religion should be banned

The definition of proof does not only mathematical or scientific statement. It is used for any truth claims. To claim otherwise is ludicrous and closed minded. My opponent's second paragraph about proof shows a poor understanding of points made. My opponent claims "according to your logic I could say fairies exist, and while it is true that I have said it, does it make the statement itself true". I never claimed that God exist because I said so. I was claiming that there are proves for God such as the cosmological argument. For C. S. Lewis' proofs the argument from reason, which is from his book Miracles in chapter 4, goes like this No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non rational causes. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of non rational causes. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred (from 1 and 2). We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism. It also continues for a proof for God with Since everything in nature can be wholly explained in terms of non rational causes, human reason (more precisely, the power of drawing conclusions based solely on the rational cause of logical insight) must have a source outside of nature. If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason. (from 2) So, human reason cannot come from non-reason. So human reason must come from a source outside nature that is itself rational (from 1 and 3). This supernatural source of reason may itself be dependent on some further source of reason, but a chain of such dependent sources cannot go on forever. Eventually, we must reason back to the existence of eternal, non-dependent source of human reason. Therefore, there exists an eternal, self-existent, rational Being who is the ultimate source of human reason. This Being we call God (from 4-5). Then Lewis's argument from morality is in his book Mere Christianity in chapter 1: The Law of Human Nature. Here he argues that since we all have an inborn belief in an objective morality such an objective meaning can only come from a being outside of Nature or otherwise said conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver. [1]Now to another false claim my opponent makes. They claim the quote from Nigel Barber, PhD, was his opinion. This is simply not true. Both the quotes that I made are facts that can be proven. For example, look at the first quote "Organized religions serve many different functions today from running charities and hospitals to generating laws and providing political organization". In that quote there is no opinion involved either it is true or false. Same goes with the second statement of "According to the security blanket concept of religion, supernatural belief systems provide peace of mind and help believers to cope with the more stressful events in their lives. This is a valuable service because chronic stress increases blood pressure leading to heart disease, clinical depression, and contributing to a number of other health problems ranging from obesity to cancers". This can be proved, and it has by others like in "The Role of Religion and Spirituality in Mental and Physical Health", a academic journal article, it states "This article reviews the literature on the impact of religion and spirituality on physical and mental health, concluding that the influence is largely beneficial" [2]. Further, even if it was an opinion it doesn't necessarily make it less valid; it could be an expert opinion. Moving to the debate about church and charities. Rather perplexingly my opponents claims that churches don't give the money itself, but rather the people who go to church give the money. Here is why it is wrong. At the time the money was given to charity it was under the ownership of the church not the people. Also, to claim it was the people giving the money and not the churches is like claiming it was the people who shop at Wal-Mart who bought the store not the company. This is obviously ridiculous, the churches are the ones that give to charity. Further, major religions don't act like a businesses and just rake in money, many churches sponsor local events and welfare services, so the churches are getting money for something. Additionally people still benefit because it makes for a better community to have such events/services. Also, they aren't losing money anymore than people donating to cancer research are losing money, it is an improper use of that term. Sadly, some people do take advantage of this such as Paul Melnichuk, but that because people can be greedy. This is not a inherent problem with religion because this happens whenever there is someone in a power position whether in congress, or CEO. Dealing with the peace of mind argument, it is not ignorance of the mind. This is because I was not making a God of the gaps argument that is ignorance of the mind, but rather it was a psychological argument that people feel better when they believe their lives have purpose/meaning. This is scientifically verifiable with studies. It is true SOME religions kill non believers, but that is not a reason to ban all religion because of a very small minority. Now with science and God. It is true you can not prove god scientifically, but you also can't disprove god scientifically. This is due to the limitations of science, which is inherently agnostic. However, you can infer god from scientific evidence such as detectable design, but there is no way for certain to prove or disprove just using science. Giorrdano Bruno is an interesting case, but there are some false claims here. "It is often maintained that Bruno was executed because of his Copernicanism and his belief in the infinity of inhabited worlds. In fact, we do not know the exact grounds on which he was declared a heretic because his file is missing from the records. Scientists such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler were not sympathetic to Bruno in their writings" [3]. Further, Bruno held many views contrary to Catholic teaching such as Pantheism, theory of multiple worlds and transubstantiation [4], so if anyone is arguing from ignorance it is those who claim he was put to death because of Copernicanism. Sources[1] . http://lib.ru...[2] . http://cdp.sagepub.com...[3] . http://galileo.rice.edu...[4] . http://www.egs.edu...