This is not an attack, but it is pointless to argue/discuss with religious believers.

Remove all ads!

Well put, TGS. Kin, your biggest problem is that you fail to see the faith you yourself depend on as anything other than absolute fact. This is the worst kind of 'Certainist', as you put it, one who doesn't even realize his assumptions are assumptions. Just because you see a certain logic to your arguements doesn't mean that that logic is absolute and infallable.

You also, by your assumtions, refuse the possibility that religious people actually have seen evidence of their beliefs, evidence that may even make you question things if you saw it. Of course, there comes the issue of repeatability, except that we aren't talking about a scientific experiment here, we're talking about a 'natural' occurance. Scientists can't cause ball lightning, and they certainly can't just summon it up at will. Does that mean I shouldn't believe in it just because I've enver personally seen it?

The thing you fail to see is that 90% of the time, the issues you are 'failing to convince' religious people of are the ones that really fall down to faith on either side. They believe differently from what you believe and they can't prove their side, so you say you can't talk to them. At the same time, they fail to convinve you of their side, but they know that both sides are unprovable in the current setting, you only see that their side is unprovable.

Now there are always religious fanatics, and there are always scientific fanatics, but I don't think I've actually seen any of them on these boards (maybe Gnarff ).

And finally, Kin, I think you said something about scientists not trying to force their beliefs down our throats, well what about evolution? I'm not saying we should ban the teaching of evolution by any means, but it is a theory being taught (in a very outdated form) as absolute, unquestionable scientific fact in public schools.

EDIT: You posted before me, NO FAIR!

Actually, we can't even scientifically know that. Believe it or not, science opperates heavily upon Occam's Razor. Most of the great failings of science in the past have been when Occam's Razor (The simplest explanation is often the correct one) turned out to be wrong (we think, now, now that we know more, maybe, we think).

And regarding the 'cutting scientific edge', well, let's just say that that cutting edge is not heavily trusted in engineering. Being an aerospace engineer, let me tell you that we don't use CFD (computational fluid dynamics, the cutting edge of computers using the cuttign edge of aerodynamic theory) unless we don't have anything else we can use. The reason? It hasn't been tested. It hasn't been proven. Bernoulli's principle isn't 100%, and we know that, but we know it works well enough for X and not for Y. CFD we just don't know yet, so I'd rather wait until it's been proven before loading 300 people on a plane designed with CFD.

 

I think of Star Trek when I use Gog and Magog. Just names that have stuck in my mind and have no special connotation to me other than that.

As for my math example I guess it is a matter of perception. To me anyone who insists that their way is the right way is working from faith. I have had 'discussions' with people who are convinced that their doctor is correct even though he(she) isn't helping them. They won't go for a second opinion. They are working from faith.

Faith does not have to be religious. I understand, I think, what kin hell is saying about science. Experiments can be repeated.

But what about spiritual experiences? Millions of people have had what they believe to be spiritual experiences. True the identical experience cannot be repeated but none the less these people believe that something happened that can not be explained by science. I think there is a lot more to this world that the materialist or scientist sees. But then I believe in the power of the mind. Not the brain that is simply a specialized organ of the body but the mind itself.

By the way I am enjoying this discussion a great deal. It expands my mind.

 

*pokes head in*

You guys do understand that faith does not equal religion? "Faith" is believing in something with which there is no proof.

Example:

I throw a CD into the air. I have faith that it will land on the ground somewhere. Does that make gravity a religion?

 

I thought the point of this thread was not to argue. Or are you arguing about wheter there is a point in arguing? Because it seems pretty clear to me that arguing about religion, especially on an internet forum, is not going to change anyones opinion.

 

We are not arguing, we are discussing. And I am enjoying the discussion. We are exchanging different view points. So there.

 

Snook, how is it as leap of faith to believe something when we've gone 15 years without a single published study that fails that disprove any aspect of it? When every published study on the subject in the last 15 years has, in fact, actually corroborated it? Especially since everything that we predicted on those computer models 15 years ago has not only happened, but the results were actually worse than the community predicted. Who is looking at the issue from a position of faith, again?

Source: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL

[ April 10, 2007, 02:45: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

That would be in the New Testament rather than your mentioned Old Testament

I'll respond for Gnarf here in saying that he wasn't rebuting your statement really. He was agreeing that it cannot be proven to the masses, but you personally can be convinced of its validity.

