Leaving the community

"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message
om...
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:


"mike regish" wrote in message
news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...

Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to
strike
you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
retribution from God either.


No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.

It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but
don't
be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better
argument
if you want your distinction to "stick".

Pete


What distinction? Moral vs religious?

There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
group.


That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?

Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
rest believe is some higher power.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Brooks, I don't know that this website is entitled to credibility. It
calls atheism a religion, but atheism is the absence of religion. If you
look at the etymology of the word, atheism means "without theism" or
"without a god." That circumstance, i.e.,being without a god is hardly a
religion. It's the "un-religion." The huge faction pushing that
definition is intent on using it to prevent the USA from establishing an
official stance "without god." If this faction can spin that proposition
in enough channels across the land it can then make the argument that by
being a government either indifferent to religion in the sense it embraces
the no-god (as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many of the other founders
meant the federal government to be) or is in effect atheist,then it must be
violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

No offense to you personally, of course, and I think you are arguing
reasonably about it. Maybe wrong, but still civil and reasonable.
Consequently, we are on amicable terms.