Race, colour or creed
Vicky and Tony
chooses to read (or indeed not to read any at all).
Tony
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> It is a nonsense (as Michael Cashman MEP suggests in today's Grauniad
> [6-10-01]) to make illegal employment discrimination on the grounds of
> religion and fashionably try to bracket religion with race, colour,
> sexuality or gender.
>
> Religion is something people voluntarily choose to believe or not. Race,
> colour, sexuality and gender are aspects of humanity we are all born with
> and which cannot possibly affect our abilities to do a job of work.
> Adherence to an irrational belief system on the other hand certainly can.
> It would be absurd, for instance, to insist that anyone seriously consider
> an applicant for a biology teaching post who refutes Darwinian evolution
on
> religious grounds.
>
>
Jamie Harvey
writes
>It would be absurd, for instance, to insist that anyone seriously consider
>an applicant for a biology teaching post who refutes Darwinian evolution on
>religious grounds.
Not absurd. The situation described would be very unlikely to occur.
The job requirements would be for someone who would have to teach
the curriculum. If someone is qualified to teach then they have studied
all subjects covered by the curriculum. Whether or not anyone would
ever do such studying of a subject they did not believe and would then
decide to teach a subject they did not believe seems pretty unlikely.
But they would soon be out of a job if they did not obey their
contract.
The post regarding suitability for employment as programmers was
provided an interesting read though. Unfortunately, as with all posts,
the authenticity is not immune from doubt.
--
Jamie
Jamie Harvey
<vickyandtony...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Well said. Religion is a matter of choice - a bit like what newspaper one
>chooses to read (or indeed not to read any at all).
A bit. Not a very big bit though.
It seems a bit odd to me that people apparently wishing to influence
the thoughts of others think that displaying strong negative emotions
are likely to have anything but a negative effect on there 'cause'.
--
Jamie
Ahriman
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> It is a nonsense (as Michael Cashman MEP suggests in today's Grauniad
> [6-10-01]) to make illegal employment discrimination on the grounds of
> religion and fashionably try to bracket religion with race, colour,
> sexuality or gender.
>
> Religion is something people voluntarily choose to believe or not. Race,
> colour, sexuality and gender are aspects of humanity we are all born with
> and which cannot possibly affect our abilities to do a job of work.
> Adherence to an irrational belief system on the other hand certainly can.
>
> an applicant for a biology teaching post who refutes Darwinian evolution
on
> religious grounds.
>
>
Quite right too. I would feel safer also knowing that I didn't have someone
who believed in a fantasy driving my train / aircraft / ferry, or operating
the controls at Sellafield. Ban deeply religious people from any job where
they are responsible for the welfare of others. It won't happen, but it's a
nice thought.
Ahriman
Richard Miller
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B7E482A19...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> It is a nonsense (as Michael Cashman MEP suggests in today's Grauniad
> [6-10-01]) to make illegal employment discrimination on the grounds of
> religion and fashionably try to bracket religion with race, colour,
> sexuality or gender.
>
It is a nonsense to say that that is what Michael Cashman's letter suggests.
The text in full states:
"David Blunkett's approach to the protection of religious groups should draw
upon the experience of the European Employment Directive to combat
discrimination in the workplace. It is apparent we need hatred legislation,
but based not on the narrow grounds of religion, but on the entire range of
groups listed in Article 13 (sex, race, ethnicity, religion, belief,
disability, age and sexual orientation)."
Richard Miller
Sindre Berg Stene
> It is ludicrous to attempt to ban discrimination on the grounds of
religion
> in the workplace or anywhere else. It's entirely reasonable to
discriminate
> against these nutters on the grounds that they have a religion. It is
> unreasonable to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, colour,
> sexuality or gender. The latter are quite, quite different and have no
> bearing on the sanity of the individual concerned or their fitness for
> employment etc. The bracketing of religion (a voluntary dangerous and
> delusionary belief system bearing no relationship to reality) with the
> others is a piece of nonsense and always has been.
Employment based on merit is the most sound in any case. -Estimating how
well one will be able to do ones job. This usually includes how well the
person in question will be able to cooperate with other people in the
workplace, an ability which may be influenced by their convictions.
theDRaGoNFLy...
Alexander Baron
<Ja...@hornbeam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <9pmk8c$jes7a$1...@ID-29083.news.dfncis.de>, Vicky and Tony
><vickyandtony...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>Well said. Religion is a matter of choice
So is sexuality, so why can't Cashman die of AIDS and leave the rest of
us to choose who we associate with?
--
ITMA
Scott
Simon Gardner <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message ...
>In article <qARsPiDD...@abaron.demon.co.uk>,
>Alexander Baron <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <Ow82bSAC...@hornbeam.demon.co.uk>, Jamie Harvey
>> <Ja...@hornbeam.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >In article <9pmk8c$jes7a$1...@ID-29083.news.dfncis.de>, Vicky and Tony
>> ><vickyandtony...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> >>Well said. Religion is a matter of choice
>>
>> So is sexuality
>
>
But obviously it is poor old Alexander, which is why he has such a problem with
it.
Icarus
> >> Religion is a matter of choice
>
> So is sexuality
If sexual orientation were a matter of choice then a heterosexual
person could choose to be attracted to the same sex, and cease to be
attracted to the opposite sex. Personally I don't think that's very
likely.
Alexander Baron
writes
>> <Ja...@hornbeam.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >In article <9pmk8c$jes7a$1...@ID-29083.news.dfncis.de>, Vicky and Tony
>> ><vickyandtony...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> >>Well said. Religion is a matter of choice
>>
>
>No. That's the point. Sexuality isn't.
>
>
it.
--
ITMA
tim
<p5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s474st44aj5l96uvr...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 00:57:55 +0100, Alexander Baron
> <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <Ow82bSAC...@hornbeam.demon.co.uk>, Jamie Harvey
> ><Ja...@hornbeam.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>In article <9pmk8c$jes7a$1...@ID-29083.news.dfncis.de>, Vicky and Tony
> >><vickyandtony...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >>>Well said. Religion is a matter of choice
> >
> >So is sexuality, so why can't Cashman die of AIDS and leave the rest of
> >us to choose who we associate with?
>
Presumably Michael Cashman, ex Eastenders actor and now Labour MEP
for somewhere or other.
> and how is he stopping the rest of us from choosing who
> we associate with?
Dunno, though he was the stupid plonker who argued (seemingly successfully)
that the EU should not have an opt-in for spam, so I now habitually support
the exact opposite of whatever he stands for.
Tim
Vicky and Tony
>
Do you on the other hand understand the word "activity". Maybe you are
correct and maybe homosexuals don't have any choice about their
"sexuality" - however, they do have the choice about whether to actually
indulge in homosexual "activity". We all have a choice about the
activities that we take part in.
Tony
Des
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > <Ja...@hornbeam.demon.co.uk> writes
> > >In article <9pmk8c$jes7a$1...@ID-29083.news.dfncis.de>, Vicky and Tony
> > ><vickyandtony...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> > >>Well said. Religion is a matter of choice
> >
>
> No. That's the point. Sexuality isn't.
>
Well, if exclusive male homosexuality is not a choice and is not entirely
genetic (but feel free to argue that it is) then it must be produced by
environmental or developmental factors.
In which case, shouldn't we be urging the government to identify and if
possible eliminate these factors? After all, that's the approach we're
taking to the perceived problem of low sperm counts in men - and I'm sure
it's the approach you would argue for if it could be shown that such factors
caused religiosity.
Wouldn't it be a kindness to our offspring to ensure that they had the
widest possible range of options from which to exercise their free choice?
Des
Des
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <myTw7.3555$qg3.23922@NewsReader>,
> "Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, if exclusive male homosexuality is not a choice
>
> It certainly isn't.
>
> > and is not entirely
> > genetic (but feel free to argue that it is) then it must be produced by
> > environmental or developmental factors.
>
> No idea, mate and I don't think anybody else has either.
But you have enough of an idea to know that it is never matter of choice?
>
> > I'm sure
> > it's the approach you would argue for if it could be shown that such
factors
> > caused religiosity.
>
> My view is and has always been that the best weapons against religion are
> (a) cruelly taking the piss and (b) utter contempt and (c) education. I
> also think it the most disgraceful leap into the 13 century to accord any
> legal protection whatsoever for this odious and laughable twaddle or its
> gullible and offensive adherents.
>
In which case why would you not support applying a,b,c to exclusive male
homosexuality?
After all there are many people who find such activity laughable and still
more who find it offensive?
You are of course entitled to your prejudices - but in the interests of fair
play you really should be consistent in how you apply them.
Des
Michael W. Lancaster
>> "Simon Gardner" wrote in message
>>> Homosexual activity is as much a free choice
>>
>> Do you understand what the word "sexuality" means?
>
> Do you on the other hand understand the word
> "activity". Maybe you are correct and maybe
> homosexuals don't have any choice about their
> "sexuality" - however, they do have the
> choice about whether to actually indulge in
> homosexual "activity". We all have a choice
> about the activities that we take part in.
>
> Tony
*****
If I may interrupt for a moment here.
Gat pride and all that is very alien to me and I
find it quite tacky bordering on offensive.
However, what homos do in the privacy of their
homes is their business. Provided they are not
careless in their 'activity' which causes them
to end up getting treatment for one disease or
the other on the NHS, I really don't care what
they get up to. Now, Tony, why are YOU so
concerned about their 'activity'?
