Originally posted by Chairboy
It was Stephen Weinberg. I would love to hear your criticism of the logic comprehension skills of a nobel prize laureate.
"Without religion good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things. To get good people to do evil things--that takes religion."
For one, take a simple word substitution: substitute: money, love, lust, greed, mental illness, or any number of things for religion in that statement and you should begin to realise how ignorant it is. The statement assumes that it requires religion to get "good" people to do evil, right?
Now move on to how good or evil is even defined to begin with. What determines and defines good and evil? Isn't it all relative?
Can you give an example of a good person doing evil because of religion? Maybe you should think first before you mention crusades and such, because couldn't you just as well consider the crusaders "evil" people to begin with? Who ever said the crusaders were good people, and then did evil because of religion? Couldn't you say that ANYONE who does evil is an evil person? Does it make sense to you that an evil act could be done by a good person?
The statement does say that only religion can make a good person do evil, correct?
How do you know that murder is evil? What is evil? What is good?
The guy's a moron.