Ask Americans what their religion is, and nearly 1 in 3 say this -- none. That’s according to the U.S. adults surveyed by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Mike Dulak grew up Catholic in Southern California, but by his teen years, he began skipping Mass and driving straight to the shore to play guitar, watch the waves and enjoy the beauty of the morning. “And it felt more spiritual than any time I set foot in a church,” he recalled.

Nothing has changed that view in the ensuing decades.

“Most religions are there to control people and get money from them,” said Dulak, now 76, of Rocheport, Missouri. He also cited sex abuse scandals in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. “I can’t buy into that,” he said.

  • @[email protected]
    1•1 year ago

    Emotional awareness" is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model in which to evaluate the emotional reaction.

    No, I am describing emotional awareness. The ability to understand your emotions and limit their effect on your reasoning is not a philosophical model.

    Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.

    This is a surprisingly good argument, but it does not prove the conclusion you came to. Its more of an exception to what I said. It demonstrates that emotional responses can be impacted by philosophy. It does not demonstrate that this is always how it works, or even most of the time.

    It seems important that you be right.

    Yes, my goal in this argument was in fact to prove I am right. I do not like hateful views with no reasoning behind them.

    Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?

    I’m not particularly happy because you are going to continue believing hateful nonsense, but at least I tried. I should’ve expected as much anyway, given that I’m arguing with people on the internet.

    • @[email protected]
      1•1 year ago

      hateful nonsense

      Rejected, with my previous arguments. Strawman, gaslighting, ad hominem.

      Nothing else you have said furthers the discussion.

      • @[email protected]
        1•1 year ago

        The discussion is apparently over now because you won’t continue it. But that doesn’t stop you from naming fallacies at me I guess.

        We’ve had quite a long conversation, and you have yet to provide a half decent argument for your distrust of religious people. Therefore, hateful nonsense. I can’t misrepresent your argument when I’m not even actually representing it. I’m just describing what I think it essentially boils down to. Its hateful nonsense.

        Again, correcting you is not gaslighting. You are literally just wrong.

        I did not personally attack you. I have worded things in passive aggressive ways throughout this conversation, but that’s about it. If you are referring specifically to the “hateful nonsense” part, that’s again just a description of your belief.

        Are you actually done now? Or will you keep saying random words hoping something works.