-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
____/ Mark Kent on Sunday 07 Feb 2010 09:37 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 14 Jan 2010 12:26 : \____
>>> Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> On 2010-01-10, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Mark Kent pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>>>> Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>> Can't you just feel the Xtian love? :-)
>>>>>>> Oh yeah... they love us to death.
>>>>>> Indeed - there's nothing quite like christian charity on this planet. I
>>>>>> was lucky enough to be a catholic when I was young... I've been
>>>>>> recovering since :-)
>>>>> Same here.
>>>> I was lucky... raised by atheists.
>>> Good for you, in my opinion. In my case, I started to question certain
>>> aspects of doctrine and dogma early in primary school - it made me less
>>> than popular with the nuns running the school.
>>> I'm with Richard Dawkins on this - children shouldn't be indoctrinated
>>> in this stuff, rather, they should be old enough to analyse such things
>>> before attempting to make decisions around religious belief and faith.
>> Yet many people perceived this schools of thought as "radical".
> In the very literal sense of the word, it probably is radical, yet, it's
> religion which ought to be radical (i.e. derived directly from roots of
> fact and truth), yet religion celebrates faith in the unprovable beyond
> anything else.
> In all honesty, I don't have any particular problem with religion per
> se, I do have huge problems with what people seek to do with religion as
> a power-structure and manipulation method. You only have to look at how
> "creationists" frame Science as being anti-Religion, it's not remotely
> anti-religion, Science is simply pro-fact, pro-proof, pro-best-model,
> pro-best-theory, and so on.
Neil Tyson once said that it would make it a lot simpler if we just didn't
call science "science" and instead called it "reality".
> In the simplest sense,
> Science celebrates the unknown for the singular purpose of learning
> more about it, of making it into a "known".
> Religion celebrates the unknown for the religiously valuable
> trait of demonstrating faith; it attacks those who seek to
> "know", since they undermine this "faith".
Are we talking about Microsoft again? Oh, never mind.
> The "cargo-ship" religions are my favourites. They are real, now, and a
> direct product of 19th/20th Century exploration and expansion. They
> are, in my view, rooted (radically) in the idea Arthur Clarke mentioned
> around magic and religion, which (I paraphrase) is that any technology
> sufficiently advanced will appear to be magic to an observer.
> I this case, the cargo-ships were magic.
>> For "radical", see Christopher Hitchens. :-)
>> "Microsoft allowed us to [remove Internet Explorer from Windows] but we don't
>> think we should have to ask permission every time we want to make some minor
>> software modification. Windows is an operating system, not a religion."
>> --Ted Waitt, Gateway Computer Chairman
>> "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>> --Albert Einstein, an atheist
> He was [atheist] , although he had that near-religious feel for certain
> aspects of science, the same kind of thing one can sometimes perceive in
> Arthur Clarke's more poetic writings.
"God" was a metaphor to him, AFAIK. We are organisms, creatures who *naturally* look
~~ Best of wishes
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.02 0.14 0.27 1/360 32476
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----