Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2019 19:23:09 GMT
You keep telling me I have to accept that stupid people do in fact represent religion and that you may criticize them and religion for it. Then you complain when I point out you are not so smart yourself. I suppose some stupid people think they should represent religion but reject your claim that religion itself is stupid or the cause of their activities. There are plenty of superior scientists who believe in a god and practice religion. Science is totally inadequate to deal with all life's problems as has been explained to you many times in many ways.
You will have to give it up. Your war against religion is over and you lost.
BTW: Please quote when I have told you that "stupid people do in fact represent religion". Otherwise this is just another straw man.
It had been (and sometimes still is) a common complaint by atheists that "religious" people perform less well in statistical surveys of things like divorce rates, income levels, education levels, and other metrics. I pointed out that such results required counting many "Christians" who are not really very religious. I noted correctly that if you exclude Christianity and count only every other religion in surveys they perform better than Christians and atheists. I suggested we need a term for "religious" people that correctly categorizes them with like types. You being oblivious of practical and meaningful terminology demanded that I must accept such "Christians" in my definition of religion. So I present no straw man.
You on the other hand demand I accept your definition of religion, which is very much a straw man, and not my definition at all. You appear to have no talent for categorizing things. Jews and Arabs have more in common with each other than with either Christians or atheists. Christians and atheists have more in common with each other than with either Jews or Arabs. You need categories that group similar things in the same category, different things in different categories. Perhaps one day it will occur to you that you are not the sole arbiter of all meaning, and cannot be, and have no talent for it anyway. Neither do you represent the sole arbiter of meaning since there isn't one.

