> And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. Sorry, there was just a lot to respond to and I pick

> And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. Sorry, there was just a lot to respond to and I picked what seemed like the most productive parts to reply to. > So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument! Regardless, a rhetorical question isn't useless. Most of the famous paradoxes are rhetorical questions that sparked a lot of debate within a community. Simply because it is not an argument does not mean it's lazy or not to be responded to. > Why must one question that? I find this an odd question to hear on a forum full of skeptics... IMO, we should question everything. It's just the best way to engage with a world full of misleading appearances. > My argument was not "religion is responsible for nothing that I personally like or agree with". But if you derive benefit from something created by religion, it is somewhat hypocritical to want to stamp out the ability of religions to create benefits for people.