religion should be banned

Thank you for accepting this challenge, I am in agreement this should be very interesting, even more so the outcome of such debate. Please message me if you don't understand a particular word or phase so that I may clarify, English is not my first language. My opponent's first claim is that based on the definition of proof according to Merriam-Webster: "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning" Well the definition implicitly suggests that a wide variety of methods and styles can be used when proving MATHIMATICAL or SCIENTIFIC statements. Which I must point out, that the definition you supplied, does not apply to your claim unless you wish to calculate the probability that 'god' exists, however, you would then need to compare your data to those of well known scientists and cosmologists. In which case you would you would lose this current debate, for all well known and successful cosmologists will agree with me. To supply proof one must support one's theory by giving evidence, verification, or documentation that would authenticate their claim. Furthermore according to your logic I could say fairies exist, and while it is true that I have said it, does it make the statement itself true? No, it only proves that I have made a claim, not that the information provided in that claim is true. I am currently unable to rebuttal the claim concerning C.S. Lewis's Argument from Reason and Argument from Morality, because I am unable to find the page or source you are talking of. My opponent's second claim is based on the OPINION of Nigel Barber, Ph.D.: "Organized religions serve many different functions today from running charities and hospitals to generating laws and providing political organization." and "According to the security blanket concept of religion, supernatural belief systems provide peace of mind and help believers to cope with the more stressful events in their lives. This is a valuable service because chronic stress increases blood pressure leading to heart disease, clinical depression, and contributing to a number of other health problems ranging from obesity to cancers." I am willing to acknowledge that religion does have a few miniscule good points, however, I believe that you are vastly over estimating them. First I would like to point out that Christianity is the main RELIGION associated with helping charities and churches are not the only ones who donate money to charities. In fact you should consider what the church actually does, is the church itself giving charities money? No, the people who go to these churches do, the church can not provide the amount of money you are talking about, it's just the location for charities, and a very good one too, it's the perfect place to guilt trip people into doing something good. On that note Christianity is given a lot of good publicity and gains many new followers because of their so called good deeds. Also the more people who convert to their religion, is equal to the amount of money that they 'rake in' to help support the church. The church is basically getting money for doing nothing, hence it is no longer beneficial to people because at that point they are then losing money. I would like you to note, the charity money you so proudly speak of, is not actually all going to charity. In fact some pastors are robbing the church blind."Other charitable works, like a promised orphanage in Brazil, either dried up or never materialized. Meanwhile, the three white pastors "" Paul Melnichuk and his 40-year-old twin sons, Tim and Tom "" lead lavish lives in contrast to the mainly working-class black families that make up the bulk of the church. Between them, the pastors have amassed a real estate fortune worth about $12 million. Each owns a multi-million-dollar country estate north of Toronto (Tim's is worth as much as $5.5 million), they share a Florida vacation villa, and the pastors and their wives drive luxurious cars "" among them a Porsche Cayenne SUV, a Lexus RX 330 SUV and a Mercedes-Benz CLK 320 convertible."(source at bottom) Also this so called, 'peace of mind', only helps to further my claim in the sense that it is basically saying 'ignorance of mind'. It is considered willful ignorance in the sense that religion teaches people to be satisfied not knowing. Do not use religion as a sort of comfort, one is merely deluding oneself that faith is the same thing as courage. Well I apologize for the disappointment but faith is a coward's substitute of courage. It would be better for such patients to look back on their accomplishments and find something they value, something that made their life worth living, instead of something to die for. There are hundreds of people who rely so heavily on faith that they commit suicide in order to be with their loved ones in heaven. Some religions go so far as to say that it's okay to kill people who are non believers. My opponents third claim: 'I don't want what I said here to be misleading or misunderstood. I agree you can not prove god(s) existence scientifically, but that is because of limitations of science. Science studies the natural world like cats, planets, humans, etc. However, any god would exist outside of nature, and therefore, could not be studied like we could study Mars. That is the job of Theology.' I am glad we can agree that one cannot prove that god scientifically exist. I would like to point out that you have a misguided understanding of the capabilities science and the vast range of science. There are scientists who have specifically spent their life trying to find proof god exists they're called creation scientists, the reason you probably haven't heard of them is that they have nothing to show for their entire life's research. As for the technology not existing today, no technology has the ability to find something that doesn't exist. My opponent's fourth claim: "I must point out that this is a currently a claim lacking proof. Also, if this was true then Christianity would have never been reformed by Calvin or Martian Luther, because they should have taught as children to not question religious preaching, but as we know they did. Also, if this prevents growth in the brain and limits their mind's abilities then people who are brought up as religious should be less intelligent, but almost every person in history such as Einstein, Isaac Newton, the Founding Fathers have been the people we consider smart and set as role models." Have you ever heard of a man named Giordano Bruno? A true genius before his time, he lived in the 1500's, he was originally a monk who liked to educate himself by reading books, however, the church discovered he was reading books from the index which at the time was illegal. He was basically thrown out onto the streets, then one night he came up with a brilliant theory (this is before telescopes were invented ) he created the theory that the sun and stars were other planets, and that there were other worlds. Now Bruno was a religious man, when he was asked to lecture at oxford, they laughed at his idea. However Bruno was not discouraged, he went back to his home in Italy, from which they had banned him from returning to, and he was capture and tortured by his own church brothers for eight years. Eventually they found him guilty and his fellow monks burned him alive at the stake, for claiming god created an infinite universe. 10 years later Galileo looked through the telescope and discovered Bruno was right. While yes the church has made some changes they are still as ignorant as ever. Refusing to except explanations that interferes with their preaching, they simply ignore Sources: FAST FORWARD TO 16 MINUTES AND 40 SECONDS FOR VIDEO ON BRUNO: Pastures who rip off the church reference: http://atheism.about.com...