Marin County CA

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Again, Claire, I'm not trying to be unduly critical, and I intend to
ignore what my detractors say. I thought you needed some feedback on
how you come across on here, to me at least. You really need to face
the fact that religion has exactly nothing of relevance to offer to
anyone, and that religion has caused much more harm to the world than
good. (Ironically, perhaps, your own post makes this point.) While it
is indeed challenging to realize that the universe is meaningless, it
is even worse to believe in something really stupid like religion.
Religion offers no meaningful code of moral conduct, and even if it
did, by definition the various religions would be in conflict about
what such a moral code would be and that would create more hatred and
discontent than having no religious moral codes would create.
Religions are for those people who are too timid to admit that the
universe is meaningless and that everyone needs to discover his/her own
moral code the hard way.

Ah, some meat for the Great Ed Dolan!

I have been an atheist since my teenage years, but I grew up immersed in the
Catholic faith.

Let us grant that everything you say is true. It is all irrelevant because
man needs religion just he needs air to breath. It is part of what it means
to be a human being. It goes with our species. Simply put, man cannot live
without religion.

Yes, you and I can, but we are an infinitesimal minority. What happens to
societies which try to do away with religion? Something else much worse
comes in to fill the vacuum. Communism in the Soviet Union was as much a
religion as any other, but a very bad religion. No thank you. I will take my
Roman Catholicism any old day over Communism.

A very small number of men will be able to live without any faith, but it is
not for the vast majority. It actually requires a lot of intellectual work
to break free from religion. I think our brains are wired for religion. In
other words, I believe it may be as much an instinct as is hunger or sex.

Religion most likely came about in the evolution of our species because of
the fear of death due to our consciousness. In earlier times death was a
constant companion to man all of his days. You cannot live with the fear of
death (and oblivion) hanging over you every second of your life. You would
be reduced to a trembling mass of quivering flesh. Religion gives us what we
need in order to live.

I fear the Muslims more than I ever did the Communists. They are saturated
with religion and this gives them the kind of strength that we have largely
lost in the West.

Abandon religion at your peril!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Quoted message said:

Again, Claire, I'm not trying to be unduly critical, and I intend to
ignore what my detractors say. I thought you needed some feedback on
how you come across on here, to me at least. You really need to face
the fact that religion has exactly nothing of relevance to offer to
anyone, and that religion has caused much more harm to the world than
good. (Ironically, perhaps, your own post makes this point.) While it
is indeed challenging to realize that the universe is meaningless, it
is even worse to believe in something really stupid like religion.
Religion offers no meaningful code of moral conduct, and even if it
did, by definition the various religions would be in conflict about
what such a moral code would be and that would create more hatred and
discontent than having no religious moral codes would create.
Religions are for those people who are too timid to admit that the
universe is meaningless and that everyone needs to discover his/her own
moral code the hard way.

Again, you prove what a small, bitter and hateful person you are.

Your brief against religion is nothing more than the cynicism of an ignorant
teen. Perhaps hardened, ossified with age, but nothing we don't commonly find in
ignorant youth. Nihilism as a statement of fashion and independence, just like
all the other fashionable and independent thinkers.

You live in a civil society shaped by its religious tradition, so much so that
your judgment is based on the teaching of that religious tradition and you find
it has fallen short of the goal it has set for itself, hence you consider it
failed. The fact that you measure it by its own yardstick is enough.

Your criticism of Claire is not only needless and inappropriate, it is
intellectually inconsistent and reveals you as incompetent to "discover his/her
own moral code the hard way." What is meaningless is you.

Ron

Edward Dolan said:

"Tom Keats" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Claire Petersky said:

No, Bill, he has his point. I mean really, to have people who are sincere
and committed to various religious practices, attend an interfaith (not
"faith-based"😉 retreat together. C'mon. This is completely out of
fashion.

Yeah, personally (and apparently unlike bcrowell,) I don't
regard "faith" and "religion as strictly synonymous.
Sure, faith can have a religious component, but I think it
can also have spiritual, sociological, philosophical,
political, and yes, even scientific components. Often, "faith"
is all we have -- even in science. Except scientists prefer to
use the word: "axioms" instead.

Faith and religion are practically synonymous. Any other kind of faith is
for liberal loonies like you. If you do not have any religion, then learn to
live with despair like I do, you coward!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps instead of sitting in contemplative silence for much of the time,
we
should scream at each other. "Death to the infidel" has a good ring to
it,
don't you think?

