Originally Posted by Vong
Isn't that what you always do?
Given that my response to you was an example of me not doing that, I'd say no. The only times I do that would be in cases where the other party demonstrated/voiced not understanding the point the first time around, usually because I was overly brief, gentle in my wording, or just using the wrong metaphors and analogies.
More often, I try to expand on the overall discussion, and not just my talking points. This is because I'm not engaging in discussions with strangers on the Internet to validate my own opinions, but instead to seek out insights and experiences that exist outside my IRL circle. The people I "meet" online tend to be different than those I know through work, social circles or what have you.
This is why I tend to get peeved when others use debating as a default response, especially when they are making points that I think they would know I'm familiar with, if they stopped for a second to talk instead of argue. I don't actively favor responding to schmoes who I'm familiar with because I'm looking for virtual high-fives. At the same time I expect them to at least seek clarification before assuming this is all about one-upmanship disguised as enlightenment that begs for footnotes.
I always debated on Nietzsche's writings and nihilism itself. You act is if it's uncommon for two atheists to disagree on something.
And I hold my pastafarian beliefs very close to my heart. Praise be to FSM.
You initially said that "reason is the death of religion" - The point in me citing that phrase was that Reason has no pertinence on something that's irrational by nature, in this case, the irrationality would be man's faith in god/concepts of god and so forth. You can't reason with faith. That's why it's called faith. Otherwise, it would be called knowledge. "I have faith there is a God."/"I have knowledge that there is a a god."
Instead, you responded by demonstrating how conceiving something doesn't make that something true. I was already on that page with you, and I never said anything to indicate otherwise. It's pretty safe to say Nietzsche was on that page as well.
Now, to further encourage discussion, I would say that Reason wouldn't be the death of religion, but it may be the catalyst to evolve religion, as it always has through all of the recorded history of man. This is the reason there are more Christians who know the Earth isn't flat than there were a number of years ago.
I think that if religion dies, it will be because of something closer to an event like an update that removes the concept from the Oxford English Dictionary and less because someone "told it like it is."
Just one of too many thoughts. Ultimately I, and I feel this carries a lot of weight when looking at history and how religion has changed though the years, a semantic breakdown finding fallacies in a faith is going to do more for strengthening that faith than it is in strenghthening it. Those things people have faith in are the ultimate underdog story - the ultimate idea that despite all odds and all probability that the thing that's believed in will rise from the grave and show everyone what's really up. You can't reason with that. You can only hope that it implodes on itself and becomes passť. More likely than not, however, it will just grow to mean something different than we know it now.