11345Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
- Mar 1, 2008--- In email@example.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>Yes, though I should note that this is a recent understanding that
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bestonnet_00" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
> > My understanding of supernatural is that which is not part of the
> > natural world.
> Yes, just what I said, separate from nature or the natural physical
only really came about due to the scientific revolution recognising a
natural, before modern science they were considered the same thing
(and some people still try to claim that they are).
> > Your view on religion is very different to what the average personOTOH I doubt whether what you think is religion actually is.
> > thinks of religion.
> Exactly. Let the masses go their own way, as the herds following
> the leader with the carrot on the stick. The average or the masses
> is what served Marx's purpose.
Play with the definition enough and you can make anything religion at
which point the word loses its meaning.
> > Maybe there are scholars who think the way you do (there are onesEssentially all religious people think differently to you.
> > who think there is no real world so not that unlikely) but they
> > study made up fantasies of how religion is, not what actually
> > happens in the real world.
> When you say "they" you should say some, or most, or many. This is
> perhaps your main problem committing the fallacy of composition.
> How do you know what actually happens?And how do you?
> > Reincarnation not supernatural?Despite it being part of Buddhism.
> No. Reincarnation (samsara) is Hindu.
> > I acknowledge that much of the good claimed to have been done byThere are a lot of people who give undue credit to religion (most of
> > religion was not in fact good (e.g. the crap that Mother Teresa
> > along with countless other missionaries pulled) along with the
> > fact that the genuine good that came from religion would probably
> > have happened without it.
> No. Not just claimed by religion, but claimed by all people, even
> non-believers and atheists.
the population in the average western country probably thought that
Mother Teresa was helping people).
> Again your are short on reading, or even watching TV.I don't tend to watch much TV given that it seems to be mostly crap on.
> And then you place Mother T into your neat little category,The vast majority of missionaries are bad (and many of them are far
> again committing the composition fallacy by applying the negatives
> about her (and I agree to them) to all of her.
worse than her).
> "Probably" would have happened without religious motivation ofThe people that weren't doing it to buy converts would probably have
> love?????? You sure do reveal yourself, how you really are.
helped without a religion because they were just good people.
Even so, not having religion suppress science would have helped more
than all the charity in the world multiplied ten times over (the
smallpox vaccine did a lot more good than prayer).
> > Whilst the violence would probably not have occurred withoutOr maybe I just reveal that I know what I'm talking about and that you
> > religion.
> Again you reveal yourself, your extreme bias to your dogma.
can't actually refute it (since if you could you would have instead of
merely saying "extreme bias to your dogma" despite me being the moderate).
> > Bohr, et. al. did also reject the notion that it was anything moreOr you're just delusional.
> > than a methphor (in much the same way atheist Stephen Hawkins
> > speaks of the "mind of god").
> Your not reading the right stuff in which they did not mean
> Granted metaphor for Hawkins and Einstein. Why don't you just sayBecause it isn't probably.
> "probably" in your speculation?
> > Those who were serious about it (and didn't just think of it as anNo, I don't mean probably, I mean that the people who do think there
> > interesting metaphor) are all kooks though.
> You mean "probably" right?
is a real relation between QM and Eastern mythology are kooks.
> > Look deeply into QM, something I suspect you haven't done.No surprise, you might even agree with the guy in the white shirt
> Not my provenance. I just study in an open minded way all the
> prominent reputable scholars I can.
Most of the scholars outside of physics (and maths) departments who
write on QM don't have a damn clue what it is that Quantum Mechanics
actually is so I wouldn't be surprised if you're reading crap about it.
> > Why should anyone given the problems it's caused?Or of investigating what the effects of religious belief have been and
> So you lump all religion into your neat category of the bad
> activities. A sure sign of extreme bias.
coming to the only reasonable conclusion.
> > If you play with the language enough you can even get ChristianityWell there are people who think the bible is actually true despite it
> > to appear to have some relation with the real world.
> I don't do that. So you mean "probably" I would do that?
being so clearly false.
It involves twisting both the bible and modern science but so does
telling people that eastern mythology had something to do with quantum
> > Doesn't mean I'm going to start telling people the world is 6000At least you agree with reality in one area of your life (though how
> > years old though.
> I don't believe that hogwash. I am a thoroughly embued Darwinian
> evolutionist, study it a lot. In my view all theology is hogwash
> for the masses.
closely is another matter).
> > I'm still trying to figure out the relation between the commutatorSo you can't answer it or tell me why that statement is nonsense?
> > of position and momentum being zero and where in Eastern religion
> > that came from though.
> How sweet. Why don't you google it?
- << Previous post in topic