----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:53 PM Subject: Re: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated
> on 24/11/02 8:20 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 1:57 PM > > Subject: Re: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated > > > > > >>> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >>> From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >>>> http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html > >> > >>> I've noticed that "The Fool" posts things like this religiously. :-) > >> > >> As long as there are people who believe these kinds of things, whether > >> they are christians, jews, islamists, hindus or whatever, (and I know > >> plenty of people with this kind of worldview personally), the human race > >> is headed for extinction. It is only a matter of time before the > >> fanatics do us all in. > > > > I'm just pointing out, that by using expanded definitions of religion, as > > Mr. Goodall suggests, you would be considered as someone who had a > > religion. > > You are disingenuously misrepresenting what I said, Dan. No, I was just pointing out that you said I shouldn't use just the primary understanding of religion. So, I used an expanded version. Why must I use your definition? Yes, you found a theologian, at a minor school that agreed with you. IMHO, that is not altogether unlike finding a geologist who belives in the flood as history. Indeed, I'd bet dollars to donutes that a greater % of geologists believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis than do people with degrees in theology believe that Marxism is a religion. >And even under an expanded definition of religion (eg one that subsumed quasi-religions like > Marxism) the Fool's belief that religion is evil wouldn't itself be a > religion. Well, it depends on how far you expand it. Indeed, there are definitions of the word religion that borrow the metaphore in that way. Why stop "exactly" where it makes your arguement work? > He may 'religiously' believe that religion is evil, but his belief isn't > itself a religion because those are different senses of the word. Well, actually, I've seen "golf was a religion to him" used. So, I'm just arguing that if you want to use an expanded sense of the word, then both golf and Marxism are religions. If not, then neither is. One thing that is fascinating about this, especially for those of us who are old enough to have gone to university when Marxism was still in full flower, is that Marxists were sure that they were simply being logical, analytical, and clear thinking. They could _prove_ their points, so that anyone who disagreed either were 1) Superstitious 2) Were lackeys of the propertied class, and thus untrustworthy 3) Were duped by the propertied class, and thus were misinformed. With science, we just try to make models of what we observe. It doesn't matter if virtual photos are real or not, QED works. With other viewpoints, its not as clear. Lotsa pseudo-science is called science by those who don't understand what science is. That's not simply the realm of reflexologies and UFO nuts; it often happens with very bright and urbane people. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
