Christianity does more harm than good

The first thing I would like to address is Cons argument for the word denomination instead of sect. I was well aware of what the word sect intended. I chose that word because I believe it to be true. Take the Catholic church for example, they consider modern Christianity a sec of Catholicism. The Pope himself has even been quoting that saying modern Christianity "is defective", and that he wants to return the Catholic church to its prior glory as being the one true religion. It is now just Catholics while Baptists, Protestant, and many other denomination of Christians can be called denomination, they also treat each other as a sect would. In no way does Christianity promote or encourage growth in humanity, in fact it does the opposite. With every different sect and denomination claiming to be right, it is easy to see how so many wars are started in the name of it. Where Con states, we can not judge the religion by radicals, I believe we can. As he states if someone where to murder in my name it would not be my fault. The error with this line of thinking is that would only be one person. With Christianity there have been countless and untold people who kill in the name of Christ. If there were that many people killing in my name I understand if someone wanted to blame what I was teaching, perhaps there could be something wrong. The bible promises land to Gods chosen people and different holy books do the same, it is easy to see why no one gets along and there is so many wars.Immediately after reading Cons argument, we can see that he has made two fatal errors. One of the first things he argues is the crusades "were not as bad as people tend to believe." This statement is so illogical that it sends shivers of sympathy down by spine because of how inaccurate it is. He states that what most people believe is common knowledge is not. This is a fallacy, and quite arrogant I might add. Common knowledge is labeled as such because there are 10-20 sources who have been tried and tested and proven correct. By saying that how 90 percent of historians portrayed the crusades wrong is mind blowing. He then in turn offers up his interpretation of the crusades, without offering up any sources or credible historians to verify that this is accepted amongst other scholars. I could cite endless sources to show that the crusades where fueled by the desire for land and hate because of differences in religion, but I do not feel the need to so because anyone who is reading this will likely agree that there are so many sources to support this it would turn into a frivolous task.He then spends so much time going over why historians were wrong, and his view of the crusades is right that he goes over his allotted limit of words within the argument(which he apologies for and this is quite humble and notable, I think you for you humility). The next argument he makes is that because Hitler acted on his accord and Christianity did not support it, that Christianity should be excused for it. I have stated earlier the beliefs Hitler held were not just shared by him alone, but by a nation under him as well. The loyal followers that he had, believed they were doing Gods work by purging the earth. This belief is similarly shared today by Muslims which is a sect of Christianity within itself. The argument that Christianity should be excused, is erroneous due to fact that Christianity was the main catalyst that sparked this belief. As I have stated previously if it were just a few acts that occurred because of Christianity it would be excusable, but this is very obviously a trend that occurs throughout history and still is occurring today. People who believe in the bible interpret in a way that leads to crime, murder, and wars. That has been the case sense the very beginning of Christianity as a whole and will continue to be.He then argues that he does not accept my example of murders in the name of Christ because of no valid sources, which is a valid point and one that I accept. Since I still do not feel the need to go pull 10 articles about Christian radicals, I will rule the point that I made as invalid. I do urge you however to think about recent stories involving murders that happened in the name of Christ. I can think of a few off hand and I am sure you can as well. If I wanted to waste my remaining argument on this point I would, but again I think it is quite irrelevant.The next argument Con makes is the point that I believe will sink his entire argument. He believes that Creationism should be taught in school so that there is a viable alternative. To be quite honest, if Christianity operated within its space and accomplished what is was suppose to I would have no problem with it. With all the teachings within the bible you would think Christians would be happy right? If they believed specifically the good parts and ignored the evil bred from it, they should be quite gleeful would you not think? So why are they not happy? They are not happy because the bible says they are not allowed to rest, until every knee bows before Christ. The entire central message behind the bible is the great commission. Go out and spread the gospel. This is where Christianity oversteps it bounds. If they went into their churches and worshipped alone I would be quite content. It is the fact they want their religion to have a say in our education system, government, and personal lives that makes me quite furious. Take a look at blue laws. They think drinking is bad on Sunday, so I as an atheist must uphold and respect that belief. For lack of a better word I would tell them to screw off. It is not just so with education, they want a say in our sex lives, our personal beliefs, and even in marriage. I will now go back the original point which is education. While education may have been founded on Christian values and as you have stated yourself, most educated Christians know that evolution is a fact. I along with countless others do do want a Holy book being taught to our youth. The argument you make is that is a viable alternative. It is not a viable alternative it is a cop out. Science has explained the origins of the universe and through the string theory and multiverse is even started to believe in alternative galaxies. Quantum physics teaches us this. Your argument is because there are holes still in the theories that we know for a fact is true, God did it. They say this is a viable reason all while offering not one shred of evidence that a God exists. God guided the big bang, he helped with evolution, he made the earth round. All of which are statements that would have got you killed at the start of the Church. Christianity has and always will conform to the laws of science. If science proves something to be true, the will find some way to work that belief in with their bible and prove that it is viable all while ignoring everything that the bible entails. As I have shown in the early centuries the beliefs Christians hold today would have got early Christians slaughtered. If they see the need to conform to science and explain it away with semantics, why not just eliminate the fantasy party of it(God), and then we would all be better off. In short I am not asking for to much, just to simply keep your illogical explanations of the Universe to yourself and do not teach it to our youth, do not impose your beliefs on me, and stay out of our government with your outdated ideologies. In closing I have shown how Christianity has and never will promote humanism, how it is poisoning our education system, and how since the very foundation of it has caused countless atrocities and shows no signs of stopping. I have taken every one of Cons arguments and left them in shambles. As we can logically see the most obvious explanation is that Christianity has always caused more evil than good. I have shown and demonstrated this with factual evidence throughout this debate. Thank you for your time