Pointing to words like fatwa and infidels doesn’t support your argument for exclusively and you know it. Neither does using the dictionary to define agenda. It’s very clear that while religion is involved the motive was primarily as sense of outrage at continued perceived injustice, which as you have admitted, could exist just as easily in a secular society.
You’ve been unwilling and/or unable to support your argument while I’ve provided cites for mine. Manipulate the words all you like. The outcome is clear.
Anyway, cosmosdan, it’s been challenging as always. I’m off for more important things this evening; at a fundamental level of looking at religion from the outside, we agree in a very profound way as to what motivates people. Hence, IMO, our pointed disagreements; in my experience, contentious disagreements often are exacerbated when two people are very close but not identical in positions. Also, your take is perpetually pragmatic where my OP is, as are my other observations, based on an abstract notion of snap religion doesn’t exist and what that would mean. You always post right behind such things “how is this useful?” but it’s an intellectual discussion for its own sake. Perhaps we differ in that way as well.
Sorry, your tired attempt at proving your point by stating that the other person hasn’t proven their point is not proof at all. It’s religion.
Pointing to words like fatwa and infidels and the meaning of the word agenda isn’t intended to support my argument for exclusivity, so that’s another one of your strawmen attempts. Its intended to show that your evidence doesn’t support your point, and you know it.
It’s also intended to illustrate that it’s not clear, as you state, that the main reason was perceived injustice without religion as the primary motivation of what to do about that (which, you see, is where the trouble comes in).
Of course perceived injustice exists in a secular society. So what? That wasn’t the primary cause that led to the suicide bombing so it’s a moot point. Your links littered with religious language don’t support your point. Manipulate those quotes as you will but you’ve been unable to support your argument.
I’ve no doubt that in your mind the outcome will always be crystal clear. Like raisins.
I’m content to let readers decide who made the shallow attempt.
Over and out.
[/QUOTE]
Groovy, then readers will see the 10th and 11th words of my last sentence were “less likely” and not your stupid strawman imputation. ("What is reasonable, however, is that responses would be less likely to take the form of suicide bombing if you don’t believe in an afterlife (religion).")
To which you reply, “So secular people would never sacrifice themselves for a cause they felt strongly about?”
That may be the case. I’ve heard the “we’d be better off without religion” thing very often and I’d admit that I don’t know it isn’t true. I have to wonder what would take it’s place. What I find objectionable is people implying it’s obviously true, which IMO is just plain incorrect, especially coming from those who tout logic and reason uber alles.
I find that to be a superficial view and so I speak up and say so.
I appreciate the tone of this last post. We have our differences but I got the feeling a couple of times that it’s over some specific details and there’s much we probably agree on. Thanks for not being a pushover. It’s much more interesting and challenging that way. Happy holidays! D
