From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 19:49:35 MDT
From: <Dehede011@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/31/2003 2:18:04 PM Central Standard Time,
fauxever@sprynet.com writes: Put another way, is being deceitful ever
smart? IMO yes. If a religious nut with a gun to my temple asked me
whether I believed in god, I would lie and say "yes." Question: Who's
keeping score here? Answer: The religious nut with the gun to my temple
(at least, temporarily).
> Has a religious nut ever put a > gun to your head? How about the head of
someone you know?
Ron - are we missing some connection here - hello? hello? - what did I
write? "If" ... (which only means ... "if").
I was invoking one imaginary incident - of many other examples I could have
used - where I would bend rules and lie my face off. It was meant as an
example.
> Hitler wasn't a religious nut, nor was Stalin, nor Mao?
Yes, and your point is ...? But since you asked, Hitler, Stalin and Mao
were paranoid narcissistic nut jobs (and, interestingly, Hitler was never
excommunicated from the Church - although I am not alleging that he was a
particularly *religious* nut). I can't help thinking some of the
anti-Jewish propaganda he learned as a Christian schoolboy didn't somehow
seep into his pores and inspire him to dislike and later kill Jews.
Discrimination against Jews was quite de rigueur in Czarist Russia, and even
in our good ole' United States of America, you know - why, it was Christian!
Another interesting fact was that Hitler's boys wore belt buckles with the
words "Gott ist mit uns" on them:
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/april2000/zimmerling.html
> In any case given that the universe is somewhere 10 and 20 billion
> years old (I have seen no agreement on the age); that we can't even agree
whether > or not this universe is the only one nor even how big it might
be -- after
> all when we look closely at the stars that are the furthest removed of any
we
> know then beyond them we see more stars. Under all those circumstances
isn't it > a little dogmatic to make vast sweeping statements about God.
Yes, and I'll go even further and make dogmatic, vast sweeping statements
about mermaids, as well ...
> In my opinion we have to all be somewhat agnostic whether we mainly
> believe in God or believe there is no God. We have to reserve a
possibility
> that we are mistaken.
Perhaps we are mistaken about mermaids, as well. But why be agnostic about
mermaids? As for me, until there is *any* reason to think otherwise, I'll
remain an atheist (as well as an amermaidist and aleprechaunist and an
amonkeykingist). Yet, just as soon as there's incontrovertible proof that
Gummer exists, I'll believe in it/her/it. Who's Gummer? What, you don't
believe in Gummer? Why not?
Olga
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2003 - 20:00:26 MDT