................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to
fill. ............
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the "Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were
unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started.
Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to
fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which is
more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the "Blackshirts".
They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were
unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started.
Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism as a
defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in religion
anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when you are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or "faith" as >some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to >>>> fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the time.
From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which is
more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the "Blackshirts".
They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were
unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started.
Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism as a
defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in religion
anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or "faith" as >>some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to >>>>> fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the
time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which is >>> more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the "Blackshirts". >>>> They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were
unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started.
Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism as a >>>> defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in religion
anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship
one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular
life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the workplace should be eliminated.
Crash wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or "faith" as >>>some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when youNot a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind. >>>
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to >>>>>> fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the
time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which is >>>> more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the "Blackshirts". >>>>> They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were >>>>> unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started.
Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism as a >>>>> defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in religion >>>>> anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship
one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular
life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the
workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are >abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or "faith" as >>>some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when youNot a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind. >>>
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god existing. >>>Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to >>>>>> fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the
time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which is >>>> more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the "Blackshirts". >>>>> They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were >>>>> unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started.
Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism as a >>>>> defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in religion >>>>> anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars. >>>
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship
one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
Do we have any in NZ?
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular
life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the
workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are >abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women,
but only those who are
adherents to that religion are affected.
In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the
rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not
Christian.
--
Crash McBash
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women, but only those who are
adherents to that religion are affected.
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or "faith" >>>>as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some
kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god existing. >>>>Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try >>>>>>> to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the
time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which >>>>> is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were >>>>>> unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started.
Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism as >>>>>> a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in religion >>>>>> anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars. >>>>
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship
one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular
life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the
workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are >>abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ.
Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women, but only those who are
adherents to that religion are affected.
In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the
rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not
Christian.
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>Some would claim that the majority of our laws are based on religious
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or "faith" as >>>>some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when youNot a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind. >>>>
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god existing. >>>>Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to >>>>>>> fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the
time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which is >>>>> more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the "Blackshirts". >>>>>> They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were >>>>>> unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started.
Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism as a >>>>>> defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in religion >>>>>> anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars. >>>>
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship
one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
Even within Islam, such restrictions are not uniform over all groupsI also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular
life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the
workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are >>abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women, but only those who are
adherents to that religion are affected.
In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the
rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not
Christian.
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when you
are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
What rights are infringed? I support the prayers no longer being made
for different reasons, but I would replace them with a reminder of the >purpose of government and parliament - doubtless those who started the >practice beleived that is what they were also doing.
"george152" wrote in message news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say ..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't be offended.
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 20:41:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What rights are infringed? I support the prayers no longer being made
for different reasons, but I would replace them with a reminder of the >>purpose of government and parliament - doubtless those who started the >>practice beleived that is what they were also doing.
I don't doubt that you would, because for people like you, the
government is god.
Bill.
"george152" wrote in message news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say ..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't be
offended.
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 13:41:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>Some would claim that the majority of our laws are based on religious precepts and teachings, if not on religious "beliefs" - others may
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or "faith" >>>>>as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>> kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god existing. >>>>>Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try >>>>>>>> to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the >>>>>> time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which >>>>>> is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were >>>>>>> unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started. >>>>>>> Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism >>>>>>> as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in
religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars. >>>>>
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship >>>> one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
dispute that with some laws. Allistar has a belief that is found in
most religions and some professions - that of not doing harm to others
- he clearly does not see that as religious - many would see it as a
key concept in their religion, even if they do not agree with Allistar
in all aspects.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular
life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the >>>> workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are >>>abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women, but only those who are
adherents to that religion are affected.
Even within Islam, such restrictions are not uniform over all groups
withing that religion or over time. Various groups have for years
requiremed distinctive clothing - on of the most common would be
uniforms - for school and certain jobs. Are school uniforms immoral?
Of course not.
In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the >>rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not >>Christian.
What rights are infringed?
I support the prayers no longer being made
for different reasons, but I would replace them with a reminder of the purpose of government and parliament - doubtless those who started the practice beleived that is what they were also doing.
"george152" wrote in message news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when you
are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say ..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that continue.
"george152" wrote in message news:ZdqdnU8YHd-7Q-7FnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
And the Athenians are so up there currently with their religious system
at Number 1..
Humour appears wasted on some posters
............
Athenians today have moved on from St Paul's time 2,000 years ago more
or less.
I wouldn't know what their religion is like now. Greek Orthodox?
On Monday, 9 January 2017 13:41:05 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or
"faith" as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some
kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will
try to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the
time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means,
which is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They
were unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot
started. Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw
Fascism as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in
religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought
wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god
existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship
one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular
life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the
workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are
abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women,
I'm not even sure that's true. I think it is a custom of some islamic populations but I don't think you'll find anything in the Koran or Hadiths about that?
In other words it is cultural not religious.
JohnO wrote:I don't disagree with much of what you have posted on this rather broad subject but I have to say that I believe the subjugation of women is a direct result of men wanting to control women and they use religion as an excuse. Further I think that religion is often the excuse for wars and other attrocities and is not always the real cause.
On Monday, 9 January 2017 13:41:05 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or
"faith" as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some
kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will
try to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the >>> >>>> time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means,
which is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They
were unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot
started. Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw >>> >>>>> Fascism as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in
religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought
wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god
existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship >>> >> one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular >>> >> life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the >>> >> workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are >>> >abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women,
I'm not even sure that's true. I think it is a custom of some islamic
populations but I don't think you'll find anything in the Koran or Hadiths >> about that?
In other words it is cultural not religious.
There are many passages in the Old Testament that suggest restrictions on
the behaviour and dress of women. The subjugation and ill treatment of women >very much stems from religion.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
On Monday, 9 January 2017 13:41:05 UTC+13, Crash wrote:populations but I don't think you'll find anything in the Koran or Hadiths about that?
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or "faith" as
some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when youNot a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind. >>>>>
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god existing. >>>>>Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try to >>>>>>>> fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the >>>>>> time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which is >>>>>> more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the "Blackshirts". >>>>>>> They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were >>>>>>> unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started. >>>>>>> Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism as a >>>>>>> defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in religion >>>>>>> anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars. >>>>>
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship >>>> one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular
life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the >>>> workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are
abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women,
I'm not even sure that's true. I think it is a custom of some islamic
In other words it is cultural not religious.
but only those who are
adherents to that religion are affected.
In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the
rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not
Christian.
Agreed.
--
Crash McBash
Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
JohnO wrote:I don't disagree with much of what you have posted on this rather broad subject but I have to say that I believe the subjugation of women is a
On Monday, 9 January 2017 13:41:05 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>> >> wrote:Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or
"faith" as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>> >>>> kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will >>>> >>>>>> try to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all
the time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the
world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means,
which is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They
were unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot
started. Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they
saw Fascism as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in
religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought
wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god
existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to
worship one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence. >>>> >
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they >>>> >> wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally
secular life without encountering any requirement for religious
observance. Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by >>>> >> secular institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government >>>> >> and in the workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others)
are abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women,
I'm not even sure that's true. I think it is a custom of some islamic
populations but I don't think you'll find anything in the Koran or
Hadiths about that?
In other words it is cultural not religious.
There are many passages in the Old Testament that suggest restrictions on >>the behaviour and dress of women. The subjugation and ill treatment of >>women very much stems from religion.
direct result of men wanting to control women and they use religion as an excuse. Further I think that religion is often the excuse for wars and
other attrocities and is not always the real cause.
JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 9 January 2017 13:41:05 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or
"faith" as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some
kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will
try to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the >> >>>> time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means,
which is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They
were unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot
started. Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw >> >>>>> Fascism as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in
religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought
wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god
existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship >> >> one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular >> >> life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the >> >> workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are >> >abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women,
I'm not even sure that's true. I think it is a custom of some islamic populations but I don't think you'll find anything in the Koran or Hadiths about that?
In other words it is cultural not religious.
There are many passages in the Old Testament that suggest restrictions on
the behaviour and dress of women. The subjugation and ill treatment of women very much stems from religion.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 13:41:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>wrote:Some would claim that the majority of our laws are based on religious precepts and teachings, if not on religious "beliefs" - others may
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or "faith" >>>>>as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>> kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god existing. >>>>>Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will try >>>>>>>> to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all the >>>>>> time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person. >>>>>>> Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means, which >>>>>> is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They were >>>>>>> unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot started. >>>>>>> Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they saw Fascism >>>>>>> as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in
religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought wars. >>>>>
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to worship >>>> one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
dispute that with some laws. Allistar has a belief that is found in
most religions and some professions - that of not doing harm to others
- he clearly does not see that as religious - many would see it as a
key concept in their religion, even if they do not agree with Allistar
in all aspects.
I'm not sure if this is satire or not. "Do no harm to others" is very much not a teaching of the major religions. Quite the opposite.
There are many
commands to harm or even kill people who are not in your in-group.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally secular >>>> life without encountering any requirement for religious observance.
Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by secular
institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government and in the >>>> workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others) are >>>abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women, but only those who are >>adherents to that religion are affected.
Even within Islam, such restrictions are not uniform over all groups withing that religion or over time. Various groups have for years requiremed distinctive clothing - on of the most common would be
uniforms - for school and certain jobs. Are school uniforms immoral?
Of course not.
Comparing a uniform to being covered forced to live in a cloth bag is disingenuous Rich. Those that support this practice reveal their lack of humanity and ethics.
In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the >>rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not >>Christian.
What rights are infringed?
Forcing people to talk to someone else's imaginary friend is an infringement of my rights .
I support the prayers no longer being made
for different reasons, but I would replace them with a reminder of the purpose of government and parliament - doubtless those who started the practice beleived that is what they were also doing.
This can be done without the need for kowtowing to stone age superstition
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 08:27:34 UTC+13, Allistar wrote:
JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 9 January 2017 13:41:05 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or
"faith" as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of
some kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will
try to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all
the time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the
world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means,
which is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They
were unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot
started. Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they
saw Fascism as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in
religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought
wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god
existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to
worship one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally
secular life without encountering any requirement for religious
observance. Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by
secular institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government
and in the workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others)
are abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women,
I'm not even sure that's true. I think it is a custom of some islamic
populations but I don't think you'll find anything in the Koran or
Hadiths about that?
In other words it is cultural not religious.
There are many passages in the Old Testament that suggest restrictions on
the behaviour and dress of women. The subjugation and ill treatment of
women very much stems from religion.
Who adheres to the Old Testament?
On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 08:32:15 UTC+13, Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 13:41:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>Some would claim that the majority of our laws are based on religious
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or
"faith" as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some
kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will
try to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all
the time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the
world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means,
which is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They
were unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot
started. Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they
saw Fascism as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in
religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought
wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god
existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to
worship one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
precepts and teachings, if not on religious "beliefs" - others may
dispute that with some laws. Allistar has a belief that is found in
most religions and some professions - that of not doing harm to others
- he clearly does not see that as religious - many would see it as a
key concept in their religion, even if they do not agree with Allistar
in all aspects.
