logic tells me that the term "stereotyping" (of these folks) in your last post cannot be ruled out?

It's self-evident that individual faith often arises from a yearning for belonging which, out of no little necessity, requires a willingness to conform on any number of levels, so the stereotyping is part and parcel of the religious experience.

*

LH has said that you do not know what you are talking about. I sure as heck don't know.

What he actually said was You don't know who you're talking about - a crucial point to understanding both his post and my response to it.

Can you try to us all what the heck you are talking about?

Don't know about ALL, I'm not aware of any ALL here, but I can try and tell YOU anyway...

You call Religion "Pornography" and complain about others choosing potentially divisive beliefs.

What I actually said was Religion exploits Spirituality in exactly the same way was Pornography exploits Sexuality. We are all of us Spiritual & Sexual beings; Religion & Pornography proceed from what we are, not the other round. They are both exploitative constructs designed to manipulate what is integral to our very natures which would, in any case, exist quite happily without them. It is, I think, better to get off on the diversity of reality than the illusory & offensive inhuman myths offered up by Playboy and The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You completely misuse the word "subjectivism" and miss the mark on "objectivism" as well.

Subjectivism is about individual experience & opinion and Objectivism is about collective experience & empirical (i.e. falsifiable, peer reviewed hard won) consensus on the nature of the reality we are all part of by dint of our very existence. If the earth were to crash into the sun tomorrow, we all would have our own subjective way of dealing with the objective crisis, but we'd all die as result. There would be no Rapture; and no exceptions.   If that is misuse, then maybe you'd care to tell me where I went wrong.   

"This is no mere stereotyping I can assure you. " Unless that you can prove that your opinions apply to all religious people it certainly is stereotyping.

What is there to prove? We're discussing the nature of belief and doctrine which out of some necessity involves more than a degree of stereotyping in order to more properly conform to whatever system one chooses to believe in - or has had forced upon you from birth. Maybe Uniformity would be a better word?

You use a few anecdotes to paint all people of faith with one brush.

Like Little Hawk, I'm offering a few personal anecdotes which (to a greater or lesser extent) have shaped the way I feel about the nature of religion & the religious. As with the stereotyping, it is the religious who are painting themselves with your proverbial brush - not I.

For your argument to be credible, we need more than your assurance.

Hey, I'm only one bloke here - if you don't agree then fine, it's not my job to convince you otherwise, much less roundly confront you over the nature of your beliefs as you appear to be doing to me here with your mob-like WE to answer to.

Let me put it this way there are plenty of religious people a lot less subjective and much more than you. Whatever it is you believe.

I disagree - not that I'm saying I'm Mr Objective or anything, just I've never met any Person o' Religion who've demonstrated any degree of objective tolerance for other perspectives because I guess that would cancel out their need for religion, or the credibility of their conviction. To be without religious belief is to appreciate the humanity of religion - the fact that it's all made up, that it's given us some fine buildings and music (and ghastly ones) that all of its spiritual truths derive from basic human nature etc. etc. Once God becomes anything more than a human construct then there's a whole heap of other stuff you must take on board, and its that 'other stuff' that not only precludes humanity but accounts for the darker aspects of religion which are very much with us today.   

And don't think that you can coherently explain your beliefs by pointing out the faults of Christianity and saying they are not that.

Culturally I'm very much a Christian I suppose - I'm of that Judeo-Xtian-Abrahamic tradition though as an Atheist I don't actually believe in any of it. I do however find much therein to delight and intrigue with respect of the folklore & the historical layers, particularly in the art, architecture & music of the Middle Ages & the more secular elements therein - be in the often grotesque (but never pagan) vernacular marginalia of misericord & manuscript, which have their counterpart in the songs of The Cantigas de Santa Maria & Carmina Burana (which are often pagan in a very different sense). I also take a keen interest in the underlying Dualism of Christianity, as manifest in Gnosticism in general and Catharism in particular, though I'd be wary in calling this belief as such, more of personal passion, same as I have for Traditional Song & Balladry, the Indo-European Folktale and the tradition of experimental electronica which begins with Daphne Oram. If faith I have it is an optimistic one in that I see both Anarchy (i.e highly ordered & efficient society without Goverment) and Atheism (Spiritual harmony & enlightenment without Religion) are the inevitable consequence of learning, which is, I guess, what we've been up to these past 50,000 years or so. Escaping Mob Rule and learning to think as individuals in celebration of that freedom.