On 11-Jan-09 2:46, nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Natural is what is observed to be natural, not what the Babble insists
>> must be.
> 
> Like Hussein's natural instincts?

Can we apply Godwin's law in this case?

> This reminds me of a great quote from Douglas Adams second book in the
> "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", where Gag Halfrunt, Zaphod's psychiatrist,
> was discussing with Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, who has just exterminated half of
> his crew in a disciplinary exercise:  "Well, I believe this is a perfectly
> normal behaviour for a vogon, right?  This natural and healthy way of focusing
> agressive instincts in acts of senseless violence." :)

But Halfrunt was only in it for the money, so he would applaud 
everything any client would say.

> What would the world be without any rules?

Not all rules have the same moral weight. You have those that have been 
the result of long debate taking every point of view into account and 
you have those that are based on some interpretation of a complex story 
that was taken out of context and retold, retranslated and rewritten a 
few times. The latter is often indistinguishable from a personal view of 
someone. In the history of the church there have been men in power that 
were frightened of homosexuals for some reasons, so that has been 
codified. It is up to you to decide if anyone that points at the bible 
to defend his or her hatred of gays is having a point or that the 
passages they point to are taken out of context and possibly not part of 
the original teachings but later additions/selections and that the 
passages they don't point to have indeed no value.

>> But why am I bothering to argue with you about it. As a general rule,
>> those who can't see where they "may" be wrong are invariably impervious
>> to all arguments, facts, evidence, or even, in some cases, their own
>> religions "general" acceptance of something.
> 
> I'm not impervious to arguments, facts or evidence and, being a geek with a
> passion for science and all nerdy stuff, I have obviously questioned my faith
> quite a few times.  But then I think to myself, "WTH, I don't want to be as
> lame, weeny and cranky as all those atheists fellows seem to be." ;)
> 

Thanks ;)
BTW it is funny but the 'true believers' that I know are more of a 
'lame, weeny and cranky' sort than the atheists that I know. A typical 
selection effect I suppose. One tends to think that someone that one 
agrees with is of the same group. Only those that say thinks that makes 
you feel uncomfortable can be identified as belonging to another group. 
As a result you assume that everyone of that group is like that. Which 
in general is not the case of course.

Post a reply to this message