Did you know that about Islam?

[BV BV]

Did you know that about Islam?



http://www.youtube.com/v/e5-gmD-jUsc?rel=0





thank you

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<4c521c70-3d05-4ca0...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
bv4b...@gmail.com "(yet another?) religious nutter" asked:

>Did you know that about Islam?

- that it was originally a code of rules for living a moral
and strictly monotheistic life for men from rival tribes as
likely as not to be at daggers drawn, now living alongside
one another and none-too observant polytheist backsliders in
the market towns and city they now controlled, and all the
temptations that decadence has to offer that they contained?

- it wasn't actually a religion in an organised sense until
the first or second century after the prophet, when a body
(some of it still disputed) of additional material had been
attached to it, at least two political splits had occurred,
and the leader of one particular major faction sought to
avail himself of unquestionable divine approval. and islam
still has no formal religious hierarch officially: mullahs
and imams are employed by their communities, not appointed
by a higher religious authority to rule them (though the
practice by no means always adheres to this principle).

- mohammed himself, of course, respected both judaism and
christianity (with reservations regarding the tendency of the
latter to lapse into effective, if unofficial, polytheism, no
doubt) and the prophets including jesus. mohammed was at that
time the most recent prophet; the further development of the
abrahamic moral codes, the bahai, is reputedly a good step
further towards a monotheistic way of life fit for intelligent
beings who are members of a modern, pluralist society - but it
is not one i know anything much about. whether it will prove,
eventually, to be as corruptible by the power-hungry as have
christianity and islam remains to be seen, i suppose - but it
is a bit short of providing an easy route to the achievement
of world domination as yet.

>thank you

- you're welcome. preferably somewhere like alt.sex.reptiles
rather than rasfwr or rasff; they know how to look after true-
believing proselytising religious nutters there.

- love, a ppint. wondering whether a pacific and tolerant
organised religion *could* dominate a world, let alone a
poly-system or even multiple planet space-faring society

[follow-up set to rasfwr, just in case someone's an idea how]
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"The people all paint themselves red, and eat monkeys,
whereof there is an inexhaustible supply in the hills."
- Histories, Book Four - Herodotus

[David Friedman]

In article <20120929.154...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>,

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:

> - it wasn't actually a religion in an organised sense until
> the first or second century after the prophet, when a body
> (some of it still disputed) of additional material had been
> attached to it,

Are you thinking of the hadith? It's generally accepted that the Koran
had been standardized much earlier than that. The hadith are important
for law, but I don't see that they are necessary to make Islam a
religion.

> at least two political splits had occurred,

I'm not sure the Shia/Sunni split counts as political--or were you
thinking of the civil war between Ali and Muwayia? That's political, but
not really a split, since Ali dies and his sons concede. The Karajites
were never a major faction, and I'm pretty sure it's after the second
century that the western Umayyads reassert their claim to the caliphate.

> and the leader of one particular major faction sought to
> avail himself of unquestionable divine approval.

?

I don't think Ali made that claim for himself--who are you thinking of?
...

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Rod Speed]

ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote
> bv4b...@gmail.com "(yet another?) religious nutter" wrote

>> Did you know that about Islam?

> - that it was originally a code of rules for living a moral
> and strictly monotheistic life for men from rival tribes as
> likely as not to be at daggers drawn, now living alongside
> one another and none-too observant polytheist backsliders in
> the market towns and city they now controlled, and all the
> temptations that decadence has to offer that they contained?

Just as true of judaism and christianity.

> - it wasn't actually a religion in an organised sense
> until the first or second century after the prophet,

Just as true of christianity.

> when a body (some of it still disputed) of
> additional material had been attached to
> it, at least two political splits had occurred,

Just as true of christianity.

> and the leader of one particular major faction sought
> to avail himself of unquestionable divine approval.

Just as true of christianity.

> and islam still has no formal religious hierarch officially:

Neither do plenty of other christian sects and plenty of other religions.

> mullahs and imams are employed by their communities,

Just as true of plenty of other christian sects and plenty of other
religions.

> not appointed by a higher religious authority to rule them

Just as true of plenty of other christian sects and plenty of other
religions.

> (though the practice by no means always adheres to this principle).

Just as true of plenty of other christian sects and plenty of other
religions.

> - mohammed himself, of course, respected both judaism
> and christianity (with reservations regarding the tendency
> of the latter to lapse into effective, if unofficial, polytheism,
> no doubt) and the prophets including jesus. mohammed
> was at that time the most recent prophet;

Just as true of christianity.

> the further development of the abrahamic moral codes,
> the bahai, is reputedly a good step further towards a
> monotheistic way of life fit for intelligent beings who
> are members of a modern, pluralist society

Just as true of christianity.

> - but it is not one i know anything much about.
> whether it will prove, eventually, to be as corruptible
> by the power-hungry as have christianity and islam
> remains to be seen, i suppose

It already has been seen.

> - but it is a bit short of providing an easy route
> to the achievement of world domination as yet.

Just as true of all religions.

[Joel Polowin]

On Sep 29, 11:41 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
wrote:

> the further development of the
>         abrahamic moral codes, the bahai, is reputedly a good step
>         further towards a monotheistic way of life fit for intelligent
>         beings who are members of a modern, pluralist society - but it
>         is not one i know anything much about.  whether it will prove,
>         eventually, to be as corruptible by the power-hungry as have
>         christianity and islam remains to be seen, i suppose

It seems to have happened, some time ago. An acquaintance of mine,
Michael McKenny -- sometime member of Ottawa SF fandom; I don't know
where things stand now -- managed to get declared a heretic (or the
equivalent) by the governing body of the Baha'i because he kept
insisting that the writings of the group's founder didn't support
the exclusion of women from the governing body. Or at least that's
my understanding from discussions with him.

>         - you're welcome.  preferably somewhere like alt.sex.reptiles
>         rather than rasfwr or rasff; they know how to look after true-
>         believing proselytising religious nutters there.

I can suggest other places that the one might be welcome. There's
this glow-y place in Japan, for starters.

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:29:20 -0700 (PDT), Joel Polowin
<jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>>         - you're welcome.  preferably somewhere like alt.sex.reptiles
>>         rather than rasfwr or rasff; they know how to look after true-
>>         believing proselytising religious nutters there.
>
>I can suggest other places that the one might be welcome. There's
>this glow-y place in Japan, for starters.

Because you can never have too many scratch monkeys?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Sep 29, 2:08 am, BV BV <bv4bv4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you know that about Islam?

I know this about Islam:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292745427434390.html

> thank you

You're welcome.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Quadibloc]

On Sep 30, 12:04 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   I know this about Islam:
>
> http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292745427434390.html

Since the news item appeared in al-Jazeera, it shows that at least
_some_ Muslims don't approve of that sort of thing.

John Savard

[John Halpenny]

A book I would like to read would be called "The Evolution of
Religion" . It would show how religious beliefs were shaped by the
environment of the founders, and how they changed as the environment
changed. It would discuss, for example, how Christianity went from
"turn the other cheek" under the Romans, to the Spanish Inquisition,
to gay marriage, all in response to external factors.

Is there anyone sufficiently detached from their belief to write such
a book, or even to read it?

[Dimensional Traveler]

It appeared in the English language version. I'd like to see a reliable
translation of what the Farsi and Arabic language versions say.


--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
tolerate.

[Rod Speed]

John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote
> Joel Polowin <jpolo...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote

>>> the further development of the
>>> abrahamic moral codes, the bahai, is reputedly a good step
>>> further towards a monotheistic way of life fit for intelligent
>>> beings who are members of a modern, pluralist society - but it
>>> is not one i know anything much about. whether it will prove,
>>> eventually, to be as corruptible by the power-hungry as have
>>> christianity and islam remains to be seen, i suppose

>> It seems to have happened, some time ago. An acquaintance of mine,
>> Michael McKenny -- sometime member of Ottawa SF fandom; I don't know
>> where things stand now -- managed to get declared a heretic (or the
>> equivalent) by the governing body of the Baha'i because he kept
>> insisting that the writings of the group's founder didn't support
>> the exclusion of women from the governing body. Or at least that's
>> my understanding from discussions with him.

>>> - you're welcome. preferably somewhere like alt.sex.reptiles
>>> rather than rasfwr or rasff; they know how to look after true-
>>> believing proselytising religious nutters there.

>> I can suggest other places that the one might be welcome.
>> There's this glow-y place in Japan, for starters.

> A book I would like to read would be called "The
> Evolution of Religion" . It would show how religious
> beliefs were shaped by the environment of the founders,

I'm not convinced that it would even be possible
to do that, particularly with the most fundamental
evolution of religion, like say the shift to monotheism etc.

> and how they changed as the environment changed.
> It would discuss, for example, how Christianity went
> from "turn the other cheek" under the Romans,
> to the Spanish Inquisition,

It didn't really.

> to gay marriage, all in response to external factors.

Its far from clear that it did in response to external factors.

> Is there anyone sufficiently detached
> from their belief to write such a book,

Yes, but the problem is whether the evidence
exists to substantiate the claims made.

> or even to read it?

Yes, there are certainly plenty of those.

[Rod Speed]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote
> Quadibloc wrote

>> n...@bid.nes <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> I know this about Islam:

>>> http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292745427434390.html

>> Since the news item appeared in al-Jazeera, it shows that at
>> least _some_ Muslims don't approve of that sort of thing.

> It appeared in the English language version. I'd like to see a reliable
> translation of what the Farsi and Arabic language versions say.

al-Jazeera english isnt just a translation of what appears in
the rest of al-Jazeera in languages other than english, most
of it is originated in english and often covers stuff that didn't
even get a mention in the rest of al-Jazeera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:04:15 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
<j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:

>A book I would like to read would be called "The Evolution of
>Religion" . It would show how religious beliefs were shaped by the
>environment of the founders, and how they changed as the environment
>changed. It would discuss, for example, how Christianity went from
>"turn the other cheek" under the Romans, to the Spanish Inquisition,
>to gay marriage, all in response to external factors.

A big change occurred when governments with state religions were
overthrown. It's hard to reject the government without rejecting to
some degree the church that's in bed with it.

>Is there anyone sufficiently detached from their belief to write such
>a book, or even to read it?

Certainly most atheists would.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:12:02 PM UTC+1, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:04:15 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
> <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >A book I would like to read would be called "The Evolution of
> >Religion" . It would show how religious beliefs were shaped by the
>
> >environment of the founders, and how they changed as the environment
>
> >changed. It would discuss, for example, how Christianity went from
> >"turn the other cheek" under the Romans, to the Spanish Inquisition,
>
> >to gay marriage, all in response to external factors.
>
> A big change occurred when governments with state religions were
> overthrown. It's hard to reject the government without rejecting to
> some degree the church that's in bed with it.

Do you mean like Spain until 1975, Ireland a while longer, and
Russia apparently now?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Like the fact that women in Tunisia are unhappy with the idea of being
disenfranchised second class objects?

[Rod Speed]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>> n...@bid.nes <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> I know this about Islam:

>>>>> http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292745427434390.html

>>>> Since the news item appeared in al-Jazeera, it shows that at least
>>>> _some_ Muslims don't approve of that sort of thing.

>>> It appeared in the English language version. I'd like to see a
>>> reliable translation of what the Farsi and Arabic language versions say.

>> al-Jazeera english isnt just a translation of what appears in
>> the rest of al-Jazeera in languages other than english, most
>> of it is originated in english and often covers stuff that didn't
>> even get a mention in the rest of al-Jazeera.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English

> Like the fact that women in Tunisia are unhappy with the idea of being
> disenfranchised second class objects?

Yep, precisely.

Not sure what the story is with those Saudi women who try
to get to drive cars is concerned with al-Jazeera arabic, doubt
they get a mention either.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <fh5j68dmruqpr1jdu...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:04:15 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
> <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >A book I would like to read would be called "The Evolution of
> >Religion" . It would show how religious beliefs were shaped by the
> >environment of the founders, and how they changed as the environment
> >changed. It would discuss, for example, how Christianity went from
> >"turn the other cheek" under the Romans, to the Spanish Inquisition,
> >to gay marriage, all in response to external factors.
>
> A big change occurred when governments with state religions were
> overthrown. It's hard to reject the government without rejecting to
> some degree the church that's in bed with it.
>
> >Is there anyone sufficiently detached from their belief to write such
> >a book, or even to read it?
>
> Certainly most atheists would.

I don't think so. To understand a religion, one must really be a
participant and this affects your entire world view down to the
foundations and below if it were possible. I doubt the existence of
many people who can take on an alien world view without being sucked
in or thrown out.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <5068b870$0$71227$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

> The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
> hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
> pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
> tolerate.

Not only that the Dilithium crystals were replaced with Folger's
crystals and no one noticed the difference.

[James Silverton]

This brings to mind how wise were the writers of the US Constitution and
the Bill of Rights. It is amazing how European governments pass laws
about "hate speech" etc. Let me just quote the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In my opinion, mistakes were made of course; the Second Amendment is a
non sequitor.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[David Johnston]

On 10/2/2012 8:46 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <fh5j68dmruqpr1jdu...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:04:15 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
>> <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A book I would like to read would be called "The Evolution of
>>> Religion" . It would show how religious beliefs were shaped by the
>>> environment of the founders, and how they changed as the environment
>>> changed. It would discuss, for example, how Christianity went from
>>> "turn the other cheek" under the Romans, to the Spanish Inquisition,
>>> to gay marriage, all in response to external factors.
>>
>> A big change occurred when governments with state religions were
>> overthrown. It's hard to reject the government without rejecting to
>> some degree the church that's in bed with it.
>>
>>> Is there anyone sufficiently detached from their belief to write such
>>> a book, or even to read it?
>>
>> Certainly most atheists would.
>
> I don't think so. To understand a religion, one must really be a
> participant

So an ex-participant.

[Rod Speed]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote

>> John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote

>>> A book I would like to read would be called "The Evolution of
>>> Religion" . It would show how religious beliefs were shaped by the
>>> environment of the founders, and how they changed as the environment
>>> changed. It would discuss, for example, how Christianity went from
>>> "turn the other cheek" under the Romans, to the Spanish Inquisition,
>>> to gay marriage, all in response to external factors.

>> A big change occurred when governments with state religions were
>> overthrown. It's hard to reject the government without rejecting to
>> some degree the church that's in bed with it.

>>> Is there anyone sufficiently detached from their
>>> belief to write such a book, or even to read it?

>> Certainly most atheists would.

> I don't think so.

I do.

> To understand a religion,

You don�t need to do that to read his book.

> one must really be a participant

That�s just plain wrong on the writing of his book.

> and this affects your entire world view down to
> the foundations and below if it were possible.

I don�t buy that either.

> I doubt the existence of many people who can take on an
> alien world view without being sucked in or thrown out.

That�s just plain silly with religion and with how religions
evolve or are shaped by their environment in spades.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:46:50 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>> >Is there anyone sufficiently detached from their belief to write such
>> >a book, or even to read it?
>>
>> Certainly most atheists would.
>
>I don't think so. To understand a religion, one must really be a
>participant and this affects your entire world view down to the
>foundations and below if it were possible. I doubt the existence of
>many people who can take on an alien world view without being sucked
>in or thrown out.

Without excepting your premise, why must a reader "really be a
participant"?

[Quadibloc]

On Oct 2, 8:46 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> I don't think so. To understand a religion, one must really be a
> participant and this affects your entire world view down to the
> foundations and below if it were possible. I doubt the existence of
> many people who can take on an alien world view without being
> sucked in or thrown out.

*How* alien a world view?

Terence, the playwright from the Roman Empire, was famous for his
quote "I am human: nothing human is alien to me": _Homo sum, humani
nihil a me alienum puto_.

To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

People can't change their beliefs at will, or at least they shouldn't
want to do that. Beliefs should be the consequence of the rational
examination of the evidence of the experiences of a lifetime.

But those of us who do not believe in God still have had parents, and
have had to deal with the government. The hope for a more powerful
authority that is perfectly kind and perfectly just that is one cause
of religious belief, as well as the fear of death, ought not to be
alien to any man.

The religious beliefs of Muslims are certainly different from the
religious beliefs of Christians. But here, does "different" mean
"alien", particularly _incomprehensibly_ alien?

Or is the behavior of Muslims an entirely predictable consequence of
being brought up in a tradition where one simply has a different set
of marching orders from one's God?

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: Terence, the playwright from the Roman Empire, was famous for his

: quote "I am human: nothing human is alien to me":
: _Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto_.

Huh. I thought that was
"I'm a man's man, and I can anihilate me an alien whore".
Or maybe it was "I'm waxing on the kine's coleslaw", maybe.

[Dan Goodman]

Quadibloc wrote:

> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

I consider atheism a form of religion.

--
Dan Goodman
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.

[Rod Speed]

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote

> Quadibloc wrote

>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

> I consider atheism a form of religion.

More fool you.

[Greg Goss]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 9/30/2012 11:08 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 12:04 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I know this about Islam:
>>>
>>> http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292745427434390.html
>>
>> Since the news item appeared in al-Jazeera, it shows that at least
>> _some_ Muslims don't approve of that sort of thing.
>>
>It appeared in the English language version. I'd like to see a reliable
>translation of what the Farsi and Arabic language versions say.

HOW reliable do you need? Google Translate is fairly good as machine
translation goes. And it is wired right into Chrome if you go to the
appropriate pages.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Oct 2, 5:51 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>
> I consider atheism a form of religion.

And you seemed so... reasonable...


Mark L. Fergerson

[the doctor]

>--- "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote --
>
> On Oct 2, 5:51=A0pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote

> > Quadibloc wrote
> > > To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*
>

> > I consider atheism a form of religion
>

> And you seemed so... reasonable..

He's not the only one. I consider not wearing socks a form of wearing socks.



--- QUARKware (QBBS) 7.1 - QUARKnntp 0.9
* TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info

[david.sh...@ymail.com]

On Oct 2, 8:51 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>
> I consider atheism a form of religion.
>

I don't agree with one interpretation of Dan's
statement, but neither do I accept Quadibloc's
statement as literally true. There are religions
with many adherents today that aren't monotheistic.
The idea that belief is more important than actions
is not universal among religions either.

[Bill Snyder]

On 03 Oct 2012 00:51:36 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com>
wrote:

>Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>
>I consider atheism a form of religion.

I consider cheese a form of chalk.

[Brian M. Scott]

On 03 Oct 2012 00:51:36 GMT, Dan Goodman

<dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in
<news:xn0i3v6n...@news.iphouse.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> I consider atheism a form of religion.

For some atheists it does appear to be one. They give the
rest of us a bad name.

Brian

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:feac8ece-c03f-4ed1...@v19g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in
> God*.

Nonsense.

Brian

[Quadibloc]

On Oct 2, 6:51 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>
> I consider atheism a form of religion.

Well, unlike being an agnostic, it does require belief in some
statements about the supernatural.

Note, however, that both agnostics and atheists fail to believe in
God, _and_ that atheism lacks many characteristics common to the major
Western revealed religions.

I did not think it germane to attempt to speculate on whether
Buddhists, Confucians, or Taoists might find Islam more alien than
Christians would - or necessary to generalize in order to include
concepts of a higher power other than a personal Deity.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that Alcoholics Anonymous exists...

John Savard

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Exactly. Plenty of religions don't have "God", singular; several have
GodS, plural. Some don't have gods at all in the ordinary sense of the word.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[David Johnston]

On 10/3/2012 8:10 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Oct 2, 6:51 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>>
>> I consider atheism a form of religion.
>
> Well, unlike being an agnostic, it does require belief in some
> statements about the supernatural.

Unless of course one is an atheist because not knowing whether any
religion is true, one doesn't practice any of them.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <proto-17F75F....@news.panix.com>,
pr...@panix.com says...

You know, religion isn't entirely alien to most atheists.

Faith, maybe, but not religion.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <k4hi4f$csl$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
says...

>
> On 10/3/12 9:51 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> > <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> > <news:feac8ece-c03f-4ed1...@v19g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>
> > in rec.arts.sf.written:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in
> >> God*.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> Exactly. Plenty of religions don't have "God", singular; several have
> GodS, plural. Some don't have gods at all in the ordinary sense of the word.

And in my experience many participants don't believe in God all that
hard. They get their children babtised and confirmed, they read them
prayers, they go to church on important holidays as is expected of them
and, when pressed, they profess to believe that "there is some kind of
force, maybe not necessarily the God of the _Bible_, out there
somewhere".

This might be specific to a largely secular society with a Christian
state church that practices infant baptism, though.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:54:10 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> The religious beliefs of Muslims are certainly different
> from the religious beliefs of Christians. But here, does
> "different" mean "alien", particularly _incomprehensibly_
> alien? Or is the behavior of Muslims an entirely predictable
> consequence of being brought up in a tradition where one
> simply has a different set of marching orders from one's God?

Are they even particularly different? God, angels, sin, lots of
praying, doing good, going to heaven when you die, and, of course,
going on crusades to convert unbelievers, or their temples anyway.
In fact, pretty much /every/ reliigion is like that - or at least,
the conspicuous ones; but, then, the crusading thing is what makes
them conspicuous, and of course wealthy and successful.

[Robert Carnegie]

I don't think you could prove I'm an atheist if I don't admit it.
I pretty much never go to meetings.

Of course that goes for many "religious" people as well.

[Kip Williams]

Brian M. Scott wrote, On 10/3/12 9:51 AM:

I believe in nonsense.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Juho Julkunen wrote, On 10/3/12 11:34 AM:

> And in my experience many participants don't believe in God all that
> hard. They get their children babtised and confirmed, they read them
> prayers, they go to church on important holidays as is expected of them
> and, when pressed, they profess to believe that "there is some kind of
> force, maybe not necessarily the God of the _Bible_, out there
> somewhere".

My definition of an atheist is "someone who doesn't believe in God AND
who doesn't go through the motions of attending church."


Kip W
rasfw

[Dan Goodman]

Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
if they believed it was a divine revelation.

[Kip Williams]

Dan Goodman wrote, On 10/3/12 12:12 PM:

> nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
>> On Oct 2, 5:51 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>>>
>>> I consider atheism a form of religion.
>>
>> And you seemed so... reasonable...
>
> Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
> if they believed it was a divine revelation.

And on the same evidence, which I will sum up:







Kip W
rasfw

[Kurt Busiek]

Plus, of course, not believing in vampires, or the Tooth Fairy,
requires belief regarding a statement about the supernatural. Not
believing that LORD OF THE RINGS is an accurate account of a period of
human history requires belief in statements about the supernatural.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-10-03 16:12:09 +0000, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> said:

> nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
>> On Oct 2, 5:51 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>>>
>>> I consider atheism a form of religion.
>>
>> And you seemed so... reasonable...
>
> Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
> if they believed it was a divine revelation.

How's their certainty about the existence or non-existence of Zeus? Or
Peter Pan? Or Jenny Greenteeth? Or kelpies?

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <k4hjic$nf6$1...@dont-email.me>, davidjo...@block.com
says...

Usually the claim that "atheism is a form of religion" is accompanied
by a watering down of the definition of religion. Above it is implied
that "belief in some statements about the supernatural" could be such a
definition rather than, say, "a set of beliefs concerning the cause,
nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the
creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving
devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code
governing the conduct of human affairs".

--
Juho Julkunen

[Wayne Throop]

::: I consider atheism a form of religion.

:: And you seemed so... reasonable...

: "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com>
: Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as

: if they believed it was a divine revelation.

OK, let's consider this. Anything one has concluded firmly,
whatever the evidence, experience, or mindset, is equivalent
to a divine revelation for practical purposes. So, "1+1=2"
must be an element of a form of religion.

OK, so now you've broadened "religion" into uselessness.
Or at the very least, removed an important distinction
among various methods by which firm conclusions are reached.

[Michael Stemper]

Your remark reminds me of something I heard years ago: "If being a
Christian was a crime, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <k4hp5g$t9v$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...

Religion; it's all religion, my man.

There's no real difference what so ever between saying:

"I believe that there is a supernatural entity that goes around houses
at night to search for fallen teeth placed under pillows of children
and, finding one, replaces it with a coin."

and

"I don't believe that's true."

The only reasonable, sane and intellectually honest approach is to say:
"I don't know if there is a Tooth Fairy. Maybe there is, maybe there
isn't; we can't know for certain either way, and to believe either is a
matter of faith."

--
Juho Julkunen

[Wayne Throop]

: Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
: I don't think you could prove I'm an atheist if I don't admit it.

: I pretty much never go to meetings.

*Do* you admit it? Nah, nevermind, no matter.
Being an atheist, even without the meetings, is such a bother.
That's why I'm still an apatheist.

I mean, "God doesn't exist", "does too", "does not", yada yada ya-DA.
Go away, leave me alone, I don't *care*.

Hm. On the other hand, the traditional created-the-universe-literally-
in-seven-days, burning-bush, gambling-over-Job's-faith-kind of god...
well, I sure *hope* a critter that is as much a jerk as the stories
about him imply, doesn't exist. And it does seem powerful unlikely.

I suppose it's the more abstract, ontological-argument, first-cause,
all-knowing all-singign all-dancing, fiddly intellectual god that
I don't care about.

I suppose I can generalize, and say that insofar as one considers
God in the abstract, I'm apathetic, and insofar as one considers
specific acts this God fellow is supposed to have done, I'm
skeptical... in a sort of half-hearted way.

[Rod Speed]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote
>> Quadibloc wrote

>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

>> I consider atheism a form of religion.

> Well, unlike being an agnostic, it does require
> belief in some statements about the supernatural.

Nope. Particularly with some of the professionally religious
at times some of them appear to have just decided that its
not a bad way of life and they don't actually believe in it.

I'm sure at least some of the worst of the religious con
men never did believe in any god at all, they just realise
that it's a great way to con people out of their money etc.

> Note, however, that both agnostics and atheists fail to
> believe in God, _and_ that atheism lacks many characteristics
> common to the major Western revealed religions.

Sure, but that's only a subset of all religions.

[Bill Snyder]

Ah, but do you worship it?

[Rod Speed]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote

> Quadibloc wrote

>> The religious beliefs of Muslims are certainly different
>> from the religious beliefs of Christians. But here, does
>> "different" mean "alien", particularly _incomprehensibly_
>> alien? Or is the behavior of Muslims an entirely predictable
>> consequence of being brought up in a tradition where one
>> simply has a different set of marching orders from one's God?

> Are they even particularly different? God, angels, sin, lots
> of praying, doing good, going to heaven when you die,
> and, of course, going on crusades to convert unbelievers,
> or their temples anyway. In fact, pretty much /every/
> reliigion is like that - or at least, the conspicuous ones;

Some don't even bother with recruiting converts.

> but, then, the crusading thing is what makes them conspicuous,

It's the number of adherents that does that.

> and of course wealthy and successful.

There are hordes of religions that aren't either.

[Rod Speed]

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote
> nu...@bid.nes wrote

>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote

>>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

>>> I consider atheism a form of religion.

>> And you seemed so... reasonable...

> Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
> if they believed it was a divine revelation.

They can just see the con job/mind fuck/crutch for pathetically
inadequate 'minds' that all religions involve.

[Dan Goodman]

There are atheists who practice what looks very much like religious
rituals. With organ music, for example.

And there are creeds recognized as religions which don't believe gods
are real.

[James Silverton]

One might use an advanced consideration of polytheistic religions and
regard multiple "gods" as just exemplars of one deity: "The Ten Thousand
Names of God". I'm not referring to Arthur Clarke's ingenious story "The
Nine Billion Names of God" but Thomas Aquinas believed that he had
proved that not only were there three persons in one god; there
logically had to be. I've never gotten beyond his first premise.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>

wrote:

>
>People can't change their beliefs at will, or at least they shouldn't
>want to do that. Beliefs should be the consequence of the rational
>examination of the evidence of the experiences of a lifetime.


I believed that Safeway was closer than King Supers, but changed my
belief without difficulty when I looked at the map.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Howard Brazee]

On 03 Oct 2012 00:51:36 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>
>I consider atheism a form of religion.

Some people don't seem to be able to imagine someone not having
religion, so they project that upon others who disagree.

[Howard Brazee]

On 03 Oct 2012 16:12:09 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>> > > To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>> >
>> > I consider atheism a form of religion.
>>
>> And you seemed so... reasonable...
>
>Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
>if they believed it was a divine revelation.

So then not believing in the tooth fairy is also a religion?

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 05:15:50 -0700 (PDT), david.sh...@ymail.com
wrote:

>On Oct 2, 8:51 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>> Quadibloc wrote:
>> > To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>>
>> I consider atheism a form of religion.
>>

>I don't agree with one interpretation of Dan's
>statement, but neither do I accept Quadibloc's
>statement as literally true. There are religions
>with many adherents today that aren't monotheistic.
>The idea that belief is more important than actions
>is not universal among religions either.


But there are people who believe that believing and/or worshiping is
what is important - what they believe or worship can be false.

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 16:48:18 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com
(Michael Stemper) wrote:

>Your remark reminds me of something I heard years ago: "If being a
>Christian was a crime, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

Of course, many of the most Righteous Christians stand for everything
Jesus Christ was against, and against everything Jesus Christ was for.

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 20:09:07 +0300, Juho Julkunen
<giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The only reasonable, sane and intellectually honest approach is to say:
>"I don't know if there is a Tooth Fairy. Maybe there is, maybe there
>isn't; we can't know for certain either way, and to believe either is a
>matter of faith."

Then we may as well doubt all of reality. But you can't live that
way, we have to accept we need to eat and go to the bathroom, and that
other people hurt.

[lal_truckee]

On 10/3/12 9:12 AM, Dan Goodman wrote:
> Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
> if they believed it was a divine revelation.

When someone postulates something as unlikely as pirouetting pink
elephants in tutus, I claim the burden of supporting the postulate is
not mine.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Oct 3, 12:27 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On 03 Oct 2012 00:51:36 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> >Quadibloc wrote:
>
> >> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>
> >I consider atheism a form of religion.
>
> Some people don't seem to be able to imagine someone not having
> religion, so they project that upon others who disagree.

My wife is taking college classes online; her Philosophy instructor
was one of those. Rough paraphrase- "The first, and most fundamental
component of one's worldview is one's relationship with God".

He was a big fan of Aquinas...


Mark L. Fergerson

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:48:18 PM UTC+1, Michael Stemper wrote:
> In article <1f319dff-a670-479a...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 2:17:59 PM UTC+1, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> On 03 Oct 2012 00:51:36 GMT, Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in <news:xn0i3v6n...@news.iphouse.com> in rec.arts.sf.written: [...]
>
> >> > I consider atheism a form of religion.
> >>
> >> For some atheists it does appear to be one. They give the
> >> rest of us a bad name.
> >
> >I don't think you could prove I'm an atheist if I don't admit it.
> >I pretty much never go to meetings.
> >
> >Of course that goes for many "religious" people as well.
>
> Your remark reminds me of something I heard years ago: "If being a
> Christian was a crime, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

I've heard that version. But, in case you're worried about living up
to that, when a religion is illegal, the standard of e vidence demanded
of your guilt isn't very high.
(St. Peter got away with it of course...)

[Dan Goodman]

Howard Brazee wrote:

> On 03 Oct 2012 00:51:36 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
> >
> > I consider atheism a form of religion.
>
> Some people don't seem to be able to imagine someone not having
> religion, so they project that upon others who disagree.

Doesn't apply to me.

[Kip Williams]

lal_truckee wrote, On 10/3/12 3:59 PM:

They've had thousands of years to get ready for that one. It's
invisible, weighs nothing, and hides from you and your bad vibes.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Howard Brazee wrote, On 10/3/12 3:31 PM:

> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 16:48:18 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com
> (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>
>> Your remark reminds me of something I heard years ago: "If being a
>> Christian was a crime, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"
>
> Of course, many of the most Righteous Christians stand for everything
> Jesus Christ was against, and against everything Jesus Christ was for.

When I used to see churches with those massive crosses in the lawn, I'd
think "If Jesus comes back, they're ready for Him."


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Bill Snyder wrote, On 10/3/12 2:30 PM:

> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:05:19 -0400, Kip Williams
> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian M. Scott wrote, On 10/3/12 9:51 AM:
>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>> <news:feac8ece-c03f-4ed1...@v19g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>
>>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in
>>>> God*.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> I believe in nonsense.
>
> Ah, but do you worship it?

I'm not a big one for worshiping stuff.


Kip W (spellchecker says there's one p in that sentence)
rasfw

[Wayne Throop]

:::: To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

::: I consider atheism a form of religion.

:: I don't agree with one interpretation of Dan's statement, but neither
:: do I accept Quadibloc's statement as literally true. There are
:: religions with many adherents today that aren't monotheistic. The
:: idea that belief is more important than actions is not universal
:: among religions either.

: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
: But there are people who believe that believing and/or worshiping is

: what is important - what they believe or worship can be false.

I believe that belief is highly overrated. Or rather, that this
binary "I believe X" and "I believe not-Y" and the such is largely
useless. Sort of like in a few good men, it doesn't matter what
you *believe*, it matters what you can *prove*. Or rather, it
matters how taking X or Y or whatnot as a hypothesis actually works.

Then of course, there's a problem with what is meant by "actually works".
Lots of people make religion work for them... nearly as I can tell,
for reasons not unakin to placebo use. But that's not the "it doesn't
matter what folks belive as long as you belive something" notion that
Shepard Book sells Mal in Serenity[1]. IMO you really don't need to
"believe" anything much at all in the binary-flag sort of way.

In any event, I find it's usually better to approach things in terms
of conclusions/propositions, and how one arrived at them. And keeping
the "how arrived at" in mind is much more important than keeping a
list of propositions with a binary "belive" "not-believe" tag.

So. Belief is highly overrated. The whole notion of "belief",
and its importance is funamentally a less useful way of organizing
one's mental map than something a bit more flexible and tuneable.

IMO.

Hm. One related notion is "knowledge is justifed true belief".
It's philosophically quaint and inadequate, but there's something
to it. To me, it might better to say "knolwedge is justified, viable
propositions", but that's humpty-dumptying up the word. Of course,
then the argument is over whether "God exists" is a viable proposition,
I suppose. And whether it's justified. Feh.

Double feh. Is it any wonder why I'm an apatheist?


[1] An interesting approach is to suppose that the human mind is
organized as a set of daemons (as in Aristoi, sort of), and each one
is an expert in one way of looking at the world. There's a facial
recognition daemon, who finds the man in the moon and in rorschach
inkblots and such. So yes, lots of the things that are going on
aren't "real" or "true", but does it matter? Take, for example,
the notion that lightning and rain and such occur because of the
actions of deities. There's a daemon for that; for inferring what
the motives of other folks or critters are, and what to expect from
them in the future.

Now in this sense, it doesn't matter whether the model you build of
this deity's motives is modeling a real thing. What matters is if it
gives you useful results. There's the "doesn't matter as long as you
believe something" coming out. And to a certain extent, it's *true*.
Or... a justified viable proposition. You can indeed crank the handle
on such a daemon and get useful results out. And you can even do it
productively, because the daemon is *efficient*, it's *hardwired*
in humans. But IMO you just have to avoid letting it lead you
around by the nose. You have to manage your daemons and realize what
they're doing for you and the limits of their expertise. You have
to be aware of what fudge factors they use to do their calculations
(just like the visual system is subject to optical illusions because
of simplifying assumptions made in inferring things like color or
shape or distance and the such).

Xref in Peter Watts' Blindsight, where "vampires" have daemons
for modeling fear and pain in humans, and one uses that in his
visualization software, mapping concepts to human facial expressions,
which he can process faster than color coding or other display methods.

Xref Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, which
is basically a variant on the daemon idea, with some actual
science behind it (though not uncontroversial, I suppose).

So, bottom line, you can exploit your hardwired models of the world,
even if you "know" they are inaccurate. For example, I have good
kinesthesia and spatial perception daemons, and I exploit them to
do a *variety* of off-label tasks... and just keep in mind that such
an approach has limits due to the mapping involved.

But belief is still overrated.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 10/2/2012 11:54 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 10:46 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <fh5j68dmruqpr1jdu...@4ax.com>,
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:04:15 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
>>> <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A book I would like to read would be called "The Evolution of
>>>> Religion" . It would show how religious beliefs were shaped by the
>>>> environment of the founders, and how they changed as the environment
>>>> changed. It would discuss, for example, how Christianity went from
>>>> "turn the other cheek" under the Romans, to the Spanish Inquisition,
>>>> to gay marriage, all in response to external factors.
>>>
>>> A big change occurred when governments with state religions were
>>> overthrown. It's hard to reject the government without rejecting to
>>> some degree the church that's in bed with it.
>>>
>>>> Is there anyone sufficiently detached from their belief to write such
>>>> a book, or even to read it?
>>>
>>> Certainly most atheists would.
>>
>> I don't think so. To understand a religion, one must really be a
>> participant and this affects your entire world view down to the
>> foundations and below if it were possible. I doubt the existence of
>> many people who can take on an alien world view without being sucked
>> in or thrown out.
>>
> This brings to mind how wise were the writers of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is amazing how European governments
> pass laws about "hate speech" etc. Let me just quote the First Amendment.
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
> freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
> grievances.
>
> In my opinion, mistakes were made of course; the Second Amendment is a non sequitor.

IMHO, the Second Amendment fits perfectly in the
US Constitution.

Lynn

[David DeLaney]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>

>People can't change their beliefs at will, or at least they shouldn't
>want to do that. Beliefs should be the consequence of the rational
>examination of the evidence of the experiences of a lifetime.

...that's what you WANT us to believe.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>Quadibloc wrote:
>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>>
>>I consider atheism a form of religion.
>
>Some people don't seem to be able to imagine someone not having
>religion, so they project that upon others who disagree.

This here. "_I_ do, I always have. So everyone else must also. Even those who
repeatedly deny ever having done."

[David DeLaney]

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote, On 10/3/12 9:51 AM:

>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in

>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>>

>> Nonsense.
>
>I believe in nonsense.

I practice it religiously.

And make sure to check it carefully before posting it to Usenet, unlike so
many others.

Dave, I'm Allowed

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <1G1bs.1435$MA1...@newsfe18.iad>,
mrk...@gmail.com "Kip Williams" pointed out:

> lal_truckee wrote:
>> Dan Goodman wrote:
>>>Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence
>>>as if they believed it was a divine revelation.
>>When someone postulates something as unlikely as pirouetting pink
>>elephants in tutus, I claim the burden of supporting the postulate
>>is not mine.
>
>They've had thousands of years to get ready for that one. It's
>invisible, weighs nothing, and hides from you and your bad vibes.

- and anyway, didn't the mouse film them pirouetting with
dino^W alligators [a][b] ? (- [1])

- love, "you've got to believe the evidence of your eyes" ppint.

[a] - or possibly crocodiles (- [c])

[b] - with classically good vibes, too

[c] - i'm fairly certain 't weren't ghaiman

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
[1] - "I like rhetorical questions;
I usually get them right."
- joann l.dominik, 6/95

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<feac8ece-c03f-4ed1...@v19g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> asserted 0[]:

>
>To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

- empirically disprovable and, ime, disproven - unless every
religious person as has expressed their doubts to me over the
last three and a half decades when discussing my lack of faith
or non-subscription to their religion was lying about this.

>People can't change their beliefs at will, or at least they shouldn't
>want to do that.

- i don't understand how anyone can choose to change their
beliefs; come to realise they don't in fact believe what they
thought they did, or had previously believed, yes; decide that
they do not agree with some teachings of the religion to which
they belong, or decide they cannot accept implications of the
teachings or assumptions, yes; decide to re-examine their own,
or their religion's teachings, practices, assumptions & beliefs,
yes; but belief is by definition lacking sufficient evidence
for logically conclusive proof: else it would not be belief, but
knowledge.

>Beliefs should be the consequence of the rational examination of the
>evidence of the experiences of a lifetime.

- this implies that one should not hold beliefs until one is
dead. which seems to present at least one difficulty.

- love, ppint.

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]

[0] - not to be confused with "assarted"
--
"Threads like these make me realize that many people
take a cargo-cult approach to logical argument."
Mike Ash on rec.arts.sf.written 26/6/10 (6/26/10 for merkins)

[Moriarty]

On Oct 4, 2:34 am, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-03 16:12:09 +0000, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> said:
>
> > n...@bid.nes wrote:

>
> >> On Oct 2, 5:51 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>> Quadibloc wrote:

> >>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>

> >>> I consider atheism a form of religion.
>

> >> And you seemed so... reasonable...
>

> > Consider this:  Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
> > if they believed it was a divine revelation.
>

> How's their certainty about the existence or non-existence of Zeus? Or
> Peter Pan? Or Jenny Greenteeth? Or kelpies?

I had a dog who was half kelpie. She died and we buried her in the
back garden but, alas, she failed to rise on the third day.

I'm pretty sure she existed though.

-Moriarty

[William Hyde]

On Oct 3, 3:20 pm, James Silverton <jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 12:36 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <k4hjic$nf...@dont-email.me>, davidjohnsto...@block.com

I thought it was the neo-platonists who inflicted that idea on us, a
thousand years earlier.

William Hyde

[Rod Speed]

ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

>>To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

> - empirically disprovable and, ime, disproven - unless every
> religious person as has expressed their doubts to me over the
> last three and a half decades when discussing my lack of faith
> or non-subscription to their religion was lying about this.

>> People can't change their beliefs at will,

But their circumstances can cause them to change what they believe in.

>> or at least they shouldn'twant to do that.

Don�t buy that either. A rational person should be prepared
to change what they believe in when good enough evidence
turns up that what they did believe in is not correct.

> - i don't understand how anyone can choose to change their beliefs;

I do, when the evidence shows up that indicates that what they
had believed in is not possible to reconcile with the evidence.

> come to realise they don't in fact believe what they
> thought they did, or had previously believed, yes; decide that
> they do not agree with some teachings of the religion to which
> they belong, or decide they cannot accept implications of the
> teachings or assumptions, yes; decide to re-examine their own,
> or their religion's teachings, practices, assumptions & beliefs,
> yes; but belief is by definition lacking sufficient evidence for
> logically conclusive proof: else it would not be belief, but
> knowledge.

That last isnt necessarily true. Most of us do believe
some things without carefully considering the evidence
and just assume that the evidence is there for most of
what we believe in.

You can believe that say people are all basically decent
and that if you treat them as you would have them treat
you that they will behave decently towards you. And then
you may become aware of psychopaths that don�t work like
that and change your belief when you consider the evidence.

[John Halpenny]

On Oct 3, 6:24 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Brian M. Scott wrote, On 10/3/12 9:51 AM:

> >> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in

> >>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
>
> >> Nonsense.
>
> >I believe in nonsense.
>
> I practice it religiously.
>
> And make sure to check it carefully before posting it to Usenet, unlike so
> many others.
>
> Dave, I'm Allowed
> --

Aren't we getting a bit carried away over "belief"

To believe is simply to not question. This could be because the idea
is so powerful and self-evident that there can be no doubt, and we all
like to think that all of our beliefs are so founded. More likely,
however, we just haven't the time or interest to question an idea, or
it's useful, or it would cause trouble to go against the crowd, so we
get on with our life and save any doubts for later. Does every
churchgoer studiously believe all the tenants of his faith, or does he
just have better things to do than to question them?

[Charlton Wilbur]

>>>>> "WB" == Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:

WB> I don't think so. To understand a religion, one must really be a
WB> participant and this affects your entire world view down to the
WB> foundations and below if it were possible.

For instance, as a friend put it, - "I believe in God the way an atheist
believes in Angela Merkel -- someone who actually exists, has certain
powers, and, while I can send messages to her, the fact that she does
not reply to me on official letterhead is not sufficient to cause me to
doubt her existence."

Charlton






--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net

[Charlton Wilbur]

>>>>> "Q" == Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

Q> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

Arrant nonsense. (Surprise.)

How many people go to church unfailingly every Sunday without the
slightest shred of belief? Are you going to chop logic and say that one
person in a pew is participating in religion because he believes in God,
while the next person over is *not* participating in religion, despite
doing all the same things, because she does not believe in God, or
because she currently doubts the existence of God?

How many religions are there that do not stipulate the existence of a
god or gods, or require belief in them? Are you going to deny that
Jainism, Buddhism, or Hinduism -- all of which are or can be nontheistic
-- are not religions?

[Rod Speed]

John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote

> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote
>> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Brian M. Scott wrote

>>>> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

>>>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

>>>> Nonsense.

>>> I believe in nonsense.

>> I practice it religiously.

>> And make sure to check it carefully before
>> posting it to Usenet, unlike so many others.

>> Dave, I'm Allowed

> Aren't we getting a bit carried away over "belief"

> To believe is simply to not question. This could be because the idea
> is so powerful and self-evident that there can be no doubt, and we all
> like to think that all of our beliefs are so founded. More likely,
> however, we just haven't the time or interest to question an idea, or
> it's useful, or it would cause trouble to go against the crowd, so we
> get on with our life and save any doubts for later. Does every
> churchgoer studiously believe all the tenants of his faith, or does he
> just have better things to do than to question them?

And plenty get involved with many religions more for the social
aspects of the religion than because of any belief in any god etc.

Tho certainly the absolute vast bulk of individuals do believe
in some form of higher being etc. That may just be because
of how we evolved etc tho. More of a crutch for their minds
than anything else or even just finding it very difficult to
accept that we just evolved from pond slime etc and that
there is no purpose at all for any of our existences.

[Rod Speed]

Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.

> Arrant nonsense. (Surprise.)

> How many people go to church unfailingly every Sunday without the
> slightest shred of belief?

It would be interesting to know how many are just there for the social
situation. And that doesn't have to be unfailingly every Sunday either.

Impossible to measure accurately tho, particularly with what they
do when they are told that they have an inoperable cancer etc
or someone they care about has like one of their kids etc.

> Are you going to chop logic and say that one person in a pew
> is participating in religion because he believes in God, while
> the next person over is *not* participating in religion, despite
> doing all the same things, because she does not believe in
> God, or because she currently doubts the existence of God?

> How many religions are there that do not
> stipulate the existence of a god or gods,

Not every many at all.

> or require belief in them?

For various levels of require.

> Are you going to deny that Jainism, Buddhism, or Hinduism
> -- all of which are or can be nontheistic -- are not religions?

Get a bit iffy when you extend that to Santa and the Easter Bunny.

[Quadibloc]

On Oct 3, 1:26 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >People can't change their beliefs at will, or at least they shouldn't

> >want to do that. Beliefs should be the consequence of the rational

> >examination of the evidence of the experiences of a lifetime.
>

> I believed that Safeway was closer than King Supers, but changed my
> belief without difficulty when I looked at the map.

Your belief changed because you learned a new fact.

It's altering beliefs without new observations, without a logical
cause, simply by force of will, that I find odd.

John Savard

[Rod Speed]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote

>> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

>> >People can't change their beliefs at will, or at least they shouldn't
>> >want to do that. Beliefs should be the consequence of the rational
>> >examination of the evidence of the experiences of a lifetime.

>> I believed that Safeway was closer than King Supers, but changed my
>> belief without difficulty when I looked at the map.

> Your belief changed because you learned a new fact.

> It's altering beliefs without new observations, without
> a logical cause, simply by force of will, that I find odd.

Its not really so odd.

Its well known that most tend to be rather more left leaning politically
when they are young and change their beliefs on that as they get older.

We appear to have evolved like that.

Kids really do believe that they are immortal.

That's why we use them in wars and have done for millennia now.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2012-10-03 12:00:26 -0400, Robert Carnegie said:

> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:54:10 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> The religious beliefs of Muslims are certainly different
>> from the religious beliefs of Christians. But here, does
>> "different" mean "alien", particularly _incomprehensibly_
>> alien? Or is the behavior of Muslims an entirely predictable
>> consequence of being brought up in a tradition where one
>> simply has a different set of marching orders from one's God?
>
> Are they even particularly different? God, angels, sin, lots of
> praying, doing good, going to heaven when you die, and, of course,
> going on crusades to convert unbelievers, or their temples anyway.

Right.

> In fact, pretty much /every/ religion is like that - or at least,
> the conspicuous ones; but, then, the crusading thing is what makes
> them conspicuous, and of course wealthy and successful.

So you don't consider Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Shintoism to be
conspicuous?



--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

How do you have Hinduism without at least a godhead?

(I'm with you on Jainism and Buddhism, but if there's a non-theistic
sect of Hinduism, that's news to me.)

[David DeLaney]

John Halpenny <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
>On Oct 3, 6:24 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Brian M. Scott wrote, On 10/3/12 9:51 AM:

>> >> Nonsense.
>>
>> >I believe in nonsense.
>>
>> I practice it religiously.
>>
>> And make sure to check it carefully before posting it to Usenet, unlike so
>> many others.
>>
>> Dave, I'm Allowed
>> --
>
>Aren't we getting a bit carried away over "belief"
>
>To believe is simply to not question.

Nope. That's "faith". Beliefs can be questioned all over the place and still
remain beliefs.

Dave, we shall do SCIENCE to him

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <dn4p689i3tg1367j0...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 20:09:07 +0300, Juho Julkunen
> <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The only reasonable, sane and intellectually honest approach is to say:
> >"I don't know if there is a Tooth Fairy. Maybe there is, maybe there
> >isn't; we can't know for certain either way, and to believe either is a
> >matter of faith."
>
> Then we may as well doubt all of reality. But you can't live that
> way, we have to accept we need to eat and go to the bathroom, and that
> other people hurt.

Was I too subtle? I didn't think I was too subtle.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 6:59:44 AM UTC+1, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On 2012-10-03 12:00:26 -0400, Robert Carnegie said:
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:54:10 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> The religious beliefs of Muslims are certainly different
> >> from the religious beliefs of Christians. But here, does
> >> "different" mean "alien", particularly _incomprehensibly_
> >> alien? Or is the behavior of Muslims an entirely predictable
> >> consequence of being brought up in a tradition where one
> >> simply has a different set of marching orders from one's God?
> >
> > Are they even particularly different? God, angels, sin, lots of
> > praying, doing good, going to heaven when you die, and, of course,
> > going on crusades to convert unbelievers, or their temples anyway.
>
> Right.
>
> > In fact, pretty much /every/ religion is like that - or at least,
> > the conspicuous ones; but, then, the crusading thing is what makes
> > them conspicuous, and of course wealthy and successful.
>
> So you don't consider Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Shintoism to be
> conspicuous?

Well, Buddhism for instance has heavens and gods, just kind of
differently to most other religions. But if that's what you go
to a religion for, they've got them.

Suppose we concentrate on the earthly-life contribution to the deal -
sin, praying, territorial expansion. I think /that's/ all of them,
including Judaism.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k4j8kf$6r3$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:

> On 2012-10-03 12:00:26 -0400, Robert Carnegie said:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:54:10 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> The religious beliefs of Muslims are certainly different
> >> from the religious beliefs of Christians. But here, does
> >> "different" mean "alien", particularly _incomprehensibly_
> >> alien? Or is the behavior of Muslims an entirely predictable
> >> consequence of being brought up in a tradition where one
> >> simply has a different set of marching orders from one's God?
> >
> > Are they even particularly different? God, angels, sin, lots of
> > praying, doing good, going to heaven when you die, and, of course,
> > going on crusades to convert unbelievers, or their temples anyway.
>
> Right.
>
> > In fact, pretty much /every/ religion is like that - or at least,
> > the conspicuous ones; but, then, the crusading thing is what makes
> > them conspicuous, and of course wealthy and successful.
>
> So you don't consider Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Shintoism to be
> conspicuous?

Hinduism, Buddhism and Shintoism had their holy wars, forsooth. I'm
not sure about Taoism for sure per sea, but one could be a
Confucianist, a Buddhist and Taoist at the same time.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <pi4p68hdmm250iblp...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 16:48:18 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com
> (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>
> >Your remark reminds me of something I heard years ago: "If being a
> >Christian was a crime, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"
>
> Of course, many of the most Righteous Christians stand for everything
> Jesus Christ was against, and against everything Jesus Christ was for.

For example, Ayn Rand Christians.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k4hpdp$v6a$1...@dont-email.me>,

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:

> On 2012-10-03 16:12:09 +0000, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> said:
>

> > nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> >
> >> On Oct 2, 5:51 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>> Quadibloc wrote:

> >>>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
> >>>

> >>> I consider atheism a form of religion.
> >>

> >> And you seemed so... reasonable...
> >
> > Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
> > if they believed it was a divine revelation.
>
> How's their certainty about the existence or non-existence of Zeus? Or
> Peter Pan? Or Jenny Greenteeth? Or kelpies?
>

> kdb

But all men worship Aphrodite, even though we know she's flighty.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k4i5fj$j7j$1...@dont-email.me>,
lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 10/3/12 9:12 AM, Dan Goodman wrote:
> > Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
> > if they believed it was a divine revelation.
>

> When someone postulates something as unlikely as pirouetting pink
> elephants in tutus, I claim the burden of supporting the postulate is
> not mine.

I've a movie of the same. Or was it hippos?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1G1bs.1435$MA1...@newsfe18.iad>,
Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> lal_truckee wrote, On 10/3/12 3:59 PM:

> > On 10/3/12 9:12 AM, Dan Goodman wrote:
> >> Consider this: Many atheists are as certain of God's non-existence as
> >> if they believed it was a divine revelation.
> >
> > When someone postulates something as unlikely as pirouetting pink
> > elephants in tutus, I claim the burden of supporting the postulate is
> > not mine.
>

> They've had thousands of years to get ready for that one. It's
> invisible, weighs nothing, and hides from you and your bad vibes.
>
>

> Kip W
> rasfw

But I know I have elephants in my refrigerator, they leave footprints
in the peanut butter.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<d21aba5d-05d1-4505...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
"nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 3, 12:27 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> > On 03 Oct 2012 00:51:36 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> > >> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
> >
> > >I consider atheism a form of religion.
> >

> > Some people don't seem to be able to imagine someone not having
> > religion, so they project that upon others who disagree.
>

> My wife is taking college classes online; her Philosophy instructor
> was one of those. Rough paraphrase- "The first, and most fundamental
> component of one's worldview is one's relationship with God".
>
> He was a big fan of Aquinas...
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson

Well those who imagine they have a relationship with a deity are in a
different category than those who don't, weltanschauung wise.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <slrnk6pen...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
> >>
> >>I consider atheism a form of religion.
> >
> >Some people don't seem to be able to imagine someone not having
> >religion, so they project that upon others who disagree.
>
> This here. "_I_ do, I always have. So everyone else must also. Even those who
> repeatedly deny ever having done."
>
> Dave

Ah, but isn't that the same reasoning we use to infer that other
people are conscious or feel pain. (Some people don't feel pain and
thus usually don't live very long.)

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k4j8om$7ma$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:

> On 2012-10-03 23:11:25 -0400, Charlton Wilbur said:
>
> > >>>>> "Q" == Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> >
> > Q> To be a participant in religion, one has to *believe in God*.
> >
> > Arrant nonsense. (Surprise.)
> >
> > How many people go to church unfailingly every Sunday without the
> > slightest shred of belief? Are you going to chop logic and say that one
> > person in a pew is participating in religion because he believes in God,
> > while the next person over is *not* participating in religion, despite
> > doing all the same things, because she does not believe in God, or
> > because she currently doubts the existence of God?
> >
> > How many religions are there that do not stipulate the existence of a
> > god or gods, or require belief in them? Are you going to deny that
> > Jainism, Buddhism, or Hinduism -- all of which are or can be nontheistic
> > -- are not religions?
>
> How do you have Hinduism without at least a godhead?
>
> (I'm with you on Jainism and Buddhism, but if there's a non-theistic
> sect of Hinduism, that's news to me.)

You have news:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism>