Plenty of people prove this not to be working at all.
Plenty of priests have fucked kids.
Religoius people are often enough the same amount of assholes or more. I have not fought over a city for ages due to some believe.
Plenty of priests have fucked kids.
Religoius people are often enough the same amount of assholes or more. I have not fought over a city for ages due to some believe.
Something to keep in mind is that religious societies have existed for millennia, whereas societies that are openly non-religious are a relatively recent development, so comparing the two ought to account for a potential lack of historical hindsight on one of the sides.
The parent mentioned specifically religious believes as a tool for good child upbringing.
My counter argument shows, that religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean a good moral & ethics.
No, I merely pointed out that religious upbringing is explicit about some topics in ways that non-religious one usually aren't.
Your counter argument can be flipped around into "religious upbringing doesn't necessarily mean bad morals & ethics", so in effect it's not really saying anything meaningful.
If you're seeing a factual argument exclusively as some sort of attack on your belief system, then you're missing the point that self-improvements efforts shouldn't be discriminating against an idea solely due to the source of insight.
In other words, if a statement is "you don't talk to your kids about morals as much as [insert religion] people do", it's petty to respond by saying "well the religious group you belong to has people that do poopy pants stuff" (even more so if some atheists also do said poopy pants stuff); it's more productive to instead say "huh, how then could I talk to my kids about morals more often?"