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

Pardon the expression, but for Christs sake, man. If i said "the White House said today in a memo blah blah blah," i wouldn't expect you to point out that the White House cant talk, i would expect you to understand that i am referencing the actions of the people in or having to to with the building, not the building itself.The white house has a designated spokesperson, and so do specific religious sects. Religion does not have a spokesperson.And to then use my figure of speech against me as "illogical" and therefore con conclude that i shouldn't attest to anything about religion because of it is, once again, a cheap shot. As for your figure of speech being illogical, see my response above. Plus I'll address the distinction you try to make between government and religion below.Not necessarily, but as much so to everything else of humanity.Religion, Government, Language and Science necessarily require willful communal activity to exist. They are all based on agreements between people. Always. So yes necessarily.i think i would better serve our purpose to look at government as the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functionsThere 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.religion as the service and worship of God or the supernatural, commitment or devotion to religious faith or observanceIf 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. I think it would serve our purpose better to realize that everyone has their own individualized religion. This is easy to do if you view religion as a belief/value system. It's also mighty conducive for getting people to stop stereotyping one another based on a label. I think the chances of having progressive conversations are a whole lot better if the participants respect that despite a label like Christian, Muslim or Atheist we can learn from those with differing beliefs if we approach the conversation with curiosity as opposed to prejudice.language as the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community. This, opposed to deciding that because they all have people in them they are somehow completely indistinguishable.I never claimed language was indistinguishable from what religion and government is. I did claim that government and religion were fundamentally (not completely) indistinguishable, but I remain open to hear a logical distinction between what government and religion is. Name something that religion does not have in common with government.I think you're arguing from a point where language no longer means anything. I think the difference between what government is and what religion is only in how they are spelled. It would be neat to be convinced otherwise.But that's rather a stupid question, you're just drawing attention to the fact that we disagree and insinuating that it's the fault of some sort of an understanding disorder on my part that we haven't resolved anything yet. Don't you think i feel the same way about you? Would saying so help anything?Good point. I hope you will still engage me in good faith. I do try not to use those disturbingly effective tools of rhetoric (first at least)A world without religion is entirely plausibleI hope by now you understand why I disagree. Now, according to how you have explained your understanding of religion, you seem to think it's synonymous with superstition. I am not sure if delusional thinking can be completely irradiated, but I do have faith that with a robust application of logical reasoning we could make great headway.a world without thinking is a little harder to imagine.LOLOkay, but i am 100% without religion, yet i still seem to be here, functioning. I have beliefs and opinions and views on things, but none of them could be called religious. If religion is an absolutely necessary and irrevocable part of the human condition, how can i be without it? And what's to stop the whole world from ending up like me, and like so many other people who are without religion?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 you also seem to be making to separate points, one that we cant remove religion and the other that we cant criticize it.You can criticize a religion but not religion in general.i don't think that anything is above criticismGood. Then you'll be able to deal with the erroneous conclusions you have come to about what religion is.i think that questions like "is government bad for the world?" are entirely valid.I'll convince you otherwise if I can.For me the defining difference between systems of values/beliefs, as you've often put it, and religion is the nonsense factor.So once you have purged all poorly founded nonsense from your system of beliefs, you think your belief system isn't religious anymore.?..OKAt the point where you no longer have to base your values/beliefs on dogma/faith, religion no longer has any place....I think you have the intellectual equivalents of dogma and faith whether you recognize it or not.