Leaving the community

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:15:31 -0500, " jls"
wrote:

Yet,no matter what religion or denomination you belong to, in all likelihood
it has engaged in persecution, violence, and religious intolerance. And
that's the reason why the Founders wanted religion (knowing its gory
history) out of government and government out of religion.
*********


Amen to that, brother.

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.

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.

Is that one of the moral values that religion produces?

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"

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.

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

Could we call it a feature of the institution, perhaps? A hallmark?

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

Is that one of the moral values that religion produces?

Actually, it was closer to 11 million. The 6M number refers to
a single religious group. There were other "undesireable" groups
that were "removed" in the interest of Purity.

On 23 Nov 2004 06:22:50 -0700, Blanche
wrote:

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

Is that one of the moral values that religion produces?

Actually, it was closer to 11 million. The 6M number refers to
a single religious group. There were other "undesireable" groups
that were "removed" in the interest of Purity.



Well, look who's here.

Killfile not working?

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:05:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:


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.



I'm sure you mean the truth as you see it.

And I'm sure these guys are blowing themselves up for the truth as
they see it.

And I'm sure the christians who burned the heretics did it for the
truth as they saw it.

christians may have done these things, but Christians didn't.


That's the trouble and the danger with all you guys. You all know the
"truth".

And how are you any different?


Matt

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