Swoon hypothesis
crunch
"The Swoon Hypothesis refers to a number of theories that aim to
explain the resurrection of Jesus, proposing that Jesus didn't die on
the cross, but merely fell unconscious ('swooned'), and was later
revived in the tomb in the same mortal body. Although this hypothesis
has not been widely held by scholars, it has had noteworthy advocates
for hundreds of years."
If people want to get into this, I'm game.
-----
David Christainsen
Ned Latham
>
> "The Swoon Hypothesis refers to a number of theories that aim to
> explain the resurrection of Jesus, proposing that Jesus didn't die on
> the cross, but merely fell unconscious ('swooned'), and was later
> revived in the tomb in the same mortal body. Although this hypothesis
> has not been widely held by scholars, it has had noteworthy advocates
> for hundreds of years."
What rubbish!
The story is that a Roman soldier stuck a spear in his guts. Even if
he wasn't dead already, that would have killed him: by peritonitis,
if nothing else.
And why bring up these idiotic religious controversies anyway? There
is no such thing as a god. End of story.
Ned Latham
Martin Edwards
Well, yes, but the idea does not seem to go away. There was a brief
window, around the late 1960s, when it seemed that these superstitions
would die out. Still, today, though, apparently nice, intelligent young
people throng St Peter's Square, to mention only the biggest
superstition. Secular activists still have a big job to do, and it
isn't, sad to say, getting any smaller.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > And why bring up these idiotic religious controversies anyway? There
> > is no such thing as a god. End of story.
>
> Well, yes, but the idea does not seem to go away. There was a brief
> window, around the late 1960s, when it seemed that these superstitions
> would die out.
Ain't gonna happen while they get State support.
> Still, today, though, apparently nice, intelligent young
> people throng St Peter's Square, to mention only the biggest
> superstition. Secular activists still have a big job to do, and it
> isn't, sad to say, getting any smaller.
Like all activists, they focus on incidentals, not the root problem.
There is no such thing as a god. Therefore all arguments about gods are
pointless and fruitless, a waste of time.
There is no such thing as a god. Therefore religion is a lie, and should
be expunged from all State institutions and processes.
There is no such thing as a god. Therefore theists are delusional, and
should be regarded as insane.
Let the activists, if there are any, focus: there is no such thing as a
god. Therefore, ...
Ned Latham
Tiglath
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > David Christainsen wrote:
> >> "The Swoon Hypothesis refers to a number of theories that aim to
> >> explain the resurrection of Jesus, proposing that Jesus didn't die on
> >> the cross, but merely fell unconscious ('swooned'), and was later
> >> revived in the tomb in the same mortal body. Although this hypothesis
> >> has not been widely held by scholars, it has had noteworthy advocates
> >> for hundreds of years."
>
> > What rubbish!
>
> > The story is that a Roman soldier stuck a spear in his guts. Even if
> > he wasn't dead already, that would have killed him: by peritonitis,
> > if nothing else.
>
> > And why bring up these idiotic religious controversies anyway? There
> > is no such thing as a god. End of story.
>
> > Ned Latham
>
> Well, yes, but the idea does not seem to go away. There was a brief
> window, around the late 1960s, when it seemed that these superstitions
> would die out. Still, today, though, apparently nice, intelligent young
> people throng St Peter's Square,
Religion will never die as long as people fear death.
It's a silly fear, unless torture is involved. When you are dead you
are not going to know you are dead anymore than when you were not born
you knew you were not born.
So relax, folks, and sin away.
igor
Anyone adhering to seven deadly sins would not have a very enjoyable
life no matter of religion.
Tiglath
Anyone who is proud of his children or anyone commits the deadly sin
of PRIDE.
Anyone who has sex without the intention of making a baby commits the
deadly sin of LUST.
Anyone who patronizes an "All You Can Eat" buffet commits the deadly
sin of GLUTTONY
Anyone who makes over six figures a year commits the deadly sin of
GREED, for you can live decently, and many do, with less.
Anyone who sleeps in on Saturday of Sunday commits the deadly sin of
SLOTH.
Anyone who treats appropriately the asshole on the huge SUV that
turned suddenly and almost killed you and your family commits the
deadly sin of WRATH.
Anyone who looks at Jessica Alba or Jennifer Connolly and longs to
find them in his hot tub one day commits the sin of ENVY (of their
husbands).
We need no stinking list of sins from a bunch of ancient and
superstitious Middle Eastern sheep herders to know how to live the
Good Life.
