Again… it’s a perfectly fine source - anyone that tries to convince you that there is, or has ever been, such a thing as a “far left” has already dealt their own credibility a crippling blow.
name three evils that religion is responsible for.
Which one of the hundreds of thousands that has existed over the last six millenia would you like to focus on? Remember… your argument - the same argument that all reactionary atheists peddle - wholly rests on the hopelessly ahistorical presumption that there is something fundamentally “evil” about religion. In order to prove this argument, you have to find a pattern of the exact same “evil” in the religious practices of a whole bunch of pre-modern civilizations (both large and small) than the ones you attribute to modern day ones.
Reactionary atheists have all failed at this - most don’t even try, and simply pretend this big flaw in their anti-scientific pretzel-logic doesn’t exist.
I never said there is something fundamentally evil about religion. Those are your words, not mine, and I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.
All I asked for is three things. You can’t even do that. Are there zero evils religion is responsible for?
I see no reason to “try my hand” at anything you ask me to when you won’t do what I asked you to do first.
So. Three things. Any religion. Can you list them?
I never said there is something fundamentally evil about religion.
You didn’t have to - the people who made, printed and distributed that poster you posted already did. And it’s a narrative that exists among the left to this very day. That’s why I suggested we need an updated version, remember?
I see no reason to “try my hand”
Neither do I. I didn’t actually expect you to perform that which is historically impossible to do - merely to understand how ludicrous this line of reasoning actually gets the minute you unpack it.
Are there zero evils religion is responsible for?
Religion doesn’t do anything. Period. We can talk all day long and discuss how the DRC supported the Apartheid-regime… but that discussion will contain lots of ideology and lots of realpolitik but very little that can actually be called “religious,” won’t it?
No. It’s a perfectly fine source for a lot of things - that is, unless you prefer the “objective” centrist claptrap I showed you first?
It’s your choice.
More reactionary atheism… and you’re still stuck in a dead-end.
It’s clearly not a fine source as I showed you.
But fine, if I’m stuck in a dead end, name three evils that religion is responsible for.
Again… it’s a perfectly fine source - anyone that tries to convince you that there is, or has ever been, such a thing as a “far left” has already dealt their own credibility a crippling blow.
Which one of the hundreds of thousands that has existed over the last six millenia would you like to focus on? Remember… your argument - the same argument that all reactionary atheists peddle - wholly rests on the hopelessly ahistorical presumption that there is something fundamentally “evil” about religion. In order to prove this argument, you have to find a pattern of the exact same “evil” in the religious practices of a whole bunch of pre-modern civilizations (both large and small) than the ones you attribute to modern day ones.
Reactionary atheists have all failed at this - most don’t even try, and simply pretend this big flaw in their anti-scientific pretzel-logic doesn’t exist.
Wanna try your hand at it?
I never said there is something fundamentally evil about religion. Those are your words, not mine, and I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.
All I asked for is three things. You can’t even do that. Are there zero evils religion is responsible for?
I see no reason to “try my hand” at anything you ask me to when you won’t do what I asked you to do first.
So. Three things. Any religion. Can you list them?
You didn’t have to - the people who made, printed and distributed that poster you posted already did. And it’s a narrative that exists among the left to this very day. That’s why I suggested we need an updated version, remember?
Neither do I. I didn’t actually expect you to perform that which is historically impossible to do - merely to understand how ludicrous this line of reasoning actually gets the minute you unpack it.
Religion doesn’t do anything. Period. We can talk all day long and discuss how the DRC supported the Apartheid-regime… but that discussion will contain lots of ideology and lots of realpolitik but very little that can actually be called “religious,” won’t it?
Sorry, we’re not going to continue this discussion when you’re not going to acknowledge you put words in my mouth.
Suit yourself. But remember… only one of us leaves here with an unresolved contradiction in their narrative.
That’s you, by the way.
And the other one of us leaves here a liar. I know which one I’d rather be.
Grab at any and every straw you feel like - it doesn’t change anything.