just wondering if anyone has changed opinions

[kymer]

Well that's interesting. Joebbowers says that "We absolutely do live in an insane world", yet we do not. Yes there are a lot of crazy things going on, but generally speaking the world is not insane. The crazy stuff happens on tv whenever a high profile religious baddie does something and when a secular country goes after them and ends up killing millions. If it was a crazy world in terms of every day stuff, we wouldn't even be able to walk down the street without seeing something crazy going on. He also says that "Most of the world's problems are the result of religion, and I don't just mean war. I mean most of the world's problems", yet in actual fact the so called war on terror involves a group of non fundametalist countries killing millions of people in countries dominated by religion, and all for the sake of avenging the deaths of 3,000 people in a building 11 years ago. Go figure. Not to mention that most of the world's problems do not originate with religion.

Bertatberts says that the world is mostly run by secular governments. Logically, then, how can religion be the cause of most of the world's problems? If most of the world's countries are run by secular governments then the only way that religion can cause most of the problems is if ordinary people cause them. But look around. All they do is go to church or mosque or whatever, and generally mind their own business. So which religious people are supposedly causing most of the world's problems? Answer : High profile baddies who when the secular countries go after them, millions of people end up dead. So who's the bad guy really? And anyway, that is not even anywhere near the whole of the world's problems. There are many causes of problems.

[Bad Pear]

Religion is not the cause of most of the world's problems. A profound lack of critical thinking skills and education, combined with compartmentalized empathy are the causes of most of the world's problems. Religion is merely a symptom of the former that plays well with the latter.

[bertatberts]

Bertatberts says that the world is mostly run by secular governments. Logically, then, how can religion be the cause of most of the world's problems?

You need to read up on what secular actually means, it doesn't for instance mean being completely devoid of any religions. it simply means, not allowing religion to cloud the issue.

If most of the world's countries are run by secular governments then the only way that religion can cause most of the problems is if ordinary people cause them. But look around. All they do is go to church or mosque or whatever, and generally mind their own business. So which religious people are supposedly causing most of the world's problems?

Do me and you live on the same planet, or are you so blinkered you can't see. To answer you question, at the moment muslims[1] would be at the top of the list, then christians.[2] etc etc...

Answer : High profile baddies who when the secular countries go after them, millions of people end up dead. So who's the bad guy really?

The ones that cause the problems in the first place.

And anyway, that is not even anywhere near the whole of the world's problems. There are many causes of problems.

Nobody disputes that.

1.	http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
2.	http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html The most recent at the bottom of the page.  And don't forget the witch killings in Africa. As joebbowers has shown.

[jaimehlers]

I most certainly did not twist his words.  This is his statement; he made an assertion in it which was quite clear to me.

And it means something completely different when you bother to insert the first part of the sentence.  I would smite you regardless if you did so intentionally, ignorance is no excuse.

I did insert the first part of the sentence.  I quoted you directly and left nothing out.  You said, and I quote, "A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'.  It by default excludes rational structured epistemology.  The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'."[1]

Yet you accused me of misquoting you, even though I included every single word that you wrote in that post.  Misquoting by definition means to leave stuff out of a quote.  It's usually caused by paraphrasing what someone says.  Yet when you criticized me, you simply emphasized the first three words, "a religious claim", which I included.  That means, by definition, I did not misquote you.  Now, I might have misunderstood you, but that is not the same thing as misquoting you at all.

To clarify what I meant, let me restate my post[2]:

Your statement here, "A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'.  It by default excludes rational structured epistemology.  The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.", made it pretty clear that you consider it impossible for a religious person to rationally gain knowledge except through "magic".  In other words, the mere fact of having a religious belief prevents them from trying to understand the world on its own terms.

In short, this is a statement you made.  It is a statement that you presumably stand by, since you wrote it in response to kymer's statement, "Well that's an inaccurate view, bert. Rational and religious are not mutually exclusive."[3].  In other words, the things you wrote in this statement are things that you agree with, and that you are presumably trying to make clear to kymer.  I interpreted your statement to mean that a religious person - someone with a religious belief, or claim as you put it - could not gain knowledge via a rational structured epistemology except through magic.

