The X virtuous men of history or whatever

[Crissa]

Wait, so proving that the hundred non-theocratic, secular governments which aren't involved in any war isn't enough, we have to prove that two countries that weren't secular so much as anti-religious as well?

Why is it we have to prove 100% and you don't?

-Crissa

[Caedrus]

Wait, so proving that the hundred non-theocratic, secular governments which aren't involved in any war isn't enough, we have to prove that two countries that weren't secular so much as anti-religious as well?

Why is it we have to prove 100% and you don't?

-Crissa

Extremely selective reasoning, double standards, and confirmation bias.

At the point where religion is defined as an evil, oppressive, authoritarian leadership under one person, you've won any debate by redefinition.

Okay Maj, maybe you'd better define religion then.

If you believe in Christianity, you actually believe that an oppressive (he sends dissidents to burn in a lake of fire for eternity. I can't think of any real dictator that was THAT oppressive), authoritarian leadership under one person (he is a personal god, after all, and all must do His will) is running things. If that oppressive person was instead a pharaoh or a king claiming divine right to rule or a man otherwise unreasonably elevating himself to cult of personality status... is there really much of a difference? If the god-king or chosen leader or whatever is actually a man on earth claiming superhuman authority and faith-based loyalties (like how they treat the Emperor), I don't see much of a difference, other than "he's actually a real guy." But of course if you don't think the God is real, well, that kinda negates that difference, doesn't it?

Anyways, regardless of that, perhaps we should offer a better definition of what we think sucks. After all, getting bogged down in an argument about semantics means little.

When we say secular vs religious thinking and, in general, whether one of those is helpful or harmful, it comes down to faith. Unfalsifiable faith. Unreasonable faith. BLIND faith. That whole religious faith thing is extremely unhealthy for all of humanity.

Whether that faith is in an imaginary sky daddy or in a leader you can actually go out and see makes little difference.

[Maj]

If you believe in Christianity, you actually believe that an oppressive (he sends dissidents to burn in a lake of fire for eternity.

The church I attend - the Mormon church - reserves hell (aka "Outer Darkness") for the angels who sided against God in the pre-existence schism. Essentially, the place is designed to hold those spirits who will never visit Earth and take mortal form. Your run of the mill murderers, rapists, thieves... They still get to go to a heaven, it's just not as cool of a heaven as it could be. If you already have a body (ie: you're presently here on earth), you have to be one gem of a person to find your way to Outer Darkness. Across the board, the people I've asked about the subject have had a hard time imagining what kind of person is so evil and bad that they would end up there. Also of note: The Mormon God isn't possessed of the three omnis, which means that ideas like free will aren't logically impossible.

Regardless, religion isn't just Christianity, and it's so annoying that any discussion on religion on this board nets you the evil history of the Catholic church, expanded to cover all of religious behavior as though that leap is valid logic.

Religion, in my personal view, is a set of rituals based around a codified system of faith. A person who just believes in [a] God isn't religious - they need the formalized passwords, secret handshakes, special costumes, sacred buildings/holy sites, etc, etc. A person who believes in the authority of one single person isn't religious - their belief isn't faith-based; it's based on something you can see and witness.

Whether that faith is in an imaginary sky daddy or in a leader you can actually go out and see makes little difference.

And see, here's where I draw the line because I have a son. Kids need to be able to believe that their parents will do what parents are supposed to do - love them, feed them, water them, clothe them, clean them, teach them, discipline them. And when kids don't have that assurance, they tend to turn out messed up - so much so that in our society, we look at messed up people and say, "Wow. They must have had lousy parents."

Belief in an authority is a normal part of being human. We believe police officers will enforce the law and punish the bad guys. We believe the president will lead our country well during his term in office. We trust our teachers to give us accurate information about the subject we're studying. We want our bosses to continue employing us and maybe even promote us when we do a good job. We believe our doctors when they diagnose us and prescribe medication.

The problem comes when the authority we believe in is a dick. Then you get [groups of] people who are messed up, sick, and/or dangerous. Unfortunately for Religion, people believe in the authority who guides them, because they have faith that their chosen supernatural power actually elected that authority.

[Crissa]

However, belief in an authority figure such as 'god' is not necessary to be a good citizen.

We've given evidence of this. Why do you need to argue against it?

Ethical constructs and children do not need 'god' to be 'good'. And in fact, perhaps the addition of 'god' is worse than the absence. We can't prove that, but we can give ample evidence.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

Your run of the mill murderers, rapists, thieves... They still get to go to a heaven, it's just not as cool of a heaven as it could be.

It'd virtually have to be cooler than Mormon undergarments.

---

Blind faith and obedience is bad, has always been bad and will always be bad. I don't much care about whatever the thin line between worshiping god and worshiping the president for life is. They both suck for the same reason, abdication of critical thinking. Whenever you get people to simply follow like sheep you can lead them anywhere. Peer groups, god-kings or sky fairies all function in the same way.

This is why I particularly can't stand atheists who can't explain in their own words at least one logical problem with Catholicism. They're still sheep, they just have a different shepherd.

[Caedrus]

Blind faith and obedience is bad, has always been bad and will always be bad. I don't much care about whatever the thin line between worshiping god and worshiping the president for life is. They both suck for the same reason, abdication of critical thinking. Whenever you get people to simply follow like sheep you can lead them anywhere. Peer groups, god-kings or sky fairies all function in the same way.

Exactly my point. And it is this very blind faith that is at the heart of religiosity.

This is why I particularly can't stand atheists who can't explain in their own words at least one logical problem with Catholicism. They're still sheep, they just have a different shepherd.

I, for one, can easily list tons of gaping problems with Catholicism in my own words. Here's one: They take a set of stories with clearly fantastic elements that deny the observable laws of physics as a foregone conclusion, then they reject falsifiabilty. There was no amount of evidence that Copernicus could have shown those Catholics to convince them that the earth was not the special center of the universe.

The entire idea is that someone tells you that there is in fact a Superman, and he's watching us with his telescopic vision from outer space, and hearing us with his super-hearing, but you shouldn't question this! You should just have faith that it is so, and be good, so that Superman won't fly down, beat you up, and hall you off to the Super-Secret Jail for his enemies! And of course this Superman can do anything, and regularly breaks the laws of physics. And if anyone gives you evidence that Superman doesn't exist, ignore it! It's the Legion of Doom trying to trick you to test your faith! Superman is much stronger than the Legion of Doom and could defeat them at any time, but he just doesn't for some reason, even though he's justice incarnate.

That story I just made up makes more sense than the Catholic bullshit and sidesteps issues like this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... r.php#more

If you believe in Christianity, you actually believe that an oppressive (he sends dissidents to burn in a lake of fire for eternity.

The church I attend - the Mormon church - reserves hell (aka "Outer Darkness") for the angels who sided against God in the pre-existence schism. Essentially, the place is designed to hold those spirits who will never visit Earth and take mortal form. Your run of the mill murderers, rapists, thieves... They still get to go to a heaven, it's just not as cool of a heaven as it could be. If you already have a body (ie: you're presently here on earth), you have to be one gem of a person to find your way to Outer Darkness. Across the board, the people I've asked about the subject have had a hard time imagining what kind of person is so evil and bad that they would end up there.

Huh. And you take this as the truth based on what evidence? "It would be nice to believe that was true"?

The Mormon church is a particularly interesting case because their own founding myth does a damn good job disproving itself. The story about the plates in the hat, for example, basically had someone devise a falsifiable experiment to prove the "prophet" wrong, the experiment did indeed come out as expected, and then... foolishness.

Regardless, religion isn't just Christianity, and it's so annoying that any discussion on religion on this board nets you the evil history of the Catholic church, expanded to cover all of religious behavior as though that leap is valid logic.

I don't think I've ever used that argument. Huh. Hey I can make generalizations too. It's nice how religious people like to try to hyperfocus on one little largely irrelevant point and ignore the rest of the argument (like "hey, who cares that everyone who's secular has a better record, I think Russia was kinda almost secular... at least in its government..." Nevermind that A) look at the religiosity of the country as a whole, rather than just classifying the government. B) Russia did in fact get better in many ways with Communism, popular propaganda aside. Communism gave them fast-track industrialization, bringing them out of the dark ages to put satellites in space. And C) Cult of Personality was a term popularized around the USSR for a reason.)

Religion, in my personal view, is a set of rituals based around a codified system of faith.

Okay, so take a look at the ceremonies surrounding the emperor. Tell me that's not a set of rituals based around a codified system of faith.

A person who just believes in [a] God isn't religious - they need the formalized passwords, secret handshakes, special costumes, sacred buildings/holy sites, etc, etc.

