Why I Was Wrong About Atheism by Stefan Molyneux
Options
Comments
-
To summarize the video: "I used to be a Christian, but now I think Athiests are ri...wait they believe in having a strong federal government? All of them are fools and I side with the Christians again."
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »To summarize the video: "I used to be a Christian, but now I think Athiests are ri...wait they believe in having a strong federal government? All of them are fools and I side with the Christians again."
That's my thoughts on the first few minutes. -
It's all subjective at the end of the day and there are many tests they say religious take a hold of problems better then non-believers and they also say non-believers to be more intelligent overall than religous people. There are too many variables and it also has to do with the methods, their level of information, their desire to make a better world, and etc. This clearly gray area.
But for the 8th time I'm not advocating for atheism. If your belief makes you affect people positively then I'm for it, if it is negative for everyone then I'm not for it. How hard is that to understand? What tangible evidence does anyone have for their deities existence for me to "Know" they exist? I will always be an agnostic whether theists or non-theist. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »But I always say I don't care what you believe in as long as it doesn't affect negatively toward yourself and others around you. If it does then I definitely care and we all should act with swiftness. If your Islam or Christianity is making you rude and aggressive towards others then you need to be brought down. I view various different religions as the same way as Ghenghis Khan does, believe what you want, but don't disturb the greater good.
How are atheist going to bring anything down with a population that is less that 1% of the world??? if Christianity is totally drained from western Europe most likely it will be replaced by Islam and native Europeans will also most likely be replaced by Arabs,Turks and north Africans. By advocating for nothing; believing in nothing while everyone else believes in something and are willing to die for their convictions Europeans have set themselves up for war, death and demise.
Genghis khan himself believed in his own mongol religion and that belief itself pushed him to try and conqueror the world so once again a example of a religious ideology pushing forward the survival of a groups gens and spreading of their power.
Its deeper than that and he found other beliefs to be interesting and didn't forced his beliefs on no one. He had christians, muslims, jews, taoists and etc under him.
He wanted order and he gained that view from living in the harsh terrain of the steppes.The khan were disorganized as hell and he organized them through military forces.
Yeah but that is besides the point that i am making because at the end of the day it is highly unlikely that if he did not grow up in a society that had certain values and principles expounded by their religion that he would have went on to become what he became AND THE problem with modern atheism is that it is hollow and has no intrinsic motivating factors in it it has no deep principles everything about it is superficial -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »To summarize the video: "I used to be a Christian, but now I think Athiests are ri...wait they believe in having a strong federal government? All of them are fools and I side with the Christians again."
did you watch the whole video he's saying much more than that -
Ajackson17 wrote: »It's all subjective at the end of the day and there are many tests they say religious take a hold of problems better then non-believers and they also say non-believers to be more intelligent overall than religous people. There are too many variables and it also has to do with the methods, their level of information, their desire to make a better world, and etc. This clearly gray area.
But for the 8th time I'm not advocating for atheism. If your belief makes you affect people positively then I'm for it, if it is negative for everyone then I'm not for it. How hard is that to understand? What tangible evidence does anyone have for their deities existence for me to "Know" they exist? I will always be an agnostic whether theists or non-theist.
THAT'S totally irrelevant to the societal effects religion or the lack of it has on human life which is what the video is actually talking about -
Ajackson17 wrote: »It's all subjective at the end of the day and there are many tests they say religious take a hold of problems better then non-believers and they also say non-believers to be more intelligent overall than religous people. There are too many variables and it also has to do with the methods, their level of information, their desire to make a better world, and etc. This clearly gray area.
But for the 8th time I'm not advocating for atheism. If your belief makes you affect people positively then I'm for it, if it is negative for everyone then I'm not for it. How hard is that to understand? What tangible evidence does anyone have for their deities existence for me to "Know" they exist? I will always be an agnostic whether theists or non-theist.
THAT'S totally irrelevant to the societal effects religion or the lack of it has on human life which is what the video is actually talking about
I didn't watch the video lol for more than a minute.
I had a conference video more pertaining to that video.
I agree Atheism is not a doctrine just disbelief in deities. If people think it's a doctrine and using it as a doctrine for government stability then they are idiotic and endangering the lives of it's civilians. New beliefs and ideologies take generations to occur and formulate and process to become tangible realities.
