Religions cause more harm than good

For clarity, I'll be breaking down each argument and rebuttal numerically. 1. Pro's first question is, "How can someone say that participation in religious activities is a benefit when the argument is whether or not religion is actually beneficial for society?" Well, I've demonstrated that practicing one's religion i.e. attending church is considered a therapeutic mental break; prayer is neurobiologically proven to promote a beneficially meditative state of elevated conscious. Based on that fact, I can quite obviously and legitimately draw the conclusion that practicing religion rewards mental health and well-being (which I've demonstrated with other facts from the round) meaning I can absolutely claim that participation is a benefit. That's a conclusion I've drawn from the facts. 2. Next, Pro says that we do not create groups for mutual interest but solely out of selfishness and greed. Of course this is false; I'm part of clubs that do not monetarily reward anyone yet we join for our own satisfaction. Nevertheless, here Pro goes on to discuss racial and political divides in Colonial America. None of this, of course, demonstrates that religion causes more harm than good. His point that there are political divides in Ireland that common people *assume* is based on religion doesn't really help his case either. For one thing, I could easily make the argument therefore that RELIGION is not the problem but PEOPLE'S STUPIDITY is the problem. Indeed if Pro acknowledges that most wars are in fact political (which he admits) then again it's the people's ignorance - perhaps through no fault of their own, but their ignorance nonetheless - that is causing the problems: not religion. I could easily say that once the people become educated on the reality of the conflict's origin that religion would have nothing to do with it. This is once again using religion as a scapegoat for the real issue. 3. Pro is correct in noting that religious people are the biggest opponents of gay marriage. However, once again this is a failure of *politics* not a failure of religion. First, marriage should not be a legal institution to begin with for either heterosexual or homosexual couples. Second, people should not be allowed to vote on civil rights. That said, why is it acceptable for religious people to be condemned for their beliefs though atheists are not condemned for their beliefs even if they are also false or strange? A Christian may say that homosexuality is immoral and I disagree. Right away we're quick to point to this person's religion as the basis for their disagreeable claim. However an atheist could also say that a pregnant woman should be forced to carry her pregnancy to term, and yet while we might disagree, we cannot look to their religion as something to point fingers at for their disagreeable claim. The point here is that indeed Christians have many absurd beliefs, but non-theists also come up with some pretty ridiculous claims as well. It's not fair to presume that religious people are the most illogical. 4. Pro's next point discusses tradition and points out that it can be negative. In the last round, I explained what tradition was (I also accept Pro's new presented definition as well, as they essentially say the same thing) and noted that if something were not beneficial, it would most likely fall out of tradition. Pro's point was that tradition can be non-beneficial and his sole example was Christmas. He posits that the real man behind Santa Clause has been defamed and his legacy minimized. On the contrary, I advocate the exact opposite! First of all, this man became a legend and is significantly valued and praised annually for his positive deeds. Second, the commercialism of Christmas has its merits (fueling the economy, for one). Third, Christmas is a time of seasonal joy, family and happiness. It is during this time people feel most generous and united with their fellow man. My point is - Christmas is not negative. Therefore this isn't even a good example of negative tradition. I'm not saying that negative traditions don't exist, but my opponent hasn't made a good argument for that case and we can only judge this debate based on what is presented. Also, this doesn't negate the benefits of tradition I've described. 5. Next, Pro argues that sex offenders use religion as a tool to fuel their addiction. According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse. A New York Times survey promotes a similar statistic (1.8) and researcher Thomas Kaine also suggests the figure to be about 1.5 percent. Additionally, the Associated Press found that only two-thirds of 1 percent of contemporary priests have charges pending against them. Moreover, up to 90 percent of these priests happen to be gay [1]. What does this all mean? It's quite obvious that the problem here is not only a psychological disposition but also a severe sense of paranoia and shame about one's sexuality. While gay men are still objectified and scrutinized in society, a homosexual man can avoid the social stigma and perhaps familial alienation of coming out of the closet as gay by joining the clergy, because priests are not expected or allowed to marry women. This does nothing to indicate that RELIGION is responsible for these acts, but reflects an intolerant society or the desperation of just a few men who happen to be priests. There are over 400,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. alone [2], so it's unfair to presume that priests in particular are dispositioned to this fate. Faith is irrelevant here; it's obvious that sex offenders choose clergy professions not as a religious preference but as a way to avoid the reality of their own sexuality and/or sexual desire. It's simply the best job to achieve their goals, just as becoming a political or law enforcement agent is the best job to have if you want to break the law. 6. Pro's next contention discusses religion and revolution. He notes that a majority of people must believe something in order to spark one. We haven't talked about revolution at all in this debate; what I asked was how half the country denying evolution was negatively impacting society. Pro of course did not provide an answer. Had he said something along the lines of people simply remaining intellectually stagnant in their ignorance, I would have pointed out that a *huge* majority of scientists accept evolution, so it's not as if evolution is not being taught once you get to the college and post-college levels of science. Considering these are the realms in which scientific influence is actually pertinent, then my point that this is not a huge downfall of society stands. == Conclusion == Throughout this debate I've described the mental, emotional, psychological, social and physical benefits of religion. My opponent has never denied them. He concludes that because religion is used to instigate violence, it needs to be discarded. This of course is non-sensical; people use political stances as catalysts for war all the time yet we do not suggest that all communists, for instance, need to be rid of simply because wars over communism existed in the past. Please extend my other arguments, including that this is an *on balance* resolution -- meaning just because religion can be used for destruction that it can also be used for GOOD. Let's not forget or ignore institutions like The Salvation Army which are religious-based and do a lot of good within the community. Overall, because so many people are religious, and because it is logical to assume that they stay that way because religion is beneficial to them (see: last round explanation) than on balance it's perfectly acceptable to conclude that religions cause more good than harm. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com...