If you want to be pedantic, the comment said nothing of the sort. This is it again:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with pedantics or semantics.
Maybe you can't read syntax in the English language but I can.
The opening part of the statement refers to good and bad people. That means that it is discussing all people.
The final part of the statement refers to good people. That means that it is discussing the section of society that causes evil although good. It doesn't say "only some good people". It hasn't differentiated from the good people in the opening part of the statement and marginalised any of them. It hasn't peeled any part of those good people off. It is saying that all those good people from the first part of the statement who commit evil deeds do so motivated by religion. As stated, those good people are all the good people - not just some of them.

To say that the insertion of the word only into the statement justifies my argument is totally misleading.
"I shoot horses" means "I shoot horses". "I only shoot horses" still means that the horses are dead.

I'm done giving you grammar lessons. You don't pay me enough.

@HUXLEY

Yes, if the statements or arguments are wrong, please counter them with you own arguments.   That is how intellectual or cultural disputes are resolved.

From the begining the statement was very wrong but because your spirit has been demonised you can never understand any criticism i might be putting forward to counter attact this foolish statement hence i'll spend more time on constructive and meaningful things.

  If you have arguments, bring them forward.   If you have no arguments and have simply been drinking off the cesspit of the bible, with your stinking smelly arse emitting it stench, then go away.  You have no place in civilised society,  you deserve to be back in the bronze age where this doctrine emanates.

The above simply tells how shallow you are and it brings out the full class of immaturity in you and i'm afraid you are far away lost in the thick darkness of wilderness, it will take a full course of deliverance to put you to reality so that you can know that you are on the wrong end of civilisation.


Activist atheist and anturalist are interested in religion in the same way that a surgeon is interested in a cancerous growth.  That is why I spend time here.  Some people are incurably deluded and such people are the ones that threaten civilisation and retard progress.  The enlightened have a duty to help the not-so-enlightened see the light of day.  That is why I am here.

Yes because they are some time confused and they need thorough education

Did you really read the comment? It clealy does imply that ANYONE can do evil, but it takes religions for good people to do evil

how do you determine a "good" person and what would be considered evil?

Were the Bolsheviks bad people?

Quite a redundant debate going on here, eh not?

Here's my take:


1) Pol Pot Motivated by military hatred and political greed

2) Amin Motivated by military hatred and political greed

3) John Calvin Son of Satan

4) The Crusaders Motivated by hatred for Arabs and monetary greed

5) The parents who refuse medical care from their children Stupid parents, taking religion to the extreme

6) Mother Teresa Kind hearted woman who was motivated by religion

7) The inquisitionists Greedy dirt bags


Make sense now?

"Catholics are irrelevant" ahem, since they didn't separate the state from the church. State eventually took over them, and pulled their strings like little puppets.

-
And yes, I am a Christian