Thank you for nitpicking rather than looking at the intention of my points, memimemi. I suppose it gives me a chance to clarify.
I assure you, this is more than just a nitpick to me. When dealing with philosophy, especially contentious/controversial topics (such as religion), I find it very important to be as precise as possible. Once again, I can't assume your intentions, only the text presented.
1. Yes, though better "your God or Gods". Also, an atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in my god/"unicorn". It's someone who doesn't believe in Gods.
It's been said more eloquently than I can, so here's a quote:
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts
2.Poor phrasing on my part, I meant a majority of the minority when I said majority in that area. Sorry, it's been a long day and the word wouldn't snap. Thank you for the link.
No problem. I do it all the time, too!
3.This is why I said "seem to presume" not "presume", because your language implied it. I did not assume anything. As for your other point, I can't point to any specific church or religious group off the top of my head, though I -will- say not everyone is contrained to the dogma. I'm non-denominational christian, and I and many others take science and the religious text hand and hand (not putting science ABOVE dogma, but with it for analysis of eachother).
Non-denominational, by definition, is irreligious. At least, that's what my (very!) Catholic grandmother would say. Dogma is inherently anti-scientific; one cannot have both received wisdom, and scientific investigation, at the same time. If science is not above dogma, then the pursuit of rational inquiry is not above the rote acceptance of past writers. For clarity, that last statement did not say which one is 'better.'
4.*Sigh* Well excuse me for saying christian rather than any given religion. Again, long day with no sleep. You know what I meant.
Once again, though I may have thought that was your intent, I cannot speak to anything but what is written, as I don't know you personally.
5. I was not ignoring that line. I was pointing out that your post is of little or no credit because you generalized and, more than that, stereotyped. I read your post very thoroughly and each point a couple times before responding (for the good it did me on the two aforementioned clerical errors)
I generalize for the sake of brevity. If you'd prefer, we could start a new thread for each individual religion, and their attitudes toward science and reason. One for atheists, too, of course! But, as long as we're constrained to this one thread, which started with a massive generalization, I think it fair to look at trends as opposed to specifics.
6. I said it was worth noting, I didn't say it was the crux of my arguement. You had already used real life experiences, I figured I could mention mine to show you an example of -why- real life experiences don't work; they're varied.
Fair 'nuff. If we stick to the most objective sources we can find in any further discussion, would that be agreeable to you?
A. I'm not saying everyone does it for personal gain, but some do. An example could be that various "Holy" wars were actually more about grabbing land.
If you had used the qualifier 'some' in your last post, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Holy wars, however, are a poor example: we were talking about conversion, not conquest.
B. The entire point (and 80% of what inspired me to post) Is that the analogy in and of itself is insulting. Intentinonally trying to compare the central figure of a belief system (held by millions or billions of people) to a mythological figure (which, at best, maybe a million people believe in and a few hundred worship) is very insulting. Should I give equal respect to The Big Bang theory and a child's science fair volcano? Don't make an anolgy. Just don't. You now know it's offensive, so to continue now would only be insulting intentionally.
This is telling. What is it that makes the Sky Unicorn mythological, but Jesus real? From my point of view, both have roughly equal amounts of evidence going for them - billions of beliefs do not one fact make. Out of respect to you, I will refrain from using such analogies; however, I would ask that you meditate, pray, (whatever you prefer) on this point.
C. On this one you're right. I should not assume that you assume. But it would help me not to make such assumptions if you didn't leave messages that implied such thoughts. I interpreted your post as believing religious people were backwards, a blunder on my part for misinterpretation and a blunder on yours for implying it.
I'm still not clear on how it was implied, but okay. To be clear: nothing I've posted on this (or in fact any) forum is meant to offend. I couldn't be bothered going out of my way to offend people - that only gets in the way of rational discussion, while making me look like some kind of real jerk.
I don't think that religious people are backwards; I think that
people in general are backwards, and religion is one of the many ways in which that manifests itself. Is that a little clearer, perhaps?
Anyways, this is all for fun, right? Let's not forget that this is a forum built around a game - even deep questions can be handled with a light touch. I'm sure we can agree on that.
