Leaving the community

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't

require


religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a
hard

time


comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the
time.


I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and
steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.


It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.

Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
and killing were OK?


Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you
must accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government.
Without those it is anarchy.

What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
government? Who said anarchy was bad?

I never said anarchy was bad. So you suggest that it is acceptable to
kill/steal?



Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe
that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

Bull****. That is not my religion. Go look up religion in a dictionary.
Also, nowhere in my post did I say that I need a government. However, you
must be an idiot if you really feel that anarchy is a suitable way to live
given the nature of people.

This has nothing to do with religion.


The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you
base yours on .... what?

What are you using for the definition of Christians? Certainly not one that
many people would agree with as there as far too many parts of the new
testament that are completely ignored by supposed "christians"

A good start would be Ayn Rand's work, though I am not as violently opposed
to religion as she is.

the word 'religion' here is being tossed about to mean any passing interest
or affinity. That is not its meaning and cannot be in spite of yours and
others' attempts to make it so.




Matt