What religion?
E. L.
sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force" behind
it but that force was created by the human mind against the human mind!
The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
No money=no church. Simple logic!
Katsuragi Misato
Sorry E.L., but Andy brought it up this time. I couldn't agree with you
more that religion should disappear. If you're really interested in the
subject of controlling religions, look up as much as you can on Mystery
Babylon. The worst part about Mystery Babylon is that you're already in
it and you don't even know it.
You're speaking mostly about the Catholic church, but it goes way beyond
that. The controllers are almost everywhere and in almost everything.
For that matter, most of the controllers don't even know what's going
on. Good luck, but be sure you're not helping them out. BTW, Mystery
Babylon supports the atheist cause, look into it and open your eyes.
It's not the money and it's not that simple.
Welcome to the land of confusion.
Katsuragi Misato :)
A Traveler
>E. L. wrote:
>>
>> What is wrong with you people, arguing about religion, for christ's
>> sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force" behind
>> it but that force was created by the human mind against the human mind!
>> The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
>> but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
>> cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
>> interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
>> American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
>> No money=no church. Simple logic!
>
E.L.'s comment illustrates a typical incorrect generalization of all
religions. Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix, Hopi,
and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are based
on living in harmony with nature and the world around us. I strongly
disagree that all religion is bad and that the elimination of all religion
is the only road to planetary peace. That idea shows no more personal
responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
>
>Welcome to the land of confusion.
>
Welcome to life..... ;-)
Katsuragi Misato
>
> >Katsuragi Misato <Mis...@Nerv.com> wrote:
>
> >> What is wrong with you people, arguing about religion, for christ's
> >> sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force" behind
> >> it but that force was created by the human mind against the human mind!
> >> The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
> >> but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
> >> cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
> >> interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
> >> American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
> >> No money=no church. Simple logic!
>
> >more that religion should disappear. If you're really interested in the
> >subject of controlling religions, look up as much as you can on Mystery
> >Babylon. The worst part about Mystery Babylon is that you're already in
> >it and you don't even know it.
>
> exists.
I've found out one of many of your problems Andrew. You never learned
the 3 R's in school. Reading, Research and Reality. You're also
leaving off the "Mystery" portion of Mystery Babylon. Since you don't
know what I'm talking about and you wouldn't read about it anyway, I'll
let you stay ignorant.
> >You're speaking mostly about the Catholic church, but it goes way beyond
> >that. The controllers are almost everywhere and in almost everything.
> >For that matter, most of the controllers don't even know what's going
> >on. Good luck, but be sure you're not helping them out. BTW, Mystery
> >Babylon supports the atheist cause, look into it and open your eyes.
>
> No, open your mind and use it instead of accepting this fairytale of
> yours without a single shred of evidence.
No, break the cycle of circular reasoning in your head. The evidence is
there, but you don't care about it. Become rational and join us in a
discussion rather than mocking everyone's intelligence. I believe it
may be jealousy that makes you do this.
> >It's not the money and it's not that simple.
>
> Yes it is.
No it is not.
> >Welcome to the land of confusion.
>
> No thank you, you can remain in the land of confusion all by yourself.
>
> The Sage
Confused? You should be, you're in the middle of it. As a matter of
fact you would make a great leader of the land of confusion.
Katsuragi Misato :)
The_Sage
>> What is wrong with you people, arguing about religion, for christ's
>> sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force" behind
>> it but that force was created by the human mind against the human mind!
>> The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
>> but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
>> cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
>> interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
>> American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
>> No money=no church. Simple logic!
>Sorry E.L., but Andy brought it up this time. I couldn't agree with you
>more that religion should disappear. If you're really interested in the
>subject of controlling religions, look up as much as you can on Mystery
>Babylon. The worst part about Mystery Babylon is that you're already in
>it and you don't even know it.
What "Babylon"? There is no "Babylon" except for the one you pretned
exists.
>You're speaking mostly about the Catholic church, but it goes way beyond
>that. The controllers are almost everywhere and in almost everything.
>For that matter, most of the controllers don't even know what's going
>on. Good luck, but be sure you're not helping them out. BTW, Mystery
>Babylon supports the atheist cause, look into it and open your eyes.
No, open your mind and use it instead of accepting this fairytale of
yours without a single shred of evidence.
>It's not the money and it's not that simple.
Yes it is.
>Welcome to the land of confusion.
No thank you, you can remain in the land of confusion all by yourself.
The Sage
==========================================
My Home Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian
My Home Page : http://www.psn.net/~xyz
==========================================
The_Sage
>>> What is wrong with you people, arguing about religion, for christ's
>>> sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force" behind
>>> it but that force was created by the human mind against the human mind!
>>> The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
>>> but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
>>> cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
>>> interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
>>> American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
>>> No money=no church. Simple logic!
>E.L.'s comment illustrates a typical incorrect generalization of all
>religions. Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
>spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
>personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix, Hopi,
>and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
>"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are based
>on living in harmony with nature and the world around us. I strongly
>disagree that all religion is bad and that the elimination of all religion
>is the only road to planetary peace. That idea shows no more personal
>responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
>hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
>responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
>placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. Placing faith in
superstition has never made the world a better place, it cannot make
the world a better place, and more religions have caused great harm
then they have brought peace, therefore eliminating religion would do
more good than harm.
Aaron LeClair
A Traveler wrote:
> Katsuragi Misato wrote in message <366DA8C1...@Nerv.com>...
> >E. L. wrote:
> >>
> >> What is wrong with you people, arguing about religion, for christ's
> >> sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force" behind
> >> it but that force was created by the human mind against the human mind!
> >> The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
> >> but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
> >> cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
> >> interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
> >> American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
> >> No money=no church. Simple logic!
> >
>
> E.L.'s comment illustrates a typical incorrect generalization of all
> religions. Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
> spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
> personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix, Hopi,
> and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
> "Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are based
> on living in harmony with nature and the world around us. I strongly
> disagree that all religion is bad and that the elimination of all religion
> is the only road to planetary peace. That idea shows no more personal
> responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
> hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
> responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
> placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
>
> >
> >Welcome to the land of confusion.
> >
>
> Welcome to life..... ;-)
Aaron LeClair
The_Sage wrote:
> >"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
>
> >>> What is wrong with you people, arguing about religion, for christ's
> >>> sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force" behind
> >>> it but that force was created by the human mind against the human mind!
> >>> The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
> >>> but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
> >>> cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
> >>> interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
> >>> American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
> >>> No money=no church. Simple logic!
>
> >E.L.'s comment illustrates a typical incorrect generalization of all
> >religions. Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
> >spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
> >personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix, Hopi,
> >and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
> >"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are based
> >on living in harmony with nature and the world around us. I strongly
> >disagree that all religion is bad and that the elimination of all religion
> >is the only road to planetary peace. That idea shows no more personal
> >responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
> >hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
> >responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
> >placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
>
> Religion is nothing more than organized superstition.
I would call it unorganized stuperstition.
A Traveler
>>"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
>
>>E.L.'s comment illustrates a typical incorrect generalization of all
>>religions. Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
>>spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
>>personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix,
Hopi,
>>and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
>>"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are
based
>>on living in harmony with nature and the world around us. I strongly
>>disagree that all religion is bad and that the elimination of all religion
>>is the only road to planetary peace. That idea shows no more personal
>>responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
>>hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
>>responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
>>placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
>
>superstition has never made the world a better place, it cannot make
>the world a better place, and more religions have caused great harm
>then they have brought peace, therefore eliminating religion would do
>more good than harm.
>
You stated that "and more religions have caused great harm then they have
brought peace". How does one measure the amount of "great harm" brought
about by religion versus the "peace" brought about by religion. This is a
very subjective statement.
I do not have any special kindred feelings for organized religion. I do
think that there is a great deal of harm, both individually and socially,
created by many of the major religions. However, I also know many persons
with strong faith in their particular religion who do not do harm, and try
to do good things. I think we see the impact of the harm more than we see
the impact of the good.
I, personally, use a similar statement to the one Aaron posted ("Religions
suck. Spirituality is cool."). I believe in spirituality, not mainstream
organized religions. I also believe that it is up to each of us to make
those decisions for ourselves. The decision we make, the religion or
spiritual path we chose, changes the impact of our existence on this planet,
in this life. I believe that each person should be free to choose their own
path, as long as that decision does not negatively affect others, and they
let others make their own decisions.
John
Religion is just one of the tools that evil men use to controle good people.
The_Sage wrote:
> >"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
>
> >>> What is wrong with you people, arguing about religion, for christ's
> >>> sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force" behind
> >>> it but that force was created by the human mind against the human mind!
> >>> The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
> >>> but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
> >>> cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
> >>> interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
> >>> American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
> >>> No money=no church. Simple logic!
>
> >E.L.'s comment illustrates a typical incorrect generalization of all
> >religions. Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
> >spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
> >personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix, Hopi,
> >and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
> >"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are based
> >on living in harmony with nature and the world around us. I strongly
> >disagree that all religion is bad and that the elimination of all religion
> >is the only road to planetary peace. That idea shows no more personal
> >responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
> >hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
> >responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
> >placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
>
> Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. Placing faith in
> superstition has never made the world a better place, it cannot make
> the world a better place, and more religions have caused great harm
> then they have brought peace, therefore eliminating religion would do
> more good than harm.
>
John
A Traveler wrote:
> The_Sage wrote in message <366deee6...@news.psn.net>...
> >>"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
> >
> >>E.L.'s comment illustrates a typical incorrect generalization of all
> >>religions. Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
> >>spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
> >>personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix,
> Hopi,
> >>and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
> >>"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are
> based
> >>on living in harmony with nature and the world around us. I strongly
> >>disagree that all religion is bad and that the elimination of all religion
> >>is the only road to planetary peace. That idea shows no more personal
> >>responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
> >>hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
> >>responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
> >>placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
> >
> >Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. Placing faith in
> >superstition has never made the world a better place, it cannot make
> >the world a better place, and more religions have caused great harm
> >then they have brought peace, therefore eliminating religion would do
> >more good than harm.
> >
>
> You stated that "and more religions have caused great harm then they have
> brought peace". How does one measure the amount of "great harm" brought
> about by religion versus the "peace" brought about by religion. This is a
> very subjective statement.
>
> I do not have any special kindred feelings for organized religion. I do
> think that there is a great deal of harm, both individually and socially,
> created by many of the major religions. However, I also know many persons
> with strong faith in their particular religion who do not do harm, and try
> to do good things. I think we see the impact of the harm more than we see
> the impact of the good.
These people with strong faith only have the dedication for one reason, they are
dumb.
Kat
Katsuragi Misato wrote in message <366DFB1D...@Nerv.com>...
>The_Sage wrote:
>>
>> >Katsuragi Misato <Mis...@Nerv.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> What is wrong with you people, arguing about religion, for christ's
>> >> sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force"
behind
>> >> it but that force was created by the human mind against the human
mind!
>> >> The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
>> >> but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
>> >> cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
>> >> interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
>> >> American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
>> >> No money=no church. Simple logic!
>>
>> >more that religion should disappear. If you're really interested in the
>> >subject of controlling religions, look up as much as you can on Mystery
>> >Babylon. The worst part about Mystery Babylon is that you're already in
>> >it and you don't even know it.
>>
>> What "Babylon"? There is no "Babylon" except for the one you pretned
>> exists.
>
>the 3 R's in school. Reading, Research and Reality. You're also
>leaving off the "Mystery" portion of Mystery Babylon. Since you don't
>know what I'm talking about and you wouldn't read about it anyway, I'll
>let you stay ignorant.
>
>> >that. The controllers are almost everywhere and in almost everything.
>> >For that matter, most of the controllers don't even know what's going
>> >on. Good luck, but be sure you're not helping them out. BTW, Mystery
>> >Babylon supports the atheist cause, look into it and open your eyes.
>>
>> No, open your mind and use it instead of accepting this fairytale of
>> yours without a single shred of evidence.
>
>there, but you don't care about it. Become rational and join us in a
>discussion rather than mocking everyone's intelligence. I believe it
>may be jealousy that makes you do this.
>
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
>
>> >Welcome to the land of confusion.
>>
>>
>> The Sage
>
>fact you would make a great leader of the land of confusion.
>
>Katsuragi Misato :)
You know, it has occured to me that one way "the controllers" try to control
us is to get us to argue about religion. Mine vs. Yours, science vs.
spirituality. You see while we are busy arguing about who is right and who
is confused we might miss the whole point. The Big Three are in it for the
money and world domination, no question, but that has nothing to do with
religion OR spirituality, or how the ordinary man lives his life.
Superstition is a belief held without evidence, those of us who have had
spiritual experiences need no other evidence even if science hasen't yet
found a way to quantify such an experience. The gorilla for Europeans was
only a myth for many hundreds of years until their science caught up with
and could prove what many people already knew was fact. I believe it is just
the same with "religion". The only problem is to get humans to stop trying
to use the spiritual world for their own gain.
We need not get rid of religion, but greed and ignorance.
Excuse me while I put on my flame retardant suit....I have a little creed
that I live by....
Yes! I believe in a higher power, and I choose not to limit it's abilities,
so ALL things are posssible.
Kat
Don P.
>What is wrong with you people, arguing about religion, for christ's
>sake! You are arguing about something that does have a "force" behind
>it but that force was created by the human mind against the human mind!
>The only way to have peace on this planet is for religion to disappear
>but, then, what would the controllers use? I'm sure the pope (and his
>cohorts) likes his life in the vatican and will have you killed if you
>interfere with it. Remember, if it wasn't for money, especially
>American taxpayers' money, the church would not exist. Money=church.
>No money=no church. Simple logic!
>
I agree with you in part E.L. Most ALL the major religions
in this world are soley based on monetary gains. Many of the
religions today are in fact Big Businesses. Most (if not all)
of today's religions are based on writings and such from books
written hundreds if not thousands of years ago. The fiction that
many religions subscribe to are NOT subject to progress and the
furthering of spiritual knowledge.
Being a pantheist, I do consider myself a person with deep
spiritual beliefs, and I fully understand the NEED for humans
to have and hold spiritual beliefs. However, I agree with you
that the todays religions are in a very sad state. Most of today's
major religions are the ONLY aspects of human development which
does NOT progress in knowledge. I feel if they did, then religions
would be allowed to evolve, and if this happens, some if not all
religions would cease to exist, where parishioners would opt for
the new and different spiritual beliefs. Religions are stagnant, they
must be, else they would put themselves out of business, and the
fact remains religions are a BIG business.
Kind Regards
Don Palermo
To reply by email remove Neodymium.
Rob Hafernik
> You stated that "and more religions have caused great harm then they have
> brought peace". How does one measure the amount of "great harm" brought
> about by religion versus the "peace" brought about by religion. This is a
> very subjective statement.
<snip>
Well, yes and no. I think Sage's claim is at least worth discussion. If
you read much history (particularly European history over the last 2000
years or so), you have to come to the stunning conclusion that MOST wars
were at least partially caused by religious differences.
There are several instances where Popes, for example, started bloody wars
(such as the first Crusades) as distractions to keep their own people from
getting restless and fighting amongst themselves. These wars then got out
of hand (many more Crusades followed, over the centuries) and a lot of
additional people were killed. We'll never know how many human
sacrifices have been made over the centuries to various gods, but it's
certainly a huge number. We'll never know how many people were tortured
and killed in the Spanish Inquisition, but it's a number in the thousands.
How many died as a result of England switching to Protestantism and then
warring with Catholic nations? How many Jews and Muslims have been killed
this century alone in the mideast? How many Catholics and Protestants
have been killed in Ireland? What about China's war on the Dali Lama?
What about the hundreds of Mormons killed last century in the American
Mid-west and West as a result of their religious belief? Don't forget
that Hitler's racial ideals sprang from mystical and spiritual sources.
How many kings and despots have used the fact that they served by divine
right (or were themselves divine) as a justification for murderous deeds
and how many millions have paid the price?
I think it's fair to say that a non-trivial percentage of all violent
deaths in the entire history of mankind have had religious underpinnings.
On the other side of the question, we should look at the ameliorating
effects of religion. How many people in history have REFRAINED from
killing or doing other evil because of religious belief? How many rulers
have AVOIDED war on the advice of God or clergy? How many lives have been
improved as a result of religious belief? Does it count that the United
States' form of democratic government is at least partially based on the
belief by the founding fathers that "life, liberty and the persuit of
happiness" were "inalienable rights" passed from God to man (in other
words, how much credit should Christianity get for the existence of
democracy)?
Tough questions, but worth asking, I think. And I don't agree that they
can only be answered subjectively. Surely something like, "XX thousand
Muslims have been killed in wars, internecine and international, in the
mideast this century and nearly all of those conflicts had a religious
basis" would be an objective fact.
A Traveler
><snip>
>
>> You stated that "and more religions have caused great harm then they have
>> brought peace". How does one measure the amount of "great harm" brought
>> about by religion versus the "peace" brought about by religion. This is
a
>> very subjective statement.
>
><snip>
>
>Well, yes and no. I think Sage's claim is at least worth discussion. If
>you read much history (particularly European history over the last 2000
>years or so), you have to come to the stunning conclusion that MOST wars
>were at least partially caused by religious differences.
>
Oh, I would never claim it was not worth discussion. But without doing a
through analysis as you pointed out below (which would be very difficult),
his statement is subjective.
>There are several instances where Popes, for example, started bloody wars
>(such as the first Crusades) as distractions to keep their own people from
>getting restless and fighting amongst themselves. These wars then got out
>of hand (many more Crusades followed, over the centuries) and a lot of
>additional people were killed. We'll never know how many human
>sacrifices have been made over the centuries to various gods, but it's
>certainly a huge number. We'll never know how many people were tortured
>and killed in the Spanish Inquisition, but it's a number in the thousands.
>How many died as a result of England switching to Protestantism and then
>warring with Catholic nations? How many Jews and Muslims have been killed
>this century alone in the mideast? How many Catholics and Protestants
>have been killed in Ireland? What about China's war on the Dali Lama?
>What about the hundreds of Mormons killed last century in the American
>Mid-west and West as a result of their religious belief? Don't forget
>that Hitler's racial ideals sprang from mystical and spiritual sources.
>How many kings and despots have used the fact that they served by divine
>right (or were themselves divine) as a justification for murderous deeds
>and how many millions have paid the price?
>
>I think it's fair to say that a non-trivial percentage of all violent
>deaths in the entire history of mankind have had religious underpinnings.
>
I do not dispute the enormous number of persons killed in the name of
various religions through the years. It is one reason why I have no love
for organized religion.
>On the other side of the question, we should look at the ameliorating
>effects of religion. How many people in history have REFRAINED from
>killing or doing other evil because of religious belief? How many rulers
>have AVOIDED war on the advice of God or clergy? How many lives have been
>improved as a result of religious belief? Does it count that the United
>States' form of democratic government is at least partially based on the
>belief by the founding fathers that "life, liberty and the persuit of
>happiness" were "inalienable rights" passed from God to man (in other
>words, how much credit should Christianity get for the existence of
>democracy)?
>
This question would be extremely difficult to answer with any accuracy.
Larger decisions that are documented by historical documents that support
the "I didn't kill because of my religious beliefs" might be easy to find,
but that leaves a great many other potential acts of goodness that would go
undocumented. Both questions also only addressed the lives taken and lives
saved, not the many other acts of good and evil perpetrated.
>Tough questions, but worth asking, I think. And I don't agree that they
>can only be answered subjectively. Surely something like, "XX thousand
>Muslims have been killed in wars, internecine and international, in the
>mideast this century and nearly all of those conflicts had a religious
>basis" would be an objective fact.
Your phrasing of the statement would be an objective fact. To say, without
supporting facts, that more evil than good has been done in the name of
religion is subjective.
A Traveler
>You forgot to mention one very important fact about religion.
>Religion is just one of the tools that evil men use to controle good
people.
>
Your ignorance of non-mainstream religion and your prejudice against all
religion still shines brightly. ;-)
A Traveler
>
>These people with strong faith only have the dedication for one reason,
they are
>dumb.
>
A great many intelligent persons throughout history have had strong faith in
their personal religious choices. I am sure I could name three that we
could all agree are considerable more intelligent than you.
Your choice to adhere to no particular religious belief is fine with me.
Your choice makes you no better or worse than anyone else. Only your
actions and your intellectual and emotional contribution to those around you
can determine if you would be considered good or evil.
Don P.
>
>E.L.'s comment illustrates a typical incorrect generalization of all
>religions.
>Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
>spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
>personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix, Hopi,
>and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
>"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are based
>on living in harmony with nature and the world around us.
Yes, I have a great respect for the spiritual beliefs of native
americans.
>I strongly
>disagree that all religion is bad and that the elimination of all religion
>is the only road to planetary peace.
Agreed, humans absolutely NEED to have and hold spiritual
beliefs.
>That idea shows no more personal
>responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
>hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
>responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
>placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
>
True to an extent, however your statement seems a bit
paradoxical to me at least. For example, the "everyone"
you refer to in your last statement may be (and probably is)
other persons, other oragnizations, and other entities.
For example look what christianity did to the native americans
spiritual beliefs (to mention one case). They are definitely to
blame for the eradication of the native americans and their
spiritual beliefs.
Who is gonna take responsibility for giving back the
naitve americans their land, and the palestinians their
land? Who is gonna take responsibility for giving them
back their pride, and their right to the land they was stolen
from them. Certainly not the the ones who took it from them!
I understand that this world is far for utopic. However, E.L.'s
comments about the MAJOR religions holds fast! And there is
nothing you or I can do to change that! Or is there?
A Traveler
>A Traveler writes:
>>
>>That idea shows no more personal
>>responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
>>hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
>>responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
>>placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
>>
> True to an extent, however your statement seems a bit
>paradoxical to me at least. For example, the "everyone"
>you refer to in your last statement may be (and probably is)
>other persons, other oragnizations, and other entities.
>
Actually, I meant everyone as individuals, thus controlling what is done by
organizations.
> For example look what christianity did to the native americans
>spiritual beliefs (to mention one case). They are definitely to
>blame for the eradication of the native americans and their
>spiritual beliefs.
>
Christianity is largely to blame, but not wholely. Many of the treaties
with various tribes were broken because of greed for land, gold, etc.
Christianity was responsible for the near eradication of their spiritual
beliefs and culture (as you pointed out).
>Who is gonna take responsibility for giving back the
>naitve americans their land, and the palestinians their
>land? Who is gonna take responsibility for giving them
>back their pride, and their right to the land they was stolen
>from them. Certainly not the the ones who took it from them!
>
At this time it is too late to right that wrong by giving back land. There
would have to be some other means of compensation, but the whole issue is
very difficult. I have spent many hours researching it and thinking about
possible solutions. It has proved impossible to be fair and objective on
this matter at this point in history.
>I understand that this world is far for utopic. However, E.L.'s
>comments about the MAJOR religions holds fast! And there is
>nothing you or I can do to change that! Or is there?
>
Even if E.L.'s statement is interpreted as only the major religions of the
world, it is a difficult thing to do. What would really have to happen is
that the individuals following these religions would have to step forward
and stop blindly following the dictates of those organizations. Evil done
in the name of God is no less evil. I guess I would like to think that the
good parts of those religious organizations (there are good attributes)
could be saved while removing the greed and lust for power.
Rob Hafernik
> Who is gonna take responsibility for giving back the
> naitve americans their land, and the palestinians their
> land? Who is gonna take responsibility for giving them
> back their pride, and their right to the land they was stolen
> from them. Certainly not the the ones who took it from them!
Twaddle. As far as I know, every nation on the face of the earth today
stands on land that was won, at one time or another, by conquest (I'm not
sure about a couple of really out-of-the-way places, perhaps Tasmania
hasn't had any conquest, I'm not sure. Maybe there are a couple of remote
islands that haven't...). The ancestors of everyone alive had to face
conquest and deal with the loss of land and pride. Native Americans just
have this event more recently in their past than some other people (and
don't forget that Native Americans routinely fought among themselves and
took land and slaves from each other).
It's never fair to be conquered, but it happens and you eventually have to
get over it or die out (think of all the dozens of times the Jews have
been routed from one country to another).
Other than the US and Israel, I can't come up with any nations who
volutarily GAVE BACK land won by conquest. Surely there are some, I just
can't think of any off the top of my head.
Rob Hafernik
<al...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
<snip>
> And, of course, the other side of the coin is how much of that altuism
> would have come to pass without a religious motivation?
>
> marty
<snip>
Marty, I suspect you'll disagree with me, but I'm starting to get
interested in some of the research that shows that human beings may be
genetically programmed for "altruistic" behavior. I don't think it's
conclusive yet, but it's not that hard for me to imagine that altruistic
behavior could be conserved through natural selection. Obviously, a group
(of a certain optimal size) which works TOGETHER is going to survive
better than a group which doesn't. By subverting some of our own
short-term individual wants and desires to some "leader" we may very
likely lead better lives in the long run.
A simple mathematical analysis of the Prisoner's Dilema shows that
"cooperate as long as they cooperate with you" is a very good strategy --
not optimal, perhaps, but close.
I disagree with all those who think that religion must be the only source
of "moral" behavior (leaving aside the details of "moral" for now). It
seems obvious to me that we can all serve our own best interests best by
behaving morally towards each other. This works particularly well if we
band together to eradicate those who DON'T behave morally and thus gain an
advantage over all the rest of us due to their deviation.
I don't think it's a stretch at all to conclude that "moral" behavior is
an optimum solution to the problem of living a good life in proximity to
many others trying to do the same.
Of course, if you have a religion to reinforce this behavior, that's
fine. In addition to the moral code, the religion will likely provide
other comforts and benefits that a secular humanistic view towards moral
codes will not.
There's an interesting point in this: that group that you are genetically
programmed to be loyal to is probably about the size of a "tribe"; a few
families, perhaps a hundred or a few hundred people at most. Natural
selectioin probably WOULDN'T select for cooperation at ANY level, just at
a level that actually does optimize your chances. Could the fact that
we're now forced to deal with cooperation on a much larger scale be the
source of so much of the breakdown we see? I don't know, it's not really
my subject, just one I'm interested in.
Aaron LeClair
Carl pointed out that both science (or scientist) and religion (or religious
people) have done damage to our society. I haven't read the whole chapter yet
though.
And of course both science and religion have helped mankind in ways too.
A Traveler wrote:
> The_Sage wrote in message <366deee6...@news.psn.net>...
> >>"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
> >
> >>E.L.'s comment illustrates a typical incorrect generalization of all
> >>religions. Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
> >>spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
> >>personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix,
> Hopi,
> >>and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
> >>"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are
> based
> >>on living in harmony with nature and the world around us. I strongly
> >>disagree that all religion is bad and that the elimination of all religion
> >>is the only road to planetary peace. That idea shows no more personal
> >>responsibility for one's actions than those that "put their life in the
> >>hands of God". The road to peace requires that everyone begin to take
> >>responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions and stop
> >>placing blame on other persons, other organizations, or other entities.
> >
> >Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. Placing faith in
> >superstition has never made the world a better place, it cannot make
> >the world a better place, and more religions have caused great harm
> >then they have brought peace, therefore eliminating religion would do
> >more good than harm.
> >
>
> You stated that "and more religions have caused great harm then they have
> brought peace". How does one measure the amount of "great harm" brought
> about by religion versus the "peace" brought about by religion. This is a
> very subjective statement.
>
> I do not have any special kindred feelings for organized religion. I do
> think that there is a great deal of harm, both individually and socially,
> created by many of the major religions. However, I also know many persons
> with strong faith in their particular religion who do not do harm, and try
> to do good things. I think we see the impact of the harm more than we see
> the impact of the good.
>
E. L.
under the control of the one(s) with the most chutzpah. Primitive
tribes exemplify this as seen on documentaries. They have a chief and
or a "witchdoctor" who plans their future. They believe what the
superior being tells them. Nothing has changed. Everyday millions
(billions?) are continuously controlled and new ones are coming on-line.
Look at history, how much religion (again, christian ) has stunted human
progress and eliminated civilizations. I'd rather see a hospital or a
public school where every "holy" edifice stands.
E. L.
first, and I don't have the other two titles handy but they're easy to
find and free at the library. It's a different point of view regarding
what may really happen when you die and it's based on scientific
research. Do not scoff before you read.
E. L.
"However, I also know many persons with strong faith in their particular
religion who do not do harm, and try to do good things."
Religion is not needed to do good things unselfishly. It's called
altruism. Religious people, for the most part 'cause that's the way
they're "taught", do good deeds all the while thinking of the reward
they'll receive. Even if they are good people and do no harm and live a
peaceful life, it wasn't their life they led but one that was
controlled. If you are catholic remember that you COULD NOT eat meat
except on Friday! Or something like that. Regardless, your mind was
not your own. Mine is mine and I am my only authority.
E. L.
that way. They have no idea of the holdings of religion in real estate,
government, etc. So, in order to see how big (the christian, sorry to
always pick on it but it's the loudest!) religion really is just
visualize that giant statue of christ in Brazil. It's really
disgusting. Last year I visited my hometown in P.R. and, lo and behold,
a similar gigantic one had been placed on a mountain overlooking Ponce!
I was hoping that Andrew or that last hurricane that hit the Caribbean
would bring it down. My mother gave me hell on the phone when I told her
that!
E. L.
"...ameliorating effects of religion. How many people in history have
REFRAINED from killing or doing other evil because of religious belief?
How many rulers have AVOIDED war on the advice of God or clergy? How
many lives have been improved as a result of religious belief? Does it
count that the United States' form of democratic government is at least
partially based on the belief by the founding fathers that "life,
liberty and the persuit of happiness" were "inalienable rights" passed
from God to man (in other words, how much credit should Christianity get
for the existence of democracy)?"
Credit? None. Even though these were mentally strong men and possibly
had a deeper insight into what they were doing as opposed to what we
read into it, they were conditioned men. They belonged to the church,
although the church's hold was more of a bungee-cord hold. What you
really have to ask is: How would the world be different now since if
there would have been no religion then all those that died as a result
of religion would have possibly lived ... actually the question is
difficult to phrase but I believe you understand where I'm going with
this. You know, what if?
E. L.
was trying to address ALL methods of conditioning. But, since your
parents were conditioned by your grandparents, et al, they, in turn,
have to condition you to fall in line with family life because the
conditioning is deeply ingrained. I don't know what separated me from
the rest of my siblings when the family catholic upbringing didn't take.
It's impossible for me to believe in any god or take anyone's word as
authority over my decisions based on what I've experienced for the last
60 years. It's impossible for me to accept anything in the bible as
divinely inspired and meant for the world at large. For the Hebrews,
okay.
Recently I wrote to a local government agency to try to thwart a
movement by a religious group that wanted the city to declare a holy day
for the "three kings", for crying out loud. The hispanics believe in
the "three kings" and celebrate January 6 as a Santa Claus-type day
where you find gifts under your bed. These "three kings" are claimed by
them to have visited the baby jesus and brought him gifts. They don't
want the truth that's in THEIR bible that it wasn't "three kings" or
"wise men"; the bible simply says astrologers! Tell me just one good
thing about being religious, I dare you.
E. L.
"Yet you assert that religions don't change. They can not both fail to
change and be BIG business."
How naive can you be, Marty? Remove money, in all of the various ways
that the churches have it, remove the vatican's vast holdings of
treasures, etc. In other words, tell every religious leader that from
now they will have to let god support his houses of worship and that if
they desire to continue religion they'll have to do without ANY material
aid and, TRUST ME, religion will disappear replaced by happier people.
A Traveler
>
>get over it or die out (think of all the dozens of times the Jews have
>been routed from one country to another).
>
>Other than the US and Israel, I can't come up with any nations who
>volutarily GAVE BACK land won by conquest. Surely there are some, I just
>can't think of any off the top of my head.
The Native Americans did not lose the majority of their lands in conquest.
They lost them because the US Government repeatedly broke treaty after
treaty after treaty to take more lands each time. And even losing those
lands in conquest does not make it right. The US Government (or agents
thereof) repeatedly stole from, lied to, and murdered the native peoples of
this continent. For a government founded by persons escaping from such
tyranny in Europe and seeking to establish a society based on personal
freedom, the actions of that government and those people were despicable.
Conquest was not valid justification for theft, murder, and genocide 100 to
150 years ago and it should not be tossed aside so lightly today. The
Native Americans are to this day the most oppressed and impoverished members
of our society due largely to the utter destruction of their culture and way
of life. I think we owe them some reasonable amount of help (although, I
also believe that many Native Americans living on the reservations are not
willing to make some necessary concessions to make our help reasonable) to
rebuild and preserve as much of their culture as we can. This country would
not be what it is today were it not for the society, culture, and knowledge
of many, many Native Americans.
The_Sage
>You stated that "and more religions have caused great harm then they have
>brought peace". How does one measure the amount of "great harm" brought
>about by religion versus the "peace" brought about by religion. This is a
>very subjective statement.
So what? Subjectively or objectively, the conclusion is the same. Take
a look at what religion has done: kill, kill, and more kill. The only
person who would subjectively interpret that as peaceful and good are
psychopaths. Objectively, the number of people murdered by religion
(ie -- Holy Wars) and robbed by religion (ie -- tithes) is evidence of
the great harm they have done and are continuing to do.
>I do not have any special kindred feelings for organized religion. I do
>think that there is a great deal of harm, both individually and socially,
>created by many of the major religions.
See! You agree with me! But...
>However, I also know many persons
>with strong faith in their particular religion who do not do harm, and try
>to do good things.
They are harmless NOW, but that doesn't mean, given the chance, that
they would never resort to harm. I have seen the lies and the
propaganda spread by Christianity and other religions and for a group
of people who already have a long history of bloodshed, I can see how
their current propaganda machine (ie -- homosexuals should be
condemened, abortion is murder, etc) could easily incite these people
into yet another dark era of history where they go out and yet again
slaughter millions of innocent people in the name of God.
>I think we see the impact of the harm more than we see
>the impact of the good.
That's because the harm is more lasting and more effective at it's job
than the good is.
>I, personally, use a similar statement to the one Aaron posted ("Religions
>suck. Spirituality is cool."). I believe in spirituality, not mainstream
>organized religions. I also believe that it is up to each of us to make
>those decisions for ourselves. The decision we make, the religion or
>spiritual path we chose, changes the impact of our existence on this planet,
>in this life. I believe that each person should be free to choose their own
>path, as long as that decision does not negatively affect others, and they
>let others make their own decisions.
I agree 100%.
The_Sage
>>> You stated that "and more religions have caused great harm then they have
>>> brought peace". How does one measure the amount of "great harm" brought
>>> about by religion versus the "peace" brought about by religion. This is
>>> a very subjective statement.
>>Well, yes and no. I think Sage's claim is at least worth discussion. If
>>you read much history (particularly European history over the last 2000
>>years or so), you have to come to the stunning conclusion that MOST wars
>>were at least partially caused by religious differences.
>Oh, I would never claim it was not worth discussion. But without doing a
>through analysis as you pointed out below (which would be very difficult),
>his statement is subjective.
Are you paying attention to what you are saying? You just basically
said that, "Without an objective analysis, any claims are subjective".
The point being made was that it *CAN* be determined objectively
whether the claim I made is true or not. You can't rationally say that
my statement is subjective when you haven't *ASKED FOR* or *SEEN* the
facts. And it doesn't need to be a thorough analysis, just sufficient
enough to prove the point.
>>I think it's fair to say that a non-trivial percentage of all violent
>>deaths in the entire history of mankind have had religious underpinnings.
>I do not dispute the enormous number of persons killed in the name of
>various religions through the years. It is one reason why I have no love
>for organized religion.
So you yourself admit that there is objective evidence to back up what
I claimed. So what are you really trying to dispute here?
>>On the other side of the question, we should look at the ameliorating
>>effects of religion. How many people in history have REFRAINED from
>>killing or doing other evil because of religious belief? How many rulers
>>have AVOIDED war on the advice of God or clergy? How many lives have been
>>improved as a result of religious belief? Does it count that the United
>>States' form of democratic government is at least partially based on the
>>belief by the founding fathers that "life, liberty and the persuit of
>>happiness" were "inalienable rights" passed from God to man (in other
>>words, how much credit should Christianity get for the existence of
>>democracy)?
>This question would be extremely difficult to answer with any accuracy.
How do you know that for a fact? You don't know that for a fact. The
answers are there and they are easy to research. What is extremely
difficult to do is to accept what the answers teach us about ourselves
and our religion:
America isn't as great of a country as they pretend to be.
Democracy doesn't always work for Americans.
Americans aren't morally upright, unprejudiced, and non-racist.
But that isn't fair. I shouldn't be getting off the subject.
"We know these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created
equal". What is that supposed to mean? Well according to what our
original "Christian" forefathers of our country meant, it meant that
all WHITE men were created equal, to the exclusion of blacks, indians,
and any woman.
>Larger decisions that are documented by historical documents that support
>the "I didn't kill because of my religious beliefs" might be easy to find,
>but that leaves a great many other potential acts of goodness that would go
>undocumented. Both questions also only addressed the lives taken and lives
>saved, not the many other acts of good and evil perpetrated.
Good deeds do not go unrewarded. Anything out of the ordinary will
become a permanent part of the history books. Now take a look at
history and let's see how many religious deeds were so out of the
ordinarily good that they became a part of history and then let's
compare that the the amount of religious deeds were so out of the
ordinarily bad that they became a part of history.
>>Tough questions, but worth asking, I think. And I don't agree that they
>>can only be answered subjectively. Surely something like, "XX thousand
>>Muslims have been killed in wars, internecine and international, in the
>>mideast this century and nearly all of those conflicts had a religious
>>basis" would be an objective fact.
>Your phrasing of the statement would be an objective fact. To say, without
>supporting facts, that more evil than good has been done in the name of
>religion is subjective.
To assume without asking for supporting facts that a statement is
subjective, is a logical fallacy.
I list as my facts:
The Crusades
The Inquistions
The Salem Witch Trials
The 100 Year War
WWII
Etc...
The_Sage
>>A simple mathematical analysis of the Prisoner's Dilema shows that
>>"cooperate as long as they cooperate with you" is a very good
>>strategy -- not optimal, perhaps, but close.
>mathematically, cooperation _is_ optimal in the prisoner's dilema and
>its variants.
Irrelevant. Life and morality are not about a prisoner's dilemna. The
prisoner's dilemna is only a puzzle/game and not a reflection of
reality.
>>I disagree with all those who think that religion must be the only
>>source of "moral" behavior (leaving aside the details of "moral" for
>>now). It seems obvious to me that we can all serve our own best
>>interests best by behaving morally towards each other. This works
>>particularly well if we band together to eradicate those who DON'T
>>behave morally and thus gain an advantage over all the rest of us
>>due to their deviation.
>I stop agreeing with you at the part about eradication.
I agree with your disagreement.
>I'd go with the "out compete them by effectively cooperating among
>ourselves and let evolution take care of the problem" approach.
Too bad there is no historically objective indication that will ever
happen.
>> Of course, if you have a religion to reinforce this behavior, that's
>> fine. In addition to the moral code, the religion will likely
>> provide other comforts and benefits that a secular humanistic view
>> towards moral codes will not.
>Yup. Some of my friends who were raised in secular humanist
>households are now searching among the religions for something they
>can't define but know they've lost.
It's defined as a loss of reasoning ability when that happens.
>>There's an interesting point in this: that group that you are
>>genetically programmed to be loyal to is probably about the size of
>>a "tribe"; a few families, perhaps a hundred or a few hundred people
>>at most. Natural selectioin probably WOULDN'T select for
>>cooperation at ANY level, just at a level that actually does
>>optimize your chances. Could the fact that we're now forced to deal
>>with cooperation on a much larger scale be the source of so much of
>>the breakdown we see? I don't know, it's not really my subject,
>>just one I'm interested in.
>Stephen Jay Gould, in _Full House_ argues that evolution doesn't
>'perfect' in any way. It simply selects for fitness to the current
>environment. If you haven't read Full House, you might want to read
>it with your thoughts on altruism in mind.
Evolution is not just a theory...it is a way of life.
The_Sage
>I just bought "Billions and Billions" by Carl Sagan. I was pleased to see that
>Carl pointed out that both science (or scientist) and religion (or religious
>people) have done damage to our society. I haven't read the whole chapter yet
>though.
Just don't make the mistake of confusing "scientists" with "science".
>And of course both science and religion have helped mankind in ways too.
But science has helped us vastly helped us more than religion could
even dream of doing. Why just in the last few centuries, science has
given us light, electricity, the automobile, space travel, flight,
computers -- practically an entire new civilization. And what has
religion done for us besides kill, kill, kill?
The_Sage
>>Who is gonna take responsibility for giving back the
>>naitve americans their land, and the palestinians their
>>land? Who is gonna take responsibility for giving them
>>back their pride, and their right to the land they was stolen
>>from them. Certainly not the the ones who took it from them!
>At this time it is too late to right that wrong by giving back land. There
>would have to be some other means of compensation, but the whole issue is
>very difficult. I have spent many hours researching it and thinking about
>possible solutions. It has proved impossible to be fair and objective on
>this matter at this point in history.
So why does the American goverment *continue* to break treaties with
the native Indians?
>>I understand that this world is far for utopic. However, E.L.'s
>>comments about the MAJOR religions holds fast! And there is
>>nothing you or I can do to change that! Or is there?
>Even if E.L.'s statement is interpreted as only the major religions of the
>world, it is a difficult thing to do. What would really have to happen is
>that the individuals following these religions would have to step forward
>and stop blindly following the dictates of those organizations. Evil done
>in the name of God is no less evil. I guess I would like to think that the
>good parts of those religious organizations (there are good attributes)
>could be saved while removing the greed and lust for power.
The problem isn't that there are good and bad attributes to religion,
the problem is that religion shouldn't exist because it isn't nothing
more than organized superstition. Practicing superstition is not going
to do anything for the intellectual evolution of our species.
Aaron LeClair
The_Sage wrote:
> >Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >I just bought "Billions and Billions" by Carl Sagan. I was pleased to see that
> >Carl pointed out that both science (or scientist) and religion (or religious
> >people) have done damage to our society. I haven't read the whole chapter yet
> >though.
>
> Just don't make the mistake of confusing "scientists" with "science".
>
I would just like to point out that the the stuff in ( ) above was from me, and
not nessecarily Sagan. He ended up saying in the book what I thought he would, and
that is, that science can help religion, and vice-versa.
> >And of course both science and religion have helped mankind in ways too.
>
> But science has helped us vastly helped us more than religion could
> even dream of doing. Why just in the last few centuries, science has
> given us light, electricity, the automobile, space travel, flight,
> computers -- practically an entire new civilization. And what has
> religion done for us besides kill, kill, kill?
>
Aaron LeClair
Alot of people role their eyes before even looking into it, or trying it
out. Have you had an oobe yet? I haven't. All that has happened is I've had
some very lucid dreams, and, or the beginning stages of a oobe. Then I snap
out of it, due to excitement, or fear. I know longer fear the possibility
of having a ob, but I haven't had the parrallysis, and other preliminary
stuff happen to me in awhile. Next time it does, (if it does) I might be
able to.
A Traveler
>>"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
>
>>>> You stated that "and more religions have caused great harm then they
have
>>>> brought peace". How does one measure the amount of "great harm"
brought
>>>> about by religion versus the "peace" brought about by religion. This
is
>>>> a very subjective statement.
>
>>>Well, yes and no. I think Sage's claim is at least worth discussion. If
>>>you read much history (particularly European history over the last 2000
>>>years or so), you have to come to the stunning conclusion that MOST wars
>>>were at least partially caused by religious differences.
>
>>Oh, I would never claim it was not worth discussion. But without doing a
>>through analysis as you pointed out below (which would be very difficult),
>>his statement is subjective.
>
>Are you paying attention to what you are saying? You just basically
>said that, "Without an objective analysis, any claims are subjective".
>The point being made was that it *CAN* be determined objectively
>whether the claim I made is true or not. You can't rationally say that
>my statement is subjective when you haven't *ASKED FOR* or *SEEN* the
>facts. And it doesn't need to be a thorough analysis, just sufficient
>enough to prove the point.
>
You didn't read to through the entire post. It can be objectively
determined that "x number of people have died in a war or as a direct result
of religion". It cannot be determined objectively that "x number of people
have been saved as a result of religion". Therefore, your statement cannot
be objective as only half of the data can be determined.
>>>I think it's fair to say that a non-trivial percentage of all violent
>>>deaths in the entire history of mankind have had religious underpinnings.
>
>>I do not dispute the enormous number of persons killed in the name of
>>various religions through the years. It is one reason why I have no love
>>for organized religion.
>
>So you yourself admit that there is objective evidence to back up what
>I claimed. So what are you really trying to dispute here?
>
No, only half of your statement can be objectively determined.
>>>On the other side of the question, we should look at the ameliorating
>>>effects of religion. How many people in history have REFRAINED from
>>>killing or doing other evil because of religious belief? How many rulers
>>>have AVOIDED war on the advice of God or clergy? How many lives have
been
>>>improved as a result of religious belief? Does it count that the United
>>>States' form of democratic government is at least partially based on the
>>>belief by the founding fathers that "life, liberty and the persuit of
>>>happiness" were "inalienable rights" passed from God to man (in other
>>>words, how much credit should Christianity get for the existence of
>>>democracy)?
>
>>This question would be extremely difficult to answer with any accuracy.
>
>How do you know that for a fact? You don't know that for a fact. The
>answers are there and they are easy to research. What is extremely
>difficult to do is to accept what the answers teach us about ourselves
>and our religion:
>
So how would one go about determining the number of lives saved and the
number of wars avoided because of religion?
>America isn't as great of a country as they pretend to be.
>Democracy doesn't always work for Americans.
>Americans aren't morally upright, unprejudiced, and non-racist.
>
That is a very unsupportable, all-encompassing statement. Democracy may not
be perfect, but many of its imperfections are the result of the people as
individuals not voicing their opinions or being too apathetic to vote. I
know many, many, many morally upright (but who decides what is considered
morally upright?). I know many, many people who are unprejudiced and
non-racist. "A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch." Stealing a
thought from something Rob said in another post, those of us who want to
live our lives to a higher standard need to put pressure upon those who live
their lives to a lower standard. We can remove the bad element or change
the bad element, but it is our responsibility to do so.
>But that isn't fair. I shouldn't be getting off the subject.
>
>"We know these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created
>equal". What is that supposed to mean? Well according to what our
>original "Christian" forefathers of our country meant, it meant that
>all WHITE men were created equal, to the exclusion of blacks, indians,
>and any woman.
>
As a government, those rights were denied those groups as a whole. Many of
the founding fathers enjoyed a good relationship with the Native Americans
of the Iroquois Nation. They treated them with great respect. And no one
said that this nation or this government is perfect. But look how far we
have evolved as a people since that time.
>>Larger decisions that are documented by historical documents that support
>>the "I didn't kill because of my religious beliefs" might be easy to find,
>>but that leaves a great many other potential acts of goodness that would
go
>>undocumented. Both questions also only addressed the lives taken and
lives
>>saved, not the many other acts of good and evil perpetrated.
>
>Good deeds do not go unrewarded. Anything out of the ordinary will
>become a permanent part of the history books. Now take a look at
>history and let's see how many religious deeds were so out of the
>ordinarily good that they became a part of history and then let's
>compare that the the amount of religious deeds were so out of the
>ordinarily bad that they became a part of history.
>
So, where in the history books is it documented how many lives were saved
becasue of the Salvation Army providing food and shelter? or even more
recently, where is it documented how many lives have been saved by the
homeless shelters providing food, clothing, and shelter? Where can I find
the number of people saved in any war due the heroic action of another
soldier?
>>>Tough questions, but worth asking, I think. And I don't agree that they
>>>can only be answered subjectively. Surely something like, "XX thousand
>>>Muslims have been killed in wars, internecine and international, in the
>>>mideast this century and nearly all of those conflicts had a religious
>>>basis" would be an objective fact.
>
>>Your phrasing of the statement would be an objective fact. To say,
without
>>supporting facts, that more evil than good has been done in the name of
>>religion is subjective.
>
>To assume without asking for supporting facts that a statement is
>subjective, is a logical fallacy.
>
>I list as my facts:
>
>The Crusades
>The Inquistions
>The Salem Witch Trials
>The 100 Year War
>WWII
>Etc...
>
Okay, so give me the number of persons killed in each of the above. That
will give us a number to begin supporting the evil done. Then you need only
to research the number of lives saved. ;-)
A Traveler
>
>> >"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
>>
>> >I do not dispute the enormous number of persons killed in the name
>> >of various religions through the years. It is one reason why I
>> >have no love for organized religion.
>
>mean you have no love of capitalism?
>
Not at all. But not all economic reasons are from capitalism. There are
many other economic structures in the world. Capitalism has it down side,
but that is due more to the human failing than the economic structure
failing.
>>
>> Good deeds do not go unrewarded. Anything out of the ordinary will
>> become a permanent part of the history books. Now take a look at
>> history and let's see how many religious deeds were so out of the
>> ordinarily good that they became a part of history and then let's
>> compare that the the amount of religious deeds were so out of the
>> ordinarily bad that they became a part of history.
>
>How naive. The winners write the history books.
>
Much of the written history of the US Government conflict with the Native
Americans is a perfect example of that. Only during the past 20 years or
so, has the high school curriculum in some states begun to teach the truth
rather than the winner's version.
A Traveler
>
>But science has helped us vastly helped us more than religion could
>even dream of doing. Why just in the last few centuries, science has
>given us light, electricity, the automobile, space travel, flight,
>computers -- practically an entire new civilization. And what has
>religion done for us besides kill, kill, kill?
>
So, how many people have been killed by bullets, mortars, conventional
bombs, and nuclear bombs (all developed by science)? Religion may have
provided the reason for the wars, but it was science that made them as
effective at killing as they were. A great deal less people would have been
killed in the last 200 hundred years if we were still fighting with swords
and spears!
