On 27 Jan 2008, at 20:37, Robert Seeberger wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 10:59 AM > Subject: Re: CoS in the news > > >> >> On 27 Jan 2008, at 03:28, Robert Seeberger wrote: >> >>> >>> On 1/26/2008 8:47:30 PM, William T Goodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >>> wrote: >>>> On 27 Jan 2008, at 02:27, Robert Seeberger wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> >>>>>> Just ban all religions. That would solve the problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That might be a reasonable response if Scientology were in fact a >>>>> religion. >>>> >>>> What makes you think that it isn't? >>>> >>> >>> Considering your point of view on all things religious, this could >>> be >>> a difficult discussion. So if you consider The Church Of The Jedi >>> or >>> Pastafarianism to be bonafide religions, then there is no point in >>> us >>> wasting our time. >> >> 1) The intent of the founder of a religion is not part of the >> definition of whether it is or is not a religion for very obvious >> reasons: >> >> a) We can't know the real intent of the founder. >> b) Discussion of religion degenerates into attacks on the character >> of >> the founders rather than the practices of the religion. >> >> 2) Whether the founder of a religion was a fraud who made it up for >> selfish purposes or a genuinely insane person with voices in his >> head >> is neither here nor there - the religion is the same sick nonsense >> either way. >> >> 3) An inscrutable god might choose a false prophet to deliver true >> religion. Since inscrutable gods do those kind of things :) >> >> 4) Just because a religion is made up as a joke and everyone knows >> it >> doesn't mean it's not a real religion e.g. Discordianism. Being >> *actually true* can't be part of the definition of religion for >> obvious reasons. >> >> a) *At most* one religion can be true, yet there are thousands of >> religions. > > So....... you concede there are no grounds for discussion.<G>
No, I'm saying trying to decide which religions are genuine gets you into a pickle like Texas vs Unitarianism so anyone interested in defending the freedom of religion shouldn't really go down that road. I, on the other hand, would find it hilariously funny if America (of all places!) tried to ban some religions for being fake. > > > Oh, BTW... > > 1 Apple > 1a Apple > 1b Apple vs MS > 2 Apple vs MS vs Linux > 3 BEOS > 4 OSX > 4a Unix and any derivation thereof > <G> That's worse than a car analogy! > > > >> >>> >>> If you do indeed draw a line between organizations with origins >>> that >>> arise from actual faith and those who are scams perpetrated for >>> various reasons when defining religions then we might have >>> something >>> to discuss. >> >> >> So Christianity is a scam because of the existence of greedy lying >> televangelists and mega-church pastors? Or it's not a scam despite >> them since some people genuinely believe it? But some people >> genuinely >> believe Scientology too. >> > Even you know that not all Christianity is televangelists and > mega-churches, but you must be aware that all of Scientology is a > bloated pyramid scheme regardless of what the common member believes. > Lots of Christians have a low opinion of televangelists and the like > and don't pay them heed. A Scientologist isn't allowed that freedom. Catholics? Let's suppose the Scientologists have a schism. Are they OK now because the different branches no longer agree? Reformation Maru. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ~Voltaire. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
