Rationalism
Mr Jinx
Dallow:
Dallow: "I don't believe in what my eyes don't see"
Pinkie "They don't see much then"
Dylan, in Highlands, sings "I've got new eyes, everything looks far
away" as if there is something beyond the immediate that requires
'seeing'.
Who here believes in an unseen dimension? Is what we have in front of
us here really the whole story or is there - as Lou Reed puts it in
Sword of Damocles - "Somethin' over there"?
Mr Jinx
Giuseppe Gazerro
"Mr Jinx" <vernon_...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:92ce21ba-bf70-44f5-8d10-
Everybody knows my positions, I think.
So (disclaimer) :) I'm not saying this to start a polemical-religious debate
and/or attack anybody else's position.
But I can't hide that after 2 centuries of scientific revolutions and the
discovery of how much we don't know, assuming that *waht we see is what we
get* is, to my eyes, ludicrous to say the least.
Regardless of the fact that a god (or God) may possibily exist, which is
just a personal belief and doesn't add nothing to the fact that the only
thing we really know is that we know nothing and science hasn't solved any
single problem of how existence exists, has existed, will (or won't) exist
in the future.
--
beppe
www.giuseppegazerro.com
http://www.youtube.com/GiuseppeGazerro
Mr Jinx
> On Nov 3, 11:59 am, Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the novel Brighton Rock Pinkie offers the following rebuke to
> > Dallow:
>
> > Dallow: "I don't believe in what my eyes don't see"
>
> > Pinkie "They don't see much then"
>
> > Dylan, in Highlands, sings "I've got new eyes, everything looks far
> > away" as if there is something beyond the immediate that requires
> > 'seeing'.
>
>
> > Who here believes in an unseen dimension? Is what we have in front of
> > us here really the whole story or is there - as Lou Reed puts it in
> > Sword of Damocles - "Somethin' over there"?
>
>
>
>
> > Mr Jinx
"It seems everything's done that must be done
from over here though things don't seem fair
But there are things that we can't know
maybe there's something over there
Some other world that we don't know about
I know you hate that mystic shit
It's just another way of seeing
the Sword of Damocles above your head" (L.Reed)
Mr Jinx
really real
> But I can't hide that after 2 centuries of scientific revolutions and
> thing we really know is that we know nothing and science hasn't solved
> any single problem of how existence exists, has existed, will (or won't)
> exist in the future.
I'm not going to sit here and passively listen to someone malign science.
Just because we don't know exactly what each walnut will look like
before we open it, doesn't mean that science hasn't figured out amazing
things about our existence.
There's a reason why the religious right in America is so anti-science
and anti-progress. It's built into their belief system, and you have to
be like a card shark to take the problems out of any religion if you
want to believe in it in any non-metaphorical way.
God never answers our prayers, and you, beppe, never respond to my
questions, but let me ask it once again. Why is it so important for you
to know how the universe came to exist? Isn't this longing to know the
mysteries of creation a bit pretentious of you?
badlands420
> Regardless of the fact that a god (or God) may possibily exist, which is
> just a personal belief and doesn't add nothing to the fact that the only
> thing we really know is that we know nothing
Unfortunately, this presumption (that human beings are clueless idiots
incapable of governing their own existence) is a prerequisite of all
monotheistic religious thought.
nate
dont forget to fold this in with you speculations:
All he believes are his eyes
And his eyes, they just tell him lies.
- nate
Jumbo
Well, what's the difference between a situation as it is, and a
prerequisite for a response to that situation? And are you saying we
aren't clueless idiots incapable of governing our own existence? We've
only been here a while and look what we've done to the planet!
badlands420
Well, what's the difference between a situation as it is, and a
prerequisite for a response to that situation? And are you saying we
aren't clueless idiots incapable of governing our own existence? We've
only been here a while and look what we've done to the planet!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea where you're going with this.
First of all, what have "we" done to the planet? Second, what the hell does
this have to do with religious belief? Do monotheists have a smaller average
carbon footprint or something?
