Religion is, in general, beneficial for society

Thanks. Con opens by disagreeing with my proposed definition of religion; however, my definition comes from the dictionary. Con cannot change the dictionary definition of a word to suit his position. Though I agree with Con that atheism is generally considered to be the absence of religion, the truth remains that some atheists are spiritual and consider their spirituality a religion. As such, atheists are absolutely relevant to this debate. Next, Con thinks that my argument has failed because I have focused specially on the USA. I negate, and can and will argue throughout this round that my position in the affirmative is true regardless of where you are in the world. For now, I'll draw your attention to the fact that Con has completely ignored my very first argument, which noted that since sometimes entire communities (societies) are based on religion or worship, that the resolution simply does not apply to these individuals. 2. Health Benefits A) Con argues that praying doesn't keep you fit. I'd like for him to tell that to the people who do yoga (which is spiritual and often used in/for prayer). Nevertheless, I never said that praying necessarily keeps you fit. I said was that studies show that people who are religious are more fit and overall healthy. It could be a coincidence; however, these studies measure varying degrees of health. One must consider the fact that religion promotes a healthy lifestyle (i.e. condemns sloth or drug use, etc.) and since religious people tend to apply this doctrine to their lives, this correlation makes sense. B/C) While sometimes religion can make people "devalue their lives" as Con said, it can very easily be noted that religion can also SAVE people's lives let alone bring an incredible amount of value to it. As such, it is Con's burden to prove that religion has more detrimental effects than positive on one's mental and emotional health. 3. Tradition Con writes, "92% of Americans are not hard-liner religious people. Belief in a god does not mean that these people attend church, pray, or otherwise interact with other members of their "faith". This also applies to the community benefits addressed by my opponent." The fact is, it doesn't matter if these people are "hard line" religious people. These people consider themselves to be religious, which is what really matters - not Con's opinion. To be religious according to CON'S OWN PROPOSED DEFINITION is those who believe in "in a supernatural power that influences our world." People who believe in God fit within these parameters, so my point stands. Moreover, Con never really addressed my point of valuing tradition and why that's significant. 4. Politics A) Iran - Con notes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is willing to sacrifice his entire country in a suicide attack against Israel. "Stupid? You bet." Well, yeah... to someone who doesn't hold his beliefs. But what Con fails to realize is that people are willing to fight and die for a plethora of things - not just religion. For instance, politics: The Revolutionary War (and many others) was fought because people believed in a value and was willing to die for that value. So, according to Con's logic on this point, then politics would not be beneficial for society either. Hmm. Regardless, Con proves to be completely off base with this argument even further because the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is merely a political issue with religious implications. The fact is that the UN gave parts of Palestine to Israel without good reason. The conflict in the Middle East is just as much about power, money and politics as it is religion. B) Extremists - Sure, there are religious extremists... the same way there are criminals in society. The point is that just because there is that extreme few, it doesn't speak for all religious people the same way serial killers aren't a good representation of all of society. C) Religion in Politics - While Con says that religion has detrimental effects on science, I posit that any country with a separation of Church and State can avoid this issue. Again, this is a political issue - not an issue with religion itself! 5. Tolerance and Ignorance Con begins by stating that 9/11 was an attack done by Islamic extremists. I cannot believe that Con has the gumption of using extremists to represent religion as a whole. That's like saying because there are black criminals, that black people are bad because some black people do bad things. What a horrible argument! Not to mention that I'm of the camp that believes 9/11 was an inside job, but I digress. Moving on, Con states, "These extremist groups affect a huge number of people, and unless my opponent can counter death as an impact, these groups need to be addressed." Actually, I can counter this quite simply -- The same way some religious few can be responsible for ending life, there are also religious people responsible for SAVING lives and PREVENTING death, i.e. the Christian organizations LifeRise, The Salvation Army and many others. Additionally, "Religious organizations provide so much of the health care and orphan care in Africa . If the Global Fund is to help countries reach the goal of universal access to AIDS treatment and care, and if every child in a region with malaria is to sleep under a bed net, we need to engage better with more faith organizations" said Dr. Michel Kazatchkine, Executive Director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria [1]. Most importantly, you'll notice that while Con accuses me of only representing America, you'll notice that HE only represented Iran in his example. He also didn't respond to any of the points that I made, even if they did apply to America. 6. Science Lol. Instead of responding to my point about religion being a part of evolution (as advocated by SCIENTISTS), Con very ignorantly proclaims that religion and science cannot mix. That's a faulty argument. First, there are theologians who use logic proofs to back up their claims. Second, religion deals with faith because it is doctrine of the super-natural, whereas science measures the natural (physical laws). 7. Social Relationships Con didn't reply to this argument at all :) 8. See my opening argument regarding atheists as they pertain to this debate. -- Con's Case Rebuttal: First of all, you'll notice that Con didn't cite any sources. This means that his argument was essentially plaigarized and is therefore barely even eligible for consideration in this debate. Anyway, all Con does is provide an uncited statistic noting that people who are not religious are healthier. This merely counters my cited source; there's no reason to value Con's point above mine. Further, in terms of the society, Con's stat ONLY works because people who live in very religious areas live in very POLITICALLY oppressive areas as well, or theocracies. What a manipulated argument. Also, you'll note that Con doesn't mention Puerto Rico as being the 2nd happiest country in the world - and a very religious one at that! In regard to cults and extremists, I've already discussed why exaggerating and dramatizing the minority is abusive and fallacious. That's essentially all Con does when talking about the Crusades, "Infidels" and Al Qaeda. Plus, once again Con oh so conveniently leaves out the POLITICS behind these "religious" endeavors. Con then notes something like circumcision as being mostly religious; however, conveniently fails to mention that most circumcisions occur because parents find it to be the most common and hygienic route. Also, while there might be "perverseness" in religion, there is also perverseness in music, the media, etc. Does that mean it's all bad? Nay; Con's entire arguments rest on hasty generalizations. He has conveniently avoided several of my key arguments, and his are weak, at best. References: [1] http://www.ccih.org...