Re: virus: religion
red_mist (red_mist@portsurfer.demon.co.uk)
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:34:02 +0100
In message <35352858.ED563A55@ma.ultranet.com>, Sodom
<sodom@ma.ultranet.com> writes
>
>
>red_mist wrote:
>
>> 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.
To make it clear I'm not religious and I never will be unless someone
can prove to me that god exists but I think we should give people the
chance to prove this.
>
>> 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 point taken.
>> 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.
>
Rightly???? People who are crazy enough to think they can change the
world are normaly the ones who do (nicked from an advert somewhere) A
lot of people would dismiss everyone on this list as crazy, but we
belive were not crazy and I'm sure the same is true of every one of
those 100 people we 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"
All conclusions need to based in fact but that doesn't mean we can't
investigate b4 we decide which conclusions to make
>
>> 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 not saying we accept what they saying is that the people must've had
some reason to say what they said. Just when somebody reports a UFO,
they normally report it because they couldn't explain it. If later it
is explained then the explanation becomes fact and is accepted. If
something like that happened in the bible it would be reported as a sign
from god and nobody would try to explain it as anything different. If
we look at some of the stories in the bible I'm sure we will be able to
explain a lot of them.
sorry for the enormous quote but I think it's all relevent
--
Only the weak are blind when the mist descends
red_mist