True, he did only put in the quotations about half of your full quote. However, his responce can be applied to the whole thing.

(I'm responding for Gnarf because rooting and aiding for the underdog is fun)

Ragusa has it.

Not so much here Ragusa. Both sides are looking at it from a perspective of faith. I'm not discrediting the fact that it is getting warmer- it is- but there is little that can prove it is man made, and even less can prove that we wont have 'global cooling' in the future. We know that the weather changes with the seasons, so who's to say it wont change over hundreds of years? I cannot disprove the idea of man making Earth warmer, but the other side cannot prove their viewpoint either.

 

Try reading the link and the consensus opinion before you make an argument like this.

 

@NOG

THANK YOU NOG thank you.

You tell me that even in the face of repeated testing we cannot really prove, or scientifically know a fact.

How much more uncertain,illusory and unproveable are the Knowledges that religion promulgates as Known Truths.

Nakia said

OK, I have to trust the stated "spiritual experiences" of these peoples.

And I do.

There is no doubt in my mind that life is a generator of perception, and that the world we live in hasn't been wholly defined yet by any means, (your quote above indicates you agree)

Now given that every human that has lived has perceived, how many countless variations of possible realities is that?

Can you not see that any one Claim to The True and Only Knowledge is absurd.

As soon as The Truth is claimed and manifested as indisputable(interesting word that, not open to discussion?), the person making such claim, says, "My perceived knowledge holds absolute preceedence and is irrefutable as The Only One and True Truth." In otherwords, "I KNOW."

It doesn't matter if they think their truth came from god. ( this is general not aimed at you NOG)

Their absurd presumption that they are right and everyone else is wrong (and in some extreme cases should be put to the sword)is what I am addressing in this thread. That and the impossibility of getting them to see this reasoning.

How lucky for every believer who meets and engages me in discussion, I am open to persausion.
This I have found, is not a reciprocal agreement.

As I have earlier stated, I can accept someone's stated position acknowledging "something weird/spiritual happened to me, but I don't know what...etc"
because they are stating their perceived truth, they are not positioning themselves as blessed holders of divine Knowledge.

It really doesn't matter what voices you've heard, what solo witnessing you've done, what unrepeatable miracles you've seen, what prayers have been answered,...etc these are all experiences that I am not disputing you may have perceived, I am disputing your self ordained position to Claim The Only Knowledge.

I think the first rule of first statements should be as previously stated "I'm not sure but..."

@kuemper

You are totally correct kuemper.
gravity is a religion, it drags us down, and keeps us down, (figuratively and metaphorically) like any religion.

Yes kuemper, it is understood that faith does not equal religion. Me personally, if I have used the word faith implying religion, it is because I tired of typing out the entirety of FaithBased Belief Structures and so becomes faith shorthand.

Faith does equal religion in the sense that religion cannot exist without faith.

@Bahir the Red

You are right.
Personally I perservere because if just one person is saved, my personal heaven rejoices.


elsewhere
re: the global warming hijack, threads are like a weather pattern, who knows what input is gonna trigger what storm.
People have a right to believe,
they just dont have a right to proclaim they Know.

@ChickenIsGood

Yes ChickenIsGod my own zealotry caused me to be irked by an agreement that doesn't acknowledge it's own agreement, or the fact that, because it is an internalised realisation( this coming to faith) it has no exterior framework on which to be tested for validity.

The internal statement/knowledge "I believe, therefore I am right." is the reason we have the fractured world societal structure we have.

And Faith armours any who has Faith against the need/desire to inspect that aforementioned positioning.

This is not a conversation with conversion intended, but is a discussion and description of the blind (and blinding) mechanism that Faith is.

 

@Kin Hell

I still don't agree with you in the sense that you condemn every person who has a religion to be unreasonable. By that logic, is every atheist easy to come to terms with? It is the nature of Man (and women) to fall back upon their core beliefs, whether those beliefs are Faith-based or have some other form of foundation. When pressed, a Christian will fall back on the Bible, just as a mathematician will fall back on an algorithm, and just as a scientist will fall back on any scientific law. Why? Because they believe in it. A few hundred years ago, you'd have been hard-pressed to convince any scientist that the Earth was round, just like you have a hard time now convincing someone like Gnarff that God doesn't exist. A current lack of means prevents us from finding the truth, but until it's proven to be wrong, who are you to judge what is and isn't fact?

