[ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant

[John Clark]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:03 PM, spike wrote:

> John this approach lumps all religious memes together.

Yes, and lumping can often be a useful tool.

> I would counter-propose classifying religious thoughtspace into two broad
> categories: those which suggest killing unbelievers and those which do not.

Ah, the religious moderates, those sniveling cowards who give cover to maniacs. Look at me they say, I think that believing in nonsense is important too but I don't crash airliners into skyscrapers. What the 19 hijackers did on 911 was far more logical than anything religious moderates do, provided you accept their basic assumption and take what their holy book says at face value. And in a way I have more respect for creationists who just refuse to believe anything about evolution than I have for religious moderates who believe in a benevolent God and also believe in an inefficient and hideously cruel process like Evolution. At least the creationists are smart enough to know that the two things are not compatible and are in fact completely contradictory.

If you're into classification I would propose putting people into two broad categories, those who think it's a virtue to believe in nonsense and those who don't.  

 John K Clark 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/a5f01874/attachment.html>