View Single Post
Unread April 26th, 2008, 06:25 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Tom re NeoD & Eugenics

Very good. I accept and have espoused almost all of that. I need look no further than my own family. What little disagreement we have are on these two phrases:
Originally Posted by James Brody
The lectures from agnostics and political "liberals" are intended to convert, to suppress, and to intimidate people with a contrary set of beliefs


has a different idea: "I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against any form of tyranny on the human mind."
If someone proves that an intelligent designer set all the various physical constants or turned water into wine, than I'm all for adding that to the public school curriculum. We've proven many facets of evolution; those belong in school. People who try to force their irrational faith on others ought to be converted.

Decades ago, I had an idea to organize community competitions. One block of houses would challenge another block of houses to compete in everything: tennis, scrabble, running, apple pie baking... The key was to create comfortable-sized clans that would bring neighbors together to a common purpose. The common purpose is the key to our instinctive willingness to like and help each other, when the other is on 'our' side. It can be any common purpose, boot camp is designed with this in mind. Religion is just the snake-oil salesman's means to take advantage of this human instinct and get others to pay for his gold chalises.

I started to change that to "kind human instinct", but then the other side of the coin popped into my head, which is an excellent testament to the evil of religion. Yes, we are kind to those on 'our' side, but we are also instinctively and decidedly UNkind to those not on our side.

"any form or tyranny" would include making my children pray in school or putting "in god we trust" on currency. Tom, my favorite president by far would NOT approve!!!! At least you can understand that believing in god because science was SO ignorant is not an idea different from requiring that nobody be forced to believe in his god? That you introduced his statement as 'a different idea' says a lot. Please say it isn't so.

Last edited by James Brody; April 28th, 2008 at 10:48 AM.