Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA25030 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:26:14 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6D229@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:16:00 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
<I was not aware that religions had the same shared attitudes etc.>
At the most general they share things like the belief in revealed
truth. Within some groups of religion are shared structures their beliefs
e.g. the monotheism- indeed same god- of judaism, christianity and islam.
within particular religions comes intended shared codes of belief/behaviour,
from the ten commandments, to baptism etc. etc.
<Religions do reject the notion of falsifiability, but not the proof
of gods existence. "except by faith" etc is their proof, which i agree is
> scientific. If you do have a proof of gods non existance, i would love to
> know as there are always god botherers around i would like to upset.>
I think you need to examine religions' claims more closely, to see
how religion involves a fundamental rejection of real world evidence- it has
to otherwise nobody would believe the silly stories of virgin births, the
"power" of prayer, let alone omniscient deities. The whole point of
religion is to deny the validty and credibility of the idea of testing
claims in the real world, you must simply believe. Look, for example, at
the circular remarks of faith healers when confronted by the obviouly
unhealed people they get up on stage- basically it's not their fault (for
being the worst kind of vultures), it's the fault of the sick people
themselves for not believing enough.
<What i meant by atheism having anti women components was as i said,
that those of the reductionist sociobiological bent force roles upon males
and female, with the females copping for the worst of it.>
Well, I'm not sure that's true, after all if the sociobiologists are
right, it is women who dominate human mate choice, or at the very least are
as equally active as men.
<One of my tutors pointed out that agnosticism may be the best
choice - God
> may or may not exist, but i will worry about it only when he knocks on my
I think agnosticism is the worst kind of fence sitting you can do.
It's a refusal to commit.
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
=============================================================== 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 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 13:35:11 GMT