|
|
 Originally Posted by oskar
I called out spoon on it so I have to call you out too. You could plug in any two things in this statement to condone anything, so it can't be valid.
That's not the reason I condone religion.
That's a statement that points out people who cite the negative consequences of religion often ignore the negative consequences which are not of religion.
If you're going to say religion is bad because it has negative consequences, then I ask, "compared to what?"
Naziism was anti-religious, as was Stalinism. Neither exactly great examples of positive consequences.
The reason I condone religion is the other post on the subject, that even if it only helps some people be better people for a few hours a week, then it's fine.
The only counter is to show that there is a net increase in negative effects which counters this positive. I'm not seeing it.
|
Reply With Quote