Leaving the community

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 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.

That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.


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

That is precisely what it is. Killing has nothing to do with it and is
an abomination to most true believers. However, it is more fun to look
at the fringe elements and ascribe their behaviour to the broader group.
Cowardly, but fun. Then again, folks that hide behind anonymous names
understand that all too well.


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.

Except that the religions of philosophy and blind/false science are
gaining fast in popularity. I suspect in another 50-100 years more of
the masses will be controlled by philosophers and junk scientists than
by more traditional religions.


Matt

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:09:44 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

wrote:

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.

That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.


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

That is precisely what it is. Killing has nothing to do with it and is
an abomination to most true believers.

Are you kidding?

It takes a true believer to blow himself up for his god. Organized
religion has been killing people for hundreds, no, make that thousands
of years.

Even today, your organized religious leaders prefer to see people die
a ghastly, ugly death from AIDS rather than see them to put a little
rubber thingy on their John Williamses.

If that's not killing by religion, it's a damn good second.


However, it is more fun to look
at the fringe elements and ascribe their behaviour to the broader group.
Cowardly, but fun. Then again, folks that hide behind anonymous names
understand that all too well.


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.

Except that the religions of philosophy and blind/false science are
gaining fast in popularity.

May I remind you that every religion but one must be a false religion,
and we're not too sure about that one.


I suspect in another 50-100 years more of
the masses will be controlled by philosophers and junk scientists than
by more traditional religions.

Let's hope so.




Let's hope so.

wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:09:44 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:


wrote:


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.

That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.



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

That is precisely what it is. Killing has nothing to do with it and is
an abomination to most true believers.


Are you kidding?

No.


It takes a true believer to blow himself up for his god. Organized
religion has been killing people for hundreds, no, make that thousands
of years.

I meant true believer as in believing in the truth, not as in fanatic.
A person who blows himself up is a fanatic. Apparently you haven't
known enough people of faith to tell the difference.

I don't know much about Islam, but I've heard a number of pretty
intelligent folks say that it does not advocate what is being done by
the terrorists in the middle east.


Even today, your organized religious leaders prefer to see people die
a ghastly, ugly death from AIDS rather than see them to put a little
rubber thingy on their John Williamses.

Wrong again. No, they'd rather see them have a 100% chance of not
becoming infected rather than a 90-something chance. Folks that suggest
condoms as the HIV prevention are the one's that are happy to condemn
5-10% of the population to death.


If that's not killing by religion, it's a damn good second.

It's not even close to what you suggest. Are you really this deluded?


However, it is more fun to look
at the fringe elements and ascribe their behaviour to the broader group.
Cowardly, but fun. Then again, folks that hide behind anonymous names
understand that all too well.



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.

Except that the religions of philosophy and blind/false science are
gaining fast in popularity.


May I remind you that every religion but one must be a false religion,
and we're not too sure about that one.

Possible, but we don't know that for sure. It could be that many are
variations on the same thing. However, it may be that all philosophers
are wrong... I'll take my chances with at least having one chance of
being right.


I suspect in another 50-100 years more of
the masses will be controlled by philosophers and junk scientists than
by more traditional religions.


Let's hope so.




Let's hope so.

Repeating the message won't make it right. Why would you hope for such
an early end to civilization?


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:

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.


That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.

Actually, it is the essence of a true believer..
"True Believers" *know* that they *are* right and
therefore anybody who has any dissenting view is a
non-believer and must to be killed because they are
obviously influenced by spirits/devil(s)/etc and
cannot be allowed to spread their contagion.

AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
go around killing people who hold contrary views.

AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
go around killing people who hold contrary views.

Didn't Stalin kill over 10 million people for holding views that were
contrary to his?

Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

MC wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:

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.



That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.


Actually, it is the essence of a true believer..
"True Believers" *know* that they *are* right and
therefore anybody who has any dissenting view is a
non-believer and must to be killed because they are
obviously influenced by spirits/devil(s)/etc and
cannot be allowed to spread their contagion.

AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
go around killing people who hold contrary views.

Neither do people who belong to legitimate and mainstream religions. It
is fun to watch folks like you try to lump fanatic nut cases like Hitler
with religion. I'm sorry you don't have a legitimate issue and have to
fabricate issues like this to try to support your prejudices.


Matt