POLITICS White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit (Fern)

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

When you say, " abstain from religion " do you mean " abstain from Christianity

or other major religion " ?

One does not have to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. to be religious.

There are many lesser known religions.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

[snip]

[Deanna] I missed this statement too. I agree with your statement above,

and also the part about constitutional issues, etc. Folks, religion,

marriage, burial of the dead are all universal characteristics of humans.

That said, I find it interesting that so many humans abstain from religion

these days. It may be evolution that has been a major factor, I don't know.

But the need for religion has been universal in our species throughout

history in every culture.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

[Judith] When you say, " abstain from religion " do you mean " abstain

from Christianity or other major religion " ?

[Deanna] No, I mean all religions from Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism,

Confucianism, Shinto, Voodoo, Wiccan, Paganism and Christianity too. I am sorry

if I have excluded anyone's religion, but I haven't even scratched the surface.

I happen to be a big picture type of gal, and just because I choose a path,

doesn't mean that I am blinded to another perspective beyond it. So I am saying

irreligiousness is more common, I think now, than in the past.

It's a difficult task to try and engage anyone in a religious conversation, as

perhaps you noticed in my sparring with Chris. IMO, it becomes very difficult

to reason with someone who holds abstract notions as concrete truths somehow,

and when dogmas cloud thinking beyond the box, so to speak. Just my opinion

with all due respect and tolerance to people of all faith persuasions.

Now, while Judaism does accept converts, I believe Islam and Christianity are

the only faiths that actively proselytize. Anyone can practice Hinduism, but

Hindus are born into that faith, which is believed to be the oldest on the

planet. And, of course, within Christianity, some sects/denominations actively

seek out members more than others. So from a perspective of the numbers of

world religions, Christianity and Islam are in the minority in this practice.

But there are 1 billion Catholics, maybe in large part due to proselytizing.

Anyone filled with the love of God will shine forth as a beacon for all to see.

Those that bicker and judge are acting like gods themselves. IOW, you catch

more flies with honey than vinegar. :-)

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Deanna,

I asked the question because many people believe that Christianity is THE

only religion and that before Christianity there was no religion.

It is difficult to know just how many people claim a religion because so

many Wiccan/Pagan people are not organized into large groups and we do not

proselytize. We are well aware that there are many paths to deity, and

accept that there is one true path for each individual. There is no one path

that is right for all people.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

Bright blessings for this Yule season.

Re: POLITICS White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit (Fern)

[Judith] When you say, " abstain from religion " do you mean " abstain

from Christianity or other major religion " ?

[Deanna] No, I mean all religions from Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism,

Confucianism, Shinto, Voodoo, Wiccan, Paganism and Christianity too. I am

sorry if I have excluded anyone's religion, but I haven't even scratched the

surface. I happen to be a big picture type of gal, and just because I

choose a path, doesn't mean that I am blinded to another perspective beyond

it. So I am saying irreligiousness is more common, I think now, than in the

past.

It's a difficult task to try and engage anyone in a religious conversation,

as perhaps you noticed in my sparring with Chris. IMO, it becomes very

difficult to reason with someone who holds abstract notions as concrete

truths somehow, and when dogmas cloud thinking beyond the box, so to speak.

Just my opinion with all due respect and tolerance to people of all faith

persuasions.

Now, while Judaism does accept converts, I believe Islam and Christianity

are the only faiths that actively proselytize. Anyone can practice

Hinduism, but Hindus are born into that faith, which is believed to be the

oldest on the planet. And, of course, within Christianity, some

sects/denominations actively seek out members more than others. So from a

perspective of the numbers of world religions, Christianity and Islam are in

the minority in this practice. But there are 1 billion Catholics, maybe in

large part due to proselytizing.

Anyone filled with the love of God will shine forth as a beacon for all to

see. Those that bicker and judge are acting like gods themselves. IOW, you

catch more flies with honey than vinegar. :-)

Deanna

[Guest guest]

[Judith]

It is difficult to know just how many people claim a religion because so

many Wiccan/Pagan people are not organized into large groups and we do not

proselytize. We are well aware that there are many paths to deity, and

accept that there is one true path for each individual. There is no one path

that is right for all people.

[Deanna] This is exactly what yoga philosophy teaches.

And one other consideration: how many wars are fought in the name of religion?

The Christians fight each other in Ireland, the Palestinians and Jews fight in

the Middle East. And on and on it goes. Also, many so-called pro lifers are

real hip on capital punishment, which is so hypocritical to me. All life is

sacred.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

So right you are Deanna.

We won't get started on " Right " to life.

More wars have been fought in the name of the Biblical God than for any

other reason.

I've said enough.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

Bright blessings for this Yule season.

-----Original Message-----

[Judith]

It is difficult to know just how many people claim a religion because so

many Wiccan/Pagan people are not organized into large groups and we do not

proselytize. We are well aware that there are many paths to deity, and

accept that there is one true path for each individual. There is no one path

that is right for all people.

[Deanna] This is exactly what yoga philosophy teaches.

And one other consideration: how many wars are fought in the name of

religion? The Christians fight each other in Ireland, the Palestinians and

Jews fight in the Middle East. And on and on it goes. Also, many so-called

pro lifers are real hip on capital punishment, which is so hypocritical to

me. All life is sacred.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Fern,

" Nothing can destroy a religion if it is a true religion. Christians

have been tortured, killed, persecuted in many ways, and yet in places

where this is happening, even today, Christianity spreads like

wildfire. Religion is a matter of the heart only, and people choose

the religion they can believe in and live by. If people choose

Christianity over other religions to the point that other religions

die out from lack of followers, it seems apparent that something rings

true to those people about Christianity that didn't ring true about

the other religions. "

Yes, this is so true. How can you change a person's heart? You either believe

or you don't, that simple. Even if you are forced to go through the motions.

