Re: virus: A posting

John A (
Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:09:17 -0500

Ike Hall wrote:

> I guess I'm placing myself 'dangerously' between two camps. I'm
willing to take
> a few on the chin, but will your members get miffed at me if I say
> wrong with angels after all?
I personaly have no problem with people enjoying angels or the concept
of angels in art (I have seen beautiful art of which angels were the
subject) or literature, and even personal belief. People can believe
what ever they want to. People can laugh in the face of logic and belive
that falsehoods are true. I do not belive in angels because I think
that angels do not exist. My thoughts on this are based on logic. If
angels exist in the traditional sense, this implies that magic and
divine intervention also exist. We know, however, that magic does not
exist because it violates the laws of physics. If certain beings
(angels) had the power to violate the laws of physics and regularly did
so, no laws of physics would be possible. The universe would be chaos.
>From this reasoning I can deduce that angels do not exist. I don't hold
beliefs in objects or concepts that are thoroughly proven false,
therefore I don't believe in angels. The problem is that a select few of
our fellow specs of dust in this astronomical universe don't take this
attitude. They whine and cry and insist that their beliefs (and I stress
the word beliefs) are concrete fact, despite their irrationality. The
bottom line is that in science and philosphy, we can only accept what is
logical and factual. Ideas derived from false precepts are also false
(assuming that the argument is logical).

The rising popularity of angels is a bi-product of a nation wide return
to spirituality, or as I prefer to call it, pseudochristianity. People
are disoriented and frightened. The fact that their lives are trivial
and meaningless is rearing its ugly head. The purpose and pride that
religion gives is very appealing in a world where humans are no longer
the center of the universe.

Irrational people need to learn to be one of two things; tolerant or
rational (or both). If one chooses to be irrational, then one should not
attempt to force their beliefs on others. If one wants to be rational,
one needs to realize that meaning and fulfillment can be achieved
through rationality, and that religion is not necessary for fulfillment.

I'm sorry to be so long winded, but I felt that all of this had to be said.

John Aten
"Truth demands to be declared even if it is ugly 
 and unethical" -F. Nietzsche

"Of each thing ask, what is it? What is its nature? What is it of itself" -Marcus Aurelius