The planet would be a better place without religion

Thank you for your gracious words and rebuttal. I was indeed arguing semantics. Something I have not done before and impulsively did with your post. As you stated, specificity is important. And for the record, points 2 and 3 are debatable. Perhaps another time. With that said, I am willing to end that part of this debate and argue the spirit of your argument. That humankind, on the whole of the earth, is better off without religion. I find myself in an interesting position though. I am an atheist agnostic. I do not believe there is a God and I do not believe it can be proven nor disproved. I am not a fan of religion and I agree with most of your charges against religion. I am a fan of the late Christopher Hitchens. A man that possessed a an intellect and gift of oration that rivals many of the greats from the past and in the current. I believe his arguments against religion are backed by nearly flawless logic and I can think of no one that has successfully argued against him on that topic. However, I will attempt to play devil's advocate and debate you on this topic. I believe that most all religions are detrimental to humankind in many ways. So I agree with your points and count them as valid arguments. Where I will be arguing from is from the fringe. This area is where the smaller religions live and most of them seem to go unnoticed. 1. Cheondoism: In the year 1812 Korea was a bad place to be if you were poor. All manner of evil was perpetrated against common people. They finally rebelled that year and the spirit of rebellion spawned Cheondoism in 1860. The main tenants of Cheondoism are the belief that God lives within each of us and therefore all crimes against man are also crimes against God. The religion extends this belief and attempts to turn believers into intelligent moral beings with a high social consciousness. It is now one of the leading religions in Korea. Now we could argue that North Korea is a pretty awful place to live; however, we must also admit that North Korea is communist. And communism seeks to pervert, control, or eradicate the main or popular religion(s) of the area for its own gain. Much like the Russian leaders claiming blessing from the Catholic Arch Bishop while murdering their citizens. So even if this religion was not around and never exploited by the State, the State would still perpetrate crimes against humanity. Maybe even worse crimes than they do now. Nevertheless, Cheondoism was born out of human suffering at the hands of the Godless and seeks to instill a humane order to government and society in general. I would argue that this religion has made that part of the world better than it was without it. http://discoveringkorea.com... 2. Cao Dai: There is a lot to be said for this religion. This religion is an odd one I will admit. It is odd because it basically says that all other religions are basically true and they take, what they consider to be, the best from the other major religions. But it can be summed up with this quote: "That's the reason God has founded Cao Dai, in order to bring harmony to different religions. And the principle of Cao Dai is that religions are not different and if we take enough time to study deep --deeply enough in each religion, we would see that they have one same principal, if not identical principal." One writer put it like this: "The noble effort of CaoDai is to unite all of humanity through a common vision of the Supreme Being, whatever our minor differences, in order to promote peace and understanding throughout the world. CaoDai does not seek to create a gray world, where all religions are exactly the same, only to create a more tolerant world, where all can see each other as sisters and brothers from a common divine source reaching out to a common divine destiny realizing peace within and without." http://www.religionfacts.com... Now it is important to note that it has been stated that this religion was created to keep Christianity at bay. Back when it was created the missionaries were rarely good people. For this reason I am inclined to say this is a good religion that has made that area of the world a better place. Could you imagine if they had not held off those missionaries and now were all Catholics instead? Yikes! I have a few others if needed, but I think these will do to illustrate my point. The choice for many people is not theism or atheism. It is often one religion over another. If the main religion of the time or area has encroached on normal, everyday common people and tried to convert them to something perverted like Catholicism, those people would be worse off. Now, your argument is an third cause fallacy. You postulate that we would be better off without religion. Yet the world has never known a time without religion. Therefore no one can claim your postulation to be true. It can only be plausible. What makes it an third cause fallacy is that you are basically stating that we would be morally superior beings without religion when in fact religion is just a pathway for the immoral to act immorally with support. Simply stated, we are immoral creatures and religion is not the cause as you state. Our nature it the cause. In conclusion, I am not making the case that any religion is good (at this point). I am making the case that using, or sometimes creating, a religion of necessity yields a better result for the people involved. In effect this makes the people and places most affected by pervasive and immoral religions better. In some cases it slows or reduces the mistreatment of people by secular communist governments. I thank you for consideration of the information I have presented. I also ask for you understanding in that I am not merely arguing semantics with this rebuttal. With that said, thank you again and I look forward to the next round.