Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Kooter · Guest

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bh8hj5$1se$1@titan.btinternet.com...
[quote]"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh72ca$ej7$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
[/quote]
<snip>

[quote]with the values and beliefs of Buddism. If I were inclined to take
up
a
religious philosophy that would probably be the one I>d choose.

I agree - Buddhism is quite beautiful, if a bit daft (how can animals
commit evil?)

Ever see a cat play with a mouse before it eats? Definately evil. ;-)

Yes, and generally they don>t eat it (a comedian over here said that they
bring mice and birds to their owners for them to cook them), but that>s
their nature - no malice involved, so how can it be evil?
[/quote]
I guess it would depend on how you define evil.

A father who refuses medical attention for his child because of religious
doctrine has no malice. Yet his child dies from some illness that could have
been easily cured. This isn>t evil. It>s god>s will as defined by the man>s
religious beliefs. No person or group of people forced the man to behave the
way that he did. Yet a child died as a direct result of choices made by the
man.

A member of his sect would find his behavior morally justifiable. OTOH, an
atheist, agnostic, or someone with different theological beliefs might find
his actions reprehensible.

The core issues in good and evil are motivation and outcome. By what
criteria can motivation and/or outcome be defined as good or evil?

If you divorce motivation from outcome then the only criteria I can come up
with is whether the motivation was self-serving or meant to serve the
interests of others. In the case above the father was convinced that he was
saving the soul of his child. Therefore, the act of refusing medical
attention was good. Yet from a material perspective the outcome was clearly
bad.

My point is that good and evil are subjective, not objective concepts. In
the example of the cat and mouse above from the cat>s perspective there is
no malice and therefore no evil. From the mouse>s viewpoint the cat>s goal
is to cause fear which in turn will cause the mouse to run faster, which in
turn makes the game more entertaining for the cat. From the mouse>s
perspective the cat>s motivation is evil.

[quote]and impractical (contemplation is fine, but who does all the work?),

Buddists definately work. Meditation is performed when the work is done.

That depends upon how far down the eightfold path you go: the further you
go, the longer the contemplation.
[/quote]
Then I guess all the work would be done by junior monks. That>s pretty much
the way most societies work. The juniors do most of the work while the
elders sit around and bitch and moan about arthritis or complain about the
line up on late night tv.

[quote]but it isn>t a religion - it recommends that you get a religion.

Really? I thought it was considered a religion since it teaches that you
move thru spiritual planes depending on goodness or badness.

Yes, but they don>t have a deity, hence the suggestion that you find one.
The Buddha categorically rejected all attempts to deify him. Don>t you
think that a religion must have a deity?
[/quote]
It seems to me that in order to qualify as a religion the only real
requirement is that one have faith in a meta-reality to the universe beyond
a physical reality that can be directly or indirectly measured. If Buddists
believe in a universal good and a universal bad and are convinced that they
can navigate up or down in this meta-reality by means of good and bad deeds
then they have attached a meaning to the universe beyond what is apparent by
empirical evidence. To me any faith not grounded in physical reality is a
religion.

junegill · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3812ff$0$36008$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
[quote]
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bh70cc$dle$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f36e80c$0$1313$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bh6fep$563$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

beside in evolutuion and atheism there is no such things as
evil.

There>s evil all right: it goes by the name of religion.

I>m not trying to attack your opinion but why do you say that?

Well, have you read the Bible and the Qur>an? To me, any doctrine
which
subjugates half of the population (ie women) is evil. Please note
that
I
don>t think that the people who believe in these religions are evil
(with
a
few exceptions) - just misguided.

how about "the american way" in iraq and afganistan?

Are you saying they were religious wars? If not, what is the relevance
to
the above post?

Yes, more so afgahistan.. The taliban was a religious goverment., to
remove
them was to remove a religion.
[/quote]
Not quite - the Taliban was just an extremist version of Islam. The Afghan
war wasn>t about converting them to Christianity - they>re still Islamic. I
think it depends upon how you define a religious war - historically they
were about killing or converting people of a different religion. The war in
Afghanistan was a response to the terrorist attack on 9/11, which was
carried out by religious extremists, so in that sense it was a religious war
.... see how evil religion can be?

--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk

jabriol · Guest

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bh70cc$dle$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
[quote]
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f36e80c$0$1313$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bh6fep$563$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

beside in evolutuion and atheism there is no such things as
evil.

There>s evil all right: it goes by the name of religion.

I>m not trying to attack your opinion but why do you say that?

Well, have you read the Bible and the Qur>an? To me, any doctrine
which
subjugates half of the population (ie women) is evil. Please note
that
I
don>t think that the people who believe in these religions are evil
(with
a
few exceptions) - just misguided.

how about "the american way" in iraq and afganistan?

Are you saying they were religious wars? If not, what is the relevance to
the above post?

[/quote]

Yes, more so afgahistan.. The taliban was a religious goverment., to remove
them was to remove a religion.

jabriol · Guest

"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh71f7$1cg$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
[quote]
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f36e77a$0$1272$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh5rq2$6em$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...

snip

Are you saying that there is a correlation between the availability of
resources within a society and the percentage of homosexuality within
the
population? If so, I>d be interested in reviewing your evidence for
such
a
claim. You do have evidence right?

of course, study evolution and natural selection.

I have - apparently more than you. I haven>t found reference to a
correlation between homosexuality and population stress anywhere.
Obviously
neither have you. I don>t see any evidence quoted in your reply.

[/quote]
It is there, look harder.

[quote]atheism and evolutionist don>t belive in a God, there conclucion on
Sodom
and Gomorrah was that the queers all died out naturally.. no
children

Please, get real.

as real as taught in school..

I don>t know the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Fortunately it wasn>t
taught
in my school.

ah the lost of a real education..

Wrong. The avoidance of irrelevant mythical trivia.

If Sodom and Gomorrah actually existed then their destruction was most
likely due to tectonic activity in that area of the Dead Sea. Not
because
of
some mystical hoodoo passed around by a bunch of savages.

sure... and what really sunk the Titanics was an iceberg...
and Lincoln freed the slave because it was wrong,
George washington never told a lie.. etc etc and etc..

Ok. You almost sound like you>re not braindead here. What happened? Did
somebody jolt you with a few thousand volts of electricity?