I'm not sure if this is satire or not. "Do no harm to others" is very
much not a teaching of the major religions. Quite the opposite.
Now that is nonsense. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
is a basic Christian tenet.
There are many
commands to harm or even kill people who are not in your in-group.
You I think you have an issue with literality. People, at least in
Christian European cultures really have moved on in the last 2000 years,
you know.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally
secular life without encountering any requirement for religious
observance. Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by
secular institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government
and in the workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others)
are abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women, but only those who are
adherents to that religion are affected.
Even within Islam, such restrictions are not uniform over all groups
withing that religion or over time. Various groups have for years
requiremed distinctive clothing - on of the most common would be
uniforms - for school and certain jobs. Are school uniforms immoral?
Of course not.
Comparing a uniform to being covered forced to live in a cloth bag is
disingenuous Rich. Those that support this practice reveal their lack of
humanity and ethics.
In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the
rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not
Christian.
What rights are infringed?
Forcing people to talk to someone else's imaginary friend is an
infringement of my rights .
Who is "forcing" you (or anyone else in NZ) to do this?
I support the prayers no longer being made
for different reasons, but I would replace them with a reminder of the
purpose of government and parliament - doubtless those who started the
practice beleived that is what they were also doing.
This can be done without the need for kowtowing to stone age superstition
Nobody is making you do it.
"george152" wrote in message news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when you
are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say ..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that continue.
On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 08:27:34 UTC+13, Allistar wrote:
JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 9 January 2017 13:41:05 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:26:29 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Do we have any in NZ?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 23:29:30 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing?
I was referring specifically to beliefs in the supernatural, or
"faith" as some people call it.
So what drives you to get food when you
are hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of
some kind.
Not a belief in a deity, pixie or unicorn.
Mein Kampf, anyone?..........
Without some kind of belief, there is a vacuum that people will
try to fill. ............
Look people have tried, are trying to fill one with beliefs all
the time. From the Governments, to the co-orportaions of the
world.
An unscrupulous politician could easily recruit such a person.
Remember the early days of the Nazis in Germany.
Before your time?
Yes, but Hilter's party did vome to power by democractic means,
which is more a reflection on the people.
But Mosley in Britain was collecting followers too, the
"Blackshirts". They caused quite a bit of trouble.
We children were told to come straight home if we saw one. They
were unlikely to harm us, but we could get injured if a riot
started. Some of the upper class became followers. Perhaps they
saw Fascism as a defence against Communism.
Which would be worse for the ordinary citizen?
Neither, for they are on the same coin, opposite sides.
On the other hand, when the hooligan element get involved in
religion anything can happen.
Look what can happen sometimes in Ireland.
Further back in history, God was on their side as they forought
wars.
No god was on anyone's side as there's no evidence of any god
existing.
Religion has been messed up by persons since time immorial.
In short, some people want to rule the world.
To make an otherwise good person do evil things you need religion.
If I understand Allistar's point of view correctly, he rejects the
concept of religion in that religion has a core requirement to
worship one ore more Gods for which there is no proof of existence.
Yes. I reject religion for the same reason I reject unicorn worship.
I believe that everyone should be free to worship whatever God they
wish to, subject only to the rule of law.
Yes. And those laws should not be derived from religious teaching.
I also believe that everyone should be able to lead a totally
secular life without encountering any requirement for religious
observance. Religious observances of any kind, for any religion, by
secular institutions such as Parliament and all forms of government
and in the workplace should be eliminated.
It is for that reason that Christianity and Islam (and many others)
are abhorrent. Forcing women to live in cloth bags is not moral.
I am not aware of any such requirements in NZ. Islam generally
enforces dress code requirements on Women,
I'm not even sure that's true. I think it is a custom of some islamic
populations but I don't think you'll find anything in the Koran or
Hadiths about that?
In other words it is cultural not religious.
There are many passages in the Old Testament that suggest restrictions on
the behaviour and dress of women. The subjugation and ill treatment of
women very much stems from religion.
Who adheres to the Old Testament?
"Allistar" wrote in message news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when you
are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown God".
That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of peace.
"Allistar" wrote in message news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when you
are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown God".
That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of peace.
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when you >>>> are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some kind. >>>
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown God". >>> That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and need to >love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of torment >amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible man in >the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a disgusting >thing to do.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:47:05 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 20:41:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What rights are infringed? I support the prayers no longer being made
for different reasons, but I would replace them with a reminder of the >>>purpose of government and parliament - doubtless those who started the >>>practice beleived that is what they were also doing.
I don't doubt that you would, because for people like you, the
government is god.
Bill.
Off topic Bill - the part of the post from Crash that I was responding
to said:
"In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the
rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not
Christian."
Do you know of any rights that are infringed by a group of people
listening to a prayer?
Do you think the practice should be continued?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:21:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:47:05 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 20:41:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
What rights are infringed? I support the prayers no longer being made >>>>for different reasons, but I would replace them with a reminder of the >>>>purpose of government and parliament - doubtless those who started the >>>>practice beleived that is what they were also doing.
I don't doubt that you would, because for people like you, the
government is god.
Bill.
Off topic Bill - the part of the post from Crash that I was responding
to said:
i wasn't responding to Crash, I was responding to you.
"In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the >>rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not >>Christian."
It has never been a problem in the past, so why stop now? You want to
replace it with some political affirmation of which you and your ilk
approve.
Do you know of any rights that are infringed by a group of people
listening to a prayer?
No I do not.
Do you think the practice should be continued?
I have no problem with it.
Whatever your beliefs, always remember that those who do not believe
in God will never recognise any authority higher than a handful of politicians, and politicians who don't believe in God will never
recognise any authority higher than themselves.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some
kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown
God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't be >>>> offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on faith >>is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of >>torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible man >>in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a
disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a particular religion.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
however this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions
that their parents may seek to impose.
Crash wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when >>>>>> you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to >>>>> worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown
God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't be >>>>> offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that continue. >>>>
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion is >>>> akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on faith >>>is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and need >>>to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of >>>torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible man >>>in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus on >one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are >factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and some do >not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions
that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are religious >are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing that is >terrible.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go to >hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part in >society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
Crash wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when >>>>>> you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to >>>>> worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown
God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't >>>>> be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that continue. >>>>
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion is >>>> akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and need >>>to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of >>>torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible man >>>in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus on >one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are >factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and some
do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions
that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are religious >are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing that is >terrible.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go to >hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part in >society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when >>>>>> you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to >>>>> worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't >>>>> be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that continue. >>>>
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion is >>>> akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and need >>>to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of >>>torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start >>>> thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible man >>>in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus on >one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are >factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and some >do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
in NZ.
however this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions
that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are religious >are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing that is >terrible.That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I know
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go to >hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part in >society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be just separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, what will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when >>>>>> you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to >>>>> worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't >>>>> be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion >>>> is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and >>>need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of >>>torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start >>>> thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>man
in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus on >one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are >factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and some >do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
in NZ.
however this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions
that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that areThat may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I know
religious
are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing that is >terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go
to
hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part in >society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be just separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, what will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
"Dave Doe" wrote in message >news:MPG.32e38296cc87c45b989d7f@news.eternal-september.org...I remember Malcolm Muggeridge, not at all fondly because of his tendency to fondle women without consent, But he was interesting in that he started out being a sympathiser with left politics and later on became a hater of Communism. He also denied the existence of God and later in life became a believer.
In article <o5a5f5$49m$1@dont-email.me>, geopelia@nowhere.com, geopelia >says...
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when >> >>>>>> you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some
kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to >> >>>>> worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown
God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't >> >>>>> be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion
is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on
faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and
need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of
torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start >> >>>> thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible
man
in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a
disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our
history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus on >> >one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are
factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and some >> >do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions
that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are
religious
are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing that is >> >terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible.
Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go
to
hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part in >> >society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be just >> separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, what
will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
There's founded beliefs - and unfounded beliefs. The former are factual
and make up our veritable knowledge. It is science based. (I'm not >suggesting it is perfect - it's subject to revision as we veritably find
out more information - that in itself, is good science).
The latter includes all religions. It is based on faith (a simple
definition of which is, unfounded beliefs).
So you can gain *your* knowledge (and beliefs) from this: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I'm sure you remember Bertrand Russell Geo. I think you'll enjoy this
short YouTube clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s
Would you care to comment on his logic and rationale?
........
I'm not sure about his logic and rationale, but I remember him well. A very >wise man.
As he saw things, he would have been right. People then often discussed his >ideas.
Some disapproved and said so.
In his day, many more people were believers (or found it wise to pretend to >be believers) than is the case today.
Medical science and knowledge of brain function has since advanced. More >people are being revived from clinical death.
(My husband was dead for ten minutes. He said he didn't know anything or see >anything.)
With the internet, the beliefs of other religions are readily available. >Perhaps we should all know what the Koran says.
Especially during the war and afterwards, prayer must have helped many >people, if they believed someone was listening.
But in those days, many had never questioned their childhood beliefs as
young people do now.
We grew up knowing what we were supposed to believe, in the 1930s. Angels
and devils were real to us.
And if one no longer believed, it was not wise to admit it. Just go to
church on Sundays and hope for the best.
"God bless the Squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper stations" >as somebody said.
Russell could make a good case for not believing. But if belief in a God >helps people, why deprive them of that comfort?
After all, nobody can prove or disprove it either way.
Perhaps he has now found out what comes next. Or perhaps not.
I agree with Socrates.
As he said before he drank the hemlock, "The hour of departure has arrived, >and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live.
Which is better God only knows."
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:21:43 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:47:05 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 20:41:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
What rights are infringed? I support the prayers no longer being made >>>>for different reasons, but I would replace them with a reminder of the >>>>purpose of government and parliament - doubtless those who started the >>>>practice beleived that is what they were also doing.
I don't doubt that you would, because for people like you, the
government is god.
Bill.
Off topic Bill - the part of the post from Crash that I was responding
to said:
i wasn't responding to Crash, I was responding to you.
"In the NZ Parliament, as I understand it, Christian prayers are
regularly recited. This practice should stop because Parliament is
not an appropriate venue for this behaviour and doing so infringes the >>rights of those who don't practice religion and those who are not >>Christian."
It has never been a problem in the past, so why stop now? You want to
replace it with some political affirmation of which you and your ilk
approve.
Do you know of any rights that are infringed by a group of people
listening to a prayer?
No I do not.
Do you think the practice should be continued?
I have no problem with it.
Whatever your beliefs, always remember that those who do not believe
in God will never recognise any authority higher than a handful of politicians, and politicians who don't believe in God will never
recognise any authority higher than themselves.
"Dave Doe" wrote in message >news:MPG.32e38296cc87c45b989d7f@news.eternal-september.org...I remember Malcolm Muggeridge, not at all fondly because of his tendency to fondle women without consent, But he was interesting in that he started out being a sympathiser with left politics and later on became a hater of Communism. He also denied the existence of God and later in life became a believer.
