Religious debates are boring

Both arguments are fair. As far as I can infer you are a very rational and sensible persons, capable of nuanced arguments and straightforward, logical thinking. Your good personal qualities and sound state of mind also provide what appears to be a fundamental problem with the Con position. First, let me make a few remarks about the climate change/religious affiliation assertions con made in round two. While there is a reasonable argument that eradicating the magical thinking used by the religious devout does correlate to one"s ideas about climate change. According to Pew Research, religious affiliation and climate change does show this to be partially true but only nominally. [1] A rebuttal to Con"s position comes in via Brazil. Brazil has the world"s largest Catholic population [2] but according to Pew, they are also the most concerned about the effects of climate change. [3] A Yale University research forum on ecology and religion presents a comprehensive compilation of statements by powerful religious figures around the globe. [4] Here are two level-headed, lucid statement about climate from Pope Francis: Creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will; or, even less, is the property of only a few: Creation is a gift, it is a wonderful gift that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude. [5] Here is a second, again very clear position where religion and reason align without any radical departure from Christianity: "I wish to mention another threat to peace, which arises from the greedy exploitation of environmental resources. Even if "nature is at our disposition", all too often we do not "respect it or consider it a gracious gift which we must care for and set at the service of our brothers and sisters, including future generations". Here too what is crucial is responsibility on the part of all in pursuing, in a spirit of fraternity, policies respectful of this earth which is our common home. I recall a popular saying: "God always forgives, we sometimes forgive, but when nature " creation " is mistreated, she never forgives!". We have also witnessed the devastating effects of several recent natural disasters. In particular, I would mention once more the numerous victims and the great devastation caused in the Philippines and other countries of South-East Asia as a result of typhoon Haiyan. [6] At the same time, researchers have found links between religious beliefs, especially those believers espousing a belief in end-times theology. A study from two researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder found there are "strong reasons" to suggest that widespread belief in "end-times" and a "Second Coming" of Christ could impact U.S. environmental policy. [7] So? What"s my point? The Pro position provides compelling evidence to illustrate that religion while often it, very often in fact, installs the silliest nonsense it is incredibly adaptable"very much like capitalism, it seems die by its own hand and yet it returns, both play the role of the undead, sucking the life out everyone. Take interracial marriage, churches and religious leaders were against it but they weren"t insane enough to kill a money making enterprise based on fairy tales, so they gradually gave in because of outside pressure but everything else remained. In the future, gay marriage and homosexually will become some common and acceptable (maybe even in Mississippi, but don"t cross your fingers) that church leaders will give in and eventually society will force them to apologize for the disgusting remarks in the past just like it did a hundred years after the civil war. At the heart of Con"s argument is an optimism of eradicating very irrational people and ideas from society, of all the irrational ideas existing religion poses both the most challenge (unless we reach the hypothetical mention in round two) and the least worth pursuing in both time and effort. We"ve all probably know someone who in 2004 (specially, the election) was vehemently against gay marriage but now ten years later is open to the idea. I a lot of people who went from anti-gay marriage to pro-gay marriage. I know many people who have been convinced and moved from A to B. However, I have not meet anyone or been able to persuade a believer into a non-believer. Let me finish with a very extreme example of why a rigid belief system is irrational and can only be wiped out through very intense war. "In the 1930s, for example, the Nazis could not have been persuaded by rational argumentation that the Jews were not really at the centre of some international plot to undermine the Aryan race. You could not, present them with empirical evidence proving that the Jews were really not like that because they were not dealing with an objective view of reality. Rather, they were looking at the Jews from the point of view of a fantasy frame. You could not, then, contrast that fantasy frame with a view of reality because the whole point of a fantasy frame is that it constitutes your reality in the first place. So even if, you were a Nazi who lived next door to a real, neighbourly 'good' Jew, you would not experience any contradiction between your anti-Semitism and this neighbour. You would, rather, conclude that your neighbour proves quite how dangerous Jews are because they seem such decent people on the surface. The very facts which would seem to contradict your anti-Semitism would actually prove to be arguments in its favour precisely because you saw those facts through your fantasy window." [8] I am making this case to accentuate religion is an irrational force immune from the Con position which I believe is sound as fair as it goes but in practice something of a fantasy"even if it is a fantasy I too share. Just about every other debate is more worthy to pursue and more likely to results than the continued religious debate. When they look like their about to self-destruct, they return from the dead, adapting the social norms to remain in business. The religious debate remains at a deadlock and likely to remain there well into the distant future. It is similar to Game of Thrones, religious people are much like the wildlings, there are always going to be some out there, the question is what do you do. I say: build up that wall. [1]: Pew Research findings on the impact of religious beliefs and political beliefs: http://www.pewforum.org... [2] Statement that Brazil has the world"s largest Catholic population: "Brazil". International Religious Freedom Report. U.S. Department of State. 8 November 2005. Retrieved 30 June 2014. [3] Pew Research showing Brazil country most concern about climate change: http://www.pewglobal.org... [4] The Forum of Religion and Ecology at Yale University: http://fore.research.yale.edu... [5] The Yale website provides a series of links, one link is the Catholic Climate Covenant: http://catholicclimatecovenant.org... [6] Source 6 is from the same web page, the quote is right below [5] [7] Research linking end-times theology and climate policy: End-Times Theology, the Shadow of the Future, and Public Resistance to Addressing Global Climate ChangePolitical Research Quarterly June 2013 66:267-279, first published on May 1, 2012 Here is a direct link to the article: http://prq.sagepub.com... [8] Myers, Tony (2007-03-16). Slavoj Zizek (Routledge Critical Thinkers) (pp. 104-105). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.