posted January 08, 2007 05:06 PM            

Funny how these guys always get left off the list.

posted January 08, 2007 05:39 PM            

Before I go I invite both Stan and Erik to read this.

Do not be put off by the title - very little of the content is about the title.

Perhaps you two can find some common ground there.

Some parts are singularly eloquent.

quote:

---

For a hell-raising species like ours, however—with too much intelligence for our own good and too little discipline to know what to do with it—there have always been other, more utilitarian reasons to get religion.

---

posted January 08, 2007 06:06 PM            

Sorry if I made it too complicated.
More Zink and Vitamin B for you.

posted January 08, 2007 06:17 PM            

Albert Einstein years ago argued with another person that "God does
not throw dice." Now I'm not one who goes to church. That doesn't
mean that I can't have faith in that the universe is what it is and
follows rules. I have come over the years to think of science as a
way to understand all that is around me. But where science stops
faith begins. Faith like the universe is hard to explain and almost
certainly it shall always be this way. Answers always seem to lead
to more questions. For example if today the "Big Bang" or "Big sizzle
depending on your point of view was proved true then new questions
must be asked. What was here before that? What happened to it? When
does the lack of everything in and of it's self become something?
And the list would go on and on. I like to think of my self and all
others as little gears doing what they are suppose to do in this
very very large machine known as the universe.

A journey of a thousand steps always begins with the first step; much
the same a journey for knowledge begins with I do not understand.

posted January 08, 2007 06:28 PM            

quote:

---

Sorry if I made it too complicated.

---

posted January 08, 2007 07:00 PM            

You seem to have a mental block on this word, “fundamentalist”.
I’m going to substitute, “strong believers”.

People who have worked around sales or promotion a little, understand the value of a power-word, good or bad, and realize when one is being used and know to look beyond it.

I’m directly asking for an honest answer.

Do terrorist kill people because they;
1. are strong believers in something?
2. because they are religious?
3. because they think it’s OK to kill to meet their goal?

Are all people, who are strong believers in something, bad; or is it just those that are strong believers in a religion?

Do all people, who are strong believers in a religion, think it’s OK to kill to meet their goal?

Are people who aren’t strong believers in anything and aren’t religious, but think it’s OK to kill to meet their goal; the good guys?

Erik > That is my concern.

I’m trying to help you out, Erik.
You’re all worried by those billions of religious folks you listed; you only have to worry about group #3.
The ones who are trying to kill people.
It doesn’t matter if they strongly believe in something, or not.
It doesn’t matter if they are religious, or not.
They just want to kill people and that’s not nice.

Life is simple when you think things through and don’t allow yourself to be manipulated by other peoples hate labels.

Unless, of course, you just want to hate and belittle a particular group of people you don’t agree with; then you’re better off sticking with the hate labels.

------------------

posted January 08, 2007 07:05 PM            

quote:

---

I didn’t think anyone was going to get the Zink thing.

---

posted January 08, 2007 07:47 PM            

I can understand some of your points of view, since as I'm an atheist myself.

However, you are forgetting one or two things:

1. It's nearly impossible to change people's minds about religion. Each of us reach his own conclusions and live with them.

2. This community is very aware about what their members think about religion, as you now this has been discussed over and over again.

3. We are a community. We selflessly share knowledge, and help each other on programming issues, other times on things not remotely connected to computers.

Tolerance is the key.

posted January 09, 2007 05:07 AM            

quote:

---

Well, Erik, perhaps you could take a fundamentalist secular approach, like the good old boys in China, Russia and Nazi Germany, and kill them all.

---

Funny how you name some of the most horrible, cultic systems "secular". The Nazi cult was anything but secular. While not being/promoting a classic religion, the similarities are overwhelming. A country of "choosen people", A "glorious" leader to follow, initiation rites, reoccuring, scheduled torch enlighted gatherings (=masses)...

How'd ya say? "If it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck..."