In article <o5a5f5$49m$1@dont-email.me>, geopelia@nowhere.com, geopelia >says...
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food
when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some
kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something
to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown
God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he
wouldn't
be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion
is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on
faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and
need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of
torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will
start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible
man
in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a
disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our
history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus
on
one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are
factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and
some
do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions
that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are
religious
are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing that
is
terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible.
Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go
to
hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part
in
society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be
just
separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, what
will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
There's founded beliefs - and unfounded beliefs. The former are factual
and make up our veritable knowledge. It is science based. (I'm not >suggesting it is perfect - it's subject to revision as we veritably find
out more information - that in itself, is good science).
The latter includes all religions. It is based on faith (a simple
definition of which is, unfounded beliefs).
So you can gain *your* knowledge (and beliefs) from this: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I'm sure you remember Bertrand Russell Geo. I think you'll enjoy this
short YouTube clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s
Would you care to comment on his logic and rationale?
........
I'm not sure about his logic and rationale, but I remember him well. A
very
wise man.
As he saw things, he would have been right. People then often discussed his >ideas.
Some disapproved and said so.
In his day, many more people were believers (or found it wise to pretend to >be believers) than is the case today.
Medical science and knowledge of brain function has since advanced. More >people are being revived from clinical death.
(My husband was dead for ten minutes. He said he didn't know anything or
see
anything.)
With the internet, the beliefs of other religions are readily available. >Perhaps we should all know what the Koran says.
Especially during the war and afterwards, prayer must have helped many >people, if they believed someone was listening.
But in those days, many had never questioned their childhood beliefs as
young people do now.
We grew up knowing what we were supposed to believe, in the 1930s. Angels
and devils were real to us.
And if one no longer believed, it was not wise to admit it. Just go to
church on Sundays and hope for the best.
"God bless the Squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper
stations"
as somebody said.
Russell could make a good case for not believing. But if belief in a God >helps people, why deprive them of that comfort?
After all, nobody can prove or disprove it either way.
Perhaps he has now found out what comes next. Or perhaps not.
I agree with Socrates.
As he said before he drank the hemlock, "The hour of departure has arrived, >and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live.
Which is better God only knows."
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when >>>>>>> you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to >>>>>> worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't >>>>>> be offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion >>>>> is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>faith is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill >>>>and need to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an >>>>eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start >>>>> thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>>man in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus on >>one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are >>factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and some >>do not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions
that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are
religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think
doing that is terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go to >>hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part in >>society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
----
Crash McBash
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
"geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Dave Doe" wrote in message >>news:MPG.32e38296cc87c45b989d7f@news.eternal-september.org...I remember Malcolm Muggeridge, not at all fondly because of his tendency
In article <o5a5f5$49m$1@dont-email.me>, geopelia@nowhere.com, geopelia >>says...
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food
when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of
some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something
to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the
Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about,
he wouldn't
be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children
religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, >>> >>>> democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on
faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and
need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of >>> >>>torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will
start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>> >>>man
in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a
disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our
history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus
on
one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions
are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true
and some
do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any
compulsions that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are
religious
are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing that
is
terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible.
Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go >>> >to
hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part
in
society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be
just
separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears,
what will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
There's founded beliefs - and unfounded beliefs. The former are factual
and make up our veritable knowledge. It is science based. (I'm not >>suggesting it is perfect - it's subject to revision as we veritably find >>out more information - that in itself, is good science).
The latter includes all religions. It is based on faith (a simple >>definition of which is, unfounded beliefs).
So you can gain *your* knowledge (and beliefs) from this: >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I'm sure you remember Bertrand Russell Geo. I think you'll enjoy this >>short YouTube clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s
Would you care to comment on his logic and rationale?
........
I'm not sure about his logic and rationale, but I remember him well. A >>very
wise man.
As he saw things, he would have been right. People then often discussed
his ideas.
Some disapproved and said so.
In his day, many more people were believers (or found it wise to pretend
to be believers) than is the case today.
Medical science and knowledge of brain function has since advanced. More >>people are being revived from clinical death.
(My husband was dead for ten minutes. He said he didn't know anything or >>see
anything.)
With the internet, the beliefs of other religions are readily available. >>Perhaps we should all know what the Koran says.
Especially during the war and afterwards, prayer must have helped many >>people, if they believed someone was listening.
But in those days, many had never questioned their childhood beliefs as >>young people do now.
We grew up knowing what we were supposed to believe, in the 1930s. Angels >>and devils were real to us.
And if one no longer believed, it was not wise to admit it. Just go to >>church on Sundays and hope for the best.
"God bless the Squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper >>stations"
as somebody said.
Russell could make a good case for not believing. But if belief in a God >>helps people, why deprive them of that comfort?
After all, nobody can prove or disprove it either way.
Perhaps he has now found out what comes next. Or perhaps not.
I agree with Socrates.
As he said before he drank the hemlock, "The hour of departure has
arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live.
Which is better God only knows."
to fondle women without consent, But he was interesting in that he started out being a sympathiser with left politics and later on became a hater of Communism. He also denied the existence of God and later in life became a believer.
I guess he was an extreme example of the way many people swing from one
view to
another through life.
Tony
..........
Believe what you like and let others do the same. Who knows which view is
the right one?
Just be thankful you don't live in Tudor times. I used to pass the
Martyrs' Memorial every day in Oxford.
Catholics and Protestants burning each other!
Today if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
But with the current rise of Islam we might all be called to Martyrdom.--
Could be my last chance to get to Heaven!
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when >>>>>>> you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to >>>>>> worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't >>>>>> be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion >>>>> is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems,
democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and need >>>>to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of >>>>torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start >>>>> thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of
peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>>man in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus on >>one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are >>factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and some >>do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions
that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are
religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think
doing that is terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go to >>hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part in >>society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be just separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, what will replace it?
Some political system?--
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:21:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food >>>>>>>>> when you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something >>>>>>>> to worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he
wouldn't be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during >>>>>>> childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion >>>>>>> is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, >>>>>>> democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>>>faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and >>>>>>need to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an >>>>>>eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will
start thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of >>>>>>> peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>>>>man in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a >>>>> particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus >>>>on one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions >>>>are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and >>>>some do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where >>>>> they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions >>>>> that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>>religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think >>>>doing that is terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>>>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go >>>>to hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part >>>>in society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be
just separation from God these days?
That's like "separation from unicorns". It makes no sense.
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears,
what will replace it?
I don't agree that some people need to believe in something along the
lines of religion.
On what basis do you speak for others, Allistar?
Do you think people
should believe you just because you have an opinion?
--Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
geopelia wrote:Of course there ae a lot of things we believe that are not based on
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
"geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Dave Doe" wrote in message >>>news:MPG.32e38296cc87c45b989d7f@news.eternal-september.org...I remember Malcolm Muggeridge, not at all fondly because of his tendency
In article <o5a5f5$49m$1@dont-email.me>, geopelia@nowhere.com, geopelia >>>says...
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens >>>> in NZ.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>> >> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food
when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of
some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something >>>> >>>>> to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the
Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, >>>> >>>>> he wouldn't
be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during >>>> >>>> childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children
religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, >>>> >>>> democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>> >>>faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and >>>> >>>need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of >>>> >>>torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will
start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of >>>> >>>> peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>> >>>man
in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a
disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a >>>> >> particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>> >history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus >>>> >on
one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions
are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true
and some
do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where >>>> >> they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the >>>> >> child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any
compulsions that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are
religious
are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing that >>>> >is
terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>>> >Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go >>>> >to
hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part >>>> >in
society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be
just
separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears,
what will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
There's founded beliefs - and unfounded beliefs. The former are factual >>>and make up our veritable knowledge. It is science based. (I'm not >>>suggesting it is perfect - it's subject to revision as we veritably find >>>out more information - that in itself, is good science).
The latter includes all religions. It is based on faith (a simple >>>definition of which is, unfounded beliefs).
So you can gain *your* knowledge (and beliefs) from this: >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I'm sure you remember Bertrand Russell Geo. I think you'll enjoy this >>>short YouTube clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s
Would you care to comment on his logic and rationale?
........
I'm not sure about his logic and rationale, but I remember him well. A >>>very
wise man.
As he saw things, he would have been right. People then often discussed >>>his ideas.
Some disapproved and said so.
In his day, many more people were believers (or found it wise to pretend >>>to be believers) than is the case today.
Medical science and knowledge of brain function has since advanced. More >>>people are being revived from clinical death.
(My husband was dead for ten minutes. He said he didn't know anything or >>>see
anything.)
With the internet, the beliefs of other religions are readily available. >>>Perhaps we should all know what the Koran says.
Especially during the war and afterwards, prayer must have helped many >>>people, if they believed someone was listening.
But in those days, many had never questioned their childhood beliefs as >>>young people do now.
We grew up knowing what we were supposed to believe, in the 1930s. Angels >>>and devils were real to us.
And if one no longer believed, it was not wise to admit it. Just go to >>>church on Sundays and hope for the best.
"God bless the Squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper >>>stations"
as somebody said.
Russell could make a good case for not believing. But if belief in a God >>>helps people, why deprive them of that comfort?
After all, nobody can prove or disprove it either way.
Perhaps he has now found out what comes next. Or perhaps not.
I agree with Socrates.
As he said before he drank the hemlock, "The hour of departure has >>>arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live.
Which is better God only knows."
to fondle women without consent, But he was interesting in that he started >> out being a sympathiser with left politics and later on became a hater of
Communism. He also denied the existence of God and later in life became a
believer.
I guess he was an extreme example of the way many people swing from one
view to
another through life.
Tony
..........
Believe what you like and let others do the same. Who knows which view is
the right one?
We have means to determine reality from fiction. It's called "science".
Clearly there are plenty of people that are not disgusted, Allistar.Just be thankful you don't live in Tudor times. I used to pass the
Martyrs' Memorial every day in Oxford.
Catholics and Protestants burning each other!
I live not far from a school called St Thomas More. It disgusts me that a >school would be named after a person who had people burned alive for daring >to own a Bible in their own language. I bet the majority of people who
attend and who teach at that school are not aware of this.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - inToday if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are killed >for halting your belief in such nonsense.
But with the current rise of Islam we might all be called to Martyrdom.
Could be my last chance to get to Heaven!
Rich80105 wrote:That counts as yet another non-scientific belief you hold . . .
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:20:07 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Are you in favour of doing away with private schools then, Allistar?
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens >>>> in NZ.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food >>>>>>>>>> when you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to. >>>>>>>>> Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something >>>>>>>>> to worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>>>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he
wouldn't be offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that >>>>>>>>> continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during >>>>>>>> childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion >>>>>>>> is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, >>>>>>>> democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>>>>faith is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill >>>>>>>and need to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an >>>>>>>eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will >>>>>>>> start thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of >>>>>>>> peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>>>>>man in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>>>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a >>>>>> particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>>>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus >>>>>on one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions >>>>>are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and >>>>>some do not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where >>>>>> they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the >>>>>> child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions >>>>>> that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>>>religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think >>>>>doing that is terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
You don't know any case in NZ where parents sent their kids to a religious >>>school?
