I'm sorry if you come to the impression that I've intentionally neglected to respond/comment on certain points you've brought up. I should have, as I am now.
Quote:
Bear in mind that if you're agreeing or conceding a point, the sporting thing to do is to actually say that you are. Leaving a point unreplied to might mean that you're simply ducking it.
Yes, agreeable.
Quote:
You never responded to this: "This has no relation whatsoever to your original animal statement. Finding out new information is not the same as religion by any means." Nothing repetitious about that one.
Look at the last line of, that one post, of mine . . . . "The life and operation of every species, besides humans, is dictated by the mannerisms or survival, not by the mannerisms of prolonged outlook, investigation and fulfillment." It repeats the same idea about advancement/religion/animals/humans.
Indeed, exploration is not equivalent to religion. However, doesn't religion stem from exploration ("who are we; where did we come from; where are we going?") and exploration stem from religion ("were we really created by God, or was the Big Bang the ultimate oddsbreaker of eternity?") It's the chicken and the egg scenario. Religion is not equivalent to advancement, but both do feed off of each other.
Quote:
Explain, please.
People . . . extremists, mainly . . . like to jump to conclusions because something sounds right or good. The common person probably thinks Islam is a religion of "in the name of God" extremism and belligerence for anyone thinking otherwise (to Islam extremists, though, America is considered the belly of the infidel). Many people I encounter everyday would make the statement that the only thing seperating Americans from groups of terrorists is their religion - i.e. Islam for the terrorists and Christianity for them. This is far from true. It's the interpretation of religion that seperates them, among many other variables such as propoganda, lifestyle, etc. Some believe Islam is bad, Christianity is good, and people over the fence think vice versa. So, that's how the parallel between Islam and terrorism could arise - not thinking things through and basing your opinion on assumption and media reports. Although, if, in your (not you, Upsilon, some Mid -East places) world getting high is a bad thing and your TGIF is beheadings . . . you are bringing up the rear of society.
Here comes a rant . . . .
So, besides lifestyle factors and government systems, interpretaion of religion does have a major effect on who one considers an "extremist", or who is morel likely to become a "terrorist". Extremists allow their minds to be controlled by religious thoughts and beliefs, at a point to which anything that doesn't conform to their religion is wrong and needs correcting. So . . . . they sometimes "correct" people by killing, terrorizing, or otherwise using force to "teach" people what they beleive is right. Therefore, religion, as the general population uses it, is best believed with skepticism; again, most of us do this. Why? So that we don't allow ourselves to stagnate into a species bent on believing something we're not even sure is true. If we beleived what our religion told us, then we might all be dead right now because we'd have done the minimum to survive in order to speed up the process of reaching paradise. We wouldn't try to extend our lives with modern medicine. But we do. Like I said, skepticism of religion advances us. Knowledge and religion feed off each other, they aren't the same, but they do happen to rely on each other.
Quote:
The point of the ellipsis is to shorten the quote. I was responding to the whole thing, not just the bits on either end.
I realize this. I didn't think you were responding to the outer edges, but if by some odd chance you were, I wanted you to know what the whole post meant . . . . as a whole.
Quote:
If you want to focus on the discussion, it's wise to respond to all of it, not just the parts you feel like.
Yes, it is. But it depends what discussion you want to focus on . . . .
Quote:
Finally, I find it pleasantly ironic that, after devoting almost all your post to the issue of ignoring parts of a post, you ignore this part of my post:
"You rephrase this every time you post, and it doesn't mean anything. Seriously, what relevance does any of that have to this discussion?"
"You rephrase this every time you post, and it doesn't mean anything. Seriously, what relevance does any of that have to this discussion?"
That is ironic . . . 'pleasantly' ironic if you take pride in someone else's errors and misjudgements perhaps. However, I had earlier - around, well, one of the times you brought it up, I said . . . "The life and operation of every species, besides humans, is dictated by the mannerisms or survival, not by the mannerisms of prolonged outlook, investigation and fulfillment."
I have the feeling this discussion is dying. Your last post consisted of correcting me, and this post consists of me reiterating myself . . . . you can have the last word, but unless something new come up, I'm about done. I think we've given El_Chupacabra more than enough to think about.
