Guest guest Report post Posted May 13, 2003 Hi Danielle > how can an infant believe in anything? he/she can't! he/she is born not > believing in god; this is inculcated in to him/her from a very young age, as > soon as the child is old enough to ask " Why? " I didn't say they were born " believing " in anything - I said they were born as spiritual beings. That has nothing to do with belief, but with an instinct that the physical world is not " all there is " . What you are saying is a bit like saying that children have to be taught to breath. There is actually pretty reasonable evidence to support what I suggest - most children are far more able to pick up on subtle energies - such as places where arguments have taken place, natural foci of earth energies, etc - and most children have " imaginery " friends who gradually disappear as they are told that non-physical beings are just their imagination. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 13, 2003 Danielle A baby may well be born not believing in a god, but it does not mean it is not spiritual. Why would a baby be born a total sceptic. I would imagine they are born completely open-minded and it is only later that they become unable to equate to anything other than what is in front of them. I don't think we take on all that our parents/teachers try to instill in us. I never knew there were other Pagans when I was a small child, but I can remember feeling exactly the same when I was 2 years old as I do now. I'm sure my parents/teachers were not aware of Paganism being anything other than an out of date religion that was long dead. Jo - " Danielle Kichler " <veggietart Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:44 AM Re: Religion > how can an infant believe in anything? he/she can't! he/she is born not > believing in god; this is inculcated in to him/her from a very young age, as > soon as the child is old enough to ask " Why? " > > Danielle > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette Rankin > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > " Peter " <Snowbow > > > Re: Religion > Mon, 12 May 2003 17:50:25 +0100 > > Hi Danielle > > > While everyone is born an atheist (maybe an agnostic) > > I'd disagree with that - I would say that everyone is born as a deeply > spiritual being, and it is gradually beaten out of us as we get older. The > difference in " religions " is that people find vastly different ways to > interpret the same things - particularly when there is something which can > not have a frame of reference in a purely physical existence. :-) > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release 18/04/03 > > _______________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 13, 2003 Hi John > And logic and science are > fairly closely entwined. And since science is a religion which uses " logic " as its god, you sort of prove my point :-) BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Hi, Whilst some people might put their 'faith' in science, I'd take issue with the idea that science is a religion. Or rather, science as it should be conducted, as a way of learning about the world, as opposed to science as a catch-all term for signs of progress and technology, which are two very different things. In fact, if I were feeling in a defining type of mood, I think I might describe religion as a way of interperating what is seen/discovered/learned of the world about us in terms of a pre-existing mental framework, and science as a way of constantly altering a mental framework to incorporate what is seen/discovered/learned of the world about us. Hmm. Looks like I was in that type of a mood! John - " Peter " <Snowbow Tuesday, May 13, 2003 7:19 PM Re: Religion > Hi John > > > And logic and science are > > fairly closely entwined. > > And since science is a religion which uses " logic " as its god, you sort of > prove my point :-) > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 14, 2003 So much for the compassion of the ultra-religious. Danielle " You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette Rankin ----Original Message Follows---- " Vegecentric " <vegecentric Re: Religion Wed, 14 May 2003 21:07:09 -0700 I was taught that animals have no souls, they can't go to heaven and be " redeemed " , and that it doesn't matter what you do to them here on Earth (I think that thinking was promoted by Thomas Aquinas). I remember one of the nuns laughing about how she put a bunch of kittens in a sack and drowned them. If I sound a bit anti-religion, believe me, I have more than enough reasons. Someone said a cynic was a disillusioned idealist. I'm still idealistic, but there's plenty in this rotten world to be cynical about. Tom - " Danielle Kichler " <veggietart Monday, May 12, 2003 4:43 AM Re: Religion > I don't know what happens after we die; we can't possibly know what happens. > So I prefer to make the most of this life, 'cause it's the only one I know > I've got. I think people make up these stories to scare others into > behaving in a certain approved " moral " fashion. > > Danielle > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette Rankin > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > " Vegecentric " <vegecentric > > > Re: Religion > Mon, 12 May 2003 20:13:13 -0700 > > Religion is a crutch and a comfort to many people. I envy them; if I thought > big Daddy was going to look after me in heaven when I died that would be > great. Problem is, I just can't believe in nursery rhymes. > > Tom > - > " Dave " <tfalbb > > Sunday, May 11, 2003 10:37 AM > Religion > > > > Ok, as I said in my intro, I won't be tactful. > > > > Could someone explain to me why so many people have so little self > belief, > > that they would rather believe in a mythical being to rule their life, > > rather than their own ideas? > > > > Is it so hard to have one's own beliefs, rather than trying to tie them > to > > some religion or other? > > > > Dave > > > > ---- > > > > > > 11 May 2003 15:33:20 > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > - > > " Vegecentric " <vegecentric > > > > Monday, May 12, 2003 7:16 AM > > Re: That's it. > > > > When I hear talk of Christianity..Catholicism dosn't come to mind. > > > > No disrespect to anyone who is seeking the truth and are with the > Catholic > > church. > > > > Simon > > > > > > > If the subject of all the Catholic priests charged & convicted of > raping > > and > > > molesting kids is raised (at least 50 in the last decade here in Oz, > and > > > increasing), my Mum denounces it all as a pack of anti-Catholic lies. > None > > > is so blind as those who will not see... > > > > > > Tom > > > - > > > " Danielle Kichler " <veggietart > > > > > > Saturday, May 10, 2003 8:20 AM > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > For a lovely example of Catholic hypocrisy, get this: one of the > many > > > > colleges here in DC is Catholic University of America. Last year, > > > Attorney > > > > General John Ashcroft gave the commencement speech. This year, after > > > > student protests, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton was disinvited > from > > > > giving a talk at the school's book store because she is pro-choice, > > which > > > we > > > > all know runs counter to Catholic views. Ashcroft's enthusiastic > > support > > > > for the death penalty--which I believe the Pope opposes--evidently > was > > not > > > > as important. Norton wasn't even going to discuss that; she was > there > > > > because a biography of her had been recently published. > > > > > > > > Danielle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette > > > Rankin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > > > " Vegecentric " <vegecentric > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > Fri, 9 May 2003 20:37:39 -0700 > > > > > > > > I was raised strict catholic, and they are most conservative, > > hypocritcal > > > > bunch of pricks you'll meet. The Pope apparently blessed the > (fascist) > > > > Italian troops before going to war (WW2). > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > - > > > > simonpjones > > > > > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 7:54 AM > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Catherine Harris > > > > > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 1:24 PM > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > > > . The sermon was about Genesis, and centred on the fact that > women > > > > deserve pain, suffering because they are full of sin and ate the > apple, > > > > > > > > Did they actually mention an apple as there is no mention of > apples > > > in > > > > bibles I've read? > > > > > > > > You must of went to a catholic church or an anglican church as > they > > > in > > > > my experience don't even denounce war. > > > > > > > > Why they don't read the gospels and try to preach what is said > in > > > them, > > > > is strange to say