No, I'm in favour of not feeding children nonintellectual bullshit as if
it's fact,
Or make them go to church?Of course many people go to church - albeit a lot smaller proportion
of the population than used to go. Do you think they should be
prevented from going and taking their children, Allistar?
Or teach them to love that maniacal,
callous, immoral (and fictional) deity?
I'm not aware of that deity - it is one you believe in, Allistar?
I'm referring to the god of the Bible. I'm not gullible enough to believe in >it.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>>>>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go >>>>>to hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part >>>>>in society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
Rich80105 wrote:Not required by who? For what purpose? Does it really matter that some
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:21:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens >>>> in NZ.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food >>>>>>>>>> when you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to. >>>>>>>>> Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something >>>>>>>>> to worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>>>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he
wouldn't be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that >>>>>>>>> continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during >>>>>>>> childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion >>>>>>>> is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, >>>>>>>> democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>>>>faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and >>>>>>>need to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an >>>>>>>eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will >>>>>>>> start thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of >>>>>>>> peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>>>>>man in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>>>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a >>>>>> particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>>>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus >>>>>on one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions >>>>>are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and >>>>>some do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where >>>>>> they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the >>>>>> child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions >>>>>> that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>>>religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think >>>>>doing that is terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>>>>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go >>>>>to hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part >>>>>in society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be
just separation from God these days?
That's like "separation from unicorns". It makes no sense.
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears,
what will replace it?
I don't agree that some people need to believe in something along the >>>lines of religion.
On what basis do you speak for others, Allistar?
My opinion is that a god belief is not required.
Has anyone tried to force a belief on you? Have you tried to forceDo you think people
should believe you just because you have an opinion?
People can believe what they like so long as they don't try and force those >beliefs onto others.
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
geopelia wrote:
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when >>>>>>>> you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to >>>>>>> worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't >>>>>>> be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion >>>>>> is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, >>>>>> democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>>faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and need >>>>>to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity of >>>>>torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start >>>>>> thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of >>>>>> peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>>>man in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus on >>>one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are >>>factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and some >>>do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions >>>> that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think >>>doing that is terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go to >>>hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part in >>>society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be just >> separation from God these days?
That's like "separation from unicorns". It makes no sense.
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, what
will replace it?
I don't agree that some people need to believe in something along the lines >of religion.
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:20:07 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Are you in favour of doing away with private schools then, Allistar?
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food >>>>>>>>> when you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something >>>>>>>> to worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he
wouldn't be offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during >>>>>>> childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion >>>>>>> is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, >>>>>>> democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>>>faith is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill >>>>>>and need to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an >>>>>>eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will
start thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of >>>>>>> peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>>>>man in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a >>>>> particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus >>>>on one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions >>>>are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and >>>>some do not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where >>>>> they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions >>>>> that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>>religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think >>>>doing that is terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
You don't know any case in NZ where parents sent their kids to a religious >>school?
Or make them go to church?Of course many people go to church - albeit a lot smaller proportion
of the population than used to go. Do you think they should be
prevented from going and taking their children, Allistar?
Or teach them to love that maniacal,
callous, immoral (and fictional) deity?
I'm not aware of that deity - it is one you believe in, Allistar?
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>>>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go >>>>to hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part >>>>in society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
Crash wrote:Are you in favour of doing away with private schools then, Allistar?
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food when >>>>>>>> you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of some >>>>>>>> kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something to >>>>>>> worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the Unknown >>>>>>> God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, he wouldn't >>>>>>> be offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during
childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children religion >>>>>> is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political systems, >>>>>> democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>>faith is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill >>>>>and need to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an >>>>>eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will start >>>>>> thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of >>>>>> peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an invisible >>>>>man in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children
about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a
particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus on >>>one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions are >>>factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true and some >>>do not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where
they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the
child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I knowhowever this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any compulsions >>>> that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think >>>doing that is terrible.
of brought up in NZ.
You don't know any case in NZ where parents sent their kids to a religious >school?
Or make them go to church?Of course many people go to church - albeit a lot smaller proportion
Or teach them to love that maniacal,I'm not aware of that deity - it is one you believe in, Allistar?
callous, immoral (and fictional) deity?
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't go to >>>hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part in >>>society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
"geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Dave Doe" wrote in message >>>>news:MPG.32e38296cc87c45b989d7f@news.eternal-september.org...I remember Malcolm Muggeridge, not at all fondly because of his tendency >>> to fondle women without consent, But he was interesting in that he
In article <o5a5f5$49m$1@dont-email.me>, geopelia@nowhere.com, geopelia >>>>says...
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens >>>>> in NZ.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>> >> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food >>>>> >>>>>> when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of >>>>> >>>>>> some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to.
Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not
something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the
Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, >>>>> >>>>> he wouldn't
be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that
continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during >>>>> >>>> childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children
religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political
systems, democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things >>>>> >>>on faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and >>>>> >>>need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity >>>>> >>>of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will >>>>> >>>> start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake >>>>> >>>> of peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an
invisible man
in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a
disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children >>>>> >> about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow >>>>> >> a particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>>> >history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just
focus on
one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions >>>>> >are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true >>>>> >and some
do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age
where they question their parents wisdom and challenge their
parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the >>>>> >> child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I know >>>>> of brought up in NZ.however this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any
compulsions that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are
religious
are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing
that is
terrible.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is
horrible. Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then >>>>> >they won't go to
hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major
part in
society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be >>>>> just
separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, >>>>> what will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
There's founded beliefs - and unfounded beliefs. The former are factual >>>>and make up our veritable knowledge. It is science based. (I'm not >>>>suggesting it is perfect - it's subject to revision as we veritably find >>>>out more information - that in itself, is good science).
The latter includes all religions. It is based on faith (a simple >>>>definition of which is, unfounded beliefs).
So you can gain *your* knowledge (and beliefs) from this: >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I'm sure you remember Bertrand Russell Geo. I think you'll enjoy this >>>>short YouTube clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s
Would you care to comment on his logic and rationale?
........
I'm not sure about his logic and rationale, but I remember him well. A >>>>very
wise man.
As he saw things, he would have been right. People then often discussed >>>>his ideas.
Some disapproved and said so.
In his day, many more people were believers (or found it wise to pretend >>>>to be believers) than is the case today.
Medical science and knowledge of brain function has since advanced. More >>>>people are being revived from clinical death.
(My husband was dead for ten minutes. He said he didn't know anything or >>>>see
anything.)
With the internet, the beliefs of other religions are readily available. >>>>Perhaps we should all know what the Koran says.
Especially during the war and afterwards, prayer must have helped many >>>>people, if they believed someone was listening.
But in those days, many had never questioned their childhood beliefs as >>>>young people do now.
We grew up knowing what we were supposed to believe, in the 1930s. >>>>Angels and devils were real to us.
And if one no longer believed, it was not wise to admit it. Just go to >>>>church on Sundays and hope for the best.
"God bless the Squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper >>>>stations"
as somebody said.
Russell could make a good case for not believing. But if belief in a God >>>>helps people, why deprive them of that comfort?
After all, nobody can prove or disprove it either way.
Perhaps he has now found out what comes next. Or perhaps not.
I agree with Socrates.
As he said before he drank the hemlock, "The hour of departure has >>>>arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live.
Which is better God only knows."
started out being a sympathiser with left politics and later on became a >>> hater of Communism. He also denied the existence of God and later in
life became a believer.
I guess he was an extreme example of the way many people swing from one
view to
another through life.
Tony
..........
Believe what you like and let others do the same. Who knows which view
is the right one?
We have means to determine reality from fiction. It's called "science".
Of course there ae a lot of things we believe that are not based on
science. For example you appear to believe that religious beliefs are
not a reality - or can you prove that scientifically, Allistar?
Just be thankful you don't live in Tudor times. I used to pass the
Martyrs' Memorial every day in Oxford.
Catholics and Protestants burning each other!
I live not far from a school called St Thomas More. It disgusts me that a >>school would be named after a person who had people burned alive for
daring to own a Bible in their own language. I bet the majority of people >>who attend and who teach at that school are not aware of this.
Clearly there are plenty of people that are not disgusted, Allistar.
If it is not causing you any harm - or indeed anyone else - why should
you or any else be bothered?
Today if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are killed >>for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in
general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed or
harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief for
you?
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:04:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:21:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens >>>>> in NZ.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food >>>>>>>>>>> when you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of >>>>>>>>>>> some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say >>>>>>>>>> ..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to. >>>>>>>>>> Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something >>>>>>>>>> to worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the >>>>>>>>>> Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, >>>>>>>>>> he wouldn't be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that >>>>>>>>>> continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during >>>>>>>>> childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children
religion is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political
systems, democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>>>>>faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and >>>>>>>>need to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an >>>>>>>>eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will >>>>>>>>> start thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of >>>>>>>>> peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an >>>>>>>>invisible man in the sky watches their every move and hears every >>>>>>>>thought is a disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children >>>>>>> about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a >>>>>>> particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>>>>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus >>>>>>on one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these >>>>>>religions are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they >>>>>>are true and some do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where >>>>>>> they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the >>>>>>> child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I know >>>>> of brought up in NZ.however this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any
compulsions that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>>>>religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think >>>>>>doing that is terrible.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>>>>>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't >>>>>>go to hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part >>>>>>in society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness. >>>>>
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be >>>>> just separation from God these days?
That's like "separation from unicorns". It makes no sense.
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, >>>>> what will replace it?
I don't agree that some people need to believe in something along the >>>>lines of religion.
On what basis do you speak for others, Allistar?
My opinion is that a god belief is not required.
Not required by who? For what purpose? Does it really matter that some
do not hold your views on the subject?
Do you think people
should believe you just because you have an opinion?
People can believe what they like so long as they don't try and force
those beliefs onto others.
Has anyone tried to force a belief on you? Have you tried to force
your beliefs on others?
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:02:53 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:That counts as yet another non-scientific belief you hold . . .
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:20:07 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Are you in favour of doing away with private schools then, Allistar?
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens >>>>> in NZ.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food >>>>>>>>>>> when you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of >>>>>>>>>>> some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say >>>>>>>>>> ..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to. >>>>>>>>>> Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not something >>>>>>>>>> to worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the >>>>>>>>>> Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, >>>>>>>>>> he wouldn't be offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that >>>>>>>>>> continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during >>>>>>>>> childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children
religion is akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political
systems, democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things on >>>>>>>>faith is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born >>>>>>>>ill and need to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer >>>>>>>>an eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will >>>>>>>>> start thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake of >>>>>>>>> peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an >>>>>>>>invisible man in the sky watches their every move and hears every >>>>>>>>thought is a disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children >>>>>>> about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow a >>>>>>> particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>>>>history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just focus >>>>>>on one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these >>>>>>religions are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they >>>>>>are true and some do not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age where >>>>>>> they question their parents wisdom and challenge their parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the >>>>>>> child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I know >>>>> of brought up in NZ.however this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any
compulsions that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>>>>religious are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think >>>>>>doing that is terrible.
