Debate: Would the world be better without all religions?
Side: yes

You are rejecting it based on the belief that it is a wildly preposterous claim. Not evidence.The teachings conflict with principles supported by evidence and experimentation. It cannot be taken in parts, as the religion teaches that it is inerrant. If it is wrong in any way, it must be a work of man and therefore is just a preposterous claim.I could say that someone who believes in Santa Clause follows a wildly preposterous claim, but I couldn't disprove it because Santa Clause is a supernatural figure, and the supernatural can't be tested.Again, his existence conflicts with scientific principles, upon which basis he can be dismissed as preposterous. It is entirely acceptable to dismiss hypotheses which conflict with such verified principles and do not provide any counter-evidence; crying "magic" doesn't give them any more credibility. Be that as it may, it can still be useful.Well, you are a republican.If god did exist in the way many religions believe him to, would he be irrelevant?Yes. Only irrational people can truly believe in a deity. For them the case is closed and appeals to reason simply do not work, as their beliefs are not founded upon reason. The other stances; apatheism, agnosticism and atheism would according to these teachings prevent us from being "saved" (from what, I cannot conceive).It is therefore entirely irrelevant whether it exists or not; belief cannot come through reason and it cannot be faked. One is either born gullible, or one was born rational. Beyond that, all discussion is futile.On the other hand, if the deity is all-loving, belief is irrelevant.Which is considered agnosticism.Have a shiny star.There could be many reasons. For example, if you have children, do you do everything for them? If you did, they would never learn to do things for themselves.If I were omniscient and all-powerful, I'd simply create them with the knowledge I wanted them to possess and then do everything in my power (which is everything) to make them happy. It's obscene for a being which could right all wrongs with the flick of a finger to create us with the capacity for wrong and then blame us for that capability's manifestation. It is also rather disturbing that a being who allegedly loves us to watch us, say, wash the floor when it could wash the floor instantly and without any inconvenience to itself; probably doing a better job.I like to use the sausage roll analogy. Imagine you were walking down the street with a bag of six sausage rolls, all for yourself. A starving dog presents itself and begs for food. If you had any scrap of humanity about you, a sausage roll would you tender unto the dog.Now picture God; a being with no appetite who possesses a bag containing an infinite supply of sausage rolls. Below him are billions of his children who are hungry and who possess no food. No moral being would watch billions of its loved ones starve and refuse to feed them, saying "I have a plan". Yes it is. But that is not what I meant. I was postulating that a longer time could have been planned, not that it was required.If this is a plan, it is a diabolical one.Occasionally, people require unification to get things done. Historically, religion has been very effective at unifying large groups of people.So has Nazism.Suicide may seem appealing to a severely depressed personSex is incomparable to suicide.but just because an action seems appealing doesn't mean it's right to do it.You have no comprehension of what motivates people to kill themselves. I'll thank you to keep your ignorance to yourself.