Sin away.
igor
When you put this way, I am with you and will gladly sin:)
However, here is the way I interpret seven deadly sins:
Pride: Racism, Bigotry, Nazism (Giwer)
Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt
for one's neighbor."
Lust: sexual addiction, fornication, adultery, bestiality, rape,
perversion, and incest, JTEM's uncontrollable spanking.
Gluttony: over-consumption of anything to the point of waste, 400 lb.
person eating giant cheesecake at the mall (observed it myself at the
mall)
Greed: These include disloyalty, deliberate betrayal, or
treason,especially for personal gain, for example through bribery.
Scavenging and hoarding of materials or objects, theft and robbery,
especially by means of violence, trickery, or manipulation of
authority are all actions that may be inspired by greed.
Sloth: Sleeping all day long, using illegal drugs and sleeping again,
spending countless hours on useless interpretations of myths,
insulting people on Usenet and then blaming Thatcher and Blair for
personal misfortunes (Aggie)
Wrath: Dante described vengeance as "love of justice perverted to
revenge and spite". Hezbollah, suicide bombers, terror against
civilians.
Envy: Aquinas described envy as "sorrow for another's good" (Edwards)
Martin Edwards
Yes, I agree. My point is that the delusion does not seem to go away.
Martin Edwards
I cannot make anything of the above. Can anyone help?
Martin Edwards
igor
Irrelevant, you are still a sinner but not to worry we got permission
from Tiglath:)
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Martin Edwards wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > And why bring up these idiotic religious controversies anyway? There
> > > > is no such thing as a god. End of story.
> > >
> > > Well, yes, but the idea does not seem to go away. There was a brief
> > > window, around the late 1960s, when it seemed that these superstitions
> > > would die out.
> >
> > Ain't gonna happen while they get State support.
> >
> > > Still, today, though, apparently nice, intelligent young
> > > people throng St Peter's Square, to mention only the biggest
> > > superstition. Secular activists still have a big job to do, and it
> > > isn't, sad to say, getting any smaller.
> >
> > Like all activists, they focus on incidentals, not the root problem.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a god. Therefore all arguments about gods are
> > pointless and fruitless, a waste of time.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a god. Therefore religion is a lie, and should
> > be expunged from all State institutions and processes.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a god. Therefore theists are delusional, and
> > should be regarded as insane.
> >
> > Let the activists, if there are any, focus: there is no such thing as a
> > god. Therefore, ...
>
That's because, as I said, it's supported by the State. Even in "atheist"
regimes such as the USSR.
Without that support it *will* go away.
Ned Latham
Javi
>
>>>
>>> Let the activists, if there are any, focus: there is no such thing as a
>>> god. Therefore, ...
>> Yes, I agree. My point is that the delusion does not seem to go away.
>
> That's because, as I said, it's supported by the State. Even in "atheist"
> regimes such as the USSR.
>
> Without that support it *will* go away.
>
> Ned Latham
I don't agree. The State and religion has used each other as a tool for
their own purposes. Much of the strenght of religion comes from the
State support, but it would exist even without it. The prove is that, in
countries with an official religion, other religions exist, but weaker.
Religion is based on fear of death, of being rejected by the group and
fear of thinking by oneself. As long as those fear exist, religion and
superstition will exist in one form or another.
Dom
It would be much more fruitful to speculate about the "resurrection
experience," which jolted the followers of Jesus to emerge from their
hideouts and resume their preaching.
Martin Edwards
This is a history group, not a mythology group.
Larry Caldwell
de2f05...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, te...@tiglath.net (Tiglath)
says...
> Religion will never die as long as people fear death.
>
> It's a silly fear, unless torture is involved. When you are dead you
> are not going to know you are dead anymore than when you were not born
> you knew you were not born.
The problem is that life after death is a very attractive fantasy. It
takes a very intelligent and balanced mind to accept the fact that human
consciousness requires a functioning human brain. People will continue
to believe in life after death for no other reason than they want to
believe.
> So relax, folks, and sin away.
The concept of sin grew out of a tabu against acts that damaged the
unity or welfare of the tribe. Our society has progressed so far from
its tribal beginnings that there are many "sins" that severely damage
society that are thought of as normal, or even admirable, behavior.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Martin Edwards wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let the activists, if there are any, focus: there is no such thing
> > > > as a god. Therefore, ...
