Leaving the community

Dan Luke wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
than others.

Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
heard in a long time.


What's funny about it?

I just find really stupid statements humorous.

Matt

mike regish wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

mike regish wrote:


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.

Who determines what the "right things" are?


In my case, I do. Duh.

Better check the definition again.


That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
than others.

Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've heard
in a long time.


Learning right from wrong comes from evolution. Or better said, learning
better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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. 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