| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dave" |
| Date: |
07 Jun 2005 08:14:32 AM |
| Object: |
Religion and Progress |
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 12:46:24 PM |
|
|
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> said:
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?"
I suggest supporting your local u-u church. But only if you want to
promote something.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/u-u.htm
quoting from the "beliefs" link:
Most modern day Unitarian Universalists share the following beliefs --
that:
Each person, because of her/his humanity inherently has dignity and
worth.
Each person seek his/her unique spiritual path, based upon their
personal life experience, the use of reason and meditation, the
findings of science and her/his fundamental beliefs concerning deity,
humanity, and the rest of the universe.
The prime function of a clergyperson and congregation is to help the
individual members to grow spiritually.
All the great religions of the world, and their sacred texts, have
worth.
There should be no barrier to membership, such as compulsory adherence
to a creed.
Their lives, their congregations and association are governed by the
concepts of democracy, religious freedom and religious tolerance
Much of their effort should be directed towards civil rights,
achieving equality of treatment for everyone regardless of race,
gender, sexual orientation, etc. They have played a major role in
these battles for equal rights, in spite of their relatively small
numbers.
end quote
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 03:28:16 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ikmba1lbvnmpt4n2vfaft9mj3ijuqln5mp@4ax.com...
I suggest supporting your local u-u church. But only if you want to
promote something.
People have suggested this to me too, in the past.
My problem with the idea, though, was partly that Church's view that:
All the great religions of the world, and their sacred texts, have
worth.
since I think the 'great religions of the world' - and their 'sacred texts'
as well - have about as much 'worth' as a bucket of warm snot, and that it's
a capitulation to sentimentality to pretend otherwise...
And partly that I don't wanna be anywhere where a group of people are
chanting and singing out loud ('prayer, 'praise', 'worship') to an entity
that *isn't bloody there*.
So it was all rather a non-starter...
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 04:29:34 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ikmba1lbvnmpt4n2vfaft9mj3ijuqln5mp@4ax.com...
I suggest supporting your local u-u church. But only if you want to
promote something.
People have suggested this to me too, in the past.
My problem with the idea, though, was partly that Church's view that:
All the great religions of the world, and their sacred texts, have
worth.
since I think the 'great religions of the world' - and their 'sacred texts'
as well - have about as much 'worth' as a bucket of warm snot, and that it's
a capitulation to sentimentality to pretend otherwise...
Tolerance is tricky, isn't it?
And partly that I don't wanna be anywhere where a group of people are
chanting and singing out loud ('prayer, 'praise', 'worship') to an entity
that *isn't bloody there*.
That can be a problem in a u-u church. My sister went to a similar
church and found that there were post-Christian folks who wanted the
old hymns even though they didn't believe any more.
So it was all rather a non-starter...
That is clear.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 07:12:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 21:29:34 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ikmba1lbvnmpt4n2vfaft9mj3ijuqln5mp@4ax.com...
I suggest supporting your local u-u church. But only if you want to
promote something.
People have suggested this to me too, in the past.
My problem with the idea, though, was partly that Church's view that:
All the great religions of the world, and their sacred texts, have
worth.
since I think the 'great religions of the world' - and their 'sacred texts'
as well - have about as much 'worth' as a bucket of warm snot, and that it's
a capitulation to sentimentality to pretend otherwise...
Tolerance is tricky, isn't it?
And partly that I don't wanna be anywhere where a group of people are
chanting and singing out loud ('prayer, 'praise', 'worship') to an entity
that *isn't bloody there*.
That can be a problem in a u-u church. My sister went to a similar
church and found that there were post-Christian folks who wanted the
old hymns even though they didn't believe any more.
That varies a lot from u-u church to u-u church. Most of the
humns in the hymnal have been cleaned up of references to God and
Christ, but they grate a bit on the ears of those who grew up in
traditional churches, and can make Christmas Eve services seem a
bit, um, odd.
Last Sundaay we sang "This land is your land ..."
Some congregations avoid the use of the word "worship" and
largely avoid mention of God. Others may be more traditional. The
problem is that most communities aren't likely to have more than
one, or a few, u-u churches.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 07:26:21 PM |
|
|
since I think the 'great religions of the world' - and their 'sacred
texts' as well - have about as much 'worth' as a bucket of warm snot, and
that it's a capitulation to sentimentality to pretend otherwise...
There is a 180 degrees difference between a theological and a mythological
reading.
Campbell:
"[..] half of the people in the world are religious people who think that
their metaphors are facts. Those are what we call theists. The other half
are people who know that the metaphors are not facts; and so they're lies.
Those are the atheists."
So when you understand the metaphors aren't facts, and become an atheist,
you can learn to understand the *actual* meanings of the metaphors.
