Religion is predominately a positive for humanity

Ok, so my rebuttals to Round 3 [For the avoidance of confusion, this is the one with the Piraha tribe and the four contentions - as per our recent dialogue on the comments board :o)] Contention 1: "I assume that Pro is not a proponent of evolution" - correct, but lucky guess as I only have reservations whilst wearing my "scientist hat"! Wearing my "theological hat" I have utterly no problem with Evolution. Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. "I also assume that he makes no room for evolution in his thoughts on morality" - incorrect, I have considered this before - see below. Interesting you assume I'm a "he" ;o) My big issue with evolution from an empirical standpoint, is that it is pretty much unfalsifiable. For example, say in one part of the world there is a fish in a dark cave which has no eyes - evolutionist says "aha, a classic example of evolution. The fish no longer needs eyes in these dark conditions, so has lost them over time." Then in another part of the world, there is another type of fish in a dark cave that has extra eyes - another evolutionist says "aha, a classic example of evolution. The fish developed extra eyes over time to assist with sight in these dark conditions." It is the same with pretty much anything, you can always come up with some reason why some trait might better assist with survival, and conclude that is why the trait has prospered. It is just a logical tautology. As goes morality, actually you could just as easily argue that this is a counter-evolutionary trait. Morality causes society to care for the sick, the elderly, those with genetic disorders etc - hardly textbook examples of "survival of the fittest". If you want an example of Darwinian ideals in a society, you're probably best looking to the Nazis. Adolf Hitler stated that he wanted to create a generation "devoid of a conscience" to propagate his master race. The Nazis also killed off those who weren't deemed genetically pure, and those they perceived as holding society back. I can decry what the Nazis did as evil based on Christian moral values. Tell me, by what logic can you decry what the Nazis attempted to do with their society as "wrong"? It can't be by evolutionary Darwinism, because if anything that is basically the model that the Nazis were trying to follow - and it is in fact the West that is going against the grain of "survival of the fittest" by looking after the weakest members. There is no logical or evolutionary argument for society to keep elderly, sick, unproductive members of society alive (no other animals do this, not even your supposedly "moral" chimps!) Also, surely it could be far more toxic to NOT consider humanity sacred - eg what is the logical argument NOT to have slavery, or NOT to just kill off the weakest members of society and turn them into food (as we do with other animals)? They are all just random by-products of this random universe after all - what's the difference? I note that you deliberately pick the Piraha people for your argument - who I am sure are lovely. How about one of the many feral/cannibalistic tribes that have existed (some still) - do you assume that they developed their take very unique take on morality through evolution too? You're just back to moral relativism, and the fact you can use evolution to "prove" any outcome you like. Also, you don't address my "computers made of meat" point here. If you argue that your brain is a random by-product of a random universe, then on what logical basis can you conclude that your random brain of chemicals and electrical signals is capable of independent rational thought in any case? And how would you hope to empirically prove it, even if you believe that your brain can have independent rational thought in such a scenario? Contention 2: Won't waste too many characters on this, already conceded this is a weaker point: "The flip-side of this point is that existing in a community of people who say and believe the same things that you do doesn"t breed a great deal of creativity, or challenging ideas" -Demonstrably false, as I am debating with you right now, and I have moved my stance on several topics as a result of listening to other worldviews. This is just a lazy stereotype. "True, but look at the countless mega-churches that make millions and pump those millions into things like smoke shows (literally) and laser shows and big high-definition screens and lavish video productions and so on" -Do you give all of your discretionary income (ie post-tax, post-bills) to charities then? Or do you spend it on "fun stuff" as well? I don't really get the point here. Nice quote of Warren Jeffs by the way - I'm sure that represents the general feeling of most religious people, rather than just being the extreme viewpoint of one individual! "Not to mention that eight of the ten biggest charities are secular - the difference is that secular charity doesn't come with little pamphlets and invitations to come to the local church" -I'm a volunteer for Christian Aid; I must have missed those pamphlets you suppose to exist. Would you mind naming the ten charities, along with the data by which they are ranked "biggest"? Contention 3: I think we agree that both religious and non-religious people do "good stuff". I maintain that trying to add up both sides of "good" and "bad" using some arbitrary scoring system is not going to be very helpful. Contention 4: Are you seriously condoning what Hitch said about Mother Teresa? All the selfless good she did, yet he can only summarise that she was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud? Are you beginning to see my point about intolerance yet? "This "true north" theory is frankly a load of rubbish and rhetoric" -Nice logical proof :o) "What kind of psychopathic god decides that a fair punishment for behaving exactly as they were created to behave should be complete and utter annihilation of the entire world" -Appealing to emotions again. By what actual logic can you declare God "psychopathic", and place yourself as morally "superior"? "What kind of god decides to create a human race with a fatal flaw and then expect modern people 2000 years later to honestly believe in him?" -The "fatal flaw" you describe is called free will - and you're ignoring the possibility of a "greater good" ultimately being realised in having given us free will, which was worth the downside of evil. I believe in God 2,000 years on - as do c. 3.8 billion people alive today. So yeah, it seems God could expect that. "There is no "true north"" It's my personal belief that nobody does anything for selfless reasons... I don"t have a problem with that." -Then give me one logical argument why I should obey the law, and be kind to my neighbour etc. Why not instead make my life's goal to exert as much sadistic dictatorial power and control over as many other human beings as possible during my short, pointless existence here on Earth? "as if a Brazilian tribe couldn"t understand that if one their children is killed it isn"t "better" or "worse". I think it"s pretty clear." - No logic again - why is it clear? If the child is just a random by-product of the matter of this universe, then if the parent is sad that the child is dead - well that is just the way the brain has evolved to get adults to care for their offspring. It's just electric signals and hormones; it's not "real". What is better/worse is just relative. Say I'm leader of a hypothetical tribe on an island that is starving to death, and I use simple logic and evolutionary Darwinism: we kill off the weakest member and eat them. But you're not really arguing for that, because in this case you would fall back on the appeal to the emotional - the same as you argue against all the supposedly "bad" stuff God does in the Bible. I return to my core logical stance: God exists - religion is necessarily positive for humanity No God - everything is just relative (+ meaningless) anyway