Resolved: Religion is inherently evil.

In my arguments for round 2, I will show why all three of his reasons fail to support his contention that religion is inherently evil. My original post for round two was too long to fit so I had to cut it drastically. C1 1- It does not follow that because religion is unnecessary for a well-founded society that it is inherently evil. My appendix is unnecessary for my well-being. Is my appendix evil? 2- The amount of people who commit religious atrocities is so microscopically small compared to those who do not. They are anomalies, not the rule. Some religious beliefs lead to evil, most don’t. End of story. 3- Big catastrophes (like 9/11) do not always have big explanations (like religion. ) Events like 9/11 developed from a very small set of religious beliefs in the mind of a single religious man. 9/11 is not representative of the effects of religion in general. 4- It is simply false that the worst atrocities are caused by religion. The thousands of deaths caused by the atheistic Soviet Union were obviously not religion-based. Seemingly religion-based violence (such as suicide bombing) are now known to be politically based. [1] The suicide vest was even invented by a secessionist. Even if it were true that religion causes most violence, it does not follow that most of religion causes violence. That is like saying that because all dogs are animals, all animals are dogs. Clearly fallacious. 5- Religion doesn’t kill people; people kill people. Just because religion can be used for evil does not mean that it is. There is no doubt that religion can be evil, but so what? A bottle of shampoo can be evil if you throw it at someone’s head, but that doesn’t make shampoo evil. If we applied Pro’s logic to science, then we would have to say that science is inherently evil since it played a major role in the development of the atom bomb, which has resulted in the death of thousands. But of course that does not make sense, since science, like religion, is a tool that can be used for good or evil. When used for evil, religion becomes a victim. C2 1- Religion does not hinder people to create their own moral codes because it is impossible for people to create their own moral code. Morality is external to us. That is the whole point of the atheist complaint against the divine command theory. the only complaint that can be raised is that Some religious beliefs are bad moral codes. This is true, but it is not true of all religious beliefs. 2- Just because something can be abused does not make it bad in itself. Alcohol can be abused. Should we go back to the prohibition era? Religion is not necessary for corrupt leaders to seize power. Corrupt leaders are bale to seize power because they seize it, have power already, take advantage of the weak, and are very smart in the political arena, not because of their religious beliefs. Why shouldn’t the belief “There is rule inscribed in nature that says that I should rule with oppression” any less helpful in causing oppression than “God decrees that I shouldrule with oppression. ”? C3 1- From the assertion that good would come about anyway without religion it does not follow that religion is inherently evil. Just because religion does not cause people to be moral does not mean it causes people to be immoral. There is no evidence that people who fly frequently are more prone to be more charitable than people who do not, but that does not mean that airplanes cause people to indulge in evil. 2- We do not have a good/bad measurement stick to tell whether there has been more good caused by religion or bad. Doing that is a monumental task. We must take into account all the “"ten thousand acts of personalkindness and social good that go unreported. " [2] Things are more noticeable when they are out of the ordinary. That’s why we notice religious atrocities, because they are so rare. And that’s why we don’t notice everyday religious good. Because it is so common. 3- The test results showing that religious people are more likely to cheat are unreliable. It is only one test and does not distinguish between different kinds of religious belief. And correlation is not causation. 4- Even if it were true that non-religious people do behave more morally than the religious, it does not mean that they are being consistent, and acting in accordance with their beliefs. [1] Pape, Robert Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism New York: Random House, 2005 [2] Shermer, Michael How We Believe New York: Freeman 2000 I appreciate the opportunity to debate and I look forward to a response from my opponent.