Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science does not propose the non existence of God,
> neither did the Greek philosophers. What they did
> say was that we cannot know what the gods think,
> so that we must discuss reality here on earth.
> This is a vast improvement to sleepwalking like
> sheep behind a cult with no democratic basis, or
> room for discussion and improvement.


A cult is "An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest." So how exactly do well over 2 billion people represent "an exclusive group" ?

What you call "sleepwalking" is stumbling along a path to what Irenaeus called "gloria dei vivens homo". We can discuss reality here on earth, and that is what we do. But what you forget is that the cultures in which these philosophies of studying the "reality here on earth" grew, such as Greece and Rome, willingly accepted a more profound understanding of the will and nature of heaven. It was not forced on them - a few crazy people wondered around and told them of what they had heard and they understood. But since Decartes and several others, the very ground of philosophy has been turned inside out. In some ways they are responsible for all the new age crazies that believe any old thing and reject science. Can you understand why I would even dare suggest such a thing ?




> Most of
> these cults are following books of myths written
> more than a millenium ago.
>

Like the cult of Archimedes and the cult of Pythagoras ? Like Tsun Tsu and Confucious ? Like Buddha ? Such primitive people - we must ignore them and realise how superior we are in every way ?


> And as for civilisation advancing under
> religion....
>
> Did any of them ever produce artwork like the
> Greeks did? Or music like Mozart?
>

I'm stunned and getting dizzy. Do you know anything at all about Mozart ? Maybe we can bring something positive here. Its time for Dave to meet the culture he espouses without knowing -> [www.summertownchoral.org.uk]

>
> They generally spent their time either trying to
> seize power or abusing it.
>

Its obvious you have little formal training in history - certainly less than me and thats not much. There is this thing about power corrupting - which is in fact something relevant to the whole reason we have democracy. A benevolent ruler with the best intentions for the will and welfare of his people would in any historians book be better than democracy. But thats not what happens with power. And when any organisation has worldly power, there is a tendancy for power hungry tree climbing instinctual people to climb that tree. It would be nice to live in your ivory tower where people are all generally good but just corrupted by religion. Marx put it far better than you ever could in his Manifesto, but it was based on misunderstanding and so resulted in evil despite his best intentions.

Anyway I'm tired of telling you why you are wrong. You are saying things that others here would say in more knowledgable ways if it was that kind of board and they where inclined. And I'm not the person to reply to them anyway because I'm just starting to learn. But please stop the little quips where you pretend you are so wise that you know religion is just a fantasy of needy delinquint sheep. I will try to stay within the bounds of what Kat considers acceptable here, but "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

Simon