If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#721
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... wrote: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote: That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over religion than anything else. Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-) Matt Religion is a form of greed. As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire. Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it? Certainly it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be part of the rapture. Only those who choose not to participate will be left behind. It doesn't get any more generous than that. It is entirely your choice. What more could you ask for? Matt Ah, Matt, you don't even know your own holy book. Revelations describes the dimensions of heaven and it is not unlimited. Hurry up and go, fella. First come, first served. As soon as it is full (Hell,it may be full a'ready), newcomers will be turned away. Matter of fact I have it on good authority they'll be pushed over the balusters into the fiery brink below. |
#722
|
|||
|
|||
jls wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... wrote: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote: That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over religion than anything else. Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-) Matt Religion is a form of greed. As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire. Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it? Certainly it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be part of the rapture. Only those who choose not to participate will be left behind. It doesn't get any more generous than that. It is entirely your choice. What more could you ask for? Matt Ah, Matt, you don't even know your own holy book. Revelations describes the dimensions of heaven and it is not unlimited. Hurry up and go, fella. First come, first served. As soon as it is full (Hell,it may be full a'ready), newcomers will be turned away. Matter of fact I have it on good authority they'll be pushed over the balusters into the fiery brink below. But it doesn't say how big the people there will be. :-) At a few Angstroms in height, that cube will hold a LOT of us. Matt |
#723
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote: snip Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend that atheism is anathema to them. A curious contradiction, to say the least. I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs? Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the sheep mentality of the 'religious'? It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be 'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not. But even using this new idea I still see atheism as different from religion in the way faith is applied. Religious faith does not allow for much critical thinking and certainly doesn't tolerate dissent. Whereas atheistic 'faith' accepts change as it happens. There are certainly things I have to take on 'faith'. I don't _know_ the universe was created by the big bang. But my acceptance of the theory will be gladly changed in an instant if the physicists come up with something to refute it tomorrow. I used to believe in the steady state universe and I experienced no trauma in making the change. In fact I relish the thought of learning new things about us. Contrast that to the adherence to dogma required by 'religion' and perhaps you can begin to understand why I wouldn't want to be associated with the same group that put Galileo in jail and wouldn't admit their mistake for _hundreds_ of years. -- Frank....H |
#724
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote: Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity supports genocide of Jews. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their religion. In his book, _On the Jews and their Lies_, Luther set the standard for anti-semitism in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther, often quoting his works and beliefs. "He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away." "But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God." --Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies) |
#725
|
|||
|
|||
Frank wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: wrote: snip Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend that atheism is anathema to them. A curious contradiction, to say the least. I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs? Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the sheep mentality of the 'religious'? It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be 'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not. I didn't define it, I just posted a reference to the definitions. I don't know how often the dictionary writers change the definition of religion, but it has had multiple definitions for as long as I can remember (35+ years). Matt |
#726
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: Matt Whiting wrote: wrote: snip Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend that atheism is anathema to them. A curious contradiction, to say the least. I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs? Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the sheep mentality of the 'religious'? It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be 'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not. I didn't define it, I just posted a reference to the definitions. I don't know how often the dictionary writers change the definition of religion, but it has had multiple definitions for as long as I can remember (35+ years). Matt Here's the Am. Heritage definition: rel., relig. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. You can define it as you wish; many unscrupulous people do. Atheists are non-religious. They have no deity to worship; do not ordinarily attend church or revere the priesthood; are not particularly organized or split up into quarreling denominations; and don't take their beliefs on faith but rather depend on their observations, especially scientific observations. I have never known an atheist who considered himself anything but irreligious. Any atheist would consider himself slurred to be referred to as a religious person. So htf somebody can say atheism is a religion is to me incomprehensible. |
#727
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Luke wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote: Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity supports genocide of Jews. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their religion. In his book, _On the Jews and their Lies_, Luther set the standard for anti-semitism in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther, often quoting his works and beliefs. "He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away." "But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God." --Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies) OK, can you point out the passage that says you should kill Jews? I read the above twice and just don't see it. Matt |
#728
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:Kimod.70165$V41.9053@attbi_s52... ONE OF THE PIECES WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR WHY ALL PEOPLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF PHILOSOPHY FIND THE RELIGIONS OF THE MASSES OFFENSIVE. "Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality. Philosophy is the goal toward which religion was only a helplessly blind groping." -- (Ayn Rand; The Objectivist Feb 1966) (Big Snip) Wow. I've seen few Usenet posts worthy of getting saved on my hard drive. This is one of them. Thanks for sharing that. |
#729
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Matt Barrow" wrote: Learning right from wrong comes from evolution. Evolution comes from learning right from wrong. Both are correct. Populations of organisms "learn" the right way to survive in their environments or they perish. That's nice, but that's not "right from wrong" except on the most extreme fringe. We're talking morality (self preservation) and ethics (conduct towards others) which are intellectual pursuits, not biological (though they are linked). The ability to do this is coded into their genes. The coding changes over time due to a combination of mutation and natural selection, i.e., by evolution. Animals have instincts that have developed from evolution. Humans have reason and, from that, develop principles. |
#730
|
|||
|
|||
Just so we're straight here, I'm not talking Darwinian evolution. Modern
civilized man is beyond survival of the fittest since everybody survives (well, almost) due to advances in medicine. The only genetic evolutionary steps we really have left are through genetic engineering. There are no modern cultures (and by modern, I mean technically advanced) that practice cannibalism that I know of. Any aboriginal cultures (removed from technical advances) are still evolving both in the Darwinian sense and intellectually. Did you indoctrinate your kids in religion from the time they were born or did you wait until they were old enough to make their own choices? I'm betting that if you have kids, you raised them in your religion, like all the middle eastern religions do. Don't want to risk them forming their own opinions of reality now, do you? mike regish (and that IS my real name) BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me. "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... mike regish wrote: It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry from day 1. Nice excuse, but lacks creativity. I'll give it a D+. There are cultures that have virtually no organized religion, but engage in things such as cannibalism. Is that one of the moral values that evolution produces? Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leaving the community | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 556 | November 30th 04 08:08 PM |
aero-domains for anybody in the aviation community | secura | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 26th 04 07:37 PM |
Unruly Passengers | SelwayKid | Piloting | 88 | June 5th 04 08:35 AM |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Big Kahunas | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 360 | December 20th 03 12:59 AM |