Do you think its wrong to mock religion?

I'll kinda defend movieliker here. He did qualify it with "in my experience." I mentioned early on that it could be that he just hasn't encountered any atheists who were knowledgeable about religion. Of course, the fact that he then proceeded to state one false claim about Christianity that thor corrected him on, and another about Jesus and the Virgin being a parable that I corrected him on, probably indicates that he actually doesn't understand religion himself and is simply using "people who criticize me don't understand religion" to mean "if someone disagrees with me they must not understand religion." It's Arlon's Dunning-Kruger effect in another form. 

I never said that. You misinterpreted what I wrote.

You misinterpreted what I wrote because you jumped to the wrong conclusion. That was your mistake.

And that's what a lot of people who question my faith do. They assume incorrectly.

He is way too obdurate and back-peddling in his approach for me to really afford him any benefit of the doubt. His comments are constantly contradicting his own stance of what he began with. To me, that just boils down to confusion of belief and a rigid mindset that isn't wanting to listen to reason.  

What is obvious, is that you aren't bringing forth any clarity over your pov about why others are ignorant and guilty when challenging, or in your terms "attacking", your religious beliefs, that you chose to share on a chat thread. 

   I had thought you are more of a socialite who knew professionals personally from parties and family connections.  If you were though you would know that doctors are human beings like everyone else.  They can be wrong about quite many things and very often are.  They sometimes lock their keys in their cars and need to call a locksmith because they don't know how to use that tool that slides down the window well.

   Your confusion should have cleared up once you understood the difference between science ceteris paribus and everything else parading as science.  There are really very few things known with the certainty of science ceteris paribus and most people know them without going to medical school.  With the rest of "knowledge" it involves substantial guessing.  Your so called "experts" are better trained at guessing but they are still guessing.  Sometimes they succeed much the same way you do, by following a herd, but theirs is an insider herd.

   What I want you to believe is that you can be one, just not the way you're trying, or not trying.  Oh sure, it's a lot easier if you have parents who are very successful.  It is also very difficult if your parents are full of wrong notions.  Generally speaking though the American dream is true, you can reach the top from the bottom.

   Maybe you should believe it happened just as I said.  The people who don't really understand religion or science started a sort of a "war" between them that left you "fighting" in it, depriving you of the higher truth in art and religion.

   Setting aside what he does believe, why don't you accept that what you think he believes is your mistake when you are told?

I said the reply was 'desperate' (I actually deleted it just after since I deemed it too harsh) I should instead have put 'besides the point' for, whether the statement of the Constitution spoke the truth about the populace or not, or whether or not it was possible to check fact by asking them, it does not affect the type of statement made. One can make false absolute statements.



This is another absolute statement. It is unwise to speak in personal absolutes all the time, especially those incapable of objective substantiation, as en masse they seem more arrogant than accurate.

Well maybe; it is certainly an absolute statement of his experience, as well as similar overwheening comment on others. Just as would be, for instance, such a statement as "whenever I go on holiday it has been a terrible vacation, those who criticise that view don't know holidays and are stupid". The sense in which he qualifies things through his experience doesn't feel conditional, it more gives an impression of being used in justifying a sweeping view. That is he doesn't take the subjective nature of experience sensibly, as necessarily being limited, but instead as a implied confirmation of an overall reality, including an unflattering judgement on others expressed in absolute terms. With this, no argument from the "asses" is acceptable, it seems.

Your point is similar to that which induced his spate of rudeness instead of a straight answer way back at the start, when I asked: "So some who criticise you, in your experience, do really know religion?" ("but some people on that holiday might have enjoyed it?"). A response not surprising, since Movieliker would have to accept this reasonable qualification if his claim is not to be taken as absolute, as he insists - one which I would be happy to accept. His recent " All intelligent believers have a personal relationship with God.", one noted, was not even qualified by his unassailable experience, which just adds to the sense of someone expecting his judgements to be taken as definitive. But this is all water under the bridge. His most recent absolute statement, and the continuing impression it gives, I have dealt with in my last posting.