You're viewing a single thread.
I feel like we're lacking the initial message here, the religious person was responding to.
Throwing that priest rape strawman at the end, is a rhetorical tool, but clearly is not addressing whatever the religious person was talking about. So this shit post is disingenuous, and a logical fallacy what about ism.
If we're going to deconstruct people's positions, we should at least be honest about it, and give the original context
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.
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.
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.
The religious person made a pretty black and white comment. Maybe there is a lot of nuance in the context, but this comment has no nuance itself. It's going from whatever context to making a general comment on the lack of religion and what it does to morality.
They said " That's what lack of religion does to people"... So we're missing the does in this context. We don't know what they're actually trying to say.
They did say it: "there is no moral anchor anymore."
Uh oh... Someone let in an Internet debater!
According to Google it’s a comment on an r/watchpeopledieinside post with a clip from this (prank) video. I don’t know which part of the video was clipped since the post is deleted but… yeah. Even if it wasn’t a prank, looks like it’s just people malding over promiscuity.
Which invisible man in the sky do you believe in?
None. I have no belief in a deity.