@Ron: Through my years I have found it impossible to have a logical
argument with religious people, so now I just resort to name calling.
Not exact matches
So many
religious well intended
people want to impress God and religion upon others
with various beliefs and
arguments that include you will, «burn in hell if you don't» or other not so harsh or threatening consequences.
Yes: Wilson shows this
with abundant
argument and convincing clarity, and there is no reason why
religious and nonreligious
people can't agree about this claim.
While I am not
religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels,
with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of
people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential
arguments, which are not
arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.
Briefly put, my
argument is (1) the condition of
religious pluralism prevents any one religion from being used by all
people as a source of generalized meaning, but (2)
people nevertheless need to invest their activity
with meaning, especially when that activity brings together
persons of diverse
religious background.
I expected that some
people would not understand or would disagree
with my
argument, but I did not expect the warm and genuinely excited reactions from those whose own experience has led them to see Christ on the other side of the long border between contemporary Catholic and evangelical
religious experiences.
We will clutter political debates
with religious arguments which most
people find irrelevant and make it harder to reach consensus.
These
people do not know each other, which leads me to view them as inquisitors (or probably acolytes) of some
religious Global Warming cult, armed
with good sounding
arguments to convince the unbelievers, and when that fails to use stronger methods.
In announcing his appointment, the Post described Mooney as a writer
with a distinctive voice and a consistent
argument: «that
people's preconceptions — political,
religious, cultural — color the way they view science.»