Christianity is a force for good in the world.

Con asks, "What generalizations have I made that you think are invalid?" Those generalizations that Christians are intolerant, opposed to scientific progress, and believe in the ancient brutal interpretations of scripture rather than modern benign interpretations. If you claim that you only meant "some" Christians and not Christians in general, then your case collapses, because "more harm than good" is a generality to be proved. Atheists or Girl Scouts or any other group is equally subject to charges that "some" are bad. C1: To support generalization, produce polls or surveys showing harmful belief or behavior. Con must do that for claims of intolerance, hatred, etc. Con must produce extraordinary evidence, because we do not hear Christians calling for killing infidels or abandoning families or any of what is alleged. Con asks, "What then is the benefit of Christian theology? It is obviously a mixed bag of good advice coupled with life destroying gibberish." I have already answered that, but I will do it again. The benefit of scripture rank with conflicts and contradictions is that it provokes contemplation of important moral issues, and over time in the light of civilization it leads to satisfactory resolutions of them. Not every issue is resolved to Con's liking or to mine, but Christianity does quite well. They oppose slavery, don't burn witches or kill infidels, promote charity, and promote the simple benefits of community. To make his case, Con needs to produce polls or surveys to the contrary. C2: Con asks, "...you did a good job in demonstrating that many forms of dogmatism can thrive in a plethora of different settings, but what is it you are attempting to show by doing this?" I am showing that human nature is unchanged and that people demand, and will have, simple principles to live by. Get rid of the Christian God and people will with ease worship the Delta Smelt. Abolish old Satan and they will invent the great demon of Global Warming who demands $40 trillion per year to save us. The Christian God is far more merciful. The Christian God is more merciful because Christian beliefs have had 2000 years to evolve under the pressure of civilization. Ecology worship will become benign if it lasts for 2000 years, but right now it is in the stage of, metaphorically speaking, advocating slavery and killing infidels. Christianity won't allow killing infidels any more, but the grand new religion will. There are many attractive irrationalities on the rise. Socialism was very thoroughly tested in the 20th Century, with every variety of democratic and undemocratic socialism tried. Every one produced economic disaster for readily explained reasons. However, it remains as a perfectly viable substitute for religion. Con claims, "We could have a rational system of morality and social order that doesn't foment hatred against gays or women and that is as unbound by dogmatism as science is." Christianity does not foment hatred against gays or women; he has produced no polls or surveys showing it does. The same technique of false generality can be used against atheism. How are human rights fairing in China, North Korea, and Vietnam, which hold the preponderance of atheists in the world? Does unbounded rationality prevail? It does not. In the United States, it is clear that rationality is not rising as Christianity declines. People seek simple dogmatic rules to guide their lives. Worshiping minnows, as is done in California, is every bit as satisfying to people as worshipping the Christian God, and it is a good deal more harmful. Vast areas of once productive farmland are turned into desert in the name of Lord Delta Smelt. We demand separation of traditional religious beliefs, so there would be an uprising if a religion demanded that we only at food bless by a holy man. However, few care if we are require to avoid dark-colored cars in symbolic obedience to an eco-god. Belief or non-belief in evolution has little impact on our daily lives. What is the proof that the U.S. has trouble recruiting new scientists because of belief in Creationism? The problem we have with growing scientists is that American students don't want to study hard, and that is more due so the secular disintegration of the traditional work ethic. Belief in Creationism so less damaging than beliefs in astrology, New Age mumbo-jumbo, irrational political ideologies, or modern pseudo-science. Con claims, "The most advanced nations with the highest levels of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality are undeniably the some of the most secular." This Con asserts that correlation proves causation, a basic error. The classic is that homicide rates correlate well with ice cream sales, both caused by hot weather and not one causing the other. One could list the top totalitarian regimes: North Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam and then claim that atheism causes loss of human rights. Correlation does not prove it. Another problem is that atheism does not mean lack of religion. "In a 2003 poll in France, 41 percent described themselves as atheist and 26 percent as having no religion. Eighty-three to eighty-eight percent describe themselves as Catholic - some apparently seeing themselves as both attached to the Catholic Church and as atheists. " Japan has 97% considering themselves Shinto or Buddhist or both, while about 67% are also self-proclaimed atheists. Thus there are countries that are among both "most atheist" and "most religious." That destroys any claimed correlation, and it underscores my claim that religious institutions have dominated by their social aspects, not scripture. C3: So why did Mormons support gay rights in Utah and oppose Prop 8 in California? Are they intolerant only in even numbered years? Prop 8 was entirely about use of the word "marriage." Equal rights for gays was previously guaranteed by the state constitution, and any unequal law is declared unconstitutional. Hence the argument is along the lines of "equality of the sexes will not be obtained until the separate pronouns "he" and "she" are abolished by law." Pro argues that scriptures can be used to rationalize intolerance. This supposes here is some difficult rationalizing intolerance without scripture, and there is no evidence of that. Intolerance derives from the tribalism inherent in human nature. Christianity has it well settled that their scripture demands tolerance, so the social pressure as a whole from Christianity is for the good. A1: Con claims, "Jesus told us that we are to abandon our families and he even suggested that we must hate them in order to follow him more fully." Back around the Third Century that was a burning issue of Christianity. In modern times, the issue has been settled in favor of family values. Con simply proclaims without proof that Christianity took the other path and is now dominated by radicals bent upon holy war. Con says that Christianity does not advance, but I have given ample evidence it does. Con ignores that Christians are not burning witches or supporting slavery. His claim is clearly wrong. A2: Con claims that secular charities would arise to replace the thousands of Christian ones. That grants that right now Christianity is an enormous force for good, otherwise it wouldn't need to be replaced. The large numbers of atheists claiming religious affiliation proves the social aspects of religion are not easily replaced. Beyond charity, there is a code of moral conduct, community events, rituals for marriage and death, and church members looking after each other in many small ways. It would take centuries for replacement institutions to arise. Con overlooks the manifold good in favor of odd obsessions with Creationism or the use of the word "marriage." His case lacks proportion. The resolution is affirmed.