The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Archbio]

I_Like_Swordchucks,

So really, your article explained nothing.

I said it might "give you a clue" as to why certain atheists use the word "enlightened".

And it does.

I didn't call anybody arrogant.

It wasn't a direct personal attack, no, but for it's lack of substance and relevance to this Religious Discussion or any discussion on the topic of religion, it basically boils down to a broadly cast insult, yes.

I said it seemed arrogant to me to if someone said they were enlightened

No, you said it seemed arrogant when present day atheists do it. If you think that anyone calling themselves enlightened (including the religious) is arrogant, then, while I wouldn't agree, I could at least respect that as a coherent opinion.

I said it also seems arrogant to say that a "theist" is less enlightened than an "atheist"

I think that definition of enlightenened never excluded theism outright, and no amount of present day atheists identifying with it will change that. It might seem to mean that we agree on this, but no, we don't. Atheism isn't a belief system.

seems to be a red herring fallacy in an attempt to discredit the opposing viewpoint

It's not a fallacy by itself. It's a fallacy when it's brought up in a discussion or debate as an argument: which is what you did, precisely as a red herring and an attempt to discredit.

Also, your article doesn't say at any point "atheism = enlightenment". It doesn't even say that "theism = unenlightened".

"My" article doesn't say that, and I never claimed it did. That's all your assumptions, and yours alone. I'm not going to try and dissect all of them. Many of the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenement tended to make a distinction between notions such as "philosophical theism" and "superstitious religion", by the way. I think a lot of atheists actually do. I'm certain a lot of atheist also understand that Enlightenement isn't a direct synonym of atheism, even if they consider themselves both atheists and enlightened, and that their enlightenement is incompatible with religion.

But how does that matter: it's not the "atheist opinion" you've decided to prop up.

Anybody Who Uses This And Thinks It's Novel,

You can't use a system of analysis to prove itself. So the conclusion that "only rational logic can give answers" is, by definition not logical. It's not necessarily false, but it's just as much an assumption as is faith.

See, you're using logic, still. Do I have the option to simply opt out of accepting your argument on the basis that it's logic? If I do, just how credible would my rebuttal be?

Try and rephrase this argument and use another "system of analysis". See if it retains any demonstrative power.