 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> True but he said that 90% of people are sheep and that in not polite
> if you think that each one is a person.
Sorry. But I think now sheep are offended. :P
> Why should the majority be clueless and the minority enlightened?
I don't know, but it's not my fault. I aim high myself and don't look back to
see how others are doing. And please, I'm not talking about money...
If you think a little about it, only about 10% of everything are really any
worth anything, be it music, art, food or, indeed, people. I know, pessimist
as I am, I should be an atheist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> By the religious authorities, dictators, kings etc :)
and absent-minded parents! :P
> Depends what you mean by out-of-ordinary heroes? A good man or woman
> would do me.
I'd say being a good person this days is already out-of-ordinary. But I was
thinking more about enlightned people, like many famous scientists, artists,
heroes and religious leaders...
> Not when I was young in dockland Glasgow. I think that is an American
> thing.
Yes, I'd say I've seen too many sitcoms revolving around neurotic americans...
:P
> Let people have something worthwhile to do and the means to do it and
> they would be a lot happier and healthier.
Yes. But then, suppose in some near future we reach an utopia where death and
disease have been abolished, useful work is done by robots and all we do in our
free time is entertain ourselves with little hobbies, sex and some sort of TV.
I wonder how much pleasure we'd take out of this kind of life rather than our
ancestral struggle to survive.
But then, supposedly heaven/nirvana is like that. Only no sex, I guess...
> >I don't force God down the throats of anyone, do I?
>
> Small gods refers to the diminishing power of schisms in religion. And
> no I don't think you do, do you?
No. And God bless you! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > Kind of like Protestants.. Start with the premise that you don't need
> > the trappings of the church, just a personal relationship with god, then
> > proceed to build lots of churches, rewrite bits of the Bible to sound
> > better, then become some of the most obnoxious people on the planet
> > about being sheppards, by "telling people about Jesus", even when they
> > don't want to know. lol
>
> It's good to see that this thread about bashing ID proponents has not
> converted into an attack towards christian movements.
He was actually doing ok, pretty factual intersperced with personal opinions,
until that final obnoxious AOLer lol...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:30:00 -0500, Warp wrote:
> It's good to see that this thread about bashing ID proponents has not
> converted into an attack towards christian movements.
Well, I have to agree with Patrick's sentiment (though not necessarily
his presentation) about those who tell non-believers regardless because
"they know better what's for us than we do". That's practically a
dictionary definition of 'hubris'.
But it's also fairly common for the "believers" to presume they're being
attacked during a discussion about what some non-believers consider the
idiocy of a religious position, so then we're even, eh?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:58:05 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> I aim high myself and don't look
> back to see how others are doing.
I'm sure we probably don't need to rehash the "I'll pray for your soul"
moment from a few months ago, do we? ;-)
(Just tweaking your nose, honestly)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:58:05 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
> > I aim high myself and don't look
> > back to see how others are doing.
>
> I'm sure we probably don't need to rehash the "I'll pray for your soul"
> moment from a few months ago, do we? ;-)
ok, so I was half-jokingly trying to get you pissed off. My bad. A completely
sane, sterilized and logic discussion on people's beliefs is never entirely
possible because of natural bias. I apologize.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:16:37 EST, "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>
>I'd say being a good person this days is already out-of-ordinary. But I was
>thinking more about enlightned people, like many famous scientists, artists,
>heroes and religious leaders...
I fear for the society that you live in then. And why should being a
famous scientist make you good? As for artists well history is full of
them being castigated for their views and I won't give my view on most
of the religious leaders around.
>> Let people have something worthwhile to do and the means to do it and
>> they would be a lot happier and healthier.
>
>Yes. But then, suppose in some near future we reach an utopia where death and
>disease have been abolished, useful work is done by robots and all we do in our
>free time is entertain ourselves with little hobbies, sex and some sort of TV.
>I wonder how much pleasure we'd take out of this kind of life rather than our
>ancestral struggle to survive.
Wake me up when it happens
>But then, supposedly heaven/nirvana is like that. Only no sex, I guess...
Why no sex? Christianity is not the only religion but it has
sanctified a lot of the old ones.
>> >I don't force God down the throats of anyone, do I?
>>
>> Small gods refers to the diminishing power of schisms in religion. And
>> no I don't think you do, do you?
>
>No. And God bless you! :)
Is that the same God that will condemn me to everlasting Hell because
I don't believe He/She exists?
And BTW I am blessed IMO.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:04:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet>
wrote:
>Kind of like Protestants.. Start with the premise that you don't need
>the trappings of the church, just a personal relationship with god, then
>proceed to build lots of churches, rewrite bits of the Bible to sound
>better, then become some of the most obnoxious people on the planet
>about being sheppards, by "telling people about Jesus", even when they
>don't want to know. lol
I can't argue with this :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:14:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet>
wrote:
>In article <a30ju3p36qteeban2l1htfmffh7fafb443@4ax.com>,
>mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom says...
>> >Hence we can all be part of both the clueless majority and enlightened
>> >minority ;-)
>>
>> Why should the majority be clueless and the minority enlightened?
>>
>Show me a time in history that this wasn't the case. lol Seriously,
>*everyone* is clueless about some things, a small number though rise
>above the majority, to varied amounts, due to upbringing, or natural
>talent, and often have, in some areas, a far clearer understanding of
>the world than the vast majority. The majority though, tend to look for
>those that confirm their opinion, not those that challenge it (which is
>one of the main traits that distinguish that other minority).
But the knack is not to think or treat them like that or you end up
"knowing what is best" for them. Then becoming one of the oppressors.
>This is
>what priesthoods are based on, the careful catering to the
>*expectations* of the parishioner.
True IMO
>When churches have, on rare occation,
>gotten uppity and told people they didn't want to hear, the result where
>usually not too good for the church. Though, its a toss up whether this
>has been worse than the cases where they told their followers what they
>wanted to hear, only to have those people later discover it was a lie
>(like a number of fun scandals the US has seen recently, of which the
>Catholics are but one in a broad membership).
Well you are on a hiding to nothing if you try to say that you are
infallible.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:58:05 EST, "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>> True but he said that 90% of people are sheep and that in not polite
>> if you think that each one is a person.
>
>Sorry. But I think now sheep are offended. :P
So I eat sheep and don't care :)
>> Why should the majority be clueless and the minority enlightened?
>
>I don't know, but it's not my fault. I aim high myself and don't look back to
>see how others are doing. And please, I'm not talking about money...
Hmm! Reminds me of the prevalent attitude in Jamaica, where I worked a
few years ago.
>If you think a little about it, only about 10% of everything are really any
>worth anything, be it music, art, food or, indeed, people. I know, pessimist
>as I am, I should be an atheist.
>
>
I don't know about being a pessimist I just think you are talking out
of a hole in your head. To translate - nonsense. If you think that 90%
of everything is worthless try looking for the good.
If I had lived in earlier days I would have had to go along with all
this "I believe". Praise the Lord I don't have to "here and now"
(another quote, from A Huxley this time)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
