"Religion is the opium of the people"(Karl Marx)

There are several misconceptions and errors made in Pro's argument, but there is one key concept that Pro has produced that completely discredits this argument. To begin, opium is defined as "1. the dried, condensed juice of a poppy, Papaver somniferum, that has a narcotic, soporific, analgesic, and astringent effect and contains morphine, codeine, papaverine, and other alkaloids used in medicine in their isolated or derived forms: a narcotic substance, poisonous in large doses. 2. anything that causes dullness or inaction or that soothes the mind or emotions." [1] Based on the provided definition of opium, the effects cause opium to be addictive as Pro points out. However, his argument by which he claims "[Marx] wanted to show us that religion has a great power over people" is flawed. "What Marx proposes is that religion does not reflect man's true consciousness. Religion, as Marx sees it, is a false consciousness; religion is the product of men, the product of those in power—those who control the productive process." [2] The statement provided by Pro contradicts the religious views that Marx actually produced. As for the latter half of the definition provided, Pro did not provide the fact that while opium in itself is addictive, it is used to provide temporary relief for suffering does such by "blunting the senses." [3] While Marx does claim that "[Religion] is the opium of the people" in the "“Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction," the claim is not that religion is an addiction of the people, but rather he claims that religion "can actually be said to be contributing to human suffering by removing the impetus to do whatever is necessary to overcome it – which, for Marx, is to relinquish religion and turn to revolutionary politics" [3]. Based on the information provided, this discredits the views of Pro on the Marxist belief of religion. 1. "People who are very addictive to religion and don't accept other religions are more likely to create conflicts." While the "addiction to religion" idea has been discredited, I will stipulate - for the sake of argument - to the idea of "religion being addictive." Even if the idea religious addiction was prevalent, the examples Pro provided do not further his argument. The Shiites and Sunnis are both of Islamic heritage, and on both sides, there are several cases of extremist sects (such as that of the Wahhabi sect and the Sufi movement); however, it should be noted that the conflicts that separated the Shiites from the Sunnis in the first place are due to the separation of supports standing by Abu (Sunnis) and Ali (Shiites) [4] and that the same happened with other religions, especially that of Christianity. As for the war in former Yugoslavia, there is no evidence that shows that "religious authorities showed the irresponsibility and used ordinary religious people in the war." 2. "Non-traditional religious organizations use state in order to control people."As for the first half of the paragraph that Pro provided, Pro begins in the third sentence with "In my point of view...," thereby demeaning his argument that "religious organizations use state in order to control people" by using bias. While I naturally accept bias, in the case of debate, personal bias lessens the argument provided by the party, as it plays a role on ego. As for the second half of the paragraph Pro provided for this second point, it is difficult to understand what exactly you are attempting to say due to the grammar used. If I may, from what I am reading, it sounds as if you are stating that "There are a lot of stories from people when they were invited in 'religious' organizations to forget about daily problems and later became addicts; but the 'drug-dealers' (sectarian authorities) only did such to retain money and nothing more." To whether or not that is what you were saying, I am not entirely certain. If it is, then I must say that I am not familiar with the sectarian authorities drawing in people by means of supposed religious organizations simply for the sake of money. It is difficult to understand how this ties in to the "growing number of sects" that you ambiguously mention.3. "The Warfare Hypothesis"Your mention of "killling individual features in people" was not previously mentioned at all other than your opening statement in the end of the second paragraph. As for the idea of "The Warfare Hypothesis" (also known as "The Conflict Hypothesis"), it is seen in John Brooke's Science and Religion: A Historical Perspective that this hypothesis has proven to be a "a limited and flawed way of understanding the history of the relationship between science and religion" (Brooke, Science and Religion, 33-42), thereby discrediting your argument.I want to thank Pro for this debate, for this is my first completed debate. Thank you for debating with me.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://hirr.hartsem.edu...[3] http://web.grinnell.edu...[4] http://webspace.ship.edu...