Can we just come to an understanding that, on this site, some generalization is necessary?

Question

Obviously, gross generalization is wrong. But how can we discuss the pros and cons of religion and its practitioners if we don't generalize a little bit?

For example -- we can say christians believe in the trinity. However, there are unitarian christians, gnostic christians, mormons, and jehovah's witnesses who do not accept the trinity concept. So for me to say that christians believe in the trinity would be a generalization to which there would be exceptions. But how else am I supposed to discuss christianity?

Answer 1

Understood by me! I generalize all the time. When I'm attacking Christians, I doubt it's understood that I'm usually attacking those who force their beliefs down other's throats; I have many Christian friends, and my family is largely of the Christian faith, for crying out loud! The rest of the time, I stick to specifying using words like "fundie," "zealot," or the like.

Even THAT'S generalizing, though. We all have to do it from time to time.

Answer 2

I have read many of your answers and question over time and This is one of the ones were you seem rational (remember me, I'm the one that objected to your "Hitler argument". I agree some generalizations are a given And yes the trinity is one of them, I my opinion it is true as far as it goes, it is man's attempt to explain something he can't understand when it comes to the divine. It was an attempt to explain the different manifestations of God while clinging to the basic tenet of Monotheism. In hindsight, I think it was a lame attempt, and God could have many more manifestations than that and still be monotheistic (kinda like modern interpretations of HInduism). But we're not discussing the trinity here are we.
And speaking of generalization...true heretic....after reading some samples of your thoughts answer me this. why do you call yourself and atheist? I define an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in God, you seemed to have slipped into the new definition of an Anti-theist or maybe more appropriately instead of a non-believer an anti-believer. any thoughts on this?

Answer 3

Generally speaking, I am generally against generalizations.

Yes, you are correct that SOME amount of generalization is necessary in order to BEGIN discussion. The problem occurs when the specifics (which should overshadow the generalization) are ignored and people try to broad brush over them.

But, yeah, a starting point IS necessary.

Answer 4

If Mormons don't believe in the trinity then why is there and 3 pole monument, one a little bit taller then they other and extending upwards toward the sky out in front of the church which is down the street?

Answer 5

I think it is a problem. Basically, religion is a very personal thing. How each of us responds to it personally is really the ONLY issue. A generalization just isn't going to be all that useful for a meaningful discussion.

Answer 6

Agreed and we won't get offended when we speak of communists or atheist generalisations either. My point is try and treat people the same way you would like to be treated. I know it isn't always and here is where i agree with you, since it is hard to find any two people who agree 100% on anything it is kind of difficult to make a statement about a groups beliefs.

Answer 7

Many people confuse " generalization " with a normal distribution of data. Quite common among social scientists and humanities scholars.

Answer 8

There's nothing wrong with generalization as long as you're aware of it. We all do it and it's completely acceptable in daily life. But there's always some anal retentive who will try to nail you on the semantics or accuse you of "gross prejudice".

Answer 9

Generally speaking , I generally generalize.

Answer 10

You cant, its human nature to classify, organize and group so its only natural and often helpful to generalize.