948
No moral anchor
(feddit.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
948 points (96.9% liked)
Atheism
5 readers
1 users here now
- Be respectful to other members Treat others with kindness and courtesy, even if you disagree with their opinions.
- Stay on topic Keep your discussions relevant to the purpose of the forum. Avoid going off-topic or derailing conversations.
- No spamming Avoid posting irrelevant or unnecessary content, advertisements, or links to unrelated websites.
- Use proper language and tone Choose your words carefully when commenting or replying to others. Avoid using profanity or engaging in offensive language and personal attacks.
- Do not share personal information Protect your privacy by refraining from sharing personal details such as addresses, phone numbers, or email addresses on the forum.
- Report any issues If you come across any inappropriate behavior or content, report it to the forum moderators or administrators.
- Have fun and contribute positively Participate actively and add value to the discussions. Engage in meaningful and constructive conversations with fellow members.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
the original commenter expressed religion is necessary for a 'moral anchor', and that isn't true, and that's what this is about.
anybody who throws up religion as a catch-all for solving problems is just asking for examples of religion causing problems.
What was the context that the original commenter was responding to?
Were they responding to studies where children and young people brought up in communities with a sense of self-identity have better outcomes? Religion could be a stand-in for community involvement.
Responding to somebody's comment in a vacuum, is disingenuous, it misses the context, and we could be missing the entire point. We don't have enough data.
And most importantly, this method of rhetoric does not convert people to your position.
i don't have access to that person's thoughts, but the statement looks clear to me. there's always more context, you could grind it down to the sub-atomic if you want.
this is the position you were angling for, so you could have said that. I don't disagree with the first part exactly, but religion is not what I would choose as a stand-in. It's more like a substitute for science and arts education, including basic philosophy.
I wasn't angling for any religious position. I just think it's unfair to take somebody's comment out of context, slap a zinger on it, and then make a social media post about how you got'em.
At best it's lazy, at worst it's misleading. it encourages sophistry.
As a kid, I had many legitimate questions about religion (my mother was very christian), and all of them got smothered with a simple "you're too young, you wouldn't understand / it's too complex / you're missing context". Turns out, she was simply wrong about a shitload, and didn't want to admit it.