No more religion, please.
Vexen UK
imposes most on me. I have been studying it for quite a while in alot of my
spare time ... I have backlogs and backlogs of information that I haven't got
around to putting on my pages yet.
Looking through the dark ages, looking at Christianity in particular today, I
have progressed from Atheist, to Humanist, now (for 2 years) to Activist
Humanist Satanism, highly persuaded by LaVey's useful and accurate summaries
of Satanism.
Religion has been, and still is, the single biggest set back to makind as we
know it. The Dark Ages, especially, after the demise of The Roman Empire
(which late in it's life adopted the monotheist religion of Christianity in
place of it's democratic polytheist religion) was the time that Christianity
took it's grip - intense witch hunts and devil preaching; people were killed
simply for being able to read/write ... a quote that I do not have to hand is
of a king saying "any persuit of knowledge that is not ordained by a
Christian quest is punishable by death".
Now, I would be willing to let all that drop, and accept "Christian morals" in
the modern day as a good thing. But modern Christianity is only marginally
better. The Church is the greatest source of homophobic activism in todays
world ... it's murderous stranglehold of book production and education in the
early years led to their having a monopoly on anything written or spoken about
in an official way. Today we are still feeling the dying threat of that
persecution.
The Church condemns condoms ... as all sex that is not for reproduction is
fornication and in sin ... The Pope himself voiced his contempt for
contraceptives. We are dissuaded from accepting "evolution" even today; there
are contries where "evolution is only a theory" is a law-enforced note on all
literature, and even countries where it is not legal to teach it at all.
Religious dogma affects us more than we think ... The House Of Lords is the
most obvious one. Only a short while ago they blocked the passage of a bill
promising Equal Rites for gay and straight sex ... biologically,
psychologically and philosophically there is no fundamental difference between
people; gay sex is not "gay" it is just "sex" , but the Church will fight this
on every level. Gay Priests and such have a very hard life.
I am not hateful of people who believe in a deity; I am hateful of the
doctrine of Christianity that tries to tell me what is right and wrong;
whilst at the same time frowning on science. This newsgroup is riddled with
deists proclaiming their truths ... and here is one point on which you will
probably agree ... they are all (excepting very few others) Christians, and
followers of the Bible.
Without this huge weight on all of our shoulders, the world would be a much
better place, equality is grudgingly given cm by cm by the Church. It was the
biggest defender of slavery, and in America of racial discrimination ...
blacks could not marry, be equal, own property, be tought with whites, use
white privalages ... and the Bible had a great deal of affect.
But So What? It's not like that today, so why bother? You know at the time,
people had that exact opinion. We are denied equal marriage rites between
people; but marriage is not only a Christian show ... why should they dictate
who is allowed the benefits under law of marriage? Why are we still putting up
with this? They are slowing us all down by fighting us on every level ... God
and Science should stay well apart.
Here is a thought ... what will technology be like in 400 hundred years? In
the last 20 years we have developed efficient computers, we scan Mars from
space with a footprint size of a car, we can project things into space to
scan moons on other planets. In 400 more years, what will a computer be? What
will space exploration be? How much will we have colonized? 3 or 4 planets
maybe (including moons). A satellite is being built NOW that will land on a
moon of Jupiter, land on it, break it's ice and then submerge into it's
oceans. In 400 years: What? How can we predict?
But four hundred years is nothing ... if we had have killed Christianity 400
years ago, we would be at that stage NOW ... those Dark Ages that we spent
burning books, letting buildings decay, roads decay, iron processing
practically ceased ... all those wasted years.
How many diseases could we have cured? How many animals could we have saved
(by growing our own meat in labs) if wasn't for Religion and "law abiding God
fearing white folk".
No more, this is year 33, we can all start again from a beginning of science,
the advent of the computer and technology age is our true beginning.
Vexen UK, the perky sqwrl-fur cyberpunky bounce maniac industrialist
geek with shades (of course).
my main page: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK
religion pages: http://members.xoom.com/VexenUK/religion
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
DJ Nozem
wrote:
>Gay Priests and such have a very hard life.
Only the ones on lower level, you know how hypocrite christianity is.
You can bet that a lot of masturbation, sex with men and with women is
going on amongst those cardinals, if not than they have submitted
themselves to their master and their torture is not to have sex but to
devote themselves.
Sounds like a psychological SM game?
What do you think the self torture was............
It is.
Nice post by the way.
Existence is futile
DJ Nozem #1465
Melkor
when I tried to view your homepage, my browser hung. Unless you have tons of pics
and java applets and activex controls I think xoom may be having some
difficulties. Perhaps you should contact them.
Nik Edge
>No more, this is year 33, we can all start again from a beginning of
science,
>the advent of the computer and technology age is our true beginning.
>
Fair enough, but computer and technology have no ability to appeal to human
emotions and our sense of being.
It would be nicer to have a ceremony at a death containing elements of art,
liturature and tradition (basic elements in religious ceremony) rather than
a physicist saying something about how the dead person was just a bunch of
heavy elements etc. etc.
On the other hand, I'm glad I can discuss a passinger lift in terms of
forces, metals and energies, rather than magic other such telelogical terms.
Be careful, technology can still be used to cause pain and suffering, and
without the morality religion provides, more people in the world may be
tempted to use it for such reasons.
Greed is probably the single biggest set back to mankind.
K
Vexen UK
Melkor <mel...@access1.net> wrote:
> I was impressed with your post, as well as that of Levi A. (a few posts
down), but
> when I tried to view your homepage, my browser hung. Unless you have tons of
pics
> and java applets and activex controls I think xoom may be having some
> difficulties. Perhaps you should contact them.
Other than the two in my .sig, there's a mirror on Geocities (oh dear...)
http://geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Tower/9184/index.html
Sometimes Xoom takes a few attempts to get through, but most the time they are
a good server :-|
Vexen UK
> >No more, this is year 33, we can all start again from a beginning of
> science,
> >the advent of the computer and technology age is our true beginning.
> >
> emotions and our sense of being.
> It would be nicer to have a ceremony at a death containing elements of art,
> liturature and tradition (basic elements in religious ceremony) rather than
> a physicist saying something about how the dead person was just a bunch of
> heavy elements etc. etc.
It would be nicer, IMHO, not to die.
> On the other hand, I'm glad I can discuss a passinger lift in terms of
> forces, metals and energies, rather than magic other such telelogical terms.
