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

A religion's business is to propagate beliefs that are proven to be helpful to those it aims to help.Religions rarely restrict themselves to only propaganda, religion rarely waits for proof of anything before acting on it and oftentimes acts to counter proof, and insinuating that religion exists to help people should seem foolish, even to a religious person. 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?Because i think that we need government a lot more than we need religion. Infinitely more, actually. Oh I am sure there are some freedoms you would be dogmatically opposed toShoot. I'd love to hear 'em. I'm also intrigued to read any dogma i might type out here, so please, i insist. 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.I don't see any way to confirm or deny the first bit. We could function without religion or government: we would function better without religion (if we attained out beliefs from something more pure and substantial), and we would function worse without government. You aren't the sole dictator of what we are talking about...You've thrown down too many absolutist, "cant" statements to pull that now. Besides, i was referencing the debate itself, is religion good or bad for the world. I don't think religion and government are comparable/applicable in the context you are talking about in this debate and my political views can be as lengthy as my religious ones so instead of clogging up this debate even more with points irrelevant an inapplicable to its purpose, i was simply suggesting we do it elsewhere. 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?That's also a very long-winded response i don't want to put here. I've debated the merits and demerits of several religions on several different debates on this site, but here I'm not beefing with Christianity or Islam specifically, I'm trying to assert that the world would be better off without the lot of them. If you can show me that faith, the willful suspension of disbelief against and in spite of evidence, and clergy, a parasitical class of liars and thieves, are not at all a part of religion and that religion is 100% of the time a personal system of belief, then i will 'understand' that it is pointless to oppose religion. But i already don't oppose personal spirituality, so it may be a moot point, but we seem to like splitting hairs, here, don't we?They can't be opposed to all forms of government.Go look it up. 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.And round and round we go. So religion is based on provable beliefs because religion is belief and reasonable proof is subjective standard so the moment someone accepts the measly "evidence" for faith, religion is "proved?" Clever dick rational.