|
|
|
date: 5 Apr 2009 20:06:11 -0000,
group: uk.philosophy.atheism
back
Re: Believers
> Parents inculcate belief in
> God in their children for various reasons
Out of habit, to name just one.
> but control does not loom large in
> them I would say.
"If you're bad Jesus/God/Allah will punish you. If you're bad
you'll burn in hell. Etc, etc." If you think religion isn't
about societal control, then you haven't thought about it.
It's also about tribe-identity, but I'm not talking about
the evolutionary aspects of religion, merely the truth rating
of what it sells.
> Don't bother with that, I realise that because God is irrational, it does
> not follow that all irrational things are God.
To be frank, I have no idea of what you mean by "God".
> However, I wonder if it has occurred to you that posting a message in an
> atheist newsgroup saying that religion is irrational is itself an irrational
> question?
It was a statement, really. A statement that many would
agree with. However I don't see why it could be considered
irrational.
date: 5 Apr 2009 20:06:11 -0000
author: The
|
Re: Believers
On 5 Apr 2009 20:06:11 -0000, The wrote:
>> Parents inculcate belief in
>> God in their children for various reasons
>
>Out of habit, to name just one.
>
>> but control does not loom large in
>> them I would say.
>
>"If you're bad Jesus/God/Allah will punish you. If you're bad
>you'll burn in hell. Etc, etc." If you think religion isn't
>about societal control, then you haven't thought about it.
>It's also about tribe-identity, but I'm not talking about
>the evolutionary aspects of religion, merely the truth rating
>of what it sells.
>
>> Don't bother with that, I realise that because God is irrational, it does
>> not follow that all irrational things are God.
>
>To be frank, I have no idea of what you mean by "God".
>
>> However, I wonder if it has occurred to you that posting a message in an
>> atheist newsgroup saying that religion is irrational is itself an irrational
>> question?
>
>It was a statement, really. A statement that many would
>agree with. However I don't see why it could be considered
>irrational.
Because we already know that.
date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:09:50 -0400
author: Christopher A. Lee
|
|
|