Vivian

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>It is actually correct, though.

>

>Atheism is a religion simply because it requires faith to believe in it --

>as do all religions. To hold the concept that there is no god as an

>absolute truth is actually pretty hard in the face of all of the

>circumstantial evidence that there is one.

Not every belief that requires faith is religious. I have faith that the

sun will continue to come up every morning for at least awhile longer

(figuratively speaking, of course -- I understand that it's the Earth which

is rotating and orbiting around the sun, not vice versa), but that faith

(and it is faith) is in no way religious. Many other articles of faith

held by many other people are equally areligious. It's no more a religion

to believe that tomorrow our roads and traffic lights will continue to

function as I've experienced and as I expect them to than it is to have

faith that there'll be a tomorrow in the first place, even though

technically speaking both beliefs are matters of faith rather than of

genuine certainty.

Any reasonable, functional definition of religion, excepting metaphoric

uses of the term, such as " that diver sure got religion about checking his

equipment before diving after he almost drowned a few years ago due to a

faulty regulator! " , involves something very much like the dictionary.com

definition I posted yesterday, " belief in and reverence for a supernatural

power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, and/or a

personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship " .

If we're not going to stick to reasonable, functional definitions -- if

instead we're going to use whatever definitions we find rhetorically and/or

politically convenient -- we might as well say " religion " means " the warty

skin of a toad sauteed in butter and served hot on a crisp slice of chilled

cucumber " and then give up on language entirely.

Though there are other legitimate uses of the word (as in my diver example)

the overwhelmingly predominant class of usages, and the class we have

*clearly* been discussing, is literal and not metaphoric, and has limited

and specific scope as defined above. The sole purpose of calling atheism a

religion itself is to attempt to deny it its rational basis and to create

the false impression that atheism and religions are logically, empirically

and rationally equivalent in their explanations of the origins and function

of the world.

(Note that I'm excluding moral and behavioral guidance from my discussion.)

Furthermore, the actual definition of " atheism " is widely abused and

misunderstood. The present state of science and logic gives us no way to

conclude how or from where the universe began. ALL religious creation

myths are just-so stories with no empirical support and no basis in science

or logic, and so atheism rejects them in the same way its parent system

rationality withholds belief in any idea which is empirically and logically

insupportable. Atheism and logic-based, scientific rationality reject the

individual God and gods of the world's religions, particularly including

all the highly specific (and variegated and internally contested) details

of those religions on that basis without offering a competing certainty

about the actual origins of the universe.

At some point, science may advance to a point at which it can draw

conclusions about the first cause or causes of the universe, but that

problem is not yet scientifically solvable.

In fact, creation and creator myths only remove the problem by one

degree. Many religious people express belief that their god or gods must

exist because there's no other way the universe could have come into

existence. IOW they believe that the universe couldn't either be eternal,

with no beginning or end, or have sprung into being by itself. But they

attempt to solve this legitimate conundrum with a solution that's actually

exactly equivalent to the problem -- an agency of creation which itself is

either eternal or, in some cases, simply sprang into existence with no

prior cause.

Some people also confuse atheism with agnosticism, but in fact while

atheism withholds belief in the various religious explanations of the

origins and function of the universe as logically, scientifically and

empirically insupportable but presently offers no certainties about the

actual prior cause of the universe due to the current limits of science,

agnosticism basically says " who knows, any one (or more) of the world's

religions may be correct, even exactly correct " . Though quantum mechanics

(an incomplete and imperfect science awaiting drastic revision and

improvement, BTW) does suggest that many, many things are possible, even

some things which might not overtly appear to obey the rules of science and

cause and effect, the actual chance that any religious systema is accurate

is so extraordinarily minute (far less than any chance you can likely

imagine) that agnosticism is clearly irrational. Remember, agnosticism

doesn't merely say " who knows, there might be some sort of agency of prior

cause " (after all, there might -- who can say at this point in the

development of science?) it says " these various logically, empirically and

scientifically insupportable explanations of prior cause and present

function might be exactly correct " .

I hope this clarifies.

-

[Guest guest]

> >> To classify a rejection of

> >> religion as a

> >> religion itself, though, is absurd and misleading.

> >>

> >

> > It is actually correct, though.

>

> You are declaring this as fact?!

Certainly! It's obvious, isn't it?

>

> If all that is necessary to call something a religion is some loose

> rendition of 'faith', then one could call every belief system

> a religion,

> which renders the term rather meaningless.

Yes, all you need is faith and no, it doesn't render the term meaningless.

It rather infuses the term with meaning and application far beyond the

narrow constraints of the three or four major religions. In fact, common

usage of the word has even come to reflect that. " He's got religion about

baseball " . Enthusiasm and faith applied to sport.

The most basic element of religion is faith. Or belief. Because it is

completely unknowable as to whether there is a god or not, belief that there

is no god is just as faith based as belief that there is.

>

> >

> > Atheism is a religion simply because it requires faith to

> believe in it --

> > as do all religions. To hold the concept that there is no god as an

> > absolute truth is actually pretty hard in the face of all of the

> > circumstantial evidence that there is one.

>

> Please - there is NO circumstantial evidence that there is a god.

Of course there is! It's everywhere around you! All you have to is look.

Smell a rose. Look at the petals. What model more beautifully explains the

implicit order in the world we live in than the God model? If we use Occam,

God wins.