Now, as I've said twice now, it's possible I misunderstood what you said.  But if so, it was an honest misunderstanding - I was not intentionally twisting your words, as you implied by accusing me of lying.  Looking at it now, I interpreted the second "it" as referring to "rational structured epistemology", but you might have instead referred again to "a religious claim".  If that's the case, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.  As for ignorance, I don't agree.  A misunderstanding does not imply ignorance, and your accusation that I misquoted you is simply wrong, as I showed above, so that cannot be used to suggest ignorance either.

1.	http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21991.msg490596.html#msg490596
2.	http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21991.msg490669.html#msg490669
3.	http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21991.msg490595.html#msg490595

[Omen]

Live with it Jaime.

Your statement here, "A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'.  It by default excludes rational structured epistemology.  The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.", made it pretty clear that you consider it impossible for a religious person to rationally gain knowledge except through "magic".  In other words, the mere fact of having a religious belief prevents them from trying to understand the world on its own terms.

A religious claim, not a non-religious claim.

Do you know english?

[jaimehlers]

Live with it Jaime.

If you make accusations I think are wrong or inaccurate, I'm going to call you on them.  If you want me to "live with it", then you'd better be able to demonstrate that the accusations are true.

Your statement here, "A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'.  It by default excludes rational structured epistemology.  The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.", made it pretty clear that you consider it impossible for a religious person to rationally gain knowledge except through "magic".  In other words, the mere fact of having a religious belief prevents them from trying to understand the world on its own terms.

A religious claim, not a non-religious claim.

...

When was that ever in doubt?  I'm quite well aware that you were talking about a religious claim.  However, English grammar is sometimes a little flexible when you start including pronouns.  It isn't always obvious what you're referring to with a pronoun, especially when you've included something that could validly be substituted by that same pronoun.  Even native English speakers, people who are good with English, can get that wrong sometimes.

[Omen]

When was that ever in doubt?  I'm quite well aware that you were talking about a religious claim. 

Jaime, if I'm talking about religious claims, then how exactly does it serve as an example of:

But it is incorrect to then conclude that because someone has those irrational beliefs, that they cannot be rational about other things.

Are religious claims other things?

No where have I not talked about anything that wasn't specifically in connection with RELIGIOUS CLAIMS.

I even defined the context of religion and religious claims:

I explained how a person who espouses a religion is not rational as doing so automatically evokes an irrational condition for claiming to 'know' something.  Supernatural, by definition, is not observed nor observable.  Religion, by definition, is the belief in supernatural agents.

Jaime, you clearly misinterpreted what I stated and someone else even had to point it out to you.  Live with it.

Do you see me whining about being smited about the credentials post? Nope.

[jaimehlers]

When was that ever in doubt?  I'm quite well aware that you were talking about a religious claim. 

Jaime, if I'm talking about religious claims, then how exactly does it serve as an example of:

But it is incorrect to then conclude that because someone has those irrational beliefs, that they cannot be rational about other things.

Are religious claims other things?

No where have I not talked about anything that wasn't specifically in connection with RELIGIOUS CLAIMS.

I even defined the context of religion and religious claims:

I explained how a person who espouses a religion is not rational as doing so automatically evokes an irrational condition for claiming to 'know' something.  Supernatural, by definition, is not observed nor observable.  Religion, by definition, is the belief in supernatural agents.

"No where have I not talked about anything that wasn't specifically in connection with RELIGIOUS CLAIMS."

You just threw off your meaning by using too many negations.  What you should have said was, "Nowhere have I talked about anything that wasn't specifically in connection with religious claims".  See how easy it is to mess up?  I get things wrong sometimes, but so do you.  And even without obvious mistakes, it's still not always easy to understand what someone says, especially on the Internet.

I'm not the kind of person who is prone to making mistakes (neither are you, for that matter).  By all means, point them out if you see one, but you'll do better by simply telling me about it plainly rather than making accusations.

Jaime, you clearly misinterpreted what I stated and someone else even had to point it out to you.  Live with it.

Given that I admitted it and apologized once I realized where the actual error was, this is irrelevant.

Do you see me whining about being smited about the credentials post? Nope.

I was criticizing the accusations that you made in this thread (that I misquoted you, that I lied, that I was ignorant) that were wrong.  That's all.  It is not whining to criticize someone for something that isn't appropriate or that's incorrect.