What is history and how it dictates freedom from the obvious -

 A comment I made on one of my previous posts which deserves a wider audience:

"The religion of irreligion, starting with the Reign of Terror inspired by Enlightenment "rationality," has shed more innocent blood than all previous "Holy Wars". Let's not be hypocritical. The atrocities of of the nazis are included in this religion of irreligion, because neo-Marcionite higher criticism, which took its cue from both the French Enlightenment, as well as, the German Aufklärung, led directly to the antisemitic demythologization of Christianity (via Bruno Bauer, Adolf von Harnack, Rudolf Bultmann, inter alios) which was followed by a remythologized Nation-State worship."

°•●○••••••

My rebuttal:

What is the falsification of religion if in fact irreligious is not religion. In and of itself it is a false dichotomy. To describe what is irreligious is therefore not a rational contruct of reality. Conceptually, what constricts our movement throughout this course of time, spreads across the history of civilizations before what is considered irreligiously based theory. As you were. (e.g. what is to act in violent OPPOSITION (irreligious) to relgion negates religion in and of itself.)

Edit: so dumbing this all down for those that will (please feel free) to "frown upon religion", what I said, means... if nothing were to happen BEFORE any religion took place, is irrational - because - what took precedent of our questioning god throughout history does not unequivocally prove the idea god exists or not. Religion never required the proof of god. Violence expressed that there was no need for proof "in the name of god" is what existed though the need for that evidence still remains.

So, to outweigh the rationale that speaks to what is irreligious simply holds no water. What is religion is NOT to act in gods name. Religion illustrates faith in the church. Irreligious of faith is to ACT (perhaps violently) in gods name whether opposed to the idea or not.

Marco Almeida ©️ 2025

-The Peg

•○●°•○○•○•

Interlocutor:

that's like asking what's the falsification of other inherent human faculties...it's a nonsensical question, like asking "what's the falsification of humanity's linguistic capacity?"

°•○●○••••°

My rebuttal:

 what is language if not to find what is truth in and of itself.  I don't get your point.  You are standing outside what I said and operating from another answer I stated entirely.  What is I stated has only to do with the question you are defending.  Which is to falsify relgion.  You did falsify religion in stating it is irreligious.  Now you are denying the antecedent. It is a formal fallacy.  Look it up.  It doesn't take a genius to.

MA2025 ©️ 

(End.)