Leaving the community

"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.

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

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

"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)

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

"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.

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

"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.

"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.

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