| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2004 01:45:47 AM |
| Object: |
Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
From the article:
-------------------------------------------
By Patrick Boylan
This letter concerns the recent discussion of evolution vs.
intelligent design and especially a letter from Jan. 15 which
attempted to use science to disprove evolution. In that letter the
author claimed that evolution was in violation of the first and second
laws of thermodynamics, the law of biogenesis, and lacked a fossil
record of intermediate forms for complex organs such as eyes, brains,
etc.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created
or destroyed but is conserved. The author of the previous letter says
that the theory that the universe started with the big bang (and
previously contained nothing) would be in violation of this law and
therefore the universe (and hence the development of life) must be the
work of an intelligent creator.
First of all, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the
universe so this argument is irrelevant. Secondly, it is ironic since
the big bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic priest
(Georges Lemaitre). Finally, we aren't sure how the universe was
created.
-----------------------------------------
Read the rest at
http://www.ravallinews.com/articles/2004/02/03/opinion/viewpoint/valley.txt
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
03 Feb 2004 07:06:34 AM |
|
|
"not mutually exclusive" already loads the argument.
Religion is "irrelevant" to evolution would be more succinct.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
03 Feb 2004 04:22:00 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------------------
By Patrick Boylan
This letter concerns the recent discussion of evolution vs.
intelligent design and especially a letter from Jan. 15 which
attempted to use science to disprove evolution. In that letter the
author claimed that evolution was in violation of the first and second
laws of thermodynamics, the law of biogenesis, and lacked a fossil
record of intermediate forms for complex organs such as eyes, brains,
etc.
Another passage:
"Another misconception is that evolution and religion are
somehow mutually exclusive. There is no reason that one
cannot understand evolution and be religious, as are many
of the people who study evolution."
Actually, evolution *is* contradicting Christian doctrine in
a big way, since it nullifies Genesis. It's also irrelevant.
Religion is myth, whereas the theory of evolution deals with
reality.
RS
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
03 Feb 2004 04:58:57 AM |
|
|
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:401f7667$1_2@127.0.0.1...
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------------------
By Patrick Boylan
This letter concerns the recent discussion of evolution vs.
intelligent design and especially a letter from Jan. 15 which
attempted to use science to disprove evolution. In that letter the
author claimed that evolution was in violation of the first and second
laws of thermodynamics, the law of biogenesis, and lacked a fossil
record of intermediate forms for complex organs such as eyes, brains,
etc.
Another passage:
"Another misconception is that evolution and religion are
somehow mutually exclusive. There is no reason that one
cannot understand evolution and be religious, as are many
of the people who study evolution."
Actually, evolution *is* contradicting Christian doctrine in
a big way, since it nullifies Genesis. It's also irrelevant.
Religion is myth, whereas the theory of evolution deals with
reality.
I think there's a worthwhile distinction between religion as an explanation
of how the world works (which is wrong) and religion as an ethical system,
using allegory and storytelling, which can be worthwhile. Science doesn't
deal in 'should' - or good science doesn't, anyway - it tells us what is,
and how it comes to be that way. Religion, in its broadest sense, is about
how we can live our lives as good people in a society. This doesn't
necessarily entail believing in a creator, or in any of the myths, but we
are a storytelling species and so myth is a useful way of portraying complex
issues, hence Jesus' parables (these days he'd probably write sci-fi
instead).
Of course, both institutions also have a tendency to create powerbases and
rituals, and to try to protect themselves from outside influence and
criticism. But this is to do with the human nature of the individuals
involved, not with science or religion per se. And science has the advantage
that changes to the belief system are part of the belief system itself,
which makes it immediately more flexible. The less power-centric religions
have learned from this, I think, and have conceded the ground of 'how the
world works' to the other camp, which has made them stronger in the world of
ethics where science has no part. And of course we now have alternative
'religions' such as Humanism, which concentrate entirely on the ethical
issue and remove the deity entirely, which is a fine step forward. But it's
the need for that kind of ethical guidance which makes religion continue to
thrive despite (perhaps because of) all the progress science has made in
recent years.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 10:54:48 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:37:41 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
I think we're just suffering from a definition problem. For me, religion as
an ethical system and religion as a belief system are separate issues
Then YOU'RE suffering from a definition problem. For the rest of the
world, religion is belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.
Only if the "rest of the world" does not include dictionaries.
According to Webster's, for example
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion
religion can be a
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
Belief in the supernatural is not a prerequisite for a "religion".
As for atrocities in the name of religion, that's true of course, but that's
nothing to do with the religion per se and more to do with power.
Which is what religion really is, way down deep - a quest for power.
No, a "quest for power" is a "quest for power", and religion is one
of many excuses people use to pursue it. Others include "national
security", "the greater good", etc, etc.
-E
None of the founders of any of the religions I know of would condone the Spanish
Inquisition, for example
Well, let's see. We have no idea who founded Judaism. There may have
been a Saul of Tarsus who founded Christianity, or he may also be
fictional. There's Mohammed - we have no idea what he would have
condoned, other than marriage at an early age. L Ron Hubbard wasn't
too bad, though.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 11:14:38 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:22:43 +0000 (UTC), EjP <nospam@hackers.are.bad>
posted in alt.atheism:
Hitler and ther Crusaders killed people in the name of God.
Stalin and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism.
No, they killed in their own names.
They most definitely did NOT kill in their own names.
They killed in the name of "communism", "the greater good",
"the welfare of the masses", and whole host of other
things. I won't pretend to know what was in their
minds, but they certainly sold the killing to their
followers as necessary to achieve their goals.
The point, which you seem to be stalwartly avoiding, is
that a manifestly atheistic dogma is just as capable
of producing fanatical, murdurous zealots as any
supernatural one.
Humanism is not a religion.
Yes, it is
Religion is belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.
Humanism isn't.
That's according to your personal definitions of the words,
but you can't really get pedantic when your definitions
differ not only from common usage, but more importantly
from how the words are defined in the dictionary.
I supported this with a reference to a dictionary,
and I can see that you "refuted it" by snipping
it from your reply.
Since that's your standard of discussion, I suggest
you take your argument up directly with Webster's
and the OED, since NG's are hardly the place to
redefine the English language.
-E
Darwin tells us we have an obligation to eat, survive, and make
little copies of ourselves.