Again, how are cults of personality exempt from this definition? They totally do have secret handshakes, holy books, formalized solidarity rites, special costumes, and holy sites.

A person who believes in the authority of one single person isn't religious - their belief isn't faith-based; it's based on something you can see and witness.

Believe it or not, blind faith can extend to issues beyond "I believe this guy exists." Again, you could see the Pharaohs. Does that mean they are gods walking among men? Does believing your local pharaoh is a god among men not a religious belief to you?

Belief in an authority is a normal part of being human. We believe police officers will enforce the law and punish the bad guys. We believe the president will lead our country well during his term in office. We trust our teachers to give us accurate information about the subject we're studying. We want our bosses to continue employing us and maybe even promote us when we do a good job. We believe our doctors when they diagnose us and prescribe medication.

I personally think this is bullshit. I don't need to offer blind faith (and that's the important kind we're talking about, the unfalsifiable mindset that's central to religion) to any of those demographics. In fact, this was true even when I was in Kindergarten. As a small child I was very enthusiastic about DINOSAURS and I obsessively learned everything about DINOSAURS I could. And so they teach us about dinosaurs in Kindergarten, and the teacher tells us that there is no such thing as velociraptors; that Michael Crichton made them up for Jurassic Park, and the only sharp-toed dino was a deinonychus, because that's what she had on her little picture cards she showed the kids. I objected to this, holding up a picture book that demonstrated that, in fact, there not only was a velociraptor but also other big-sharp-toed dinos, and that the book was not in fact published by Michael Crichton.

I didn't blindly buy bullshit from authority figure then, and I don't now.

When someone, anyone, tells me anything, I evaluate how likely that is to be true based on the circumstances, my pre-existing knowledge, and their argument. And of course, all the beliefs I craft out of this are falsifiable. You could in fact present me evidence that would make me change my beliefs. In this way, mine is a mindset completely incompatible with religious faith.

[mean_liar]

Religious faith, yes, but perhaps not the sort of mystical experience that underlies most faiths and give them their strength.

It's one thing to poopoo ancient stories told around a campfire or Saul's ramblings in the New Testament, but it's something else to feel a personal connection to the divine and deny that. And if that's the structure you have for interpreting those events then they sort of come part and parcel.

[Starmaker]

Organized religion is universally bad because it regulates human life according to bullshit rules. Say, you're an adherent of the Church of Pelor and you've been excommunicated because your dog ate one of the priest's chicken. Now you cannot talk to fellow Pelorites or even approach them (they back away), you cannot trade with them, your kids cannot play with or marry their kids.

Here's a helping of Orthodox faith:

My sister is an atheist who poses as a Satanist for the lulz. She studied at a semi-private school, left it because it was shit and went to a public school. There, she made friends with a batshit insane fundie girl, because my sister is a really nice person and that fundie girl was picked on by everyone. She was so desperate for friends that she didn't really mind the whole freaky black attire complete with dragons and pentagrams and upturned stars Sis wore to school.

After finishing school, the fundie girl entered an Orthodox academy. The conditions she endured there made me rage, and I'm very much of the "asking for it" persuasion and a horrible person. And she enjoyed every moment of it. "I worked at rebuilding the church at summer! We lived in barracks with leaky roofs because the temp houses we were meant to live in were occupied by the priests! How glorious! They gave us one meal per day and I went hungry all the time! I felt really close to God! I love God! God loves me!" Seriously. Also, science is a lie, half the Bible is a lie and so on and so forth.

Her group-mates told the academy priests one of the girls was whoring around - no proof was necessary, the accused girl was pronounced untouchable and had to quit the academy. Consider that the students didn't have friends outside the academy (and were forbidden to have any) or any sort of applicable education. "Now, I know she's not a whore", the fundie confessed to my Sis, "and I feel so horrible 'cause I cannot talk to her and comfort her now because otherwise they'll think I'm a whore too!"

Sure enough, she was the next target of Whore-gate. She'd probably commit suicide rather than admit her faith failed her, but she was saved by the lucky (for her) occurence of another girl becoming pregnant and deciding to carry the child to term. The pregnant girl was kicked out of the academy (while pregnant and unemployed, and no one would ever hire a pregnant woman). "How's that not encouraging abortion? And where's your so-called Christian forgiveness?" Sis asked. The fundie just sighed.

