| JWeinCom said: We'll assume for a moment I agree with that. Why is that distinction useful? How does it change how we should act or deal with religion? |
Your response highlights why this distinction is useful. I'm not meaning to offend you in any way since I've very much enjoyed this conversation, having said that, you seem to have this pre-conceived notion that religion needs to be dealt with, your mind is actively thinking religion is the problem. Whereas I think it is completely up to the human brain to take an idea in a good or bad direction.
Quick question: Let's say we erase all people on Earth who are bad but we keep religion. What are the results? Basically no murders, and crime is almost non-existant because good people are good due to their high standard morals.
Another question: Let's say we erase all religion but we keep all the same people. What are the results? I think we could both agree that it would be a crime filled world still. Bad people are the problem and Chicago, Atlanta and Detroit are places whose yearly death tolls, due to gangs and drugs, are higher than a lot of war-torn religious cities.