Niels
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 03:34:06 PM |
|
|
In article <Arnpe.4865$jS3.4517@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>,
Katt <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ikmba1lbvnmpt4n2vfaft9mj3ijuqln5mp@4ax.com...
I suggest supporting your local u-u church. But only if you want to
promote something.
People have suggested this to me too, in the past.
My problem with the idea, though, was partly that Church's view that:
All the great religions of the world, and their sacred texts, have
worth.
since I think the 'great religions of the world' - and their 'sacred texts'
as well - have about as much 'worth' as a bucket of warm snot, and that it's
a capitulation to sentimentality to pretend otherwise...
It depends on what you mean by "worth". You can believe that religion has
value without believing that all its teachings are true. Religion has provided
comfort for a great many people and been responsible for some great works of
art, literature, music, and architecture and has been a great unifying force
throughout history.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 04:03:34 PM |
|
|
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <Arnpe.4865$jS3.4517@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>,
Katt <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ikmba1lbvnmpt4n2vfaft9mj3ijuqln5mp@4ax.com...
I suggest supporting your local u-u church. But only if you want to
promote something.
People have suggested this to me too, in the past.
My problem with the idea, though, was partly that Church's view that:
All the great religions of the world, and their sacred texts, have
worth.
since I think the 'great religions of the world' - and their 'sacred texts'
as well - have about as much 'worth' as a bucket of warm snot, and that it's
a capitulation to sentimentality to pretend otherwise...
It depends on what you mean by "worth". You can believe that religion has
value without believing that all its teachings are true. Religion has provided
comfort for a great many people and been responsible for some great works of
art, literature, music, and architecture and has been a great unifying force
throughout history.
Alan
well....should we attribute the good things to the religion, or to the
humans who did it? maybe they would have done the same without the
religion, if given the chance? maybe they would have done *more*?
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 04:25:27 PM |
|
|
J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> said:
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <Arnpe.4865$jS3.4517@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>,
Katt <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ikmba1lbvnmpt4n2vfaft9mj3ijuqln5mp@4ax.com...
I suggest supporting your local u-u church. But only if you want to
promote something.
People have suggested this to me too, in the past.
My problem with the idea, though, was partly that Church's view that:
All the great religions of the world, and their sacred texts, have
worth.
since I think the 'great religions of the world' - and their 'sacred texts'
as well - have about as much 'worth' as a bucket of warm snot, and that it's
a capitulation to sentimentality to pretend otherwise...
It depends on what you mean by "worth". You can believe that religion has
value without believing that all its teachings are true. Religion has provided
comfort for a great many people and been responsible for some great works of
art, literature, music, and architecture and has been a great unifying force
throughout history.
Alan
well....should we attribute the good things to the religion, or to the
humans who did it? maybe they would have done the same without the
religion, if given the chance? maybe they would have done *more*?
A similar good question can be asked WRT the "bad" things.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
11 Jun 2005 10:20:16 PM |
|
|
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118150072.162330.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Why would atheists wish to promote *any* sort of god belief, however benign
and innocuous? And how would doing so make us "better off?" We might
possibly find ourselves the target of smear campaigns by religious nutters
slightly less often, but I see no other advantage to adopting such a
hypocritical position.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 08:49:10 AM |
|
|
Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Obviously.
It might even be inherently connected to our creativity; the thing that
separated us from the other humanoids.
Niels
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 04:09:59 PM |
|
|
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote in
message news:d848lr$ppu$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Obviously.
It might even be inherently connected to our creativity; the thing that
separated us from the other humanoids.
I'm bound to say that I really don't like that thought, dear chap!
Maybe you'll think I'm just being weird, Niels; but to me, the human
'religious urge' is the most rigid, atavistic, stereotyped, unrealistic,
infantile and insightless part of the whole animal -- placing, as it does,
orthodoxy, obedience and blind faith above freedom, individuality and the
need for evidence. It's backward-looking and 'revelationist' in nature,
rather than forward-urging and incrementally advancing. It places the
inherited errors of ignorant and maniacal ancients over the modern urge to
gather knowledge and use intelligence in a sane process of 'trial and the
elimination of error'. It corrodes maturity and sanity by the way it
facilitates the psychological 'defences' of splitting, denial, and
projection; and it achieves the covert legitimation of hatred even when it
ostensibly encourages the opposite. It is, in fact, among the few human
preoccupations whose unfettered expression *works to deny the very essence
of human-ness*.
In fact, I'd associate it with our wonderful human creativity only insofar
as both urges relate in some way to the individual's unconscious attitudes
to his or her parent-figures -- but even so, there's a vast difference:
whereas the creative person is unconsciously attempting to atone for what he
or she did to his/her mother; the 'religious' person is unconsciously
attempting to avoid and control the violent, punitive rages that his/her
father is believed, in unconscious phantasy, to be about to unleash...