So these girls are studying to be primary school teachers. That's 1)very intelligent of the ROC, since there's not enough actual primary school teachers in Russia and the schools are willing to hire just anyone and 2) a load of bullshit, since the girls are in fact groomed to be wives to Southern Russian Orthodox guys who work at restoring churches (they don't study at an academy and are subject to less brainwashing, because you know, dirty sinful females are dirty and sinful but men are ay-okay). Well, some girls are hand-picked by widowed older priests, but the majority of them actually finds decent husbands.

The fundie girl is now happily married and has a daughter. One problem: she has Darwin knocking on her door to get selected out. She believes every item of news and every rumor. She never ate unless her parents told her to, does her husband spoonfeed her or what? She gets strange ideas and does not bother to look at them critically. Once, her cat was not feeling well, so she held it tight and poured 3 ml of cat mint drops (95% alcohol) down its throat. The cat miraculously survived. I hope her mother-in-law babysits her now and won't allow any harm come to the kid.

And that's why I'm fucking scared of religious people, and I'm happy to read church reports where the church, known for bullshit numbers (such as the population of Russia being 94% OC, the statement that is always proven wrong by demographics reports and is usually followed by a request for moar taxpayer money), laments about the scarcity of fundie youths.

While I consider religion undoubtedly evil, I am totally confused as to how to rate faith on its own. Now, I have been called (1)a fat whore, (2)an unimaginative lazy dumbfuck, (3)a pussylicker, and (4)an unbeliever that will burn in hell for all eternity. (1) is an insult because it's false on both counts. (3), while remotely true, is a blanket insult that's literally false to boot, hence I mind it too. (2) is absolutely true but I do mind it being used for obvious reasons. (4) is GIANT FROG. Maybe the fact that it's supposed to be the worst kind of insult ought to count for something in their world, but it's just a big "meh" to me. "Sorry, Mr. Alien from a parallel world where I burn in hell as a transgressor in the eyes of the Pelorian faith, this is my home plane where I'm correct and you're insane, so why don't we drop the topic entirely and run to the fridge while the shift manager's not watching, there's some juice left."

[Caedrus]

Religious faith, yes, but perhaps not the sort of mystical experience that underlies most faiths and give them their strength.

It's one thing to poopoo ancient stories told around a campfire or Saul's ramblings in the New Testament, but it's something else to feel a personal connection to the divine and deny that. And if that's the structure you have for interpreting those events then they sort of come part and parcel.

That's kind of like saying "if you have a structure for interpreting equations that isn't math then that just sort of comes part and parcel."

In any case, secularism does not mean a lack of spirituality. In fact, I'd totally be okay with people going on about a divine god, so long as it was something like Einstein's God (which can be described as a reverence for nature). And whenever spiritual things actually work they become secular, be it meditation, hypnosis, or whatever. This seems to confuse a lot of people, and I've heard yoga instructors complain about how they have to keep explaining to people that yoga has nothing to do with any religion.

[violence in the media]

That story I just made up makes more sense than the Catholic bullshit and sidesteps issues like this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... r.php#more

Goddammit, that's my alma mater.

[PhoneLobster]

This is why I particularly can't stand atheists who can't explain in their own words at least one logical problem with Catholicism.

I'd be fine with that. But only if you assume they have some locality based reason for the ignorance. And then you would expect them to be able to just substitute Hinduism or something locally appropriate instead and tell you about that.

I'd also accept an atheist who couldn't tell you anything specific about Catholicism but could give you an acceptable generic argument against the existence of any god.

The world doesn't have to revolve around the pope's pointy head.

[violence in the media]

Also of note: The Mormon God isn't possessed of the three omnis, which means that ideas like free will aren't logically impossible.

"If you give it stats, we can kill it."

[Maj]

We've given evidence of this. Why do you need to argue against it?

I'm not. You can go ahead and be a moral atheist. I don't care. I don't even think it's impossible. I just think that religion isn't the great evil that drives human wickedness that other people believe it is. I think human wickedness is the great evil that drives human wickedness, and one of the disguises people use to cover it up is called "religion."

Huh. And you take this as the truth based on what evidence? "It would be nice to believe that was true"?

You assume that because I attend a church, I actually believe - have faith in - what they teach. There are some things I agree with - the importance of family (though I don't care about its parental makeup), the importance of personal responsibility, setting a good example... But there's a lot that I don't.

The idea that every person on the planet who claims religious affiliation, yet doesn't question their beliefs and blindly accepts whatever they're told means that you'd never have the Martin Luthers of history.

