open Democracy News Analysis - Religiosity, - Comments

bill45690 on "Religiosity"

bill45690 — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:03:44 +0000

A well-considered reply to - - - YourTheBest

I gather from your rather copious criticisms, that your agreement with ANY of my original well-thought-out post is just not on.

Following is my reaction to most of the points you raise. I’ll try to steer you along the straight & narrow path of factual truth.

It is rather lengthy. I find that a lot of the criticism does not really warrant a considered reply. If I’ve missed out on anything, just say, & I’ll have another go.

**********

"Knowledge of physics & biology would never have advanced if left to 'Holy' men."

Quote:

Oh really ?!!!! Wasn't Copernicus a monk? Did he not advance our knowledge of physics? Wasn't Isaac Newton a theologian? Did he not advance our knowledge of mechanics? Wasn't Pasteur an ultra-conservative Catholic? Did he not advance our knowledge of medicine and chemistry? Wasn't Gregor Mendel another monk? DId he not advance our knowledge of genetics? And Pierre Duhem? Don't you know about him too? You're so knowledgeable in the sciences. Did Pierre Duhem not advance our knowledge of thermodynamics? Was Duhem not another, ultra conservative, ultra militant catholic? You assume religion and knowledge of nature are incompatible. Why is that? Isn't nature to religious people the creation of God? Isn't religion therefore an inducement to study God's creation, so as to gain a better understanding of God? And would you have made such uninformed assumptions, if you had seriously studied physics, biology and religion before pontifying over these subjects? I think not. No knowledgeable person could.

Now let’s face it. The gentlemen you quote above were obviously tainted with belief in the abstraction of Religiosity but I cannot think for a moment that any of that unlogicality would have affected the sterling work in their particular scientific fields. I would guess that their involvement in religiosity probably gave them a certain Kudos in those days. The people I am talking about are the religious zealots & diehards who would have no interest in the pursuit of science; in fact, utterly opposed to it, naturally. It is not for ecclesiastical reasons that the above names are famed

**********

"Far too much reverence is devoted to the abstract of religiosity."

Quote:

You certainly seem obsessed with that abstract, as you bizzarely refer to it.

The SUBJECT itself is indeed BIZARRE. - (You are in need of a decent dictionary here)

**********

"Nature instructs all of life to reproduce"

Quote:

What are homosexuals, then: bad students?

"You’re being intentionally awkward. The homosexual state is easily understood. I doubt if any human is 100% heterosexual. A particular Individual will be somewhere between the two extremes. For me, drawing a homo straw must be very bad luck; the mental functionings as regards sex are distorted. The evolutionary process produces many faults on the way to perfection. Can YOU explain why silly religious sects have differing views re homo clerics. A homo's sexual orientation was delivered by Nature, or God, if you prefer. If God driven crackpots of the church can’t agree that homos are/are not valid members of the human species why don’t they have a word with the Almighty One to get it sorted out. To date, instructions from above, re this subject, have not got home"

**********

“Please acknowledge that the primitive mind was bound to generate quite naturally, mythological imagery of an Elysean nature."

Quote:

Sure, we'll do that, if you acknowledge the sophisticated minds of Plato and Dante have also believed in other wordly realities and rewards.

Sophisticated backsides! - To understand the beginnings of Religiosity, there is no need at all to take heed of the meandrine moonshine of erudite intelligentsia. Just use your head!

**********

“Also, one must accept that the relative ignorance of early humanity"

Quote:

What's that? One must acept your tendacious and partisan as well as unproven speculation as to the origin of religion? Why? Are we living in a totalitarian tyranny? Are you the high commissioner for the one and only Dogma?

The primitive origin of religions do not require any great amount of intelligence to comprehend.

**********

"The natural process of evolution, via many devious paths, has now landed us with the present crop of Archbishops - Ayatollahs - Rabbis - Popes -Imams - JWs - & a host of other hypocritical sect leaders"

Quote:

Don't say things like that, fool!!! If the atheists hear evolution is responsible for religion, they'll cast doubt of Charles Darwin's theory and the Creationists will triumph.

Fool yourself! - Life constantly evolves in myriad ways, Wrong directions are corrected, as Nature homes in on the ideal. A slow but certain process is Evolution. Please don’t mention Creationist Crap!

**********

"religiosity can't be recognised by any sane person to have the gravitas necessary for any authentic 'Belief'."