Is that what you was discussing? -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »It's all subjective at the end of the day and there are many tests they say religious take a hold of problems better then non-believers and they also say non-believers to be more intelligent overall than religous people. There are too many variables and it also has to do with the methods, their level of information, their desire to make a better world, and etc. This clearly gray area.
But for the 8th time I'm not advocating for atheism. If your belief makes you affect people positively then I'm for it, if it is negative for everyone then I'm not for it. How hard is that to understand? What tangible evidence does anyone have for their deities existence for me to "Know" they exist? I will always be an agnostic whether theists or non-theist.
THAT'S totally irrelevant to the societal effects religion or the lack of it has on human life which is what the video is actually talking about
I didn't watch the video lol for more than a minute.
I had a conference video more pertaining to that video.
I agree Atheism is not a doctrine just disbelief in deities. If people think it's a doctrine and using it as a doctrine for government stability then they are idiotic and endangering the lives of it's civilians. New beliefs and ideologies take generations to occur and formulate and process to become tangible realities.
Is that what you was discussing?
I was talking about what the video is really getting at which is that atheism changes the individuals psychology and philosophical understanding of society and these changes have real effects of the future of that society because it tends to lean society to the left as the state replaces the hole that religion once filled -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »It's all subjective at the end of the day and there are many tests they say religious take a hold of problems better then non-believers and they also say non-believers to be more intelligent overall than religous people. There are too many variables and it also has to do with the methods, their level of information, their desire to make a better world, and etc. This clearly gray area.
But for the 8th time I'm not advocating for atheism. If your belief makes you affect people positively then I'm for it, if it is negative for everyone then I'm not for it. How hard is that to understand? What tangible evidence does anyone have for their deities existence for me to "Know" they exist? I will always be an agnostic whether theists or non-theist.
THAT'S totally irrelevant to the societal effects religion or the lack of it has on human life which is what the video is actually talking about
I didn't watch the video lol for more than a minute.
I had a conference video more pertaining to that video.
I agree Atheism is not a doctrine just disbelief in deities. If people think it's a doctrine and using it as a doctrine for government stability then they are idiotic and endangering the lives of it's civilians. New beliefs and ideologies take generations to occur and formulate and process to become tangible realities.
Is that what you was discussing?
I was talking about what the video is really getting at which is that atheism changes the individuals psychology and philosophical understanding of society and these changes have real effects of the future of that society because it tends to lean society to the left as the state replaces the hole that religion once filled
A hole, I feel I have been lifted from chains of the claims that are not substantiated thinking and it makes my mind more scientific and more diverse and I can grow for there.
But my opinion people who become atheists usually have a lot of anger and negative emotions and that cuts the ties to actual thinking that is beneficial like the values that developed over the course of thousands of years. They say a ? gave it to them but we create values out of needs. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »It's all subjective at the end of the day and there are many tests they say religious take a hold of problems better then non-believers and they also say non-believers to be more intelligent overall than religous people. There are too many variables and it also has to do with the methods, their level of information, their desire to make a better world, and etc. This clearly gray area.
But for the 8th time I'm not advocating for atheism. If your belief makes you affect people positively then I'm for it, if it is negative for everyone then I'm not for it. How hard is that to understand? What tangible evidence does anyone have for their deities existence for me to "Know" they exist? I will always be an agnostic whether theists or non-theist.
THAT'S totally irrelevant to the societal effects religion or the lack of it has on human life which is what the video is actually talking about
I didn't watch the video lol for more than a minute.
I had a conference video more pertaining to that video.
I agree Atheism is not a doctrine just disbelief in deities. If people think it's a doctrine and using it as a doctrine for government stability then they are idiotic and endangering the lives of it's civilians. New beliefs and ideologies take generations to occur and formulate and process to become tangible realities.
Is that what you was discussing?
I was talking about what the video is really getting at which is that atheism changes the individuals psychology and philosophical understanding of society and these changes have real effects of the future of that society because it tends to lean society to the left as the state replaces the hole that religion once filled
A hole, I feel I have been lifted from chains of the claims that are not substantiated thinking and it makes my mind more scientific and more diverse and I can grow for there.
But my opinion people who become atheists usually have a lot of anger and negative emotions and that cuts the ties to actual thinking that is beneficial like the values that developed over the course of thousands of years. They say a ? gave it to them but we create values out of needs.
