Hel_Books said:
This doesn't pass the laugh test! If a Christian does a bad thing, you won't say it reflects badly on Christian teaching, but then if a Christian does a good thing, you'll say it's because they're Christian!
Anyway, the "creationist" nonsense is a perfect example of how religion is bad for science. I mean, ask yourself this, if we have fossils of changing forms over billions of years, wouldn't it be saner to see that living things reproduce and change generation after generation, rather than being somehow magically "created" year after year, by a deity tinkering like a child with modeling clay? But (some) people use their Bible to say no, this science bad, ugh.
When SgtSpiderMan wrote, "They suppress science," you replied, "People who are Christians do that. Christians don't do that." How could that be anything other than a declaration that if a Christian does a bad thing it shouldn't reflect badly on Christianity?What?
I didn't say that nor do I do that.
You're saying religion ruins the world. I'm saying the human societies that have existed over history refute your argument.
People who do things in the name of their religion isn't what I'm defending.
Christopher Hitchens wrote a whole book about how religion is a detriment to society. Here are some quotes from him from that book (and other sources):
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith.
We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.
Here is my challenge. Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first - I have been asking it for some time - awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain.
If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.
Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.
In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion.