Resolved: Religion is inherently evil.

"1- It does not follow that because religion is unnecessary for a well-founded society that it is inherently evil. My appendix is unnecessary for my well-being. Is my appendix evil? " Well granted that the fact that religion may not be evil simply because its unnecessary the fact that its unnecessary which you have implied to agree with in your statement will negate any sort of argument that the good outweighs the bad, which i very clearly demonstrate in the rest of that point as well as the next to points I bring up. So if religion adds literally no good to the world which i pointed out, and as I also pointed out it adds lots of bad that would make it bad and per our definition, evil. "2- The amount of people who commit religious atrocities is so microscopically small compared to those who do not. They are anomalies, not the rule. Some religious beliefs lead to evil, most don't. End of story. " I take a very similar stance to my previous point. If religion adds no good to the world, and it does add some evil no matter what the minority of religion that creates evil is, it still overall adds evil to the world making it inherently evil. "3- Big catastrophes (like 9/11) do not always have big explanations (like religion. ) Events like 9/11 developed from a very small set of religious beliefs in the mind of a single religious man. 9/11 is not representative of the effects of religion in general. " Read this article: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... According to it religion did in fact cause 9/11, as well as countless other wars, and while he takes a stance that religion could potentially be used for good the fact that i've pointed out many times that it isnt being used for good while it is being used for evil shows that religion is in fact evil. "4- It is simply false that the worst atrocities are caused by religion. The thousands of deaths caused by the atheistic Soviet Union were obviously not religion-based. Seemingly religion-based violence (such as suicide bombing) are now known to be politically based. [1] The suicide vest was even invented by a secessionist. Even if it were true that religion causes most violence, it does not follow that most of religion causes violence. That is like saying that because all dogs are animals, all animals are dogs. Clearly fallacious. " Your right about the Atheistic Soviet Union, they killed thousands, but the debate here is not whether religion is the source of all evil but rather is religion inherently evil or more is religion a source of evil period. So when we look to the fact that religious wars have killed over 800 million people (Look to my previous argument for a source) we have to realize that religion kills a massive number of people which the soviet union couldn't even compare to. For your second point that since religion causes most violence that doesn't mean that all religion causes violence, that too is irrelevant due to what I said against both your first and second point. Since religion adds 0 good to the world or more a negligible amount as mentioned in my previous speech, any source of evil that it provides is a net gain of evil. Now i'm not trying to say that evil is some sort of currency that can be measured in that way, but since it does not provide good while it does provide evil that makes it evil. Period. "5- Religion doesn't kill people; people kill people. Just because religion can be used for evil does not mean that it is. There is no doubt that religion can be evil, but so what? A bottle of shampoo can be evil if you throw it at someone's head, but that doesn't make shampoo evil. If we applied Pro's logic to science, then we would have to say that science is inherently evil since it played a major role in the development of the atom bomb, which has resulted in the death of thousands. But of course that does not make sense, since science, like religion, is a tool that can be used for good or evil. When used for evil, religion becomes a victim. " Well to take where you got that quote of "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" I have my own quote in response, "People with guns kill people. " And a similar quote works with your example "People with religion kill people" Religion provides an easy opportunity for evil people to flourish, take power away from people and commit atrocities. That makes it evil, that's what makes guns evil as well. If something has a sole purpose of promoting evil, then that thing is evil. Your second point as well doesn't work about how science is evil since it invented the A-Bomb, that would be true if science had not also provided us with things such as a cure for polio, advancements in longevity, given us an ability to live a higher quality lifestyle. The good obviously outweighs the small amount of bad. But since religion does not bring up any good and only bad that makes it overall bad and thus evil. "1- Religion does not hinder people to create their own moral codes because it is impossible for people to create their own moral code. Morality is external to us. That is the whole point of the atheist complaint against the divine command theory. the only complaint that can be raised is that Some religious beliefs are bad moral codes. This is true, but it is not true of all religious beliefs. " Read this article: . http://atheism.about.com... (Sorry running out of space) What it basically says is that religion has absolutely no correlation between morality, meaning that it is absolutely possible for a person without religion to create their own moral code. Also according to this website most religious morals are bad. "2- Just because something can be abused does not make it bad in itself. Alcohol can be abused. Should we go back to the prohibition era? Religion is not necessary for corrupt leaders to seize power. Corrupt leaders are bale to seize power because they seize it, have power already, take advantage of the weak, and are very smart in the political arena, not because of their religious beliefs. Why shouldn't the belief "There is rule inscribed in nature that says that I should rule with oppression" any less helpful in causing oppression than "God decrees that I should rule with oppression. "? " There is a reason crack is illegal. Alcohol has very good things about it, lets people relax, creates tax dollars and it avoids a full out civil war with Appalachia. Crack however has no reason to exist other then promote drug abuse and addiction, thus it should not exist and is evil, just like religion. "1- From the assertion that good would come about anyway without religion it does not follow that religion is inherently evil. Just because religion does not cause people to be moral does not mean it causes people to be immoral. There is no evidence that people who fly frequently are more prone to be more charitable than people who do not, but that does not mean that airplanes cause people to indulge in evil. " Read my 2nd and 3rd points in original argument plus first 3 lines in this argument. "3- The test results showing that religious people are more likely to cheat are unreliable. It is only one test and does not distinguish between different kinds of religious belief. And correlation is not causation. " A good test is number of lives lost vs number of lives saved. 803 million is quite a few lost versus almost none saved. "4- Even if it were true that non-religious people do behave more morally than the religious, it does not mean that they are being consistent, and acting in accordance with their beliefs. " The very definition of statistically (The use of statistics, check my above argument) they are more moral means that consistently they are more moral. Thus they are more consistently more moral making non religious people more moral.