Religion is a force for good in the world.

Before I begin, I need to apologize for a miscommunication on my part. When I said I did not accept your third premise, I chose the wrong word. I did not mean that I will not accept your premise in this argument; rather, I meant that I do not accept the validity of it. In other words, it was simply my way of saying that I disagree with the premise whereas I did agree with the other three. Obviously I am not here to tell you what arguments may be used and what arguments may not be. I fully accept that this confusion was the result of my poor wording and for that, I do apologize. Why I disagree with your third premise: It operates on the idea of "temporary" or fluctuating piety. You admit this yourself and attempt to vindicate it with your $20.00 example. I'm glad you seem to agree with me on this point. What this point (and example) does is demonstrate that the teachings of Christianity and clearly not eternal nor transcendent. In other words, if the church thought in the 1800s that slavery was okay (as they did) but now maintain that it is wrong, how can it claim to have any sort of superior authority? How can it be a force for good in the world when it is just as corruptible and capricious as every other institution on earth? Surely the church has momentary lapses of good will, but I simply do think one can claim it to be an overall force for good if it falls prey to the same corruptions as every other organization. How can an institution that has supported slavery and genocide be called good? You responded to all of my examples exactly how I assumed you would: by shifting the blame to other factors besides religion. You are essentially saying that all of these things were done by the religious, and in the name of religion, but it just so happens that none of it actually had anything to do with religion. What a fantastic coincidence this is. I am not arguing that other factors were not at play. I am not arguing that the Crusaders weren't also motivated by greed, military conquest, glory, et cetera. I am not arguing that the burning of heretics weren't caused by other irrational thoughts and bizarre phobias as well. But you simply cannot argue that most (if not all) of these things were also largely motivation by religion. Who could convince hundreds of children to go fight for the Holy Land (see: Children's Crusade) if they did not think it was god's will? What kind of child would willingly go into battle if he did not believe in the promise of heaven after death? So far, all you have done is shown that other factors (greed, hysteria, etc.) are also not forces for good in the world. (Unless you are seriously going to deny that religion motivated the Crusades, Inquisition, and burning of heretics at all.) This does nothing to refute my initial claim that religion is not a force for good in the world. All it does is point to other destructive factors. However, there were a few specific examples you seemed to take issue with, so I will address those: 5) The oppression and mistreatment of women. It is true that the scripture gives credit to the women present as witnesses and praises them for their courage. It is also true that, at least in Catholic teaching, Mary is the ark of the covenant and is given special privilege by god by being bodily assumed into heaven. This does not excuse, however, the Bible's incessant call to treat women as inferiors; as equal to animals. We see this in the tenth commandment when god equates women to oxen, slaves, and property. We see this in the book of Timothy and in the letters of Paul, both of which clearly dictate a woman's worth as less than that of a man, and call for her to be silent in the presence of a man. We see this again and again in the Old and New testaments. Anticipated response: "That was a reflection of the time." This again goes back to my argument that the teachings of the church are either eternal or they are not. 9) The systematic rape and torture of young children by the Catholic Church. I will absolutely be arguing that this is a direct result of religion. Not of scriptural teaching, but of religion all the same. The reason for this is very simple. Let me begin to answer it by posing a question: why is it that this is almost exclusively confined to the Catholic church? Because it is the only church that forbids sexual relations in the priesthood. Sex is the second-strongest drive in the human body. It is unnatural and unhealthy to repress sexual urges (except when necessary). This sexual repression is what causes such disgusting desires and what motivates these priests to act upon them. The scripture may not, indeed does not, condone molestation of children (though it does not forbid it), but the religious confines that these priests adhere to does. Keep in mind that my original assertion was not that the scripture is a force for good, but that religion is. You cannot argue a misinterpretation of scripture here. 10) The pope forbidding the use of condoms in Africa and other less-developed countries. Here, again, I must apologize for not being more clear. I did not mean that the act of not wearing a condom is immoral, but the consequence is. Discouraging the use of condoms increases the risk of AIDS spread via sexual intercourse. Currently, there is a massive attempt to stop the spread of HIV in Uganda that operates under the "ABC" code: Abstinence, Be faithful, (proper use of) Condoms. The Catholic church has thwarted these efforts by spreading the lie that condoms actually increase the possibility of contracting HIV. It is now responsible for thousands of additional cases of death by the AIDS virus because of this fabrication. 11) Manifest Destiny. I must admit I don't understand my opponent's argument here. Manifest Destiny was motivation solely by the idea that it was the god-given rights of Christian settlers to take land make their homes in the United States. This lead to the death, enslavement, and forced migration of hundreds of thousands of Natives. I do not think I am assuming anything here. So, again, my opponent's entire argument rests upon an unfalsifiable premise. Any examples of religion motivating people to commit atrocities I may point to, he (or she) will just say "Well that wasn't because of religion, it was because of something else," or "That's because the church was corrupted at that time." In part, this may be true. I do not argue that religion and religion alone has caused all this death and suffering. I am arguing that it played a part (in some cases, a very big one). Saying that other factors contributed as well is irrelevant because it would do nothing to refute my original claim that religion is not a force for good; it would only point out that other factors are not forces for good either. Overall, evidence points to the fact that religion simply is not a force for good. It does good things, but they will never make up for the amount of suffering and misery that it has caused on earth.