I didn't blindly buy bullshit from authority figure then, and I don't now.

You didn't read my post very well. There's a difference between faith (unsubstantiated), and belief (substantiated). Don't believe me? Go check Merriam-Webster.

In any case, secularism does not mean a lack of spirituality.

This is important, but something not advertised. It should be.

"If you give it stats, we can kill it."

There's some truth to that. Mormonism is a great science fiction religion. In essence: an alien from another planet becomes really, really powerful and starts his own planet. His planet is a school for teaching people how to become gods themselves. If you're awesome, you pass and get to go make a world of your own. If you're not awesome, you just get to go to heaven.

[Username17]

There's some truth to that. Mormonism is a great science fiction religion. In essence: an alien from another planet becomes really, really powerful and starts his own planet. His planet is a school for teaching people how to become gods themselves. If you're awesome, you pass and get to go make a world of your own. If you're not awesome, you just get to go to heaven.

You are leaving out the child rape and the oppression of women, homosexuals, and people that aren't white. Those are very important parts of Mormonism that you are wrong to down play. Even, perhaps especially in casual conversation.

Lamanites.

-Username17

[Ganbare Gincun]

Making up "because God says so" takes the same effort as "because Al-qaeda will kill us."

That's because these statements are essentially identical. Whenever a theocrat tells someone that they need to do something because "God says so", it is implied that if their commands are not carried out, bad things will happen to the person that defies their authority. Maybe you'll be imprisoned, maybe you'll be raped to death, maybe you'll simply be beheaded. It doesn't matter. Those that have chosen to defy the word of God are subhumans that will be punished as zealously as possible by the faithful because the ultimate sin within any religion is to defy theocratic authority, and by proxy, God Himself.

At the point where religion is defined as an evil, oppressive, authoritarian leadership under one person, you've won any debate by redefinition.

You mentioned Stalin and Mao. Both of these people established cults of personality around themselves. They did not eradicate religion from their societies - they simply redirected the worship of the people from "normal" gods onto themselves, just like all the other kings that declared that they had a "divine right" to rule throughout history.

Christopher Hitchens sums it up best: "Communist absolutists did not so much negate religion in societies in societies that they well understood were saturated in faith and superstition as seek to replace it. The solemn elevation of infallible leaders who were a source of endless bounty and blessing; the permanent search for heretics and schismatics; the mummification of dead leaders as icons and relics; the lurid show trials that elicited incredible confessions by means of torture... none of this was difficult to interpret in traditional terms".

I'm not saying that there have never been any secular "evil, oppressive, authoritarian leaderships" in the history of the world. But Stalin and Mao veritably steeped themselves in religious adulation, and I do not believe that they would qualify as "secular autocrats" whatsoever.

[Ganbare Gincun]

There's some truth to that. Mormonism is a great science fiction religion. In essence: an alien from another planet becomes really, really powerful and starts his own planet. His planet is a school for teaching people how to become gods themselves. If you're awesome, you pass and get to go make a world of your own. If you're not awesome, you just get to go to heaven.

Mad kudos to the Mormons for their practice of posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims despite the protests of every Jew in existence. Keep it classy, guys!

[Caedrus]

Christopher Hitchens sums it up best: "Communist absolutists did not so much negate religion in societies in societies that they well understood were saturated in faith and superstition as seek to replace it. The solemn elevation of infallible leaders who were a source of endless bounty and blessing; the permanent search for heretics and schismatics; the mummification of dead leaders as icons and relics; the lurid show trials that elicited incredible confessions by means of torture... none of this was difficult to interpret in traditional terms".

That's right on the mark.

I can't believe Maj has actually looked at the culture surrounding Mao and actually can say that they don't have costumes, holy relics, holy sites, etc. I mean just look at one of the rallies where they're waving their Bible-replacements around en masse while chanting.

The examples of "non-religious" examples given fit all of Maj's criterion for religion, under Maj's own definition.

[mean_liar]

I think that just illustrates the power of jackasses rather than religion. It's the same facts but differing conclusions.

[Username17]

I think that just illustrates the power of jackasses rather than religion. It's the same facts but differing conclusions.

The point is that it's virtually impossible to define "religion" in such a way that Maoism does not qualify and Buddhism does. A fact that could not possibly have been lost on, for example, Mao.

-Username17

[Caedrus]

I think that just illustrates the power of jackasses rather than religion. It's the same facts but differing conclusions.