>
> Be careful, technology can still be used to cause pain and suffering, and
> without the morality religion provides, more people in the world may be
> tempted to use it for such reasons.
>
> Greed is probably the single biggest set back to mankind.
> K
Paul Hodkinson
> Be careful, technology can still be used to cause pain and suffering, and
> without the morality religion provides, more people in the world may be
> tempted to use it for such reasons.
I think I know what you're trying to say but you seem to be suggesting
that the 'morality that religion provides' reduces the chances of
technology being used to cause pain and suffering. In reality,
unfortunately, the opposite seems almost always to be the case. All
religions seem to include fundamentalist elements who feel justified in
using whatever means at their disposal to attack those of different
faiths. The belief that it is being done 'in the name of God' or some
kind of utopian higher morality, is what justifies causing the killing
and pain as a means to such an end. Look at Israel (Jews v Muslims),
N.Ireland (Protestants v Catholics), or most obviously of late, the
Balkans (Orthodox v Muslim v Catholic (?) v some other religions too I
think - sorry can't remember) - amongst many many other examples, in the
present, and past.
There will always be those who genuinely believe so strongly and
passionately in the 'teachings' of their particular religion, that they
feel an obligation to defend them from those deemed 'immoral' or 'evil'
on the basis of actions (eg. having/performing an abortion) or beliefs.
Purple (and pink) Paul.
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
>
>Be careful, technology can still be used to cause pain and suffering, and
>without the morality religion provides, more people in the world may be
>tempted to use it for such reasons.
That's pretty funny considering that the science of inflicting torture has
never equaled that of christian medieval europe.
Nik Edge
>>
>>Be careful, technology can still be used to cause pain and suffering, and
>>without the morality religion provides, more people in the world may be
>>tempted to use it for such reasons.
>
>That's pretty funny considering that the science of inflicting torture has
>never equaled that of christian medieval europe.
I didn't mention science at all since science and technology are two
different things (ie, technology is a *product* of scientific methodology)
You are probably very right in saying that Christians were very good at
torture during the medievil periods, but so where the Nazis, in the secular
second world war (although a people defined by a religious belief were
victims, Nazism is a secular movement), and they were very good at
implimenting technology too.
Religious values can be taken to an extent where they are used as an
oppressive force, but history shows that religion is not a prerequesite for
oppression, something as simple as the colour of your skin can provoke it.
I apologise for not being entirely clear at the first so to clarify:
I was just stating that religion probably provides the majority of the
people in the (whole) world, with their ethical standards, and I believe
that most of them arn't plotting to wreak havok on each other. I was also
stating that technology, although neutral, can be used by anyone, religious
nut or psychopathic nut, to hurt other people. Therefore, basing one's
beliefs or source of standards on or around a neutrel tool (technology)
would appear to a be philosophical mistake.
K.
_________________________________________________________________________
Kink's homepage http://members.xoom.com/uvceti
Mutate's site http://members.tripod.com/~mutate_u
The Wendyhouse's site http://members.tripod.com/~wendyhouse
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: >>Be careful, technology can still be used to cause pain and suffering, and
: >>without the morality religion provides, more people in the world may be
: >>tempted to use it for such reasons.
: >
: >That's pretty funny considering that the science of inflicting torture has
: >never equaled that of christian medieval europe.
: You are probably very right in saying that Christians were very good at
: torture during the medievil periods, but so where the Nazis, in the
: secular second world war (although a people defined by a religious
: belief were victims, Nazism is a secular movement)
Is that why the belt buckles of the Wermacht soldiers read "Gott mit uns"
("God is with us')? Doesn't sound very secular to me.
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
AMRowe
Vexen UK wrote:
> I've studied religion, Christianity in particular because it is the one that
> imposes most on me. I have been studying it for quite a while in alot of my
> spare time ... I have backlogs and backlogs of information that I haven't got
> around to putting on my pages yet.
(big boring snip)
hey buddy don't try to quit cold turkey, try deism for a while.
-bat.
> Is that why the belt buckles of the Wermacht soldiers read "Gott mit uns"
> ("God is with us')? Doesn't sound very secular to me.
Indeed - and the US (an allegedly secular state) had "in god we trust" written
on some of the money the money last time I visited (I think). secular states
do seem to be used to hid the fact that there is a majority religion in a
powerful position (look at france and india). On the other haand we have
a state religion here yet sod all people believe in anything anymore. ironic
isn't it ?
-bat.
Shaun Denney
>cz...@ecn.ab.ca () writes:
>> Is that why the belt buckles of the Wermacht soldiers read "Gott mit uns"
>> ("God is with us')? Doesn't sound very secular to me.
Yup, and Hitler kept banging on in _Mein Kampf_ about what a great
anti-semite Jesus was and how he (Hitler) was doing God's work in
opposing the Jews. Whether he believed it himself is neither here nor
there - it convinced thousands of Christian Germans to support him.
>Indeed - and the US (an allegedly secular state) had "in god we trust" written
>on some of the money the money last time I visited (I think).
All of their money since at least the 1950s, (IIRC). The excuse is
that it doesn't say *which* god, so it doesn't break the
constitutional clause forbidding the establishment of a state
religion. Yeah, right...
>secular states do seem to be used to hide the fact that there is a majority religion in a
>powerful position (look at france and india).
Debateable, but I don't have time to go into that right now.
> On the other hand we have a state religion here yet sod all people believe in
> anything anymore. ironic isn't it ?
Yet strangely comforting. On the not infrequent occasions that I
encounter a wild-eyed god-botherer yelling at me about what an evil
person I am WHEN THE FUCKER DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ME, I
am truly thankful that I live in a country[1] where if I *were* to
decide to explain loudly to him what a looney I consider him to be I
would probably be applauded by passersby, rather than lynched.
Cheers
Shaun
[1] That's England, for the less observant amongst you.
-bat.
> Yet strangely comforting. On the not infrequent occasions that I
> encounter a wild-eyed god-botherer yelling at me about what an evil
> person I am WHEN THE FUCKER DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ME, I
> am truly thankful that I live in a country[1] where if I *were* to
> decide to explain loudly to him what a looney I consider him to be I
> would probably be applauded by passersby, rather than lynched.