You don't know any case in NZ where parents sent their kids to a >>>>religious school?
No, I'm in favour of not feeding children nonintellectual bullshit as if >>it's fact,
Or make them go to church?Of course many people go to church - albeit a lot smaller proportion
of the population than used to go. Do you think they should be
prevented from going and taking their children, Allistar?
Or teach them to love that maniacal,
callous, immoral (and fictional) deity?
I'm not aware of that deity - it is one you believe in, Allistar?
I'm referring to the god of the Bible. I'm not gullible enough to believe >>in it.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is horrible. >>>>>>Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then they won't >>>>>>go to hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major part >>>>>>in society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness.
I suggest that society would be better served by increasing tolerance
of the beliefs of others
- although some believe that they are good
for certain businesses and serve a useful purpose in killing off
population - again different people have different (non-scientific)
beliefs . . .
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
"geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Dave Doe" wrote in message >>>>>news:MPG.32e38296cc87c45b989d7f@news.eternal-september.org...I remember Malcolm Muggeridge, not at all fondly because of his tendency >>>> to fondle women without consent, But he was interesting in that he
In article <o5a5f5$49m$1@dont-email.me>, geopelia@nowhere.com, geopelia >>>>>says...
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what happens >>>>>> in NZ.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> >> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get food >>>>>> >>>>>> when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of >>>>>> >>>>>> some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say
..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to. >>>>>> >>>>> Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not
something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the
Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know about, >>>>>> >>>>> he wouldn't
be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that >>>>>> >>>>> continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition during >>>>>> >>>> childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching children
religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political
systems, democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things >>>>>> >>>on faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill and >>>>>> >>>need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an eternity >>>>>> >>>of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will >>>>>> >>>> start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake >>>>>> >>>> of peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an
invisible man
in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>>> >>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children >>>>>> >> about religion or having children brought up by parents who follow >>>>>> >> a particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of our >>>>>> >history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't just
focus on
one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these religions >>>>>> >are factually true. Tell them that some people believe they are true >>>>>> >and some
do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age
where they question their parents wisdom and challenge their
parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing the >>>>>> >> child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I know >>>>>> of brought up in NZ.however this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any
compulsions that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>>>> >religious
are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing >>>>>> >that is
terrible.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is
horrible. Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then >>>>>> >they won't go to
hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major >>>>>> >part in
society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness. >>>>>>
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to be >>>>>> just
separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, >>>>>> what will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
There's founded beliefs - and unfounded beliefs. The former are factual >>>>>and make up our veritable knowledge. It is science based. (I'm not >>>>>suggesting it is perfect - it's subject to revision as we veritably find >>>>>out more information - that in itself, is good science).
The latter includes all religions. It is based on faith (a simple >>>>>definition of which is, unfounded beliefs).
So you can gain *your* knowledge (and beliefs) from this: >>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I'm sure you remember Bertrand Russell Geo. I think you'll enjoy this >>>>>short YouTube clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s
Would you care to comment on his logic and rationale?
........
I'm not sure about his logic and rationale, but I remember him well. A >>>>>very
wise man.
As he saw things, he would have been right. People then often discussed >>>>>his ideas.
Some disapproved and said so.
In his day, many more people were believers (or found it wise to pretend >>>>>to be believers) than is the case today.
Medical science and knowledge of brain function has since advanced. More >>>>>people are being revived from clinical death.
(My husband was dead for ten minutes. He said he didn't know anything or >>>>>see
anything.)
With the internet, the beliefs of other religions are readily available. >>>>>Perhaps we should all know what the Koran says.
Especially during the war and afterwards, prayer must have helped many >>>>>people, if they believed someone was listening.
But in those days, many had never questioned their childhood beliefs as >>>>>young people do now.
We grew up knowing what we were supposed to believe, in the 1930s. >>>>>Angels and devils were real to us.
And if one no longer believed, it was not wise to admit it. Just go to >>>>>church on Sundays and hope for the best.
"God bless the Squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper >>>>>stations"
as somebody said.
Russell could make a good case for not believing. But if belief in a God >>>>>helps people, why deprive them of that comfort?
After all, nobody can prove or disprove it either way.
Perhaps he has now found out what comes next. Or perhaps not.
I agree with Socrates.
As he said before he drank the hemlock, "The hour of departure has >>>>>arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live.
Which is better God only knows."
started out being a sympathiser with left politics and later on became a >>>> hater of Communism. He also denied the existence of God and later in
life became a believer.
I guess he was an extreme example of the way many people swing from one >>>> view to
another through life.
Tony
..........
Believe what you like and let others do the same. Who knows which view >>>> is the right one?
We have means to determine reality from fiction. It's called "science".
Of course there ae a lot of things we believe that are not based on
science. For example you appear to believe that religious beliefs are
not a reality - or can you prove that scientifically, Allistar?
You're the king of strawman arguments. Of course religious beliefs are a >reality, in the sense that it is a reality that some people have religious >beliefs. To argue otherwise would be silly.
Just be thankful you don't live in Tudor times. I used to pass the
Martyrs' Memorial every day in Oxford.
Catholics and Protestants burning each other!
I live not far from a school called St Thomas More. It disgusts me that a >>>school would be named after a person who had people burned alive for >>>daring to own a Bible in their own language. I bet the majority of people >>>who attend and who teach at that school are not aware of this.
Clearly there are plenty of people that are not disgusted, Allistar.
It's a worry when people are not disgusted by the burning alive of other >people, and then naming a school after the person guilty.
If it is not causing you any harm - or indeed anyone else - why should
you or any else be bothered?
I am bothered by harm being caused to people, and by the continued >perpetration of the systems responsible for the harm.
Today if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are killed >>>for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in
general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed or
harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief for
you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, death for >apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, infanticide, fatwas, >suicide bombings, the subjugation of women...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
"geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Dave Doe" wrote in message >>>>>>news:MPG.32e38296cc87c45b989d7f@news.eternal-september.org...I remember Malcolm Muggeridge, not at all fondly because of his
In article <o5a5f5$49m$1@dont-email.me>, geopelia@nowhere.com, >>>>>>geopelia says...
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get >>>>>>> >>>>>> food when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of >>>>>>> >>>>>> some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say >>>>>>> >>>>> ..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to. >>>>>>> >>>>> Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not
something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the >>>>>>> >>>>> Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know
about, he wouldn't
be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that >>>>>>> >>>>> continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition
during childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching
children religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political
systems, democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things >>>>>>> >>>on faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill >>>>>>> >>>and need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an
eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will >>>>>>> >>>> start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake >>>>>>> >>>> of peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an
invisible man
in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>>>> >>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children >>>>>>> >> about religion or having children brought up by parents who
follow a particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of >>>>>>> >our history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't >>>>>>> >just focus on
one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these
religions are factually true. Tell them that some people believe >>>>>>> >they are true and some
do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age >>>>>>> >> where they question their parents wisdom and challenge their
parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing >>>>>>> >> the child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
happens in NZ.
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I >>>>>>> know of brought up in NZ.however this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any
compulsions that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>>>>> >religious
are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing >>>>>>> >that is
terrible.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is
horrible. Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then >>>>>>> >they won't go to
hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major >>>>>>> >part in
society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness. >>>>>>>
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to >>>>>>> be just
separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, >>>>>>> what will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
There's founded beliefs - and unfounded beliefs. The former are >>>>>>factual
and make up our veritable knowledge. It is science based. (I'm not >>>>>>suggesting it is perfect - it's subject to revision as we veritably >>>>>>find
out more information - that in itself, is good science).
The latter includes all religions. It is based on faith (a simple >>>>>>definition of which is, unfounded beliefs).
So you can gain *your* knowledge (and beliefs) from this: >>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I'm sure you remember Bertrand Russell Geo. I think you'll enjoy this >>>>>>short YouTube clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s
Would you care to comment on his logic and rationale?
........
I'm not sure about his logic and rationale, but I remember him well. >>>>>>A very
wise man.
As he saw things, he would have been right. People then often >>>>>>discussed his ideas.
Some disapproved and said so.
In his day, many more people were believers (or found it wise to >>>>>>pretend to be believers) than is the case today.
Medical science and knowledge of brain function has since advanced. >>>>>>More people are being revived from clinical death.
(My husband was dead for ten minutes. He said he didn't know anything >>>>>>or see
anything.)
With the internet, the beliefs of other religions are readily >>>>>>available. Perhaps we should all know what the Koran says.
Especially during the war and afterwards, prayer must have helped many >>>>>>people, if they believed someone was listening.
But in those days, many had never questioned their childhood beliefs >>>>>>as young people do now.
We grew up knowing what we were supposed to believe, in the 1930s. >>>>>>Angels and devils were real to us.
And if one no longer believed, it was not wise to admit it. Just go to >>>>>>church on Sundays and hope for the best.
"God bless the Squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper >>>>>>stations"
as somebody said.
Russell could make a good case for not believing. But if belief in a >>>>>>God helps people, why deprive them of that comfort?
After all, nobody can prove or disprove it either way.
Perhaps he has now found out what comes next. Or perhaps not.
I agree with Socrates.
As he said before he drank the hemlock, "The hour of departure has >>>>>>arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live.
Which is better God only knows."
tendency to fondle women without consent, But he was interesting in
that he started out being a sympathiser with left politics and later >>>>> on became a hater of Communism. He also denied the existence of God
and later in life became a believer.
I guess he was an extreme example of the way many people swing from
one view to
another through life.
Tony
..........
Believe what you like and let others do the same. Who knows which view >>>>> is the right one?
We have means to determine reality from fiction. It's called "science".
Of course there ae a lot of things we believe that are not based on
science. For example you appear to believe that religious beliefs are
not a reality - or can you prove that scientifically, Allistar?
You're the king of strawman arguments. Of course religious beliefs are a >>reality, in the sense that it is a reality that some people have religious >>beliefs. To argue otherwise would be silly.
Just be thankful you don't live in Tudor times. I used to pass the
Martyrs' Memorial every day in Oxford.
Catholics and Protestants burning each other!
I live not far from a school called St Thomas More. It disgusts me that >>>>a school would be named after a person who had people burned alive for >>>>daring to own a Bible in their own language. I bet the majority of >>>>people who attend and who teach at that school are not aware of this.
Clearly there are plenty of people that are not disgusted, Allistar.
It's a worry when people are not disgusted by the burning alive of other >>people, and then naming a school after the person guilty.
If it is not causing you any harm - or indeed anyone else - why should
you or any else be bothered?
I am bothered by harm being caused to people, and by the continued >>perpetration of the systems responsible for the harm.