That's one of the things Darwin was wrong about. We have no
obligation to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Troy Truchon" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 12:58:58 PM |
|
|
EjP wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:22:43 +0000 (UTC), EjP <nospam@hackers.are.bad>
posted in alt.atheism:
Hitler and ther Crusaders killed people in the name of God.
Stalin and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism.
No, they killed in their own names.
They most definitely did NOT kill in their own names.
They killed in the name of "communism", "the greater good",
"the welfare of the masses", and whole host of other
things. I won't pretend to know what was in their
minds, but they certainly sold the killing to their
followers as necessary to achieve their goals.
The point, which you seem to be stalwartly avoiding, is
that a manifestly atheistic dogma is just as capable
of producing fanatical, murdurous zealots as any
supernatural one.
Secular not atheistic. The fact is that there are as many (perhaps even
more) religious communists as there are atheists. In fact the communist
manifesto praises many Christian virtues. Both pol pot and Stalin were
solely religiously educated and Stalin never actually outlawed religion,
but rather used it as a political tool. The whole notion of "atheistic
communists" is the bullsh*t invention of the McCarthy-an era. There is in
fact nothing about communism that is at odds with faith. Don't believe me,
go to Cuba. Hardly an atheistic dogma.
Humanism is not a religion.
Yes, it is
Religion is belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.
Humanism isn't.
That's according to your personal definitions of the words,
but you can't really get pedantic when your definitions
differ not only from common usage, but more importantly
from how the words are defined in the dictionary.
I supported this with a reference to a dictionary,
and I can see that you "refuted it" by snipping
it from your reply.
Since that's your standard of discussion, I suggest
you take your argument up directly with Webster's
and the OED, since NG's are hardly the place to
redefine the English language.
"One entry found for religion.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from
religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY"
Humanism is not atheist only so a humanist could hold supernatural beliefs
but those would be from some source other than humanism.
" 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment
or devotion to religious faith or observance"
There is no service or worship of a god required by humanist philosophy.
"2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices"
since the first two don't apply to humanism neither does this
"3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS"
could apply possibly by the definition of the word.
"4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective "
If you claim that humanism is a faith, as Christianity or Judaism, by this
then you would also have to include democracy as a faith, and about a
billion other things. and while humanism does in fact hold some beliefs
atheists do not, in fact we refer to a term which actually says that we
lack a belief.
--
Welcome to California, the earth move for you too?
-Troy Reveille-dit-Truchon
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
04 Feb 2004 05:09:16 AM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:401f7667$1_2@127.0.0.1...
Another passage:
"Another misconception is that evolution and religion are
somehow mutually exclusive. There is no reason that one
cannot understand evolution and be religious, as are many
of the people who study evolution."
Actually, evolution is contradicting Christian doctrine in
a big way, since it nullifies Genesis. It's also irrelevant.
Religion is myth, whereas the theory of evolution deals with
reality.
I think there's a worthwhile distinction between religion as an
explanation of how the world works (which is wrong) and religion as
an ethical system, using allegory and storytelling, which can be
worthwhile. Science doesn't deal in 'should' - or good science
doesn't, anyway - it tells us what is, and how it comes to be that
way. Religion, in its broadest sense, is about how we can live our
lives as good people in a society. This doesn't necessarily entail
believing in a creator, or in any of the myths, but we are a
storytelling species and so myth is a useful way of portraying
complex issues, hence Jesus' parables (these days he'd probably write
sci-fi instead).
I disagree. Religion is not about living good lives. Some of the
most atrocious deeds have been and are being committed in name
of some religion. There is nothing worse than ot brainwash
people into believing that a certain myth is true, leading
to all sort of irrational and anti-social behavior.
Of course, both institutions also have a tendency to create
powerbases and rituals, and to try to protect themselves from outside
influence and criticism. But this is to do with the human nature of
the individuals involved, not with science or religion per se. And
science has the advantage that changes to the belief system are part
of the belief system itself, which makes it immediately more
flexible. The less power-centric religions have learned from this, I
think, and have conceded the ground of 'how the world works' to the
other camp, which has made them stronger in the world of ethics where
science has no part. And of course we now have alternative
'religions' such as Humanism, which concentrate entirely on the
ethical issue and remove the deity entirely, which is a fine step
forward. But it's the need for that kind of ethical guidance which
makes religion continue to thrive despite (perhaps because of) all
the progress science has made in recent years.
Humanism is not a religion.
RS
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
04 Feb 2004 07:37:41 AM |
|
|
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:4020d2f1$1_2@127.0.0.1...
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:401f7667$1_2@127.0.0.1...
Another passage:
"Another misconception is that evolution and religion are
somehow mutually exclusive. There is no reason that one
cannot understand evolution and be religious, as are many
of the people who study evolution."
Actually, evolution is contradicting Christian doctrine in
a big way, since it nullifies Genesis. It's also irrelevant.
Religion is myth, whereas the theory of evolution deals with
reality.
I think there's a worthwhile distinction between religion as an
explanation of how the world works (which is wrong) and religion as
an ethical system, using allegory and storytelling, which can be
worthwhile. Science doesn't deal in 'should' - or good science
doesn't, anyway - it tells us what is, and how it comes to be that
way. Religion, in its broadest sense, is about how we can live our
lives as good people in a society. This doesn't necessarily entail
believing in a creator, or in any of the myths, but we are a
storytelling species and so myth is a useful way of portraying
complex issues, hence Jesus' parables (these days he'd probably write
sci-fi instead).
I disagree. Religion is not about living good lives. Some of the
most atrocious deeds have been and are being committed in name
of some religion. There is nothing worse than ot brainwash
people into believing that a certain myth is true, leading
to all sort of irrational and anti-social behavior.
<snip>>
Humanism is not a religion.
I think we're just suffering from a definition problem. For me, religion as
an ethical system and religion as a belief system are separate issues, but
I'm happy with the use of the same word for both. If you're not, that's fine
...
As for atrocities in the name of religion, that's true of course, but that's
nothing to do with the religion per se and more to do with power. None of
the founders of any of the religions I know of would condone the Spanish
Inquisition, for example - Jesus certainly wouldn't. Nor the invasion of
Iraq, for that matter. People commit atrocities despite the teachings of
their religion, not because of them.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
04 Feb 2004 08:17:55 AM |
|
|
"Danny Kodicek" <dragon@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1A6Ub.70$h44.8092@stones.force9.net...
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:4020d2f1$1_2@127.0.0.1...
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:401f7667$1_2@127.0.0.1...
Another passage:
"Another misconception is that evolution and religion are
somehow mutually exclusive. There is no reason that one
cannot understand evolution and be religious, as are many
of the people who study evolution."
Actually, evolution is contradicting Christian doctrine in
a big way, since it nullifies Genesis. It's also irrelevant.
Religion is myth, whereas the theory of evolution deals with
reality.
I think there's a worthwhile distinction between religion as an
explanation of how the world works (which is wrong) and religion as
an ethical system, using allegory and storytelling, which can be
worthwhile. Science doesn't deal in 'should' - or good science
doesn't, anyway - it tells us what is, and how it comes to be that
way. Religion, in its broadest sense, is about how we can live our
lives as good people in a society. This doesn't necessarily entail
believing in a creator, or in any of the myths, but we are a
storytelling species and so myth is a useful way of portraying
complex issues, hence Jesus' parables (these days he'd probably write
sci-fi instead).
I disagree. Religion is not about living good lives. Some of the
most atrocious deeds have been and are being committed in name
of some religion. There is nothing worse than ot brainwash
people into believing that a certain myth is true, leading
to all sort of irrational and anti-social behavior.
<snip>>
Humanism is not a religion.
I think we're just suffering from a definition problem. For me, religion
as
an ethical system and religion as a belief system are separate issues, but
I'm happy with the use of the same word for both. If you're not, that's
fine
..
As for atrocities in the name of religion, that's true of course, but
that's
nothing to do with the religion per se and more to do with power. None of
the founders of any of the religions I know of would condone the Spanish
Inquisition, for example - Jesus certainly wouldn't. Nor the invasion of
Iraq, for that matter. People commit atrocities despite the teachings of
their religion, not because of them.
Quick note: it was not my intention to call the invasion of Iraq an
atrocity, that was just a poor follow-on sentence. I didn't agree with the
invasion politically, but I wouldn't call it atrocious. However, it was
definitely against the religious teachings ('turn the other cheek') that
Bush supposedly espouses.
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
04 Feb 2004 02:15:06 PM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"EjP" <nospam@hackers.are.bad> wrote in message
news:bvr66t$105$1@info4.fnal.gov...
Darwin tells us we have an obligation to eat, survive, and make
little copies of ourselves. Any values held beyond this
fall into the category of "religion".
Actually, Darwin doesn't tell us we have any obligation at all - all he says
that if we don't survive and reproduce, we can't have a part in the
evolution of the species. And with the extended phenotype concept, as well
as cultural evolution, we can't even really say that. As I said, questions
of 'ought' have no place in science.
Point taken.
I know you know this, of course, and your paragraph above was intended
humorously. But interesting nonetheless. And you stated my point a lot
better than I did.
BTW, did Hitler really exterminate in the name of religion? Obviously he
exterminated *on the basis* of religion, but I didn't know he cited
religious belief as a reason to do so.
It's become common to portray Hitler as an atheist, and
the Nazis as a "secular" regime - even going so far as
to invoke the Nazis in cautionary tales of why we need
to put more religion in our lives ("We should have prayer
in school, so we don't end up like the Nazis...", "If
only the Germany had had the 10 commandments in their
government offices...", etc).
Unfortunately, those views are totally at odds with historical
facts.
Hitler certainly sold the persecution of Jews as a "Christian" cause.
Skeptic files has put together some pretty good info on the subject
of Hitler and religion at:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/hitler/
In particular, here's a speech he gave in 1922:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/hitler/hitxin.htm
which makes his stand crystal clear.
As an example, he used the famous Passion Play in Oberammergau as a
"precious tool" to whip people into an anti-Semitic frenzy:
http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/Oberammergau/Intro.asp
This explains some of the sensitivity to Gibson's new movie.
Whether Hitler actually believed any of this is anybody's guess.
Perhaps he was just using these things as a tool to push his
agenda. Hitler was Catholic, but the dominant religion in Germany was
Lutheranism, and Martin Luther was a *rabidly* anti-semitic,
as can be seen from his writings:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
It wouldn't have been hard to strike an resonant chord in
this regard.
In other ways, the Nazis drew on a number of religious
traditions, specifically the occult and the "Teutonic Myth",
in which God created a number of "root races", of which - surprise,
surprise! - the Aryans were the supreme. Of course, many Christians
like to focus on this aspect of Nazism and totally ignore their much
more prevalent and public Christian propaganda. It *is* hard
to see how they reconciled the two, but then I think logic
went out the window pretty early on in the whole thing.
In any event, it's certain that Hitler and the rest of the
Nazis at least viewed themselves as "doing God's work".
-E
Not that it matters, of course. And
incidentally - does this count as an instance of Godwin's Law and is the
thread therefore over?
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 07:58:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:22:02 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:40238f93$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
That is a political situation, not a religious one. It is a conflict
between nationalists, not between religions. The same situation holds
in Northern Ireland, which, depsite what many Americans read in the
newspapers, is not a religious conflict but a nationalist one. Those
fights are over political power and who gets to have it, not over
religious matters or doctrines.
Out of interest, speaking as someone from Britain, what is the general
attitude to the Northern Ireland situation over there these days? Has it
changed much since 9/11?
They think of the IRA as freedom fighters, and people like Bobby Sands
and Gerry Adams are heroes.
It came as areat shock when they discovered them hand in glove with
the Columbian FARC whom they always regarded as terrorists, when
senior IRA and Sinn Fein people were arrested in Columbia for teaching
the FARC how to make bombs, and for testing thgeir latest in FARC
controlled territory.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 09:18:05 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:es6720t6mgc56qlstf70n9lhfi07gsr5o0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:22:02 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:40238f93$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
That is a political situation, not a religious one. It is a conflict
between nationalists, not between religions. The same situation holds
in Northern Ireland, which, depsite what many Americans read in the
newspapers, is not a religious conflict but a nationalist one. Those
fights are over political power and who gets to have it, not over
religious matters or doctrines.
Out of interest, speaking as someone from Britain, what is the general
attitude to the Northern Ireland situation over there these days? Has it
changed much since 9/11?
They think of the IRA as freedom fighters, and people like Bobby Sands
and Gerry Adams are heroes.
Amazing the power of denial.
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 06:11:52 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Out of interest, speaking as someone from Britain, what is the general
attitude to the Northern Ireland situation over there these days? Has it
changed much since 9/11?
They think of the IRA as freedom fighters, and people like Bobby Sands
and Gerry Adams are heroes.