You shoud come to York - we have a bylaw against agressive preaching and
on several occasions when there have been Christians preaching in the centre of
town they have sent a vanload of rozzers round, nicked 'em all and thrown
them into the back of the van to the delight of the cheering crowd. Not
that being prosecuted appears to have deterred them at all sadly. Sigh.
"If God doesn't like the way I live then let him tell me, not you!"
Being my favourite t-shirt of the moment (what with it being easter and all)
-bat.
Shaun Denney
>sd...@NOSPAMcam.ac.uk (Shaun Denney) writes:
>> Yet strangely comforting. On the not infrequent occasions that I
>> encounter a wild-eyed god-botherer yelling at me about what an evil
>> person I am WHEN THE FUCKER DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ME, I
>> am truly thankful that I live in a country[1] where if I *were* to
>> decide to explain loudly to him what a looney I consider him to be I
>> would probably be applauded by passersby, rather than lynched.
>You should come to York - we have a bylaw against agressive preaching and
>on several occasions when there have been Christians preaching in the centre of
>town they have sent a vanload of rozzers round, nicked 'em all and thrown
>them into the back of the van to the delight of the cheering crowd.
Yay!!! 8) I'll have to visit. Also I'll have to try hunting down a
policeman in Cambridge (difficult in itself) and complaining that the
Christians are breaking the volume laws which were imposed on buskers
a year or two ago, and demand they have their p.a. confiscated. Worth
a try...
> Not that being prosecuted appears to have deterred them at all sadly. Sigh.
Sadly it only reinforces their martyr complex.
>"If God doesn't like the way I live then let him tell me, not you!"
>Being my favourite t-shirt of the moment (what with it being easter and all)
I'd have thought he'd have more important things to worry about than
my sex life, personally - not that he seems to be excercising his
omnipotence very much these days.
Cheers
Shaun
STD DIALUP
: Vexen UK wrote:
: > I've studied religion, Christianity in particular because it is the one that
: > imposes most on me. I have been studying it for quite a while in alot of my
: > spare time ... I have backlogs and backlogs of information that I haven't got
: > around to putting on my pages yet.
It is much easier to quit cigarette smoking than religion.
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: > Is that why the belt buckles of the Wermacht soldiers read "Gott mit
: > uns" ("God is with us')? Doesn't sound very secular to me.
: Indeed - and the US (an allegedly secular state) had "in god we trust"
: written on some of the money the money last time I visited (I think).
: secular states do seem to be used to hid the fact that there is a
: majority religion in a powerful position (look at france and india). On
: the other haand we have a state religion here yet sod all people believe
: in anything anymore. ironic isn't it ?
Just goes to show that if the government gets involved in something, that
something will invariably go down the tubes. :)
richar...@hotmail.com
things.
In article <7dium5$3vl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Vexen UK <UKV...@Bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I've studied religion, Christianity in particular because it is the one that
> imposes most on me. I have been studying it for quite a while in alot of my
> spare time ... I have backlogs and backlogs of information that I haven't got
> around to putting on my pages yet.
>
> Looking through the dark ages, looking at Christianity in particular today, I
> have progressed from Atheist, to Humanist, now (for 2 years) to Activist
> Humanist Satanism, highly persuaded by LaVey's useful and accurate summaries
> of Satanism.
In other words, you have been persuaded by someone who makes his living off
of parodying Christianity and mocking it (the use of the term Satan is picked
for this reason). I also assume you don't believ Satanism is a religion.
> Religion has been, and still is, the single biggest set back to makind as we
> know it. The Dark Ages, especially, after the demise of The Roman Empire
> (which late in it's life adopted the monotheist religion of Christianity in
> place of it's democratic polytheist religion) was the time that Christianity
> took it's grip - intense witch hunts and devil preaching; people were killed
> simply for being able to read/write ... a quote that I do not have to hand is
> of a king saying "any persuit of knowledge that is not ordained by a
> Christian quest is punishable by death".
I assume also you don't consider Communism to be a religion. The exact
same things you throw in the realm of Christianity can be thrown at the
Marxist form of Communism. That system is hardly democratic at all. Do you
ever think that maybe people have slapped the name of a system on their
beliefs. Christianity was a somewhat smallish, but growing sect in the Roman
Empire, up until Constantine supposedly got "converted". At that point, he
took the mechanics of the Roman Empire and applied them to Christianity. The
motto "In this sign, conquor", pointed at the cross.
> Now, I would be willing to let all that drop, and accept "Christian morals" in
> the modern day as a good thing. But modern Christianity is only marginally
> better. The Church is the greatest source of homophobic activism in todays
> world ... it's murderous stranglehold of book production and education in the
> early years led to their having a monopoly on anything written or spoken about
> in an official way. Today we are still feeling the dying threat of that
> persecution.
A "Murderous stranglehold on book production and education"? That is a
strong quote. You again confuse the suite something has on with the engine
that drives it. The conservative right-wing Christian has a marginal impact
on society. This is hardly the "murderous stranglehold". In actuality, talk
to some right-wingers who want to be heard, or the racist who has the ideal
of racial purity, and the perserving of cultures. They will tell you that
they are repressed and persecution.
> The Church condemns condoms ... as all sex that is not for reproduction is
> fornication and in sin ... The Pope himself voiced his contempt for
> contraceptives.
You are wielding your attack against Catholicism now, I assume.
Protestants hold different views here.
>We are dissuaded from accepting "evolution" even today; there
> are contries where "evolution is only a theory" is a law-enforced note on all
> literature, and even countries where it is not legal to teach it at all.
Again, you lump the whole entire thing together in religion. Here, you
have the Catholics accepting evolution, but fundamentalist Christians saying
no. The disuasion is action to those who question evolution, not the other
way around. A college profession who questions evolutionary theory and
suggests another one theory be developed runs the risk of losing their job.
Now, who is the threat here?
> Religious dogma affects us more than we think ... The House Of Lords is the
> most obvious one. Only a short while ago they blocked the passage of a bill
> promising Equal Rites for gay and straight sex ... biologically,
> psychologically and philosophically there is no fundamental difference between
> people; gay sex is not "gay" it is just "sex" , but the Church will fight this
> on every level. Gay Priests and such have a very hard life.
A Creationist college professor also leads a hard life. Life is very hard.
You are right that dogma affects us more than we think. Whether the dogma
has God or not associated with it, is another thing.
