Debate: Is religion good or bad for the world?
Side: religion is bad

The white house has a designated spokesperson, and so do specific religious sects.A bad example, perhaps, because the white house does have a spokesperson, but it still doesn't negate the fact that i was using a figure of speech, and using it does not make me illogical.They are all based on agreements between people. Always. So yes necessarily.I didn't know you were arguing "based on" as opposed to "required." Not all those things require agreements between all the people they involve to function, but i suppose they would have all been impossible to found without agreements. There are several such systems that "political units" use to exercise authority, some are called governments, others are called religions. Both are fashioned for the purpose of affecting what is deemed by the "political unit" to be desirable human behavior.I lifted the definitions from a dictionary. Concisely describing any concept as vast as government requires some level of generalization. Again, all i see here is you picking apart the language until it doesn't mean anything anymore. You wouldn't fail to differentiate between you and me, and, indeed, fail to recognize the fact that we are separate people just because we are both fundamentally similar as human beings (or almost identical). If you want to argue against superstitions, I'm your ally. If you want to stereotype and claim that religion must by it's very nature be based on superstition, I'll argue against your over-generalization because religions exist that aren't.Superstitions would fit well in the religious definition, but you brought that up, not me. When a system of belief has to do with God, the supernatural, submission, servitude, worship, faith, dogma, magic, and all the other things religion is generally defined by, that is what makes those beliefs religious. If your beliefs are lacking in some appropriate variation of those elements, you beliefs go by some other name, like political beliefs or moral beliefs or what have you. In regards to the inevitable generalization that comes with putting a timely group of words to massive concept, by and large religious beliefs are colored by the aforementioned elements; it's what makes them religious beliefs. You might be able to find me a notable exception (you'd be the first), but i don't see how the world wouldn't be better for being rid of those elements. This is easy to do if you view religion as a belief/value system.Here's a bit i posted for you and you didnt reply to, i think it's relevant here:I think perhaps we should back up here and i should ask you what you think religion means. When i think of religion i think of faith and/or organized religion, fair and accurate interpretations, i think, whereas you seem to use 'religion' and 'belief system' interchangeably, also a fair interpretation, but one with a different connotation.Because i see religion as faith (unexamined belief that defies reason) and clergy (humanity's headlice) i think this colors my opinion that religion is bad for the world because i think faith is more of a curse than a virtue, and clergy exist for the benefit and empowerment of clergy, a cause i cant stand behind.But addressing how you seem to see religion - it seems to me that all religion is a system of belief but not all systems of belief are religious. Wouldn't it therefore be possible for humanity to retain systems of belief while also ditching religion? To still have ideals regarding morality, politics, and ideological pursuits while also being bereft of scripture, religious oppression, clergy, temples, worship, and submission?we can learn from those with differing beliefs if we approach the conversation with curiosity as opposed to prejudice.I think it's only natural to draw conclusions based on what we've seen and experienced, and most of what I've learned has appalled me. But I'm still a rather open minded individual, especially compared to other people on this site (not a jab at you, there are some real ignoramuses here); i do listen to and consider opposing viewpoints. I still take time out to read scripture in lieu of evidence even though i have been sorely disappointed every time. I trawl across religious propaganda websites people source, really trying to look for the substance of the argument even though I've never found any. I still ask questions. I think it's possible to think religion is bad for the world while still retaining an open mind on the subject. Opinions change.Name something that religion does not have in common with government.the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observanceIf you have to define two similar things, it follows that you have to point out the differences, slight though they may be. I'll give you that the textbook definitions of religion and government are very similar. But it is the differences that set them apart, and those. Again, you and me. We both have eyes, ears, arms, legs, hair, the lot (presumably); we're both human beings. But what makes you you and me me is the few things we don't have in common. According to how you have defined religion to me, that reads like "I am free from all forms of delusional thinking" If you think that, I hope I can at least plant a seed of doubt.And according to how you define religion is is synonyms with 'belief system.' This is correct, but too vague. Someone can have a belief system free of magic-hocus-pocus and all the rest, but if someone's system of belief includes those things it is a religious system of belief. Not having those things might make those beliefs instead philosophical or political, or even spiritual. You can criticize a religion but not religion in general.Why?I'll convince you otherwise if I can.Sure. Tell me why i cant question government, either. So once you have purged all poorly founded nonsense from your system of beliefs, you think your belief system isn't religious anymore.?..OKIf you look at the definition of religion and cross off poorly founded nonsense from the description, you now have the definition of a different word. I dont see how this is so irrational. ...I think you have the intellectual equivalents of dogma and faith whether you recognize it or not.It is something i know and that's fine with me. It's the 'intellectual' part that makes it okay. Intellectual dogma is an oxymoron.