Religion in the Modern Age

Well I want to start by saying that my argument (round 2) was to point out that religion is no longer needed because it no longer serves its intended purpose. And I think that you have misunderstood Scientology, it's not based in science. It was created by a science fiction writer. My argument is simple, humanity has outgrown the need for religion. It no longer serves its intended purpose and can actually check development by inhibiting education or being used to justify oppression. As can be seen in my first argument, religion is no longer needed because it is rooted in the past. We now know the answers that religion tried to answer, and we have laws that govern moral behavior better than any scripture. So why do we hold on to the past? The main reason that I have been able to find is that it gives them hope. But does that hope, and all the other benefits, make up for all the terrible things that religion enables? My answer is no. Now you may say that it is not religion but people that commit these heinous crimes, which is true, but religion enables these acts. For example, there are a large number of Islamic extremists because of a certain reason. Muslims believe that the laws in the Quran, aka the laws of heaven, override the legal laws, aka the laws of man. Therefore, in the eyes of extremists it is not only right to kill people, it is applauded. This also applies to non-extremists. For instance, christian conservatives have and still argue against gay marriage because it is stated in the bible as "an abomination" (Lev. 18:22) It enables them to hate on homosexuals without just reason. Now, to be fair, these aren't all Christians and Muslims, but should we allow unacceptable transgressions to happen just because there are responsible believers? Once again, no. Religion should be eventually abandoned through proper education and people realizing that they are better off without it. To expand on how religion inhibits education, when science proves something that directly contradicts the teachings of a religion, the religion fights it. It has to, or else it would undermine the core belief that that religion is the indisputable truth. For example, Christians fight the age of the earth even though scientific dating has proved that it is billions of years old. But they can't have it said that the Bible is right on some things and wrong on others. So they fight it in spite of evidence. Or, despots use religion to justify inhibiting it directly. Like in the middle east, many women are prohibited from gaining an education because organizations like the Taliban believe that women are subordinate, as stated in the Quran. Now i mentioned how religion gave people hope, and my opponent has stated how belief in an all-loving god is better than my replacements.But I would like to point out that God is not all-loving. God will love you as long as you are not gay, not a sinner, but most importantly a Christian. If you're not a Christian it doesn't matter how great of a person you are, you're going to hell. In fact, nearly all religions are exclusive to certain people. So I still believe that finding hope in this world is better than believing in a divine power. And there are numerous things that could replace religion as a source of hope like nature or music. In fact, anything could give you hope, religion is only one of many. Now I would like to address my opponents rebuttal. Some of the things you say actually support my argument. In the second paragraph last sentence, you state, "religion is just another way to justify it to themselves." That's what I've been saying. Removing religion would get rid of this excuse. In your 4th paragraph you say that, "The fact it's still around proves humans need religion". That's not necessarily correct. Also it is incorrect to assume that all orphans or friendless people have no means of finding hope. One could find hope in virtually anything, removing religion won't cause a global depression. Your 5th paragraph has a good point about crazy people always finding a way to kill. However religion enables certain acts and causes other believers to sympathize with the perpetrator. No one sympathized with those kids that killed their best friend to see Slenderman. But there are Muslims that sympathize with extremists because they are also Muslim and share the same beliefs. In your Abortion paragraph I don't see the correlation between support groups and keeping the baby. Also, in a study by UCSF (University of California, San Francisco) the women getting abortions often cited multiple reasons, most were trying to be responsible and not bring a child into an ill-prepared household. I doubt your statistic that most women get abortions because they were too irresponsible to use a condom. And it's not as if religions are the only groups that help those in need. There are numerous non-profit organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army that have a wider reach than many religious organizations. In your next paragraph you are right that people will still and always discriminate. But by no longer having religion there is one less thing to judge people on. You mention that there are tons of people bashing Christians, well a lot more bash atheists because we are the minority. Also when I said that only $4.7 billion was donated to charity I mean only $4.7 billion. The colleges being donated to are private catholic colleges, the health care organizations private catholic organizations. I don't consider it charity when you donate to yourself. Also, you say that the Boston Marathon Bombers never stepped into a mosque but still committed the crime. Although they never stepped inside a mosque they were still, according to the NY Times, " motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs". So they did it because of religion. Lastly, although the people are the problem, religion still enables them. Thanks for a great debate!