posted January 09, 2007 03:36 PM            

I don’t disagree with you, Knuth. The point being; do we judge a group by the “religious” tag, or by what they do?
(a student of dark history might say I was 100% wrong to include Nazis)

Group A: TheHolyPeople – Holders of the Only True Way.
Group B: TheEnlightenedPeople – Holders of the Only Enlightened Way.

TheHolyPeople consider themselves the only true religion and go out to set everyone straight by whatever means necessary.

TheEnlightenedPeople consider themselves anti-religion, and anti all who are not enlightened. They go out to straighten everyone else out by whatever means necessary.

Does it make any difference that one group is considered religious and the other one isn’t?
Aren’t the results the same?

posted January 09, 2007 06:09 PM            

People do bad things in the name of religion.
People do bad things in the name of an ideology.
People do bad things for political gain.
People do bad things for personal gain.
People do bad things because they like to do bad things.

Hey, people do bad things and that’s not good.

I’d say, doing bad in the name of religion is the most hideous. (betrayal of trust)

I could say that because some politicians do bad, all politicians are bad.
[Disregard, bad argument.]

I could say that because some people, that believe in an ideology, do bad things; all people that believe in an ideology are bad.

That would be an ignorant conclusion.

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

posted January 09, 2007 07:10 PM            

By the way, who were those that made a rule that you had to put a disclaimer with your post; “in my opinion”?

I may have to go back and see if they’re following their own rule.
(could care less)

posted January 10, 2007 12:08 AM            

quote:

---

It is time to admit that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reason fails.

---

So if that same type of believing(faith) is applied to any other unprovable idiom in our life. That person will be considered mad or stupid.

ring a bell anybody

bert

posted January 10, 2007 05:07 AM            

quote:

---

Does it make any difference that one group is considered religious and the other one isn’t?
Aren’t the results the same?

---

I recently read a nice, funny quote which fits in here very well and shows the main difference.

"If Atheism is a kind of religion than not collecting stamps is a kind of hobby."

quote:

---

TheEnlightenedPeople consider themselves anti-religion, and anti all who are not enlightened. They go out to straighten everyone else out by whatever means necessary.

---

*Knock, knock*
A: "Hello, who is there?
B: "Hello, my name is John Smith. I'm form the World Atheism Council. I wonder if you have ever considered to not believe in god?"
A: "Erhmm...no. I do believe in god. Granted, I'm not strictly following the 10 commandmnets and I'm not a regular mass visitor, but I do believe in a god of some kind."
B: "Sir, would you allow me to enlighten you a bit about what atheism is about and how you can save your and your beloved ones souls from great damage in not praying to gods?"
A: "WTF? Get off my lawn! Quick!"
tbc.

Has this ever happend to you?

How many devoted atheism TV channels do you know? How many atheism churches/mosques (sp?) have you seen? How many holy atheism books are you aware of that claim to bear the one and only truth? How many organisations do you know that raise funds to promote atheism?

posted January 10, 2007 05:22 AM            

In some cultures the monks will come to your door in anticipation
of receiving their breakfast, rather than trying to convert you.

posted January 10, 2007 05:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knuth Konrad:
How many organisations do you know that raise funds to promote atheism?

---

I guess it depends on what you mean by promote, but The Council for Secular Humanism is a non-profit that does advocate atheism. From their website:

quote:

---

Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.

---

Personally, my problem with atheism is pretty much the same as with established religions: atheists assert that there is no God as a matter of fact. That just doesn't sit right with me, for whatever reason. I think "I don't know" is a much more intellectually honest answer. I also kind of like the Talmud (at least I think that's where it comes from) that says that as mortal beings, it is impossible for us to know the mind of God.

I realize that most people want answers of some kind, and "who knows?" is not exactly comforting, but for whatever reason, it's what I've come to accept and I'm okay with not knowing. And at some point my body will be pushing up daisies, and I'll have my answer. In the meantime, I've resolved to be very patient over the whole thing and take my time. I'm in no rush to find out.

------------------
Mike Stefanik
www.catalyst.com
Catalyst Development Corporation

posted January 10, 2007 10:22 AM            

quote:

---

Tolerance is the key.

---

quote:

---

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+Abstinence: a necessary antidote to the the previous.

---

By the way, I saw the pictures on your website. Very good!

quote:

---

The most abstract of all religions: Buddhism is atheist.

---

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

posted January 10, 2007 11:38 AM            

quote:

---

that says that as mortal beings, it is impossible for us to know the mind of God.

---

But isn't that a contradiction in itself? If it's impossible to know how do mortals than know its impossible to know?

Knuth

posted January 10, 2007 12:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knuth Konrad:
But isn't that a contradiction in itself? If it's impossible to know how do mortals than know its impossible to know?

---

I don't see it as a contradiction. I know that there are things out there in the physical world that I simply do not understand; the same could be applied to the spiritual. "Knowing" and "awareness" aren't the same thing.

In other words, it wouldn't be a contradiction for someone to say "I believe that there is something greater than ourselves in the universe, but it is beyond my ability to know or understand what that 'something' is.".

posted January 10, 2007 01:27 PM            

http://www.rogerlinden.com/

I knew Roger many years ago and was fascinated when I came across
this short essay.

posted January 10, 2007 03:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Pegge:
I knew Roger many years ago...

---

Looking at the tariff for sessions, etc on his web pages,
I'm tempted to ask whether his rates have gone up.

posted January 10, 2007 03:51 PM            

Gee, Knuth, I thought that's what this thread was all about:

Erik’s religious proclamation;
“…God-given intelligent design as the final truth is brainless.”
Therefore:
“Evolution is the creator of the intelligent design of life in all its aspects.”

(Definition: “Religion - sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system”)

Some, in their minds, attribute deity powers with the word, “Evolution.”
Erik > Evolution is the creator… …intelligent enough to have created…

Evolution Scientist: Dr. Colin Patterson; “…evolutionism and creationism seem to have become very hard to distinguish, particularly lately.”

TV channels: most
churches/mosques: schools (can only teach the religion of Evolution, any other belief system forbidden. )
books: tons

> How many organisations do you know that raise funds to promote atheism?
At the top of the list - US government.
We are no longer exploring space.
NASA’s only mission is to find “The Origins of Life.” (read their mission proclamation)

I find this funny! (Not very funny because I’m having to pay for it.)
Thirty years ago, the Religion of Evolution was sure they had a good explanation of how rocks Do It, produce offspring.
(There is a big embarrassment in the Religion of Evolution, because no one has ever seen rocks Do It.)
Then a terrorist group, they call themselves Creationist, came along and shot holes in all the vague assumptions. (using Erik’s definition)
Now we spend (guess) billions every year, shooting rockets at meteors and looking on distant planets; trying to explain how rocks Do It.

posted January 10, 2007 05:25 PM            

These were:

The idea of dismissing evolution and claiming a God-given intelligent design as the final truth is brainless. Evolution is the creator of the intelligent design of life in all its aspects.

Evolution and the principles and laws behind it are intelligent enough to have created an intelligent person like you.

May be I have not been sufficiently clear. What I mean is that the principles and laws of the universe will be sufficient to explain evolution and everything else going on in the universe. You may call these principles and laws (which in themselves are fantastic (“intelligent”?)) for God, I do not mind. We are in the process of exploring this universe and its nature, but until now there has been nothing to suggest any intervention of any God in the events of this given universe. It evolves automatically according to the given laws and principles which include random processes. Because of the element of randomness, the actual directions life takes cannot be predicted. Therefore a God-given intelligent design in the “narrow sense” without any evolution as suggested by the creationists is brainless, in my opinion.