Today if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are >>>>killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in
general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed or
harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief for
you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, death >>for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, infanticide, >>fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women...
Those are all crimes
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only
marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Rich80105 wrote:Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:Of course there ae a lot of things we believe that are not based on
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
"geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Dave Doe" wrote in message >>>>>>>news:MPG.32e38296cc87c45b989d7f@news.eternal-september.org...I remember Malcolm Muggeridge, not at all fondly because of his
In article <o5a5f5$49m$1@dont-email.me>, geopelia@nowhere.com, >>>>>>>geopelia says...
Subject: Re: Beliefs
From: geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: nz.general
"Crash" wrote in message
news:b63h7cln4j272hqs42spv09nfot7mh2j95@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:04:35 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Crash wrote:Yes - but we cannot influence or fix that. My concern is what >>>>>>>> happens in NZ.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:37:32 +1300, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:J4ydnaDeqMy5qujFnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
geopelia wrote:
"george152" wrote in message
news:5Y6dnUGVwPYmd_LFnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 1/6/2017 5:52 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-01-04, geopelia <geopelia@nowhere.com> wrote:Yugoslavia probably
................
We need to
believe in something.
No, we don't need to believe in something
Okay so you believe in nothing? So what drives you to get >>>>>>>> >>>>>> food when
you are
hungary?
What drove you to post here? It must have been some belief of >>>>>>>> >>>>>> some kind.
No. More like an internet connection and a something to say >>>>>>>> >>>>> ..................
Believe if you like, and don't believe if you don't want to. >>>>>>>> >>>>> Nobody knows whether there is a god or not, so it's not
something to
worry about.
When we die we might find out, or we might not.
The Athenians had the right idea. They had an altar "to the >>>>>>>> >>>>> Unknown God". That way, if there was one they didn't know >>>>>>>> >>>>> about, he wouldn't
be
offended.
At least these days we are free to choose, and long may that >>>>>>>> >>>>> continue.
I don't consider being converted to stone age superstition >>>>>>>> >>>> during childhood to be "free". It's far from it. Teaching >>>>>>>> >>>> children religion is
akin to getting them addicted to cigarettes.
...........
Teaching children religion is like teaching them political >>>>>>>> >>>> systems, democracy, Fascism, Communism etc.
Or the rights and wrongs of various wars.
Adults will teach them what they want them to know.
Teaching children to suspect their intellect and to accept things >>>>>>>> >>>on faith
is a terrible thing to do. Teaching them that they are born ill >>>>>>>> >>>and need
to love a malevolent dictator otherwise they'll suffer an
eternity of torment amounts to child abuse.
But when they reach their teens, most intelligent children will >>>>>>>> >>>> start
thinking for themselves,
though they may go along with their parents' ideas for the sake >>>>>>>> >>>> of peace.
Children should be taught skepticism. Teaching them that an >>>>>>>> >>>invisible man
in the sky watches their every move and hears every thought is a >>>>>>>> >>>disgusting thing to do.
Allistar, for the most part there is no harm in teaching children >>>>>>>> >> about religion or having children brought up by parents who >>>>>>>> >> follow a particular religion.
I agree. Teach them *about* religion. It has been a major part of >>>>>>>> >our history. But teach them a bit about all religions and don't >>>>>>>> >just focus on
one. And don't teach them that any of the beliefs of these
religions are factually true. Tell them that some people believe >>>>>>>> >they are true and some
do
not.
My experience is that children (including myself) reach an age >>>>>>>> >> where they question their parents wisdom and challenge their >>>>>>>> >> parents
beliefs. It is wrong if a parent reacts to this by suppressing >>>>>>>> >> the child's freedom to form their own opinions,
Do you know what happens to apostates in some countries?
That may happen overseas but it is not my experience of people I >>>>>>>> know of brought up in NZ.however this can never be
done permanently - eventually all children will reject any
compulsions that their parents may seek to impose.
I think that the majority of people in western societies that are >>>>>>>> >religious
are so because they were indoctrinated as children. I think doing >>>>>>>> >that is
terrible.
Teaching children about the imaginary place called "hell" is
horrible. Telling them that if they love an all powerful being then >>>>>>>> >they won't go to
hell is child abuse.
It appalls me that these ancient superstitions still play a major >>>>>>>> >part in
society today. Humanity needs to move away from this childishness. >>>>>>>>
--
Crash McBash
Does anybody still believe literally in Hell? Isn't it believed to >>>>>>>> be just
separation from God these days?
People seem to need to believe in something. If religion disappears, >>>>>>>> what will replace it?
Some political system?
Don't we all draw our own conclusions these days?
There's founded beliefs - and unfounded beliefs. The former are >>>>>>>factual
and make up our veritable knowledge. It is science based. (I'm not >>>>>>>suggesting it is perfect - it's subject to revision as we veritably >>>>>>>find
out more information - that in itself, is good science).
The latter includes all religions. It is based on faith (a simple >>>>>>>definition of which is, unfounded beliefs).
So you can gain *your* knowledge (and beliefs) from this: >>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I'm sure you remember Bertrand Russell Geo. I think you'll enjoy this >>>>>>>short YouTube clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s
Would you care to comment on his logic and rationale?
........
I'm not sure about his logic and rationale, but I remember him well. >>>>>>>A very
wise man.
As he saw things, he would have been right. People then often >>>>>>>discussed his ideas.
Some disapproved and said so.
In his day, many more people were believers (or found it wise to >>>>>>>pretend to be believers) than is the case today.
Medical science and knowledge of brain function has since advanced. >>>>>>>More people are being revived from clinical death.
(My husband was dead for ten minutes. He said he didn't know anything >>>>>>>or see
anything.)
With the internet, the beliefs of other religions are readily >>>>>>>available. Perhaps we should all know what the Koran says.
Especially during the war and afterwards, prayer must have helped many >>>>>>>people, if they believed someone was listening.
But in those days, many had never questioned their childhood beliefs >>>>>>>as young people do now.
We grew up knowing what we were supposed to believe, in the 1930s. >>>>>>>Angels and devils were real to us.
And if one no longer believed, it was not wise to admit it. Just go to >>>>>>>church on Sundays and hope for the best.
"God bless the Squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper >>>>>>>stations"
as somebody said.
Russell could make a good case for not believing. But if belief in a >>>>>>>God helps people, why deprive them of that comfort?
After all, nobody can prove or disprove it either way.
Perhaps he has now found out what comes next. Or perhaps not.
I agree with Socrates.
As he said before he drank the hemlock, "The hour of departure has >>>>>>>arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live.
Which is better God only knows."
tendency to fondle women without consent, But he was interesting in >>>>>> that he started out being a sympathiser with left politics and later >>>>>> on became a hater of Communism. He also denied the existence of God >>>>>> and later in life became a believer.
I guess he was an extreme example of the way many people swing from >>>>>> one view to
another through life.
Tony
..........
Believe what you like and let others do the same. Who knows which view >>>>>> is the right one?
We have means to determine reality from fiction. It's called "science". >>>
science. For example you appear to believe that religious beliefs are
not a reality - or can you prove that scientifically, Allistar?
You're the king of strawman arguments. Of course religious beliefs are a >>>reality, in the sense that it is a reality that some people have religious >>>beliefs. To argue otherwise would be silly.
Just be thankful you don't live in Tudor times. I used to pass the >>>>>> Martyrs' Memorial every day in Oxford.
Catholics and Protestants burning each other!
I live not far from a school called St Thomas More. It disgusts me that >>>>>a school would be named after a person who had people burned alive for >>>>>daring to own a Bible in their own language. I bet the majority of >>>>>people who attend and who teach at that school are not aware of this.
Clearly there are plenty of people that are not disgusted, Allistar.
It's a worry when people are not disgusted by the burning alive of other >>>people, and then naming a school after the person guilty.
If it is not causing you any harm - or indeed anyone else - why should >>>> you or any else be bothered?
I am bothered by harm being caused to people, and by the continued >>>perpetration of the systems responsible for the harm.
Today if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are >>>>>killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in
general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed or
harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief for
you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, death >>>for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, infanticide, >>>fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women...
Those are all crimes
Not in all jurisdictions.
Whipping of children? Really? In some cases perhaps, but I think you- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only
marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be
teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact.
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would like
to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, death for >apostasy?
Really Rich?
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
Today if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are >>>>>>killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in
general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed or >>>>> harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief for
you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, death >>>>for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, infanticide, >>>>fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women...
Those are all crimes
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
crimes in New Zealand?
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
In some cases perhaps, but I think you
are stretching an already long bow - particularly in relation to New
Zealand.
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only
marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be >>teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact.
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would like >>to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, death for >>apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your understanding of education on schools - you said: The only restriction
of have suggested is that schools should not be teaching children
baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact."
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of
adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current
laws are adequate in those cases?
Rich80105 wrote:I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what you
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
[snip[ for brevity]
Today if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are >>>>>>>killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in
general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed or >>>>>> harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief for >>>>>> you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, death >>>>>for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, infanticide, >>>>>fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women...
Those are all crimes
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand.
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with the >rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others.
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you
are stretching an already long bow - particularly in relation to New
Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New Zealand.
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only
marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be >>>teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact.
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would like >>>to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, death for >>>apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your
understanding of education on schools - you said: The only restriction
of have suggested is that schools should not be teaching children
baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact."
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh dear.
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of
adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current
laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric religious >practices that are legal in New Zealand.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
[snip[ for brevity]
Today if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are >>>>>>>>killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in
general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed >>>>>>> or harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief >>>>>>> for you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, >>>>>>death for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, >>>>>>infanticide, fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women...
Those are all crimes
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand.
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with the >>rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others.
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you
are stretching an already long bow - particularly in relation to New
Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New Zealand.
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only
marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be >>>>teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact. >>>>
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would >>>>like to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, >>>>death for apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your
understanding of education on schools - you said: The only restriction
of have suggested is that schools should not be teaching children
baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact."
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh dear.
I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what you
are seeking is "that schools should not be teaching children baseless
and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." - and in so doing are
setting yourself up as the authority on what constitutes baseless and
immoral fairy tales.
One of your beliefs that I regard as a baseless
and immoral fairy tale, is the concept that taxes are bad for a
country
- I would object to a school teaching such a belief as clearly
there is a range of services that even you agree should be provided by government that are best funded by fair taxes. If I determined that
your beliefs relating to taxation are tantamount to being a religious
belief, would you be happy to have my view determine that schools
could not inform their students of such views?
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of
adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current
laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
[snip[ for brevity]
Today if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are >>>>>>>>killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in
general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed >>>>>>> or harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief >>>>>>> for you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, >>>>>>death for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, >>>>>>infanticide, fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women...
Those are all crimes
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand.
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with the >>rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others.
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you
are stretching an already long bow - particularly in relation to New
Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New Zealand.
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only
marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be >>>>teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact. >>>>
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would >>>>like to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, >>>>death for apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your
understanding of education on schools - you said: The only restriction
of have suggested is that schools should not be teaching children
baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact."
