[Serious] Over the top

[Belacqua]

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.

The quote says "for a religious view to inform who a person is..."

I interpret this to mean, "when a person's religious views make up an important part of who he considers himself to be." But I admit, the English is very unclear. 

What do you interpret it to mean? 

And again, do you think that when religious views make up a significant portion of a person's identity, this makes a person "not much" and having "scant hope of being much more"?

[brewer]

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.

None of that actually means that you "know". I see that you went on about your ivory tower friends. Would the two physicians have done what they did without being christian?

One of the best people I know lays concrete. 

It still come across as religion defines(inform) the individual, and if that's the only position defines a persons life/being, then they are of little consequence. I'm not sure why you think atheists should have a different position. 

Truth be told, I don't define most people around me by their religion,............ until they open their mouth about religion where/when it's not needed.

[Shell B]

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.

The quote says "for a religious view to inform who a person is..."

I interpret this to mean, "when a person's religious views make up an important part of who he considers himself to be." But I admit, the English is very unclear. 

What do you interpret it to mean? 

And again, do you think that when religious views make up a significant portion of a person's identity, this makes a person "not much" and having "scant hope of being much more"?

I interpret it to mean that if you can tell a person's identity from their religion alone that makes them not much, which is pretty true. I've never met such a person, but that person would be a sad thing indeed. Every person I've ever met is a sight more than their religion, especially given that every religion is interpreted as the believer sees fit.

I don't see the point in answering your question, since I don't think anyone has said such a thing.

[Belacqua]

None of that actually means that you "know".

True, I can only do my best to interpret things. If anyone has an argument about what I'm misinterpreting, I will be happy to consider it.

 I see that you went on about your ivory tower friends. Would the two physicians have done what they did without being christian? 

Well, one of them spent his life meeting victims of the atomic bombs, researching how they were affected, doing autopsies, etc. He then took his research to an organization of doctors who were trying to inform governments about what atomic bombs do. 

The other founded a private hospital, refused to profit from it, lived in the hospital in a 4.5 tatami-mat room, spent his days putting tubes down people's throats to discover what was wrong with them, and made significant contributions to the practice of endoscopy.

You have a different definition of "ivory tower" than I do. 

Whether they would have done it without their religion or not is impossible to say. But that's not the point I'm making. 

I am pointing out that these people, in their own views, were defined/informed by their religion to a significant degree, and were not little people who were unable to develop. 

It still come across as religion defines(inform) the individual, and if that's the only position defines a persons life/being, then they are of little consequence.

I see what you mean, I think. 

If their religion is the only thing they have going, then yes, that's the only thing they have going. If they sit in a room thinking "I'm Christian" every day and do nothing else, then yes, they are little and they don't develop. 

I am pointing out that there are people who define/inform their selves largely through their religion, who are more than that.

---

I interpret it to mean that if you can tell a person's identity from their religion alone that makes them not much, which is pretty true. I've never met such a person, but that person would be a sad thing indeed. Every person I've ever met is a sight more than their religion, especially given that every religion is interpreted as the believer sees fit.

Oh, I see. I hadn't thought of that reading. 

But that goes into how we tell a person's identity. If all we know of a person is his or her religion, it just means we don't know that much about them. 

I agree that, if a person never does anything in the world other than sit in a room and think "I'm Jewish," then that person would not be very impressive. 

I've never met such a person either. In fact I think that most religious people would reject that stance -- a particular moral commitment to the world would necessitate taking some kind of action.

[Fake Messiah]

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.

Does anybody here really believe this? 

Unfortunately it is mostly true. I mean take a look at the case with this boy (and later on, kids)





Are you telling me he has any other prospects in his life than to become "little"? And don't you think he would have better prospects in life if there wasn't Christianity in his life?

[Belacqua]

Unfortunately it is mostly true. I mean take a look at the case with this boy (and later on, kids)

Are you telling me he has any other prospects in his life than to become "little"? And don't you think he would have better prospects in life if there wasn't Christianity in his life?

Is it fair to say that you're interpreting the quoted sentence as I am? That "For religious view to be able to inform who a person is..." means that the person largely defines himself through his religion?

Anyway, this kid is in a sad situation. I wish it were different. 

I agree that this type of Christianity is likely to hold him back. Now, if he did go on to be a nice person and a competent layer of concrete, despite being in this church, then we could say that he hadn't failed in life. 

Perhaps there is a tendency for people to say "religion" when what they mean is the type of group that appears in this documentary. True, it's a religious group. But it isn't exactly synonymous with the definition of "religion." I'd be happy to say "For stifling, prejudiced, closed-minded religious views to be able to inform who a person is, means that such a person is going to be stifled, prejudiced, and closed-minded." 

To say that all religious people, or religion per se, is defined as stifling, prejudiced, and closed-minded, is in fact to be closed-minded against religious people. 

I want to make sure we don't oppose bigotry by becoming a different kind of bigot.

[Silver]

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.

I agree with it, and I also believe a great deal of deep meaning behind the statement is lost in translation.

[Belacqua]

I agree with it, and I also believe a great deal of deep meaning behind the statement is lost in translation.

It's unclear to me whether the guy who posted it is a native speaker of English, if he's translating from another language, etc. 

How do you interpret the sentence, and why would you say you agree with it, if you don't mind my asking?

[Silver]

I agree with it, and I also believe a great deal of deep meaning behind the statement is lost in translation.

It's unclear to me whether the guy who posted it is a native speaker of English, if he's translating from another language, etc. 

How do you interpret the sentence, and why would you say you agree with it, if you don't mind my asking?

I interpret as meaning that the proselytizer (fundamentalist theist) is a degenerate twat.

[Belacqua]

It's unclear to me whether the guy who posted it is a native speaker of English, if he's translating from another language, etc. 

How do you interpret the sentence, and why would you say you agree with it, if you don't mind my asking?

I interpret as meaning that the proselytizer (fundamentalist theist) is a degenerate twat.

Which proselytizer are you talking about? None is mentioned in the quote I'm discussing. No one like that has posted on this thread. 

Do you mean to say that every person who has a "religious view to be able to inform who a person is" is a fundamentalist theist proselytizer? 

I'm afraid your meaning isn't clear.