Why?
They provide services, very few of them valuable. And it's not as if they provide these services free of charge either. They'll hear your confession, say a few prayers and provide some shit tea and the cheapest biscuits they can find for after service on Sunday, and all they ask for in return in ten percent of your income. Nice guys, salt of the Earth in fact.
Yes, but what I am referring to is the uh ..."intellectual dishonesty" of labeling religion as a tool for violence when it's a tool for pretty much anything, much like any morality based ideology. Perhaps it's only a slight side issue in all of it, but there's a lot of good things people do in the name of religion that nonbelievers ignore or pretend they do not exist. We like to focus on the bad issues a lot
What I did say is that the prototypes for these were pretty much christian things. This is pretty undeniable. Pretending scandinavian social democracy was born from some christian morality void is ...off putting and down right dishonest.
Antisemitism is not just a religious issue, and suggeting the crusades are solely a religious issue is not correct. It's also an economical issue and has been that from the inception of judaism, as is most antisemitism. You will find in this current day and age, most raving antisemite lunatics in the west are actually not very christian (infact, it's a "fashionable" thing for christian sects to promote Israel), but rather right wingers and ...yes, atheists.
You're right, after praising scandinavian social democracy, hospitals, night shelters, meal kitchens and many other things aren't really that important. Even the red cross is based on christianity, and what you're proposing in your blind atheistic hatred makes you look pretty foolish
Your argument seems to be that the Christians did it first, ergo all subsequent efforts would not exist without Christianity. My argument is that they are universal human values regardless of religion. My point about Scandinavian social programmes is that Scandinavia is one of the least religious parts of the Western world and yet it has the best social welfare programmes, compared to the far more religious America whose social welfare programmes are nowhere near as good. That suggests that there is no link at between religion and good works, in fact, the opposite.
Firstly, I did not say the Crusades were solely caused by religion. However, religion was the main cause. Some crusades were solely about religion, such as the Albigensian Crusades.
I'm not the one who looks foolish here. You've conflated the actions of the state, with those of churches. Hospitals, hospices, soup kitchens, social welfare etc are provided by the state, ergo they're secular. The Red Cross and other charities are not religious.You're right, after praising scandinavian social democracy, hospitals, night shelters, meal kitchens and many other things aren't really that important. Even the red cross is based on christianity, and what you're proposing in your blind atheistic hatred makes you look pretty foolish
Yes, but what I am referring to is the uh ..."intellectual dishonesty" of labeling religion as a tool for violence when it's a tool for pretty much anything, much like any morality based ideology. Perhaps it's only a slight side issue in all of it, but there's a lot of good things people do in the name of religion that nonbelievers ignore or pretend they do not exist. We like to focus on the bad issues a lot
No, it isn't. It is to point out that western societies do have a religious background and some of these things you perceive as great in secular societies are in fact religious to begin with. Again, to suggest otherwise is dishonest. The background of social work in scandinavia is pretty much what the church started, and while I again stress I am an atheist that has little to nothing to gain by praising the church, it's pretty ridiculous how you try to talk ill of religion while promoting it's innovations. The churches of scandinavia provide a staggering amount of social welfare to their respective countries.
That's not true. Just because people aren't murdered left and right doesn't mean antisemitism doesn't exist anywhere else outside a religious concept. You don't really have to look far to see "jews control hollywood" or "rich jew bankers control the world" said from secular and nonsecular sources.
That is absolutely not true, and you should go outside once in a while to see what the real world looks like ...you know, instead of the imaginary bubble you live in. I didn't say the state doesn't provide these, either. What I did say is that the church does provide these as well and sorry for being blunt but you're pretty goddamn dumb if this is a hard concept to grasp.
Who are you to decide what does and doesn't have to do with religion? It's a question of selective bias where people go on wikipedia to read up on the crusades, genocides, pedophiles and anti-abortionists and preach to the choir that religion is bad. If you're going to go down that road perhaps you should also understand that even a "fringe church" like the latter day saints (by fringe group I mean a relatively small cult within christianity) has put hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. It certainly is rightfully ascribed to religion. I don't see how anyone can say otherwise, when the church deliberately gathers this aid, promotes giving aid, suggests it's a part of religion to do so.