the least. > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > " Danielle Kichler " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Re: That's it. > > > > >Thu, 08 May 2003 07:49:30 -0400 > > > > > > > > > >I'm sorry if anything I've said could be construed as bashing > > > > religion. I > > > > >have just heard about too many horrible, horrible things done > in > > the > > > > name of > > > > >religion over the millenia to not bash religion. I have also > > > > experienced > > > > >hostility at several points in my life because of my varying > > > beliefs. > > > > And I > > > > >loathe organized religion's hostility toward women, a reason I > > have > > > > >jettisoned the whole business. > > > > > > > > > >Veganism is based in compassion; organized religion talks > > > compassion, > > > > but I > > > > >sure don't see a whole lot of it from so-called religious > leaders. > > > And > > > > >while there are animal rights activists who do some horrible > > things, > > > > they > > > > >cannot compare to the slaughter perpetuated in the name of > > religion. > > > > > > > > > >Danielle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an > > earthquake " --Jeanette > > > > Rankin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----Original Message Follows---- > > > > > " Amylia F " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's it. > > > > >Wed, 07 May 2003 21:08:29 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > >_______________ > > > > >Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > > > > >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > > ><< message5.txt >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > > > -- > > > > On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone > > > > > > > > To send an email to > > > - > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 14, 2003 hi all, and the influence of islam can affect people in britain too.......iworked 5 years ago in a team of mostly muslim workers, and whereas most were fine and fun to work with, the guys were something else, i had to change my personality at work almost beyond recognition as the image of the western woman as trouble maker was an alive idea.....one guy would not talk to me, or answer anything i said, he would reply through a co worker, as if i didnt exist catherine >"Vegecentric" > > >Re: Religion >Wed, 14 May 2003 20:56:12 -0700 > >Hi Marit, >Look, people should believe whatever they want to, if it makes them feel >good (as long as they don't hurt others in the process). Personally, I just >can't believe in all that spirit-world supernatural stuff. There is no real >proof, but, of course, I can't disprove it, just as I can't disprove the >existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. If I did a William Blake and >said I saw visions of heaven and hell and demons and angels, you would >probably think a) I've been smoking something way too strong or b) I should >visit the nearest shrink. > >Tom > > >- >"Danielle Kichler" > >Monday, May 12, 2003 4:20 PM >Re: Religion > > > > Um, just because we don't believe in heaven/hell or the big guy in the sky > > has nothing to do with death. We just don't know what happens after we >die, > > or believe that nothing happens. > > > > Danielle > > > > > > > > "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake"--Jeanette >Rankin > > > > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > "Marit" > > > > > > Re: Religion > > Mon, 12 May 2003 14:57:43 +0300 > > > > I wouldn't call my beliefs religion just faith, and there is a difference. > > Hey Tom, what if you were told that there is no 'big Daddy' not like > > religionists want you to believe. That there is no 'heaven' and you could > > never 'die'. That is one of the biggest illusions of humans! > > The fact is whether you believe in that kind of thing or you deny it, you > > still deny the very essence of religion, without knowing how things really > > work! But there is another way! Not a better way, merely another way! > > > > Marit > > We Are All One! > > - > > Vegecentric > > > > Tuesday, May 13, 2003 6:13 AM > > Re: Religion > > > > > > Religion is a crutch and a comfort to many people. I envy them; if I > > thought > > big Daddy was going to look after me in heaven when I died that would >be > > great. Problem is, I just can't believe in nursery rhymes. > > > > Tom > > - > > "Dave" > > > > Sunday, May 11, 2003 10:37 AM > > Religion > > > > > > > Ok, as I said in my intro, I won't be tactful. > > > > > > Could someone explain to me why so many people have so little self > > belief, > > > that they would rather believe in a mythical being to rule their >life, > > > rather than their own ideas? > > > > > > Is it so hard to have one's own beliefs, rather than trying to tie >them > > to > > > some religion or other? > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > 11 May 2003 15:33:20 > > > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > - > > > "Vegecentric" > > > > > > Monday, May 12, 2003 7:16 AM > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > When I hear talk of Christianity..Catholicism dosn't come to mind. > > > > > > No disrespect to anyone who is seeking the truth and are with the > > Catholic > > > church. > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > If the subject of all the Catholic priests charged & convicted of > > raping > > > and > > > > molesting kids is raised (at least 50 in the last decade here in >Oz, > > and > > > > increasing), my Mum denounces it all as a pack of anti-Catholic >lies. > > None > > > > is so blind as those who will not see... > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > - > > > > "Danielle Kichler" > > > > > > > > Saturday, May 10, 2003 8:20 AM > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > For a lovely example of Catholic hypocrisy, get this: one of the > > many > > > > > colleges here in DC is Catholic University of America. Last >year, > > > > Attorney > > > > > General John Ashcroft gave the commencement speech. This year, > > after > > > > > student protests, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton was >disinvited > > from > > > > > giving a talk at the school's book store because she is >pro-choice, > > > which > > > > we > > > > > all know runs counter to Catholic views. Ashcroft's enthusiastic > > > support > > > > > for the death penalty--which I believe the Pope >opposes--evidently > > was > > > not > > > > > as important. Norton wasn't even going to discuss that; she was > > there > > > > > because a biography of her had been recently published. > > > > > > > > > > Danielle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You can no more win a war than you can win an > > earthquake"--Jeanette > > > > Rankin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > > > > "Vegecentric" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > Fri, 9 May 2003 20:37:39 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > I was raised strict catholic, and they are most conservative, > > > hypocritcal > > > > > bunch of pricks you'll meet. The Pope apparently blessed the > > (fascist) > > > > > Italian troops before going to war (WW2). > > > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > - > > > > > simonpjones > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 7:54 AM > > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Catherine Harris > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 1:24 PM > > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . The sermon was about Genesis, and centred on the fact that > > women > > > > > deserve pain, suffering because they are full of sin and ate the > > apple, > > > > > > > > > > Did they actually mention an apple as there is no mention of > > apples > > > > in > > > > > bibles I've read? > > > > > > > > > > You must of went to a catholic church or an anglican church >as > > they > > > > in > > > > > my experience don't even denounce war. > > > > > > > > > > Why they don't read the gospels and try to preach what is >said > > in > > > > them, > > > > > is strange to say the least. > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > >"Danielle Kichler" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Re: That's it. > > > > > >Thu, 08 May 2003 07:49:30 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > > >I'm sorry if anything I've said could be construed as >bashing > > > > > religion. I > > > > > >have just heard about too many horrible, horrible things >done > > in > > > the > > > > > name of > > > > > >religion over the millenia to not bash religion. I have >also > > > > > experienced > > > > > >hostility at several points in my life because of my >varying > > > > beliefs. > > > > > And I > > > > > >loathe organized religion's hostility toward women, a >reason > > I > > > have > > > > > >jettisoned the whole business. > > > > > > > > > > > >Veganism is based