Relgion, Philosophy for the Credulous and The Gullible

My opponent says that my last round was transparent and that I misrepresented his position. I think he did make himself very clear in his opening round. He said, "Is Religion For Idiots? Or, in search for less "offensive" terminology, is religion the philosophy of the credulous? My position is that yes, it very much is. " My opponent clearly stated that he thinks credulous people use religion and its philosophies. He stated that religion is a philosophy that only credulous people believe in and that belief is based on fear of hell or they simply have not been educated. "I mean to say that it is the philosophy of the superstitious, and is accepted by the credulous, because the only reason that they "believe" is that they're either afraid of the hell they've been promised, or that they haven't been exposed to real logic and rationality and science. " I showed last round that very creditable scientist do believe in religious beliefs and that they are educated. My opponent says that this is not his claim and that I have distorted it. Well, he did not make his claims clear-cut in his opening round. By his wording it is clear that he thinks and approached this debate with the thinking that religious belief is useless and only gullible people believe in it. I have shown this is false. To just claim that religious philosophy is gullible and not the people who believe it, is, well, nonsense. Religious philosophy at its conception is from the people who believe in it. To say that religious philosophy is credulous and gullible, is to say the same for its believers. The point of me to showing that very well educated scientist believe in numerous religions is to show the misconception of my opponent. My opponent says that religious people are not at the core of religion, I ask, what is at the core of religion? Would religion exist if not for its followers? Is my opponent claiming from his link that only Physicists and Biologists have the reason to not believe in religion or are to educated for religion? The matter of fact is, is that there are alot of present day scientist in many fields that believe in religious beliefs. The link I offered in my round one shows this and I offer it again: . http://en.wikipedia.org... I offered a link showing many religion without any concept of hell but I think Pro ignored it. I offer it again: . http://www.religionfacts.com... I will also offer ten religions with no concept of hell 1. Wicca 2. Universalism 3. Taoism 4. Sikhism 5. Scientology 6. Rastafarian 7. Satanism 8. Buddhism 9. New Age 10. Aladura My opponent also thinks this debate is about a select few of religions but it is not. Many world religions agree with evolution and any scientific method. If my opponent wanted to debate a select few, then he should have established that in his opening round. Many religions have no concept of actual faith in a God or things unseen. As for scientology itself, they require science and therefore have no need of faith without evidence. This is just one of many and if my opponent so chooses to keep this point I will show them all in round 3. My opponent makes many assumptions and invalid points as I have shown. He has centered religion around one perception and ignored the many beliefs in the world. Many beliefs actually believe the very things he says religion ignores. He is incorrect about his religious concepts. I hope my opponent can offer us something in his final round. Conclusion is that religion has offered many positives. Religion offers peace, unknown knowledge and moral guidelines. My opponent never challenges this point. Religion offers many acts of charity and good-will throughout the world and my opponent never addresses this point. Religion has had many very intelligent and educated people. Religion has many people who has reasonable beliefs. We are to conclude that the philosophy of religion is not for gullible people, though some are, that majority are not. To claim that religious philosophy is gullible is to claim the believers are also gullible. I have shown that there are many world renown scientist who in fact believe in religious causes and are not gullible. My opponents whole case is refuted. Back to Pro.