Leaving the community

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 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

Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
freethinkers, anyway.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
freethinkers.
*****************
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
---Epicurus

You sig, attributed to "Epicurus"...

When my son was young and learning how to ride a two-wheel bicycle

I was ABLE to keep him from falling over on his bicycle

I was WILLING to keep him from falling over on his bicycle

Many times I kept him from falling over on his bicycle

But sometimes, I let him fall over, so he could learn




" jls" wrote in message
. ..

"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

Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
freethinkers, anyway.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
freethinkers.
*****************
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
---Epicurus

jls wrote:

"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


Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
freethinkers, anyway.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
freethinkers.
*****************
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
---Epicurus



I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.

You said you were not surprised by my post. May I ask you to clarify
that? Was it based on previous posts I have made or did you think it
was more in line with what you thought people in this group would post?
Good or bad I am womdering now how my posts come across to people.

I am told I can seem very cold at first. One interesting event was when
I was at a bar with a friend of many years and a couple of his other
friends I had never met before. Out of the blue one of the "new guys"
says to me, "You don't like me, do you?" I was a little shocked by that
and only said, "excuse me?" before my friend jumped in saying, "if he
didn't like you, you would know..." and continued to explain my
personnality. It was interesting to say the least. But I have had no
further misunderstandings with them since. I am just glad I have a
friend that can explain myself to others.


By the way, regarding your sig, Scott Adams has an interesting take on
God in his books. Not his Dilbert books but the ones you find the
business and philosophy sections of book stores. "God's Debris" is a
pretty good one found under philosophy. He goes into exactly what your
sig is about.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
wrote:





I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.



I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
assertion of which I am uncertain)

I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
facts (assuming they are both correct).

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.

Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too
harsh to rationally accept.

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven
by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a
religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove
the existence of GOD.

Now agnosticism is not a religion especially if the agnostic doesn't know
and doesn't care.

Couple of quotes to top off this IFR discussion:

"Are you familiar with the theory that mankind has invented myths of all
kinds - romantic, religious, transcendental, and mystical - to deny the
bleak, unmitigated horror of biological life: that human beings no less than
other living creatures are simply part of an immense food chain."

"We hope that technological innovation will do what Western political and
social thought can no longer do -- rescue the Western world from its
spiritual and moral paralysis to prove its superiority in material terms.
Through technology the Western world is free to reinvent itself,
unfortunately we cannot reinvent the people."

"Not every god has to exist in order to do his job."

Cheers
Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
wrote:


Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.

Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too
harsh to rationally accept.

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven
by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a
religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove
the existence of GOD.


My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
believe), all qualify.

Other than that, it's just a belief system.

As far as I know, no atheist has ever killed anybody simply because he
didn't believe what the atheist believed. Stalin probably came close,
but I think his persecution of Jews and christians was political
rather than religious.

But I suppose that's arguable as well.

At any rate, religion is indeed the opiate of the masses, used by
leaders all throughtout history to sedate their followers. Never been
truer than today.



Now agnosticism is not a religion especially if the agnostic doesn't know
and doesn't care.

Couple of quotes to top off this IFR discussion:

"Are you familiar with the theory that mankind has invented myths of all
kinds - romantic, religious, transcendental, and mystical - to deny the
bleak, unmitigated horror of biological life: that human beings no less than
other living creatures are simply part of an immense food chain."

"We hope that technological innovation will do what Western political and
social thought can no longer do -- rescue the Western world from its
spiritual and moral paralysis to prove its superiority in material terms.
Through technology the Western world is free to reinvent itself,
unfortunately we cannot reinvent the people."

"Not every god has to exist in order to do his job."

Cheers
Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004

wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
wrote:




I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.




I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
assertion of which I am uncertain)

I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
facts (assuming they are both correct).

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

Definition #4 in the following:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion


As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts. Atheism,
even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
of the believers in these belief systems.


Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs?


Matt

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
wrote:




I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.




I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
assertion of which I am uncertain)

I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
facts (assuming they are both correct).

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

Definition #4 in the following:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion


As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts.

That's why the image of the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich
was bid up to $69,000 on eBay.

Atheism,
even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
of the believers in these belief systems.


Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs?



They're not. They are ashamed to be associated with what you call
religion, and the inhumane acts committed in its name.

Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:


snip

Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
beliefs?



Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the
sheep mentality of the 'religious'?

It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that
which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be
'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and
I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher
power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not.

But even using this new idea I still see atheism as different from religion
in the way faith is applied. Religious faith does not allow for much
critical thinking and certainly doesn't tolerate dissent. Whereas atheistic
'faith' accepts change as it happens.

There are certainly things I have to take on 'faith'. I don't _know_ the
universe was created by the big bang. But my acceptance of the theory will
be gladly changed in an instant if the physicists come up with something to
refute it tomorrow. I used to believe in the steady state universe and I
experienced no trauma in making the change. In fact I relish the thought of
learning new things about us.

Contrast that to the adherence to dogma required by 'religion' and perhaps
you can begin to understand why I wouldn't want to be associated with the
same group that put Galileo in jail and wouldn't admit their mistake for
_hundreds_ of years.


--
Frank....H