>>I think that no interest in, or knowledge of science, skepticism or
>>philosophy makes fertile ground for religion if the person is by nature
>>prone to fear. On the other hand, if the person is inquisitive, tenacious
>>and self-respecting, then it will be difficult for them to believe in any
>You are aware that you're using the same tools as the misogynist did, by
>habit of course? Religious=prone to fear, non-religious=inquisitive and
I disagree but understand where you are coming from. I think there has been ample discussion, and theorizing regarding the nature of Religion that most of us agree that "fear" is a primary ingredient of religion. In the formation of the concept, the spreading of the word and in the keeping followers in line. I did not have moral conclusions regarding fear, fear is a necessary aspect. I am not saying that "people who are religios havbe problems with fear, I am saying people who are more "afraid" are prone to religion. There is a difference.
In my experience regarding non religious people, in general those who don't believe are one of two types of people. Either they simply don't care or arent interested, in that case I am obviously wrong in what I said above. The others are those who choose not to believe due to a lack of convincing evidence, real or perceived. Those people are the least likely in my opinion to go for religion regardless.
>I'm not saying those are necessarily bad correlations for you to make--you
>may be quite right in that. But I wonder, are you conscious that you are
>making them? Or is it just an old habit you do unthinkingly from time to
I made my top reply before reading this last part - leaving it for basic
info. Associating fear with religion is old habit for sure. It made it past
the "discard" meme and is now an assumption. I should re-think this as it is
a big assumption. No, at the time I was not aware, but I am now. It's that
damn "them" coming after me again - argggg.