Opinion Not Fact: Sacred Reading/Beyond Belief PART 2

Bobamakesyoufat Mar.15,2010 2:14pm
(wrote in response to my first entry dated Mar. 9,1:53am)

I found one statement that you made to be very interesting when you stated that
Mrs. Lane offers a totally unbiased view of how religions sprouted out from
Animism. I agree that looking at religions through a lens of Evolution is
interesting, but I find that statement to be wholeheartedly untrue because if
you research more into the thought of evolution being the supreme answer to
everything, you would realize and see that most religions historically in their
roots don't and haven't "evolved" as simply as some people believe today. I
think it is very biased in the sense that it is tainted with the idea that it
comes into the presupposition that all religions evolved from one another
essentially. It is okay to start with that hypothesis, but the problem is that
you need to find evidence from the religious documents/historicity of each
religion to see if that hypothesis is true. Unfortunately, this is where the
evolutionary idea of religion ultimately ending up in Monotheism completely
falls apart because the historical descent of nearly every religion in the world
doesn't even come close to fitting into any workable time-table/theory. One
comparison of this train of thought being "unbiased" is that they are
social-Darwinist in sociology who do the same thing ultimately, as well as in
Biology, psychology, and just about every field, but I can assure you that it
isn't unbiased by any means. Evolution is the prevailing thought of the day,
and so to say it is unbiased is in my opinion, a very inaccurate statement.

Thirteenaudrey Mar.17,2010 2:11am

What I meant by unbias was that Diem-Lane didn't describe the religion from a
believer perspective nor a non-believer perspective but merely a
spectator,enthusiast, and researcher. She by no means glorifies nor puts down
any religion mentioned. Overall this discussion should not be about grammatical
errors also by saying my statement is wholeheartedly untrue is a matter of
(bias) perspective. That is your opinion but that doesn't make my opinion any
less true. Same thing happens in religion,politics,art,etc. Each religion is
different, ends up with different sects/denominations because of difference in
opinions. Now whether who is right and who is wrong, which god is real or not
real once again matter of opinion. So for you to tell me my opinion is untrue
nullifies your opinion as fact. I am totally yanking your chain by the way and
just making a point that you should never state that anothers opinion is not a
fact or untrue. An opinion is just that, not a fact ever.