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

I think "working together for the common interests" is a light and obscure assertion as to the the motives and predispositions of the very first people who originally set these things up, but hey, I wasn't there, so i wouldn't know.You don't have to have been there to understand that the origins of communal behavior is common interest.Even having heard it from someone who knows, i find it hard to swallow such a sugar coated line. Historically religion has been more interested in "making other people work together for self-interest," though, again, unlike you, I cant assuredly attest to the genesis of religion. I suppose that without a logical basis for your understanding of religion you shouldn't assuredly attest to anything about religion. Your statement starting with "Historically religion has been more interested in" illustrates that you are comfortable using the term in an illogical manner. People can "be interested in X" religion cannot.I think the description "working together" hits the nail on the head for society, but government is generally a means of implementing laws through control and language is communication.All three entail people working together willingly.If the tree is a tree of concepts of humanity, I agree, but the branches are not indistinguishable.Well since I think science refines religion and by no means negates it, I am curious to read an explanation from you of why I should think otherwise.Yes, at their core, all of these ideas have the human element, and i never claimed otherwise.They are also all belief/value system oriented.And I'm not trying to debate origins because the point of this debate is to figure out if religion is good or bad for the world, today.But the question is as pointless as asking if human thought is good or bad for the world today. Addressing specific lines of thinking makes a whole lot more sense than trying to evaluate thinking in general. How many different ways do I have to put it for you to make the connection that criticizing religion in general is an exercise in futility? But you are trying to equate length of existence and depth of belief in the populace with relevance and need. That's like saying that because you've had cancer since you were five, there's really no point in treating it or removing it because its been around with you forever, and it's really become a defining element of your personality, the fact that you have cancer. You misunderstand me. I view religion as an inexorable function of the human condition. To suggest doing away with religion is like suggesting the brain be removed when someone has a headache. After all thats where the problem is.If we manage to live long enough without blowing ourselves up, i think gradual enlightenment of humanity will cause religion to die a death of acute embarrassmentWith gradual enlightenment, religion will simply evolve to be less rife with delusional thinking, it won't "die a death". I share your faith however that acute embarrassment can affect some much needed changes.it means that those beliefs will no longer needed to be policed and enforced by clerical fascists, and that those beliefs will no longer need to rely on faith that defies evidence and reason.If these "clerical fascists" (even those who are thought of as secular) lose their lofty status, and rigorous reasoning takes the place of passive listening to lectures and parroting cheap talking points like "religion is bad" we'll be onto something.