Theism - Atheism; is there only 'a' difference?
Peter Brooks
synonymic antonym, or an antonymic synonym?
The difference between a sophisticated theist & an atheist is the same
as that between a settee and a sofa. Prayer, meditation & angst are
one. Mindfulness informs life, whether it comes from the Psalms,
Beethoven, Chess, Zen, Sport, Bereavement, Love, Maths, Introspection,
Dance, or Art.
Buddha's vision saw only eight paths; why not? Eight's a good start,
easy to remember & no man steps in the same river twice, so eight
paths are as many as infinite paths.
Is there any difference at all between no gods and gods as
epiphenomena? It might seem silly to believe in gods when it has no
practical impact on anything at all, but how silly is a belief that
makes no difference to anything? Isn't it less than harmless to
believe in serendipity if the alternative is to be pessimistic?
Is it not a mistake to see belief as the cause of fanaticism, rather
than it being epiphenominal from fanaticism?
Ian Smith
Peter Brooks
wrote:
>
Hardly even an annoyed posting actually.
John O'Flaherty
Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
runs, approximately,
Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
color.
--
John
Tom Keske
>
Oh, I don't know about that. I think that nearly every atheist has a
defacto
goddess, whether they know it or not, and they are as dependent for their
peace of mind on the imagined benevolence of their goddess
as a religious person is dependent on the imagined love of their
wrathful, spiteful God.
Their goddess is Lady Luck, and she is really a bitch, like Mother Nature,
lacking a scintilla of caring or compassion.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>> Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair color.
>>
>
>Oh, I don't know about that. I think that nearly every atheist has a
>defacto goddess, whether they know it or not, and they are as dependent
>for their peace of mind on the imagined benevolence of their goddess
>as a religious person is dependent on the imagined love of their
>wrathful, spiteful God.
I don't think you're a fucking moron, I KNOW you are.
>Their goddess is Lady Luck, and she is really a bitch, like Mother Nature,
>lacking a scintilla of caring or compassion.
Like I said: a fucking moron.
Skitt
Only the superstitious have gods or goddesses.
--
Skitt (AmE)
look out for that black cat!
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
And they project their nedd for them onto everybody else.
R H Draney
>
>Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
>runs, approximately,
>Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
>color.
The Arizona Department of Transportation does that...they even have a preferred
two-letter abbreviation, for it for use on drivers licenses....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Peter Moylan
> John O'Flaherty filted:
>> Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
>> runs, approximately,
>> Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
>> color.
>
> The Arizona Department of Transportation does that...they even have a preferred
> two-letter abbreviation, for it for use on drivers licenses....r
Why would the Department of Transportation care whether you have a religion?
ObAUE: In my language that would be the Department of Transport.
Transportation is how they brought the English to Australia.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Tom Keske
> A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
> An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
> more full like this?...or like this?
An optimist sees the glass of poison as half full,
and the pessimist sees it has as half empty.
Tom Keske
You seem to think that I am taking the side of religion,
but if I had my way, I would smash its existence in the
style of the French Revolution.
However, I see everyday secularly-minded people, who
athough they are seeing the picture more clearly, are possessed
of their own illusions. They don't think that they need a benevolent
god, but seem to think that Life just works out OK, naturally,
that progress in the natural order, that the future redeems the
past. The believe in the nobility of causes and struggles.
Anyone who truely had no implicit illusions and saw the world
for exactly what it is, could hardly survive. They would have
committed suicide long ago, and would not be here to argue
their own case.
I would think nothing of grabbing the superstitious, privileged
hate-mongers in the Churches and leading them off to gullotines.
I neither have hope for supernatural assistance nor
supernatural condemnation. I think that our
existence is essentially a meaningless accident, a world
of madness that will never amount to much more than
what it is, today.
The world in which we live is up to its eyeballs in illusion
and denial, all cultures, all sides of the political battles.
Tom Keske
"Christopher A. Le" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dqunh59eemg6cnfef...@4ax.com...
Tom Keske
> An optimist sees the glass of poison as half full,
> and the pessimist sees it has as half empty.
No wait, that is the other way around.
Oh, it does not matter. Nothing really matters.
It is like we are not really even here. I suppose
that in a way, that is reassuring.
Tom Keske
Steve Hayes
<news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
(nothing)
And your point is?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
>Why would the Department of Transportation care whether you have a religion?
>
>ObAUE: In my language that would be the Department of Transport.
>Transportation is how they brought the English to Australia.
I believe in AmE that is now "rendition".
R H Draney
Have you been reading Dorothy Parker?...r
--
John O'Flaherty
>John O'Flaherty filted:
>>
>>Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
>>runs, approximately,
>>Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
>>color.
>
>The Arizona Department of Transportation does that...they even have a preferred
>two-letter abbreviation, for it for use on drivers licenses....r
So, do they have an abbreviation for baldness, or for atheism?
--
John
Christopher A. Lee
Yes.
I hope this helps.
James Hogg
The question is, does the CV on these licences stand for Calvinist or
Calvous?
--
James
Interesting Ian
news:khjnh5da4bhui1j25...@4ax.com...
No it isn't. It's transparently clear that atheism is a religion. Except
that if anything it's even more daft.
Christopher A. Lee
It's transparently clear that "Interesting Ian" is lying through his
teeth to troll for a reaction.
Christopher A. Lee
>Isn't it amazing that anencephalics can make it to adulthood and get
>on the Internet?
It's deliberate. He's trolled the atheist newsgroups before.
Hatunen
<use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote:
>Interesting Ian wrote:
>> "John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yeeha.com> wrote in message
>> news:khjnh5da4bhui1j25...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 23:18:11 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
>>> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
>>> runs, approximately,
>>> Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
>>> color.
>>
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
>Yes it is.
>
>> It's transparently clear that atheism is a religion.
>
>No it is not - not by *any* definition of religion.
There's a metaphorical use of "religion" as in "His religion is
stamp collecting". That definition might fit some atheists who
take their athiesm very seriously, the village atheist sort, but
very few of the atheists I have met take it all that seriously.
In fact, the subject rarely comes up and I sometimes only realize
they're atheists when somthing triggers a need to mention it.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Robert Bannister
How can disbelief be compared to belief? If you don't believe in
fairies, does that make you an adherent of some other religion? Are you
a member of what used to be called the Holy Office?
--
Rob Bannister
Tom Keske
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:hfhtf...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Tom Keske filted:
>>
>>
>>> An optimist sees the glass of poison as half full,
>>> and the pessimist sees it has as half empty.
>>
>>No wait, that is the other way around.
>>Oh, it does not matter. Nothing really matters.
>>It is like we are not really even here. I suppose
>>that in a way, that is reassuring.
>
> Have you been reading Dorothy Parker?...r
>
No, but I probably will, now for curiosity.
Just looked at a photograph- she reminds
me of my friend, Ruth.
Tom Keske
Ragnar
"Huge" <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
news:7o6jbdF...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2009-12-07, Christopher A Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2009 14:29:26 GMT, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> It's deliberate. He's trolled the atheist newsgroups before.
>
>
I like to see these religious posts. It reminds me of what I've given up in
case I ever feel nostalgic for religion.
R.
Christopher A. Lee
Masochist.
CDB
> In alt.usage.english Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> Only the superstitious have gods or goddesses.
>
>> And they project their nedd for them onto everybody else.
>
>
Nonono, the donkey is "Eeyore". You're thinking of the bear.
sdm_sax
wrote:
> "John O'Flaherty" <quias...@yeeha.com> wrote in message
> > Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
> > color.
>
> No it isn't. It's transparently clear that atheism is a religion. Except
> that if anything it's even more daft.
So, you accept religion is daft?
We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
like the Biblical description.
Roland Hutchinson
My CV won't fit on my license.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Heather L.
And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
HL.
Peter Moylan
> sdm_sax wrote:
>> We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
>> clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
>> can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
>> like the Biblical description.
>
> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
> religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for an
interesting hobby?
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
the Omrud
> Heather L. wrote:
>> sdm_sax wrote:
>
>>> We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
>>> clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
>>> can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
>>> like the Biblical description.
>>
>> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
>> religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
>
> Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for an
> interesting hobby?
Was he a member of that club for people who don't collect stamps?
What's it called? Ah, yes, the aphilatelists. Mind, it might be
important to know what type of stamps he doesn't collect - I think there
are factions.
--
David
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Heather L. wrote:
>> sdm_sax wrote:
>
>>> We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
>>> clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
>>> can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
>>> like the Biblical description.
>>
>> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
>> religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
>
>Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for an
>interesting hobby?
The religious are like people who imagine everybody collects stamps
and you have to force yourself not to.
David Taylor
Atheism is a rejection of the supernatural.
We must not confuse faith (belief without proof or evidence), with
morals and ethics - they are not the sole provice of theistic religions,
and too often, the reverse is the case.
Relgions - particularly the three Abrahamic religions of Islam,
Chrisitianty and Judaism, (who worship the same God incidentally), have
been responsible down the ages for countless deaths and untold misery,
just as they are today, due to inter-religious conflict.
Perhaps the most unstable part of the world today is the bible lands.
"Oh Little Town of Bethlehem"...?
Atheism is not in my view a religion but it's a common misunderstanding
by believers that because athiists dont beleive in God, they don't
believe in anything.
Most atheists have a belief system, usually, Humanism - a belief that we
have one life, this one, and should strive to make it a good one, caring
and considerate towards others.
I was brought up as a Christian, as was my wife and our two sons.
I've long since renounced any beliefs in such things as the earth the
universe and everything being created is six days by a suernatural
being, a talking serpent in the Garden of Eden, original sin, the
resurrection, life after death etc etc.
I don't mind at all that people do believe in such things, but I think
many believers are very insecure in their faith or they wouldn't strive
to do geat harm to non-believers.
And you can be sure of one thing; no atheist is going to fly a plane at
400MPH into a tower block, killing thousands of people, in the fanciful
belief that his reward for this mrderous atrocity will be to live
forever in paradise.
No - you're safe with us!
It's a truism that 'good people do good things, bad people do bad
things, but to get good people to do bad things - that takes religion'.
Neither the bible nor the koran truly merit the term "good book" - both
are littered with invocations to violence, which have been used for
centuries and still are today, to justfity all kinds of misery and grief
fron child abuse to spousal abuse and doing harm to non-beleivers.
Yet believers wouyldn't have as much as a comma altered in these books.
America has the highest level of 'religiosity' in the developed world.
It also has among the highest levels of homicide, sexually transmitted
diseases, abortion, divorce, is awash with drugs and ponography,
imprisons a far higher proportion of its citizens and a poor human
rights record.
Is it just atheists that do all that stuff? I don't think so.
And where was God on 9/11?
All you need to lead a good life is a copy of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. It fits on one A4 page. In closing. Freedom of Thought,
Conscience and Relgion under the UDHR places non-theistic beleifs on an
equal footing to theistic beliefs.
The most peaceful countries in the world seem to be those which have
become post-religious societies. Those which are most troubled, seem to
be those in which religion has the upper hand.
Or so it seems to me.
I'm not trying to promote non-belief - I'm just saying that being an
atheist should not be confused with lack of belief in leading a moral
and ethical life.
Sent with goodwill to people of all faiths and nnoe.
David.
Nr Hull,
N.E Coast of England
CDB
double-Alpha-privative, and shall be doubly deprived of delivery.
True atelophobes know that only we may expect to be cancelled and
delivered: all others are bound straight for the Dead-Letter Office.
That's "Office" with an Omega, son.
the Omrud
That's O, which starts off Ooooh, which rhymes with Pool. Trouble.
--
David
Heather L.
> Heather L. wrote:
>> sdm_sax wrote:
>
>>> We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before.
>>> It clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious
>>> nuts who can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world
>>> isn't quite like the Biblical description.
>>
>> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard
>> to a religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it
>> never will.
>
> Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for
> an interesting hobby?
Poor example, though. 'Stamp collectors' don't get to make philately-centred
laws; interfere with medicine; control education; scam the stupid; or run
world-wide paedo rings. Someone who 'doesn't collect stamps' isn't gong to
be barred from certain types of office; hounded by their family; or chucked
out of school. Whence the comparison misfires. N'est-ce pas...?
HL.
R H Draney
Maybe a better analogy would be sports (=BrE "sport") fans, who can't seem to
grasp the notion that someone else might not *have* a favorite team in whatever
children's game is under discussion....r
--
"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly."
- Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Heather L. filted:
I'm afraid I'm the guilty party here.
I've been on alt.atheism since it started in 1991, and in its early
days I said something like "Some people have a religion, I don't. So
what? Some people collect stamps, I don't" and it got picked up.
There's even a guy who posts in various places who calls ninsely
nonstampcollector.
Jerry Friedman
> Peter Moylan wrote:
[atheism not a religion]
> > Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for
> > an interesting hobby?
>
> Poor example, though. 'Stamp collectors' don't get to make philately-centred
> laws; interfere with medicine; control education;
No, birdwatchers do that. In the classes I teach, anyway.
> scam the stupid;
Actually, I'll bet stamp collectors get to do that now and then.
> or run world-wide paedo rings.
...
He slyly inveigled her up to his flat...
--
Jerry Friedman
Heather L.
>
> I've been on alt.atheism since it started in 1991, and in its early
> days I said something like "Some people have a religion, I don't. So
> what? Some people collect stamps, I don't" and it got picked up.
> There's even a guy who posts in various places who calls ninsely
> nonstampcollector.
He does videos now! And they're *ace*...!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/wild_times_with_the_laughing_g.php#comments
HL.
Peter Moylan
> Relgions - particularly the three Abrahamic religions of Islam,
> Chrisitianty and Judaism, (who worship the same God incidentally), have
> been responsible down the ages for countless deaths and untold misery,
> just as they are today, due to inter-religious conflict.
They claim that it's the same god, but I've always doubted that. Why
would a single god have different, and sometimes incompatible, rules for
different branches of his club?
I'm not even convinced that the god of Moses and the god of Abraham were
the same person. There was too much personality change over time.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>David Taylor wrote:
>
>> Relgions - particularly the three Abrahamic religions of Islam,
>> Chrisitianty and Judaism, (who worship the same God incidentally), have
>> been responsible down the ages for countless deaths and untold misery,
>> just as they are today, due to inter-religious conflict.
>
>They claim that it's the same god, but I've always doubted that. Why
>would a single god have different, and sometimes incompatible, rules for
>different branches of his club?
>
>I'm not even convinced that the god of Moses and the god of Abraham were
>the same person. There was too much personality change over time.
Just evidence that they are beliefs which evolve.
franzi
Doctrines, rather than beliefs, I think.
People will criticize religions, when they should be criticizing men.
--
franzi
Heather L.
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:32:50 +1100, Peter Moylan<gro.nalyomp@retep>
>>>
>>> were the same person. There was too much personality change over
>>> time.
>>
>> Just evidence that they are beliefs which evolve.
>
> Doctrines, rather than beliefs, I think.
>
> People will criticize religions, when they should be criticizing men.
Great spew! I call 'dickhead religious apologist'...
HL.
Robert Bannister
They got me - I think on my third day in Australia. Once I realised I
had to barrack for a team whether I liked it or not, I asked for the
colours and chose two blue teams. Oh yes: two - back then, you had to
have a local state side and a Victorian team.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
But it's men who invent religions.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> Maybe a better analogy would be sports (=BrE "sport") fans, who can't seem to
>>grasp the notion that someone else might not *have* a favorite team in whatever
>> children's game is under discussion....r
>>
>
>They got me - I think on my third day in Australia. Once I realised I
>had to barrack for a team whether I liked it or not, I asked for the
>colours and chose two blue teams. Oh yes: two - back then, you had to
>have a local state side and a Victorian team.
It puts me in mind of a sequence in Mike Todd's version of "Around the World in
80 Days"...when Fogg and company arrive in San Francisco, there's a local
election going on, and a local loudmouth played by John Carradine demands to
know which of the candidates the travelers support...Fogg's explanation that
they're all foreigners just passing through does little to quell his
belligerence....r
David Taylor
True.
You either believe that God created man, or man created God.
Imagine that if there is a God and that their is a judgment day, and you
find that all your life you've been worshipping the wrong God. Boy is
the right one going to be seriously miffed!
Religions come and go - human beings are inherently superstitious.
Nowadays we talk of Greek "Mythology".
The Greeks didn't think it was myths.
Look at how many billions of dollars go into propping up the churches
and lining the pockets of TV evangelists. Imagine if Americans were
asked to give billions to build a temple like Mount Olympus and worship
Zeus.
But why not? No one can prove that Zeus and countless other Gods don't
exist. Imagine if George Bush had said "We pray to Zeus for the safe
return of our troops - Zeus Bless America". Logically, it's no more
ludicrous than his other utterances.
To believe in any supernatural being you have to first suspend
disbelief. I find it bizarre that otherwise rational people who seek
proof in every other are of their lives, yet have a deep and profound
belief in whatever God they worship.
If you went to the doctor and said "I have this special friend, you
can't see him, but he's there all the time - he's everwhere - he's in
this room with us now. I talk to him and seek his advice and he tells me
what I should do". The doctor would say you're psychotic.
However, if the doctor was American, and asked "What's the name of tyour
imaginary friend?" and you said "Jesus" he'd probably say "Oh that's
fine - I have the same friend - rejoice, you're perfectly normal".
Huh?
Just because millions of people believe this stuff doesn't give it any
more credance. And I don't think many people actually truly believe that
if they do everything in the life, they'll cheat death to become
immortal. They may wish it, but they surely don't beleive it.
If they really, truly, beleived that, then they wouldn't want to risk
doing a single thing wrong in the brief life which might jeopordise
their smooth passge into the hereafter. They'd behave in quite a
diffrent way from the rest of us. But they don't. they lie, cheat, kill
torture...
The Catholic faith in particular is deeply troubling - seeminly, you can
be a serial offender and seek repetitive forgiveness to wipe the slate
clean.
Look where it's got them - endemic worldwide peadophilia, systmatically
condoned and colluded with, right up to the Vatican and going on to this
day. Victims told they'll be excommunicated if they don't agree to a vow
of silence and forgive the perpetrators, who are then quietly moved on
to commit offence after offence for decades.
And the church, from the Pope down, has the nerve to lecture others on
morals! Any right-minded person would have reported such offences to the
police in an instant - not continue to try to justify and explain it away.
That powerful people in positions of trust, whose role in life is
supposedly to show moral guidance to others, should abuse that trust on
such a huge scale is a very seriously aggravating feature. Those who
colluded in this should be put on trial for aiding and abeting criminals.
Dire, and deserving only of utter contempt.
Just my take on things, having saved myself from having being
brainwashed into religion as a child, and eventually "seeing the light".
David,
Nr Hull,
N.E England.
James Hogg
> Nowadays we talk of Greek "Mythology".
>
> The Greeks didn't think it was myths.
Yes they did. That was the word they used.
--
James
franzi
--
franzi
graham
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:80asmk...@mid.individual.net...
Graham
Mike Lyle
"Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
They may have liked myths, but they preferred to kith the boys.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
It crossed my mind, but I couldn't think of a single one. It really does
seem to be men that start them and women that believe in them.
--
Rob Bannister
graham
R H Draney
>
>
>"Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:80ddjc...@mid.individual.net...
>> graham wrote:
>>> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>> news:80asmk...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's a bit sweeping! Women have too!
>>
>> It crossed my mind, but I couldn't think of a single one. It really does
>> seem to be men that start them and women that believe in them.
>>
>For a start: the Shakers and the "xtian scientits"
And in part, Theosophy....r
James Hogg
And in one myth Oedipus preferred kith and kin.
--
James
Nick
> David Taylor wrote:
>
>> Relgions - particularly the three Abrahamic religions of Islam,
>> Chrisitianty and Judaism, (who worship the same God incidentally), have
>> been responsible down the ages for countless deaths and untold misery,
>> just as they are today, due to inter-religious conflict.
>
> They claim that it's the same god, but I've always doubted that. Why
> would a single god have different, and sometimes incompatible, rules for
> different branches of his club?
>
> I'm not even convinced that the god of Moses and the god of Abraham were
> the same person. There was too much personality change over time.
He doesn't. Each one of those is absolutely right and the other two are
completely wrong.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Armond Perretta
>
> I'm not even convinced that the god of Moses and the god of Abraham
Of course they weren't. No one lives _that_ long.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare
aquachimp
Just as work is for man and not man for work, surely religion is for
man rather than man being the servant of the ultimate, indiscriminate
Alpha-Bogeyman.
franzi
wrote:
But the description of this Alpha-Bogeyman is man's own creation.
There is a problem of circularity here. Man describes something he
doesn't like, then declares he won't believe in it. It's not very
convincing.
--
franzi
johnbee
< if George Bush had said "We pray to Zeus for the safe
return of our troops - Zeus Bless America". Logically, it's no more
ludicrous than his other utterances. >
Don't be daft. It might be ludicrous to you mate but it is votes
to him. He is a politician, and what's more, he was
elected to the world's top elected job. If he had said 'Do not pray
for our troops it is a waste of time and a bit stupid, just hope that
not too many of them get harmed' that would have been ludicrous.
Robert Bannister
But kin he still do it?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Of course, but he had no need to mention gods or prayers at all. "Our
heartfelt hopes go with our troops for their safe return" or some such
platitude would have done just as well. It's still claptrap, but
inoffensive.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
One of the reasons I like this group is that I learn something new all
the time. I really thought "Shakers" was a synonym for or at least a
branch of the Quakers. Likewise, I assumed Christian Scientists were the
Tom Cruise, L. Ron Hubbard lot.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
but only for a limited number of men, most of whom like to wear silk
dresses and funny collars.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>graham wrote:
>>>
>> For a start: the Shakers and the "xtian scientits"
>>
>>
>
>One of the reasons I like this group is that I learn something new all
>the time. I really thought "Shakers" was a synonym for or at least a
>branch of the Quakers. Likewise, I assumed Christian Scientists were the
>Tom Cruise, L. Ron Hubbard lot.
Someone once asked me if I'd like to be a Jehovah's Witness...I told him I
couldn't because I hadn't seen the accident....
(Thank you; try the veal)....r
Evan Kirshenbaum
> graham wrote:
>> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>> But it's men who invent religions.
>>>
>> That's a bit sweeping! Women have too!
>
> It crossed my mind, but I couldn't think of a single one. It really
> does seem to be men that start them and women that believe in them.
Mary Baker Eddy started Christian Science. Ann Lee started the
Shakers. Helena Blavatsky started Theosophy. Aimee Semple McPherson
started the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Ellen
White was one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventists. The Fox
sisters (Leah, Margaret, and Kate) were largely responsible for
Spiritualism.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is no such thing as bad data,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only data from bad homes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> graham wrote:
>>> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>> But it's men who invent religions.
>>>>
>>> That's a bit sweeping! Women have too!
>> It crossed my mind, but I couldn't think of a single one. It really
>> does seem to be men that start them and women that believe in them.
>
> Mary Baker Eddy started Christian Science. Ann Lee started the
> Shakers. Helena Blavatsky started Theosophy. Aimee Semple McPherson
> started the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Ellen
> White was one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventists. The Fox
> sisters (Leah, Margaret, and Kate) were largely responsible for
> Spiritualism.
>
Amazing. I have actually heard of two of these. It just goes to show
that women can be as silly as men.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Brooks
> On Mar 16, 2:24 pm, "Heather L." <Heathe...@lit.co.uk> wrote:> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> [atheism not a religion]
>
> > > Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for
> > > an interesting hobby?
>
> > Poor example, though. 'Stamp collectors' don't get to make philately-centred
> > laws; interfere with medicine; control education;
>
>
Non-birdwatchers would be 'stills', presumably, since they don't
twitch.
Peter Brooks
>
>
> I'm not even convinced that the god of Moses and the god of Abraham were
> the same person. There was too much personality change over time.
>
time to time to stave off the boredom. Same gods, different garb.
You're right, though, these avatars can be very different - they both
must have had impressive fingernails, but the Moses avatar had the
style to use stone (presumably leading to the fashion that, to this
day, clogs cemeteries), unlike the flash-git avatar that used gold
stationary for Mr. Smith.
Peter Brooks
wrote:
>
>
> People will criticize religions, when they should be criticizing men.
>
the man - not that, for a moment, I intend to suggest that religion is
a ball, other than in the plural and orchidian sense, of course.
franzi
Refreshing politeness!
--
franzi
johnbee
< Of course, but he had no need to mention gods or prayers at all. "Our
heartfelt hopes go with our troops for their safe return" or some such
platitude would have done just as well. It's still claptrap, but
inoffensive. >
I can see that a believer in God who is against the war can say that it is
offensive to associate God with the war. However Bush was talking to
a US audience, presumably most of whom believe in God and were incensed
by the 9/11 attacks. Bush would not give a toss for people who are
believers and against war - they were never going to support him anyway.
Obviously, for my part it was not remotely offensive. I think it is
excellent
that believers should come face to face with the fact that a leader is using
religion for that type of purpose. Of course millions of them would accept
it without question, but just a few would see the stupidity.