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree. My point is that the delusion does not seem to go away.
> >
> > That's because, as I said, it's supported by the State. Even in "atheist"
> > regimes such as the USSR.
> >
> > Without that support it *will* go away.
>
If you want to be picky about "the delusion will (not) go away", fine,
it's possible that there'll always be some lunatic somewhere who will
suffer it, just as there are lunatics who suffer the delusion that there
are aliens out there feeding off our life force.
But if you want to be reasonable about "the delusion will (not) go away",
take note that we are talking about religion, which is institutionalised
mass delusion,`not individual psychosis.
> The State and religion has used each other as a tool
... have used each other as tools.
> for their own purposes. Much of the strenght of religion comes from the
> State support, but it would exist even without it.
Exist perhaps. For a while perhaps. Long term, in the minds of a few
lunatics perhaps.
Be a problem for sane people, no.
> The prove is that, in
The word you're looking for is "proof".
> countries with an official religion, other religions exist, but weaker.
That's not even evidence, let alone proof.
For one thing, the existence of a State religion is State support for ^the
idea* of religion.
> Religion is based on fear of death,
Rubbish. Its roots lie in primitive attempts to explain the workings of
nature. The first fumbling attempts at science.
"Death" is a word that conflates two meanings: one being the "act" of
dying, the other, the state of being dead.
The first is often caused by extreme violence, of which we are subject
to a perfectly natural biological terror, and/or accompanied by grievous
suffering, which it is also rational to fear; the second is nothing.
Literally.
The so-called fear of death is a *result* religious thinking, not a basis
for it.
> of being rejected by the group and
> fear of thinking by oneself.
Rubbish. Group membership and personal thought patterns are matters of
social (non-)conformity, not religion.
----snip----
Ned Latham
Javi
> Javi wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Martin Edwards wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let the activists, if there are any, focus: there is no such thing
>>>>> as a god. Therefore, ...
>>>> Yes, I agree. My point is that the delusion does not seem to go away.
>>> That's because, as I said, it's supported by the State. Even in "atheist"
>>> regimes such as the USSR.
>>>
>>> Without that support it *will* go away.
>> I don't agree.
>
> If you want to be picky about "the delusion will (not) go away", fine,
> it's possible that there'll always be some lunatic somewhere who will
> suffer it, just as there are lunatics who suffer the delusion that there
> are aliens out there feeding off our life force.
>
> But if you want to be reasonable about "the delusion will (not) go away",
> take note that we are talking about religion, which is institutionalised
> mass delusion,`not individual psychosis.
>
I'm not talking about an isolated lunatic, but organized groups that
will reinforce their belief. Rational thinking is hard and it will
always be easier to believe what you are told about a deity o a magic,
call it Christ, Allah, Karma or anything else. Religion power lies in
that it can provide an easy explanation and a relief to deep fears.
>> The State and religion has used each other as a tool
>
> ... have used each other as tools.
>
Thanks for the orthography lesson. Shall we talk about language or religion?
>> for their own purposes. Much of the strenght of religion comes from the
>> State support, but it would exist even without it.
>
> Exist perhaps. For a while perhaps. Long term, in the minds of a few
> lunatics perhaps.
>
> Be a problem for sane people, no.
Unfortunately, most people in the world follow some kind of religion. I
don't know the figures, but I would say 80-90%. Do you mean that 80-90%
of the world population is insane? My point is that it is more a
question of education.
>
>> The prove is that, in
>
> The word you're looking for is "proof".
>
>> countries with an official religion, other religions exist, but weaker.
>
> That's not even evidence, let alone proof.
>
That's a proof that religions can exist without the State support, or
even with the State opposition.
> For one thing, the existence of a State religion is State support for ^the
> idea* of religion.
>
>> Religion is based on fear of death,
>
> Rubbish. Its roots lie in primitive attempts to explain the workings of
> nature. The first fumbling attempts at science.
The first things that religions tried to explain were things that
frightened primitive people, including death, natural phenomena like
thunders, floods, etc., behaviour of preys and predators...
>
> "Death" is a word that conflates two meanings: one being the "act" of
> dying, the other, the state of being dead.
>
> The first is often caused by extreme violence, of which we are subject
> to a perfectly natural biological terror, and/or accompanied by grievous
> suffering, which it is also rational to fear; the second is nothing.
> Literally.
First, both meanings are really only one, since they are linked and no
one can happen without the other. Moreover, you don't need to die violently.