Atheists don>t have some jerk in a pulpit making
decisions about right and wrong for them or some fool in a
mosque
telling
them to go out and kill people because they don>t subscribe to
the
same
beliefs.

so atheist do not support president Iraqui conquest?

I have no idea what you>re trying to say here.

don atheist vote?

In my country they do. Agnostics and theists are also allowed to vote
here.
That>s one of the things that make it a great country.
[/quote]
excellent. and they voted in a christian president.. was there no atheist
president canditate?

[quote]
A country was invaded and children were kill based on a leader who
claim
he
is a christian, and doing Gods will.

Iraqi war crimes:

- Iran-Iraq war: Thousands of captive Iranian POW>s summarily executed
per
Iraqi policy.

and?

- Late '80>s use of poison gas against Iraqi Kurds in one of the worst
mass
killings in recent history.

and?

- Various war crimes arising from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait
including
the
rape, torture and murder of innocent civilians.

and?

- Destruction of over 3,000 villages in attempted genocide of Kurds in
northern Iraq.

And?

- Attempted genocide of Marsh and Shi>a Arabs in southern Iraq.

and?

--------------

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Other atrocities include the
uncovering
of mass graves, savage political oppression, corruption, and
international
blackmail.

Like the United States never committed atrocities eh?

There is no denying that the U.S. made mistakes as it matured into the
democracy that it is today.
[/quote]
when it is the United States, it is a mistake, but when it is another
country, it is an atrocity?

[quote]But the mistakes we made in the distant past are
no where near the atrocities recently made in Iraq.
[/quote]
And that make you feel better? how easy we forget hiroshima and nagasaki...
ahh yes there just oopsies.

[quote]
Yes. You>re right. We should have sat back and watched this piece of
shit
who is obviously your hero do whatever he wanted to whoever he wanted.
Fucking idiot.

whoa, watch your language, The united states supported that n*((& Idiot
in
his war with Iran, they gave him intelligence, and weapons...

Yes. Hussein appeared to be the lesser of two evils at the time. We were
wrong and we corrected the mistake.
[/quote]
So if one evil is lesser than another evil, that make the lesser evil a good
thing?
now ye fail logic 101.

there is no less evil, it either evil or it is good. and If Iraq was evil,
then the USA blessed it. And now the price that is being paid, is what,
4billion US taxpayer dollar on a "mistake"

[quote]
so why did the USA support him for decades, if he was an historical
tyrant
eh?

See above.
[/quote]
I did let me ask you this: so why did the USA support him for decades, if he
was an historical tyrant eh?

[quote]
How many athiest belive that we should have conquer and colonize and
christianize Iraq?

Absolutely not.

and you spoke to all of them eh?

Just as you spoke to all the atheists and know all about their morals.
[/quote]

Atheism, can choose Morals as they can choose underwers.
[quote]
I think we should have done what we did do. Depose and
destroy the government of an evil piece of garbage.

Do I have to list all the countries that a tyrant...

How about Cuba, Vietnam, north Korea

Cuba and Vietnam aren>t making waves in the international community.
[/quote]
So, the people in those countries are not important, nor their sufferring..
does this mean, that the Iraqui people, who the Prez said were being
liberated, would not have been liberated if Saddam was not making
international waves?

[quote]IMO, I
think we should slap N.Korea down hard but I>m not the President.
[/quote]

The Prez, know Korea has teeth, not like iraq, that has imaginary teeth.

[quote]
and last but not least the state of
california?

Maybe you should get another jolt. Your smarts are wearing off.

Colonizing and christianizing? Both points are ridiculous.

really, the USA did it to the Native americans,

Yes. In our history we took the country away from a bunch of savages.
OTOH,
every single country on this planet was born from violence.
[/quote]
which is ok, it evolution in action, and who determined that native american
were savages? our "christian forefathers"?
[quote]
And what is "make Iraq a Democracy" all about?

It>s all about freeing people to choose their own destinies.
[/quote]
yes we see how they choose.. one amreican a day keep the colony at bay.

[quote]It>s about
doing something good for people who were enslaved by an evil tyrant.
[/quote]
with America blessing for a fe decades eh?

[quote]It>s
about saving innocent men, women, and children from brutality and
genocide.

[/quote]
icluding those children, and women, and men who died because the "shock and
Awe" campaign were not innocent?

[quote]As to
colonizing, who the hell wants to colonize Iraq?
[/quote]
The USA and Britain :-)

[quote]
easy.. let see.. uh.. uh.. uh.. what are the names of the countries now
occupies Iraq?

Occupation is not colonization.
[/quote]
yes it is..

[quote]
what is the name of the installed American adminstrator, and also the
name
of the military governor of Iraq.. ??? how soon we forget eh?

So we>re just supposed to go in, destroy the infrastructure that is there,
and then leave so that some other dirtbag can come in and fill Saddam>s
shoes.
The Idea was to get the weapon of mass destruction.. up to this day, with[/quote]
the majority of sadam friends in custody.. no WMD found. So now the USA has
a guility conscience and should build a country at taxpayer expense? to fix
another.ahem "mistake"

If we were just going to let any jackass have the country to do with
[quote]as he pleased there wouldn>t be any point in going in in the first place.
[/quote]
exactly.. you are bright.

[quote]
I think we should definately extract enough oil from
Iraq to pay for the cost of the war ( including freeing Kuwait ) and
incidentals like rebuilding the countries infrastructure. Otherwise,
who
the
hell would want the place? Unfortunately, due to political pressure
from
assholes like yourself, Bush won>t go that far.

guess what, if the USA did not go to war, nor freed Kuwait, there would
be
no price to pay...

Yes. We could have let Iraq occupy Kuwait. Then of course we could have
ignored them when they took Saudi Arabia. And once they had Saudi Arabia>s
oil they would have had the resources to pick off Iran.
[/quote]
which is a good plan, I mean.. read the press.. do you think americans like
Saudi Arabia?

[quote]
I see your point. It>s much better to stick your head up your ass and wait
for the world to fall down around you.
[/quote]
what world.. nothing Saddam did affected me.

per evolution, the world will find it own balance.

[quote]
bottom line.. oil

and Oil is the bottom line. always has been.

You forget evolution, wich teaches us, it is ok to kill other for
resources.
kids learn this in school.

You have no moral values so of course you>re going to think like this.
Don>t
worry. I don>t blame you. I just feel sorry for you.
[/quote]

evolution does not care about morals.. just survival of the fittest.
[quote]
Christianizing? That wouldn>t happen even if we exported every
Christian
in
the U.S. down to the last man, woman, and child to Iraq.

give it 20 years.. the soldiers are doing that right now, the new
iraquies
will be called ameraqui, some will have blue eyes, other will have
afro>s
and wait until Baghdad have it first camodeo..

I haven>t heard one instance where the American forces have restricted the
Iraqi freedom to practice whatever religion they choose - as long as it>s
peaceful.
[/quote]
no they havent, not yet, but they will... they do here in the states.

[quote]
That entire region
of the world is STRONGLY Muslim.

not anymore.. Now it is american property.

If that were true it wouldn>t matter to the Iraqi>s freedom to practice
religious beliefs. That>s one of the cool things about this country. We>re
strong enough that we can tolerate the beliefs of others and even
encourage
cultural diversity.

Atheists have to actually think about morality before they go
out
an make decisions that impact the lives of others.

like killing a preborn child?

There are plenty of cases of knocked up catholic school girls
using
coat
hangers to take care of that little inconvenience.

yeah.. and...???

Exactly. You don>t have a point to make.

I do.. but it went over your head..

LOL. Wrong. The point was nonexistent. Your best retort was just plain
lame.

snip

the reason that preist buggered kids is to keep gayhood going, hence
population control. Catholics are evolutionists as well.

Sorry. I meant to say Johovah>s Witnesses molesting anything they can
get
their hands on.

sure... I think you are carol..m very good you had me going ther for a
second, your forgeries are getting better...

Who cares what you think?

Is this some lame attempt to deflect the conversation because you can>t
hold
your own?

[/quote]

jabriol · Guest

"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh720g$qt8$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
[quote]
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f36e0c5$0$1302$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh6190$o7j$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...

by the baggy circle of Hera, eyes no!, aslkanybody here at arjw, by no
means they think I am a cut and dry JW.

Oh, they think you>re a kook too huh?
yup[/quote]

[quote]
For your information that isn>t true. Atheists are individuals. Each
one
is
different than all the rest. Each one has his or her own opinions on
sex,
abortion and morality.

And that is the point of evolutionary theory and atheism.. create your
own
moral standards.. what is to stop an atheist, from saying rape is ok if
the
atheist can get away with it?

Other atheists who have better moral standards.
[/quote]
who determine what are better moral standards?

[quote]
You have used a technique called stereotyping to
group all the people that you don>t understand into a single category.

me... nah.. let me ask you this, do atheist belive in a god?
would it be stereo typing to say, atheist do not belive in ant god?

The lack of belief in a god is the _only_ thing that atheists have in
common.
[/quote]
that does not answer the question, does it?

[quote]Otherwise they>re all individuals with their own beliefs and values.
didnt I said that.. and you said I was stereotyping?

I can
tell by the quality of your posts that you have a limited capacity to
see
the big picture, however, you really should try. It may give you a
whole
new
perspective on the world.

really lets see..

Things that might help:

Read lots of books on psychology, philosophy, and grammar.

I hate grammar, and english is not my first language..

Still, if you>re going to stir things up on English speaking ng>s it
wouldn>t hurt to know the language better.

But if the world is so full of Psycology, philosophy and grammar, why
did
the united states invade Iraq?

This makes no sense.

why is there still poverty in NYC.. capital of the world..

Are you somehow under the delusion that the world is a perfect place? You
still aren>t making any good points.
[/quote]
per evolution, it does not matter...

[quote]
why do we need
medical insurance before being treated at a hospital?

Because medicine costs money.
[/quote]
why not get it for free?
[quote]
why does children abandon their parent in nursing homes?

Because some children are bad and some parents are bad.

en fin.. why is the world not a better or safe place to live?

Because there is no magic wand that you can wave and make the world a
perfect place.
[/quote]
ofcourse this is, problem is everybody idea of a perfect world is different.

[quote]We actually have to get off our asses and do things to make
the world better - like getting rid of dirtbag tyrants.
[/quote]
why?

[quote]
Eat fish. It>s supposed to be a brain food.

I had grilled tuna today..golly I feel a bit smarter now :-)

Eat more. It>s not working.

[/quote]
then fish don>t work.

Kooter · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f384b5e$0$35993$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
[quote]
"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh71f7$1cg$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f36e77a$0$1272$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh5rq2$6em$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...

snip

Are you saying that there is a correlation between the availability
of
resources within a society and the percentage of homosexuality
within
the
population? If so, I>d be interested in reviewing your evidence for
such
a
claim. You do have evidence right?

of course, study evolution and natural selection.

I have - apparently more than you. I haven>t found reference to a
correlation between homosexuality and population stress anywhere.
Obviously
neither have you. I don>t see any evidence quoted in your reply.

It is there, look harder.
[/quote]
Idiot.

[quote]atheism and evolutionist don>t belive in a God, there conclucion
on
Sodom
and Gomorrah was that the queers all died out naturally.. no
children

Please, get real.

as real as taught in school..

I don>t know the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Fortunately it wasn>t
taught
in my school.

ah the lost of a real education..

Wrong. The avoidance of irrelevant mythical trivia.

If Sodom and Gomorrah actually existed then their destruction was
most
likely due to tectonic activity in that area of the Dead Sea. Not
because
of
some mystical hoodoo passed around by a bunch of savages.

sure... and what really sunk the Titanics was an iceberg...
and Lincoln freed the slave because it was wrong,
George washington never told a lie.. etc etc and etc..

Ok. You almost sound like you>re not braindead here. What happened? Did
somebody jolt you with a few thousand volts of electricity?

Atheists don>t have some jerk in a pulpit making
decisions about right and wrong for them or some fool in a
mosque
telling
them to go out and kill people because they don>t subscribe
to
the
same
beliefs.

so atheist do not support president Iraqui conquest?

I have no idea what you>re trying to say here.

don atheist vote?

In my country they do. Agnostics and theists are also allowed to vote
here.
That>s one of the things that make it a great country.

excellent. and they voted in a christian president.. was there no atheist
president canditate?
[/quote]
Being President isn>t a theological issue idiot. It>s about who can do the
best job. At the time the majority of voters believed that he could -
regardless of his religious beliefs.

