[kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding

[Bette Dillinger]

I don't see how science is geared to a peer reviewed approach more than religion.  They are both controlled by elites.
 


Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 13:02:07 +0000
From: jimharper666 at yahoo.co.uk
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding






Well, quite. To me doubt seems to be a normal human condition, and I'm not sure I really understand anyone who claims to have no doubts.
 
Jim.

--- On Sat, 8/5/10, jpwhkj at aol.com <jpwhkj at aol.com> wrote:



It's certainly the case - as you outline below - that science is more geared towards a peer-review approach to seeking truth than religion!  However, I disagree that religious faith *by definition* excludes doubt.  Some faiths, especially those at the fundamentalist end of the spectrum, are indeed very intolerant of the idea of doubt; but a lot of religious people are able to encompass both a strong faith and doubt.  And at least some religions are explicit in accepting that doubt and faith go hand in hand - which, for something as unknowable as what religion deals with, seems eminently sensible.
 
Jamie





-----Original Message-----
From: Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz>
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!) <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Fri, 7 May 2010 15:48
Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding


He spent his whole - brilliant - career at loggerheads with Christians,
being stymied in his efforts to teach in a field he's an expert and
pioneer in. He's certainly been very successful in developing the field of
evolutionary biology, whether that's recognised 100 years in the future,
and his theories still current, who knows. But you can imagine how you'd
feel under the circumstances. It's an unfair fight when one side
(religion) is allowed to criticise the other but society won't brook any
counter argument. One of his main aims, and he's been relatively
successful so far, is to alter that situation.

Another thing - one of the dictates of the Simonyi Professorship for the
Public Understanding of Science (which was set up specifically with him in
mind as the first holder) is to make a particular impact in one area of
the public understanding of science. I think he's done a great job.

He recounts a situation in The Root of All Evil documentary, of the
admiration his class felt for a professor who had just been publicly
proven wrong about a theory he'd held for his whole career, who shook the
hand of the visiting professor who'd proven him wrong and thanked him.
That's the difference between fundamentalism and evidence based science.

The idea that he doesn't admit a single shred of doubt about science is
just plain wrong.


>

>>>>Dawkins is a fanatic because he doesn't admit a single shred of

>>>> self-doubtThat's not correct. I'm going from memory here but the thrust

>>>> of Dawkins' argument summed up at the beginning of the God Delusion is

>>>> that God "is not the most plausable" cause of all things including life

>>>> and so why should we give religionists any special priviledges....Also

>>>> in the GD, Dawkins describes himself NOT as a 'Strong Atheist' but a

>>>> medium one (there's a more precise phrase for it).This is not a

>>>> fanatic. He has doubts, though small.

>

> Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:29:48 +0000

> From: jimharper666 at yahoo.co.uk

> To: gathering at misera.net

> Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding

>

> I'm sure Dawkins has a million and one convenient and pithy quotes about

> how right he is and why he's better than religious fanatics (which do all

> seem to revolve around the same method: "I'm right, so I'm not a

> fanatic!"). I'm already acquainted with Dawkins' beliefs, and they weren't

> convincing firsthand, so it's probably not worth throwing any more around.

>

> I'm also not even remotely religious, and heavily opposed to Christianity.

> What wories me is not the nature of someone's beliefs, but their

> attitudes. Dawkins is a fanatic because he doesn't admit a single shred of

> self-doubt. As far as he's concerned, he has satisfactorily proven his

> beliefs to be 100% accurate, and everyone who doesn't share his opinion is

> at best wrong and at worst actively delusion.

>

> That makes him a fanatic. That makes him just like any other fanatic, and

> entitled to be labelled as such. Like all fanatics, of course, he

> maintains he isn't one (because he's right, of course).

>

> jim.

>

> --- On Fri, 7/5/10, Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

> “It’s all too easy to mistake passion that can change its mind for

> fundamentalism, which never will.”

>

> “If I sound intemperate, it’s only because of the weird convention, almost

> universally accepted, that religious faith is uniquely privileged“

>

> “Blasphemy is a victimless crime”

>

> Dawkins

>

>

> From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net]

> On Behalf Of Jim Harper

> Sent: Friday, 7 May 2010 10:23 PM

> To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)

> Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding

>

>

>

>

>

>

> In other words:

>

>

>

> "Being a fanatic is only a bad thing if you're wrong. And I'm right."

>

>

>

> Thanks.

>

>

>

> The fallback position of the man who knows he can't prove his opinions:

> "But I'm right!"

>

>

>

> Jim.

>

> --- On Fri, 7/5/10, Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz> wrote:

>

>

>

> Isn't virulent atheism just as much an issue as virulent Christian

> Fundamentalism?

>

> No. Nothing like it. I’ve done both.

>

> “When two points of view are expressed with equal force, the truth does

> not necessarily lie midway between them. It is possible for one side to be

> simply wrong. And that justifies passion on the other side”

>

> Dawkins 1:18

>

>

>

> From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net]

> On Behalf Of Bette Dillinger

> Sent: Friday, 7 May 2010 9:02 AM

> To: gathering at misera.net

> Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding

>

> Really, your post is one of the few moderate, thoughtful posts I have read

> about Christianity on the Web!  I think the concepts such as "original

> sin" etc, are metaphors.  Taken out of context you can alter them to suit

> your personal level of need for control and submission or dominance.  But

> all books on spirituality ultimately have one theme.  That's why the

> "Founding Fathers" were deists, though of course I have views on that as

> well.

>

> What Cayce reading have you done?

>

>

>

>

> From: humanhybrid666 at gmail.com

> Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 22:22:02 +1200

> To: gathering at misera.net

> Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding

>

> well, i've been rather anti-christian these last few years, very much

> so...altho, to me, divinity is everywhere...

>

>

>

> these last few weeks tho, i've been listening to 'the politically

> incorrect guide to the bible' which has opened my eyes to the fact that

> the christian mindset has given us many good things that society has

> benefited from... like the age of the magnacarta, and the attitudes of the

> american founding fathers who penned the declaration of independence ... i

> see how easy it is to slam the religious nutters, hardly a fair fight, but

> credit where its due, it has also had some positive effects on our

> unraveling culture.   (not that peace cant be achieved without the

> bible..)

>

>

>

> there was one bit saying that those cultures that had large christian

> populations had more personal and political freedoms than those cultures

> with smaller christian based populations.. broke it down with numbers and

> stuff too...

>

>

>

> to each their own, as long as the mind and the conscience are used...

>

>

>

>

>

> i am very interested in the initial cause/concept of the twisted biblical

> story of original sin... i have my own idea's, influenced by some edgar

> cayce readings,  and i do think that it does refer to some actual relevant

> happening, but, who can know??  doesn't stop me pondering...

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> =)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> "due to a lack of trained trumpeters, the end of the world has been

> postponed indefinitely..."

>

>

>

>

> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your

> inbox. Learn more.

>

> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

>

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>

> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>



_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
Gathering at misera.net
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
Gathering at misera.net
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20100511/61b16f11/attachment.html>