[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

If you define religion as culture, then you are correct. If you don't, then you are not necessarily correct and must explicate exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being"..

"if"

In some ways you've been both missing and making my point....When you hate religion, or pre-define what it is rather than explore you're missing out on quite a bit.

In the course of this you delivered 'pre-packaged' arguements (i probably did this too) - fenyman quotes that appealed to your view of why science and why people are 'angry' at it - which had litterally nothing to do with my comparision/analogy....or bringing up physicist-ministers like John Polkinghorn -

In the course of this an other conversations - atheists/religion haters tend to focus on the most extreme fundementalist interpretations of scripture - ignoring, not realizing or forgetting a religion like christianity has a wide range of practices and beliefs.

To some extent this illustrates 'you get what you're looking for' or what you focus on. You think religion is at best useless at worse destructive and you've filtered the world accordingly - just don't tell me that's scientific or even reasonable

i must ...."explicate"? Sorry you've brought up a pet peeve....

Politics and the English Language - Essay by George Orwell - Charles' George Orwell Links
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern English:
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

PRETENTIOUS DICTION. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i. e., e. g. and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones