[Arnab]

Originally posted by razabq

1. Yet each and every atheist I have encountered in my life seems to feel a compulsion to dump on religion, including yourself (Arnab)

2. The motivation might indeed not be "agitation",

3. but if one's code of moral, philosophical, blah blah blah, makes one think of a different blah blah (such as religion) as, categorically, the equivalent of physically handicapped then you can't claim that your blah blah blah is an enlightened one.

4. You pursue your denigration of religion with the same zeal as, I daresay, the Spanish Inquisition ( whom NOBODY expects ) showed when ripping people's nails off. Ok, that was a cheap shot,

5. but when you say that you dump on religion simply to sharpen your mind I smell mohisher goo.

1. Well, what you view as "the compulsion to dump on religion" may be seen as a perfectly normal if you are not religious.

If I say I have a degree in Mathematics, and say that I know better calculus than the guy who got a degree in psychology, and let's say I solve a very hard math problem in front of him, am I showing my compulsion to dump on that guy's lack of skill in Mathematics?

Let's say I know the rules of grammar and try to speak/write sentences properly. By doing that in front of an illiterate person, am I showing my compulsion to dump on him, mocking him for his illiteracy?

Seriously, what is the limit where you (admittedly a religious person yourself) decide whether I am showing a compulsion to dump on religion or not? Why is it you, the religious person, who gets to decide the limit? It seems to me that the only persons who raises this "compulsion to dump on religion" are all religious persons themsleves, like you.

So I think you are deliberately being vague about this "compulsion to dump on religion" thing. In fact, so far you haven't given me one concrete example of what consitutes "dumping on religion" and who decides what is considered "dumping" and whether this decision has valid reasoning behind it. Being vague is very advantageous for you, because then you can easily strike down any strawman of your choice.

2. If the motivation is indeed not "agitation", then where is the fuss? And why did you quote the "agitation" part of my post then? May be it will become clear in the latter part of your post.

3. Ah, so the point of contention is not whether atheists are agitators, but whether atheists are as "enlightened" as they claim to be. I think you are misrepresenting my analogy. Let me descrbe the thought process behind my analogy. There is certainly nothing "enlightening" about viewing religious poeple as partially mental handicaps. What I am trying to say is that we don't disrespect the handicaps. We don't pity the handicaps. We accept they are handicaps, we don't REALLY try hard to feel physically superior to them. We accept their disabilities, move on with our lives, while providing them ways to rehabilitate themselves in our society any way we can. I was merely trying to provide a good analogy about how atheists "feel" about theists. So the analogy is not really about the "enlightenment" part of our discussion.

4. Well, you said it yourself in the end. The ridiculous metaphor of Spanish inquisitions was a cheap shot void of any substantive argument. I think the use of such ludicrous analogies also shows the knee-jerk desparation on YOUR part to denigrate atheism by any clutch means possible.

5. Another deliberate misrepresentation. I don't recall saying oe even implying the idea that "I dump on religion to sharpen my mind". Again, whether I am "dumping" on religion is a purely subjective assessment, and remember that I have not brought up the word "dumping" or the phrase "mohisher goo" (which, I must admit, is a mad funny phrase; I personally would use that phrase to lighten up the situation ) to describe any religion in this discussion.


Edited on, March 25, 2005, 8:15 PM GMT, by Arnab.