Religion only brings negative things to the world.

Hello, again. Let's see what you've argued there.You've argued that since religion is one the reasons why the religious lot do bad things we only gain negative things from the whole of religion. I may be a bit blind-sighted, but I don't see anything relevant between your premise and your conclusion. Yes, religion is a reason why religious people would do bad things (obviously), but does that mean we only have to gain negative things from religion? Makes no logical sense.Also, how exactly do atheists "not doing bad stuff" pertain to this debate at all? We're arguing about the consequences of religion, atheists not doing bad stuff doesn't equate to religious people doing good or bad. There's simply no relation between the two."...religion gives us a reason to do bad things, a justification and a passion to do it, which is bad"So, according to you religion justifies doing bad things and may even promote immoral behaviours, which is "bad". Help me out here, how exactly does that mean it cannot have a non-negative influence on the world? Any hypocritical organisation with a shrewd case of half-morality, which promotes violence on one hand may help other people in some way, and commit a non-negative deed - which some Churches in fact do. You don't see your local priest chanting abuses at every other passerby, do ya?"When I say they only bring negative things to this world, I mean that the positive things don't need religion to happen, but some of the negative things do...""I'm saying that religion only brings bad because there is no need for religion in the good it gives."What you mean to say here - and this is important - is that the positive things religion promotes 'may' not require religion because of the concept of human morality. [1] However, religion helps society in many ways which wouldn't happen with the same intensity as without it - congregating members of a society, offering aid to those who seek it, making society happier in general. [2][3] This proves that religion brings non-negative things to the society regardless of the negative attitudes it promotes. Towards your second point. Before we explore this point, let's see what your resolution actually states. "Religion only brings negative things to the world."Here's how you answer that: "No it doesn't. I never stated it does absolutely no good, I did quite the opposite." (Ahem.)Jesus, why don't I start a debate with the resolution, "Theists are total mad", and support this with arguments like "chocolates are delicious" or relating a bit towards your case, "theists aren't totally mad"? You have to make your explanations comply with your resolution and not any other way around."Point is, sure, religion has good people on their side but they didn't need the religion to do those things. They just needed to be good people."This isn't an established fact, I'm afraid. It's a shot in the dark to guesstimate that what people's attitudes may have been like without certain circumstances. Would you know whether a certain priest who patronised children in the name of their god, would have done so without their religion? "I was proving everything I stated above and disproving your statement that "It is logically impossible to donate to a charitable Christian organization without religion."By illustrating the good deeds of atheists? Try explaining the whole point once again, as I didn't understand the full extent of your point very well, it seems." ... there are a thousand other things that can be inspirational to doing good without all the bad that follows."Give your resolution a hard look. A very very hard one. It wouldn't stand, even if 99 percentage of religious influence was negative, and only a paltry percent positive which is why I accepted the debate. So, 'all the bad that follows' isn't really in the picture, seeing that we're not arguing whether religion should exist, or over it's potential alternatives. "But atheists don't have any reason at all to do bad things unless they are bad people. That's the whole point." That's the Whole point? Well, there's a flaw there. How do atheists affect religious influence or it's consequences at all? Did the resolution change when I wasn't looking?"There is a big difference between "religion can only bring negative things to the world" and "Religion only brings negative things to the world.""Ah, I see. The difference is indeed epically vast....One's a potential statement, while the other's a factual statement.I really don't see how this difference comes to your rescue, however.Oh, and rest assured I have no intention of twisting your words seeing that my religious morals keeps me from it. (Positive religious influence, anyone?) I'm just reading your words for what they are. Is that so bad?Sure, then. I don't mind 5 rounds, but was of the opinion that 5 rounds weren't really necessary. Big difference.[1] Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals | Psychology Today[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...