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

Because you cannot disprove the existence of god(s) or a spiritual existence, you are indeed swallowing a belief, just a different kind.We are rejecting an unfounded and wildly preposterous claim. The bible, for example, is described as the inerrant word of God, but has been proven to conflict with modern understanding in multiple instances. As the God in question cannot hypothetically be wrong, we must either accept that the bible is correct and contradict many established scientific laws (for one, Archimedes' principle of floatation), or reject it as a work of man, to which no more significance can be attached than to any other unfounded, impossible claim.If you wanted to say you're not swallowing anything, you would be an considered an agnostic.One cannot "swallow" one's own conclusion. Observation of the world shows the existence of any asserted deities to be highly improbable and unnecessary, as well as contradictory to scientific laws. I have encountered almost every argument in favour of a deity's existence and have defeated them all. Stripped of all logical validity, the proponents always fall back to "you can't disprove it".The end conclusion is that while we have never disproved the existence of the supernatural, we have shown every particular assertion of supernatural existence to be impossible or highly improbable. Some people have no sense of community, and want only what's best for themselves.It is not the responsibility of those who do not participate in a community to seek its betterment. And this has no relation to atheism whatsoever.When they have a stick (hell) and a carrot (heaven) they may be better motivated to act in a manner which benefits others.I would consider the use of a lie to motivate the persons in question to be immoral.It is a common misconception that the Cristian God hates homosexuals. Most Christians believe that God hates the actions themselves, but not the person.The Christian God is allegedly incapable of hate. And homosexuality being a part of existence, existence being God's creation; either homosexuality or the capacity for being a homosexual must be a creation of God. Aside from that, if this God is so pathetically narrow-minded and bigoted as to hate a harmless sexual act, then it is quite simply not worthy of human worship. If it existed at all, that is.So your case is that 2/3 of the world populations is just plain crazy?The word was gullible.Science is only useful when things can be proven or disproven.What cannot be measured or observed has no physical or energetic manifestation and is therefore irrelevant to a material existence.You cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural.There is no scientific standpoint to be taken besides neutrality. The logical extrapolation is that the scientific verifiability of the existence of the supernatural is entirely irrelevant to human beings.If there was a God, do you really think he would do your daily tasks?Why would it not?Unless said god has a plan that involves more time, which again, you cannot prove or disprove.I am not in the business of accommodating every unfounded proposition, and make no exception for theism. And for an omnipotent being to require time to bring a plan to fruition is impossible. I believe the point being made was that people have different opinions about what is good or better.There was no point. The fool merely created a meaningless fabrication and based his conclusion upon it.Not to a straight personI'm sure vaginal sex would not appeal to a homosexual. That doesn't make it morally wrong or evil.