[extropy-chat] GWOT: Out of focus
extropy at audry2.com
Sat Feb 14 16:30:55 UTC 2004
Russell Evermore <nanowave at shaw.ca> writes:
> > Actually only the metaphysical belief is strictly necessary for
> > something to be a religion.
> Interesting, so a child who believes a magical fat man with a white
> beard drops down a chimney every Dec.24 is following a religion by
> this definition.
Yes. For as long as the children believe.
> Why use words at all if they are going to be watered
> down to absurdity.
I don't see any absurdity. Neither do the Seventh Day Adventists and
others who see Santa as heresy.
> > > The world's five major religions all have aspects of tolerance.
> > The Muslims given the choice to convert or die during the crusades
> > might have something to say about that, but I'll let it pass.
> Well since you didn't let it pass at all
Point taken 8-)
> I will again point out the value of at least aiming for some sort of
> precision in language. You do see the word "have" in the statement
> you objected to? Yet you take that to read "have always had."
OK, so lets pick an example in the present tense. There are
significant number of people who claim to be Christians and point to
biblical instructions to persecute homosexuals. Are these people not
practicing a religion? Is Christianity therefore not a religion?
> > > Can an ideology that is xenophobic to all that are different be
> > > considered a religion?
> > Sure, if God says so.
> Well since the author is mainly addressing non-wahhabis "God" probably
> doesn't say so.
The audience's God may not say so, but as long as they acknowledge
that the Wahhabis believe that their God does say so then they must
also acknowledge that Wahhabism is a religion.
> And what's your "hidden" agenda?
I didn't think it was hidden, but for the record: I don't like
theocracy, especially stealth theocracy.
More information about the extropy-chat