in compassion; organized religion talks > > > > compassion, > > > > > but I > > > > > >sure don't see a whole lot of it from so-called religious > > leaders. > > > > And > > > > > >while there are animal rights activists who do some >horrible > > > things, > > > > > they > > > > > >cannot compare to the slaughter perpetuated in the name of > > > religion. > > > > > > > > > > > >Danielle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"You can no more win a war than you can win an > > > earthquake"--Jeanette > > > > > Rankin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----Original Message Follows---- > > > > > >"Amylia F" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's it. > > > > > >Wed, 07 May 2003 21:08:29 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________ > > > > > >Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > > > > > >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > > > ><< message5.txt >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > > > > -- > > > > > On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Hi Tom > Look, people should believe whatever they want to, if it makes them feel > good (as long as they don't hurt others in the process). Personally, I just > can't believe in all that spirit-world supernatural stuff. There is no real > proof, but, of course, I can't disprove it, just as I can't disprove the > existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. While I don't wish to change your mind or your beliefs, I think it is very insulting to compare serious beliefs with belief in the tooth fairy. There are clearly no faeries who would want to get involved in collecting teeth - it would be a complete waste of their time. > If I did a William Blake and > said I saw visions of heaven and hell and demons and angels, you would > probably think a) I've been smoking something way too strong or b) I should > visit the nearest shrink. I would think that you'd simply begun to observe things outside of the constraints of the conditioning of modern education, which is based on its own religion of science. I find it strange that you complain that certain religions have used conditioning techniques on their followers, but don't realise that we are all victims of conditioning in one way or another. Presumably you're aware of recent scientific research which has shown that our brains filter out over 50% of what our eyes pick up before it reaches our visual cortex - and that this same research has shown that this filtering is a conditioned response rather than instinctual. I wonder - what do you think you would see if your conditioning were removed and your visual cortex received the entire message of what your eyes have seen? BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Hi Tom > I was force-fed a lot of Catholic baloney from a very young age, and when I > was a Catholic, I was the real deal. I was an altar boy, I went to mass > every Sunday, I gave up sugar and lollies for lent, even going to mass every > day for that period, once. I'm a bit of an all-or-nothing person: probably > why I'm vegan. I don't like to just talk the talk, I have to walk it, > whatever the down-side. But as for being born spiritual, I suppose if you > believe in " spirits " yes, but frankly, where's the evidence? All evidence is personal experience - PG Wodehouse once commented that he didn't believe India existed because he'd never personally seen it, and all evidence of its existence was simply anecdotal. So, you prove to me that India exists, and I'll prove to you that spirits exist. If I really wanted to waste my time I could dig up millions of examples of people meeting spirits. I could tell you all about my personal experiences with non-phyiscal realities and beings. I could point you in the direction of several thousand mediums and healers who daily use aspects of non physical reality in their work. I could point you in the direction of psychics who have been employed by our own governments and military as remote viewers for gathering (very accurate) details of enemy installations and weaponry. But, frankly, if you're not going to believe in the existance of India, it isn't going to benefit either of us if I waste my time trying to convince you that it exists. Personally, I really don't care what you believe. It seems a shame that you have so little confidence in your own beliefs that you use the standard " fear response " tactic of attempting to bully others into agreeing with by insulting and belittling people who differ. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Hi John > In fact, if I were feeling in a defining type of mood, I > think I might describe religion as a way of interperating what is > seen/discovered/learned of the world about us in terms of a pre-existing > mental framework That is exactly what science is. Science starts from an automatic assumption that there is nothing in the world which is not " physical reality " . Anything which doesn't fit into that model is classified as an anomoly or (more often than not) insanity. If we had lived for 30 generations in a giant wooden box, science would insist that the sky was an illusion seen only by the mentally disturbed and in ancient mythology. The only way that science would accept the existence of the sky would be if the lid of the box could be removed - and even then, half the scientific community would still insist that it was some sort of trick, and that it could be explained by " known scientific facts " . Science may change some small insignificant parts of its belief structure, but the overwhelming raison d'etre of science will never be changed. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 14, 2003 John - look what you have done now! I think science is just another way of interpreting what is seen. To some people it is a religion. A scientist (god) says that their theory is correct, and the disciple accepts it as being correct. Jo > Whilst some people might put their 'faith' in science, I'd take issue with > the idea that science is a religion. Or rather, science as it should be > conducted, as a way of learning about the world, as opposed to science as a > catch-all term for signs of progress and technology, which are two very > different things. In fact, if I were feeling in a defining type of mood, I > think I might describe religion as a way of interperating what is > seen/discovered/learned of the world about us in terms of a pre-existing > mental framework, and science as a way of constantly altering a mental > framework to incorporate what is seen/discovered/learned of the world about > us. > > Hmm. Looks like I was in that type of a mood! > > John > - > " Peter " <Snowbow > > Tuesday, May 13, 2003 7:19 PM > Re: Religion > > > > Hi John > > > > > And logic and science are > > > fairly closely entwined. > > > > And since science is a religion which uses " logic " as its god, you sort of > > prove my point :-) > > > > BB > > Peter > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 15, 2003 Hi Marit, Look, people should believe whatever they want to, if it makes them feel good (as long as they don't hurt others in the process). Personally, I just can't believe in all that spirit-world supernatural stuff. There is no real proof, but, of course, I can't disprove it, just as I can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. If I did a William Blake and said I saw visions of heaven and hell and demons and angels, you would probably think a) I've been smoking something way too strong or b) I should visit the nearest shrink. Tom - " Danielle Kichler " <veggietart Monday, May 12, 2003 4:20 PM Re: Religion > Um, just because we don't believe in heaven/hell or the big guy in the sky > has nothing to do with death. We just don't know what happens after we die, > or believe that nothing happens. > > Danielle > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette Rankin > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > " Marit " <tuliratsu > > > Re: Religion > Mon, 12 May 2003 14:57:43 +0300 > > I wouldn't call my beliefs religion just faith, and there is a difference. > Hey Tom, what if you were told that there is no 'big Daddy' not like > religionists want you to believe. That there is no 'heaven' and you could > never 'die'. That is one of the biggest illusions of humans! > The fact is whether you believe in that kind of thing or you deny it, you > still deny the very essence of religion, without knowing how things really > work! But there is another way! Not a better way, merely another way! > > Marit > We Are All One! > - > Vegecentric > > Tuesday, May 13, 2003 6:13 AM > Re: Religion > > > Religion is a crutch and a comfort to many people. I envy them; if I > thought > big Daddy was going to look after me in heaven when I died that would be > great. Problem is, I just can't believe in nursery rhymes. > > Tom > - > " Dave " <tfalbb > > Sunday, May 11, 2003 10:37 AM > Religion > > > > Ok, as I said in my intro, I won't be tactful. > > > > Could someone explain to me why so many people have so little self > belief, > > that they would rather believe in a mythical being to rule their life, > > rather than their own ideas? > > > > Is it so hard to have one's own beliefs, rather than trying to tie them > to > > some religion or other? > > > > Dave > > > > ---- > > > > > > 11 May 2003 15:33:20 > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > - > > " Vegecentric " <vegecentric > > > > Monday, May 12, 2003 7:16 AM > > Re: That's it. > > > > When I hear talk of Christianity..Catholicism dosn't come to mind. > > > > No disrespect to anyone who is seeking the truth and are with the > Catholic > > church. > > > > Simon > > > > > > > If the subject of all the Catholic priests charged & convicted of > raping > > and > > > molesting kids is raised (at least 50 in the last decade here in Oz, > and > > > increasing), my Mum denounces it all as a pack of anti-Catholic lies. > None > > > is so blind as those who will not see... > > > > > > Tom > > > - > > > " Danielle Kichler " <veggietart > > > > > > Saturday, May 10, 2003 8:20 AM > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > For a lovely example of Catholic hypocrisy, get this: one of the > many > > > > colleges here in DC is Catholic University of America. Last year, > > > Attorney > > > > General John Ashcroft gave the commencement speech. This year, > after > > > > student protests, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton was disinvited > from > > > > giving a talk at the school's book store because she is pro-choice, > > which > > > we > > > > all know runs counter to Catholic views. Ashcroft's enthusiastic > > support > > > > for the death penalty--which I believe the Pope opposes--evidently > was > > not > > > > as important. Norton wasn't even going to discuss that; she was > there > > > > because a biography of her had been recently published. > > > > > > > > Danielle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an > earthquake " --Jeanette > > > Rankin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > > > " Vegecentric " <vegecentric > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > Fri, 9 May 2003 20:37:39 -0700 > > > > > > > > I was raised strict catholic, and they are most conservative, > > hypocritcal > > > > bunch of pricks you'll meet. The Pope apparently blessed the > (fascist) > > > > Italian troops before going to war (WW2). > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > - > > > > simonpjones > > > > > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 7:54 AM > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Catherine Harris > > > > > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 1:24 PM > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > > > . The sermon was about Genesis, and centred on the fact that > women > > > > deserve pain, suffering because they are full of sin and ate the > apple, > > > > > > > > Did they actually mention an apple as there is no mention of > apples > > > in > > > > bibles I've read? > > > > > > > > You must of went to a catholic church or an anglican church as > they > > > in > > > > my experience don't even denounce war. > > > > > > > > Why they don't read the gospels and try to preach what is said > in > > > them, > > > > is strange to say the least. > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > " Danielle Kichler " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Re: That's it. > > > > >Thu, 08 May 2003 07:49:30 -0400 > > > > > > > > > >I'm sorry if anything I've said could be construed as bashing > > > > religion. I > > > > >have just heard about too many horrible, horrible things done > in > > the > > > > name of > > > > >religion over the millenia to not bash religion. I have also > > > > experienced > > > > >hostility at several points in my life because of my varying > > > beliefs. > > > > And I > > > > >loathe organized religion's hostility toward women, a reason > I > > have > > > > >jettisoned the whole business. > > > > > > > > > >Veganism is based in compassion; organized religion talks > > > compassion, > > > > but I > > > > >sure don't see a whole lot of it from so-called religious > leaders. > > > And > > > > >while there are animal rights activists who do some horrible > > things, > > > > they > > > > >cannot compare to the slaughter perpetuated in the name of > > religion. > > > > > > > > > >Danielle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an > > earthquake " --Jeanette > > > > Rankin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----Original Message Follows---- > > > > > " Amylia F " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's it. > > > > >Wed, 07 May 2003 21:08:29 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > >_______________ > > > > >Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > > > > >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > > ><< message5.txt >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > > > -- > > > > On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone > > > > > > > > To send an email to > > > - > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 15, 2003 Hi Peter, I was force-fed a lot of Catholic baloney from a very young age, and when I was a Catholic, I was the real deal. I was an altar boy, I went to mass every Sunday, I gave up sugar and lollies for lent, even going to mass every day for that period, once. I'm a bit of an all-or-nothing person: probably why I'm vegan. I don't like to just talk the talk, I have to walk it, whatever the down-side. But as for being born spiritual, I suppose if you believe in " spirits " yes, but frankly, where's the evidence? Tom - " Peter " <Snowbow Monday, May 12, 2003 9:50 AM Re: Religion > Hi Danielle > > > While everyone is born an atheist (maybe an agnostic) > > I'd disagree with that - I would say that everyone is born as a deeply > spiritual being, and it is gradually beaten out of us as we get older. The > difference in " religions " is that people find vastly different ways to > interpret the same things - particularly when there is something which can > not have a frame of reference in a purely physical existence. :-) > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release 18/04/03 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 15, 2003 I was taught that animals have no souls, they can't go to heaven and be " redeemed " , and that it doesn't matter what you do to them here on Earth (I think that thinking was promoted by Thomas Aquinas). I remember one of the nuns laughing about how she put a bunch of kittens in a sack and drowned them. If I sound a bit anti-religion, believe me, I have more than enough reasons. Someone said a cynic was a disillusioned idealist. I'm still idealistic, but there's plenty in this rotten world to be cynical about. Tom - " Danielle Kichler " <veggietart Monday, May 12, 2003 4:43 AM Re: Religion > I don't know what happens after we die; we can't possibly know what happens. > So I prefer to make the most of this life, 'cause it's the only one I know > I've got. I think people make up these stories to scare others into > behaving in a certain approved " moral " fashion. > > Danielle > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette Rankin > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > " Vegecentric " <vegecentric > > > Re: Religion > Mon, 12 May 2003 20:13:13 -0700 > > Religion is a crutch and a comfort to many people. I envy them; if I thought > big Daddy was going to look after me in heaven when I died that would be > great. Problem is, I just can't believe in nursery rhymes. > > Tom > - > " Dave " <tfalbb > > Sunday, May 11, 2003 10:37 AM > Religion > > > > Ok, as I said in my intro, I won't be tactful. > > > > Could someone explain to me why so many people have so little self > belief, > > that they would rather believe in a mythical being to rule their life, > > rather than their own ideas? > > > > Is it so hard to have one's own beliefs, rather than trying to tie them > to > > some religion or other? > > > > Dave > > > > ---- > > > > > > 11 May 2003 15:33:20 > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > - > > " Vegecentric " <vegecentric > > > > Monday, May 12, 2003 7:16 AM > > Re: That's it. > > > > When I hear talk of Christianity..Catholicism dosn't come to mind. > > > > No disrespect to anyone who is seeking the truth and are with the > Catholic > > church. > > > > Simon > > > > > > > If the subject of all the Catholic priests charged & convicted of > raping > > and > > > molesting kids is raised (at least 50 in the last decade here in Oz, > and > > > increasing), my Mum denounces it all as a pack of anti-Catholic lies. > None > > > is so blind as those who will not see... > > > > > > Tom > > > - > > > " Danielle