The point is that it's virtually impossible to define "religion" in such a way that Maoism does not qualify and Buddhism does. A fact that could not possibly have been lost on, for example, Mao.

-Username17

Exactly! As we have already shown, Maj has attempted to make a definition of religion that didn't include Mao, and yet it still did.

[Draco_Argentum]

I'd be fine with that. But only if you assume they have some locality based reason for the ignorance. And then you would expect them to be able to just substitute Hinduism or something locally appropriate instead and tell you about that.

I'd also accept an atheist who couldn't tell you anything specific about Catholicism but could give you an acceptable generic argument against the existence of any god.

Well yeah, but we're in Australia and nearly everyone here knows enough Catholicism to play. Plus its a really easy target, I'm setting the bar pretty damn low.

[PhoneLobster]

Well yeah, but we're in Australia and nearly everyone here knows enough Catholicism to play.

Some kids even around here are raised Greek Orthodox, Orthodox Jew, Hindi or whatever. Many atheists, especially first generation only really require an intimate knowledge of one religion to rebel against it's insanity, after that they basically skim the rest to identify the similarities.

Of course I've never met an Atheist with significant ignorance of religion issues. But I've met plenty of self identified Christians who couldn't tell you the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant.

Plus its a really easy target, I'm setting the bar pretty damn low.

Well. It's Australia. You have to set the bar pretty low. Especially outside of the southern capitals.

True story.

My public primary school had actual scripture class (our school was inexplicably about three decades behind the times). All the atheists and agnostics got to go to Anglican scripture because, honestly, "They start with A so they are basically the same"

Another good one.

I went to highschool in a largely Anglican/Protestant region. With a very strong presence of Free Masons in the community, you couldn't find a suburb without a Masonic Hall and some Mason sponsored community something or other. Like out local retirement village, half the public parks in the area. I get what I strongly suspect is a Masonic hand shake running my obscure local business about once every 2 years or so (It's freaky).

But I could have a conversation with a large group of my high school contemporaries, the ones doing HSC level social studies type classes no less that went go something like...

Me : "...those wacky Free Masons, you know what I mean!"
Group : "Free Who?"
Me : "You know, Free Masons, crazy cult, all pyramids and eyes and secret hand shakes. Hit each other with paddle bats in buildings with no windows."
Group : "Your pulling our collective leg"
Me : "Come on guys, there's a prominent Masonic hall in the main street of town"
Group : "A what where?"
Me : "The funny churchy looking building with no first story windows in between the park and the Chinese take away. It actually has the words "Masonic Hall" written on it."
Group : "I don't believe you"
Me : "I've been walking past it on the way to sport with you guys for the last five years!"
Group : "Your story sounds dubious"

Maybe they were all Free Masons. But sadly I suspect they were not.

[Koumei]

But I've met plenty of self identified Christians who couldn't tell you the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant.

When I was a Christian (protestant), my answer would have been "There's no real fucking difference, it's just different barcodes so that the English and Irish had another excuse to bomb each other, and people now have another excuse to accuse each other of heresy."

Actually, that's still my answer, because they really aren't that different. But generally, people of either WANT them to be different, because they were taught to hate the other (either "almost as much as the atheists" or "more than the atheists", depending on who you ask).

I can't think of any funny tales of the Christian school I went to until the end of grade 9. Partly because I basically have no memory of anything up to a few years ago (and I wouldn't have it any other way), partly because I don't think there was anything hilarious.

[Heath Robinson]

I went to religious schools when I was much younger. I guess they really cemented my atheism. They had an Anglican minister come in and lecture us on some part of the bible. I apparently thought he was wrong, so I stood up and argued him down to agreeing with me.

I was 6 years old.

[tzor]

But I've met plenty of self identified Christians who couldn't tell you the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant.

When I was a Christian (protestant), my answer would have been "There's no real fucking difference, it's just different barcodes so that the English and Irish had another excuse to bomb each other, and people now have another excuse to accuse each other of heresy."

Point of abstract order; in order to know the difference between A and B, you have to know both A and B. Most people barely know A and only know B secondhand. In fact they only know A through A, which often filters their own experience of A (basically they look at the official description of A and not the actual one) and B through A.

This is why it is always fascinating when you get the "three point" problem. These come about in discussions in differences between Catholic and Protestant and suddenly you throw in "but what about the Orthodox."