Chris has summed it up pretty nicely what I initially was trying to say:

quote:

---

The many belief systems of man today simply contradict one another
and so it is not possible for all of them to be correct. How could
they all be considered "the truth", if they are often exact opposites
of each other?

Also an honest appraisal of religions will show that an awful lot
of bad things have been done in the name of religion.

---

And please note that we're talking about "religions", not about god. While I personally don't believe in god, I have no problem at all with people that do so. But I have strong concerns about organized belief systems wether those manifest themselves in organisations (aka "churches") or a literal belief in scriptures that are IMHO meant as methapers to guide you along, not as strictly to follow todo lists for your everyday life.

------------------
http://www.softAware.de

posted January 09, 2007 08:40 AM            

If you take power politics and tribalism out of religion it is
on the whole, benign.

Religion+Politics: very ugly.
Religion+Culture: iffy. Some entrenched bad habits.
Religion+Moralitiy: good for peace, law and order.
Religion+Philanthropy: very good
Religion+Philosophy: very good: beginnings of science.
Religion+Monasticism: sublime but only for a certain type of person.
Religion+Cuisine: excellent. yum yum!
Religion+Abstinance: a necessary antidote to the the previous.

------------------
Charles
www.pegge.net

posted January 09, 2007 08:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Pegge:
All in all I would say that religion is not a cause of bad behaviour.

---

..and you are from which distant galaxy? You have only to look at this thread!

------------------

posted January 09, 2007 09:55 AM            

Thanks for your very balanced comment.

Like Knuth I agree with this:

quote:

---

The many belief systems of man today simply contradict one another
and so it is not possible for all of them to be correct. How could
they all be considered "the truth", if they are often exact opposites
of each other?

Also an honest appraisal of religions will show that an awful lot
of bad things have been done in the name of religion.

---

Best regards,

Erik

------------------

posted January 09, 2007 03:15 PM            

To argue that religion is to be feared because it leads to
intolerance, would be a failure to recognize that people who claim
to have no faith can be just as intolerant.

To equate religious zeal with terrorism is to ignore the great
good that many religiously motivated people have done by acting
on their faith and convictions. Most religions teach faith,
tolerance, acknowledge the separation of good from evil, and
emphasise the value of performing good works.

To apply lables to others, and to categorize them as either good
or evil based on your point of observation, is show the same type
of intolerance, bigotry, and hate as you attribute to those that
you have come to fear in your own mind.

When the purpose of any organization is to impose its will on
others, to serve other ends than justice or mercy, then you can
likely categorize that organization as being evil in purpose.
Our problem is often how to address evil without venturing to
become instruments of evil ourselves.

It is an unfortunate fact that people often die or suffer when
caught between groups that are willing to kill or maim others as
they seek their own objectives. The Christian mandate is to turn
the other cheek; but governments are souless entities that have
as their responsibility the need to first preserve themselves,
and secondly the need to serve their purpose, which is to protect
their people against internal and external foes. It would be hard
to conceive of a government that could be Christian in nature,
and still endure.

Many governments and nations have claimed to be Christian (or
otherwise), but such claims do not translate into evidentualry
fact, and in some cases, have been used to justify horrendous
acts that certainly were not condoned by the faith that they
laid claim to.

It is the repeated use of lables that have helped the terrorists
gain some significant following and support. The fact that the
terrorists claim that they are religiously motivated, and that
they are fighting a holy war, is part of the propaganda that has
been devised to strengthen their cause. If you accept their
claims and their use of lables without question, then you are at
risk of believing their arguments and seeing before you a host of
enemeies rather than just a divided culture and region whose name
and religion are being taken and twised to fit the terrorist's
cause.

I know that you can take individuals and question them, and some
believe in the terrorist's goals, and would argue that their
cause is a just one. But many are just impressionable youths,
or angered elders, and willing to speak, to impress, a world
audience when questioned before the camera. I am always forced
to reckon on a news environment that seeks sensationalism and
controversy rather than true news reporting. As once heard long
ago, the idea is not to report the news, but to sell newspapers.