A Traveler
>>"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
>
>>At this time it is too late to right that wrong by giving back land.
There
>>would have to be some other means of compensation, but the whole issue is
>>very difficult. I have spent many hours researching it and thinking about
>>possible solutions. It has proved impossible to be fair and objective on
>>this matter at this point in history.
>
>So why does the American goverment *continue* to break treaties with
>the native Indians?
>
A question I ask myself quite often!! And the Canadian government is still
doing it too.
>The problem isn't that there are good and bad attributes to religion,
>the problem is that religion shouldn't exist because it isn't nothing
>more than organized superstition. Practicing superstition is not going
>to do anything for the intellectual evolution of our species.
>
Not all religion is organized superstition. And until we can scientifically
prove the fallacy of God, we do not really know that he is superstition. It
would be relatively easy to say, but not to prove, that Christianity is a
cult of superstition built around a very real God.
Rob Hafernik
<al...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > I disagree with all those who think that religion must be the only
> > source of "moral" behavior (leaving aside the details of "moral" for
> > now). It seems obvious to me that we can all serve our own best
> > interests best by behaving morally towards each other. This works
> > particularly well if we band together to eradicate those who DON'T
> > behave morally and thus gain an advantage over all the rest of us
> > due to their deviation.
> >
>
> I stop agreeing with you at the part about eradication. There's a
> very good book, written some time ago, called "On the Theory and
> Causes of War", (or something similar. It talks about the economic
> models of warfare, and observes that there hasn't been an economically
> viable reason for warfare since the begining of this century if not
> earlier.
<SNIP>
I wasn't clear. Actually, I was referring there to the "rule of law",
where the ones of us who FAVOR cooperation and altristic behavior band
together to eradicate those who don't favor it. Perhaps "eradicate" was
too violent a verb, but that's what we do. We don't always eradicate the
PEOPLE, but we always try to eradicate the BEHAVIOR. One way to eradicate
someone who doesn't behave morally is to make them behave morally by
duress. Sometimes, of course, we actually eradicate the people, if
they're bad enough. Other times, we use fines, imprisonment or social
sanction to do the work. Once in a while, we use television (eg, the
punishment of Dan Quayle for his inability to spell). On very rare
occasions, we bring up something called "congressional censure", but only
if the perpetraitor is both sufficiently popular and morally bankrupt.
Rob Hafernik
<al...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
> x...@psn.net (The_Sage) writes:
>
> > But science has helped us vastly helped us more than religion could
> > even dream of doing. Why just in the last few centuries, science has
> > given us light, electricity, the automobile, space travel, flight,
> > computers -- practically an entire new civilization. And what has
> > religion done for us besides kill, kill, kill?
> >
>
> You aren't giving science nearly enough credit. It's given us nuclear
> weapons and very sophisticated missles to deliver them with,
> biological weapons, automatic rifles, toxic sludge, and land mines.
> Lots of kill, kill, kill there.
I don't think EITHER of you is giving the credit where it's due:
individual humans. Religion didn't start the crusades, a Pope did.
Science didn't invent the atom bomb, scientists did. Religion and science
are belief systems (ones *I* don't think have to be mutually exclusive,
but some do), in and of themselves they don't DO anything.
Now, you can, and may, argue that different belief systems attract
different sorts of people and, therefore, one is better than another. Go
ahead and argue that -- but be careful of the land mines...
Rob Hafernik
esoxlNe...@juno.com wrote:
<snip>
> >Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
> >spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
> >personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix, Hopi,
> >and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
> >"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are based
> >on living in harmony with nature and the world around us.
<snip>
** I'd rather take this up in email, since it involves individual
religious belief, but Traveler doesn't give me the option **
Trav, I don't know TOO much about these "Native Americans" (a label I
don't think much of because I was born here the same way they were and
neither of us would be here if our ancestors hadn't traveled here from
other continenets), but I have read a little here and there.
I think it's more important to judge a culture by what it DOES than by
what it PREACHES. The current mainstream American culture, for example,
is chock full of religions that preach peace and harmony with man, nature
and God. The PRACTICE isn't going so smoothly, but the theory is
certainly there.
I think the same thing can be said in good degree to the NA's (warning,
I'm going to generalize here, not all of this applies to any one tribe or
group): They were, on occasion, savagely warlike. They killed women and
children in raids, took captives, practiced torture and traded slaves
between groups. There is evidence that some groups performed human
sacrifice.
On the environmental front, they didn't have much opportunity to do
damage, but they sometimes did. The Anasazi, for example, over-farmed
their region and were forced to move because it became unproductive.
There is speculation that the ecology of the four-corners area was scarred
in the process. They did this not through bad intentions, but through
ignorance of plant science. The line between "living off the bounty of
nature" and "developing the earth" is thin and wavery.
There is no indication, that I've seen anyway, that the NA's wouldn't have
eventually developed and used technology. They certainly were happy to
accept technology (such as the horse and the gun) that came to them
through other cultures. There is good evidence that their native
technology (for things such as housing and farming) developed and improved
over time.
If you could go back in time and give the NA's a hydrgen bomb about 1630,
I think they would say a prayer, apologize to the earth, then blow the
hell out of the eastern seaboard and send all those white folks right back
to Europe.
I'm not trying to run down the NA culture, as much as it make look like
it. I'm trying to make the point that granting them some sort of moral
superiority is nonsense. Comparing morals between cultures at different
points in time, place and development just doesn't get you anywhere.
NA's were just human beings, doing the best they could -- like the rest of us.
Rob Hafernik
<Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
<snip>
> The Native Americans did not lose the majority of their lands in conquest.
> They lost them because the US Government repeatedly broke treaty after
> treaty after treaty to take more lands each time. And even losing those
> lands in conquest does not make it right. The US Government (or agents
> thereof) repeatedly stole from, lied to, and murdered the native peoples of
> this continent.
<snip>
Loss by lies or trickery is just conquest by other means.
As I said, conquest is never fair, but it happened. We try to make it
happen less these days and that's about all we can do. To try and go back
and untangle the past is impossible.
My ancestors come from central Europe. Their area was conquered and
pillaged time and again over the course of many centuries. Land and goods
were stolen, people were killed or dominated. None of it was fair or
moral. Does this mean that some current-day government owes me
something? I don't see how. No one now alive DID it. We have to leave
the deeds of the past to the people who did them and concetrate on doing
better TODAY.
Don P.
#
#Don P. writes:
#
#[snip]
#
## Most ALL the major religions in this world are soley based on
## monetary gains. Many of the religions today are in fact Big
## Businesses.
#
#It's extremely easy to make vague assertions about 'most' and 'many.'
#But they are so vague as to say nothing.
#
Nothing vague about it, Marty. Do you wish to have
definitions of 'most' and 'many', or a list of those
'major' religions which are Big Businesses?
## Most (if not all) of today's religions are based on writings and
## such from books written hundreds if not thousands of years ago. The
## fiction that many religions subscribe to are NOT subject to progress
## and the furthering of spiritual knowledge.
##
#
#This paragraph betrays an ignorance of the history of religion.
#Although based on ancient texts, such religions do develop and grow
#over time. That is, after all, a task of the theologians, adapting to
#changes in the world. The torah has the talmud. The new testament has
#the epistle, encyclica, and consul. The buddhists and hindus have
#commentary. Et cetera.
#
Come on Marty, your paragraph surley betrays ignorance,
if one ever has! The reality is that my paragraph is fact.
Sure, there are 'token' changes in the business of religion
and the efforts of keeping parishioners, in the changing of
times. I do not dispute that 'changes' are in fact made.
However, what my paragraph was eluding to was not the
'token' modifications that take place for a changing world.
Marty, I was referring to the "Central Dogmas" of religions,
some of which are thousands of years old. History speaks for
itself Marty, and is the testament for my paragraph above. The
theologians task is to 'adapt' the 'Central Dogma' of their
religions to 'changes in the world'. Has the talmud, epistle,
encyclica, consul, commentary. Et cetera, have changes regarding
the respective religions "Central Dogma"? The answer is clear
an simple, and is not in the affirmative. I do not dispute that
religions develop and grow, but you bet your last dollar I will
dispute that religions "Central Dogma" has evolved in the
least bit! This lack of evolution in the central dogma of
religions IS a downfall and MAJOR roadblock for humans to
EVOLVE spiriually.
## Being a pantheist, I do consider myself a person with deep
## spiritual beliefs, and I fully understand the NEED for humans
## to have and hold spiritual beliefs. However, I agree with you
## that the todays religions are in a very sad state. Most of today's
## major religions are the ONLY aspects of human development which
## does NOT progress in knowledge. I feel if they did, then religions
## would be allowed to evolve, and if this happens, some if not all
## religions would cease to exist, where parishioners would opt for
## the new and different spiritual beliefs. Religions are stagnant, they
## must be, else they would put themselves out of business, and the
## fact remains religions are a BIG business.
##
#
#Any real businessman will tell you that the only way to become and
#sustain a BIG business is by constantly adapting to changing times.
#Yet you assert that religions don't change. They can not both fail to
#change and be BIG business.
#
Yes, I assert that it is quite apparent that the central
dogmas of the worlds major religions have not evolved in the
least bit.
The changes that religions have are more or less the changes
in the "sugar coating" over how their central dogmas are
presented.
If a company XYZ sells baseball bats, then they may change
the style, shape and look of their product. However, the basic,
fundamental product is essentially the same. Instead of having
a signature of Mickey Mantle, it will have one of Sammy Sosa.
The product has changed to meet the changeing needs of the
conusumer, but essentially the product is the SAME.
Marty, it is my opionion that the product that religions
are selling is essentially the SAME since their inception.
To suggest that they are not selling a product is a fallacy,
to suggest that the central dogmas of these producst have
changed is an equivalent fallacy.
I you can cite just one of the major religions that exist
today, in which their central dogma has been extensively
modified, I will admit I was incorrect regarding the evolution
of these religions.
Kind Regards
Don Palermo
To reply by email remove Neodymium.
Don P.
>Don P. wrote ...
>
>>Who is gonna take responsibility for giving back the
>>naitve americans their land, and the palestinians their
>>land? Who is gonna take responsibility for giving them
>>back their pride, and their right to the land they was stolen
>>
>
>At this time it is too late to right that wrong by giving back land. There
>would have to be some other means of compensation, but the whole issue is
>very difficult. I have spent many hours researching it and thinking about
>possible solutions. It has proved impossible to be fair and objective on
>this matter at this point in history.
>
these issues. And I agree with you very strongly, it would be
quite impossible to fair and objective for all.
There was no fairness for the native americans or palestinians
when the land was stolen from them. There will NOT be fariness
if and when these people have their land and soverenity returned
to them.
I have pondered these issues as well as you, for quite some
time. I see TWO fates for these people who have been wronged
in the past.
1) They will get the majority or a very fair amount of their
land back, and be paid equitable sums of money or other
compensation in retribution for the past.
2) They will be erradicated by attrition, and absorbtion.
I think it is VERY clear the path that the U.S. govnmt and
Israelies took.
>>I understand that this world is far for utopic. However, E.L.'s
>>comments about the MAJOR religions holds fast! And there is
>>nothing you or I can do to change that! Or is there?
>>
>
>Even if E.L.'s statement is interpreted as only the major religions of the
>world, it is a difficult thing to do. What would really have to happen is
>that the individuals following these religions would have to step forward
>and stop blindly following the dictates of those organizations. Evil done
>in the name of God is no less evil. I guess I would like to think that the
>good parts of those religious organizations (there are good attributes)
>could be saved while removing the greed and lust for power.
>
Well said Traveler.
Agreed, I would like to think so also. However, I realize that
removing greed and the lust for power are awfully strong attributes
that will be most difficult to change.
Don P.
><snip>
>> Who is gonna take responsibility for giving back the
>> naitve americans their land, and the palestinians their
>> land? Who is gonna take responsibility for giving them
>> back their pride, and their right to the land they was stolen
>> from them. Certainly not the the ones who took it from them!
>
>Twaddle. As far as I know, every nation on the face of the earth today
>stands on land that was won, at one time or another, by conquest (I'm not
>sure about a couple of really out-of-the-way places, perhaps Tasmania
>hasn't had any conquest, I'm not sure. Maybe there are a couple of remote
>islands that haven't...). The ancestors of everyone alive had to face
>conquest and deal with the loss of land and pride. Native Americans just
>have this event more recently in their past than some other people (and
>don't forget that Native Americans routinely fought among themselves and
>took land and slaves from each other).
>
I see you point Rob, however, for me at least there is a
MAJOR difference from land being lost to conquest, and getting
the MAJAR SHAFT. In 1948 the palestinians were SHAFTED,
plain and simple, no conquest there. As Traveler as pointed out,
the native americans were SHAFTED, plain and simple.
These peoples land MUST be returned to them. Is this fair
for everyone? No, it is not. But retribution is not always about
being fair. Palestine must be restored. Huge amounts of land
must be given back to the native americans. This will be not
be convenient for many, but thats too bad.
I do not want to see either of these peoples erradicated. There
is only ONE solution, if erradication is NOT to take place. The
course of action the U.S. govnmt and Israelies took and is taking
is clear.
Don P.
>As I said, conquest is never fair, but it happened. We try to make it
>happen less these days and that's about all we can do. To try and go back
>and untangle the past is impossible.
>
Native Americans must be addressed.
>My ancestors come from central Europe. Their area was conquered and
>pillaged time and again over the course of many centuries. Land and goods
>were stolen, people were killed or dominated. None of it was fair or
>moral. Does this mean that some current-day government owes me
>something? I don't see how. No one now alive DID it. We have to leave
>the deeds of the past to the people who did them and concetrate on doing
>better TODAY.
Today we can start by giving back Palestine to the Palestinians
and land back to the Native Americans. This is what WE must do
today. Anything short of this is quite inadequate, and the cause
for alarm.
Michael Edelman
Rob Hafernik wrote:
> In article <74mddf$1dbe$1...@news.rchland.ibm.com>, (D. P.)
> esoxlNe...@juno.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > >Many aboriginal peoples (not all, but those I am familar with)
> > >spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with money or external controllers (I
> > >personally have studied the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee, Souix, Hopi,
> > >and some Peruvian tribes). Those beliefs have no history of "jihads",
> > >"Inquistions", "witch hunts", or other mass crimes. Those beliefs are based
> > >on living in harmony with nature and the world around us.
> <snip>
>
> ** I'd rather take this up in email, since it involves individual
> religious belief, but Traveler doesn't give me the option **
>
> Trav, I don't know TOO much about these "Native Americans" (a label I
> don't think much of because I was born here the same way they were and
> neither of us would be here if our ancestors hadn't traveled here from
> other continenets), but I have read a little here and there.
>
> ...I think the same thing can be said in good degree to the NA's (warning,
> I'm going to generalize here, not all of this applies to any one tribe or
> group): They were, on occasion, savagely warlike. They killed women and
> children in raids, took captives, practiced torture and traded slaves
> between groups. There is evidence that some groups performed human
> sacrifice.
>
> On the environmental front, they didn't have much opportunity to do
> damage, but they sometimes did. The Anasazi, for example, over-farmed
> their region and were forced to move because it became unproductive.
> There is speculation that the ecology of the four-corners area was scarred
> in the process. They did this not through bad intentions, but through
> ignorance of plant science. The line between "living off the bounty of
> nature" and "developing the earth" is thin and wavery.
>
> There is no indication, that I've seen anyway, that the NA's wouldn't have
> eventually developed and used technology. They certainly were happy to
> accept technology (such as the horse and the gun) that came to them
> through other cultures. There is good evidence that their native
> technology (for things such as housing and farming) developed and improved
> over time.
>
> If you could go back in time and give the NA's a hydrgen bomb about 1630,
> I think they would say a prayer, apologize to the earth, then blow the
> hell out of the eastern seaboard and send all those white folks right back
> to Europe.
>
Well put, Rob. There's a "noble savage" mythology going back to Rousseau (and
before) that persists despite evidence to the contrary. We only have to look at the
Aztecs, a society whose rulers make the Nazis look cuddley. Popular history paints
the Conquistadores as the evil opressors, but those who had been conquored by the
Aztecs had a different view.
I still read nonsense about the Yamano who "have no word for war". Despite that
they staill manage to kill each other.
Michael Edelman
Don P. wrote:
> ...... In 1948 the palestinians were SHAFTED,
> plain and simple, no conquest there. ....
You mean, when the King of Jordan stole Arab Palestine, which amounted to about
80% of the British Mandate? I have to agree with you there.
> These peoples land MUST be returned to them. Is this fair
> for everyone? No, it is not. But retribution is not always about
> being fair. Palestine must be restored. Huge amounts of land
> must be given back to the native americans.
And the "Native Americans" in turn must return to China, and turn over their
treaty lands to the people they conquored. The English, who displaced out the
Celts, have to give it back and return to Germany, or Northern India, or maybe
Ancient Persia. Oh, and the Celts have to leave England, too, since they
displaced the Picts.
