Re: Religious freedom
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:49:52 -0700, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink unicorns. Stupid-face. They're not pink, they're invisible. How would you know they're pink when you can't see them? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
At 12:17 PM Saturday 9/2/2006, William T Goodall wrote: You are very confused. Perhaps you should seek therapy to get your beliefs to accord more closely with reality. Interesting. Why do you suppose you feel that way? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 0:53, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006, at 10:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 2 Sep 2006 at 21:57, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >> > >> On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are > >>> not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. > >>> > >> > >> "Andrew says, so it must be so" isn't a form of argument that other > >> people will necessarily find very convincing. > > > > I've explained why. > > Perhaps if you explained it again with actual arguments and evidence? > The kind of stuff that people who aren't you might find credible :-> Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a form of organised crime (especially in America). The sort of evidence that any person who doesn't blind themselves to the evidence can clearly see there are differences, starting with the very definition of a cult vs a religion. Given you have stated you cannot see anything past "religion is bad", of course you cannot understand the difference, and futher time wasted gathering evidence isn't going to convince you. Here's just the best link again: http://www.xenu.net And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's Christians and Jews. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 2 Sep 2006 at 20:04, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > ... > > You won't actually get many Rabbis willing to hold forth on pure > ... > > That's why I brought up many-words/multiverse - in that, we are not > > unique snowflakes at all. There are at "alpha" versions of you, for > > example, if they're true. I'm not going to get into transinfinites, > > but if it's true then we're NOT unique, NOT unusual. > ... > > Andrew-- > > Going with this whole Jewish thing, I'm thinking you may > mean "aleph". : ) > > As in: "There are at least aleph-null versions of you, for > example, if that's true." On do I have any idea what you > were trying to say? Bleck, yes, aleph. Heh. As a further note, it's also somewhat explored in Ian Macleod's _Learning the World_, but I consider it quite clumsy in comparison. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 11:49PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink unicorns. Perhaps the pink unicorn is actually the elephant in the room that nobody talks about? Perhaps a pink elephant. Or an elephantine unicorn? Or some strange hybrid of unicorn and elephant? Perhaps an indeterminate number of them are performing a gavotte on the head of a pin? After all, nobody can prove a negative and it's all just a theory anyway... Third Policeman Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Andrew Crystall wrote: ... You won't actually get many Rabbis willing to hold forth on pure ... That's why I brought up many-words/multiverse - in that, we are not unique snowflakes at all. There are at "alpha" versions of you, for example, if they're true. I'm not going to get into transinfinites, but if it's true then we're NOT unique, NOT unusual. ... Andrew-- Going with this whole Jewish thing, I'm thinking you may mean "aleph". : ) As in: "There are at least aleph-null versions of you, for example, if that's true." On do I have any idea what you were trying to say? ---David Cantor got to name them, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 10:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006 at 21:57, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. "Andrew says, so it must be so" isn't a form of argument that other people will necessarily find very convincing. I've explained why. Perhaps if you explained it again with actual arguments and evidence? The kind of stuff that people who aren't you might find credible :-> -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink unicorns. Stupid-face. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Richard Baker > Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 1:29 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design > This being the case, it seems to me that these religions imply that > humanity was supposed or intended to exist in the universe. Well, if Wheeler is right, that's by definition because the universe requires a primitive act of registration. :-) Other intelligent beings would produce different interfaces. All one really has to do is take the original intent of the passage in Genesis and extend it. > I can't help but say that it looks to me like religious people > struggling to hold onto vague and metaphorical versions of ideas > whose exact and literal versions have been shown to be extremely > unlikely indeed by the progress of science. But, the literal version, at least within the Judaic-Christian tradition, has never been intended to hold statements like "man was made in the image of God" to imply a God with two eyes, a nose, a mouth, two arms and two legs. God, by definition, was transcendent. Let me give two good examples of this in Hebrew Scriptures: the first is the anathema of Israel creating an idol of Yahweh. The second is the mockery of those who have a concrete understanding of God in Isaiah. Going to the general topic, I'd be very surprised if the Pope would embrace intelligent design. It would undo over 100 years of Catholic teaching on the subject of evolution. It would also contradict a very recent official article in the Vatican newspaper which regarded a cardinal's support of intelligent design as "unfortunate." Cardinals, on occasion, speak out on their own. Vatican officials do not publish in the official Vatican newspaper on their own. The latter is usually considered policy. Finally, only one papal pronouncement has been declared infallible since the existence of papal infallibility was declared at Vatican I, in the 19th century. The rest of the statements didn't meet the requirements. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 21:57, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are > > not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. > > > > "Andrew says, so it must be so" isn't a form of argument that other > people will necessarily find very convincing. I've explained why. You could read it if you wanted to, but you're more interested in your crusade. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 2 Sep 2006 at 19:28, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > "inevitable" is a word which is loaded in itself, and as to > > "outcome", I don't think we're quite at the end of the river yet. > > This being the case, it seems to me that these religions imply that > humanity was supposed or intended to exist in the universe. You won't actually get many Rabbis willing to hold forth on pure theoreticals like that, just like not many will hold forth on life- after-death. Essentially, though, Judaism is not threatened if Aliens exist, even intelligent ones. > On the other hand, although one might make the case for certain > traits such as intelligence or bipedalism being likely to arise, it's > vanishingly unlikely that humanity would appear in its current form > if evolution had had even a very slightly different starting point or > been subject to very slightly different perturbations along the way. That's why I brought up many-words/multiverse - in that, we are not unique snowflakes at all. There are at "alpha" versions of you, for example, if they're true. I'm not going to get into transinfinites, but if it's true then we're NOT unique, NOT unusual. I refer you to John Brunner, _The Infinitive of Go_ > the word "inevitable". Which then further suggests the question: why > would God bother with this rather elaborate scheme rather than > creating humans directly? We're getting into perceptions now. Okay, if people KNEW they'd been created then it's change our perspective of G-d. If we didn't know, well, then...I'm going to refer you to Brin's _Heavens Reach_. How does the quote go..something like.. "All the simulations have been run and discarded, what we call existance is merely an illusion of elapsed time". > I can't help but say that it looks to me like religious people > struggling to hold onto vague and metaphorical versions of ideas > whose exact and literal versions have been shown to be extremely > unlikely indeed by the progress of science. Maybe and maybe not. But please don't confuse Christianity and Judaism's approach to science. Gallelo is the perfect example. He had years of trouble with - was called a Heretic by - the Catholics for advocating Copernician theory (although calling the Pope a simpleton in print did't help either). The Jewish astronmers of the day were not convinced by Copernician theory either, but there was no threat to their religious views - the important observations of the sky for the Jewish religion would not change if the idea of heliocentric movement was true. What mattered was not scientific theory but the specified observations. Time after time, where a Christian finds historical views have changed within the Church, there has simply not been a conflict in the first place for the Jews. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. "Andrew says, so it must be so" isn't a form of argument that other people will necessarily find very convincing. In the nursery Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Religious freedom
TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. And around and around and around goes this topic All things get said whether left, right, or wrong. We are the children of the Goddess called Eris Whose mysteries you'll learn if you read this for long. Da Ref http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 0:27, Ritu wrote: > > Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* > > certainly am not > > > a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid > > foundations. > > > > No, you do not. Your principles have no backing beyond what you feel. > > Two things: > > How would you know? > And, how about not just what a person feels but also what s/he thinks? It's an accusation, and one WTG has not been able to refute. feels/thinks/whatever - their belief patterns. > > Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of > > say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. > > Umm, why does one have to follow *anyone* to the letter? Why can't one > just pick and choose? After all, no one is infallible, believer, > agnostic or atheist, so why should people act as the others *are* > infallible and obviously know better? Someone can, it's not important to the argument I was making. What is important is the picking and chosing of groups selectively into catagories based on personal bias. > Which is my basic problem with religion - God never came up to me and > told me what She wanted me to do. Failing that, I can conceive of no > reason why somebody else's interpretation of what She might or might not > want should matter to me. Then that's your call and it's fine, as long as you don't try and tell me that your way is the one way. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 16:08, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:17, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >>> No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - > >>> there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from > >>> Scientology to Communism and so on. > >> Scientology is a religion. Communism is a quasi-religion. > > > > Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a > > UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a > > religion. > > Andrew-- > > If I could step in here, I think this is part of > William's point. From the outside, it's hard to > tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks its > members from another. : ) Well, I suggest you take that up with your government then. Because "teaches nonsense and milks it members" is a perfect decription of what THEY do. No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 19:46, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006, at 6:53PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > Militant forms of zealotry - militant atheism among them - and free > > goverment are incompatible by the base principle, and I for one > > happen to take a stand against your intollerence and biggotry. > > > > So you're intolerant of my views then? What views? That people should not have the right to have their own views? Opposing your view is tollerant, not intollerant. > And I gather from your preceding rants that you're bigoted as well. Nope, not at all. Opposing bigotry is not bigotry, it's standing up against you and your militants forcing them into recanting their beliefs. > So I can conclude you are also a hypocrite... I can conclude you can't even understand logic 101, let alone realise that you're just as much of a problem to todays society as any member of al-quaeda, the war you are openly calling for would create a police state beyond even most radical Muslem's imaginations, and based on entirely relative morals. You're dangerous like any fanatic, unable to even comprehend any viewpoint not the same as your own and unable to comprehend why other people consider you a danger to yourself and others, especially in the democracy you must crush for your goals to be realised. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:17, William T Goodall wrote: No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from Scientology to Communism and so on. Scientology is a religion. Communism is a quasi-religion. Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a religion. Andrew-- If I could step in here, I think this is part of William's point. From the outside, it's hard to tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks its members from another. : ) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Rich said: > > Have you read Steinbeck's _St. Katherine_? :) > > No, I haven't. I'll look out for it. Its a short story and the collection is called _The Red Pony_. A lot of good stories in there. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Ritu said: Have you read Steinbeck's _St. Katherine_? :) No, I haven't. I'll look out for it. On a related note, Vishnu's incarnations, though mostly meant to sort out the problems of the bipedals [though not just humans], take the form of a fish, a tortoise, a boar, man-lion hybrid etc. And one of Shiva's incarnation was in the form of a monkey, and he was a prophet to the monkeys. I didn't know that last part, which is quite cute. But of course I knew that some other religions are less humano-centric. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Rich wrote: > Well, it seems to me that religious people talk quite a lot about > "human dignity" and humanity being made in the image of God in some > sense, and it seems that in the Islamic/Christian/Jewish > religion God > has some kind of special interest in humans (or perhaps He is also > supposed to send prophets and messiahs to chimpanzees and squid and > so forth...) Have you read Steinbeck's _St. Katherine_? :) On a related note, Vishnu's incarnations, though mostly meant to sort out the problems of the bipedals [though not just humans], take the form of a fish, a tortoise, a boar, man-lion hybrid etc. And one of Shiva's incarnation was in the form of a monkey, and he was a prophet to the monkeys. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
Andrew Crystall wrote: > > Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* > certainly am not > > a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid > foundations. > > No, you do not. Your principles have no backing beyond what you feel. Two things: How would you know? And, how about not just what a person feels but also what s/he thinks? > Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of > say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. Umm, why does one have to follow *anyone* to the letter? Why can't one just pick and choose? After all, no one is infallible, believer, agnostic or atheist, so why should people act as the others *are* infallible and obviously know better? Which is my basic problem with religion - God never came up to me and told me what She wanted me to do. Failing that, I can conceive of no reason why somebody else's interpretation of what She might or might not want should matter to me. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 6:53PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Militant forms of zealotry - militant atheism among them - and free goverment are incompatible by the base principle, and I for one happen to take a stand against your intollerence and biggotry. So you're intolerant of my views then? And I gather from your preceding rants that you're bigoted as well. So I can conclude you are also a hypocrite... QED Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Andrew said: "inevitable" is a word which is loaded in itself, and as to "outcome", I don't think we're quite at the end of the river yet. Well, it seems to me that religious people talk quite a lot about "human dignity" and humanity being made in the image of God in some sense, and it seems that in the Islamic/Christian/Jewish religion God has some kind of special interest in humans (or perhaps He is also supposed to send prophets and messiahs to chimpanzees and squid and so forth...) and that humans have some centrality in God's universe. This being the case, it seems to me that these religions imply that humanity was supposed or intended to exist in the universe. On the other hand, although one might make the case for certain traits such as intelligence or bipedalism being likely to arise, it's vanishingly unlikely that humanity would appear in its current form if evolution had had even a very slightly different starting point or been subject to very slightly different perturbations along the way. The juxtaposition of the religious idea and the scientific idea suggest to me that people who believe that God started off life and then watched it unfold must also believe that God chose very, very specific initial conditions. This is what I was implying by my use of the word "inevitable". Which then further suggests the question: why would God bother with this rather elaborate scheme rather than creating humans directly? I can't help but say that it looks to me like religious people struggling to hold onto vague and metaphorical versions of ideas whose exact and literal versions have been shown to be extremely unlikely indeed by the progress of science. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:42, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred > > and intolerence. Whuch you are. > > But am I? I don't see you posting constant slams and digs at the slightest opportunity against religious people, you don't make posts with titles which are propaganda pieces, and you act in a rational fashion. So...I clearly can't describe you as militant. There is nothing wrong with atheism, and your stance of this list is frankly not militant. It's when zealots of any stripe, as WTG clear is, push intollerence and bigotry that there are issues. To be clear, it is the militant stance and the intollerence which he pushes which are the issue. The atheism aspect simply..gives a lack of external reference to precisely how dangerous that bigotry is. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:39, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the > > universe...I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and > > set in chain the process which lead to Man. > > Do you believe that God chose the initial conditions such that > humanity was an inevitable outcome? If there infinite universes, as many scientists now believe, does that make the this universe any less? If every descision has other universes where you decided in every other possible way, let alone the stranger posibilities. "Why?" on a grand scale is not something science can yet answer. It would appear that evoloution of a species (ignoring individual members plights) is random, but equally we know that no such thing as true chance exists. So to species, so to society. As a species is a pool of genes flowing through time and space, society is a pool of memes flowing through time and space. "inevitable" is a word which is loaded in itself, and as to "outcome", I don't think we're quite at the end of the river yet. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:17, William T Goodall wrote: > > No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - > > there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from > > Scientology to Communism and so on. > > Scientology is a religion. Communism is a quasi-religion. Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a religion. > > Blaming religion and religion > > only, as you do, is no more than predudice. > > I don't *only* blame religion. One thing at a time. Heh. No, you are just giving yourself carte blanche to attack anything. Your very calling communism a quasi-religion illustrates this perfectly (And I freely admit that this was a verbal trap, into which you have outright run). > >> Was that you? > > > > No, but you share the mindset of the person who did it. > > You are very confused. Perhaps you should seek therapy to get your > beliefs to accord more closely with reality. If a simple statement based on your explict statements (that you support intollerence) makes you tell someone they need a therapist, then I'd suggest that I am not the one with the issues. Again, this is perfectly normal for someone following a miltant creed. Your answers are predictable. > > > >> It's certainly not the sort of thing I approve of at all. > > > > Why not? You approve of hatred and intollerance against one group, > > But I don't hate religious people. My 'intolerance' is for the false > and evil beliefs that have led them astray. In fact it is because of > my kind, compassionate and generous nature that I rail against > religion. If I didn't have such a love for people I would just let > everyone stew in the filthy evil poison of their superstitious > garbage without saying anything. But you do. You have time and time again posted attacks on religious people of any nature. There is no kindness in intollerance, there is no compassion in dictating what it is acceptable to think. Your generosity in telling others that they are wrong because they do not agree with self-selected discrimination is nothing short of generous, no. Further, when you mean "superstitious garbage", as per you calling communism a quasi-religion above you mean anything which does not confirm to your narrow, bigoted worldview, which has no external referants. There is no difference between your slams on religion and the slams Stormfront and others make about the "WHITE cliffs of dover" in their anti-immigrant rants. Hatred and predudice are a problem which intelligence humans must combat, no matter what creed you claim to follow. Militant forms of zealotry - militant atheism among them - and free goverment are incompatible by the base principle, and I for one happen to take a stand against your intollerence and biggotry. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Andrew said: The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred and intolerence. Whuch you are. But am I? Rich GCU Tarred With The Same Brush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Andrew said: Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe...I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. Do you believe that God chose the initial conditions such that humanity was an inevitable outcome? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 5:42PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006 at 17:29, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 5:07PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. You are saying Marx, L Ron Hubbard and my grandma all have the same 'teachings'? That seems a remarkable claim especially since AFAIK you didn't know either of my grandmothers (who were very different and wouldn't have had the same 'teachings' I think). No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from Scientology to Communism and so on. Scientology is a religion. Communism is a quasi-religion. Blaming religion and religion only, as you do, is no more than predudice. I don't *only* blame religion. One thing at a time. (And calling Scientology a religion is incorrect..it's a creed which operates as a "personal improvement program" and suchlike in several countries which react poorly to religious sentiment, such as Israel. That in itself quite clearly shows it's not a religion but a cynical creed...) And neither is the law society is driven by. The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred and intolerence. Whuch you are. You're no different from the person round here who drew slogons in paint over the wall of someones house recently, calling the occupier gay. Was that you? No, but you share the mindset of the person who did it. You are very confused. Perhaps you should seek therapy to get your beliefs to accord more closely with reality. It's certainly not the sort of thing I approve of at all. Why not? You approve of hatred and intollerance against one group, But I don't hate religious people. My 'intolerance' is for the false and evil beliefs that have led them astray. In fact it is because of my kind, compassionate and generous nature that I rail against religion. If I didn't have such a love for people I would just let everyone stew in the filthy evil poison of their superstitious garbage without saying anything. Saintly Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas." - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
