I agree with you.
On Oct 4, 12:18 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't believe in religion but feel that there is a force behind > creation which explains the order in all the chaos. You can call that > force " Nature " or you may call it " God ". > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:04 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > oops - drat this laptop! ... was caused over a sandwich. This turned > > out to be the Balkan assassination story. My view these days is that > > this war started with the British invasion of Iraq in 1913 and might > > be better explained from the point where various imperialist navies > > (British, US, French, German and Japanese) were queuing up in 1906 off > > the Chinese coast (Boxer rebellion etc.) - such analysis is way beyond > > school examination 'sound bites'. > > > What I'd like to see is a much more open society that was no longer > > printing myths. I want my beliefs and fellowship based in an accurate > > version of what human life is about and the dangers involved in > > denying this. I want control to be based in Reason that leaves > > emotional understanding in. What I find personally is that I repeat > > the mistakes of any elite thinking or practice in being so frustrated > > about general ignorance. It's not intellectually honest to believe in > > the will of the majority, though one can make a lesser claim for a > > society in which votes matter than perfection. > > > In the past, religion often had emancipatory aims - much of its > > language is about freedom from debt - and I find myself wishing one > > could take part in the fellowship of such religion without corrupting > > into all the sacred text belief in god nonsense - just as I don't mind > > feeling proud of my country and its people as long as it's not on the > > basis of jingoism and false history. Much western history is little > > more than dross versions of stuff peddled by the Vatican. > > > Today's religion is economics based in imperialist myth - we hide a > > holocaust, indeed deny one - as in the book 'Killing Hope' - though > > one need not focus on the Americans. I feel the truth of this may be > > so bad that figures like Churchill, Bush, Blair and others may well > > have been bag men for international finance and the preservation of an > > ancien regime. I wish in many ways for a religion that stood up to > > this. > > > On Oct 4, 4:07 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The ultimate answer for me is that belief in god lacks intellectual > >> honesty. I wouldn't seek any argument on the existence of god - for > >> me an answer either way is a rationalist fantasy - i.e. there is no > >> answer. I reject most of the ideology I was brought up in as based in > >> fables. The idea of scripture as revelation from god doesn't appeal > >> in the slightest. Most of it is wrong and flatly uninteresting - one > >> would expect any such conversation to reveal what we don't know and be > >> less obviously made up by human beings. This doesn't make me > >> unreligious, but does make me consider religion as person-made. > > >> Much of the non-religious ideology of my youth fails for similar > >> reasons. I once believed the British Empire was a fine thing and the > >> world wars were the fault of rotten Germans and Japanese. I now know > >> this was because more accurate history was denied me. As a kid, I > >> thought the Opium Wars must have been about our brave Royal Navy > >> chasing drug dealing Chinamen around, and our empire about bringing > >> civilisation, fair-play and cricket to the 'undeserving'. I couldn't > >> understand why Americans had been so dumb as to reject our rule. I > >> thought our society was broadly fair and you got by on skill and > >> merit. I know this was all bunk. > > >> The essential component of intellectual growth is belonging to a group > >> free of infectious diseases - average IQ (however suspect a measure) > >> is reduced by this kind of disease. Over the years I've found some > >> solace in science, but it's clear this form of reasoning is only a > >> starting place. We lack any proper account of what science is, and as > >> usual the widely held ideas are plain wrong. Science is not value- > >> free or intellectually linear and requires massive effort, passion and > >> some clear-break thinking and a gereat deal of training on what > >> evidence amounts to and how it fits with theories. Its quest is truth > >> but a quest is not truth. > > >> My grandson (14) is having a hard time at school just now and like > >> most teenagers knows more or less 'sweet FA' - other than how to get > >> into arguments with his mother and into detention. He came home with > >> s story that WW1- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