>

> > On the other hand, since this

> > mysterious god refuses to show his or her face and makes

> the us all guess

> > whether or not he or she actually exists is a pretty good

> argument for the

> > position that god is all smoke and mirrors and is really a

> human creation

> > formulated to explain the unknowable.

> >

> > Either position -- insisting that there is a god or

> insisting that there is

> > NO god -- requires faith.

> >

>

>

> In the sense that the word 'religion' is used in the English

> language, and

> not in the contrived sense that people use it to construct

> some sort of

> philosophical argument, atheism is not a religion.

I not so respectfully disagree. Atheism has all of the characteristics of a

religion. Faith in that which is unknowable. If it walks like a duck.....

Ron

[Guest guest]

[HJ] Deanna: I agree with the need, but I don't know that " so many " are

abstaining from " religion " .

[Deanna] Heidi, good observation. I think you are correct in the sense that

people observe some sort of spiritual expression. And I was thinking Europeans

were less religious in numbers than Americans, but I am limiting my scope

unnecessarily to formal religions and institutions. My bad.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>What model more beautifully explains the

>implicit order in the world we live in than the God model? If we use Occam,

>God wins.

The " beauty " of an explanation is subjective, and certainly not a factual

argument pro or con, but scientists generally find the scientific

explanations of the world (the evolution of the rose, for example) more

beautiful than the faith-based ones.

More importantly, Occam's Razor hardly comes down on the side of God,

because if the rose's existence requires God to explain it, God requires

another God to explain his.

-

[Guest guest]

> >> To classify a rejection of

> >> religion as a

> >> religion itself, though, is absurd and misleading.

> >>

> >

> > It is actually correct, though.

>

> You are declaring this as fact?!

Certainly! It's obvious, isn't it?

>>>>> No. The only thing that's obvious is that you are distorting the English

language in a self serving way.

>

> If all that is necessary to call something a religion is some loose

> rendition of 'faith', then one could call every belief system

> a religion,

> which renders the term rather meaningless.

Yes, all you need is faith and no, it doesn't render the term meaningless.

It rather infuses the term with meaning and application far beyond the

narrow constraints of the three or four major religions. In fact, common

usage of the word has even come to reflect that. " He's got religion about

baseball " . Enthusiasm and faith applied to sport.

>>>>>> Words have more than one meaning. When one says 'Christianity is a

religion', one is using the word differently than when one says ' has

religion about baseball'.

The most basic element of religion is faith. Or belief. Because it is

completely unknowable as to whether there is a god or not, belief that there

is no god is just as faith based as belief that there is.

>>>>>> Just because faith is a basic element of religion does not mean that

everyting that requires some faith is a religion. gave some pretty good

examples.

>

> >

> > Atheism is a religion simply because it requires faith to

> believe in it --

> > as do all religions. To hold the concept that there is no god as an

> > absolute truth is actually pretty hard in the face of all of the

> > circumstantial evidence that there is one.

>

> Please - there is NO circumstantial evidence that there is a god.

Of course there is! It's everywhere around you! All you have to is look.

Smell a rose. Look at the petals. What model more beautifully explains the

implicit order in the world we live in than the God model? If we use Occam,

God wins.

>>>> While these things are indeed beautiful, to assume that they are evidence

that there is a god, when you are arguing presumeably with people who also

believe that they are beautiful but not evidence of a god is really to assume

your conclusion. Again - given the way that 'evidence' and 'circumstantial

evidence' are actually used in English, you are again distorting the meanings of

these terms. Overall you are twisting the language every which way in a self

serving attempt to disparage those who don't believe in a god. " hah - you may

THINK you don't have a religion, but you really do. Poor deluded fools... "

>

> > On the other hand, since this

> > mysterious god refuses to show his or her face and makes

> the us all guess

> > whether or not he or she actually exists is a pretty good

> argument for the

> > position that god is all smoke and mirrors and is really a

> human creation

> > formulated to explain the unknowable.

> >

> > Either position -- insisting that there is a god or

> insisting that there is

> > NO god -- requires faith.

> >

>

>

> In the sense that the word 'religion' is used in the English

> language, and

> not in the contrived sense that people use it to construct

> some sort of

> philosophical argument, atheism is not a religion.

I not so respectfully disagree. Atheism has all of the characteristics of a

religion. Faith in that which is unknowable. If it walks like a duck.....

Ron

>

>

> > >> To classify a rejection of

> > >> religion as a

> > >> religion itself, though, is absurd and misleading.

> > >>

> > >

> > > It is actually correct, though.

> >

> > You are declaring this as fact?!

>

> Certainly! It's obvious, isn't it?

>

> >

> > If all that is necessary to call something a religion is some loose

> > rendition of 'faith', then one could call every belief system

> > a religion,

> > which renders the term rather meaningless.

>

> Yes, all you need is faith and no, it doesn't render the term meaningless.

> It rather infuses the term with meaning and application far beyond the

> narrow constraints of the three or four major religions. In fact, common

> usage of the word has even come to reflect that. " He's got religion about

> baseball " . Enthusiasm and faith applied to sport.

>

> The most basic element of religion is faith. Or belief. Because it is

> completely unknowable as to whether there is a god or not, belief that there

> is no god is just as faith based as belief that there is.

>

> >

> > >

> > > Atheism is a religion simply because it requires faith to

> > believe in it --

> > > as do all religions. To hold the concept that there is no god as an

> > > absolute truth is actually pretty hard in the face of all of the

> > > circumstantial evidence that there is one.

> >

> > Please - there is NO circumstantial evidence that there is a god.

>

> Of course there is! It's everywhere around you! All you have to is look.

