Originally posted by josephwI agree. 😏
Seven plus billion people on the planet, and countless billions before. That's how many religious views exist. There is bound to be countless billions of misconceptions and misrepresentation about the truth of what any particular individual may have or express.
It seems that just about everyone everywhere has something negative to say about any number of ...[text shortened]... is True about how to live this life, can only be leveled against the true believer in The Truth.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree. 😏
Sometimes it is wrong. Glasgow University Huntarian museum had a depiction of the alleged transmutation of a fish into an amphibian, into a reptile, into a bird, into a mammal etc etc which is apparently not now how evolutionists think that live evolved and diversified. As for the fossil record it can be used to find a rational basis for creation. ...[text shortened]... evolutionists and creationists can use exactly the same data and interpret it in different ways.
-Removed-Go look at a dictionary.
'Generalisation' means going from a specific example and extrapolating to a wider set.
If I observe many Christians claiming to be persecuted and then say "many Christians claim to be
persecuted" then I have not a made a generalisation, I have made an observation.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt appears to me that atheists have no problem with attempting to impose their whacky beliefs on others. 😏
I was not generalising [b]from this one example.
I was using this one example to highlight the kind of problems that exist when people
hold faith based beliefs and particularly when they then try to impose those beliefs on
others.
I did not say that all theists, or even all Christians act this way.
Although however, all irrational beliefs ...[text shortened]... re involved is so important.
It's that which drives the 'atheist movement' and 'why we care'.[/b]
-Removed-WRONG.
This is the ambiguity that twhitehead was pointing out.
I could potentially be referring to ALL Christians, or I could be talking about SOME Christians.
My sentence is valid either way.
Contextually it's obvious I meant some, my clarifications confirm it.
EITHER WAY, it's only a generalisation if I am taking a limited example and extrapolating it to a wider set.
If I observed that ALL Christians claimed to be persecuted and said so, then that STILL wouldn't be a generalisation.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt is a fact of recorded history that many Christians have been persecuted for their faith. I can't say I have ever been persecuted in the manner that the historical Christians have been persecuted. But I have been attacked for my Christian beliefs, especially for my belief in creation by God as recorded in the Holy Bible. 😏
I said, and I quote "Christians in particular also frequently harp on about how they are being persecuted."
Which is/was an observation.
Not a generalisation.
You could disagree with it, but calling it a generalisation is factually wrong.