Religion makes the World a better place

Once again, my apologies for my prior forfeit. Thanks to Con's generosity in giving me some extra time to respond, I've been able to examine their argument a little more completely. Having done so, I find myself in the interesting position of having to defend the specific beliefs, as opposed to the practices, of Islam—a religion I do not personally subscribe to—and given some of Con's sources, I admit that I'm not sure I'm able to. I was not aware of the statistics regarding the acceptance of stoning apostates in Islam, and I must say I find them rather concerning. I am not familiar enough with the Koran to determine whether this sort of devotion to Sharia law is justified in the text, or whether it counts as extremism, so I can't comment one way or the other. If this concession is enough to lose me the debate, then fair enough; I truly can't defend it.However, the Psalms are poems, meaning that vivid imagery and anecdotal descriptions should be expected, and as far as the verses from Deuteronomy cited by Con, they speak specifically of apostasy within the nation of Israel based on their covenant with God, not seeking out nonbelievers from other nations, which seems to be what a lot of people assume. This covenant is null and void in the Christian faith due to the sacrifice of Christ, and as far as Judaism is concerned, the general consensus is that while the death penalty may be moral in theory, it should not be put into practice (not to mention that the standards of evidence required to even convict a “guilty” person are so steep that it's virtually impossible anyway) [1]. Additionally, if a Christian makes grand proclaimations about the bible's commands to love one's neighbor before marching off to hate their neighbors, I'm not sure the blame for that lies with religion so much as human hypocrisy.It's definitely true that atheists have been mistreated by religious people on the basis of their nonbelief, but it's very much incorrect to assume that those discovered to be religious aren't similarly mocked, abused, and discriminated against by atheists (although less frequently, I imagine, given atheism's comparatively small demographic). The rise of the movement dubbed “New Atheism” seems to operate on a platform that the religious deserve to be treated this way.Con asks "is it true that religion alleviates the depravations of extreme poverty? I assume that Pro thinks that it does (I do not) but I invite Pro to address this more interesting question.” Admittedly, I'm not sure what Con means by this. The source I provided seems to make a good case for religion having a positive effect on those suffering poverty, and as Con has not explained what leads them to believe otherwise, I can't be sure what point they intended me to address. The circumstances of extreme poverty? Its causes? Its effects? On a personal level, or a societal one? Con suggests that “It's interesting to note, is it not, that religion thrives in hard times? If one were being frightfully cynical, one might make a statement such as "religion finds it easier to get its claws into the young, the old, the weak, the poor, the sick, the dying and the disenfranchised."” One may very well make such a statement, as it certainly bears to be considered. But one may also appeal to the words of Jesus Christ and note that “it is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick.” The disenfranchised have more reason to wonder if an ultimate justice will be served than those who are privileged. The old and the dying have more reason to wonder what comes after death than those who have decades left. The poor and the sick have more reason to seek miraculous help than those who aren't suffering. Maybe religion finds the downtrodden because they're the ones actively looking for the answers it provides.In the same vein of frightful cynicism, however, one might suggest that atheism finds it easier to get its respective claws into those who refuse to bend the knee to any authority besides themselves—after all, if there's no God, what authority could be higher than one's own? This would certainly serve as an explanation as to why so many regimes marked by unspeakable violence and bloodshed at the hands of their governments in the last century or so have been spearheaded by avowed atheists (the usual suspects being Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, and Pol Pot, but let's not forget Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro, Mengistu, Mussolini, and Kim Il-Sung, among others). And while we're asking questions, can people who reject religion's gods, and nonetheless cling to the greater part of their moralities (a concept condemned by Nietzsche, and more recently, Michael Onfray) even claim their moral opinions as secular in the first place?As far as my claim about Zuckerman's bias, I didn't intend for it to be quite as harsh as it was apparently received. The way that he presented his statistics (at least to me) read as though Zuckerman was encouraging his readers to conclude that religion causes murder without any attempt at elaboration, which we have both agreed is not a fair assessment to make off-handedly with only the brute data.Con's chart of religiosity and murder rates doesn't seem to be accounting for Eastern Religions. If I'm not mistaken, Shinto is the dominant belief system in Japan, and China has a large number of Taoists. As for the rest, I would hold that extreme poverty, illegal drug and gang activity, and low human development would account for the violence in most of the countries listed, and that religious belief could easily result from the effects of that violence, as stated above. That seems to me like it would be sufficient to explain the correlation.However, one question I think is central to this debate is at what point, exactly, could we count the benefits of religion as greater than its sins? Does the number of lives saved by religious altruism make up for the lives lost to religious extremism, for instance? And can religious extremism be considered true religion, since its actions (in every case I'm aware of) go directly against the teachings it claims to espouse?I'm afraid I ran out of time to locate better-rounded sources as requested, but I would suggest acquisition of the Handbook of Religion and Health from Oxford Press for a collection of meta-studies on the correlation of religiosity and quality of life.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [I'd normally avoid Wikipedia, but it's the most concise source I could find]