Religion is the cause of many of the world's problems

Rebuttals:"I would like to define what I meant by "problems in the world" is any type of problem that involves either the actual planet OR the people of Earth. "You may add your own definition, however, I provided the definitions of the debate first round. Any definition that you provide is now subject to debate. Regarding your definition of the resolution referring to the people of earth, the resolution says "of the world's" not in "the world. "Therefore, the resolution grammatically implies that the problems are the planet earth's, not the problems of its inhabitants. "Environmental problems that we face in our world today have only one cause: people. "Pro concedes that people are the cause of environmental problems. "A multitude of religions have used their fallacious religious values to defend their environmentally polluting actions. "Because Pro has bop, he must provide evidence of this audacious claim. Pro must provide a list of religions (a multitude) that use their religious values to defend their environmentally polluting actions in order for this statement to be true. "Human beings will go to great lengths to justify their behavior, sometimes even misinterpreting their own religious text so that they may pretend that polluting the environment is their gods', or God's, will. For example, many Christians use their own foolish misinterpretations of their Bible to claim that they may exploit the Earth as they please. "Your example is just a rewording of what you said before that. The example is not concrete. "According to The Encyclopedia of Earth Organization, "The famous essay published in Science in 1967 by Lynn White, Jr. , stands out as condemning the prevailing interpretation of the Bible in Christianity for humans to multiply and dominate the Earth as the primary cause of environmental crises. "Expand on that idea. What is the prevailing interpretation of the Bible? How would it be the primary cause of environmental crises? The human population multiplies naturally overtime. "The Bible has been edited and rewritten so many times that it is easy for it to be misinterpreted by Christians who are not aware of the environment around them. "How do the two go together? Just because it has been translated multiple times doesn't cause Christians to not be aware of the environment. "Many truly believe that God wanted for us to mine the Earth for resources so that we can survive and thrive in our continually advancing world. "Here is where it gets interesting. Do all the religious people invent cars, build machines and chop down trees in the name of their religion or because God told them to? Or is it scientists who invented these machines because it would make peoples lives easier? "The residents of Ganga, who are Hindu, worship the water as their mother. However, the Ganges River is now heavily polluted with human sewage, bodies and cremated ashes, industrial waste, and more. "This is a Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The Ganges River is not polluted due to the residents religious preferences. Pro must have data connecting the Ganga residents religious preferences and the Ganga River being polluted. I am a bit ware of the credibility of Pro's sources such as slideshare. "Yet despite the obvious issues present, the people living in Ganga have faith in the river and continue to worship it, even as they cause these problems. "Religion could only cause this if the Hindu faith called for polluting the river. They may pollute it, but they do not pollute it in the name of their religion. Pro must back up that the people living near the Ganga River are Hindu, and they pollute the river in the name of their religion. "the fact remains that the practice of religion is responsible for much pollution in the world. "Yes, religious people drive cars, nonreligious people do to. Religious people waste water, nonreligious people do to. Religious people litter, nonreligious people do to. My point is, religious people do not drive cars, waste food, water, supplies in the name of religion. Conclusion:I will refrain from posting any arguments, as most of them have been shown in my rebuttals. Pro is the instigator, and the one arguing for a change in the status quo. Therefore, he has full bop. Pro has not fulfilled his bop because I have just rebutted his arguments. In order for Pro to affirm the resolution, he must show that religious people pollute the world because they have a belief in a god or gods, as I defined in round one. This is not the case.