Bible-beater pilots

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Rob Perkins wrote:

It's said of the military that it's composed of a proportional
sampling of all of America. I don't see why the private pilots in the
United States or anyplace else would have outlooks any different than
the rest of the population.

It's also worth remembering that UseNet is also a very international
forum, and that most of the rest of the western world is significantly
less religious that the USA.

For example, Canada's (outgoing) Prime Minister has been leading for over
eight years; it wasn't until about a year ago I finally learned he's
Catholic. It really is less of an issue here, and in Europe.

shrug In any case, it was an interesting thread.

Brian.

Brian,

and that most of the rest of the western world is significantly
less religious that the USA.

Didn't someone quote research in this thread that the US is the most
religious country in the world? Wonder how to measure that...


shrug In any case, it was an interesting thread.


I think so, too. Of course, many (including myself) expressed their views
in an extreme way for the benefit of the discussion (I like to think, at
least). But it was/is a very interesting thread, I think.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:00:52 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Didn't someone quote research in this thread that the US is the most
religious country in the world? Wonder how to measure that...

I don't think you can. Noone seems to have a good definition of
"religious".

shrug In any case, it was an interesting thread.
I think so, too. Of course, many (including myself) expressed their views
in an extreme way for the benefit of the discussion (I like to think, at
least). But it was/is a very interesting thread, I think.

Agreed.

Rob

Noone seems to have a good definition of "religious".


Basing one's life (the little decisions as well as the big one) on fundamental
precepts which are by nature unprovable and undisprovable, and holding forth
that these precepts represent TRUTH (and any competing precepts represent evil,
or at least folly)

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:


Noone seems to have a good definition of "religious".


Basing one's life (the little decisions as well as the big one) on fundamental
precepts which are by nature unprovable and undisprovable, and holding forth
that these precepts represent TRUTH (and any competing precepts represent evil,
or at least folly)


Seems you are doing a good job of proving Rob's point.

--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

Seems you are doing a good job of proving Rob's point.

....which is what?

You say that as if it were an error. I reread Rob's )
posts, I tend to agree with them. I don't know that he was trying to =make= a
point, just refuting other people's claims and correcting misconceptions
(especially about math).

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:

Seems you are doing a good job of proving Rob's point.

...which is what?

Rob said; "Noone seems to have a good definition of "religious"."

You offered a definition of religious, and I am saying that your attempt
at a definition goes to prove Rob's statement that no one has a good
definition of religious, since your definition is very far from a good
one.

--
Chris W