> I am not hateful of people who believe in a deity; I am hateful of the
> doctrine of Christianity that tries to tell me what is right and wrong;
All doctrines, and the pursuit of truth will try to tell you what is right
and wrong. This is the purpose of such doctrines. I assume you would rather
replace the classic sources of finding truth, and replace it with a
relativistic mess, with fine instruments that tell you what is going on, but
a failure to tell you were to go.
> whilst at the same time frowning on science. This newsgroup is riddled with
> deists proclaiming their truths ... and here is one point on which you will
> probably agree ... they are all (excepting very few others) Christians, and
> followers of the Bible.
Every group has its own BIG-GOTS. I suggest you look into other sgroups.
> Without this huge weight on all of our shoulders, the world would be a much
> better place, equality is grudgingly given cm by cm by the Church. It was the
> biggest defender of slavery, and in America of racial discrimination ...
> blacks could not marry, be equal, own property, be tought with whites, use
> white privalages ... and the Bible had a great deal of affect.
You know, I think you would have been much better off doing a stichk on how
Christianity is a confused and contradictory mess, because you had different
people who claimed to be Christians debating whether slavery and equal rights
for all races was in the will of God or not. And, the old religious
chestnuts about how you can have "wolves in sheeps clothing, false brethern,
the devil can transform himself into an angel of light, and also the devil
can quote scriptures" can also be thrown out to address this point. Have you
even bothered to read any of the historical debates amongst Christians about
the merits of slavery and equal rights, or do you just read the pablum Anton
is feeding you. I assume you believe that the issues of slavery, etc.. never
existed before 1 AD.
> But So What? It's not like that today, so why bother? You know at the time,
> people had that exact opinion. We are denied equal marriage rites between
> people; but marriage is not only a Christian show ... why should they dictate
> who is allowed the benefits under law of marriage? Why are we still putting up
> with this? They are slowing us all down by fighting us on every level ... God
> and Science should stay well apart.
Ahh, I see. You want science to go off, without a moral guide behind it.
Who answers the annoying moral questions behind scientific development?
> Here is a thought ... what will technology be like in 400 hundred years? In
> the last 20 years we have developed efficient computers, we scan Mars from
> space with a footprint size of a car, we can project things into space to
> scan moons on other planets. In 400 more years, what will a computer be? What
> will space exploration be? How much will we have colonized? 3 or 4 planets
> maybe (including moons). A satellite is being built NOW that will land on a
> moon of Jupiter, land on it, break it's ice and then submerge into it's
> oceans. In 400 years: What? How can we predict?
Yeah, we develop nanotechnology and use it as a weapon of control to put
down and repress those who oppose the desires of those who have the money.
We have masses of huddled unemployed people who can't find work because they
are unskilled. We give them the bare minimum of substance to exist and don't
give a damn about them (I suggest you see Gattica). How about the ditty
where AIs end up being more effective than humans, and corporations then sign
over their control to the AI. The AI then fires the humans, and the courts
uphold the rights of the AI to do this. AIs in government managing people.
You no longer have any privacy because civil unrest brought about by the
horror byproducts of technology force the state to impose marshall law and
spy on everyone. You worship at the foot of a golum unaware of the horrors
that such a beast can bring. Who insures this beast as progress doesn't
destroy humanity in the process?
> But four hundred years is nothing ... if we had have killed Christianity 400
> years ago, we would be at that stage NOW ... those Dark Ages that we spent
> burning books, letting buildings decay, roads decay, iron processing
> practically ceased ... all those wasted years.
Interesting how you totally ignore the Enlightment period where science,
governed people following the principles in the Bible in order to make their
discovery. Do you even know the biographies of the likes of Issac Newton and
others?
> How many diseases could we have cured? How many animals could we have saved
> (by growing our own meat in labs) if wasn't for Religion and "law abiding God
> fearing white folk".
How many diseases will be cured if no one has the motivation to research a
cure?
> No more, this is year 33, we can all start again from a beginning of science,
> the advent of the computer and technology age is our true beginning.
Blah blah blah. I can't believe you still buy into this humanistic
centered world view, promoted by the creator of Star Trek, that technology
will solve all out ills. I hope you aren't on the tail end of downsizing
that will occur when business feels you cost too much to their bottom line.
- Richard Hutnik
Visit DocReason's Strategy HQ for free games, reviews, and
support and opponent finding for obscure/orphan games at:
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/fortress/7537/
richar...@hotmail.com
AMRowe <ske...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> Vexen UK wrote:
>
> > I've studied religion, Christianity in particular because it is the one that
> > imposes most on me. I have been studying it for quite a while in alot of my
> > spare time ... I have backlogs and backlogs of information that I haven't
got
> > around to putting on my pages yet.
>
>
> hey buddy don't try to quit cold turkey, try deism for a while.
Isn't deism the religious view that responds to someone asking if God exists
with: "Yes God exists, but what does that have to do with anything?" :-P
- Richard Hutnik
Visit DocReason's Strategy HQ for free games, reviews, and
support and opponent finding for obscure/orphan games at:
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/fortress/7537/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
stoney
[>AMRowe (ske...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
[>: Vexen UK wrote:
[>: > I've studied religion, Christianity in particular because it is the one
that
[>: > imposes most on me. I have been studying it for quite a while in alot of
my
[>: > spare time ... I have backlogs and backlogs of information that I haven't
got
[>: > around to putting on my pages yet.
[>: hey buddy don't try to quit cold turkey, try deism for a while.
[>
[>It is much easier to quit cigarette smoking than religion.
Religion is habit forming.
Very few nuns manage to kick the habit...
"Necrophelia..." [To the Tune of Cecelia by Simon and Garfunkel]
Corpse marriages...[shudder]
Stoney
maff91
>I think you have fallen for some bad lines of reasoning in your analysis of
>things.
>
>In article <7dium5$3vl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Vexen UK <UKV...@Bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> I've studied religion, Christianity in particular because it is the one that
>> imposes most on me. I have been studying it for quite a while in alot of my
>> spare time ... I have backlogs and backlogs of information that I haven't got
>> around to putting on my pages yet.
>>
>> Looking through the dark ages, looking at Christianity in particular today, I
>> have progressed from Atheist, to Humanist, now (for 2 years) to Activist
>> Humanist Satanism, highly persuaded by LaVey's useful and accurate summaries
>> of Satanism.
> In other words, you have been persuaded by someone who makes his living off
>of parodying Christianity and mocking it (the use of the term Satan is picked
>for this reason). I also assume you don't believ Satanism is a religion.
Why not? Anybody can form a religion.
>
>> Religion has been, and still is, the single biggest set back to makind as we
>> know it. The Dark Ages, especially, after the demise of The Roman Empire
>> (which late in it's life adopted the monotheist religion of Christianity in
>> place of it's democratic polytheist religion) was the time that Christianity
>> took it's grip - intense witch hunts and devil preaching; people were killed
>> simply for being able to read/write ... a quote that I do not have to hand is
>> of a king saying "any persuit of knowledge that is not ordained by a
>> Christian quest is punishable by death".
>
> I assume also you don't consider Communism to be a religion. The exact
"The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the
influence of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent
until the present day, whatever improvements it has effected have
been due to its enemies."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
"The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?",
1954; published in a Swedish newspaper during the
height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hysteria]
>same things you throw in the realm of Christianity can be thrown at the
>Marxist form of Communism. That system is hardly democratic at all. Do you
>ever think that maybe people have slapped the name of a system on their
>beliefs. Christianity was a somewhat smallish, but growing sect in the Roman
>Empire, up until Constantine supposedly got "converted". At that point, he
>took the mechanics of the Roman Empire and applied them to Christianity. The
>motto "In this sign, conquor", pointed at the cross.
>
>> Now, I would be willing to let all that drop, and accept "Christian morals" in
>> the modern day as a good thing. But modern Christianity is only marginally
>> better. The Church is the greatest source of homophobic activism in todays
>> world ... it's murderous stranglehold of book production and education in the
>> early years led to their having a monopoly on anything written or spoken about
>> in an official way. Today we are still feeling the dying threat of that
>> persecution.
>
> A "Murderous stranglehold on book production and education"? That is a
>strong quote. You again confuse the suite something has on with the engine
>that drives it. The conservative right-wing Christian has a marginal impact
>on society. This is hardly the "murderous stranglehold". In actuality, talk
>to some right-wingers who want to be heard, or the racist who has the ideal
>of racial purity, and the perserving of cultures. They will tell you that
>they are repressed and persecution.
Really!
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/patrobertson.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/the%5Fcompany%5Ffile/newsid%5F288000/288867.stm
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/roberts2.htm
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/roberts1.htm
http://www.infidels.org/wire/stories/robertson_nea_money.html
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/rrr.html
http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/wire/stories/cc_roadblock.html
http://www.au.org/pr10282.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
>
>> The Church condemns condoms ... as all sex that is not for reproduction is
>> fornication and in sin ... The Pope himself voiced his contempt for
>> contraceptives.
>
> You are wielding your attack against Catholicism now, I assume.
>Protestants hold different views here.
>
>>We are dissuaded from accepting "evolution" even today; there
>> are contries where "evolution is only a theory" is a law-enforced note on all
>> literature, and even countries where it is not legal to teach it at all.
>
> Again, you lump the whole entire thing together in religion. Here, you
>have the Catholics accepting evolution, but fundamentalist Christians saying
>no. The disuasion is action to those who question evolution, not the other
>way around. A college profession who questions evolutionary theory and
>suggests another one theory be developed runs the risk of losing their job.
Who has lost their job?
>Now, who is the threat here?
You are. Science is not for some navel gazing for philosophers. It's
inextricably linked to technology, products and services.
<http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
>
>> Religious dogma affects us more than we think ... The House Of Lords is the
>> most obvious one. Only a short while ago they blocked the passage of a bill
>> promising Equal Rites for gay and straight sex ... biologically,
>> psychologically and philosophically there is no fundamental difference between
>> people; gay sex is not "gay" it is just "sex" , but the Church will fight this
>> on every level. Gay Priests and such have a very hard life.
>
> A Creationist college professor also leads a hard life. Life is very hard.
>You are right that dogma affects us more than we think. Whether the dogma
>has God or not associated with it, is another thing.
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
>
>> I am not hateful of people who believe in a deity; I am hateful of the
>> doctrine of Christianity that tries to tell me what is right and wrong;
>
> All doctrines, and the pursuit of truth will try to tell you what is right
>and wrong. This is the purpose of such doctrines. I assume you would rather
>replace the classic sources of finding truth, and replace it with a
>relativistic mess, with fine instruments that tell you what is going on, but
>a failure to tell you were to go.
Are you a Commie?
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers Paperback 2nd
edition (March 1995) Hackett Pub Co; ISBN: 087220149X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087220149X/
>
>> whilst at the same time frowning on science. This newsgroup is riddled with
>> deists proclaiming their truths ... and here is one point on which you will
>> probably agree ... they are all (excepting very few others) Christians, and
>> followers of the Bible.
> Every group has its own BIG-GOTS. I suggest you look into other sgroups.
>
>> Without this huge weight on all of our shoulders, the world would be a much
>> better place, equality is grudgingly given cm by cm by the Church. It was the
>> biggest defender of slavery, and in America of racial discrimination ...
>> blacks could not marry, be equal, own property, be tought with whites, use
>> white privalages ... and the Bible had a great deal of affect.
>
> You know, I think you would have been much better off doing a stichk on how
>Christianity is a confused and contradictory mess, because you had different
>people who claimed to be Christians debating whether slavery and equal rights
>for all races was in the will of God or not. And, the old religious
>chestnuts about how you can have "wolves in sheeps clothing, false brethern,
>the devil can transform himself into an angel of light, and also the devil
>can quote scriptures" can also be thrown out to address this point. Have you
>even bothered to read any of the historical debates amongst Christians about
>the merits of slavery and equal rights, or do you just read the pablum Anton
>is feeding you. I assume you believe that the issues of slavery, etc.. never
>existed before 1 AD.
Yep. Bible was against the Golden rule. So the Church had to be
separated from the state.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/golden.html
Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans
and Other Animals, 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; ISBN
0-674-35660-8.
Frans de Waal, Peacemaking among primates (Harvard University Press,
1989).
Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes. Harper
and Row, New York (1983).
Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society''
Scientific American 272(4):82- 88 (March 1995)
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wcalvin/refs.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465021212/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679763996/
Freedom and democracy.
>
>> But four hundred years is nothing ... if we had have killed Christianity 400
>> years ago, we would be at that stage NOW ... those Dark Ages that we spent
>> burning books, letting buildings decay, roads decay, iron processing
>> practically ceased ... all those wasted years.
> Interesting how you totally ignore the Enlightment period where science,
>governed people following the principles in the Bible in order to make their
>discovery. Do you even know the biographies of the likes of Issac Newton and
>others?
>
>> How many diseases could we have cured? How many animals could we have saved
>> (by growing our own meat in labs) if wasn't for Religion and "law abiding God
>> fearing white folk".
> How many diseases will be cured if no one has the motivation to research a
>cure?
>
>> No more, this is year 33, we can all start again from a beginning of science,
>> the advent of the computer and technology age is our true beginning.
>
> Blah blah blah. I can't believe you still buy into this humanistic
>centered world view, promoted by the creator of Star Trek, that technology
>will solve all out ills. I hope you aren't on the tail end of downsizing
>that will occur when business feels you cost too much to their bottom line.
That's because you still haven't understood or unwilling to learn of
the changes to the society or the economy.
Nick C.
>
>Very few nuns manage to kick the habit...
>
a mechanic happened to be strolling down the street one sunny day, when he
came across a priest, stripped to only his collar. the priest was covered in
grease and sweat, and was standing near an apparently broken-down automobile.
the mechanic hurried over to where the priest was standing and said, "having
car trouble, father?" to which the priest answered "yes, my son." to this, the
mechanic answered "well, you're in luck! i just happen to be a mechanic! let me
have look at 'er over here..." as the mechanic poked his way into the open hood
of the car, the priest replied "oh, providence smiles upon me. thank you, my
son." the mechanic poked around for a bit, and eventually said "i found the
trouble, father. it's just this valve over here... lemme give it a good
tightening.. there ya go!" the priest then said, "thank you, my son, but are
you sure the valve is tight enough?" the mechanic replied, "tighter than a
nun's cunt, father." and before the mechanic could apologize for his absent-
minded profanity, the priest replied: "well, you'd better tighten it some more,
then."
a preist was walking down main street one day, on his way back to his church.
enroute, he came across a ratty-looking prostitute who said to him: "20 bucks
for a blowjob, dad." the priest was perplexed, and hurriedly made his way back
to his church. when he got there, he asked one of the nuns: "what is a blowjob,
sister?" to which the nun replied: "20 bucks, same price as up the street."
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <nic...@SATANLOVESYOUio.com> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X X XXXXXxX XXX'x`XXXXx xXXXXXXXX defiler of virgin minds xxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X x X_x`X X XXX\ \X_x`X X_x`X'x`X "Say unto thine own heart, `I am mine own XXX
X X X x X X XXX X X x X X x X X X redeemer.'" -Book of Satan, IV:3 xxxxxxxxxXXX
XxXxXXxxXxXxXXXXxXXXxxXxXXxxXxXxX root@localhost abuse@localhost i hate spam XX
richar...@hotmail.com
> >> Looking through the dark ages, looking at Christianity in particular
today, I
> >> have progressed from Atheist, to Humanist, now (for 2 years) to Activist
> >> Humanist Satanism, highly persuaded by LaVey's useful and accurate
summaries
> >> of Satanism.
> > In other words, you have been persuaded by someone who makes his living
off
> >of parodying Christianity and mocking it (the use of the term Satan is picked
> >for this reason). I also assume you don't believ Satanism is a religion.
>
> Why not? Anybody can form a religion.
> >> Religion has been, and still is, the single biggest set back to makind as
we
> >> know it.
I wasn't sure the original poster believed this. He rails against
religion, with a focus on Christianity specifically, but declares "Humanistic
Satanism" whatever that is, to be ok. The poster doesn't say Christianity, he
says "religion", so that is why I raised my point.
You prove my point. It doesn't take a belief in God, or something that
acts like a god for someone (reason, science, whatever) to cause a person to
end up acting in ways that are evil. The experiment of Communist Russia
proved this.
> > A "Murderous stranglehold on book production and education"? That is
a
> >strong quote. You again confuse the suite something has on with the engine
> >that drives it. The conservative right-wing Christian has a marginal impact
> >on society. This is hardly the "murderous stranglehold". In actuality, talk
> >to some right-wingers who want to be heard, or the racist who has the ideal
> >of racial purity, and the perserving of cultures. They will tell you that
> >they are repressed and persecution.
>
> Really!
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/patrobertson.html
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/the%5Fcompany%5Ffile/newsid%
5F288000/288867.stm
> http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/roberts2.htm
> http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/roberts1.htm
> http://www.infidels.org/wire/stories/robertson_nea_money.html
> http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/rrr.html
> http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/wire/stories/cc_roadblock.html
> http://www.au.org/pr10282.htm
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
And I could go off about those on the fringe right and tell you stories
about how they are having rough times. Or stories about how a few students
wanted to meet with a teacher off hours on their own to pray together and
were denied the ability to do so. Those who claim are blocking science, and
are a big persecuting threat are claiming the exact same thing you are
throwing at them. It seems that a minority view in a democracy will tend to
go through rough times. Even in the age of political correctness, and
tolerance, those who claim to say they represent truth and say not all ways
are correct, will be prone to being persecuted and censored.
> > Again, you lump the whole entire thing together in religion. Here,
you
> >have the Catholics accepting evolution, but fundamentalist Christians saying
> >no. The disuasion is action to those who question evolution, not the other
> >way around. A college profession who questions evolutionary theory and
> >suggests another one theory be developed runs the risk of losing their job.
> Who has lost their job?
I would suggest you do some research. I know of one professor who would
have not gotten tenure if it weren't for the pull of a senior board member
who overruled the voting of the majority, and gave them tenure. This
professor, IN THEIR FIELD, which is psychology, are very good. They are a
creationist, however. The fact that this professor is a conservative right
wing Christian put their job at risk. If you don't believe this is happening
anywhere, I think you are not looking enough. What goes around comes around.
Conservatives persecute liberals, and the liberals get into power and then
persecute the conservatives. There then is a counter political swing and the
conservatives come in. If there one single idiology that was exempt from
this, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have been worried as much about the abuse
of power by the majority on the minority.
> >Now, who is the threat here?
> You are. Science is not for some navel gazing for philosophers. It's
> inextricably linked to technology, products and services.
Amazing. What power do I wield? I just was counterpointing the simple
anti- religion tyrade the person spoke on. And, if you say science is not to
be linked to philosophy and subsets: religion, ethics, logic, etc... you are
advocating that the ship known as science have no rudder attached to it.
There are reasons why there are ethics boards governing what sort of
scientific experiments are to be conducted.
> Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
> scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
> Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
I never said there weren't. I did say, however, that those who are science
professors and creationists, how few they are, do have a rough time, in
similar ways a homosexual priest has a hard time.
> > All doctrines, and the pursuit of truth will try to tell you what is right
> >and wrong. This is the purpose of such doctrines. I assume you would rather
> >replace the classic sources of finding truth, and replace it with a
> >relativistic mess, with fine instruments that tell you what is going on, but
> >a failure to tell you were to go.
> Are you a Commie?
Where do you get that idea? There are some points of communism I may agree
with, but others I don't. I think Marx, for example, had some valid
criticisms of Captialism, that have shown themself out over the years. I
don't think his proposed solutions have worked, however, except in a loose
sense, that being that there needs to be some redistribution of wealth to
off-set excess accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Unless
pockets of poverty are address via the use of some wealth to train and
improve people's lives, society will suffer. I don't think the state,
through forced taxation (though taxes are needed) is the best approach,
however. If this makes me a Commie, then I am a Commie, but I doubt that I
am.
> >You worship at the foot of a golum unaware of the horrors
> >that such a beast can bring. Who insures this beast as progress doesn't
> >destroy humanity in the process?
> Freedom and democracy.
In other words, the ability to act unrestrained by others on an individual
level, plus a vote by the majority, will insure that horrors of technology
are not developed? You are aware that the principles found in the Bill of
Rights are safe guards AGAINST a pure democracy and that American Founding
Fathers put such a document to prevent the tyrany of the majority. There are
multitudes of philosophical arguments that explain why "freedom and
democracy" are insufficient to insure that bad things don't happen. Are you
familar with any of these philosophical arguments?
> > Blah blah blah. I can't believe you still buy into this humanistic
> >centered world view, promoted by the creator of Star Trek, that technology
> >will solve all out ills. I hope you aren't on the tail end of downsizing
> >that will occur when business feels you cost too much to their bottom line.
>
> That's because you still haven't understood or unwilling to learn of
> the changes to the society or the economy.
And do you believe all the changes are wonderful and glorious? My whole
point is that technology alone is insufficient for insuring a better life. At
the helm is still people, and people still need to determine which technology
they will develop, or which science they wish to implement.
- Richard Hutnik
Visit DocReason's Strategy HQ for free games, reviews, and
support and opponent finding for obscure/orphan games at:
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/fortress/7537/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
maff91
>In article <37096154...@news2.newscene.com>,
>> >> Looking through the dark ages, looking at Christianity in particular
>today, I
>> >> have progressed from Atheist, to Humanist, now (for 2 years) to Activist
>> >> Humanist Satanism, highly persuaded by LaVey's useful and accurate
>summaries
>> >> of Satanism.
>> > In other words, you have been persuaded by someone who makes his living
>off
>> >of parodying Christianity and mocking it (the use of the term Satan is picked
>> >for this reason). I also assume you don't believ Satanism is a religion.
>>
>> Why not? Anybody can form a religion.
> See next section reply.
>
>> >> Religion has been, and still is, the single biggest set back to makind as
>we
>> >> know it.
> I wasn't sure the original poster believed this. He rails against
>religion, with a focus on Christianity specifically, but declares "Humanistic
>Satanism" whatever that is, to be ok. The poster doesn't say Christianity, he
>says "religion", so that is why I raised my point.
I think all religions are a waste of time and money but that's my
personal opinion. Others can believe or not believe in anything they
want.
It's true of all utopian ideologies including religion. Science is not
an ideology. It's just a tool and methodology to find things about
nature.
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers Paperback 2nd
edition (March 1995) Hackett Pub Co; ISBN: 087220149X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087220149X/
>
>> > A "Murderous stranglehold on book production and education"? That is
>a
>> >strong quote. You again confuse the suite something has on with the engine
>> >that drives it. The conservative right-wing Christian has a marginal impact
>> >on society. This is hardly the "murderous stranglehold". In actuality, talk
>> >to some right-wingers who want to be heard, or the racist who has the ideal
>> >of racial purity, and the perserving of cultures. They will tell you that
>> >they are repressed and persecution.
>>
>> Really!
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/patrobertson.html
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/the%5Fcompany%5Ffile/newsid%
>5F288000/288867.stm
>> http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/roberts2.htm
>> http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/roberts1.htm
>> http://www.infidels.org/wire/stories/robertson_nea_money.html
>> http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/rrr.html
>> http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/wire/stories/cc_roadblock.html
>> http://www.au.org/pr10282.htm
>> http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
>> http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
>
> And I could go off about those on the fringe right and tell you stories
>about how they are having rough times. Or stories about how a few students
>wanted to meet with a teacher off hours on their own to pray together and
That's a lie.
http://homer.louisville.edu/~tnpete01/church/prayidx.htm
>were denied the ability to do so. Those who claim are blocking science, and
Claiming religion is science is fraudulent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
>are a big persecuting threat are claiming the exact same thing you are
>throwing at them. It seems that a minority view in a democracy will tend to
>go through rough times. Even in the age of political correctness, and
>tolerance, those who claim to say they represent truth and say not all ways
>are correct, will be prone to being persecuted and censored.
If you mean not having slavery, segregation, persecution for what was
not biblically correct is bad then I'm politically correct. You can
still believe in slavery is good, etc but the consensus in society is
that it's unacceptable.
>
>> > Again, you lump the whole entire thing together in religion. Here,
>you
>> >have the Catholics accepting evolution, but fundamentalist Christians saying
>> >no. The disuasion is action to those who question evolution, not the other
>> >way around. A college profession who questions evolutionary theory and
>> >suggests another one theory be developed runs the risk of losing their job.
>> Who has lost their job?
>
> I would suggest you do some research. I know of one professor who would
This is what all the accusers say. When asked to substantiate their
accusations they resort to vague insinuations. It's illegal and
whoever discriminates on the basis of personal belief can be
prosecuted.
>have not gotten tenure if it weren't for the pull of a senior board member
>who overruled the voting of the majority, and gave them tenure. This
>professor, IN THEIR FIELD, which is psychology, are very good. They are a
>creationist, however. The fact that this professor is a conservative right
>wing Christian put their job at risk. If you don't believe this is happening
>anywhere, I think you are not looking enough. What goes around comes around.
>Conservatives persecute liberals, and the liberals get into power and then
>persecute the conservatives. There then is a counter political swing and the
>conservatives come in. If there one single idiology that was exempt from
>this, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have been worried as much about the abuse
>of power by the majority on the minority.
Ideology is becoming redundant.
>
>> >Now, who is the threat here?
>> You are. Science is not for some navel gazing for philosophers. It's
>> inextricably linked to technology, products and services.
>
> Amazing. What power do I wield? I just was counterpointing the simple
>anti- religion tyrade the person spoke on. And, if you say science is not to
>be linked to philosophy and subsets: religion, ethics, logic, etc... you are
>advocating that the ship known as science have no rudder attached to it.
>There are reasons why there are ethics boards governing what sort of
>scientific experiments are to be conducted.
So? Society shapes the direction of science and technology and vice
versa.
>
>> Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
>> scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
>> Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
>
> I never said there weren't. I did say, however, that those who are science
>professors and creationists, how few they are, do have a rough time, in
>similar ways a homosexual priest has a hard time.
I have known several creationists who were good in the field they were
working in and there was absolutely no discrimination.
After all it's just a personal belief.
>
>> > All doctrines, and the pursuit of truth will try to tell you what is right
>> >and wrong. This is the purpose of such doctrines. I assume you would rather
>> >replace the classic sources of finding truth, and replace it with a
>> >relativistic mess, with fine instruments that tell you what is going on, but
>> >a failure to tell you were to go.
>> Are you a Commie?
>
> Where do you get that idea? There are some points of communism I may agree
>with, but others I don't. I think Marx, for example, had some valid
>criticisms of Captialism, that have shown themself out over the years. I
>don't think his proposed solutions have worked, however, except in a loose
>sense, that being that there needs to be some redistribution of wealth to
>off-set excess accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Unless
>pockets of poverty are address via the use of some wealth to train and
>improve people's lives, society will suffer. I don't think the state,
>through forced taxation (though taxes are needed) is the best approach,
>however. If this makes me a Commie, then I am a Commie, but I doubt that I
>am.
OK.
>
>> >You worship at the foot of a golum unaware of the horrors
>> >that such a beast can bring. Who insures this beast as progress doesn't
>> >destroy humanity in the process?
>> Freedom and democracy.
>
> In other words, the ability to act unrestrained by others on an individual
>level, plus a vote by the majority, will insure that horrors of technology
>are not developed? You are aware that the principles found in the Bill of
>Rights are safe guards AGAINST a pure democracy and that American Founding
I'm against pure democracy. That's why freedom comes *before*
democracy.
>Fathers put such a document to prevent the tyrany of the majority. There are
>multitudes of philosophical arguments that explain why "freedom and
>democracy" are insufficient to insure that bad things don't happen. Are you
>familar with any of these philosophical arguments?
Yep.
>
>> > Blah blah blah. I can't believe you still buy into this humanistic
>> >centered world view, promoted by the creator of Star Trek, that technology
>> >will solve all out ills. I hope you aren't on the tail end of downsizing
>> >that will occur when business feels you cost too much to their bottom line.
>>
>> That's because you still haven't understood or unwilling to learn of
>> the changes to the society or the economy.
> And do you believe all the changes are wonderful and glorious? My whole
>point is that technology alone is insufficient for insuring a better life. At
>the helm is still people, and people still need to determine which technology
>they will develop, or which science they wish to implement.
As I said before science and technology shapes the direction of
society and vice versa. It's a matter of supply and demand.
stoney
SATANLOVESYOUio.com (Nick C.) wrote:
[>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 01:42:22 GMT, stoney spoke thus:
[>>
[>>Very few nuns manage to kick the habit...
[>>
[>
[>a mechanic happened to be strolling down the street one
[>sunny day, when he came across a priest, stripped to only
[>his collar. the priest was covered in grease and sweat,
[>and was standing near an apparently broken-down
[>automobile. the mechanic hurried over to where the
[> priest was standing and said, "having car trouble, father?"
[> to which the priest answered "yes, my son." to this, the
[>mechanic answered "well, you're in luck! i just happen to
[>be a mechanic! let me have look at 'er over here..." as the
[>mechanic poked his way into the open hood of the car,
[>the priest replied "oh, providence smiles upon me. thank you,
[> my son." the mechanic poked around for a bit, and eventually
[> said "i found the trouble, father. it's just this valve over here...
[> lemme give it a good tightening.. there ya go!" the priest
[> then said, "thank you, my son, but are you sure the valve
[>is tight enough?" the mechanic replied, "tighter than a
[>nun's cunt, father." and before the mechanic could
[>apologize for his absent-[>minded profanity, the priest replied:
[>"well, you'd better tighten it some more, then."
Heh....
Years ago, I did come across a member of the clergy
standing beside a broken down car with the bonnet/hood
up. I had the time, so I stopped to see if I could lend an
assist. It was a simple thing and in the matter of a few
minutes his car fired up again. He offered to pay me for
my trouble, but I waved it off. I was just glad to be able to
be of some assistance.
[>a preist was walking down main street one day, on his way
[> back to his church. enroute, he came across a
[>ratty-looking prostitute who said to him: "20 bucks
[>for a blowjob, dad." the priest was perplexed, and hurriedly
[>made his way back to his church. when he got there, he
[> asked one of the nuns: "what is a blowjob, sister?" to
[>which the nun replied: "20 bucks, same price as up the street."
Heh...
Stoney
Melkor
since those times.
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote:
dennis...@access1.net
Science has indeed improved on the methods of inflicting torture, but
science has never used it for reasons of mind-control as did the
Midieval Christians.
Science only seeks to understand how and why something works, in an
effort to make it work more efficiently.
Religion uses scientific improvements to further their cause. The
television was not invented by religion, but by science. Religion
uses television because it is more efficient than travelling
preachers.
Regarding morality, I see more in science than I do n religion.
(Unless of course yiu see the rape, murder and torture of men, women,
and children as "moral."
Whether a person believes in God or not, they have a ser of moral
standards that they live by. It's called "conscience."
Dennis Martin
>