Second, fear to death can be fear to the moment of death and to stop
existing. If you ask a religious person, one of the thing that he/she
will find more difficult to cope with is the fact that after death there
is nothing.
>
> The so-called fear of death is a *result* religious thinking, not a basis
> for it.
I think it's the opposite. Fear of death is the basis of religious
thinking. One of the moments when most non-believers turn into religion
is near death.
>
>> of being rejected by the group and
>> fear of thinking by oneself.
>
> Rubbish. Group membership and personal thought patterns are matters of
> social (non-)conformity, not religion.
Rubbish is a very ugly word. You should be more polite.
Religion is part of a group identity, you like or not. For a long time,
and even now, many nations, nationalities, etc, have defined themselves
among other things for their religious cults. If you weren't a part of
the cult, you weren't a full member of that group, if not an enemy.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Javi wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > > > That's because, as I said, it's supported by the State. Even in
> > > > "atheist" regimes such as the USSR.
> > > >
> > > > Without that support it *will* go away.
> > >
> > > I don't agree.
> >
> > If you want to be picky about "the delusion will (not) go away",
> > fine, it's possible that there'll always be some lunatic somewhere
> > who will suffer it, just as there are lunatics who suffer the
> > delusion that there are aliens out there feeding off our life force.
> >
> > But if you want to be reasonable about "the delusion will (not) go
> > away", take note that we are talking about religion, which is
> > institutionalised mass delusion,`not individual psychosis.
>
> I'm not talking about an isolated lunatic,
Then as I said, "without that support it *will* go away".
> but organized groups that
> will reinforce their belief.
As I said, State support for religion.
> Rational thinking is hard
Wrong.
> and it will
> always be easier to believe what you are told about a deity o a magic,
Rubbish. Those who are brought up without the god hypothsesis will find
it difficult, if not impossibple, to accept such abusrdities.
The same applies to those brought up with it, but who've thought about
it and rejected it.
> call it Christ, Allah, Karma or anything else. Religion
The construct you're looking for is the possessive case: "religion's".
> power lies in
> that it can provide an easy explanation and a relief to deep fears.
Irrelevant. Without State support, religion will go away.
> > > The State and religion has used each other as a tool
> >
> > ... have used each other as tools.
>
> Thanks for the orthography lesson.
Grammar. Get your terms right.
On the matter of orthography though, when are you going to abandomn your
fear of white space?
> Shall we talk about language or religion?
Neither is revelevant here.
> > > for their own purposes. Much of the strenght of religion comes from the
> > > State support, but it would exist even without it.
> >
> > Exist perhaps. For a while perhaps. Long term, in the minds of a few
> > lunatics perhaps.
> >
> > Be a problem for sane people, no.
>
> Unfortunately, most people in the world follow some kind of religion.
That's because, as I have repeatedly said, religion has State support. All
over the world.
> I don't know the figures, but I would say 80-90%. Do you mean that 80-90%
> of the world population is insane?
Yes. They're deluded.
And the verb is "are", not "is".
> My point is that it is more a question
> of education.
... which involves State support.
> > > The prove is that,
> >
> > The word you're looking for is "proof".
> >
> > > in countries with an official religion, other religions exist, but
> > > weaker.
> >
> > That's not even evidence, let alone proof.
>
> That's a proof that religions can exist without the State support, or
> even with the State opposition.
Rubbish. Read what I said immediately after that criticism of your term:
"the existence of a State religion is State support for ^the idea* of
religion.
> > For one thing, the existence of a State religion is State support for ^the
> > idea* of religion.
> >
> > > Religion is based on fear of death,
> >
> > Rubbish. Its roots lie in primitive attempts to explain the workings of
> > nature. The first fumbling attempts at science.
>
> The first things that religions tried to explain were things that
> frightened primitive people, including death, natural phenomena like
> thunders, floods, etc., behaviour of preys and predators...
That's what I said: "the workings of nature".
> > "Death" is a word that conflates two meanings: one being the "act" of
> > dying, the other, the state of being dead.
> >
> > The first is often caused by extreme violence, of which we are subject
> > to a perfectly natural biological terror, and/or accompanied by grievous
> > suffering, which it is also rational to fear; the second is nothing.
> > Literally.
>
> First, both meanings are really only one,
Rubbish. The second is the same as the state you were in before conception,
while the transition from non-existence to awareness is radically different
than the transition from awareness to non-existence.
