Leaving the community

Matt Barrow wrote:
"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)

Ayn had it backwards, unfortunately.

Matt

mike regish wrote:

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?

Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?


mike regish
(and that IS my real name)

BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.

Really? Then why does it bother you so much? I'll give you a B+ on
grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.

Matt

Not this one. In Texas, no less.

"Dena Schlosser, 35, was charged with capital murder Monday after calmly
telling a 911 operator that she had cut off the arms of 11-month old
Margaret. Police found Schlosser sitting in her living room, covered in
blood, a church hymn playing in the background."

See
http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC...e5519814b.html

Ahhh...sweet religion.

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:RLIod.382261$wV.315770@attbi_s54...


There have been plenty of people killed by atheists and agnostics.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?

Nothing. They can make their own choices whenever they wish. I give them all
the answers I can and find out the ones I can't. They are very curious kids
and I have always been a pretty curious and scientifically oriented person.
And I know how to say "I don't know." It has been a learning experience for
all of us. And their teachers and all their friends mothers have always
commented on how well behaved they are. I guess my athiestic morals can't be
all that bad.



mike regish
(and that IS my real name)

BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.

Really? Then why does it bother you so much?

I'm curious as to what makes you think it bothers me.

I'll give you a B+ on
grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.

The mark of the desperately wrong. Pointing out typos.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
in message ...
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).

What's the difference? They are both behaviors. Behavior in all
animals is a combination of instinct and learning. It's all biological.

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.

Humans have instincts; other animals can reason. It's only a matter of
degree. "Principles" is a fancy name for social behavior useful to the
species.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

OK, can you point out the passage that says you should kill Jews? I
read the above twice and just don't see it.

"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."

What do you suppose Luther is implying should be done about those nasty
Jews, if burning down their synagogues wasn't enough?

And just in case that lovely sentiment doesn't sufficiently impress you
that genocide marks many pages in Christian history, try this one:

(The following excerpt is from Las Casas' book _A Short Account Of The
Destruction Of the Indies_, Penguin Books, Edited and Translated by
Nigel Griffin.)

"They forced their way into native settlements, slaughtering everyone
they found there, including small children, old men, pregnant women, and
even women who had just given birth. ...They spared no one, erecting
especially wide gibbets on which they could string their victims up with
their feet just off the ground and then burn them alive thirteen at a
time, in honor of our Savior and the twelve Apostles, or tie dry straw
to their bodies and set fire to it. Some they chose to keep alive and
simply cut their wrists, leaving their hands dangling, saying to them:
'Take this letter' -- meaning that their sorry condition would as a
warning to those hiding in the hills...."

There's lots, lots more, if you care to look.

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
I'm no supporter of the Catholic church, so I won't argue with you
there. The Catholic church doesn't follow the Bible in many ways and
much of what they believe in and do is simply not supported by
scripture and often outright condemned.

I know most Catholics would disagree, but I don't consider Catholicism
to be Christianity as they tend to elevate Mary to a level equal to or
even higher than Christ.

In discussions like this it usually isn't long before the retreating
Christian pulls out the old "no true Scotsman" argument.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:03:09 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
So very true.

The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.

Sort of, but the proper term is "ethics" (pertaining to others), not
"morality" (pertaining to self).

My dictionary doesn't quite see the distinction here.

Moral: Relating tot he principles or right and wrong in behavior.
conforming to a standard. Operating on one's conscience or *ethical*
judgment.

"Moral" implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted
notions of right and wrong;

"Ethical" may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle
questions of rightness, fairness, or equity.

Ethical: of or relating to ethics. Involving or expressing moral
approval or disapproval.

Mores: The fixed morally binding customs of a particular group.

In essence, what is considered moral varies from group to group, but
those moral values tend to be fixed within the groups.
I would say that ethics is the performance to a moral standard.

For example. When doing business in many countries it is normal and
considered ethical to help out the favorite causes of the officials to
speed up or get things done (IE greasing the palms). In other areas
of the world such conduct is not considered unethical and even
criminal.

I once attended a seminar where those present were told that if they
accepted assignments in some areas of the world they would be expected
to conduct themselves according to the local ethics. If they had a
problem with that then they should either request they not be assigned
overseas assignments, or seek employment elsewhere. You should not go
into another country and expect your ethics to be considered normal.
Doing so can bring about a great deal of strife and even personal
discomfort.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:57:51 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:

I have the dream about
every 2 weeks or so.

It will go away eventually. (I quit about 25 years ago. Funny, I
remember the hour and the day but not the year.)

My dream was a bit different. I would be smoking a cigarette and
feeling quite smug, but I knew very well that I had quit, but nobody
else seemed to notice.

For a number of years after I quit, I'd follow people down the street
who were smoking, and sneak little sniffs of that ambrosia.

Now, however, it's entirely revolting.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

mike regish wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?


Nothing. They can make their own choices whenever they wish. I give them all
the answers I can and find out the ones I can't. They are very curious kids
and I have always been a pretty curious and scientifically oriented person.
And I know how to say "I don't know." It has been a learning experience for
all of us. And their teachers and all their friends mothers have always
commented on how well behaved they are. I guess my athiestic morals can't be
all that bad.

So you indoctrinate them into the religion of "free thinking",
philosophy, etc. I was just curious.


mike regish
(and that IS my real name)

BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.

Really? Then why does it bother you so much?


I'm curious as to what makes you think it bothers me.

Because you bothered to reply to it.


I'll give you a B+ on

grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.


The mark of the desperately wrong. Pointing out typos.

The mark of the arrogantly wrong.


Matt