Religion (in general)

My opponent in the entirety of his response oversimplifies the nuances of every situation he presented in order to better fit his unbalanced ideology. His convoluted and contradictory casuistry of Christianity is to be regarded has dishonest debating. Let me explain. "First of all, those persecuted choose to be of that religion, while a child does not choose to exist." It is really foolish for one to even try to argue this point. But my opponent will not go silently into the night, so the point must be made even clearer. Let me create a few other scenarios that will fit your scrupulous criteria: -It is like a woman who CHOSE to wear a miniskirt being blamed for her being raped. The rapists actions are indeed her fault, had she not chose to dress promiscuous, he would not have been provoked. -It is like the school being blamed for gunman's actions, had the school never chose to convene that day the school would not have been attacked. -It is the existence of cars that is to be blamed for all the car accidents, or better yet, the creators of those cars – had they never been created, millions of lives would have been saved. I would hate to sound like an NRA spokesmen but it seems my opponent needs to be reminded: It is not guns that kill people, people kill people. It is dishonest to condemn the religion for the actions of a person in which the religion does not even condone. You can not blame Christianity for murder – it does not condone murder nor can it murder. "Had none of them had a religion, there would not be so many millions of deaths." Even if religion could be blamed for atrocities my opponent has either a basic ignorance with math, history, or both, as it seems he has embraced the popular urban legend that religion has killed more people than anything else. The largest top three examples are considered to be the Crusades of the middle Ages (as my opponent suggests), The Spanish Inquisition, and the burning of witches. The estimated body count for the Crusades ranges from 58,000 to 133,000. Over the 300 years the Spanish inquisition existed, 31,912 people were killed. Now to be generous in my estimates, the highest estimate for the killing of witches is 100,000. This brings the total body count for the most atrocious religious acts up to 264,000 – far from millions. The first question is, are these killings consistent with the teachings of the religion thought to be responsible for them? Even an elementary understanding of the teachings of Christ reveal that such atrocity is in contradiction with his teachings. It is unfair logic to assume that because Mel Gibson says he is Catholic, and he yells drunken anti-Semitic remarks, that therefore Catholics are anti-Semites. It is the person, not the religion. "Think about Hitler, who was influenced by Martin Luther to kill millions of Jews." Testimony to my opponent's dishonesty is the abovementioned quote. As any basic history book would confirm, all of Adolf Hitler's supposedly Christian comments were rendered before he took office. He was man who knew how to manipulate. For the judges consideration I will render just a few quotes made by Hitler after he took office: "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...." "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together...." "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity...." "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." Now let us follow my opponents reasoning to its logical conclusion. If religion is to take responsibility for all the atrocities supposedly done in its name, then atheism should appropriately follow suit. As I am sure my opponent already knows, one of the main tenants of the communist manifesto was to create a "religious free utopia." That is, since religion is the opiate of the masses, it should be gotten rid of. According to University of Hawaii political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel, the total number killed in all of human history is estimated to be about 284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during the past 100 years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far, atheistic Communism with a total of 110,000,000 … over 1/3 of all people ever killed! By my opponent's logic, it is not religion that ought to seize, but rather atheism. Take note also, that if we add just two more regimes where religion was strongly discouraged, the body count rises approximately 31 million more (with Nazi Germany and Nationalist China). "So they feed the hungry, and heal the sick... Great! However, priests rape our children today. There have been far more deaths caused by Christianity than poor that have been fed because of Christianity." Christianity cannot be blamed for the actions of the priest! As it stands, there is absolutely no religious doctrine that supports or condones the molestation and/or sodomy of children. Also my opponent simply does not understand the amount that Christians has done for the world. While my opponent merely looks at numbers (inaccurately mind you), I look at suffering. An unquantifiable mass of individuals have been eased of suffering, fed, clothed, taught and redeemed from the claws of prostitution and servitude all in the name of Christianity. We are not talking about hundreds, or thousands, but millions of individuals who have not only been saved from death, but spared from suffering. "Still a lot of death. But remember this is about religion, not YOUR religion." Actually it does not really matter what religion I defend, considering my opponent has given absolutely not evidence as to why it would be necessary to indict all religions for the actions of one. As has been shown, Christianity has done far more good than bad, so it would be unjust to wish for its demise. Christianity does not influence violence; it influences neighborly love, caring for widows, feeding the hungry, and clothing to poor. "That is a lot of death... I don't think the word "only" is appropriate." Not when one is reminded that atheist regimes have killed more people during peacetime than all the recorded wars combined. By your logic of course. "Really? So Christianity, Islam and so forth... Those aren't major? I have a hard time imagining Christianity being older than Christ himself. Or Islam older than Muhammad." That is why I said COLLECTIVE. My opponent simply misunderstood – his point may be disregarded. "Here's where it gets interesting... Religion influences people to think a certain way. However, in science, it is the people that influence science. Therefore, the fault is in the individual that uses science to do bad things." Actually religion can be used in much the same way. Science on the other hand, if studied objectivity does not work as my opponent assumes. Scientists follow where the evidence leads, it is they who are influenced by science. "As I said, where do you get these hospitals? How do you keep orphans in clean clothes? Do you wash them with buckets of water you get from a river? No. Plumbing. Without science, those institutions couldn't be 10% as effective as they are. And as I said before, there are the pros and cons. You gave me some pros, but they are still greatly outweighed by the cons." My opponent confuses technology with science and assumes that only skeptics and rationalist participate in those fields. In reality, the advancement of technology is largely indebted to Christians. Also, my Christian uncle is a plumber. Out of space