Resolved: Religion is inherently evil.

As we will see, Pro has ignored and/or conceded many of my points, has changed some of hisarguments, and has still put forth fallacious arguments or unsupported claims. I will redefend my claims and show why they still stand after Pro's responses. C1 Well granted the fact that religion… Pro concedes that his inference is fallacious. He now changes his position and says that because religion is unnecessary for a well-functioning society, this negates any argument that the good outweighs the bad. But as I made clear in my opening statement, I do not have to show that the good outweighs the bad, only that the bad does not outweigh the good. Pro says that if religion bringsliterally no good into the world but brings lots of evil, it is evil. But Pro has offered no argument that religion has brought no good into the world. He simply asserts it. Religion has clearly brought much public and private good to the world. From charitable organizations to volunteerism to missionaries inthird world countries and from fights for womens’ rights, opposition to slavery and communism and giving many people a sense of worth and purpose …casual observation would show that religion has probably brought more good into the world than evil. I take a very similar stance… Pro concedes that a minority of religion is evil, but he again states that because religion brings no good into the world but does bring lots of evil, even if that evil makes up a small percent of religion, religion is overall evil. Again, he has offered no argument that religion brings no good to the world. If a small percent of religion causes evil but the majority is a combination of Even if it were true that religion does overall bring more evil into the world, that still does not make religion inherently evil. To say that something is inherently evil means that evil is part of its verynature (we can’t conceive of it apart from evil, as we cannot conceive of a circle without roundness). Where is Pro’s argument that evil is part of religion’s nature? According to it religion did cause… Pro misses my point. I never denied that religion was oneof (for religion is never the cause) the causes of 9/11. My point is that events like 9/11 are not representative of religion, which means that religion is not inherently evil. And he again states (does not argue) that religion is not being used for good. Your [sic] right about the atheistic soviet union… Pro misses my point. My point was that there is nothing inherent in religion that causes evil, for atheism and politics can cause the same kind of evil (even if there is less of it). For your second point that since eligion causes most violence… I never said that since religion causes most violence… (that would imply a concession). I said that even if religion causes most violence… Please do not put words in my mouth. My point is extremely relevant. The fact that a very small percent of religion causes harm proves that religion is neither an overall bad or an inherent evil. And again Pro has simply asserted his contention that religion adds 0 good to the world. Assertions are not arguments, my friend. Well to take where… Pro’s assertion that because religion provides an easy opportunity for evil people to flourish, it is evil is simply false, and he gives no argument for it. He says that if something has the sole purpose of promoting evil then it is evil. I agree with him 100%! Now where his argument that religion or guns were created with the sole purpose of promoting evil? He gives no argument. His creed that “Peoplewith religion kill people” is cute but it does not refute my point at all, because a) religion cannot cause a single death without a deranged individual abusing it (so religion is not a sufficient causeof evil) and b) People kill people anyway, even without religion, or because of no religion (so religion is not a necessary cause of evil either). Your second point as well doesn’t work… I never said that science was evil because it gave us the a-bomb. That’s a straw man! I was making an analogy, saying that if religion is evil because it has caused harm, then so is science because sciencehas caused harm, but that is absurd. My point is that just because just because something can be used as a tool for evil does not make it evil. Pro is absolutely right that science has given us a lot of good. So has religion! He ignores that and again blindly insists that religion has given us nothing good. C2 What it basically says is that… Pro concedes that religion does not hinder people from creating their own morals (for that is impossible). Now he says that religion is unnecessary for people to create their own moral codes. Again, no one creates their own moral code, not even religions (though it may dictate it). Moral codes are not created. Now I agree that one can behave morally or have morals without beingreligious (whether that is even rational is a different matter) but that obviously does not mean that religion is inherently evil. The website offers no argument or evidence that most religious morals are bad. There is a reason crack is illegal… I compared religion to alcohol because both can have been used for both good and evil. Without argument, Pro compares religion to crack. The analogy is absurd and he seems to support the position that practicing religion should be illegal. Very anti-libertarian! Pro does not address my argument that just because something can be used for evil purposes it does not make it evil in itself (otherwise nearly everything would be defined as evil) nor does he address my argument that a natural justification for seizing power is just as likely as a supernatural justification. (Evil people will use whatever they can get their hands on to get their way.) This counts as two concessions. C3 Read my 2nd and 3rd points… By 2nd and 3rd points, does Pro mean his 2nd and 3rd COntention? I wish he were clear about this. But anyway, I refuted all of his points, so it doesn’t matter. His first three lines for this argument stated that there is no correlation between religion and morality. Again, how does that make religion inherently evil? Pro ignores the second point I made in response to his third contention, so this counts as a concession. A good test is… Pro ignores my point about the unreliability of the test and the fact that correlations do not entail causations and instead repeats his cliché that religion has killed 803 million people and saved no one. Again he ignores my logic that a small minority of religion causing harm (even great harm) does not mean that religion Is inherently evil. And his assertion that religion has saved no one is unsupportedand manifestly false. The very definition of statistically… Yes, I understand the meaning of the word, but where is the evidence that the test is statistical?Where is the evidence showing that the religious belief is what causes the cheating? Pro does not respond to this. I take it as a concession. Conclusion Pro has failed to support it his contention that religion is inherently evil. That view is a fundamentalist (or dogmatic) belief that is only held by fundamentalist (or dogmatic) atheists. More moderate-minded atheists such as Michael Shermer, Stephen Jay Gould, and Michael Ruse have either abandoned such a view or have never held it to begin with, because they rightly recognize the good caused by religion as well as the logical problems inherent in the arguments used to support the conclusion of the inherency of evil in religion. Religion is a complex phenomena with a long history and a far-reaching diversity. It is not something that can be boiled down to an unambiguous good or evil. I thank my opponent for debating. I enjoyed debating this topic and I know there will be more debates ahead.