On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:01:20 +0000, Larry wrote:

Herodotus wrote in
:

there is some wonderful wisdom at times in that book as there
is in the Koran

I bought an Enlish translation of the Koran in a bookshop in the Souk in
Manama, Bahrain. It was translated by a moslem in India in the 1920's and
has been reprinted ever since. The Indian publisher uses terribly
primitive publishing equipment and it shows. The cover is made by hand!

I learned not to read it where any Bahrainis could see me in short order to
keep the lectures to a minimum. Showing an interest, they can go on for
hours...(c; I find it terribly disturbing with so many gory instructions
about cutting off various body parts, outright genocide or at least
murders, and I can see why there is so much blood associated with Islam
like the stonings of half buried people in Iran (youtube has the videos).

No thanks. Mankind needs to shed itself of these killing fields caused by
religions. I find it quite comforting to know that when I die, I simply
don't exist any more and can be soon forgotten, like the billions before
me, recycled into more life by natural selection. I don't have to
"prepare" for death at all. I'm leaving that to someone else's problems...
(c;

The problem in imagining a religionless history is considering how
much worse such a history would be.
Leaving aside religions' excesses - and there is every reason to
suppose those excesses would be greater without the constraints of
religion-imposed "morality"- what motivations toward "good" can you
point to that are not sourced in the tenets of a religion?
You can't.
There is no profit in bemoaning history. We are its final product.
History is best used to refine our movement forward.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:01:20 +0000, Larry wrote:

Herodotus wrote in
m:

there is some wonderful wisdom at times in that book as there
is in the Koran

I bought an Enlish translation of the Koran in a bookshop in the Souk in
Manama, Bahrain. It was translated by a moslem in India in the 1920's and
has been reprinted ever since. The Indian publisher uses terribly
primitive publishing equipment and it shows. The cover is made by hand!

I learned not to read it where any Bahrainis could see me in short order
to
keep the lectures to a minimum. Showing an interest, they can go on for
hours...(c; I find it terribly disturbing with so many gory instructions
about cutting off various body parts, outright genocide or at least
murders, and I can see why there is so much blood associated with Islam
like the stonings of half buried people in Iran (youtube has the videos).

No thanks. Mankind needs to shed itself of these killing fields caused by
religions. I find it quite comforting to know that when I die, I simply
don't exist any more and can be soon forgotten, like the billions before
me, recycled into more life by natural selection. I don't have to
"prepare" for death at all. I'm leaving that to someone else's
problems...
(c;

The problem in imagining a religionless history is considering how
much worse such a history would be.
Leaving aside religions' excesses - and there is every reason to
suppose those excesses would be greater without the constraints of
religion-imposed "morality"- what motivations toward "good" can you
point to that are not sourced in the tenets of a religion?
You can't.
There is no profit in bemoaning history. We are its final product.
History is best used to refine our movement forward.

--Vic


I disagree. You can only guess at what a religionless history would have
been like.

Morality via religion breeds behavior that is covered up by the officials
and participants of the religion. Look at Major and minor religions - bad
medicine (literally), priests abusing kids, "holy wars" throughout history.
Look at communism - arguably a state-sponsored religion, no good can be
found beyond the theory, which doesn't work in practice. Look at
capitalism - reasonably ok, as long as it is constrained by the "public
good" interest (however you define it), not socialism (which is really a
nanny state), but enlightened self-interest, where gov't nudges itself and
its citizens toward the public good based on facts not faith.

I would point to science, lead by intelligent, caring people who are
generally non-sectarian or can at least separate themselves from their faith
beliefs. Some have claimed that science (or math) is a religion, which I'll
allow, but it's based on hypothesis
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypothesis) vs. conjecture
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conjecture) or faith
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...=&o3=&h= 0000)
(aka Intelligent Design).


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:55:42 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:



I disagree. You can only guess at what a religionless history would have
been like.

Yes, I agree.

--Vic

capitalism - reasonably ok, as long as it is constrained by the "public
good" interest (however you define it), not socialism (which is really a
nanny state), but enlightened self-interest, where gov't nudges itself and
its citizens toward the public good based on facts not faith.

I disagree about your "nanny states' having been raised and nurtured
by one, as compared to your capitalism as is practicised nowadays in
the USA which seems not to be constrained by the "public good" but
where big business combined with political self serving has led to a
recession as you are currently entering.

Capitalism is good, agreed, but it must have some regulatory
constraints other than market forces. The social cost is too high
otherwise. This has been belatedly recognised by the previously
Communiist regimes.