Kichler " <veggietart > > > > > > Saturday, May 10, 2003 8:20 AM > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > For a lovely example of Catholic hypocrisy, get this: one of the > many > > > > colleges here in DC is Catholic University of America. Last year, > > > Attorney > > > > General John Ashcroft gave the commencement speech. This year, after > > > > student protests, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton was disinvited > from > > > > giving a talk at the school's book store because she is pro-choice, > > which > > > we > > > > all know runs counter to Catholic views. Ashcroft's enthusiastic > > support > > > > for the death penalty--which I believe the Pope opposes--evidently > was > > not > > > > as important. Norton wasn't even going to discuss that; she was > there > > > > because a biography of her had been recently published. > > > > > > > > Danielle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette > > > Rankin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > > > " Vegecentric " <vegecentric > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > Fri, 9 May 2003 20:37:39 -0700 > > > > > > > > I was raised strict catholic, and they are most conservative, > > hypocritcal > > > > bunch of pricks you'll meet. The Pope apparently blessed the > (fascist) > > > > Italian troops before going to war (WW2). > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > - > > > > simonpjones > > > > > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 7:54 AM > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Catherine Harris > > > > > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 1:24 PM > > > > Re: That's it. > > > > > > > > > > > > . The sermon was about Genesis, and centred on the fact that > women > > > > deserve pain, suffering because they are full of sin and ate the > apple, > > > > > > > > Did they actually mention an apple as there is no mention of > apples > > > in > > > > bibles I've read? > > > > > > > > You must of went to a catholic church or an anglican church as > they > > > in > > > > my experience don't even denounce war. > > > > > > > > Why they don't read the gospels and try to preach what is said > in > > > them, > > > > is strange to say the least. > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > " Danielle Kichler " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Re: That's it. > > > > >Thu, 08 May 2003 07:49:30 -0400 > > > > > > > > > >I'm sorry if anything I've said could be construed as bashing > > > > religion. I > > > > >have just heard about too many horrible, horrible things done > in > > the > > > > name of > > > > >religion over the millenia to not bash religion. I have also > > > > experienced > > > > >hostility at several points in my life because of my varying > > > beliefs. > > > > And I > > > > >loathe organized religion's hostility toward women, a reason I > > have > > > > >jettisoned the whole business. > > > > > > > > > >Veganism is based in compassion; organized religion talks > > > compassion, > > > > but I > > > > >sure don't see a whole lot of it from so-called religious > leaders. > > > And > > > > >while there are animal rights activists who do some horrible > > things, > > > > they > > > > >cannot compare to the slaughter perpetuated in the name of > > religion. > > > > > > > > > >Danielle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " You can no more win a war than you can win an > > earthquake " --Jeanette > > > > Rankin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----Original Message Follows---- > > > > > " Amylia F " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's it. > > > > >Wed, 07 May 2003 21:08:29 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > >_______________ > > > > >Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > > > > >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > > ><< message5.txt >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > > > -- > > > > On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone > > > > > > > > To send an email to > > > - > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 15, 2003 Hi Peter, > That is exactly what science is. Science starts from an automatic assumption > that there is nothing in the world which is not " physical reality " . Anything > which doesn't fit into that model is classified as an anomoly or (more often > than not) insanity. I think I'm going to disagree with you again here(!)... Science starts from the assumption that only what can be detected exists. And by detected this covers everything from seeing with our eyes, to assuming something exists even if cannot be directly detected, but is clearly affecting something which does. Therefore, as soon as something is detected, it is assumed to exist, and so considered to have a physical reality. (And if you can't detect it in the above meaning of the word, well, that is a fair argument for it not existing.) If it doesn't fit into an existing model then it is indeed first considered an anomoly, before, if repeatedly observed, fitted into new models. But even an observed anomoly is still accepted to exist, it is just that scientists are not sure what it means and/or how to fit it into a model. There is a common assumption that science dismisses anything it cannot understand. And, as scientists are fallible, this may indeed occur at times. But as an ideal, as a way of exploring and understanding the world around it, science simply cannot do this, for that is contrary to its central goal, in so much as there is one single goal, which is to improve our understanding of the world around us. This misunderstanding often stems, I think, from the many issues that science is said to 'dismiss' - from natural remedies, to spirits, to telepathy, to the existence of god, etc. But these are not being dismissed out of hand because they do not fit into an existing model. Rather, when examined scientifically, these things fail to 'prove' themselves...telepaths turn out to do not better than the statistical norm for guessing, seances fail to materialise a spirit on demand, natural remedies often show now more affect than can a placebo. But this is not dismissal as such, merely saying that, scientifically speaking, at present there is no evidence for it. All of which said, I'm no scientist, nor believe that 'the answers' - in terms of human contentment and betterment - will necessarily be discovered by science. But since I am ofen critical of what science has and hasn't achieved, I did take the time to try and understand its philosophy. And whilst many criticisms can be levelled at it, looking at the world with any preconceived assumptions is not one of them. Models of the world, yes, but these are not believed in as one believes in, say, god, rather they are used as an approximate framework subject to constant alteration as necessary. And off my soap box I hop. John - " Peter " <Snowbow Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:20 PM Re: Religion > Hi John > > > In fact, if I were feeling in a defining type of mood, I > > think I might describe religion as a way of interperating what is > > seen/discovered/learned of the world about us in terms of a pre-existing > > mental framework > > That is exactly what science is. Science starts from an automatic assumption > that there is nothing in the world which is not " physical reality " . Anything > which doesn't fit into that model is classified as an anomoly or (more often > than not) insanity. If we had lived for 30 generations in a giant wooden > box, science would insist that the sky was an illusion seen only by the > mentally disturbed and in ancient mythology. The only way that science would > accept the existence of the sky would be if the lid of the box could be > removed - and even then, half the scientific community would still insist > that it was some sort of trick, and that it could be explained by " known > scientific facts " . Science may change some small insignificant parts of its > belief structure, but the overwhelming raison d'etre of science will never > be changed. > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 15, 2003 Hi Jo, > John - look what you have done now! Ah well, it all makes me feel popular when I see a hundred emails waiting to be read in the morning! > I think science is just another way of interpreting what is seen. To some > people it is a religion. A scientist (god) says that their theory is > correct, and the disciple accepts it as being correct. Science is indeed a way of interpereting what is seen. But it is a way of trying to explain this objectively, rather than justify it according to a pre-existing framework. I've waffled on in lengthy fashion on this in reply to Peter, but in short, I'd say that a scientist (or at least, one worthy of the name) says that their theory is probably correct, but open to alteration if