Religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.

The Pro Case:The downfall of this debate is the inability to quantify the "non-existence" of religion. What do I mean by this? Well consider my opponents entire case, he clearly demonstrates the many acts of violence committed in religions' names. But I can't tell you about the many acts of violence that were avoided, because there is no empirically relatable world devoid of religion. I can't say something like, "a great war, which would have killed 1.9 million people, was avoided because the inciter had previously converted to Islam." There is no evidence to back up my statement because we can't go back and "re-live" the world sans religion. Thus, in this debate, the judges must weigh the empirical impacts against probable impacts of a world sans religion.The World... Sans Religion:A prerequisite for the entire Pro case is the existence of civilization. Consider this simple example: if large societies had never formed, then the crusades would never have occurred. Obviously. Thus I will argue that small scale religion made large scale civilization possible. In order for large scale civilization to form a moral code which stresses anonymous altruism must exist. Otherwise societies remain within selfish segregated family clans or "fractured cultures". Studies using the "Dictator Game" and "Ultimatum Game" have demonstrated that anonymous contributions (acts of altruism) are much higher in populations which practiced world religions [1]. This suggests that the formation of world religions served a cohesive factor which promoted societal agglomeration. The dependence of codified law on religious law demonstrates the same truth [2]. It is likely that large societies would have been precluded in a world without religion. In practical terms this means that the current world population would be dramatically diminished; perhaps only consisting of a few hundred thousand people [3]. Thus, while my opponent wields many atrocities generated by religion, those people would have never existed without religion. I will argue that some atrocities are preferable to "non-existence". Indeed, one benefit of religion is the current world population: 7.1 billion people. Obviously the wars prevented by the teaching of religions are unquantifiable. However, since most religions teach peaceful messages much more often than violent ones, these positive preventative impacts are likely to be more numerous. The Mind's WarThe #1 agent of death comes from within, it is stress. The American Medical Association has noted that stress is the basic cause for 60% of all human illness and disease [4]. Stress has been shown to dramatically increase risk of death in numerous situations; individuals who lead stressful life styles display an increased 50% chance of death [5][6]. I'll suggest that a world devoid of religion is a world where stress runs rampant. I'm sure my opponent will agree that many religious folk are drawn to religion because of "eternal salvation" promises. The fear of death is part of the human condition, as such it is classified as a "life stress"[7]. A world devoid of religion would likely affect the current 6 billion humans who practice religion by substantially increasing their stress levels. In turn these humans would produce higher levels of cortisol and be much more inclined to death. Some of the best hospitals in the world (read: Mayo Clinic) recommend practicing religion in order to substantially alleviate stress [8][9]. Thus we must weigh impacts. The impacts my opponent has isolated perhaps affect hundreds of thousands of people. The impacts I am isolating affect 6 billion people with premature deaths. Genetic CodesThe well being of humanity is a question of genetic favorability and inheritance. In order to evolve "well" it is advantageous to have a large population with many potentially favorable mutations; I have already established that religion allowed for large populations. However, with large populations come an equal number of genetically unfavorable mutations. Thus some forms of natural selection are necessary to optimize the gene pool. I think that my opponent and I would both agree that violent tendencies are societally unfavorable. I'll suggest that religious conflicts are useful for the long term existence of humanity because they optimize the gene pool. This is true because the less advanced society is often correlated to the highest death toll which leaves a higher percentage of genetically predisposed intellects. I'll also suggest that religious wars are fought by societies with genes predisposed to conflict, thereby lowering the frequency of such genes. In other words, religious wars facilitate long term human peace.Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://tinyurl.com...9. http://tinyurl.com...