[quote]A country was invaded and children were kill based on a leader who
claim
he
is a christian, and doing Gods will.

Iraqi war crimes:

- Iran-Iraq war: Thousands of captive Iranian POW>s summarily
executed
per
Iraqi policy.

and?

- Late '80>s use of poison gas against Iraqi Kurds in one of the
worst
mass
killings in recent history.

and?

- Various war crimes arising from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait
including
the
rape, torture and murder of innocent civilians.

and?

- Destruction of over 3,000 villages in attempted genocide of Kurds
in
northern Iraq.

And?

- Attempted genocide of Marsh and Shi>a Arabs in southern Iraq.

and?

--------------

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Other atrocities include the
uncovering
of mass graves, savage political oppression, corruption, and
international
blackmail.

Like the United States never committed atrocities eh?

There is no denying that the U.S. made mistakes as it matured into the
democracy that it is today.

when it is the United States, it is a mistake, but when it is another
country, it is an atrocity?
[/quote]
Bulldozing mass graves for dissidents is an atrocity. Genocide is an
atrocity. Maybe you should look the word up.

[quote]But the mistakes we made in the distant past are
no where near the atrocities recently made in Iraq.

And that make you feel better? how easy we forget hiroshima and
nagasaki...
ahh yes there just oopsies.
[/quote]
I>ve read a little about the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The
necessity of bombing is controversial but I>m not going to try and explain
the whole thing to you. Even tho I doubt you>ll read it I>ll give you a good
non-partisan link that seems to cover the jist of the problem.

http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html

Short and simple, the Japanese were fanatical fighters. The U.S. was
convinced that a large percentage of the population was prepared to go
kamakazi - as they had proven prone to do in the past - when troops hit the
Japanese mainland. As shown in the reference that belief was reasonable.
Even after both cities had been bombed the Japanese war ministry refused to
surrender. It took an unheard of direct request from the Emperor before the
Ministry would consider surrender.

[quote]Yes. You>re right. We should have sat back and watched this piece of
shit
who is obviously your hero do whatever he wanted to whoever he
wanted.
Fucking idiot.

whoa, watch your language, The united states supported that n*((&
Idiot
in
his war with Iran, they gave him intelligence, and weapons...

Yes. Hussein appeared to be the lesser of two evils at the time. We were
wrong and we corrected the mistake.

So if one evil is lesser than another evil, that make the lesser evil a
good
thing?
now ye fail logic 101.
[/quote]
Nobody said it was a good thing. It>s exactly what it says; the lesser of
two evils. You really should pick that grammer book up. It would do you a
world of good.

[quote]there is no less evil, it either evil or it is good. and If Iraq was evil,
then the USA blessed it. And now the price that is being paid, is what,
4billion US taxpayer dollar on a "mistake"
[/quote]
You>re wrong. There are lesser evils and greater evils.

.... And, the pricetag on liberating Iraq is a hell of a lot more than 4
billion.

[quote]so why did the USA support him for decades, if he was an historical
tyrant
eh?

See above.

I did let me ask you this: so why did the USA support him for decades, if
he
was an historical tyrant eh?
[/quote]
Apparently now it>s you who can>t find the answer right in front of your
face.

[quote]How many athiest belive that we should have conquer and colonize
and
christianize Iraq?

Absolutely not.

and you spoke to all of them eh?

Just as you spoke to all the atheists and know all about their morals.

Atheism, can choose Morals as they can choose underwers.
[/quote]
That makes no sense.

[quote]I think we should have done what we did do. Depose and
destroy the government of an evil piece of garbage.

Do I have to list all the countries that a tyrant...

How about Cuba, Vietnam, north Korea

Cuba and Vietnam aren>t making waves in the international community.

So, the people in those countries are not important, nor their
sufferring..
does this mean, that the Iraqui people, who the Prez said were being
liberated, would not have been liberated if Saddam was not making
international waves?
[/quote]
These people are suffering and if we had infinite resources I>d say save
everyone in the world from hunger and suffering. If you>d pull your head out
of your ass you>d realize that>s not possible.

[quote]IMO, I
think we should slap N.Korea down hard but I>m not the President.

The Prez, know Korea has teeth, not like iraq, that has imaginary teeth.
[/quote]
Korea is a bug that thinks it has teeth. The only problem is that if N.
Korea has nukes it might make a mess of S. Korea before we had time to
respond and squash them flat.

<snip>

[quote]Yes. In our history we took the country away from a bunch of savages.
OTOH,
every single country on this planet was born from violence.

which is ok, it evolution in action, and who determined that native
american
were savages? our "christian forefathers"?
[/quote]
Hundreds of small ununified tribes scattered across the country. Before the
first Europeans arrived, they lived in animal skin huts and used tools made
of stone and flint. The level of civilization for the American Indian was
barely equal to that of ancient Mesopotamia - and in many tribes far lower.
They were savages.

[quote]And what is "make Iraq a Democracy" all about?

It>s all about freeing people to choose their own destinies.

yes we see how they choose.. one amreican a day keep the colony at bay.
[/quote]
I>m guessing that you>re trying to say that the Iraqi>s are unhappy that
we>re there. I>m sure that>s true for the former ruling class. The Baathists
are probably very pissed off that we>re there. To that I say who the hell
cares.

Many of the other people are unhappy because civil services were destroyed
but once they are restored that will change.

[quote]It>s about
doing something good for people who were enslaved by an evil tyrant.

with America blessing for a fe decades eh?
[/quote]
Only if they>re very lucky.

[quote]It>s
about saving innocent men, women, and children from brutality and
genocide.

icluding those children, and women, and men who died because the "shock
and
Awe" campaign were not innocent?
[/quote]
Civilian causalties were kept to a minimum. Far fewer than the people who
died as Saddam>s hand.

[quote]As to
colonizing, who the hell wants to colonize Iraq?

The USA and Britain :-)
[/quote]
If you say so...

But then...

You>re an idiot. Who cares what you think?

[quote]easy.. let see.. uh.. uh.. uh.. what are the names of the countries
now
occupies Iraq?

Occupation is not colonization.

yes it is..
[/quote]
No. It>s not. www.dictionary.com

[quote]what is the name of the installed American adminstrator, and also the
name
of the military governor of Iraq.. ??? how soon we forget eh?