That is your individual feelings but societies and cultures don't work that way you cannot just remove an institution and not fill the vacuum, creating values out of needs is problematic because people by our very nature are selfish and the video actually addresses
A culture in which needs determine values and principles will be very ME,ME,ME,ME,ME,ME focused which is why many atheist nations don't have replacement populations, individuals are too worried about the time and money they will lose by taking care of children and at the same time they expect society to take care of them because they are only thinking about themselves at the expense of other people -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »It's all subjective at the end of the day and there are many tests they say religious take a hold of problems better then non-believers and they also say non-believers to be more intelligent overall than religous people. There are too many variables and it also has to do with the methods, their level of information, their desire to make a better world, and etc. This clearly gray area.
But for the 8th time I'm not advocating for atheism. If your belief makes you affect people positively then I'm for it, if it is negative for everyone then I'm not for it. How hard is that to understand? What tangible evidence does anyone have for their deities existence for me to "Know" they exist? I will always be an agnostic whether theists or non-theist.
THAT'S totally irrelevant to the societal effects religion or the lack of it has on human life which is what the video is actually talking about
I didn't watch the video lol for more than a minute.
I had a conference video more pertaining to that video.
I agree Atheism is not a doctrine just disbelief in deities. If people think it's a doctrine and using it as a doctrine for government stability then they are idiotic and endangering the lives of it's civilians. New beliefs and ideologies take generations to occur and formulate and process to become tangible realities.
Is that what you was discussing?
I was talking about what the video is really getting at which is that atheism changes the individuals psychology and philosophical understanding of society and these changes have real effects of the future of that society because it tends to lean society to the left as the state replaces the hole that religion once filled
A hole, I feel I have been lifted from chains of the claims that are not substantiated thinking and it makes my mind more scientific and more diverse and I can grow for there.
But my opinion people who become atheists usually have a lot of anger and negative emotions and that cuts the ties to actual thinking that is beneficial like the values that developed over the course of thousands of years. They say a ? gave it to them but we create values out of needs.
That is your individual feelings but societies and cultures don't work that way you cannot just remove an institution and not fill the vacuum, creating values out of needs is problematic because people by our very nature are selfish and the video actually addresses
A culture in which needs determine values and principles will be very ME,ME,ME,ME,ME,ME focused which is why many atheist nations don't have replacement populations, individuals are too worried about the time and money they will lose by taking care of children and at the same time they expect society to take care of them because they are only thinking about themselves at the expense of other people
I'm saying not all the cultural elements need to be taken out but some atheists do feel in fact it should.
That's all I'm saying.
Humans have always been working together since 194,000 years and before in archaic forms. That is are strongest ability to work together and protect the young and learning about the environment and manipulating it to our needs. -
His reasoning is terrible.
He claims that those on the left, many of whom reject theism, coerce adherence to law and regulation by the force of the state rather than by the word of ? , like the religious right. Yet Christianity spent most of its history destroying and brutalizing foreign nations all in the name of some invisible man in the sky. As a White dude he can say that ? without any context, but I could never be so naive to put a love of capitalism over my rejection of religious colonialism and the resulting subjugation and racial hierarchies that developed out of it.
The Pope went to Hispania and split the world in half, saying the pork and cheese get the east and the Spanish get the West. This is the kind of ? you accept, because they believe in lower taxes? ? . -
His reasoning is terrible.
He claims that those on the left, many of whom reject theism, coerce adherence to law and regulation by the force of the state rather than by the word of ? , like the religious right. Yet Christianity spent most of its history destroying and brutalizing foreign nations all in the name of some invisible man in the sky. As a White dude he can say that ? without any context, but I could never be so naive to put a love of capitalism over my rejection of religious colonialism and the resulting subjugation and racial hierarchies that developed out of it.
The Pope went to Hispania and split the world in half, saying the pork and cheese get the east and the Spanish get the West. This is the kind of ? you accept, because they believe in lower taxes? ? .
that is only part of what he is saying and it's not even the greater part -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Like it or not he makes a good point the most secular and atheistic nations on earth are in western europe and their native populations are slowly dying the ? off and low key they being invaded by muslims.
and don't get me started on japan although the Japanese aren't actually atheist in the way Europeans are the japanese are still largely an atheistic society and they coincidentally are also dying the ? off
Japan is overcrowded anyway, apartments there are famous for being tiny. That's part of the reason the Japanese empire tried to expand back in the day. As far as societies being secular, that's not a big deal, societies that are non-religious are often more stable and have happier people compared to very religious nations.
