Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world.

Thanks for the intriguing argument. I'm going to rebut your arguments from Round 3 and 4, so please bear with me if I'm jumping from an argument you said one round to one in another. In your argument, you stuck up for the christians actions of war. The killing of people is by no means a positive, and you defending and saying it is dumbfounds me. The lost of any life, no matter the cause or reasoning, is a negative. You also said Christianity had nothing to do with witches. That is a false statement, as you can look at examples such as the infamous Salem Witch Trials. As for my Judgement argument, I shouldn't have said Muslim, but you know what my notion was. Who would you feel to have to stand up every morning and praise something you don't believe in? If that part is what you ask for confirmation, their truly is no need. You should be able to put yourself in their shoes and see the issue. Other than that, I see no other part of that argument that needs confirmation. As far as Abraham Lincoln benign atheist, their is no solid ground for that as many aren't certain what he was. Until you give 100% proof he was atheist, your claim doesn't stand, and mine does. In the false hope argument I stated that not all christians rely on God, but many do. They ask for help, but some rely to the point where they hope for a "miracle". I'm going to use the Paris attacks to help explain my case. What happened to Paris is completely inhuman. Many people from all around the world have showed their support. A trending hashtag for the last few days has been #PrayforParis. However, when people say this, what are they truly doing? Saying I'm praying for you is practically the same as saying I hope everything works out. You are not truly doing anything. By saying you are praying for them, you are relying on God to answer your prayer and to help the people of Paris. But unless you(or anyone else) don't do anything, it won't help them, therefore you have created a false hope. As far as me having misunderstandings, I'm afraid I have to disagree. I was a catholic for 16 years, and I thought I had a pretty good understanding of christianity. From what I've learned, the bible is how we are suppose to live our lives off. It's teaches us about our creator and what he says, and I figured we should live off what he says. As far as not going to hell for sinning, I'm almost positive you do. By saying you don't go to hell for sinning, that's saying serial killers go to heaven with their victims. That's ludicrous. Murder is a sin, and if you're saying they don't go to hell for committing sins(no matter how big or small), then what's the point of having it? This would also add to my false hope argument, making the victims Families think the murdered will spend eternity in the depths of hell when actually they get to spend eternity with God. As far as the Old Testament being infallible: If a man murders a family, but is now a "changed" man(church going, compassionate, giving, charitable), he's still a murderer. Even though he has changed, the murder and his past stay with him. Therefore, things from the Old Testament christians are trying to forget about are still with their religion. Saying that "christianity makes someone more likely to be a good person" is completely prejudice. Just because someone isn't a christian doesn't mean they can't be a good person. By what you said, you're saying atheist and other religions consists of not so good people. Considering you're a christian, then I'm going to assume you got your views because of your biased belief, meaning christianity has given you prejudice beliefs, which is a negative. Once again, just because a person is christian and does something good, doesn't mean you can give a positive to christianity, I stated several people who were successful who were atheists. Isaac Newton could have been an atheist and still made the discoveries he made, his religion had no affect in it. In addition, there is 45 more negatives on the site I listed below of my arguments that you completely ignored. Therefore, I would have presented more than one negative claim like you previously stated. http://www.patheos.com... In counting, I have presented atleast 43 negative arguments(I have presented more, but you have rebutted them and it is up to the voters to see if they think it's a negative or not) as you agreed the offerings caused hardship to families, hurt scientific growth, and takes away from others, and then the 40 negatives on the site. Good luck to Pro in his concluding round. http://www.patheos.com...