Relgion, Philosophy for the Credulous and The Gullible

Just a side-note: You don't need to keep thanking me for the rounds, nor do you have to keep saying "back to pro". I don't require your permission to make my case, thanks."He said, "Is Religion For Idiots? Or, in search for less "offensive" terminology, is religion the philosophy of the credulous? My position is that yes, it very much is." My opponent clearly stated that he thinks credulous people use religion and its philosophies."Again, distortion will do you no good. Those who can be bothered will just read the very next sentence of my opening case, to find that I make the distinction between those who begin religions, and those who are merely brought up into them. Now, on to your "case.""He stated that religion is a philosophy that only credulous people believe in and that belief is based on fear of hell or they simply have not been educated."I'll have to put myself in the safe-keeping and intelligence of the audience, so that they can decide if you are merely quoting me and elaborating on what you think I mean, or if you're actually rebutting anything I'm saying. You're right, I do say that, but it will take more that just quoting what I say to disprove my point. Again, there is no point telling me about religious scientists and the such, because you know that my point was against the nature of religion. We are expected to believe in the super natural, that which cannot possibly be known. Science, logic, the rational, and I say "we don't know" when asked on the origins of the universe. A religious person, on the other hand, says "I do know -though I can't offer any evidence- that there was a creator. In fact, I know what his name is. In fact, I'm on sort of personal terms with the guy". Now, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem to really portray any type of scientific thinking. Respond to this point. "By his wording it is clear that he thinks and approached this debate with the thinking that religious belief is useless and only gullible people believe in it. I have shown this is false."Again, I trust the audience is intelligent enough to see that you have failed to show that my point is false. Simply stating my claim does not rebut it. You have not, and will not, and cannot show that religion, in its nature, is useful in the scientific realm, nor that it is meant for anyone but the credulous.My opponent has sites Scientology as a "religion" to use as an example against me. I have to ask, are you serious? First, in Scientology, if you do not live a life devoted to seeking truth through the mediation of Lord Xenu, you will be separated from him in the afterlife.(if the audience should wish to check this fact: http://en.wikipedia.org...)Buddhism also has a concept of punishment. If you are evil in a previous life, you will be cast forth with unfortune, or even torment, in the next. In 1943 the Dalai Lama, at that time, was questioned on the bombings of the Bombay Mosque's earlier that year, and if those who committed the genocide should be prosecuted. He replied, "Do not prosecute, forgive. Surely, those who have died have committed sins and atrocities in a previous existence"(Again, if you would wish to check this fact:http://buddhism.about.com...)Satanism, at least Antonian Satanism, is not a religion. It is explicitly an Atheistic organisation, and a mimic of the Catholic church. Now, if you really even had a case, you would have at least been able to site 10, out of the millions of religions that didn't threaten you with punishment for not conforming to their beliefs. Especially since you claimed that most do not have a concept of it. "Conclusion is that religion has offered many positives. Religion offers peace, unknown knowledge and moral guidelines. My opponent never challenges this point."Hm, why could that be? Could it be because we are not debating that subject? But, if you wish, we shall. Is it, I ask the audience, moral that a god powerful enough to create the universe, doesn't appear to lift a finger in response to the massive destruction and death and rape that have plagued our species for millenia?Palaeontologists agree that our species has been of this earth for 150-250 thousand years. I don't even need that to make my argument. I'll take 100, 000. So, in order to believe this nonsense you must believe that an all loving, all powerful god watched us - for at least 94,000 years of poverty and death and war, and illnesses of the teeth that took the lives of our children- with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago decided "Well, maybe it's time to intervene. And the best way of doing that is to have a filthy human sacrifice in an obscure part of the desert". Do you know see what I mean, do you begin to understand that you have absolutely no case to make against me. I will, again, put myself in the safe keeping and intelligence of my audience.