Religion (in general)

As it stands, here in the final round, my opponent has left too many questions unanswered. 1.He gives no reason as to why it is necessary to indict all religions for the actions of one - especially if the existence of just one of those religions is shown to be of more help than harm. 2.He has not put forth any reasonable evidence as to how religion has done more harm than good. My opponent simply will not drop the ridiculous notion that religion is responsible for its own persecution. I can create a million scenarios to express the lunacy of his logic. I just ask the judges to consider the logic. Nobody can express unique views, or hold diverse beliefs under the logical thumb of my opponent – for if that unique action, lifestyle, or belief leads to your persecution or systematic destruction; it is indeed your fault for not conforming to the specific epistemology of my opponent. The sadistic persecutor is not at blame for his murderous rampage, but the ones being persecuted – that ladies and gents, is balderdash. "However, all the deaths religion has caused does make me wish religion had never existed." This still remains an unsubstantiated claim. My opponent has not shown how religion has caused death. Especially when such death is not condoned by any religious doctrine. The person is to be held responsible. "Consider the number of times that has happened, compared to how many people benefit from the existence of school. A few shootings shouldn't make us want school to never have existed." My opponent conveniently avoids the point. The point was not the amount of time such shootings occurred, but that by his logic it is the school that is to be held responsible. The actions of the shooter(s), by his reasoning, are the fault of the school. "You'd be amazed if you found out how many people were fed or treated due to the invention of cars. Think of ambulances and trucks on the road all day transporting food." Well if your reasoning is to be followed, the millions of deaths caused by cars are not to be overlooked. From my vantage point it seems the harm far outweighs the benefits. It is also humorous that you can somehow see the overarching benefit of cars, but not the monumental benefit religion has been in the perseveration of human life via morals. "Islam many times condones murder. Also, I blame Christianity for putting so many people in danger and killing so many people by making them believe a fake story that will make them be persecuted." My opponent is dishonest again, he does not show any of these "times" that Islam condones murder. And he again blames Christianity for its own persecution. If a "fake" story inspires people to be better, live more moral lives, and help the suffering world, why care? In fact, why do you think it is justified to persecute those who disagree with you? "That's because you focused on only three. What about the ones killed by the Romans at the time Christianity emerged? What about the people being killed everyday in the Middle East? What about the Palestinian-Israeli war that has been going on for decades? Stop being so biased..." Actually, all that considered, we have still yet to reach even one million. My opponent says a number and just assumes we ought to believe it. "A lot of victims were religious and killed for their faith, I blame some of those deaths on religion also." O my. My opponent has outdone himself. He is actually blaming the systematic destruction of the Jews on the Jews. My opponent is blaming the systematic targeting of religious intuitions on the religions. "They are influenced by evidence, not science. By your logic, Einstein should be blamed for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No! Evil people use science in an evil way, good people use science in a good way." Actually, that would be by your logic. BUT PLEASE TAKE NOTE, you have said something intelligent. EVIL PEOPLE USE SCIENCE IN AN EVIL WAY. Simply profound. Evil people sometimes use religion an in evil way – even if the religion itself is in contradiction with the actions done in its name. "Technology is brought on by science." Open a book, and read about it. Technology is completely separate from science. And most often technology is not brought about by science, not until more recently. I see no point in going on, my points were not refuted in response 2. My opponent has not confronted these issues: (a)How do we indict all religions for the actions of one? (b)How do we blame religion for actions that are contradictory to that religion? (c)Christianity is responsible for the overwhelming majority of relief agencies, adoption programs, drug help, disaster relief, homeless shelters, hospitals, foster homes, and Christians habitually donate more to charities than any other people group. (d)By my opponent's logic, it would be atheistic communism that is responsible for the overwhelming majority of human casualties. Atheists have killed more people during peacetime than all the wars in the encyclopedia combined. (e)If atheism has caused so much atrocity, why is my opponent not arguing that he wishes it never existed – as it is now abundantly clear that the harm caused by atheism far outweighs its benefits? (f)Religion, specifically Christianity, influences neighborly love, care for the homeless, and relief for the suffering. It does not condone atrocity. What in this religion do you indict has harmful?