The bad stuff done for religious reasons shows that religion is inherently bad, but the good stuff done for religious reasons doesn't count because people would still do good stuff without religion. (emphasis added)
The atheist was arguing that religious motivations for doing good stuff were irrelevant to a discussion of the value of religion, because having religious motivations wasn't necessary to do good.
As for my source, it's
here:
Let's allow for the possibility that yes, religion is sometimes responsible for bad behavior, and that without the religious excuse, the behavior might not have happened. It shouldn't be dismissed simply because someone insists "Well that's not what *I* think the religion should be."
For the second part, you'd need to demonstrate that the good behavior could not have happened without religion. I'm applying the same standard to both.
He was not applying the same standard to both, as you can tell just by reading it, and as I immediately pointed
out:
In the first, you assume the possibility that religion is causal of bad behavior. In the second, you require demonstration that religion must be causal of good behavior. Either assuming the possibility of both, or requiring demonstration of definite causality in both would be consistent.
So there you go: an atheist mimicking the double standard behavior you just declared "crap" when "defenders of the faith" do it. Crap regardless of which side, right? Because it would be really ironic to employ a double standard while complaining of double standards.
= new reply since forum marked as read