Religion makes the World a better place

I'll start by thanking Pro for an intelligent and thought-provoking debate. I'm a little sad that it'll all be over in the blink of another eye and would enjoy another debate with Pro on a related (or non-related) subject. Kudos; keep it real!I've got to squeeze a lot into this last round, so apologies for brevity in some areas that could easily suffer greater scrutiny. I've also left myself less than an hour to post this last round; and I'm tired and a little groggy from the Bank Holiday in the UK that finished yesterday (it's 6:30 AM here), so, again, apologies if this round lacks the focus and impartiality that it properly deserves.Whilst Pro nobly concedes that it's almost impossible to argue against a belief being bad, as opposed to an action, I must admit that by my own professed standards of evidence, it's not really fair for me to try to win too much ground on the basis of beliefs without evidence of how those beliefs translate to measurable actions; however, I do beg the gentle reader consider some beliefs: for a start, I beg the gentle voter consider whether a more sinister reality than merely belief must necessarily follow (even if we cannot easily measure the effect) from a significant group of people believing that gruesome death is an appropriate punishment for non-conformance to a set of metaphysical beliefs. I precisely share Pro's sentiment when she says of the statistics about this belief "I must say I find them rather concerning".Pro says that the Psalms are poems that should be given poetic license; Pro says that Deuteronomy contains prescriptions for other people; Pro suggests that much of the Old Testament represents an old covenant that is null and void. Pro suggests that the Jewish consensus is the rather contradictory position that stoning to death is moral but should not be practiced. Pro suggests that we should not tar religions with the same brush as we might use for extremists. I ask: "and what, exactly, is an extremist"? I feel that Pro, like most Christians I know, is a sensible, rational, kind and intelligent force for good in this World. Most religious people are moderate and sensible and kind and good. I don't (unlike some of them) attribute their goodness to their religion... in fact, I believe that most people I know are sensible, rational, kind and intelligent and a force for good in this World (and I believe that there's good reason why natural selection through group selection made us that way); religion's effect is hard to measure but from my personal experience, religion never does what it claims (makes people kinder or more moral).The idea that Psalms can be undermined by the attribution of poetic licence (not treated literally) will offend a certain number of Christians; are they extremists? The idea that Deuteronomy should be seen as applying to others will likewise offend a certain number of Christians; are they extremists? The idea that the Old Testament is somehow "null and void" because of the "new covenant" is not biblically supportable (in fact, Jesus is quoted as saying that he comes not to change the [Mosaic] law) and will offend a significant number of Christians; are they extremists?I have met Christians on this site who are quite happy to cite the bible as sufficient justification for the idea that homosexual acts are a sin (whilst using sophistry to distance themselves from the Bible's pro-slavery stance); I've also met Christians on this site who take the view that slavery may well be moral because the Bible seems to be for it... are they extremists? I know this: families are literally torn apart because a son is gay; that sentence needs correction: families are literally torn apart because they are religious; homosexuality is not a choice, religion is.I'd like to know what Pro thinks about Christians who consider the bible to be inerrant and the literal word of God: are they extremists? If a person believes the story of Adam and Eve literally, believes the story of Noah's Ark, believes that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish, believes that atheists are fools that do no good, believes that it's moral and appropriate to stone children to death for disobedience to their parents... are they extremists? I've met people on this site who literally stand for bringing back stoning-to-death because the bible prescribes it... are they extremists? Does their existence or, more properly, do their beliefs not demonstrate the responsibility that religion has for making the World a worse place?I'd like to focus the gentle reader's attention to the fact of James Inhofe. He is currently, for the second time, Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Environment. I have absolutely no idea what he believes (although he often waxes lyrical about it); what worries me, in the context of this debate, is that a man can win political points in America for coming out publically and saying such completely ****ing stupid things as he does [1]. I beg Pro and the gentle reader to really listen to what James Inhofe has to say.James Inhofe is potentially the most powerful man on Earth in terms of setting policy regarding man-made climate change, limiting carbon emissions, limiting agricultral chemical run-off, pollution, etc... and he says that there's no such thing as man-made climate change and he seems to think that Bronze Age texts (specifically the book of Genesis) prove that fact. What's worse is that he uses Romans 1:25 to peddle the idea that any climate campaigners are essentially working for the devil by worshipping false gods (worshipping the creation not the creator).The Catholic church peddle the idea that condoms are universally wicked; the result of this is absolutely, specifically and directly that innocent men women and children suffer horribly and die because of the unnecessary spread of AIDS in Africa [2]. I blame religion for this effect; are you with me? I say that it is a far greater offence that the largest organised religion on Earth preaches things that directly cause the suffering and death of my innocent and powerless human brothers and sisters than it would be for a married African man to occassionally rubber-up and sleep with a prostitute on the way home from work (much as I, like the religious, question the morality of this action).Religious belief, I charge, causes one to have certain opinions on issues such as gentically modified crops (how could you believe in a creator of all life and not be profoundly worried by the idea of mankind having the hubris to tinker with that?). I don't say that GM is universally good... indeed, there are atheistic scientists who urge caution about some aspects of the GM debate; what I do claim, though, is that religion predisposes you to lean a certain way... and, like the Catholic church with sex, condoms and AIDS, this leaning literally causes the suffering and death of significant numbers of innocent men, women and children every year. In this case, Golden Rice [3][4] could prevent suffering, blindness, illness and death by preventing Vitamin A deficiency. And we are talking about the lives of tens of millions of human beings every year.It is a natural inclination to believe that a human being who thinks that there is a big sky-daddy watching their every move will behave more morally; it is all of our gut reactions (even atheists) to think that anybody who fears eternal suffering will limit their own bad actions... and yet, in reality, murder rates are not obviously negatively correlated (quite the opposite) with religiosity. Furthermore, there is good evidence to support the idea that religious beliefs cause palpable damage in the World. I urge the gentle voter to find against the motion; religion, contrary to our instinctive assumptions and religion's own claims about itself, does not the World a better place make!If you don't do it for me, do it for our grandchildren's environment that James Inhofe is happy to see damaged; do it for the millions of innocent men, women and children who die in Africa every year from AIDS or Vitamin A deficiency: vote Con!I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate and have come to have a lot of respect for Pro; however, I charge that Pro has not provided sufficient evidence of any positive effect of religion that could matter as much as the profound negative consequences that I hope I have demonstrated it has. I beg the reader remember that we are debating a World-wide issue that includes not only your own personal religion but all religions. And I remind the voter that I do understand that most religious people are decent human beings who make the World a better place; that was not the issue under scrutiny; the idea here is: would those people be as good without religion? I charge that they would... how about we all (perhaps arrogantly) accept credit for our own decency and stop attributing our worth to our metaphysical beliefs? Or, if you're not happy accepting credit for your own decency, attribute it to the wonderous marvel of group selection; I know that I do![1] http://www.rightwingwatch.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.goldenrice.org...[4] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...