Atheists and the secular have contributed greatly to societies around the world historically, people pro-creating less isn't that bad, the world doesn't have as many resources as you think it does. Desertification and global warming will create a lot of misery around the world in due time, it's slowly happening already.
lol japan isn't over crowded some cities in japan are overcrowded . You see IN THE west ( europe) there used to be a balance between religiosity and secularism that it took a long ? time for the west to create this balance but now that the scales have been tipped too far in one direction western society has been made weak and now it is dying.
PLENTY atheist have contributed to society not as much as religious people but i do recognize atheist contributions however as we are seeing right now in Europe a society with no religion, no spirituality, no deep depth of being no way of seeing the world as anything beyond crude physical matter; will produce individuals that struggle to find purpose. Muslims, Christians, Hindus religious people in general have a purpose beyond ourselves and beyond this material world. Atheist do not.
overpopulation is a ? MYTH it's a silly ? creation of leftist and often has been used as an excuse to promote genocide. If anything overpopulation is a local problem and has nothing to do with the western and northern European nations i am talking about.
There is no way Berber north Africans would be ? white women in the middle of Germany if Germans still had a christian viewpoint or perspective of the world. I've told you before not having children is a sign of genetic inferiority one of the most powerful forces in all life is procreation if you don't have that desire then... your people, your genetic uniqueness will die
At the end of the day, nations can't take care of all the more and more growing amounts of people the way societies are built now, it's not a big deal if societies shrink a little in birthrates, immigration can make up for that anyway. And ? happens in all parts of the world, as horrible as it is, a nation being mostly Christian or religious doesn't stop ? from happening. Mexico and South Africa are mostly Christian nations and ? happens there as it happens in plenty of other religious nations. Look at all the crazy rapes that happen in India. Come on now.
Not having kids means nothing, not everyone wants to have kids and in many parts of the world, having kids is expensive and not worth the burden of all the other costs some people may have. -
The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Like it or not he makes a good point the most secular and atheistic nations on earth are in western europe and their native populations are slowly dying the ? off and low key they being invaded by muslims.
and don't get me started on japan although the Japanese aren't actually atheist in the way Europeans are the japanese are still largely an atheistic society and they coincidentally are also dying the ? off
Japan is overcrowded anyway, apartments there are famous for being tiny. That's part of the reason the Japanese empire tried to expand back in the day. As far as societies being secular, that's not a big deal, societies that are non-religious are often more stable and have happier people compared to very religious nations.
Atheists and the secular have contributed greatly to societies around the world historically, people pro-creating less isn't that bad, the world doesn't have as many resources as you think it does. Desertification and global warming will create a lot of misery around the world in due time, it's slowly happening already.
No. Japan was not overcroweded before WW1 or before WW2 and Japan is not overcrowded today. Though I dont agree with atheism being the reason why there population is seeing a decline.
Thats as bad as saying the US is overcrowed because you love in a metropolitan while ignorging the whole Midwest.
Most people in Japan want to live in the cities, so the major parts of Japan will be very overcrowded for a long time, and a huge part of Japan is made up of harsh mountains where it's hard to live on.
As far as Japan's empire in the 1940s, their businesses were running out of natural resources and raw materials in proportion to their population's size. They chose the wrong way to go about it obviously but sources show that was a motivation for their expansion. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Like it or not he makes a good point the most secular and atheistic nations on earth are in western europe and their native populations are slowly dying the ? off and low key they being invaded by muslims.
and don't get me started on japan although the Japanese aren't actually atheist in the way Europeans are the japanese are still largely an atheistic society and they coincidentally are also dying the ? off
Japan is overcrowded anyway, apartments there are famous for being tiny. That's part of the reason the Japanese empire tried to expand back in the day. As far as societies being secular, that's not a big deal, societies that are non-religious are often more stable and have happier people compared to very religious nations.
Atheists and the secular have contributed greatly to societies around the world historically, people pro-creating less isn't that bad, the world doesn't have as many resources as you think it does. Desertification and global warming will create a lot of misery around the world in due time, it's slowly happening already.
lol japan isn't over crowded some cities in japan are overcrowded . You see IN THE west ( europe) there used to be a balance between religiosity and secularism that it took a long ? time for the west to create this balance but now that the scales have been tipped too far in one direction western society has been made weak and now it is dying.