 

Sad but true. You don't hear as much about the people who, at the council of a divine power do wonderful things to help people as you do about people who, in the name of a divine entity commit attrocities, often neglecting the keystones of the faith...

I am proposing that religious doctrine suggests a methodology. Unless you follow that methodology, you really can't comment one way or another.

How the heck do you learn anything if you don't seek knowledge? In Science class, you perform experiments, following a methodology given, that your instructor describes and observe the results. If you don't participate in the experiment, you don't get the learning from the experience. In Religion, you are given a doctrine, following that doctrine, like following a methodology, you'll get your own results. If you don't do this, you won't know about it.

An incorrect assumption, After reading your initial post I really shouldn't be surprised. As a Mormon, we don't pray to a crucifix, We focus more on the Ressurected Saviour, not the symbol of his death.

Not circular, but a question of the Chicken and the egg. You say your humanism predates religion, I adopt a contrary position.

The Abrahamic religions make that claim in their representation of Creation. I only bring that claim to your attention.

In embracing a non-existence or irrelevence of God, something takes the position of superior being. In Humanism, that becomes the Human...

It is the idea of the human that you would exalt, not specific humans or groups thereof.

Is that a slap at those who claim to be incapable of such faith?

(a) No. Neither faith nor rejection thereof is easy. For faith, you have to forgoe many things that would be believed morally wrong, while a rejection means that you have to decide right and wrong on your own, and considering the divergent opinions I see on the matter, that's probably harder than working from a pre-existing framework given by faith.
(b) Drew has given me hell for this one many times, but it's not necessarily a lack of principles, but I do suggest that they are a less accurate set of principles.
(c) Self-awareness exists regardless of faith in a higher power.

With all the self-righteous, arrogant insults you levy against us "sad little people", I take the liberty to take the relevent parts out.

You were putting forth an observation, I was challenging your assessment of it. You talk like it's a bad thing. I don't.

No more presumptuous as you thinking I'm sad and pathetic...

If this comes after decades of consideration, then I think you could have spent those decades better. If the best thing you can do, or the only joy you can find, is put down people who are capable of faith, perhaps you fit the "sad little human" label...

Once again you miss my point. While I do believe my way is best, the majority of society consciously buying into the same system would decrease the competition for followers and increase getting on with doing as we ought to be doing...

I thought you were referring to natural disasters, like hurricanes, blizzards, floods, tidal waves. I was not referring to deliberate, hurtful sins. Though such things also present trials, they are not from God...

Actually I am contradicting you. You think we, the faithful, are capable of believing anything. I am calling that to question, citing the theory of evolution as an example...

The assumption that you make that religion is bulls**t is as much a leap of faith as it is to accept religion. The only difference between us is that we've leapt in opposite directions...

 

You still don't get it, do you? Let's go to the texts:

Merriam-Webster's Def'n of "faith"

Yes, there is a fair bit of reference to religious belief, BUT also some meanings that have no association with religion.

Or, if you prefer a non-US reference, let's go to the other big name for dictionaries: Oxford Online Dictionary

Again two of three definitions refer to religion, but not all three.

This is significant, because you're beginning to show a systemic flaw in your logical reasoning: you assert that because something may sometimes be associated with something else, it must always.

This is a fallacy; just because the sets A & B coincide, does NOT mean that the subset AB equals the ENTIRETY of set A, even if this is true of set B!

Let's take a simple, and probably very familiar syllogism:

1. John is a tall man.
2. All tall men are thin.
3. Ergo, John is thin.

This works fine, since the second term defines the subset of tall, thin men to equal the set of tall men, BUT we cannot say from merely this group of terms alone, that "all thin men are tall".

And unfortunately, that's what you keep trying to do with "faith = religion". "Religion = faith" is a little easier to swallow, but then we get into semantics and complexities, and not simply logic.

And just to spell it out in terms that are hard to misconstrue or ignore:

I have FAITH that, for example, my wife will prepare a snack for me to take to work. There's nothing involving any deities here (she doesn't do this because God has decreed that wives will feed their husbands or anysuch), or anything supernatural, but this is a situation where I cannot empirically prove that my wife WILL have a sandwich in the fridge for me for tomorrow, but I belive that she will.

There is MW's def'n 2.b. both (1) and (2), or OED's def'n 1. And it's merely a single instance where "faith/belief != religion" and if you can disprove something is not equivalent to another thing even once, the whole proof falls apart.

