> I was just saying that some of what Robin Faichney said in the previous
> artical implied this a bit. Some of it is true 'cus some of the
> philosophies expressed on this list seem to be almost religious at not
> being religious (if you see what I mean)
I hear this a lot. i am told i am close minded because I dont consider it
"possible" (aka - extremely unlikely) that Jesus is the actual progeny of some
omnipotent, omniscient god. I could say the same, that they are close minded
because they dont consider it possible that the Greecian gods roamed around on
mount Olympus, hurling lightning bolts down upon humanity. it is not close
minded to not consider suppositions that have no basis in fact. To hold firm to
a concept that has shown accurate despite all challenges, is not the same as
holding to religion because you are afraid to consider that reality may not be
what you think it is despite all supporting evidence.
> I belive in being able to think for yourself but I also belive that if
> we just belive in 1 point of veiw and not consider all the other peoples
> stories and experiences then we are just as bad as the religious freeks.
> I don't personally belive in "God" but I want to hear about people who
> do and why they do.
I am interested in this also for the same reason I am interested in why Hitler
slaughtered so many, or why Dahmer killed and ate people, or why primitve people
dance around the fire worshiping fertility. Interesting but definately
detrimental the human kind.
> O.K some of what you say is true but when proof does come up we must
> consider it. Einstein had no phisical proof for his theories at the
> time but if we would've dismissed him as crazy because of it we would be
> a lot worse off today (or maybe better off but that's a different
> matter).
Many did dismiss him as crazy, it was only because many of his ideas did come to
fruition that he is so popular now. But for every Einstein there are a 100
crazies that we rightly dismiss.
> There are a lot of things in history that have had no proof to
> start with but in the end they start to become accepted as new evidence
> comes up.
I think you are right, but there is so much more that is wrong and becomes
believed. Because of this, ALL conclusions need factual backing to be accepted
as "correct"
> I'm not saying that there will or won't be proof eventually that a god
> exists but we need to look at the claims made in religios books about
> experiences of people and study them for what they are without any
> prejudice
I would say that you are suggesting we read the books and accept what they
saying as if these events actually happened in reality. How can we look at the
Bible and do this. Noah's Ark has zero evidence to support it's actually
happening, yet hundreds of millions whould swear it happened. To look at it
objectively would be to dismiss it as utter fiction. Is this what you are
saying? Somehow I dont think so. If we eliminate prejudice when looking at
religion, religion will fold - it requires pregudice to function.
I'm sorry that I rambled here, I dont think I did real well at saying what I
mean so if what I said makes no sense, reply and I will work it up.
Sodom
I have seen the light and I am it!