Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA00541 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:30:11 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.31.31.18] From: "Steve Drew" <srdrew_1@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:24:29 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F2007hpJm8OtprR0E6f00002382@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2002 19:24:29.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A8AF640:01C1B0D6] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi, Vincent
>Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:07:33 -0000
From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
Subject: RE:
<This is assuming that all sociobiologists accept the same things
and come to the same conclusion, but fair enough that was a bad example.
I'll try
>another - didn't Hitler claim to be an atheist? I wasn't aware that
>Atheism
>confered on its followers logic, rationallity and the pursuit of
truth.
>:-
>)>
>
>If only it did. I think that if Hitler did make such a claim, I
don't know, it does suggest the broader point that issues of morality
amongst atheists is not necessarily one of... common ground.<
My point exactly. Atheism is as broad as any church in the range of opinions
that the term contains. Look back at the posting on determinism vs free will
that went on a few days ago gives you a flavour. I’m pretty sure Hitler did
say he was an atheist, but i can’t remember where i read it. Hitlers
*religion* (if you like), and what made his actions and beliefs possible
were founded on the thoughts of Herbert Spencer, and others of his ilk,
who used a corrupted version of Darwinism that led to both left and right
wing groups advocating practical eugenics. The basis for this is if that
there is no god, the only way to improve things if prayer won’t do it, is if
we do it ourselves. the only way to improve things would be to cleanse the
breeding stock....
<Fence sitting it is not. In the absence of definitive proof either
way, to
>make a decision on this would be based on what? - a feeling, balance
of
>probabilities etc. It is not that i refuse to take a position on the
>matter, but that the matter is irrelevant. A decision is not required
on
>something that is irrelevant.>
>
>I see what you mean, but unfortunately it is all too often relevant
that religious viewpoints get preferenced and prioritized by states
denying
the rights of the non-religious, from restrictions on the teaching of
evolutionary theory in parts of the US, to the UK government's new
programme
(just approved by parliament despite the largest rebel vote of Labour's
time
in office) of faith based schools.<
I agree. Unfortunately, belief in religion supplies a need to people who
cannot accept the idea of *not being* (which admittedly is probably
impossible to do) and respond by clutching at whatever comforter they can
find, rather than plain old acceptence and resignation.
>(I'm in the process of joining the
National Secular Society in the UK, the founder of which achieved the
right
of non-christians to affirm rather than swear by the bible in court
cases, a
small but often overlooked victory for secularism).<
an avalanche has got to start somewhere : )
>Vincent<
I’ve been uming and ahing about a subscription to the Freethinker, the
secular humanist monthly, though it can be quite fervantly anti - religious
on occasion.
Regards
Steve
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 19:51:52 GMT