The Meaning of Life

[chaz wyman]

LOL.....Actually with hindsight, I think my rather harsh critique of C.W. would have warranted deletion, over the post that was.

Never mind, my message is clear, it does no good to argue about "religion", a rather futile exercise.

There is no criticism of me that I would be offended by. It's just based on ignorance, and lack of understanding.

[reasonvemotion]

Nevertheless I would like to apologise.

[chaz wyman]

Nevertheless I would like to apologise.

To whom?

[reasonvemotion]

You, of course.

[chaz wyman]

You, of course.

To make your apology worthwhile you would have to repeat that unrepeatable comment.

In any event you made the comment. I judge by what you do , not by what you take back.
I can't see the use of an apology- you said it, you can think yourself lucky that Rick deleted whatever it was.
Had I seen it the apology would not have wound back time.

[Bernard]

Can I have it then Chaz? No use letting a good apology go to waste - not for me personally, I'll keep it in store for when I need to use it for some wrong I did another. Okay?

[reasonvemotion]

To make your apology worthwhile you would have to repeat that unrepeatable comment.

In any event you made the comment. I judge by what you do , not by what you take back.
I can't see the use of an apology- you said it, you can think yourself lucky that Rick deleted whatever it was.
Had I seen it the apology would not have wound back time.

You silly man, you give credit to Rick for something he did not do.

What was deleted was entirely separate, nothing to do with this or the previous exchange.

I go by my gut feeling and I felt an apology was in order. I have extended it to you. Take it or leave it. Please try not to be so intense and petulant.

If you, as you say, judge by what I do, taking back is action is it not? Just not enough action for you, eh?

[chaz wyman]

To make your apology worthwhile you would have to repeat that unrepeatable comment.

In any event you made the comment. I judge by what you do , not by what you take back.
I can't see the use of an apology- you said it, you can think yourself lucky that Rick deleted whatever it was.
Had I seen it the apology would not have wound back time.

You silly man, you give credit to Rick for something he did not do.

You stupid girl - then why did you imply it!

What was deleted was entirely separate, nothing to do with this or the previous exchange.

Then what the hell are you babbling on about?

I go by my gut feeling and I felt an apology was in order. I have extended it to you. Take it or leave it. Please try not to be so intense and petulant.

I have no idea what you are talking about - what are you apologising for? Are you apologising for being who you are?

If you, as you say, judge by what I do, taking back is action is it not? Just not enough action for you, eh?

No - taking back is not relevant. You said what you said. And, as you will remember I don't really care what you say about me. If it is true - I'll accept it; if it is false it is due to your ignorance.
So, I'm still puzzled - you silly girl, because you are not making any sense.

[chaz wyman]

Can I have it then Chaz? No use letting a good apology go to waste - not for me personally, I'll keep it in store for when I need to use it for some wrong I did another. Okay?

It's all yours. I don't need it.

[Bernard]

Thanks, what a bargain!

[reasonvemotion]

Thanks, what a bargain!

Geez mate, your a good bloke. LOL

[Bernard]

http://www.wouldyoubelieve.com/sounds/niceness.wav

[reasonvemotion]

The Meaning of Aussie Life................

Dig a hole and bury me, it just doesn't get better than this!

I'm not pissing in your pocket mate!
I'm giving it to you straight.

The most fun you can have with your pants on.

Stiff cheddar.


LOL heard any of these?

[chaz wyman]

Never mind, my message is clear, it does no good to argue about "religion", a rather futile exercise.

I think not.

If all the time spend in churches was instead spent of pursuing worthwhile endeavours
If all the money given to churches was instead donated to worthy causes
If all the religious leaders did social work and counselling to help others
If people stopped praying and actually Did something constructive
If the fear of shame and punishment by an invisible policeman were lifted form people's shoulders.
If the love directed to a deity were directed to living breathing people..

It would be a better world.

[Felasco]

You have presented ZERO evidence. And made no substantive claims for any benefits of religion.

I believe somewhere above, or in another thread we shared, I reported that Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of social services in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA

In 2008, Catholic Charities agencies served over 8 million individuals.Together with the local, diocesan-associated Catholic Charities, it is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government.

I'd guess most or all Christian churches have similar charity wings, though I am less familiar with these activities, and can not provide specific data. I'm sure many other religions also are involved in such service to their communities.

The sum total of all these constructive activities is surely considerable, and must be placed upon the scale, right along side all the stupid and dangerous things that many religions are also involved in.

Here's the underlying problem that will obstruct an intelligent dialog between us on this subject.

On this particular subject, you are profoundly confused about the difference between reason and ideology. To be fair to you, many religious people also share this confusion.

On this particular subject, you will adamantly reject any evidence anybody provides which does not support the conclusion you want, any evidence which does not make you the one who is right. And you will most likely offer your rejection of any inconvenient evidence with generous helpings of snotty condescension superiority poses etc, revealing an emotion driven bias to one and all.

Chaz. What I've just described is called ideology. Nobody is immune from it, and each of us have our hot button topics where we slide out of reason in to ideology. Religion appears to be that topic for you.

I don't challenge your right to have this ideology. And I'm not interested in changing your ideology.

I'm only challenging the labeling of your passionate ideology as reason. This seems entirely appropriate on a philosophy forum.

If any of us wish to claim the flag of reason on this particular topic, we will have to give up any attachment we may have to any particular conclusion. We have to surrender to the evidence, and allow it to take us where ever it may lead.

Before you slam down on the reply button, I ask you to please pause just a moment, and privately consider whether your motivation is to reach for truth, or prove that you are right.

If it's the later, you are engaged in ideology, not reason.

If that's true, then just call it ideology, and I withdraw my complaint.