Religion is, at best, useless

Awesome. First, I'll have everyone note that I never cited "a tool to divide people" as a use of religion. MY opponent's statement at the beginning of round 2, making it appear as if that is what I'm advocating, is completely warping my position. Ignore it. :: CHALLENGE :: First, I will respond to my opponent's answer(s) to my challenge. For those who didn't read the comment, I asked him to give me example(s) of evil things that only religion can bring about. Here are the examples he gave: 1. A father killed his daughter for not wearing her hijab to school [Killing because of a bad teaching]. 2. The hadith encourages death for apostates [A bad teaching encouraging killing]. 3. Religions teach that gays, those who blaspheme the holy spirit must endure hellfire [A bad teaching, which spreads hatred]. Realize that these are not things inherent in religion. A religion can have good teachings, it can have bad teachings. It's unfortunate that most religions today have many bad teachings, but realize that this is each individual religion's fault, not the fault of 'religion'. Also, consider that all these things are not exclusive to religion. Any philosophy can have ridiculous teachings. It does not have to be a religion. Perhaps, though, "killing because of a religious teaching" should be considered completely separate from "killing because of a philosophical teaching?" If they're completely different things, then my opponent has indeed met my challenge, since "killing because of a religious teaching", as in his first example, would be something only a religous person could do. But let us consider what happens when we allow this logic. If we consider that "Doing X because of Y" is a different thing entirely than "Doing X because of Z", then it becomes extremely simple to complete the challenge my opponent gave me in round 1. "Donating to charity because of one's religion" is something only a religious person can do. "Helping strangers because of one's religion" is another. Indeed, all the good things that a religion could possibly urge - for each of these there would be a distinct thing that could ONLY be done by the religious. Now that we're done with that little bit... :: CONTENTION DEFENSE :: My opponent is completely missing the point of what it is to be "useless". A screwdriver can be used to screw something in, but so can a small knife. Does this mean that a screwdriver is useless, because it doesn't have a monopoly on its task? It doesn't mean the knife is useless for screwing something in, either. They both can be USED to screw something in, therefore they are useful for people needing to screw something in. For my first point, that religion can be used to control people, my opponent agrees with me completely. Therefore, for the many throughout history who have used it to do so, and anyone who would seek to do so now, it is useful in this regard. Second, the propogation of ideas. Never before, aside from religion, have ideas been spread with so many ideas spreading together. Religion carries with is a whole host of ideas, and because religions are generally very adept at spreading themselves [which is also one of the main reasons it is useful as a control device]. Even if other things, such as non-religious philosophies, were able to spread ideas in this same manner, we are left with a screwdriver and a knife. Both are useful in this regard. Third, I agree that it is very intellectually dishonest, putting faith in false hopes. However, I have a few things to say here. Perhaps the hope offered by some religions is not false. That possibility aside, and assuming that it is false hope to think there is life after death, what does that change? People can go insane over their death-paranoia. A man I know constantly has night terrors because he's so afraid of death. So then, isn't hope, however false, useful in preventing such things? I'm not saying false hope in general is good, but in this case, it is useful for many people. Fourth, accepting the answer to an unanswerable question, whether or not it's intellectually honest, is indeed useful. Since the question is unanswerable and of the nature that someone will continue to ponder it until some amount of false certainty exists, the first answer is fine. It is useful in that people do not have to waste their time pondering unanswerable questions, and can spend time on more important things, like being productive or having fun. Also, my opponent offered this quote: "Once you realize it's likely you're only life, you enjoy it and appreciate it more." I can tell you first hand that this is not true, at least not for everyone. I became an agnostic atheist a while ago, and yet I have not suddenly been enjoying life more. The thing that makes a person appreciate life mroe is finding something they're passionate about and pursuing it. It's true, atheists like us might have more reason to appreciate this life, but there's no way to magically just appreciate everything more, no matter how badly we want to. And fifth, as my opponent did not even address, religion can be used as a charity organization. Yes, secular charity orgs exist. That, like the knife for the screwdriver, does not take away the fact that religions are USEFUL in doing charity work. My opponent now gives us some things that only secularism can acheive. "No witch-hunts, or heresy hunts. Or murdering university teachers were statements about history." This could happen with or without religion, and a secular society would not necessarily acheive this. First, let us consider that religions can get rid of their bad ideologies [the ones that promote things like witch hunts, etc]. Or, another way this could happen, we could only get rid of the religions that have these bad ideologies, and simply make new religions or use the benign ones of today. In this way, it would be possible to acheive "No witch-hunts, or heresy hunts. Or murdering university teachers were statements about history" while still living in a largely religious society. Next, let us consider that bad ideologies can indeed exist without religion. Regardless of religion, people can still hate gays, and even think that gays should be killed for being different. Isn't this a witch hunt? If not, change this for any definition of witch that you prefer. "Anyone who holds different ideas than X"? These people can be hunted in secular society if a bad enough ideology exists. I have shown that religion is useful, which is the supposed topic of the debate. I have either completed my opponent's challenge or he has been unable to complete my own counterchallenge. I have shown that the bad things associated with religion are not necessary parts of it. Blaming the concept "religion" for the bad religious teachings that exist is like blaming the concept "philosophy" for other bad ideologies. And with that, I will let my opponent make his closing arguments.