Religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.

Framing. “Basically in would like to debate that religion does more harm than good today and in the past.” There is no doubt what we are doing here.The Good Vs the Bad religion does not solely if it is beneficial or has been. So with that cleared up. “The trap” Con is apparently in blatant denial of the facts at this point. And also in error of the second rule stated in round 1. (Use logic) “Pro suggests that quantification of non-religion can occur by examining secular communities. This is a false proposition” Logically if we want to quantify the non-effects of something we would look where it is overall the least such as less religious communities and nations. The crime rate of secular communities is far lower VS mostly religious ones.[2] In the us 0.209% of the prison population are atheists. Not only do less religious countries have less crime Studies show that they also have a higher quality of life compared to religious ones this negates Con’s second point as well as his first. Non-religious nations have higher quality of life Religion and the Holocaust Con attempts to provide 3 secular movements trying to back his case up however he further proves my point thank you Con. 1. The Holocaust (6 million deaths) 1. Hitler was baptized a Catholic and attended Catholic schools and churches in Austria. 2. Hitler repeatedly wrote and said that he was on a divine mission from God to destroy the Jews. 3. The Nazis made much of their interpretation that Jesus was not Jewish so they could retain him for a god. 4. In 1941 Hitler told his army adjutant General Gerhard Engel: "I shall remain a Catholic forever." 5. Adolf Hitler was raised by devout Catholic mother. 6. We again clearly conclude that religion is responsible for yet another atrocity and that death of 6 million people is not overall beneficial to society or humanity therefore my argument holds while Cons simply do not. 2. Pol pot specifically said he was going after Cambodians with “Khmer bodies, but Vietnamese minds” as well as actual Vietnamese people. 3. Get that? He murdered for nationalist, racist and ethnic reasons-he wasn't motivated by "atheism". Stalin was raised devout in the Greek Orthodox Church. His parents hoped he would become a priest. Of course wars will happen regardless of religion but however all the wars Con stated where religiously inspired. Furthermore without religion we do know that there would be fewer wars because we know of so many that religiously motivated. Remember were balancing the good of religion against the bad. As far as altruism. Secular nations such as those in Scandinavia donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations. Zuckerman also reports studies show that, during the Holocaust, the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews. Numerous studies, show that atheists, when compared to religious people, are actually less likely to be nationalistic, racist, anti-Semitic, dogmatic, ethnocentric, and authoritarian. Secularism also correlates to higher education levels 63 studies has found that atheists are on average more intelligent than believers. Atheists and other secular people are also much more likely to support women's rights and gender equality, as well as gay and lesbian rights. Religious individuals are more likely to support government use of torture. Non-religious countries have a far better quality of life. “Genetic Codes:” Con has no evidence that genetics are solely responsible for violent tendencies and aggression. Research has demonstrated that both genetic and environmental factors play a role in aggression and violent tendencies. We see how I have demonstrated that religion overall does more harm than good to humanity and society. Let’s look at Cons argument... That the less there is of a population that has violent tendencies that are genetic predispositions would indeed benefit humanity. So because a population or society is has violent tendencies they should be eradicated? Would it not be far more efficient to remove a major cause or source of the violence? Of course such as religion. A Study Suggests that Religion helps criminals justify their crimes. [2] Thus I have backed that religion is the motive for a lot of aggression and violence and therefore is not overall beneficial to humanity and society. Therefore without religion we would have less societies that are predisposed to violence and aggression. I will reiterate that it is because of religion that we have a greater amount of societies that are predisposed to aggression and violence. We see how religion is not overall beneficial to society and humanity. (Include round 3) http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...