> since they are linked and no
> one can happen without the other.
Rubbish. Non-existence before and after life, or independently of life.
> Moreover, you don't need to die
> violently.
Irrelevant.
> Second, fear to death
The word you're looking for is "of".
> can be fear to the moment of death and to stop
> existing. If you ask a religious person, one of the thing that he/she
> will find more difficult to cope with is the fact that after death there
> is nothing.
Is that incoherent babble actually intended to mean something?
> > The so-called fear of death is a *result* religious thinking, not a
> > basis for it.
>
> I think it's the opposite.
You don't read well, you don't write well... is there any reason to
suppose that you think well?
> Fear of death is the basis of religious
> thinking. One of the moments when most non-believers turn into religion
> is near death.
Pffft. Closet believers.
> > > of being rejected by the group and
> > > fear of thinking by oneself.
> >
> > Rubbish. Group membership and personal thought patterns are matters of
> > social (non-)conformity, not religion.
>
> Rubbish is a very ugly word.
There's no such thing as an ugly word. Rubbish is ugly.
> You should be more polite.
I call it as I see it. You should stop spouting rubbish.
> Religion is part of a group identity,
In religious groups.
> you like or not.
The word you're looking for is "whether".
> For a long time,
> and even now, many nations, nationalities, etc, have defined themselves
> among other things for their religious cults.
Gee. What did I say? Something about State support for religion?
> If you weren't a part of
> the cult, you weren't a full member of that group, if not an enemy.
So? Where there's fear involved with that, it's fear of the repercussions,
not the rejection itself.
Ned Latham
Javi
> Javi wrote:
>
>>>>> That's because, as I said, it's supported by the State. Even in
>>>>> "atheist" regimes such as the USSR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without that support it *will* go away.
>>>> I don't agree.
>>> If you want to be picky about "the delusion will (not) go away",
>>> fine, it's possible that there'll always be some lunatic somewhere
>>> who will suffer it, just as there are lunatics who suffer the
>>> delusion that there are aliens out there feeding off our life force.
>>>
>>> But if you want to be reasonable about "the delusion will (not) go
>>> away", take note that we are talking about religion, which is
>>> institutionalised mass delusion,`not individual psychosis.
>> I'm not talking about an isolated lunatic,
>
> Then as I said, "without that support it *will* go away".
>
>> but organized groups that
>> will reinforce their belief.
>
> As I said, State support for religion.
What State support for religion in the USSR, China, North Korea...?
Furthermore, religion existed before any form of state.
>
>> Rational thinking is hard
>
> Wrong.
>
>> and it will
>> always be easier to believe what you are told about a deity o a magic,
>
> Rubbish. Those who are brought up without the god hypothsesis will find
> it difficult, if not impossibple, to accept such abusrdities.
>
> The same applies to those brought up with it, but who've thought about
> it and rejected it.
>
>> call it Christ, Allah, Karma or anything else. Religion
>
> The construct you're looking for is the possessive case: "religion's".
>
>> power lies in
>> that it can provide an easy explanation and a relief to deep fears.
>
> Irrelevant. Without State support, religion will go away.
I don't think so. I'm afraid that something more will be needed.
>
>>>> The State and religion has used each other as a tool
>>> ... have used each other as tools.
>> Thanks for the orthography lesson.
>
> Grammar. Get your terms right.
>
> On the matter of orthography though, when are you going to abandomn your
> fear of white space?
>
>> Shall we talk about language or religion?
>
> Neither is revelevant here.
>
>>>> for their own purposes. Much of the strenght of religion comes from the
>>>> State support, but it would exist even without it.
>>> Exist perhaps. For a while perhaps. Long term, in the minds of a few
>>> lunatics perhaps.
>>>
>>> Be a problem for sane people, no.
>> Unfortunately, most people in the world follow some kind of religion.
>
> That's because, as I have repeatedly said, religion has State support. All
> over the world.
Religion doesn't need state support. Correlation doesn't imply causality.
>
>> I don't know the figures, but I would say 80-90%. Do you mean that 80-90%
>> of the world population is insane?
>
> Yes. They're deluded.
>
> And the verb is "are", not "is".
No, the verb is "is". Population is singular. Everybody makes a mistake
once.
>
>> My point is that it is more a question
>> of education.
>
> ... which involves State support.
>
Lack of education, whiz.
>>>> The prove is that,
>>> The word you're looking for is "proof".