Michael
--
Reply-To: mlancaster--at--btinernet.com (replace --at-- with @)
Any direct mailing without my explicit prior approval to that effect
will be considered spam and the poster's network administrators shall be
notified accordingly.
Michael W. Lancaster
>> "Simon Gardner" wrote in message
>>> Homosexual activity is as much a free choice
>>
>> Do you understand what the word "sexuality" means?
>
> Do you on the other hand understand the word
> "activity". Maybe you are correct and maybe
> homosexuals don't have any choice about their
> "sexuality" - however, they do have the
> choice about whether to actually indulge in
> homosexual "activity". We all have a choice
> about the activities that we take part in.
>
> Tony
*****
If I may interrupt for a moment here.
Gay pride and all that is very alien to me and I
Cynic
> Well, if exclusive male homosexuality is not a choice and is not entirely
> genetic (but feel free to argue that it is) then it must be produced by
> environmental or developmental factors.
I suspect that like many things there are elements of both. It is likely
that there are more cases of environmental factors changing a person with a
genetic predisposition toward homosexuality to engage in heterosexual
activity than vice versa.
> In which case, shouldn't we be urging the government to identify and if
> possible eliminate these factors?
Why should it be eliminated? You could as well argue that factors that make
people enjoy chocolate should be identified and eliminated. What for?
--
Cynic
Vicky and Tony
> Now, Tony, why are YOU so
> concerned about their 'activity'?
Their activity doesn't concern me at all. However, it does concern me that
some people believe that religion is not a matter of choice.
Tony
athomik
> it.
--
athomik
Des
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
news:1002707507.19576....@news.demon.co.uk...
> "Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote
>
> > Well, if exclusive male homosexuality is not a choice and is not
entirely
> > genetic (but feel free to argue that it is) then it must be produced by
> > environmental or developmental factors.
>
> that there are more cases of environmental factors changing a person with
a
> genetic predisposition toward homosexuality to engage in heterosexual
> activity than vice versa.
What is your basis for saying this?
What does a genetic predisposition to exclusive homosexuality mean and how
is it inherited?
>
> > In which case, shouldn't we be urging the government to identify and if
> > possible eliminate these factors?
>
> Why should it be eliminated? You could as well argue that factors that
make
> people enjoy chocolate should be identified and eliminated. What for?
>
I wasn't necessarily saying that it should be eliminated - it's consequences
seems mostly harmless to me.
What I was saying is that if we want people to take our prejudices seriously
then we should at least be consistent in the way we apply them. So in that
context, if some there were some factor at work which limits our later
choices (including the ability to enjoy chocolate, be free from religion or
have a genetic family) then why wouldn't we want that factor eliminated if
it were possible?
Des
Des
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <RlUw7.7806$U97.24660@NewsReader>,
> "Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > In which case why would you not support applying a,b,c to exclusive male
> > homosexuality?
>
> Don't be a prat.
Thank you - I was beginning to worry that I wasn't doing it properly!
> And there is no conceivable reason either. [Homosexuals don't
> kill people because of their homosexuality either - unless, you've been
> fucked to death recently?]
>
So your argument is not so much against the religious as against those who
kill people?
I think you'll get a lot more support for that argument than for your
anti-religion rantings
Des
Peter H.M. Brooks
Cynic <none@none> wrote in message
news:1002707507.19576....@news.demon.co.uk...
> "
>
that make
> people enjoy chocolate should be identified and eliminated. What for?
>
around .1% cockroach in it. So, if you were a Jain, you might wish to
see the consumption of chocolate reduced to stop the slaughter of
innocent cockroaches.
--
High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the
bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. It has been
found out. I must say that it was high time, for all authority is quite
degrading. It degrades those who exercise it, and degrades those over
whom it is exercised.
Oscar Wilde
Cynic
>> ............................It is likely
>> that there are more cases of environmental factors changing
>> a person with a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality
>> to engage in heterosexual activity than vice versa.
> What is your basis for saying this?
It seems the most likely probability from the range of possibilities. I am
not stating that it is definitely the case. I doubt you would deny that
present society is such that a person growing up receives much sociological
pressure to conform to a heterosexual norm. I also see families where only
one of a number of children brought up in a very similar environment
develops a homosexual tendancy. Not that that eliminates the possibility of
sexuality being determined or triggered by perhaps a trivial event or subtle
difference in upbringing. I just feel that a genetic explanation (or
partial genetic explanation) is the more likely.
> What does a genetic predisposition to exclusive homosexuality mean and how
> is it inherited?
If homosexuality has a genetic factor - and whilst I am not claiming to know
as a fact that it does, observation and deduction would indicate that the
possibility is strong - then it would be inherited in the same way as any
other trait. Probably not as a single gene, but as a group of genes, and
most propably recessive in character. I'm using informed guesswork and
speculating, that's all.
>>> In which case, shouldn't we be urging the government to identify and if
>>> possible eliminate these factors?
>> Why should it be eliminated? You could as well argue that
>> factors that make people enjoy chocolate should be identified
>> and eliminated. What for?
> I wasn't necessarily saying that it should be eliminated - it's
> consequences seems mostly harmless to me.
> What I was saying is that if we want people to take our prejudices
seriously
> then we should at least be consistent in the way we apply them. So in that
> context, if some there were some factor at work which limits our later
> choices (including the ability to enjoy chocolate, be free from religion
or
> have a genetic family) then why wouldn't we want that factor eliminated if
> it were possible?
Because such social engineering would be just as wrong as a move to allow
only blond, blue-eyed people to live? Diversity is strength, and I believe
that diversity should not only include differences in sexuality but also
mental conditions that are sociopathic in today's society. A future society
may well require some of its members to have such traits.
--
Cynic
Michael W. Lancaster
>> "Michael W. Lancaster" wrote in message
>> Now, Tony, why are YOU so
>> concerned about their 'activity'?
>
> Their activity doesn't concern me at all.
> However, it does concern me that some
> people believe that religion is not a
> matter of choice.
*****
It depends on the environment. Theoretically,
it positively IS a matter of choice. However,
when one grows up in certain introvert and/or
isolated communities, that choice disappears.
Agreed?
Vicky and Tony
> It depends on the environment. Theoretically,
> it positively IS a matter of choice. However,
> when one grows up in certain introvert and/or
> isolated communities, that choice disappears.
> Agreed?
As a survivor of a catholic uprbinging I reckon one can escape from
brainwashing if you really want to :)
Tony
Des
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
> "Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote
>
> > What does a genetic predisposition to exclusive homosexuality mean and
how
> > is it inherited?
>
> If homosexuality has a genetic factor - and whilst I am not claiming to
know
> as a fact that it does, observation and deduction would indicate that the
> possibility is strong - then it would be inherited in the same way as any
> other trait. Probably not as a single gene, but as a group of genes, and
> most propably recessive in character. I'm using informed guesswork and
> speculating, that's all.
My understanding is that a small percentage of exclusive male homosexuality
can be supported if the responsible gene gives rise to an increased
fecundity when expressed in females. I seem to remember a figure of 1-2 %.
Any figure beyond this would tend to point towards non-genetic factors.
>
> >>> In which case, shouldn't we be urging the government to identify and
if
> > What I was saying is that if we want people to take our prejudices
> seriously
> > then we should at least be consistent in the way we apply them. So in
that
> > context, if some there were some factor at work which limits our later
> > choices (including the ability to enjoy chocolate, be free from religion
> or
> > have a genetic family) then why wouldn't we want that factor eliminated
if
> > it were possible?
>
> Because such social engineering would be just as wrong as a move to allow
> only blond, blue-eyed people to live? Diversity is strength, and I
believe
> that diversity should not only include differences in sexuality but also
> mental conditions that are sociopathic in today's society. A future
society
> may well require some of its members to have such traits.
>
Of course it could also be argued that religion represents a beneficial
diversity within human culture. I think it is indisputable that religion has
played an important role in promoting as well as stimulating learning. I am
thinking of the role the Christian Church played in the dark ages or the
role that Islam played in the development of algebra and geometry. So on
this basis I still don't see how one could argue for the elimination of
religion without also calling for the elimination of non-genetic
homosexuality.
In any case, eliminating any non-genetic element of exclusive homosexuality
should not lead to any reduction in genetic diversity - quite the reverse in
fact.
Des
Andrew Norman
says...
[religion]
> It depends on the environment. Theoretically,
> it positively IS a matter of choice. However,
> when one grows up in certain introvert and/or
> isolated communities, that choice disappears.
> Agreed?
No. The last time I noticed anyone trying to argue belief in God from a
philosophical basis in u.p.a. (using arguments which are demolished in
the first chapter of most logic textbooks but which the doughty atheist
philosophers failed to recognise) it became clear that neither believers
nor disbelievers had arrived at their attitudes via a logical route. I
don't think the vast majority of people *do* have a choice about this.
--
Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
n...@le.ac.uk || andrew...@le.ac.uk
http://www.le.ac.uk/engineering/nja/
Esquilax
> Alexander Baron <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > 66...@hack.powernet writes
> > > Alexander Baron <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jamie Harvey <Ja...@hornbeam.demon.co.uk> writes
> > > > > Vicky and Tony <vickyandtony...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> > > > > > Well said. Religion is a matter of choice
> > > >
> > > > So is sexuality
> > >
> > > No. That's the point. Sexuality isn't.
> > >
> > Homosexual activity is as much a free choice
>
> Do you understand what the word "sexuality" means?
obviously not.
saying homosexuality activity is a free choice is the same as saying
that deciding to eat and drink is a free choice. in theory it is, but 99%
of the population aren't going to have the inclination or will power to
voluntarily starve themselves of either - why should they?
also, linking religion and sexuality together is just an obvious strawman,
why bother to even argue the point.
phil.
Esquilax
"Michael W. Lancaster" <lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> > Vicky and Tony wrote:
> > > "Simon Gardner" wrote in message
> > > > Homosexual activity is as much a free choice
> > >
> > > Do you understand what the word "sexuality" means?
> >
> > Do you on the other hand understand the word
> > "activity". Maybe you are correct and maybe
> > homosexuals don't have any choice about their
> > "sexuality" - however, they do have the
> > choice about whether to actually indulge in
> > homosexual "activity". We all have a choice
> > about the activities that we take part in.
>
> Gay pride and all that is very alien to me and I
> find it quite tacky bordering on offensive.
> However, what homos do in the privacy of their
> homes is their business.
why? hetrosexual couples are free to court in public - and homosexuality
being (imho) just as natural - why shouldn't they be free to have as public
a sexuality as anyone else?
> Provided they are not
> careless in their 'activity' which causes them
> to end up getting treatment for one disease or
> the other on the NHS, I really don't care what
> they get up to. Now, Tony, why are YOU so
> concerned about their 'activity'?
reckless homos = bad, reckless hetros = ???
ever been to a gum clinic - plenty of non-homosexual women there,
should the nhs pay for their aliments?
what about injuries cause by: sport, cigarettes, alcohol, speeding vehicles,
excessive body weight, lack of sufficent exercise, poor diet ... need i go on?
phil.
Des
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <e7Ww7.3915$qg3.28934@NewsReader>,
> "Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
>
> > So your argument is not so much against the religious as against those
who
> > kill people?
>
> then your brain scrambles itself.
Thanks for being patient with me - must be me age.
>
> It is a nonsense (as Michael Cashman MEP suggests in the Grauniad
> [6-10-01]) to make illegal employment discrimination on the grounds of
> religion and fashionably try to bracket religion with race, colour,
> sexuality or gender.
The only sensible course (imo) would be to make it illegal to discriminate
on any grounds other than an ability to do the job.
>
> Religion is something people voluntarily choose to believe or not. Race,
> colour, sexuality and gender are aspects of humanity we are all born with
Of course this is just speculation with regard to sexuality.
> and which cannot possibly affect our abilities to do a job of work.
> Adherence to an irrational belief system on the other hand certainly can.
So you wouldn't have a problem with a rational belief system?
>
> It would be absurd, for instance, to insist that anyone seriously consider
> an applicant for a biology teaching post who refutes Darwinian evolution
on
> religious grounds.
The only sensible course (imo) would be to make it illegal to discriminate
on any grounds other than an ability to do the job.
>
> I think that sensible safeguards could usefully be placed on religion -
> particularly that all religious schools be abolished and it should be
> illegal to attempt religious indoctrination of anyone until they have
> reached adulthood.
>
Ah, a sort of clause 28 thingy?
Des
Cynic
> My understanding is that a small percentage of exclusive male
homosexuality
> can be supported if the responsible gene gives rise to an increased
> fecundity when expressed in females. I seem to remember a figure of 1-2 %.
> Any figure beyond this would tend to point towards non-genetic factors.
Your understanding is in error. A small amount of thought would tell you
that. It is the reason why I figure that the genetic aspect would either
need to be recessive, or carried latently in women. Obviously none of the
genes in a non-reproducing male will be propagated. Therefore any genes for
(exclusive) male homosexuality would have to be propagated either by the
female line or as a recessive gene. However, we know that heterosexuality
and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive. Similar to skin colour, there
is a range of sexuality between the two extremes. Therefore it is also
possible that similar to skin colour, the sexuality of the offspring will be
a mixture of the sexuality of the parents.
As homosexuality was taboo till recently, and is still largely frowned upon
by society, with the consequence that many people with homosexual tendancies
deny the fact, is is not possible to make any realistic study using family
histories in order to attempt to show a genetic link.
> Of course it could also be argued that religion represents a beneficial
> diversity within human culture. I think it is indisputable that religion
has
> played an important role in promoting as well as stimulating learning. I
am
> thinking of the role the Christian Church played in the dark ages or the
> role that Islam played in the development of algebra and geometry. So on
> this basis I still don't see how one could argue for the elimination of
> religion without also calling for the elimination of non-genetic
> homosexuality.
It is not I who has been arguing for the elimination of religion. Though I
believe that religion is more a result of man's wish to understand and
explain phenomena that first led him along the path of religion.
> In any case, eliminating any non-genetic element of exclusive
homosexuality
> should not lead to any reduction in genetic diversity - quite the reverse
in
> fact.
That is a true statement. Assuming you could discover what environmental
factors lead to homosexuality (if there are any). It might also be
interesting to discover what percentage of homosexuals have died without
siring any children.
--
Cynic
Des
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
> "Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote
>
> > My understanding is that a small percentage of exclusive male
> homosexuality
> > can be supported if the responsible gene gives rise to an increased
> > fecundity when expressed in females. I seem to remember a figure of 1-2
%.
> > Any figure beyond this would tend to point towards non-genetic factors.
>
> Your understanding is in error. A small amount of thought would tell you
> that.
I was basing my understanding on comments by a reasonably respectable
geneticist - I'll try to look up the reference.
It certainly seemed a very watertight argument to me, however I always
welcome correction so perhaps you could share your own little amount of
thought with me.
>It is the reason why I figure that the genetic aspect would either
> need to be recessive, or carried latently in women. Obviously none of the
> genes in a non-reproducing male will be propagated.
Right, which makes this a very risky strategy for any group of genes using
it. Since this is a disaster for the gene (or genes) when expressed in males
it needs to have a huge benefit when expressed in females.
> Therefore any genes for
> (exclusive) male homosexuality would have to be propagated either by the
> female line or as a recessive gene.
So far so good.
> However, we know that heterosexuality
> and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive. Similar to skin colour,
there
> is a range of sexuality between the two extremes. Therefore it is also
> possible that similar to skin colour, the sexuality of the offspring will
be
> a mixture of the sexuality of the parents.
But we are discussing a putative component of homosexuality which is
entirely determined by the genes - in the way that eye colour is. We seem to
both agree that environmental and developmental factors will play a large
(if not a major) part in determining the sexuality that is eventually
expressed in adulthood.
>
> As homosexuality was taboo till recently, and is still largely frowned
upon
> by society, with the consequence that many people with homosexual
tendancies
> deny the fact, is is not possible to make any realistic study using family
> histories in order to attempt to show a genetic link.
True enough.
But it's unlikely that such taboos would have been significant in our early
ancestors and precursors.
This might explain why exclusive male homosexuality seems to be absent from
the animal world - iow given the opportunity, healthy male mammals in other
species will generally mate with suitable females. But I admit that I'm
guessing a little on this one so any informed input would be most welcome.
>
> It is not I who has been arguing for the elimination of religion. Though
I
> believe that religion is more a result of man's wish to understand and
> explain phenomena that first led him along the path of religion.
Sounds very reasonable.
This would certainly not be grounds for criminalising or even discouraging
religion.
>
> That is a true statement. Assuming you could discover what environmental
> factors lead to homosexuality (if there are any). It might also be
> interesting to discover what percentage of homosexuals have died without
> siring any children.
>
Yes, knowledge is almost always a good thing
Des
Peter H.M. Brooks
Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Yes, knowledge is almost always a good thing
>
Des
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9q1nrt$mkb$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
>
> Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > Yes, knowledge is almost always a good thing
> >
> Almost? When is it not a good thing?
>
Don't know - but you need to keep your options open in this place!
Des
Des
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <p9Yw7.8201$U97.31855@NewsReader>,
> "Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
>
> > "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
Race,
> > > colour, sexuality and gender are aspects of humanity we are all born
with
> >
> > Of course this is just speculation with regard to sexuality.
>
>
Then perhaps you could provide me with references to appropriate
peer-reviewed research that puts the matter beyond speculation?
Des
Cynic
>> Yes, knowledge is almost always a good thing
> Almost? When is it not a good thing?
There are many times when knowledge is not a good thing. I prefer that my
children do not have the knowledge of how to make explosives from household
chemicals till they are mature enough to be able to act responsibly. When a
toddler gains the knowledge of how to open the front door, or unlock the
gate to the swimming pool area, it can (and has) led to serious accidents.
Basically, I can sum up by saying that knowledge is a good thing only when
in the hands of people who are able to use the knowledge responsibly. Which
means that they also have to have the additional knowledge as to the
consequences of applying the first knowledge!
--
Cynic
Des
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <9tZw7.82$yL4.436@NewsReader>,
> "Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
>
> > "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > news:B7EA1C039...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> > > In article <p9Yw7.8201$U97.31855@NewsReader>,
> > > "Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > > > > Religion is something people voluntarily choose to believe or not.
> > Race,
> > > > > colour, sexuality and gender are aspects of humanity we are all
born
> > with
> > > >
> > > > Of course this is just speculation with regard to sexuality.
> > >
> > > No it isn't.
> > >
> >
> > Then perhaps you could provide me with references to appropriate
> > peer-reviewed research that puts the matter beyond speculation?
>
>
I imagine you will have studied this research in some detail before arriving
at your very unspeculative and definite conclusion.
So don't leave it too long before revealing it to us - otherwise readers
might get the impression that you've had to go out and find it for the first
time.
Des
Peter H.M. Brooks
learning' may indeed be a dangerous thing, but knowledge, in my view,
never. Of course, information can be dangerous as you may be blackmailed
over it, or killed for it, but that again is different from knowledge.
To my mind the ultimate use of mind is to learn all that there is to
know of mind.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Cynic <none@none> wrote in message
have knowledge of how to make explosives this must include knowing of
the dangers etc. - otherwise you only have a 'little learning' about
them, which is indeed dangerous.
Interesting Ian
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
>
> I think that sensible safeguards could usefully be placed on religion -
> particularly that all religious schools be abolished and it should be
> illegal to attempt religious indoctrination of anyone until they have
> reached adulthood.
>
and its associated beliefs i.e materialism, no life after death, no ultimate
purpose to our lives or the Universe etc etc. Perhaps the best policy in
the face of such questions from children would be to explain to them that
there is a great deal of disagreement, and to present both sides of the
debate.
Ian
Des
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <vL_w7.250$yL4.1824@NewsReader>,
>
OK, so I lied
Des
Cynic
> Maybe that is too restricted a view of what knowledge is. If you truly
> have knowledge of how to make explosives this must include knowing of
> the dangers etc. - otherwise you only have a 'little learning' about
> them, which is indeed dangerous.
Your definition of "knowledge" would be restricted to total knowledge! When
asbestos was first used widely, a person who found out all there was to know
about the substance would still have been guilty of having a 'little
learning' by your definition, because it would not have included the
knowledge that was later discovered about its dangers.
The knowledge of the one aspect without the additional knowledge needed to
avoid problems is indeed worse than knowing nothing at all about the
subject.
Unless you believe that everything there is to know about a particular topic
is already known, then any knowledge possible to acquire today would fit
your definition of a 'little learning'
--
Cynic
Cynic
> "Atheism" doesn't have any "beliefs" - associated or otherwise.
Atheism is IIUC a belief that there is no God.
Agnosticism would perhaps be closer to an absence of any belief regarding
religion.
--
Cynic
Des
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <dE%w7.352$yL4.3147@NewsReader>,
>
Well it was only a white lie to save hurting your feelings!
I didn't have the heart to suggest that someone who expends so much energy
in ridiculing faith based dogma might actually be guilty of the same thing
himself.
Des
Interesting Ian
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <Yw%w7.4479$LD2.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > news:B7EA04109...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> > >
> > > I think that sensible safeguards could usefully be placed on
religion -
> > > particularly that all religious schools be abolished and it should be
> > > illegal to attempt religious indoctrination of anyone until they have
> > > reached adulthood.
> > >
> > Ok, but it should also be made illegal to indoctrinate minors with
atheism
> > and its associated beliefs
>
>
also tend to subscribe to the thesis that we are extinguished when our brain
ceases to function. They also tend to subscribe to the thesis that human
beings do not have an ultimate teleological destiny. They also subscribe to
the thesis that the the Universe has no ultimate purpose, nor do our lives,
and the fact that we find ourselves existing is simply a brute fact. Do you
agree that children should not be indoctrinated into accepting such beliefs?
Ian
Michael W. Lancaster
>> "Michael W. Lancaster" wrote in message
>> It depends on the environment. Theoretically,
>> it positively IS a matter of choice. However,
>> when one grows up in certain introvert and/or
>> isolated communities, that choice disappears.
>> Agreed?
>
> As a survivor of a catholic uprbinging I
> reckon one can escape from brainwashing if
> you really want to :)
*****
True but you'd need to be exposed to other
options which some poor sod in the middle of
Iran or Peru will never be.
Michael W. Lancaster
>> lanc...@deadspam.com
> [religion]
>> It depends on the environment. Theoretically,
>> it positively IS a matter of choice. However,
>> when one grows up in certain introvert and/or
>> isolated communities, that choice disappears.
>> Agreed?
>
> No. The last time I noticed anyone trying to
> argue belief in God from a philosophical basis
> in u.p.a. (using arguments which are demolished
> in the first chapter of most logic textbooks
> but which the doughty atheist philosophers
> failed to recognise) it became clear that
> neither believers nor disbelievers had arrived
> at their attitudes via a logical route. I
> don't think the vast majority of people *do*
> have a choice about this.
*****
Given that the existence OR lack of it of a
supreme entity/entities cannot be proven by any
conventional and conclusive means (hope you
agree on this), logic doesn't play much of a
role. I contend that ultimately neither
atheists nor firm theists can know for certain
that they are right. For this reason I find
those with entrenched religious views very
(potentially) dangerous as they are ready
literally to kill for a reason that has good
chances of not being a reason at all.
Michael W. Lancaster
>> "Michael W. Lancaster" wrote:
>
>> However,
>> when one grows up in certain introvert and/or
>> isolated communities, that choice disappears.
>> Agreed?
>
*****
Well, that's an absolute pooh then! :-)
Michael W. Lancaster
>> "Michael W. Lancaster" <lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>> Vicky and Tony wrote:
>>
>> Gay pride and all that is very alien to me and I
>> find it quite tacky bordering on offensive.
>> However, what homos do in the privacy of their
>> homes is their business.
>
> why? hetrosexual couples are free to court in
> public - and homosexuality being (imho) just as
> natural - why shouldn't they be free to have as
> public a sexuality as anyone else?
*****
Who said otherwise? Incidentally, I find all
overzealous displays of affection in public
unseemly.
>> Provided they are not
>> careless in their 'activity' which causes them
>> to end up getting treatment for one disease or
>> the other on the NHS, I really don't care what
>> they get up to. Now, Tony, why are YOU so
>> concerned about their 'activity'?
>
> reckless homos = bad, reckless hetros = ???
*****
Equally as bad.
> ever been to a gum clinic - plenty of
> non-homosexual women there, should the nhs pay
> for their aliments?
*****
What's a gum-clinic (forgive my ignorance please)?
> what about injuries cause by: sport,
> cigarettes, alcohol, speeding vehicles,
> excessive body weight, lack of sufficent
> exercise, poor diet ... need i go on?
*****
This would dissolve into a wider debate on the
health system and I'm not sure that's within the
remit of this thread.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Cynic <none@none> wrote in message > "Peter H.M. Brooks"
I would argue that, though indeed, the reducio ad absurdam of my point
is that only total knowledge is sufficient, for practical purposes
knowledge, sufficient knowledge [to be usefully vague about it], is a
good thing.
Esquilax
>
> "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote:
> >
> > I think that sensible safeguards could usefully be placed on religion -
> > particularly that all religious schools be abolished and it should be
> > illegal to attempt religious indoctrination of anyone until they have
> > reached adulthood.
> >
> Ok, but it should also be made illegal to indoctrinate minors with atheism
> and its associated beliefs i.e materialism, no life after death, no ultimate
> purpose to our lives or the Universe etc etc.
people aren't indocrinated with atheism (whatever that means) they're
*born* as atheists.
> Perhaps the best policy in
> the face of such questions from children would be to explain to them that
> there is a great deal of disagreement, and to present both sides of the
> debate.
from you ian, thats actually not a bad idea - did god give it to you? :]
however, it would never work as theist parents wouldn't stand for it. even
teaching philosophy is actively lobbied against by the religious establishment
- as they believe it may undermine their teachings.
perhaps religious education is harmless in peaceful societies, allowing it in
northen ireland state schools is completely beyond my comprehension!
phil.
A.Shaw
armageddon, with his finger on the button!
Shaw
Interesting Ian
"Esquilax" <an...@mouse.com> wrote in message
news:9q2hku$n3l$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that sensible safeguards could usefully be placed on
religion -
> > > particularly that all religious schools be abolished and it should be
> > > illegal to attempt religious indoctrination of anyone until they have
> > > reached adulthood.
> > >
> > Ok, but it should also be made illegal to indoctrinate minors with
atheism
> > and its associated beliefs i.e materialism, no life after death, no
ultimate
> > purpose to our lives or the Universe etc etc.
>
> people aren't indocrinated with atheism (whatever that means) they're
> *born* as atheists.
Well, let's not try to complicate things by talking about "God" or atheism.
The point is, did we believe there is a ultimate purpose to our lives and
the Universe as young children? Did we presume that we cease to exist with
the death of our bodies? I remember when I was very young asking my dad
what happens after we die. I presumed that we did go on existing. I still
remember with shock when he said that there's nothing after we die. It was
certainly not my presumption. It was only many years later that I realised
that this reply was bollocks.
Of course people certainly *are* indoctrinated with atheism. Modern atheism
had its origins in the rise of modern science and the mechanistic
materialism on which it was originally based. People in the western world,
and especially educated people, tend to get "brainwashed" into an unthinking
acceptance of the modern common western metaphysic (i.e. materialism,
atheism, the rejection of psi phenomena etc). Thankfully there will always
be individuals like me who are able to resist this insidious "brainwashing".
:-)
>
> > Perhaps the best policy in
> > the face of such questions from children would be to explain to them
that
> > there is a great deal of disagreement, and to present both sides of the
> > debate.
>
> from you ian, thats actually not a bad idea - did god give it to you?
:]
No I thought of it myself. It's just the most sensible policy. The problem
however is that people, whether atheist, theist, or whatever other beliefs
they may hold, will invariable think that they are definitely right, and
that anybody else that disagrees with them is either a complete idiot, or
totally misguided. Take the prospect of "life after death". Most people on
this newsgroup will simply think the very idea is completely *absurd*. On
the other hand there are plenty of people around who claim they *know*
there's an afterlife. Whatever a persons position on such issues they will
more than likely tend to indoctrinate their kids into whatever their belief
system might be i.e atheism with its implications, or religion, or
spiritualism, or whatever.