Also, regardless of people's denial of a "God", each still has his own
"religion" which could be defined as a set of tenets, moral values,
beliefs and understanding as to one's place in the universe. Atheism
has also been described as a religion.

I would point to science, lead by intelligent, caring people who are
generally non-sectarian or can at least separate themselves from their faith
beliefs. Some have claimed that science (or math) is a religion, which I'll
allow, but it's based on hypothesis
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypothesis) vs. conjecture
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conjecture) or faith
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...=&o3=&h= 0000)
(aka Intelligent Design).

What part of science do you point to? Proven science (which is not a
hypothesis by the way) and the true spirit and freedom of intellectual
pursuit and discovery or the pseudo-science of the religious right
who, when barred by a constitutional ruling to teach Intelligent
Design in US schools have gotten around in in such as the state of
Louisiana by the devious means of the state's proposed Science
Education Act.

This Act is designed to slip Intelligent design in through the back
door. "Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand,
analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific
theories pertinent to the course being taught" The idea that evolution
has weaknesses and is therefore not a solid theory is a recurring
theme in ID literature.

I attended such a religious right boarding school in New Zealand. The
science teacher explained "We are forced to teach the THEORY of
Evolution by the curriculum. However, you all know that we don't
believe it" and went on to teach evolutionary theory in a ridiculous
manner that was so transparent I felt compelled to get some books on
it from the town library.

Evolution is not a theory. It is an established fact. There is
absolutely no reason either, that you cannot uncompromisingly combine
religious feelings with a belief in scientific knowledge. I had a
genetics and evolution professor at university who was a Presbytarian
deaconess. When I asked her if there was any conflict, she replied
"The more I learn about science, the more it reinforces my belief in
God" I now understand what she meant. It all depends on your personal
concept of God.

The "facts" of the book of Genesis were written down for the first
time in the time of King Hezekiah, over 800 years from when Moses
died. It was only in 1844 that a rather scholarly and widely read book
was published describing dinosaur bones having been formed by
"plastic force" and inspired by Satan to lead us astray. If I recall,
the author was one "Werner".

Sorry, I get carried away on this subject as I can see a new dark age
controlled by conservative religious fundamentalists fast coming upon
us. A major recession, huge unemployment and a couple of wars is all
that it will take. Raw capitalism is not serving us all that well it
seems by current economic events.

JC, I do agree that it would be great if society was controlled by
rational thinking scientists. However, human nature being what it is
and has always been, self serving politicians will arise and take back
control, even be it from behind the throne. Also, scientists are not
divorced from ego, selfishness, greed and all the other human
frailities. It just would not work unfortunately. I can give you
concrete examples of where scientists whose decision on, for example,
sustainable fisheries quotas, have sold out to business for personal
gain. They are not evil men but it is surprising easy to overstate
your projections in someone's favour when they offer you a high paying
job "if you ever think of leaving the Government". Asd a result these
fisheries such as the deep sea Orange Roughie have totally collapsed.

As for science. How many of your politicians (or mine) could give you
a tolerable account of the science behind global warming, climate
change, evolution and such? Very few indeed but they are being asked
to legislate for your country's benefit and survival. You have given
them that power to decide on your future.

Grossly Off topic but interesting,

regards
Peter

"Herodotus" wrote in message
...


capitalism - reasonably ok, as long as it is constrained by the "public
good" interest (however you define it), not socialism (which is really a
nanny state), but enlightened self-interest, where gov't nudges itself and
its citizens toward the public good based on facts not faith.

I disagree about your "nanny states' having been raised and nurtured
by one, as compared to your capitalism as is practicised nowadays in
the USA which seems not to be constrained by the "public good" but
where big business combined with political self serving has led to a
recession as you are currently entering.

I am not making any claim that "our" capitalism is properly constrained. I'm
saying that it should be. Clearly (or at least from my perspective) it is
not and should be.

Capitalism is good, agreed, but it must have some regulatory
constraints other than market forces. The social cost is too high
otherwise. This has been belatedly recognised by the previously
Communiist regimes.

No argument here.

Also, regardless of people's denial of a "God", each still has his own
"religion" which could be defined as a set of tenets, moral values,
beliefs and understanding as to one's place in the universe. Atheism
has also been described as a religion.

Someone's individual belief is not what concerns me. It's the religious
order that imposes ritual and dogma.

I would point to science, lead by intelligent, caring people who are
generally non-sectarian or can at least separate themselves from their
faith
beliefs. Some have claimed that science (or math) is a religion, which
I'll
allow, but it's based on hypothesis
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypothesis) vs. conjecture
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conjecture) or faith
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...=&o3=&h= 0000)
(aka Intelligent Design).

