haha, no worries chief: you were correct in assuming I didn’t read it all. I read the first, second and part of the third part before I thought “this guy uses negative proofs to argue his points with clearly understandable explanations + citations versus anecdote, while also taking a global perspective which denies a western-centric viewpoint enabling for more sound discussion. he clearly thought and cared enough to write, change, and develop these thoughts, while also being courteous and concise.” and since i am an internet troll who loves to pick on people in this forum who don’t do that, it would ruin my image that i create to respond in any other way than a troll response. but genuinely, its an excellent post. i take no offense at your implication, as you explained why you thought as much. thats pretty much all that mattered there. fun reading your posts: your harsh view on yourself reflects your developed arguments, and i found them to be well developed if only difficult because they required thought in order to follow, not because you made it difficult to do so.
I, uh, admit that I didn't recognize your post as troll-ish in any way... Hmm.
Anyway, for the benefit of anyone paying attention to my posts, and without harassing the other two who have replied to me (by "at"-ing them; should they care enough to see this, great, otherwise that's fine too), I feel the absolute need to point out that I never
pushed that Science IS (a) religion but that Science could be argued
as a religion.
Yes, on the most basic and fundamental "understanding" of religion, science does not fit and is effectively an antonym. But if and when one dives further into what Religion is on a global scale (by which I mean "among all factors collectively") and what most (if not all) religion have done individually, versus what Science is/has done on the same scale, it is easy to find equivalences. And that is still true if only looking at the fundamental aspects beyond individual (or collective) human usage.
As a final example (unless someone else responds to any of my posts on the matter), just look at the fervor with which people argued
against my examples. To memory, which is admittedly faulty at best, only one person tried to use real evidence to argue against me, and even that was solely the dictionary "definition" for the "word" and not the meaning of the concept (big difference).
So, sorry to hijack my response to you, but I felt I needed to say those two things. I probably would have added them to a response to anyone.
