Scientists have established a link between religious fundamentalism and brain damage

[LV426]

but that doesn't equate to rigidity ( unable to see other patterns) -since religion is not subject to changing data

Right, because it's dogma.

So it is rigid.

ore dumb ass psychobabble

Whenever anything is put forth that explains the condition of Conservatives that they perceive as unfair they just label as "psychobabble".

No, it's not psychobabble...it's hitting too close to home and you can't really think of any way to refute it other than declaring yourself the arbiter of that judgment.

Most crazy people don't think they're crazy.

[Truth Detector]

This is the least surprising thing I'll ever read.

Stop pretending; we know you can't read.

[StoneByStone]

Stop pretending; we know you can't read.

Aren't you the guy who didn't know Paganism is a collection of religions?

[Truth Detector]

Aren't you the guy who didn't know Paganism is a collection of religions?

Paganism isn't religion you dumb fuck.

Both words have developed broader and pejorative meanings over time, with pagan being used to mean “an irreligious or hedonistic person” and heathen “uncivilized” or “strange,” but their original meanings are still in use.

[dukkha]

Right, because it's dogma. So it is rigid.

Buddhism calls it dharma.
It's religion - as I said religion is immutable principles; to equate that with rigidity of thought ( like problem solving) is stupid.

Whenever anything is put forth that explains the condition of Conservatives that they perceive as unfair they just label as "psychobabble".

No, it's not psychobabble...it's hitting too close to home and you can't really think of any way to refute it other than declaring yourself the arbiter of that judgment.

I just refuted it as a false equivalency to rigidity of thought

[dukkha]

I would agree there is no thought in religion.

because you have no understanding of religion being a pagan millennial- unable to look past temporal concerns

[LV426]

Buddhism calls it dharma. It's religion - as I said religion is immutable principles; to equate that with rigidity of thought ( like problem solving) is stupid.

I think you're missing the point.

Dogma is rigidity of thought.

That's why you call them zealots.

[LV426]

I just refuted it as a false equivalency to rigidity of thought

But religion is rigidity of thought.

That's its entire purpose and reason for being.

Dogmatic beliefs that inform your personal judgment.

So basically, anyone who uses religion as their moral guidance is a zealot.

[dukkha]

I think you're missing the point.

Dogma is rigidity of thought.

That's why you call them zealots.

now you are no longer debating "rigidity of thought" you are debating the worth of religion.
And I'm not about to waste my time with a dumb, young, pagan to do so.

[LV426]

because you have no understanding of religion being a pagan millennial- unable to look past temporal concerns

I understand religion just fine...was Bar Mitzvah'ed myself.

You seem to be unsure of your own understanding of faith.

That's why you say weird things like dogma isn't rigidity of thought.

[dukkha]

But religion is rigidity of thought.

That's its entire purpose and reason for being.

Dogmatic beliefs that inform your personal judgment.

So basically, anyone who uses religion as their moral guidance is a zealot.

zealot = fundamentalism. Most religions have fundamentalists sects, but most religions are not all fundamentalists only.
Even Islam ( heavily dependent on rote) has Sunni salafists, but also modernists who understand
that Sharia can be incorporated into a western style democracy

[LV426]

now you are no longer debating "rigidity of thought" you are debating the worth of religion

Well, I don't think there's any worth in religion. Full stop.

Secondly, dogma is rigidity of thought, and religion is dogma. Hence, religion is rigidity of thought.

[Guno צְבִי]

Apparently our nation was created by "wing nuts".....all 50 states reference GOD in their constitutions. Our courts require an oath sworn before God in order to be under oath. Even our politicians are required to place a hand on the Holy Bible and swear an oath before God...even the democrats. And show me one person that does not endorse spending money with the oath "in God we Trust" engraved upon it?

And what does that make our Supreme Court? A group of nuts? When you walk up the steps to the building that houses our most Supreme Court....we find the lawgivers facing MOSES as he is holding the 10 commandments. And more clearly? When you open the twin doors to go in? You find a list of the 10 commandments of God.

What about the bible verses itched all over the buildings in DC?

James Madison was clearly a nutjob (the father of our constitution). "We have staked the whole of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, TO SUSTAIN OURSELVES ACCORDING TO THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF GOD." -- James Madison


Leave it up to snowflakes to revisit history actual and declare our founders.... WING NUTS.

Founding Fathers: We Are Not a Christian Nation

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/found...re-n_b_6761840

[dukkha]

I understand religion just fine...was Bar Mitzvah'ed myself.

You seem to be unsure of your own understanding of faith.

That's why you say weird things like dogma isn't rigidity of thought.

not all all that I said.
the PRINCIPLES ( dharma) are immutable, but the PRACTICE can be more flexible.

Like Orthodox Jews vs. Reform jews ( and I'm no real expert of Judaism, but I think that's correct)

[LV426]

zealot = fundamentalism

Right, and zealots are zealots because of their dogmatic beliefs.

So you can swap out dogma for fundamentalism, but they both mean the same thing.

Ans zealotry is blind allegiance to that dogma, and you have blind allegiance to the Bible.

So that would make you a dogmatic, fundamentalist zealot.