, your assessment of me is completely wrong, plain and simple. I didn't have any bad experience with religion in any form, whatsoever. Until I was 25 or so, I didn't really care either way, because I didn't come into contact with religion in my daily life, at all (except in school, where is was just another boring subject).
What eventually sparked my interest was the debate over Intelligent Design back in 2005. I read about it, was curious and haven't stopped since then. I realized why agnosticism is complacent and prone to make you feel superior for all the wrong reasons. And I oppose ignorance in all forms.
What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible, what I hate is how religious people remain willfully ignorant, and how they get people killed
over unfounded and superstitious beliefs. I don't hate Christianity, I hate people who are stuck in ancient morality, people who let religions corrupt them into becoming abominable assholes, even against their better judgment. What I hate is how religions manage to turn nice, caring human beings into somebody who'll say that owning another human as property is not bad in every circumstance (and who actually believe this!), because they'd rather die than admit that their belief system is full of holes and contradictions.
As for monkey, the "brightest coder in AGS", when I found out he's a Mormon, lots of things went through my head, but "NO!" or anything similar surely wasn't among them.
And it seams to me that you just don't want to loose a debate, man. You go around picking every little "fault" on one's post and it's common from you to stall conversation and even give opposite meaning to sentences.
This is just meaningless polemics. The same could be said about any of your posts.
I'm currently in this to defend science. Baron's opinion is as common as it is mislead, and I'm simply trying to correct what I deem to be downright dishonest. And like I said before, it doesn't matter who
says something; all that matters is the argument itself.
Like Eric and Snarky pointed out, ethics are important in science. In no way do I think that everything we can
do, should necessarily be done, too. I'm still quite torn about animal testing for example, in so far as it is unavoidable to find vaccines or cures.
But the notion that we should regard science as one of many approaches that is as good as the next one is so hare-brained and ridiculous it's almost not even worth commenting on.
I've been trying to say in this debate that modern Catholics can distance themselves from the ancient rules from the Bible, or antiquated resolutions from the Vatican. Modern Catholics follow Jesus and his life more than anything else.
At a point where you disagree with the Vatican of all things, what's even really the point of calling yourself Catholic any longer, "modern" or not? This is the definition of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.