[Serious] Over the top

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is pretty vanilla as far as forum comments go. I mean, it's not even that inaccurate.

Is this a roundabout way of saying that it is accurate? 

I'd be interested in hearing your argument as to why people who consider their religion to be an important part of who they are must be considered "not much" and can't develop.

---

It's an opinion.  I see nothing to get in a twist about.

Boru

It depends on if we want to have good, defensible opinions, or if we want to tolerate stupid stuff.

I'm not invested enough to go back and look.  Was the opinion defended at all?

Boru

[Belacqua]

Is this a roundabout way of saying that it is accurate? 

I'd be interested in hearing your argument as to why people who consider their religion to be an important part of who they are must be considered "not much" and can't develop.

---

It depends on if we want to have good, defensible opinions, or if we want to tolerate stupid stuff.

I'm not invested enough to go back and look.  Was the opinion defended at all?

Boru

Nope.

[brewer]

Really,.......... Isaac Newton. Would you like to go back a bit farther into history to prop up your position? 

Well, we could go the other way, toward more modern people. W.H. Auden comes to mind. His religious views were certainly a part of his self-image, important to him in every part of life. And he did develop pretty well. Also Lewis Carroll, he was cool. Surely you can think of people, right?

Do we really have to cite cases of religious people who did good things? Who developed into good people? 

I think the issue for me is that if religion/philosophy is all that the individual has to contribute to society (especially if the person only regurgitates and is pompous about it) then I won't have much of an opinion about the individual.

I consider contributions made in philosophy to be worthwhile to society. 

Granted, regurgitation and pomposity are not positive attributes. But here we're pointing out obviously negative traits that were not in the original over-the-top statement. If you want to add to what he said, in order to make it acceptable, you can, but that's not what he said.

W.H. Auden.......... who?

The statement is not talking about good people, the statement was talking about "little" people as defined only by their religion. 

If philosophy/religion is the only thing a person is able to talk about, I'll have little time for them. My interactions with the world take on more importance than "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." (google philosophy definition)

If you don't consider them positive attributes you should probably go back and look at your time spent here. (my opinion only)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, there's you're answer.  It's an undefended opinion, so I suppose you'll just have to tolerate the stupid. Failing that, you could ignore it.

Personally, I don't think the statement is all that accurate.  I know some fine, admirable people whose religion informs who they are.

Boru

[Belacqua]

W.H. Auden.......... who?

You're joking, right? 

The statement is not talking about good people, the statement was talking about "little" people as defined only by their religion. 

Are you sure? How do you get that from the statement? It looks very much as if it's the writer's opinion that these people are "little," made from his own perspective, not that of the religion.

---

Personally, I don't think the statement is all that accurate.  I know some fine, admirable people whose religion informs who they are.

Boru

Thank you.

[brewer]

W.H. Auden.......... who?

You're joking, right? 

The statement is not talking about good people, the statement was talking about "little" people as defined only by their religion. 

Are you sure? How do you get that from the statement? It looks very much as if it's the writer's opinion that these people are "little," made from his own perspective, not that of the religion.

Nope, not joking. I'm not sure why important to you should mean important to me, unless you really like looking down on people and judging. (pompous?)

Of course that his perspective, and it's my perspective about his statement. Stop being so high and mighty, your butt will hurt less.

[Belacqua]

Nope, not joking. I'm not sure why important to you should mean important to me, unless you really like looking down on people and judging. (pompous?)

Well, I don't know exactly how you decide someone is important. So you'll have to sort through your own list and decide if anyone there is also religious. 

Of course that his perspective, and it's my perspective about his statement.

That doesn't answer my question. (Is there a word missing?) How do you know it's his perspective? It doesn't look that way to me. Just saying "of course" isn't very helpful.

[brewer]

Nope, not joking. I'm not sure why important to you should mean important to me, unless you really like looking down on people and judging. (pompous?)

Well, I don't know exactly how you decide someone is important. So you'll have to sort through your own list and decide if anyone there is also religious. 

Of course that his perspective, and it's my perspective about his statement.

That doesn't answer my question. (Is there a word missing?) How do you know it's his perspective? It doesn't look that way to me. Just saying "of course" isn't very helpful.

How do I know? JFC! How do you know?

It doesn't look that way to you cause you're butt hurt.

[Belacqua]

How do I know? JFC! How do you know?

Here's the original statement again:

For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

And here it is in its natural habitat:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-59313-p...pid1918206

I don't see how you interpret it in the way you do, but if you don't want to explain that's OK.

[Shell B]

why people who consider their religion to be an important part of who they are must be considered "not much" and can't develop.

That's not what your quote said. It didn't say anything about people who think religion is an important "part" of who they are.