Off-shoot from the "Connection between liberalism and environmental devestation?" thread, so that Umbrage can keep maintaining that he is, was, and always will be in the right, on all matters.
You are directly claiming that somehow "truth" is on your side.
No I'm not, I'm stating the truth. Language works because we use the same words to mean the same things. You used a word to mean a different thing. This is wrong.
Christianity is a religion. Not all religions are Christianity. Now that you've finally understood this, revise your original statements so that they're no longer false, and then we're fine.
"absolute evidence that every single religion that has ever existed has had an adverse effect on scientific advancement throughout time, in a similar way to Christianity during the Dark Ages/Renaissance"
This is obviously what I was asking for, given my original position on the matter. Don't pretend that you didn't understand that from what I said, but were/are too stubborn to admit that you were negligent in using the term "religion" when you didn't mean it.
I could pick apart this lovely piece of rage, and bring up a plethora of points which would categorically "win" me this "argument", but, amazingly, I have better things to do.
Why are people being so incredibly anal in this thread anyway? I have an opinion that's slightly different from yours, so the fuck what? I think I already made it clear that I'm not some "derp-religion-is-the-cause-of-all-wars-lets-try-secular-humanism-instead" type of atheist. Yet some of you are jumping up and down at every opportunity to call me one. And for what? Because you can't argue against philosophy being more versatile than religion? Because deep down you are aware that religion is based on philosophy and not the other way around? Because you can't argue that religious icons have largely been replaced with pop-icons, and the religious icons that are still prevalent in society have even been turned into pop-icons, and this in turn proves that humans don't essentially need religion, not even as a way to control the people?
I'm not calling you an atheist of any sort, personally. That's neither here nor there. I'm merely making a point of information, originally more for your benefit, and the benefit of others, than anything. I haven't read other people's posts on the matter, so I wouldn't know what they say. As far as I'm concerned, I noticed that you said something incorrect, and it was the same thing which I've seen others write, and so I commented on the fact that it is incorrect to conflate religion and Christianity, as per above. For some reason, you took offense to this, and here we are.
Also, I follow Philosophy before I follow religion. "Don't act like you know me because you obviously don't".
Religion is anti-intelligent by design.
It seems to me that you dislike religion as a whole, for some bizarre reason (Judeo-Christianity being one of the most awful creations of the human race?). If the latter is close to the mark, that's like someone disliking philosophy because they have a problem with Ayn Rand.