[Alan]

Kontan - No it wasn't. Not only was ethics not the original purpose of religion; but it's not even its most important one. Ethics is the one thing we're discussing right now, but that is because we live in a secular world and that's the only thing religion has left.

Saya - The argument does not necessarily assume that ethics is all religion is for. I am admitting it right now. There are many more issues but I am actually indeed trying to sway this fight into a specific fight on the ethic defensibility of religion.

Dame - Kontan did not say religious goodness is wrong; he just said that (to imitate his level of anger) there's NO FUCKING USE for the addition of RELIGIOUS in RELIGIOUS GOOD. I have asked you very specific questions but you only answer a fragment.
So stop that and try to come up with one sole good reason why we should even bother with "religious charity" as a principle when "charity" is good enough? What is lost when you take religion out of the equation that makes it so necessary? It's Occam's razor. For anything to matter, it has to be irreducible to its parts. Therefore for a religious action to matter, it must prove that it is somehow better than the same thing without religion tossed into the mix.

Desp - you're good, but the last parts of the fight really do focus on only the ethical side. Not assuming; just emphasizing. But still. Saya brings a good criticism but on an entirely different point when we're just not done with this one.