Actually we *all* have to return to Africa, where we came from. It's only fair.
At that point we have a moral obligation to devolve.
Michael Edelman
Rob Hafernik wrote:
> ....
> Science didn't invent the atom bomb, scientists did....
But moral culpability lies elsewhere. Do we blame the first homonid who flaked
flint for every knifing?
After Hiroshima a group of Manhattan Project scientists petitioned Truman to
give up further research in nuclear weaponry, wringing their hands and beating
their chests and saying that their hands were bloodied by the whole affair.
Truman dismissed them contemptuously. "THEIR hands aren't bloody", he said "MY
hands are bloody."
E. L.
view, like you. However, trust history. Religion is a mental disease
and the proof is all around you. You cannot change history no matter
how supportive you are of religion and you cannot prove, either, that
religion has had any positive effect on the world as a whole. Atheists
don't kill individuals because they don't believe but religion has,
does, and will. Again, history.
And, what the heck does my being on WebTV have to do with anything? If
I plugged my computer into the Internet would anything change or be
different? Would it make religion more palatable? Of course not. When
you can't attack the messenger 'cause the message's too good, attack the
method 'cause that must be where the fault lies! Real logic. Anyway,
as I've said a few times, I'm 60 years old - show me god - before I meet
"him"!
E. L.
"Nor is your understanding of religion very accurate. It has clothed the
naked, fed the hungry, taught the unlearned, comforted the sick..."
Again, money has achieved the above. Not god, not priests, NOBODY!
Money - money - money - money - that's religion's god! Non-religionists
do the above good works just to be of help with no thought of a reward
in an "after life." Unfortunately, altruism is not taught by the
church.
E. L.
been into in my 60 years on this beautiful planet that I really hate to
leave. I have had at least one OOBE but I tried for the longest time
before it happened and, difficult to accept by those not open to the
possibilities, it was verified by the "sensitive" people whose house I
visited in my OOBE and when I met them physically ... oh, well.
If you read Monroe's books you'll learn that it's not all fun and games.
But what I want to emphasize is that no one should try this at home
without proper guidance and I don't mean another human's guidance but
your own mental strength. Recently, I bought a one of those sleep masks
with a built-in "computer" that can be programmed to awake you when you
are having a lucid dream. I can tell you of experiences but they have
no meaning to you as they are MY experiences and if I were to tell you
of them it might color YOUR experiences.
I don't mean to boast but I'm a regular flyer in my dreams and I've read
some sleep authority say that when you are a regular flyer you possess a
balanced mind. Maybe so or maybe not, but I am a totally confident
person (in my abilities). Do you know what it's like to jump off
heights knowing that you are not going to fall? Do you know what it's
like to have dream winds blow you around like a kite? I do.
A Traveler
>
>Well put, Rob. There's a "noble savage" mythology going back to Rousseau
(and
>before) that persists despite evidence to the contrary. We only have to
look at the
>Aztecs, a society whose rulers make the Nazis look cuddley. Popular history
paints
>the Conquistadores as the evil opressors, but those who had been conquored
by the
>Aztecs had a different view.
>
Your are right about the "noble savage" myth. There were many ferocious
tribes. Some were constantly at war with someone (Blackfoot, Crow), while
others were trying to exist in peace (Iroquois, Cherokee, Hopi, Zuni). The
Apache had the reputation for being one of the most ferocious tribes in the
western US, but they were not agressors until provoked. The Aztecs and
Mayans were a bloody, savage people, but that does not diminish the evil
done by the Conquistadores (one savage group killed by another). History is
filled with murder, oppression, greed, theft, etc from all continents,
including North America. But not all peoples on all continents can be
categorized as being driven by these traits.
Michael Edelman
Marty Fouts wrote:
> .... We only have to look at the Aztecs, a society whose rulers
> > make the Nazis look cuddley. Popular history paints the
> > Conquistadores as the evil opressors, but those who had been
> > conquored by the Aztecs had a different view.
> >
> ...
>
> There is such a thing as erring to the other extreme, as you've just
> done. Even if the Aztecs 'make the Nazis look cuddley', which I
> doubt, that does not excuse the Conquistadores, and I doubt very much
> that those who were slaughtered by the Spanish thought more highly of
> them than they did of those who had slaughtered their ancestors.
Who's excusing the Conquistadores? You're looking to build a straw man to
attack, or perhaps just having trouble parsing the text. What I suggested-
and I would have thought this reading was obvious- was that it was the
*Aztec* who were the real opressors of Central America, and not the
Spaniards in the time of Cortes.
But it's fashionable to protray the Aztec as a noble race, and even as
opressed.
E. L.
lengthy). I am VERY strongly against religion in all of its aspects. I
could never express myself truthfully on this or any other Forum because
I promised my wife of 27 glorious years that I would never bring grief
into our lives. I already did some damage when earlier in the year I
got involved in a Treasure Hunting Forum that went from talking about
metal detecting to RELIGION. I posted a secular request asking for
peace on the Forum and the next thing I know someone set them off but,
because of my post, I was considered the anti-christ and I was crucified
by the christians and "kicked off" the Forum. The whole thing resulted
in a separate Forum for christians so, in that behalf I was helpful but
I paid the price without even expressing myself against religion. Now I
live my life as peacefully as I can and I'm sometimes affected only by
what the media reports. I am not an avenging angel. But the truth is
that if I was single I would become an avenging "angel" and spend the
rest of my life trying to eradicate ALL religion even though I fully
believe that the future should take care of itself. To not be in full
control of yourself has to be the real sin.
A Traveler
>
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Today we can start by giving back Palestine to the Palestinians
>> and land back to the Native Americans. This is what WE must do
>> today. Anything short of this is quite inadequate, and the cause
>> for alarm.
>>
>
>Summarians to return it to.
>
In your own words, that is taking the example to the extreme. The situation
with the Native Americans is relatively new compared to the Hittites and
Summarians. The majority of the land has been taken from the N.A. during
the past 150 years. During that time, we already laws in place in this
country to protect land ownership. We already had courts hearing cases of
murder and theft. Much of those lands were taken by breaking treaties
(legal binding contracts), fraud, murder, etc. It is not the same situation
nor the same time frame for the Hittites and Summarians.
>You can't, at this point, 'give back' the land to Native Americans,
>because there is more gone than just the land. My ancestory includes
>the Nez Perce. To 'give back' the land to us, you would have to empty
>most of Idaho and western Montana of European descendants, restore the
>largest SuperFund toxic waste site in the country, restore a good deal
>of agricultural land to its native state, undo a great deal of surface
>mining, reintroduce the bison to the Great Plains, and reestablish the
>fishing villages we traded with along the upper Columbia river.
>
>There is no way to pay retribution for the European conquest of North
>America. Right now, the best that can be done is to stop the
>continuation of policies that are destroying the remnants of native
>cultures, and even that is difficult.
You are quite correct on this issue. That is part of the moral dilemma. We
cannot give the land back to the N.A. because too many people are now
established on much of the land. There are however, other means of
attempting to partially rectify the situation. Some lands that are still
uninhabited and especially sacred to certain tribes (the Black Hills and the
Souix) could be retuirned to the tribe. Better tribal schools, more college
scholarship funds, small business development funds for businesses on tribal
lands, etc. could be offered for use by tribal members. I do not believe in
more welfare or unemployment funds being thrown at the problem. If the N.A.
are not willing to work hard like the rest of us to change their situation,
then I do not think we should be obligated to help them.
>Consider the reintroduction of
>the wolf to the pacific northwest, a small example. Even in the
>wildest and most remote parts of Idaho, we can not accomplish this
>simple task without bigotry and bias intruding.
>
This is a good example of the bigotry and bias that exists toward repairing
our ecosystem, but it is not really directly related to the N.A. situation.
There is much bigotry towards the N.A. in the U.S, but many of the N.A. do
little to combat that situation. It is sad, but what do we do? How can it
be changed? Should we be obligated to help those who are not willing to
accept reasonable means of changing their unfortunate situation regardless
of how they ended up there?
A Traveler
>
>Don P. wrote:
>
>> ...... In 1948 the palestinians were SHAFTED,
>> plain and simple, no conquest there. ....
>
>You mean, when the King of Jordan stole Arab Palestine, which amounted to
about
>80% of the British Mandate? I have to agree with you there.
>
>> These peoples land MUST be returned to them. Is this fair
>> for everyone? No, it is not. But retribution is not always about
>> being fair. Palestine must be restored. Huge amounts of land
>> must be given back to the native americans.
>
>And the "Native Americans" in turn must return to China, and turn over
their
>treaty lands to the people they conquored. The English, who displaced out
the
>Celts, have to give it back and return to Germany, or Northern India, or
maybe
>Ancient Persia. Oh, and the Celts have to leave England, too, since they
>displaced the Picts.
>
Although humorous, this is taking the example to the extreme. The situation
with the Native Americans is very new compared to the English, Celts, Picts,
etc.. The majority of the land has been taken from the N.A. during the past
150 years. During that time, we already laws in place in this country to
protect land ownership. We already had courts hearing cases of murder and
theft. Much of those lands were taken by breaking treaties (legal binding
contracts), fraud, murder, etc.
>Actually we *all* have to return to Africa, where we came from. It's only
fair.
>At that point we have a moral obligation to devolve.
>
LOL! Very extreme, but maybe that would be the only way to remove the
greed!
A Traveler
>
>
>Well, OK, let's look at who had that particular land during the last
>150 years. It has, after all, changed hands a dozen or more times in
>that time frame.
>
>My point was simply that the particular piece of desert in question
>has been disputed land for over 2500 years.
>
I assume you are speaking of those lands in the Middle East. I understand
your point relative to those lands.
>> You are quite correct on this issue. That is part of the moral
>> dilemma. We cannot give the land back to the N.A. because too many
>> people are now established on much of the land. There are however,
>> other means of attempting to partially rectify the situation. Some
>> lands that are still uninhabited and especially sacred to certain
>> tribes (the Black Hills and the Souix) could be retuirned to the
>> tribe. Better tribal schools, more college scholarship funds, small
>> business development funds for businesses on tribal lands,
>> etc. could be offered for use by tribal members. I do not believe
>> in more welfare or unemployment funds being thrown at the problem.
>> If the N.A. are not willing to work hard like the rest of us to
>> change their situation, then I do not think we should be obligated
>> to help them.
>>
>
>Better schools make sense, but they have to honor the cultural
>tradition. What good is a school system that merely seeks to turn Nez
>Perce into MBAs?
>
So true. That has always been part of the problem. The Jesuit schools
forbade the Souix to speak their native tongue or partake in any cultural
activities. Any help would have to protect the culture as much as possible
(this should be left up to the individual tribal elders to decide).
>You might want to look into the history of attempts to reintroduce the
>wolf into Idaho. You will find quiet a strong relationship between
>it, the Nez Perce, and the bigotry you are talking about.
>
I will have to do that. I am only familiar with the attempts to reintroduce
in Montana and Dakotas. Although the cultural relationship with the wolf is
strong, I wasn't aware of any bigotry against the reintroduction based on
negative feelings toward the N.A.
Katsuragi Misato
>
> skept...@webtv.net (E. L.) writes:
> Your point about what atheists do or don't do is incorrect in that
> 'atheists' aren't a solid block, and some atheists do kill because of
> what they believe. Stalin, for example, was an atheist, and may have
> had killed as many people as Hitler, a Christian, did.
WHOA! Hold it right there. Hitler was no Christian. He may have admitted
such, but just because I say I'm purple and pooka-dotted, it doesn't mean
that I am. Hitler was Catholic. Catholicism is not Christianity. Some
Catholics are Christian, but that doesn't mean they all are. Hitler may
have struck a deal with the Pope, but neither one of them was Christian.
Katsuragi Misato
A Traveler
>>"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
>
>>Not all religion is organized superstition. And until we can
scientifically
>>prove the fallacy of God, we do not really know that he is superstition.
>
>difference between a fantasy and reality? You are very wrong! Think
>about it! For example, are you saying there is absolutely no way to
>scientifically determine if the story of the Three Little Pigs is a
>fairytale or not? Should we take that story seriously too?
>
No, I am saying that the Bible contains many descriptions of events and
places that have been confirmed as historically accurate. God is described
as an all powerful, omnipresent entity. Now, an all powerful, omnipresent
entity who was capable of creating matter from nothing should be able to
easily avoid detection by a human. How does one go about scientifically
proving that God does not exist? Lack of evidence does not prove
non-existence. There are numerous examples in physics of particles that
were believed to have existed before any evidence was found to prove their
existence. Are you saying that these particles did not exist prior to
discovery of the evidence?
There is no correlation between The Three Little Pigs and the Bible. I am
not aware of the author ever claiming that the story was true or even based
on a true event. The Bible, however, has been claimed to be real since the
various letters and documents were first written.
The_Sage
<Marty's bullshit and hand waving snipped>
...oops! Now there is nothing left to reply to!
The Sage
==========================================
My Home Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian
My Home Page : http://www.psn.net/~xyz
==========================================
The_Sage
>>> >I do not dispute the enormous number of persons killed in the name
>>> >of various religions through the years. It is one reason why I
>>> >have no love for organized religion.
>>A larger number were killed for purely economic motives. Does this
>>mean you have no love of capitalism?
>Not at all. But not all economic reasons are from capitalism. There are
>many other economic structures in the world. Capitalism has it down side,
>but that is due more to the human failing than the economic structure
>failing.
Notice that Marty cannot give statistics for his assertation that a
"larger number were killed for purely economic motives". He is only
pulling your leg Traveler. It is easy to cite religiously-based wars
with large numbers of people killed in the name of God: The Crusades,
Inquistions, 100 Year War, WWII, etc. It isn't so easy to name wars
that were fought for "purely economic motives".
>>> Good deeds do not go unrewarded. Anything out of the ordinary will
>>> become a permanent part of the history books. Now take a look at
>>> history and let's see how many religious deeds were so out of the
>>> ordinarily good that they became a part of history and then let's
>>> compare that the the amount of religious deeds were so out of the
>>> ordinarily bad that they became a part of history.
>>How naive. The winners write the history books.
>Much of the written history of the US Government conflict with the Native
>Americans is a perfect example of that. Only during the past 20 years or
>so, has the high school curriculum in some states begun to teach the truth
>rather than the winner's version.
Again, Marty is playing his little game of contradicting anything he
doesn't believe in with assertations instead of facts. In today's
modern scientific world, it is the archaologists that write the
history books. Let's see a copy of Marty's supposed list of winners
and their history books.
The_Sage
>>>Oh, I would never claim it was not worth discussion. But without doing a
>>>through analysis as you pointed out below (which would be very difficult),
>>>his statement is subjective.
>>Are you paying attention to what you are saying? You just basically
>>said that, "Without an objective analysis, any claims are subjective".
>>The point being made was that it *CAN* be determined objectively
>>whether the claim I made is true or not. You can't rationally say that
>>my statement is subjective when you haven't *ASKED FOR* or *SEEN* the
>>facts. And it doesn't need to be a thorough analysis, just sufficient
>>enough to prove the point.
>You didn't read to through the entire post.
Yes I did, hence the reason I gave a reply throughout your entire
post.
>It can be objectively
>determined that "x number of people have died in a war or as a direct result
>of religion".
>It cannot be determined objectively that "x number of people
>have been saved as a result of religion".
And why not? Because there is no data or because people cannot be
saved by religion?
>Therefore, your statement cannot
>be objective as only half of the data can be determined.
Yes it can. Let's just list the number of people who have changed
their lives from drug addicts to straight or from militia to civilian
and so on. Of course, you won't find any massive numbers of people in
this category as will in the other category because it doesn't happen
on the same scale. It doesn't happen on the same scale. You know why
it doesn't happen on the same scale? Because religion creates massive
number of murderers but very few pacifists or lovers.
>>>>I think it's fair to say that a non-trivial percentage of all violent
>>>>deaths in the entire history of mankind have had religious underpinnings.
>>>I do not dispute the enormous number of persons killed in the name of
>>>various religions through the years. It is one reason why I have no love
>>>for organized religion.
>>So you yourself admit that there is objective evidence to back up what
>>I claimed. So what are you really trying to dispute here?
>No, only half of your statement can be objectively determined.
You only wish that were true. Only if you can prove that there are
absolutey no facts in this regard, then you can state that with
certainty. If there are facts in this regard, then they can be
documented, even if with a little effort.
>>>>On the other side of the question, we should look at the ameliorating
>>>>effects of religion. How many people in history have REFRAINED from
>>>>killing or doing other evil because of religious belief? How many rulers
>>>>have AVOIDED war on the advice of God or clergy? How many lives have been
>>>>improved as a result of religious belief? Does it count that the United
>>>>States' form of democratic government is at least partially based on the
>>>>belief by the founding fathers that "life, liberty and the persuit of
>>>>happiness" were "inalienable rights" passed from God to man (in other
>>>>words, how much credit should Christianity get for the existence of
>>>>democracy)?
>>>This question would be extremely difficult to answer with any accuracy.
>>How do you know that for a fact? You don't know that for a fact. The
>>answers are there and they are easy to research. What is extremely
>>difficult to do is to accept what the answers teach us about ourselves
>>and our religion:
>So how would one go about determining the number of lives saved and the
>number of wars avoided because of religion?
By observation and study. So how many wars were averted because one
sides religion said, "No, we can't do that because it is against our
religion"? As far as I know, there are exactly zero.
>>America isn't as great of a country as they pretend to be.
>>Democracy doesn't always work for Americans.
>>Americans aren't morally upright, unprejudiced, and non-racist.
>That is a very unsupportable, all-encompassing statement. Democracy may not
>be perfect, but many of its imperfections are the result of the people as
>individuals not voicing their opinions or being too apathetic to vote. I
>know many, many, many morally upright (but who decides what is considered
>morally upright?). I know many, many people who are unprejudiced and
>non-racist. "A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch." Stealing a
>thought from something Rob said in another post, those of us who want to
>live our lives to a higher standard need to put pressure upon those who live
>their lives to a lower standard. We can remove the bad element or change
>the bad element, but it is our responsibility to do so.
>>But that isn't fair. I shouldn't be getting off the subject.
>>"We know these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created
>>equal". What is that supposed to mean? Well according to what our
>>original "Christian" forefathers of our country meant, it meant that
>>all WHITE men were created equal, to the exclusion of blacks, indians,
>>and any woman.
>As a government, those rights were denied those groups as a whole. Many of
>the founding fathers enjoyed a good relationship with the Native Americans
>of the Iroquois Nation. They treated them with great respect. And no one
>said that this nation or this government is perfect. But look how far we
>have evolved as a people since that time.
>>>Larger decisions that are documented by historical documents that support
>>>the "I didn't kill because of my religious beliefs" might be easy to find,
>>>but that leaves a great many other potential acts of goodness that would
>go
>>>undocumented. Both questions also only addressed the lives taken and
>lives
>>>saved, not the many other acts of good and evil perpetrated.
>>
>>Good deeds do not go unrewarded. Anything out of the ordinary will
>>become a permanent part of the history books. Now take a look at
>>history and let's see how many religious deeds were so out of the
>>ordinarily good that they became a part of history and then let's
>>compare that the the amount of religious deeds were so out of the
>>ordinarily bad that they became a part of history.
>>
>
>So, where in the history books is it documented how many lives were saved
>becasue of the Salvation Army providing food and shelter? or even more
>recently, where is it documented how many lives have been saved by the
>homeless shelters providing food, clothing, and shelter? Where can I find
>the number of people saved in any war due the heroic action of another
>soldier?
>>>>Tough questions, but worth asking, I think. And I don't agree that they
>>>>can only be answered subjectively. Surely something like, "XX thousand
>>>>Muslims have been killed in wars, internecine and international, in the
>>>>mideast this century and nearly all of those conflicts had a religious
>>>>basis" would be an objective fact.
>>>Your phrasing of the statement would be an objective fact. To say, without
>>>supporting facts, that more evil than good has been done in the name of
>>>religion is subjective.
>>To assume without asking for supporting facts that a statement is
>>subjective, is a logical fallacy.
>>I list as my facts:
>>The Crusades
>>The Inquistions
>>The Salem Witch Trials
>>The 100 Year War
>>WWII
>>Etc...
>Okay, so give me the number of persons killed in each of the above. That
>will give us a number to begin supporting the evil done. Then you need only
>to research the number of lives saved. ;-)
War: Killed: Saved:
The Crusades millions zero
The Inquistions millions zero
The Salem Witch Trials 18 zero
The 100 Year War Not listed Not listed
WWII millions zero
Etc... etc etc
There are no corresponding millions of people who were saved by
religion in any way, shape, or form. See how easy it is to list those
who were killed by religion and notice how incredibly diffiucult it is
to list those who were "saved" by religion? That alone tells us all we
need to know about religion and its problem of saying one thing and
doing another.
The_Sage
>The prisoner's dilemma (there's no 'n', but two 'm's) is an accurate
>model of a situation that occurs a lot in 'reality'.
It rarely occurs in reality. It occurs alot on computer simulations
though.
>It's called the
>"prisoner's dilemma" because the original version of the game
>accurately models a real situation that comes up in jails on a regular
>basis.
Still making things as you go along, I can see.
>The work has been extended and provides accurate models of a wide
>range of economic situations in which in 'reality' cooperation is the
>optimal strategy.
There is no such thing as an "accurate" model of economic situations.
The prisoner's dilemma is not a fact but speculation.
>> >I'd go with the "out compete them by effectively cooperating among
>> >ourselves and let evolution take care of the problem" approach.
>> Too bad there is no historically objective indication that will ever
>> happen.
>The US involvement in WW-II, in which all US economic forces
>cooperated is a very good historical objective indication.
A world war is your only "good example" of what cooperation and
evolution can lead to? Hehehe! I rest my case.
>There are also some interesting examples in evolutionary biology.
...of which you have no clue is all about...or did you forget that you
ignorantly believe that evolution is random and therefore couldn't
ever possibly be based on any strategy.
>> >Yup. Some of my friends who were raised in secular humanist
>> >households are now searching among the religions for something they
>> >can't define but know they've lost.
>> It's defined as a loss of reasoning ability when that happens.
>Not by anyone but you. Humans are biologically social animals.
Humans are also gullible and illogical by nature.
>Religions provide a form of socialization missing in other parts of
>life.
That isn't why religion exists. You are making things up again.
>You cannot 'do away with' religion unless you find a way to
>relace that social function.
If the only purpose of religion was to socialize, you would be
correct, but alas, you are obviously not correct.
>One of the reasons why organized
>religions survived in the USSR despite every effort of the party to
>eradicate them is that the social drive is so powerful.
Again, you are stating your uninformed opinion rather then stating
facts. There is absolutely no scientifically derived evidence that it
was the social drive of religions that kept them alive in the USSR.
Absolutely none.
>> >Stephen Jay Gould, in _Full House_ argues that evolution doesn't
>> >'perfect' in any way. It simply selects for fitness to the current
>> >environment. If you haven't read Full House, you might want to read
>> >it with your thoughts on altruism in mind.
>> Evolution is not just a theory...it is a way of life.
>And one that doesn't lead to perfection.
As time goes by, lifeforms are getting better (ie -- more fit) and
better and better so logically they will eventually reach a point
where they can't get better and at that point, by definition, they
will be perfectly fit for that enviroment.
The_Sage
>> > But science has helped us vastly helped us more than religion could
>> > even dream of doing. Why just in the last few centuries, science has
>> > given us light, electricity, the automobile, space travel, flight,
>> > computers -- practically an entire new civilization. And what has
>> > religion done for us besides kill, kill, kill?
>> You aren't giving science nearly enough credit. It's given us nuclear
>> weapons and very sophisticated missles to deliver them with,
>> biological weapons, automatic rifles, toxic sludge, and land mines.
>> Lots of kill, kill, kill there.
See what I mean Aaron? Marty isn't talking about science, he is
talking about the MISUSE of science by *politicians* and *business*
people.
Let Marty's ignorance be a lesson to you.
>I don't think EITHER of you is giving the credit where it's due:
>individual humans. Religion didn't start the crusades, a Pope did.
The Pope didn't fight the wars all by himself, he had the all too
willing help of the immoral religious masses who whole heartedly
agreed with what he wanted to do.
>Science didn't invent the atom bomb, scientists did.
No, engineers created the atom bomb using the scientists knowledge.
>Religion and science
>are belief systems (ones *I* don't think have to be mutually exclusive,
>but some do), in and of themselves they don't DO anything.
Science is a belief system only to religious people who don't know the
difference between reality and fantasy.
>Now, you can, and may, argue that different belief systems attract
>different sorts of people and, therefore, one is better than another. Go
>ahead and argue that -- but be careful of the land mines...
Science is the only method that deals strictly with facts. All others
deal strictly with fantasies.
The_Sage
>>But science has helped us vastly helped us more than religion could
>>even dream of doing. Why just in the last few centuries, science has
>>given us light, electricity, the automobile, space travel, flight,
>>computers -- practically an entire new civilization. And what has
>>religion done for us besides kill, kill, kill?
>So, how many people have been killed by bullets, mortars, conventional
>bombs, and nuclear bombs (all developed by science)?
Those weren't developed by science, those were developed by the
military.
>Religion may have
>provided the reason for the wars, but it was science that made them as
>effective at killing as they were.
No, it was the misuse of knowledge that lead to effective killing
machines.
>A great deal less people would have been
>killed in the last 200 hundred years if we were still fighting with swords
>and spears!
...but nevertheless, they majority of all the killings would have
still been performed by religious people.
The_Sage
>Not all religion is organized superstition. And until we can scientifically
>prove the fallacy of God, we do not really know that he is superstition.
Are you saying that there is absolutely no way to determine the
difference between a fantasy and reality? You are very wrong! Think
about it! For example, are you saying there is absolutely no way to
scientifically determine if the story of the Three Little Pigs is a
fairytale or not? Should we take that story seriously too?
The Sage
The_Sage
>I don't mean to boast but I'm a regular flyer in my dreams and I've read
>some sleep authority say that when you are a regular flyer you possess a
>balanced oind. Maybe so or maybe not, but I am a totally confident
>person (in my abilities). Do you know what it's like to jump off
>heights knowing that you are not going to fall? Do you know what it's
>like to have dream winds blow you around like a kite? I do.
I hate to sound cynical...alright, I love to sound cynical, but what
is the rational purpose of having those kind of dreams? Are they going
to make you a better perqon? More intelligent? More wealthy? How do
you know there aren't some serious side effects that can result from
prolonged use of this method?
Aaron LeClair
E. L. wrote:
> Aaron, I'm open, period! You would not believe (pun intended) what I've
> been into in my 60 years on this beautiful planet that I really hate to
> leave. I have had at least one OOBE but I tried for the longest time
> before it happened and, difficult to accept by those not open to the
> possibilities, it was verified by the "sensitive" people whose house I
> visited in my OOBE and when I met them physically ... oh, well.
I bet this has changed your life, hasn't it? I've talked with others who
have had similar experiences as your self. It is very interesting.
>
>
> If you read Monroe's books you'll learn that it's not all fun and games.
> But what I want to emphasize is that no one should try this at home
> without proper guidance and I don't mean another human's guidance but
> your own mental strength. Recently, I bought a one of those sleep masks
> with a built-in "computer" that can be programmed to awake you when you
> are having a lucid dream. I can tell you of experiences but they have
> no meaning to you as they are MY experiences and if I were to tell you
> of them it might color YOUR experiences.
>
Ok, that's cool.
> I don't mean to boast but I'm a regular flyer in my dreams and I've read
> some sleep authority say that when you are a regular flyer you possess a
> balanced mind.
> Maybe so or maybe not, but I am a totally confident
> person (in my abilities). Do you know what it's like to jump off
> heights knowing that you are not going to fall?
In dreams, yes.
> Do you know what it's
> like to have dream winds blow you around like a kite? I do.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. I love to sleep/dream though.
Aaron LeClair
The_Sage wrote:
> >shok...@well.com (Rob Hafernik) wrote:
>
> >> > But science has helped us vastly helped us more than religion could
> >> > even dream of doing. Why just in the last few centuries, science has
> >> > given us light, electricity, the automobile, space travel, flight,
> >> > computers -- practically an entire new civilization. And what has
> >> > religion done for us besides kill, kill, kill?
>
> >> You aren't giving science nearly enough credit. It's given us nuclear
> >> weapons and very sophisticated missles to deliver them with,
> >> biological weapons, automatic rifles, toxic sludge, and land mines.
> >> Lots of kill, kill, kill there.
>
> See what I mean Aaron? Marty isn't talking about science, he is
> talking about the MISUSE of science by *politicians* and *business*
> people.
>
> Let Marty's ignorance be a lesson to you.
I don't see it as ignorance. I see Marty is merely sharing his point of
view and at this stage, differs from yours a little.
It is all interconnected. But some scientist go along with the business and
politics.
>
>
> >I don't think EITHER of you is giving the credit where it's due:
> >individual humans. Religion didn't start the crusades, a Pope did.
>
> The Pope didn't fight the wars all by himself, he had the all too
> willing help of the immoral religious masses who whole heartedly
> agreed with what he wanted to do.
Yep, this is what I think too.
>
>
> >Science didn't invent the atom bomb, scientists did.
>
> No, engineers created the atom bomb using the scientists knowledge.
>
Oy, I'll bail on this one. It looks like it's getting semantical again.
Hey, I know, why not just blame "people" for the acts of mankind.
> >Religion and science
> >are belief systems (ones *I* don't think have to be mutually exclusive,
> >but some do), in and of themselves they don't DO anything.
>
> Science is a belief system only to religious people who don't know the
> difference between reality and fantasy.
It depends on what is meant by belief.
>
>
> >Now, you can, and may, argue that different belief systems attract
> >different sorts of people and, therefore, one is better than another. Go
> >ahead and argue that -- but be careful of the land mines...
>
> Science is the only method that deals strictly with facts. All others
> deal strictly with fantasies.
One could say that, that is your belief.
Aaron LeClair
Marty Fouts wrote:
> skept...@webtv.net (E. L.) writes:
>
> > Marty, I am not to be trusted for I'm just an individual with a
> > point of view, like you. However, trust history. Religion is a
> > mental disease and the proof is all around you. You cannot change
> > history no matter how supportive you are of religion and you cannot
> > prove, either, that religion has had any positive effect on the
> > world as a whole. Atheists don't kill individuals because they
> > don't believe but religion has, does, and will. Again, history.
> >
>
> I can easily prove that religion has had 'any' positive effect on the
> world as a whole. See the book _How the Irish Saved Civilization_ for
> one example. See the Mosaic dietary code for another.
>
> Your point about what atheists do or don't do is incorrect in that
> 'atheists' aren't a solid block, and some atheists do kill because of
> what they believe. Stalin, for example, was an atheist, and may have
> had killed as many people as Hitler, a Christian, did.
Here's a little side note: Stalin and Shitler were prolifers. Atleast
that is what I just read in Sagan's book. Aint that funny (for lack of a
better word)? They go around killing people, but yet they're prolife.
>
>
Michael Edelman
Marty Fouts wrote:
> x...@psn.net (The_Sage) writes:
>
> > >So, how many people have been killed by bullets, mortars, conventional
> > >bombs, and nuclear bombs (all developed by science)?
> >
> > Those weren't developed by science, those were developed by the
> > military.
> >
>
> Wrong. Most weapons were created by scientists, working in research
> laboratories.
>
Hardly.
Most weapons were created by ingenious inventors working alone. The M1
Carbine? The prototype was built in a prison! Go rent "Carbine Williams",
starring Henry Fonda. Machine guns? Gatling, Hiram Percy Maxim, John
Browning. All independant inventors, working alone. (In fact, Browning was
probably the most prolific inventor of small arms who ever lived. He invented
the US Army's standard side arm for 75 years, the Colt .45ACP)
The idea of a research lab to create weapons is very much a modern, WWII
idea. Even so, many weapons are still created by independant inventors. The
world's most successful new military pistol, the Glock? Designed by an
independant inventor whose business up until then was making things like
entrenching shovels for the Austrian army. The Henry repeating rifle?
Independant inventor. And we all know the story of the first guns with
interchangable parts, right? And there's Samuel Colt, David Bushnell
(inventor of the first military submarine, c.a. 1776!) and many others.
Weapons tend to be built by engineers, not scientists. You've probably never
heard the joke: What's the difference between a mechanical engineer and a
civil engineer? Mechanical engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build
targets ;-)
A great many weapons were indeed developed by soldiers. The hollow-base
conical bullet that was the first quick-loading small arms projectile? Mine',
a French military officer. Exploding cannon shells, the great killer of the
battlefield? Home-grown by the military. That's why the military has the
Corps of Engineers and not the Corps of Physicists ;-)
The involvement of pure science is a very recent phenomena, and is still
limited to certain cutting edge developments, like nuclear weapons (which
have killed far fewer people than either bullets, bombs, artillery or disease
in this centrury) and the original radars . Military weapons science is still
basically engineering.
A Traveler
>
>>
>> Science is the only method that deals strictly with facts. All
>> others deal strictly with fantasies.
>>
>
>facts'. It often deals with educated guesses, half understood
>theories, and, at least in the social sciences, even fantasy.
>
Look at the science of theoretical physics. Feynman says that it requires
"an active imagination." They must envision fantasy particles or fantasy
forces to explain that which they have no explanation for. Sometimes they
are right; sometimes they are wrong. But it is definitely *not* based
solely on facts.
Katsuragi Misato
> >
> >>Not all religion is organized superstition. And until we can
> scientifically
> >>prove the fallacy of God, we do not really know that he is superstition.
> >
> >Are you saying that there is absolutely no way to determine the
> >difference between a fantasy and reality? You are very wrong! Think
> >about it! For example, are you saying there is absolutely no way to
> >scientifically determine if the story of the Three Little Pigs is a
> >fairytale or not? Should we take that story seriously too?
> >
>
> places that have been confirmed as historically accurate. God is described
> as an all powerful, omnipresent entity. Now, an all powerful, omnipresent
> entity who was capable of creating matter from nothing should be able to
> easily avoid detection by a human. How does one go about scientifically
> proving that God does not exist? Lack of evidence does not prove
> non-existence. There are numerous examples in physics of particles that
> were believed to have existed before any evidence was found to prove their
> existence. Are you saying that these particles did not exist prior to
> discovery of the evidence?
>
> There is no correlation between The Three Little Pigs and the Bible. I am
> not aware of the author ever claiming that the story was true or even based
> on a true event. The Bible, however, has been claimed to be real since the
> various letters and documents were first written.
I'll second that.
Katsuragi Misato :)
Rob Hafernik
esoxlNe...@juno.com wrote:
> I see you point Rob, however, for me at least there is a
> MAJOR difference from land being lost to conquest, and getting
> the MAJAR SHAFT. In 1948 the palestinians were SHAFTED,
> plain and simple, no conquest there. As Traveler as pointed out,
> the native americans were SHAFTED, plain and simple.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the land in question in the
mid-east today ORIGINALLY belonged to the tribes of Israel. As far as I
know, this is archeological fact. They've been rousted from that land a
number of times, but they got some of it BACK in 1948, right? Even then,
they got it back BECAUSE they'd been shoved out of their homes in Europe
by various governments, including Hitler. Isn't this just the sort of
compensation you're in favor of? Also, don't forget that "native"
Palestinians in Israel have full citizenship, it's only the ones in the
occupied territories who don't.
As for the land that's being fought over in Gaza and the west bank today,
all that land was WON by Israel when THEY were attacked in the six-day war
and things didn't go so well for the agressors.
IMHO, they made a big mistake in not giving the conquered Palestinians
full citizenship as well, there would be fewer problems today. I don't
see, however, that they shouldn't be allowed to keep land that they won in
a war that they DIDN'T start.
Katsuragi Misato
>
> Katsuragi Misato <Mis...@Nerv.com> writes:
>
> > Marty Fouts wrote:
> > >
> > > skept...@webtv.net (E. L.) writes:
> >
> > > Your point about what atheists do or don't do is incorrect in that
> > > 'atheists' aren't a solid block, and some atheists do kill because of
> > > what they believe. Stalin, for example, was an atheist, and may have
> > > had killed as many people as Hitler, a Christian, did.
> >
> > admitted such, but just because I say I'm purple and pooka-dotted,
> > it doesn't mean that I am. Hitler was Catholic. Catholicism is not
> > Christianity. Some Catholics are Christian, but that doesn't mean
> > they all are. Hitler may have struck a deal with the Pope, but
> >
>
> Sorry, but neither you nor I get to decide if Catholicism is
> Christianity or not. Of all of the various christian sects, the
> Catholic Church has the strongest claim on 'legitimacy' simply by
> being the oldest and longest lived.
I think that if you do some serious study about Catholicism and Mystery
Babylon you'll find that I'm right. You must look beyond your roots and
beliefs that you've set up for yourself. Read "Mystery Babylon" and "The Two
Babylons" and you'll get a bigger picture of what's going on. There are other
things to study as well, but these are a start.
Katsuragi Misato :)
Rob Hafernik
> Rob Hafernik wrote:
>
> > ....
> > Science didn't invent the atom bomb, scientists did....
>
> But moral culpability lies elsewhere. Do we blame the first homonid who flaked
> flint for every knifing?
Nope, we find culpable everyone who abuses a knife, not the inventor.
> After Hiroshima a group of Manhattan Project scientists petitioned Truman to
> give up further research in nuclear weaponry, wringing their hands and beating
> their chests and saying that their hands were bloodied by the whole affair.
They were right, IMHO, I would have felt the same way. I wouldn't have
tried to stuff the genie back in the bottle, that's futile, but I would
certianly have felt blood on my hands. ANY soldier feels this, IMHO, but
justifies it through national imperatives.
> Truman dismissed them contemptuously. "THEIR hands aren't bloody", he said "MY
> hands are bloody."
And Truman was also correct, from his point of view.
Don P.
>D. P. wrote:
>
>> I see you point Rob, however, for me at least there is a
>> MAJOR difference from land being lost to conquest, and getting
>> the MAJAR SHAFT. In 1948 the palestinians were SHAFTED,
>> plain and simple, no conquest there. As Traveler as pointed out,
>> the native americans were SHAFTED, plain and simple.
>
>Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the land in question in the
>mid-east today ORIGINALLY belonged to the tribes of Israel. As far as I
>know, this is archeological fact.
the archeological facts.
>They've been rousted from that land a
>number of times, but they got some of it BACK in 1948, right?
Yes, the latest version is the 1948 Israelie occupied Palestine.
>Even then,
>they got it back BECAUSE they'd been shoved out of their homes in Europe
>by various governments, including Hitler. Isn't this just the sort of
>compensation you're in favor of?
Sort of Rob, but not quite. The people who lost their homes
in EUROPE, should have been given back their land and homes
in EUROPE. Correct me if I'm worng, but is it NOT the case
that the most (if not very large number) of the jews in E. Europe
were NOT of the Israelie (or middle eastern) lineage??
>As for the land that's being fought over in Gaza and the west bank today,
>all that land was WON by Israel when THEY were attacked in the six-day war
>and things didn't go so well for the agressors.
>
I heard that the "agression" was a planned Israelie activity
made to APPEAR like the palestinians were the agressor. As
was the planned agression the Israelie's took upon the USS Liberty,
in order to secure their efforts in THEIR planned war!
You have not heard this before?!
>IMHO, they made a big mistake in not giving the conquered Palestinians
>full citizenship as well, there would be fewer problems today.
Agreed. They made some mistakes.
>I don't see, however, that they shouldn't be allowed
> to keep land that they won in a war that they DIDN'T start.
Oh come now. The Islraelies CARFEFULLY planned and executed
that event. Their only mistake, that they realized later, was not
taking the Golan's and much more. Do you disagree?
Kind Regards
Don Palermo
To reply by email remove Neodymium.
Don P.
>
>(Don P.) esoxlNe...@juno.com writes:
>
>> I you can cite just one of the major religions that exist
>> today, in which their central dogma has been extensively
>> modified, I will admit I was incorrect regarding the evolution
>> of these religions.
>>
>
>Zen. Buddhism was introduced by Siddhartha, traveled through Tibet to
>China, where it met Confusism and was modified into Chinese Buddhism,
>which was quiet different than Tibetian Buddhism, and from there
>traveled to Japan where it met Shintoism, and finally became Zen
>Buddhism. The central tenent of Indian Buddhism is suffering and
>acceptance, the central tenent of Zen is enlightenment and awareness.
>
You are right, and I was wrong. Can you cite another? ;)
Incidentaly, as the "initial" religion moved across the land, and
the inception of the other religions took place, have they (all the
different ones you mention) changed their central dogma since then?
I understand that the one spread out and was modified to make
many, but has Chinese Buddhism, Tibetian Buddhism, Shintoism,
Zen Buddhism, and Indian Buddhism modified it's central dogma at
all in the past 5 years, 10 years, 100 years?? Has any major
religion modified it's central dogma this century??
Thanks.
E. L.
ones that "compel" me to join in this fracas. The benefit I've gained
from my flying dreams is the happiness I wake up with from remembering
my dream experiences. While the happiness is soon replaced by waking
reality, it is not diminished. Nothing serious or worth arguing about
here as everyone has the capacity of similar or greater dreams. It's
fun to wake up in a dream and realize that you are dreaming. While THAT
may be a dream, it is a joyous experience(s). Before I stopped (again)
controlling my dreams just a few months ago, I was waking up every few
minutes and dictating the dream content into my microcassette recorder
which I kept handy. It got out of hand and I decided that I'd rather
have a non-remembered dreams just so I could get some solid sleep. Try
it. It won't happen toot suite but when you wake up IN A DREAM and say
to yourself, "Wow, I've done it," you won't soon forget it. You may
already have done it, but if you haven't, give it a try. If anyone asks
I'll tell you about my dream mask experiences. Not many, just one.
E. L.
C. Dennis McKinsey, 1995, Prometheus Books. Over 500 pages of
inconsistencies in the bible.
It doesn't undermine the historicity of the bible, just the B.S.
in-between.
Katsuragi Misato
That has no been determined to date. I will look up THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
BIBLICAL ERRANCY though, looks like good reading. I hope his study was
based on Greek and Hebrew.
Katsuragi Misato :)
A Traveler
>
>The New York Times, December 7, 1941 (the same day that Germany's ally
>attacked Pearl Harbor) ran this article:
>
>WAR PRAYER FOR REICH
>Catholic Bishops at Fulda Ask Blessing and Victory
>
>The conference of German Cahtholics Bishops assembled in Fulda has
>recommended the introduction of a special war prayer which is to be
>read at the beginning and end of all divine services. This prayer
>implores Providence to bless German arms with vitory and grant
>protection to the lives and health of all soldiers. The Bishops futher
>instructed Catholic clergy to keep and remember in a special Sunday
>sermon at least once a month to German soldiers on land, on sea, and
>in the air
>
>See? The war was supported and encouraged by religion.
"Supported and encouraged" is not the same as "started by". The paragraph
merely shows what religion has always tried to do: bring comfort, courage,
and hope to those in a stressful, possibly hopeless situation. To pray for
victory does not show support. It shows that the religious community had no
other option (because the war was already going on) but to hope for victory
(the alternative being death or capture). Not a whole lot of options. As
for praying "grant protection to the lives and health of all soldiers", what
would you have them pray for? A quick and painless death? Maybe only minor
dismemberment or disfiguring? The religious community prayed for the only
thing that would bring courage to the soldiers and hope to the families:
victory and protection of lives. I see nothing that shows support of
encouragement for the war itself.
>If it weren't
>for religion, many people would not go to war, as confirmed by the
>Winston Churchill's observation...
>
>"In the boldest and most cynical manner...Papen [Hitler] proceeded to
>tell me that...he intended to use his reputation as a good Catholic to
>gain influence with Austrians like Cardinal Innitzer." -- The
>Gathering Storm by Winston Churchill.
>
Churchill's statement says no such thing. It shows that Hitler knew the
political clout held by the church and that many people would follow if he
could gain the support of the Cardinal. Many people look to the church for
guidance (yes, sometimes blindly, but not always), so to gain their support
would have been a very smart move. It certainly does not say that people
would not otherwise go to war.
Katsuragi Misato
I'm sure you both already knew this, but some of the less geographically
blest people here may not. The Vatican is surrounded by Italy, not much
choice there.
Katsuragi Misato :)
A Traveler
>
>Are you denying the fact that there are more descriptions of events
>and places that have been confirmed as historical fairytale? It's
>true! In fact, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed!
>
Exactly what events and places have been *confirmed* as historical
fairytale? Please provide some references. As for the existence of Jesus,
the Bible alone does not support his existence. There are many documents
that the mainstream Christian community is not aware of that have been
removed from the Bible or omitted altogether during the past almost 2000
years as the Bible has been translated, rewritten, translated again, copied,
recopied, rewritten, modified, etc, etc, etc. Do you have any documents
that from that time period that say that Jesus was not an actual human
being?
>>God is described as an all powerful, omnipresent entity. Now, an all
>>powerful, omnipresent entity who was capable of creating matter from
>>nothing should be able to easily avoid detection by a human.
>
>That doesn't make rational, logical sense. Why would our loving
>creator want to play childish games of hide-and-seek? This is
>especially ridiculous when you consider the point that God supposedly
>wants His creation to know and love Him, and He can't do that by
>hiding His face, as though in shame.
>
Why do think he would be hiding his face in shame? Could it be possible
that one must work hard in order to know him? You might want to review the
Bible a little. The answers to your question are there. If one reads the
Bible as a completely factual book, then one would know that in the
biginning man did know God and did walk with God. However, after that whole
fiasco with the apple, man was banished from the Garden. From that day on,
man had to earn his salvation through total acceptance of God (not an easy
task). Now, I do not personally believe in the factualness of the Bible.
However, I do believe that it is much more than a fairytale.
>>How does one go about scientifically proving that God does not exist?
>
>The same way one goes about scientifically proving that the Three
>Little Pigs do not exist. My question for you is, do you know how to
>prove that the Three Little Pigs don't exist, or are you a believer in
>the existence of the Three Little Pigs also?
>
Let's see. Since I know that "The Three Little Pigs" is a story by the
Brothers Grimm and that they were German, I would read any biographies on
the Brothers Grimm. One could also locate original (first printing) of
their fairytales to find the story. Now, since the Brothers Grimm were
known for their fairytales, and since The Three Little Pigs is in one of
their publications of fairytales, it would make more sense that the story is
fictional that it would that the story if true. However, the Bible is not a
book that was written by one person. it is comprised of many documents and
letters written by many persons. There are many other docuemnts and letters
that are not in the Bible that are from that same time period that support
many of the events and places and persons mentioned in the Bible. What
documents can you provide from that time period that support your contention
that Jesus was not real?
>>Lack of evidence does not prove non-existence.
>
>Complete lack of evidence does.
>
No complete lack of evidence to support a theory, without evidence to
disprove it, does not prove the theory false. Until evidence can be found
to support the existence of God or evidence can be found to suport the
non-existence of God, the matter remains unresolved. That is why it is a
matter of faith.
>>There are numerous examples in physics of particles that
>>were believed to have existed before any evidence was found to prove their
>>existence. Are you saying that these particles did not exist prior to
>>discovery of the evidence?
>
>No. The scientifically based belief in the existence of the particles
>was made by logical deduction based on factual evidence. The same
>thing cannot be said of any God.
>
You need to review some of your history of particle physics. Many particles
are imagined to exist with certain properties because those properties would
then fill a hole in a particular theory. There was no factual evidence to
support the existence of many of the particles that we now know are real.
There are other particles which are accepted as existing currently without
any evidence of their existence. How is that different from accepting the
existence of God?
>I am claiming the Three Little Pigs is true...
Saying it is true does not make it so. Saying it is false does not make it
so. Proof to support your contention must be provided. You say "God does
not exist" so please provide us with the proof. I do not say God exists,
because I know there is no such proof. I say that we do not know at this
time if God exists or not, so each person must decide for themselves what
they will believe.
Katsuragi Misato
>
> >"A Traveler" <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote:
><snip>
> and places that have been confirmed as historical fairytale? It's
> true! In fact, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed!
> The Sage
You haven't been keeping up with archeology in Israel. They believe they
have discovered the High priest's burial "box" of Jesus' time. Also, a
noted and very accurate historian named Josephus has written some accounts
of Jesus. No one thought David was really a king of Israel until not to
long ago when they discover enscriptions about him in stone. It's only
matter of time.
Katsuragi Misato :)
Katsuragi Misato
>
>However, after that whole fiasco with the apple...
Actually it was a pomegranate. Check out what was on the high priests' robe
and why.
Katsuragi Misato :)
The_Sage
>> >>> >I do not dispute the enormous number of persons killed in the name
>> >>> >of various religions through the years. It is one reason why I
>> >>> >have no love for organized religion.
>> >>A larger number were killed for purely economic motives. Does this
>> >>mean you have no love of capitalism?
>> >Not at all. But not all economic reasons are from capitalism. There are
>> >many other economic structures in the world. Capitalism has it down side,
>> >but that is due more to the human failing than the economic structure
>> >failing.
>> Notice that Marty cannot give statistics for his assertation that a
>> "larger number were killed for purely economic motives". He is only
>> pulling your leg Traveler. It is easy to cite religiously-based wars
>> with large numbers of people killed in the name of God: The Crusades,
>> Inquistions, 100 Year War, WWII, etc. It isn't so easy to name wars
>> that were fought for "purely economic motives".
>"cannot" andy? You silly little boy. It is you, not I, who make up
>assertions and then fake citations to 'support them'.
>Everyone killed during WW-I was killed for purely economic motives.
>Everyone killed in nearly every Asian conflict was killed for purely
>economic motives. You forget how little of the world's history has
>anything to do with Western Europe.
And where did you get these supposed facts? No quotes, no references,
no bibliographies? Why not?
The New York Times, December 7, 1941 (the same day that Germany's ally
attacked Pearl Harbor) ran this article:
WAR PRAYER FOR REICH
Catholic Bishops at Fulda Ask Blessing and Victory
The conference of German Cahtholics Bishops assembled in Fulda has
recommended the introduction of a special war prayer which is to be
read at the beginning and end of all divine services. This prayer
implores Providence to bless German arms with vitory and grant
protection to the lives and health of all soldiers. The Bishops futher
instructed Catholic clergy to keep and remember in a special Sunday
sermon at least once a month to German soldiers on land, on sea, and
in the air
See? The war was supported and encouraged by religion. If it weren't
for religion, many people would not go to war, as confirmed by the
Winston Churchill's observation...
"In the boldest and most cynical manner...Papen [Hitler] proceeded to
tell me that...he intended to use his reputation as a good Catholic to
gain influence with Austrians like Cardinal Innitzer." -- The
Gathering Storm by Winston Churchill.
I rest my case.
The_Sage
>> >> > But science has helped us vastly helped us more than religion could
>> >> > even dream of doing. Why just in the last few centuries, science has
>> >> > given us light, electricity, the automobile, space travel, flight,
>> >> > computers -- practically an entire new civilization. And what has
>> >> > religion done for us besides kill, kill, kill?
>> >> You aren't giving science nearly enough credit. It's given us nuclear
>> >> weapons and very sophisticated missles to deliver them with,
>> >> biological weapons, automatic rifles, toxic sludge, and land mines.
>> >> Lots of kill, kill, kill there.
>> See what I mean Aaron? Marty isn't talking about science, he is
>> talking about the MISUSE of science by *politicians* and *business*
>> people.
>> Let Marty's ignorance be a lesson to you.
>I don't see it as ignorance. I see Marty is merely sharing his point of
>view and at this stage, differs from yours a little.
Then you haven't learned your lesson yet. For example...
>It is all interconnected. But some scientist go along with the business and
>politics.
Science is interconnected with politics but that doesn't mean it *is*
politics (or business or...). When scientists start going along with
business and politics, they aren't practicing pure science anymore.
They become traitors to science.
>> >Science didn't invent the atom bomb, scientists did.
>> No, engineers created the atom bomb using the scientists knowledge.
>Oy, I'll bail on this one. It looks like it's getting semantical again.
>Hey, I know, why not just blame "people" for the acts of mankind.
No, this isn't semantics, this is reality. Einstein and Rutherford and
etc are *credited* with creating the atom bomb, but it is only a
figure of speech. I doubt if any of those scientists whose knowledge
that led to the creation of the bomb, even knew how to use a
screwdriver. I don't know of any of these scientists that were happy
to see their knowledge put to mass-murdering means.
>> >Religion and science
>> >are belief systems (ones *I* don't think have to be mutually exclusive,
>> >but some do), in and of themselves they don't DO anything.
>> Science is a belief system only to religious people who don't know the
>> difference between reality and fantasy.
> It depends on what is meant by belief.
Now you are beginning to play games with semantics. Science is a
*method* and not a belief.
>> >Now, you can, and may, argue that different belief systems attract
>> >different sorts of people and, therefore, one is better than another. Go
>> >ahead and argue that -- but be careful of the land mines...
>> Science is the only method that deals strictly with facts. All others
>> deal strictly with fantasies.
> One could say that, that is your belief.
Yes, one could *say* that, but no one could say that and back their
statement up with some facts.
The_Sage
That was a very informative post Michael. I wish I had enough time to
do the research for things like this, so I'm glad you came along.
You stand corrected, Marty.
The_Sage
>>Are you saying that there is absolutely no way to determine the
>>difference between a fantasy and reality? You are very wrong! Think
>>about it! For example, are you saying there is absolutely no way to
>>scientifically determine if the story of the Three Little Pigs is a
>>fairytale or not? Should we take that story seriously too?
>No, I am saying that the Bible contains many descriptions of events and
>places that have been confirmed as historically accurate.
Are you denying the fact that there are more descriptions of events
and places that have been confirmed as historical fairytale? It's
true! In fact, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed!
>God is described as an all powerful, omnipresent entity. Now, an all
>powerful, omnipresent entity who was capable of creating matter from
>nothing should be able to easily avoid detection by a human.
That doesn't make rational, logical sense. Why would our loving
creator want to play childish games of hide-and-seek? This is
especially ridiculous when you consider the point that God supposedly
wants His creation to know and love Him, and He can't do that by
hiding His face, as though in shame.
>How does one go about scientifically proving that God does not exist?
The same way one goes about scientifically proving that the Three
Little Pigs do not exist. My question for you is, do you know how to
prove that the Three Little Pigs don't exist, or are you a believer in
the existence of the Three Little Pigs also?
>Lack of evidence does not prove non-existence.
Complete lack of evidence does.
>There are numerous examples in physics of particles that
>were believed to have existed before any evidence was found to prove their
>existence. Are you saying that these particles did not exist prior to
>discovery of the evidence?
No. The scientifically based belief in the existence of the particles
was made by logical deduction based on factual evidence. The same
thing cannot be said of any God.
>There is no correlation between The Three Little Pigs and the Bible. I am
>not aware of the author ever claiming that the story was true or even based
>on a true event. The Bible, however, has been claimed to be real since the
>various letters and documents were first written.
I am claiming the Three Little Pigs is true, so now there is a
correlation...that is unless what you are calling "correlation" is
really a synonym for peer pressure. Either way, you are resorting to
logical fallacies and not facts. Think about it. How does one
determine if an idea, regardless if one person or billions believe in
it, is a fantasy or reality? We "know" that the Three Little Pigs do
not exist, but how exactly do we know? I know by logic and scientific
methodology. Most people just believe. This is a very crucial ability
for scientists to become familiar with, so how about it? How do you
know that the Three Little Pigs exist or not? Then let's apply that
same logic and methodology to God and see what happens.
The_Sage
>Somebody, quick, get a copy of THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRANCY, by
>C. Dennis McKinsey, 1995, Prometheus Books. Over 500 pages of
>inconsistencies in the bible.
>It doesn't undermine the historicity of the bible, just the B.S.
>in-between.
The two most important events in all of Christianity would have to be
Jesus' crucifixion and his resurrection. These two events are at the
heart and core of Christianity. But listen to this: Jesus said,
"...for just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and
three nights, so the Son of man will be in the belly of the earth
three days and three nights." (Matt 12:40). So how much time really
elapsed between the time Jesus died and the time Jesus rose? Jesus
died on the day before Saturday (John 19:31). He rose on Sunday (John
20:1). That's only two nights and one full day. Jesus was dead only
for one-and-a-half days then. THIS IS A PROPHECY THAT DID NOT COME
TRUE! When was Jesus crucified? Notice the account given in the Bible
again: Mark 15:25 says it occurred AT the 3rd hour (9:00am) but John
19:14 says the crucifixion occurred AFTER the 6th hour (12:00pm)! When
was Jesus discovered to be resurrected? Again notice the account given
in the Bible: Mark 16:2 says it occurred AT the rising of the sun but
John 20:1 says it was STILL dark!
Here is a very SMALL listing of some of the contradictions, lies,
mistakes, and so on that can be found in the Bible. Notice Especially
The False Prophecies:
-------------------------OLD TESTAMENT--------------------------------
Gen 7:2
How to know clean from unclean when no law yet?
Gen 15:7,8 vs. Exodus 6:3
God told Abraham his name before he mentioned it again in Exodus.
Gen 37:27 vs. Gen 37:28
Who sold Joseph into Egypt?
Exodus 14:21
The Bible says that an east wind blew all night and dried up
the red sea. What was left for Moses to part then the next day?
Exodus 20:5 vs. Ezekiel 18:20
Make up your mind!
Exodus 33:20 vs. Job 19:26
Job saw God without dying!
Leviticus 3:17 vs. Nehemiah 8:10
How can Forever=1445BC - 445BC=1000 years?
Deuteronomy 10:6 vs. Numbers 33:31,32
Which way did they go?
Deuteronomy 21:10-13
Israelites were forbidden to marry foreigners yet here they were
being allowed to do it!
Deuteronomy 26:5
Was Jacob a Syrian and not an Israelite?
I Samuel 18:10
God has an evil bad side?
I Samuel 28:6 vs. I Chronicles 10:14
Did Saul inquire or not inquire of God?
I Samuel 31:4 vs. II Samuel 1:10
Saul kill or not kill himself?
I Chronicles 21:1 vs. II Samuel 24:1
Who dunnit? Was God or the Devil responsible?
I Chronicles 21:5 vs. II Samuel 24:9
Maybe there was two Joabs?
II Chronicles 14:3,5 vs. 15:17
Removed or not removed high places?
II Chronicles 14:5 vs. I Kings 15:14
Removed or not removed high places?
II Chronicles 16:1 vs. I Kings 15:33
Was it 36 or 3?
II Chronicles 17:6 vs. 20:33
Removed or not removed high places?
II Chronicles 2:14 vs. I Kings 7:14
Make up your mind, would you?
II Chronicles 4:2-6 vs. I Kings 7:26
Was it 2000 or 3000 bath measures?
II Samuel 6:23 vs. II Samuel 21:8
Just how many Michals were there?
Psalm 110:1,5
Catch 22 because God always on your left hand.
Proverbs 16:4
The Devil didn't make me do it...God did!
Isaiah 7:14
The original Hebrew says "young woman" and not "a virgin"!
Isaiah 45:7
God creates our disasters for us!
Jeremiah 25:33 vs. Ezekiel 39:12
Buried or not?
Jeremiah 52:12 vs. II Kings 25:8
Was it the 7th or 10th?
Habakkuk 3:3
Was God born in Teman?
Zephaniah 2:9
The city of Amman was built on top of Ammon.
-------------------------NEW TESTAMENT--------------------------------
Matthew 1:12, Luke 3:27 vs I Chronicles 3:17-19
Was Jesus really a direct descendent of David like he was
supposed to be or was it by way of adoption?
Matthew 2:16
Herod was never recorded as doing this.
Matthew 2:23
There is no prophecy like this recorded in the bible!
Matthew 4:1 vs. James 1:13,14
Jesus LED BY the Holy Spirit (AKA God) to be tempted?
Matthew 10:9 vs. Mark 6:8,9
Take or not take any money?
Matthew 12:30 vs. Mark 9:39,40
To be or not to be against me. That is the question.
Matthew 15:1-6 and Mark 7:1-5
The washing of hands was not a ritual until after 65 A.D.
Matthew 17:12,13 vs. John 1:21
Elijah never came.
Matthew 20:29, Mark 10:46 vs. Luke 18:35
God can't count, can you?
Matthew 23:9 vs. I Corinthians 4:15
PAUL DOESN'T AGREE WITH JESUS.
Matthew 27:32 vs. John 19:17
Who carried Jesus' cross?
Matthew 27:44 vs. Luke 23:39
Two robbers--One for Jesus, two against?
Matthew 27:46
God forsook Jesus--why not you too?
Matthew 27:9
OOPS! ZECHARIAH'S WORDS--NOT JEREMIAH'S!
Matthew 27:15
This was never a custom in Israel.
Mark 6:3
I thought Mary was a virgin for life? How'd she have kids then?
Mark 7:25-30
Jesus was a racist! He called this woman a dog just because she
wasn't a Jew!
Mark 7:31
Jesus is lost! Sidon is in the opposite direction that Jesus is
going, and there was no road from Sidon to Galilee in 1st century
Mark 10:12
Jewish women had no right of divorce back in the first century.
Luke 1:5 vs 2:1-3
Herod the Great died in 4BC. The 1st census is recorded by
Josephus as happening in the 1st year of Judea's Roman rule under
Quirinius in 6AD. God still can't count!
Luke 16:9
What a friend we have in money.
John 3:2
Teachers were not called Rabbi until after 70AD
John 7:39
The Holy Spirit did not exist before Jesus died?
Acts 7:2-4 vs. Gen 11:31-12:4
The Holy Spirit had already forgot that Abram was already in
Haram at that time.
I Corinthians 8:1-10 vs. Acts 15:20,29
PAUL DOESN'T AGREE WITH HOLY SPIRIT.
I Corinthians 10:8 vs. Numbers 25:9
God still can't count, can you?
Timothy 3:16
This was written before the New Testament existed and therefore
could not refer to all scripture as we know it.
Revelation 7:1, Isaiah 11:12, and Isaiah 40:22
I thought God created the Earth? Doesn't He know that the earth
does not have four corners nor is it a circle (as the Vikings
believed because the moon looked like a circle)?
The_Sage
>If anyone asks I'll tell you about my dream mask experiences. Not many, just one.
Will you tell me about your dream mask experiences?
Aaron LeClair
The_Sage wrote:
> >Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > But science has helped us vastly helped us more than religion could
> >> >> > even dream of doing. Why just in the last few centuries, science has
> >> >> > given us light, electricity, the automobile, space travel, flight,
> >> >> > computers -- practically an entire new civilization. And what has
> >> >> > religion done for us besides kill, kill, kill?
>
> >> >> You aren't giving science nearly enough credit. It's given us nuclear
> >> >> weapons and very sophisticated missles to deliver them with,
> >> >> biological weapons, automatic rifles, toxic sludge, and land mines.
> >> >> Lots of kill, kill, kill there.
>
> >> See what I mean Aaron? Marty isn't talking about science, he is
> >> talking about the MISUSE of science by *politicians* and *business*
> >> people.
>
> >> Let Marty's ignorance be a lesson to you.
>
> >I don't see it as ignorance. I see Marty is merely sharing his point of
> >view and at this stage, differs from yours a little.
>
> Then you haven't learned your lesson yet. For example...
>
> >It is all interconnected. But some scientist go along with the business and
> >politics.
>
> Science is interconnected with politics but that doesn't mean it *is*
> politics (or business or...). When scientists start going along with
> business and politics, they aren't practicing pure science anymore.
> They become traitors to science.
That is one of the reasons I say, blame humans, if you wish to blame something.
>
>
> >> >Science didn't invent the atom bomb, scientists did.
>
> >> No, engineers created the atom bomb using the scientists knowledge.
>
> >Oy, I'll bail on this one. It looks like it's getting semantical again.
> >Hey, I know, why not just blame "people" for the acts of mankind.
>
> No, this isn't semantics, this is reality.
Not yet, But if I were to comment, I think it would have turned that way.
> Einstein and Rutherford and
> etc are *credited* with creating the atom bomb,
> but it is only a
> figure of speech. I doubt if any of those scientists whose knowledge
> that led to the creation of the bomb, even knew how to use a
> screwdriver. I don't know of any of these scientists that were happy
> to see their knowledge put to mass-murdering means.
I've heard that Albert wasn't happy with it.
>
>
> >> >Religion and science
> >> >are belief systems (ones *I* don't think have to be mutually exclusive,
> >> >but some do), in and of themselves they don't DO anything.
>
> >> Science is a belief system only to religious people who don't know the
> >> difference between reality and fantasy.
>
> > It depends on what is meant by belief.
>
> Now you are beginning to play games with semantics. Science is a
> *method* and not a belief.
Just wanting clarity.
>
>
> >> >Now, you can, and may, argue that different belief systems attract
> >> >different sorts of people and, therefore, one is better than another. Go
> >> >ahead and argue that -- but be careful of the land mines...
>
> >> Science is the only method that deals strictly with facts. All others
> >> deal strictly with fantasies.
>
> > One could say that, that is your belief.
>
> Yes, one could *say* that, but no one could say that and back their
> statement up with some facts.
Probably not to your satisfaction. If you could give me your def. of "facts"
and "beliefs" it would help me in further conversations with you, since I am not
sure of what you consider to be beliefs, or facts.
Rob Hafernik
> Everyone killed during WW-I was killed for purely economic motives.
I disagree with this. The most common motive during WWI was
"nationalism", the population of one place deciding they had a "right" to
another. Nationalism is a lot like religion, but with faith in different
things.
Jerry Bryson
> Catholicism is not Christianity. Some
> Catholics are Christian, but that doesn't mean they all are.
Correct, to the same extent that Christianity is not christianity.
(noete the caps). Most of it is pagan stuff that the pagan Christians
brought with them.
Jesus never offered a substitute religion, just a way to keep religion
from bearing you down.
--
Failure doesn't mean you can't;
It just means you haven't
bear
Michael Edelman wrote:
> Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> > x...@psn.net (The_Sage) writes:
> >
> > > >So, how many people have been killed by bullets, mortars, conventional
> > > >bombs, and nuclear bombs (all developed by science)?
> > >
> > > Those weren't developed by science, those were developed by the
> > > military.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong. Most weapons were created by scientists, working in research
> > laboratories.
> >
>
> Hardly.
>
> Most weapons were created by ingenious inventors working alone. The M1
> Carbine? The prototype was built in a prison! Go rent "Carbine Williams",
> starring Henry Fonda.
Try Jimmy Stewert. Good post, though. bear