I don't think anyone talking about religion is an 'expert' either, if by 'expert' you mean someone whose views are infallible or whose views you have to accept as right.
I think I've obviously failed to make the point strongly enough - I'm not sure how you can be an 'expert' on something when there's not enough information to form a coherent picture.
I don't generalise the way you do about religion or religious people claiming to be experts because I have come across many people who are seen as Islamic scholars who do not claim conviction or certainty about their interpretations and make it clear they are just giving their opinion and their 'expertise' merely consists of breaking down why they hold the opinion that they do using etymology, history, knowledge of nomad Arab culture in the 7th century, traditions etc but do not claim to "know" for certain because that would be impossible.
I generalise at times about religious people because sometime the point isn't about an individual claim or a particular viewpoint, sometimes it's just about 'religion'. There are differences of specific claims and styles and histories within the religions, and within each religion there are differences of creed and custom and theology. Sometimes those differences are irrelevant to the point, which is about religion: we have the word because it's a concept that covers all of those subsets.
I agree there are people who do claim certainty. It's up to theists to not unquestioningly follow the opinions of such people, depending on the consequences of following those opinions.
That's your take on religion; for them, that certainty is sometimes a deliberate choice on their part - they feel they have to be absolutely convinced - and sometimes it's a front to cover for their doubts, I suspect.
That there are some people among theists who accept what they are told is not unique to theists, otherwise there would not be so many non-religious victims of financial scams and fraud.
The difference with a fraud or a scam is that, in most instance, you're actually given some sort of reason to think that there's some truth to the claims.
If you think the bridge is magic and leads to salvation if you do charitable acts, give money to help people in need or share what you own to be helpful to the poor and needy - I don't see the problem.
You mean apart from the fact that there's no bridge, no need for salvation? Be charitable, by all means, give money to the needy and the poor, but do it because it's a good thing to do, do it out of sympathy for your fellow man, don't do it to appease a mythic tyrant and secure a non-existent afterlife.
A throwaway metaphor that seemed to say that religion is a special case that leads to terrorism and moreover that law-abiding theists allow theist terrorists to continue their criminal activities by providing a respectable face of religion rather than abandoning religion because some theists are terrorists.
I'm not saying theists should abandon theism because other theists are terrorists, I'm saying that theists should abandon theism because it's baseless. The problem with theists being theists if they're otherwise harmless is that they lend theism a respectability; as it's baseless, as there's no actual facts to challenge, no actual information to proffer, individual interpretations are equally as valid or invalid.
Rather than going for this convoluted assertion, the simpler explanation that is seen in many situations is that some people think criminal behaviour is justified to achieve certain political or religious goals. Or some people who hate others are capable of mass murder.
Yet we see time and again that, because religion is predicated on the existence of an absolute authority, these people believe (in at least some instances) that what they do in the name of their religion is not a crime at all, or that temporal authority and punishment is some sort of religious scourging they have to go through to prove their worthiness. They're demented, yes, but the specifics of their belief can't be challenged, because there are no 'facts' with which to challenge them, and the nature of religion can only be challenged if you're going to challenge all of it.
Think of it, perhaps, as the secular version of 'hate the sin, love the sinner'.
The segregation thread is on the Muslim board - I wasn't referring to it on this thread. What you pointed out was a particular link between theists who are terrorists and those who aren't based on them both identifying as religious - the two hands metaphor imply they belong to the same body and are controlled by one brain.
Yes. And that brain is blindly fumbling in the absence of any actual information, leaving the hands to wander where they will and do what feels right at the time.
What I pointed out in response was that your view is as irrational as linking an abusive man or a mass murdering man with a man who doesn't abuse women or commit mass murder, simply because they both identify as, or are identified as, masculine.
Except that we can prove if someone's a man, we can run tests and examine and inspect and determine if something is an inevitable consequence of biological sex. We can also investigate gender orientation, and make cultural studies to see what being 'masculine' in a particular culture means; we look at religion and there are no facts, there is nothing to inspect, there are some old opinions which have been elevated to sacred status, and innumerable divergent opinions about them and their meaning.
I am not attempting an argument - I am making an observation about humans holding certain beliefs or views that are based on their limited experiences and knowledge and values that do not incorporate a religious story.
If you make observations in response to someone else's observations, making contrary points line by line, you're making an argument, even if it wasn't your intention.
If you look on the Segregation thread I have given my reasons for supporting segregation in certain circumstances rather than banning it. The 'magic sky man' did not feature in my explanation so you are being dishonest in the way you are presenting a view you disagree with.
I'm accepting of the fact that there are times when separating the sexes is appropriate: the instance that started that thread was not one of those circumstances, and it was entirely about a religious interpretation.
O.
