim; the point that has to be substantiated is that it neglects the poor on a steady and clear basis as an organization in regular operation. "Finally, I will target your statement about "Atheism". You say that it embodies no intelligence, forward thinking and progressiveness. Am I therefore to believe that religion, most of which was invented several millenia ago when scientists as we see today didn't exist, which preach sexist, fascist, discriminatory, racist and other nonsensical behaviour, which teaches you that the earth was made 6000 years ago when there is solid proof for the contrary, that Noah made a huge wooden boat that isn't even physically capable of existing, and that humans used to ride dinosaurs is intelligent, forward thinking and progressive?"Red herring. First and foremost the point, in context, was that things socially attributed to various philosophies, including those of religions, religious claims, belief claims, and knowledge claims, do not carry the atributed concepts by nature. This means that rather than saying atheism is an intelligent choice versus thiesm I would propose that neither is actually true and neither inherently effects one or the other; instead of being able to understand this Pro makes an effort again to cherry pick a very specific religion and then propose that there is some form of differential which is supposed to back something. What that something is I am not sure as nothing is particularly proven. This leads to:"Just the fact that a lot of religions were made two millenia or more ago is anything but progressive or forward thinking."This is just ignorant. There are thousands of religions some made within the last hundred years [ (http://www.churchofsatan.com...) / (http://www.aboutsanteria.com...), ] and some which are far older than 2,000 years as well. Pro's claims are rather poor on all fronts as they are all substantiated. I've no reason to create new arguments this round. Perhaps had Pro actually studied religion in any form he may find himself pleasantly surprised by how tolerant and forward thinking religion actually can be but alas, no, Pro is pretty much making things up and posting links to pictures.