> Smell a rose. Look at the petals. What model more beautifully explains the

> implicit order in the world we live in than the God model? If we use Occam,

> God wins.

>

> >

> > > On the other hand, since this

> > > mysterious god refuses to show his or her face and makes

> > the us all guess

> > > whether or not he or she actually exists is a pretty good

> > argument for the

> > > position that god is all smoke and mirrors and is really a

> > human creation

> > > formulated to explain the unknowable.

> > >

> > > Either position -- insisting that there is a god or

> > insisting that there is

> > > NO god -- requires faith.

> > >

> >

> >

> > In the sense that the word 'religion' is used in the English

> > language, and

> > not in the contrived sense that people use it to construct

> > some sort of

> > philosophical argument, atheism is not a religion.

>

> I not so respectfully disagree. Atheism has all of the characteristics of a

> religion. Faith in that which is unknowable. If it walks like a duck.....

>

> Ron

>

>

>

>

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

> HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

> & mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

>

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></

> LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A>

> to the list</LI>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A>

from

> the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A>

> to the List Owner & Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Nicely said.

> >It is actually correct, though.

> >

> >Atheism is a religion simply because it requires faith to

> believe in it --

> >as do all religions. To hold the concept that there is no god as an

> >absolute truth is actually pretty hard in the face of all of the

> >circumstantial evidence that there is one.

>

> Not every belief that requires faith is religious. I have

> faith that the

> sun will continue to come up every morning for at least awhile longer

> (figuratively speaking, of course -- I understand that it's

> the Earth which

> is rotating and orbiting around the sun, not vice versa), but

> that faith

> (and it is faith) is in no way religious. Many other

> articles of faith

> held by many other people are equally areligious. It's no

> more a religion

> to believe that tomorrow our roads and traffic lights will

> continue to

> function as I've experienced and as I expect them to than it

> is to have

> faith that there'll be a tomorrow in the first place, even though

> technically speaking both beliefs are matters of faith rather than of

> genuine certainty.

I understand exactly what you are saying and yet I respectfully disagree.

This core of faith that you discuss so clearly above is exactly and

precisely the very same faith that encompasses traditional religious belief.

Once that is understood then it is possible to understand how the very act

of living is a continuing, unfolding act of faith. It is highly possible

that formalized religion and belief in a god is inevitable as the structured

and symbolic expression of this daily, moment to moment living in faith that

is the human condition.

>

> Any reasonable, functional definition of religion, excepting

> metaphoric

> uses of the term, such as " that diver sure got religion about

> checking his

> equipment before diving after he almost drowned a few years

> ago due to a

> faulty regulator! " ,

I don't agree that it is metaphor. It truly _is_ religion. You must have

faith in the regulator or you would never go underwater. Your faith must be

complete and it must be total. If you don't have that kind of faith -- that

the next moment will unfold much like the previous one -- you would never

dive. And I know as I'm a diver. The belief and faith that the diver

exhibits is as thorough and complete as that of any Christian or Muslim and

the actual outcome -- life after death, whether the regulator will continue

to work, is just as ultimately unknowable. Predictable yes. Knowable, no.

> involves something very much like the

> dictionary.com

> definition I posted yesterday, " belief in and reverence for a

> supernatural

> power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the

> universe, and/or a

> personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief

> and worship " .

>

> If we're not going to stick to reasonable, functional

> definitions -- if

> instead we're going to use whatever definitions we find

> rhetorically and/or

> politically convenient -- we might as well say " religion "

> means " the warty

> skin of a toad sauteed in butter and served hot on a crisp

> slice of chilled

> cucumber " and then give up on language entirely.

I again respectfully disagree. I think that we can all agree that religion

isn't related to warty toad skin but I think that we can reasonably discuss

what is actually religious and what characteristics religion may encompass.

My particular set of life experiences has taught me that religion is much

broader than Church on Sunday, yet the core of what I'm trying to explain is

exactly and totally contained in that Church service.

Remember -- growth always comes through expansion and inclusion along with

exclusion. The world is a much more interesting and broader place when

religion is viewed from its core, stripped down elements of faith in the

unknown. It is much richer without being incorrect. It expands and

includes that which came before but it still excludes warty toad skin, I

think.

>

> Though there are other legitimate uses of the word (as in my

> diver example)

> the overwhelmingly predominant class of usages, and the class we have

> *clearly* been discussing,

This is probably true as I have not read the entire series of threads

related to this topic. I cherry picked around and saw your post. I felt

that I had something useful to say.

> is literal and not metaphoric, and

> has limited

> and specific scope as defined above. The sole purpose of

> calling atheism a

> religion itself is to attempt to deny it its rational basis

> and to create

> the false impression that atheism and religions are

> logically, empirically

> and rationally equivalent in their explanations of the

> origins and function

> of the world.

Again I respectfully disagree. It is my considered opinion that Atheism is

fundamentally religious in nature and that it deludes itself into thinking

that it is rational. At its core atheism requires as much faith as any form

of religion.

>

> (Note that I'm excluding moral and behavioral guidance from

> my discussion.)

>

> Furthermore, the actual definition of " atheism " is widely abused and

> misunderstood. The present state of science and logic gives

> us no way to

> conclude how or from where the universe began. ALL religious

> creation

> myths are just-so stories with no empirical support and no

> basis in science

> or logic, and so atheism rejects them in the same way its

> parent system

> rationality withholds belief in any idea which is empirically

> and logically

> insupportable. Atheism and logic-based, scientific

> rationality reject the

> individual God and gods of the world's religions,

> particularly including

> all the highly specific (and variegated and internally

> contested) details

> of those religions on that basis without offering a competing

> certainty

> about the actual origins of the universe.

