Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan  Absolute statements force reactions. People have to go "all in" if they want to stay in the game. Either they have better cards, or they don't. Either way, the bets been called.
The religion article is just like that. It's written in absolutes, it's uncompromising.
Can all the plausible positive effects of religion trump the negatives you document? I don't think they can.
You don't need religion to engage in positive social structures. You don't need religion to be a charitable person. You don't need religion be be a loving person, or to live ethically. And the net negative impacts of religion are a reality that many, many people need to reconcile.
To me, that's certainty more important to delve into than telling people how to improve habits. |
This right here makes sense to me. What you said, Dan, is truly something to ponder. If Steve's article had a similar tone, or said it in an intelligent fashion, I would have been moved by his article. Instead he chose to compare religion to incest and pedophilia, and called followers of religion dummies and babies. And that's supposed to help people? That's the level of discussion I would expect from a group of 7th graders.