turquoiseb: > And as for the second point, I hold that > everything in the world is very much real... > "Materialism is "a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism > > Nihilism: > > > > 1. The rejection of all religious and moral principles, > > often in the belief that life is meaningless. > > > > 2. Extreme skepticism, according to which nothing in > > the world has a real existence. > > Neither of which describes me or what I believe in > the least. I do reject the absolute *validity* of > any "religious or moral principles," in the sense > that all of them are merely made up by human beings > and thus have nothing of the absolute about them, > but I "reject" no traditional religious principles > except *for myself*. I reserve the right to make up > my own such principles, and then to abide by them > to the best of my ability. Others are free do the > same with any principles they choose. Just don't try > to impose your principles on me unless they *also* > happen to be the law of the land we live in. :-) > > And as for the second point, I hold that everything > in the world is very much real, so that doesn't apply. > > So I hold to my statement in the Subject line. It was > inspired by re-watching Ridley Scott's "Kingdom Of > Heaven" last night. I came away from the experience > thoroughly disgusted by the things done in the name > of religion during the Crusades. And in that period, > the actions of the Muslims were FAR more ethical > than those of the so-called Christians. They were > very much the "wronged parties," and victims of > religious aggression. > > None of this would have happened if religious beliefs > had just been accorded the statues they deserve, which > is that of a hobby. Many of the conflicts in the Middle > East and in other areas of the world today would be moot > if religion were assumed to be nothing more than a hobby. > It's when people claim it's more that the trouble starts. > > I've always loved an insight I got when reading a trans- > lation of a Japanese history book describing the first > arrival of Europeans to their islands. The chapter was > titled "The Invasion Of The Barbarians," and the text > made it perfectly clear why. In feudal Japan at that > time (as now), the thing looked upon as the most taste- > less, tactless, and low-vibe thing one could possibly > do was to try to evangelize or try to sell one's religion > to another person. It just wasn't done. > > So the missionaries arrived, found to their surprise > that most Japanese weren't the least bit interested in > the belief system they were selling, so they stopped > selling and actually started imposing. There are docu- > mented cases of Catholic priests with their cadre of > troops threatening to kill all the members of villages > if they didn't convert, and then carrying through on > that threat. > > Nobody would ever have done that if believing in Jeezus > had been thought of as being on the same level as a > good hobby. You just don't kill someone when they don't > find your fascination with your hobby as fascinating as > you find it. But humans have a multi-century history > of killing those who don't buy into their religion. >
