stoney wrote in message <37936e63.18911036 at news.meganews.com>...
> "Ken Collins" <KPaulC at email.msn.com> wrote:
>>[>stoney wrote ;
>[>>And there's the key point; "Religion has often been used
>[>>to justify terrible crimes against humanity."
>[>
>[>what about stuff like 'nuclear' weapons, "Love Cannals",
>[> "Big Brother", &c.?
>>What about it? You're mixing oranges and orangatangs here.
nope... it's 'just' been the case that practicioners of both 'religion' and
'science' have been victims of 'the Beast', Abstract Ignorance... with
similar results.
as 'the Beasts' goes to breating it's last, i expect members of both groups,
along with everyone else, will transcend that which has been, tragically, in
the mix.
>[>it's not so easy to dillineate the wellspring of "terrible crimes
>[>against humanity" along the lines of "'religion'/'not-religion'".
>>In the cases of Crusades and the Inquisition, you can.
>In the cases of Islamic jihads, you can.
nope... it's not so be-cause you're perceptually-vigilant only with respect
to 'religion'... so your statement communicates only with respect to
yourself.
>[>the problem has been that, in an absence of an understanding of how our
>[>nervous systems process inforation, folks have viewed all that's "self"
as
>[>"good" and all that's "not-self" as "bad".
>>?
that you've "moved away from" without having, first, understood,
substantiates that which you've "moved away from".
>[>so 'science' views itself as "good" and 'religion' as 'bad', and
'religion'
>[>views itself as 'good' and 'science' as 'bad'... when doing so is,
>[>verifiably, nothing more than prejudice toward that which is
>[>merely-familiar.
>>? Looks like a straw storm to me, Ken.
be-cause you've chosen to not understand, you don't uderstand.
that you've "moved away from" without having, first, understood,
substantiates that which you've "moved away from".
>[>>It also is used to turn honest citizens into crimminals,
>[>> mostly brother/sister theists, based on the insecurities,
>[>>ignorance and prejudice of the theist legislator. Contrary to what
>[>> is often asserted both on alt.atheism and in real life, Christianity
>[>>does not generate morality.
>>That last line should have read; Chistianity does not equal morality.
it's my position that Jesus was right on target... this position was
developed as a result of my personal experience while doing research on the
wellspring of prejudice within the biology. i went at it by studying the
results of Neuroscience experiments, produced by dedicated Scientists, using
the best technology available... pruely Science.
about 9-10 years into my research... just when i broke the problem wide
open, resolving it completely, some stuff i'd 'discovered' reminded me of
some things Jesus had taught ~2000 years before.
when i looked, my jaw hung down... the conclusions i'd converged upon
pointed right to the things Jesus had taught. try to imagine my 'chagrin'. i
knew very-well what 'science' does to anyone who acknowledges God. Yet there
it was, hard evidence that i'd seen with my own eyes.
after that, being required to do so by the principles of Honor in Science, i
acknowledged Jesus' priority.
so, although i share your lament that 'christianity' does not equal
morality, i see, clearly, with my own eyes, and can show anyone [in-person]
that Jesus was awesomely correct in His teaching... please understand that
it's been too often the case that what's been promulgated as 'christianity'
has practically nothing to do with Jesus, and almost everything to do with
'the Beast', Abstract Ignorance [the absence of understanding of how nervous
systems process information], have free reign within folks' neural
information-processing dynamics.
>[>you cannot present a single example with respect to which i cannot
>[> present an example haveing prejudice with respect to that which is
>[> merely-familiar simply reversed.
>[>
>[>any discussion that does not get beyond such denies its own veracity.
>[>
>[>>What many atheists have indicated is believe what you want, just
>[>>don't bring it into areas it doesn't belong, such as school boards
>[>>and the legislative arena.
>[>>Follow it personally and set an example to others based on your beliefs.
>[>
>[>the difficulty, here, is that all of the stuff inherent in venues of the
>[>kind you cite greatly impacts upon folks' beings. so, if the rule you
>[>propose were to be Law, the Law, itself, would constitute an egregious
>[>assault upon folks' beings.
>>Disagree, if I'm understanding your correctly. Keeping religion out of the
>legislative process, the schools-like school prayer and the posting of the
>ten commandments, is creating neutral territory. Infighting like in
Ireland,
>and elsewhere is a detriment, not an asset.
sadly, i agree with you with respect to what have been deemed,
superficially, to constitute 'religious' conflicts. it's just that you, and
everyone else whose reached the same, superficial, 'conclusion, are wrong.
the conflicts, although tragically-real in their savagery, result from
purely nervous system dynamics, not from anything of God. the superficial
correlation that's been, erroneously, invoked with respect to such... that
discordant 'belief' is responsible... misses the whole physical reality that
the discordant 'belief' is derived in things of God. it is not. it's derived
solely in nervous system information-processing dynamics that had not been
understood, and are no different than any of the other prejudices that
routinely ravage families, groups, neighborhoods, societies, and the whole
world. all instances reduce to the fact that, absent understanding of
themselves and the way information is processed within themselves, nervous
systems tend strongly to cling blindly [automatically] to that which,
through experience, has become merely-familiar.
folks kill one another on the basis of such flimsy stuff.
but, as i said, such has everything to do with neural information-processing
dynamics, and nothing to do with things of God.
and when one looks, one sees that, mercifully, Jesus came to humanity, and
bridged this very gap, 2000 years ago.
it's 'just' been the case that humanity, for all it's 'slapping itself on
the back' with respect to it's "Homo Sapien-ness", has been an
exceedingly-slow learner.
>[>it's a big problem, but it's been resolved for more than two decades, and
i
>[>hope that, one day, folks of all stripes who, like you, profess
'openness'
>[>will finally allow the resolution to be communicated.
>>The sarcasm ill-becomes you, Ken. I do agree religion is a problem and not
a
>solution. Religion belongs at home and in the various houses of
superstition.
>It is a private matter.
it wasn't 'sarcasm'. i'm serious, and will be grateful to you if anything
you can do to bring about a presentation opportunity is done.
ken collins
