3 ms·

Assuming you're not a religious person, I don't really understand how a concept of answering for anything fits in your world view (except on an emotional level,

Assuming you're not a religious person, I don't really understand how a concept of answering for anything fits in your world view (except on an emotional level, that I can understand completely). It's all just atoms, right? That aside, I haven't ever seen anything even resembling of well-constructed argument that religious people do less net good/more net harm to the world more than secular people.

thwarted 17y ago
That aside, I haven't ever seen anything even resembling of well-constructed argument that religious people do less net good/more net harm to the world more than secular people. The stereotypical example is wars in the names of deities. However, there's also a burden of proof for the inverse of that on the religious people, specifically the anti-atheists, who claim that without God, we'd all be amoral and unethical, which they don't have arguments, well-constructed or not, for.
- w00pla 17y ago
  > The stereotypical example is wars in the names of deities. Another stereotypical example is oppression and murder in the name of state atheism. > specifically the anti-atheists I've never met an anti-atheist. Yet social sites such as this or reddit.com seems filled with militant foaming-around-the-mouth atheists. I sincerely hope that the reddit trend doesn’t spread to ycnews.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  > specifically the anti-atheists I am not one of those. I think the Bible actually specifically teaches that this is not the case due to something called the "common grace." There's a Wikipedia article about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace). You can pull that out next time you meet an anti-atheist from the Christian camp (although I have never met someone like that). Also the wars in the name of deities thing is bull. I am not a student of history, but in the secular school I attended growing up the history books typically taught that these wars were normally based on geopolitical aspirations. IF you believed the "wars in the name of deities" argument, you might be tempted to believe that Muslim extremism was the cause of recent terrorist bombings (buying into the "they hate our freedom" line of thought), but that too is false. Those bombing us are doing so because of specific actions that our country has taken against their people, like keeping military bases in Saudi Arabia, oppressing the people of Iran, and other things we have done.
  - thwarted 17y ago
    Good points. How much difference is there between a single leader's goals of geopolitical conquest and the way that leader convinces the people to fight?
puns 17y ago
It's not about real good/harm, it's about perceived harm. When confession lies at the core of your religion, you end up obsessing over your "sins" and then praying for forgiveness. When this becomes a norm in your life you'll have "more to answer for" than the guy who doesn't spare a second thought for his actions. Charity then becomes a way to pay for your sins.

thwarted 17y ago

That aside, I haven't ever seen anything even resembling of well-constructed argument that religious people do less net good/more net harm to the world more than secular people. The stereotypical example is wars in the names of deities. However, there's also a burden of proof for the inverse of that on the religious people, specifically the anti-atheists, who claim that without God, we'd all be amoral and unethical, which they don't have arguments, well-constructed or not, for.

w00pla 17y ago
> The stereotypical example is wars in the names of deities. Another stereotypical example is oppression and murder in the name of state atheism. > specifically the anti-atheists I've never met an anti-atheist. Yet social sites such as this or reddit.com seems filled with militant foaming-around-the-mouth atheists. I sincerely hope that the reddit trend doesn’t spread to ycnews.
houseabsolute 17y ago
> specifically the anti-atheists I am not one of those. I think the Bible actually specifically teaches that this is not the case due to something called the "common grace." There's a Wikipedia article about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace). You can pull that out next time you meet an anti-atheist from the Christian camp (although I have never met someone like that). Also the wars in the name of deities thing is bull. I am not a student of history, but in the secular school I attended growing up the history books typically taught that these wars were normally based on geopolitical aspirations. IF you believed the "wars in the name of deities" argument, you might be tempted to believe that Muslim extremism was the cause of recent terrorist bombings (buying into the "they hate our freedom" line of thought), but that too is false. Those bombing us are doing so because of specific actions that our country has taken against their people, like keeping military bases in Saudi Arabia, oppressing the people of Iran, and other things we have done.
- thwarted 17y ago
  Good points. How much difference is there between a single leader's goals of geopolitical conquest and the way that leader convinces the people to fight?

puns 17y ago

It's not about real good/harm, it's about perceived harm. When confession lies at the core of your religion, you end up obsessing over your "sins" and then praying for forgiveness. When this becomes a norm in your life you'll have "more to answer for" than the guy who doesn't spare a second thought for his actions. Charity then becomes a way to pay for your sins.