>>>
>>>> in countries with an official religion, other religions exist, but
>>>> weaker.
>>> That's not even evidence, let alone proof.
>> That's a proof that religions can exist without the State support, or
>> even with the State opposition.
>
> Rubbish. Read what I said immediately after that criticism of your term:
> "the existence of a State religion is State support for ^the idea* of
> religion.
So you are saying that communist states support the "idea" of religion.
Where in the work of Marx, Engels, Lenin is that written?
>
>>> For one thing, the existence of a State religion is State support for ^the
>>> idea* of religion.
>>>
>>>> Religion is based on fear of death,
>>> Rubbish. Its roots lie in primitive attempts to explain the workings of
>>> nature. The first fumbling attempts at science.
>> The first things that religions tried to explain were things that
>> frightened primitive people, including death, natural phenomena like
>> thunders, floods, etc., behaviour of preys and predators...
>
> That's what I said: "the workings of nature".
That cause fear.
>
>>> "Death" is a word that conflates two meanings: one being the "act" of
>>> dying, the other, the state of being dead.
>>>
>>> The first is often caused by extreme violence, of which we are subject
>>> to a perfectly natural biological terror, and/or accompanied by grievous
>>> suffering, which it is also rational to fear; the second is nothing.
>>> Literally.
>> First, both meanings are really only one,
>
> Rubbish. The second is the same as the state you were in before conception,
> while the transition from non-existence to awareness is radically different
> than the transition from awareness to non-existence.
>
>> since they are linked and no
>> one can happen without the other.
>
> Rubbish. Non-existence before and after life, or independently of life.
Oh, yes. There are a lot of non-existing beings that are not afraid of
non-existence. Who said rubbish? We are talking about existing people.
>
>> Moreover, you don't need to die
>> violently.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> Second, fear to death
>
> The word you're looking for is "of".
>
>> can be fear to the moment of death and to stop
>> existing. If you ask a religious person, one of the thing that he/she
>> will find more difficult to cope with is the fact that after death there
>> is nothing.
>
> Is that incoherent babble actually intended to mean something?
Only if you use a few neurons.
>
>>> The so-called fear of death is a *result* religious thinking, not a
>>> basis for it.
>> I think it's the opposite.
>
> You don't read well, you don't write well... is there any reason to
> suppose that you think well?
Lack of arguments... I'm bored.
>
>> Fear of death is the basis of religious
>> thinking. One of the moments when most non-believers turn into religion
>> is near death.
>
> Pffft. Closet believers.
Human fear.
>
>>>> of being rejected by the group and
>>>> fear of thinking by oneself.
>>> Rubbish. Group membership and personal thought patterns are matters of
>>> social (non-)conformity, not religion.
>> Rubbish is a very ugly word.
>
> There's no such thing as an ugly word. Rubbish is ugly.
>
>> You should be more polite.
>
> I call it as I see it. You should stop spouting rubbish.
Oh, I didn't know I was talking to Dr. House.
>
>> Religion is part of a group identity,
>
> In religious groups.
>
>> you like or not.
>
> The word you're looking for is "whether".
>
>> For a long time,
>> and even now, many nations, nationalities, etc, have defined themselves
>> among other things for their religious cults.
>
> Gee. What did I say? Something about State support for religion?
>
>> If you weren't a part of
>> the cult, you weren't a full member of that group, if not an enemy.
>
> So? Where there's fear involved with that, it's fear of the repercussions,
> not the rejection itself.
Fear, anyway.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Javi wrote:
----snip----
> > > > If you want to be picky about "the delusion will (not) go away",
> > > > fine, it's possible that there'll always be some lunatic somewhere
> > > > who will suffer it, just as there are lunatics who suffer the
> > > > delusion that there are aliens out there feeding off our life force.
> > > >
> > > > But if you want to be reasonable about "the delusion will (not) go
> > > > away", take note that we are talking about religion, which is
> > > > institutionalised mass delusion,`not individual psychosis.
> > >
> > > I'm not talking about an isolated lunatic,
> >
> > Then as I said, "without that support it *will* go away".
> >
> > > but organized groups that
> > > will reinforce their belief.
> >
> > As I said, State support for religion.
>
> What State support for religion in the USSR, China, North Korea...?
Irrelevant, fool. It was *you* who said "orgaiized groups that will
reinforce their belief".
And check some history. Check up on the stipends Stalin paid to his
tame priests.
> Furthermore, religion existed before any form of state.
