Religion is, in general, beneficial for society

I'll start by going over my opponents arguments and move on to my own case. First on definitions. I disagree with my opponents definition as this definition would include atheists into the religion category. This is most certainly not the case. Atheists base beliefs and arguments on logic, while religious people themselves state that they follow "blind faith". Therefore, religion should be defined as a belief in a supernatural power that influences our world. I have no qualms with the definition of society. This next bit is incredibly important to my case. WE ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. My opponents case pretty much just addresses the US. We need to look at the world. 2. Health benefits: A) Fitness in no way correlates to religion. Unless you get a good workout by praying, the act of believing in a supernatural power in no way makes you more fit. Older people who exercise and eat healthily are the ones that live longer lives. B) Although religion is quite comforting (ie life after death) it also leads to insecurities. Many religious people become very shaken when addressed about their religion, and this belief also leads people to devalue the life they lead. (More on this later) C) Cross-apply response to B. I will also address this in my case. 3. Tradition 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. 4. Politics My opponent only addresses America here. I have three counterpoints. 1. Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Even though this act would be suicidal, he justifies it by saying that a cataclysmic event is necessary to produce the Messiah. He is willing to sacrifice his entire country in a suicide attack against Israel. Stupid? You bet. 2. Al-Qaeda and other extremists Religious war against the world, kills bunches of people 3. Religion in politics has devastating effects on science Science is currently developing more advanced medicine and treatments. A religious leader would immediately eliminate stem cells and other controversial methods. 5. Tolerance and Ignorance I'm pretty sure everyone has had a couple Mormons at their door. And I'm certain everyone has heard of 9/11. That attack was a perfect example of intolerance by Islamic extremists against other faiths. So, while moderate religious people may not be intolerant, extremist groups certainly are. And before my opponent says, we are talking about "in general", 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. 6. Science and Evolution RELIGION IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE! The basic methods of the two differ so completely that the two cannot merge. Science is based on a scientific method, proof, evidence, etc. Religion is based on dogma and blind faith. Those don't exactly mix. Basically, my opponent is trying to prevent me from throwing around science attacks. Nice try. Because the two aren't compatible, and my opponent is advocating religion, she cannot connect the two. 7. Cross-apply my argument for #3 8. Religion This is the point where I'm going to pretty harshly distinguish atheists and religious groups. I've addressed how science and religion are not compatible, so now I'm going to explain why my opponent cannot include atheistic contributions to the world as religious benefits. The word atheist. Let's examine it. A-theist. A theist is someone who is religious. An A-theist is someone who is not religious. The word itself makes sure that atheists cannot be included in the religion category. The beliefs of an atheist center around science, evidence, and proof. These beliefs simply CANNOT be incorporated into religion. Con case: I negate, religion is, in general, beneficial for society Observation 1: While society refers to one society, we have to look at the effects that religion has all around the world. Just like if we were debating terrorism is bad for society, we would look at all societies that terrorism affects. In the case of religion, all societies in the world are included. 1. Societies with less religion are better off Iva Skotch "The survey concluded that "high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. " This shows that societies with less religion are safer, and societies with more religion are actually less safe. This argument alone shows that societies do not need religion for safety, tradition, or anything else. Although it seems like religion would have a positive effect on crime rate, the opposite is true. A) Denmark is currently counted as the "happiest country in the world". It is also 3rd on the list of least religious. And Sweden is also among the top 3 happiest countries. This shows that religion is not needed for happiness. 2. Negative effects of religion A) Murder and Death Al-Qaeda. Iran. Cults all over the world. Other Islamic extremist groups. The Crusades. -Al-Qaeda. I don't have to explain to you the horrors of Al-Qaeda. These horrors are committed because of religion. Because Al-Qaeda has such a strong belief that Allah will welcome them to paradise and give them X number of virgins. -Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Even though this act would be suicidal, he justifies it by saying that a cataclysmic event is necessary to produce the Messiah. He is willing to sacrifice his entire country in a suicide attack against Israel. Stupid? You bet. -Cults. Many cults believe that death is nirvana, and by murdering, they submit more people to its glory. BS, no doubt, but they kill in the name of religion. -Assorted Islamic extremist groups. Suicide bombers sacrifice themselves to kill "Infidels". They are from an early age taught "tradition", and then sent out to slaughter innocents, who are portrayed as evil, and barricades to Allah's glory. This is harmful to everyone. The bombers, often younger than 18, kill themselves for beliefs that are drilled into them, and others die from the bombing. -The Crusades. Probably the most classic example of killing in the name of religion, the Crusades caused mass suffering and death, because the "holy lands" had to be reclaimed. This was done through the systematic murder of infidels. B) Harms to individuals Practices such as circumcision are currently primarily motivated through religion. These often violate the will of the people being circumcised. This violation of individual will based on religion shows that the people who practice religion only care about what their "God" wants. There is an example in the Bible where God commands one man to kill his son, but later revokes the command. This shows the perverseness of religion. Finally, I want to state that my case argues the resolution as in general means weighing the good and the bad. My impacts of death and murder, as well as violation of the individual by far outweigh my opponent's social communities impacts. For these reasons, I strongly urge a vote in the Negation or Con