Agree or Disagree - Religious DUers are "satisfied with not understanding the world."

[el_bryanto]

45. Two seperate but interesting points

I selected the verbiage to underline why those posts don't belong in GD; because of course when you turn it around to specific people it says more than perhaps most DUers are comfortable with. But lets look at the original quote again - " I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." It strikes me as pretty clear; he is opposed to religion because of the behavior it encourages in religious folk. So my question is do religious DUers exhibit the same traits that Dawkins is warning against? Are they satisfied with not understanding the world?

There are a couple of responses to that statement; one is to say that Dawkins is wrong (that would be my opinion), another is to say that Dawkins may be right about some religious folk and wrong about others (that seems to be your position), another is to say that Dawkins is right (which implies that Religious DUers largely suffer from the malady he warns about).

As for Proselytizing, I understand how it can be annoying no matter how it's done, but there are a wide variety of motivations for wanting to do it. Nobody finds it very winning when someone says "You dolt/sinner, why don't you just accept the truth?" On the other hand someone saying "I think you are a fine person and I'd like to share with you something I've found meaningful," is a much more appropriate route to take. Now anybody who evangelizes for anything, needs to learn that no means no, and to let the matter drop, but certainly one approach is better than the other.

Bryant