So we>re just supposed to go in, destroy the infrastructure that is
there,
and then leave so that some other dirtbag can come in and fill Saddam>s
shoes.

The Idea was to get the weapon of mass destruction.. up to this day, with
the majority of sadam friends in custody.. no WMD found. So now the USA
has
a guility conscience and should build a country at taxpayer expense? to
fix
another.ahem "mistake"
[/quote]
This was a critical mistake in Bush>s campaign against Iraq. If he had just
come out and said "Listen, Hussein is an evil piece of garbage and we>re
going to go bomb the shit out of him" I would have said hell yes! Let>s go.

I don>t think the President had enough faith in the American people to
believe we would support him in an act that was intrinsically good simply
for the sake of doing something good. That>s really too bad because now
we>re mired down with this stupid WMD shit that gives every asshole with an
axe to grind an easy target to shoot at.

[quote]If we were just going to let any jackass have the country to do with
as he pleased there wouldn>t be any point in going in in the first
place.

exactly.. you are bright.
[/quote]
Yes. I know.

[quote]I think we should definately extract enough oil from
Iraq to pay for the cost of the war ( including freeing Kuwait ) and
incidentals like rebuilding the countries infrastructure. Otherwise,
who
the
hell would want the place? Unfortunately, due to political pressure
from
assholes like yourself, Bush won>t go that far.

guess what, if the USA did not go to war, nor freed Kuwait, there
would
be
no price to pay...

Yes. We could have let Iraq occupy Kuwait. Then of course we could have
ignored them when they took Saudi Arabia. And once they had Saudi
Arabia>s
oil they would have had the resources to pick off Iran.

which is a good plan, I mean.. read the press.. do you think americans
like
Saudi Arabia?
[/quote]
Let me try and spell this out for you. An Iraqi monopoly on a good
percentage of the world>s oil supply is not a good thing.

[quote]I see your point. It>s much better to stick your head up your ass and
wait
for the world to fall down around you.

what world.. nothing Saddam did affected me.
[/quote]
If you own a car it affected you.

[quote]per evolution, the world will find it own balance.
[/quote]
Right. Some people will work to make it a better place and others will stick
their heads up their asses and wait for everything to get better.

[quote]bottom line.. oil

and Oil is the bottom line. always has been.

You forget evolution, wich teaches us, it is ok to kill other for
resources.
kids learn this in school.

You have no moral values so of course you>re going to think like this.
Don>t
worry. I don>t blame you. I just feel sorry for you.

evolution does not care about morals.. just survival of the fittest.
[/quote]
Right. They>re two different topics. Pick a subject and stick with it.

<snip>

[quote]I haven>t heard one instance where the American forces have restricted
the
Iraqi freedom to practice whatever religion they choose - as long as
it>s
peaceful.

no they havent, not yet, but they will... they do here in the states.
[/quote]
Bullshit. Name one instance where a PEACEFUL religious group was chastized
by the American government for it>s beliefs.

> > <snip>

Kooter · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f384b64$0$35993$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
[quote]
"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh720g$qt8$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...

by the baggy circle of Hera, eyes no!, aslkanybody here at arjw, by
no
means they think I am a cut and dry JW.

Oh, they think you>re a kook too huh?
yup
[/quote]
Why doesn>t that surprise me?

[quote]what is to stop an atheist, from saying rape is ok if
the
atheist can get away with it?

Other atheists who have better moral standards.

who determine what are better moral standards?
[/quote]
Moral standards are dictated by a community for the common good of the
community. Standards that positively reinforce the cohesiveness of the
society are good moral standards. Standards that disrupt the cohesiveness of
the society are bad moral standards. Rape, murder, and robbery are examples
of acts performed as the result of bad moral standards because they disrupt
the cohesiveness of the society.

[quote]You have used a technique called stereotyping to
group all the people that you don>t understand into a single
category.

me... nah.. let me ask you this, do atheist belive in a god?
would it be stereo typing to say, atheist do not belive in ant god?

The lack of belief in a god is the _only_ thing that atheists have in
common.

that does not answer the question, does it?
[/quote]
The answer is no. It would not be stereotyping to say that atheists don>t
believe in a god. However, it would be stereotyping to say that atheist
don>t have morals because they don>t believe in gods. I have seen you allude
to this several times.

[quote]Otherwise they>re all individuals with their own beliefs and values.

didnt I said that.. and you said I was stereotyping?
[/quote]
No. You didn>t.

<snip>

[quote]Are you somehow under the delusion that the world is a perfect place?
You
still aren>t making any good points.

per evolution, it does not matter...
[/quote]
Per this conversation, it does matter...

[quote]why do we need
medical insurance before being treated at a hospital?

Because medicine costs money.

why not get it for free?
[/quote]
If I>m running a chemical company and paying a lot of money to keep it
running why the hell would I give you my drugs for free?

[quote]why does children abandon their parent in nursing homes?

Because some children are bad and some parents are bad.

en fin.. why is the world not a better or safe place to live?

Because there is no magic wand that you can wave and make the world a
perfect place.

ofcourse this is, problem is everybody idea of a perfect world is
different.

We actually have to get off our asses and do things to make
the world better - like getting rid of dirtbag tyrants.

why?
[/quote]
Why what?

Varicose Brain · Guest

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:07:16 GMT, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net>
wrote:

[quote]jabriol wrote:

why is there still poverty in NYC.. capital of the world..

NYC... capital of the world!? It isn>t even capital of New York
[/quote]
Yes, but the UN headquarters are there, so by twisted WT logic, NYC is
the "capital of the world".

Kooter · Guest

If you>re talking to me - up yours bitch.

"--sexkitten--" <not@naddress.com> wrote in message
news:bh9s3l$vls7e$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
[quote]Kooter???Where did you find this fucking moron???

"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh9qub$ccj$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f384b64$0$35993$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh720g$qt8$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...

by the baggy circle of Hera, eyes no!, aslkanybody here at arjw,
by
no
means they think I am a cut and dry JW.

Oh, they think you>re a kook too huh?
yup

Why doesn>t that surprise me?

what is to stop an atheist, from saying rape is ok if
the
atheist can get away with it?

Other atheists who have better moral standards.

who determine what are better moral standards?

Moral standards are dictated by a community for the common good of the
community. Standards that positively reinforce the cohesiveness of the
society are good moral standards. Standards that disrupt the
cohesiveness
of
the society are bad moral standards. Rape, murder, and robbery are
examples
of acts performed as the result of bad moral standards because they
disrupt
the cohesiveness of the society.

You have used a technique called stereotyping to
group all the people that you don>t understand into a single
category.

me... nah.. let me ask you this, do atheist belive in a god?
would it be stereo typing to say, atheist do not belive in ant
god?

The lack of belief in a god is the _only_ thing that atheists have
in
common.

that does not answer the question, does it?

The answer is no. It would not be stereotyping to say that atheists
don>t
believe in a god. However, it would be stereotyping to say that atheist
don>t have morals because they don>t believe in gods. I have seen you
allude
to this several times.

Otherwise they>re all individuals with their own beliefs and values.

didnt I said that.. and you said I was stereotyping?

No. You didn>t.

snip

Are you somehow under the delusion that the world is a perfect
place?
You
still aren>t making any good points.

per evolution, it does not matter...

Per this conversation, it does matter...

why do we need
medical insurance before being treated at a hospital?

Because medicine costs money.

why not get it for free?

If I>m running a chemical company and paying a lot of money to keep it
running why the hell would I give you my drugs for free?

why does children abandon their parent in nursing homes?

Because some children are bad and some parents are bad.

en fin.. why is the world not a better or safe place to live?

Because there is no magic wand that you can wave and make the world
a
perfect place.

ofcourse this is, problem is everybody idea of a perfect world is
different.

We actually have to get off our asses and do things to make
the world better - like getting rid of dirtbag tyrants.

why?

Why what?

[/quote]

junegill · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f384b62$0$35993$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
[quote]
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bh6rps$je7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

[snip]

There>s evil all right: it goes by the name of religion.

religion in some apsect are against abortion
homosexuality
fornication
etc..

things that are demmed ok and moral by athiest.

Abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when resources are
scant,
so
it>s perfectly reasonable that human beings should do the same in
similar
circumstances.

actualy animal just leave their young to die.. never seen a kangaroo with
a
coat hanger.
[/quote]
Not so - they actually abort them, albeit not with a coat hanger..

[quote]At least one religion, the Roman Catholic Church, forbids an
abortion even when the pregnancy will certainly kill the woman, eg an
ectopic pregnancy, which the foetus can>t survive either - how evil can
you
get?

no such thing nas evil in evolution.
[/quote]
No, there isn>t. I have to wonder if you know what evolution is.

[quote]Homosexuality? In another post in this thread you mention the gene for
homosexuality. If it>s a genetic condition how can it be immoral?
[/quote]
No comment?

[quote]What harm does fornication do to anyone?

let see, HIV, Siphilis, Gonorea, hepititis type b.
[/quote]
Yes, there are STDs, which can be avoided, but they only affect the ones who
have sex. What harm do two people having sex outside of marriage do to you
or to anyone else? Would you ban all activities which have a risk to the
persons choosing to participate in them, eg skiing?

[quote]Wow! This sounds so witless that I>d almost think you were a
troll.

Wait-a-minute. Looking at the stack of ng>s this was crossposted
to
maybe
you are a troll.

In the event that you>re just plain stupid and not a troll, let me
say
that
theists don>t have the market cornered on morality. In fact, I>d
venture
a
guess that generally speaking atheists (and agnostics) have a
better
moral
foundation than theists. Atheists don>t have some jerk in a pulpit
making
decisions about right and wrong for them or some fool in a mosque
telling
them to go out and kill people because they don>t subscribe to the
same
beliefs. Atheists have to actually think about morality before
they
go
out
an make decisions that impact the lives of others. Theists OTOH,
do
whatever
the local priest tells 'em to do - after he finishes his favorite
alter
boy
of course.

Not only that, but atheists help others for the sake of the
individuals
they
help, not to try to win Brownie points with some deity, so that
they>ll
get
a reward in an after-life; and they refrain from hurting others
because
it>s
the right thing to do, not because they fear the wrath of some
deity.
The
'morality' of most theists is based on a concern for themselves, not
for
others.

per evolution, the only reason you help somebody, is to get something
in
return,

Co-operation within society does work,

only when it works for you, when it doesnt, you stop cooperating.
[/quote]
And you know that how? Personally I>ve almost invariably found that
co-operation works.

[quote]but personally I don>t think of
personal gain when I help anyone. I just think I>m lucky to be in a
position that allows me to do so. However, I don>t help people just to
appease some deity - to me it>s the people who matter.

yup sure..
[/quote]
How can it be to appease a deity when I don>t believe that there>s any such
being?

[quote]look
atthe latest scandal of the NBA.

what the big deal, per evolution Colby wanted to spread african genes
in
colorado.

I don>t know what NBA means and I don>t know who or what Colby is -
don>t
assume that all posters on newsgroups are in the US.

what.. great britain is suppose to be the great american imitator,
[/quote]
Really? :) Who told you that?

except
[quote]for dentistry.
[/quote]
Now you>re being insulting. Why? There may have been a kernel of truth in
your statement 50 years ago when war-torn Britain was rebuilding, but those
days are long gone ... and our dentistry is free for children and pregnant
or nursing mothers - is yours?

--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk

jabriol · Guest

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bhbbtm$d36$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
[quote]
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f384b62$0$35993$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bh6rps$je7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

[snip]

There>s evil all right: it goes by the name of religion.

religion in some apsect are against abortion
homosexuality
fornication
etc..

things that are demmed ok and moral by athiest.

Abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when resources are
scant,
so
it>s perfectly reasonable that human beings should do the same in
similar
circumstances.

actualy animal just leave their young to die.. never seen a kangaroo
with
a
coat hanger.

Not so - they actually abort them, albeit not with a coat hanger..
[/quote]
no.. they actually use a boomerang.

[quote]
At least one religion, the Roman Catholic Church, forbids an
abortion even when the pregnancy will certainly kill the woman, eg an
ectopic pregnancy, which the foetus can>t survive either - how evil
can
you
get?

no such thing nas evil in evolution.

No, there isn>t. I have to wonder if you know what evolution is.
[/quote]
of course.

[quote]
Homosexuality? In another post in this thread you mention the gene
for
homosexuality. If it>s a genetic condition how can it be immoral?

No comment?
[/quote]
let see.. cause the bible says so?

[quote]
What harm does fornication do to anyone?

let see, HIV, Siphilis, Gonorea, hepititis type b.

Yes, there are STDs, which can be avoided, but they only affect the ones
who
have sex.
[/quote]
no.. STD can be passed to unborn children, Blood transfusions etc.

What harm do two people having sex outside of marriage do to you
[quote]or to anyone else?
[/quote]
what about passing of STD, this means my health insurance goes up. My taxes
pay for either state abortions, or the support of unwanted children, for
18yrs each etc.

well you did ask.

[quote]Would you ban all activities which have a risk to the
persons choosing to participate in them, eg skiing?
[/quote]
of course, and driving, and flying airplanes.. but you have to be a llon to
compare
the risk of spreading diease, over a ski accident, that will kill.. I guess
only the skier.

[quote]
Wow! This sounds so witless that I>d almost think you were a
troll.

Wait-a-minute. Looking at the stack of ng>s this was crossposted
to
maybe
you are a troll.

In the event that you>re just plain stupid and not a troll, let
me
say
that
theists don>t have the market cornered on morality. In fact, I>d
venture
a
guess that generally speaking atheists (and agnostics) have a
better
moral
foundation than theists. Atheists don>t have some jerk in a
pulpit
making
decisions about right and wrong for them or some fool in a
mosque
telling
them to go out and kill people because they don>t subscribe to
the
same
beliefs. Atheists have to actually think about morality before
they
go
out
an make decisions that impact the lives of others. Theists OTOH,
do
whatever
the local priest tells 'em to do - after he finishes his
favorite
alter
boy
of course.

Not only that, but atheists help others for the sake of the
individuals
they
help, not to try to win Brownie points with some deity, so that
they>ll
get
a reward in an after-life; and they refrain from hurting others
because
it>s
the right thing to do, not because they fear the wrath of some
deity.
The
'morality' of most theists is based on a concern for themselves,
not
for
others.

per evolution, the only reason you help somebody, is to get
something
in
return,

Co-operation within society does work,
[/quote]
yup.. bill gates know this is a fact.. yup

[quote]
only when it works for you, when it doesnt, you stop cooperating.

And you know that how? Personally I>ve almost invariably found that
co-operation works.
[/quote]
yup. it works for the mafia very well. ask Jimmy Hoffa.

[quote]
but personally I don>t think of
personal gain when I help anyone. I just think I>m lucky to be in a
position that allows me to do so. However, I don>t help people just
to
appease some deity - to me it>s the people who matter.

yup sure..

How can it be to appease a deity when I don>t believe that there>s any
such
being?
[/quote]
then your question is oxymoronic.

[quote]
look
atthe latest scandal of the NBA.

what the big deal, per evolution Colby wanted to spread african
genes
in
colorado.

I don>t know what NBA means and I don>t know who or what Colby is -
don>t
assume that all posters on newsgroups are in the US.

what.. great britain is suppose to be the great american imitator,

Really? :) Who told you that?
[/quote]

Tony Blair.. :-) well he does....

[quote]
except
for dentistry.

Now you>re being insulting. Why? There may have been a kernel of truth
in
your statement 50 years ago when war-torn Britain was rebuilding, but
those
days are long gone ... and our dentistry is free for children and pregnant
or nursing mothers - is yours?
[/quote]
not in america.. you gotta pay. and for free in the uk, is not truhtful, you
guys pay via taxes to the crown.

>

junegill · Guest

"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh8tqi$9dd$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
[quote]
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bh8hj5$1se$1@titan.btinternet.com...
"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh72ca$ej7$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...

snip

with the values and beliefs of Buddism. If I were inclined to take
up
a
religious philosophy that would probably be the one I>d choose.

I agree - Buddhism is quite beautiful, if a bit daft (how can
animals
commit evil?)

Ever see a cat play with a mouse before it eats? Definately evil. ;-)

Yes, and generally they don>t eat it (a comedian over here said that
they
bring mice and birds to their owners for them to cook them), but that>s
their nature - no malice involved, so how can it be evil?

I guess it would depend on how you define evil.

A father who refuses medical attention for his child because of religious
doctrine has no malice. Yet his child dies from some illness that could
have
been easily cured. This isn>t evil. It>s god>s will as defined by the
man>s
religious beliefs. No person or group of people forced the man to behave
the
way that he did. Yet a child died as a direct result of choices made by
the
man.

A member of his sect would find his behavior morally justifiable. OTOH, an
atheist, agnostic, or someone with different theological beliefs might
find
his actions reprehensible.

The core issues in good and evil are motivation and outcome. By what
criteria can motivation and/or outcome be defined as good or evil?

If you divorce motivation from outcome then the only criteria I can come
up
with is whether the motivation was self-serving or meant to serve the
interests of others. In the case above the father was convinced that he
was
saving the soul of his child. Therefore, the act of refusing medical
attention was good. Yet from a material perspective the outcome was
clearly
bad.
[/quote]
I>m longing to say that people shouldn>t be allowed to impose their beliefs
on their children in this manner, but I haven>t a leg to stand on: the vast
majority of parents do what they think is right for their kids, and I>ve
done exactly the same, in fact - refused to let my younger son have
inoculations against whooping cough, mumps and measles, because his brother
had been autistic and epileptic, and there was a chance that the
inoculations could cause autism ... so he had all three diseases,
fortunately without complications.

I agree with you that evil stems from motivation rather than outcome - the
result of an earthquake can be catastrophic, but can hardly be called evil.

[quote]My point is that good and evil are subjective, not objective concepts. In
the example of the cat and mouse above from the cat>s perspective there is
no malice and therefore no evil. From the mouse>s viewpoint the cat>s goal
is to cause fear which in turn will cause the mouse to run faster, which
in
turn makes the game more entertaining for the cat. From the mouse>s
perspective the cat>s motivation is evil.
[/quote]
I>m not sure that I can agree with that: are all predators seen as evil by
the prey? Maybe so, but carnivores have to eat to stay alive; and I wonder
whether a hungry feral cat would play with a mouse or just catch it and eat
it, or whether the only way they can kill their prey is to exhaust it first.

