humanity would have been better off without religion

Since no round or rule format was created, I will make a last round argument in the heat of the debate. My opponent brought up some interesting points in his last round that need to be addressed. CLOSING ARGUMENT: We should not forget about the important research that has been done in regards to world religions. The worlds leading anthropologists have shown that religions did not evolve, but instead, its shown to become distorted over time. [2] Religion appears to have been around for almost thirty thousand years. This distortion of religion has caused the many radical religious beliefs. The sheer amount of religions from humanity is amazing. Religion can truly be traced to the earliest humans as hunting and adventuring would be. [3] The majority of humanity have come together because of religious belief. When harmful or non-harmful are compared in religion we will see that religion causes less harm more than most of the time. Evidence shows that religion has been apart of human nature. Even though there are many different religions today, the original source has given growth to mankind instead of stunting it. Again, I remind you that taking away religious belief is a rights violation. Not all people who commit terrible acts who are connected to religion, do them for or because of religion. [4] My opponent would appear to have us believe that everyone who has done something terrible who has religious beliefs, makes that religion at fault. Fact is, religious and non-religious alike do terrible things and most of the time it really has nothing to do with the religion themselves. Pro suggests that Christian doctrine is the same as the Hebrews in Egypt. [1] Well there was no Law for Israel yet and it was God who did this, not people. There were also no Christians at this time because Jesus Christ had not come yet. The next verses are in Samuel, my opponent gives us just part of the story and ignores statements in the passage itself. The passage gives clear indication that Amalek had done something to Israel first and this was part retribution. There is also another reason which was that these people were not only incestuous but also mixing with angels or demons. Notice that these people had giants with them. This is a common theme in the Bible and God did not intend for that to happen. In Ezekiel we are given the judgement of the Idolaters. Here we see that people were marked who were to be spared because they did not take part in idolatry. If we read more we would see that the Idolaters burned their children alive, they killed, robbed and captured surrounding peoples. God commanded Israel to rid the earth of these specific idolaters, not all idolaters. My opponent moves on into other religions as Judaism but never gives us any example against Judaism itself. Pro can not expect us to know all the things that have happened because of Judaism. Or maybe this is because there are not many cases to mention? My opponent also opposes India's choice not to eat cows. Well shouldn't we also call vegetarians a religious group also by that standard? Just because one choose not to eat meat does not necessarily mean its about religion or harmful. There are many types of food to eat in India besides cows. 1. Taiping Rebellion: My opponent claims that because someone is apart of one religion, his acts are because of that religion. Untrue, it is that person who is to blame for his acts. This kind of phantom religion argument don't fly. 2. Inquisition: I agree that Islam calls for its followers to kill anyone who is not Muslim to some extent. I can agree there is a problem there but there is no way to justify the Inquisition for Christianity. 3. Crusades: My opponent disagrees with my sources assessment but that does not dispose of its comments. I also would like to point out that Jerusalem supposedly had tons of gold and in fact had a temple with tons of gold and jewels. Though really it was Muslims who were advancing and caused the wars during the Crusades and the capture of Israel developed later by the Roman Catholic church and various others. [5] 4. The Holocaust: First my opponent admitted that you do not have to be in Judaism to be Jewish when he said that being a family member qualifies you. What if you are atheist and mother and father are Jews? In fact you are Jew if you descend from Jewish heritage, even if you do not practice Judaism. Here we go again, the occurring theme of blaming religion for its members actions. Was Hitler claiming Jesus Christ or the Bible told him to kill Jews? Hitler and Germany may have been Christian but that does not mean they were with support of Christianity. Was world-wide Christians supporting their cause? No, Christians and a variety of other beliefs defeated Germany. Also my opponents assessment and source on this topic is incorrect. It is common knowledge that Hitler sought a supreme race of men and that included killing many races besides Jewish. CLOSING: This whole debate has been about labeling groups from a select few within them. This kind of thinking is the problem with my opponents resolution. The problem is, people, each and every kind of people. This can go into any group then, like gangs, military, societies, boy scouts, what's next? People disagree and have disputes that lead to war and people dead. With or without religion people would still disagree and people would still find reason to kill one another. Therefore religion is not the issue, it is people themselves. I thank everyone, Vote Con! SOURCES: [1] . http://www.answering-christianity.com... [2] . http://www.scribd.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.encyclopedia.com... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...