Rejecting these gods requires as much faith as accepting them. Should

science and rationalism stop at simply acknowledging that there is no way to

know the answer at this point you have agnosticism. A much more tenable

position, in my view. Science (done properly) is by nature agnostic. When

" Science " takes the position that these gods are false without any mechanism

to prove such assertions, atheism is the result and, as I'm stating ad

infinitum, is faith based.

>

> At some point, science may advance to a point at which it can draw

> conclusions about the first cause or causes of the universe, but that

> problem is not yet scientifically solvable.

Yes, therefore agnosticism is the proper response, I think.

>

> In fact, creation and creator myths only remove the problem by one

> degree. Many religious people express belief that their god

> or gods must

> exist because there's no other way the universe could have come into

> existence. IOW they believe that the universe couldn't

> either be eternal,

> with no beginning or end, or have sprung into being by

> itself. But they

> attempt to solve this legitimate conundrum with a solution

> that's actually

> exactly equivalent to the problem -- an agency of creation

> which itself is

> either eternal or, in some cases, simply sprang into

> existence with no

> prior cause.

Yes! Of course. Very nicely and clearly presented. A dramatic argument

against traditional religious belief.

>

> Some people also confuse atheism with agnosticism, but in fact while

> atheism withholds belief in the various religious explanations of the

> origins and function of the universe as logically, scientifically and

> empirically insupportable but presently offers no certainties

> about the

> actual prior cause of the universe due to the current limits

> of science,

> agnosticism basically says " who knows, any one (or more) of

> the world's

> religions may be correct, even exactly correct " .

Yes. As any of these assertions are currently unknowable or unprovable then

the simple fact is that we are currently unable to know the truth in any

direction. Hence, we are left with faith.

> Though

> quantum mechanics

> (an incomplete and imperfect science awaiting drastic revision and

> improvement, BTW) does suggest that many, many things are

> possible, even

> some things which might not overtly appear to obey the rules

> of science and

> cause and effect, the actual chance that any religious

> systema is accurate

> is so extraordinarily minute (far less than any chance you can likely

> imagine) that agnosticism is clearly irrational. Remember,

> agnosticism

> doesn't merely say " who knows, there might be some sort of

> agency of prior

> cause " (after all, there might -- who can say at this point in the

> development of science?) it says " these various logically,

> empirically and

> scientifically insupportable explanations of prior cause and present

> function might be exactly correct " .

You are getting lost in the probabilities here. I think your conclusion

that agnosticism is irrational does not follow from your statements. That

the current working model of this universe, quantum mechanics, allows for

the unlikely probability that any of the worlds current religion is wholly

true _it still allows for the probability_! How you conclude that this

makes it irrational is not obvious to me. While I am no statistician, it is

very clear that there is a chance, however small, that one of these

religions may be exactly correct. What I perceive that you are doing is

implying that that chance is far greater than an agnostic would state that

actually is. Agnosticism recognizes the possibility of the coherence of one

of these religions but also recognizes that the chances of that being true

are just as small as you so nicely attempted to explain above. _Yet the

chance remains_. Think about it -- how likely is it that anyone would have

ever predicted the existence of this particular universe from the viewpoint

of the void? The chances of this life existing are certainly about as small

as the chances of any religion being wholly true. Yet, here we are.

Let me just say autobiographically that when I think about these things I'm

an agnostic. I consider the possibility that any of the worlds major

religions are correct to be infinitesimal and I live my life accordingly.

However, I fully recognize that not only do I not know the answer, I think

that it is obvious that given our current state of development it impossible

to know. One of the most persuasive arguments that I have heard illustrates

the fact that if we are even asking these questions we are already lost in

the minutiae of the argument. It is patently obvious that there is no god

and that the question is actually moot. However, having once believed fully

and completely in the Christian way I can see the beauty, power and

usefulness of many of the countervailing arguments. I also accept that I

live in faith every single second of every single day and that this faith is

no different except by degree as the faith that is codified in our various

structured religions.

Ron

>

> I hope this clarifies.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Gene-

>

> > >>>>> No. The only thing that's obvious is that you are distorting the

> > English language in a self serving way.

>

> How is Ron's misuse of the word *self*-serving?

To win the argument. Clearly the language is being distorted, as you have

already observed. The only discernible reason that I can see, to actually call

atheism a religion, and to call flowers circumstantial evidence of god requiring

faith to disbelieve, is to win. One can hold the views that the beauty of

flowers is evidence of God's existence, but to raise it to the level of evidence

that would require faith to not believe in God is changing the meaning of the

terms so that atheists are now engaging in a contradiction.

>

> >Overall you are twisting the language every which way in a self serving

> >attempt to disparage those who don't believe in a god. " hah - you may

> >THINK you don't have a religion, but you really do. Poor deluded fools... "

>

> By that logic, disagreeing is by its very nature disparaging,

Really. Don't think so. I don't think that every argument is an attempt to show

that the 'adversary' is being hypocritical.

>and while I

> agree that some religious people definitely do disparage non-religious

> people, I completely fail to see positive evidence of that in Ron's posts.

>

> Speaking as the list-owner now, I'd also prefer to keep debate and

> disagreement *im*personal. If Ron had come out and said " you're a

> hypocritical dope for saying atheism isn't a religion "

> that would be one thing, but I really don't think he's even implied it.

I do think that he's implied it. Perhaps not consciously.

>

> Gene-

>

> > >>>>> No. The only thing that's obvious is that you are distorting the

> > English language in a self serving way.

>

> How is Ron's misuse of the word *self*-serving?

>

> >Overall you are twisting the language every which way in a self serving

> >attempt to disparage those who don't believe in a god. " hah - you may

> >THINK you don't have a religion, but you really do. Poor deluded fools... "

>

> By that logic, disagreeing is by its very nature disparaging, and while I

> agree that some religious people definitely do disparage non-religious

> people, I completely fail to see positive evidence of that in Ron's posts.

>

> Speaking as the list-owner now, I'd also prefer to keep debate and

> disagreement *im*personal. If Ron had come out and said " you're a

> hypocritical dope for saying atheism isn't a religion "

> that would be one thing, but I really don't think he's even implied it.

>

> Also, please trim more of the material you're back-quoting in posts. It's

> hard to find what you've written in the mass of verbiage you backquote, and

> the excess just wastes space and bandwidth. It's particularly annoying for

> people who subscribe in digest mode, but it's a pain generally for

> anyone. I don't mean to single you out about that either, and I'll be

> making a more general point about it soon, but this instance caught my eye.

>

>

>

> -

>

>

>

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

> HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

> & mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

>

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></

> LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A>

> to the list</LI>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A>

from

> the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A>

> to the List Owner & Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> The " beauty " of an explanation is subjective, and certainly

> not a factual

> argument pro or con, but scientists generally find the scientific

> explanations of the world (the evolution of the rose, for

> example) more

> beautiful than the faith-based ones.

I agree with your assertions and yet am able to find both models beautiful.

>

> More importantly, Occam's Razor hardly comes down on the side of God,

> because if the rose's existence requires God to explain it,

> God requires

> another God to explain his.

While I generally acknowledged the validity of your argument in my other

response I would state here that the general understanding that I have of

the way God is interpreted in Christianity makes this untrue. Part of the

nature of God is that He encompasses all that is and is eternal. Therefore

there is no need for another level of god. (Or turtles all the way down, if

you prefer.) A nice argument for it contains and acknowledges the paradox.

I want to clearly state that I'm no scientist, if that is not obvious

already, but these ideas get fairly sticky in the wonderful world of

physics, also. From whence comes the singularity? How many layers are

there? Are any of the them the " end " ?

Ron

[Guest guest]

[Aven] Great post, . I sometimes call myself an agnostic

rather than an atheist, because, though inaccurate, it's softer and

seems to offend less. Folks can be affronted, hurt, and scared by

people who don't believe as they do, and sometimes one has to

chose between strict honesty and kindness.

I would define atheism as simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.

It says nothing about what one *does* believe. A lack of belief

does not require faith - you simply don't believe something until

you see convincing evidence. Faith is holding a positive belief

with little or no evidence.

Also, your post did not address this, but it came up earlier:

I find it pretty offensive when people equate atheism with

political systems that commit mass murder, like the former

USSR. The Soviets wanted total faith in and loyalty to the state -

thus they sought to destroy any competing institutions such as

religion, family, and market relationships. To imply that all

people who don't believe in gods desire an all-powerful, mass-

murdering state is just ludicrous.

[Guest guest]

> >>>>>> Words have more than one meaning. When one says

> 'Christianity is a religion', one is using the word

> differently than when one says ' has religion about

> baseball'.

[snip]

>

> The most basic element of religion is faith. Or belief.

> Because it is

> completely unknowable as to whether there is a god or not,

> belief that there

> is no god is just as faith based as belief that there is.

>

> >>>>>> Just because faith is a basic element of religion does

> not mean that everyting that requires some faith is a

> religion. gave some pretty good examples.

And what I tried to illustrate in my other response to is that the

difference is not as big as you are making it out to be and is, actually,

part of a continuum.

> > Please - there is NO circumstantial evidence that there is a god.

>

> Of course there is! It's everywhere around you! All you

> have to is look.

> Smell a rose. Look at the petals. What model more

> beautifully explains the

> implicit order in the world we live in than the God model?

> If we use Occam,

> God wins.

>

> >>>> While these things are indeed beautiful, to assume that

> they are evidence that there is a god, when you are arguing

> presumeably with people who also believe that they are

> beautiful but not evidence of a god is really to assume your

> conclusion.

I am using the rose as a tangible example of implicit order. A direct

contradiction to the model of the blind watchmaker. You can make strong

arguments for both and the rose is legitimate evidence.

> Again - given the way that 'evidence' and

> 'circumstantial evidence' are actually used in English, you

> are again distorting the meanings of these terms.

Not at all.

ev.i.dence (ev?i-d?ns) noun

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,

Third Edition Copyright C 1992

> Overall you

> are twisting the language every which way in a self serving

> attempt to disparage those who don't believe in a god. " hah -

> you may THINK you don't have a religion, but you really do.

> Poor deluded fools... "

That is an incorrect conclusion. I actually do not believe in god myself,

although I once did. I also know that I might very well be wrong.

[Guest guest]

> Also, your post did not address this, but it came up earlier:

> I find it pretty offensive when people equate atheism with

> political systems that commit mass murder, like the former

> USSR. The Soviets wanted total faith in and loyalty to the state -

> thus they sought to destroy any competing institutions such as

> religion, family, and market relationships. To imply that all

> people who don't believe in gods desire an all-powerful, mass-

> murdering state is just ludicrous.

Yes, this is so true. One can cite examples of governments that profess strong

religious faith (e.g. the Bush administration) and are also engaged in

atrocities. This, of course, does not mean that religion should be " equated "

with mass murder.

