Religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.

Pro has declined to reply to many of my R3 arguments. =)Cause and Effect:Pro has made an unsubstantiated assumption throughout this entire debate. He articulates that religious societies have 'caused' the atrocities, crime, lower qualities of life, etc... Unfortunately, not one of his sources actually supports this concept. In fact, a close examination of Pro's sources indicates that there is correlation between these but not causation. This fact will be damning for my opponents case. Let's take the instance of prisoners. As Pro indicates, most prisoners are religious; he implies that religion must have caused them to become criminal in some way. Of course, the implication is absurd. The reason that most prisoners are religious is because they converted to a religion while in prison [1][2]. The hyper stressful environment of prisons necessitates that felons seek hope and relief from it's confines. Prisoners convert to religion while in prison, as a means to find meaning in their lives [3]. Thus religion is actually a point for the con case in this regard. Religion helps prisoners lead happier and meaningful lives [4].My opponent makes further arguments in this same vein but with more absurd premises. He suggests that religion causes nations to have a lower quality of life. However, his source (R4 #6) states so such thing; the source's final line states, "Cue discussion over which causes what!" The reality is quite similar to that of the prison system. People living in societies with lower qualities of life will naturally seek refuge from their harder lives in other ways. The underprivileged turn to religion because it makes them happier [5].Thus I have demonstrated the causality is the inverse of Pro's implications. Pro has given me additional arguments to win this debate with. Crime, drug abuse, delinquency, and low quality of life are promoters of religion, which then help people maintain happy, meaningful lives. Pro has reaffirmed my stress argumentation. Wars, wars, wars...Pro has failed to respond to my arguments regarding the unquantifiability of wars that have been avoided. Due to the nature of the world (being predominately religious) it is impossible to measure the wars that have been avoided. We would require an alternative universe, wherein religion didn't exist to measure the difference. I have provided substantial rational as to how religion could plausibly avoid wars. Thus there is no way to evaluate my opponents claims. That being said, let's take a look at a quote from R3; my opponent states, "while some religions teach peaceful messages we, must take into account how those messages are interpreted for example how they are always changed to fit the need of the time." And hereby my opponent has all but conceded this debate. In this simple sentence Pro has conceded that religion is a non-integral part of all human violence. Instead of religion shaping the world, Pro has admitted that the world shapes religion to it's own needs. This reality is true of every group philosophy imaginable. Stalin shaped communism to his own means. Hitler shaped Eugenics. Governments shape nationalism, race, and science to justify agendas. The fact that religion is non-integral means that any form of group philosophy can replace it. The leaders will still have the same murderous intent, which means they'll find other "tools". In the end my opponents impacts are severed from his advocacy.Onto my opponents final points. As I previously stated, and sourced, Hitler used religion as a posturing tool to overcome his political opponents. Hitler's utter disdain for religion lead him to explicitly state that Nazism was not influenced by religion in any way. My opponent can talk about Hitler's catholic childhood all he wants, this doesn't change the fact that Hitler was violently opposed to religion influencing his policies. Pro argues that Pol Pot didn't murder for atheist reasons. That's not the point, his ideologies were secular in nature. And finally, Pro suggests that Stalin's atrocities were religious because "his parents hoped he would become a priest." This is incorrect, communism was the epicenter of Stalin's atrocities, and they were secular in nature. I already sourced these. The Creation of SocietyPro doesn't address my points regarding how complex society formed around religion. In fact he says that atheists are less likely to be nationalistic, which is an argument against secular complex societies forming. Thus I win the current world population.Genetic CodesPro argues that genetics are partially responsible. That's fine, I win that religion helps humanity (the strengthening of the genome), even if he wins society. At best my opponent wins a draw, at worst he loses.The Mind's WarPro drops these points. That's 6 billion people dying of premature deaths.Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...