What Americans are YOU talking to? I'd be willing to bet my next year's
pay that if you stopped one thousand average Americans in a local
shopping ma,, not a single one of them could tell you who Bobby Sands
was, and they'd think Gerry Adams was Morticia's cousin.
And I doubt they'd be able to SPELL "Colombia" correctly, much less tell
you anything at all about its internal politics.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 09:22:09 AM |
|
|
Scríobh "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net>:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:22:02 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:40238f93$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
That is a political situation, not a religious one. It is a conflict
between nationalists, not between religions. The same situation holds
in Northern Ireland, which, depsite what many Americans read in the
newspapers, is not a religious conflict but a nationalist one. Those
fights are over political power and who gets to have it, not over
religious matters or doctrines.
Out of interest, speaking as someone from Britain, what is the general
attitude to the Northern Ireland situation over there these days? Has it
changed much since 9/11?
They think of the IRA as freedom fighters, and people like Bobby Sands
and Gerry Adams are heroes.
It came as areat shock when they discovered them hand in glove with
the Columbian FARC whom they always regarded as terrorists, when
senior IRA and Sinn Fein people were arrested in Columbia for teaching
the FARC how to make bombs, and for testing thgeir latest in FARC
controlled territory.
It comes as an even bigger shock to Irish American republicans (many
of whom are also republicans in the GOP sense) to discover Adams and
his patriot brethren advocate an Irish 32 county *socialist* republic.
Mind you, I'd hold off on a judgement on the IRA/FARC connection.
--
"Ferr fíor fertaib"
Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 09:11:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:16:09 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ahn320pd6ie8a0db2qcevuu9h3ls2ebott@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:37:41 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
I think we're just suffering from a definition problem. For me, religion
as
an ethical system and religion as a belief system are separate issues
Then YOU'RE suffering from a definition problem. For the rest of the
world, religion is belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.
Then how is it possible to speak of 'Christian values'? Religion is a
complex belief system encompassing any number of issues, of which belief in
a creator god is only one part. The heart of most religions is an attempt to
codify 'right' and 'wrong' behaviour.
But the definition of the word is "belief in a supernatural creator of
the universe". Your attempt to obfuscate the matter is noted ... and
ignored.
As for atrocities in the name of religion, that's true of course, but that's
nothing to do with the religion per se and more to do with power.
Which is what religion really is, way down deep - a quest for power.
What nonsense. There will always be ambitious people
And one of them invented religion.
None of the founders of any of the religions I know of would condone the Spanish
Inquisition, for example
Well, let's see. We have no idea who founded Judaism. There may have
been a Saul of Tarsus who founded Christianity, or he may also be
fictional. There's Mohammed - we have no idea what he would have
condoned, other than marriage at an early age. L Ron Hubbard wasn't
too bad, though.
All right, smartipants :). Replace 'founders' with 'teachers' if you like.
Whether or not Jesus was fictional (which always seemed unlikely to me -
*something* inspired all these people to start believing in something new),
Same argument works for Thetans.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 09:11:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:22:01 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oon32091g2gb9qeu83uf6nlg6ik9l5u775@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:17:55 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
Quick note: it was not my intention to call the invasion of Iraq an
atrocity
Why not? It certainly was. Killing for profit is atrocious.
I don't think we know enough about the motives behind the war to be sure if
it was 'killing for profit' just yet.
We know it wasn't about WMD. We know it wasn't about Hussein being so
terrible. We know that Halliburton is already sucking in the tax
money.
It ain't rocket surgery.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 12:14:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:37:41 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
I think we're just suffering from a definition problem. For me, religion as
an ethical system and religion as a belief system are separate issues
Then YOU'RE suffering from a definition problem. For the rest of the
world, religion is belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.
As for atrocities in the name of religion, that's true of course, but that's
nothing to do with the religion per se and more to do with power.
Which is what religion really is, way down deep - a quest for power.
None of the founders of any of the religions I know of would condone the Spanish
Inquisition, for example
Well, let's see. We have no idea who founded Judaism. There may have
been a Saul of Tarsus who founded Christianity, or he may also be
fictional. There's Mohammed - we have no idea what he would have
condoned, other than marriage at an early age. L Ron Hubbard wasn't
too bad, though.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Field
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 04:16:09 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ahn320pd6ie8a0db2qcevuu9h3ls2ebott@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:37:41 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
I think we're just suffering from a definition problem. For me, religion
as
an ethical system and religion as a belief system are separate issues
Then YOU'RE suffering from a definition problem. For the rest of the
world, religion is belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.
Then how is it possible to speak of 'Christian values'? Religion is a
complex belief system encompassing any number of issues, of which belief in
a creator god is only one part. The heart of most religions is an attempt to
codify 'right' and 'wrong' behaviour.
As for atrocities in the name of religion, that's true of course, but
that's
nothing to do with the religion per se and more to do with power.
Which is what religion really is, way down deep - a quest for power.
What nonsense. There will always be ambitious people, and whether they use
religion or any other tool to gain power is irrelevant. It's perfectly
possible to believe in any religion at all and not want power. You're
conflating religion and churches.
None of the founders of any of the religions I know of would condone the
Spanish
Inquisition, for example
Well, let's see. We have no idea who founded Judaism. There may have
been a Saul of Tarsus who founded Christianity, or he may also be
fictional. There's Mohammed - we have no idea what he would have
condoned, other than marriage at an early age. L Ron Hubbard wasn't
too bad, though.
All right, smartipants :). Replace 'founders' with 'teachers' if you like.
Whether or not Jesus was fictional (which always seemed unlikely to me -
*something* inspired all these people to start believing in something new),
the 'character' of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was clearly opposed to
violence. These are the values that Christians are supposed to follow.
Buddhism is much the same. Judaism includes the Ten Commandments, as well as
'eye for eye, tooth for tooth', which is misinterpreted as a call to
revenge, but is actually an injunction to *limit* punishment to no more than
the original wrong. (As an aside, I'm always astonished when Christians
invoke this law, given that Jesus *explicitly* revoked it). I know little
about Islam, I admit, although as far as I understand it, like Christianity,
it's a lot more peaceful in its teachings than its more rabid followers
might lead you to expect. Etc.
