I can't believe that I'm getting involved in this discussion, especially given how little I've read of it. Still, here it goes. David, your belief that Religion is to blame for hurting people and causing the destruction of great civilizations is fallacious. It wasn't religion, spirituality, or the belief in the supernatural that did that- it was people. Religion is merely an institution, a way of looking at the world, a vehicle for one's actions. It is not an independant, thinking entity. If we follow your logic, we might as well blame science for Nuclear warfare and the harm it has visited upon the human populace. I prefer to place blame upon the psychos who use it. Furthermore, religion has been used as a vehicle for great achievements such as the Ancient Egyptian society, amazing works of art (Milton, Homer, Shakespeare), philosophical treaties, and charitable works. Therefore, I feel that religion is like all human endeavors: flawed, with many questionable actions but with an equal number of actions that were unquestionably good and altruistic in nature. BTW, I'm Agnostic. If you feel that my beliefs have any relevance in this discussion. Alex Postscript: I'm sorry if I'm repeating anybody in my spiel. ----Original Message Follows---- From: Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> To: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net>, dragaera at dragaera.info Subject: Re: The Religion Debate Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:02:58 -0800 At 08:56 PM 11/27/2002 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > >Maybe. I object strenuously to the whole concept of religion, >spirituality, etc. It's superstitious nonsense, and hurts people, and >destroys great civilizations. Okay, but other than that, does it do any harm? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail