Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Anyway I'm tired of telling you why you are
> wrong."
>
> Like that Mozart was some sort of follower of
> organised religion????
Did I say that ? Mozarts views are eloquent and even beautiful to me - but rediculous according to the views you have stated here.
>
> Deist: "Deism is belief in a God or first cause
> based on reason and experience rather than on
> faith or revelation, and thus a form of theism in
> opposition to fideism. Deism is usually synonymous
> with natural religion in 18th century
> Enlightenment writings, but a modern but small
> movement exists that is steadily growing in size.
> Deism originated in 17th century Europe, gaining
> popularity in the 18th century Enlightenment
> especially in France, England, and America as a
> modernist movement inspired by the success of the
> scientific method. Deists emphasize the exclusive
> application of reason and personal experience to
> religious questions. Deism is concerned with those
> truths which humans can discover through a process
> of reasoning, independent of any claimed divine
> revelation through scripture or prophets."
>
Mmmm - I'm confused why you quote me the definition of a term ? Have I misused it somewhere - or shown any suggestion that I don't understand it ?
> As for Pythagoras, nothing remains of his work.
>
a^2 + b^2 = c^2 ? Its not on paper but something remains of it - even if he did "borrow" it from the Babylonians.
> As for Greek philosophy, it differs fundementally
> from scripture in that its lessons are based on
> reasoned argument.
>
Well thats a generalisation, but as a generalisation I would agree with it. Faith and reason are two wings of the same bird.
>
> As for some sort of volountary conversion of
> people to the fabulous messages of religion!
> Religious converts are usually due to poverty,
> hopelessness, force, war or social pressure.
>
Ah yes and your evidence for this ? Sometimes people find god when all their safe walls of ego have been pulled down by tradgedy. But that is a deep thing, not something in any way afraid of you looking down onto it as a sign of ignorance.
> The Christians who took over Rome did so with a
> military coup. Same for Islam, etc etc etc.
>
Ah the great military revolution in Rome. Mmmm. Yes the cross in the sky and all that. Yes you understand it all very well....
> As for quips, I think you will see that all of my
> points are arguments from reason, not digs.
>
No you pick and chose the bits you feel confident to reply to in order to save face. I'd prefer to look a complete fool, as I often do, but do my best to understand and defend truth rather than save face.
> "Religion is the Opium of the masses" said Marx,
> but he was an idealist just like the others.
>
And you know full well that that is a meaningless statement. If Marx "was an idealist just like the others" then why not address the problems with idealism ? What is it about idealism that makes it an unbounded term ? What is it about "realism" that makes it real ?
> Incidentally, Exclusive means the opposite of
> Inclusive.
>
You keep saying obvious things as if I have somehow misrepresented interpretations of the most basic words in the english language. Where exactly did I say something that caused you to say that - and why ?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2005 09:33PM by Simon.