Again, irrelevant.
Moreover, it's probably wrong. And since it's something that no-one could
possibly know, you're lying. I despise liars.
----snip----
> > > Unfortunately, most people in the world follow some kind of religion.
> >
> > That's because, as I have repeatedly said, religion has State support. All
> > over the world.
>
> Religion doesn't need state support.
Larf. Try working out why it does what it must to gain that support. All over
the world.
> Correlation doesn't imply causality.
Irrelevant.
----snip----
> > > I don't know the figures, but I would say 80-90%. Do you mean that 80-90%
> > > of the world population is insane?
> >
> > Yes. They're deluded.
> >
> > And the verb is "are", not "is".
>
> No, the verb is "is".
Wrong.
> Population is singular.
It's a group noun, and you're not talking about the population as an entity,
you're talking about a large number of people. In English, as opposed to the
incoherent babble you seem to rely on, when you talk about the individuals of
a group, you use the plural number. For those who can't use conceptual number
intuitively, the test is the pronoun you'd use in place of the subject. In
your sentence above, the subject is the noun phrase "80-80% of the world
population"; the pronoun replacing it is "they". Plural.
IOW, your question becomes "Do you mean that they are insane?"; not, as
you would seem to like "Do you mean that they is insane?".
> Everybody makes a mistake
> once.
That was no mere mistake on your part: it's basic incomprehension. You
should try to understand that English, like all natural languages, is a
communications protocol. Get the protocol wrong and you get communcation
breakdowns.
----snip----
> > > > > The prove is that,
> > > >
> > > > The word you're looking for is "proof".
> > > >
> > > > > in countries with an official religion, other religions exist, but
> > > > > weaker.
> > > >
> > > > That's not even evidence, let alone proof.
> > >
> > > That's a proof that religions can exist without the State support, or
> > > even with the State opposition.
> >
> > Rubbish. Read what I said immediately after that criticism of your term:
> > "the existence of a State religion is State support for ^the idea* of
> > religion.
>
> So you are saying that communist states support the "idea" of religion.
You sure are thick, aintcha? What I did there was show that your assertion
is false.
> Where in the work of Marx, Engels, Lenin is that written?
Try something a little less stupid. There has never a been a communist state
with a State religion.
----snip----
> > > > "Death" is a word that conflates two meanings: one being the "act" of
> > > > dying, the other, the state of being dead.
> > > >
> > > > The first is often caused by extreme violence, of which we are subject
> > > > to a perfectly natural biological terror, and/or accompanied by grievous
> > > > suffering, which it is also rational to fear; the second is nothing.
> > > > Literally.
> > >
> > > First, both meanings are really only one,
> >
> > Rubbish. The second is the same as the state you were in before conception,
> > while the transition from non-existence to awareness is radically different
> > than the transition from awareness to non-existence.
> >
> > > since they are linked and no
> > > one can happen without the other.
> >
> > Rubbish. Non-existence before and after life, or independently of life.
>
> Oh, yes. There are a lot of non-existing beings that are not afraid of
> non-existence. Who said rubbish? We are talking about existing people.
Oh, for fuck's sake. Learn to read.
----snip----
> > > Second, fear to death
> >
> > The word you're looking for is "of".
> >
> > > can be fear to the moment of death and to stop
> > > existing. If you ask a religious person, one of the thing that he/she
> > > will find more difficult to cope with is the fact that after death there
> > > is nothing.
> >
> > Is that incoherent babble actually intended to mean something?
>
> Only if you use a few neurons.
And bring myself down to your level?
> > > > The so-called fear of death is a *result* religious thinking, not a
> > > > basis for it.
> > >
> > > I think it's the opposite.
> >
> > You don't read well, you don't write well... is there any reason to
> > suppose that you think well?
>
> Lack of arguments... I'm bored.
Of course you are. It takes more than "a few neurons" to avoid that.
----snip----
Ned Latham
VtSkier
Ned, sorry to disagree with your English lesson. Population
IS a singular noun. The proper pronoun to replace it is "it".
It may well be that the use of the word 'population' by the
OP is incorrect or at least inappropriate, it still remains
that 'population' is a singular noun. Remember there can be
more than one population and you would use 'populations' in
that case. Surely what the OP means is, "80% of all the
people in the world." Then 'they' makes sense with 'people'
being a plural noun.
Javi
You are very boring with all this bullshit. I thought I was going to get
some coherent reasoning from you, but I was wrong. Let me know when you
have a slightly intelligent thinking and stop braying.
Javi
Don't waste your time.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Javi wrote:
----snip----
> > > Population is singular.
> >
> > It's a group noun, and you're not talking about the population as an
> > entity, you're talking about a large number of people. In English, as
> > opposed to the incoherent babble you seem to rely on, when you talk
> > about the individuals of a group, you use the plural number. For those
> > who can't use conceptual number intuitively, the test is the pronoun
> > you'd use in place of the subject. In your sentence above, the subject
> > is the noun phrase "80-80% of the world population"; the pronoun
> > replacing it is "they". Plural.
> >
> > IOW, your question becomes "Do you mean that they are insane?"; not, as
> > you would seem to like "Do you mean that they is insane?".
>
> Ned, sorry to disagree with your English lesson.
No sweat, V.
> Population
> IS a singular noun.
Yep. Never said or implied otherwise. What I did say is that it's a
group noun.
> The proper pronoun to replace it is "it".
When using it with a singular sense, of course.
> It may well be that the use of the word 'population' by the
> OP is incorrect or at least inappropriate, it still remains
> that 'population' is a singular noun. Remember there can be
> more than one population and you would use 'populations' in
> that case. Surely what the OP means is, "80% of all the
> people in the world."
Yep. I agree completely. And it rids his communication of its
clumsiness.
> Then 'they' makes sense with 'people'
> being a plural noun.
Yep. But it also makes sense (and is correct) with group nouns in
the singular if the sense of the subject is plural.
Unlike other Germanic languages, in which number always agrees with
the formal number of the subject (whether it be noun or noun phrase),
English uses what's called conceptual number with group nouns; ie,
when you speak about a group as an entity, the number is singular;
when you talk about (some subset of) the individuals within it, the
number is plural. IOW, in English, number doesn't always agree with
the formal number of the subject noun or phrase: it agrees with the
number of the subject's semantic content. For example:
The jury (it) is composed of twelve good men and true.
The jury (they) are considering their verdict.
You of course see judges on TV and in the movies asking "Has the
jury reached a verdict?".
Make no mistake: that's Yidlish, not English. We understand it and are
accustomed to it because it's pushed in our faces 24/7 in movies and on
TV. It's a creole of Yiddish (which is a Germanic language, BTW) and
English, and it's what they speak in Hollywood, and is therefore what
they speak in movies and TV programs. They don't know English.
Worse, they don't know that they don't know it. They, and millions whose
"English" was learnt from the TV, think that it *is* English, which I
think is a shame, because it's not as subtle and expressive as English.
----snip----
This is, of course, OT for this group, and I apologize to the group
for that. It came up because I got impatient with Javi's refusal to
address the issue and decided to rub his nose in it. Back on topic...
Religion is persistent because it's a very effective system of mind
control, and governments love that, and support it for that reason.
They have supported it for millennia with threats and punishments of
all kinds, including torture and death. It's not just a delusion:
it's evil; in my opinion the worst evil on the planet. Christianity,
for example, destroyed the civilization that nurtured it, destroyed
almost all of the knowledge that had been amassed over the previous
thousand years or so, cast a pall of ignorance, poverty, disease and
misery over Europe for a thousand years or so, and murdered millions
in its progroms, crusades and inquisitions.
Religion is evil, and we must get rid of it. The problem is that we
can't force people to disbelieve; apart from the practical difficulties,
there is the mnoral problem of being no better than the religionists.
But we can remove all forms of government support from it. That means
no tax breaks for religious organizations or for donations to them,
removing religious slogans from currency and other objects manufactured
or built by or for government, removing oaths, prayers and such from
goverment and court institutions, processes and procedures, and of
course, outlawing all forms of pressure towards religious belief or
behaviour.
Noye that I urge nothing whatever of pressuring people away from it.
What I believe in is freedom, *of* religion for believers; *from* it
for the rest of us. Religion has no argument; with government support
removed, religion has no mean of compulsion; it will wither.
Ned Latham
Javi
Christians aren't so specific. You don't need to be a nazi to sin, as
Tiglath said, pride of your children is the same deadly sin, and thus,
you'll have the same punishment. It's senseless, but it's religion.
igor
I am not an expert in any religion, but how is being proud of your
kids is a sin? I just dont buy it.
Javi
Don't look at me. I'm not christian. I'm only telling you what you can
expect from christianism.