Stick some 'may equal' or 'can be equivalent to' in your statements, and it'd actually strengthen your arguments, but to keep tilting at the 'faith IS religion' windmill will only lose ground.


You need to step back, and realize that the most obstinate, entrenched, closed-minded, unwavering 'Believer' here in this conversation is YOU.

You have revealed a *bigotry* against religion - you profess that "...it is pointless to argue/discuss with religious believers" and have re-iterated this point with every post. You tar every person who professes a belief in a supernatural power as not worth conversing with.

Interestingly enough, though, you HAVE gainsaid your very point in the thread topic - you've participated in a discussion with several professed religious believers - Gnarf & NOG, for starters - and yet carried on the discussion after they joined. Wait, I rescind that supposition - it's possible that you are willing to engage in a "pointless" exercise, though to what motive is beyond my ability to deduce. One must keep an open mind, after all...

In short, I'm finding this thread misnamed - it IS an attack, in a passive-aggressive manner, and I should have realized it from the "but" in the title. I'm somewhat glad that I did spend some time catching up on this, since it has reminded me why I typically don't waste my time in the Alleys - I usually don't have the time/energy to 'play handball' by bouncing my opinions against the inflexible/ (Note that I didn't say "never have the time"; some != all.)

In parting, I'd like to leave a...um, I guess you could classify it as a 'literary' reference that illustrates my point about religion vs. faith and belief: take the movie Serenity - at several points a 'preacher' makes my point:

and

EDIT: *sigh* Okay, THIS is the last I'll have to say in this thread.

Well, we (even an undecided agnostic such as myself) must then do what we can to remind others of the good that can come from religious belief: Blessed_Teresa_of_Calcutta
Way to go, Terry!

[ April 10, 2007, 07:36: Message edited by: jaded empath ]

 

@ BlckDeth

I accept that we all have core beliefs. They are tied to the personal perceptions we've previously discussed.

My contention is not that every person who has religion is unreasonable, but that the Faith required to maintain that a personal perception re: a delivered knowledge is The Truth (One and Only), precludes any possibility of reason.

Otherwise their(the believers)reasoned honesty would say.
" my perceived truth is this belief, but because it has no exterior frame work to test it upon, it could be wrong, and therefore I cannot expect anyone else to follow, accept, or believe my belief."

Fine, and how humanist, but that is not how organised religious belief is ever disseminated.

It is presented as The Only Truth.and outside of that only Truth, you are not a person who has a different perception, you are a "(label as you choose), pagan, infidel, heretic,unbeliever, idolater, recusant, shismatic, renegade, unorthodox, revisionist.
Study those names, and the obvious theme is, the implied demand of, either you believe as I do, or you are the enemy.

Where in this, does past belief such as, the world is flat, demand the same obligatory acceptance. What? "I demand you believe the world is flat,(as I do), or I'll throw you off the edge.

And let me point out, that the strongest positions taken throughout history against new and threatening real world discoveries has always been those of organised religion.

I am not trying to convince Gnarff that god doen't exist, I am however obliged to continue to argue that his perception of Truth does not ever give him right to Claim The Knowledge of the One Truth, or indeed, that his perception is the only correct one.

I'm at a loss how what I have written in all of the above posts (apart from my individual failing/snarling moments)is not obvious.

BlckDeth with all respect, can you not see that apart from my occasional irritated kneejerks, I try to maintain the position, that it doesn't matter what a person believes as truth, that that person has not the slightest right to attempt to Claim it as the Only Truth.
Is this not what you are stating in this last quote above? Are you not demanding behaviour of me, that in fact, I am asking for /arguing for to the whole organised religious front?

Am I being obtuse?

 

Arguing with religious beliefs may be pointless due to how they are generally so firmly rooted, but discussion is *NEVER* pointless. Ever. Discussion involves an exchange of ideas, whether friendly or heated. When it becomes pointless is when people start trying to convince the other of their side, or that the other side is wrong, which is what slides into arguing and becomes the typical morass that has overpopulated the Alleys.

And ironically, it's almost never the religious types starting the arguments, because they are typically secure in their beliefs and don't feel the need to justify themselves at every opportunity by disputing the beliefs of "the other side". When they're confronted, they will defend their beliefs, but otherwise are generally content to sit in silence, 'knowing' that they're right just as "the other side" 'knows' that they're right.

There's something to admire in that non-confrontational attitude, even if I don't agree with their beliefs. There is also something to be pitied, in their utter certainty, but it's not as if "the other side" can't be accused of the same, especially in light of this thread.

Finally, if you ever feel the need to preface something with "This is not an attack, but...", I'd think long and hard about *why* that occurred to you.

 

'I have black friends, but...'

*snicker*

However, as amusing as that thought is, given the limitations of textual communication--and the nature of internet forums--it is often a good idea to provide such caveats to preempt any possibility of flamewars.

[ April 10, 2007, 09:52: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

To clarify what I think/believe:

I do not know if there is one True and Only Knowledge. Maybe there is. I do not know. I do know that there are many religious beliefs and I believe that they have been beneficial to humans. It is true that evil has been done in the name of Religion but I blame human nature. It is the Us against Them syndrome that I think would exist with or without religious belief.

I have noticed this. This type of thread is (IMO) confrontational by nature. It may not explicitly say "prove to me you are right and I am wrong" but it does so implicitly.

Of course a Believer will step in to state their beliefs. An open door invites visitors, wanted or unwanted.

I love a good argument er...discussion. Keeps my mind alive and my blood moving and helps me to clarify my own thoughts/beliefs for myself.

Taken out of context:

In the past I have envied this as I am unable to be certain. Ah, how lonely is the life of the "undecided agnostic".

 

TO ALL, IF THIS HAS BEEN A PASSIVE AGRESSIVE ATTACK ON MY PART, I APOLOGISE

@ jaded empath

thank you for the insight. I've sat here trying to get a real appraisal on my thoughts and motivations.

I cannot 100% state that I don't have issues that come seeping and seething to the surface occasionally.

And although you refer accurately to the fact that I am practising the exact opposite of what my thread implies, I cannot but ask for the same allowance from you, that you have given yourself in regards to bouncing your opinions against the inflexible,

In regards to

There are two parts to my statement j e. And indeed I had prefaced this statement with

So my furthering the topic with

implies a qualifier.

and sure enough a qualifier followed

now perhaps as a generalist statement this is not precise enough, or it is even inaccurate, but my imprecision or inaccuracy in this instance does not mean that my position is either, religion bigoted, or that I "tar every person who professes a belief in a supernatural power as not worth conversing with".

My first post definitely condemmed me to a extremist position, one I have been trying to modify to a more accurate representation of my position as long as this thread runs.

I have repeatedly apologised for and made acknowledgement of my less than cold/rational or appropriate utterances, and I have tried to address each point as it has been raised.
I offer these statements as support of my asserted position.

TO ALL I APOLOGISE FOR THIS HASTY AND EMOTIVE COMMENT

SO LASTLY PLEASE FORGIVE MY INABILITY OF REMAINING DISPASSIONATE, I have re-read my posts and cringed at the emotive bits I am sorry if I have given offense.

I do not believe however that the discussion itself was an attack or started or intended as an attack.
I hope the sequential unfolding of my thoughts above show more clearly, my thoughts/belief structure.

My less than unbiased feelings and their ability to cloud my utterances, are not reason alone to discount or cast aside my thought process, they are just further example of my humanity as being less than perfect.

 

It is 5:23AM DST and a thought has reached my mind that I think fits here, I don't know so may be off topic and if so I apologize.

Now this is not directed at any particular person, especially kin hell.

Why do people posts things that know folks such as NoG and Gnarf will find confrontational and will disagree with then get angry when they do disagree.

Disclaimer: This is not meant to attack I really am puzzled.

 

/me has a big, hearty breakfast of crow


Okay, after a (short) night's sleep, it occurred to me that it's a little unfair to just post my thoughts on this topic and then leave; 'at least give the OP a chance to respond your comments - see what (s)he's^1 got to say'

And I'm glad I did - further discussion in the thread has changed my view of its viability greatly.

kin? I apologize, you were being inflexible, but at some point before you got to responding to me, that mind of yours opened right up.

I, too, snapped off some stuff that I now think as too....er...opinionated(?) That's the peril of that 'send' button; sometimes there should be a 'half-hour' delay like an alarm clock's Snooze button - after the delay, it pops up and asks "Are you still sure you want to post this in the way you've said it? Don't wanna revise any wording after sober second thought?"

