But I'm not sure where I insisted that the content of certain religious pursuits should exempt from such scrutiny. If you would be so kind to point me to these pages …
Okay, I fully retract with apologies the "insist" part. It is an inference of mine, based on the totality of relevant replies you have given, particularly those in the "
This is why we don't need religion" thread. You repeatedly talk of "human error" (which doesn't actually explain anything) rather than facing or even acknowledging the obvious alternative that a religious (faith-based, anti-evidence) mode of thinking is directly responsible for many of the ills we observe in the world, specifically in this case the tensions between catholics and muslims reported in the article in that thread's opening post. It seems to me that your doing so is a misplaced and ultimately doomed attempt to protect, rather than critically examine, your own and others' religious beliefs.
My suspicions in this regard are strengthened considerably in this present thread where "human error" is once again the culprit, and elsewhere (the
Creationist Stew, Anyone? thread) when you seem to hold the christian bible as a reliable source of knowledge, when you call a contrary blog entry "a bit flawed" but don't give any reasons, and when you decry "secular reasoning" over its failure to provide any eternal values, unlike religions pretend to do. It seems to me, then, that you consider religion, by its very nature, worthy of deep reverence and refuse to entertain
any suggestion that it is, in fact, the actual problem, a notion that troubles me because it goes to the heart of what this forum is actually all about: evidence for beliefs.
… I will gladly reply with a explanation or see the fault in my ways and apologize for it.
There is no need for such. A justification for why you repeatedly evade facing the challenges posed to your beliefs will suffice. Need I point out that this is a
sceptical forum?
'Luthon64
