David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: I also don't think that forbidding, and actively rooting out, religion would have a good outcome, so I don't propose it. But I *do* think the world gets better each time a person gives up religion. On the average -- since some people are pretty crazy. ************************************************************************************** Okay, although I do not necessarily agree with you, I can accept your position. No, of course not. Believing some false things, even very basic ones, doesn't always and inherently make your entire life false. It's very unlikely that you didn't do some things for good reasons anyway, and perhaps some of the things you did for bad or stupid reasons are still good -- or you'll think they're good when you select your new value system. *************************************************************************************** <chuckles> Same as above. Well, I wasn't. I was saying that religion encourages faith, meaning belief without evidence, and that belief without evidence is bad. And I was saying that people don't think enough -- that's people in general, not just religious people ************************************************************************************* I disagree, but I also support your right to hold your position without insult. What you actually said was: I have yet to see the Scriptures of a major religion propose violence and harm upon others, even those not of their religion. The Bible does not do so. I pointed to examples of the bible propose (in fact, call for) violence and harm upon others. *************************************************************************************** You are correct in this, that was my bad. When I think of the scriptures that modern Christianity is based upon, I am thinking of the new testement. Therefore, I will revise that to "The Greek Scriptures, which Christianity is supposedly based upon, does not propose violence or harm upon others." > Jastrow once said that it takes more faith to believe in > evolution than it does to believe in creationism, because at that > point, there was less evidence to support evolution. What's your > point? That last, at least, is nonsense. There is a tremendous volume of evidence to support evolution. The argument is about details and mechanisms; nobody that gets taken seriously doubts the basic fact of evolution. Starting with the fossil record, and following through with our growing understanding of DNA, and the experiences of people doing selective breeding for millenia. **************************************************************************************** Please note that the last, about evolution, was a quote. It was also mentioned that Jastrow said that because AT THE TIME, there was not enough evidence to support the theory. However, I might point out that evolution is STILL a "theory" and that it has NOT been "proven" to scientist's satisfaction. Once it HAS been "proven", it will no longer be put forth in scientific circles as the "theory". Science teaches skepticism and the importance of reproducible tests. Religion teaches acceptance of authority, and the importance of authority. Hhhmmm, in that, let me put forth that scientists have still not been able to reproduce "life" in tests which the enviroment is consistent with those of ancient Earth. They have been able to reproduce "life" in those tests, but they have had to remove said "life" from the enviroment so that it wasn't destroyed. In this, many scientists believe in evolution based on "faith", not "fact", as it has not been reproducable in even it's simplist forms AS OF YET. Once, of course, evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact, then they will not be basing their belief on faith. Mathematics professors agree a lot more than priests do. ******************************************************************************************** <chuckles> True. Evolutionary biologists disagree MORE than priests do, however. :) I'd say the people who did the actual deed are to blame, and the people who financed them (knowingly) are to blame, and the people who helped them (knowingly) are to blame. I'd also say that, to a lesser extent, the leaders of mainstream Islam are to blame for allowing this perverted offshoot to exist among them (and, in fact, often *encouraging* it). ****************************************************************************************** Ageed. Completely. And I'd point out that religion was a tool that they used to justify their actions and to motivate themselves for those actions. ***************************************************************************************** A religion twisted out of recognition from the original. I think the offshot would be considered a "cult", not a "religion". However, tentatively, agreed. I'm so used to opposition on this topic I hardly notice it. It's something I've been thinking about for about 40 years, so I'm hearing less and less new, and finding it more and more annoying. ****************************************************************************************** <chuckles> Different upbringing, I would guess. There is an old stand-by, which many children are taught: If you can't say something nice....................... Thank you for answering this. Peace, Caliann *Owned and Operated by the Grand Poohbah Cheese of the Universe* "Offense theives. -- they take it when it isn't offered." --Tom Digby --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now