Religion Is Progressive and Necessary

My opponent has now devolved into naked ad hominem, a sure sign that someone is on the ropes in a debate. What my opponent very clearly claimed, was that forcing children to do thing against their will was somehow abuse. Specifically, that ‘forcing’ them to attend religious ceremonies was somehow cruel and unusual – and should be stopped. Unfortunately, and what my opponents spurious accusations misconstrue, and never actually addresses is that children very often have to do things that they do not want to, including learning things they do not want to … like math. My Son regularly complains about math, guess what he has to do in the end? (How dare I force him to learn something against his will, eh?) He also has to eat his broccoli, get haircuts, etc. My opponents claim, that forcing children to do things against heir will as abuse? Its just plain wrong – so supercilious that it should never have been pro-offered as a point. The idea that rebutting it somehow makes someone dishonest? It’s quite petty, and is little more than an attempt to use anger to avoid having to concede a point. Instead of getting involved in mutual acrimony, lets actually examine the claims. Thesis: That religion is positive. Support: Religion has been involved in many historical processes and clearly has a benefit. In fact, at its most basic, religion conveys an identifiable evolutionary advantage: http://www.npr.org...In fact those with religion, any religion, seem to have an identifiable advantage over their non-religious counter parts (i.e. better able to handle stress and adversity). http://www.rand.org...Religious people appear to be more charitable. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...The practice of clergy and the effects of counseling, support, and services provided is difficult to calculate, but the attempts to do so, indicate that the economic effect of these actions is well into the billions of dollars. http://muse.jhu.edu...Religion also serves as one of the few bridges capable of breeching tribal gaps created by wealth, nationalism, culture, political boundaries, etc. even in the very worst of places. http://www.afghanistan-analysts.org...Religion helps pull people back from addiction and criminality. John Calvin and his focus on alcoholism when it was ripping society apart is powerful testimony to religions appeal and problem solving focus. http://christianity.about.com...As you can see the benefits of religion, from evolution through economic and into the political realm all the way down to the individual level is apparent and easily identifiable. Rebuttal of opponent’s claims: A. All of my opponents examples, in sharp contrast to the examples above, are specific to individual religions and do not apply to the whole. The Spanish Inquisition happened in Spain, not in the rest of Europe or Catholicism, and certainly not in Buddhism or Islam while it happened in Spain. Yet all are tainted by the broad-brush strokes with no thought given to peculiarity of Spanish misbehavior. The same applies to female genital mutilation, whose existence came well before the one religion that tolerates it, and remains confined to West Africa where, even there, it is strongly condemned within Islam. That too somehow taints everything from secular humanism to Scientology. We know what this is: a logic fallacy. Specifically, the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...B. My opponent fails to address issues in human history, from war to drift, that clearly have no religious origins. One of the most destructive actions in the past century was the Cultural Revolution, and how such things can happen without religion is simply ignored. The Atheistic virtues of North Korea remain unexplored and unacknowledged, and even Dawkins exaltation of pedophilia is hand waived. This has every appearance of judgment through duplicity, one standard for you, and another for me. That too is a logical fallacy. Special pleading. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...C. My opponents other claims are all appeals to emotion, as if religion (which runs the gamete of full integration to exclusion) somehow is all misogynistic. The concern of religious people at the pornographic reduction of women to sex objects is ignored, as is the reality that in our secular society, even with significant numbers of single mother house hold, the problem of income inequality (equal pay for equal work) is avoided. The effect is clearly little more than someone saying you hate women but not me! The very premise is wantonly absurd as women represent at least half the religious population of the world. Do women hate themselves if they are religious? This too is a logical fallacy: An Appeal to emotion. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...D. The last round, my opponent seems to think that Einstein’s deism proves that religion is harmful, when it is simply not relevant. That his argument is reduced in its sole attempt at rebuttal to what appears to be a desire for a cherry picking quote war is silly and simply not germane. Einstein was a desist, he believed that the universe could only exist because of supernatural power, but was so vast that it was impossible for him to believe that Creator God could care about tiny specks of humanity in that vast universe. This is at best an attempt to use anecdotal issues to inform the process. That is also a logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...E. We see what my opponents fallacious reasoning is reduced by in large to the spurious accusations of calling someone a liar. Even the pretense of a logical case has been abandoned. The premise apparently so indefensible that even the appearance of a rational case is no longer possible. We are left with accusations whose sole intent is injury. The claim? I am wrong because I am a liar, a deliberate attack upon an opponent’s character rather than presentation of a rebuttal. This too is a logical fallacy, a very well known one. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...Conclusion: The benefits of religion are straightforward and are, regardless of the chosen religion, almost universally positive. When religion does go bad, it appears to be the result of a very human political process. My opponent appears unable to acknowledge and unable to explore obvious contributing factors from culture, politics, economics, conflict, ethnicity, etc. Preferring the simplistic hand wave that religion is flawed. The entire support of the claims against religion appears to have faulty logic as a basis. The end result is quite clear, religion is obvious beneficial and the claim that it is not is simply irrational.