Quote:

Sane and responsible people by the millions have believed religion has the gravitas necessary for authentic belief. But then they do not see in religion your caricature of it.

Persistent indoctrination over millennia leave the susceptible with feelings of unease when they attempt to ditch the ingrained silly ‘beliefs’ inherited from similarly misinformed forebears - - - please read that paragraph & the preceding one fully. NO CARICATURE - Entirely LOGICAL!

**********

"Ethics evolve naturally"

Quote:

In an earlier post you claimed nature was tooth and claw, indifferent and without purpose; here you say there is ethics in nature. Isn't that contradictory? I mean, is a dog eat dog system ethical? You tell us, hotshot, since you know it all.

We’re talking here about humans. Please don’t quote out of context. Ethics evolve naturally as we strive for perfection. We live & learn! This hotshot certainly does not know it all. No one ever will.

**********

"Theism? / Divinity? - All absolute Man-made hokum!"

Quote:

PROVE IT !!!!

It’s GLARINGLY APPARENT! – CAN YOU DISPROVE IT?

**********

"Any thinking person realises that the Universe is truly an awesome Quantum / Astronomical creation."

Quote:

And how can you claim to be a-theist and then claim the universe is created? I mean, if it is created, there must be a creator, no? To suggest otherwise would be as illogical as to claim paintings don't require painters to exist, or children procreators to be procreated. That wouldn't make sense, would it? Any thinking person realises you don't understand the first word about quantum physics.

Is SARCASM your only weapon here. - I’ve quite a few books on the subject of Quantum Physics but have to admit I'm still finding it very hard going. - HOW ARE YOU DOING? Knowledge of creation is outside of our powers of imagination. To follow your reasoning, some Creator must have created the Creator etc etc etc. I repeat - This whole subject of Religiosity is absolute bloody TOSH!

**********

"What is the point of life? - Need there be a point."

Quote:

To most of people, yes. Some people find the point in religion, others in liberating from religion, people who do not feel emprisoned by it.

"Is that the best you can do? - Who needs Absurd Beliefs? The questioner is obviously expecting something much more profound."

**********

"to what end, we just don't know."

Quote:

Well, you may not know. But Leonardo knew what his purpose was: to create art. So did Mother Theresa: to heal sickly people. And Donald Trump also has a purpose: to screw pigeons.

Creating Art? – Big deal. - - - To heal sickly people – Now you’re talking - - - DT???? Again, you’re treating the question far too lightly. What, in the great scheme of things are we here for? – We don’t know & never will! From our viewpoint how can we know?

**********

"Certainly, life's purpose cannot be identified by any ancient decrepit Belief!

Quote:

Plenty of people would disagree with that: those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Buddha; those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Christ; those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Muhammad Ali; those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Confucius; and also those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Epicure.

Crikey - What IS Life’s purpose? - WHY are we here? – TELL ME! – We’re just a type of animal with a wee bit more brain power. I’ve never studied any of the bundles of bull you’ve mentioned above but if you can quote some truthful text relating to the question, I’ll take note.

**********

"Nature, red in tooth & claw, is pitilessly indifferent to an individuals quality of life"

Quote:

Oh really? Aren't mother's natural beings? And aren't mothers concerned with the quality of life of their children? I'll let you ponder and develop that point if you can.

You just don’t get it - Please concentrate - - - Of course mothers are concerned, but nature is not certain to give any mother a child that is without some defect. One hopes for perfection but has to be very lucky to get it. Individually, Nature is uncaring. The fittest survive.There’s plenty to choose from.

**********

"Individual quality of life is a lottery."

Quote:

If that is so, why do the children of the rich tend to lead richly, while the children of the poor tend to live poorly?

Hells Bells! – You’re definitely not with it. Your thinking is far too shallow again. I’m talking about the quality of life you’re apportioned at birth. Whether or not you have some defect in your makeup. It is largely a lottery.

**********

"Self-deceivers pray for Ethereal help; none is discernable."

Quote:

To you, obviously not; you must lack that inner eye! But plenty of others have felt they owed their successes and good fortunes, to a force superior to themselves and independent from their will.

The quote is unfinished. – It ends – Quite definitely a Do It Yourself job (DIY) The mind is capable of any delusion. Lack the inner eye? – Another ludicrous thought! Christ! Had I not taken action myself, with the aid of scientific research, I’d have been pushing up the daisies 50 yrs ago! - - - Heads down – backsides up just doesn’t work! The need to consult Biblical, Qur’anic, or any other ancient crap-laden fairy tales in order to pursue a decent & considerate existence, beggars belief!

**********

"We live, utilising facts that the experience of life plus research, provides!"

Quote:

Research? are you saying scholars are better adapted than business people, lawyers, mafiosis?

It's getting worse. You are definitely not with it. How in Hell’s name did the Mafiosi creep in. Research is delving into & attempting to understand the facts of life.

**********

“The paralogism of religious charlatans..."

Quote:

You assert religious people are charlatans, you do not prove it.

JUST LISTEN TO THEIR SPIEL!

**********

"...cannot match the knowledge we now possess"

Quote:

What are you saying? That you are more knowledgeable than Copernicus and Gregor Mendel, both of whom were monks, and presumebly therefore, charlatans?

I am saying that the average population is much more knowledgeable now than those primitive beings who initated this Religiosity lark. You’re right – Anyone preaching silly God-belief has to be charlatanic in that respect. They are as knowledgeable as I am about a God.

**********

"What happens when we die? Starkly, when the brain ceases to function, that being ceases to be."

Quote:

How do you know that? Did you die and experience inexistence, first hand? Or did God tell you: "there's nothing out there, don't believe the Christians

Neither you nor I know of any afterlife. A ludicrous thought. Have you met any fairies lately?

**********

"The motivation driving that unique combination of elements is no more!"

Quote:

So, you believe there is a motive behind that combination of atoms, a living creature? Doesn't that contradict everything you've been saying so far?

I’m referring to the thing that drives us – the heart/brain combination. How thick can you get?

**********

"A Spiritual Future ????? --- Pure self-indulgent fantasy."

Quote:

Belief in final judgement and eternal damnation, self-indulgent? I don't think so.

I insist that dreaming of a Spiritual Future is pure self-indulgent fantasy! Everyone is infected with an imaginitive spiritual tendency that is nothing more than the natural wonderment of our existence & surroudings. Elemental reasoning is needed to put all 'fantasial' thoughts in true perspective. The mind can’t stop phantasising. It’s made that way, it's quite natural.

**********

"Common sense must prevail"

Quote:

A worthy dictate. Why don't you tell us what common sense is, and how to ensure it's victory.

Common Sense? - The utilisation of communal day to day experience & research.

**********

That's enough for one session. Time for a doss!

Brendan 2 on "Religiosity"

Brendan 2 — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:35:41 +0100

Everything that is claimed about Jesus is hearsay and should be treated as such. Of course, there is not even agreement among christians about the veracity of this resurrection fable, so how any of us in the thinking world are supposed to 'respect'’ faith in such tenuous stories is a mystery to me.

Quote:

The death and resurrection of Jesus are two events in the New Testament in which Jesus is crucified and resurrected three days later (John 19:30–31, Mark 16:1, Mark 16:6). The New Testament also mentions several resurrection appearances of Jesus on different occasions to his twelve apostles and disciples, including "more than five hundred brethren at once" (1 Cor. 15:6), before Jesus' Ascension. These two events are essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and are commemorated by Christians during Good Friday and Easter, particularly during the liturgical time of Holy Week. Other groups, such as Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians, as well as some liberal Christians, dispute whether Jesus actually rose from the dead. Hence, arguments over death and resurrection claims occur at many religious debates and interfaith dialogues.

Wikipedia

man4mtns on "Religiosity"

man4mtns — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:37:38 +0100

It matters if you are Jesus.

eric_5 on "Religiosity"

eric_5 — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:10:23 +0100

Many people have risen from the dead. It doesn't mean a thing.

man4mtns on "Religiosity"

man4mtns — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:04:09 +0100

deleted- duplicate

man4mtns on "Religiosity"

man4mtns — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:50:44 +0100

Seems like a lot is being ignored above, both from science and religion. Not that I'm an expert in both. But from a scientific standpoint, it appears that evolution cannot have happened so fast, and that there is poor evidence to prove the evolution theory. There is evidence that humans can affect things merely with a strong "intention", or a mind over matter type effect. If humans can do this to a small degree, what could a more powerful entity do, whether spiritual or physical? Maybe another alien race evolved over the 6 billion years before the earth was formed in another system, and has evolved to be like a god, and has conquered time, death, etc. and is having fun creating different life forms, to keep from being bored. Part of this is keeping us humans in line with a religion, and Jesus DID rise from the dead with the help of some aliens or something. At what point does one become a "God"? Are we gods to an ant? Who becomes top God? The president of Gods? Is he (she) elected by the others? Or is God dead and we are on autopilot? If one has not seen a UFO in person, one tends not to believe in them. But should he if many others that are credible report seeing them, and they show up on radar doing the unbelievable? Most still will not believe. CS Lewis was an athiest and became a Christian. I tend to agree with him. As to how it's all done, I, or we, can only speculate.

eric_5 on "Religiosity"

eric_5 — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:39:44 +0100

' I believe, on the basis of intuition, that God exists and leprechauns don't, and I'm happy to trust both intuitions.' Firstly, which of the millions of gods do you have an intuition about? Is this god, Yahweh or some concoction of your own? Secondly, the thing about intuition is that it can be wrong.

eric_5 on "Religiosity"

eric_5 — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:06:40 +0100

'Bertrand Russell (who was an Earl, not a Lord)' Matt Murrell I don't hobnob much with the aristocracy, but I'm pretty sure that an earl is just as much a lord as a duke and other peers of the realm.

srheywood on "Religiosity"

srheywood — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:23:46 +0100

Quote:

Perhaps you believe in the possibility of leprechauns and unicorns as well, as far as I know they've never been proven not to exist either.

Let me get a bit facetious and suggest that only believers can confidently scoff at the idea of leprechauns. Here's the logic. I believe, on the basis of intuition, that God exists and leprechauns don't, and I'm happy to trust both intuitions. However, it can never be proven that leprechauns don't exist, so the empirical rationalists, who discard intuition, must be permanently mired in agnosticism regarding the leprechauns. Their beliefs seem much more leprechaun-friendly than mine. For some reason, however, they seem to think that common sense is on their side.

Matt Murrell on "Religiosity"

Matt Murrell — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:59:26 +0100

Chris wrote:

Unfortunately, In the last few minutes I've received some very bad news, and so I probably won't be posting for the next few days.

Sorry to hear that. No need to rush back on our account - obviously I'm interested in your opinions, but the real world has to come first. With Internet access a bit tricky for me at the moment, I'll add some thoughts on your nature question. Though there's no need to reply (should you wish to) until it's convenient.

Chris wrote:

What is Nature? Is it abstract or concrete? Are we a part of it, and if so, how? I don’t see these as trivial questions.

I think we have to distinguish between nature, which I'd say is an abstract concept, and the natural world, which is concrete. Nature, at the end of the day, is a category which we impose onto the world - separating that which is "natural" from that which is "artificial". We can point to individual aspects of nature (trees, lakes, etc.) and call them examples of it, but no one aspect defines nature as a whole. In the same way that an individual Briton doesn't define Britishness or Canadian Canadianess, for example. So whenever someone talks about nature I assume they're generalising to a significant degree - in the same way people do when they talk about the British or the Canadians. If someone says that the Canadians are a nation of wine drinkers you don't really disprove the statement by bringing forward a group of Canadians who never touch alcohol. The fact that these individuals are out of sync with the national characteristics doesn't make them any less Canadians. In the same way, bringing forward examples of the natural world capable of compassion doesn't disprove the statement that nature is indifferent to human beings, nor does it mean that these examples are any less part of nature.

Brendan 2 on "Religiosity"

Brendan 2 — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 03:58:07 +0100

Chris, Happy Canada Day. I am sorry you have received unwelcome news. All the best to you, and your family. In explanation of my charge of sophistry against the posts of yourthebest, I have detailed a few of the offending comments and their assertions for you to consider when you return. I realize this is a departure from the nature of nature tangent we had been discussing, but I’ll get back to that after we deal with my charge of sophistry. Before getting to that, you said:

Quote:

The idea wasn't presented in a way that was meant to disprove anything; perhaps you should go back and reread it. It was offered as an objection to a line of thinking, there is a difference you know.

It is, and always was the objection to legitimate criticism (the line of thinking) that bothers me. I have reread yourthebest's litany of comments, both relevant and irrelevant and still, upon undeserved reconsideration, they strike me as nothing more than obscurantism.

