- ... Heh, indubitably. But I still think it s rather naive to suggest that *all* behavior we judge as atrocious can be attributed to one root cause. TheMessage 1 of 76 , Aug 2, 2005View SourceOn Aug 2, 2005, at 10:37 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:14 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote:Heh, indubitably. But I still think it's rather naive to suggest that
>> On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:59 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
>>> My own take on this is that a country that is more religious than
>>> the UK is bound to exhibit more depraved and bestial behaviours
>>> across the board - more murder, more rape and so on. A country
>>> mired in primitive religious superstition is hardly likely to shine
>>> on respect for human rights.
>> Well, it *had* been a compelling post until this graf. Is EVERY evil
>> that exists ANYWHERE attributable in your mind to religion?
> Stupidity and ignorance have roles too :)
*all* behavior we judge as atrocious can be attributed to one root
cause. The argument that it's all because of religion is as simplistic,
I think, as the argument that we're innately a violent species, that
it's somehow "in our genes" to perpetrate violence. Hubbard tried
something similar in attributing all negative behavior to "engrams" and
founded a cult of lunatics in the process.
One-sided monochromatic thinking tends to lack subtlety and doesn't
often see that *some* validity for *some* points of view does not equal
100% rectitude in all situations. That's a long way around suggesting
the outlook "it's all religion's fault" is not only monotonous but
possibly obsessive. It's also patently false. I can think of quite a
few evils not perpetrated in the name of religion.
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
- ... There are many different designs for eyes in the living world showing that optical sight is a big advantage in surviving to reproduce. The branch humansMessage 76 of 76 , Aug 4, 2005View SourceOn 8/4/05, Warren Ockrassa <warren@...> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Gary Denton wrote:There are many different designs for eyes in the living world showing
> > There have been several recent articles about how it is obvious that
> > humans are obviously not the object of Intelligent Design. Human
> > heads are too big for a significant proportion of mothers and many
> > other things.
> One obvious case in point is eyes. They're extremely poorly engineered;
> actually only an incompetent moron could come up with a worse optical
> design. (And actually, *untrained* but reasonably intelligent high
> school students could come up with BETTER designs.) This suggests the
> "intelligent designer" is a complete cretin.
that optical sight is a big advantage in surviving to reproduce. The
branch humans developed on was not the optimal design but like most
things was good enough.
>Can't help you there at this time though someone might like to examine
> Teeth are another one. There are many many other ways to develop
> choppers that are *not* prone to cavities.
my genes - I am immune to cavities. Can I auction my genetic makeup,
teeth design and biochemical balance in my mouth off I wonder?
>Cancer has triggers and different likelihoods of response.
> And cancer? Guess what: it develops *spontaneously*. That's shoddy
> workmanship in the DNA itself. Designed? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
>Bush contradicted his own science adviser.
> Only idiots like Bush but into this crap.
> Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
> Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006
Easter Lemming Blogs