World Without Religion
Tim Bruening
would technology have developed?
David Johnston
Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
Howard Brazee
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
Mostly, patriotism can serve the functions religion has. But
sometimes the two are in competition. Where God and Country have
different power structures, neither is quite as powerful and the
people can benefit. The Renaissance was a time of great
advancement, partially because of this power struggle.
--
"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
wrote:
>>If religion had never developed, how would history have unfolded. How
>>would technology have developed?
>
>Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
>unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
Ahh, would this apply to societies without belief in, ghosts?
Wayne Throop
: David Johnston <da...@block.net>
: Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
: unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or unimaginitivity?
Well, maybe I can see the unimaginitivity, but only maybe and not at all
necessarily; it could merely be that people aren't as prone to attributing
mental processes to inanimate objects as currently. There *are* other
forms of imagination, shirley?
However, that pondered, it does seem that you'd have to presume,
not that "religion never happened to happen", but that people are
fundamentally different than we're used to. And the question didn't
really make clear what the difference was. Just "never came up with
religion" doesn't really could as a "difference" for this purpose.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Paul Ciszek
In article <b9h2d5l797s68s9m3...@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:33:25 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>If religion had never developed, how would history have unfolded. How
>>>would technology have developed?
>>
>>Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
>>unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>
>Ahh, would this apply to societies without belief in, ghosts?
Are there any?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
David Johnston
wrote:
>:: If religion had never developed, how would history have unfolded.
>:: How would technology have developed?
>
>: David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>: Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
>: unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>
>Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or unimaginitivity?
Because religion happens when people ask questions about why and how
things work and imagine answers for them.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:33:25 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>If religion had never developed, how would history have unfolded. How
>>>would technology have developed?
>>
>>Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
>>unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>
>
>Ahh, would this apply to societies without belief in, ghosts?
Not necessarily. That could just mean a lack of fear of mortality.
But all forms of religion is more sweeping.
Taemon
Nah. Religion happens when they try to answer those questions and won't
settle for "I don't know, let's try to find out".
T.
Matt Hughes
> Nah. Religion happens when they try to answer those questions and won't
> settle for "I don't know, let's try to find out".
Which soon leads to "We know the answers. Your questions and
imaginings offend the gods. Here's torture/banishment/immolation for
your pains." Religion is more about codifying and defending old
answers than asking new questions.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Wayne Throop
: Because religion happens when people ask questions about why and how
: things work and imagine answers for them.
Nope, don't see that. Religion is when people ask specific *kinds*
of questions, and imagine certain kinds of answers. I see no logical
necessity for curious and imaginitive people to be prone to imagine
those kinds of answers.
Failure to imagine curiosity and imagination without religion
seems to be quite substantial, as failures of imagination go
Taemon
And then it's about "you've got to have faith (or you're a sinner)", "faith"
meaning taking "because" for an answer to any question at all.
T.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or unimaginitivity?
>
>Because religion happens when people ask questions about why and how
>things work and imagine answers for them.
But (every religion but mine) happens when people answer questions
about why and how things work - which are wrong.
We could imagine a world without scientists believing that the moon is
made of green cheese - but that would imply a lack of incuriosity and
unimaginatively.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
>
>> Ahh, would this apply to societies without belief in, ghosts?
>
> Are there any?
>
Yes. See "Shakespeare in the Bush," in which Laura Bohannan relates
her experience of trying to explain Hamlet to an African tribe. The
first problem she runs into is that they don't know what ghosts are
and conclude that Hamlet's father is an apparition sent by a witch.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Nope, don't see that. Religion is when people ask specific *kinds*
>of questions, and imagine certain kinds of answers. I see no logical
>necessity for curious and imaginitive people to be prone to imagine
>those kinds of answers.
I have a theory that many religions started off with people telling
stories, without expecting them to be believed. But over time, some
people believe anyway.
We have ghost stories today that get believed. If we didn't have to
buy presents, we might still believe in Santa Claus.
Howard Brazee
Ciszek) wrote:
>>>Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
>>>unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>>
>>Ahh, would this apply to societies without belief in, ghosts?
>
>Are there any?
As many as there are gods in that other guy's religion.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> :: If religion had never developed, how would history have unfolded.
> :: How would technology have developed?
>
> : David Johnston <da...@block.net>
> : Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
> : unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>
> Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or unimaginitivity?
This seems to be Sid Meier's argument in the Civilization games --
to develop navigation you need astrology, and to develop astrology
you need mysticism.
Paul Ciszek
In article <7je8liF...@mid.individual.net>,
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Paul Ciszek
>declared:
>>
>>> Ahh, would this apply to societies without belief in, ghosts?
>>
>> Are there any?
>>
>
>Yes. See "Shakespeare in the Bush," in which Laura Bohannan relates
>her experience of trying to explain Hamlet to an African tribe. The
>first problem she runs into is that they don't know what ghosts are
>and conclude that Hamlet's father is an apparition sent by a witch.
It has been many years since I saw that article, but I thought that
aparitions of dead folks were known to that culture, but that they
were never self-motivated--that witches used the shades of recently
dead relatives as "puppets" to bother the living, as you say.
In other words, that culture had a tradition of "ghosts", but their
ghosts were significnatly different from the European variety.
Paul Ciszek
In article <9fr3d51ea4bcm0nta...@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:05:04 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>Ciszek) wrote:
>
>>>>Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
>>>>unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>>>
>>>Ahh, would this apply to societies without belief in, ghosts?
>>
>>Are there any?
>
>As many as there are gods in that other guy's religion.
There are as many societies without belief in ghosts as there
are gods in that other guy's religion? Huh? Which other guy?