>

>

> [Aven] Great post, . I sometimes call myself an agnostic

> rather than an atheist, because, though inaccurate, it's softer and

> seems to offend less. Folks can be affronted, hurt, and scared by

> people who don't believe as they do, and sometimes one has to

> chose between strict honesty and kindness.

>

> I would define atheism as simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.

> It says nothing about what one *does* believe. A lack of belief

> does not require faith - you simply don't believe something until

> you see convincing evidence. Faith is holding a positive belief

> with little or no evidence.

>

> Also, your post did not address this, but it came up earlier:

> I find it pretty offensive when people equate atheism with

> political systems that commit mass murder, like the former

> USSR. The Soviets wanted total faith in and loyalty to the state -

> thus they sought to destroy any competing institutions such as

> religion, family, and market relationships. To imply that all

> people who don't believe in gods desire an all-powerful, mass-

> murdering state is just ludicrous.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

> HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

> & mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

>

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></

> LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A>

> to the list</LI>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A>

from

> the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A>

> to the List Owner & Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> And what I tried to illustrate in my other response to is that the

> difference is not as big as you are making it out to be and is, actually,

> part of a continuum.

That 2 things may be construed as part of a continuum does not mean that they

should both be considered part of the same category out of which you are

constructing the continuum. A bright sunny day forms a continuum with a rainy

day, but this does not mean that it is raining while it is sunny out. Similarly,

while you might claim that there is a continuum of level of faith between a

baseball devotee and a serious believer in Christianity, that does not mean that

the baseball devotee is religious in the same sense.

>

> I am using the rose as a tangible example of implicit order. A direct

> contradiction to the model of the blind watchmaker. You can make strong

> arguments for both and the rose is legitimate evidence.

That there is order in the universe is not evidence that there is a God in the

same sense that, say, DNA left at the scene is evidence that someone committed a

crime. It is only evidence for a God because you are starting out with the

presupposition that only God can put order in the universe.

>

>

> > Again - given the way that 'evidence' and

> > 'circumstantial evidence' are actually used in English, you

> > are again distorting the meanings of these terms.

>

> Not at all.

Absolutely and totally.

>

> ev.i.dence (ev?i-d?ns) noun

>

> 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

>

> Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,

> Third Edition Copyright C 1992

>

I think that when a phenomenon may be subjectively interpreted by each person as

evidence of something entirely different, we do not use the term 'circumstantial

evidence' in the same sense as we use it elsewhere in the language, say about a

crime. Here it is more of a metaphorical useage, which you are incorrectly

citing as an argument that it therefore takes an act of faith to disbelieve it.

I don't think it takes faith at all to disbelieve that the order and beauty of a

rose is not evidence of a God. The absence of belief is not a belief, or else

dead people could be described as religious.

> > Overall you

> > are twisting the language every which way in a self serving

> > attempt to disparage those who don't believe in a god. " hah -

> > you may THINK you don't have a religion, but you really do.

> > Poor deluded fools... "

>

> That is an incorrect conclusion. I actually do not believe in god myself,

> although I once did. I also know that I might very well be wrong.

>

That is strange. How can you not believe given all of the evidence you cite?

>

> > >>>>>> Words have more than one meaning. When one says

> > 'Christianity is a religion', one is using the word

> > differently than when one says ' has religion about

> > baseball'.

>

> [snip]

>

> >

> > The most basic element of religion is faith. Or belief.

> > Because it is

> > completely unknowable as to whether there is a god or not,

> > belief that there

> > is no god is just as faith based as belief that there is.

> >

> > >>>>>> Just because faith is a basic element of religion does

> > not mean that everyting that requires some faith is a

> > religion. gave some pretty good examples.

>

> And what I tried to illustrate in my other response to is that the

> difference is not as big as you are making it out to be and is, actually,

> part of a continuum.

>

> > > Please - there is NO circumstantial evidence that there is a god.

> >

> > Of course there is! It's everywhere around you! All you

> > have to is look.

> > Smell a rose. Look at the petals. What model more

> > beautifully explains the

> > implicit order in the world we live in than the God model?

> > If we use Occam,

> > God wins.

> >

> > >>>> While these things are indeed beautiful, to assume that

> > they are evidence that there is a god, when you are arguing

> > presumeably with people who also believe that they are

> > beautiful but not evidence of a god is really to assume your

> > conclusion.

>

> I am using the rose as a tangible example of implicit order. A direct

> contradiction to the model of the blind watchmaker. You can make strong

> arguments for both and the rose is legitimate evidence.

>

>

> > Again - given the way that 'evidence' and

> > 'circumstantial evidence' are actually used in English, you

> > are again distorting the meanings of these terms.

>

> Not at all.

>

> ev.i.dence (ev?i-d?ns) noun

>

> 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

>

> Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,

> Third Edition Copyright C 1992

>

> > Overall you

> > are twisting the language every which way in a self serving

> > attempt to disparage those who don't believe in a god. " hah -

> > you may THINK you don't have a religion, but you really do.

> > Poor deluded fools... "

>

> That is an incorrect conclusion. I actually do not believe in god myself,

> although I once did. I also know that I might very well be wrong.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

> HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

> & mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

>

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></

> LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A>

> to the list</LI>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A>

from

> the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A>

> to the List Owner & Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/04 1:24:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

twyllightmoon@... writes:

> Also, your post did not address this, but it came up earlier:

> I find it pretty offensive when people equate atheism with

> political systems that commit mass murder, like the former

> USSR.

_____

[CHRIS] I did no such thing. The USSR adopted atheism in the way that the

Roman Empire adopted Christianity. I am not equating the USSR with atheism any

more than I equate the Roman Empire with Christianity.

