Religion Is Progressive and Necessary

The best word to describe my opponent’s actions at this point would be: dissembling. The pretense of an argument here is missing entirely. 1. Whether labeling or ‘forced learning’ the pretense that this is abuse is simply false. Its simply an emotional claim, that calling ones own child the same religion as the parent is somehow damaging – no damage has ever been demonstrated save my opponents claim whatsoever. He’s added verbal abuse to the list, which labeling is not, as if this somehow demonstrates harm … and there is none. When a child is an adult, he or she can make their own decisions and apply their own labels as they see fit. Until then, it’s the parent’s role, decision, and indeed duty, to raise their children in a manner that they think is best. Using the excuse of a label, to term it abuse is just plain silly. No psychiatric organization even gives the pretense of this respectability. Using it to interfere in a parent child relationship? Good luck with that. A pretty sure fire way to get parents riled up is screw with THEIR kids. My opponent should never have brought up this point, particularly as the only damage he seems to be able to demonstrate is his own indignation. One personal offense as something is not the standard of abuse – it’s simply an appeal to emotion. Nothing more. 2. I am unsure why my opponent is focused on circumcision at all? It may have had religious origins, separating Jews from gentiles, but the practice is so wide spread these days, with health benefits clearly and solidly identified, that the practice is essentially secular at this point. In many religious communities, it’s not even an issue. Ergo, #1 – its not a ‘religious’ issue these days. It’s health issue. #2 – The attempt to make circumcision into some kind of trauma is just silly. It is again, an appeal to emotion. And the idea that religion is a net negative because circumcisions happen? http://www.npr.org... It’s a recommended practice by pediatricians. Yet my opponent has attempted to make it into mutilation, even as he has violently avoided discussion of actual genital mutilation. If religion brought us a recommended medical procedure that would actually be a benefit – no matter how emotionally depraved its portrayed. 3. It’s a bit late in the debate to pretend that the definition of religion somehow demonstrates its harm. We call that grasping at straws. 4. The Buddhism has atheistic practices in it, demonstrates no harm in religion. Indeed, more spiritual aspects of Buddhism contain which includes such spiritual beings like Devas and the ability to perform miracles. It’s why Buddhism is listed as a religion. How this demonstrates a net negative effect? Who knows? 5. If person-A is a criminal, and has not yet been prosecuted, does not justify the crimes done by person-B. Is still haven’t the foggiest clue what the heck he is talking about there. No religion on earth states that two wrongs make a right or that one person’s actions justify the others. On the contrary, most major religions preach tolerance and forgiveness … so if that is a standard that is bad, religion has LONG been on the right side of that standard. 6. 'Cultural Revolution' bourgeois-claim and slanders that it was bad. Really? The murdering of tens of millions people is what made it bad. To be pointing a finger at religion as violent and then simply claim that the Cultural Revolution was slandered? It was murder on a massive scale – that is generally considered really bad in religious circles. If rejecting religion leads one to wax over egregious crimes, then retaining religion seems incredibly important. It would be another net positive. 7. Once again, the Einstein quote was about the ability to blend science and religion where even great scientists understand the respective needs of the two disciplines. Cherry picking his quotes to make him an atheist when he is an acknowledged deist and we already know what a deist is? It makes no demonstration of net negatives of religion at all. A point made three times now and studiously ignored. 9. People do bad things for all kinds of reasons. It’s not bad ONLY when they use religion to justify doing bad things. Indeed, you have skipped deliberately over the examination of those who DO USE religion, like the Taliban, to further political objectives in way that we would deem improper – and we easily see that it is more complex than meets the eye. And the billions of people who use religion to drive them to do positive things? Can be safely ignored. You completely failed to contrast the two, and have demonstrated no net negative. Indeed, you have made no case whatsoever that demonstrates that religion, among the many other things that drive criminality, is even a leading factor in the darker aspects of humanity. You’ve simple said that you reject the concept that people use religion to justify something bad. Guess what? So do religious people by in large. Your opinion is identical to the religious opinion. How again does having an identical opinion demonstrate net negatives? 10. My opponent simply is not making a case. The claim: Religion is regressive and unnecessary. It remains a case built on emotional claims, devoid of objective criteria, is rambling and often bereft of valid points, and laced with false accusations and deliberate avoidance of evidence. At no point has he addressed the positives, other than a hand wave acknowledgement that its there, but offers no contrast to show how this leads to regression or demonstrates why it is unnecessary – despite the large amount it does at levels great and individual. That is not always positive is a call to look for signs of its abuse, but we don’t throw away an entire farm system because someone grew some bad apples. Simply put, my opponent did not support his case. I appreciate that he made it to the end, but the case presented speaks for itself.