[quote]and impractical (contemplation is fine, but who does all the work?),

Buddists definately work. Meditation is performed when the work is
done.

That depends upon how far down the eightfold path you go: the further
you
go, the longer the contemplation.

Then I guess all the work would be done by junior monks. That>s pretty
much
the way most societies work. The juniors do most of the work while the
elders sit around and bitch and moan about arthritis or complain about the
line up on late night tv.
[/quote]
Something to look forward to then. :)

[quote]but it isn>t a religion - it recommends that you get a religion.

Really? I thought it was considered a religion since it teaches that
you
move thru spiritual planes depending on goodness or badness.

Yes, but they don>t have a deity, hence the suggestion that you find
one.
The Buddha categorically rejected all attempts to deify him. Don>t you
think that a religion must have a deity?

It seems to me that in order to qualify as a religion the only real
requirement is that one have faith in a meta-reality to the universe
beyond
a physical reality that can be directly or indirectly measured. If
Buddists
believe in a universal good and a universal bad and are convinced that
they
can navigate up or down in this meta-reality by means of good and bad
deeds
then they have attached a meaning to the universe beyond what is apparent
by
empirical evidence. To me any faith not grounded in physical reality is a
religion.
[/quote]
I would have thought that a belief in a controlling power would be necessary
for it to qualify as a religion, otherwise you>d have to include the
irrational beliefs in astrology, clairvoyance etc, and I don>t think they
can be described as religions, even though many have a touching faith in
them. As for Buddhists, as Doug pointed out, there are Buddhist atheists as
well as Buddhist theists.

--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk

Kooter · Guest

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bhcf66$cl3$1@titan.btinternet.com...
[quote]
"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh8tqi$9dd$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...

snip

My point is that good and evil are subjective, not objective concepts.
In
the example of the cat and mouse above from the cat>s perspective there
is
no malice and therefore no evil. From the mouse>s viewpoint the cat>s
goal
is to cause fear which in turn will cause the mouse to run faster, which
in
turn makes the game more entertaining for the cat. From the mouse>s
perspective the cat>s motivation is evil.

I>m not sure that I can agree with that: are all predators seen as evil by
the prey? Maybe so, but carnivores have to eat to stay alive; and I
wonder
whether a hungry feral cat would play with a mouse or just catch it and
eat
it, or whether the only way they can kill their prey is to exhaust it
first.[/quote]

Actually, as far as animals go, the concept of good and evil are irrelevant.
The cat is playing with it>s food and I>m sure the mouse isn>t pondering the
philosophical difference between good and evil.

What I was trying to say was that whether an act is good or evil is
relative. An example might be the war in Iraq. From my perspective the war
was a good thing and I>m sure many other people feel the same way. However,
there>s no denying that there are people who feel that the war was an
unjustified aggression by an evil superpower.

If good and evil are absolute values then somebody has to be right and
sombody has to be wrong. What I>m getting at is that good and evil aren>t
universal. The rule that one society uses to measure evil is different than
the rule used by another. There really is no good and evil. Just the beliefs
of a society. Should the beliefs of one society clash with those of another
then each society sees the other as evil and sees itself as good.

[quote]The juniors do most of the work while the
elders sit around and bitch and moan about arthritis or complain about
the
line up on late night tv.

Something to look forward to then. :)
[/quote]
Hey, I>m ready. I>ve got the bitching and moaning down. Now all I need is a
wheelchair and someone to push me around and hand me the remote. :)

[quote]Don>t you think that a religion must have a deity?

It seems to me that in order to qualify as a religion the only real
requirement is that one have faith in a meta-reality to the universe
beyond
a physical reality that can be directly or indirectly measured. If
Buddists
believe in a universal good and a universal bad and are convinced that
they
can navigate up or down in this meta-reality by means of good and bad
deeds
then they have attached a meaning to the universe beyond what is
apparent
by
empirical evidence. To me any faith not grounded in physical reality is
a
religion.

I would have thought that a belief in a controlling power would be
necessary
for it to qualify as a religion, otherwise you>d have to include the
irrational beliefs in astrology, clairvoyance etc, and I don>t think they
can be described as religions, even though many have a touching faith in
them. As for Buddhists, as Doug pointed out, there are Buddhist atheists
as
well as Buddhist theists.
[/quote]
Aren>t the levels of Buddism a controlling power? When you think about it
Buddism says that if you behave in a positive manner then you will advance
in the next life. If you behave in a negative manner your next life will be
a regression. In order to behave in a positive manner you have to have a set
of values and beliefs that guide you along a positive path. Presumably those
values and beliefs are instilled by way of the Buddist doctrine.

In that regard, the only difference between Buddism and other religions is
that the controlling power isn>t seen as an autonomous entity that resembles
a human being.

junegill · Guest

"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:qrOcnSWLtvKLuaSiXTWJkw@wideopenwest.com...
[quote]At some point in the past, junegill <junegill@btinternet.com> slavered,
and posted this:
"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh72ca$ej7$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bh6fep$563$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

but it isn>t a religion - it recommends that you get a religion.

Really? I thought it was considered a religion since it teaches that
you move thru spiritual planes depending on goodness or badness.

Yes, but they don>t have a deity, hence the suggestion that you find
one. The Buddha categorically rejected all attempts to deify him.
Don>t you think that a religion must have a deity?

Religion is defined as relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an
acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Theism is defined by the belief in a god or gods.
[/quote]
They sound like pretty good definitions to me although my dictionary puts it
rather differently (don>t you find it somewhat surreal to look up, for the
first time, a word that you>ve known nearly all of your life?) I>m just
having a bit of difficulty in imagining an ultimate reality that doesn>t
include a deity. It seems to me that if there were an ultimate reality then
it follows that there must be some kind of force responsible for it, and
what are you going to call that force?

[quote]Buddhism is a religion, but the Buddhists who don>t believe in deities are
atheists.
Seems counter-intuitive doesn>t it?
[/quote]
Very much so.

--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk

Chris Owens · Guest

jabriol wrote:
[quote]
Are you saying they were religious wars? If not, what is the relevance to
the above post?

Yes, more so afgahistan.. The taliban was a religious goverment., to remove
them was to remove a religion.
[/quote]
No. A religious war is one that is specifically fought OVER
religion.

Chris Owens

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com