_____

[Aven]

The Soviets wanted total faith in and loyalty to the state -

> thus they sought to destroy any competing institutions such as

> religion, family, and market relationships.

____

[CHRIS] I agree with this, but states can also coopt religious institutions

and promote them, while persecuting non-state religious institutions, to gain

power as well. States that justify wars with religion are not necessarily

motivated by religion, but are acting in the interest of consolidating power and

use religion as a justification. That the USSR may have engaged in

state-sponsored violence out of a desire to consolidate power, but that doesn't

change

the fact that it took an official atheist position and persecuted religious

people and institutions. I do not blame this on atheism, nor do I blame

Christianity for the things that states have done in its name. I was merely

pointing

out that atheism, like religion, can be adopted by states and used as a

justification to engage in violence.

____

[Aven]

To imply that all

> people who don't believe in gods desire an all-powerful, mass-

> murdering state is just ludicrous.

_____

[CHRIS]

I am doing no such thing. I hope you also think it is ludicrous to identify

people who DO believe in God with a power-mongering state or religio-political

institution that engages in holy wars.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>>And what I tried to illustrate in my other response to is that the

>>difference is not as big as you are making it out to be and is, actually,

>>part of a continuum.

>>

>>

>

>That 2 things may be construed as part of a continuum does not mean that they

should both be considered part of the same category out of which you are

constructing the continuum. A bright sunny day forms a continuum with a rainy

day, but this does not mean that it is raining while it is sunny out. Similarly,

while you might claim that there is a continuum of level of faith between a

baseball devotee and a serious believer in Christianity, that does not mean that

the baseball devotee is religious in the same sense.

>

I think a better example would be the electromagnetic radiation

spectrum: a real world application of a continuum. From short waves to

long we go from gamma and x-rays, UV, visible light, infrared,

microwaves, TV, FM, band, AM, Long waves. However, they are quite

different in nature: x-rays and radio waves are pretty different in

energy alone. And we are only able to detect visible waves with the

tools contained within our body.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

a more complicated example, yes. But why better?

>

>

> >>And what I tried to illustrate in my other response to is that the

> >>difference is not as big as you are making it out to be and is, actually,

> >>part of a continuum.

> >>

> >>

> >

> >That 2 things may be construed as part of a continuum does not mean that they

> should both be considered part of the same category out of which you are

> constructing the continuum. A bright sunny day forms a continuum with a rainy

> day, but this does not mean that it is raining while it is sunny out.

Similarly,

> while you might claim that there is a continuum of level of faith between a

> baseball devotee and a serious believer in Christianity, that does not mean

that

> the baseball devotee is religious in the same sense.

> >

> I think a better example would be the electromagnetic radiation

> spectrum: a real world application of a continuum. From short waves to

> long we go from gamma and x-rays, UV, visible light, infrared,

> microwaves, TV, FM, band, AM, Long waves. However, they are quite

> different in nature: x-rays and radio waves are pretty different in

> energy alone. And we are only able to detect visible waves with the

> tools contained within our body.

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ha ha. I find your example of sun and rain to be more complicated. Do

clouds figure in? What about snow, sleet, tornadoes, hurricanes? Is

heat a factor?

My example from the world of physics concerns strictly electromagnetic

waves. No other variables are involved in the spectrum.

~Deanna

implode wrote:

>a more complicated example, yes. But why better?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Ha ha. I find your example of sun and rain to be more complicated. Do

> clouds figure in? What about snow, sleet, tornadoes, hurricanes? Is

> heat a factor?

>

> My example from the world of physics concerns strictly electromagnetic

> waves. No other variables are involved in the spectrum.

>

Actually, all we need look at is the continuum between no rain and rain. There

is no need to be distracted by anything else. It is about as simple an example

as I could generate off the top of my simple head.

>

> Ha ha. I find your example of sun and rain to be more complicated. Do

> clouds figure in? What about snow, sleet, tornadoes, hurricanes? Is

> heat a factor?

>

> My example from the world of physics concerns strictly electromagnetic

> waves. No other variables are involved in the spectrum.

>

>

> ~Deanna

>

> implode wrote:

>

> >a more complicated example, yes. But why better?

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> [CHRIS]

>

> I am doing no such thing.

[Aven] Good

[Chris] I hope you also think it is ludicrous to identify

> people who DO believe in God with a power-mongering state or religio-

political institution that engages in holy wars.

[Aven] I certainly do. I think that state power corrupts whatever it

touches, including religion. Good people will use ideas to do good,

and bad people will use them to do harm.

[Guest guest]

Irene-

>Actually this statement is both true and false. On a superficial level this

>is of course true. However if you look at the deep underlying beliefs of

>most religions they are for the most part the same. For instance, in every

>religion you find some form of the statement " Love thy neighbor as

>yourself " . This is no more or less true whether stated by a Christian,

>Buddhist, Jew or Pagan. You can argue all day whether or not Jesus is

>really the son of God or whether the Bible is the word of God but " Love thy

>neighbor " , well that is accepted by every religion that I know of. This is

>the kind of thing scholars of comparative religion do all the time. For

>myself, I find the parts that conflict are not terribly important to me,

>but the parts that one finds universally, that is the stuff I want to

>really understand.

One problem, though: historically, " neighbor " was defined as

" co-religionist " , which largely meant " fellow tribe member " . Universality

is a recent and not universally adopted innovation.

Besides, " love thy neighbor " is an evolved social rule with pragmatic

benefits and justifications. There's nothing inherently religious about

it, even though certain religions have adopted and promoted it.

And furthermore, as I explicitly stated, I wasn't talking about moral

guidance, just about supernatural explanations of the world and of history.

-