An open discussion about religion in general

Again, I want to express my appreciation to Pro for being willing to take either side of this argument. I do think this proved to be a liability though. After I had taken the Anti-theist side, Pro willing accepted the pro-religion stance, which argues that religion, (we both focused on Christianity) is more of a positive on society than a negative. Although this is the common belief, I clearly laid out multiple arguments indicating the contrary to be true. Pro could not refute one of my arguments, while I exposed and vanquished all of her/his. “One thing that I do believe is that everyone should have an open mind about everything. You should never shoot something down immediately just because you feel differently. How does this apply to religion/the current conversation? Well, i think that athiests are a bit closed minded. ” 1) I don’t think Pro understands what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. It’s nothing more, nothing less. Again, I stand strong on my belief that religion does more harm than good. Did Pro really think after reading my arguments that I just shot it down ‘immediately’ because I feel differently? 2) Pro believes atheists are close minded. I will explain why it is the religious who is the close minded. I don’t claim that I am 100% right there is no God. I agree that it would be foolish to do so. But why should I give it any credence without any proof? If I were to tell you that an invisible leprechaun exists, would you dismiss it or keep an open mind? Anyone who dismisses it uses the same concept that an atheist does. The only difference is the unproven mythological character that is being referred. It’s the Theist, in my opinion, that generally will not change their stance. Why doesn’t a Christian worship Allah? Do you think he/she is close minded because they believe their scripture is the correct one? There have been thousands of gods believed in throughout history and everybody is atheist to the vast majority of them. I just go one god further. 3) Pro answered the challenge to my question; however she/he took it out of context. Neither Christopher Hitchens nor I meant word for word, but in the context of the phrase or action. I could replace “God’s children” with “homosapiens”, and the context of the statement would be identical. It would basically read: I respect everybody. 4) I cannot close this debate without touching on something Pro stated that is just flat out wrong. Pro made up their own definition for ‘religion’, then made a false statement about atheism. “religion is a personal thing. It's not just the Catholics and the Muslims and the Jewish people. Religion is what you believe and why you believe it. ” That was followed up with: “Even atheism is a religion, afterall. ” I guess not believing in unicorns must be a religion too. Those were not the correct definitions. Religion:1) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: 2) A particular system of faith and worship: 3) A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: As I said earlier, atheism is not a belief system. It is just the lack of a belief in a deity. Calling it a religion is equal to telling Christians that their religion is that they do not believe in Allah. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... In closing I would like to rehash that I backed up all of my arguments, and none were refuted. Pro’s arguments were feeble and exposed. I would like to close this debate by thanking Pro once again for posting this debate and willing to take either side.