"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message news:

I would be the first to agree privately that the only solution to
anything is to give up all hope and accept that human existence is a
sick joke at best.

Agree with *who*, you fuckwit? Jez isn't arguing for 'accepting that human
existence is a sick joke at best': that idea comes *entirely from you*,

thanks to your pathetic inability to see anything besides the false
alternatives of fantasy and misery. The option you've missed is simply this:

'reality, realistically embraced'. Ask your mental heralth provider for
information about it.

It's actually quite funny that your sneering comment about Jez's supposed
'hedonistic druggie lifestyle' rebounds on you so badly: it's really *you*
and your sad kind who look like the druggies. For like the crack-addict, you
can no longer conceive of any state of being that isn't either the
dislocated euphoria of your latest 'fix' or the empty desperation of not
having it. Until you can break your sick habit, you are as unqualified as
any crack-head to tell an actual grown-up about the real world.

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message news:

I would be the first to agree privately that the only solution to
anything is to give up all hope and accept that human existence is a
sick joke at best.

Agree with *who*, you fuckwit? Jez isn't arguing for 'accepting that human
existence is a sick joke at best': that idea comes *entirely from you*,
thanks to your pathetic inability to see anything besides the false
alternatives of fantasy and misery. The option you've missed is simply this:
'reality, realistically embraced'. Ask your mental heralth provider for
information about it.

It's actually quite funny that your sneering comment about Jez's supposed
'hedonistic druggie lifestyle' rebounds on you so badly: it's really *you*
and your sad kind who look like the druggies. For like the crack-addict, you
can no longer conceive of any state of being that isn't either the
dislocated euphoria of your latest 'fix' or the empty desperation of not
having it. Until you can break your sick habit, you are as unqualified as
any crack-head to tell an actual grown-up about the real world.

Katt.

Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:g99ka1tcmhv4i812reov7ua3bdnunhd166@4ax.com:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:19:10 -0500, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:

Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:05j9a1tgie2qqln153021s93o9arqf6bl6@4ax.com:

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:05:29 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

snippage.....

Those who believe in the Great Tongs can't deny the truth of their
situation. They know the truth, too, but choose to dress it up like a
cheap *****. The ***** of Babytong won't keep the lobsters from being
killed and eaten, but believing in the Paradise Of The Boiling Pot
will keep the Tongians from even trying to improve their lot. *THEY*
are the ones who are engaged in self-indulgent nihilism.

Nihilism as I understand it is the belief that nothing matters or is
important except subjectively. That point of view is exactly what
religion allows people to escape. Religion has been a constant
throughout human history. People want a satisfying answer to the
question of why they exist, and they want a meaningful context in
which to place their lives.

Which people ? And why ?
If their lives were good, healthy and 'whole' would people turn to
religion ?
No !
Only when they are oppressed, starved, lonely, ostracised etc, only

then

do people turn to religion.

Scientists say we exist because of a fluke of chemistry. Our world

is

a speck of dust in a vast universe where all events are the random
result of impersonal forces defined by physical laws.

And what, do tell, is wrong with that ?

Moral values
are not part of this universe or necessary for it to function.

'There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of
phenomena....' Nietzsche

Big deal !

Nor
are people necessary. Humanity has no purpose, and human destiny is
of no importance on the scale at which the universe operates.

Which can only be a good thing, no ?

This is not a satisfying answer.

How so ? Why do you NEED a 'Purpose.'

Nor is it a socially useful answer,
because society needs some kind of shared moral framework to

function.

Which can only come from an agreement between people.
Not from some imaginary friend.

Overall this is a significant conundrum. It cannot be glibly whisked
away.

Only if you feel yourself SO important, you belive the universe owes

you

an answer.
Which I, personally, do not.

Your Nietzchean flippancy goes with your hedonistic druggie lifestyle
It has no place in this thread, which is a serious discussion of the
place religion ought to have in a stable society.

Ok fair enough, religion has NO PLACE in society.
It is of no use whatsoever.

I would be the first to agree privately that the only solution to
anything is to give up all hope and accept that human existence is a
sick joke at best. You see a suffering animal, wounded on the side of
the road. Do you rescue it and try to nurse it, or do you put it out
of its misery, or do you throw rocks at it and laugh? It doesn't
matter, does it? It all depends on what amuses you while you are
marking your time and waiting to disappear forever.

And you accuse me of a 'hedonistic druggie lifestyle'. Eeech !
No, it does matter, as this life is all we have, it is important to
ensure that we try to make as much effort as we are capable of to ensure
that those we encounter DO NOT have to suffer, so I would try my hardest
to 'rescue it and try to nurse it', as I have done with various pets,
stray animals and so-on that come into my life.

Science is not an arbitrary scapegoat. It is a direct challenge to
religious teachings. It is possible to devise a theology that
accommodates science, but it is not possible to reconcile existing
Christian theology, as practiced and taught in America, with science.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 18:12:24 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:05:29 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

Al Smith <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:

[..]

What is an unhappy lobster going to do to make his environment better?
The happy lobsters could sing songs or tell jokes to the unhappy
lobsters and make them happy too.

In the parable of the two lobsters, it's a false dichotomy that those who
don't lie to themselves are unhappy. That's the essential teaching of
Buddhism, by the way.

See, the lies the 'happy' lobsters tell themselves are actually a kind of
self-inflicted wound they can't stop fingering. Telling lies to yourself
in order to distract you from the truth doesn't relieve any of the pain
or suffering of going to the Great Tongs; it merely pretends that
suffering isn't suffering.

Those who believe in the Great Tongs can't deny the truth of their
situation. They know the truth, too, but choose to dress it up like a
cheap *****. The ***** of Babytong won't keep the lobsters from being
killed and eaten, but believing in the Paradise Of The Boiling Pot will
keep the Tongians from even trying to improve their lot. *THEY* are the
ones who are engaged in self-indulgent nihilism.

Nihilism as I understand it is the belief that nothing matters or is
important except subjectively. That point of view is exactly what
religion allows people to escape.

Nope. It's a point of view that religion can engender, as well. For
instance: If we're about to experience a rapture because these are the
end times, why should we worry about such trifling things as feeding the
poor? They'll all be bathing in a lake of fire soon, so who cares? Or a
more widespread example, that of the Catholic church being against
contraceptives, despite overpopulation in Catholic-majority countries.

Religion has been a constant throughout human history. People want a
satisfying answer to the question of why they exist, and they want a
meaningful context in which to place their lives.

In many cases, yes. However, though religion can provide an answer, it
can also provide a pernicious, self-serving answer that will be defended
to the death as if it were God's Honest Truth. That's one of the reasons
we have a war on terrorism going at the moment, in case you forgot... Al
Qaeda gives religious meaning to the lives of its participants.

Scientists say we exist because of a fluke of chemistry.

No. *Science* says we exist because of a fluke of chemistry.
*Scientists* have views as divergent as can be. Science posits that we
came into being through a kerjillion years of evolution and so forth.
This makes no claim on what it *means* to be alive. If you ask a
scientist what it *means* to be alive, there is no way to predict what
he will tell you.

Our world is a speck of dust in a vast universe where all events are the
random result of impersonal forces defined by physical laws. Moral values
are not part of this universe or necessary for it to function. Nor are
people necessary. Humanity has no purpose, and human destiny is of no
importance on the scale at which the universe operates.

This is not a satisfying answer.

Yeah, it's not even a satisfying strawman. You don't actually believe
this, do you?

It seems to be the default position of science. I don't claim to have
any special insights.

Nor is it a socially useful answer, because society needs some kind of
shared moral framework to function.

Why do you believe that religion *must* be the shared moral framework of
society?

I haven't said I believe any such thing. I simply observe that theism
provides a moral framework, whereas science does not, and society
needs such a framework whether it derives from religion or some other
source..

Overall this is a significant conundrum. It cannot be glibly whisked
away.

The problem of involving humans in their own moral evolution has always
existed. Science is the latest scapegoat for those who wish to blame
something else for their own lack of moral evolution, despite the best
efforts of religion.

Science is not an arbitrary scapegoat. It is a direct challenge to
religious teachings. It is possible to devise a theology that
accommodates science, but it is not possible to reconcile existing
Christian theology, as practiced and taught in America, with science.

That is why these people are so hostile. Their fairy tales were as
good as anything when little was known about the physical laws and
properties of the universe. But nowadays, a lot is known, and the
fairy tales don't hold up.

In the parable of the lobsters, the 'happy' lobsters don't really have
any advantage over the 'unhappy' ones. The 'unhappy' ones find meaning
and beauty and hope wherever they can, just as the 'happy' ones are
doing by pretending the Great Tongs are there to help. There is no
dichotomy; everyone's telling stories about life, regardless of the
doctrine involved. Neither path is better or more deserving. You simly
can't avoid the Boiling Pot, no matter what stories you tell yourself
about it.

Many political philosophers believe religious faith is necessary for a
wholesome society. Certainly there are people who don't care about
religion and only participate as necessary. But there are many others
who need the guidance and comfort of religion, and are better able to
organize and manage their lives because of it.

Charlie

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 18:12:24 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:

[Science sayeth:] Our world is a speck of dust in a vast universe where
all events are the random result of impersonal forces defined by
physical laws. Moral values are not part of this universe or necessary
for it to function. Nor are people necessary. Humanity has no purpose,
and human destiny is of no importance on the scale at which the
universe operates.

This is not a satisfying answer.

Yeah, it's not even a satisfying strawman. You don't actually believe
this, do you?

It seems to be the default position of science.

Nor is it a socially useful answer, because society needs some kind of
shared moral framework to function.

Why do you believe that religion *must* be the shared moral framework of
society?

I haven't said I believe any such thing. I simply observe that theism
provides a moral framework, whereas science does not, and society needs
such a framework whether it derives from religion or some other source..

Overall this is a significant conundrum. It cannot be glibly whisked
away.

The problem of involving humans in their own moral evolution has always
existed. Science is the latest scapegoat for those who wish to blame
something else for their own lack of moral evolution, despite the best
efforts of religion.

Science is not an arbitrary scapegoat. It is a direct challenge to
religious teachings. It is possible to devise a theology that
accommodates science, but it is not possible to reconcile existing
Christian theology, as practiced and taught in America, with science.

That is why these people are so hostile. Their fairy tales were as good
as anything when little was known about the physical laws and properties
of the universe. But nowadays, a lot is known, and the fairy tales don't
hold up.

In the parable of the lobsters, the 'happy' lobsters don't really have
any advantage over the 'unhappy' ones. The 'unhappy' ones find meaning
and beauty and hope wherever they can, just as the 'happy' ones are doing
by pretending the Great Tongs are there to help. There is no dichotomy;
everyone's telling stories about life, regardless of the doctrine
involved. Neither path is better or more deserving. You simly can't avoid
the Boiling Pot, no matter what stories you tell yourself about it.

Many political philosophers believe religious faith is necessary for a
wholesome society.

Certainly there are people who don't care about religion and only
participate as necessary. But there are many others who need the guidance
and comfort of religion, and are better able to organize and manage their
lives because of it.