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh dear.
I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what you
are seeking is "that schools should not be teaching children baseless
and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." - and in so doing are
setting yourself up as the authority on what constitutes baseless and
immoral fairy tales.
One of your beliefs that I regard as a baseless
and immoral fairy tale, is the concept that taxes are bad for a
country
- I would object to a school teaching such a belief as clearly
there is a range of services that even you agree should be provided by government that are best funded by fair taxes. If I determined that
your beliefs relating to taxation are tantamount to being a religious
belief, would you be happy to have my view determine that schools
could not inform their students of such views?
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of
adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current
laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
"Allistar" wrote in message news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
[snip[ for brevity]
Those are all crimesToday if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are >>>>>>>>>killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in >>>>>>>> general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed >>>>>>>> or harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief >>>>>>>> for you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, >>>>>>>death for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, >>>>>>>infanticide, fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women... >>>>>>
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand.
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with the >>>rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others.
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you
are stretching an already long bow - particularly in relation to New
Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New Zealand. >>>
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only
marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be >>>>>teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact. >>>>>
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would >>>>>like to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, >>>>>death for apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your
understanding of education on schools - you said: The only restriction >>>> of have suggested is that schools should not be teaching children
baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact."
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh dear.
I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what you
are seeking is "that schools should not be teaching children baseless
and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." - and in so doing are
setting yourself up as the authority on what constitutes baseless and
immoral fairy tales.
Science and reason determine that these are baseless. Humanity tells us
some of them are immoral.
One of your beliefs that I regard as a baseless
and immoral fairy tale, is the concept that taxes are bad for a
country
I've never once said that taxes are bad for a country.
- I would object to a school teaching such a belief as clearly
there is a range of services that even you agree should be provided by
government that are best funded by fair taxes. If I determined that
your beliefs relating to taxation are tantamount to being a religious
belief, would you be happy to have my view determine that schools
could not inform their students of such views?
Children should be taught that such views exist but they should not be
taught that they are proven or "true".
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of
adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current
laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies?
That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
But what else?--
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>[snip[ for brevity]
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph... >>>>
Those are all crimesToday if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you are >>>>>>>>>>killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in >>>>>>>>> general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be killed >>>>>>>>> or harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific belief >>>>>>>>> for you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, >>>>>>>>death for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, >>>>>>>>infanticide, fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women... >>>>>>>
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand.
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with the >>>>rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others.
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you
are stretching an already long bow - particularly in relation to New >>>>> Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New Zealand. >>>>
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only >>>>>>> marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be >>>>>>teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact. >>>>>>
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would >>>>>>like to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, >>>>>>death for apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your
understanding of education on schools - you said: The only restriction >>>>> of have suggested is that schools should not be teaching children
baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact."
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh dear.
I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what you
are seeking is "that schools should not be teaching children baseless
and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." - and in so doing are
setting yourself up as the authority on what constitutes baseless and
immoral fairy tales.
Science and reason determine that these are baseless. Humanity tells us
some of them are immoral.
One of your beliefs that I regard as a baseless
and immoral fairy tale, is the concept that taxes are bad for a
country
I've never once said that taxes are bad for a country.
- I would object to a school teaching such a belief as clearly
there is a range of services that even you agree should be provided by
government that are best funded by fair taxes. If I determined that
your beliefs relating to taxation are tantamount to being a religious
belief, would you be happy to have my view determine that schools
could not inform their students of such views?
Children should be taught that such views exist but they should not be
taught that they are proven or "true".
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of
adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current
laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies?
That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical
reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you think your >imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be illegal.
But what else?
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message
news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
[snip[ for brevity]
Today if we disagree with a sect we just don't have to follow >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you >>>>>>>>>>>are killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in >>>>>>>>>> general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be >>>>>>>>>> killed or harmed for religous belief - yet another
non-scientific belief for you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of >>>>>>>>>children,
death for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, >>>>>>>>>infanticide, fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of >>>>>>>>>women...
Those are all crimes
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand.
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with >>>>>the rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others.
- and many of them have nothing to do with religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you are stretching an already
long bow - particularly in relation to New Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New >>>>>Zealand.
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on actions of New >>>>>>>> Zealanders despite some of those issues being only marginally if >>>>>>>> at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not >>>>>>>be teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they >>>>>>>are fact.
You really are an authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't >>>>>>>> you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I >>>>>>>would like to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of >>>>>>>adulterers, death for apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your
understanding of education on schools - you said: The only
restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be
teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are
fact."
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh >>>>>dear.
I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what
you are seeking is "that schools should not be teaching children
baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." - and in so
doing are setting yourself up as the authority on what constitutes
baseless and immoral fairy tales.
Science and reason determine that these are baseless. Humanity tells
us some of them are immoral.
One of your beliefs that I regard as a baseless and immoral fairy
tale, is the concept that taxes are bad for a country
I've never once said that taxes are bad for a country.
- I would object to a school teaching such a belief as clearly there
is a range of services that even you agree should be provided by
government that are best funded by fair taxes. If I determined that
your beliefs relating to taxation are tantamount to being a religious
belief, would you be happy to have my view determine that schools
could not inform their students of such views?
Children should be taught that such views exist but they should not be
taught that they are proven or "true".
You did not propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the
stoning of adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe >>>>>> our current laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies?
That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you think >>your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm. On what basis is circumcision immoral, Allistar?
But what else?
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message
news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
[snip[ for brevity]
Today if we disagree with a sect we just don't have to follow >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you >>>>>>>>>>>are killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in >>>>>>>>>> general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be >>>>>>>>>> killed or harmed for religous belief - yet another
non-scientific belief for you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of >>>>>>>>>children,
death for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, >>>>>>>>>infanticide, fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of >>>>>>>>>women...
Those are all crimes
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand.
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with >>>>>the rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others.
- and many of them have nothing to do with religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you are stretching an already
long bow - particularly in relation to New Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New >>>>>Zealand.
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on actions of New >>>>>>>> Zealanders despite some of those issues being only marginally if >>>>>>>> at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not >>>>>>>be teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they >>>>>>>are fact.
You really are an authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't >>>>>>>> you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I >>>>>>>would like to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of >>>>>>>adulterers, death for apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your
understanding of education on schools - you said: The only
restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be
teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are
fact."
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh >>>>>dear.
I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what
you are seeking is "that schools should not be teaching children
baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." - and in so
doing are setting yourself up as the authority on what constitutes
baseless and immoral fairy tales.
Science and reason determine that these are baseless. Humanity tells
us some of them are immoral.
One of your beliefs that I regard as a baseless and immoral fairy
tale, is the concept that taxes are bad for a country
I've never once said that taxes are bad for a country.
- I would object to a school teaching such a belief as clearly there
is a range of services that even you agree should be provided by
government that are best funded by fair taxes. If I determined that
your beliefs relating to taxation are tantamount to being a religious
belief, would you be happy to have my view determine that schools
could not inform their students of such views?
Children should be taught that such views exist but they should not be
taught that they are proven or "true".
You did not propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the
stoning of adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe >>>>>> our current laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies?
That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you think >>your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm. On what basis is circumcision immoral, Allistar?
But what else?
I have an idea! Why don't you guys just agree to disagree, and leave the rest of us in peace.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:12:04 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2017 11:23 PM, HitAnyKey wrote:
I have an idea! Why don't you guys just agree to disagree, and leave the >> rest of us in peace.
And learn to cut back on message length.
You've said crap.
No need to regurgitate it all with every later one line post..
I see you don't believe in top posting, george - surely that would
make it easier to read new posts, while still leaving enough of the
thread to know what it was about.
Thread creep does accelerate with deletion of previous posts - I guess
that is why it is often done - but just as a reminder this thread was
about beliefs - including whether a belief has to be supported by
science.
On 1/19/2017 11:23 PM, HitAnyKey wrote:
I have an idea! Why don't you guys just agree to disagree, and leaveAnd learn to cut back on message length.
the rest of us in peace.
You've said crap.
No need to regurgitate it all with every later one line post..
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what you >>>> are seeking is "that schools should not be teaching children baseless
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message
news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
[snip[ for brevity]
Those are all crimesToday if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you >>>>>>>>>>>are killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in >>>>>>>>>> general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be >>>>>>>>>> killed or harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific >>>>>>>>>> belief for you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet
relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, >>>>>>>>>death for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, >>>>>>>>>infanticide, fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women... >>>>>>>>
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not
crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand.
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with >>>>>the rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others.
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you
are stretching an already long bow - particularly in relation to New >>>>>> Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New >>>>>Zealand.
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only >>>>>>>> marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be >>>>>>>teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are >>>>>>>fact.
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would >>>>>>>like to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, >>>>>>>death for apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your
understanding of education on schools - you said: The only
restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be teaching >>>>>> children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact."
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh dear. >>>
and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." - and in so doing are
setting yourself up as the authority on what constitutes baseless and
immoral fairy tales.
Science and reason determine that these are baseless. Humanity tells us
some of them are immoral.
One of your beliefs that I regard as a baseless
and immoral fairy tale, is the concept that taxes are bad for a
country
I've never once said that taxes are bad for a country.
- I would object to a school teaching such a belief as clearly
there is a range of services that even you agree should be provided by >>>> government that are best funded by fair taxes. If I determined that
your beliefs relating to taxation are tantamount to being a religious
belief, would you be happy to have my view determine that schools
could not inform their students of such views?
Children should be taught that such views exist but they should not be
taught that they are proven or "true".
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of
adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current >>>>>> laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies?
That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you think >>your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm.
On what basis is--
circumcision immoral, Allistar?
But what else?
On 1/19/2017 11:23 PM, HitAnyKey wrote:
I have an idea! Why don't you guys just agree to disagree, and leave the
rest of us in peace.
And learn to cut back on message length.
You've said crap.
No need to regurgitate it all with every later one line post..
On 1/19/2017 11:23 PM, HitAnyKey wrote:
I have an idea! Why don't you guys just agree to disagree, and leave the
rest of us in peace.
And learn to cut back on message length.
You've said crap.
No need to regurgitate it all with every later one line post..
On Friday, 20 January 2017 08:36:22 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:That is a belif that is indeed shared by many, but not all groups
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:12:04 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2017 11:23 PM, HitAnyKey wrote:
I have an idea! Why don't you guys just agree to disagree, and leave the >> >> rest of us in peace.
And learn to cut back on message length.
You've said crap.
No need to regurgitate it all with every later one line post..
I see you don't believe in top posting, george - surely that would
make it easier to read new posts, while still leaving enough of the
thread to know what it was about.
Top posting is for fools who have no usenet etiquette.
Trimming off-topic garbage is good practice.But usually used on nz.general to misrepresent prevous posts or
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.phpessential of the existing thread in order to grasp the context of your reply, and then scroll back up again to read your reply.
"DO NOT TOP-POST and DO trim your replies!!! Top-posting is the annoying practice of replying to a message by typing your response above that to which you are responding. This is a Bad Thing™ because your readers will have to scroll down and extract the
"
Is that in modern parlance a "Trumpism"? - but you are free to believe
Thread creep does accelerate with deletion of previous posts - I guess
that is why it is often done - but just as a reminder this thread was
No it is to remove obfuscation.
about beliefs - including whether a belief has to be supported by
science.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what you >>>>> are seeking is "that schools should not be teaching children baseless >>>>> and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." - and in so doing are
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message
news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
[snip[ for brevity]
Those are all crimesToday if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you >>>>>>>>>>>>are killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in >>>>>>>>>>> general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be >>>>>>>>>>> killed or harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific >>>>>>>>>>> belief for you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet >>>>>>>>>>> relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, >>>>>>>>>>death for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, >>>>>>>>>>infanticide, fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women... >>>>>>>>>
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not >>>>>>> crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand.
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with >>>>>>the rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others.
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you
are stretching an already long bow - particularly in relation to New >>>>>>> Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New >>>>>>Zealand.
- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only >>>>>>>>> marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be >>>>>>>>teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are >>>>>>>>fact.
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would >>>>>>>>like to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, >>>>>>>>death for apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your >>>>>>> understanding of education on schools - you said: The only
restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be teaching >>>>>>> children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact."
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh dear. >>>>
setting yourself up as the authority on what constitutes baseless and >>>>> immoral fairy tales.
Science and reason determine that these are baseless. Humanity tells us >>>> some of them are immoral.
One of your beliefs that I regard as a baseless
and immoral fairy tale, is the concept that taxes are bad for a
country
I've never once said that taxes are bad for a country.
- I would object to a school teaching such a belief as clearly
there is a range of services that even you agree should be provided by >>>>> government that are best funded by fair taxes. If I determined that
your beliefs relating to taxation are tantamount to being a religious >>>>> belief, would you be happy to have my view determine that schools
could not inform their students of such views?
Children should be taught that such views exist but they should not be >>>> taught that they are proven or "true".
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of >>>>>>> adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current >>>>>>> laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies?
That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you think >>>your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm.
It's immoral because it's doing harm. Unnecessarily removing a part of >someone's body for no benefit to them without their consent is harming them.
On what basis is
circumcision immoral, Allistar?
But what else?
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:53:08 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of >>>>>>>> adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current >>>>>>>> laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies? >>>>> That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>>>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you think >>>>your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm.
It's immoral because it's doing harm. Unnecessarily removing a part of >>someone's body for no benefit to them without their consent is harming >>them.
Some believe that there is no harm.
Rich80105 wrote:Of course it is and I cannot understand the mentality of anyone that disagrees. >--
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:53:08 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
[snip]
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of >>>>>>>>> adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current >>>>>>>>> laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies? >>>>>> That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>>>>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you think >>>>>your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm.
It's immoral because it's doing harm. Unnecessarily removing a part of >>>someone's body for no benefit to them without their consent is harming >>>them.
Some believe that there is no harm.
Cutting off parts of someone's body with no medical reason and without their >consent is harmful. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." >creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:53:08 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>Female circumcision is always harmful and anyone that believes otherwise is inhuman. The practice should be unlawful unless there is a medical reason (extremely rare and unlikely).
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:39:10 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:I did not use the term secular education - you indicated that what you >>>>>> are seeking is "that schools should not be teaching children baseless >>>>>> and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." - and in so doing are >>>>>> setting yourself up as the authority on what constitutes baseless and >>>>>> immoral fairy tales.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:14:48 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:53:50 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:26:26 +1300, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message
news:part1of1.1.v9amithervugDg@ue.ph...
[snip[ for brevity]
Those are all crimesToday if we disagree with a
sect we just don't have to follow it.
That depends on where you live. In some parts of the worlds you >>>>>>>>>>>>>are killed for halting your belief in such nonsense.
And we can deplore and argue that as a matter of principle - in >>>>>>>>>>>> general New Zealanders do not believe that people should be >>>>>>>>>>>> killed or harmed for religous belief - yet another non-scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> belief for you?
I wasn't referring to NZ, obviously.
Are you aware of any harm resulting from any requirmenet >>>>>>>>>>>> relating to religious belief?
Where do I start? Honour killings, genital mutilation of children, >>>>>>>>>>>death for apostacy, stoning of adulterers, whipping of children, >>>>>>>>>>>infanticide, fatwas, suicide bombings, the subjugation of women... >>>>>>>>>>
Not in all jurisdictions.
Your concern for other countries is commendable, but are any not >>>>>>>> crimes in New Zealand?
Genital mutilation for religious purposed is legal in New Zealand. >>>>>>>
But it's irrelevant, unless you think I should only be concerned with >>>>>>>the rights and freedoms of people in my country and not in others. >>>>>>>
- and many of them have nothing to do with
religious beliefs
All of them have their basis founded in religion.
Whipping of children? Really?
Yep.
In some cases perhaps, but I think you
are stretching an already long bow - particularly in relation to New >>>>>>>> Zealand.
I pointed out to you that I am not referring specifically to New >>>>>>>Zealand.
You think wanting a secular education system is authoritarian? Oh dear. >>>>>- and again you want us to impose restrictions on
actions of New Zealanders despite some of those issues being only >>>>>>>>>> marginally if at all relevant in New Zealand.
The only restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be >>>>>>>>>teaching children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are >>>>>>>>>fact.
You really are an
authoritarian rather than a libertarian, aren't you?
Let me get this straight: you think I'm authoritarian because I would >>>>>>>>>like to see the end of genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, >>>>>>>>>death for apostasy?
Really Rich?
No, I think you are authoritarian because you wish to impose your >>>>>>>> understanding of education on schools - you said: The only
restriction of have suggested is that schools should not be teaching >>>>>>>> children baseless and immoral fairy tales as if they are fact." >>>>>>>
Science and reason determine that these are baseless. Humanity tells us >>>>> some of them are immoral.
One of your beliefs that I regard as a baseless
and immoral fairy tale, is the concept that taxes are bad for a
country
I've never once said that taxes are bad for a country.
- I would object to a school teaching such a belief as clearly
there is a range of services that even you agree should be provided by >>>>>> government that are best funded by fair taxes. If I determined that >>>>>> your beliefs relating to taxation are tantamount to being a religious >>>>>> belief, would you be happy to have my view determine that schools
could not inform their students of such views?
Children should be taught that such views exist but they should not be >>>>> taught that they are proven or "true".
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of >>>>>>>> adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current >>>>>>>> laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies? >>>>> That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>>>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you think >>>>your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm.
It's immoral because it's doing harm. Unnecessarily removing a part of >>someone's body for no benefit to them without their consent is harming them.
Some believe that there is no harm.
On what basis is
circumcision immoral, Allistar?
But what else?
Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:53:08 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
[snip]
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of >>>>>>>>> adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our current >>>>>>>>> laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies? >>>>>> That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>>>>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you think >>>>>your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm.
It's immoral because it's doing harm. Unnecessarily removing a part of >>>someone's body for no benefit to them without their consent is harming >>>them.
Some believe that there is no harm.
Cutting off parts of someone's body with no medical reason and without their >consent is harmful. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:53:19 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:53:08 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
[snip]
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of >>>>>>>>>> adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our >>>>>>>>>> current laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies? >>>>>>> That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>>>>>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you >>>>>>think your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be >>>>>>illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm.
It's immoral because it's doing harm. Unnecessarily removing a part of >>>>someone's body for no benefit to them without their consent is harming >>>>them.
Some believe that there is no harm.
Cutting off parts of someone's body with no medical reason and without >>their consent is harmful. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong.
I personally share your belief, but I do not pretend that this is
based on any scientific evidence.
We have a parliament to determine
whether there should be laws onsuch matters - I prefer that to an
effective dictatorship by agreeing to follow the individual
preferences of any one person. There was a time when teeth were
removed to avoid problems with lack of dental services (eg before men
went to WWII - times have changed and this is no longer seen as
necessary.
For whatever reason, the removal of a baby's foreskin is legally
permitted - the "harm" is clearly not sufficient to get general
community abhorrence. I do not see it as necessary, but I also do not
think my personal view is sufficient to ban the practice for those
that have a religious / cultural tradition, or to require special
permission where the removal at a later age for personal preference or medical reasons. I suspectt he majority of the population are happy
with the current legal position.
Rich80105 wrote:Can you give a cite or reference that scientific evidence?
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:53:19 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:I personally share your belief, but I do not pretend that this is
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:53:08 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:28:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
geopelia wrote:
"Allistar" wrote in message
news:w7mdnV7qDcQzdODFnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
[snip]
You did not
propose any actions to reduce genital mutilation, the stoning of >>>>>>>>>>> adulterers, or death for apostasy - perhaps you believe our >>>>>>>>>>> current laws are adequate in those cases?
No, they are not adequate. As pointed out there are still barbaric >>>>>>>>>>religious practices that are legal in New Zealand.
Do you support these barbaric practices that are legal in NZ?
.........
What are these barbaric religious practices? Circumcision of babies? >>>>>>>> That is often done for medical rather than religious reasons.
When it is done it's rarely for medical reasons. Doing so for medical >>>>>>>reasons is fine, chopping parts of someone's body off because you >>>>>>>think your imaginary friend wants you to is immoral and should be >>>>>>>illegal.
So your test is morality rather than doing harm.
It's immoral because it's doing harm. Unnecessarily removing a part of >>>>>someone's body for no benefit to them without their consent is harming >>>>>them.
Some believe that there is no harm.
Cutting off parts of someone's body with no medical reason and without >>>their consent is harmful. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong. >>
based on any scientific evidence.
There is plenty of scientific evidence that removing a part of someone's
body is denying them that part.
People should be able to live in the stateIn a majority of cases they do, but most people have haircuts . . .
they are naturally born in.
I accept that is your belief. Are you aware that in certain cases itWe have a parliament to determine
whether there should be laws onsuch matters - I prefer that to an
effective dictatorship by agreeing to follow the individual
preferences of any one person. There was a time when teeth were
removed to avoid problems with lack of dental services (eg before men
went to WWII - times have changed and this is no longer seen as
necessary.
The government should not be allowed to determine how much unnecessary harm >one person can inflict on another.
Some parents do not cut the hair of their children until they reach aFor whatever reason, the removal of a baby's foreskin is legally
permitted - the "harm" is clearly not sufficient to get general
community abhorrence. I do not see it as necessary, but I also do not
think my personal view is sufficient to ban the practice for those
that have a religious / cultural tradition, or to require special
permission where the removal at a later age for personal preference or
medical reasons. I suspectt he majority of the population are happy
with the current legal position.
Nobody should have a say as to what parts of someone's body to cut off apart >from that person, unless there is an obvious medical reason to do so.
You cannot use democracy as an excuse to harm someone (are you listening >IRD?).I am not aware of the IRD taking away body parts. They administer the
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 47:47:26 |
| Calls: | 2,096 |
| Files: | 11,143 |
| Messages: | 950,025 |