Quote:

…you call the discussion on nature sophistry but you don't explain how or why it sophistry, how come, are you not able to?

To be clear…

Quote:

…an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. Sophists will try to persuade the audience while paying little attention if their argument is logical and factual.

The ‘arguments’ against Mr. Davidson’s statement are bogus largely because they are not directed at religiosity. Overall, the comments suggest equivalence in all beliefs and that there are no universal truths valid for all people, even though religions and religiosity are rife with verifiable falsehoods and a priori beliefs. Science, this line of rebuttal suggests, relies on ‘beliefs’ that are not any more valid than ‘beliefs’ informed by revelation. Well, I think you would agree that that is not a fair comparison. Science may indeed rely on unverified concepts to develop hypotheses but it also makes every effort to disprove that same concept through the scientific method. It also champions new discoveries and knowledge no matter what hypotheses are affected. Religion does the opposite, it dictates truth and does everything in its power to obscure conflicting evidence. The critic, in snide, aggressive and undeveloped argument fragments means to obscure that point using epistemological questions to equate a priori knowledge with an opinion fashioned and informed by the steady and reliable march of scientific knowledge. For this reason I call it sophistry. Understanding Mr. Davidson’ post relies on answering the epicurean paradox for yourself in determining what is reasonable to believe, and I believe he has answered it well:

Quote:

1) God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, 2) or can but does not want to, 3) or neither wishes to nor can, 4) or both wants to and can.  1) If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to God.  2) If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to God's nature.  3) If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god.  4) If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?

If we arrive at #4 and then try to prove that indeed nature’s complexity acts with gods intent as religion describes, i.e. bad people will descend and good people ascend by their own worthiness, we should see statistical evidence that ‘good’ religious followers suffer less than non-believers. We don’t. We should also be able to discern the effect of prayer. No effect discernable. In fact, none of these aspects of religiosity stand up to inquiry. Bill Davidson makes a fair assertion. Other examples of this critic’s dishonesty in that post include deliberately misleading attacks on rationality. Such as the attempt to frame this argument as a syllogism, when clearly it is not:

Quote:

"If that imagery is not backed up by actual proof, it remains a fantasy." (Davison) I'm glad to see you believe organic evolution remains a fantasy. Fiction. Science fiction. After all, you never saw an amiba evolve into a monkey, did ya...(Critic)

Let’s examine what is said there: Whereas Mr. Davidson asserts that (religious)“imagery” not backed up by proof is fantasy, which I assume includes the ‘revelations’ that inform specific religious beliefs, the delusional response is that, equally, Mr. Davidson should have “saw” it [organic evolution] to believe it. As though understanding a process as supported by evidence found in the natural world and by the logic of Darwin’s theory is not enough, insofar as it has certainly not been seriously challenged and that religious nonsense is, as Bill Davidson so aptly calls it, not on par with evolution based on gaps in evidence proving either view. Denial of the theory of evolution based on those grounds amounts to obscurantism. Being open-minded requires us to question everything and to always be open to new evidence, but it doesn’t preclude the influence of probability on what we should believe, and more importantly, teach our kids. In short, to credit religious knowledge that is verifiably ‘science fiction’ as somehow as valid as the evidence-based theory of organic evolution that may be flawed, but is assuredly based in fact, is an absurd equivalence.

Quote:

"Certainly, lifes purpose cannot be identified by any ancient decrepit Belief!"  Plenty of people would disagree with that: those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Buddha; those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Christ; those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Muhammad Ali; those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Confucius; and also those who believe in the ancient beliefs of Epicure...

Mr. Davidson was clearly referring to theistic dogma and not Buddah’s "Path of Awakening" or Confucianism. Buddhists are as epicurean as atheists in respect to gods and religiosity, and the veneration of ancestors is not equal in any way to the veneration of a superior being. Certainly, these philosophies do not identify ‘life’s purpose’ in the same way theistic religiosity does by ascribing that everything we do should be motivated by our preparation for the ‘next’ life. In fact they do quite the opposite. As for Jesus, well if we look at the syncretism in Christianity, or even Judaism and Mohammedism, then it becomes pretty clear that religion was invented, or moreover crafted by humans over time, not delivered whole or intact by god (or prophets). If all that tinkering with religious beliefs does not invalidate the religion by divergence from the original revelations, then what evidence would be required to invalidate it? Furthermore:

Quote:

"...cannot match the knowledge we now possess"  What are you saying? That you are more knowledgeable than Copernicus and Gregor Mendel, both of whom were monks, and presumebly therefore, charlatans?

