Science vs Religion - The Ultimate Battle?

[CurtSibling]

Allan2,

You should really work on that indignation thing.

Also, I should inform you that your notion that I am typing my
Posts in a rage are a rather delirious idea.
Also the fact that you think I am giving you some free-of-charge
Psychoanalysis, although amusing, is rather off the mark.

Your dream that I am some raging degenerate, delighting in the
Ruination of morals; this probably fits some invented vision you
Have of me, but is completely light-years away from the truth.

There is no anger in me; stress and anger cause heart attacks,
Grey hair, and strokes. I think some posters on this forum will
Have these ailments long before I do!
It is not me who has to re-assure myself that I am being 'stern' not angry.
Or has to emphasise WORDS IN HUGE CAPITALS to work out my frustration.

I have no anger about religion, and I find it strange that you accuse
Me of being a fundamentalist! And what is my creed, do tell?

I don't seek to denigrate people on these forums, neither would
I fall into the arrogance of trying to guess the kind of person you
Are...in fact, what does it matter to me what your life is about?
Now, because I dare to raise some points about religion,
And even though you claim to be fairly reasonable about it,
You launch into a huge (but well typed) diatribe.
You accuse me of attacking all religion, and maybe you are not
The kind of person my original post was aimed at, but you have
Assumed my post was aimed at you...
If you are as unconcerned about religion as you say...why do you
Go out on a limb to defend this sick theology?

I think I should make thing a bit clearer for you,
Before you misread me any further...
For instance;

Think of some old woman, on her deathbed, praying to her god to accept her,
Am I going to condemn her as an idiot?
No, because she fears death at the end of her life, and if faith in
something gives her strength to face death then, very good.
I don’t fear death, but I can accept others do…

The flipside,

Think of a terrorist, killing thousands of innocents to prove his love for his god,
Then sickeningly praises the god as the architect of his acts.
Justification for this is impossible, and this is what I use to condemn religion.
His inability to accept his own actions and off-loading them to
some airy god is the worst product of twisted faith people have
in religion.

I hope you’ll agree.

I have no time either for those who attack others because they
don’t fit into their narrow, Christian, middle class, vision. Or fools
who blindly follow because their parents beat them into submission.
One thing I have learned is that Christians are the worst hate-mongers.
They may start out benign, but it is not long before the mask falls
off and the anger and hate is revealed…the programming is hard
to break.

Now back to you.
I don’t have any reason or desire to profile people on the forums,
Also don’t flatter yourself that I am trying to condescend or be
nice to make up for my harsh words. I don’t do that shallow nonsense.
I seldom give people on the forums compliments, so be aware of that.
If you see it as me trying to win you over, you’re dead wrong.
The difference between you and me is that you are unable to
handle dissenting views,
Just why did you rise to attack my original post, if you are not religious?

I find this very odd.

Seeing that I am on the top 25 posters on CFC is proof that I
have grasped the rudimentary idea of debate and discussion,
thank you very much.

You however may not have grasped the fact that your debating skills are faulty,
Allan2…you do not discuss, you try to crush others into taking
your line of thought.
You never agree with others and seem to be desperate to vindicate your post
By any means possible, are you really so filled with fear of
rejection? Do you see enemies everywhere?

I, in turn, am flattered you consider me funny; I wish I could give
you the same accolade, but you come across as rather angry and depressed.
You are not some great moral or religious figure,
One whom I must earn the respect of,
You are a poster on CFC;
I have no moral obligation to lick your boot, Allan2.

So don’t ever expect a crawling apology from me.
Your expectations will not be rewarded…

I still stick to my original words and stand unrepentant.
I still think too many of you all are trapped by fear…

Good day, and good luck.

 

[Caranamrta]

The thing what we call "science" is also works on religious base, and the advancement of the science is reform of the actual dogms. When there are facts which are counters the science's arguments then science throw them away or make them ridiculous. This is the some way as the most ferocious fundamentalists act. When there are too many facts, and they can't make them ridiculous, then they changes the dogms - they make a religious reform. The ongoing scientific dogms are the big bang and the evolution without an intelligent control. And the materialism, that nothing exists except material. These axioms are as unprovable as the religious axioms.
Therefore there isn't crucial difference between "the science" and other religions. Even there are fundamentalists among the followers of "the science", who would destroy all the other religions, and they expect that this would "let the people free from ignorance and fear".

And, for example, the knowledges collected in the Muslim world at the middle age, in India in the ancient age, in China in the late ancient and middle age. They are all sciences, and religious sciences too. Only in the western world there is a science which isn't associated with any traditional religions - they created the new, the materialism.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by Caranamrta
The thing what we call "science" is also works on religious base, and the advancement of the science is reform of the actual dogms. When there are facts which are counters the science's arguments then science throw them away or make them ridiculous. This is the some way as the most ferocious fundamentalists act. When there are too many facts, and they can't make them ridiculous, then they changes the dogms - they make a religious reform. The ongoing scientific dogms are the big bang and the evolution without an intelligent control. And the materialism, that nothing exists except material. These axioms are as unprovable as the religious axioms.
Therefore there isn't crucial difference between "the science" and other religions. Even there are fundamentalists among the followers of "the science", who would destroy all the other religions, and they expect that this would "let the people free from ignorance and fear".

Incorrect assessment, if an all too common one. The very thing that makes some statements scientific when others are not is falsifiablilty. That is, the ability to be proven false through the collection of empirical data. There is no such thing as scientific "dogma" because the most important aspect of scientific thinking is that an idea must be falsifiable to be worth exploring scientifcally. Failure to understand this is why so many people see science as a force opposed to religion, when they are in fact enitrely separate. For example, the question of the existance of god is something that no scientist would attempt to answer (at least scientifcally) because there can be no data to support god's existance or non-existance. It is not a scientific question.
If data incontravertably conflcits with an existing scientific principle, then (after rigorous assessment) the principle is modified to fit with the new data. This is the main difference between science and religion. All religions have some central authority or canon which is supposed to be incontravertable, where as science is based on the idea that its precepts are incomplete, to be modified as new data is collected. Scientific ideas are plastic, while religious ideas are static. This is why some religious folks have a problem with science, because data can suggest and support ideas (like evolution) which they feel contradict parts of their "infallible" canons.
Religion is grounded in faith. Science is grounded in doubt, including doubt of it's own precepts. Both serve valuable purposes. Relgion is a set of ideas that brings comfort to believers. Science is a tool that helps us discover facts about the natural world, which allow us to develop technologies to improve the quality of life.

If that isn't enough for you than how about this. If science is a religion of its own, then how come so many scientists are themselves religious? Have you ever heard of a devout catholic or buddhist who is also a devout hindu, jew, or muslim? Of course not, the idea is ludicrous because religions are mutually exclusive of one another. Yet there are deeply religious men and women of virtually every faith who are also excellent scientists.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

Originally posted by Mr Spice
I am all for science................ just that science is way better to explain how nature works than the Bible, the Koran.......

Mr. Spice, You cant really say that without reading the Quran, have you read the Quran ? We all have general knowledge of science & perhaps at least good knowldge of 1 religion.

But how can you say that without reading the Quran first ? No 2 religious books are that similar.

 

[The Art of War]

Originally posted by CurtSibling

Think of a terrorist, killing thousands of innocents to prove his love for his god,
Then sickeningly praises the god as the architect of his acts.
Justification for this is impossible, and this is what I use to condemn religion.
His inability to accept his own actions and off-loading them to
some airy god is the worst product of twisted faith people have
in religion.

I hope you’ll agree.

I have no time either for those who attack others because they
don’t fit into their narrow, Christian, middle class, vision. Or fools
who blindly follow because their parents beat them into submission.
One thing I have learned is that Christians are the worst hate-mongers.
They may start out benign, but it is not long before the mask falls
off and the anger and hate is revealed…the programming is hard
to break.

You're telling me that you condemn religion because of a handful of people on the planet? We aren't all terrorists, friend.

I don't think you have a right to call all Christians, or many Christians "hate-mongerers." I know that there are some, but again, you're judging on a handful. Some of the greatest people I know are Christians, including almost all of my friends. You're thinking more along the lines of "Southern Baptists" who pretty much say that if you don't believe what they say, you're banished to hell. I'm not one, and I know some, and feel sorry for them. Anyway, I think you might want to look at Christianity in a larger spectrum instead of at the few who have distorted its vision.

Also, have you ever believed in a god, Curt?

 

[CurtSibling]

Look fellers,

I gave my opinion; if it annoys you, well, avert your eyes.
Because I am not going to delete it.

It is sad that you guys can't see beyond your narrow view, but
I hold you no spite, in fact I never really did.

At least we are civ fans and that is common ground.

Our disagreement on religion can never be resolved.

You seem to want misery and fear,
I have fulfilment,

So go knock yourselves out.
When you finally realise that the faith you have is wasted
Energy, then you can fully take control of your lives.

I have no desire to stop you living your way of life, so go and live!

And remember, it was you guys who challenged me first.

We could have avoided this long path if you guys say this simple phrase;

"I don't agree with your opinion, but it doesn't affect me!"

I made an opinion, you attacked me.
You are the aggressors.
But I am vindicated in that you didn't win.

So thanks for the typing exercise.
But you really shouldn't have bothered.

My path is set, and life is good.
Hope you guys can say the same.

PS
Art of war, when you ask;
"Also, have you ever believed in a god, Curt?"
It proves you haven't understood a word I have said.

Anyhow, it grows late, and I have gave as much time as I can
Spare so again, lads...

Good-bye and good luck.

 

[The Art of War]

I'm not angry, just wondering. . .

 

[allan2]

"I don't seek to denigrate people on these forums, neither would
I fall into the arrogance of trying to guess the kind of person you
Are...in fact, what does it matter to me what your life is about?"

Then what's this?

Curt: "It is sad to see someone who is so chained by his own perception
That he is scared to move through fear of some imagined divine
Retribution or moral decay.

"In a way I pity the kind of person you are."

You were trying to guess the kind of person I am, weren't you? Don't try to lie to us about that.

"and I find it strange that you accuse
Me of being a fundamentalist!"

(Question to the other posters: How many others reading my post caught my subtle irony here? Seems to have gone over Curt's head.)

"And what is my creed, do tell?"

Well, maybe, it is the creed that you are never wrong. Enough so that when I argue how you may be, you don't address and discuss my points but make personal deductions (if they can be called that) about me. I've known fundamentalists who do the exact same thing....

"Now, because I dare to raise some points about religion,
And even though you claim to be fairly reasonable about it,
You launch into a huge (but well typed) diatribe.
You accuse me of attacking all religion,"

Yep I did, like when you said:

Curt: "Just because you no longer fear the lies spewed by the church,
Doesn’t mean you are going to buy an MP40 and spray the neighbours...

"Such thinking is caused by religion...remove it from your mind.

"Religion champions fear and oppression, especially against
Women, the old and the weak. Early indoctrination is also used.

"This sick cycle has to be stopped."

Fine and good. SOMETIMES it does do that (and I use capitals in place of italics to provide emphasis, Curt. I think everybody here but you has figured that out); but all I've ever tried to say is that religion can be used for both good and evil--i.e. it is not black, it is not white, it is GRAY. Too bad you seem too much of a binary thinker to grasp this. Do you view EVERYTHING in terms of black and white?

"and maybe you are not
The kind of person my original post was aimed at, but you have
Assumed my post was aimed at you..."

Well, using my name DOES tend to elicit such assumptions. Like this:

Curt: "Allan2, I was referring to the cringing fear most people like
Yourself have when faced with a moral dilemma.

"Perhaps you are blinded by what you see as your high-minded
Mission to prove religion is beyond all criticism."

Uh, anyone else here going under the name allan2? Anyone?

"If you are as unconcerned about religion as you say...why do you
Go out on a limb to defend this sick theology?"