PLENTY atheist have contributed to society not as much as religious people but i do recognize atheist contributions however as we are seeing right now in Europe a society with no religion, no spirituality, no deep depth of being no way of seeing the world as anything beyond crude physical matter; will produce individuals that struggle to find purpose. Muslims, Christians, Hindus religious people in general have a purpose beyond ourselves and beyond this material world. Atheist do not.
overpopulation is a ? MYTH it's a silly ? creation of leftist and often has been used as an excuse to promote genocide. If anything overpopulation is a local problem and has nothing to do with the western and northern European nations i am talking about.
There is no way Berber north Africans would be ? white women in the middle of Germany if Germans still had a christian viewpoint or perspective of the world. I've told you before not having children is a sign of genetic inferiority one of the most powerful forces in all life is procreation if you don't have that desire then... your people, your genetic uniqueness will die
At the end of the day, nations can't take care of more and more growing amounts of people the way societies are built now, it's not a big deal if societies shrink a little in birthrates, immigration can make up for that anyway. And ? happens in all parts of the world, as horrible as it is, a nation being mostly Christian or religious doesn't stop ? from happening. Mexico and South Africa are mostly Christian nations and ? happens there as it happens in plenty of other religious nations.
Not having kids means nothing, not everyone wants to have kids and in many parts of the world, having kids is expensive and not worth the burden of all the other costs some people may have.
For the nations we are talking about the bold is flat out false, this is not ? Congo and the nations we are talking about are not poor they are some of the richest nations on earth. The atheist nations in western and northern Europe are not just shrinking a little in birthrate THEIR NATIVE POPULATIONS ARE BEYOND REPLACEMENT LEVEL.
IMMIGRATION is exactly what they don't want because in this case immigration means death of your culture, if in the next 30 years half the population of Denmark is Arab then that means that the danish culture and people are lost.
Maybe you are not comprehending me. i brought up the brazen rapes of German women by Arab men that happened in Germany on new years eve because it's an example of a weakened nation. If Germany was still infused with stronger aspects of a christian culture those rapes by outsiders would either never have happened or they would have been avenged in self defense because a nation that is religious is more resilient against foreign religions,ideologies and people.
Not having kids means your genetics won't be passed on it means you have failed as an organism, and like the video says in our current leftist society when old people who had no kid still collect government benefits they are in essence stealing from the children of their peers who reproduced. -
Atheism is a cultural dead end
Ahh Zombie you're not one of those 'what's your moral barometer' people are you King -
CeLLaR-DooR wrote: »
I don't get what you mean -
CeLLaR-DooR wrote: »
I don't get what you mean
Like when people don't turt atheists because there's no higher bein' guidin' them. They believe atheists have nothin' from which to base their morals and are therefore not trustworthy -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Like it or not he makes a good point the most secular and atheistic nations on earth are in western europe and their native populations are slowly dying the ? off and low key they being invaded by muslims.
and don't get me started on japan although the Japanese aren't actually atheist in the way Europeans are the japanese are still largely an atheistic society and they coincidentally are also dying the ? off
Japan is overcrowded anyway, apartments there are famous for being tiny. That's part of the reason the Japanese empire tried to expand back in the day. As far as societies being secular, that's not a big deal, societies that are non-religious are often more stable and have happier people compared to very religious nations.
Atheists and the secular have contributed greatly to societies around the world historically, people pro-creating less isn't that bad, the world doesn't have as many resources as you think it does. Desertification and global warming will create a lot of misery around the world in due time, it's slowly happening already.
No. Japan was not overcroweded before WW1 or before WW2 and Japan is not overcrowded today. Though I dont agree with atheism being the reason why there population is seeing a decline.
Thats as bad as saying the US is overcrowed because you love in a metropolitan while ignorging the whole Midwest.
Most people in Japan want to live in the cities, so the major parts of Japan will be very overcrowded for a long time, and a huge part of Japan is made up of harsh mountains where it's hard to live on.
As far as Japan's empire in the 1940s, their businesses were running out of natural resources and raw materials in proportion to their population's size. They chose the wrong way to go about it obviously but sources show that was a motivation for their expansion.
That doesnt change the fact that in no way is Japan overcrowed.
As far as the second bolded stop that. Thats a complete falsehood. Japan number 1 reason and as Empreor Hirohito stated numerous times was that they were mandated to conqueor all of Asia.
It doesn't even make sense to even claim that resources and raw materials were the reason they entered the war since the invaded China at first which had zero amount of oil and China wasn't producing steel at a massive quantity at the time.
It wasnt even a problem that there buisnesses were running out of oil but that thier army was since FDR finally stopped selling them oil. Japan and Soviet Uniom had the most mechanized army behing USA. -
That video says things i have always said
I have always said that nations without religion of some sort are weak ones they will either be invaded or collapse.
In One scenario They will go through a few generations of prosperity and then they will be destroyed in some manner because they will begin to produce weaker individuals; people with less conviction and less strength to stand for what they believe is correct. Once a people won't fight,die or suffer for anything greater than their individual needs it's a wrap for them.
Another scenario is that the people will abandon their tradition religion and spirituality but in it's place will the state will fill the role that religion leaves open FOR example in communist Russia the government and people were officially atheist but they in essence worshiped the state in the the early days of the communist dictatorship they worshiped STALIN. -
CeLLaR-DooR wrote: »CeLLaR-DooR wrote: »
I don't get what you mean
Like when people don't turt atheists because there's no higher bein' guidin' them. They believe atheists have nothin' from which to base their morals and are therefore not trustworthy
Atheist can have morals but they are subjective so really and atheist morals are meaningless and me personally i wouldn't leave an atheist alone with my pet goldfish.
I don't hate atheist but i don't understand how they perceive right and wrong so they can have morals but.... but why should they -
CeLLaR-DooR wrote: »CeLLaR-DooR wrote: »
I don't get what you mean
Like when people don't turt atheists because there's no higher bein' guidin' them. They believe atheists have nothin' from which to base their morals and are therefore not trustworthy
Atheist can have morals but they are subjective so really and atheist morals are meaningless and me personally i wouldn't leave an atheist alone with my pet goldfish.
I don't hate atheist but i don't understand how they perceive right and wrong so they can have morals but.... but why should they
Ight one of my main gripes with this is that I believe ? or whatever has to have a different moral compass from humans. Its the only way I could accept that It isn't evil, otherwise you're tellin' me this thing from which you're gettin' your morals allows and has allowed countless atrocities to go occur. I can understand when people say '? works in mysterious ways' or 'we're beyond his comprehension or good and evil' I'm cool with that. But then why should I base my morals on what he says? -
CeLLaR-DooR wrote: »CeLLaR-DooR wrote: »CeLLaR-DooR wrote: »
I don't get what you mean
Like when people don't turt atheists because there's no higher bein' guidin' them. They believe atheists have nothin' from which to base their morals and are therefore not trustworthy
Atheist can have morals but they are subjective so really and atheist morals are meaningless and me personally i wouldn't leave an atheist alone with my pet goldfish.
I don't hate atheist but i don't understand how they perceive right and wrong so they can have morals but.... but why should they
Ight one of my main gripes with this is that I believe ? or whatever has to have a different moral compass from humans. Its the only way I could accept that It isn't evil, otherwise you're tellin' me this thing from which you're gettin' your morals allows and has allowed countless atrocities to go occur. I can understand when people say '? works in mysterious ways' or 'we're beyond his comprehension or good and evil' I'm cool with that. But then why should I base my morals on what he says?
are you saying that you think that ? judges everyone differently???? because you are somewhat correct because only he knows your heart. However he does have standards and where you fall with him will depend on your personal relationship with him -
His reasoning is terrible.
He claims that those on the left, many of whom reject theism, coerce adherence to law and regulation by the force of the state rather than by the word of ? , like the religious right. Yet Christianity spent most of its history destroying and brutalizing foreign nations all in the name of some invisible man in the sky. As a White dude he can say that ? without any context, but I could never be so naive to put a love of capitalism over my rejection of religious colonialism and the resulting subjugation and racial hierarchies that developed out of it.
The Pope went to Hispania and split the world in half, saying the pork and cheese get the east and the Spanish get the West. This is the kind of ? you accept, because they believe in lower taxes? ? .
that is only part of what he is saying and it's not even the greater part
It's a supporting argument though. If the claims he makes to support his conclusion are invalid then his conclusion is too.
Your country killed a ton of Christians in my country after freeing yourselves of colonial rule. How can you defend Christianity when it was used to put us in chains?