If there's one common thread uniting the teachings of the major religions,
it's an attempt to rein back people's tendency to violence - and one of the
reasons people are (mistakenly) so afraid of Darwinism and feel that it is
such a threat to their beliefs is that they feel it suggests that violence
and conflict are somehow 'right' and 'natural'. Of course, Darwinism says no
such thing - it says nothing about right and wrong at all, these are words
outside the domain of science. What domain do they belong in? Ethics. And I,
like many other people, am perfectly comfortable using the word 'religion'
to include any complex system of ethics, regardless of whether it includes
deferral to some bearded bloke in the clouds.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 10:50:42 AM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek wrote in talk.origins
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
Which is what religion really is, way down deep - a quest for power.
What nonsense. There will always be ambitious people, and whether they
use religion or any other tool to gain power is irrelevant. It's
perfectly possible to believe in any religion at all and not want
power. You're conflating religion and churches.
One of the basic aspirations of any religion is personal power. Power
over things that you cannot control. Power over death, illness, nature.
What are most prayers for?
--
***** #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Troy Truchon" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 12:51:10 PM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ahn320pd6ie8a0db2qcevuu9h3ls2ebott@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:37:41 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
I think we're just suffering from a definition problem. For me, religion
as
an ethical system and religion as a belief system are separate issues
Then YOU'RE suffering from a definition problem. For the rest of the
world, religion is belief in a supernatural creator of the universe.
Then how is it possible to speak of 'Christian values'? Religion is a
complex belief system encompassing any number of issues, of which belief
in a creator god is only one part. The heart of most religions is an
attempt to codify 'right' and 'wrong' behaviour.
As for atrocities in the name of religion, that's true of course, but
that's
nothing to do with the religion per se and more to do with power.
Which is what religion really is, way down deep - a quest for power.
What nonsense. There will always be ambitious people, and whether they use
religion or any other tool to gain power is irrelevant. It's perfectly
possible to believe in any religion at all and not want power. You're
conflating religion and churches.
None of the founders of any of the religions I know of would condone
the
Spanish
Inquisition, for example
Well, let's see. We have no idea who founded Judaism. There may have
been a Saul of Tarsus who founded Christianity, or he may also be
fictional. There's Mohammed - we have no idea what he would have
condoned, other than marriage at an early age. L Ron Hubbard wasn't
too bad, though.
All right, smartipants :). Replace 'founders' with 'teachers' if you like.
Whether or not Jesus was fictional (which always seemed unlikely to me -
*something* inspired all these people to start believing in something
And yet you would probably accept that the mythical founders of other
religions are just that.
new), the 'character' of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was clearly
opposed to violence. These are the values that Christians are supposed to
Jesus was never apposed to violence, stop worshipping the book and its pop
culture opinions, read the damn thing, he beat people up for cripes sake.
follow. Buddhism is much the same. Judaism includes the Ten Commandments,
as well as 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth', which is misinterpreted as a
call to revenge, but is actually an injunction to *limit* punishment to no
more than the original wrong. (As an aside, I'm always astonished when
How are the two different? It still says commit revenge just to a limited
degree.
Christians invoke this law, given that Jesus *explicitly* revoked it). I
know little about Islam, I admit, although as far as I understand it, like
Christianity, it's a lot more peaceful in its teachings than its more
rabid followers might lead you to expect. Etc.
Actually mohammad declaired the first jihads, its no more a religion of
peace than any other.
If there's one common thread uniting the teachings of the major religions,
it's an attempt to rein back people's tendency to violence - and one of
Only when it suits their purposes, religion isnt about restrained violence
simply controlled violence.
the reasons people are (mistakenly) so afraid of Darwinism and feel that
it is such a threat to their beliefs is that they feel it suggests that
violence and conflict are somehow 'right' and 'natural'. Of course,
Darwinism says no such thing - it says nothing about right and wrong at
Finally something I agree with you on, although not the use of the word
darwinism. In fact the human race has survived and evolved through both
compassion and yes even a little violence.
all, these are words outside the domain of science. What domain do they
belong in? Ethics. And I, like many other people, am perfectly comfortable
using the word 'religion' to include any complex system of ethics,
regardless of whether it includes deferral to some bearded bloke in the
clouds.
Danny
Actually ethics does fall within the domain of science. Science is the study
of our existence and our ethical systems are a part of existence. The fact
is that if it has some effect on the physical world then it can be studied
and our minds are part of the physical world.
--
Welcome to California, the earth move for you too?
-Troy Leveille-dit-Truchon
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 09:18:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:16:09 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
Then how is it possible to speak of 'Christian values'?
Actually, you can't. It all depends on which church you are looking.
Religion is a
complex belief system encompassing any number of issues, of which belief in
a creator god is only one part. The heart of most religions is an attempt to
codify 'right' and 'wrong' behaviour.
That applies to all religions.
As for atrocities in the name of religion, that's true of course, but
that's
nothing to do with the religion per se and more to do with power.
Which is what religion really is, way down deep - a quest for power.
What nonsense. There will always be ambitious people, and whether they use
religion or any other tool to gain power is irrelevant. It's perfectly
possible to believe in any religion at all and not want power. You're
conflating religion and churches.
What exactly is the difference between churches and religion?
None of the founders of any of the religions I know of would condone the
Spanish
Inquisition, for example
Well, let's see. We have no idea who founded Judaism. There may have
been a Saul of Tarsus who founded Christianity, or he may also be
fictional. There's Mohammed - we have no idea what he would have
condoned, other than marriage at an early age. L Ron Hubbard wasn't
too bad, though.
All right, smartipants :). Replace 'founders' with 'teachers' if you like.
Whether or not Jesus was fictional (which always seemed unlikely to me -
*something* inspired all these people to start believing in something new),
That something is more often than not a quest for power prestige or
money. Usually a bit of all.
the 'character' of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was clearly opposed to
violence.
Wrong. Or you rather skip over 'bring no peace but a sword' bit?
These are the values that Christians are supposed to follow.
*some* values. Not all.
Buddhism is much the same.
Buddhism has nothing at all to do with christianity. From all the
major religions it is the most tolerant. Tolerance is absent is
monotheistic religions.
Judaism includes the Ten Commandments, as well as
'eye for eye, tooth for tooth', which is misinterpreted as a call to
revenge, but is actually an injunction to *limit* punishment to no more than
the original wrong. (As an aside, I'm always astonished when Christians
invoke this law, given that Jesus *explicitly* revoked it).
Jesus said he never came to change the law....
I know little
about Islam, I admit, although as far as I understand it, like Christianity,
it's a lot more peaceful in its teachings than its more rabid followers
might lead you to expect. Etc.
There isn't much difference in tolerance between islam and
christianity. Having said that, in the past muslims were a good deal
more tolerant than most christains.
If there's one common thread uniting the teachings of the major religions,
it's an attempt to rein back people's tendency to violence -
Such as the crusades? or the intifada? or the reconquista? or the
inquisition?
and one of the
reasons people are (mistakenly) so afraid of Darwinism and feel that it is
such a threat to their beliefs is that they feel it suggests that violence
and conflict are somehow 'right' and 'natural'.
Darwinism is not a religion at all.
Of course, Darwinism says no
such thing - it says nothing about right and wrong at all, these are words
outside the domain of science. What domain do they belong in? Ethics.
Entirely wrong. Biology.
And I,
like many other people, am perfectly comfortable using the word 'religion'
to include any complex system of ethics, regardless of whether it includes
deferral to some bearded bloke in the clouds.
Humanism and atheism are ethical systems that are not religions.
==========================================================
Jos Flachs in: Krungthep Mahanakhon Bovorn Rattanakorsin Mahinthara
Ayutthaya Mahadilokpop Noparat Ratchathani Burirom
Udom Ratchanivej Mahasathan Amornpiman Avatarnsathit
Sakkathattiya A-visnukarmpasit
also known as: Bangkok, Thailand
==========================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 04:28:30 AM |
|
|
"Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:5es520duf69tanlq0guhh2oegnfnasjavu@4ax.com...
As for atrocities in the name of religion, that's true of course, but
that's
nothing to do with the religion per se and more to do with power.
Which is what religion really is, way down deep - a quest for power.
What nonsense. There will always be ambitious people, and whether they
use
religion or any other tool to gain power is irrelevant. It's perfectly
possible to believe in any religion at all and not want power. You're
conflating religion and churches.
What exactly is the difference between churches and religion?
A church is an organisation. A religion is a belief system. They're
completely separate things. It's perfectly possible to belong to a church
without following, or even truly believing, the religion they espouse, and
conversely you can believe in the teachings of a religion without belonging
to any church.
None of the founders of any of the religions I know of would condone
the
Spanish
Inquisition, for example
Well, let's see. We have no idea who founded Judaism. There may have
been a Saul of Tarsus who founded Christianity, or he may also be
fictional. There's Mohammed - we have no idea what he would have
condoned, other than marriage at an early age. L Ron Hubbard wasn't
too bad, though.
All right, smartipants :). Replace 'founders' with 'teachers' if you
like.
Whether or not Jesus was fictional (which always seemed unlikely to me -
*something* inspired all these people to start believing in something
new),
That something is more often than not a quest for power prestige or
money. Usually a bit of all.
So those people who are willing to die rather than renounce their beliefs
are just in it for the prestige? Or the money?
the 'character' of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was clearly opposed to
violence.
Wrong. Or you rather skip over 'bring no peace but a sword' bit?
In context, that quote comes from a passage where Jesus' followers are
warned that they will be persecuted. He's not exhorting anyone to violence,
but warning that violence may be done against them. All a bit evangelical
for my taste, but reasonably clear.
These are the values that Christians are supposed to follow.
*some* values. Not all.
Buddhism is much the same.
Buddhism has nothing at all to do with christianity. From all the
major religions it is the most tolerant. Tolerance is absent is
monotheistic religions.
Not all: Christianity has only one Commandment: 'Love your neighbour as
yourself', and is illustrated by the Good Samaritan parable.
Judaism includes the Ten Commandments, as well as
'eye for eye, tooth for tooth', which is misinterpreted as a call to
revenge, but is actually an injunction to *limit* punishment to no more
than
the original wrong. (As an aside, I'm always astonished when Christians
invoke this law, given that Jesus *explicitly* revoked it).
Jesus said he never came to change the law....
Did he? Where? And even if he said it, the discussion of this particular law
makes it very clear that he's revoking (or perhaps even strengthening) it.
If there's one common thread uniting the teachings of the major
religions,
it's an attempt to rein back people's tendency to violence -
Such as the crusades? or the intifada? or the reconquista? or the
inquisition?
The teachings, not the actions.
and one of the
reasons people are (mistakenly) so afraid of Darwinism and feel that it
is
such a threat to their beliefs is that they feel it suggests that
violence
and conflict are somehow 'right' and 'natural'.
Darwinism is not a religion at all.
Did I say it was?
Of course, Darwinism says no
such thing - it says nothing about right and wrong at all, these are
words
outside the domain of science. What domain do they belong in? Ethics.
Entirely wrong. Biology.
What? How does biology tell us about right and wrong?
And I,
like many other people, am perfectly comfortable using the word
'religion'
to include any complex system of ethics, regardless of whether it
includes
deferral to some bearded bloke in the clouds.
Humanism and atheism are ethical systems that are not religions.
Potayto, potahto.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 08:19:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 10:28:30 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
What exactly is the difference between churches and religion?
A church is an organisation. A religion is a belief system. They're
completely separate things.
That is purely theoretical. The only christian churches that did not
commit atrocities appeared simply too late to do so, otherwise they
would have done it.
It's perfectly possible to belong to a church
without following, or even truly believing, the religion they espouse, and
conversely you can believe in the teachings of a religion without belonging
to any church.
Technically, possible. But most churches would not tolerate that kind
of members. Only under duress, such as the RCC today. In my home
country, The Netherlands, the majority by far has very serious
problems with church doctrine, for example. But the church can't do
anything about it, simply because they would not have a congregation
left over.
Whether or not Jesus was fictional (which always seemed unlikely to me -
*something* inspired all these people to start believing in something
new),
That something is more often than not a quest for power prestige or
money. Usually a bit of all.
So those people who are willing to die rather than renounce their beliefs
are just in it for the prestige? Or the money?
That doesn't proof their religion is the one and only true religion.
It just shows they have faith. Kamikaze pilots didn't do it for the
money or the prestige.
But practically all churchmen (priests, ministers, imams) do it at
least for the prestige, and probably also for the money. Especially if
they set up a church themselves.
the 'character' of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was clearly opposed to
violence.
Wrong. Or you rather skip over 'bring no peace but a sword' bit?
In context, that quote comes from a passage where Jesus' followers are
warned that they will be persecuted. He's not exhorting anyone to violence,
but warning that violence may be done against them. All a bit evangelical
for my taste, but reasonably clear.
You can find anything you like in the bible. Georgann even believes
that repenting sins (adultery) and continue to commit them is right.
On several occasions, jesus clearly said he didn't came to bring
peace.
These are the values that Christians are supposed to follow.
*some* values. Not all.
Buddhism is much the same.
Buddhism has nothing at all to do with christianity. From all the
major religions it is the most tolerant. Tolerance is absent is
monotheistic religions.
Not all: Christianity has only one Commandment: 'Love your neighbour as
yourself', and is illustrated by the Good Samaritan parable.
Nonsense. I really wonder which religion is more violent: christianity
or islam. So far, looking back at history, christianity is no. 1. But
currently islam is trying to catch up.
Christianity has many commands. You just pick one (the one that has
been stolen from other philosophical systems) to fit your need.
Judaism includes the Ten Commandments, as well as
'eye for eye, tooth for tooth', which is misinterpreted as a call to
revenge, but is actually an injunction to *limit* punishment to no more
than
the original wrong. (As an aside, I'm always astonished when Christians
invoke this law, given that Jesus *explicitly* revoked it).
Jesus said he never came to change the law....
Did he? Where?
Read your bible. I rarely quote bibles.
And even if he said it, the discussion of this particular law
makes it very clear that he's revoking (or perhaps even strengthening) it.
Interesting. If someone says he will not change the law, not even a
comma or a point, then what he really said was he will change law?
If there's one common thread uniting the teachings of the major
religions,
it's an attempt to rein back people's tendency to violence -
Such as the crusades? or the intifada? or the reconquista? or the
inquisition?
The teachings, not the actions.
Sorry, history does not agree with you. Your apology is very weak
("that was not the religion, but a church").
and one of the
reasons people are (mistakenly) so afraid of Darwinism and feel that it
is
such a threat to their beliefs is that they feel it suggests that
violence
and conflict are somehow 'right' and 'natural'.
Darwinism is not a religion at all.
Did I say it was?
You inferred that.
Of course, Darwinism says no
such thing - it says nothing about right and wrong at all, these are
words
outside the domain of science. What domain do they belong in? Ethics.
Entirely wrong. Biology.
What? How does biology tell us about right and wrong?
Darwin never researched anything else but biology. If you apply
Darwin's theory elsewhere, that is your problem.
And I,
like many other people, am perfectly comfortable using the word
'religion'
to include any complex system of ethics, regardless of whether it
includes
deferral to some bearded bloke in the clouds.
Humanism and atheism are ethical systems that are not religions.
Potayto, potahto.
Potato*E*. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 09:17:28 AM |
|
|
"Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:4b2720llr18vvefjhfluu4hmeit8eqclo7@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 10:28:30 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
What exactly is the difference between churches and religion?
A church is an organisation. A religion is a belief system. They're
completely separate things.
That is purely theoretical. The only christian churches that did not
commit atrocities appeared simply too late to do so, otherwise they
would have done it.
Something of a non-sequitur from what I said, no? The above paragraph says
nothing about atrocities.
It's perfectly possible to belong to a church
without following, or even truly believing, the religion they espouse,
and
conversely you can believe in the teachings of a religion without
belonging
to any church.
Technically, possible. But most churches would not tolerate that kind
of members.
Not knowingly. But many, many people go through the forms of worship while
still harbouring doubts. And as long as they put the money in the collection
plate, the church turns a blind eye. People go to a church in order to fit
in socially, to get their children into particular schools, etc. And of
course for centuries it was socially unacceptable, even illegal, to openly
question the religious ideology of the day.
Only under duress, such as the RCC today. In my home
country, The Netherlands, the majority by far has very serious
problems with church doctrine, for example. But the church can't do
anything about it, simply because they would not have a congregation
left over.
Very much the case here in Britain too, where a fairly hefty proportion of
churches' 'congregations' consists of people going through the forms in
order to persuade the church to let them have a picturesque wedding /
christening etc, or as I say for the sake of getting their children into a
church school. Rather pathetic, but there you go.
Anyway - I think the point has been made: a church is an organisation that
includes rituals etc, in order to foster a group dynamic. This is a separate
issue from the holy book they happen to espouse. And conversely, as I say,
it's perfectly possible to believe in, say, Christianity without belonging
to any church at all. In fact, while I don't believe in any of the
supernatural aspects of Christianity, I'm a big fan of most of its ethical
advice (at least, that ascribed to Jesus. St Paul was a self-seeking *****
who corrupted the whole religion and has a lot of responsibility for most of
the evils committed in its name).
Whether or not Jesus was fictional (which always seemed unlikely to
me -
*something* inspired all these people to start believing in something
new),
That something is more often than not a quest for power prestige or
money. Usually a bit of all.
So those people who are willing to die rather than renounce their beliefs
are just in it for the prestige? Or the money?
That doesn't proof their religion is the one and only true religion.
It just shows they have faith. Kamikaze pilots didn't do it for the
money or the prestige.
Well exactly. Again you're confusing belief in a set of values, and social
aspiration within a power structure. The fact is, Christianity is a *very*
powerful belief system, much more than we realise today. It's interesting to
read Stephen Lawhead's Arthurian saga to get an idea of quite how radical
and extraordinary it was in its day, and why it swept the world so
dramatically. A religion that preached non-agression and the power of
passive resistance, as well as the idea of someone dying to wash away your
sins was unprecedented. People believed in it not because of wanting to gain
prestige and money within a church - there *was* no church. They believed in
it because it spoke to them and changed them, and gave them hope.
But practically all churchmen (priests, ministers, imams) do it at
least for the prestige, and probably also for the money. Especially if
they set up a church themselves.
Absolutely, but yet again, this is nothing to do with their religion in the
sense of ethical values.
On several occasions, jesus clearly said he didn't came to bring
peace.
There's a difference between bringing peace and espousing non-violence. But
anyway, I don't think this is terribly relevant to the original point.
These are the values that Christians are supposed to follow.
*some* values. Not all.
Buddhism is much the same.
Buddhism has nothing at all to do with christianity. From all the
major religions it is the most tolerant. Tolerance is absent is
monotheistic religions.
Not all: Christianity has only one Commandment: 'Love your neighbour as
yourself', and is illustrated by the Good Samaritan parable.
Nonsense. I really wonder which religion is more violent: christianity
or islam. So far, looking back at history, christianity is no. 1. But
currently islam is trying to catch up.
And yet again, you're conflating acts committed in the name of religion with
the religious belief itself.
Christianity has many commands. You just pick one (the one that has
been stolen from other philosophical systems) to fit your need.
The core Christian belief is pretty simple, really and is just held in four
books, most of which are copied from the same sources. All the rest, as you
said, is picked and chosen by particular religious leaders and religious
believers, from the Old Testament and that *****, Paul.
Judaism includes the Ten Commandments, as well as
'eye for eye, tooth for tooth', which is misinterpreted as a call to
revenge, but is actually an injunction to *limit* punishment to no
more
than
the original wrong. (As an aside, I'm always astonished when
Christians
invoke this law, given that Jesus *explicitly* revoked it).
Jesus said he never came to change the law....
Did he? Where?
Read your bible. I rarely quote bibles.
Well, don't cite them then.
And even if he said it, the discussion of this particular law
makes it very clear that he's revoking (or perhaps even strengthening)
it.
Interesting. If someone says he will not change the law, not even a
comma or a point, then what he really said was he will change law?
I don't understand the question, sorry.
If there's one common thread uniting the teachings of the major
religions,
it's an attempt to rein back people's tendency to violence -
Such as the crusades? or the intifada? or the reconquista? or the
inquisition?
The teachings, not the actions.
Sorry, history does not agree with you. Your apology is very weak
("that was not the religion, but a church").
Seems clear to me. Anyone that tortures someone is certainly not following
any of the teachings of Jesus.
and one of the
reasons people are (mistakenly) so afraid of Darwinism and feel that
it
is
such a threat to their beliefs is that they feel it suggests that
violence
and conflict are somehow 'right' and 'natural'.
Darwinism is not a religion at all.
Did I say it was?
You inferred that.
Not in the slightest. I said that religious people think, mistakenly, that
Darwinism is a threat to their beliefs, and then said very clearly that
Darwinism is *not* a religion because it says nothing about right and wrong.
And by the way, you mean 'implied'
Of course, Darwinism says no
such thing - it says nothing about right and wrong at all, these are
words
outside the domain of science. What domain do they belong in? Ethics.
Entirely wrong. Biology.
What? How does biology tell us about right and wrong?
Darwin never researched anything else but biology. If you apply
Darwin's theory elsewhere, that is your problem.
I don't apply his theory elsewhere. Other people do. I think I made that
pretty clear.
And I,
like many other people, am perfectly comfortable using the word
'religion'
to include any complex system of ethics, regardless of whether it
includes
deferral to some bearded bloke in the clouds.
Humanism and atheism are ethical systems that are not religions.
Potayto, potahto.
Potato*E*. ;-)
Which brings to mind: 'If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's
good enough for me'.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Poley" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 03:11:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:17:28 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<dragon@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
Jesus said he never came to change the law....
Did he? Where?
Read your bible. I rarely quote bibles.
Well, don't cite them then.
Matthew 5:17-19
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfil.
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven"
So anyone who works on a Saturday should be put to death. According to
Exodus and Jesus, anyway.
HTH
--
Stephen Poley
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
05 Feb 2004 09:48:55 PM |
|
|
Jos Flachs wrote:
Buddhism has nothing at all to do with christianity. From all the
major religions it is the most tolerant.
I dunno about that --- Taoists are a pretty easy-going lot, too.
Tolerance is absent is
monotheistic religions.
I think that depends entirely on what variant of these religions you are
talking about. Universalist unitarians, for instance, are about as
tolerant as one can get.
Certainly the fundamentalist variants of monotheism are an intolerant
lot (and not very nice people, either). The intolerance then comes from
the fundamentalist mindset, not from the particular religion (I don't
see much difference between fundie Muslims and fundie Christians, for
instance). Since there is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" Buddhist
or Taoist (I don't even know what a "fundamentalist Taoist" would LOOK
like), the problem of tolerance simply never arises. Particularly since
neither Taoism nor Buddhism assert (or deny) the existence of any
supernatural gods or goddesses, and both assert that no one can
determine your own path but you -- not even god, if it exists, can do
that for you. So in these viewpoints there is simply nothing to be
"intolerant" ABOUT. <shrug>
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 03:39:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 03:48:55 +0000 (UTC), "\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank"
<lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote:
Certainly the fundamentalist variants of monotheism are an intolerant
lot (and not very nice people, either). The intolerance then comes from
the fundamentalist mindset, not from the particular religion (I don't
see much difference between fundie Muslims and fundie Christians, for
instance). Since there is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" Buddhist
or Taoist (I don't even know what a "fundamentalist Taoist" would LOOK
like), the problem of tolerance simply never arises. Particularly since
neither Taoism nor Buddhism assert (or deny) the existence of any
supernatural gods or goddesses, and both assert that no one can
determine your own path but you -- not even god, if it exists, can do
that for you. So in these viewpoints there is simply nothing to be
"intolerant" ABOUT. <shrug>
I agree, but in my opinion a monotheistic religion is per definition
far less tolerant than polytheistic religions. Why? They have the one
and only god - thus everybody else is worshipping a wrong god and thus
doomed.
I agree unitarians are probably easy going people (never met one,
sorry), and they are monotheists too. While at the same time fundy
Hindus occasionally run rampant in India.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Evolution, religion not mutually exclusive |
06 Feb 2004 04:31:40 AM |
|
|
"Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:eod6209o3l8vc2h0b35c5o0ic7971mh5v6@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 03:48:55 +0000 (UTC), "\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank"
<lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote:
Certainly the fundamentalist variants of monotheism are an intolerant
lot (and not very nice people, either). The intolerance then comes from
the fundamentalist mindset, not from the particular religion (I don't
see much difference between fundie Muslims and fundie Christians, for
instance). Since there is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" Buddhist
or Taoist (I don't even know what a "fundamentalist Taoist" would LOOK
like), the problem of tolerance simply never arises. Particularly since
neither Taoism nor Buddhism assert (or deny) the existence of any
supernatural gods or goddesses, and both assert that no one can
determine your own path but you -- not even god, if it exists, can do
that for you. So in these viewpoints there is simply nothing to be
"intolerant" ABOUT. <shrug>
I agree, but in my opinion a monotheistic religion is per definition
far less tolerant than polytheistic religions. Why? They have the one
and only god - thus everybody else is worshipping a wrong god and thus
doomed.
Fair point. I've known a fair few evangelical Christians with this mindset -
they *tolerate* people with other views, but they still think they're going
to Hell. Kind of like the attitude many people have about homosexuality: 'I
wouldn't throw stones at their houses, but it's not natural, is it?'.
Danny
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