At 10:41 AM Saturday 9/2/2006, Andrew Crystall wrote: [snip] Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe...I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. And then what? Did He let things proceed on their own from that point, knowing how it would inevitably turn out, or did He have to remain actively involved in the process, or what? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 17:29, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006, at 5:07PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of > > say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. > > You are saying Marx, L Ron Hubbard and my grandma all have the same > 'teachings'? That seems a remarkable claim especially since AFAIK you > didn't know either of my grandmothers (who were very different and > wouldn't have had the same 'teachings' I think). No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from Scientology to Communism and so on. Blaming religion and religion only, as you do, is no more than predudice. (And calling Scientology a religion is incorrect..it's a creed which operates as a "personal improvement program" and suchlike in several countries which react poorly to religious sentiment, such as Israel. That in itself quite clearly shows it's not a religion but a cynical creed...) > > And neither is the law society is driven by. > > > > The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred > > and intolerence. Whuch you are. You're no different from the person > > round here who drew slogons in paint over the wall of someones house > > recently, calling the occupier gay. > > > > Was that you? No, but you share the mindset of the person who did it. > It's certainly not the sort of thing I approve of at all. Why not? You approve of hatred and intollerance against one group, what's people hating and being intollerant of another group? > But I'm ethical Maru So you claim. See above. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 5:07PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. You are saying Marx, L Ron Hubbard and my grandma all have the same 'teachings'? That seems a remarkable claim especially since AFAIK you didn't know either of my grandmothers (who were very different and wouldn't have had the same 'teachings' I think). And neither is the law society is driven by. The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred and intolerence. Whuch you are. You're no different from the person round here who drew slogons in paint over the wall of someones house recently, calling the occupier gay. Was that you? It's certainly not the sort of thing I approve of at all. But I'm ethical Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas." - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 16:54, William T Goodall wrote:
>
> On 1 Sep 2006, at 7:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> >
> > Aggressive atheists cannot be trusted since they believe right and
> > wrong are entirely relative and their ethics are based on no firm
> > principles except intolerance and the hatred of the religious.
> >
>
> Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* certainly am not
> a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid foundations.
No, you do not. Your principles have no backing beyond what you feel.
Otherwise, you believe in a creed, and are putting your reliance on
an external force just as much as a believer.
> Religion on the other hand is built on sand - what an imaginary being
> told a mythical person in a fable. In religion if you don't like what
> it says on the {,,,...}
> that the {,,, flamingo>...} brought from the {,
> ,, ...} you can just make
> up another, more congenial, fable and believe that instead. If that's
> too much effort you can find someone who has done it for you and join
> their religion.
Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of
say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not.
And neither is the law society is driven by.
The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred
and intolerence. Whuch you are. You're no different from the person
round here who drew slogons in paint over the wall of someones house
recently, calling the occupier gay.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 1 Sep 2006, at 7:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Aggressive atheists cannot be trusted since they believe right and
wrong are entirely relative and their ethics are based on no firm
principles except intolerance and the hatred of the religious.
Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* certainly am not
a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid foundations.
Religion on the other hand is built on sand - what an imaginary being
told a mythical person in a fable. In religion if you don't like what
it says on the {,,,...}
that the {,,,flamingo>...} brought from the {,
,, ...} you can just make
up another, more congenial, fable and believe that instead. If that's
too much effort you can find someone who has done it for you and join
their religion.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are
the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 1 Sep 2006 at 22:10, Warren Ockrassa wrote: > On Aug 27, 2006, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote: > > > There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his > > church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in > > some US states. > > So ... JPII wasn't infallible after all? What does that actually mean for > the Papacy? Imagine the chaos that will ensue when millions of > Catholics realize that the Pope isn't actually the living > representative of Jesus Christ after all. Millions of crushed believers > weeping and wailing in the streets ... worldwide rioting ... icons clasted > ... how dreadful. Yea, because there's nothing like a Pope summing various reprisentatives on a topic for a militant atheist to start issuing press releases. Because that's all the thread title is, it's propaganda. Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe...I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. Conflict? WHAT conflict? AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
