thomas p. wrote:
>
> "tension_on_the_wire" <tension_at_home@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:676caea8-cb2b-4d31-aa86-5cb2b1d0b3ac@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 3, 4:50 pm, "J A" <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "tension_on_the_wire" <tension_at_h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:b249b3fc-45d0-4673-8a2b-017a9ec3aaa5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyways, I like best the last two sentences ....that religion has
>> nothing to fear from this neuroscience, and that science can co-exist
>> with faith, which I guess is the main torch I'm carrying on this
>> thread.
>>
>> --tension
>> <
>>
>> You mean like it has with Galieo, and that guy they burned to death for
>> speculating on the existence of other worlds, and US Federal Funding
for
>> stem cell research, and teaching evolution, etc., etc.?
>>
>> Religion is a swamp that breeds things that normal people ignore, until
>> they
>> come bounding out of it.
>
> tension
> Religion, just like politics and every other social fabric of humanity
> that starts out trying to provide benefits for large numbers of
> people, will always be vulnerable to the corrupt. This does not mean
> that religion created the corrupt people, or that religion was a
> corrupting force.
>
> thomas
> If absolute truth is claimed without any objective sup****t for the
claim,
> corruption is guaranteed.
>
> tension
> Corrupt individuals will seek ways to control
> humans and the means will be the large scale social fabrics that tie
> humans together such as both religion and politics and I defy anyone
> to tell me which is more rife with corrupt, insincere practitioners.
> Does that mean that politics too is evil and should be abolished from
> the face of the earth so we can have peace and goodwill on Earth? Of
> course not. That would result in anarchy, as would the total absence
> of an absolute moral code.
>
> thomas
> There is need for political organization. There is no evidence that
there
> is such a thing as an absolute moral code, and therefore there is no
> reason to think the absence of it would result in anarchy.
>
> tension
> It is in the nature of these types of
> fabrics that they can be taken advantage of and used as an "opiate for
> the m*****". Any time humans put their trust in any kind of higher
> authority, it an axiom of human nature that someone will come along
> and try to get a piece of the action by abusing it.
>
> thomas
> And, if the organization is defined as possessing absolute truth, moral
> code, whatever, it becomes much more dangerous.
>
> tension
> Galileo Galilei was not persecuted by a religion. He was persecuted
> by humans in the name of a religion and that is a very fundamental
> difference. You cannot judge a religion by the flaws in its
> practitioners.
>
> thomas
> You can judge it by its claims.
>
> tension
> Why do people automatically try to reverse engineer a
> conclusion that if some humans commit atrocities in the name of a
> religion, it must be the fault of the religion, and not the fault of
> the human who interpreted it incorrectly?
>
> thomas
> Who decides it is inorrect? After all religion is supposed to have an
> absolute moral code, which can only be defined by humans.
>
> tension
> Surely there must be
> someone out there that can see this? Do we really think that because
> Adolf Hitler claimed Biblical sup****t for his Aryan supremacy
> theories, that Christianity is inherently racist?
>
> thomas
> No, Christianity is racist regardless of Hitler's views.
>
> tension
> Is there anyone
> that actually believes that Sadam Hussein was a devout Muslim? Spare
> me. People kill people, religions do not. The m***** that committ
> atrocities on larger scales are ALWAYS, and I repeat ALWAYS stirred up
> by a human with ulterior motives. You can never find sup****t for it
> in the moral code of any major world religion.
>
>
> thomas
> Apparently you have never read the Bible or the Koran.
You really should read the Bible to the end
and try to understand everything in context.
God tells us to love our enemies.
If you don't, you are not a Christian.
Is that so difficult to understand?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because trying to
prove
the existence of God is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
** Atheists have blind faith in their ability to know of all actual or
possible modes of existence. Such hubris cannot be good for science.
|
