Hey Sae, thank you for the post.
The very existence of religious people has a good side and a bad. Some pros, some cons. Some help and some hurt... As the very existence of secular people has a good side and a bad. It cannot be that all things that religion causes are bad and all secularism good. Things can not be that simple, I think, when we are talking about systems that involve humans, who are stupefyingly complex.
I am not saying that religion has not caused badness, I have very many problems with OR as well. And I am not trying to demonize Secularism at all either. I don't want to get in an argument of which mindstate is better/worse, or if religion has caused more pain than prudence because we likely would agree.
It just seems that your sentence should not exclude that good things must have happened from religious influence, and bad things happened without it at some time or another.
I talk too much, that is what they always told me
Thanks for listening.
And Secularone, just to try to clarify (because I am not always very clear, it's not you it's me)...
Thanks,
-Pip
Quote:the very existence of religious people brings forth many problems on its own.To myself, that seems like a polite, but very limited view of that subject. It is a nice way of saying that we should do away with religion, or a precursor thought in that train.
The very existence of religious people has a good side and a bad. Some pros, some cons. Some help and some hurt... As the very existence of secular people has a good side and a bad. It cannot be that all things that religion causes are bad and all secularism good. Things can not be that simple, I think, when we are talking about systems that involve humans, who are stupefyingly complex.
I am not saying that religion has not caused badness, I have very many problems with OR as well. And I am not trying to demonize Secularism at all either. I don't want to get in an argument of which mindstate is better/worse, or if religion has caused more pain than prudence because we likely would agree.
It just seems that your sentence should not exclude that good things must have happened from religious influence, and bad things happened without it at some time or another.
I talk too much, that is what they always told me
Thanks for listening.
And Secularone, just to try to clarify (because I am not always very clear, it's not you it's me)...
Quote:They all claim as you do that they are trying to enlighten and promote freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a given that you are among them.It's not that I was making accusations, but that I was trying to disagree with this statement. The fact that I claim to try to encourage freedom and enlightenment makes it a "given" that I am among "them" (so no one that ever espoused these qualities was secular?). I am taking "them" to mean Evangelicals, or even just members of organized religion. I am also assuming that you consider certain members of OR personal enemies, only from the few things you've said... So I was poking at it because I disagree that I am "among them", and since they are your enemies, I was disagreeing with the assumption that you might consider me an enemy (see above). But if you don't, than I appreciate that, and of course don't consider you one of mine. I have enough. I appreciate your time, and am just trying to avoid unnecessary disagreements because I can be confusing (and long winded).
Thanks,
-Pip
