Religion, The World's Greatest Evil

I think it can be reasonably assumed that judging by Pro's initiation of this debate, and the wording of his argument, Pro has a less the positive view on religion, wouldn't you agree? Introduction As Con, I waver that religion is in fact one of the leading causes of good in the world. Nearly all religions teach compassion, forgiveness, altruism, and honor of some sort. While there have been numerous negative acts committed in the name of religion, this does not mean those acts were directly caused by the teachings of that religion. Rather, the people who cause these negative acts justify them by distorting, misunderstanding, misinterpreting, misrepresenting, or taking religious passages out of context. Thus their actions are caused by their own ignorance or deceptive nature and not by the teachings of the religion itself. In addition, in round 2 I will attempt to prove that secular causes have caused more evil in the world then the teachings of religion. Burden Of Proof In this debate the burden of proof is on Pro. As the instigator and affirmer of the solution, Pro must prove that religion is the greatest cause of evil in the world. Now, while it is a rule that I *should* discuss how religion has had nothing but a positive effect on people, this rule is clearly not set in stone. If Pro had said that I *must* discuss how religion has had nothing but a positive effect on people, then this would've complicated things for me. However, even assuming that Rule 1 is a legitimate rule and not a strong suggestion, the burden of proof would still remain on Pro. Thus, if I refute Pro's claims that religion is not the greatest cause of evil in the world, or I can prove that there is a greater cause of evil in the world then religion, then I have won this debate. Definitions Unfortunately, the semantics of Pro's arguments are ambiguous. He claims that "Religion" is the main cause of "evil" in the world, but what does he mean when he says "religion", and what does he mean when he says "evil"? Since Pro has failed to define these two terms, I am obliged to define them for him. Which Religions? The American Heritage Dictionary defines religion as: "1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. " This is problematic for it includes all world religions, such as Buddhism, which is by nature a peaceful religion and even teaches against of violent acts towards sentient beings. [1] Thus, is Pro attempting to claim that all religions, including peaceful religions such as Buddhism, are the cause of all evil? Or that the mass of all religions that have allegedly caused evil are the greatest cause of all evil? It appears that Pro is mainly attacking Christianity and Islam, thus I assume Pro is claiming the latter. Furthermore, I request that we only treat religious beliefs that have for themselves’ a religious text that any group of people regard as holy as legitimate. Ultimate Evil? This is what I consider the most crucial mistake that Pro has made in this debate. The only way Pro can prove that religion is the greatest cause of evil is to first define evil in such a way that he can prove religion causes that evil. However, Pro has failed to define evil. Now, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines evil to mean: "a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked" However, something can only be morally reprehensible if it breaks a moral code. This begs the question: which moral code? Which moral code is Pro appealing to? Is he appealing to the moral codes offered by the religions themselves, or some arbitrary personal moral code that Pro can tailor specifically to discriminate against any and all views? In order for Pro's claims to have any legitimacy, he must first provide an objective moral code for which he is appealing to, or, he must prove that each of these religions directly cause more acts that violate that religion's teachings then any other secular cause. This creates another problem because Pro will then need to treat each moral code separately and choose which one will suit his needs best (It's a good thing Pro has three days to write his argument, as he will probably need to do some research). However, I have full confidence that Pro will be able to untangle this mess and make his case. Refutations: Pro has made essentially three points: The Christian God has destroyed his enemies with vengeance. Christians hate homosexuals. Islam teaches that killing is to be rewarded, and hitting your wife is okay. God does not force everyone to go into heaven, therefore God does not love you. Now, if this debate were titled "God is not loving" or "The Bible is mean" or perhaps "Islam is corrupt" then these points might carry some weight. Unfortunately, these points do not prove that religion is the world's greatest cause of evil. Because not only has Pro failed to establish what evil is, he has failed to prove how these are in fact the greatest evils in the world. Nevertheless, I shall devote some time to refuting these points. Points 2 and 3 are baseless assertions. Pro claims that Christians (I assume he is implying all Christians) hate homosexuals because the Bible tells them too. As a Christian, this is news to me! I wasn't aware that I hated homosexuals and I was definitely not aware that the Bible teaches me to hate homosexuals! However, as a reasonable human being, I choose to reject these claims for one simple reason: no sources. Pro has failed to show any statistics that show Christians, or even a majority of Christians hate homosexuals, and he has most assuredly failed to provide a Bible verse that tells Christians to hate homosexuals. This applies to Pro's claim about Islam as well. He has failed to give a verse from the Qur’an to support his claim, thus his claims do not hold water. As far as points 1 and 4 are concerned, Pro seems to be implying that it is evil for God to punish evil. Furthermore, Pro seems to also be implying that it is evil for God to not force all people into heaven against their will. Conclusion: Pro has failed to establish a framework for which to debate this topic. He has also failed to provide legitimate examples of religion causing any evil in the world. He has entirely failed to meet his burden of proof. However, there are two rounds left. Let's not give up on Pro yet.