Originally Posted by Tsuna
The viewpoint as in the Western thing? Yeah, I agree, but not including that would leave it open for a counter-argument on the fact that those religions are really only more "recognized" in Western society. More specifically, in the United States. It's better to acknowledge a weakness in an argument based on one's personal experiences with their environment - i.e.: I only know the "big" religions as they are considered in the US rather than say, Russia, because I don't live in Russia, and thus don't know the situation there - than to just leave it wide open like that.
Maybe it's just the way I've learned how to debate over the years, but it's better to address all facets of an argument than to leave anything unexplored.
Protip: Agnosticism and Atheism are not even remotely the same thing.
yes that's exactly as i meant. you edited the part in and your argument became very solid. now i think we are running out of options in our little "debate" on the side. just want to say, that i am considering myself part of the western hemisphere as a german, and i am an agnostic. i believe for this debate it is important to take a stance as objectiv as possible, meaning, taking all religions into consideration, like mibz did with the greek.
when you are finished with TU, maybe i could express my point of view in a larger state, which is generally yours, but with slight differences in the pov.
@ninja: crusades and stuff originated from religion, so it is to assume, that the church proclaimed wrong morals, which were believed, as the church was a very high instituion before the time of Immanuel Kant. what i want to say is, that the crusaders for example hat morals impregnated into them by the church -> religion..., the crusades were no opposition against the church etc...
Originally Posted by Miburo
Also, way to pretty much totally ignore Tsuna's shit. Pretty unmanly.
that's okay. we had a nice chat on the side = )