evidence is detected which does not fit the theory, whereas a disciple will desparately try and force what he sees into his existing theory, or be forced to abandon that theory entirely. A scientific theory or viewpoint is more open to alteration or even abandonment than a religious faith because this constant change is an integral part of what science is, science having no theories it holds as certainly true, whereas faiths tend to be more fixed because it is based on someone saying 'this is so'. And there are any number of examples of this in history. Which community had more trouble accepting the fact that world was round, religion or science? Or that the earth is not the focal point of the universe? Or that we probably evolved instead of being made in 6 days? In all instances, the possibility of alteration of a world-view or theory is integral to science, whereas it is often anathema to faith. And off my soap box I get once again... John - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:26 PM Re: Religion > John - look what you have done now! > > I think science is just another way of interpreting what is seen. To some > people it is a religion. A scientist (god) says that their theory is > correct, and the disciple accepts it as being correct. > > Jo > > > Whilst some people might put their 'faith' in science, I'd take issue with > > the idea that science is a religion. Or rather, science as it should be > > conducted, as a way of learning about the world, as opposed to science as > a > > catch-all term for signs of progress and technology, which are two very > > different things. In fact, if I were feeling in a defining type of mood, I > > think I might describe religion as a way of interperating what is > > seen/discovered/learned of the world about us in terms of a pre-existing > > mental framework, and science as a way of constantly altering a mental > > framework to incorporate what is seen/discovered/learned of the world > about > > us. > > > > Hmm. Looks like I was in that type of a mood! > > > > John > > - > > " Peter " <Snowbow > > > > Tuesday, May 13, 2003 7:19 PM > > Re: Religion > > > > > > > Hi John > > > > > > > And logic and science are > > > > fairly closely entwined. > > > > > > And since science is a religion which uses " logic " as its god, you sort > of > > > prove my point :-) > > > > > > BB > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 15, 2003 Hi John > Science starts from the assumption that only what can be detected exists. But something can only be detected if you have the tools to do the detecting - if you ignore the possibility that something exists until you detect it, you are never going to find it - and that is the box that science is in > And by detected this covers everything from seeing with our eyes, to > assuming something exists even if cannot be directly detected, but is > clearly affecting something which does. Therefore, as soon as something is > detected, it is assumed to exist, and so considered to have a physical > reality. (And if you can't detect it in the above meaning of the word, well, > that is a fair argument for it not existing.) That's it exactly - if it can't be considered " physical " it doesn't exist - it's the religious tenet of science. Incidentally, using science and logic I can prove that the physical world doesn't even exist....one simple scientific fact is enough... If an atom was the size of a cathedral, the physical mass of that atom would be the size of a small coin. Therefore, the amount of physical mass in each atom is negligible - therefore the physical world is made up of nothing, and therefore the physical world doesn't exist. As Oolon Caloophid would say... " that about wraps it up for science " . BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 15, 2003 not necessarily... yer ignoring the whole realm of theorem and hypothesis... yes, sceince needs proof, but that doesn't rule out what science looks for look at black holes..they were theorized long before anyone found one... dark matter..same thing science is suppose to start with a theory..then you use experiments to see if its true er not...er if it is something else entirely " Peter " <Snowbow wrote: >Hi John > >> Science starts from the assumption that only what can be detected exists. > >But something can only be detected if you have the tools to do the >detecting - if you ignore the possibility that something exists until you >detect it, you are never going to find it - and that is the box that science >is in > >> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2003 Hi Peter, > But something can only be detected if you have the tools to do the > detecting - if you ignore the possibility that something exists until you > detect it, you are never going to find it - and that is the box that science > is in That is a valid point, that science only explores the areas that it is most interested in. But if you think that a flaw, then you might consider adding to scientific knowledge and developing means/tools to detect things you think it has missed, rather than criticising it for this lack. > If an atom was the size of a cathedral, the physical mass of that atom would > be the size of a small coin. Therefore, the amount of physical mass in each > atom is negligible - therefore the physical world is made up of nothing, and > therefore the physical world doesn't exist. I think you misunderstand my use of the term physical existence. Or perhaps, come to think of it, perhaps physical existence is a poor term. Rather, it is simply 'that which can be detected'. Which is a clearer term, though this really amounts to the same thing - if it can be detected, it is being detected by physical means, and is therefore physical itself. So things with no mass still have physical existence. Light, the mind as an emergent property of the brain, gravity, all these things have physical existence (in that they can be detected), but no mass. So, science can detect an atom, therefore it exists, therefore the physical world exists. But even putting that aside, your argument seems flawed. You say that because the mass of an atom is neglible then the physical world is made up of nothing. But you seem to be confusing the mass of an object with the extent to which it exists - whether it is nothing or not. Mass and size are different things, and physical existence based on neither. More interestingly, I believe that an atom is not an object with 'evenly divided' mass, but rather an object consisting of a part/s with mass, and a large part without. Which would indeed suggest that the physical world is mostly 'empty', and indeed it is. But that still doesn't mean it does not exist according to science, as this part without mass is still detectable. Bottom line - if it can be detected, either directly or through assumption, science admits its existence. If something interacts with our world in any way it can be detected, and so exists. And if it doesn't interact with this world in any way, what does it mean for someone to claim that it exists anyway? John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2003 Hi Fraggle > not necessarily... > yer ignoring the whole realm of theorem and hypothesis... > yes, sceince needs proof, but that doesn't rule out what science looks for > look at black holes..they were theorized long before anyone found one... > dark matter..same thing > science is suppose to start with a theory..then you use experiments to see if its true er not...er if it is something else entirely And yet, science continues to deny out of body experiences, telepathy, bumble bees, etc. etc. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2003 Au contraire, Peter, I do have confidence in my own beliefs, but I do also have an open mind, believe it or not. When I was young I was force-fed all sorts of crap like unbaptised babies can't go to heaven because of original sin, animals are not worthy of concern because they don't have souls, etc. etc. (I could go on and on). I was never taught to analyse or question my beliefs, but I do so now, and continue to do so. Re. the India reference, well, anybody can hop on a boat or plane and go there any time. Where's the nearest Astral Travel Agency with flights to the Spirit World? Unfortunately, for many people, belief in some sort of afterlife, somehow makes up for their crappy life or the crappy lives of others - you know, don't worry about injustice now, it'll be all right when we get to heaven. Frankly, Peter, I'm always amazed that people like you can be so sure of the " Spirit World " or the afterlife, or whatever, when no-one can go there, no-one can point to it (unlike the Taj Mahal), and everyone has such wildly differing beliefs anyway. Who's right Peter? The Muslims, the Buddhists, the Pagans, the Jews.... They're all 100% sure of their beliefs, but none of them can " prove " their right, can they? Whereas I can take anyone to the nearest abattoir or factory farm and show them cruelty, and if they still choose to disbelieve, I'll give them a poke with an electric cattle prod. When anyone gets a taste of what real suffering and pain is, they never doubt it for a second. As for pychics, I believe the magician/sceptic James Randy's offer of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove their psychic abilities still stands. If psychics were really not con-artists, then at least one of them would gladly take up the offer, if only to disprove Mr Randy's skepticism. But the real danger of bizzare beliefs is demonstrated with such dangerous cults as that Japanese one that used Sarin gas against people, and the " Heaven's Gate " loonies who thought that by killing themselves they would catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet. As I've said, I don't mind how bizzare yours, or anyone else's beliefs are, but if they promote cruelty or anti-intellectualism, I will not support it. Tom - " Peter " <Snowbow Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:04 AM Re: Religion > Hi Tom > > > I was force-fed a lot of Catholic baloney from a very young age, and when > I > > was a Catholic, I was the real deal. I was an altar boy, I went to mass > > every Sunday, I gave up sugar and lollies for lent, even going to mass > every > > day for that period, once. I'm a bit of an all-or-nothing person: probably > > why I'm vegan. I don't like to just talk the talk, I have to walk it, > > whatever the down-side. But as for being born spiritual, I suppose if you > > believe in " spirits " yes, but frankly, where's the evidence? > > All evidence is personal experience - PG Wodehouse once commented that he > didn't believe India existed because he'd never personally seen it, and all > evidence of its existence was simply anecdotal. So, you prove to me that > India exists, and I'll prove to you that spirits exist. > > If I really wanted to waste my time I could dig up millions of examples of > people meeting spirits. I could tell you all about my personal experiences > with non-phyiscal realities and beings. I could point you in the direction > of several thousand mediums and healers who daily use aspects of non > physical reality in their work. I could point you in the direction of > psychics who have been employed by our own governments and military as > remote viewers for gathering (very accurate) details of enemy installations > and weaponry. > > But, frankly, if you're not going to believe in the existance of India, it > isn't going to benefit either of us if I waste my time trying to convince > you that it exists. > > Personally, I really don't care what you believe. It seems a shame that you > have so little confidence in your own beliefs that you use the standard > " fear response " tactic of attempting to bully others into agreeing with by > insulting and belittling people who differ. > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2003 Hi Peter, It is ironic that you are insulted by beliefs in spirits or whatever being compared to beliefs in fairies,...which I'm sure someone somewhere genuinely holds. What if I said I actually believed in the Tooth Fairy? It seems you'd either think I was just being a " stirrer " or off my tree. You seem to think it " illogical " , but to me, no more illogical than belief in pyschics and shamans and angels and who knows what else. I don't mean to insult you, or anyone, but if something seems to me as illogical as Tooth Fairies are to you, I will have my say, just like anyone on this list. By all means, don't agree with me or question my beliefs: after all, if I can't explain my veganism to you or anyone else, that doesn't say much for me and my thought processes. Tom - " Peter " <Snowbow Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:50 AM Re: Religion > Hi Tom > > > Look, people should believe whatever they want to, if it makes them feel > > good (as long as they don't hurt others in the process). Personally, I > just > > can't believe in all that spirit-world supernatural stuff. There is no > real > > proof, but, of course, I can't disprove it, just as I can't disprove the > > existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. > > While I don't wish to change your mind or your beliefs, I think it is very > insulting to compare serious beliefs with belief in the tooth fairy. There > are clearly no faeries who would want to get involved in collecting teeth - > it would be a complete waste of their time. > > > If I did a William Blake and > > said I saw visions of heaven and hell and demons and angels, you would > > probably think a) I've been smoking something way too strong or b) I > should > > visit the nearest shrink. > > I would think that you'd simply begun to observe things outside of the > constraints of the conditioning of modern education, which is based on its > own religion of science. I find it strange that you complain that certain > religions have used conditioning techniques on their followers, but don't > realise that we are all victims of conditioning in one way or another. > > Presumably you're aware of recent scientific research which has shown that > our brains filter out over 50% of what our eyes pick up before it reaches > our visual cortex - and that this same research has shown that this > filtering is a conditioned response rather than instinctual. I wonder - what > do you think you would see if your conditioning were removed and your visual > cortex received the entire message of what your eyes have seen? > > BB > Peter > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2003 Hi Siobhan, As I've said, there a lots of good religious people, and I know quite a few, especially working in the disability field. In fact, it is more how people treat others that they should be judged, as actions speak louder than words. The hardest thing about getting involved with a local Animal Liberation group many years ago, was the realization that just because people had similar beliefs, it didn't make them decent people. In fact I've witnessed more ruthlessness shown by fellow Animal Libbers to one another than they ever displayed towards farmers or vivisectors. It's disappointing and disillusioning to me that some of my carnivorous friends and colleagues are much nicer, friendlier people than a few of the people I've known in the animal lib/veggo movement. You say you are a "bad" christian, but you sound like a good person to me, and I believe that people are good in spite of, not because of religion. When I grew up in the country I had a dairy farmer uncle, who was such a & *$@, (not to mention that he torured dairy cows for a living), yet he was a very upstanding catholic, a pillar of the church. My brothers and I nicknamed him "Uncle Fascist", and only half-jokingly. As for Islam, I do find it a particularly aggressive form of religion, and the treatment of women, as an example, seems not be an aberration, rather the rule. Tom - Surya Burdick Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:23 AM religion Tom, I am sorry you had such a bad experience with organized religion. I know what it's like to want to give something your all, I am like that too an take teachings very serouisly as well. I think it is a good quality you have and you seem like a very compassionate person. I think people tend to expect more from Christians because the teachings are so based in forgiveness and non judgement, pacifsm, ect. that it is too apparent that many Christians are not practicing what they preach, and are actually seemingly contridicting the teachings at every turn. I used to have a big problem with that, and now I have a small problem with it and am finding some peace with the issue. It is harder still when clergy men are inconsistant. Christinaity encompasses so many people that the babies tend to get thrown out with the bathwater, those who are doing well and walking the path are overshadowed by the many who aren't doing as much. I think just because a person becomes a Christian does not mean they will suddenly have the ability to change all of their patterns and bad habits, who knows, maybe they were less loving and kind before and this is the "Improved" version were are seeing. People have fault, we all have it and we always will, most likely. When we look to Christians or Muslims or Buddhists will will find inconsistancies and can be disappointed. When you say "Islam treats women like this", it is not Islam but people, people treat people like this. It is wrong, wrong by Mohammad, wrong by Jesus, wrong by Buddha, and I would imagine wrong by the Lord and Lady or the Gods of Paganism. I would say to anyone, if they open their heart to Jesus, open it to Jesus, and don't worry about how well your neighbor is living up to his example. Worry about how you are living up to his example. Similarly with