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 07:18:43 PM |
|
|
Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Obviously.
It might even be inherently connected to our creativity; the thing that
separated us from the other humanoids.
I'm bound to say that I really don't like that thought, dear chap!
Maybe you'll think I'm just being weird, Niels; but to me, the human
'religious urge' is the most rigid, atavistic, stereotyped, unrealistic,
infantile and insightless part of the whole animal -- placing, as it does,
orthodoxy, obedience and blind faith above freedom, individuality and the
need for evidence. It's backward-looking and 'revelationist' in nature,
rather than forward-urging and incrementally advancing. It places the
inherited errors of ignorant and maniacal ancients over the modern urge to
gather knowledge and use intelligence in a sane process of 'trial and the
elimination of error'. It corrodes maturity and sanity by the way it
facilitates the psychological 'defences' of splitting, denial, and
projection; and it achieves the covert legitimation of hatred even when it
ostensibly encourages the opposite. It is, in fact, among the few human
preoccupations whose unfettered expression *works to deny the very essence
of human-ness*.
In fact, I'd associate it with our wonderful human creativity only insofar
as both urges relate in some way to the individual's unconscious attitudes
to his or her parent-figures -- but even so, there's a vast difference:
whereas the creative person is unconsciously attempting to atone for what
he or she did to his/her mother; the 'religious' person is unconsciously
attempting to avoid and control the violent, punitive rages that his/her
father is believed, in unconscious phantasy, to be about to unleash...
I'm not saying the implementation of the last couple of thousand years of
theology was a good one, I'm saying it might be intrinsically bound to our
nature.
For instance: in a time when everyday occurences have a lot of open ends
(which was untill very recently), religion holds the group together / stears
it towards a common goal (may it be a local one). As humanoids got smarter,
they got more questions. The role of mythology is to reconcile you with the
horror that life is (surviving by killing). Be it as creative as we are,
coming up with gods of the gaps is what happened.
Like Joseph Campbell said:
"As one who has tried himself to go back to the origins of mythic forms, I
can see this: it is bottomless.
The mythological themes don't have a beginning, they have the archetypes,
the elementary ideas, so where is [']paradise[']? Where do they come from?
They come from disele [?]; the soul.. ..the origin is the soul of man."
Niels
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
08 Jun 2005 04:10:27 PM |
|
|
Niels van der Linden wrote:
Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Obviously.
It might even be inherently connected to our creativity; the thing that
separated us from the other humanoids.
I'm bound to say that I really don't like that thought, dear chap!
Maybe you'll think I'm just being weird, Niels; but to me, the human
'religious urge' is the most rigid, atavistic, stereotyped, unrealistic,
infantile and insightless part of the whole animal -- placing, as it does,
orthodoxy, obedience and blind faith above freedom, individuality and the
need for evidence. It's backward-looking and 'revelationist' in nature,
rather than forward-urging and incrementally advancing. It places the
inherited errors of ignorant and maniacal ancients over the modern urge to
gather knowledge and use intelligence in a sane process of 'trial and the
elimination of error'. It corrodes maturity and sanity by the way it
facilitates the psychological 'defences' of splitting, denial, and
projection; and it achieves the covert legitimation of hatred even when it
ostensibly encourages the opposite. It is, in fact, among the few human
preoccupations whose unfettered expression *works to deny the very essence
of human-ness*.
In fact, I'd associate it with our wonderful human creativity only insofar
as both urges relate in some way to the individual's unconscious attitudes
to his or her parent-figures -- but even so, there's a vast difference:
whereas the creative person is unconsciously attempting to atone for what
he or she did to his/her mother; the 'religious' person is unconsciously
attempting to avoid and control the violent, punitive rages that his/her
father is believed, in unconscious phantasy, to be about to unleash...
I'm not saying the implementation of the last couple of thousand years of
theology was a good one, I'm saying it might be intrinsically bound to our
nature.
For instance: in a time when everyday occurences have a lot of open ends
(which was untill very recently), religion holds the group together / stears
it towards a common goal (may it be a local one). As humanoids got smarter,
they got more questions. The role of mythology is to reconcile you with the
horror that life is (surviving by killing). Be it as creative as we are,
coming up with gods of the gaps is what happened.
Like Joseph Campbell said:
"As one who has tried himself to go back to the origins of mythic forms, I
can see this: it is bottomless.
The mythological themes don't have a beginning, they have the archetypes,
the elementary ideas, so where is [']paradise[']? Where do they come from?
They come from disele [?]; the soul.. ..the origin is the soul of man."
Niels
I tend to think that mankind developed a sense of cause and effect concurrently
with belief in God.
After all, God is simply an answer to any cause/effect relationship that can't
be explained.
