My only complaint is with generically categorizing alternatives as "gibberish".
This tends to convey a sense of arrogance and lack of tolerance that I have observed to be quite common among supernaturalists.
As evidence of this, I submit the fact that my post was immediately down voted --- despite being virtually identical to the original which wasn't. Thus demonstrating a clear basis for one "gibberish" over another.
>As evidence of this, I submit the fact that my post was immediately down voted
A lot of stuff people don't like gets down-voted.
I never said you did.
But which statement/"gibberish" people prefer or disagree with can tend to reveal their own cognitive bias.
The upvote/downvote system is increasingly used like on Reddit which is unfortunate.
You are stereotyping religious people (84% of the global population) while preaching about arrogance and lack of tolerance.
The real question is --- why is one acceptable but the other is not?
These "tricks" tend to reveal the reflexive bias that people hold. For evidence, see the posts above.
Is it arrogance to observe that, or to claim they are equivalently gibberish?
Religion, all religion, has been a drag on progress, holding us back from where we should truly be.
I’m referring to western civilization, which has been broadly Christian since Emperor Constantine (the 300s).
> Religion, all religion, had been a drag on progress
That’s a bold claim - are you sure that your fast-moving atheistic society would sustain itself? Prominent recent examples such as the USSR have failed spectacularly. Cosmopolitan societies like ancient Persia were overrun by the religious - ie they were outcompeted. Europe too, would have been overrun by Islam, had the Christian kingdoms not banded together in the middle ages.
Certainly it’s possible, but the absence of evidence confirming it is stark to my eye.
Your observation is false and easily proven so.
Most of the world is not Christian.
Civilization was maintained for thousands of years before the small Jewish and Christian minority even learned to write.
But thanks for further proving my point.
Certainly, other civilizations exist, before and elsewhere, but what proof do we have to demonstrate that other systems would have produced a comparable outcomes: in terms of progress, human development, etc.?
And could they sustain themselves? Many cultures and religions have failed, been out competed, overrun, or collapsed.
You’re free to assume you can create a better society on other principles. I will urge modesty, and refer you to Chesterton’s fence.
Even during these past 2,000 years (really less than that, given Christianity wasn't culturally dominant until several hundred years into that period), there were times where western civilization was carried by non-christian nations.