Good luck with this one, Huxley.

Rest assured, there will be plenty of long posts making false accusations against you, but if you ask a simple question, it will be answered very, very vaguely or ignored altogether. All the while she will bleat the same thing over and over again, even when you've made your point in rebuttal as plain as can be. But then bleating is the habit of a sheep isn't it?

She's basically like any other brain-washed drone - if it doesn't fit her agenda, she'll either lie about it, create a cloud of bullshit to hide the reality or just flat out ignore it.

Bastage:

Good luck with this one, Huxley.

Rest assured, there will be plenty of long posts making false accusations against you, but if you ask a simple question, it will be answered very, very vaguely or ignored altogether. All the while she will bleat the same thing over and over again, even when you've made your point in rebuttal as plain as can be. But then bleating is the habit of a sheep isn't it?

She's basically like any other brain-washed drone - if it doesn't fit her agenda, she'll either lie about it, create a cloud of bullshit to hide the reality or just flat out ignore it.

LOL. I have got some experience of her and your characteristion of her is exactly spot-on.


Interestingly, I notice you said earlier that you are non-atheist. How did you come to be so interested in these matters? How do you generally approach such matters - philosophically, scientific rationalism, etc, etc?

I have been on this forum since the start of the year 2008 and my other accounts have been therationa, tpaine, in case you were wondering the author of the original "Diabolical Mimicry" post.

huxley:

LOL. I have got some experience of her and your characteristion of her is exactly spot-on.

I already sent my thanks for the slobbers, gentlemen. Thank you again.

How did you come to be so interested in these matters? How do you generally approach such matters - philosophically, scientific rationalism, etc, etc?

I'm interested simply because I believe that it's such a big issue. But neither can I just blindly follow the herd, so I question the "established" order and recognise the holes where I see them. I've also dabbled in Quantum Mechanics when that's become relevant!!!

In one sense, my approach is no different that yours. I hit the textbooks on most subjects that have anything to do with religion - philosophy, history, science, sociology, etc. In the other sense, I also try to look for spiritual answers and see how they apply to me.
I don't see religion as a closed book as many do and recognise that if it doesn't adapt and we don't adapt, there's a good chance it will cause even more misery to humanity than it already has. That's not to say that it's all bad - I do recognise that religion can be very beneficial and am often on the receiving end of that side myself!! But dogma should be classified as a crime against humanity. It goes against everything it is to be human and that's why I debate against it when it rears it's ugly head.

Bastage:

I'm interested simply because I believe that it's such a big issue. But neither can I just blindly follow the herd, so I question the "established" order and recognise the holes where I see them. I've also dabbled in Quantum Mechanics when that's become relevant!!!

In one sense, my approach is no different that yours. I hit the textbooks on most subjects that have anything to do with religion - philosophy, history, science, sociology, etc. In the other sense, I also try to look for spiritual answers and see how they apply to me.
I don't see religion as a closed book as many do and recognise that if it doesn't adapt and we don't adapt, there's a good chance it will cause even more misery to humanity than it already has. That's not to say that it's all bad - I do recognise that religion can be very beneficial and am often on the receiving end of that side myself!! But dogma should be classified as a crime against humanity. It goes against everything it is to be human and that's why I debate against it when it rears it's ugly head.

Thanks. Most helpful. You approach very much mirrors mine. This is how I see the domain currently occupied by religion today:

1) Spirituality and man's need thereof.
2) The organisations and institutions of religions, such as charities, schools, hospitals, etc
3) The beliefs, doctrines, claims, precepts and tenets of religions.

All known religions have (and attempt to address) all three elements. On the whole I have no problems with 1) and 2) except in the sense where 2) interfere with public life on the strength of 3)

My biggest problems are with 3). Can any of the claims of religions be rationally defended? I think the answer to this is overwhelmingly NO.

Thus with respect to 1) and 2) they are no different from any other people or institutions concerned about the betterment of the human condition.

My biggest problems are with 3). Can any of the claims of religions be rationally defended? I think the answer to this is overwhelmingly NO.

Although I'd agree with you that there's a lot that can't be defended or shouldn't be defended, I don't think that one can say everything is bunk.
Take the basic precept of Christianity which is Love itself. And what is Love? Is it not the only Truth? That, in my book is worth defending.

Now you may say that there is no such love and that it's only a few synaptic responses produced in response to our day to day surroundings. But I prefer to think that there is much more to it than that. And that's why I say "All is not lost". Yet.

Bastage:

Although I'd agree with you that there's a lot that can't be defended or shouldn't be defended, I don't think that one can say everything is bunk.
Take the basic precept of Christianity which is Love itself. And what is Love? Is it not the only Truth? That, in my book is worth defending.

Now you may say that there is no such love and that it's only a few synaptic responses produced in response to our day to day surroundings. But I prefer to think that there is much more to it than that. And that's why I say "All is not lost". Yet.

Agree again largely. But Christianity has a way of making things so simple as to render it useless. Look for instance at Jesus injunction about turning the other cheek. The idea here is that we should be meek and soft towards our enemies. But can any society live on that basis. If an intruder came into your premises and took your shirt, do you also give him your coat?

All the good side of Christian are more or less in other philosophical systems, some predating Christianity. In fact, in some of these systems, they are better articulated in Christianity.

I sympathise a great deal with the thoughts of Epicurus and in their time, they were miles ahead with respect to their positions of communitarian way of life, etc, etc. If it was not for the Christians, there would most likely be a strong school of Epicureanism today.

The Binle is the believer's manual for daily living
so when a believers stop studying the bible he/
she starts dyeing. God bless you all.