Consider this:
"...there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are
unlike each other,
and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads
in the end to the rejection of all religion
in both theory and practice.
And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ
from it in
name. "
[Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Its flip side is equally true, in that, in matters of atheism between forms
that are unlike
each other,most clearly leads
in the end to the rejection of all dialogue in both theory and practice.
Among the many etymological connotations of the word religion, "recognition of,
obedience to,
and worship of a higher, unseen power" are some. In modern times 'to be
religious has
also come to mean 'to be dogmatic'. "to bind fast"/ "place an obligation on".
The French call it
being "square", I think.
***
I have noticed that participants on this forum are more interested in
one-up-manship and name calling
rather than a genuine syllogism. I had started this thread in order to begin
what I hoped would be a
healthy discussion on the two seeming opposites, namely materialism and
spiritualism. Unfortunately,
the very first rebuttal came in the form of Helekar's claim that what I had
written had nothing to do with
science, (as though I said it was in the first place! I had not said anything
close to that.)
Then followed Gina's accusative response to Helekar, which further deteriorated
into more personal
reprimand by Pais..., Latest development of this thread is, alas!,approval and
acceptance of Gina's
quasi-apologetic reply to Mr. Pais. Did it occur to anybody that she was not
ACTUALLY apologetic?
My question now is, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS THINGS HERE WITHOUT GETTING
PERSONAL?
( by the bye, a strict adherence to the Goa-net policies should disqualify most
of the postings here except
Joe GoaUk and the Daily Grook and things like that,all of which I enjoy quite
some.
