"Martin Rolls" <msrolls-cutthespam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E6ydnb9-XIF0H3WiRVn-uA@sti.net...
Martin Rolls wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
Martin Rolls wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
Martin Rolls wrote:
.... Religion = concepts that some people can verify
to an extent, but may be universally true
What, oh masterful one, have they been able to verify?
The whole point is that some can verify things
themselves...
No, they can't.... well, if you use circular logic they can.
But then that wouldn't be right then would it.
Do you think they are lying when they say they see
certain things?
Some, yes, with out a doubt.
I think you prefer the "one reality fits all" theory for
all aspects of reality including stuff other than
physical reality. Why?
As soon as you can prove there is anything outside of this
physical reality, then we can talk about it.
I won't be able to by [your scientific] definition!
Then, by default, ANYTHING you claim about your god is a
lie. You present it as fact yet you do not have one iota of
evidence to back it up with.
I have not claimed anything about a specific "my G-d". I do not "have" a
"G-d".
It might be a valid *personal* truth if I believed it and you could not
demonstrate it to be false but I don't take myself that seriously on
Usenet.
I agree it would definitely not be a part of shared truth.
People have been at this for millenia like you say. I was saying one
cannot
do "evidence for/against God" with current axioms. But absence of proof
does not prove anything either.
The whole point about what I was saying earlier [in summary] was
"Who cares if people have separate personal truths." That is
not a problem. The problems occur when these things actively conflict
with social ie shared truths in life-threatening ways. Most religious
people
try to get along with non-religious people and those of other religions
most
of the time. One should not oppose the totality of religions but should
oppose anything they do which threatens life. Quite frankly whether
someone happened to be brought up living religious memes that
they later e4mphatically reject with extreme distaste is a *tiny* part
of any psychological problems they have to deal with in escaping the
social reality of any excessively psychologically oppressive group [but I
am
not
saying all religious groups are excessively psychologically oppressive;
just
an
unspecified "some" on "some" occasions; I quite simply do not know
enough about specific groups]. Groups with such attitudes will spring up
in
non-religious
contexts even if all religion closed shop tomorrow. So it is (a) not
the religions per se are not a problem; and (b) that unnecessary wars
and excessive psychological oppression when/if they occur are a problem
and
are what should be opposed. I
haven't touched on abortion here because I don't want to be interrupted
with flames if I lean one way or the other.
Leaders [unless they are outstanding] are psychologically oppressive
to some small degree at least. Where do you draw the line?
N.B. I mean any leader in any environment, not just religion.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
