14
edits
Changes
Talk:Evangelical atheist (view source)
Revision as of 01:43, January 1, 2008
, 01:43, January 1, 2008/* Evangelical atheist * /
: The statement, often used by [[evangelical atheists]], that "one can be good without attending religious services or reading the Bible" is grossly misleading. It's like a tobacco company claiming that "one can smoke a pack-a-day of cigarettes and live to be 100." Sure, one in a million can. The other 999,999 are misled by the argument.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: The statement, often used by [[evangelical atheists]], that "one can be good without attending religious services or reading the Bible" is grossly misleading. It's like a tobacco company claiming that "one can smoke a pack-a-day of cigarettes and live to be 100." Sure, one in a million can. The other 999,999 are misled by the argument.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2007 (EST)
But can't religion be equally misleading? After all, the Bible mentions and supports practices such as slavery (Leviticus 25), witch hunts (Exodus 22), and purely religion-based killing (Exodus 32), things that are now clearly considered immoral. Maybe these atheists are misleading in some ways, and religion does encourage many people to do good, but you must admit that some things that comes out of the Bible and religion are at least as morally misleading as atheism.
It seems to be a completely different situation from tobacco companies (which I am glad to see you do not support); smoking is obviously harmful, but NOT smoking (with this analogy, following the Bible literally) certainly is not a cause of poor health. Could you then at least modify the page so that it does not seem to be making contradictory claims such as this?
--Otru 31 Dec. 2007