Christianity is a force for good in the world.

Contrary to what my opponent may believe, I've never claimed that most Christians are generally intolerant, opposed to science, or that they cling to brutal scriptures. All I've argued is that Christianity has played a predominant role in these things, and that the actual scriptures themselves are engines for intolerance. Moreover, I don't hold Christianity responsible for all social problems; I only hold it responsible for the things Christians can justifiably do by following the precepts of the Bible. Contention 1: Religion misrepresents reality. Roy has conceded my argument about Christianity distorting science, so I'm going to proceed with this section with that in mind. Creationism is merely one component of a larger problem, which is the willingness to suspend reason. It is insulting to suggest that humans, of their own abilities and intelligence, would be morally hindered were it not for Iron Age religious teachings. Despite what my opponent may believe, moral progress comes from outside of religion. For the last two thousand years Christianity has had many of its preachments battered and beaten to the point of irrelevancy by secular ethics, rational dialogue, and civil discourse and now my opponent puts this forward as if it put Christianity in a good light. Well, it doesn't. If this history of moral progress is a testament to anything, it is a testament of people's ability to rise above the immoral preachments of ancient holy books and to carve their own rational morality. By my opponent's standards, I'm probably setting the bar rather low for hatred, intolerance, homophobia etc. In my estimation, Christians engage in these things when they bully or make fun of gay people, restrict social freedoms through law, preach about the hellfire that awaits unbelievers etc. The evidence for these things occurring is overwhelming and you and I certainly don't need to look at any poling to know this. Nevertheless, these are still terrible results of Christianity and my opponent has said almost nothing in response. Contention 2: The dogmas of Christianity are harmful to society. Roy's entire argument in this section could be summed up as follows: "Freeman, people are just so hopelessly stupid and encumbered by all sorts of irrational tendencies that Christianity, as harmful as it might be, is really one of the better outlets for these impulses." Along with being extremely condescending, these notions are profoundly detached from the reality of the world around us. Once again, I've never made any arguments that attempt to show a causal link between religion and societal dysfunction. However, I have shown that religion doesn't cause social health. If it did, or if it correlated with social health, we would see evidence of this in the UN human development report. Unsurprisingly, we don't see this evidence; the evidence is very much to the contrary. Moreover, I've also pointed out that nations, like Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark have advanced healthy societies where very few people are clinging to spurious religious doctrines or other forms of contemptible irrationality. In doing so I've obliterated your argument that people somehow need religion because they need dogmatic simple rules to live by. And you've had nothing to say in response. These people are living just fine without God or nature worship. Contention 3: Christianity promotes intolerance and supports oppression. You would have to be delusional not to notice that Christianity leads to homophobia, in both mild and harsh forms. For example, the Catholic Church officially views homosexuality as a mortal sin, and this belief logically leads to intolerance and playground bullying. Ironically, this is also the same racket that has institutionalized and covered up the rape of children in the very orphanages and charities, which you have written to brag about. Moreover, you would have to be completely secluded from reality not to notice that the tens of millions of people who have fought to block stem cell research are doing so as a result of their Christian beliefs about the soul. My point is, of course, that Christians do their wicked deeds out of deference to the scriptures. A1: My opponent has claimed that Christianity provides a "reasonable moral compass". Throughout the course of this debate I have shown why this isn't true by using scripture from both the Old and New Testaments. And yet my opponent denies the significance of these wicked scriptures by dogmatically asserting that moral progress comes out of them. Needless to say, this claim can be dismissed out of hand for both its absurdity and for the lack of evidence, which supports it. The Bible says that witches, adulterers, homosexuals, and disobedient children should be put to death. These are not metaphors or references to some kind of inward spiritual struggle. These are explicit directives to kill people for theological offences. Moreover, they are directives that have been made untenable by the hammer blows of RATIONAL thought, SECULAR politics, and SCIENTIFIC advancements, none of which have anything in principal to do with Christianity or religion in general. These advancements do not come from inside religion itself. Therefore, Christianity is simply irrelevant when it comes to ethical advancements. A2: If everyone in the Christian charities suddenly woke up and found that they didn't believe in God they would still do the relief work. That is what I mean when I say secular institutions would replace Christian ones. How do I know this you ask? Well, Sweden, which used to be dominated by Christians, has lost its faith in God and they are still the world leaders in education, life expectancy, and foreign aid. Secondly, I do not for a minute buy the argument that Christianity is a force for good because it operates charities. Let me explain why. Christian charities have the rather bad habit of spreading divisive myths in the areas they work in, which harms society as a result. For example, Christians believe, and preach to others, that Jesus is the Son of God; Muslims believe that whoever believes these things will spend an eternity in hell. That leaves about as much room for compromise as a coin toss. And when societies get stressed they often break down along religious lines. We've seen this happen in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Sudan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Indonesia and the Caucasus etc. ::Conclusion:: Roy says my case lacks proportion, but how could this be? I've given proportion ad nauseum. With the risk of boring you, let me run through some of the facts one last time. The Catholic Church condemns millions to die of aids in Africa with its position on condoms. It has covered up the rape and abuse of countless children, and it considers homosexuality to be a mortal sin. Christianity, in general, plays a huge role in blocking life saving medical research and in resisting social progress. Moreover, the Bible itself is bursting at the seams with celebrations of cruelty and edicts to kill people and to be intolerant. On top of this, Christianity balkanizes people into incompatible moral communities that necessarily pit humans against each other. Need I say more? My opponent has written at length to outline sophomoric generalizations about environmentalists, socialists, and other boogeymen of the Republican Party, but he has given no convincing reasons to think that Christianity is a force for good in the world. Simply put, Christianity adds nothing of value to the world that has not been superceded by rational alternatives, and it continues to produce negative results across a wide set of different areas. If Pro were half as right as he thinks he is, western Europe should be in shambles. It isn't.