Leaving the community

At least that's what Bush tried to sell the ignorant masses.

mike regish

wrote in message
...

Talk about amusing...

It used to be our government thought of war as a last resort.

No more...

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

mike regish

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If that was the case, then every human would be born with an innate sense
of right and wrong and every generation would have an even more refined
sense of morality at birth. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Matt

"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

Brooks, I don't know that this website is entitled to credibility. It
calls atheism a religion, but atheism is the absence of religion. If you
look at the etymology of the word, atheism means "without theism" or
"without a god." That circumstance, i.e.,being without a god is hardly a
religion. It's the "un-religion." The huge faction pushing that
definition is intent on using it to prevent the USA from establishing an
official stance "without god." If this faction can spin that proposition
in enough channels across the land it can then make the argument that by
being a government either indifferent to religion in the sense it embraces
the no-god (as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many of the other founders
meant the federal government to be) or is in effect atheist,then it must be
violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

No offense to you personally, of course, and I think you are arguing
reasonably about it. Maybe wrong, but still civil and reasonable.
Consequently, we are on amicable terms.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:51:59 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:



Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters...

Matt



Sticks in the old craw a litttle bit, doesn't it?

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


An old brahma bull has high self-esteem. He's bold and blustery, full of
esteem, but still stupid.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
wrote:

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.

You keep confusing fanatics with people who hold a genuine faith in a
higher being. It really isn't that complicated. It is obvious that
you've had a bad experience with organized religion at some point, but
that is no reason to paint the whole world with your brush. Since we're
in a flying forum, have you ever had a bad experience while flying? Do
you even fly? If so, did you give up on flying because of one bad
experience ... or one bad controller ... or one bad fellow pilot?



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.

Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and
philosophers did any research at all, they would know this.

Where is your authority for this contention? For every one you can
provide, I can provide you a counter-authority.

If every
person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was
a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to
be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some
religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd
be nobody left in less than a year.


Matt

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.
*********

By the time a boy has been two years in a church school he is immunized
against religion.
-- Colin Gordon

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

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


Brooks, I don't know that this website is entitled to credibility. It
calls atheism a religion, but atheism is the absence of religion. If you
look at the etymology of the word, atheism means "without theism" or
"without a god." That circumstance, i.e.,being without a god is hardly a
religion. It's the "un-religion." The huge faction pushing that
definition is intent on using it to prevent the USA from establishing an
official stance "without god." If this faction can spin that proposition
in enough channels across the land it can then make the argument that by
being a government either indifferent to religion in the sense it embraces
the no-god (as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many of the other founders
meant the federal government to be) or is in effect atheist,then it must be
violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

You are ignoring all of the definitions of religion. Not all require
belief in a supernatural entity. Look it up, it is easy.


Matt

jls wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

wrote:


On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:51:59 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:




Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters...

Matt



Sticks in the old craw a litttle bit, doesn't it?

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



An old brahma bull has high self-esteem. He's bold and blustery, full of
esteem, but still stupid.

You seem an expert on bull, so I'll take your word on this.

Matt

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.

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

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:12:23 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and
philosophers did any research at all, they would know this. If every
person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was
a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to
be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some
religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd
be nobody left in less than a year.


Matt


Hitler was only one person. He was responsible for the death of 6
million Jews.

It's not the number of people who commit the atrocities that's
significant, it's the number who die.

Millions upon millions have died thanks to religious beliefs, in
barbaric fashion for the most part.

And it's happening today.

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