Darwin influenced Mendel so he could not have believed in religion in the sense that is being suggested here. More sophistry. Also, I’d wager Mr. Davidson has more verifiable knowledge that would set him beyond Copernicus or Gregor Mendel and their specific, antiquated knowledge. This fallacious argumentation by the critic has been dealt with in his other incarnations and is easily dismissed. The Hubble telescope would floor Copernicus and a map of the human genome would floor Mendel. Also, Mendel was a crap preacher and a poor teacher (failed his teaching certification exam). As the son of a poor farmer, science or study were not likely a choice he had, so religion was his only avenue to study what genuinely interested him.

Quote:

Mendel had read a German translation of Darwin's Origin (as evidenced by underlined passages in the copy in his monastery), after completing his experiments but before publishing his paper. Some passages in Mendel's paper are Darwinian in character, evidence that The Origin of Species influenced Mendel's writing. Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, 2000, BY: Robin Marantz Henig

Gregor Mendel was most likely an atheist or agnostic. Of course the critic probably knows this and nevertheless asserts that because Mendel was a monk, he must have been believer. It’s just as likely Mendel was a hypocrite who needed a bed to sleep in and a garden in which to grow his pea pods. There is more of course, and I could go on with how I think that the manner in which the objections made to Mr. Davidson are dishonest and fallacious but by this point I think you get my drift. I can only anticipate the howls of false indignation this post will draw from that person, but in the interests of being fair given the seriousness of the charge I have outlined my some of my objections, and I will leave it at that. In case you are wondering why I left out buddy's comment about mother's caring, well I will leave that for a specific post on that matter. In defense of Mr. Davidson and the original intent of his post, in the face of the fallacious equivalence and sophistry offered by this critic, I suggest you read this quote from the Atheist Ethicist blog that seems very fitting to Mr. Davidson’s noble intentions:

Quote:

The Obligation to Condemn Religion On the issue, the main message of those who have become the public advocates of atheism is correct. For far too long, people have not been raised with the inappropriate and costly attitude that they should have a social aversion to criticizing the fact that religions teach false beliefs and bad desires. In fact, it has been socially prohibited to even suggest that a religion can have these faults. In saying this, these advocates of atheism have been blaming ‘religious moderates’ and others for this social flaw. In fact, it came mostly from academic, liberal philosophies such as cultural relativism and post modernism – philosophies that said that no world view could be called ‘better’ than another and that criticism is always, fundamentally unjustified. It is a good thing that the social restrictions against criticizing religion are being lifted. However, they have not yet been lifted by as much as they need to be. An aversion to giving criticism, like any aversion, once learned, does not disappear instantly. It has to be unlearned. At first, giving religion the criticism it deserves for its false beliefs may be unsettling. However, it is still important.

chris9234 on "Religiosity"

chris9234 — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:57:17 +0100

Thank you Matt, and yes, I understand the circumstances of the last few days. but still, good luck is the virtue of viglance. Unfortunately, In the last few minutes I've received some very bad news, and so I probably won't be posting for the next few days. Cheers.

chris9234 on "Religiosity"

chris9234 — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:50:23 +0100

Dante synthesized Christian theology and ancient cosmology to give birth to the current architecture of hell. I wonder how many Christians of today realize that they owe their version of Hell to a troubled Florentine.

Matt Murrell on "Religiosity"

Matt Murrell — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:30:40 +0100

Happy Canada Day Weekend - and I'm sure that Bertrand Russell (who was an Earl, not a Lord), David Hume, John Dewey, Richard Dawkins and AJ Ayer would agree with me there. ;-) (BTW: tragedy seems to have been largely averted here through the sheer amateurness of the terrorists, but I'm not complaining.)

chris9234 on "Religiosity"

chris9234 — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:46:47 +0100

Billy, BTW, I have a question for you. One of the more fascinating aspects of Dante's writing was his synthesis of Greek cosmology with religious theology; can you tell me what the result was?

Religiosity,

bill45690 — Mon, 28 May 2007 12:23:32 +0100

? - Who Needs Absurd