Leaving the community

wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:07:20 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Not at all. I just don't understand cowards. Never have and probably
never will. I guess though that if I was weak in my convictions and had
low self-esteem, I'd hide as well.


Matt


Now here we actually get into a perfect microcosm of religion.

Your belief system says that everyone who posts here should post under
his real name (or a name that LOOKS like a real name,at least, since I
am sure you have not verified that every name used here is actually a
given name of the poster)..

My belief system, on the other hand, says that it don't make a whit's
difference what the poster's name is, but the idea expressed is what
is important, agree with it or not.

The difference between my belief system and yours is this:

I couldn't care less what name you use. Use Matt Whiting or
Whistlindixie, it don't make a whit's difference to me. Your
preference and beliefs are yours, do what you will. It's no skin off
my nose.

Your belief about posting, however, requires that I behave as you do
and think the way you do, otherwise you are compelled to attempt to
intimidate and insult me by calling me a coward, weak in my
convictions, and having low self esteem, even though you know nothing
of me other than what you know through half a dozen postings.

And that gets to the nub of religion. The religious are usually so
unsure of their positions, and unable to offer any evidence of their
convictions, that they must have the agreement of others to validate
their beliefs. If they cannot get it any other way, they begin to use
whatever force they can use to compel others to behave as they do.
And suddenly they are on that slippery slope of religious bigotry and
intolerance, exactly the same kind of bigotry and intolerance you are
showing for my free choice of using whatever name I wish to post with,
by using name-calling and insults, the only real forms of intimidation
available to you here, to validate your belief.

So thanks for the help in proving my point.

Likewise.

Matt

wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:42:24 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:


mike regish wrote:


It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry from
day 1.

Nice excuse, but lacks creativity. I'll give it a D+. There are
cultures that have virtually no organized religion, but engage in things
such as cannibalism. Is that one of the moral values that evolution
produces?


Matt


And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
million human beings.

I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.


Is that one of the moral values that religion produces?

Not any religion that I'm aware of. That was the moral value of a
tyrant, pure and simple. It is really easy to understand if you drop
your prejudice against religion and look at the facts.


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.

That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
religion than anything else.

George Patterson

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

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:19:02 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Jay Honeck wrote:

Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.

That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
religion than anything else.

George Patterson


Or even those that do belong to their own faith, but not in quite the
"right" way.

== cfeyeeye writes:

But hose with their heads buried in the religious sands (or in anatomical
locations where the sun don't shine) just never see it.

Why are you picking on the prostitutes? What do they have to do with it?


--
PGP key at http://www.longhands.org/drg-pgp.txt Key Id:0x507D93DF

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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.

During Hitler's ascendancy and power, millions did not view him as a
"fanatic nut case." Matter of fact he visited regularly with his close
friend Pope Pius in Rome.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:16:34 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
million human beings.

I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.


You need to pick up a good history book and spend a little time with
it.

wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:55:10 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


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.



Well, murder is not the ONLY religious trait, anyway.

It isn't a trait at all, so it can't be even ONLY a trait.


But there has been enough religious carnage throughout history that it
might be reasonably called a trait.

Only by one who has no reason.

Matt

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


Jay Honeck wrote:

Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.


That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
religion than anything else.

Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)


Matt