Jumbo
Nope, monotheists are clueless idiots just like everyone else.
Jumbo
> On Nov 3, 3:21 pm, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
>
> > > Regardless of the fact that a god (or God) may possibily exist, which is
> > > just a personal belief and doesn't add nothing to the fact that the only
> > > thing we really know is that we know nothing
>
>
> > Unfortunately, this presumption (that human beings are clueless idiots
> > incapable of governing their own existence) is a prerequisite of all
> > monotheistic religious thought.
>
> guy.
:) Let's not let *that* stop us.
Giuseppe Gazerro
"badlands420" <mike...@uranus.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:th0Im.681$fE2...@newsfe04.iad...
How so?
And, if this was the case, what changes?
That we *know nothing* is matter-of-fact, case closed.
Let's forget about religion one second: isn't the quest for *where we come
from, who we are, where were heading* the basis of philosophy?
*Man knows nothing* is not a prerequisite of religions, it's a prerequisite
of any philosophical speculation and, at the end of the day, a pure and
inconfutable truth,.
really real
> That we *know nothing* is matter-of-fact, case closed.
> Let's forget about religion one second: isn't the quest for *where we
> come from, who we are, where were heading* the basis of philosophy?
> *Man knows nothing* is not a prerequisite of religions, it's a
> prerequisite of any philosophical speculation and, at the end of the
> day, a pure and inconfutable truth,.
Scientists are learning more every day and applying their knowledge into
creating practical applications. Where would we be without science?
It's a sad sad day when superstition and religion start to downplay
science. I find it ironic that religious beliefs have no room for
evolution, and yet by denying science, these same religions are putting
mankind on the same level as the animals we evolved from.
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> It's a sad sad day when superstition and religion start to downplay
> science
Most religions have been downplaying science for hundreds of years,
haven't they?
Mr Jinx
Science is a religion. It has beliefs that nearly always turn out not
to be true and it tries to grapple with the mystery of this world and
life.
Mr Jinx
really real
>> Most religions have been downplaying science for hundreds of years,
>> haven't they?
>
> Science is a religion. It has beliefs that nearly always turn out not
> to be true and it tries to grapple with the mystery of this world and
> life.
Martin is right that religion has always downplayed science. I guess I
meant that in this scientific age, it's horrible to think that religion
and superstition are such a strong influence on political decisions. The
Bush administration made a lot of anti-scientific decisions.
Jinx, your reply, that science is a religion, is the kind of satirical
bullshit that derails threads. Are you channeling Martin?
Rockinghorse Winner
"badlands420" <mike...@uranus.net> wrote:
> Unfortunately, this presumption (that human beings are clueless idiots
> incapable of governing their own existence) is a prerequisite of all
> monotheistic religious thought.
Actually ethical monotheism *presupposes* the capability of governing
our own existence. If it didn't, it couldn't ask someone to be moral.
Morality presupposes the freedom to choose right from wrong, to govern
our existence in essence.
*R* *H*
--
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@microsoft.com>
Rockinghorse Winner
As that great philosopher and religious thinker, George Carlin, has
said, the earth will be just fine, it's humans that are going to be
******.
badlands420
> That we *know nothing* is matter-of-fact, case closed.
Then there was never any reason for the existence of Galileo, Copernicus,
Newton, Kepler, et al.
Giuseppe Gazerro
>
>> That we *know nothing* is matter-of-fact, case closed.
>
> Then there was never any reason for the existence of Galileo, Copernicus,
> Newton, Kepler, et al.
No, no, no, hold your horses.
We *know nothing* (asterisks weren't a slip of the keyboard) was not meant
to be read *we don't know anything*
It was meant to be *we don't know everything* and/or *we don't know (and I
think we never will) who we are, where we come from and where we are going*
I love science, I love scientists, I love mathematics, Einstein is one of my
two of three absolute gods and I define *my* God as a *scientific God*.
Go figure.
:)
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Jinx, your reply, that science is a religion, is the kind of satirical
> bullshit that derails threads. Are you channeling Martin?
