Re: [Death To Religion] Re: what if...
- I do not want anyone to stop talking against or for anything. Debate is good, and from my point of view, religions and/or any kind of religious thinking is not good. However, using tactics such as redefining words so that meanings and therefore thoughts become confused, doesn�t help. The media and governments have learned these tricks, which have bean perfected by religious zealots over time, and they are very much at the heart of most controversy today. "Newspeak" used for good intentions can lead to negative results just as if the negative were intended.
Defense means to �defend� and is the opposite of offense or offend. Protection does not require retaliation. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. To be seen as non-threatening does not mean that you need to be seen as weak. Posturing with threat of violence is an act of weakness or perceived weakness, even when it is an act of defiance. They both arise from fear. Knowledge is the cure for fear. Knowledge of the motivations of those you perceive as a threat can come only from them and never from another source which will have their own fears and motivations. Communication is the only way. Communication requires use of language which means we must agree on definitions of words. When the words are used wrong, there is misunderstanding, which can lead to mistrust. For example, saying that an attack is not an attack if it is as defense. It MIGHT be justified, but it is still an attack.
Lovejoe1 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Nod and/or Bruce:
Do you want us to stop talking against religions here???
Do you want me to stop answering back to those religious nerds
What is your point ??
Whatever I say in this very group will and shall hurt
any believer and can be accepted as an attack,
so shall I be quiet not to hurt them
or not to constitute their attacks?
What we are doing here? Peace talks? Church talks?
Defense does not mean somebody starts to hit you and
you answer back by hitting them etc..
If one enters your home and tries to tie you with a rope,
what would you do ?
Wait to be wrapped?
Most logical answer is; you would try to defense yourself.
This is what happens here.
Another example, somebody throws a stone to you while
you walk in his garden, what would you do?
Throw the stone back and fight ?
Can you call it defense?
You can call it; he hit me first, I hit him back stuff.
The logical answer is: You should leave his private garden!
This is certainly not the case here...
This is a public area specialized in talks against religions!
And it's not the case even in Earth.
Because Earth is not the garden of believers !
I can talk against god and religions.
You can talk against Bush or Saddam or whoever.
It's not their garden too.
--- In email@example.com, Bruce Allen
>initial attack it is not an attack -"He hit me first so I
> Here we go with the newspeak. Cem implies that since it was not the
am 'justified' in hitting back". It's still hitting and that does
constitute an attack. - Bruce
> .com> wrote:No, it's not like what you see...then
> We are not attacking.
> We are defending...
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "nOd "
> > cem,
> > I guess your right but dont you think the more we attack them the
> > more they fight back, then we fight back then they fight back
> > on and so forth. Your right but its just my ideal for "them" and
> > for "us" to both live in peace.
> > Thanks for sharing your views.
> > Nod
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- In email@example.com, "nOd <maginoo2k@y...>"
> thier lives? lets not judge their opinion, thier views for themNot to judge would be a shutting down of the mind, a shutting off of
> not to judge ours also? Why dont we just show them how good it is
> to be free.
the senses, a shutting down of reason. This is exactly what faith
is. If you decline the use of faith as a source of knowledge, and
decline the belief in an unprovable "supernatural", then you accept
the premise that existence exists, that man exists, and you accept
the legitimacy of man's senses and his ability to reason. If you do
this you have the choice to either acknowledge your mind and judge
that which is irrational or shut down your mind and accept any
fantasy as legitimate. One has to judge to live. A decision to not
judge is a decision to shut down the mind and negate the legitimacy
of one's life. A decision to not judge is a decision to die.
It is right to judge those who cling to the use of faith as
knowledge and the belief in a "supernatural". It is right to judge
and reject the irrational. A failure to do so is in itself an
irrational act. Failure to judge makes one as bad as the believer
in faith and the "supernatural."
> If you doThere is a third choice. You can accept your mind and your senses and
> this you have the choice to either acknowledge your mind and judge
> that which is irrational or shut down your mind and accept any
> fantasy as legitimate.
judge the irrational, but also acknowledge the possibility that the
conlcusions drawn by your mind are entirely wrong.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, eifion <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> There is a third choice. You can accept your mind and your senses andA good comprimise between the "science as dogma" and pre-modernist positions. Sadly those two are the ones that are most often taught at schools and universities (humanities faculties mostly).
> judge the irrational, but also acknowledge the possibility that the
> conlcusions drawn by your mind are entirely wrong.
I will however state that I don't think the poster you replied to was argueing from either of those positions but was probably in fact using what you've described (which does sound very similar to how science operates).
 Most pre-modernists call themselves post-modernists as they have a delusion of figuring their belief system that everything is a social construct out recently when it in fact pre-dates the 'modernist' scientific method by a couple of kiloyears.