Yes, it was quite obvious you don't have antipathy towards religion anywhere near your antipathy towards atheism.
Actually, I don't have any antipathy towards aetheism or atheists in general, it is only those gnostic atheists who make it a point to attack and belittle religion (which must mean they are either ignorant or dismissive of the lessons of history) for whom I have antipathy.
You couldn't tell that from your posts to date.
Please feel free to point out those posts of mine that support this accusation.
Originally Posted By: foobar456
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Originally Posted By: foobar456
No, I'm saying if we could go back and remove religion from the start. Like it had never existed. That's not the same as forcibly removing it as a method of control, or even trying to remove it from a small utopian society within the larger society as a whole, like Plato or the hippies.
What you propose is impossible, even naive. History is what it is. Civilizations start out as pious and struggling for survival, and as they grow and become successful and as want turns to fulfillment of the basics and fulfillment of the basics of survival turns to a desire for something more, civilizations drift ever farther from those principles which keep a civilization alive.
It is a cycle that students of history see repeated over and over again. It is a cycle we see being repeated by Europe today and even see in America, though to a slightly lessor degree - but only slightly.
It's called a thought experiment. You know, that fella Einstein kinda made them famous I said at the outset that there was no way to actually do it.
And yet your "thought experiment" is entirely useless given human history. What is its point?
Originally Posted By: foobar456
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Originally Posted By: foobar456
As for the rest of it, well, you're welcome to your opinion.
Thank you, though my opinion had nothing to do with my post. That was just history talking.
Your interpretation of history and current events is your opinion.
It's not my interpretation of history, it is just history as it is.
Of course to know this means that one would have to have a working knowledge of history.
Just go back through your posts in this thread for examples.
Maybe if you had a working knowledge of thought experiments, you would know that they are for precisely when an experiment cannot possibly be done in the real world. Hence the term thought experiment, as opposed to practical experiment.
Denigrating your opponent's knowledge/education seems to be a go to move for you. Overcompensating?
Previous Topic
Index