If I can derail an entire thread with one comment, what I write must
be pretty influential. Thanks a lot. What concerns me though is your
belief that satire is bullshit, as well as your perception that a
natural progression of discussion is one thing or another. I thought
you believed in evolution?
badlands420
>Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to
>understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius
>better.
In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't
outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest,
prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
In modern times, where scientists no longer have to fear persecution by the
religious authorities (in this country at least), 93% of the membership of
the National Academies of Science self-identify as atheist or agnostic.
So draw your own conclusions.
Rockinghorse Winner
My conclusion is that the more things change the more they stay the
same. Substitute career suicide for 'arrest, prosecution, imprisonment,
and quite possibly execution.'
--
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@microsoft.com>
Jumbo
> >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to
> >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius
> >better.
>
> In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't
> outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest,
> prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I think
Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton wrote
loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" ones, and
for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
The big split between art and science, which some say happened around
1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. Science and
religion are part of the same thing: human beings using their minds to
improve their lives. Religious people who try to block science without
good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell
anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
Mr Jinx
I think that is absolutely true.
Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve
TOGETHER.
Mr Jinx
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Religious people who try to block science without
> good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell
> anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant
Shut up, Jumbo
badlands420
>and secular people who rudely tell
>anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
Who did that?
Jumbo
Yeah, WHO?
Just Walkin'
You can't reconcile superstitious beliefs with scientific knowledge.
Religion is based on faith; faith does not require use of the mind.
Perhaps science can investigate the legitimacy of supernatural claims.
But for religion to moderate the investigation of the frontiers of
human knowledge? Tell it to Galileo.
Rockinghorse Winner
"Just Walkin'" <kens...@comcast.net> was heard to say:
Since this is a ng about an artist, it's apropos how you feel art fits
into your world view? Is the great artist using his mind when making
his art? Is he closer to a scientist, in your opinion, or a priest?
--
Hug your sweetie today.
*R* *H*
Just Walkin'
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:47:04 -0800 (PST)
Once upon a time, religion patronized art and music and commissioned
creative works as paens to its dieties. Science has never been so
organized as to commission its own art. Hence there is no comparison
between science and religion, either for purposes of this discussion
or for categorizing any given creative type or endeavor.
Furthermore, a musician is a technician not a scientist; he or she
plays notes as written (or improvised) in accordance with a framework
of some sort imposed on the performance. On the other hand, a
songwriter or composer is a true artistic creator. But neither are or
could ever be "priestly" in these duties, no matter how much our
culture exalts them.
Hence the distinction we are grasping for/at here is whether someone
like Bob is more a scientist or an artist, not whether or not he is
"priestly."
Even when he propagated a religious message, there was never anything
priestly about Bob. A scourge he was, maybe, but priestlike? Priests
aren't to supposed to steal!
Mr Jinx
Some of the greatest scientific discoveries required a huge leap of
faith.
Mr Jinx
Just Walkin'
"Leap of faith" as in "departure."
Jumbo
>
> Once upon a time, religion patronized art and music and commissioned
I'm having a hard time working out how this applies to the Medici
patronage of Ficino re: translation of the works of Plato and the
Pseudo-Hermetic (Pagan) writings. The aim was humanistic, of course,
but certainly in the service of religion, i.e. increasing our
knowledge of nature in order to increase our knowledge of God.
Also, it seems strange to argue this religiously-inspired activity has
no connection to mental activity
Janice
> Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve
> TOGETHER.
Fritjof Capra did a wonderful job of it in his "Tao of Physics."
"A page from the journal of modern experimental physics will be as
mysterious to the uninitiated as a Tibetan mandala. Both are records
of inquiries into the nature of the universe."
Intro to the Tao of Physics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ECpu1K76w
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gemjack
>> > The big split between art and science, which some say happened around
>> > 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments.
Possibly even earlier with the various Renaissances going on.
>Science and
>> > religion are part of the same thing:
Religion is the scourge of the planet.
-gj
badlands420
>>Science and
>>> > religion are part of the same thing:
>
> Religion is the scourge of the planet.
> -gj
Science is the pursuit of verifiable truth. Religion is the opposite of
science.
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Religion is the scourge of the planet
Amen to that
Jumbo
Sorry, no. Intolerance is the scourge of the planet. Look here on rmd
and see who the intolerant people are. It has to tell you *something*.
Jumbo
Guff
Al Berker
Beautiful humor, man!
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Beautiful humor, man!
Many thanks. Here's some more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxsGyljd6B0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA&feature=related
badlands420
>Sorry, no. Intolerance is the scourge of the planet.
Religion creates and fuels intolerance. Separating the two is impossible.
Jumbo
> >Sorry, no. Intolerance is the scourge of the planet.
>
> Religion creates and fuels intolerance. Separating the two is impossible.
If that's the case, then why are all the intolerant bigots on here
"anti-religion"?
Jumbo
really real
I don't hate nothing but hatred
Aren't you asking a circular question?
Isn't bigotry a huge part of religion?
really real
>
> "A page from the journal of modern experimental physics will be as
> mysterious to the uninitiated as a Tibetan mandala. Both are records
> of inquiries into the nature of the universe."
That's easy to say if you are intolerant of science.
Modern experimental physics leads to practical results.
Tibetan mandalas are very impractical.
Jumbo
It's come to something when really real offers one of the least
benighted posts in a thread (special mention to Janice & Treadleson,
though! :))
Bigotry *is* a "huge part of religion". Because (get this) religions
are made of human beings. And human beings are not perfect. But true
faith is tolerance. Faith and religion are NOT synonymous.
If we can't agree that intolerance is a bad thing, then... well, we
just have to accept that people on here are intolerant and that's
that.
What I find so depressing and bewildering about the attitudes of
otherwise apparently intelligent people on this board is that they see
themselves as more than human, "perfect" people above all bigotry and
pettiness, able to look down on religion, and call it the "scourge of
the planet". Ummm, could I point out that ALL institutions are
corrupt? And not all institutions are religious. Therefore...
Jumbo
>
> Tibetan mandalas are very impractical.
Why?
Just Walkin'
>
> Bigotry *is* a "huge part of religion". Because (get this) religions
> are made of human beings. And human beings are not perfect. But true
> faith is tolerance. Faith and religion are NOT synonymous.
>
crutch for those who cannot love another as thyself. Religion teaches
us this. Science does not. It is the disparity between what the
faithful practice and what their religions preach that I decry. There
is no such disparity in science.
>
> If we can't agree that intolerance is a bad thing, then... well, we
> just have to accept that people on here are intolerant and that's
> that.
>
group; I hate what prevailing and historically determinate belief
structures have done to a lot of them though. Sad, really; some very
intelligent and industrious people with some very archaic and
antiquated ideas about things here who are easily antagonized by
people who believe differently than they do.
>
> What I find so depressing and bewildering about the attitudes of
> otherwise apparently intelligent people on this board is that they see
> themselves as more than human, "perfect" people above all bigotry and
> pettiness, able to look down on religion, and call it the "scourge of
> the planet". Ummm, could I point out that ALL institutions are
> corrupt? And not all institutions are religious. Therefore...
>
rising force in history, it played a positive role, organizing the
species, propagating society and civil law and served to provide
cultural continuity, especially for people overcoming hardship and
obstacles in developing communities. However, as a dominant force in
history, it sought to assert its authority over every and all, even
over science. Later, as greater and more powerful historic forces
began to challenge its dominance, it again appealed to popular
acceptance of its virtues. It has never been "all scourge" or "all
blessing;" religion has served both progressive and reactionary roles
in world history.
By itself, it is a belief. No better, no worse than other things
people want to believe and is completely up to the individual what he
or she may get out of it. Administered by others, however, it can
become a very divisive force. Hence sadly, these days, religion
divides more than it unites, despite what individuals believe, god
love 'em.
really real
>
> Bigotry *is* a "huge part of religion". Because (get this) religions
> are made of human beings. And human beings are not perfect. But true
> faith is tolerance. Faith and religion are NOT synonymous.
>
I think the problem with bigotry in religion is not just because
everything humans do is imperfect. It's that all religions are created
by and for specific cultures. If you believe that Jesus is Love how can
you feel totally tolerant when someone puts on up a bumper sticker
saying "Allah is Love?"
really real
> On Nov 9, 10:59 pm, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Tibetan mandalas are very impractical.
>
> Why?
Because there's nothing in the Tibetan beliefs that leads to practical
inventions. Tibetans can twirl their prayer beads, or mutter their
mandalas, or crawl for four days towards their temple, but they're never
going to develop insulin on their own.
badlands420
>If that's the case, then why are all the intolerant bigots on here
"anti-religion"?
Accusing non-religious people of being intolerant bigots is a pretty
intolerant and bigoted thing to do.
gemjack
<ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 10:48�pm, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
>> >Sorry, no. Intolerance is the scourge of the planet.
>>
>> Religion creates and fuels intolerance. Separating the two is impossible.
I was about to say that.
>
>If that's the case, then why are all the intolerant bigots on here
>"anti-religion"?
??? Most, if not all, religions are intolerant by design. You
couldn't get a more narrow and selfish view of life than that of a
devout follower that didn't watch his parking meters.
-gj
badlands420
>The same way the national identity or political ideology are not
>inherently intolerant.
And yet religion, national identity, and political ideology are the source
of about 130% of the intolerance that exists in the world.
I'm reminded of the saying "Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all
suicide bombers are Muslim."
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Accusing non-religious people of being intolerant bigots is a pretty
> intolerant and bigoted thing to do
Amazing - that came from a Christian? Whatever next?
Mr Jinx
Absolutely.
I was reading an excellent book called Doubts And Loves: What Is Left
Of Christianity by Richard Holloway the other day. In it the
suggestion is made that the Christian religion would be better
employed in changing its values from a belief system to a practical
one. In other words (and I think I'm paraphrasing ok here) rather
than believing in Jesus and the surrounding doctrine we should simply
try to be like him.
This may be a little extreme as a stance (baby out with bathwater) but
it is true to say that if someone - anyone - followed Jesus' exmaple
they would, by any standards, be a good person -- forgiving those who
sin against them, turn the other cheek, standing up for the oppressed
and the outcasts). If we all did this then the world would be a
happier place, surely?
I am dead against ORGANISED religion, as I think a lot of people here
are. I see the corruption that has allowed churches to abuse their
position. But I believe that this is separate from the desire to
follow the commandments. You don't even have to be religious to
believe that the world would be better if we all followed the
commandments. Love thy neighbour etc.
Burn down the churches, by all means. Put all corruptors in prison.
Run the molesting priests out of town. And let's see where we are when
dust settles. If I were God I would not go to church. I'd be in the
Grand Canyon, sundown. Or I'd be on the side of people who love their
neighbour and help those in need.
Mr Jinx
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> If I were God I would not go to church
If you were God you wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't have the
opportunity to exchange ideas like this. Wouldn't that be a shame?
Mr Jinx
If I were God and didn't exist you would not reply to me ... It might
have its advantages!
Mr Jinx
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> If I were God and didn't exist you would not reply to me ... It might
> have its advantages!
Oh come on, I love you really - ust like Just Walkin' says
Mr Jinx
:-))
It's all love around here.
By the way, I found this here little piece from an interview with
Richard Holloway. It serves as a good reminder of how radical Jesus
was in terms of his parables, I think. Jesus (in his role as John the
Baptist for the coming Dylan) said many radical things. And religion
is to be found in the strangest of places.
Check this out:
I am sitting with the Rev Richard Holloway, formerly Episcopalian
Primus and Bishop of Edinburgh, now a Michel Foucault-lookalike public
intellectual. We are musing on the theology of the homosexual blow-
job. "I remember inviting Rabbi Lionel Blue up to talk to my rather
conservative clergy," he says. "He told us the most powerful
experience of the sheer gratuitousness of the love of God he'd ever
witnessed was in a male sauna in Amsterdam. He watched a young man
going down on a raddled old gay man, who just didn't have the ability
to pull – and it was an act of pure grace. Now, how can you have that
level of promiscuity associated with the grace of God?" The bish leans
in with characteristic intensity. "But this was like a biblical
insight! It was the kind of thing Jesus would have said!"
Mr Jinx
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Jesus (in his role as John the
> Baptist for the coming Dylan) said many radical things
Of course he did. So did Yoda. Now, we could take those sayings,
invent a higher being and form our own church based on Star Wars.
Wouldn't that be crazy? (http://www.jedichurch.org/)
Mr Jinx
Yes, that would probably be crazy. But inventing a higher being is
something humans are drawn to do. Yoda may have his part to play in
this process. We are children grappling towards a power cable. Light
sabres all round, say I !!
Hey, Luke, everybody! It's a sky walker !!!!!
Mr Jinx
Giuseppe Gazerro
"Mr Jinx" <vernon_...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9667ab71-365b-4345-b9cb-
< If I were God I would not go to church. I'd be in the
<Grand Canyon, sundown. Or I'd be on the side of people who love their
<neighbour and help those in need.
As the people who go to Church do.
--
beppe
www.giuseppegazerro.com
http://www.youtube.com/GiuseppeGazerro
Just Walkin'
>
> > False. True faith is about love, not tolerance. Tolerance is but a
> > crutch for those who cannot love another as thyself. Religion teaches
> > us this. Science does not. It is the disparity between what the
> > faithful practice and what their religions preach that I decry. There
> > is no such disparity in science.
>
> such a small space.
>
QED.
Why should you be surprised how many of us you can fit in an oven?
After all, you're the one wielding the shovel; know-nothing
compression is your thing.
>
>
> > Call me naive, but I love all my brothers and sisters here in this
> > group; I hate what prevailing and historically determinate belief
> > structures have done to a lot of them though. Sad, really; some very
> > intelligent and industrious people with some very archaic and
> > antiquated ideas about things here who are easily antagonized by
> > people who believe differently than they do.
>
> What bloated, sanctimonious claptrap. What antagonizes people is
> stuff like this.
>
Said one who is easily antagonized to one who actually believes in the
things he says.
Unless you are telling me there is nothing there to love...and evil is
all you've got.
>
> > Religion has developed over the years in a historical spiral. As a
> > rising force in history, it played a positive role, organizing the
> > species, propagating society and civil law and served to provide
> > cultural continuity, especially for people overcoming hardship and
> > obstacles in developing communities. However, as a dominant force in
> > history, it sought to assert its authority over every and all, even
> > over science. Later, as greater and more powerful historic forces
> > began to challenge its dominance, it again appealed to popular
> > acceptance of its virtues. It has never been "all scourge" or "all
> > blessing;" religion has served both progressive and reactionary roles
> > in world history.
>
> > By itself, it is a belief. No better, no worse than other things
> > people want to believe and is completely up to the individual what he
> > or she may get out of it. Administered by others, however, it can
> > become a very divisive force. Hence sadly, these days, religion
> > divides more than it unites, despite what individuals believe, god
> > love 'em.
>
> How sad to be able to understand religion only in such narrow,
> clinical and political terms.
>
Better to understand it that way, than as you do: Not at all. Even
your words "Bloody well said mate," reek of patronage and a rather
well-advertised agenda rather than a true understanding about the
things of which you speak.
So many kettles, so much black.
I do not think there is religion for the kind of bitterness your words
betray and the sheer contempt you have for people who disagree with
you.
Oh wait, any of them will do.
I see.
Just Walkin'
> On Nov 9, 7:13 pm, "Just Walkin'" <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 5:06 pm, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bigotry *is* a "huge part of religion". Because (get this) religions
> > > are made of human beings. And human beings are not perfect. But true
> > > faith is tolerance. Faith and religion are NOT synonymous.
>
> > False. True faith is about love, not tolerance. Tolerance is but a
> > crutch for those who cannot love another as thyself. Religion teaches
> > us this. Science does not.
>
>
> > It is the disparity between what the
> > faithful practice and what their religions preach that I decry. There
> > is no such disparity in science.
>
> blithely perpetrate. There is plenty of disparity in science between
> what is preached and what is practiced, and it has a long and troubled
> history. Science--rational, experimental, disinterested, observation-
> based--has had no compunction about slithering into social,
> psychological, family, and moral areas where it has no business. In
> the 19th and early 20th centuries we saw it in the thoroughly depraved
> area of eugenics, a field that was dear to the heart of the
> contemporary saint of science, Charles Darwin, as well as to his
> sons. We all know the disturbing history of the frontal lobotomy and
> electro-shock that was practiced on the brave frontiers of American
> science in the '50s and '60s. Today we have the laxly regulated
> prescribing of anti-depressants, anxiolytics, stimulants and mood
> stabilizers to children to regulate social behavior and break their
> spirit--a milder version of the "Clockwork Orange" treatment. In
> biotech, the uses of gene therapy and embryo selection to create the
> 'genrich', a superior, genetically-enhanced class, is merely eugenics
> through the backdoor. Applying scientific principals to create the
> better man--for example, socialist man--is at the heart of 20th
> century social engineering. All of this comes from science and it is
> accepted as science. Science--disinterested, observational, free of
> ideology and bias, don't you know.
>
I know. I know. It's criminal the way ruling classes have exploited
science and scientists all through history simply to suit their needs.
Just like religion.
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> One Jedi officer said: "We are trying to ensure peace and justice
> throughout the Galactic Republic, we are just starting with
> Strathclyde."
Classic
really real
>
> < If I were God I would not go to church. I'd be in the
> <Grand Canyon, sundown. Or I'd be on the side of people who love their
> <neighbour and help those in need.
>
> As the people who go to Church do.
Why not tithe 10% of your earnings to help the poor, rather than to
build up the institution?
really real
> I know. I know. It's criminal the way ruling classes have exploited
> science and scientists all through history simply to suit their needs.
> Just like religion.
>
Surely you don't want to compare science and religion. There has been a
lot of criminal uses of science. However, religion, which by definition
involves false beliefs, is the root cause of the criminality done in its
name.
really real
> ....
>> I think the problem with bigotry in religion is not just because
>> everything humans do is imperfect. It's that all religions are created
>> by and for specific cultures. If you believe that Jesus is Love how can
>> you feel totally tolerant when someone puts on up a bumper sticker
>> saying "Allah is Love?"
>
> inherently intolerant.
Most nations work together with other nations. Some political ideologies
are intolerant, others are not.
But where can you find a god who says that the other gods people believe
in are just as valid?
The God of the Christians punishes non-believers for eternity. The God
of the Jews won't give the non-chosen access to the chosen land. The God
of the Muslims wants to convert others by the sword.
really real
>
> I'm reminded of the saying "Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all
> suicide bombers are Muslim."
>
Suicide bombing was invented by the Tamils.
Just Walkin'
Interesting how suicide bombers - from the kamikazes through the Tamil
right up to today's jihadis - all rationalize their actions in the
name of their religion, isn't it?
Even the self-immolating Buddhist monks found the strength they needed
to make their anti-war statement in their faith.
I guess those pesky atheists have no faith, therefore they have no
reward in the afterlife for destroying themselves.
Thank god for those irrational atheists.
badlands420
>Do you mean that the atheist believes in no principal greater than
himself for which he'd be willing to give his life?
"The atheist?" Is he any relation to "The Negro" or "The Jew?"
badlands420
>Nations and ideologies co-exist by understanding that everybody thinks
>that THEIR way is The Way. Same with religions. This is why freedom
>of religion and religious tolerance have been by-and-large so
succesful in the US.
Religious tolerance includes tolerance of those who choose not to practice
religion. No one can credibly claim the US is successful in this area. As
I've pointed out numerous times before, you can't be elected president of
this country without saying "I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins" on
national television. If this nation were truly a religiously tolerant one,
that would not be the case.
Just Walkin'
>
> Just like nations and peoples and tribes and clans. So I guess the
> whole world ends up being intolerant of one another, eh? Will this
> perhaps cause you to start putting less stock in capital "T" Tolerance
> as the greatest good and the highest virtue?
>
I know, I know. Isn't nationalism just as juvenile a trait in our
species? We are so easily divided: On race, on religion, on
nationality, on gender and on ideology.
Do you think that we divide ourselves or are there others who work to
divide us? I think that most of us would rather live in peace with
each other.
What say you? Are you working toward the unity of the species or its
further division in accordance with your chosen criteria, whatever it
may be?
Lee
>Science is the pursuit of verifiable truth. Religion is the opposite of
>science.
What is truth?
--
Hug your sweetie today.
*R* *H*
Lee
>>
>> "A page from the journal of modern experimental physics will be as
>> mysterious to the uninitiated as a Tibetan mandala. Both are records
>> of inquiries into the nature of the universe."
>That's easy to say if you are intolerant of science.
>Modern experimental physics leads to practical results.
>Tibetan mandalas are very impractical.
So is poetry. Useless, in fact.
*R* *H*
really real
>
> Do you mean that the atheist believes in no principal greater than
> himself for which he'd be willing to give his life?
>
The atheist believes in humanity. He sacrifices himself for the greater
good.
WWII was a good example of a war where non-religious people fought
against evil
really real
> ....
>> Most nations work together with other nations.
>
> side?
Yes, we have a United Nations where nations work for the common good.
Where do you see this kind of cooperation with the different religions?
>
>
> Where can you find a nation or a people who say that other nations or
> people are as good as themselves? They exist, but they are rare. Do
> you think the Mexicans believe they are on par with the Colombians or
> Cubans? Do Brazilians think they are just the same as Argentinians?
> Do Canadians think they are less than or equal to Americans in their
> values, politics, health care, treatment of Indians?
Only a jingoistic American would think the world works this way. Most
of the worlds nations sit happily knowing that other nations are just as
good as them.
Canadians like myself know that America is superior in many ways to
Canada. Not that we'd want to live there, but it's a nice place to visit.
really real
>
>> Tibetan mandalas are very impractical.
>
> So is poetry. Useless, in fact.
Great poetry inspires people and makes them wiser.
My problem with Tibetan Buddhism is that it seems to drag people down,
taking away from their life on earth, in the hope that an afterlife will
be better.
badlands420
> My problem with Tibetan Buddhism is that it seems to drag people down,
> taking away from their life on earth, in the hope that an afterlife will
> be better.
There are few religions that don't do this. This is the central concept that
made religion a tool of political power. "Sure, your life might be shitty
now, but act like I say God wants you to act and I guarantee you'll live
forever in a perfect idyllic fairy land." Shit, convince people they've got
immortal souls and they'll be under your thumb forever, no problem.
Janice
> My problem with Tibetan Buddhism is that it seems to drag people down,
> taking away from their life on earth, in the hope that an afterlife will
> be better.
What?
The goal of Buddhism is enlightenment in order to help others to
enlightenment... and enlightenment happens during the life of the
student, not in the afterlife. Afterlife for Buddhists is part of the
cycle of reincarnation. Since reincarnation is based on the continued
dominance of desires, total enlightenment (becoming Buddha) would
release the soul from further karmic incarnations. At least, that's
my understanding of it.
Information about the doctrine of any and all religions / belief
systems / practices / ideologies etc. are all available at your
fingertips now with the invention of the InterWebs & Google. The
homework just got easier. If I'm wrong, please point me toward a
better source.
> The atheist believes in humanity. He sacrifices himself for the greater
> good.
It is my understanding that the definition of "atheism" means a
rejection of deities (& possibly the supernatural). I haven't heard
of any doctrinal belief system associated with atheism. Perhaps you
are confusing atheism & atheists with Humanism & Humanists?
The arguments get confusing and misinterpreted when we don't define
our terms.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~