Please Claire, do not try to think on such matters. It is way beyond you.
Instead, restrict yourself to telling us where you are going on your various
mindless trips.

Quoted message said:

I kinda like "Death by Chocolate."

Good comment Tom! I also like all your kinda's and your yeah's. It shows you
are a man of the working class - as all good Vancouver dock workers should
be.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And instead of reading each other's religious texts and
engaging in "constructive dialog", I think burning each other's texts
would
be closer to what's in tune with today's world.

Good thinking Claire! Why not read the Koran while you are at it though. Who
knows, you may glean some enlightenment that is not in the Christian Bible.

Quoted message said:

It would be especially nice if Native American faiths are
represented at this interfaith meditation retreat.
Anyways it's always good when people get together and
establish world-view common ground while celebrating
diversity and establishing friendship.

"Anyways it's always BAD when people get together and
establish world-view common ground while celebrating
diversity and establishing friendship." - Ed Dolan

Try to get a brain someday why don't you Tom? Or better yet, go to Baghdad
and see what those Muslim terrorists will do to you. Off with your head!
There, now you don't need any brain at all.

What a surprise. Crowell and Dolan nearly indistinguishable.

Ron

"Crowell and Dolan nearly indistinguishable."

Yeah, baby! Isn't it just WONderful? I know you just love it! And
you can look forward to each new day, knowing that there will be more
Crowell/Dolan gems of wisdom for your much-needed edification.

Ed Dolan wrote: "Simply put, man cannot live without religion..[.] I
think our brains are wired for religion. In other words, I believe it
may be as much an instinct as is hunger or sex..[.]Religion most likely
came about in the evolution of our species because of
the fear of death due to our consciousness."

I respectfully disagree, Ed. I instead tend to agree with Professor
Dennett of Tufts University who wrote, in his book "Breaking the Spell:
Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", "Why do religions take over mens'
minds? Because they can." In other words, because evolution tries out
every combination and permutation of existence that can possibly exist.
The fact that religion has survived in mens' minds is not necessarily
adaptive for men; it might instead be adaptive for religion.

He gives the example of the Lancet Fluke, asking, "Did you ever wonder
why ants have the habit of crawling up to the top of a blade of grass
and staying there? It's not adaptive behavior, because they're NOT
looking for sunshine, or for food, or for a mate. It's because the
Lancet Fluke, a parasitic worm, has invaded their brains and modified
their brain proteins so as to force them to engage in this behavior.
The Lancet Fluke needs to be ingested by a sheep and lodge in its
intestinal tract as part of its reproductive cycle, so it needs to
locate itself where this is likely to happen. The ant is just a
vehicle to effectuate the propagation of the Lancet Fluke. The ant's
behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with perpetuation of the ant's
progeny, but instead with perpetuation of the Lancet Fluke's progeny.
Religion has also taken on a life force of its own, and its
perpetuation has nothing to do with perpetuation of the human race but
instead only with the perpetuation of religion itself, and for its own
sake.

"Little Meow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan [email hidden] wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
[froups adjusted to where Ed is on topic]

Quoted message said:

I fear the Muslims more than I ever did the Communists. They are
saturated
with religion and this gives them the kind of strength that we have
largely
lost in the West.

I fear Ed Dolan more than I ever did the Communists. He wants to do
me personal harm:

[...]

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't give a good g.d. about
you.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ed Dolan wrote: "Simply put, man cannot live without religion..[.] I
think our brains are wired for religion. In other words, I believe it
may be as much an instinct as is hunger or sex..[.]Religion most likely
came about in the evolution of our species because of
the fear of death due to our consciousness."

I respectfully disagree, Ed. I instead tend to agree with Professor
Dennett of Tufts University who wrote, in his book "Breaking the Spell:
Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", "Why do religions take over mens'
minds? Because they can." In other words, because evolution tries out
every combination and permutation of existence that can possibly exist.
The fact that religion has survived in mens' minds is not necessarily
adaptive for men; it might instead be adaptive for religion.

Nope, that is exactly backwards. Religion does not exist outside of men's
minds nor what was adaptive to his survival.

Men will believe in the supernatural no matter how much you try to
extinguish such beliefs. Most primitive religions are just full of evil
spirits and evil Gods. How else to account for all the misery that befalls
us.

Our high degree of consciousness causes us to be aware of death and
oblivion. Evolution counteracted this realization by giving us the
propensity to religion. All of literature and history confirm this over and
over. Simply put, man cannot live without religion. It is wired into our
brains. We will believe in the supernatural no matter what.