Well, if there are a lot of societies without belief in ghosts,
maybe you could rattle off the names and geographical locations
of a few?
And by societies, I don't mean "The Rhode Island Atheist Society",
I mean societies like "Western Europe", "The Iroquois Nations",
etc. Anyone who has grown up in Europe, the USA, etc. has grown
up familiar with the *idea* of ghosts, around other people who
believe if ghosts, even if they themselves do not believe in
ghosts--i.e., those *societies* contain belief in ghosts, even
if only some of the individuals do. You can have a ghost appear
in a Harry Potter movie without having to explain to the audience
in detail what a "ghost" is.
Paul Ciszek
In article <hasj8f$ngl$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
How much of what we are excoriating is unique to the Abramic religions?
So far as I can tell, the whole "convert or die" thing is unique to
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You might kill the folks in the next
valley for Teutates, but you would never expect "them" to *worship*
Teutates, that would be stupid. By definition, Teutates is "our"
god, not "theirs".
Sure, stupid taboos can be found elsewhere. Gods with nasty habits and
a taste for the macabe, easy. But so far as I know only Yahweh, Christ,
and Allah expect *everyone* to believe in them.
If this were Star Trek, it would turn out that some sort of malevolent
entity that feeds on violence has been trapped in a geologic formation
somewhere in the middle east, building up civilizations to the point
where they could stage massive holy wars.
Paul Ciszek
In article <sar3d5dmfc99jn0j7...@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:45:02 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>wrote:
>
>>Nope, don't see that. Religion is when people ask specific *kinds*
>>of questions, and imagine certain kinds of answers. I see no logical
>>necessity for curious and imaginitive people to be prone to imagine
>>those kinds of answers.
>
>I have a theory that many religions started off with people telling
>stories, without expecting them to be believed. But over time, some
>people believe anyway.
Back in the Golden Age of Usenet, I remember some guy telling the story
of how when he was in college in the sixties, he and his friends started
an organization of "Druids" that was strictly an excuse to get drunk,
take drugs, and fuck, nothing more. They even wrote up some sort of
holy book to go with it. Many years later, he returned to campus as
an alumnus, and discovered to his horror that the chapter of "Druids"
still existed, but the stupid kids *actually believed in it*. It was
definately a successor organization, because he recognized their holy
writ as the one he wrote, but they had someone managed to make it no
fun anymore.
>We have ghost stories today that get believed. If we didn't have to
>buy presents, we might still believe in Santa Claus.
A significant number of urban legends start out as Tonight Show
monologue gags, and more recently, as Onion articles.
Some pre-historic "Calvin's Dad" has a lot to answer for.
Paul Ciszek
In article <7je91iF...@mid.individual.net>,
>declared:
>> :: If religion had never developed, how would history have unfolded.
>> :: How would technology have developed?
>>
>> : David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>> : Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
>> : unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>>
>> Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or unimaginitivity?
>
>This seems to be Sid Meier's argument in the Civilization games --
>to develop navigation you need astrology, and to develop astrology
>you need mysticism.
I will concede that the skills needed to do Astrology back when
astrologers really had to do the gruntwork themselves--i.e.,
figure out in advance when there was going to be an eclipse so
that either you or the king you worked for could intimidate the
peons--were esentially the same as Astronomy. I heard that some
Jesuits where able to get in good with a Chinese emperor by--
irony of ironies--using the Keplerian model to predict eclipses
more accurately than the Islamic astronomers that he had been
employing were able to.
Ancient astrologers were even aware of the Equinox precession,
which is how we know that modern "astrologers" haven't actually
looked at the sky for 2,000 years.
gort
> In article <hasj8f$ng...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >Matt Hughes wrote:
>
> >> On 11 Oct, 09:52, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >>> Nah. Religion happens when they try to answer those questions and
> >>> won't settle for "I don't know, let's try to find out".
>
> >> Which soon leads to "We know the answers. Your questions and
> >> imaginings offend the gods. Here's torture/banishment/immolation for
> >> your pains." Religion is more about codifying and defending old
> >> answers than asking new questions.
>
> >And then it's about "you've got to have faith (or you're a sinner)", "faith"
> >meaning taking "because" for an answer to any question at all.
>
> How much of what we are excoriating is unique to the Abramic religions?
> So far as I can tell, the whole "convert or die" thing is unique to
> Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You might kill the folks in the next
> valley for Teutates, but you would never expect "them" to *worship*
> Teutates, that would be stupid. By definition, Teutates is "our"
> god, not "theirs".
Religious arrogance didn't begin with the Christians. People
were killed if they didn't respect the local superstition. The
Christians and Jews had problems because they said the
gods weren't real, they were idols.
I don't impose my private beliefs on others, and I oppose
any attempt to make me pay tribute to your private beliefs.
> Sure, stupid taboos can be found elsewhere. Gods with nasty habits and
> a taste for the macabe, easy. But so far as I know only Yahweh, Christ,
> and Allah expect *everyone* to believe in them.
>
> If this were Star Trek, it would turn out that some sort of malevolent
> entity that feeds on violence has been trapped in a geologic formation
> somewhere in the middle east, building up civilizations to the point
> where they could stage massive holy wars.
>
Massive wars? No. Every war is a disgrace, and every
violent death is a problem, but there are other problems
that are more important.
Matt Hughes
>
> Back in the Golden Age of Usenet, I remember some guy telling the story
> of how when he was in college in and the sixties, he and his friends started
> an organization of "Druids" that was strictly an excuse to get drunk,
> take drugs, and fuck, nothing more. They even wrote up some sort of
> holy book to go with it. Many years later, he returned to campus as
> an alumnus, and discovered to his horror that the chapter of "Druids"
> still existed, but the stupid kids *actually believed in it*. It was
> definately a successor organization, because he recognized their holy
> writ as the one he wrote, but they had someone managed to make it no
> fun anymore.
In a similar vein, in 1968 at then fairly radicalized Simon Fraser
University I was part of a little street theater group that
masqueraded as an unabashedly fascist party. We wore sunglasses and
armbands with the three-triangle radiation symbol, saluted each other
flamboyantly, and ran for office in the student elections so that we
could give bombastic speeches about the need for order and faith in
the authorities. Just before the election, we staged a public
assassination of our leader (blank pistols). One day, I was in the
cafeteria frequented by the science and economic students, giving out
some scurrilous broadsheet that was cribbed from Mussolini speeches.
Several of the short-hairs asked how they could join.
We disbanded.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Butch Malahide
Like you just did! You tried to answer the question "Religion happens,
when?" and wouldn't settle for "I don't know, let's try to find out."
Butch Malahide
> How much of what we are excoriating is unique to the Abramic religions?
> So far as I can tell, the whole "convert or die" thing is unique to
> Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Judaism too? I didn't know that. I wonder how the widespread notion,
that Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion, got started.
David Johnston
Same thing.
Butch Malahide
> I don't impose my private beliefs on others, and I oppose
> any attempt to make me pay tribute to your private beliefs.
You can *oppose* taxes all you want. Good luck on getting out of
*paying* taxes to support Environmentalism, Militarism, Space-
explorationism, etc.
Tim Bruening
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:43:22 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or unimaginitivity?
> >
> >Because religion happens when people ask questions about why and how
> >things work and imagine answers for them.
>
> But (every religion but mine) happens when people answer questions
> about why and how things work - which are wrong.
What is your religion?
Tim Bruening
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:45:02 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
> >Nope, don't see that. Religion is when people ask specific *kinds*
> >of questions, and imagine certain kinds of answers. I see no logical
> >necessity for curious and imaginitive people to be prone to imagine
> >those kinds of answers.
>
> I have a theory that many religions started off with people telling
> stories, without expecting them to be believed. But over time, some
> people believe anyway.
>
> We have ghost stories today that get believed. If we didn't have to
> buy presents, we might still believe in Santa Claus.
The SyFy channel has programs about ghost hunters.
Butch Malahide
> In article <sar3d5dmfc99jn0j7fa1mnki5evlnut...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> >I have a theory that many religions started off with people telling
> >stories, without expecting them to be believed. But over time, some
> >people believe anyway.
>
> Back in the Golden Age of Usenet, I remember some guy telling the story
> of how when he was in college in the sixties, he and his friends started
> an organization of "Druids" that was strictly an excuse to get drunk,
> take drugs, and fuck, nothing more. They even wrote up some sort of
> holy book to go with it. Many years later, he returned to campus as
> an alumnus, and discovered to his horror that the chapter of "Druids"
> still existed, but the stupid kids *actually believed in it*. It was
> definately a successor organization, because he recognized their holy
> writ as the one he wrote, but they had someone managed to make it no
> fun anymore.
Do you believe that story?
Tim Bruening
Paul Ciszek wrote:
Thus explaining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the terrorists, etc.
How would we scan for such an entity?
Tim Bruening
Matt Hughes wrote:
Shades of the children's novel "The Wave"!
Kurt Busiek
When I was in college, the Campus Crusade for Christ was taking surveys
-- which they said had nothing to do with university administration --
about student religious preference. They cauht me in a puckish mood,
so I put down my religious preference as "Relaxed Ancient Nordic."
They turned up at my dorm room to try to convert me, so I tried to
convert them back, extolling the virtues of Odin and Thor. They asked
what made Relaxed Ancient Nordic "relaxed," and I told them we no
longer bothered with human sacrifice; we substituted jelly donuts.
Shortly thereafter, I got a letter from the head of Hendricks Chapel,
saying that as the head of my religious denomination on campus, I was
entitled to use the chapel for services.
For the next couple of years, my friends and I discussed finding out if
we could get the university to spring for the sacrificial donuts, but
never got around to it.
But as far as I know, my beliefs never took root among the student body.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com — for all your Busiek needs!
Butch Malahide
> Shades of the children's novel "The Wave"!
Do you believe in shades?
David Johnston
wrote:
That was conscientious of him.
Tim Bruening
Butch Malahide wrote:
Yes, to protect me from the sun.
Kurt Busiek
Yes. Though if the CCC hadn't been lying, of course, the university
wouldn't have known anything about my "religious affiliation."
Mike Schilling
> On Oct 11, 11:24 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>> How much of what we are excoriating is unique to the Abramic
>> religions? So far as I can tell, the whole "convert or die" thing
>> is
>> unique to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
>
> Judaism too? I didn't know that.
Probably because it's not true.
> I wonder how the widespread notion,
> that Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion, got started.
Damned silly people paying attnetion, I suppose. Actually, it's not
true of Islam either. Some Islamic countries treat non-Muslims as
second-class citiziens, but even there they don't proselytize.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:6033d59r9ajrhv06k...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:35:43 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
> Throop) wrote:
>
>>:: If religion had never developed, how would history have
>>:: unfolded. How would technology have developed?
>>
>>: David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>: Since people who never developed religion would be incurious
>>: and unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>>
>>Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or unimaginitivity?
>
> Because religion happens when people ask questions about why and
> how things work and imagine answers for them.
>
As opposed to asking the same questions and actually *finding* the
answers? Which is, in fact, what the Age of Reason brought us, and
we've seen far more development in the average century since than in
all of human history before.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
> You might kill the folks in the next
> valley for Teutates, but you would never expect "them" to *worship*
> Teutates, that would be stupid. By definition, Teutates is "our"
> god, not "theirs".
By Toutatis, you're right! After all, if we taught those Romans about
Toutatis, the next thing you know, they might be able to duplicate our
magic strength potion.
John Savard
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>news:6033d59r9ajrhv06k...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:35:43 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
>> Throop) wrote:
>>
>>>:: If religion had never developed, how would history have
>>>:: unfolded. How would technology have developed?
>>>
>>>: David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>>: Since people who never developed religion would be incurious
>>>: and unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>>>
>>>Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or unimaginitivity?
>>
>> Because religion happens when people ask questions about why and
>> how things work and imagine answers for them.
>>
>As opposed to asking the same questions and actually *finding* the
>answers? Which is, in fact, what the Age of Reason brought us, and
>we've seen far more development in the average century since than in
>all of human history before.
What's your point? Surely it can't be that neolithic cultures have
the requisite resources to have their own Age of Reason. They don't.
It takes a critical mass of civilization, and literacy.
Matthias Warkus
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:35:43 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> :: If religion had never developed, how would history have unfolded.
>> :: How would technology have developed?
>>
>> : David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>> : Since people who never developed religion would be incurious and
>> : unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>>
>> Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or unimaginitivity?
>
> Because religion happens when people ask questions about why and how
> things work and imagine answers for them.
s/religion/philosophy/ and you're right.
mawa
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:39:34 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>>news:6033d59r9ajrhv06k...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:35:43 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
>>> Throop) wrote:
>>>
>>>>:: If religion had never developed, how would history have
>>>>:: unfolded. How would technology have developed?
>>>>
>>>>: David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>>>: Since people who never developed religion would be incurious
>>>>: and unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>>>>
>>>>Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or
>>>>unimaginitivity?
>>>
>>> Because religion happens when people ask questions about why
>>> and how things work and imagine answers for them.
>>>
>>As opposed to asking the same questions and actually *finding*
>>the answers? Which is, in fact, what the Age of Reason brought
>>us, and we've seen far more development in the average century
>>since than in all of human history before.
>
> What's your point?
That what you said is, provably, exactly the opposite of the truth.
> Surely it can't be that neolithic cultures
> have the requisite resources to have their own Age of Reason.
> They don't. It takes a critical mass of civilization, and
> literacy.
>
Everything was in place for the Age of Reason by the fall of the
Roman Empire, about the fifth century. But it didn't happen for a
millenium, and it didn't happen because of religion. It happened
because people went from making up answers to finding them. Do you
grasp the differnce? Probably not.
Wayne Throop
: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
: That what you said is, provably, exactly the opposite of the truth.
Indeed. Religion isn't when you ask and imagine. It's when you
think you already have the answers *don't* ask or imagine.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:12552...@sheol.org:
>:: What's your point?
>
>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>: That what you said is, provably, exactly the opposite of the
>: truth.
>
> Indeed. Religion isn't when you ask and imagine. It's when you
> think you already have the answers *don't* ask or imagine.
>
No, he had it right. You ask, and make up the answer out of
imagination. Same way little children make up invisible friends, and
the way strung out drunks make up bugs crawling on their skin.
Wayne Throop
: the way strung out drunks make up bugs crawling on their skin.
Sure, but the raio of time-spent-asking-n-imagining to the
time-spent-recitin-dogma is very very small in most religions, naict.
Bill Snyder
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Butch Malahide wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 11:24 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>> How much of what we are excoriating is unique to the Abramic
>>> religions? So far as I can tell, the whole "convert or die" thing
>>> is
>>> unique to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
>>
>> Judaism too? I didn't know that.
>
>Probably because it's not true.
Well, not recently; but then the "or die" option is generally
frowned on these days. Back in the day, Yahweh was more a "kill
the men, kill the women, kill the babies, kill the cattle, kill
the cats and dogs" type; the "convert" option wasn't widely
available.
>> I wonder how the widespread notion,
>> that Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion, got started.
>
>Damned silly people paying attnetion, I suppose. Actually, it's not
>true of Islam either. Some Islamic countries treat non-Muslims as
>second-class citiziens, but even there they don't proselytize.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>news:hph4d5tc5qlgqaf44...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:39:34 GMT, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>>>news:6033d59r9ajrhv06k...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:35:43 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
>>>> Throop) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>:: If religion had never developed, how would history have
>>>>>:: unfolded. How would technology have developed?
>>>>>
>>>>>: David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>>>>: Since people who never developed religion would be incurious
>>>>>: and unimaginative by our standards, very, very slowly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why would lack of religion imply incuriosity or
>>>>>unimaginitivity?
>>>>
>>>> Because religion happens when people ask questions about why
>>>> and how things work and imagine answers for them.
>>>>
>>>As opposed to asking the same questions and actually *finding*
>>>the answers? Which is, in fact, what the Age of Reason brought
>>>us, and we've seen far more development in the average century
>>>since than in all of human history before.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
>That what you said is, provably, exactly the opposite of the truth.
Feel free to try to make it some day.
>
>> Surely it can't be that neolithic cultures
>> have the requisite resources to have their own Age of Reason.
>> They don't. It takes a critical mass of civilization, and
>> literacy.
>>
>Everything was in place for the Age of Reason by the fall of the
>Roman Empire,
Which would have been how many thousands of years after the invention
of religion?
Mike Schilling
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:19:28 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Butch Malahide wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 11:24 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>> How much of what we are excoriating is unique to the Abramic
>>>> religions? So far as I can tell, the whole "convert or die" thing
>>>> is
>>>> unique to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
>>>
>>> Judaism too? I didn't know that.
>>
>> Probably because it's not true.
>
> Well, not recently; but then the "or die" option is generally
> frowned on these days. Back in the day, Yahweh was more a "kill
> the men, kill the women, kill the babies, kill the cattle, kill
> the cats and dogs" type; the "convert" option wasn't widely
> available.
But converting didn't help; in fact, it made things worse. He
expected more of the Jews, so they got punished more often. Sort of
like parents who ground the studious kid for a B+ while they reward
the thug for getting only one detention this week.
Walter Bushell
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> Well, not recently; but then the "or die" option is generally
> frowned on these days. Back in the day, Yahweh was more a "kill
> the men, kill the women, kill the babies, kill the cattle, kill
> the cats and dogs" type; the "convert" option wasn't widely
> available.
Some times they just killed the women and raped the men. Or do I have
the vice versa?
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>: No, he had it right. You ask, and make up the answer out of
>: imagination. Same way little children make up invisible
>: friends, and the way strung out drunks make up bugs crawling on
>: their skin.
>
> Sure, but the raio of time-spent-asking-n-imagining to the
> time-spent-recitin-dogma is very very small in most religions,
> naict.
>
Depends on the individual. There are plenty of scientists who are
believers, after all.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
History has already done so, in ways already explained.
>
>>
>>> Surely it can't be that neolithic cultures
>>> have the requisite resources to have their own Age of Reason.
>>> They don't. It takes a critical mass of civilization, and
>>> literacy.
>>>
>>Everything was in place for the Age of Reason by the fall of the
>>Roman Empire,
>
> Which would have been how many thousands of years after the
> invention of religion?
>
Good question. Certainly, at least 4000, since we have historical
records going back that far.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:proto-B17B2E....@news.panix.com:
> In article <h0n4d5la672vq8ma2...@4ax.com>,
> Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, not recently; but then the "or die" option is generally
>> frowned on these days. Back in the day, Yahweh was more a
>> "kill the men, kill the women, kill the babies, kill the
>> cattle, kill the cats and dogs" type; the "convert" option
>> wasn't widely available.
>
> Some times they just killed the women and raped the men. Or do I
> have the vice versa?
>
Or kill the men and women, anad rape the cattle and dogs.
Walter Bushell
wrote:
Hey, you should have. Then burned a doughnut or too on the altar. Odin
likes the smell of burning doughnuts.
Walter Bushell
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
And the fall of Rome rather prevented that. The Empire in the East lived
on for a longish time, and there was no age of reason there. Perhaps,
Iran had one in the early Islamic age, but that got wiped out.
Juho Julkunen
(pr...@panix.com) says...
> In article <h0n4d5la672vq8ma2...@4ax.com>,
> Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, not recently; but then the "or die" option is generally
> > frowned on these days. Back in the day, Yahweh was more a "kill
> > the men, kill the women, kill the babies, kill the cattle, kill
> > the cats and dogs" type; the "convert" option wasn't widely
> > available.
>
> Some times they just killed the women and raped the men. Or do I have
> the vice versa?
That was the Foreign Legion, right?
--
Juho Julkunen
Howard Brazee
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>> But (every religion but mine) happens when people answer questions
>> about why and how things work - which are wrong.
>
>What is your religion?
I was using that as a generic belief, not mine personally. I'm an
atheist.
--
"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
Walter Bushell
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
> news:proto-B17B2E....@news.panix.com:
>
> > In article <h0n4d5la672vq8ma2...@4ax.com>,
> > Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, not recently; but then the "or die" option is generally
> >> frowned on these days. Back in the day, Yahweh was more a
> >> "kill the men, kill the women, kill the babies, kill the
> >> cattle, kill the cats and dogs" type; the "convert" option
> >> wasn't widely available.
> >
> > Some times they just killed the women and raped the men. Or do I
> > have the vice versa?
> >
> Or kill the men and women, anad rape the cattle and dogs.
Your respect for YAHUWAHU seems greater in magnitude than my own.
Walter Bushell
Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"The Last Remake of Beau Geste" version, yes.
Alan F
>
> When I was in college, the Campus Crusade for Christ was taking surveys
> -- which they said had nothing to do with university administration --
> about student religious preference. They cauht me in a puckish mood, so
> I put down my religious preference as "Relaxed Ancient Nordic."
>
> They turned up at my dorm room to try to convert me, so I tried to
> convert them back, extolling the virtues of Odin and Thor. They asked
> what made Relaxed Ancient Nordic "relaxed," and I told them we no longer
> bothered with human sacrifice; we substituted jelly donuts.
>
> Shortly thereafter, I got a letter from the head of Hendricks Chapel,
> saying that as the head of my religious denomination on campus, I was
> entitled to use the chapel for services.
>
> For the next couple of years, my friends and I discussed finding out if
> we could get the university to spring for the sacrificial donuts, but
> never got around to it.
>
> But as far as I know, my beliefs never took root among the student body.
>
> kdb
The head of Hendricks Chapel may have figured that you were joking,
but he (/she) might have been able to get some free donuts from the
sacrificial left-overs. You know, free wafers, free wine, why not free
donuts to go with the wine?
Alan F
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>
>> When I was in college, the Campus Crusade for Christ was taking surveys
>> -- which they said had nothing to do with university administration --
>> about student religious preference. They cauht me in a puckish mood,
>> so I put down my religious preference as "Relaxed Ancient Nordic."
>>
>> They turned up at my dorm room to try to convert me, so I tried to
>> convert them back, extolling the virtues of Odin and Thor. They asked
>> what made Relaxed Ancient Nordic "relaxed," and I told them we no
>> longer bothered with human sacrifice; we substituted jelly donuts.
>>
>> Shortly thereafter, I got a letter from the head of Hendricks Chapel,
>> saying that as the head of my religious denomination on campus, I was
>> entitled to use the chapel for services.
>>
>> For the next couple of years, my friends and I discussed finding out if
>> we could get the university to spring for the sacrificial donuts, but
>> never got around to it.
>>
>> But as far as I know, my beliefs never took root among the student body.
>
> The head of Hendricks Chapel may have figured that you were joking,
> but he (/she) might have been able to get some free donuts from the
> sacrificial left-overs. You know, free wafers, free wine, why not free
> donuts to go with the wine?
You think the Campus Crusade reported the details of my claimed method
of worship to the Chapel administration after they tried to convert me?
I'd think that unlikely.
I'd expect that the survey I filled out, which was supposed to be
unaffiliated with the university, was turned in to the university, and
once collated, each various religious group was offered the use of the
chapel. I was the only one in my category, so I was ipso facto the
leader of my religious community on campus, which probably entitled me
to use the chapel under the rules that they couldn't discriminate
against any creed; they had to make the offer.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Mike Schilling
> When I was in college, the Campus Crusade for Christ was taking
> surveys -- which they said had nothing to do with university
> administration -- about student religious preference. They cauht
> me in a puckish mood, so I put down my religious preference as
> "Relaxed Ancient Nordic."
> They turned up at my dorm room to try to convert me, so I tried to
> convert them back, extolling the virtues of Odin and Thor. They
> asked what made Relaxed Ancient Nordic "relaxed," and I told them
> we no longer bothered with human sacrifice; we substituted jelly
> donuts.
"Ich bin ein Berliner!"
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
I have doubts, since I have no respect for much of anything.
Tim Bruening
and scientific development was delayed for ten's of thousands of years by
the religions the Jevlanese promoted on Earth. The Lunarans on Minerva
had developed a high-tech civilization in just a few thousand years
because they weren't hampered by religions.
Dimensional Traveler
TV while eating some crackers and cheese. They had a cutting board and
a big knife to cut the cheese with and his father's easy chair had these
large pockets in the sides below the armrests. So they're watching TV
and the doorbell rings. My friend answers the door and its a pair of
male Jehovah's Witnesses. Knowing his dad was not big on religion he
started to get rid of them but was surprised when his dad says to go
ahead and let them in.
So they come in and start their spiel. The father tells them that he'll
listen to them and observe their rituals if they, in turn, will do the
same and observe his family's rituals. The JWs agree and for a while my
friend and his dad listen to them and pray with them. At some point
during this time my friend says he noticed that the knife they had been
using was missing.
They finish praying with the JWs and the two men ask the dad what their
rituals are. My friend's dad reaches in to the pocket of his easy
chair, whips out the knife they had been using to cut cheese with and
growls out, "CASTRATION!". The Jehovah's Witnesses left. Very, very
quickly.
--
7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths
Myths - Will - Fall!
Walter Bushell
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ah, The Deity was speaking through the President. When we die, our souls
go to add to the filling of the big Doughnut in the Sky.
[This religion is only for mock turtles.]
Walter Bushell
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> They finish praying with the JWs and the two men ask the dad what their
> rituals are. My friend's dad reaches in to the pocket of his easy
> chair, whips out the knife they had been using to cut cheese with and
> growls out, "CASTRATION!". The Jehovah's Witnesses left. Very, very
> quickly.
That is one way to cut the cheese.
Walter Bushell
Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
That was as realistic as the rest of his science.
Juho Julkunen
> In article <MPG.253ca6eda...@news.kolumbus.fi>,
> Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <proto-B17B2E....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
> > (pr...@panix.com) says...
> > > In article <h0n4d5la672vq8ma2...@4ax.com>,
> > > Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, not recently; but then the "or die" option is generally
> > > > frowned on these days. Back in the day, Yahweh was more a "kill
> > > > the men, kill the women, kill the babies, kill the cattle, kill
> > > > the cats and dogs" type; the "convert" option wasn't widely
> > > > available.
> > >
> > > Some times they just killed the women and raped the men. Or do I have
> > > the vice versa?
> >
> > That was the Foreign Legion, right?
>
> "The Last Remake of Beau Geste" version, yes.
What else?
--
Juho Julkunen
Howard Brazee
their beliefs. And when I did talk with some once, they claimed to
not believe in eternal torture for non-believers. So they aren't so
hate filled as many fundamentalists are.
gort
> On Oct 11, 12:20 pm, gort <adweil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't impose my private beliefs on others, and I oppose
> > any attempt to make me pay tribute to your private beliefs.
>
> You can *oppose* taxes all you want. Good luck on getting out of
> *paying* taxes to support Environmentalism, Militarism, Space-
> explorationism, etc.
Spacexplorationism? Is that the belief that they put a man on
the moon? I believe that space exploration exists, don't you?
What possible reasons could there be for doubt?
Paul Ciszek
In article <hatekh$o94$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Damned silly people paying attnetion, I suppose. Actually, it's not
>true of Islam either. Some Islamic countries treat non-Muslims as
>second-class citiziens, but even there they don't proselytize.
Right. Islam became one the most widespread religions in the world
within a few centuries of its founding without proselytizing.
What exactly do you think happened to all the Hindus and Buddhists
that once lived in Afghanistan? You know, the ones who built those
lovely enormous statues that the Taliban dynamited? What exactly do
you think happened to Spain in the eighth century CE?
Maybe we have a problem with definitions here: "Convert or Die"
is one form of proselytization, one that both Christianity and
Islam have used a lot.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, it hasn't. I didn't say religion couldn't be abandoned (although
it's bloody unlikely it will be any time in the next few thousand
years). I said people (meaning an entire species,) who wouldn't
invent it in the first place wouldn't be very curious or imaginative.
(although lacking a tendency to be social would do the same trick. If
it was abnormal to take what other people say on a certain amount of
trust then that would keep religion from spreading. But such a
species would be really handicapped when it came to running a
civilization)
>>
>>>
>>>> Surely it can't be that neolithic cultures
>>>> have the requisite resources to have their own Age of Reason.
>>>> They don't. It takes a critical mass of civilization, and
>>>> literacy.
>>>>
>>>Everything was in place for the Age of Reason by the fall of the
>>>Roman Empire,
>>
>> Which would have been how many thousands of years after the
>> invention of religion?
>>
>Good question. Certainly, at least 4000, since we have historical
>records going back that far.
So an "age of reason" that started during, say, the Periclean golden
age, would not in fact prevent the invention of religion.
Paul Ciszek
In article <proto-2CD95A....@news.panix.com>,
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <hauci1$eou$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ich bin ein Berliner!"
>
>Ah, The Deity was speaking through the President. When we die, our souls
>go to add to the filling of the big Doughnut in the Sky.
For what it's worth, NPR once interviewed a german-on-the street about
that and she seemed very offended that the "jelly donut" story was so
widespread. The germans knew what JFK meant, and from what I recall
from high school german, the form "Ich bin ein [descriptive term]er"
is the usual one; dropping the article in the case of a city is an
excepetion to the rule, and just the sort of mistake you would expect
from a non-native speaker. In fact, I'm not even sure if you omit
the article for all geographic descriptors, or just for cities.
David Johnston
wrote:
Yes but not everyone believes that space exploration, particularly
human space exploration is central to humanity's future and a
immediate major priority.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Yes. It has.
> I didn't say religion couldn't be abandoned
> (although it's bloody unlikely it will be any time in the next
> few thousand years). I said people (meaning an entire species,)
> who wouldn't invent it in the first place wouldn't be very
> curious or imaginative.
Also incorrect. Your claim is that the *only* *possible* way for
curiosity and imagination to manifest is through the invention of
religion. That's so self-evidently wrong as to be laughably stupid.
>(although lacking a tendency to be
> social would do the same trick. If it was abnormal to take what
> other people say on a certain amount of trust then that would
> keep religion from spreading. But such a species would be
> really handicapped when it came to running a civilization)
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Surely it can't be that neolithic cultures
>>>>> have the requisite resources to have their own Age of
>>>>> Reason. They don't. It takes a critical mass of
>>>>> civilization, and literacy.
>>>>>
>>>>Everything was in place for the Age of Reason by the fall of
>>>>the Roman Empire,
>>>
>>> Which would have been how many thousands of years after the
>>> invention of religion?
>>>
>>Good question. Certainly, at least 4000, since we have
>>historical records going back that far.
>
> So an "age of reason" that started during, say, the Periclean
> golden age, would not in fact prevent the invention of religion.
>
Irrelevant, and a dodge of the real issue, which is that we have
had more scientific advancement in the 500 years since the
invention of the scientific method as we did in all of human
history before it. Religion did not, in any way, contribute to the
invention of the scientific method.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Butch Malahide
> I don't mind Jehovah's Witnesses much. They are willing to work for
> their beliefs. And when I did talk with some once, they claimed to
> not believe in eternal torture for non-believers. So they aren't so
> hate filled as many fundamentalists are.
I'm glad to see you aren't so hate filled as many atheists are.
Note that "believe in eternal torture for non-believers" is ambiguous.
People who *favor* the eternal torture of unbelievers, you may rightly
call hate-filled. People who believe that unbelievers *will* suffer
eternal torment, not so much, particularly if they're working to
*save* said unbelievers from torment.
Scott Lurndal
>
>If this were Star Trek, it would turn out that some sort of malevolent
>entity that feeds on violence has been trapped in a geologic formation
>somewhere in the middle east, building up civilizations to the point
>where they could stage massive holy wars.
OBSF: Hogan's Jevlins, Weber's _Armageddon Inheritance_.
scott
Butch Malahide
No, I meant the *advocacy* of expensive space boondoggles, such as
manned expeditions to the planets.
Butch Malahide
ObSF: Aside from Mickey Spillane--I don't think of him as an SF
writer, even if he does have an ISFDB listing--what SF writers are
Jehovah's Witnesses?
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
Right. You're too stupid to figure out what my claim was.
Wayne Throop
: "Convert or Die" is one form of proselytization, one that both
: Christianity and Islam have used a lot.
Unless you are Bangladesh Dupree, in which case it's "Convert *and* Die".
Or unless you are Yomiko Readman aka "The Paper", in which case,
it's "Read or Die". Unless you are a hair salon, in which case
it's "Curl Up and Dye".
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
William December Starr
Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> said:
They still worship, serve, *and praise* the thing that they believe
created the eternal-torment problem in the first place. At best that
makes them too stupid to think clearly about the implications of their
own beliefs; at worst it makes them smegging assholes just like their
god.
-- wds
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
One of us certainly is. That is, very specfically, your claim,
whether you realize it or not.
Howard Brazee
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Note that "believe in eternal torture for non-believers" is ambiguous.
>People who *favor* the eternal torture of unbelievers, you may rightly
>call hate-filled. People who believe that unbelievers *will* suffer
>eternal torment, not so much, particularly if they're working to
>*save* said unbelievers from torment.
It seems hard to believe that most people who believe in Hell actually
do. I know what I would do if I believed a loved one - or a stranger
was in danger of being tortured for just one day. A lot more than
tithing to the local police gym.
I see lots of people who appear to be smug about the idea of Hell.
Maybe they are in internal turmoil and are very, very good at hiding
it.
Howard Brazee
<jaS...@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>>I was using that as a generic belief, not mine personally. I'm an
>>atheist.
>
>Do you know the difference between the three states of religious 'belief'?
I know some people's claims here, but haven't been convinced that they
are meaningful.
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wrong again. My claim is that religion is *one of* the possible ways
for curiosity and imagination to manifest itself. That doesn't mean
that everyone who was curious and imaginative would invent a religion,
just that some would particularly in a situation where the scientific
method has not been invented and in fact can not be invented for more
than ten thousand years. But anything people have a noticeable chance
of doing is something they will do somewhere, sometime. It doesn't
mean its the only thing they'll do, they'll do a lot of things. It
just means that someone will do it as well as those other things. The
only way to prevent it is to take aware some ability that allows them
to do it, like imagination, curiousity or the ability to trust what
other people tell you even if you haven't seen it for yourself.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
You are, yes.
> My claim is that religion is *one of* the possible
> ways for curiosity and imagination to manifest itself.
You said, specifically, and I quote:
"I said people (meaning an entire species,) who wouldn't invent it
in the first place wouldn't be very curious or imaginative."
This leaves no possiblity whatsoever for curiosity or imagination
to manifest in any possible way but the invention of religion. If
you had said that people who aren't very curious or imaginative
wouldn't have invented religion, then you would have said what you
apparently meant. But you didn't say that, and what you said is not
at all the same thing.
That you are too illiterate to actually know what you said is,
well, not at all surprising, since you are apprently an idiot.
> That
> doesn't mean that everyone who was curious and imaginative would
> invent a religion,
In fact, what you actually *said* meant *excatly* that. If you want
to retract it, and restate what you *meant*, fine, but you *said*
that the only possible way for curiosity or imagination to manifest
is to invent religion.
Walter Bushell
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <proto-2CD95A....@news.panix.com>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <hauci1$eou$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Ich bin ein Berliner!"
> >
> >Ah, The Deity was speaking through the President. When we die, our souls
> >go to add to the filling of the big Doughnut in the Sky.
>
> For what it's worth, NPR once interviewed a german-on-the street about
> that and she seemed very offended that the "jelly donut" story was so
> widespread. The germans knew what JFK meant, and from what I recall
> from high school german, the form "Ich bin ein [descriptive term]er"
> is the usual one; dropping the article in the case of a city is an
> excepetion to the rule, and just the sort of mistake you would expect
> from a non-native speaker. In fact, I'm not even sure if you omit
> the article for all geographic descriptors, or just for cities.
Yes, I know the residents of Berlin understood what the President said.
OTGH, why let facts get in the way of a good story? And he literally
said what the story says. Natural languages have redundancy built in for
various contingencies.
David Johnston
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You said, specifically, and I quote:
>
>"I said people (meaning an entire species,) who wouldn't invent it
>in the first place wouldn't be very curious or imaginative."
>
>This leaves no possiblity whatsoever for curiosity or imagination
>to manifest in any possible way but the invention of religion.
It does no such thing. What it actually says that given curiousity
and imagination, it is inevitable that among the ways in which it will
manifest will be religion. Not for each individual, mind you, but
among the species in general over lots of time. With millions and
millions of curious imaginative intelligent social beings over
thousands of years, it's inevitable that some of those beings will
make up stories about how the world works or came to be and others
will take those stories at face value when they have no actually
better answers and this will spawn a religion. That statement may be
wrong, but since you won't address what I'm actually saying, you'll
never point out the flaws in it.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:46:24 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You said, specifically, and I quote:
>>
>>"I said people (meaning an entire species,) who wouldn't invent
>>it in the first place wouldn't be very curious or imaginative."
>>
>>This leaves no possiblity whatsoever for curiosity or
>>imagination to manifest in any possible way but the invention of
>>religion.
>
> It does no such thing.
You're idiot. An illiterate idiot.
gort
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:28:41 -0700 (PDT), gort <adweil...@hotmail.com>
There are many good reasons for manned space exploration.
I don't know that it should be a major priority.
The first reasons is, space is international territory. There's no
justification for preventing space travel because of who
someone is or what's inside them.
True, it's not our natural environment. If humans only stayed in
their natural environment, nobody would go into the desert, forests,
or the ocean. Humans can't survive in a vacuum, but humans
can't survive in salt water.
No state should prevent other states from manned space
exploration. Countries cooperate, which allows the
technicians of one advanced country to become familiar
with the tools of other countries, and builds trust.
gort
Does that mean that environmental research into alternative
energy sources is an expensive waste? Does the mean that
some of today's military forces are an expensive waste?
What can you do about that?
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Oct 12, 9:36 am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
None of these things are reasons for manned space exploration.
Stephen Graham
> Back in the Golden Age of Usenet, I remember some guy telling the story
> of how when he was in college in the sixties, he and his friends started
> an organization of "Druids" that was strictly an excuse to get drunk,
> take drugs, and fuck, nothing more. They even wrote up some sort of
> holy book to go with it. Many years later, he returned to campus as
> an alumnus, and discovered to his horror that the chapter of "Druids"
> still existed, but the stupid kids *actually believed in it*. It was
> definately a successor organization, because he recognized their holy
> writ as the one he wrote, but they had someone managed to make it no
> fun anymore.
That's a really distorted version of the formation of the Reformed
Druids of North America at Carleton College in the 1960s. If you look at
the Wikipedia article, you can find links to the original documents
hosted by Carleton.
gort
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:53:18 -0700 (PDT), gort <adweil...@hotmail.com>
Before I ask the question, why should men be in space,
can somebody tell me why not?