That not following religion is the best way to live your life.

I'll begin defining religion, as is defined by professor of religion Stephen Prothero in his book, "God is Not One": Religions have a statement of beliefs and values (creeds), ritual activities (cultus), standards of ethical conduct (codes), and institutions (communities). From the Top: I fail to see how I have not argued that following religion is not the best way to live your life. Though touching, your personal anecdote hardly counts as hard evidence in a debate. Your girlfriend is following religion if she really is Catholic, as she would believe the Catholic creeds, participate in Communon (cultus), follow the codes of moral conduct spelled out by the Catholic Church, and go to mass (community). If she doesn't do these things, then she's not a Catholic. Moreover, a "personal relationship with God" does not mean that you don't follow religion. Most Christians would say they have a "personal relationship with God" whilst following religion. My opponent provides no standard for deciding what is "rubbish" and what is not; his point with that is invalid. Her personal beliefs about your soul don't really matter to the debate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Those three statements didn't constitute a majority of my rebuttals. I will defend why each is true. 1) If not following religion is the best way to live life, then the alternative must be worser i.e. there must be something bad about following religion. Note that my opponent has not proved this in any way, shape, or form, and thus has not met his burden of proof in the debate. 2) "Religion then, seems like a waste of time to me, but more than that, it seems to cause people to not enjoy their lives as much as they could." This statement establishes the standard that the best way to live one's life is to enjoy it as much as possible. He has not proved that this is the best way to live one's life. 3) "Following rules and ancient dogmatic rubbish.[sic]" If that's not a slam against rules, I don't know what is. Actually, I have no prejudice against atheists at all. To quote a Sergeant Killrain who fought at Gettysburg, "Any man who judges by the group is a peawit." The fact that I happen to think you all are wrong is hardly a prejudice. My opponent's argument here is that religion isn't necessary for structure and purpose. While I take issue with this statement (addressed below), it doesn't really matter in the debate. Frankl's psychology is all about meaning. In a world without God, there can be no meaning, and life is essentially absurd. This destroys all potential for human happiness. The Ten Commandments are irrelevant to this debate. Moreover, my opponent assumes that the goal of religious codes is to make good laws. Daoism et. al. religions prove this false. Not all religions will give you structure, purpose etc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My assertion was rather sardonic to begin with. My opponent self-identified as not believing in God or Allah, but did not mention, for example, Vishnu. It was an illustration that my opponent's arguments, for the most part, are attacks upon Christianity and Islam, not religion. Also, Christianity does not condone religious coercion. People who wanted power insisted on the code of conduct to solidify power. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Actually, Viktor Frankl is a perfect example of following religion. He ostensibly believed in a creed, be it Jewish or Catholic, participated in ritual of either faith, followed a code of ethical conduct proscribed by both religions (the codes are the same), and was a member of a community. A perfect example of following religion. My opponent seems to think that following religion means that one is bigoted and intolerant. A genuine take of most any religion will show that this is not true. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent, in his concluding statements, asserts without warrant that "most of the stuff in religion is rubbish and the best way to follow it is to not follow it at all". Despite making no sense (how can one follow and not follow something at the same time?), the statement has not been proven. "The only good thing about religion is it encourages people to be good and it is doing a miserable job at it." Again, this claim is unproven. It is not legitimate evidence until it is proven to be true. Moreover, it is empirically denied due to Frankl's psychology. "It hasn't stopped it from carving a path of bloody, righteous murder through history." First of all, if the murder was righteous, there would be no problem with it and it would not be murder. Secondly, not all religions have caused violence. Buddhism (which is a religion, as any professor of religion will tell you) has long opposed violence, to the point that Buddhist monks, on several occasions, set themselves on fire and threw themselves off cliffs to protest armies marching by below their high monasteries. "It doesn't stop pedophiles from becoming priests and inflicting horrific physical and emotional damage on the children they are trusted with nor has it stopped the Catholic church from covering up such atrocities for the entire length of its existence." The Catholic Church is irrelevant. We are debating "following religion" not "following Catholicism". But in committing these atrocities, the priests were actually not following religion, as they were not following the ethical code set out by their faith. Furthermore, you don't prove that the Church has been doing this from the beginning of its existence. "It doesn't stop men and women blowing themselves up in the Middle East in the name of Allah." The Qu'ran specifically prohibits killing women and children in war, and suicide. It was not following religion, but failure thereof, that causes this. Your personal pleasure is irrelevant to the debate except to prove that your standard of what makes a good way to live life is that which maximizes pleasure. Your personal disavowal of God (or Allah or Vishnu or the Dao) is also irrelevant. Since Buddhism is quite obviously a religion (it not only fulfills our definition but is classified as such by most every professor of religion out there), my opponent's quote merely serves to support me, as it shows an example of what a religious creed might look like. Extend all the other arguments I made in the first round my opponent failed to respond to. My opponent has failed on all counts to prove that not following religion is the best way to live your life. I have provided a positive proof of why this cannot be true; he has not responded to it. The resolution is clearly negated.