Religious doctrine of inherent evil is incredibly harmful to mankind.

To my esteemed opponent. Thank you for your timely and intellectual response. While I agree that exploring topics through debate is essential, I disagree that this is one of the most important topics facing mankind. I disagree with the notion of the idea of inherent evil causing what you say it does. Let us begin with the burdens argument. You have given evidence that you say backs up your claims. I will still show how this hasn't worked. Also, I discussed how youi must show the doctrine evil NOW, not in the future or the past, but now. You have failed to do that. You also must show how it is harmful to all of mankind. Once again, you have failed to do that. The reason this is important, is because when you fail to show how it is bad for humanity NOW, then you have failed to uphold your end of the bargain. Because you used the word IS in your resolution, you must provide evidence to the resolution being true NOW, or in the present. Now I'm not saying right this second and only then, but within a reasonable time frame. The medieval ages aren't modern. Limit yourself to the nineteen hundreds on. That is reasonable. But you haven't done that. You have argued how it HAS been incredibly harmful, but not how it is. Also, when you don't include all of mankind, then you are failing to uphold that end of the bargain as well. You have changed what you are arguing about. You aren't arguing the resolution, you are arguing something similar. I would ask that you stick to what you said you would do by writing this debate. Now onto the argumentation, specifically Cromwell. My first point here is that it was in the past. This in no way helps your argument of NOW which is what you are supposed to be doing. My second point here is that you misinterpret what his motives actually are. While his motives were religious in nature, and his acts heinous, this doesn't mean that he was motivated by the fact that they were evil. Nowhere in your link does it talk about this one doctrine doing this. It doesn't even say that God told him to rid the world of evil behavior. You are making the evidence say what you want it to say. This is not kosher. In fact, I would say that Cromwell wasn't anywhere near being motivated by that cause. Cromwell was motivated to rid evil from the world. The religious doctrine of inherent evil says that ALL people are created evil. This means that Cromwell should have killed himself for the same cause, he didn't do this. This means that he was out to rid the country of behavior that he didn't see fit; drunkenness, pride, hate, etc...My third argument here, is that it didn't involve all of mankind. Only Ireland. Onto the war on terror. The war on terror is in no way religious. By singing God Bless America, America didn't show it's own religiosity towards ourselves, but rather shows our respect to our founding fathers. Similar to the "In God We Trust" on our money, and "under God" in our pledge, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't Christian in nature. They said that they don't specify which God, and that it pays respect to our founding fathers. The same applies for this song. Also, the song says absolutely nothing about inherent evil. You then talk about the Bush rhetoric. It is human nature to assume that you are the good guy and the person who has harmed you is the bad guy. It is that way all over the world. If I walked up to you and punched you in the face, you are going to assume I'm an a$$. But if the girl you slept with last night was my girlfriend, then you would deserve it, and you would be the a$$. But at the time, you assume you are in the right. The same goes for America. We were "punched in the face" (9/11), we thought they were in the wrong (whether they were or not is inapplicable). This is the natural response. It has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of inherent evil. You are trying to connect arguments that are totally unrelated. You discuss the Christian standpoint. You provide the quote "Better to fight the war in their back yard than mine." In no way is this religious in nature. There are no Christian undertones whatsoever, and this is common sense. I would much rather have them be fighting over there, then over here. This is common sense. While I may seem unsympathetic for saying so, my house isn't the one being blown up or invaded. My rights aren't the ones being violated. I'm glad that these bad things aren't happening to me. There is no religion involved in that way of thinking. Not only that, but Christians aren't the only one supporting the war, there are people from all different religious backgrounds supporting the war. Also, not all Christians support the war. This is absurd to assume so. Instead of providing my own examples, I will discuss how yours aren't examples. Jonestown - one religion vs. one government. Not a division of faith. Nazi genocide wasn't limited to only religious groups. Hitler viewed Jews as a blight on society, it had nothing to do with a division of faith. He also killed people that had nothing to do with religion. Hitler never even claimed to be doing what God told him to do. Bosnian genocide had more to do with the fact that milosevic wanted the countries that seperated subdued and brought under his control. Milosevic was in no way religious and wasn't guided by religious doctrine. Numbers 31 was a way of establishing Israel, God's chosen people, as a nation. Inherent evil had nothing to do with it. It's basically the same for all others. The real main point against each of these, is how you have failed to show how this doctrine of inherent evil causes these. You can't just say it does, you have to tell me how it leads to this. Tell me what the thinking leads to, whether it be a mentality or what have you. Then what that leads to, and then how it caused it. In formal debate, it's called a link story. I need you to tell me the specifics about how it is causing these things. You haven't done that. It isn't enough to prove that a little family division is caused. It's necessary for you to prove how it affects all of mankind. Not just a couple families, or even most families. It has to affect everyone. Mankind is made up of all the humans living on this earth, and you must therefore show how it is affecting everyone on the face of this earth. You haven't done that. Jehova's Witnesses shun people because they disown the faith, not because they are evil. What you are forgetting is that Christian religions believe that those who are a part of those religions, are also evil. No one is good according to Christianity. This means that if Jehova's Witnesses shun those because of inherent evil, they would shun everyone...including themselves. Also, you say that divorce is justified by religious differences. First off, I ask that you remember we are talking about Christianity. The Bible says that you shouldn't get a divorce at all. So those who do are also sinning, not because they believe the other is evil. The doctrine of inherent evil doesn't give a minority negative. It gives a majority negative. Not even a majority, but an entirety of negativity. Everyone is evil, therefore they need to be redeemed. You aren't understanding what inherent evil is. It means that all people are evil from the instant they are born. It is inherent in their being and existing. They aren't an exception by simply adhering to a religion. This belief isn't what causes these wars and killings, and things you said from happening. It's a difference in opinion. Not on this inherent evil; but on moral issues, misunderstandings, misinterpretations of the Bible, etc... I too don't have enough room to fully answer everything as I would like. So I apologize for leaving the last part of your argument unanswered. The final statement I will make is this...NO CHRISTIAN THINKS THEY ARE GOOD. THEY ALL THINK THEY ARE EVIL AS WELL.