Religion brings more good then harm

I believe religion brings more good to the world then it does harm.

just to be clear, as definitions were a big problem in my last debate:

Definition of god: a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being.

Definition of religion: the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.

we share the burden of proof.

anyways, now that that's out of the way, we can begin. I believe religion is a net positive for the world, because it fills the human desire to be part of something greater and brings together people with similar values.

the paper “The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation" published in 1955 cements the idea that the need to belong is a universal and fundamental human desire. Religion fills this need of the people, as they share the same values and believe in the same higher power. whit the lack of religion, people are often driven to extreme political or philosophical positions, such as communism, Voluntary human extinction (a very fringe theory that humans should just stop reproducing,) and most likely nihilism, which is often why socialism and other radical ideologies vehemently oppose religion. The reason for this is we need to affirm that we will fulfill the "purpose" of life. with religion, your purpose is usually very clear (worship god, be a good person, avoid sins, etc). Without religion, it becomes mushy territory. with communism, you run to an unachievable marxist utopia, and that is your purpose. with most other radical ideologies, running towards utopia is usually the case. with nihilism, you believe there is no purpose, and it is strongly and positively related to depression.

now I will argue against main points against religion.

while it is true religious war exists and the boundaries of religion separate us, if we didn't have religion, these would just be replaced with other points of conflict, such as class in communism or race in many radical ideologies. 

Another argument is that religion is clearly wrong in that there is no god, but I would argue that is irrelevant to whether or not it is a net positive. the morality or factual correctness of something is irrelevant to weather it is a net positive or negative to the world.

Since there are no non-religious societies, it follows that Pro cannot possibly compare societies to make conclusion. So he lost there.

He might mean it on an individual level. However, atheists are much less likely to go to prison. So yeah, there is nothing to debate here. Just vote Con.

Actually, there have been many non-religious societies, and there still are. the Soviet Union, Communist china, and many other countries (especially ones with socialist or communist policies) have been without religion. in fact, even in marxist.org, "the ABC of communism" it claims, it is very clearly stated that "Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically."

also, just because there is a lack of comparable date (which there is not), does not mean my arguments in argument one are invalid. 

my opponent also mentioned that atheist people are less likely to go to jail. While this may be tru, with only 0.21% of the US inmate population being atheist, it is important to note that the data did not take into consideration inmates who preferred not to say and inmates whose religion was unknown. this data is also more than 15 years old, so it is practically irelevant now,

(for context, this was written at a time when religion was on a decline, when god's hand was no longer needed to explain most natural phenomena.)

this is a passage from famous German philosopher Fredrick Neitcsche's Die fröhliche Wissenschaft. What he is trying to convey in this passage is how religion fills "the hole" in out hearts for something greater, how that was shattered, and the impossibility of filling that hole without religion.  This really drives home my main arguments in argument 1.

These are my main arguments for religion being a net positive. 

There ia no God. There is no need to lie.

Weather or not there is a God does not matter much. If there is a God, your argument is invalid. If there isn't a God, we can do a thought experiment to see why that is irrelevant. 

Let's say Bob is part of a community that shuns anyone for liking hotdogs more than burgers. Alice has a huge suspicion that Bob likes hotdogs more. Clarence, however, liked Bob and didn't tell anyone. Later on, Bob made an invention related to burgers that everyone likes.

Now what would have happened if  clarence told? The invention  would never be made. Regardless of weather or not that was moral, she has undoubtedly made a net negative change compared to the first one.

This logic could be applied to god as well. Morality is irrelevant to this debate.

My previous points still stand. Therfore I conclude my rebuttal.

I say we should just reject all religions.

What is your reasoning?

I have already provided many reasons for why we should embrace religion. What are your counterpoints?

I am arguing against the topic "Religion brings more good then harm".

I am Con, so I oppose the topic.

One of the reasons against the given topic that I can think of is that atheists are less likely to end up in prison.

I am aware you are con, and that you oppose the topic, but you have not rebuted any of my points and have only brought up 2 points in 4 arguments that I have already rebutted. I think I have already said enough, and I can't rebutt your argument if you don't have one.

Anyways that's my clsong. Good debate, and may the best debater win!

Hey, its not my job to read your arguments. 

Thats voter's job.