Religion is, in general, beneficial for society

Clarifications: Con begins by stating, "The supernatural is by DEFINITION what religious people believe in." My argument here is that atheists sometimes believe in the supernatural. An atheist by definition merely lacks a belief in God; however, the supernatural encompasses the ideas of ghosts, an after life, reincarnation, a collective unconscious, etc. An atheist can believe in all of these supernatural things, so my argument stands. Moreover, Con implies that I have contradicted myself, but this so-called contradiction doesn't exist. Just because I said that religious people believe in the supernatural, and that science is based on the natural, does not mean that religious people cannot also believe in science or that scientists cannot believe in religion. Con has failed to make any sufficient argument in this regard :) Arguments: 1) Con says that just because certain societies are based on religion or worship, that this isn't an argument for benefits or impact on said society. On the contrary, I'd argue that societies such as the Christian Legal Society, the Christian Sociological Society, the Christian Philosophy Society, etc. all used Christian-based ideologies to further their individual mission statements, and further, their ideologies are also often the basis for their morality, meaning every time they act in a moral way or do something good in the name of their religion, that they are benefiting society as a direct result of their faith. 2A) Con's statement that yoga is a form of exercise is completely ignorant and FALSE. While it has indeed been commercialized in the west as a popular form of exercise, the reality is that yoga is RELIGIOUS; it's meant for meditation and the alteration of the conscious. Additionally, you'll notice that Con simply failed to counter my point that there are direct correlations between the physical health and religion :) 2B/C) I find it interesting that Con states one needs to make their arguments clear in the first round and not the rebuttal; meanwhile, Con was the INSTIGATOR of this debate and did not even bother to provide a first round argument. Even if he were Con in this debate, he should have restructured the resolution to suit his position as Pro and argue from there. Nevertheless, Con merely tries to distract you here from the fact that he did not refute my POINT, which stated: while sometimes religion can make people "devalue their lives" as Con said, it can very easily be noted that religion can also SAVE people's lives let alone bring an incredible amount of value to it. As such, it is Con's burden to prove that religion has more detrimental effects than positive on one's mental and emotional health. Notice that he did not fulfill this burden either :) 3) The third argument I provided had to do with TRADITION. You'll notice that once again Con dodges this argument, and instead tries to provide a distraction by stating that *I* have dodged his argument that people aren't benefiting from religion unless they meet up with other people in a church or group setting. I don't recall that argument ever having been presented; however, I can answer that at any point in the debate and I will now -- People still benefit from religion even if they don't meet up with others, because the other benefits I've mentioned still apply (health, physical, etc.). 4A) Con next says that my point about religion not being the only reason for war is pointless, because wars based on politics and not religion are rational. First of all, these wars are absolutely rational to believers, so this point is moot. Second, what about Hitler's war? Was his motivation to invade Poland and persecute all the Jews because they were Jewish RATIONAL? No. 4B) Con continues to try and use religious extremists to represent all religious individuals. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Sure there are extreme religious groups that cause harm, the same way there are other groups that cause harm but are NOT a good representation of all people. For instance, the Black Panthers did a lot of harm, but that is not a reason to denounce all black people. Similarly, PETA commits a lot of crimes and does a lot of bad things in the name of fighting for animal rights, but, they are not a good representation or even a norm for all of those who believe in upholding animal rights. Also, you'll note that Con says these extreme groups are responsible for a lot of death, but doesn't provide any facts about this issue. I'd argue that there are other groups - i.e. politicians - who cause the same amount of harm and death each year. 4C) Religion provides answers to many ethical questions. Without ethics applied to science, science can become a danger to humanity. Example: The atomic bomb was tested the U.S. without asking people (New Mexicans) their permission. It could have backfired and led to the death of all of these people... or even all of humanity. Was that ethical? Regardless of your opinion, the point here is that ethics needs to be applied to science somehow. Even if you disagree with religious ethics, it is still one example of an ethical guide the same as Kantian, Utilitarianism, etc. You don't have to agree with them, but they are still ideologies that deserve recognition for what they are. On that note, religious people are not the only people who are against stem cell research. Con is using religious people as a scapegoat, but in truth, many people feel that this research is unethical for reasons other than religion. 5) Con ignorantly claims, "We cannot have Islamic extremists without religion." Lol. Once again, he is scapegoating religion as the only thing that people can be "extreme" about. I've already refuted this point noting politics, extremists who value animal and nature rights, etc. Yes, we can be moral without religion, but we can also be immoral without religion. Con is grasping at straws here :) Maybe the Islamic extremists in particular would not exist had it not been for religion, but others would. 6) Con, I encourage you to refrain from trying to sound smart by making retarded comments and unnecessary capitalization to emphasize your weak arguments, because really, you're failing miserably. If you read my R1 argument AT ALL (or looked at my cited source), you'll see exactly how scientists can and do apply religion to Evolution. Moreover, just because science measures the natural and religion measures the supernatural does. not. mean. that. they. cannot. mix. As *I've already said* there are theologians who use logic proofs to back up their claims (which you did not refute), and, religion and science can exist separately and seek to answer different things. Sometimes they can mix, but where they don't seem to right now (we're not scientifically advanced enough to DISPROVE God, just as theists cannot prove God), science measures the physical laws whereas religion measures the spiritual laws. These are different aims and as such I don't even know why Con is trying to compare the two. 7/8) I've already discussed religion in a social regard, and we discussed atheism in the opening clarification. - - - - Con begins by stating that the U.S. isn't politically oppressed. First of all, that's a matter of opinion (I don't have the character space to discuss it, but Con can feel free to challenge me on this if he wants). Second, I mentioned that the EXAMPLES CON GAVE (i.e. Islamic extremists) existed in politically oppressed countries. Point negated. Second, I never said that the Crusades had ANYTHING to do with a minority. Con, PLEASE CITE WHERE I SAID THAT. I'm lol'ing already because you won't be able to. Nevertheless, you'll note that Con ignored my point about Puerto Rico. Also, he is completely straw manning my argument. I never said that all religious wars are a result of politics. I'm out of characters for now, but will respond to everything in my final round.