What part of science do you point to? Proven science (which is not a
hypothesis by the way) and the true spirit and freedom of intellectual
pursuit and discovery or the pseudo-science of the religious right
who, when barred by a constitutional ruling to teach Intelligent
Design in US schools have gotten around in in such as the state of
Louisiana by the devious means of the state's proposed Science
Education Act.

Scientific Method is a good start.

This Act is designed to slip Intelligent design in through the back
door. "Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand,
analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific
theories pertinent to the course being taught" The idea that evolution
has weaknesses and is therefore not a solid theory is a recurring
theme in ID literature.

Well, screw them. I'm not buying.

I attended such a religious right boarding school in New Zealand. The
science teacher explained "We are forced to teach the THEORY of
Evolution by the curriculum. However, you all know that we don't
believe it" and went on to teach evolutionary theory in a ridiculous
manner that was so transparent I felt compelled to get some books on
it from the town library.

Sounds like someone who should be fired.

Evolution is not a theory. It is an established fact. There is
absolutely no reason either, that you cannot uncompromisingly combine
religious feelings with a belief in scientific knowledge. I had a
genetics and evolution professor at university who was a Presbytarian
deaconess. When I asked her if there was any conflict, she replied
"The more I learn about science, the more it reinforces my belief in
God" I now understand what she meant. It all depends on your personal
concept of God.

It is and it's also a fact:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

The "facts" of the book of Genesis were written down for the first
time in the time of King Hezekiah, over 800 years from when Moses
died. It was only in 1844 that a rather scholarly and widely read book
was published describing dinosaur bones having been formed by
"plastic force" and inspired by Satan to lead us astray. If I recall,
the author was one "Werner".

I love it when someone quotes the bible. Which bible? Written by whom?
Translated by whom? There are so damn many. It's hard to keep them straight
(or a straight face, for that matter.)

Sorry, I get carried away on this subject as I can see a new dark age
controlled by conservative religious fundamentalists fast coming upon
us. A major recession, huge unemployment and a couple of wars is all
that it will take. Raw capitalism is not serving us all that well it
seems by current economic events.

"Coming upon us?" You're living in the past. It's here. Don't look over your
shoulder too quickly.

JC, I do agree that it would be great if society was controlled by
rational thinking scientists. However, human nature being what it is
and has always been, self serving politicians will arise and take back
control, even be it from behind the throne. Also, scientists are not
divorced from ego, selfishness, greed and all the other human
frailities. It just would not work unfortunately. I can give you
concrete examples of where scientists whose decision on, for example,
sustainable fisheries quotas, have sold out to business for personal
gain. They are not evil men but it is surprising easy to overstate
your projections in someone's favour when they offer you a high paying
job "if you ever think of leaving the Government". Asd a result these
fisheries such as the deep sea Orange Roughie have totally collapsed.

I disagree. It could work if we act to control our leaps of faith that tend
to creep into public policy. Despite our emotions, we can work to rid
ourselves of the scourge of religion. Fortunately, I never liked that fish
(Orange Roughie)... double entendre being the fricken "fish" people plaster
on the back of their SUVs.

As for science. How many of your politicians (or mine) could give you
a tolerable account of the science behind global warming, climate
change, evolution and such? Very few indeed but they are being asked
to legislate for your country's benefit and survival. You have given
them that power to decide on your future.

Too few, but politicians are lead by the nose by the people. People make a
lot of mistakes, but they eventually get it right.

Grossly Off topic but interesting,

regards
Peter



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Herodotus wrote in
:

Atheism
has also been described as a religion.


Sort of like Zero is a number.....or lack of....

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:36:17 +0000, Larry wrote:

Herodotus wrote in
:

Atheism
has also been described as a religion.


Sort of like Zero is a number.....or lack of....

Yep! sort of like that

"Herodotus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:36:17 +0000, Larry wrote:

Herodotus wrote in
m:

Atheism
has also been described as a religion.


Sort of like Zero is a number.....or lack of....

Yep! sort of like that


Just like the gods, invented by people... in India and by the Maya
civilization.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:09:21 +1000, Herodotus
said:

You have given
them that power to decide on your future.

Damned inconvenient, those voters.


Assuming you don't believe Larry's consipiracy theories of course. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:55:42 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I would point to science, lead by intelligent, caring people who are
generally non-sectarian or can at least separate themselves from their
faith
beliefs.

You would point to them if.....?


Only if someone requires an active finger.....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com