4 ms·

Plenty of people prove this not to be working at all. Plenty of priests have fucked kids. Religoius people are often enough the same amount of assholes or mor

by Haiatu 5y ago

Plenty of people prove this not to be working at all. Plenty of priests have fucked kids. Religoius people are often enough the same amount of assholes or more. I have not fought over a city for ages due to some believe.

lhorie 5y ago
Religious types often say the same of the non-religious. Here's other analogies to illustrate the reductio ad absurdum: plenty of people prove school not to be working (by getting failing grades, passing by cheating, etc), plenty of people prove entrepreneurship not to be working (by going bankrupt), etc. All this line of observation shows us is that variability exists everywhere. Something to keep in mind is that religious societies have existed for millennia, whereas societies that are openly non-religious are a relatively recent development, so comparing the two ought to account for a potential lack of historical hindsight on one of the sides.
- Haiatu 5y ago
  Thats not my point i was making. The parent mentioned specifically religious believes as a tool for good child upbringing. My counter argument shows, that religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean a good moral & ethics.
  - lhorie 5y ago
    > The parent mentioned specifically religious believes as a tool for good child upbringing. No, I merely pointed out that religious upbringing is explicit about some topics in ways that non-religious one usually aren't. Your counter argument can be flipped around into "religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean bad morals & ethics", so in effect it's not really saying anything meaningful.
    - Haiatu 5y ago
      You mention it though to bring it up as an argument or a point for religion otherwise you wouldn't do it.
      - lhorie 5y ago
        Not everything must necessarily be a religion-vs-atheism competition (in fact it's tiresome that some people insist on putting every religion-related discussion in that light). I believe I was clear enough when I indicated that I'm open minded to ideas from religious groups, but I don't subscribe to their faith, so I don't understand the insinuation that I'd get brownie points or something for "shilling". If you're seeing a factual argument exclusively as some sort of attack on your belief system, then you're missing the point that self-improvements efforts shouldn't be discriminating against an idea solely due to the source of insight. In other words, if a statement is "you don't talk to your kids about morals as much as [insert religion] people do", it's petty to respond by saying "well the religious group you belong to has people that do poopy pants stuff" (even more so if some atheists also do said poopy pants stuff); it's more productive to instead say "huh, how then could I talk to my kids about morals more often?"

by Haiatu 5y ago

lhorie 5y ago

Religious types often say the same of the non-religious. Here's other analogies to illustrate the reductio ad absurdum: plenty of people prove school not to be working (by getting failing grades, passing by cheating, etc), plenty of people prove entrepreneurship not to be working (by going bankrupt), etc. All this line of observation shows us is that variability exists everywhere. Something to keep in mind is that religious societies have existed for millennia, whereas societies that are openly non-religious are a relatively recent development, so comparing the two ought to account for a potential lack of historical hindsight on one of the sides.

Haiatu 5y ago
Thats not my point i was making. The parent mentioned specifically religious believes as a tool for good child upbringing. My counter argument shows, that religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean a good moral & ethics.
- lhorie 5y ago
  > The parent mentioned specifically religious believes as a tool for good child upbringing. No, I merely pointed out that religious upbringing is explicit about some topics in ways that non-religious one usually aren't. Your counter argument can be flipped around into "religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean bad morals & ethics", so in effect it's not really saying anything meaningful.
  - Haiatu 5y ago
    You mention it though to bring it up as an argument or a point for religion otherwise you wouldn't do it.
    - lhorie 5y ago
      Not everything must necessarily be a religion-vs-atheism competition (in fact it's tiresome that some people insist on putting every religion-related discussion in that light). I believe I was clear enough when I indicated that I'm open minded to ideas from religious groups, but I don't subscribe to their faith, so I don't understand the insinuation that I'd get brownie points or something for "shilling". If you're seeing a factual argument exclusively as some sort of attack on your belief system, then you're missing the point that self-improvements efforts shouldn't be discriminating against an idea solely due to the source of insight. In other words, if a statement is "you don't talk to your kids about morals as much as [insert religion] people do", it's petty to respond by saying "well the religious group you belong to has people that do poopy pants stuff" (even more so if some atheists also do said poopy pants stuff); it's more productive to instead say "huh, how then could I talk to my kids about morals more often?"