ANYWAYS, firstly, sorry for missing your caveated comment to kuemper - that makes things much more interesting.

Looking at that 'postulate', I'd revise it with one simple change of context:

"Faith can equal religion in the sense that religion cannot exist without faith."

in this case, I'll agree that religion is based on faith - the set of 'religion' is wholly within the larger set of 'faith'.

And when - for an individual - their personal set of 'faith' is equivalent and does not exceed their personal set of 'religion', aka 'if they profess to believe The ONLY truth (and refuse to entertain alternate viewpoints), THEN it is almost entirely without useful purpose to try to discuss things with them.

(Mind, this can also occur when a person is inflexible about another belief - take a car discussion where one poster is adamant that Ford merely means "found on road, dead" and refuses to acknowledge other viewpoints... )

As Feli noted, there can be use in discussing issues with those who are firm and secure in their beliefs on the issue; in that, even though you cannot alter their viewpoint, you may refine your arguments and views. Much like you take a knife to a whetstone; you do not do so with the intent of cleaving the stone, but to sharpen the blade.

(gawd, it seems I'm being very...I dunno - profound? this morning, or is it just MY perception and I'm just coming off as pompous? )

So, in fact, with a couple of revisions, I actually agree with the thread title.

And everyone involved is getting very interesting...fascinating what a night's sleep can do for your perceptions...

Anyways, again my apologies for coming off more curt than I'd intended kin hell, maybe something I said was interesting (heck even just amusing).


FOOTNOTE:
1. I've come to realize that I have either missed any assertion of gender on your part, but then, when it comes right down to it, that aspect of yourself is somewhat irrelevant to the issues at hand. As a correspondent of mind has in his(?) sig: "On the internet we are made of words..." which is the point I'm getting too; whether you're male or female doesn't really matter to me in respect to your views on religion, and more importantly, closed-minded Believers.

 

@Nakia

I suspect my motives weren't completely known to me when I first posted this thread topic.

It's OK Nakia I haven't taken what you've just posted as aimed at me, but it is relevant .

In hindsight, I do remember being empowered by the sheer number of posts I'd read that have polarised into religion based viewpoints and those of a different perspective.

I expressed clumsily and Vehemently a point that I regret I didn't find a more nonconfrontational way of presenting.
I subconsciously probably welcomed the chance to butt heads with those who'd find my post In-your-face enough to have to reply.

Basically I resent that while I can say "you may be right" and mean it, Faith demands no doubt from the faithful, and to maintain the position of faith, they (the faithful) cannot say the same to me and mean it... ever.

My continuing input throughout indicates my schizo headspace re: this thread.

My title posit would seem to automatically preclude said continual input.

I also found myself continually trying to explain the point I was trying to make, A point I had virtually guaranteed (with my injudicious post) would be missed in the general recoil from my perceived fanaticism

This is my explanation of how I feel and how it at times triggers less than ideal response in me.

I fully defend the concept of personal space. I fully defend the idea of personal beliefs.

I have come to my conclusions about life the universe and everthing through my own path.

I know and state that my essential belief structure may be wrong. ... It doesn't feel wrong, I don't think it's wrong, but I know I have no way ever of proving it even to myself.

My intent is to approach all interactions from that knowledge/perspective.

My un-ideal rip into the religious mindset and the Faith that it embraces, is due to the fact that while I must (from sheer honest appraisal) say of myself, that any internal dialougue I may experience, no matter how convincing it's content, can never be Claimed by me as The Truth . Faith or embracing faith, automatically has to lie about this point. It has to immediately Proclaim It Knows The Truth.

Now as a individual human on the planet, I only ask the same respect that I give.
But in essence the embrace of Faith, and the investment into that faithbased system demands of the faithful that there be no doubt.

Therefore there can never be a humanist level for conversation while faith exists and while the existance and the complicit following demands of faith, enable organised religions to exist.

How can I a non-believer with no religious (as is my heritage) rule-set offer a more encompassing /charitable and christian-like(heritage) stance/honour towards someone's right to believe, than that believer can by the faith/default position ever allow me.

So with out even being aware, I vented, and I've been typing ever since. I have apologised enough for the vents, but my exploration of the essential demands and effects of Faith and Religion as a basis for the possibility of a true open conversation, I see as a completely seperate and worthy subject.

Subconsciously I may have been looking for a fight.
I am annoyed with myself for clouding my own water.