Glenn Arnold
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 05:16:26 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Please define "Better off".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Woods" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 05:14:44 PM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
Dave wrote:
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
The eternal question of 'What happens when we die' expects the invention
of religion. The possibility of eternal life and roasting in hell for
your sins
expects religious fervor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
08 Jun 2005 10:05:28 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:14:44 -0600, Jason Woods <j@gmail.com> wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
Dave wrote:
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
The eternal question of 'What happens when we die' expects the invention
of religion. The possibility of eternal life and roasting in hell for
your sins
expects religious fervor.
The trouble is that this is not an eternal question except for
believers (and possibly a few recent ex-believers).
Those of us who were never brainwashed into afterlife-belief as child
red, and who cried over the death of grandparents, pets etc knew what
death is.
This "eternal question" never even occurred.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
08 Jun 2005 10:48:13 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 18:16:26 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
wrote:
Dave wrote:
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Please define "Better off".
We haven't anything to promote - apart from the fact that we're no
different than anybody else except that we aren't in the majority
religion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
08 Jun 2005 04:21:50 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Benign religious philosophy? Why bother? Just go out and earn a hefty
paycheck.
If, on the other hand, you're interested in saving your soul from
damnation, here's a start:
The Our Father Prayer:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be Thy name;
Thy kingdom come;
Thy will be done, on earth
as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those
who trespass against us;
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil. Amen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
08 Jun 2005 09:48:42 PM |
|
|
<vivapadrepio@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118265710.590541.28290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Eh? 'viva padre pio'...?
You mean *this* 'Padre Pio'...??:
"Indeed, Padre Pio's reputation over the decades has -- even in many
official church quarters -- been that of a womanizer, fraud, and mentally
ill huckster who claimed extraordinary paranormal powers. The padre was
investigated by the Holy Office over a dozen times, and at one point banned
from celebrating the Mass in public, receiving visitors, or talking to women
alone. Correspondent John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter newspaper
recently wrote, "The whispered consensus on Padre Pio in the halls of the
Vatican was that he was at best a naive hysteric, at worst a con man.""
"Over the years, investigations even by church officials led to charges that
Pio faked miracles and had sex with women in the confessional box. Many felt
that the friar caused the stigmata by burning his skin with nitric acid, and
used a perfume to create what his credulous followers described as a
pervasive "odor of sanctity" that was said to surround Pio. A report by
journalist Paul Vallely of the New Zealand Herald newspaper says that Pope
John XXIII, suspicious of Pio's cult-like popularity, authorized the bugging
of his confessional. And the founder of Rome's Catholic University Hospital
concluded that Friar Pio was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who
exploited people's credulity.""
"In 1960, Monsignore Carlo Maccari concluded an investigation ordered by
Pope John XXIII. "The 200-page report he compiled," notes the National
Catholic Reporter, "though never published in full, is said to be
devastatingly critical. Vatican gossip long had it that the 'Maccari
dossier' was an insuperable obstacle to Padre Pio's sainthood.""
"One entry in the file reported that Padre Pio engaged in sexual activities
twice a week with female penitents, "his in hebdomada copulabat *****
muliere...""
"In 1992, Italian physician and theologian Agostino Gemelli, who specialized
in the investigation of stigmata cases for the Vatican, said that Padre Pio
was a "hysteric" who inflicted the wounds upon himself."
http://www.sonic.net/~ric/go/church/PadrePio.htm
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
08 Jun 2005 04:35:07 PM |
|
|
On 8 Jun 2005 14:21:50 -0700, "vivapadrepio@aol.com"
<vivapadrepio@aol.com> wrote:
Dave wrote:
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Benign religious philosophy? Why bother? Just go out and earn a hefty
paycheck.
If, on the other hand, you're interested in saving your soul from
damnation, here's a start:
<edited to reflect accuracy and truth in advertizing
The Sky Pixie Wish List:
Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Sky Pixie:
The only thing I really want from you is protection from your followers,
Although Thy king doth come;
And Thy Willie is getting done,
as it is heavenly,
A-person, A-woman, and A-men. Also praise-a-llujah and pass the hooch!
You're very welcome!
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan Olson" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 09:49:27 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Do we stand for that which we're better of promoting, or for
that which, to the best of our ability to discern, is true?
--
--Bryan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
07 Jun 2005 10:42:08 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
Why would a person who does not believe in god want to
promote the idea that there is a god? Doing that would
make me dishonest.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and Progress |
08 Jun 2005 08:00:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:14:32 -0500, Dave wrote
(in article <1118150072.162330.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Would atheists be better off promoting Deism or some other benign
religious philosophy that would fill the "mysticism vacuum?" Do humans
have a natural suseptibility to mysticism/religion due to evolutionary
psychology?
I am not a deist, so why would I promote it?
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
łNo gods were physically harmed during the making of this post. However
nothing was in the contract about emotional or psychological harm.˛
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
