(Original post by .eXe)
Lol okay since you asked for it...here it comes.
First, arguing that religion is required to do good things is a completely stupid argument because it's as bad as saying religion causes bad things; both arguments I do not agree with. I am a Christian, and I do good things as a Christian. However, I wasn't a Christian all my life, but I still did good things before I became one. I don't see how admitting that has in any way imploded my argument.
Second, look at the statement I have bolded, then look back at my posts, and tell me exactly which part of my posts at any point denied that religion does good things?
. My argument was that the picture in question only highlighted the negatives that may be attributable to religion (which is a point I do not agree with by the way because if Christianity for example, is followed like it is supposed to, it will not lead to anything bad. However, that's not the topic at hand). All I argued was that as easily that someone can cherry pick all the negatives about religion, I can also cherry pick all the positives about religion. Doesn't make either of our arguments correct. In order to truly evaluate religion, one must examine all the things the religion advocates...not just look at its effects. For example, to evaluate Christianity, you must look at the Bible...which at no point encourages killing unbelievers
...and yet the Crusades happened. Does that in any ways mean that Christianity is wrong? Hell no...it just means that a bunch of people did horrible things using Christianity as a scapegoat.
So in summary, I did not deny at any point that religion does good things. That is a giant error (or misunderstanding) on your part.
Third, no I have not accepted that my religion is just irrelevant. As you can see, in my earlier post I did not elaborate on what I meant. So I will do that here. My overall belief is that good and bad are inherent constructs of religion. What I mean is, in a naturalistic world, good and bad are not required...they are only necessary in religion and are thus central to religion/God. In a naturalistic viewpoint, tt's all about survival of the fittest and natural selection. Doesn't matter if an act is good or bad or whatever, because those are just societal constructs and change over time. Think: slavery was good up until a few decades ago, but is abhorred now. My belief is that religion is required for objective good or bad. This means, things that are good and things that are bad, irrespective of what opinions may suggest. And in order to have objective good and bad, religion IS REQUIRED. Why? Because it is God who gave us the standard of what is good and what is bad. In Christianity for example, murder is considered bad...no matter what. Doesn't matter what some random person in Africa, Asia, or Japan may believe...the objective truth is that murder is bad. That's it.
However, if God and religion did not exist, then why would murder be bad? It would just be survival of the fittest
, which is what Darwin and evolution teach us. This is the central tenet of naturalism. No objective good/bad are required without religion because they do not necessarily contribute to evolution, and are thus irrelevant. Good and bad ONLY come into play when God exists and religions exist.
So in summary, I have at no point conceded the irrelevance of my religion. It's just that this thread was not about that topic so I chose not to elaborate. However, hopefully I've made myself clearer now.
Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions about my personal beliefs, I don't want to hijack this thread.