>
> however, it would never work as theist parents wouldn't stand for it.
And neither would the parents who are atheists, materialists,
psuedo-sceptics or whatever. I find the atheists/materialists reactions
quite breathtaking when one has the temerity to question their beliefs.
They're all so certaimn of themselves. It's so sad! It wouldn't be so bad
if they could produce any arguments to support their position; but they seem
quite unable to, at least not any arguments which have any merit.
Ian
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
>
>Because such social engineering would be just as wrong as a move to allow
>only blond, blue-eyed people to live? Diversity is strength, and I believe
>that diversity should not only include differences in sexuality but also
>mental conditions that are sociopathic in today's society. A future society
>may well require some of its members to have such traits.
Bull. Strength comes from unity. Diversity creates chaos, confusion
and divisiveness. As for diversity in sexuality, I can only guess
what that's supposed to mean. Perhaps you think we should encourage
and promote homosexuality to provide a bit more 'balance'?
Steve Cooper
Well observed. Des. The irony, thought the poor sap can't see it himself,
is that Simon is actually far more dogmatic and fundamentalist than just
about any religious person up to and including the likes of Bin Laden.
It's this sort of dogma that ends up with aircraft being flown into
skyscrapers. Alas, in Simon's rather bonkers world it's all down to the
teachings of the Koran.
Richard Miller
>
> >
> > ............................It is likely
> > that there are more cases of environmental factors changing a person
with
> a
> > genetic predisposition toward homosexuality to engage in heterosexual
> > activity than vice versa.
>
> What is your basis for saying this?
> What does a genetic predisposition to exclusive homosexuality mean and how
> is it inherited?
>
Think about your own sexuality for a moment. Why are you attracted to women?
Do you *choose* to be, or is it just that you *are*?
Now think about the persecution of homosexuals through the ages. The torment
inflicted on them by society and by themselves. And then explain why you are
arguing that someone would put themselves through all of that when they
could just *choose* not to be sexually attracted to people of the same
gender.
Richard Miller
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com>
contains these words:
> Most people on
> this news group will simply think the very idea is completely *absurd*. On
> the other hand there are plenty of people around who claim they *know*
> there's an afterlife.
There is plenty of evidence to show that when we die our bodies
decompose so that only a skeleton is left. There is absolutely no
evidence whatsoever to suggest that any part of us survives. No one has
been able to find the soul or identify the physical location of either
heaven or earth because they are all just fictions.
They have been features of practically every religion and the carrot and
stick of heaven and hell have been useful tools in the social control of
the population since the dawn of history. It has also been used as a
means of extracting money from the gullible, who like to think that they
are so important that they cannot be just like any other animal in
death. It is the best confidence trick ever pulled, and the most
remunerative, as the poor suckers never find out that they have been
taken for a ride and thus cannot warn anyone else.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~
David W-G
~~~~~~~~~~~
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
Well, now that today's Guardian-reading liberals have (almost but not
quite) managed to overturn the accumulated wisdom of centuries, there
are few barriers to entry. If anything, homosexuals are a protected
species. For instance, as a non-black heterosexual, I cannot claim to
be the victim of a 'Hate Crime'.
Des
"Richard Miller" <Richard....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:9q3dp5$4ug$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
> Think about your own sexuality for a moment. Why are you attracted to
women?
> Do you *choose* to be, or is it just that you *are*?
>
> Now think about the persecution of homosexuals through the ages. The
torment
> inflicted on them by society and by themselves. And then explain why you
are
> arguing that someone would put themselves through all of that when they
> could just *choose* not to be sexually attracted to people of the same
> gender.
>
I think you have misread or misinterpreted - I never said that homosexuals
chose their sexuality, nor that heterosexuals chose theirs.
What I said is that it is difficult to argue that exclusive male
homosexuality can be exclusively genetic - therefore there must be some
other factors which are at work. These factors must be either environmental
or developmental - unless someone can suggest other factors. Note that I
didn't include free choice as one of those factors.
The fact that homosexuality is not a free choice is why it is worthwhile
trying to identify those factors. If they turn out to be reasonably simple
(such as exposure to high levels of some artificial agent) then we could at
least consider whether to take action to remove them. After all, this is
precisely what we are doing with respect to low male sperm counts. By doing
this we leave open the widest possible range of option that can then be
freely chosen from.
Des
Michael W. Lancaster
>> "Michael W. Lancaster" <lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Who said otherwise? Incidentally, I find all
>> overzealous displays of affection in public
>> unseemly.
>
*****
:-))))) No, not by a long shot.
Andrew Norman
says...
> > Andrew Norman wrote:
> > The last time I noticed anyone trying to
> > argue belief in God from a philosophical basis
> > in u.p.a. (using arguments which are demolished
> > in the first chapter of most logic textbooks
> > but which the doughty atheist philosophers
> > failed to recognise) it became clear that
> > neither believers nor disbelievers had arrived
> > at their attitudes via a logical route. I
> > don't think the vast majority of people *do*
> > have a choice about this.
>
> *****
> Given that the existence OR lack of it of a
> supreme entity/entities cannot be proven by any
> conventional and conclusive means (hope you
> agree on this), logic doesn't play much of a
> role.
I agree, Spamboy Gardner and his mates do not, though when they are
challenged to provide some sort of logical argument for their firm
belief in the non-existence of God they start gibbering like chimps. I
think it was Gardner who was making epistemological statements while
claiming he "had no epistemology".
> I contend that ultimately neither
> atheists nor firm theists can know for certain
> that they are right.
Again, I agree. I'm in what might be called the weak atheist camp
myself.
> For this reason I find
> those with entrenched religious views very
> (potentially) dangerous as they are ready
> literally to kill for a reason that has good
> chances of not being a reason at all.
Strike out "religious" from that sentence and I agree. All the great
atrocities of history have been caused by people who know exactly how
the world is and what other people ought to believe, and who feel they
have the right (because they have perfect knowledge) to force their
belief systems on others. Gardner may recognise himself in that
description.
--
Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
n...@le.ac.uk || andrew...@le.ac.uk
http://www.le.ac.uk/engineering/nja/
Dr Robin Bignall
<interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Esquilax" <an...@mouse.com> wrote in message
>news:9q2hku$n3l$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
[..]
>> people aren't indocrinated with atheism (whatever that means) they're
>> *born* as atheists.
>
>Well, let's not try to complicate things by talking about "God" or atheism.
>The point is, did we believe there is a ultimate purpose to our lives and
>the Universe as young children?
Of course. That's what we were taught by adults, who thought they were
doing the right thing conventionally, at an age when we could not
think for ourselves and had to accept adult authority. "Catch 'em
young" is the driving force behind most, if not all, religions.
>Did we presume that we cease to exist with
>the death of our bodies?
Same answer.
>I remember when I was very young asking my dad
>what happens after we die. I presumed that we did go on existing. I still
>remember with shock when he said that there's nothing after we die. It was
>certainly not my presumption.
You have not grown out of your gullibility...
>It was only many years later that I realised
>that this reply was bollocks.
>
... and continue to live in a dream world.
You will probably believe these things until the moment you die, at
which point you will go out like a candle. There will be no time for
you to realise "I was wrong all along."
If I am wrong I will be pleased to see you 'on the other side' and
offer abject apologies, but I do not anticipate that event.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Sleepalot
>"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote
>
>> "Atheism" doesn't have any "beliefs" - associated or otherwise.
>
>Atheism is IIUC a belief that there is no God.
Ho hum
Nope. It's the *lack of* theistic belief.
A-theism = without theism
>Agnosticism would perhaps be closer to an absence of any belief regarding
>religion.
Nope. Agnosticism means lacking knowledge.
A-gnosticism = without gnosticism
--
Sleepalot aa #1385 For email, cut the string.
Sleepalot
>> Vicky and Tony wrote:
>>> "Michael W. Lancaster" wrote in message
>
>>> It depends on the environment. Theoretically,
>>> it positively IS a matter of choice. However,
>>> when one grows up in certain introvert and/or
>>> isolated communities, that choice disappears.
>>> Agreed?
>>
>> As a survivor of a catholic uprbinging I
>> reckon one can escape from brainwashing if
>> you really want to :)
>
>*****
>True but you'd need to be exposed to other
>options
or think about what you see and question what you're told
>which some poor sod in the middle of
>Iran or Peru will never be.
>
>Michael
--
Scott
Steve Cooper wrote in message ...
Actually for the hijackers it *was* all down to the teachings in the Koran.
Scott
Sleepalot wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:06:52 +0100, Cynic wrote:
>
>>"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote
>>
>>> "Atheism" doesn't have any "beliefs" - associated or otherwise.
>>
>>Atheism is IIUC a belief that there is no God.
>
>Ho hum
>Nope. It's the *lack of* theistic belief.
Lack of theistic 'faith' (=belief without proof), might be a bit more accurate.
Des
"Scott" <Sco...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1002815415.13656....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Actually for the hijackers it *was* all down to the teachings in the
Koran.
>
Given that the killing of civilians, woman, children and oneself are all
considered as haram in the Koran - how do you arrive at this conclusion?
Des
Interesting Ian
"David Wynne-Griffiths" <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200110110...@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <Ke6x7.9659$LD2.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
> from "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com>
> contains these words:
>
> > Most people on
> > this news group will simply think the very idea is completely *absurd*.
On
> > the other hand there are plenty of people around who claim they *know*
> > there's an afterlife.
>
> There is plenty of evidence to show that when we die our bodies
> decompose so that only a skeleton is left. There is absolutely no
> evidence whatsoever to suggest that any part of us survives.
Well, there certainly is evidence. This cannot be denied and it is quite
wrong of the sceptic to suggest otherwise. Indeed the evidence abounds.
However, what we should *make* of that evidence is quite another thing.
Take a look at http://www.parapsi.com/page10.html for an adumbration of the
various types of evidence.
No one has
> been able to find the soul or identify the physical location of either
> heaven or earth because they are all just fictions.
But of course people who subscribe to the survival hypothesis would not be
surprised that the soul cannot be found. They must after all deny
materialism. The soul, in a similar way to consciousness, is not a thing
that can be seen, heard, touched or smelled. Of course, if we presume the
correctness of materialism, then we could claim that consciousness can be
seen in as much as it is identical to some physical activity within the
brain. But this is precisely the issue; is materialism a correct depiction
of reality?
Now this question is not one which can essentially be settled by science.
Sure, we may discover the neural correlates of certain mental processes, but
it is highly debatable that the experience of love is nothing *but* a
certain series of neurons firing! Deciding this question is essentially a
philosophical issue. It would be difficult to scientifically prove the
existence of an afterlife, and it would be a forlorn hope to suppose that
science can prove that materialism is correct! Indeed, the evidence that we
have, such as trying to explain quantum mechanical phenomena, and
parapsychological phenomena, strongly suggest that materialism is way past
its sell by date.
>
> They have been features of practically every religion and the carrot and
> stick of heaven and hell have been useful tools in the social control of
> the population since the dawn of history.
I have no particular quarrel with you here. It's just that although this
may be true, it is of course quite irrelevant to the survival debate.
It has also been used as a
> means of extracting money from the gullible, who like to think that they
> are so important that they cannot be just like any other animal in
> death.
I would certainly agree that humans do not differ in any substantive way
from other mammals. It seems to me unreasonable to suppose that an
afterlife awaits for human beings but not other mammals. Anyone agree?
disagree?
It is the best confidence trick ever pulled, and the most
> remunerative, as the poor suckers never find out that they have been
> taken for a ride and thus cannot warn anyone else.
Again, assuming this is true, this fact (in as much as it is a fact), cannot
constitute any evidence against an afterlife.
Ian
Interesting Ian
"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2j1bstce2k7i731gh...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:02:42 +0100, "Interesting Ian"
> <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Esquilax" <an...@mouse.com> wrote in message
> >news:9q2hku$n3l$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> [..]
> >> people aren't indocrinated with atheism (whatever that means) they're
> >> *born* as atheists.
> >
> >Well, let's not try to complicate things by talking about "God" or
atheism.
> >The point is, did we believe there is a ultimate purpose to our lives and
> >the Universe as young children?
>
> Of course. That's what we were taught by adults, who thought they were
> doing the right thing conventionally, at an age when we could not
> think for ourselves and had to accept adult authority. "Catch 'em
> young" is the driving force behind most, if not all, religions.
It depends on what your parents believe surely? Do you honestly believe
that most adults in their hearts of hearts believe in an afterlife? The
question I'm asking though is, if it were not for the influence of adults
when they were children, whether people would tend to believe that there is
no ultimate purpose to their lives or the Universe? Certainly they wouldn't
adhere to any organised religion, but I have extreme reservations that the
majority of people would be by nature atheists in the sense that it is
commonly meant ie no afterlife, no ultimate purpose to their lives or the
Universe, a belief in materialism.
>
> >Did we presume that we cease to exist with
> >the death of our bodies?
>
> Same answer.
Same response.
>
> >I remember when I was very young asking my dad
> >what happens after we die. I presumed that we did go on existing. I
still
> >remember with shock when he said that there's nothing after we die. It
was
> >certainly not my presumption.
>
> You have not grown out of your gullibility...
In what sense am I gullible? I believe that both from philosophical
considerations, and from an appraisal of the evidence, that the afterlife
hypothesis is an eminently reasonable one. Even if I am wrong, I am at
least using reasons rather than simply believing something for the hell of
it.
>
> >It was only many years later that I realised
> >that this reply was bollocks.
> >
> ... and continue to live in a dream world.
Do you normally insult people who do not subscribe to everything you
believe? Or am I special?
>
> You will probably believe these things until the moment you die, at
> which point you will go out like a candle. There will be no time for
> you to realise "I was wrong all along."
In all seriousness that does actually concern me. If I am wrong I would
like to know, even if "enlightenment" occurred just 10 seconds before my
termination.
>
> If I am wrong I will be pleased to see you 'on the other side' and
> offer abject apologies, but I do not anticipate that event.
It's not fair, you'll get to know whether you're wrong! Yes I would be
delighted to meet you in the otherworldly realm. Hopefully I might live
until at least 2050. Mind you, I got a bit of a scare last night. I was
coughing and for a couple of seconds for some reason I could hardly breath!
I do not relish the prospect of dying even though I believe in an afterlife!
Ian
Cynic
>>Atheism is IIUC a belief that there is no God.
> Ho hum
> Nope. It's the *lack of* theistic belief.
> A-theism = without theism
OK, semantics. An atheist lacks the belief that God exists.
>>Agnosticism would perhaps be closer to an absence of any belief regarding
>>religion.
> Nope. Agnosticism means lacking knowledge.
> A-gnosticism = without gnosticism
Quite. An agnostic does not know whether God exists or does not exist.
i.e. neither believes nor disbelieves.
--
Cynic
Michael W. Lancaster
>> lanc...@deadspam.com
>>> Andrew Norman wrote:
> [...]
>> I contend that ultimately neither
>> atheists nor firm theists can know for certain
>> that they are right.
>
> Again, I agree. I'm in what might be called
> the weak atheist camp myself.
*****
I'm agnostic.
Michael W. Lancaster
>> Michael W. Lancaster wrote:
>>> Vicky and Tony wrote:
>>
>>> As a survivor of a catholic uprbinging I
>>> reckon one can escape from brainwashing if
>>> you really want to :)
>>
>> options
>
> or think about what you see and question
> what you're told
*****
True but don't you think the ability
independently to think out of a
socially-defined context is in itself
contingent on the level of personal liberty
permitted (or available!) in that society?
Essentially I find it difficult to believe
that some pathetic jihadi in the middle of
Bangladesh whose mother, father, sister,
brother, ox and ass are jihadi and who's
only ever had jihadi books to read and TV
to watch could all of the sudden figure
that mommedism might not be the true
religion worth killing for after all. I
mean, it's easy for us to talk who are
not conditioned to believe anything from
day one, who can avail ourselves of
material espousing all the different
perspectives and who are exposed to divers
influences and options but not all are in
our position. Think of it, would you ever
entertain the notion that the Earth might
be a cube after all or that it might be
possible for something to fall upwards in
stead of downwards?
Dr Robin Bignall
<interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:2j1bstce2k7i731gh...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:02:42 +0100, "Interesting Ian"
>> <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Esquilax" <an...@mouse.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9q2hku$n3l$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>> [..]
>> >> people aren't indocrinated with atheism (whatever that means) they're
>> >> *born* as atheists.
>> >
>> >Well, let's not try to complicate things by talking about "God" or
>atheism.
>> >The point is, did we believe there is a ultimate purpose to our lives and
>> >the Universe as young children?
>>
>> Of course. That's what we were taught by adults, who thought they were
>> doing the right thing conventionally, at an age when we could not
>> think for ourselves and had to accept adult authority. "Catch 'em
>> young" is the driving force behind most, if not all, religions.
>
>It depends on what your parents believe surely?
Not necessarily, nearly 60 years ago. My parents were not churchgoers
but it was conventional for people who were not very educated to
believe in god, or, at least, make like they did. It would not have
looked right to have one's kid pooh-poohing such ideas. Kids were
considered precocious brats if they could read when they started
school, in my neighbourhood.
>Do you honestly believe
>that most adults in their hearts of hearts believe in an afterlife?
Again, same answer. To get a feeling of how it was to grow up in the
1940s listen to some of Alan Bennet's records. Not 'Talking Heads'.
the other famous one.
>The
>question I'm asking though is, if it were not for the influence of adults
>when they were children, whether people would tend to believe that there is
>no ultimate purpose to their lives or the Universe? Certainly they wouldn't
>adhere to any organised religion, but I have extreme reservations that the
>majority of people would be by nature atheists in the sense that it is
>commonly meant ie no afterlife, no ultimate purpose to their lives or the
>Universe, a belief in materialism.
I don't believe that there's no purpose to life. The purpose is what I
make it, not what I imagine some mythical being to make it.
I get confused by the word 'materialism' which means to me an excess
belief in money and what it buys. Where we differ is that I think,
given time, science will answer all of your questions. You do not
believe that. Fair enough: each to his own. But science has really
only been around for 6 or 7 hundred years, and theology for thousands.
Science, unlike gods, cannot produce miracles overnight.
>>
>> >Did we presume that we cease to exist with
>> >the death of our bodies?
>>
>> Same answer.
>
>Same response.
>>
>> >I remember when I was very young asking my dad
>> >what happens after we die. I presumed that we did go on existing. I
>still
>> >remember with shock when he said that there's nothing after we die. It
>was
>> >certainly not my presumption.
>>
>> You have not grown out of your gullibility...
>
>In what sense am I gullible? I believe that both from philosophical
>considerations, and from an appraisal of the evidence, that the afterlife
>hypothesis is an eminently reasonable one. Even if I am wrong, I am at
>least using reasons rather than simply believing something for the hell of
>it.
It sounded as though you learned to believe in those things when you
were young, and when your dad told you they were not true, you were so
disconcerted that you've believed in them come what may, ever since.
If I do you an injustice, I apologise, for I think you are sincere in
what you think you believe.
>>
>> >It was only many years later that I realised
>> >that this reply was bollocks.
>> >
>> ... and continue to live in a dream world.
>
>Do you normally insult people who do not subscribe to everything you
>believe? Or am I special?
Actually, no, and yes, you are special. Not to insult, just special,
as are most thinking people. I still think you're wrong,
>>
>> You will probably believe these things until the moment you die, at
>> which point you will go out like a candle. There will be no time for
>> you to realise "I was wrong all along."
>
>In all seriousness that does actually concern me. If I am wrong I would
>like to know, even if "enlightenment" occurred just 10 seconds before my
>termination.
It doesn't bother me at all. Right or wrong, the outcome will be the
same.
>>
>> If I am wrong I will be pleased to see you 'on the other side' and
>> offer abject apologies, but I do not anticipate that event.
>
>It's not fair, you'll get to know whether you're wrong!
Of course it's fair. You'll get to know whether you're right, and will
be able to give me an angelic sneer if you are.
>Yes I would be
>delighted to meet you in the otherworldly realm. Hopefully I might live
>until at least 2050.
Better take your chance while you're here. I won't last that long.
>Mind you, I got a bit of a scare last night. I was
>coughing and for a couple of seconds for some reason I could hardly breath!
>I do not relish the prospect of dying even though I believe in an afterlife!
>
Why not? If you're right. you'll continue to exist, one way or
another.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Esquilax
> Given that the existence OR lack of it of a
> supreme entity/entities cannot be proven by any
> conventional and conclusive means (hope you
> agree on this), logic doesn't play much of a role.
actually it is possible to prove the existance of a "god" if its attributes
were sufficiently well defined.
lets suppose we stick with the traditional "god is a sentient being that
is the creator of our universe". as its not logically impossible for such
a being to exist, theres no reason why one (if it did exist) shouldn't
make an appearence on earth to drum up a few worshippers - after all
christianisty teaches that this has already happened once!
again, if that happened its entirely possible that being could convince
the relevant scientists that it was indeed the creator of our universe
and hence "god" under our definition.
but where would that leave us? even if such a being offered us a life after
death in return for obedience to its will regarding moral matters (as seems
to be the major pre-occupation with world religion) does that make it "right"
to worship it? what about personal moral responsibility? does religion define
morality purely in terms of fear of punishment from an arbitary authority?
phil.
Steve Cooper
Steve Cooper
So do you that that this was the case then? Are the hijackers correct?
>
>
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>"Andrew Norman" <n...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Given that the existence OR lack of it of a
>> supreme entity/entities cannot be proven by any
>> conventional and conclusive means (hope you
>> agree on this), logic doesn't play much of a role.
>
>actually it is possible to prove the existance of a "god" if its attributes
>were sufficiently well defined.
>
>lets suppose we stick with the traditional "god is a sentient being that
>is the creator of our universe". as its not logically impossible for such
>a being to exist, theres no reason why one (if it did exist) shouldn't
>make an appearence on earth to drum up a few worshippers - after all
>christianisty teaches that this has already happened once!
>
Isn't that anthropomorphising? Why should anything that's powerful
enough to create a universe care whether or not it is worshipped by
those it creates?
>again, if that happened its entirely possible that being could convince
>the relevant scientists that it was indeed the creator of our universe
>and hence "god" under our definition.
>
Why would it bother?
>but where would that leave us? even if such a being offered us a life after
>death in return for obedience to its will regarding moral matters
What morality would such a being have? Not to screw females of its
type before marriage? Not to change the laws of physics without
telling us?
>(as seems
>to be the major pre-occupation with world religion) does that make it "right"
>to worship it?
As you are proving by asking questions, the whole idea of religion
falls apart when you look at it logically. The whole idea of some
being watching over each and every one of us is somewhat childish.
Either that, or the thing has gone sadistically insane.
>what about personal moral responsibility?
It's as you say, personal. Some people do not have any without
religion; others still do not have any even with religion.
>does religion define
>morality purely in terms of fear of punishment from an arbitary authority?
>
It's not arbitrary, as anyone caught in the Inquisition or the witch
trials would know. It is very directed: believe in god and obey me,
his spokesperson on Earth, or burn in hell, and we'll send you on your
way PDQ, you heretic, blasphemer, etc. etc.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
David Wynne-Griffiths
> Again, assuming this is true, this fact (in as much as it is a fact), cannot
> constitute any evidence against an afterlife.
Can anyone can produce any credible evidence to show that there is an
after life? As far as I am aware no one has been able to do so in the
whole of recorded history and through many thousands of religions.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> Isn't that anthropomorphising? Why should anything that's powerful
> enough to create a universe care whether or not it is worshipped by
> those it creates?
Good point! It has always seemed to me to be absurd to think that a
real God would want to be worshipped or that it would take an interest
in individuals. Worship, however, is essential to the priesthood for
without it they have no purpose and no income.
Michael W. Lancaster
>> "Sleepalot" <sle...@carlisle98.freeserve.stringco.uk> wrote
>
>
>>> Agnosticism would perhaps be closer to an
>>> absence of any belief regarding religion.
>
>> Nope. Agnosticism means lacking knowledge.
>> A-gnosticism = without gnosticism
>
> Quite. An agnostic does not know whether
> God exists or does not exist. i.e. neither
> believes nor disbelieves.
*****
Not quite. We are not sure whether a
supreme being(s) exists or not but, even if
he/she/it/they does, we think such a being(s)
is unknowable by virtue of its greatness.
Esquilax
is it logically possible to neither believe or dis-believe in a proposition?
(given that "god" *must* either exist or not exist - theres no third state).
surely, given any proposition, you must choose to either accept it or reject it
even if you can not calculate the "correct" answer - so presumably there are
two types of agnostics:
1) don't know and believe (which would make them "diests" i guess), and
2) don't know and dis-believe (which would make them weak / soft atheists).
phil.
Scott
Des wrote in message <6Rjx7.13039$U97.61619@NewsReader>...
The koran like the bible is open to interpretation. They belonged to a
fundamentalist cult with its own particular interpretation.
Scott
That what was the case? Haven't I just implied that I think the hijackers
believed they were acting in accordance with the instructions in the Koran?
>Are the hijackers correct?
Correct in what? I expect that the Koran is as ambiguous as the bible and can
inspire just as many cults and interpretations.
Steve Cooper
Yes. And that's not the same as saying they were acting in accordance with
its teachings.
>
> >Are the hijackers correct?
>
> Correct in what? I expect that the Koran is as ambiguous as the bible and
can
> inspire just as many cults and interpretations.
So you don't have a firm view on whether or not the Koran recommends the
murder of women and children in pursuit of a holy war?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> .
>
> is it logically possible to neither believe or dis-believe in a
proposition?
> (given that "god" *must* either exist or not exist - theres no third
state).
>
wig"?
--
High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the
bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. It has been
found out. I must say that it was high time, for all authority is quite
degrading. It degrades those who exercise it, and degrades those over
whom it is exercised.
Oscar Wilde
Sleepalot
>> Sleepalot wrote:
>>> Michael W. Lancaster wrote:
>>>> Vicky and Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a survivor of a catholic uprbinging I
>>>> reckon one can escape from brainwashing if
>>>> you really want to :)
>>>
>>> True but you'd need to be exposed to other
>>> options
>>
>> or think about what you see and question
>> what you're told
>
>*****
>True but don't you think the ability
>independently to think out of a
>socially-defined context is in itself
>contingent on the level of personal liberty
>permitted (or available!) in that society?
No. People don't live in a solely socially-defined context.
They live in the world; a nature-defined context (iyswim).
>Essentially I find it difficult to believe
>that some pathetic jihadi in the middle of
>Bangladesh whose mother, father, sister,
>brother, ox and ass are jihadi and who's
>only ever had jihadi books to read and TV
>to watch could all of the sudden figure
>that mommedism might not be the true
>religion worth killing for after all.
"An earthquake has knocked my house down. Why has
Allah done this to me ?"
>I mean, it's easy for us to talk who are
>not conditioned to believe anything from
>day one,
No-one is conditioned to believe anything from day one.
>who can avail ourselves of material espousing all the
>different perspectives and who are exposed to divers
>influences and options but not all are in
>our position. Think of it, would you ever
>entertain the notion that the Earth might
>be a cube after all or that it might be
>possible for something to fall upwards in
>stead of downwards?
Done that.
Sleepalot
or a bit less...
Belief with proof is not belief, it's knowledge.
Sleepalot
>"Sleepalot" <sle...@carlisle98.freeserve.stringco.uk> wrote
>
>>>Atheism is IIUC a belief that there is no God.
>
>> Ho hum
>> Nope. It's the *lack of* theistic belief.
>> A-theism = without theism
>
>OK, semantics.
It's important - well, to me, anyway.
If you define Atheism in terms of "God" belief,
you are (at least) implying that atheism is false.
>An atheist lacks the belief that God exists.
An atheist lacks whatever belief it is that theists have.
(Theists exist, "God" doesn't.)
>>>Agnosticism would perhaps be closer to an absence of any belief regarding
>>>religion.
>
>> Nope. Agnosticism means lacking knowledge.
>> A-gnosticism = without gnosticism
>
>Quite. An agnostic does not know whether God exists or does not exist.
>i.e. neither believes nor disbelieves.
Don't confuse knowledge and belief - they are different things.
It's possible to be an agnostic atheist or an
agnostic theist.
Cynic
> is it logically possible to neither believe or dis-believe in a
proposition?
> (given that "god" *must* either exist or not exist - theres no third
state).
The probability of either state being the case is however not a binary
proposition.
If I state that I have just tossed a coin but not looked at it, and ask you
to believe that it has come up "heads", would you believe or disbelieve?
Why should you need to believe or not - if you feel that either proposition
is equally likely, it would be better for you to have no belief either way.
--
Cynic
Cynic
> Don't confuse knowledge and belief - they are different things.
> It's possible to be an agnostic atheist or an
> agnostic theist.
Well perhaps. Personally I see a contradiction in holding a belief whilst
admitting having no knowledge to support that belief. But then I'm not a
theist!
--
Cynic
Esquilax
> > proposition?
> > (given that "god" *must* either exist or not exist - theres no third
> > state).
> >
> What is the truth value of the proposition: "The King of France wears a
> wig"?
depends how you parse it:
1) the (current) king wears a wig = false (no current king exists)
2) the king (traditionally) wears a wig = true (historical record)
sorry, wasn't precise enough in the post - i was trying to make the
point that current existance of any entity is either true or false (ie it
exists or it doesn't) and so if you are compelled to state a belief (or
act in a manner that would indicate your belief - which is the political
reality of being human) then in effect you must either be a believer or
dis-believer. from that viewpoint agnostics are effectively "deists"
or "weak atheists".
phil.
Esquilax
> "Esquilax" <an...@mouse.com> wrote:
>
> > is it logically possible to neither believe or dis-believe in a proposition?
> > (given that "god" *must* either exist or not exist - theres no third state).
>
> Not a fan of Nietzsche, then?
not a fan of "argument from authority" either! :]
phil.
Andrew Norman
says...
> "Andrew Norman" <n...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Given that the existence OR lack of it of a
> > supreme entity/entities cannot be proven by any
> > conventional and conclusive means (hope you
> > agree on this), logic doesn't play much of a role.
I didn't write this, Michael Lancaster did, though I agree with it.
> actually it is possible to prove the existance of a "god" if its attributes
> were sufficiently well defined.
>
> lets suppose we stick with the traditional "god is a sentient being that
> is the creator of our universe". as its not logically impossible for such
> a being to exist, theres no reason why one (if it did exist) shouldn't
> make an appearence on earth to drum up a few worshippers - after all
> christianisty teaches that this has already happened once!
>
> again, if that happened its entirely possible that being could convince
> the relevant scientists that it was indeed the creator of our universe
> and hence "god" under our definition.
Which is why I'm a weak atheist. Anyone who accepts scientific method
has to accept that evidence may arise to overturn their model of the
universe. If you can provide evidence to disprove atomic theory (it
would have to be pretty dramatic and convincing evidence), then atoms go
in the rubbish bin with the ether and phlogiston. If Jehovah were to
appear with a host of angels with flaming swords and offer convincing
evidence that he was the creator god of the bible, I'd have to believe
in him. I think the possibility of either thing happening is
vanishingly small, which is why I believe in atoms and don't believe in
God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (strong atheists
seem to believe that it is), however it's usually enough to give a
pretty good clue.
> but where would that leave us? even if such a being offered us a life after
> death in return for obedience to its will regarding moral matters (as seems
> to be the major pre-occupation with world religion) does that make it "right"
> to worship it? what about personal moral responsibility? does religion define
> morality purely in terms of fear of punishment from an arbitary authority?
What do you mean by worship? We're back to Pascal's wager with the
first question. The second one (personal moral responsibility, free
will and morality deriving from fear of punishment or the wish to please
God) isn't something which even the different brands of Christianity
have a single answer for, let alone other religions. I know my many
Christian friends don't adopt their moral beliefs from fear of
punishment.
--
Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
n...@le.ac.uk || andrew...@le.ac.uk
http://www.le.ac.uk/engineering/nja/
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Andrew Norman <n...@le.ac.uk> contains these words:
> Which is why I'm a weak atheist. Anyone who accepts scientific method
> has to accept that evidence may arise to overturn their model of the
> universe. If you can provide evidence to disprove atomic theory (it
> would have to be pretty dramatic and convincing evidence), then atoms go
> in the rubbish bin with the ether and phlogiston. If Jehovah were to
> appear with a host of angels with flaming swords and offer convincing
> evidence that he was the creator god of the bible, I'd have to believe
> in him. I think the possibility of either thing happening is
> vanishingly small, which is why I believe in atoms and don't believe in
> God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (strong atheists
> seem to believe that it is), however it's usually enough to give a
> pretty good clue.
Man has been inventing gods for probably at least 100,000 years and in
that period no god has ever provided any empirical evidence of its
existence. Gods are no more than human constructs but childhood
indoctrination leaves some people wanting to bet both ways just in case
they got it wrong. There is no god and there never was a god. So be
brave, stand up to your convictions and throw away such silly
superstitions!
Interesting Ian
"David Wynne-Griffiths" <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200110121...@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <MPG.1630e717a...@news.le.ac.uk>
> from Andrew Norman <n...@le.ac.uk> contains these words:
>
> > Which is why I'm a weak atheist. Anyone who accepts scientific method
> > has to accept that evidence may arise to overturn their model of the
> > universe. If you can provide evidence to disprove atomic theory (it
> > would have to be pretty dramatic and convincing evidence), then atoms go
> > in the rubbish bin with the ether and phlogiston. If Jehovah were to
> > appear with a host of angels with flaming swords and offer convincing
> > evidence that he was the creator god of the bible, I'd have to believe
> > in him. I think the possibility of either thing happening is
> > vanishingly small, which is why I believe in atoms and don't believe in
> > God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (strong atheists
> > seem to believe that it is), however it's usually enough to give a
> > pretty good clue.
>
> Man has been inventing gods for probably at least 100,000 years and in
> that period no god has ever provided any empirical evidence of its
> existence.
What would the world be like if there were a "God"? What sort of empirical
data would constitute evidence? Or is it the case that any possible
conceivable state of affairs, regardless of how one defines "God", be in
complete accordance with atheism?
Gods are no more than human constructs but childhood
> indoctrination leaves some people wanting to bet both ways just in case
> they got it wrong. There is no god and there never was a god. So be
> brave, stand up to your convictions and throw away such silly
> superstitions!
So you think it is more rational to be an atheist? No atheist has ever
convinced me so. Normally they only attack ridiculous ideas of "God".
Ian
Michael W. Lancaster
>> Michael W. Lancaster wrote:
>
>>> or think about what you see and question
>>> what you're told
>>
>> independently to think out of a
>> socially-defined context is in itself
>> contingent on the level of personal liberty
>> permitted (or available!) in that society?
>
> No. People don't live in a solely
> socially-defined context. They live in the
> world; a nature-defined context (iyswim).
*****
Try telling that some chap in rural central
Iran--if you can reach him.
Dr Robin Bignall
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <ObGx7.3814$fo2.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
[..]
>> So you think it is more rational to be an atheist?
>
>I presume that was rhetorical.
>
>I think what David just tried to explain to you is that even a cursory
>examination of the religion phenomenon rapidly demonstrates its artificial
>construction. That is, not only is it silly bollocks, but it is carefully
>manufactured silly bollocks with mankind's sticky fingerprints all over it.
>An analysis of how religion is carefully put together and when necessary
>radically changed to ensure it remains undetectable by science and
>unamenable to reason is itself proof that it is the most ridiculous
>claptrap. An examination of the pathology of this disorder demonstrates it
>is artificial and bogus. You can see the wires and the props behind the
>facade.
>
I can't see why most children, let alone adults, can't see through it
as I did when I was about 6. It defies rational thought.
Funnily enough, Ian probably thinks that I'm some sort of messianic
atheist, having had a go at him on a couple of occasions, but until I
discovered this group I'd not discussed the topic since I was in my
early 20s. It has simply never been a subject worth spending time on.
My wife and ex-wife are atheists, my children have not been
indoctrinated, but since they are both adults they can make their own
minds up. I just never got into a situation where the topic came up.
Judging by the applause from the audience in 'Any Questions' tonight,
when Polly Toynbee made her dislike of *all* religion known, maybe a
lot more people than I thought are antagonistic towards it,
particularly the fundamental varieties of *any* religion, which appear
to want to take us 'forward' to the sixth century.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Interesting Ian
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B7ED00C8...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> In article <ObGx7.3814$fo2.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
You presume incorrectly.
>
> I think what David just tried to explain to you is that even a cursory
> examination of the religion phenomenon rapidly demonstrates its artificial
> construction.
I wasn't talking about religion. I was talking about an appropriately
defined "God".
Ian
Interesting Ian
"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2ulestseino2f2ms2...@4ax.com...
I have an antagonism towards organised religion myself. The thing is though
is that I wasn't talking about religion. I was wanting to know why belief
in an appropriately defined "God" is irrational. I find it amazing that you
understood more at the age of 6 than some of the most intelligent human
beings in history who have subscribed to the existence of an appropriately
defined "God". What do you know that they didn't?
Ian
David Wynne-Griffiths
> So you think it is more rational to be an atheist? No atheist has ever
> convinced me so. Normally they only attack ridiculous ideas of "God".
Certainly more rational than believing in a mish mash of myth and fairy
stories such as Christianity.