How would someone actually go about making such a comparison rigorously? Religions obviously exert numerous positive and negative effects which are qualitatively distinct and mutually uncommensurable; you can't just add up all the good, add up all the bad, and then compare the two quantitatively.
ebola
we are talking about Christianity. Im not responsible for apologetics of other religions in respect to my statement.
Would taking food, time, and money donated by Christians to the poor be a better or worse thing?
I'll go on a limb and say better. I could prove this by obseving Christians giving hungry homeless people sandwiches or some form of a basic need they are not able to provide.
Then ask them if they feel better or worse.
Do this ten/twenty times and check my percentages of positive responses of the homelsess. Same would work for starving children.
If you lose the organizing power structure of Christian oganizations it would mean the poor/ less fortunate getting helped less.
And arguing you dont need Christianity for this doesnt help prove the case of Christianity being more harmful than good.
Helping the poor is just example. Helping those in jail, addicted to drugs, sick etc are more examples if you need them.
See where im going? It's a losing case to say Christianity causes more harm than good.
The commandment of love thy neighbor as thyself stands on its own merit and needs zero defense.
Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength takes focus off self. Which makes said prior commandment easier to accomplish.
Not following these commandments doesnt help someone trying to prove Christianity is more harmful than helpful either.
You need to show harmful effects of Christianity that cancel out the benefits of Christianty and at the same time show how these examples even tip the scales in reverse direction.
See why I said this argument basically waste of time.