I also defend homosexuals, and their right to do what they do. I contend that homosexuals are not all evil, they can be good--it all depends on the person. Indeed, homosexuality can be used for good (bringing mutual fulfillment to two loving partners), or for evil (man-boy "love").

But my defense of homosexuals (which would come if someone as black-and-white as you said they were all evil) doesn't mean I am a homosexual--it just means that I am open-minded enough th see the good in some things that don't involve myself.

So, just like I am capable of defending (even passionately) homosexuals, I am also capable of defending people who are into religion. I happen to know people who are religious (and I also know some homosexuals), so I suppose that helps.

"I think I should make thing a bit clearer for you,
Before you misread me any further...
For instance;

"Think of some old woman, on her deathbed, praying to her god to accept her,
Am I going to condemn her as an idiot?
No, because she fears death at the end of her life, and if faith in
something gives her strength to face death then, very good.
I don’t fear death, but I can accept others do…"

That is the first time on this thread you have demonstrated some understanding of someone who may have religion--good! A thousand mile journey begins with one step....

"The flipside,

"Think of a terrorist, killing thousands of innocents to prove his love for his god,
Then sickeningly praises the god as the architect of his acts.
Justification for this is impossible, and this is what I use to condemn religion."

Yes, THIS happens too. Thing is, I said that. I said, "religion can be used for good, or for evil." Your last two statements quoted here tend to actually bear this out. So you DO agree with me!

"His inability to accept his own actions and off-loading them to
some airy god is the worst product of twisted faith people have
in religion.

"I hope you’ll agree."

I do. But just because a few people do things like that in the name of religion, doesn't make all religion, by all people, bad. Just as government's most destructive acts of corruption doesn't mean all government is bad. I hope YOU agree....

"I have no time either for those who attack others because they
don’t fit into their narrow, Christian, middle class, vision."

Well, that wasn't ME. I have a pretty wide view of things, wide enough to see grey areas where they exist.

"Or fools
who blindly follow because their parents beat them into submission."

My parents were loving and caring people. They didn't beat me. They encouraged me to think for myself....

"One thing I have learned is that Christians are the worst hate-mongers.
They may start out benign, but it is not long before the mask falls
off and the anger and hate is revealed…the programming is hard
to break."

I've seen a FEW Christians like that. I've also known Christians who would never hurt anyone, who take SERIOUSLY the commandment, "love thy neighbor as thyself." Not everyone is hypocritical to the core.

Much of my family is Christian. They don't hate anyone.

"Now back to you.
I don’t have any reason or desire to profile people on the forums,
Also don’t flatter yourself that I am trying to condescend or be
nice to make up for my harsh words. I don’t do that shallow nonsense."

When you offer "pity", like here:

"In a way I pity the kind of person you are."

You condescend. I could probably set up a poll about this and most here would agree with me. Like most people, I have some pride. You should know better than to insult a person's pride--well, I forgot, you ARE hiding under internet anonymity. But seriously, you shouldn't step on people's pride, you only invite them to step on yours and frankly, I have been very restrained in doing so. So far....

"I seldom give people on the forums compliments, so be aware of that.
If you see it as me trying to win you over, you’re dead wrong."

I don't know what you were trying to do. Oh well....

"The difference between you and me is that you are unable to
handle dissenting views,"

I think I handled them quite well. What I DON'T handle well (or at least, not in a friendly manner) is tripe said about ME. And don't try to say it wasn't, because you used my name, and the second person. It was every bit the diatribe my response to it was.

"Just why did you rise to attack my original post, if you are not religious?"

Explained that above. I am capable in seeing good in things outside my own experience. Sounds to me like you are not--just like fundamentalists are often not.

"I find this very odd."

Of course you do....

"Seeing that I am on the top 25 posters on CFC is proof that I
have grasped the rudimentary idea of debate and discussion,
thank you very much."

So you equate quantity with quality. Figures....

"You however may not have grasped the fact that your debating skills are faulty,
Allan2…you do not discuss, you try to crush others into taking
your line of thought."

I ARGUED, I didn't CRUSH--if you think I CRUSHED, you must be quite easy to crush....

"You never agree with others and seem to be desperate to vindicate your post
By any means possible, are you really so filled with fear of
rejection? Do you see enemies everywhere?"

No, like I said, I object to condescension, and to people assuming silly things about me. I think you would too, if you were in my shoes.

And the thing is, you don't SEE it--you don't SEE where you did those things. I suppose you can never be wrong, or do things the wrong way, can you? Not in your mind.

"I have no moral obligation to lick your boot, Allan2."

Never asked you to. What got you thinking about licking boots?

"So don’t ever expect a crawling apology from me.
Your expectations will not be rewarded…"

No apology asked for, and (sigh) none expected. Carry on....

"I still stick to my original words and stand unrepentant."

Good, but don't try to deny what those words meant when I shove them back into your face. Agreed?

 

[allan2]

Now, anyone want to actually discuss what I said related to the topic? You know, before this turned into an unfortunate (but necessary) slugfest with Curt?

 

[Hitro]

I think it is like some here already said. Science and religion don't necessary exclude each other. But religion can try to restrict science while science may endanger the fundamental beliefs of some religions.
Now if someone would force me to make a choice which of the two to 'eliminate' (hypothetic!), I, as an atheist, would take religion of course. But does that mean I'm against people being religious? Of course it doesn't, it just meant that I personally don't see any sense in it nor have any use for it.
And Curt is right in pointing at the danger for freedom that lies within religion. Here it is important to be precise though. Someone believing in something spiritual is not automatically a danger to freedom, but rather an expression of personal freedom. But fact is that many religions and/or their various branches tend to force their view on "non-believers".

Considering Atheism:
It seems that many people make the mistake to think Atheism would be some kind of religion. Or that Atheists were people who would not be sure what they believe or on the search for their 'fitting' religion.
That is nothing but wrong! An atheist does neither believe in ANYTHING spiritual nor is he on the search for something spiritual.
Naturally nobody, including atheists, can completely rule out the existence of a god. It's like someone already said, science can't completely rule out religion. If someone would tell me he was God I couldn't prove him wrong. But I don't need to BELIEVE in it. You shouldn't forget that religion is based on beliefs and not on knowledge.

P.S.: I think that you (allan and Curt) are not as far apart as you might think. At least your posts in this thread indicate that...

 

[The Art of War]

One more thing and then I'll return to the original topic:

(Don't let this offend you, Curt, or anyone, because I'm not angry, just wondering)

Posted by CurtSibling:
"Allan2, I was referring to the cringing fear most people like
Yourself have when faced with a moral dilemma."

How do you know this "fear" if you've never experienced it? Because, as we all know, you don't have any fear. You've never been that "type" of person, so how do you know what the fear is? (just wondering, not angry. . .)

BTW, you never said anything or implied anything (that I picked up on) about whether you'd believed in a god or not.
_______________

Anyway, back to original topic: I'm going with religion, like I've already said. Science won't matter when I am dead.

 

[roadwarrior]

I personally think that religion is a relic of an era when man could not comprehend the world around him, and so ascribed natural phenomena to supernatural powers. I do not think that religion is the basis of morality or law and order or any of that. I am an atheist, and I don't kill people.

However, having said that, I do respect the right of other people to hold their own beliefs, as long as they don't try to spread them by force or restrict other's freedom in any way as a result of those beliefs. But you have to remember that there are terrorists motivated by things other than religion as well. Marxist/Communists, for example, who specifically deny the existence of a god commit brutal acts of terrorism themselves. So basically I see religion as an outdated set of beliefs in most cases, but as long as they leave me alone I will leave them alone.

And to get back to the original topic, I believe there is a fundamental conflict between science and religion. Science is based on logic and fact, where as religion is based on belief unsupported by factual evidence. They are essentially the exact opposite things, in my opinion.

 

[The Art of War]

Neo-Nazis. . .good points roadwarrior. It takes more to believe without the eyes than with, I think.

 

[allan2]

"Someone believing in something spiritual is not automatically a danger to freedom, but rather an expression of personal freedom."

This is where most Christians I know personally stand--they believe in their freedom, and everyone else's too! Most Christians in the US embrace and value the freedom of religion guaranteed under the constitution. They would dread the day that goes away, even if it were replaced by Christian supremacy under the law. The way they seem to look at it is, that God gave them free will....

Heck, I even know Christian LIBERTARIANS--who want to end prohibition on drugs, end sodomy laws against gays, the whole nine yards.... And I don't see that as being in opposition to Christian doctrine--Jesus said (to paraphrase): "If you tell them about me, and they reject your message, wipe the dust from your feet and walk away." I.e. don't use force on them.

"But fact is that many religions and/or their various branches tend to force their view on "non-believers"."

This happened way more in the past than in the present, EVEN considering the terror attacks of Sept. 11. And even those attacks were not with the blessing of the majority of Muslims.

See, religion can work on more than one level: On the "TOP" levels (priests, religious leaders, etc.) things CAN (they don't always, but they CAN) get corrupt--just as corruption can fester at the top of government.

But on the level of the "little people" (the simple laypeople of faith), more often than not it is just a way to help them come to grips with the intangible mysteries of life. Religion isn't NECESSARY for doing this, but for many it is the easiest or most fulfilling way to do so. It may remind them to have kindness and compassion when logic or self-interest may dictate not to; it may restrain them from hurting others when their anger is stoked; it may help them accept burdens that are hard but unavoidable, or it may help them accept tragedies (like the death of a loved one) that they can do nothing about.

So long as these people don't hurt others, why should I scorn them or try to tell them how or how not to find their inner peace? I am no better than any of them, am I? (I guess I saw Curt doing this when he tried to pigeonhole me with religion and then proceeded to deride me--that is why the long posts where I sought to correct him for his arrogant presumptions--be they about ME, or about people who have religion. I hope he can understand that.)

"P.S.: I think that you (allan and Curt) are not as far apart as you might think. At least your posts in this thread indicate that..."

I'm not so sure, although I was once at the point where Curt seems to be now regarding this issue. I rebelled against religion, and felt a lot of animosity toward it. I focused on the BAD things I saw associated with religion.

But as one ages, one tends to "mellow out" a bit (at least, I have). I started seeing that things aren't so black and white. I started SEEING things around me, seeing that the average religious person wasn't so bad, and wasn't poised to shove his religion down my throat the minute I let down my guard. I started seeing the works of charity of many Christians, and the general good will they had toward others. Sure, I still see what a few BAD Christians do, but that doesn't take away from what I see in the GOOD Christians, or good people of other faiths. Why should I deny one for the sake of acknowledging the other?

I judge people as individuals, not on what religion, race, culture, etc. they belong to. If they do bad, I recognize their bad and blame it on THE INDIVIDUAL, not on their religion, race, or culture. I think the world would be better if we all did that.

 

[allan2]

"And to get back to the original topic, I believe there is a fundamental conflict between science and religion. Science is based on logic and fact, where as religion is based on belief unsupported by factual evidence. They are essentially the exact opposite things, in my opinion."

Science deals in the tangible, religion in the intangible. Both tangible and intangible exist, and they are not in opposition. So I don't see where science and religion HAVE to be in opposition--not if they respectively deal within their "spheres of influence" so to speak.

But I did say that religion can temper some of the harsher decisions we make based on science. For example, India is arguably overpopulated. Science determines that if the population isn't reduced, with WHAT WE PRESENTLY KNOW people will die of malnutrition and struggle over waning resources.

Thus a PURELY scientific solution (i.e. with no trace of any intangible concerns) could be to selectively kill a certain segmant of the population, or sterilize a certain segment of people (maybe based on genetic traits), or force abortions. Neither being very compassionate or kind, but perhaps (according to science) necessary.

