Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

You just want to define religion based on the people who you'd probably admit are practicing the most immature varieties of it. I would say the ideology itself is the problem, not the way it is being practiced.You can be opposed to a specific ideology. And you have made it very clear that you understand that to talk of religion is to talk of ideologies, yet you can't seem to make the jump to realize that condemning religion in general is as stupid as saying "I am against ideologies"I'll try to help you see the folly in your overly dogmatic way of viewing religion if I canI think that humanity would be seriously worse off without governments because we need government to function well.While I would contend that having some form of government is inescapable. Government can be changed but not done away with, and it is the same with religion.anarchism is still a perfectly valid philosophy to hold.Anarchy does not exist as a unified philosophy. Some professed anarchists hold the delusional notion that we can operate without any form of governance at all. Others who are better informed realize that their opposition is only to certain types of government. Namely those types whose authority is not based on the consent of the governed but rather violent coercion.I am opposed to all types of religion that have clergy, deal with magic, the supernatural, or god, promote faith without reason, demand submission, encourage prayer, derive wisdom from dogma, and practice according traditions.That's better. However, with a tad of humility and a pinch of lateral thinking skills, I'll bet you can discover quite a few similarities where you fancy yourself so different. Ever heard that a person's religion is just their particular brand of intolerance?Correct me if I'm wrong but any religion lacking those elements could better be described as a philosophy.Why better?Once again your habit of retarded over-simplification will hinder your understand in this regard; "systems of belief" is a definition for both "religion" and "philosophy," but it does not describe the entirety of either. I think your characterization of religion being limited only to philosophies that "have clergy, deal with magic, the supernatural, or god, promote faith without reason, demand submission, encourage prayer, derive wisdom from dogma, and practice according traditions." is an over-simplification that doesn't describe the entirety of what religion is. My description is all encompassing and yours only refers to sects that you have a problem with. I think it's important to establish where we have commonality before we get into comparing differences. The delusion that there are religious and non-religious people is clearly the orthodox way of looking at things, but it's certainly not helpful in any way.I am not religious because my philosophy on life, my opinions, and by beliefs do not coincide with the generally accepted (as opposed to your personal) definition of religion.There is more than one "generally accepted" definition of religion. Of the 4 definitions given at merriam webster's I think numbers 2 and 4 reasonably describe your religiosity.atheists themselves are each a living, breathing testament to the ignorance of the statement "religion is ubiquitous."atheists are just another sect defined by their religious beliefs about theismThe cancer of religion is too thoroughly ingrained in our society to ever fully be curedIf only you would view religion less ignorantly :) you'd see that it's not "ingrained in" society but rather that it is "fundamental to" every society. The cancer of religion cannot be cured until you recognize the problem is within religion, not religion itself.