any religion. People will fail to meet the high ideals of unconditional love and compassion, everyone of us to varying degrees. Christianity has a concept that you probably know saying that all sins are equal. It seems strange at first, how could that be? But I like it because it helps keep me from being self rightous, and reminds me we are all just trying to walk our various paths and we are stumbling together. I am a "bad" Christian by all accounts, or some Christians would see me as a heathen. I accept all religions as having equal value, I do not believe homosexuals should be banned from church but treated with respect, I do not believe that Ghandi will go to hell because he wasn't Christian. And it is hard that these qualities that I find are my good qualities are reasons I am not "Christian". But God bless them. I say forget about the followers and evaluate the source of any teachings and whether it speaks to you. A quick answer to your second question, there is no evidence that is not in your heart. You feel it and believe it or you don't. Each is acceptable. That is why it's called faith! peace Siobhan I was force-fed a lot of Catholic baloney from a very young age, and when Iwas a Catholic, I was the real deal. I was an altar boy, I went to massevery Sunday, I gave up sugar and lollies for lent, even going to mass everyday for that period, once. I'm a bit of an all-or-nothing person: probablywhy I'm vegan. I don't like to just talk the talk, I have to walk it,whatever the down-side. But as for being born spiritual, I suppose if youbelieve in "spirits" yes, but frankly, where's the evidence?Tom The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2003 Hi Tom > Re. the India reference, > well, anybody can hop on a boat or plane and go there any time. Where's the > nearest Astral Travel Agency with flights to the Spirit World? You don't need a " travel centre " - you just learn to do so through meditation. Far easier. Besides, I've never been on a plane or a boat, so prove to me that they exist. > Unfortunately, for many people, belief in some sort of afterlife, somehow > makes up for their crappy life or the crappy lives of others - you know, > don't worry about injustice now, it'll be all right when we get to heaven. I agree that this can often be a factor. > Frankly, Peter, I'm always amazed that people like you can be so sure of the > " Spirit World " or the afterlife, or whatever, when no-one can go there, I go there regularly - it's called Shamanic Journeying. I've never been to India, though. > no-one can point to it (unlike the Taj Mahal), and everyone has such wildly > differing beliefs anyway. Who's right Peter? The Muslims, the Buddhists, the > Pagans, the Jews.... They're all 100% sure of their beliefs, but none of > them can " prove " their right, can they? As I said earlier - prove to me that India exists. As for who is right - perhaps all are. There used to be an advert on UK TV for a newspaper which showed three shots - the first was what looked like a ruffian running away from a police car, the second, from the police car, showed him running toward a man with a brief case, and grabbing hold of the brief case. The third, from above, showed the man with the brief case was about to get squashed by a falling block of concrete, and the " ruffian " was actually pulling him out of the way. The " punch line " of the advert was about how our angle of view affects our perception. If this is the case in " physical world " realities, how much more so when it comes to things which the physical mind is trained to supress? > Whereas I can take anyone to the > nearest abattoir or factory farm and show them cruelty, and if they still > choose to disbelieve, I'll give them a poke with an electric cattle prod. > When anyone gets a taste of what real suffering and pain is, they never > doubt it for a second. We aren't talking about denying the existence of the physical world - we are talking about whether that is *all* there is. > As for pychics, I believe the magician/sceptic James > Randy's offer of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove their psychic abilities > still stands. Of course it does - you can't prove scientifically something which is outside of the concepts of the scientific holy scriptures. Also, the fact that Randy is so sceptical affects the results of any experiment with which he is connected anyway. He once managed to " prove " that telepathy was a myth by running an experiment using 5 cards and having someone in another room saying which one he was looking at. On the laws of statistics the results should be around the 20% accuracy mark. Randy managed to push that down to 3% accuracy because his own scepticism affected the results. > If psychics were really not con-artists, then at least one of > them would gladly take up the offer, if only to disprove Mr Randy's > skepticism. As someone once said, there are none so blind as them that will not see. Scientific " results " are always open to interpretation - Randy will always interpret them to prove that he is right. He is not a scientist, but a con-artist. If psychics are all con-artists, then why do our governments employ so many of them to remote-view enemy installations? Why do most of the major world businesses employ astrologers and psychics to help with their business plans? > But the real danger of bizzare beliefs is demonstrated with such > dangerous cults as that Japanese one that used Sarin gas against people, and > the " Heaven's Gate " loonies who thought that by killing themselves they > would catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet. As I've said, I don't mind how > bizzare yours, or anyone else's beliefs are, but if they promote cruelty or > anti-intellectualism, I will not support it. Maybe they were right. And if the only people they kill is themselves, what is the problem? Of course, what you have to remember is that most of these " cults " are the result of government brainwashing (virtually every major cult in the US who have beliefs that they need to kill themselves or others are the result of MK Ultra - either intentionally, or a side effect). What makes you so sure that your " physical world is all there is " belief is correct? Prove it. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2003 Hi Tom > It is ironic that you are insulted by beliefs in spirits or whatever being > compared to beliefs in fairies,...which I'm sure someone somewhere genuinely > holds. I never said that comparing to faires was insulting - I said comparing to things which are known to be made up was insulting. Fairies are simply beings who live on a different " frequency range " to us, and are therefore not normally perceivable by human senses. > What if I said I actually believed in the Tooth Fairy? It seems you'd > either think I was just being a " stirrer " or off my tree. I would ask you why you thought a fairy would want to waste all that time and energy collecting people's teeth - they have very little interest in the human world - much as we have very little interest in theirs. > You seem to think > it " illogical " , but to me, no more illogical than belief in pyschics and > shamans and angels and who knows what else. It would be ridiculous not to believe in Shamans - I could introduce you to several of them. Saying that you don't believe in Shamans is a bit like saying you don't believe in Shop Assistants! > I don't mean to insult you, or > anyone, but if something seems to me as illogical as Tooth Fairies are to > you, I will have my say, just like anyone on this list. By all means, don't > agree with me or question my beliefs: after all, if I can't explain my > veganism to you or anyone else, that doesn't say much for me and my thought > processes. My objection is not that you disagree, but that you denigrate - that shows that you have a lack of confidence in your own reality, and thereby feel the need to bully others into agreeing with you. Although I am pleased to see that you have backed off from this tactic in your past few posts. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2003 Hi Tom > As for Islam, I do find it a particularly aggressive form of religion, and the treatment of women, as an example, seems not be an > aberration, rather the rule. Which branch of Islam are you talking about? I agree that in general Shiah Islam is agressive and very oppressive of women - but Shiites only account for a very small (but very vocal) minority of Islam. As for the vast majority if Muslims: Sunnah Islam is far more progressive and in keeping with the original teachings of Mohammed. Other branches also vary. I would point out that I know relatively little about Islam, and don't generally comment on what I know little about - but I figured "hey, if people who know less about it comment, why shouldn't I" :-) BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
