2 ms·

You are arguing against an ideological worldview. It should go without saying that religious belief (as varied as it is) has very little to do either way with

You are arguing against an ideological worldview. It should go without saying that religious belief (as varied as it is) has very little to do either way with sound reasoning. You can find monsters throughout history that are (edit) religious or non-religious. Speaking of contradictory beliefs, how about Lenin? He was an atheist but also thought he was a man of destiny...and murdered a bunch of people through fanaticism. Of course nobody wants to claim him today - not a true believer. Everybody knows true believers wouldn't do that.

DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
> It should go without saying that religious belief (as varied as it is) has very little to do either way with sound reasoning. You can find monsters throughout history with faith or non-faith. I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say. The first sentence seems to be an assertion about the relationship between reason and religious belief. But the second sentence seems to be about the non-relationship between holding a [non-]religious world-view and being a monster. Are those two sentences were meant to work together to make a larger point? If so, would you mind restating it so I can understand?