Re: virus: religion

red_mist (red_mist@portsurfer.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:49:33 +0100


In message <3.0.3.32.19980414171247.007dce70@mailhost.ais.net>, Bob
Hartwig <hartwig@ais.net> writes
>>Yeah but in a way we any philosophy is just anouther religion and none
>>can be really said to be better than another.
>
>Sorry, but this is bullshit. The mainstream religions that I'm familiar
>with require their adherents to accept bizarre claims on blind faith. This
>is an insult to thinking people. At the risk of reopening the whole
>pointlessly metaphysical thread of conversation on "truth", mainstream
>religions are only appropriate for those who don't hold truth to be
>particularly important.
>
I was just saying that some of what Robin Faichney said in the previous
artical implied this a bit. Some of it is true 'cus some of the
philosophies expressed on this list seem to be almost religious at not
being religious (if you see what I mean)

I belive in being able to think for yourself but I also belive that if
we just belive in 1 point of veiw and not consider all the other peoples
stories and experiences then we are just as bad as the religious freeks.
I don't personally belive in "God" but I want to hear about people who
do and why they do
>>We need to be open minded
>>towards all religions and try to work out what's really "Going On" as
>>someone said on this list a while ago then we will all benefit.
>
>Ah, the old "Argument from Ignorance" falacy. "You must be open minded to
>my claims because you can't prove that they're not true." The burden of
>proof is on the one making a positive assertion. If someone says there
>are jackalopes living in Texas, or I have created cold fusion, or God
>exists, it's their responsibility to back up the assertion with proof,
>it's not my responsibility to take them seriously. The only truly
>open-minded approach is to accept that their complete lack of proof is
>convincing evidence that their claim is false.
>
O.K some of what you say is true but when proof does come up we must
consider it. Einstein had no phisical proof for his theories at the
time but if we would've dismissed him as crazy because of it we would be
a lot worse off today (or maybe better off but that's a different
matter). There are a lot of things in history that have had no proof to
start with but in the end they start to become accepted as new evidence
comes up.

I'm not saying that there will or won't be proof eventually that a god
exists but we need to look at the claims made in religios books about
experiences of people and study them for what they are without any
prejudice

-- 
Only the weak are blind when the mist descends
red_mist