Religion isn't true but serves a purpose.

C1:One of Bin Laden's reasons for attacking was because of Western support of Israel, because it was a Jewish nation, clearly fueled for religious reasons. Not to mention, American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia were approved by the Saudi Arabian government, to protect the nation. (1) However, Bin Laden didn't like American presence on Islam's holy land. (12) I also referenced several Islamic terrorists attacks earlier. Many of which came from another group called ISIS. ISIS's main goal is to found an Islamic state or even a Caliphate. (13) Therefore, ISIS's attacks wouldn't have occurred without religion. One final example to prove my case is all the religious conflict in India. India has large amounts of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jain's. This has led to a lot of conflict fueled by religion. (14) A famous example was when a group of Hindus destroyed centuries old Babri mosque. The mosque was in Ayodhya which is considered one of the most sacred and religious sites in Hinduism. The Hindus did not want an Islamic building on their sacred place so they destroyed it. (15)Also, even if we accept Pro's statement that religion is merely a rallying cry then that just further proves my case. Since so many people are religious they are more likely to join a cause, they wouldn't otherwise join, which is why religion main reason for terrorism (as referenced in round 1).R1:Even if religion helps people in poorer countries cope, on average, the more religious country is, the more likely the country is to be poor, as shown (most of the countries without data are also really religious too) (4, 10): The reason for this, according to David Flint, chairman of Humanists4Science is "It also likely that religion, by discouraging people, especially policy makers, from rational analysis, creates the conditions that lead to inequality and insecurity." (11) Also, since religion keeps people ignorant (which Pro agreed with), it slows down progress. Therefore, religion helps keep people in poverty.C2:Once again, Pro does not respond to any of the examples I provided in my first argument about people being fired and refused service in places such as the US. Pro asserts that the conflict in Egypt was primarily due to conflict between Arabs and native Egyptians. Pro also asserts that being Arab is really important in this region and that it doesn't have to include them being Muslim. However, had Pro actually read his cited source he'd see this is untrue. From the source, "The premise of Arab Nationalism is that there should be political, cultural, religious, and historical unity among the people of Arab nations". (8) In fact, the article even mentions examples of discrimination by this movement against Jews, Christians, Kurds, and Berbers. (8) It also continues to talk about the importance of Islam in Arab nationalism. (8) Pro also asserts that Pan-Arabism includes Christianity. However, Pro only has one citation that discusses any Pan-Arab party, which says "Nasser's pan-Arab policies undermined the Copts' strong attachment to and sense of identity about their Egyptian pre-Arab, and certainly non-Arab identity which resulted in permits to construct churches to be delayed along with Christian religious courts to be closed." (9) Since Arab nationalism includes being Muslim (as proved above), it is clear that religion played a huge role in the conflict in Egypt. The conflicts in Nigeria may seem to be primarily racial, however, the speaker mentions that Boko Haram as "instituted a version of Sharia Law". As defined earlier in the debate, Sharia Law is Islamic law. C2 continued/R2:If Monarchs say they were given their power by some God (say Allah), no one would believe them if no one was Muslim (in said example). That goes to prove my point, there wouldn't be theocracies without religion. Also, back to my first argument, it proves that the Sharia Law wouldn't exist without religion, which is one of the reasons for the serious discrimination against women. To further prove this, we can see that countries with Sharia Law tend to have the highest level of gender equality. Not to mention, many countries with higher levels of non-religiosity tend to have more gender equality, as the world's 2 largest religions, Christianity and Muslim, consider women to be inferior. (5) (2, 3, 4): Just to prove beyond doubt that many of the atrocities that come from Sharia Law wouldn't exist without religion, one has to consider that many countries that have Sharia Law sentence atheists to death. (6) Finally, to address Pro's argument that theocratic rulers don't rule for the good of their faith or even obey it, doesn't really matter. It's clearly not just political, as the faith itself is how they continue to rule (which Pro admitted).R3: I'd like to specify what I meant when I said help programs wouldn't exist without religion. I meant today, if everyone became non-religious, these help groups would still exist. Alcoholics Anonymous (a 12 step program) was indeed founded on religious roots. However, a growing amount of non-religious people attend these meetings, and some are dropping all elements of religion. (7)Overall I think you should vote Con because of my 3 contentions, Pro dropped C3 and dropped the argument regarding discrimination in the First World due to religion (e.g. people being refused employment) in C2. I also feel I effectively proved C1 and C2, disproving Pro's rebuttals with evidence. I also feel I effectively rebutted Pro's case with evidence.1-http://en.wikipedia.org...2-http://cdn.citylab.com...3-http://hum300.tolearn.net...4-https://knowyourstat.files.wordpress.com...5-http://rationalwiki.org... 6-http://www.reuters.com... 7-http://www.nytimes.com... 8-http://www.jimena.org... 9-http://en.wikipedia.org...10-http://blogs-images.forbes.com...11-https://humanism.org.uk... 12-http://www.tep-online.info... 13-http://en.wikipedia.org...14-http://en.wikipedia.org... 15-http://en.wikipedia.org...