Quoted message said:

He gives the example of the Lancet Fluke, asking, "Did you ever wonder
why ants have the habit of crawling up to the top of a blade of grass
and staying there? It's not adaptive behavior, because they're NOT
looking for sunshine, or for food, or for a mate. It's because the
Lancet Fluke, a parasitic worm, has invaded their brains and modified
their brain proteins so as to force them to engage in this behavior.
The Lancet Fluke needs to be ingested by a sheep and lodge in its
intestinal tract as part of its reproductive cycle, so it needs to
locate itself where this is likely to happen. The ant is just a
vehicle to effectuate the propagation of the Lancet Fluke. The ant's
behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with perpetuation of the ant's
progeny, but instead with perpetuation of the Lancet Fluke's progeny.
Religion has also taken on a life force of its own, and its
perpetuation has nothing to do with perpetuation of the human race but
instead only with the perpetuation of religion itself, and for its own
sake.

How the hell can religion exist outside of human consciousness! Are you
crazy?

Human consciousness has changed everything forever. We are not ants and
cannot ever be. Most animals operate on the level of instincts which are
adapted for their survival no matter how stupid we think those instincts
are. Whatever works in nature works and that is all that matters. However,
we humans are slightly outside of nature due to our consciousness (based on
speech which in turn permits us to think abstractly). Maybe we should envy
the chimps who do not really have this ability.

I do not believe the chimps are capable of waging warfare like we humans
are. That is because they are not able to think abstractly like we do. Only
humans engage in warfare which is a murderous will to kill those with whom
we disagree about one thing or another.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Quoted message said:

??

I enjoyed the post, though provoking

Quoted message said:

Don't you mean "connote" instead of "denote"?

Yes, ha, the more i thought of it, connote would be much more
appropriate

Quoted message said:

The term "hard-wired" may be taken to suggest a hard-wireR, but
colloquially it's understood to simply mean "inherent," whether by
conscious design or a fluke of nature.

agreed

Quoted message said:

Actually, such a genesis as you propose is plausible given humanity's
awareness of its utter helplessness in life.

perceived "utter helplessness", people tend to be a bit melodramatic
don't you think?

Quoted message said:

The question remains: what do we "do" about this desire for security?

Do nothing. There is no security in life when something as certain as
death looms around each corner. Perhaps the belief in afterlife or some
form of it is a clinging to the desire for life itself, or atleast some
form. The desire not to cease.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where is the afformentioned faith directed? Faith in an idea/concept or
faith in oneself and the assurance that one's belief is indeed the
truth? Do the texts elaborate on this?

Come again?

You mentioned the buddhist texts speaking of faith. Where is the faith
directed? faith in an idea? or faith in oneself?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed, but God(etc.) and religion give people the direction they have
previously lacked (or so they believe).

But this is just the thing: what does one now do, knowing better?

I mean, it's like you've fed yourself junk food all along, which, while
not poison, isn't exactly the most nutritious things to eat, either.
Okay, so now what? Likewise, the need for some kind of "security"
remains...what's to be done about it?

I'll ponder this question a bit more, expect a reply. Once again great
post.

Quoted message said:

<SNIP>

perceived "utter helplessness", people tend to be a bit melodramatic
don't you think?

I agree with your generalization, but do not think it applies in this
instance. For all humanity's accomplishments, there is much we as a
race cannot affect, never mind individuals. In the face of death and
destruction, it's tempting to imagine otherwise -- or do you begrudge
anesthesia for the dying?

Quoted message said:

Do nothing. There is no security in life when something as certain as
death looms around each corner. Perhaps the belief in afterlife or some
form of it is a clinging to the desire for life itself, or atleast some
form. The desire not to cease.

Doing nothing seems to mean to continue the desire. But merely
intellectualizing seems not much better in the long-run, either. Is
simple meditation and focusing on one's breath the solution of this
need for security?

Quoted message said:

You mentioned the buddhist texts speaking of faith. Where is the faith
directed? faith in an idea? or faith in oneself?

"Faith" is my word for this nameless state...I can only imagine it as a
state of faith or grace...to live and not worry at all about
anything...even now I wonder about what to do at the gym later, and
where to go for dinner tonight, and trying to figure out when I'll go
to bed (don't want to do it too close to dinner), and what I shall do
in the meantime (being that it'll likely be late, practicing piano
might disturb the neighbor next door)...etc.

Quoted message said:

I'll ponder this question a bit more, expect a reply. Once again great
post.

It's not like I'm worried about not waking up one day to troll usenet,
heh heh, but this desire for "security" translates into all the
thousand-and-one little things of day-to-day living, and I'd just like
to know how to get away from that frame of mind. I'm not a worry-wort,
I don't think, but...you know what it is? I've been reading a couple
of "adventure books" where folks just simply went on a journey
somewhere for a year..."Off the Rails" and "The Road That Has No End,"
to be exact...and I'm just like, hmm, why can't I do that? What's
holding me back? Just why am I afraid??

Quoted message said:

I agree with your generalization, but do not think it applies in this
instance. For all humanity's accomplishments, there is much we as a
race cannot affect, never mind individuals. In the face of death and
destruction, it's tempting to imagine otherwise -- or do you begrudge
anesthesia for the dying?

No, of course not, they have their own right.

Quoted message said:

Doing nothing seems to mean to continue the desire. But merely
intellectualizing seems not much better in the long-run, either. Is
simple meditation and focusing on one's breath the solution of this
need for security?

Good point

Quoted message said:

"Faith" is my word for this nameless state...I can only imagine it as a
state of faith or grace...to live and not worry at all about
anything...even now I wonder about what to do at the gym later, and
where to go for dinner tonight, and trying to figure out when I'll go
to bed (don't want to do it too close to dinner), and what I shall do
in the meantime (being that it'll likely be late, practicing piano
might disturb the neighbor next door)...etc.

Yes, i'd call it grace. but then again what do i know, i'm only a
beginner and 18 years of age...I'm meditating on this tonight, tommorow
i'll post a response.

"nget" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

"nget" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan Wrote:
>
>
>
> I do not believe the chimps are capable of waging warfare like we
> humans
> are. That is because they are not able to think abstractly like we

do.

Quoted message said:

> Only
> humans engage in warfare which is a murderous will to kill those

with

Quoted message said:

> whom
> we disagree about one thing or another.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
http://www.janegoodall.org/jane/
In 1974 Jane goodall was in Gombe doing research on primates. She
recorded what is now called the "four year war" that occured between
non human primates. The war was not up to par with what men are

capable

Quoted message said:

of but it was a brutal war. It suprised me to learn that the chimps

also

Quoted message said:

went on hunting trips to kill wild pigs to add meat to their diet.

Warfare requires planning which I don't think the chimps are capable
of. It
may that those chimps in the Goodall study were just in too close a
proximity to one another. But the damn chimps are smarter than we give
them
credit for. The lack of language is the critical factor as you simply
cannot
think without language nor can you have any refined emotions.

A really great experiment would be to take a human child from birth
and
raise him without any human contact. I think you would end up with a
creature not much different than a chimp. This experiment has never yet
been
done in the entire history of mankind. The so-called 'wild boy' studies
were
all extremely flawed.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Why would we want to study some 'wild boy' when for the last 30 years
we have had a low land gorilla named Koko to talk to us in sign
language? Koko can make her own sentences from her 1000 words in her
vocabulary. Her IQ is between 70 and 90 on the human scale.
It was years ago that I last went to the zoo and I marveled at the
large python but it was the primates that haunt me to this day. Why
must we lock up these creatures that are in so many ways just like us?
I think there could be more than just pure instinct at play here. As
long as humans are the dominant species, who will take us to task for
what we do?

Mark

Mark, I simply can't stand to see the chimps in a zoo. It is like I am
looking at my own reflection.

Nevertheless, every species is unique, especially when you get to the higher
mammals. We are more like the chimps than we are to any other primates, but
still we are sufficiently different from them. The thing is that we humans
developed speech and hence language. This enables us to think abstractly and
in very complex ways. The chimps simply cannot do this.

Are our language abilities due to our larger brain size and/or our vocal
cords. Perhaps both as evolution works to develop that which will ensure
survival above all else. Primitive man needed a very large brain in order
to survive in a world of fearsome creatures. Our brains are ideally adapted
for hunting in groups (like a pack of wolves) and this is an extremely
complex kind of behavior. I always marvel at how my working class friends
just love to hunt. They are truly doing what we are best adapted to do.

Most 'wild boy' studies have been flawed because in those few rare cases it
has been impossible to determine if they were brain damaged (retarded) or
not. If they were in fact retarded, then we can't learn anything about what
a human would be like if raised without any human contact whatsoever.

Every social scientist who has ever lived would love to conduct an
experiment where a human child would be raised without any human contact. In
other words, raised without the benefit of speech and language. This is the
"forbidden experiment" and anyone who would attempt it would be branded a
monster, worse than a Dr. Frankenstein!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota