Well, yes you must learn about them. They know what they are criticizing and that is evident from the books.
Earlier you were saying:
That was your justification for the conclusion, that they should study all religions before criticizing them.
and I answered:
And I showed you that they are criticizing Abhramic Religions specifically, and faith in general, and that not all religions need to be studied in order to generalize, just like when studying atoms, or anything else.
It's not naive to say so if I have provided reasons for it. You could say that my conclusion is without basis only if you provide the contradicting information, which I thought you would do in your next reply.
What does this even mean?
If we disagree, I will provide my reasons, and you will provide yours. If no consensus can be established upon analysis of the reasons then of course, we "move on". But in a discussion that has just begun if you wish to move on early into it, then you may do so. If you do that then of course, I will immediately "move on" unless someone takes your place. So please tell me do I still need to learn to move on?
