On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:13:06 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd
care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much
semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you
mean?

Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most
agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed
Jewish/Catholic background.
Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world.

The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics.
An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit.
You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if
deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic.



Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can
include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of
hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this
newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an
"agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know.

Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early
humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of
climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the
chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed
traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual
nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs
and ways developed.

In many ways, things haven't changed much.

We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of
autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the
illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much
support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural
disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign
"tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our
primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and
common "beliefs".

Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain
and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something.


I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may
not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation
of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in
your second paragraph.


I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being,
"god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according
to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped
as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the
unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial)
delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a
curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and
differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for
having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be
logically explained, repudiated or attacked.


Wrong. Harry attacks it with almost every post.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!