Now religion or ITS VESTIGES (i.e. morals not necessarily HELD by religious people but originating in religion or spirituality) would temper that with compassion and a moral inhibition to doing these kinds of things. So while it may stay the hands of the decision-makers, it may buy time for science to come up with a solution that allows BOTH sparing people now and later--be it by developing space technology required for colonizing other planets, or genetic hybrid plants that could feed more people while using less land.

So you see how religion and science can complement each other? It's all about balance.

Again I ask, where does compassion come from? Where does love come from? Not from science--science only deals in tangibles. Again, I'm not saying one MUST be religious to have them, but religion does, for many people, ENCOURAGE them.

(In case anyone is wondering, I didn't vote in this poll. I don't see the two as necessarily opposing forces, and I'd not want either pure science or pure religion.)

 

[MrPresident]

Could people find a way of reducing what they post because it is currently way too much. People like me, the lazy ones, just can't be bothered to read that much. So just summarise what you want to say and then go into detail when someone questions what you have put. It is that simple.

Notice how this post is small and easy to read in one go.

 

[Daaraa]

I'm not sure if it has been said yet but I'll point it out.
People in America, Europe, South America, Africa and Asia look, treat and deal with religion in general VERY differently.
The South Americans have two fringes, fundamental catholic (very different catholic church in Mexico than the one down the road) and laid-back-never-been-to-church-since-I-was-a-kid kind of catholic, yet both groups get along.
The Asians by nature have a different view on religion involving reincarnation, ancestor worship and statues. Even American buddists are different than asian buddists, although I'm not sure why.
We get a lot of European immigrants where I live. They could be Anglican and go to the Anglican church, but they practise religion differently than most Anglicans who have been here thier whoe lives. Same with Catholics.
I'm also not sure, but I don't think that the born-again fundamental Christian movement has really gripped Europe like it seems to have gotten ahold of Americans.
There is also more tolerance within religion, for other religions in the US than in most other parts of the world.
Americans are also more open to change within thier own religion.

What I am saying is that Curt could be assuming allan2 and Art of War are of the European mentality of religion and visa versa.

Just a stab at trying to cool heads.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by allan2
I was once at the point where Curt seems to be now regarding this issue. I rebelled against religion, and felt a lot of animosity toward it.

I can't speak for Curt but you shouldn't mistake Atheism with 'rebelling against religion', like I said in my earlier post. I, as an Atheist, neither do believe nor even have believed and most likely never will believe in anything spiritual. That has in the first place nothing to do with seeing bad things in religion. It is just so that I am convinced that there is nothing spiritual, no matter if that spiritual thing or being and its followers are good or evil.
And from that point of view it makes sense to focus on the bad sides of religion, because in a certain way there are only bad ones. The thing is that I regard believing in something that doesn't exist as pointless and therefore not positive but rather negative. Of course I tolerate it, but not more. And then there are still the sides which are definetely negative, like religious extremism etc..

Originally posted MrPresident
Could people find a way of reducing what they post because it is currently way too much.

Have you though about employing someone to summarize the posts for you while you can focus on reading tabloids?

 

[MrPresident]

Have you though about employing someone to summarize the posts for you while you can focus on reading tabloids?

Actually I read the Guardian. All am I saying is that is it really necessary to prove that you can write a thousands words on a topic? Instead of writing lots in the course of making a point, just make the point. Also summarising is a skill that is tested when you study English, not just for tabloid editors.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Actually I read the Guardian.

Okay, I'm sorry.
I thought YOU wouldn't have a problem with sarcasm...

All am I saying is that is it really necessary to prove that you can write a thousands words on a topic?

I personally don't do that. At least not in first posts.
Another things is replying to various points sometimes by various authors, there you have to make longs posts if you don't want to leave something out.
Besides that allan's posts may just seem so long because of his quoting style.

Instead of writing lots in the course of making a point, just make the point.

You are stupid!
No I don't think so, but that would be a clear point. But don't you think it's more elaborate to add an explanation for that point?

Also summarising is a skill that is tested when you study English, not just for tabloid editors.

It doesn't mean you should summarize everything to one sentence though. Please give me examples where people in this thread (especially myself) could have summarized a point and how.