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

You think considering the merits and pointing out the flaws of religion is totally pointless?Right. You can consider the merits and point out the flaws of specific sects, but not religion in general.My fundamental argument is that religion is unnecessary and society will be better off when it's gone.And mine is that if we are talking about religion, we are talking about belief systems and it's delusional to think we can somehow avoid forming them.Maybe you should go back and read the entirety of the sentence you lifted that quote from. I said it the fact that it is a willful and optional system of belief makes it more open to 'is it good/bad for the world' criticism than culture, which is an unavoidable consequence of human beings interacting with one another. I went back and re-read. Now maybe you should give a go at answering the question I asked.I think that religion of one form or another is unavoidable. It's not like a person can decide not to have a belief system. No, i don't think humanity can stay this stupid forever.Were stupid if we think belief systems can be done away with as opposed to improved or made worse.But you're right in saying that the cancer of religion has taken very deep roots in society, so much so that many people cant imagine a world without it.I said no such thing. Religion is not something that comes along after a society forms and attaches itself to it and "takes root". Religion is foundational to society. Societies don't form without commonality of belief/value systems.Trying to come up with ways to improve specific belief systems is a much better use of our imagination than trying to conceive of a world with no belief systems at all. One is practical the other is delusional.Indeed, in my country we have religious groups that think the world will be possessed by demons if society isn't run by god, or rather, religion. Society will always be run by people, people's actions will always be based on belief/value systems of one form or another.Exactly!So you admit that government enforces whatever belief system (religion) is prevalent in the region. I'd be interested to read an explanation from you about how a government differs from a religion so I can logically disassemble it and show that there is no substantial difference.And it is NOT any business of religion to be enforcing delusional, unprovable beliefsA religion's business is to propagate beliefs that are proven to be helpful to those it aims to help.its the business of the government to decide how the country is to be run, hopefully one run by the people.So if you can see that you are opposed to certain TYPES of government (presumably top down authoritarian types) but not government itself, why can't you regard religion analogously?Religion has no place infringing on freedom, but it does anyways.Oh I am sure there are some freedoms you would be dogmatically opposed to.And, as i said, feel free to open up a debate where we can talk about the merits of government and its impact on the world.I'd rather argue that the difference between what a religion is and what a government is are purely semantic and illusory.Personally i think its done its good and its bad but it's not as fundamentally rotten as religion, it has a greater basis in reality, and society would be worse off without it than without religion.Everything has a basis is in reality. Now if you want to talk about delusional ideologies why not start with the one you appear to have which supposes religion and government are things society can function without.But that's not what we're discussing here, so while it has use as a metaphor i don't see the point in asking if governments or religion do more harm, because it's a perfectly valid question and invites me to compare the necessity of religion to that of government, and religion comes up short; it's a question to be asked elsewhere but it doesn't help your cause here.You aren't the sole dictator of what we are talking about. I am saying it's naive to think society can operate without government or religion. If you want to stay on topic try answering the question I asked earlier..to wit: "How is it possible for a person or a society to refrain from establishing belief/value systems?"I am opposed to the system of religion.Which one(s)? or better still which specific aspects of them? How can I get you to understand that being opposed to religion in general is a pointless approach?How can i not be opposed to religion?By looking at religion in a more mature and logical manner.And can someone not legitimately be an anarchist, opposed to the system of government?They can't be opposed to all forms of government. They can be opposed to certain types of government, but being opposed to government itself is as silly as being opposed to religion itself.Okay, sounds good. Tie this to your argument again for me if you please, because I'm missing it.Sure you were referring to religion as being based on unprovable beliefs which is untrue because beliefs don't form in the absence of accepted proof.